Tozer- Calvinism tends to be more stable than Arminianism

[Luke2427]

Think that you MUST differiate to some degree your broad blanket statements though!

Difference between say heretics like a kenneth Copelin/hagin in Charasmatic circles from say DRs Wayne Grudem and Gorden Fee!

Think that Evangelical Arms are well versed in tjheir Theology, even though i think wrong in some major areas

Think ANY believers that has faith in jesus, read/studies/applies the Bible, and is praying and tithing and exercising their Gifts for Lord can and will get used by God!

No one is talking about who can and can't be used by God.

You have to be more specific if you are going to make a worthwhile point.

We are talking FAR MORE SPECIFICALLY than that.

We are talking about the connection between a type of backwoodsy mentality founded upon a very poor level of theological training and the rise of "non-cal" or Arminianistic beliefs in this culture.

One may argue well that this is non-seqitur. I will not deny it. I agree that this may indeed be hard to reason DEductively. But inductive reasoning is useful too. And just because a logical falacy may be used and the evidence does not NECESSARILY follow- it does not mean that it does NOT follow either.

Example: a man stands with a bloody knife over a freshly killed body. The evidence SEEMS to point to his guilt. But it is a logical fallacy to say that a bloody knife in the hand over a freshly killed body always follows the man holding the knife having killed that body.

But it IS powerful evidence to the POSSIBILITY. Enough of that type of inductive reasoning will lead a jury to convict the man of murder.

 

[Luke2427]

Tozer did indeed seem to deny the Reformed doctrine of soteriology, because in his book "The Pursuit of God" he affirms the doctrine of "prevenient grace," which is basically an acknowledgement of God having sought the man before the man can seek God, but it still denies that the ultimate choice is in God's hands.

After doing some searching, I can't seem to find any Calvinistic or Reformed sites that Claim him as such.. in fact, most claim him to be Arminian but having good work of literature. There is one or two blogs that seem to claim him but I can't find anything more than that.

And as far as I can remember he did not hold to irresistible grace either, but will need to check some more

Thanks Allen.

This is accurate and helpful.

 

[Luke2427]

To the OP: Are we not better off discussing theology rather than taking swipes at the intellect and education of those with whom we disagree? It is a tactic, and I think you know it. If we discredit those who hold a view we discredit the view (it is also a rhetorical fallacy called appeal to authority).

It is not the fallacy of "appealing to authority."

It is ad homenim which you refer to ( I am saying that the rise of ignorance and Arminianism are related)- and I do not deny nor do I confirm that the OP utilizes that fallacy.

But even if "appeal to authority" was used this does not mean that the OP is wrong.

We DO appeal to theologians for support. Every time we refer to ANYONE for support of our views it is an appeal to authority.

The fallacies do not mean that an argument that utilizes them is not useful- it means that it is not NECESSARILY true.

That is what the OP is. I believe that it is true- but because it is inductive rather than deductive- it is not NECESSARILY true.

That's why we are discussing it.

No, there are some great minds who count themselves as among the non-Calvinists. I have learned much from men like C.S. Lewis and even Clark Pinnock, to name just two. And I know plenty of knuckle-headed Calvinists.

Clark Pinnock was an Open Theist who was at the very LEAST HETEROdox.

And that is all beside the point. A view rises or falls on its merit, not on its adherents. Truth is truth because it is true, not because smart people believe it or because dumb ones reject it. This is an offensive post.

I answered this above.

 

[Luke2427]

I think Tozer was a non-Calvinist, but was not an Arminian either. He and I share in our understanding of the Bible, which is to say I happen to hold his published views in many areas.

Here is some of what he said: Here is my view: God sovereignly decreed that man should be free to exercise moral choice, and man from the beginning has fulfilled that decree by making his choice between good and evil. When he chooses to do evil, he does not countervail the sovereign will of God but fulfills it, inasmuch as the eternal decree decided not which choice the man should make but that he should be free to make it. If in His absolute freedom God has willed to give man limited freedom, who is there to stay His hand or say, ‘What dost thou?’ Man’s will is free because God is sovereign. A God less than sovereign could not bestow moral freedom upon his creatures. He would be afraid to do so.

That is Arminianism- plain and simple. Any educated Arminian will tell you the same. Ask Skandelon. He will tell you that there is NOTHING in that quote to indicate that Tozer was not an Arminian.

You are thinking of Pelagianism which, thank God, Tozer was not a part of.

We both believe God can be soveriegn and grant autonomous choice to His creation, something Calvinists deny. Calvinists say that because of man's total spiritual inability they cannot choose life unless altered and then they can only choose life is the Calvinist mistaken view.

On the other hand, Tozer believed once God saved a person, He keeps them such that they are saved forever, and thus God limits further the "limited free will" of the saved such that they cannot will to turn from their faith and devotion to Christ.

There is nothing that Jacobus Arminius himself would deny in the above words. Ask Skandelon- he will tell you.

So "non-Cal" is the correct label or so it seems to me.

It is a meaningless and pointless label.

NON-ANYTHING is a pointless label. It does not tell us ONE SINGLE THING about what a person is. It only tells us what he is not.

Muslims are NON-CAL.
Satan worshipers are NON-CAL.

For a label to be worth anything it ought to tell us what someone IS- not just what they are NOT.

The reason so many people tout the title NON-CAL is because they are not anything theologically. They have no systematic theology. Do you deny it? Tell me then- what do you call your theology? Who systematized it?

If you want to argue, as Allan did a while back that having no systematic theology is something to be proud of- fine.

But just admit that you do not have one and this is why you cannot call yourself ANYTHING theologically in the affirmative- you have to label yourself ONLY by what you ARE NOT- because systematically theologically you are nothing.

What you guys need to do is systematize this new hodge podge of doctrines that you eclectically put together from Calvinism and Arminianism etc to suit you- and then call it something.

Until you do you are stuck with a label that does not tell us a single thing that you are- it only says what you are not- which puts you in the same boat with every atheist and Muslim and everyone else who is not Reformed in the whole world.

 

[Luke2427]

Luke, we’ve had this discussion before, but again, you "really" need to learn the difference between arguing and making a philosophical argument which uses valid principles to draw out the truth. I can only assume that either you do not understand what the above quote is explainig to you or don’t really care to get to the truth and just want to continue to argue your position in unproductive ways. This is Phi 101 stuff, basic logical principles; do yourself and us a favor and take a class and develop some critical thinking skills.

I address this in another post (41 and one earlier- I don't recall which). Feel free to read it and see where you are missing it on this point.

 

[convicted1]

Tozer-
"To square the records, however, it should be said that if the Calvinist does not rise as high [phlegmatically], he usually stays up longer. He places more emphasis on the Holy Scriptures which never change, while his opposite number (as the newspapers say) tends to judge his spiritual condition by the state of his feelings, which change constantly. This may be the reason that so many Calvinistic churches remain orthodox for centuries, at least in doctrine, while many churches of the Arminian persuasion often go liberal in one generation."

Do you agree with Tozer?

Do Calvinists seem to be more stable emotionally than "non-cals"?

Their denominations have certainly tended to withstand the onslaught of liberalism and heterodoxy a great deal better than "non-cals".

Emotionalism is often related to the fall of theology.

Pentecostals are BY AND LARGE Arminian (perhaps 99.9999999 percent?) and they tend to be VERY unstable emotionally and less able to defend their doctrines, don't they?

Calvinists tend to be more educated too, don't they?

It would be hard to prove this statistically I suppose, but it has been my experience everywhere I have been.

Presbyterian denominations tend to be VERY demanding educationally of their ministers, for example.

IFB churches and non-reformed Baptist churches do not. And often those folks who are members in those churches are not very educated- at least this has been what I have observed.

I come from the Free Will Baptist movement and it is THOROUGHLY Arminian and it doesn't even HAVE a real seminary in the entire DENOMINATION! (some count Hillsdale but most Free Wills I know would not).

The main Presbyterian church in town, it has been my experience, tends to be the home church of the more educated folks.

Arminianism has seemed to appeal throughout history to the more sensational, emotional masses. It was spread across our land by, what I would consider to be, very shallow emotional tent revivals and camp meetings.

Doesn't it seem to be the case that the more educated one is the less he experiences often reoccurring fits of emotional highs and emotional lows?

Doesn't it seem that the more poor or uneducated or "backwoodsy" a person is the more they tend to be VERY emotional?

Could it be that as our culture dipped a hundred + years ago into low education and heavy emotionalism that THAT is related to the rise of Arminianism in our religious culture?

Could that rise of Arminianism be related to the liberalism that has overtook our culture at the same time?

Tozer, an Arminian, noted that Arminianism tends to liberalism and Calvinism tends to stand many generations before falling into liberalism.

I think they are related.

I think the surge of Calvinism in the SBC and her return to the Fundamentals of the Faith are related as well.

I do not know about the others mentioned in the OP, but as for the FWBs, I tend to agree with all the "emotionalism" they exhibit. I love them to pieces, and have even preached at one of their churches, but they tend to go off the deep end on occasion. They have "revivals" at the drop of a hat, and they preach that Jesus is an anchor of the soul, both sure and stedfast. Then in the same sermon, preach that you can just walk away from God, and make shipwreck your faith. This kind of preaching has always puzzled me.

Now, as for the ORBs, yes, we do not require, nor do we evn try to persuade our preachers, to go to a bible college/seminary. Does that make us "emotional"? Well, if you call hearing the Sisters{and Brothers for that matter} shouting, raising their hands, praising our King with the old hymns of Zion, hearing us shout as someone comes to the stand to tell us what God did for them when He saved their soul, then I guess we are pretty emotional. If I read the Word, and never got emotional sometimes, I'd really be worried about myself. I know we aren't saved by our emotions, but when I read of what Jesus did for me, how can I not cry?? He paid a debt He did not owe, because I owed a debt I could not pay. If He had not died for me, I would have been destined to hell, with no chance whatsoever. Now, that is something to get emotional about!! :thumbs::thumbs::thumbs::thumbsup:

i am I AM's!!

Willis

 

[Luke2427]

I do not know about the others mentioned in the OP, but as for the FWBs, I tend to agree with all the "emotionalism" they exhibit. I love them to pieces, and have even preached at one of their churches, but they tend to go off the deep end on occasion. They have "revivals" at the drop of a hat, and they preach that Jesus is an anchor of the soul, both sure and stedfast. Then in the same sermon, preach that you can just walk away from God, and make shipwreck your faith. This kind of preaching has always puzzled me.

Now, as for the ORBs, yes, we do not require, nor do we evn try to persuade our preachers, to go to a bible college/seminary. Does that make us "emotional"? Well, if you call hearing the Sisters{and Brothers for that matter} shouting, raising their hands, praising our King with the old hymns of Zion, hearing us shout as someone comes to the stand to tell us what God did for them when He saved their soul, then I guess we are pretty emotional. If I read the Word, and never got emotional sometimes, I'd really be worried about myself. I know we aren't saved by our emotions, but when I read of what Jesus did for me, how can I not cry?? He paid a debt He did not owe, because I owed a debt I could not pay. If He had not died for me, I would have been destined to hell, with no chance whatsoever. Now, that is something to get emotional about!! :thumbs::thumbs::thumbs::thumbsup:

i am I AM's!!

Willis

I think you missed Tozer's point. His point was not that Calvinists are not emotional at all.

No one has ever believed that Calvinists do not weep over the blood of Christ shed for their sins- not just to make a WAY for them to be cleansed but to actually cleanse them!

Calvinists, BTW, are the only ones who can really believe in a substitutionary atonement.

Skandelon knows this.

So when we weep over Calvary, we are not weeping that Jesus MADE A WAY for us to be saved by his blood, but that he is there on the cross ATONING for our sins. When we see him dying we do not see him opening a door but we see him bringing us in- BIG DIFFERENCE!

Tozer's point is that Calvinists tend to not be as wild.

I think this is true.

It was not that Calvinists do not ever shout or weep or whatever.

But that their emotions are more tempered.

 

[Siberian]

It is not the fallacy of "appealing to authority."

It is ad homenim which you refer to ( I am saying that the rise of ignorance and Arminianism are related)- and I do not deny nor do I confirm that the OP utilizes that fallacy.

But even if "appeal to authority" was used this does not mean that the OP is wrong.

You actually employ both fallacies. You call out Arminians for being emotional and unintelligent (ad homenim) and thereby imply that the Arminian view is incorrect. AND you tip your hat to the Calvinist view because holders of that view are smart (appeal to authority). Doubly-fallacious you are (read this sentence with your best Yoda voice).

We DO appeal to theologians for support. Every time we refer to ANYONE for support of our views it is an appeal to authority.

The fallacies do not mean that an argument that utilizes them is not useful- it means that it is not NECESSARILY true.

There are better and worse ways to argue from authority; yours is the latter (sweeping, condescending and based completely on anecdotal, subjective evidence). There is no reason to think that historic Aminianism is in anyway connected with general ignorance or uneducated, emotional clergy or anything of the sort. And I say that as a convinced Calvinist.

Clark Pinnock was an Open Theist who was at the very LEAST HETEROdox.

Of course, Clark Pinnock ended up as an Open Theist, and theologically he was a moving target all of his career. But he was brilliant, and that was my point. And besides, by now I am sure he has moved from his hyper-aminian viewpoint.

 

[Skandelon]

Calvinists, BTW, are the only ones who can really believe in a substitutionary atonement.

Skandelon knows this.

Actually, I'll quote you from a previous post what I "know."

"Isaiah 53:4-5, "Surely our griefs He Himself bore, and our sorrows He carried; yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. 5 But He was pierced through for our transgressions. He was crushed for our iniquities. The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him and by His scourging we are healed."

We see in the above verses in Isaiah that Jesus was prophesied to bear our sorrows, to be smitten of God (which is what is due us, the sinners), and that our chastening fell upon him. Can it be any clearer? What was due to us, because of our sinfulness, is what fell upon Christ. He was our substitution.

2 Cor. 5:21, "He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him."
Rom. 4:25, "He who was delivered up because of our transgressions, and was raised because of our justification."

Clearly, Jesus was a substitution in that he was made sin on our behalf. This is why the Bible says he became sin on our behalf, that he was delivered because of our transgressions, that he bore our griefs, carried our sorrows, was pierced for our transgressions, and was crushed for our iniquities.

Jesus did what we could not. He took our place and bore our sins in his body on the cross (1 Pet. 2:24) and made propitiation for our sins.

Rom. 3:25, "whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed."

1 John 2:2, "and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world."

1 John 4:10, "In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins."
The word propitiation "properly signifies the removal of wrath by the offering of a gift."

Propitiation properly deals with the wrath of God. The wrath of God is due to the legal requirements of punishing the sinner. Remember, the sinner is someone who has broken the law of God; hence, the legality of punishment, and since Jesus is our propitiation and turns away the lawful wrath of God, we have further evidence that Christ's sacrifice was to avert God's righteous wrath against us, the sinners. Since the law of God must be met and cannot be ignored, it is proper that the law be fulfilled. Jesus is the one who fulfilled the law and never sinned (1 Pet. 2:22). But, he bore our sins in his body on the cross (1 Pet. 2:24) and became sin on our behalf (2 Cor. 5:21) thereby suffering the penalty of sin, which is death."

"I will affirm that atonement is provisional “in Christ”. In other words, Christ’s death made provision for all sin, yet only those who come to be in union with Christ partake of that provision. I believe this view is supported by numerous Scriptures. Below are a few of them:

“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us [believers] with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ.” Eph. 1:3

All spiritual blessings are found in Christ. I think this must include (if not be founded on) the benefits of the atonement. We find further evidence of this in Ephesians 1:7:

“In Him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace…”

I think this passage confirms that the benefits of the atonement are provisional “in Christ”.

Look at Colossians 1:13 and 14:

“For He rescued us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.”

Again we see that the benefits of the atonement are provisional in the “beloved Son”.

So how does one come to be in union with Christ and therefore benefit from the redemption and forgiveness provided in Him?

“In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation- having believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise.” Eph. 1:13

We come to be in union with Christ through faith."

 

[Luke2427]

Actually, I'll quote you from a previous post what I "know."

"Isaiah 53:4-5, "Surely our griefs He Himself bore, and our sorrows He carried; yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. 5 But He was pierced through for our transgressions. He was crushed for our iniquities. The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him and by His scourging we are healed."

We see in the above verses in Isaiah that Jesus was prophesied to bear our sorrows, to be smitten of God (which is what is due us, the sinners), and that our chastening fell upon him. Can it be any clearer? What was due to us, because of our sinfulness, is what fell upon Christ. He was our substitution.

2 Cor. 5:21, "He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him."
Rom. 4:25, "He who was delivered up because of our transgressions, and was raised because of our justification."

Clearly, Jesus was a substitution in that he was made sin on our behalf. This is why the Bible says he became sin on our behalf, that he was delivered because of our transgressions, that he bore our griefs, carried our sorrows, was pierced for our transgressions, and was crushed for our iniquities.

Jesus did what we could not. He took our place and bore our sins in his body on the cross (1 Pet. 2:24) and made propitiation for our sins.

Rom. 3:25, "whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed."

1 John 2:2, "and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world."

1 John 4:10, "In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins."
The word propitiation "properly signifies the removal of wrath by the offering of a gift."

Propitiation properly deals with the wrath of God. The wrath of God is due to the legal requirements of punishing the sinner. Remember, the sinner is someone who has broken the law of God; hence, the legality of punishment, and since Jesus is our propitiation and turns away the lawful wrath of God, we have further evidence that Christ's sacrifice was to avert God's righteous wrath against us, the sinners. Since the law of God must be met and cannot be ignored, it is proper that the law be fulfilled. Jesus is the one who fulfilled the law and never sinned (1 Pet. 2:22). But, he bore our sins in his body on the cross (1 Pet. 2:24) and became sin on our behalf (2 Cor. 5:21) thereby suffering the penalty of sin, which is death."

"I will affirm that atonement is provisional “in Christ”. In other words, Christ’s death made provision for all sin, yet only those who come to be in union with Christ partake of that provision. I believe this view is supported by numerous Scriptures. Below are a few of them:

“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us [believers] with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ.” Eph. 1:3

All spiritual blessings are found in Christ. I think this must include (if not be founded on) the benefits of the atonement. We find further evidence of this in Ephesians 1:7:

“In Him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace…”

I think this passage confirms that the benefits of the atonement are provisional “in Christ”.

Look at Colossians 1:13 and 14:

“For He rescued us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.”

Again we see that the benefits of the atonement are provisional in the “beloved Son”.

So how does one come to be in union with Christ and therefore benefit from the redemption and forgiveness provided in Him?

“In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation- having believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise.” Eph. 1:13

We come to be in union with Christ through faith."

Great.

So you believe that Jesus paid for the sins of every man upon the cross, right?

You believe that he suffered the wrath of God in full for every sinner who has ever or will ever live- right?

You believe that Jesus was not just making a WAY for all men to be atoned but that he was ACTUALLY atoning all the sins of all the world, right?

 

[Luke2427]

You actually employ both fallacies. You call out Arminians for being emotional and unintelligent (ad homenim) and thereby imply that the Arminian view is incorrect. AND you tip your hat to the Calvinist view because holders of that view are smart (appeal to authority). Doubly-fallacious you are (read this sentence with your best Yoda voice).

As I said, I do not deny nor do I confirm that the arguments made are not without error.

I am not saying it is CERTAIN- I am saying- here is the evidence for my proposition.

Logical fallacies only apply when the conclusion is said to be certain.

We can inductively reason utilizing logical fallacies.

That is what a prosecuting attorney does. Evidence that may not NECESSARILY follow- but enough of it applied INductively is sufficient.

I think that is what we have.

There are better and worse ways to argue from authority; yours is the latter (sweeping, condescending and based completely on anecdotal, subjective evidence). There is no reason to think that historic Aminianism is in anyway connected with general ignorance or uneducated, emotional clergy or anything of the sort. And I say that as a convinced Calvinist.

Yes there is- I provided it in the OP.

The rise of Arminianism and liberalism and backwoodsy Christianity (as opposed to that which once came from the pulpits of Harvard and Princeton and Brown, etc... educated pastors) coincides with the decline of Calvinism.

That is not proof POSITIVE- but it is certainly acceptable evidence.

PERHAPS it is not sufficient- but it is evidence nonetheless.

Of course, Clark Pinnock ended up as an Open Theist, and theologically he was a moving target all of his career. But he was brilliant, and that was my point. And besides, by now I am sure he has moved from his hyper-aminian viewpoint.

Yea, well I wouldn't have quoted him as an authority- which BTW is the logical fallacy of Appeal to Authority.

Be consistent dear brother!

 

[JesusFan]

He was no Calvinist, Bro. Jim.

And you either believe man is totally depraved or not. If not you automatically take up the more Arminian view point.

Depends on how one defines that term though!
My take is that ALL of us are spiritually dead by being born with sin natures, and depraived in sense CANNOT come to jesus and exercise saving faith UNLESS God sends to one "irrestible Grace"

You either believe in unconditional election or conditional election. There really is no middle ground there.

its basis of the Election
Mine is based upon the Divine Will of God

You either believe in Limited Atonement or Unlimited Atonement.
There is no middle ground there.

believ that jesus paid the price for ALL, but ONLY those elcted by god directly benefit from it

You either believe grace is irresistable or it is resistable- no middle ground there.

Those whom God decided to elect unto salvation WILL get saved

You either believe all saints will persever or you believe some will not- no middle ground there.

depends if one holds to God preserving us or not!

Some say preserve/others perserving , mine is thast ALL saints get to Heaven by saving power of God, and the sealing by/of HS guarentees that to us!


Many who do not like to call themselves Arminian are BEST described that way.

We have Cals/Arms/others here

And I am the resident Amyraldist on BB!

 

[Skandelon]

Great.

So you believe that Jesus paid for the sins of every man upon the cross, right?

You believe that he suffered the wrath of God in full for every sinner who has ever or will ever live- right?

You believe that Jesus was not just making a WAY for all men to be atoned but that he was ACTUALLY atoning all the sins of all the world, right?

Did you read my post, Luke? I quote, "I will affirm that atonement is provisional “in Christ”. In other words, Christ’s death made provision for all sin, yet only those who come to be in union with Christ partake of that provision. I believe this view is supported by numerous Scriptures." (those were quoted in that post)

 

[Luke2427]

Did you read my post, Luke? I quote, "I will affirm that atonement is provisional “in Christ”. In other words, Christ’s death made provision for all sin, yet only those who come to be in union with Christ partake of that provision. I believe this view is supported by numerous Scriptures." (those were quoted in that post)

Yes, I did read your post and I think exegetical investigation of those passages is worthwhile in another thread.

I would like you to explain how Jesus COVERED every sin that has ever been committed by any person in history and in the entirety of the future of humanity and how Jesus suffered the wrath of God in their place YET MOST of them will STILL suffer the wrath of God forever BECAUSE OF THEIR SINS.

Let's clarify WHAT you believe and then we can deal with the support you feel you have for your belief.

We must establish claim first THEN warrant.

And please answer this now, too.
Did God in eternity past PURPOSE the unbelief of those who you say he purposed to go to hell (be His purposing done ever so sadly)?

 

[Skandelon]

I would like you to explain how Jesus COVERED every sin that has ever been committed by any person in history and in the entirety of the future of humanity and how Jesus suffered the wrath of God in their place YET MOST of them will STILL suffer the wrath of God forever BECAUSE OF THEIR SINS.

Because they aren't suffering for the sins (breaking of the law). They are suffering for their rejection of the truth (unbelief.)

John 3:18 says "Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.

Heb 3:19:"So we see that they were not able to enter, because of their unbelief!"

2 Thess 2:10: "and in every sort of evil that deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved."

ILLUSTRATION: You and I commit a crime and we both owe a fine we cannot afford to pay, so the judge is rightly going to send us to prison. The judge's son gracious pays our fines in full. The judge makes a provision: Luke and Skand, my son has paid your fine in full, so if you admit your crime and thank my son you may go. You choose to do so but in stubborn rebellion I refuse. You go free and I go to prison. Did I go to prison because of the crime and my fine? Not really. Of course I wouldn't have been there in the first place if not for my crime, but the ultimate reason I go to prison and you don't is because I refused to meet the provision of the judge by admitting my crime and thanking his son. Do you understand? I'm not asking if you agree. I just want you to affirm that you really understand the concept of substitutionary and provisional atonement.

And please answer this now, too.
Did God in eternity past PURPOSE the unbelief of those who you say he purposed to go to hell (be His purposing done ever so sadly)?

Luke, it's the same answer as the other questions you have asked. Yes, God has PERMITTED for a PURPOSE the unbelief of those He has PERMITTED for a PURPOSE to go to hell, though he doesn't take PLEASURE in it. Make sense?

 

[Luke2427]

Because they aren't suffering for the sins (breaking of the law). They are suffering for their rejection of the truth (unbelief.)

Isn't unbelief a sin? Isn't a failure to believe God the ROOT of all sin?

Did not the first human sin begin with DOUBT?

Sure it did. And every sin since.

So did Christ die for all sin but the sin of unbelief?

Luke, it's the same answer as the other questions you have asked. Yes, God has PERMITTED for a PURPOSE the unbelief of those He has PERMITTED for a PURPOSE to go to hell, though he doesn't take PLEASURE in it. Make sense?

You see, we could move on if you wouldn't change the words up and make your response vague.

When you say "God permitted for a purpose" that is not the same as saying "God PURPOSED."

If you would just say, "Yes, God purposed that many billions would not believe and he purposed to send them to hell forever for their unbelief," we could move forward.

I understand that he perrmitted what he purposed. But you sem to be twisting the order of it.

The permitting occured in TIME. The Purposing occured before there was anything to permit.

So the right way to say it is, "God permitted what God purposed- that men not believe and go to hell."

You either believe that or you don't.

I think you are too smart to NOT believe it.

 

[Skandelon]

Isn't unbelief a sin?

Allow me to quote again from the article that we discussed earlier:

"Unbelief is atoned for, but only “in Christ”. When we are placed in union with Christ by the Holy Spirit, through faith, our former “unbelief” is atoned for just as our other sins are atoned for. If we continue in unbelief, we cannot benefit from the forgiveness that is in Christ alone, and will therefore suffer condemnation. In other words, the moment we believe, our prior unbelief is forgiven, and not before. Since the atonement is provisional in Christ we can both affirm that He died for all and that only believers will benefit from this atonement. 1 Tim. 4:10 states this truth very well:

“For it is for this we labor and strive, because we have fixed our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all men [provisional], especially of believers [conditional application].”

My illustration about our fine being paid clearly lays this out. Did you understand the illustration?

You see, we could move on if you wouldn't change the words up and make your response vague.

VAGUE? You are the one using undefined and nonspecific terms. I have provided words that clearly show the distinction between the differing aspects of God's will. Do you agree with Piper regarding the "two wills of God?" If so, why wouldn't you use terms that clearly distinguish between those?

When you say "God permitted for a purpose" that is not the same as saying "God PURPOSED."

Then its up to you to define what you mean by it, because if its not what I have stated then you are teaching something contrary to Edwards and the Arminian divines with whom he agrees.

If you would just say, "Yes, God purposed that many billions would not believe and he purposed to send them to hell forever for their unbelief," we could move forward.

Why would I agree with a statement that hasn't been defined or explained? If it means differently than what I've stated, then I probably don't agree with it.

The permitting occured in TIME. The Purposing occured before there was anything to permit.

Can you point me to Edwards or another scholar who explains this concept so I can study it and try to understand what you are talking about?

 

[JesusFan]

Yes, I did read your post and I think exegetical investigation of those passages is worthwhile in another thread.

I would like you to explain how Jesus COVERED every sin that has ever been committed by any person in history and in the entirety of the future of humanity and how Jesus suffered the wrath of God in their place YET MOST of them will STILL suffer the wrath of God forever BECAUSE OF THEIR SINS.

Let's clarify WHAT you believe and then we can deal with the support you feel you have for your belief.

We must establish claim first THEN warrant.

And please answer this now, too.
Did God in eternity past PURPOSE the unbelief of those who you say he purposed to go to hell (be His purposing done ever so sadly)?

Well, as resident Amyraldist on BB..

Think God has in jesus death indeed atoned/paid for sins of All, but that in order to meet His requirement to appropiate it by personal faith and have it effectually applied...

man cannot come to God being depraived and spirtually died in sin nature

So God has chosen to elect whom he wills to be enabled to be able to receive Jesus by faith!

 

[Van]

Hi Luke, you are right, a label like non-Calvinist does not say what a person believers, only what they do not fully support which is Calvinism. Perhaps we could agree that Tozer was a non Calvinist, non Arminian Christian. To claim there are only two choices, Cal or Arm is to deny that both views hold some valid positions and some invalid positions. But that is the reality in my opinion.

You claim my views are not systematic, but you do not define your meaning. Again I use words as defined in the dictionary. So a Bible based theology that addresses the same doctrines as Calvinism, that has a unifying principle would be a "systematic theology." Lets call mine the "Christian Minimalist Theology" where I affirm all scripture but avoid adding to it the speculations of past theologians such as Calvin.

Calvinism fails the text of integrity, because it embraces paradoxes such as God predestines everything but is not the author of sin. So it is Calvinism and not CMT that is not systematic as defined in the dictionary.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Hi Luke, you are right, a label like non-Calvinist does not say what a person believers, only what they do not fully support which is Calvinism. Perhaps we could agree that Tozer was a non Calvinist, non Arminian Christian. To claim there are only two choices, Cal or Arm is to deny that both views hold some valid positions and some invalid positions. But that is the reality in my opinion.

You claim my views are not systematic, but you do not define your meaning. Again I use words as defined in the dictionary. So a Bible based theology that addresses the same doctrines as Calvinism, that has a unifying principle would be a "systematic theology." Lets call mine the "Christian Minimalist Theology" where I affirm all scripture but avoid adding to it the speculations of past theologians such as Calvin.

Calvinism fails the text of integrity, because it embraces paradoxes such as God predestines everything but is not the author of sin. So it is Calvinism and not CMT that is not systematic as defined in the dictionary.

Now if I were to tell you that you are all twisted in your understanding of predestination & that it doesnt predestine everything ....what would you say?