The Doctrines of Grace and Evangelism

[Rippon]

This is what your side is essentially doing, pleading with people to accept a gift never bought...and worse yet, punishing them eternally for not accepting the unbought gift. My soteriology doesn't have that issue.

People are justly punished in Perdition for their sins. Do you disagree? Your soteriology should line-up with that perfectly biblical view.

 

[Herald]

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:


Plus, how can they answer this, "for there are many called, but few chosen??? This contradicts the very nebulous of their theology right here. If many are called, but few chosen, and the called of God will be saved, but few of them that are truly called are chosen, then something's missing. Huh??

Friend, you ask a great question. I must admit that the passage you snipped from Matthew 22 was one that troubled me for years. Here is how I understand it.

Matthew 22:1-14 Jesus spoke to them again in parables, saying, 2 "The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who gave a wedding feast for his son. 3 "And he sent out his slaves to call those who had been invited to the wedding feast, and they were unwilling to come. 4 "Again he sent out other slaves saying, 'Tell those who have been invited, "Behold, I have prepared my dinner; my oxen and my fattened livestock are all butchered and everything is ready; come to the wedding feast."' 5 "But they paid no attention and went their way, one to his own farm, another to his business, 6 and the rest seized his slaves and mistreated them and killed them. 7 "But the king was enraged, and he sent his armies and destroyed those murderers and set their city on fire. 8 "Then he said to his slaves, 'The wedding is ready, but those who were invited were not worthy. 9 'Go therefore to the main highways, and as many as you find there, invite to the wedding feast.' 10 "Those slaves went out into the streets and gathered together all they found, both evil and good; and the wedding hall was filled with dinner guests. 11 "But when the king came in to look over the dinner guests, he saw a man there who was not dressed in wedding clothes, 12 and he said to him, 'Friend, how did you come in here without wedding clothes?' And the man was speechless. 13 "Then the king said to the servants, 'Bind him hand and foot, and throw him into the outer darkness; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.' 14 "For many are called, but few are chosen."

Jesus was addressing the Jews in this parable. Verses 1-10 concentrate on the fact that the heirs of the kingdom (Israel) have rejected it. Israel was supposed to be a nation like no other. Her mission was to announce the glory of the Lord to all the nations (Isaiah 49:6). The remaining part of the parable affirms, as R.C. Sproul so eloquently states, "receiving an invitation to God's kingdom does not guarantee inclusion; one must be properly clothed (cf. Zech. 3:3-5; Rev. 3:18; 19:8)." The general call is proclaimed to all. Scripture says, Acts 17:30 "Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent..." Just because all should does not mean all can. The Calvinist believes Scripture teaches only those who are chosen will repent. I believe the parable cited above does a good job of proving that point. Look at the illegitimate guest in verse 11. Here is one who comes into the wedding feast. He has probably already partaken of the feast for a period of time. This is similar to false professors who are in churches today. They benefit from God's grace upon His church. They experience the love that saints have for one another. They may be called "brother" or "sister" by true saints and treated as such. But in the end their calling and election was not sure (2 Peter 1:10). In the parable the king had them bound hand and foot and thrown into the outer darkness. In this world they may pass from this life, having sufficiently fooled others into thinking they were in the kingdom. But God is not fooled. Only those who have been invited and properly clothed will be in attendance at the wedding feast of the Lamb.

I understand how the doctrine of election can seem to be so cruel to those who don't believe it. I criticize my fellow Calvinists when they attempt to tamp down their defense of this great doctrine. It is what it is. God chooses some; not all. Yes. We don't possess spiritual 3-D vision. We cannot look into the heart of a person and know for certainty whether or not they are a Christian. That is one of the applications of the parable in Matthew 22. This doctrine is despised by those who don't hold to it. That is why it [election] and the larger issue of the DoG are met with such a visceral response. I do not know doubt for one moment that there are wonderful, god-fearing men and women who reject the DoG. I believe they have a deep and abiding love for our Lord, the Church, and the Gospel. Am I certain that they are wrong in their rejection of the DoG? Yes. Will it hamper my cooperation with them in ministry? Unfortunately, yes to that as well. This type of separation is the inevitable consequence of conviction. What is not an inevitable consequence is hating your brother for whom Christ died.

 

[Winman]

Who's fault is it that the illegitimate guest was not properly clothed Herald? In Calvinism the answer would be God. In your view, God makes an insincere invitation, he invites people who are not really invited. This amounts to calling God a liar.


This parable also violates your concept of Total Depravity, as the man responded positively and came when called.

 

[psalms109:31]

In our belief system only God knows how many will be saved by grace, knowing our penalty and who paid our debt. What God gives us makes no limit, nor should we think there is a limit. God tells us the amount saved will be like he sands of the seashore, the number God gives us has no limit and no way in our knowledge can count how many will be saved. It would be foolish for us to believe God doesn't know who will be saved, He has the end result that we don't have.

God right now sees and being with all those who are saved, being not bound by time.

 

[psalms109:31]

The few that our chosen and the amount saved tells me that those lights that are few God will use to lead the many. Rev 7 comes to mind seeing an elect few and the end result.

 

[12strings]

Herald, If you have time, take a look at post #20 back on page 2 of this thread. I'd love to hear your thoughts on this.

-12strings

 

[webdog]

No it's not. Your lack of understanding doesn't make it circular.

I realize that...your words make it circular

Do you think the atonement was intended to save one that doesn't believe? No, of course not. so unless you are a Universalist, you believe it's sufficient for all, efficient only for the believers.

You misunderstand...I believe it is sufficient for all, but in the limited atonement view it cannot be. It is speaking out of both sides of one's mouth. Is Christ's death really sufficient, adequate for those He didn't die for? That's illogical.

For God so loved the world(all of mankind), that he gave his only begotten Son(Jesus), that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. (Jesus was given to the believers, not the unbelievers.)

Wrong! You completely miss the fact that God so loved the world in this way...that He gave His Son. His Son atoned for sin, it appeased God's wrath against sin. Whosoever (of the world) that believes will not perish. It makes no sense for that verse to say that God loved the world so much that He gave His son to believers. That rips the meaning completely from the context. So God loves the world so much that He gives His Son to a few while decreeing the "many" to perish?

No, the gift is there. The sufficient payment has been made. Again, your analogy fails.

So now the gift was bought for them?!? They have the real option to choose this gift?!? You are making me dizzy.

I tell a person that Jesus died on the cross. If they believe, they will be saved. That is a true statement. If they don't believe, then it will not cover their sins.

How is that a true statement if God does not empower them to believe? This sounds deceptive. Why not tell them the REAL truth? Jesus died on a cross for the elect. If you are one you will believe and be saved, if not elect you will not believe nor can you and will perish. Isn't this what you believe the truth to be? Why deceive someone when witnessing to them...be straight forward with them!

I've asked, but you won't answer me.

What are you talking about? If anything you haven't answered my questions, you seem to always counter with one of your own. I started a thread with a question addressed to you that you still have not answered.

1. Christ's death is sufficient for all.
2. Christ;s death is intended to only cover the sins of those that believe.
3. Christ's death is not intended to cover those that don't believe.

Do you disagree with anything there

From my vantage point, or my vantage point viewing yours? 1. I believe Christ death is sufficient (adequate, enough). 2. Christ's death is intended to pay the penalty of sin (atonement), appease God's wrath against sin (propitiation), to defeat the curse of death, to redeem the physical universe and to reconcile sinners to Himself through faith(expiation). 3. See the answer to 2.

Much more involved than just covering sins of the elect.

 

[webdog]

People are justly punished in Perdition for their sins. Do you disagree? Your soteriology should line-up with that perfectly biblical view.

People are justly punished for not receiving forgiveness for their sins through Christ and are left in separation.

 

[Herald]

Who's fault is it that the illegitimate guest was not properly clothed Herald? In Calvinism the answer would be God. In your view, God makes an insincere invitation, he invites people who are not really invited. This amounts to calling God a liar.


This parable also violates your concept of Total Depravity, as the man responded positively and came when called.

The fault lies with the sinner. The sinner is at fault for two reasons: 1. Original sin (born in sin) ~and~ 2. Willful disobedience. Are we to say God is at fault because a false professor may be in the Church? Was Joshua at fault because Achan stole some of the items that were under the ban (Judges 7:1) and then acted as though he was an obedient son of Israel? No. Achan answered for his own sin. John Bunyan wrote about this same thing in Pilgrim's Progress.

Now, while I was gazing upon all these things, I turned my head to look back, and saw Ignorance come up to the river side; but he soon got over, and that without half the difficulty which the other two men met with. For it happened that there was then in that place one Vain-Hope, a ferryman, that with his boat helped him over; so he, as the other I saw, did ascend the hill, to come up to the gate; only he came alone, neither did any man meet him with the least encouragement. When he was come up to the gate, he looked up to the writing that was above, and then began to knock, supposing that entrance should have been quickly administered to him; but he was asked by the men that looked over the top of the gate, Whence come you? and what would you have? He answered, I have ate and drank in the presence of the King, and he has taught in our streets. Then they asked him for his certificate, that they might go in and show it to the King: so he fumbled in his bosom for one, and found none. Then said they, Have you none? but the man answered never a word. So they told the King, but he would not come down to see him, but commanded the two shining ones, that conducted Christian and Hopeful to the city, to go out and take Ignorance, and bind him hand and foot, and have him away. Then they took him up, and carried him through the air to the door that I saw in the side of the hill, and put him in there. Then I saw that there was a way to hell, even from the gate of heaven, as well as from the City of Destruction.

You are right on one count. If God invited people who were not really invited, and then proceeded to deny them entrance, He would be guilty of more than cruelty. But God does not invite those who are not really invited. God invites His elect. In the Matthew 22 the illegitimate guest was never invited. His improper clothing is proof of that. Please don't confuse this with the Church's responsibility in proclaiming the Gospel. Because God has commanded that preaching is the means by which the Gospel is to be delivered to sinners (1 Corinthians 1:21), the Church is under compulsion to do so. That compulsion is a mixture of fear and joy; of obligation and honor. Fear, because without conversion people are going to hell. Joy, because good news is proclaimed to the lost. Obligation, because we are commanded to do so. Honor, because God has entrusted this most sacred message to mortal beings.

In keeping with the intent of the OP, both camps should rejoice that the Gospel is proclaimed, even if it is done so by those we disagree with. I have never heard a Gospel sermon by a Calvinist preacher who says to his audience, "If you are not one of God's elect, I now ask that you leave the auditorium."

 

[webdog]

The fault lies with the sinner. The sinner is at fault for two reasons: 1. Original sin (born in sin) ~and~ 2. Willful disobedience.

#2 I agree with...but someone can be at fault for simply being conceived? How is their conception THEIR fault?

You are right on one count. If God invited people who were not really invited, and then proceeded to deny them entrance, He would be guilty of more than cruelty. But God does not invite those who are not really invited. God invites His elect.

Why is the Gospel commanded to be proclaimed to everyone if God did not intend to invite everyone? How is this not an invitation to all?

 

[Herald]

Herald, If you have time, take a look at post #20 back on page 2 of this thread. I'd love to hear your thoughts on this.

-12strings

Friend, you asked some very good questions in post #20. I will humbly try to answer them.

My comment was directed at churches that are convinced on either side of the debate. A solidly convinced Calvinistic church and a solidly convinced Arminian church have very real obstacles that will prevent them from any meaningful cooperation. The issue of election and predestination will be like the elephant sitting in the room; the issue is always going to come up.

Now, what of those churches that are undecided on the issue; or what about associations (like the SBC) that are divided on the DoG? I do not say that an individual Christian should leave a church that has not achieved a consensus. Regardless of which way the church is leaning, a Christian should remain an active part of that local body until a consensus is reached. As is the case with the Founders Movement within the SBC; if a church wishes to remain in the SBC they should be active with the association and work for change. This is what Al Mohler and Mark Dever are doing.

One last thing. What if you're a Calvinistic Baptist and there is no church in your area that supports the DoG? In that case bloom where you're planted. Don't make the DoG a divisive issue in that church. Love the brethren. Pray for them. Serve them. Supplement the lack of teaching with online sources, broadcasts, books, and fellowship with other saints who are like-minded.

 

[Greektim]

#2 I agree with...but someone can be at fault for simply being conceived? How is their conception THEIR fault?

Because they were born into the race of Adam who represented them as a sinner. If you think it unfair to be born into the race of Adam, then consider the other possibility, to not be born at all. Also, if we talk about fairness, then why is it faith that Jesus should take our sin on himself? The issue is not fairness or fault. The issue is the presence of sin in its multiple fashions.

 

[webdog]

Because they were born into the race of Adam who represented them as a sinner. If you think it unfair to be born into the race of Adam, then consider the other possibility, to not be born at all. Also, if we talk about fairness, then why is it faith that Jesus should take our sin on himself? The issue is not fairness or fault. The issue is the presence of sin in its multiple fashions.

So it is justice to be found guilty of something completely out of your control? I'm at fault and held accountable for my birth that I had no control over?

Not buying it...and Scripture doesn't teach it.

Yes, it would have been better to have never been born at all if this is the case. This is almost what was said verbatim by Jesus concerning Judas, and by extension everyone else acting as Judas did in rejecting Him.

 

[Herald]

#2 I agree with...but someone can be at fault for simply being conceived? How is their conception THEIR fault?
Why is the Gospel commanded to be proclaimed to everyone if God did not intend to invite everyone? How is this not an invitation to all?

Friend,

Do you disagree with original sin (Psalm 51:5; Romans 3:23)? It's an important question.

As to your second question. It has both practical and theological considerations. Practically speaking, how would we know who to preach to if we could only preach to the elect? Obviously, aside from special revelation, we couldn't. Theologically I believe the answer rests partly in the judicial aspect of the Gospel. Those who reject the Son are condemned by Him. Their rejection of the Gospel will be the very evidence presented against them.

 

[Greektim]

So it is justice to be found guilty of something completely out of your control? I'm at fault and held accountable for my birth that I had no control over?

Not buying it...and Scripture doesn't teach it.

Yes, it would have been better to have never been born at all if this is the case. This is almost what was said verbatim by Jesus concerning Judas, and by extension everyone else acting as Judas did in rejecting Him.

That similar to saying that you should not be found guilty for the sin you commit b/c you cannot control it. It is unjust for God to give a Law to Israel despite the fact that it was impossible for them to fulfill it.

The entire system of representation is Biblical. Jesus represents us as our mediator, high priest, and advocate. He took on our sins in a representative fashion on the cross. Why is it so wrong to advocate the view that Adam represented us in Eden (especially if the redemptive goal of God is not just humans and sin but redeeming all of creation back to creation only better).

Not to mention that our concepts of justice are not necessarily based on Biblical justice but rather our culture conceptions and logic. Eastern justice and even Biblical justice is veiled in much harsher penalties and more glorious graciousness. That should be part of the equation of original sin and its imputation to humanity.

Ps... I know there have been threads on this already, and I apologize for hijacking this one. We can continue our discussion somewhere else.

 

[webdog]

Do you disagree with original sin (Psalm 51:5; Romans 3:23)? It's an important question.

If you are referring to the position as taught by Augustine, yes.

As to your second question. It has both practical and theological considerations. Practically speaking, how would we know who to preach to if we could only preach to the elect?

I agree that it would be problematic given your soteriology Unfortunately there is no problem when understood correctly that the offer is genuine and is for mankind as a whole, not the few within. This still does not deal with the apparent contradiction you put forth which is "If God invited people who were not really invited, and then proceeded to deny them entrance, He would be guilty of more than cruelty. But God does not invite those who are not really invited. God invites His elect."

The elect will respond according to you...but the invitation (Gospel call) still goes out to the elect and un-elect, and according to your statement would be "more than cruelty"

 

[webdog]

That similar to saying that you should not be found guilty for the sin you commit b/c you cannot control it. It is unjust for God to give a Law to Israel despite the fact that it was impossible for them to fulfill it.

Not at all, and not even a fair comparison. What if someone ripped your kids from you and executed them in front of you with the sole purpose being having been born in your family? Justice?

The entire system of representation is Biblical. Jesus represents us as our mediator, high priest, and advocate. He took on our sins in a representative fashion on the cross. Why is it so wrong to advocate the view that Adam represented us in Eden (especially if the redemptive goal of God is not just humans and sin but redeeming all of creation back to creation only better).

I believe too much is put into the representation view to arrive at false conclusions.

Not to mention that our concepts of justice are not necessarily based on Biblical justice but rather our culture conceptions and logic. Eastern justice and even Biblical justice is veiled in much harsher penalties and more glorious graciousness. That should be part of the equation of original sin and its imputation to humanity.

Our conscience is God's law (justice) written on our hearts. Cultures may twist and contort it, but right is right and wrong is wrong regardless, and we instinctively know this.

 

[Herald]

If you are referring to the position as taught by Augustine, yes.
I agree that it would be problematic given your soteriology Unfortunately there is no problem when understood correctly that the offer is genuine and is for mankind as a whole, not the few within. This still does not deal with the apparent contradiction you put forth which is "If God invited people who were not really invited, and then proceeded to deny them entrance, He would be guilty of more than cruelty. But God does not invite those who are not really invited. God invites His elect."

The elect will respond according to you...but the invitation (Gospel call) still goes out to the elect and un-elect, and according to your statement would be "more than cruelty"

What can I say? We have a systemic disagreement. I do thank you for your honesty. I wish that others would be as clear. I'm quite pleased to let our differences speak for themselves. Peace.

 

[Winman]

Herald, you freely admit your doctrine makes God appear unjust and you are not surprised that many reject it.

What is surprising is that YOU believe your doctrine when YOU recognize it's difficulties.

Calvinism demands that we believe God is a liar. He calls to men and invites them when in reality they were never invited.

In Calvinism men are not guilty of sin. They are born sinners through no choice or fault of their own and are utterly helpless to escape this condition. Calvinism makes God the author of sin, men are simply being the only thing they can be, sinners. Then God unjustly punishes these men for doing the only thing they are able to do.

You are right, your doctrine makes God appear unjust. So why do you believe a doctrine that offends your God-given sense of right and wrong is true?

 

[Herald]

Herald, you freely admit your doctrine makes God appear unjust and you are not surprised that many reject it.

Either quote me directly or represent my words correctly. I wrote:

If God invited people who were not really invited, and then proceeded to deny them entrance, He would be guilty of more than cruelty.

"If" is a very important word. "If" injects either doubt or choice into a sentence. I do not believe God invites people who He has not not elected. In fact, had you taken care not to misrepresent my words you would have quoted the following:

But God does not invite those who are not really invited. God invites His elect.

What is surprising is that YOU believe your doctrine when YOU recognize it's difficulties.

What difficulties? If there are difficulties they reside with those who reject the DoG. I do recognize the inherent problems the DoG presents to those who don't believe them. I feel bad that they present an obstacle to believing what I consider to be biblical truth. But they are not difficulties for those who believe the DoG.

Calvinism demands that we believe God is a liar. He calls to men and invites them when in reality they were never invited.

Calvinism doesn't demand that anymore than drinking water causes a person to drown. What you believe about Calvinism places you in a paradigm that produces presuppositions. I've already addressed the "invited" issue.

In Calvinism men are not guilty of sin. They are born sinners through no choice or fault of their own and are utterly helpless to escape this condition. Calvinism makes God the author of sin, men are simply being the only thing they can be, sinners. Then God unjustly punishes these men for doing the only thing they are able to do.

It is obvious that you have a skewed understanding of the DoG.

The 1689 Second London Baptist Confession of Faith adequately explains the sinfulness of man; both as a result of original sin and volitional sin.

1689 LBC Chapter 6

2. Our first parents, by this sin, fell from their original righteousness and communion with God, and we in them whereby death came upon all: all becoming dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the faculties and parts of soul and body.
( Romans 3:23; Romans 5:12, etc; Titus 1:15; Genesis 6:5; Jeremiah 17:9; Romans 3:10-19 )

3. They being the root, and by God's appointment, standing in the room and stead of all mankind, the guilt of the sin was imputed, and corrupted nature conveyed, to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation, being now conceived in sin, and by nature children of wrath, the servants of sin, the subjects of death, and all other miseries, spiritual, temporal, and eternal, unless the Lord Jesus set them free.
( Romans 5:12-19; 1 Corinthians 15:21, 22, 45, 49; Psalms 51:5; Job 14:4; Ephesians 2:3; Romans 6:20 Romans 5:12; Hebrews 2:14, 15; 1 Thessalonians 1:10 )

4. From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual transgressions.
( Romans 8:7; Colossians 1:21; James 1:14, 15; Matthew 15:19 )

Men are guilty of sin. They are sinners by omission (original sin) and sinners by commission (actual sins committed).

Yes. Mankind are born sinners through no fault of their own but through the fault of Adam. That is accepted orthodoxy in most denominations; Calvinist and Arminian. It's the semi-Pelagian view (found in some Baptist denominations) that teaches mankind does not inherit original sin.

Calvinism recognizes God's exalted and perfect personage. God is holy. He neither sins nor is the author of sin. Adam sinned as our fair and legal representative. His sin is passed on to his posterity; not because God is responsible, but because Adam is responsible.

My friend, you are closer to believing in the DoG than you know. Martin Luther lamented what he considered to be the unfair and capricious nature of God, just prior to his conversion.