The Calvinistic system introduces the most disingenuous invitation known to man

[annsni]

Another passage that seems disingenuous to me if Calvinism is true is Genensis 6:

If God is indeed the one who was effectually making Noah "good" while leaving the rest to act naturally, then why does God appear to be upset and disappointed?

Noah had the choice to do good or evil. He chose to do good. But was it "good" enough to get to heaven? Never. No man can do good enough to get to heaven because even one sin is enough to make us deserve hell. Man still has the capacity to do "good" although he has a sinful nature. God didn't make Noah do good - Noah chose that himself. Even the most evil person in the world can choose to do some good but what good is that? Is it an ability to save oneself? No.

I mean, think about it, if a parent punished their childen by sending them to their room and locking them in why would that parent act as if they are upset at their children for staying in that room? Further, why would they praise one of the kids for coming out if indeed the child only came out because the parent opened the door and went inside and brought him out? It makes NO SENSE!

See, you're making an argument against hyperCalvinism which we are not standing for. If you argue against what we believe then we can discuss it but God doesn't make anyone do anything (locking the door) - it's still their free choice. But it's the nature that will drive them to do what they will do. A sinful nature will drive one to sin and to never seek God. A nature that is quickened to God to be able to respond to Him will. Period.

 

[Skandelon]

Noah had the choice to do good or evil. He chose to do good. But was it "good" enough to get to heaven? Never. No man can do good enough to get to heaven because even one sin is enough to make us deserve hell. Man still has the capacity to do "good" although he has a sinful nature.

So, Noah, in your view was "good" by his own choice? Or did God effectually cause him to be good? In other words, why was Noah deemed "good" and a man of "integrity" by God while the others were not? Was it God's doing or man's?

God didn't make Noah do good - Noah chose that himself. Even the most evil person in the world can choose to do some good but what good is that? Is it an ability to save oneself? No.

Apparently, he was "good" enough in the sight of God to save him from the flood...and my question is whether that "goodness" was a result of God's effectual work or not.

See, you're making an argument against hyperCalvinism which we are not standing for. If you argue against what we believe then we can discuss it but God doesn't make anyone do anything (locking the door) - it's still their free choice. But it's the nature that will drive them to do what they will do. A sinful nature will drive one to sin and to never seek God. A nature that is quickened to God to be able to respond to Him will. Period.

I think what you consider "hyper Calvinism" is not necessarily "hyper." Read my post that addressed this earlier. There are many Calvinists even on this board who I think would disagree with what you have argued.

 

[Robert Snow]

Acknowleged and appreciated. As noted by me earlier, there's cursory scriptural support for Calvinism. There's also cursory scriptural support for Arminianism. Discissing, arguing, and debating the sides of the issue is fine, and often beneficial. However, for either a Calvinist or Arminian to accuse the other side of scriptural disingenuousness is out of bounds.

You know that both sides feel that the other is "scripturally disingenuous." In fact many on both sides feel that if someone is strongly on the other side, they probably aren't Christians at all. These feelings are usually not allowed, so they come out in other ways.

Regardless of the cherry-picked verses the Calvinist uses, it goes against the nature of God to believe in Calvinism, not to mention the invitation to God that Jesus Christ gave during His earthly ministry. I believe many take this position because it makes them feel like they are agreeing with many well known, highly educated preachers of the past, like Spurgeon or Edwards. After all, these men could not possibly be wrong, could they?

 

[Johnv]

... it goes against the nature of God to believe in Calvinism...

Yes scripture disagrees with that statement.

 

[The Archangel]

Regardless of the cherry-picked verses the Calvinist uses, it goes against the nature of God to believe in Calvinism, not to mention the invitation to God that Jesus Christ gave during His earthly ministry. I believe many take this position because it makes them feel like they are agreeing with many well known, highly educated preachers of the past, like Spurgeon or Edwards. After all, these men could not possibly be wrong, could they?

I'm sure you know that Arminians cherry-pick verses. Now, I could post an opposite, mimicking post, but, brother, you deserve better treatment than that.

Suffice it to say that you are selling us Calvinists short by discounting our Biblical scholarship, or even the ability thereof.

For me, I disagree with many Calvinists on some things:

Calvin was hopelessly wrong on baptism

Edwards was wrong on baptism as well.

Piper, I think, gets double predestination wrong (though my view on that may be changing)

MacArthur gets end-times stuff wrong.

Presbyterians, in general, are way off when it comes to church polity.
​

So, I am not a Calvinist because of "Calvinist Heroes," but because of the Scripture. To suggest otherwise, my friend, sells us short.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[Robert Snow]

Yes scripture disagrees with that statement.

Obviously, I don't believe so. Of course, I prefer an evangelistic church, not one that sits on it's hands and only discusses theology. This is the natural result of Calvinism.

 

[The Archangel]

Obviously, I don't believe so. Of course, I prefer an evangelistic church, not one that sits on it's hands and only discusses theology. This is the natural result of Calvinism. (emphasis mine)

Robert,

This, again, is quite the unfair statement. The most evangelistic churches I know are Calvinist churches. Capitol Hill Baptist Church in Washington, DC (Mark Dever is the pastor and a 5-Pointer) gives, literally, millions of dollars to missions.

The church I pastor has increased its Cooperative Program giving (we are an SBC Church) from the mid-hundreds of dollars to the area of three thousand dollars. (Considering we have less than 50 members, that's a huge increase).

This year we are going to launch into an evangelism program...our motto will be: Every believer a disciple, every disciple an evangelist.

Furthermore, William Carey--the founder of the modern missionary movement--and his supporters were 5-Point Calvinists.

I think you are reacting against the caricature of Calvinism rather than the reality of Calvinism.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[Allan]

Obviously, I don't believe so. Of course, I prefer an evangelistic church, not one that sits on it's hands and only discusses theology. This is the natural result of Calvinism.

This statement shows how little you know much less understand about Calvinism or Reformed theology.
While I don't subscribe to it, I at least know what it actaully teaches so I can engage the issues I disagree with. This ad-hom attack does nothing but sow discord amoung the brethren.

 

[Robert Snow]

This statement shows how little you know much less understand about Calvinism or Reformed theology.
While I don't subscribe to it, I at least know what it actaully teaches so I can engage the issues I disagree with. This ad-hom attack does nothing but sow discord amoung the brethren.

Perhaps you are correct and I don't know that much about Calvinistic churches. There is a lot of differences evidently in what they believe. I was told that many Calvinistic churches like the Primitive Baptist do not believe in missions.

If I am wrong, I apologize. I was under the impression that most reformed churches don't encourage missions.

 

[Allan]

Perhaps you are correct and I don't know that much about Calvinistic churches. There is a lot of differences evidently in what they believe. I was told that many Calvinistic churches like the Primitive Baptist do not believe in missions.

If I am wrong, I apologize. I was under the impression that most reformed churches don't encourage missions.

Yes, there are about as many variaties of Calvinists as there are baptists.
There is a specific distinction to be understood here in general regarding the mainline view.

There are basically 2 distinct views within Calvinism that are said to be of the same views but in reality are polar opposites. One is what is typically called Calvinism and another is called Hyper-Calvinism (which Calvinists and Non-Calvinists alike disagree with). The two variations are NOT the same thing as some on our side ignorantly claim.

For instance, mainline Calvinism/Reformed theology is very evangelistic or at least strive to be. Whereas Hyper-Calvinism or "H-C" is against evangelism.

Calvinism believes man must believe in order to be eternally saved, where H-C believes you are born saved and regardless of what you do in this life or even if you never believe, you are still eternally saved.

Here is a thread I did a while back to help those of our view understand the differences of Calvinism and Hyper-Calvinism. Another quick note, just because someone holds to 1 or 2 'aspects' of an H-C does not necessarily make them a H-C, but shows they have some views which are ranging toward H-C tendencies need to watched carefully.

Here is brief listing of some H-C views from a Primer on Hyper-Calvinism by Phil Johnson at Spurgeon.com, which are discussed more indepth on my thread. Below is his preface to his article.

I wrote and posted this article because I am concerned about some subtle trends that seem to signal a rising tide of hyper-Calvinism, especially within the ranks of young Calvinists and the newly Reformed. I have seen these trends in numerous Reformed theological forums on the Internet, including mailing lists, Web sites, and Usenet forums.
Lest anyone wonder where my own convictions lie, I am a Calvinist. I am a five-point Calvinist, affirming without reservation the Canons of the Synod of Dordt. And when I speak of hyper-Calvinism, I am not using the term as a careless pejorative. I'm not an Arminian who labels all Calvinism "hyper." When I employ the term, I am using it in its historical sense.
History teaches us that hyper-Calvinism is as much a threat to true Calvinism as Arminianism is. Virtually every revival of true Calvinism since the Puritan era has been hijacked, crippled, or ultimately killed by hyper-Calvinist influences. Modern Calvinists would do well to be on guard against the influence of these deadly trends.

This listing shows -
A hyper-Calvinist is someone who either:
1. Denies that the gospel call applies to all who hear, OR
2. Denies that faith is the duty of every sinner, OR
3. Denies that the gospel makes any "offer" of Christ, salvation, or mercy to the non-elect (or denies that the offer of divine mercy is free and universal), OR
4. Denies that there is such a thing as "common grace," OR
5. Denies that God has any sort of love for the non-elect.

It also has in it Here is an additional listing set forth by Mongerism.com on hyper-calvinism which is more indepth but both groups affirm the other's list and both have said their listing are one the same things, just one is more indepth and the concise. In both list what they present is what most Calvinists reject as deplorable the following hyper-Calvinistic and destructive beliefs:

- that God is the author of sin and of evil
- that men have no will of their own, and secondary causes are of no effect
- that the number of the elect at any time may be known by men
- that it is wrong to evangelize
- that assurance of election must be sought prior to repentance and faith
- that men who have once sincerely professed belief are saved regardless of what they later do
- that God has chosen some races of men and has rejected others
- that the children of unbelievers dying in infancy are certainly damned
- that God does not command everyone to repent
- that the sacraments are not means of grace, but obstacles to salvation by faith alone.
- that the true church is only invisible, and salvation is not connected with the visible church
- that the Scriptures are intended to be interpreted by individuals only and not by the church.
- that no government is to be obeyed which does not acknowledge that Jesus is the Lord, or that Biblical Law is its source of authority
- that the grace of God does not work for the betterment of all men
- that saving faith is equivalent to belief in the doctrine of predestination
- that only Calvinists are Christians (Neo-gnostic Calvinism

P.S. primitive Baptists do not consider 'themselves' Calvinists. They state they hold to the doctrines of grace however their view of it is dramitcally different thath the reformed position. However if they did consider themselves calvinistic they would be more properly deemed H-Cals.

 

[Johnv]

Obviously, I don't believe so.

Which doesn't change the fact that it's true.

I prefer an evangelistic church, not one that sits on it's hands and only discusses theology. This is the natural result of Calvinism.

I think the majority here prefer the same. However, to claim that Calvinistic churches categorically "sit on thier hands and only discusses theology" is flat out wrong.

I was told that many Calvinistic churches like the Primitive Baptist do not believe in missions.

Whoever told you that is dead wrong. I've never known a Reformed church that WASN'T actively involved in missions.

 

[annsni]

Obviously, I don't believe so. Of course, I prefer an evangelistic church, not one that sits on it's hands and only discusses theology. This is the natural result of Calvinism.

Hmmm - I never got that memo from the board. Jesus told us to go preaching the Gospel and making disciples. All Calvinists that I know do such. God uses men and women who obey Him to bring "whosoever" to the Lord. I've never heard otherwise. I'll check back with the Boss and let you know if that memo got lost.

 

[annsni]

Perhaps you are correct and I don't know that much about Calvinistic churches. There is a lot of differences evidently in what they believe. I was told that many Calvinistic churches like the Primitive Baptist do not believe in missions.

If I am wrong, I apologize. I was under the impression that most reformed churches don't encourage missions.

Our church stands more on the reformed side (atleast all the pastors do although it's not written in our statement of beliefs) and we've sent out many missionaries. We raise missionaries from within our own walls to send - no board involved. We're also in the process of planting a new church about 40 minutes away from our current church in another township where only 3% of all of the residents go to a Bible teaching church. Our goal is to preach the Gospel and make disciples.

 

[canadyjd]

...One view is that the call is an open and honest invitation to all men to partake in the gift of eternal life....And the other view is based on a denial that the gospel makes any "offer" of Christ, salvation, or mercy to the non-elect.

Which group do you agree with as this would help in the discussion with you on the subject??

My main contension is that if the gospel call is a genuine offer...toward all men without exception to faith in Christ (salvation) how then how can The atonement be limited?....If the atonement is limited how can one maintain the "L" and the offer of the gospel to all and yet NOT be lie in offering said life to "all men without exception to the faith of Christ" (ie, salvation) unless there been an atonement made on their (the non-elects) behalf as well????

IOW - how can the offer of salvation be made toward those for whom no provision of salvation has been made?

Let me start by asking if keeping the Law is a genuine offer of salvation? The "rich young ruler" asked Jesus how to have eternal life. Jesus told him to keep the commandments (Matt. 19:16-17) Did Jesus give this man a genuine offer of salvation, even though He knew the man could not keep the commandments? I believe it was a genuine offer. If he could keep the commandments, he would have gone into heaven.

In the same way, the offer of gospel salvation is a genuine offer to all men, even though only the elect will respond when enabled by Holy Spirit.

As I stated earlier, the gospel has a two-fold purpose. It brings salvation to the elect and it brings condemnation to those who reject (non-elect). I base this belief upon 2 Cor. 2:14-16 and other passages.

(14) "But thanks be to God, who always leads us in triumph in Christ, and manifest through us the sweet aroma of the knowledge Him in every place. (15) For we are a fragrance of Christ to God among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing; (16) to the one an aroma from death to death, to the other an aroma from life to life. And who is adequate for these things?"

Paul is alluding to a Roman "triumph", where the conquering general brings his captives through the city and eventually crucifies them. They are going to their deaths. As they go through the city, people throw flowers upon the road. As the troops march through the flowers, the aroma fills the air.

God is allowing Christians to suffer persecution, even to the death. As they go to their deaths, they proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ. The gospel is a fragrant aroma with two outcomes. To one group (the elect) it leads to life. To the other group (the non-elect) it leads to further condemnation and death.

The gospel is a genuine offer to all who hear it, even though only the elect will respond when so enabled by Holy Spirit. Therefore, the atonement of Jesus Christ is limited to those who accept the gospel.

Otherwise, you have God punishing people twice for their sins. First, Christ accepted the punishment for all the sin of all men and then God punished everyone who didn't accept the gospel anyway.

The only way for the atonement to be unlimited/universal is for all people to be saved, IMHO.

That, of course, is the continuing argument.

BTW, I appreciate your civil discourse on this issue.

peace to youraying:

 

[Winman]

Let me start by asking if keeping the Law is a genuine offer of salvation? The "rich young ruler" asked Jesus how to have eternal life. Jesus told him to keep the commandments (Matt. 19:16-17) Did Jesus give this man a genuine offer of salvation, even though He knew the man could not keep the commandments? I believe it was a genuine offer. If he could keep the commandments, he would have gone into heaven.

No, no one can be saved by keeping the law. The law was our schoolmaster to give us an understanding of what sin is, and to bring us to Christ.

Rom 3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

Gal 3:24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

You can only be saved by faith in Christ.

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Jesus said no man comes unto the Father except through him, but Calvinism teaches the opposite. Calvinism teaches that the Father elected who would be saved outside of Christ and then regenerated them, and that only after regeneration were they able to come to the Son. This is unscriptural.

 

[canadyjd]

No, no one can be saved by keeping the law. The law was our schoolmaster to give us an understanding of what sin is, and to bring us to Christ.

Did Jesus lie to the young man? He asked Jesus how to get eternal life. Jesus told him to keep the commandments. Did Jesus lie to him?

Rom 3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

Gal 3:24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

That doesn't change the fact Jesus told the man to keep the commandments if he wanted eternal life.

You can only be saved by faith in Christ.

Then why did Jesus tell the man to keep the commandments if he wanted eternal life?

Jesus said no man comes unto the Father except through him, but Calvinism teaches the opposite.

For Calvinism to teach the "opposite", it would have to teach that coming to Jesus is not necessary for salvation.

Now, there may be hyper-calvinists that believe faith in Jesus Christ is not necessary, (just like some people believe God only holds you accountable for the "light you have"... so to them, Jesus isn't necessary either.. right?), but that is not what most with reformed views hold to.

Calvinism teaches that the Father elected who would be saved outside of Christ.....

That is untrue. Reformed theology teaches the elect are predestined in Christ, not outside of Christ.

and then regenerated them, and that only after regeneration were they able to come to the Son. This is unscriptural.

We'll just have to disagree.

peace to youraying:

 

[Allan]

Let me start by asking if keeping the Law is a genuine offer of salvation? The "rich young ruler" asked Jesus how to have eternal life. Jesus told him to keep the commandments (Matt. 19:16-17) Did Jesus give this man a genuine offer of salvation, even though He knew the man could not keep the commandments? I believe it was a genuine offer. If he could keep the commandments, he would have gone into heaven.

Yes it is a genuine offer, anything otherwise is deceitful and lie.
The fact is, if ANYONE keeps the whole law he will be declared by God to be saved. It goes for anyone and everyone because it is FOR all people and is the reason all are judged becuase it.

In the same way, the offer of gospel salvation is a genuine offer to all men, even though only the elect will respond when enabled by Holy Spirit.

No you miss the entire argument. The gospel offer can not be genuine if God has not provided the means for them to be saved through it. Making an offer to save people when in fact God has no desire to save them nor has he made any provision for them makes the very offer itself a lie from the mouth of God, IF in fact the above is true.

The fact is this, if the offer of the salvation gospel is indeed toward or for all men then by virture to whom it is offered, provision has to have been made for that group. It is the provision which validates the offer making it not a lie to whom it is extended. It is the provision which is the good news message and that message is to all.

The gospel is a genuine offer to all who hear it, even though only the elect will respond when so enabled by Holy Spirit. Therefore, the atonement of Jesus Christ is limited to those who accept the gospel.

Again, this is not possible. Upon what basis is gospel offer based? If it is based upon the atonement and you believe that atonement is limited only to some, then your view necessitates God is lieing. The offer is based upon the atonement and if the atonement is limited the offer can not be extended to all and be true.

Otherwise, you have God punishing people twice for their sins. First, Christ accepted the punishment for all the sin of all men and then God punished everyone who didn't accept the gospel anyway.

This is not an accurate understanding of atonement, IMO. God isn't punishing anyone twice for their sin

The atonement is not applied to anyone till faith has been excercised (Rom 3:25). The fact Christ offered to the Father an acceptable sacrifice for 'the remission of sin' does not necessitate all people for whom it was made has now had their sins removed, unless one believes we are born eternally saved.

Then penalty for 'sin' has been paid, and it must be received/applied by faith or else their sin remains and thus penalty remains to be paid. This is true even for a person pre-faith. They are not yet children of God but the fact that the atonement has been made for them does 'nothing' toward them as of yet - at least till after they have believed and THEN it is applied and there is therefore NOW no condemnation...

The only way for the atonement to be unlimited/universal is for all people to be saved, IMHO.

I understand your view.

BTW, I appreciate your civil discourse on this issue.

Yes, it somewhat refreshing to find some anymore.

 

[Robert Snow]

Did Jesus lie to the young man? He asked Jesus how to get eternal life. Jesus told him to keep the commandments. Did Jesus lie to him?[

"For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth."
Rom. 10:4

Had this man truly kept the law, it would have brought him to Christ.

 

[zrs6v4]

Imagine a Governor standing in front of a bunch of prison inmates knowing full well that 95% of them couldn't understand any English and saying without any interpretation, "If you will come to me and apologize for your crime you will be set free, otherwise you will be tortured for the rest of your life in this prison." All the while making statements like, "I don't want any one to be tortured, but all to be set free from this prison," and "I love the prisoners and have provided pardon for their crimes."

Is that a genuine invitation? Considering that the Governor is fully aware of the inmates inability to understand English and thus respond to the invitation, I don't see how that can be viewed as a genuine invitation. But how is that different from the Calvinistic view of God's universal gospel call?

We would both agree that a newborn baby is beautiful and our hearts melt when we see him/her. How would you feel if you were standing before God and He said, "You have many sins that you are guilty for and I am going to punish them." "I am either going to lay your sin on the new born and innocent baby or you can pay for them yourself." How would you feel? With this in mind what if the guilty aren't given the call in a way they cannot understand? Do they deserve to understand? is it not fair to leave them in confusion? I know we both agree that God isn't obligated to save any, but has chosen to save many. I think in light of Who is being punished for our sins our hearts should crumble and desire to be crushed in our iniquity even more so than a newborn baby.

furthermore, God did speak in peoples languages and they did hear Him and most of them didn't understand. This isn't because God wasn't able to communicate better, or wasn't able to cause them to all understand everything equally, but God chose to leave them in their blindness that was darkened by sin. Is this wrong and unfair, of course not. God didn't make them confused or cause them to sin.

In my opinion there is no case in blaming God for not helping all people see the Savior. I could care less if the invitation is fair or not, even if that leaves me out. If I was on my death bed and never heard the Gospel and a Chinese preacher came and spoke the Gospel in a different language to me and I died in my sins I am still without excuse and couldn't stand before God and say, "well, I never had a genuine invitation for the innocent and beautiful Savior to die in my place for my sins!"

:smilewinkgrin: that is my response

 

[Winman]

For Calvinism to teach the "opposite", it would have to teach that coming to Jesus is not necessary for salvation.

No, it is exactly the opposite. Calvinism teaches that a man comes to Jesus the Son through the Father. They teach that a man cannot possibly come to Christ unless the Father elects and then regenerates a man.

But Jesus taught that it is impossible for any man to come to the Father except through him.

Your doctrine is exactly the opposite of what the scriptures teach. It is amazing, I have noticed this over and over again. I only point it out for your benefit if you will see it.