John Calvin, Tell Me How You feel About Those That Are Lost..

Glen..let me ask you something..in the way you used the reference in Matthew I assumed you were trying to prove that "his people" meant the ones that you think were elected to receive salvation..

however what do you do about the verse said that says

"he came to his own and his own recieved him not"

Now are "his people" the elected? (elected as you use the term) if so This says his own didn't recieve him..that's somewhat inconsistant with Calvnist theolgy aint it?

But can we try to stick to the subject that Brother Chappie started instead of avoiding the questions he asked by going off on another subject?

 

Just when I think I have heard it all, something else is said that floors me. Here is someone who has flat out said that they are not interested in biblical teaching. They are more concerned about feelings. I am not sure what to say. My feelings, whatever they may be, are not important. They change every day on numerous things. They even change during the day. My feelings are not the judge of truth and herein lies the problem with your position. Helen just demonstrated as she has other places. It is not the explicit teaching of Scripture that one is interested in. It is the adjustment of biblical material to fit our notions. She reads her Bible lookign for examples of where man acted and God reacted, none of which is a problem for the sovereigntist. In fact, we agree completely with that. But because she cannot comprehend how God can be sovereign and loving at the same time, she rejects sovereignty. I like Helen, and I hope she knows that. But her and I disagree on this point.

As for my feelings, I preach with passion and conviction that people need to repent. I will do it again this morning from the first 8 verses of Revelation 1, that the sure return of the glorious Christ demands our hearing, our worship, our submission, and our obedience. I will call the unsaved to repent because I am a Calvinist. I will be saddened if they don't. But I will not adjust theology because of my feelings.

I thought it was the image of God in man that made man's will free. YOu have previously decried the intervention of God as forcing, manipulating, contradicting to his love, numerous other things. You guys need to get your stories straight on this.

 

Well Well Well.... This is very interesting indeed! Pastor Larry Could it be that you don't beieve in total inability after all..or do you just tease your congregation with false hopes of beig able to repent and come to Christ on their own..

According to Glen God doeesn't need any help.. your not helping God are you?

 

Shilo I bear to differ with you I was HIS people before the foundation of the world. You need to rightly divide the truth. Romans 9: 11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth

Elected before the foundation of the world saved in time... Regenerated and called because of the prior election in eternity. The brethren on here know my position and stand and now you do. God will save ALL his people and not lose a one. God knows where ALL his children are and how to save them and we are commanded to feed sheep... Only God can make one!... Brother Glen

 

I do believe in total inability. I call people to repent because I believe in God and what he says about regeneration and drawing people to himself. I don't tease my congregation. I call them to repent; if they do, then they give evidence that God has worked. This is not in the least inconsistent. It is in fact consistent with God's word and God's command.

 

It is a figure of speech Chappie ...

You said you were not interested in theology. Theology is biblical teaching. I came up with it from your words. There is no thread that is not about theology. All of our lives says something about our theology. We cannot just separate.

I already said I do. But so what?? That is not the point.

"Go ahead, tell me about it" is an inappropriate response. It smacks of smartaleckness. I shouldn't even have to say things like that. Just ask your question. Leave the other comments out of it. As for God's love and sovereignty, I see no contradiction. God loves the non-elect in the sense that he gives them life and breath and all things. He has provided a sufficient atonement that they freely reject.

Of course it is. I have already defended this numerous times.

Are you denying that God is at work? Your problem seems to be that you don't accept that basic premise and so you struggle to understand where I am coming from. The hope is true. They are not forced to reject it; they don't want to do otherwise.

Of course; Why wouldn't I? If I didn't, I would be disobedient.

I am unconvinced that you are being consistent in intervention. Why would God intervene for some and not others?

 

(1 John 4:19 NKJV) We love Him because He first loved us.

It sounds like that according to Chappie the above verse should read as follows: "He loves us because we first loved Him."

Or, perhaps Chappie would have it read: "He loves us because we love the non-elect."

Frankly, I find the whole purpose of Chappie's rantings in this thread to be disingenuous. A Christian by definition loves(agape) all people, elect and non-elect - meaning that we would not intentionally do anything to harm them and would help them as the Lord gave us the opportunity to do so.

Furthermore, God has provided salvation. Anyone who repents and believes will be saved. A person has no business trying to figure out if he is elect or not before he repents and believes. Man is without excuse. If he repents and believes then he is one of the elect, but repenting and believing did not make him one of the elect.

As I have stated before, if God left salvation up to man's corrupted free will, then no one would be saved. I would think that even anti-Calvinists who claim to be the objects of God's grace would be grateful to God for saving them instead of casting aspersions toward God because His sovereign purpose is not to save everyone.

If a person repents and believes he will be saved, if he doesn't he has no one to blame but himself and his own corrupted free will for his damnation.

 

Chappie, Ray, Helen & Others:

First, you don't understand the Scriptures. I know you will disagree with my statement here, but nonetheless, you do. If you want to argue about the doctrine of unconditional election, don't argue with us "Calvinists." Argue with the Apostle Paul - he answers all of your objections in Romans 9.

Second, the great majority of the evangelists and missionaries in the history of the Church have been "Calvinists." If you deny this, then you are simply denying historical fact. The better known "Arminian" soul winners were largely absent until the 1800s.

Third, you misrepresent Calvin. Yes, he definitely taught double predestination. However, you have failed to mention the fact that Geneva was a missions sending center. You have failed to mention the incredible church planting produced by missionaries trained and sent out by Calvin. In 1555 there were only 5 known Evangelical churches in France. By 1562, due to Calvin's church-planting efforts, there were 2,150 Evangelical congregations. Many of those who were sent out were captured by Roman Catholics, then tortured and executed. Why did they go out? Because they loved God, and they cared for their fellow human beings. You have not read Calvin carefully, nor thoroughly, enough. Read his commentaries. Read his sermons.

How much do I love lost people? Well, I've wept for them. I've prayed for them. I've sought to build relationships with them. I hand out evangelistic tracts. I witness. I preach evangelistic messages. I have established an evangelistic association, in fact. Does this count for anything? I find your comments, and the apparent attitudes in them, quite appalling.

My position is what it is because I am bound to believe, to live by, and to teach the whole counsel of God's Word.

 

I tried to honestly read it. It came across like theology is not important. You said later that God will judge not for theology but for heart. I think that is a false dichotomy. God condemns false doctrine. He does not seem to have room for a right heart but a wrong teaching. I can't find that in Scripture. God does care what you believe. That is why he gave us revelation and told us what to believe.

Two things: When someone says something like, "Go ahead, tell me" when they have already asked their question, most people take it as a smart aleck response. If you want someone answer a question, just ask it and leave it at that. As far as my comments, my point was "My feelings don't matter." That is not at issue. Too many people judge right and wrong based on what they feel. My "so what" was not directed at you but intended as a general statement. The general rule of thumb is, if it can be wrongly interpreted, try to change it. Go the extra mile to avoid the appearance of it. I try and am not always successful ... but I try.

As for what's on my heart, I have addressed. I have a tremendous concern for the lost. I have a great love for them. That is why I preach like I do and call people to repentance. "Do I love the non-elect?" I don't even know who the elect or the non-elect are. The point is that we preach the gospel to all men and call all to repent. We demonstrate the love of God to all men.

If you remember, keeping the commandments is the sign of love, not something in addition to love. So yes, obedience to Christ is love.

I believe the same thing about ending up in hell. God doesn't insist that anyone end up there. They are there by their own free will. They did not wish or "will" to repent and believe. But if you pray for some and not for others, you are asking God to intervene for some while not for others. By your logic on election (that electing some to heaven is electing others to hell), by praying for God to save some, you are praying for God not to save others. It appears your own logic has trapped you.

As I pointed out about prayer, I think you are asking God to respect those who know you or some other praying Christian while ignoring those who are not "lucky" enough to have someone to pray for them. I really think you need to give this issue some more thought.

 

But it is not futile to obey God. I call on men to repent. I make an earnest and honest call and I expect people to respond. It is not futile because God is calling people through the preaching of his word. Are you in disagreement with that? I am not sure what your objections are to this and why this is hard to explain. Is there something that I am not clear about?

 

Ah yes..the Old "we misrepresent" ploy.. Once again no..we just read and believe what we read.

Oh yes he did. it was there that your whole system developed..If your founder was wrong about double predestination that leaves it open that he was wrong about more than that as well.. I wouldn't follow a system developed by a man who was wrong about what he taught..

Ah yes Geneva..that perfect example of what happens when church and state collide..I wonder if all those people that Calvin and crew oppressed would agree with you.. As a matter of fact they didn't they didnt want him there Becasue he was such a tyrant.. the majority of the people didn't agree with his predestination theory and he was often laughed to scorn by those in Geneva who called him a heretic.

 

Did you read it carefully? I said that he DID teach it. By the way, John Calvin is not our "founder." If you think Calvin was wrong about the issue, what do you think of Romans 9?

Again, you need to study your history, friend. If he was such a tyrant, why did immigrants pour into the city? Why would they leave one harsh dictatorship for another? The majority of people didn't agree with him and called him a heretic? Again, study your history before you make such stupid statements! Besides that, you never dealt with the issue of church planting, did you? Why not? Because it is a lot easier to hold to a caricature than to study the facts, I suppose.

And, why didn't you deal with this part of my post, friend?

Shilo, Calvin is not my founder nor my Savior. Geneva was not perfect. Nonetheless, at least I know that something can be learned from Calvin and those in Geneva, not to mention from my "Arminian" brothers and sisters. Are you able to learn from anyone?

 

Really Glen? you were elected before the foundation of the world..really.. Well that would have to mean that you were "In" Christ before the foundation of the world..BUT here are the facts:

No man is " in Christ " Before he is born agin

Every man was " In Adam " when Adam died

You and the rest of the "elect" were NOT " In Christ" you were "aliens" "alone in the world" "children of wrath" "dead in trespasses and sin" "without hope" "without God" and "unknown"

The believer was Chosen "from the beginning" according to 2 thes 2:13..so how can you say then that you are elected "before" the beginning??

If election was eternal, how were you SANCTIFIED in eternity (1 pet.1:2) when eph 2:12-13 clearly states that you were anything But sanctified?!?

In Matthew 22:14 the CALL precedes the election

 

Hey Shilo, want to deal with my questions and comments while you're at it?