The hopelessness of Calvinism

[Pastor Larry]

It is amazing how people have distorted things. I had not read Conniman's statement where he presumably told people not to believe because they didn't have a chance (or a similar statement I have seen several places). It is most interesting that when we do not have an axe to grind we read it a lot differently. It is a shame when we misuse people's words to support a position.

 

[Siegfried]

Originally posted by Mr. Curtis:
A god who would choose certain people to burn in hell is not a god of love.

Let's suppose for sake of the argument that God didn't choose the eternal destiny of anyone. Individuals determine their eternal destiny solely on the basis of their own wills. Some reject salvation and go to hell. Others accept and go to heaven.

I hope it's safe to say that everyone who's been posting here believes that God knew everything that would come to pass in the future, even if you don't believe that in some sense he determined it. God is omniscient.

Now, if God knew that some of the people in the world he created would reject his offer of salvation, why did he create them? Some of you believe that God choosing certain people not to be saved is anti-love. I ask you, how is it that God's choosing of certain people to be created, knowing that they would not be saved and would go to hell, is any less anti-love?

Either way, an omniscient God was aware of the consequences of his acts upon rebellious humans, and he didn't do what he might have done to prevent their eternal damnation, whether that would have been to choose them to salvation or to choose not to create them.

This is a logical problem for non-Calvinists that only Open Theists are resolving, and they have clearly rejected explicit teaching of Scripture.

 

[Chris Temple]

Originally posted by Siegfried:
This is a logical problem for non-Calvinists that only Open Theists are resolving, and they have clearly rejected explicit teaching of Scripture.

Siegfried:

Good points and absolutely correct. And Open Theists are just following to the logical conclusion the presuppositions of Arminianism.

Here's another point, posted on another board by a friend:

Can one honestly profess to believe that it is God's eternal purpose to save all men, but that only some will be saved? Or if we carry the Arminian idea to it's logical conclusion, God intended to save the entire world but none might be saved, because no man had any desire to believe on Christ? As soon as you introduce this unwarranted idea of might, i.e., possibility then it's very legitimate to state that in the end no one would be saved, theoretically. Add to this the biblical truth that "no man seeks after God" and that all men "love darkness rather than light because their deeds are evil", etc., etc., ad infinitum, and try and hold to a "possibility salvation" based upon man's free-will, well.......... plainly what you are left with is an IMPOSSIBILITY that anyone CAN be saved.

 

[Christopher]

The fact is that ALL are lost and headed for hell - even the elect - until they hear the gospel, believe and are saved. We are saved by grace, through faith, not apart from faith. "For I am not ashamed of the gospel: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek." (Rom 1:16 ASV)

Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others. (Ephesians 2:3)

You are right, but it is not our faith that saves us.

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: (Ephesians 2:8)

We do not receive grace through our own faith, but we believe through grace (Acts 18:27). How does one believe through grace unless they already have it?

The faith that saves us is the faith OF Christ that is imputed to us when we are born again of the Spirit of God.

Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. (Galatians 2:16)

If we were justified by our own faith, some of us would be more justified than others because some have more faith than others. It is by the unwavering, pure faith of Christ by which we are justified.

For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith. (Romans 1:17)

Upon hearing the gospel, the righteousness of God is revealed, not given. The righteousness of God is the faith OF Christ. Our faith is reactionary to His.

And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith: (Philippians 3:9)

The gospel is the power of God to those who are saved (1 Corinthians 1:18), that is, to every one that believeth (literally, "who are believing"). The word "believe" is a present active participle, that is, those who are now (present) believing (active). Read all of Romans 1, and that is clearly the context. Those at Rome had already been called to be saints (Romans 1:7), but read what Paul wrote them.

So, as much as in me is, I am ready to preach the gospel to you that are at Rome also. (Romans 1:15)

Why? "Unto us which are saved it is the power of God." (1 Corinthians 1:18) The gospel is foolishness to unbelievers.

[ May 08, 2002, 01:27 PM: Message edited by: Christopher ]

 

[connieman]

WHEW! WHERE TO BEGIN? There is no way to individually answer all these points and counterpoints. Besides, some of you have not believed the truth, and hearing it again and again probably won't help...unless a time comes in the future that it pleases God to reveal His Son in you, too.

Thanks be to God that there are others standing fast for the truth according to scripture: that it is God who saves, completely, and He saves whomsoever He pleases to save, and causes them to repent snd believe in Christ unto salvation.

If I am hyper-Calvinist, there are some here whom I would characterize as hypo-Christian. Better HOT than LUKEWARM, so I hear.

However, I am not a Calvinist...Calvin was an admirable man, and he did wonderful work...but only by the Grace of God. However, he and I read the same Bible, as taught by the same Spirit. That is why we come to the same convictions regarding man, and Christ, and the Father, and what has been done for the salvation of His people. As for the others, "There is no peace, saith my God, to the wicked."

Gina, I did want to offer this for you. What the natural man resists is the Law of God, and he always does resist God, ever since Adam. I think God allows this resistance to demonstrate to sinners that ultimately, resistance is futile.

But, the regenerate man, a creature of God's Grace, willingly submits to the Grace of God. AND, the natural man, chosen of God, is made willing (Psa 110:3) by the gracious power of God. You could not resist the power of God when you were born; neither can we resist that power when we are re-born. God permits much resistance to His will, for His own glory, but nobody resists His will or His Grace, except at His good pleasure.

Regards, in the Name of Him who loved us who have believed, before we loved Him, and has reconciled us to God by His blood, when we were without strength, yet in our sins, and before the world began, and has now caused us, by a "new birth", to love Him in return,

connieman

[ May 08, 2002, 04:58 PM: Message edited by: connieman ]

 

[connieman]

To all...some of you are much concerned about "evangelism", and a proper "approach" or "appeal" to sinners. Remember, a sinner is a wilful, hardened enemy of God, and only the power of God can overcome this enmity.

Keep in mind that the believer is to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth of the Gospel to everyone. Most people didn't believe it from Christ, or His apostles, nor will they believe us. And the truth will always be rejected by the non-elect; it doesn't really matter how it is presented...they still will not believe.

"And as many as were ordained to eternal life believed."

Salvation is not by Faith through Grace...it is by Grace through Faith. Saving Faith comes by the Grace of God...it is implanted by the Holy Spirit in those who are the heirs of salvation. IT IS NOT OF YOURSELVES, "lest any man should boast."

"And as many as were ordained to eternal life believed." Acts 13:48

Regards, in the Name of Him whom we love because He first loved us,

connieman

[ May 08, 2002, 04:24 PM: Message edited by: connieman ]

 

[connieman]

Yes, Mr Curtis...there is no good news for the wicked, the reprobate. They are rejected of God, passed by of His grace.

Remember the words of that old Baptist hymn: "PASS ME NOT, O GENTLE SAVIOUR. HEAR MY HUMBLE CRY. WHILE ON OTHERS THOU ART CALLING, DO NOT PASS ME BY." And only sinners awakened by God to their danger would make such a cry. BUT OTHERS, HE DOES PASS BY, according to His will.

There is good news for His people, the sheep of His pasture, BUT..."There is no peace, saith my God, to the wicked." "God is angry with the wicked every day."

Grace and Peace to you IN CHRIST, "BUT OF HIM (GOD) ARE YE IN CHRIST JESUS."

connieman

[ May 08, 2002, 05:08 PM: Message edited by: connieman ]

 

[connieman]

BTW, you "free-willers", see what you can do with this?

"The preparations of the heart in man, and the answer of the tongue, is from the LORD." Prov 16:1

connieman

 

[Helen]

Originally posted by connieman:
BTW, you "free-willers", see what you can do with this?

"The preparations of the heart in man, and the answer of the tongue, is from the LORD." Prov 16:1

connieman

In the NIV, the translation is To man belong the plans of the heart, but from the Lord comes the reply of the tongue.

And much less ambiguous is something directly from an angel:

Do not be afraid. I bring you good news of great joy that will be for ALL the people. Today, in the town of David, a Savior has been born to you; he is Christ the Lord.

The Calvinists, however, amend the angelic announcement with "...I bring you good new of great joy that will be only for the few whom God has already elected..."

Here is what Jesus said: Which of you father, if your son asks for a fish, will give him a snake instead? Or if he asks for an egg, will give him a scorpion? If you then, THOUGH YOU ARE EVIL, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will yourFather in heaven give the Holy Spirit to THOSE WHO ASK HIM!

The Calvinists seem to have a problem with this, however. For those who are evil, in the Calvinist doctrine, are the unredeemed, and they are so evil they could not possibly give good gifts to their children, let alone ask for the Holy Spirit! I'm glad Jesus said differently.

In Luke 13, Jesus is talking about one of Herod's horrid deeds and then the tower of Siloam collapsting. He tells his listeners: But unless you repent, you too will all perish.

Jesus was not a very good Calvinist, I don't think. He was talking to the people as though they really could choose to repent! Maybe what He should have said, in line with good Reformed thinking is, "But unless God gives you repentence, you, too, will all perish!"

Isn't it strange how Jesus kept talking as though people actually had a choice to make?

And I never have heard a Calvinist explain the following:

O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, BUT YOU WERE NOT WILLING!

And then in Luke 14, Jesus warns about the cost of following Him. He warns to count the cost. The implication is clearly "before making a decision." There would be no need to count any cost if each man were already predestined as to whether he would be saved or not. There would not be any cost to count as no decision could be made!

I have watched this thread and others. I have seen accusations made about the beliefs of non-Calvinists that leave me wondering if these people can even read, or if they have read what any of us have written. We are not 'non-sovereignists' who somehow think man is in charge of the future. That is totally false. I'm not going to try to explain it all again, but we are not Arminian, either. We are trying to pay attention to the full Bible, understanding that there truly are plenty of verses about those who are chosen -- the elect.

And so what can it be called but what my pastor has often referred to it as: a holy paradox?

The closest anyone has come to really hitting the nail on the head as per the problem is the person (and I'm sorry I don't remember who in all these pages of discussion) asked about taking the whole thing one step farther back -- that if God knew ahead of time and still allowed free choice, why did He create the people He knew would choose against Him? If Calvinists would take that one step further back, instead of denying the ability to make a choice which the Bible clearly indicates is true, then there would probably be no argument. God DID create people whom He knew would choose against Him.

When we realize man was created to love God back and love his fellow man (the two great commandments) we can understand the logical necessity of choice, for love is not love if there is not the choice not to love. So the logical necessity of at least some refusing God we can deal with. But why so many? Why would God have created so many who would choose against Him?

I agree that that is the true question. And I'm pretty sure we will have to wait for heaven to answer it.

But, in the meantime, the good tidings were truly to all men, for it is just as true that God has not wished one to perish, but all to come to repentence. And because not all have, we know that He is respecting the wills of men.

I think the fact that Jesus prayed that remarkable prayer in Gethsemane needs to be seriously considered in this debate as well: "Not my will, but thine be done."

How on earth could a perfect man -- one who had never sinned -- have a will other than the Father's? But He evidently did.

These things must be accepted as well as the truth that there is an elect.

The only thing I can see the Bible is saying is that the choosing is mutual.

 

[Scott_Bushey]

Wow!
Where was I when this thread ignited?

This comment will be short, yet relevant.

The way I see it, Genesis 1:1 tells it all. "IN the beginning God......". God is the cause, we are the rection. Men do not actuate salvation by any means or else there may have been a possibility that Heaven would be empty??? The term election surely sits within the pages of Holy Writ. The term itself is discriminating.

More to come..........
Off to prayer meeting, be nice!

Because of HIM,
Scott

[ May 08, 2002, 06:57 PM: Message edited by: Scott Bushey ]

 

[pinoybaptist]

Originally posted by Mr. Curtis:
And the gospel is bad news for everyone

You are mistaken, dangerously mistaken. I do not witness to people to secure my salvation. I witness to people to try to win souls to Christ.

A god who would choose certain people to burn in hell is not a god of love.

I will keep witnessing, thank you. Just do me a favor will you ? If somebody comes to this board looking for answers, keep your " it doesn't matter, your going to hell if your not chosen" garbage to yourself.

The gospel is good news to the elect and those with a regenerated heart. It is no news at all
to the non-elect and unregenerate.

It's amazing how Arminians think they are winning souls to Christ. Christ is the only true soul winner, nobody else can or should claim that distinction and honor. It belongs only to the Lord.

God did not choose people to go to hell, this was a choice made by Adam and a consequence suffered by his posterity. It is absolutely a God of love who chooses to save some from Adam's posterity to be with Him in heaven.

And if that were not enough, He also sent His Son to redeem these elect with His own blood. And if that were not enough, He provides the gift of faith to those He chose that they may believe.

 

[Helen]

Originally posted by pinoybaptist:
[QB]
The gospel is good news to the elect and those with a regenerated heart. It is no news at all
to the non-elect and unregenerate.

Funny, that's not what the angel said.

 

[Ray Berrian]

I Peter 4:17c apparently indicates that human beings are the governors as to where they will spend eternity and not an autocratic, deterministic God. Peter in speaking to the church asks the question as to the destiny of the lost. ‘ . . . what shall the end be of those who obey not the Gospel of God?' If this first among equals, the Apostle Peter, believed that man had the capacity to determine his or her own destiny, clearly we should also. The Holy Spirit had attended the preaching of the Gospel of truth, so they were without excuse.

Peter said, in the reference above, ‘For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God; and if it first begin with us, what shall the end be of those who obey not the Gospel of God?' Obeying is a respondents action and not the proceedings of a dictatorial and predestinating God.

Also, the Apostle Paul in distinguishing between the saved and the lost said, ‘ . . . but unto those who are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, on every soul of man who doeth evil . . . . ' [Romans 2:8] Every person has to either obey the truth or obey impious inclinations.

The people, the lost had heard the truth but had become belligerent and wilfully disobeyed God's directives. The unsaved had determined their own fate by wilful rejection. The saved had surrendered to the Author of the Gospel and were wonderfully saved.

Dr. Berrian

 

[tyndale1946]

The Angel said he shall save his people from their sins... That is all he was going to save his people as the scripture state... Who are his people?... I don't know but I'm know his Father who gave them to him knows and brethren that is all I need to know!... Brother Glen

 

[Eric B]

One disagreement I have is that I believe God "wants" or "desires" in some sense all to believe, but none will unless enabled by God. This has to do with the different wills of God (see Piper ).

I just read this and here is one thing he says:

There are two possibilities as far as I can see. One is that there is a power in the universe greater than God's which is frustrating him by overruling what he wills. Neither Calvinist nor Arminian affirms this.

The other possibility is that God wills not to save all, even though he is willing to save all, because there is something else that he wills more, which would be lost if he exerted his sovereign power to save all. This is the solution that I as a Calvinist affirm along with Arminians. In other words both Calvinists and Arminians affirm two wills in God when they ponder deeply over 1 Timothy 2:4. Both can say that God wills for all to be saved. But then when queried why all are not saved both Calvinist and Arminian answer that God is committed to something even more valuable than saving all.

The difference between Calvinists and Arminians lies not in whether there are two wills in God, but in what they say this higher commitment is. What does God will more than saving all? The answer given by Arminians is that human self-determination and the possible resulting love relationship with God are more valuable than saving all people by sovereign, efficacious grace. The answer given by Calvinists is that the greater value is the manifestation of the full range of God's glory in wrath and mercy (Romans 9:22-23) and the humbling of man so that he enjoys giving all credit to God for his salvation (1 Corinthians 1:29).

It's not "human self determination" that is more important than saving all, but that is the way God chose to work with man. Whoever does not believe is condemned already because he has not believed on the name of the Son of God, not because he was decreed to be "passed over" from believing.
Piper also gives several examples of God's conflicting wills, but as I had said once before, these are earthly events that lead to a greater purpose. Reprobation or preterition are eternal events that have no "fulfillment" or greater purpose. He also mentioned Dabney's analogy of Washington executing someone as proof one can will someonels death and not willit and have compassion at the same time. But once agasin, Washington did not create and then "pass over" this person an opportunity to repent.

Piper's answer of what the overriding principle really is uses the old standby of Romans 9, which is not describing individual reprobation to eternal hell, but rather another example of an earthly event with a then future fulfillment. (How God actually gets "glory" from people being in Hell, as always is never explained. Is he suggesting that it is for us to witness all the people in Hell, so we could be more thankful for what we were saved from (i.e. His "mercy"?).
Someone else mentioned God's allowing people to be born knowing they would reject Him and be lost, saying this is the same dillemma. But as I have learned, this is correct in being a dilemma for non-Calvinsts, because they argue foreknowledge. This is where the line should be drawn by both sides as to it being above our knowledge. Yes, ultimately, "God is sovereign and man is responsible", but more implications are being added to this than the scripture justifies. Thomas Cassidy's statements were certainly right.

Once again, the assertion is made:

This is the problem with the non-grace view: it sees all people as equal, banging on the walls of the King's castle, begging and pleading for food, and a mean-spirited king coming out in the courtyard, and selecting certain ones of the innocent to feed, starving the rest. But that is not the biblical picture of God.

Instead, the King has prepared a feast, a banquet, and has invited all. But no one is in the courtyard. No one is on the road to the castle. All remain down in their hovels, uncaring about the king and his offer, and in fact hating him.

But then it's later stated:

Those He passes over in election, he rightly sends to hell. Who are you to judge what the Potter does with the clay?

But this is the problem I've been trying to point out. On one hand you're denying that the people are neutral, yet you keep citing this passage describing a "clay vessel", which had done neither good or evil being assigned for "wrath" or "mercy". That is precisely what this suggests!

Then of course, there is the usual mischaracterization of non-Calvinist belief:

1. Man controls the future.
2. Open-theism is the direction of their system.
3. They lack assurance anyone will be saved.
4. They need to use manipulative methods to trick, con, and deceive people into salvation (see 1-2-3 pray after me).
5. They know for certain man is sovereign and God is not able to accomplish anything. He can only offer it. [Another earlier said: "man's 'freedom' must trump God's sovereignty"].
6. They know everything revolves around man and his "freedom".
7. They believe that the entire Bible is true as long as it is understood that man has more freedom than God.
8. They hope Christ will be able to save people from their sin. It is really their choice anyway.
9. They don't know if any are out there will be saved.
10. They don't like where the truth leads

Nobody has said any of these things, but if one is not Calvinist, then that must be by default what he believes. (#4: there may be many like this, but certainly not every non-Calvinist, and on the flipside, don't forget the Calvinists who make the kind of statements that this thread was started on)

[ May 08, 2002, 08:39 PM: Message edited by: Eric B ]

 

[swaimj]

The argument on this thread deals with two issues. One is an issue of methodology and the other is an issue of theology.

The methodology of preaching the gospel as given to us in the NT includes these points:

We are commanded to go into all the world.

We are commanded to preach the gospel to all men.

We are to love all men.

We are to command all men everywhere to repent.

I believe this method is a reflection of Jesus' death and His love because he died for all men. However, I know that that statement is the source of theological debate as Calvinists believe that Christ died only for the elect. I think most calvinists recognize the tension between God providing salvation only for some and yet commanding us to preach to gospel to all. Most calvinists simply swallow the tension and are obedient to the command to preach to gospel to all. For that I am thankful. What bothers me, in this thread, is that some calvinists, rather than live with the tension, disobey the commands to preach to all and to love all and to command all to repent. Instead, they take their theology of Christ dying only for the elect and preach the gospel with an assumption that people cannot be saved. The opening post in this thread contains an illustration of such a misguided presentation. Preaching that way violates the pattern of preaching to the unsaved that the apostles practiced in the book of Acts. Indeed, there is no precedent for preaching in that way to an unsaved person in the NT.

Disagree on the extent of the atonement if you must, but all of us must follow the NT pattern and go to all, preach to gospel to all, love all, and command all to believe and repent, as the apostles did.

 

[pinoybaptist]

Originally posted by Helen:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by pinoybaptist:
[QB]
The gospel is good news to the elect and those with a regenerated heart. It is no news at all
to the non-elect and unregenerate.

Funny, that's not what the angel said.</font>[/QUOTE]What, Helen. Do you mean men as in individuals ?
Or, "all men", as in classes like Jew or Gentile ?
Did the Lord Jesus Christ breakdown the middle wall of partition between Jews and Gentile ? Or between each individual.

 

[Christopher]

And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins. (Matthew 1:21)

You either believe that or you don't. And no, the angel was not talking about the Jews because even an idiot could see that the Jews are still the same way they were 2,000 years ago, in unbelief. So, you either believe this verse is talking about those God chose in Christ before the foundation of the world or you believe Jesus was a really big failure in saving the Jews.

[ May 08, 2002, 10:22 PM: Message edited by: Christopher ]

 

[Siegfried]

Originally posted by swaimj:
Disagree on the extent of the atonement if you must, but all of us must follow the NT pattern and go to all, preach to gospel to all, love all, and command all to believe and repent, as the apostles did.

Good analysis, swaimj. Even though I disagree with you theologically, we can still preach the same message. God does command all men everywhere to repent, and so I can preach that to all men.

I don't have to tell people when I'm sharing the Gospel that unregenerate people do not have the capacity to respond apart from regeneration. If they don't respond, they are confirming that very fact by their own choice. If they do respond, then God gets the credit, not them or me.

 

[Christopher]

God also knew the Jews were unable to keep the law in every point, but He still commanded them to keep it did He not?