The route to Calvinism

[John of Japan]

John of Japan,

Nice threads, man!

I would ask this since you are "in the business" -- have you tried to reconcile some of these issues? The reason I ask is...

my next post.

skypair

Glad you like the duds! I bought them in Hong Kong and save them for kung fu conflict with hoity toity types.

Yes, I have tried to reconcile these issues. In keeping with the OP, hoping the Calvinist types do not consider this off topic, I began my studies of the issues 35 years ago in college with a Cal. roommate and two Cal. profs. My Presbyterian roommate could not answer my questions, but was a life saver during an extremely difficult time in my life. If it were not for him chances are I would not be in the ministry.

Also in college I met my best friend to this day (other than my wife), who must be a 5-pointer, given his love for the Puritans, John Gill, etc. I have never discussed the issue with him and will not. It is not worth destroying a precious friendship over. This man supports our ministry monetarily, recently sent evangelistic letters to every home in his home town, and just today we got about 3000 Japanese tracts he paid for and arranged to have sent over.

In the years intervening I have read over and over again and meditated on and consulted commentaries on every passage in question, read through systematic theologies (Strong, Finney, Hodge, Warfield, some of Gill, etc.) on each side, as well as other books on each side and a little bit of Calvin himself. I remain unconvinced that predestination and free will can be reconciled by human thinking.

I have done a grad school paper on the subject (on Rom. 10 and the necessity of the predestination of every action of believers for the possibility of unconditional election to exist), read articles in theological journals on it, occasionally reading the BB threads on the matter (finding little that is relevant to my thinking), and still agree with what Dr. Monroe "Monk" Parker (a brilliant Fundamentalist evangelist and scholar) told me back in the '70's: "I am willing to let God have some secrets." :type:

 

[Andy T.]

Guys,

Last night I was reading Phil 1:14-18 -- "So that my bonds in Christ are manifest in all the palace, and in all other places; 14 And many of the brethren in the Lord, waxing confident by my bonds, are much more bold to speak the word without fear. 15 Some indeed preach Christ even of envy and strife; and some also of good will: 16 The one preach Christ of contention, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my bonds: 17 But the other of love, knowing that I am set for the defence of the gospel. 18 What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice..."

First notice -- Paul rejoices upon the preaching of both sides!

Second, notice that Paul contrasts 2 teachings -- one of contention, envy, strife -- the other of goodwill, love.

Let's face it, Calvinism 1) does NOT teach the love of God for everyone and 2) is iconoclastic, rigid, immutable as it's image of God is and 3) has a lot of missing parts (most of Revelation, a pre-Christ gospel and salvation model, etc.)

So guys, "bark on!" I've just never found that Calvinism gives a good image of God's love, His wisdom, His ways.

skypair

First, the above is just your opinion. Second, every time you read in the N.T. about "bad" or disobedient Christians, do you automatically think about Calvinists? It sure seems that way. It's like you are the Pharisee looking down on the Publican - ever comparing yourself to us. You know, I know both sides in this debate are guilty of unseasoned speech and showing a lack of love for the brethern, but I daresay you show these qualities more than anyone here. And that too, is just my opinion.

 

[Allan]

I haven't heard, or rather read, of anyone here beleiving non christians go to heaven. Please give a link so we can read that and know who said that.

Read posts #125 and #126 IN THIS THREAD or you can look up the thread "Can you be saved and not know it", for starters.

 

[Christlifter]

I don't know what I am!

I have read many of the Old Baptists of every stripe.

I find myself vacilating somewhere between an:

Eternally Secure (OSAS) Lordship Arminian

to

Sublapsarian, "Faith-Simeltanious - Regeneration" 4 Point Amyraldnist.

I would enjoy input regarding this balancing act!

:jesus: is what matters! :laugh:

 

[pinoybaptist]

re: john's post.
like i said: theology is earthbound, that is, it belongs to man, not God. it is the feeble attempt of a finite mind to interpret the mind of an infinite God.
I adhere to the Doctrine of Grace, and how I view the Doctrine is different from that of Calvinists.
Nevertheless, Calvinist, Arminian, opposition, fence sitter, whatever one's position is the final word belongs to God.
If you are His, then you are His, and there's no two ways about it.
One can have all the angels of heaven rooting for him, if one is not God's own, all the angels in heaven can do nothing about it.
Whether you love the Doctrine of Grace, or hate it, or are indifferent to it, has nothing at all to do with your eternal standing with God.

The blood, the blood, nothing but the blood of Jesus.

 

[John of Japan]

Sublapsarian, "Faith-Simeltanious - Regeneration" 4 Point Amyraldnist.

I'm not even sure I can say this much less give input on it! :laugh:

 

[Jarthur001]

I'm not going to derail this thread to suit your propaganda. You are the only one I know here who would try to debate a personal testimony
I've played your game before. Your ego wins out all the time regardless what is presented to you, including Romans 9 and Ephesians 1.

I really do not see why it's important what theologians believed either before or after 1900. You seem to be obsessed by this fact.

In other words.....still no proof.

Thanks.

 

[webdog]

Whatever you say...

 

[J.D.]

Well said, Charles. :thumbs:

If I may provide another quote, I believe it was H. A. Ironside who said something like, "When you look at the gate from the outside it says, 'Whosoever will.' When you pass through and look back, it says, 'Elect in Him from before the foundation of the world!'"

Just wondering why we have to wait till we "look at the gate from the inside". Why can't we just open our Bibles now and read "Elect in Him from before the foundation of the world!"?

 

[John of Japan]

Just wondering why we have to wait till we "look at the gate from the inside". Why can't we just open our Bibles now and read "Elect in Him from before the foundation of the world!"?

Hi, J. D.

Think about this. Did you think about election before you got saved and at the time you got saved? Do you know anyone who did? I certainly didn't and I don't teach the doctrine to the unsaved or to new believers. :type:

 

[Rippon]

JOJ , as believers we should sometimes dwell on our election and calling . JD was right in that we do not have to wait until inside the gate . And you are right in that most of us did not think of election before or at the time of our conversion . It's not one of the primary things I would bring up with the unsaved . But , since it is so prominent in the Bible maybe that has to change . Speaking of election with an unsaved one may not be such a bad idea after all . We don't avoid speaking of Hell just because it doesn't go down so well with nonbelievers do we ? Election is actually a comforting doctrine . God is in control , He appointed the means necessary to accomplish our redemption .

Monroe Parker's remark was really a takeoff on Deut. 29:29 . I agree , of course , that the secret things belong to the Lord . However , the doctrine of election is a revealed doctrine . The Scripture doesn't explain the teaching in a comprehensive way , but enough truth that a person would be perverting Scripture in either ignoring or altering it . I think 2 Peter 3:16 was probably referring to election ( as well as some other truths ) as " things hard to understand " that Peter was mentioning about Paul's writings .

 

[johnp.]

AC 20:26 Therefore, I declare to you today that I am innocent of the blood of all men. 27 For I have not hesitated to proclaim to you the whole will of God.

john.

 

[John of Japan]

JOJ , as believers we should sometimes dwell on our election and calling . JD was right in that we do not have to wait until inside the gate . And you are right in that most of us did not think of election before or at the time of our conversion . It's not one of the primary things I would bring up with the unsaved . But , since it is so prominent in the Bible maybe that has to change . Speaking of election with an unsaved one may not be such a bad idea after all . We don't avoid speaking of Hell just because it doesn't go down so well with nonbelievers do we ? Election is actually a comforting doctrine . God is in control , He appointed the means necessary to accomplish our redemption .

Monroe Parker's remark was really a takeoff on Deut. 29:29 . I agree , of course , that the secret things belong to the Lord . However , the doctrine of election is a revealed doctrine . The Scripture doesn't explain the teaching in a comprehensive way , but enough truth that a person would be perverting Scripture in either ignoring or altering it . I think 2 Peter 3:16 was probably referring to election ( as well as some other truths ) as " things hard to understand " that Peter was mentioning about Paul's writings .

Rippon, I would classify the doctrine of election (no matter what one believes about it) as meat and not milk. New Christians (with very rare exceptions) are not at all ready for meat like that. They should be given milk since they are babies (Heb. 5, 1 Peter 2:2).

As you have perhaps rightly noted, this may have been what Peter was thinking about in 2 Peter 3:16. If Peter had a hard time with it, imagine what a hard time the average lost person would do with it. There is no way in the world I would discuss election with an unsaved person or with a new Christian unless they were a very exceptional person.

But this is getting away from the OP, so I'll give it a rest--and take a rest myself since it is getting late here in Japan.

 

[Rippon]

I don't know that Peter had a difficult time with some of the doctrines that Paul developed in his epistles . ( BTW , Paul's Gospel was also Peter's . )Unfortunately even among believers of some decades in the faith -- the doctrine of election is not a comfort to them . The doctrine is usually ignored or distorted . Many make it seem to be a call to service -- just a temporization -- nothing to do with eternity . A. Nettleton in the "awakenings " associated with his ministry preached on the doctrine(s) of grace , including the teaching of biblical election with great POWER . ( I didn't intend to embolden "power" , but I'll leave it that way .) . He said it ( in a manner of words ) concentrated the mind most forcibly . It is a sobering truth . Perhaps newbies need this more than you think . John P. was saying that Paul preached the whole counsel of the Word of God -- we should not neglect the doctrine of election . We are not wiser than God . Are we afraid that that teaching will scare someone away from being saved ? All Scripture is useful to teach us what is true . The doctrine of election is no exception . People can be saved under preaching that would be counter-intuitive to many these days . Spurgeon sermonized on Total Inability . I doubt that message put a hindrance in the way of their salvation . Pink spoke on Thankfulness and at least one in the congregation came to a saving union with the Lord .

 

[skypair]

I have done a grad school paper on the subject (on Rom. 10 and the necessity of the predestination of every action of believers for the possibility of unconditional election to exist), read articles in theological journals on it, occasionally reading the BB threads on the matter (finding little that is relevant to my thinking), and still agree with what Dr. Monroe "Monk" Parker (a brilliant Fundamentalist evangelist and scholar) told me back in the '70's: "I am willing to let God have some secrets." :type:

Sounds like a great attitude to me now that I understand it. And you are right -- friends don't talk about things they disagree about (unless it's really fatal). I enjoy coming here TO learn and share -- try to get scripture organized in my little mind -- so that "That Christ may dwell in [my] hearts by faith; that, being rooted and grounded in love, 18 May be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height; 19 And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that might be filled with all the fulness of God." Eph 3:17-20

And to me, there is grace in all of this.

skypair

 

[skypair]

First, the above is just your opinion. Second, every time you read in the N.T. about "bad" or disobedient Christians, do you automatically think about Calvinists? It sure seems that way. It's like you are the Pharisee looking down on the Publican - ever comparing yourself to us. You know, I know both sides in this debate are guilty of unseasoned speech and showing a lack of love for the brethern, but I daresay you show these qualities more than anyone here. And that too, is just my opinion.

Andy -- I suppose you would switch the assertions around then -- have the Cavlinists preaching a loving God of gooewill and have the free will preaching the God of contention, envy, etc.

Well, that's fair if it's true. I don't know who Paul had in mind but I felt impressed that things hadn't changed much from then to now within the body of Christ. I would only ask, "Who do YOU perceive to be moving toward reconciliation in these debates? Who do you see as admitting with you that faith is 'given' by God and that sovereignty might be more total than perhaps other free willers think? Who is it here examining sin nature and soul and spirit in an effort to try to bring a more complete knowledge of salvation than either side has offered since day one?"

Am I preaching the God of love to you? Or are you preaching the God of intransigent and divisive love to me?

skypair

 

[skypair]

rippon,

Election is actually a comforting doctrine . God is in control , He appointed the means necessary to accomplish our redemption .

Well it CERTAINLY is "comforting" if you don't want responsibility for the things you do or don't do! but I'd say it's a false comfort, wouldn't you?

I know -- God's not "responsible" for the bad things you do, right? Even assuming that were right (say, according to "permissive will"), it let's you off the hook for lots you might should be doing but that God hasn't "stuck your nose into" yet. Or things you do as a Christian that you don't see God chastising you for, eh?

skypair

 

[skypair]

I don't know that Peter had a difficult time with some of the doctrines that Paul developed in his epistles . ( BTW , Paul's Gospel was also Peter's . )Unfortunately even among believers of some decades in the faith -- the doctrine of election is not a comfort to them .

How would you say that the doctrine of election is a "comfort?" On account of "Perserverance of the saints?" I don't even get how "election" is a comfort to anyone except those who are ministers -- whose jobs depend on their "perserverance"/works. Maybe you could enlighten me.

The doctrine is usually ignored or distorted . Many make it seem to be a call to service -- just a temporization -- nothing to do with eternity .

Actually, rippon -- this is at least one of the uses of the term election. Election is our purpose in God's plan as He has prepared it and us.

He said it ( in a manner of words ) concentrated the mind most forcibly . It is a sobering truth . Perhaps newbies need this more than you think .

Nah. Election can only inform someone that God has a program. It can't tell someone what part they are of it. Therefore, the "power" of it would be either YOU'RE IN or YOU'RE OUT.

Great! So how do we find out which?? Only by repenting and receiving the gospel of Christ!

skypair

 

[Rippon]

Just when you were giving the impression on some earlier posts that you have become lovey-dovey -- you spoil it all again SP .

Yes, election is a comforting doctrine . It's not a false comfort . But it's nothing new for you to twist things again in a most disgraceful manner . Why have you taken apparent offense at my words that election is a comforting doctrine ? I have placed my faith and trust in the finished work of Christ . I recline on the pillow of Christ's love expressed in my eternal election . It is not a doctrine in which I can freely revel in sin . Or , as C.H.S. said : " The Doctrines Of Grace Do not Lead To Sin " .

I like these verses on the general subject to start off with : Romans 8:28 : And we know that God causes everything to work together for the good of those who love God and are called according to his purpose for them .
Ephesians 1:4 : Even before he made the world , God loved us and chose us in Christ to be holy and without fault in his eyes .
2 Thessalonians 2:13c : ... a salvation that came through the Spirit who makes you holy and through your belief in the truth .

 

[skypair]

Why have you taken apparent offense at my words that election is a comforting doctrine ? I have placed my faith and trust in the finished work of Christ.

If your testimony is true, then you are not counting on "holding the winning lottery ticket" to heaven ("election") but on faith in Christ. Believe me -- holding a lottery ticket is NOT comforting because you can't find out if you won till the contest is over!

That is my problem with all talk of "election" to salvation -- how could one KNOW that one is "elect" except by the means of free and sincere personal choice? Everything else (proofs) in 1John can be pretty much faked. The Pharisees did a marvelous job of doing just that!

skypair