So I'm arguing with a hyperCalvinist/Camping follower

[annsni]

On a public secular board. :BangHead:

So some people had questions about God and the Bible and I was talking to them about it. Of course free will came up and we were discussing that (they don't feel that it's free will if we only have the choice of heaven or hell - they want to choose to come back as ghosts or just choose to not exist at all - OY!!) and this lady chimes in. She's a staunch Camping follower and she's said in response to the comments that people can't understand the Scripture that it's because they are not elect and they cannot be saved. It's only the saved who will understand Scripture and if they don't understand it, there's nothing they can do to "get" it because God doesn't want them.

Great message to the unsaved, huh???

 

[Skandelon]

Well, technically for a Calvinist her message is true, though I don't know many Calvinists who actually talk that way to lost people. Those types do give Christians a bad name, just as those who teach "easy believism" do. I believe both are destructive.

 

[jbh28]

On a public secular board. :BangHead:

So some people had questions about God and the Bible and I was talking to them about it. Of course free will came up and we were discussing that (they don't feel that it's free will if we only have the choice of heaven or hell - they want to choose to come back as ghosts or just choose to not exist at all - OY!!) and this lady chimes in. She's a staunch Camping follower and she's said in response to the comments that people can't understand the Scripture that it's because they are not elect and they cannot be saved. It's only the saved who will understand Scripture and if they don't understand it, there's nothing they can do to "get" it because God doesn't want them.

Great message to the unsaved, huh???

My first encounter with a "Calvinist"(I put in parentheses because they are not really a Calvinist) was with someone that talked like this. It's really sad to see this displayed. It's a bad name for Christians and Calvinists. Most things written against Calvinists are written against this type and not real Calvinists.

 

[glfredrick]

I think the refutation for this issue is found in several places in the Word.

First, in God's decrees to Israel for hospitality to the sojourner (non-Jew).
Second in 1 Cor 14, it is spelled out that un-believers are within the worship service of the church at Corinth.

Both of these points indicate that those in our midst who are not believers may gain something from hearing the Word preached, taught, lived, etc.

The hyper-Calvinistic platform (at its logical end) is that we ought not waste our time or energy proclaiming the gospel to those who are not of the elect. How it is that they know who are the elect is beyond me, but they seem to try to know this, which essentially means that their churches rarely grow beyond biological growth from within, for no one coming from outside can enter or hear the Word.

BTW, I've done a boat-load of debates on non-Christian public forums (about 100 times what I've done here). I know that I cannot "win" a public debate about these sort of issues because there are no rules, and there are generally no other Christians to come to my rescue (backing up points, countering arguments, etc.), so in large part, I debate on my terms, i.e., to disseminate the information I wish to share with that audience, and to do so in a means that explodes stereotypes and brings "life" from the basis of God's Word, the gospel, and right Christian thinking.

After doing so for over 15 years, I've seen some come to know and worship Christ through my efforts. I've also been able to build a national ministry to the off-road world (4x4 trucks, Jeeps, atvs, etc.) based on some of those experiences. I get a thrill every time some person on one of those boards, who presents him or herself as a hardened atheist PMs me with private questions about God, local church, or reveals that they are hiding the fact that they are Christian. Keeps me in the hunt and makes some of the abuse worth the time! :thumbsup:

 

[Andy T.]

Well, technically for a Calvinist her message is true

False..........

 

[mets65]

Well techinically if you're not elect you can't be saved. Good thing I'm not a.....well anyways back to the op

 

[annsni]

I think the refutation for this issue is found in several places in the Word.

First, in God's decrees to Israel for hospitality to the sojourner (non-Jew).
Second in 1 Cor 14, it is spelled out that un-believers are within the worship service of the church at Corinth.

Both of these points indicate that those in our midst who are not believers may gain something from hearing the Word preached, taught, lived, etc.

The hyper-Calvinistic platform (at its logical end) is that we ought not waste our time or energy proclaiming the gospel to those who are not of the elect. How it is that they know who are the elect is beyond me, but they seem to try to know this, which essentially means that their churches rarely grow beyond biological growth from within, for no one coming from outside can enter or hear the Word.

BTW, I've done a boat-load of debates on non-Christian public forums (about 100 times what I've done here). I know that I cannot "win" a public debate about these sort of issues because there are no rules, and there are generally no other Christians to come to my rescue (backing up points, countering arguments, etc.), so in large part, I debate on my terms, i.e., to disseminate the information I wish to share with that audience, and to do so in a means that explodes stereotypes and brings "life" from the basis of God's Word, the gospel, and right Christian thinking.

After doing so for over 15 years, I've seen some come to know and worship Christ through my efforts. I've also been able to build a national ministry to the off-road world (4x4 trucks, Jeeps, atvs, etc.) based on some of those experiences. I get a thrill every time some person on one of those boards, who presents him or herself as a hardened atheist PMs me with private questions about God, local church, or reveals that they are hiding the fact that they are Christian. Keeps me in the hunt and makes some of the abuse worth the time! :thumbsup:

Yep, that's how I feel. I keep plugging away but this woman is nuts. How does she know that none of these people are elect? She doesn't. In my opinion, we treat every single person we see as if they are elect and make sure that they hear the Gospel and we answer any questions they have. The results are between them and God - not me. But I don't want to face God and have Him say "I sent them to you to hear my Word. Why did you not give it to them?" I am greatly blessed when God uses me to give someone the Gospel and they respond. I WANT to be a part of it.

 

[Benjamin]

She's a staunch Camping follower and she's said in response to the comments that people can't understand the Scripture that it's because they are not elect and they cannot be saved. It's only the saved who will understand Scripture and if they don't understand it, there's nothing they can do to "get" it because God doesn't want them.

Great message to the unsaved, huh???

Not all that common from a godly person, but I’ve seen this hyper-dogma used in that fashion many times; and not much can raise the hair on the back of neck more than if someone does this while I’m trying to present the gospel. Early in my walk I was floored by someone using these tactics against my witnessing (although today, thankfully I am well prepared to counter the false teachings) . Seen this philosophy often used for the purpose of discouragement by atheists/agnostics, wiccans and even online role playing. It is surprising to see how well these (unsaved) people can use the scriptures in a negative way and how fast is spreads to those in/or with doubt.
Good to see a godly Calvinist rebuke such a message.

 

[annsni]

Thanks Benjamin. You know what's funny? I'm arguing a little bit of the other side. She says that there is NOTHING man does in salvation but I don't see that even in Calvinism. I still see man's turning in faith to God. Now, I believe that God is the catalyst to that change but man isn't just sitting there doing nothing. So I'm going a bit on the other side for this argument.

 

[Skandelon]

False..........

Really? I thought I was being very fair.

Which of these statements is not technically correct regarding Calvinism?

1. People can't understand the Scripture if they are not elect and they cannot be saved.

2. It's only the saved who will understand Scripture.

3. If they [non-elect] don't understand it, there's nothing they can do to "get" it because God doesn't want them.

I affirmed that a real Calvinist wouldn't talk like this because Calvinists don't typically presume they know who is elect and who is not. And they are evangelistic because God has commanded it.

 

[jbh28]

1. People can't understand the Scripture if they are not elect and they cannot be saved.

People can't understand the Scripture because they are not saved. Many elect people that are unsaved cannot understand the Scripture. It has nothing to do with being elect, but having the Holy Spirit.

2. It's only the saved who will understand Scripture.

True

3. If they [non-elect] don't understand it, there's nothing they can do to "get" it because God doesn't want them.

If they don't understand it, it is because they are not saved, not because they are not elect. Sure there is something they can do, believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. If they are not elect, they will never want to come to Christ.

 

[mets65]

What happens if an elect person gets murdered before he gets saved? Can any elect go to hell?

 

[jbh28]

What happens if an elect person gets murdered before he gets saved? Can any elect go to hell?

It won't happen.

"All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out." - John 6:37

And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified. - Romans 8:30

 

[mets65]

When it says he also called, what does that mean?

 

[annsni]

See, I know people who were saved from reading the Scripture. I do believe that the world can read the Scripture and understand the basics of it but it won't fully come to full light until the Spirit opens their eyes to see. However, I do think the Spirit can open someone's eyes enough to see the truth of the Word of God before they are saved. They do not have salvation but instead are in kind of what I think of as being "quickened" by God to be able to respond.

But bottom line, I do not believe that you throw the wall up in front of the world saying "You can't be saved" because #1, what a great turn-off and #2, we don't know if that is true or not. We all at one time were unsaved and in that same state and for someone to come up to us and say "You can't be saved" would have been a lie. It's like going up to a crowd of people and saying "You all are going to be murdered" because we just can't know that. So instead, I know I look at everyone as being someone who might be elect and working with Christ to spread the Gospel to them. If I am the messenger that brings the Gospel to one of the elect, I have a great privilege to be a part of that. If one turns it away, I've done my job and there's nothing more I can do.

 

[mets65]

One point of the Gospel is to bring people to salvaton, if unsaved can't understand it then it'd be counterproductive.

 

[Skandelon]

People can't understand the Scripture because they are not saved. Many elect people that are unsaved cannot understand the Scripture. It has nothing to do with being elect, but having the Holy Spirit.

So then, technically number 1 is correct, right?

If they don't understand it, it is because they are not saved, not because they are not elect.

But its a given that they are not saved because they are not elect, right? So, what is the real difference? Again, technically it is not incorrect.

Sure there is something they can do, believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. If they are not elect, they will never want to come to Christ.

Actually, even according to Calvinists they must first be "enabled," so again they "can't" believe unless they are "drawn" or "enabled" (Jn 6:44 according Calvinism). If one is unable to be willing, then they are unable, period. So, once again there is nothing technically incorrect to say there is nothing the non-elect can do, right?

 

[annsni]

One point of the Gospel is to bring people to salvaton, if unsaved can't understand it then it'd be counterproductive.

You are correct - but we know that some DO respond to it. So there is some way, that we don't understand, that some CAN understand it before they are saved.

 

[jbh28]

So then, technically number 1 is correct, right?


But its a given that they are not saved because they are not elect, right? So, what is the real difference? Again, technically it is not incorrect.



Actually, even according to Calvinists they must first be "enabled," so again they "can't" believe unless they are "drawn" or "enabled" (Jn 6:44 according Calvinism). If one is unable to be willing, then they are unable, period. So, once again there is nothing technically incorrect to say there is nothing the non-elect can do, right?

No. You are looking at it at a wrong angle. I've given the answers. You can twist them to something else if you wish. And it's not "john 6:44 according to Calvinism", but according to the Bible.

 

[annsni]

So then, technically number 1 is correct, right?

Yes, number 1 is correct.

But its a given that they are not saved because they are not elect, right? So, what is the real difference? Again, technically it is not incorrect.

They are not saved yet. If they are elect, they will be saved. If they are not, they never will be saved. I do believe that there is a point in time before one is saved that they are quickened and the Spirit allows them to understand FOR salvation.

Actually, even according to Calvinists they must first be "enabled," so again they "can't" believe unless they are "drawn" or "enabled" (Jn 6:44 according Calvinism). If one is unable to be willing, then they are unable, period. So, once again there is nothing technically incorrect to say there is nothing the non-elect can do, right?

That is correct.