Unconditional Election And the Invincible Purpose of God

[Eric B]

Still, they refuse because they have been sovereignly "passed over" for "grace", and that ultimately agrees with what the hypers/doubles, etc. say, even though they just go on and call it "election to Hell". Then both stripes of Calvinism band together and put down non-Calvinism as denying the Gospel for rejecting this. That was the point.
(This is precisely the problem going on with Hunt, because everything someone says regarding Calvinism is denied by one Calvinist or another, and then we are accused of "misrepresenting". It's hard to know how to put things, or what will offend someone. But there are some who do define their belief that way, so it is not totally false.)

[ January 08, 2003, 01:02 AM: Message edited by: Eric B ]

 

[russell55]

Still, they refuse because they have been sovereignly "passed over" for "grace"

No. Being passed over is not the cause of refusal. There is no cause and effect relationship between being passed over and refusing. The cause of refusal is a heart obstinately opposed to God.

that ultimately agrees with what the hypers/doubles

Being a double predestinarian is not the same thing as being a hypercalvinist. Even most double predestinarians see God as being passive in the predestination of the non-elect, and and only active in the predestination of the elect. They would agree with the statement I made above.

[ January 08, 2003, 01:22 AM: Message edited by: russell55 ]

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by romanbear:
I believe that James White said the same thing about Gail Riplinger.When James white was only aware of the fact that she didn't have a degree in theology.But he refused to take her priviate study in consideration.

Riplinger's "work" is an embarrassment. Why are you guys so hooked on bad writing and bad study? This is amazing that these names even get mentioned in here.

Elitism is the issue when Calvinist believe that they are a special few chosen of God for no good reason other than His pleasure.No one has ever answered how they Know they are chosen.

Elitism is not the issue. And we know we are chosen because the Holy Spirit bears witness with our spirit that we are the children of God. We know we are chosen because the Holy Spirit is working obedience in us. That is a simple question that has been asked and answered on several different occasions.

God is not sending people to hell for his pleasure. He has no pleasure in the death of the wicked. He is sending people to hell because of their sin.

It 's really strange that Calvinism didn't exist before Augustine.John Calvin and Catholicism are from the same bolt of cloth.

As for Augustine, I was reading Alistair MacGrath's "Iustitia Dei" yesterday since Ray provoked my interest. He outlines that the prevailing thought of the first couple centuries was a reaction against gnostic fatalism and remarks that it is strange that the writings of Paul got so little attention. It continued that way until the controversy. In church history, most doctrinal forumulizations are the result of controversies (such as the Arian controversy). Hence, the controversy came around time of Augustine and man began to look closer at Scripture. Pick this book up and wade through a few of the sections of it.

Calvinism is not warmed over Catholicism. Catholics hate calvinism.

The very fact that you are willing to take the word of others and refuse to read the book proves you have the same attitude as the Catholics do about there priest.

This is ridiculous and you know it. It is an attempt to sensationalize the argument when you have nothing else to say. I have not given my priesthood to anyone, especially not Dave Hunt. As I say, if you want to send the book to me, I will read it. At this point, I have more important stuff to read that can be trusted. What you need to do is not give your priesthood to Dave Hunt. Read the rebuttals, compare Scripture, and see for yourself.

You take Calvin's word for it when His view was a Catholic view...Have you always relied on the teaching of others as truth?.

I got news for you. I have never read Calvin either. I have always said I am not a Calvinist because of Calvin. I am a Calvinist because of Scripture. Paul was the first to convince; Jesus added assurance; then the whole Bible fell into place. Parts I could never understand previously started to make sense. To this day, I have never read the institutes of Calvin. I read about 2 pages in one of his commentaries a long time ago for a paper I was writing.

I'm only trying to get you to see the truth.We are not Christian untill we make a full surrender to Jesus Christ.A choice that is freely ours. Gods atonement is limitless.

So far no problem.

We are elected after we make a choice.

Show me this from Scripture.

Your talk of God's knowing ruins your point because once God knows something, you can't change your mind and you have lost your free will. Scripture never says that God chooses us on the basis of his knowledge of our choice of him. You cannot support that from Scripture.

If Calvinism were true then you don't even have to believe because God will make you believe.

This is wrong and shows that you do not know what Calvinism is. Only the primitives in here believe this and they are very hesitant to call themselves calvinists.

The bottom line in this discussion will always be the text of Scripture.

 

[Jacob]

Originally posted by Eric B:
, as White, Hanegraaf and others have rightly pointed out, suffering from a state of doctrinal apathy, ignorance and indifference.

Hanegraff has given some rather direct clues lately that he, himself is NOT a Calvinist...sorry if this is a little off topic.

Jacob.

[ January 08, 2003, 09:57 AM: Message edited by: Jacob ]

 

[Eric B]

No. Being passed over is not the cause of refusal. There is no cause and effect relationship between being passed over and refusing. The cause of refusal is a heart obstinately opposed to God.

OK, then being passed over is the cause of continued refusal, where being chosen is the only chance to stop refusing.
See what I mean, this is like trying to grab hold of a slippery eel at times.
Actually, I did originally specify "...whether God reprobated them against their will OR preteritioned them according to their will..." covering both ends of the Calvinist spectrum. I know you hold the latter view, but what I am saying is that both stripes of Calvinists are on the same side when it comes to putting down free-will in salvation.

God is not sending people to hell for his pleasure. He has no pleasure in the death of the wicked.

Once again, when people here first detested the fate of the non-elect, Calvinists all across the board declared quoting "Who are you O Man to answer God", and pointing out his choice to save OR pass over others was for "his sovereign pleasure". Now it changes. This type of shapeshifting is the basis of their criticism of Hunt. (Just like the Spurgeon issue --just added to my initial post)

Hanegraff has given some rather direct clues lately that he, himself is NOT a Calvinist...

I wasn't saying that Hanegraaf was necesarily Calvinist. Just that he is foremost in pointing out new-evangelicalism's doctrinal apathy (which helps controversies and condusion like this thrive). I was never sure where exactly Hanegraaf stood on this issue. He once had Horton on his show beating up on non-Calvinism as "heretical", and seemed to agree, but when Benny Hinn assumed he was "an intellectual Calvinist" because he was Dutch, he was particularly offended.

[ January 08, 2003, 10:57 AM: Message edited by: Eric B ]

 

[Ray Berrian]

Eric B,

A good summary of Mr. Hunt who has awakened some thought in alert brethren. There are so many hybrid Calvinists that they apparently alll are troubled; I think all of the ducks on the pond caught some 'shot'/pellets.

 

[Bible-belted]

"OK, then being passed over is the cause of continued refusal, where being chosen is the only chance to stop refusing."

But this does not altar the fact that the call of the Gospel is a REAL CALL, an authetic offer, that is responded to porperly, leads to justification. It seems to me you are basically complaining that it is God's fault that peole don't respond that way, or that he owes us something.

I will say that I find it hilarious that people accuse Calvin of bieng Catholic when at the time there really was nothing else to be, except EO, and I don't suppose Hunt would find that an improvement.

 

[Eric B]

That's still not the point. We keep getting carried off on this tangent, but whether it is a "genuine call" or not, still certain people cannot respond to it, anyone who disagrees with this is accused of charging God with being 'unfair' and "owing" someone something, and on this you're in perfect agreement with those who would say it was not a genuine offer.

[ January 08, 2003, 02:53 PM: Message edited by: Eric B ]

 

[Ray Berrian]

Latreia,

V.H.H. Green wrote a book titled, "Renaissance And Reformation--A Survey of European History Lectures 1450-1660. He speaks of a new phenomenon which he says was a struggle between advancement and ignorance. A French priest said there was a new language which would be the mother of all heresies. 'A book full of brambles with vipers in them.' {the Bible} The French Huguenots were a dissenting group of Lutherans and Calvinists who knew the truth of the New Testament. 400,000 of these Christians were killed rather than join with the Roman Catholic Church. People did have an option. Many lived under the blue sky while other hid in caves.

 

[Primitive Baptist]

The preaching of the gospel is not an offer, and if we understand that, the confusion here would be resolved.

 

[ScottEmerson]

GReat post on the previous page, Eric. Very well done.

 

[Eric B]

As for Augustine, I was reading Alistair MacGrath's "Iustitia Dei" yesterday since Ray provoked my interest. He outlines that the prevailing thought of the first couple centuries was a reaction against gnostic fatalism and remarks that it is strange that the writings of Paul got so little attention. It continued that way until the controversy. In church history, most doctrinal forumulizations are the result of controversies (such as the Arian controversy). Hence, the controversy came around time of Augustine and man began to look closer at Scripture.

This issue does have a lot in common with the Trinity. In the first few centuries, the Church read the Bible, but did not try to explain all of its hard to understand points. Then, as many different people began reading it, in light of many different philosophies and influences, erroneous conclusions came up, which forced the orthodox church to systematize its theology more. But in many cases it went overboard into overrationalization, and unbiblical language, and in some cases, reading too much into it. With the Trinity, the leaders coined phrases like "persons" and "substance", which may have helped define things against the Arians (and modalists, and unitarians), but it would cause additional problems in people trying to understand the nature of God. The same with the Pelagian controversy. Augustine was noted by the eastern fathers as having a too rationalistic concept of the Trinity, and with soteriology as well, he tried to break down truths that lie well outside of time. The Church, originally based in the East, had always held these things as mysteries they contemplated, but did not try to explain down to the T. It was not that they paid Paul's writings no attention, but in following Peter's warning (2 Pet. 3:15,16) apparently handled them more carefully, and did not read them in light of any manmade theories on how it all may fit together. (i.e. whoever is not elect is "passed over")

 

[Yelsew]

Originally posted by Primitive Baptist:
The preaching of the gospel is not an offer, and if we understand that, the confusion here would be resolved.

If not an offer, then what would you tell Jesus when you face him and he says, "Why didn't you accept my offer"?

 

[romanbear]

Hi pastor Larry;
A quote from you;
_________________________________________________

The bottom line in this discussion will always be the text of Scripture
__________________________________________________
The problem I've found is that it does no good to show you scripture you just twist it around to suit yourself like all the other Calvinist in here do.The way some of you took apart John 3:16 would make a Jehovah's Witness proud.I admit that I don't know all the little pieces that make up Calvinism.But I know enough to know that I will never be one.Some men would rather believe a lie than the truth.The truth is We have free will.We do make a choice for salvation.We are not totally depraved,God's atonement is unlimited,Grace is resistible, I did it for 16 years and I seek God everytime I pray,so there is someone who seeks God.I do believe in eternal salvation but not the way Calvinist do.I believe you can turn you back and walk away.I think it's terrible to believed you'd be trapped by God.I wonder what it's like to be a preacher with the useless task of preaching.After all you believe in predestination so why be a pastor what is your effect.All the elect are going to heaven anyway so why bother.You keep reminding me of my ignorance does it make you feel better about yourself?.Do you actually believe because you went to a seminary you are better than me,or maybe you think that I'm to ignorant to go to heaven. You act like you're the final authority instead of God.I always thought that a pastor should be a good example,What happen to yours.
Romanbear
Peace

 

[Yelsew]

By a long shot, You are not alone romanbear.

Where is the "destruction of John 3:16?

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by romanbear:
The problem I've found is that it does no good to show you scripture you just twist it around to suit yourself like all the other Calvinist in here do.

It is not us who have twisted Scripture. We have patiently but consistently appealed to you to put aside your own notions and come to Scripture as God's word to be read as it stands. You have consistently refused to do that. The problem with your scriptural support is that it is taken out of context. John 3:16 is a very calvinistic verse. God loved the world and sent his son. Whoever does believe will have eternal life. That is the heart of calvinism.

You don't know much about Calvinism as you have admitted. That is sad. Before rejecting it, you should at least understand it.

I wonder what it's like to be a preacher with the useless task of preaching.After all you believe in predestination so why be a pastor what is your effect.

If you would read and believe Scripture, you would understand. I preach because of Calvinism. It is through the preaching of the word that God saves his elect. That is explicit in Scripture. Far from being useless, Calvinistic preaching is empowering because it it total reliance on God rather than relying on the whims of man, hoping that they will respond.

You keep reminding me of my ignorance does it make you feel better about yourself?.Do you actually believe because you went to a seminary you are better than me,or maybe you think that I'm to ignorant to go to heaven.

Not at all. When I explain something and people fail to understand it, I take it hard. However, when people have been constantly shown and still refuse to believe or understand, there comes a point where you just go on. I am not better than you because I went to seminary. In now way. I probably understand some things with greater understanding than you do.

You act like you're the final authority instead of God.I always thought that a pastor should be a good example,What happen to yours.

I am not the final authority. I have constantly appealed to Scripture as the authority. I have tried, in vain, to turn your mind towards the things of Scripture and encourage you to put Scripture above your own mind and your own thinking. The only example I know how to set is one that constantly holds the Word of God as the Word of God and subjects my own ideas to what God says it true.

My demeanor is not always what it should be. That is because of depravity. The old sin nature still rears its ugly head. But try as you might, you will never get me to turn from Scripture and if that makes me a bad example, then so be it. I will gladly set that kind of "bad example."

 

[Brutus]

Is this your position(those who oppose unconditional election)? God's choice of certain individuals unto salvation before the foundation of the world was based upon His foreseeing that they would respond to His call?He selected only those whom He knew would of themselves freely believe the gospel?Election therefore was determined by or conditioned upon what man would do.The faith which God foresaw and upon which He based His choice was not given to the sinner by God(it was not created by the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit)but resulted solely from man's will.It was left entirely up to man as to who would believe and therefore as to who would be elected unto salvation.God chose those whom He knew would,of their own free will,choose Christ.Thus the sinner's choice of Christ,not God's choice of the sinner,is the ultimate cause of salvation.Is this your position Ray?

 

[Brutus]

God's choice of certain individuals unto salvation before the foundation of the world rested solely in His own sovereign will.His choice of particular sinners was not based on any foreseen response or obedience on their part,such as faith,repentance,etc.On the contrary,God gives faith and repentance to each individual whom He selected.These acts are the result,not the cause of God's choice.Election therefore was not determined by or conditioned upon any virtuous quality or act foreseen in man.Those whom God sovereignly elected He brings through the power of the Spirit to a willing acceptance of Christ.Thus God's choice of the sinner,not the sinner's choice of Christ,is the ultimate cause of salvation.This is unconditional election!

 

[Yelsew]

You don't know much about Calvinism as you have admitted. That is sad. Before rejecting it, you should at least understand it.

Armenianism says the same thing regarding John 3:16! God so love the world that he gave...so that those who receive....shall not..... but have........!

The difference is that Calvinism stresses God giving the gift, where Armenianism stresses the receiving of the gift! It may be better to give than to receive, but oh my, failure to receive has tremendous ramifications. Only God can give the Gift of Life, but only man can receive the Gift of life. God gave the gift to none other than man! Now, theoretically, I could give you 1 million dollars, but if you fail to receive it, it is not yours! The Giving is of great significance, but the receiving is of equal significance to the receiver. Both the giver and the receiver are parties to the transaction, both must participate in order to complete the transaction

God gave his gift to the whole world, but only those individuals of the world who participate, and receive that Glorious Gift actually possess it. The rest of the world doesn't seem to know the gift was given.

You would say, "that proves Calvinism correct because those who receive are pre-ordained to receive it". Armenianism says that God already knows those who will make the choice to receive it. For eternal God, that is no big deal! To him, what has been is as fresh as what is, and there are no surprizes to come. He is omniscient, knowing what was, is, and is to come; all terms relative to His creation, for there is no time in eternity.

The Lambs book of Life was not sealed before the foundation of the world, it remains open and many names are added daily along with those who were written before the foundation of the world. Those added names are written with Jesus' blood, and they are "the whosoevers" of the world who believe in Jesus.

Calvinism says that the Gospel message is for "the elect". Armenianism says the Gospel message is to "anyone who will hear and believe".

God says that it is his desire that none should persish but have everlasting life. He did not say that none of the elect should perish..... It is God's desire that all who ever lived would choose Him over the father of lies. But alas, we know that has not happened, because the illustration of the lake of fire implies a big lake, not a backyard pond.

 

[Brutus]

Yelsew;let me get this straight,you're saying that there are two ways to get your name written down in the book of life?