Free Offer?

[JM]

All folks need do is go to post#89,90 and 91 to see that you very clearly and plainly say the very thing you say that you didn't.

Your whole argument is based in a lie and the fact that you know it to be so and still argue it speaks volumes.

I second that.

 

[Pedrito]

Three quick things.

1. Readers, please do have a close and careful look at Posts #88-91. Look with fresh eyes. Lay aside twin1954's commentary on those posts in his Post #99, which was designed to colour your perception of what you read, or even discourage your reading those posts for yourselves. I'm happy to leave it with you.

2. In Post #100, JM stated:

Unfortunately Dispensationalism is not a confessional movement, ... My criticisms of Dispensationalism are always leveled at Acts 2 Dispensationalism and the common thread ... the separation of the church and Israel into two separate peoples of God ...

(emphasis added)

Just as I have been pointing out the common thread of conflicting teaching within the broad spectrum of “Calvanism” (not “Ultra-Calvanism”).

(By the way, aren't JM's strawman pictures cute?)

3. In other threads in the past I have had occasion to request of twin1954 his interpretation of Scripture passages. From memory, I have never argued or even commented on the explanations he gave. In that vein, I tender another request.

In Post #97, twin1954 stated:

I am an Ultra-High Calvinist and I know that the Scriptures teach that there is no salvation apart from the preaching of the Gospel.

As defined by Rev Jonathan James Goundry (as quoted by JM):

Ultra High Calvinism - Beliefs: That the elect are in some sense eternally justified. A denial of: The Well– Meant Offer; Common Grace; and God having any love for the non-elect. Proponents: John Gill, some ministers in the Protestant Reformed Church of America

It is well documented that Ultra High Calvanists believe that a person cannot be saved apart from being pre-selected for that salvation by God.

I therefore ask, if only those eternally preselected by God can be saved, and if those pre-selected by God will be saved because that is His will, how does twin1954 view 1 Timothy 2:1-6, especially verses 1,4-6:

1 I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, [and] giving of thanks, be made for all men;
.
.
4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
5 For [there is] one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

Specifically, why does Paul encourage his readers to give thanks to God on behalf of all men?

And, if “all” is supposed to mean “(some from) all types” instead of “all individuals”, exactly how were those Christians (and we Christians) supposed to structure their (our) prayers? What if they missed (we miss) some types out?

Exactly how should we frame our prayers (in line with Scripture) to obey this important command from God, so that we don't accidentally give thanks for all individuals?

 

[twin1954]

Three quick things.

1. Readers, please do have a close and careful look at Posts #88-91. Look with fresh eyes. Lay aside twin1954's commentary on those posts in his Post #99, which was designed to colour your perception of what you read, or even discourage your reading those posts for yourselves. I'm happy to leave it with you.

My "commentary" simply pointed out that you did make a false claim that both groups of Calvinists that you, while ignoring the fact that there are more than two groups of Calvinists in fact, believe that all the elect will be saved with or without the preaching of the Gospel. That is a blatant falsehood and has been pointed out to you more than enough. Ignoring the truth you base your whole argument against Calvinism on a false premise knowing it is false. Let the readers decide for sure.

2. In Post #100, JM stated:

(emphasis added)

Just as I have been pointing out the common thread of conflicting teaching within the broad spectrum of “Calvanism” (not “Ultra-Calvanism”).

Care to give the actual context of JM's statement?

(By the way, aren't JM's strawman pictures cute?)

Very.

3. In other threads in the past I have had occasion to request of twin1954 his interpretation of Scripture passages. From memory, I have never argued or even commented on the explanations he gave.

No you have not. Which led me to believe that you no problem or disagreement with my interpretations and exegesis.

In that vein, I tender another request.

In Post #97, twin1954 stated:

As defined by Rev Jonathan James Goundry (as quoted by JM):

I am an Ultra-High Calvinist exactly as explained in the quote.

It is well documented that Ultra High Calvanists believe that a person cannot be saved apart from being pre-selected for that salvation by God.

Its called electing love. God is under no obligation to save any but in sovereign grace, mercy and love He chose to save some. In that your argument isn't with Calvinists but with God.

I therefore ask, if only those eternally preselected by God can be saved, and if those pre-selected by God will be saved because that is His will, how does twin1954 view 1 Timothy 2:1-6, especially verses 1,4-6:

1 I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, [and] giving of thanks, be made for all men;
.
.
4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
5 For [there is] one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

How convenient for you to leave out the very verses that explain who Paul was talking about when he says all men.

Specifically, why does Paul encourage his readers to give thanks to God on behalf of all men?

(1Ti 2:1) I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;


(1Ti 2:2) For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.


(1Ti 2:3) For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;

(1Ti 2:4) Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

The bolded part clearly tells us that Paul is speaking about all kinds of men rather than all men universally. It doesn't take a genius to figure that out but it does take either a blind or willfully deceived man to think otherwise.

And, if “all” is supposed to mean “(some from) all types” instead of “all individuals”, exactly how were those Christians (and we Christians) supposed to structure their (our) prayers? What if they missed (we miss) some types out?

Do you know every individual in the world? If not how do you structure your prayers for them?

We pray that God would send forth His Gospel with power and raise the dead to life. We pray for our world leaders that God, in His wise and good providence, would give them wisdom to rule according to His purpose. We pray for those in the world who have never heard the Gospel that God would send it to them to accomplish His purpose in them. We pray for the strong and the weak, the rich and the poor, the wise and the foolish, the wretched and the noble. The prayers of a Calvinist are no less heartfelt and full of compassion for the lost than the Arminian.

Exactly how should we frame our prayers (in line with Scripture) to obey this important command from God, so that we don't accidentally give thanks for all individuals?

Once more you are building a straw man implying that we believe that you are not supposed to pray for unregenerate people. We do not know who the elect are so we pray that God will send His Gospel to every person in the world.

 

[JM]

Excellent post from twin.

Quote. The fact that Mr. Armitage was brought up and for many years preached as a Methodist, extremely Arminian in theology, tells me that he was a little biased in his history.

If you are interested in Baptist history try reading, "By His grace and for His Glory" by Tom Nettles, or if you can find it "The Story of the Baptists" by Cook or even "A History of the Baptists" by John T. Christian.

 

[JM]

Skala nails it.

Quote. Election fuels evangelism.

Without election, there would be nobody who would positively respond to the gospel.

This is how the Apostle Paul felt:

2 Tim 2:10 Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.

 

[JM]

Twin and I agree.

Quote.

Pedrito, your whole rebuttal of Calvinism is based in a false definition of Calvinism. Specifically that all Calvinists believe in election and therefore believe there is no need for the preaching of the Gospel. Until you acknowledge the truth that your accusation is a falsehood you will never understand or come to a conclusion. You are in fact arguing against a straw man.

 

[JM]

Does "all" mean every single person who ever lived..."all" the time?

Let's test that assumption.

"And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed." Luke 2

Did the Chinese pay tax? If "all" means every single person what did the Russian peoples pay to Caesar?

Ah, now you want to claim "context!" That is all we are asking you to do. Read the passages in context. "All" does not mean every single person each and everytime it is used.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[Skala]

Pedrito your understanding of Calvinism (and your spelling of it - it's Calvinism not Calvanism) is way off.

Calvinism does not teach that the elect will be saved whether or not they hear the gospel. On the contrary it teaches that God works through means, and that He has ordained not only the ends, but also the means to those ends.

Evangelism is the tool that God designed to visit sinners with the message of their salvation. Through evangelism and the gospel message he quickens hearts and opens ears and grants faith and repentance, effectively (and without fail) bringing people to Jesus for their salvation.

Every single person God predestined in eternity past, he also calls (during their life), and every single person he calls, he justifies.

That means every single predestined person is ultimately saved.

“And those He predestined, He also called; those He called; He also justified; those He justified, He also glorified” (v. 30).

- Romans 8:29–31

More information for your study:

http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/resisting_spirit.html

http://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/effectual-calling/

http://www.gty.org/resources/sermons/90-296/the-doctrine-of-gods-effectual-call

http://www.gotquestions.org/effectual-calling-call.html

 

[Pedrito]

As I bow out of this thread, why don't we have some fun together?

I'll drop a few pointed posts for people to think about if they want to.

1. Red Flag 1

It is my custom to from time to time salt (pepper?) my posts with red flags planted to trigger reactions.

In Post #108 Skala bit.

Pedrito your understanding of Calvinism (and your spelling of it - it's Calvinism not Calvanism) is way off.

Oh dear. Does that mean that Calvinism was actually named after John Calvin?

As expected, my supposed “way off” understanding of Calvinism was associated by implication with the “red flag” misspelling.

(By the way, Calvin and Hobbes is one of my favourite cartoons.)

 

[Pedrito]

Fun continued …

2. Red Flag 2

In Post #103, twin1954 fell for another red flag. He should have wondered why in

2 Timothy 2:1-4
1Ti 2:1 First of all, then, I exhort that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men,
1Ti 2:2 for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence.

1Ti 2:3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior,
1Ti 2:4 who will have all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

I did not just bypass Verse 2 as being a side thought, but bypassed Verse 3 as well.

He associated via bolding Verse 3 with Verse 2, but left Verse 4 unbolded. Yet Verse 3 is associated more strongly with Verse 4 than it is with Verse 2, and is totally bound up with Verse 1.
In Verse 2 Paul himself gives his clear reason for singling out (the often corrupt) authority figures – rebellion is not conducive to quiet and peaceable lives – and it is hard to rebel against someone you are praying for and even giving thanks on behalf of. Verse 2 is simply a special case within the general, with extra implications for the believer.

Now verse 6, speaking of the man Christ Jesus, says

who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

So, does the “all men” in Verse 4 whom God wills to be saved, and does the “all” who are ransomed in Verse 6, and does the “all” for (on behalf of) whom thanks is to be given in Verse 1, refer to everyone “all”, or to some from all types of people (whatever that really means) “all”?

 

[Pedrito]

Fun continued ...

3. The Dossier

In Post #103, twin1954 acknowledged that I had not argued with any of his explanations I had specifically requested, thus:

No you have not. Which led me to believe that you no problem or disagreement with my interpretations and exegesis.

Actually I was simply adding his responses to a dossier being compiled. The dossier will form the basis for a book exposing the way various churches attempt to explain away any Holy Scripture that appears (to them) to be a threat to treasured doctrine.

 

[Pedrito]

Fun continued …

4. To Recap A Little

So far, I have grouped Calvinists into two broad groups – the two groups that existed in England in the 1600's. For clarity, let me use the terms “evangelising Calvinists” and “non-evangelising Calvinists”.

I have referred to Section 10.3 of the LBC, and pointed out that both camps state that they accept it.

I have pointed out that non-evangelising Calvinists believe that those who are to be “saved” are pre-determined by God. So do evangelising Calvinists.

I have further pointed out that only the non-evangelising Calvinists draw the logical conclusion that evangelism (as commonly practiced in Baptist churches, and especially to pagans), is therefore unnecessary.

I elicited a response that showed that evangelising Calvinists choose to interpret Section 10.3 of the LBC differently from the non-evangelising Calvinists, so that the inconsistency of their beliefs can be watered down and even be portrayed as being consistent.

(At the time when the LBC was composed, when one looks at Baptist history, does one not find that the idea of needing to evangelise the heathen was considered unnecessary and a waste of resources? That proves the point regarding the original meaning of Section 10.3. Unless of course God revealed in the Bible that during that particular period in history, He was purposefully condemning all people with non-European DNA living in non-European countries and areas to Hell.)

The question that evangelising Calvinists have to face is: how is God honoured by the issuing of false invitations of salvation to wide audiences within selected populations of the human race, so that a few elect people that might be within those wide audiences will hear the gospel and end up being saved?

That approach has led to a multitude of false conversions over the years – false conversions that have dishonoured God greatly.


In my naivety I tend to wonder if God takes kindly to being dishonoured.

 

[Pedrito]

Fun continued ...

5. Endemicity Revealed

In Post #17 JM said:

GREAT demonstration of sophistry once again. You didn't deal with my point. [[I actually did – both points – devastatingly – but JM often makes that same accusation when others nullify his arguments – check the Dispensationalism thread, for instance.]]

I want to thank those who contact me privately and encourage me to continue dealing with this nonsense and time wasting posts made by people like Pedrito.

Unfortunately, that encouragement only shows how ingrained and accepted the questionable practices I was highlighting, really are.

In another forum (non-evangelical) I had occasion to point out that techniques being used by one poster to defend questionable perspectives of his organisation, were reminiscent of those I had observed within the Evangelical environment.

I later found out that he had in fact had been a dedicated Baptist for many years, before (as he perceived it) seeing greater light.

 

[Pedrito]

Fun continued ...

6. Understanding or Exposure?

In Post #97 twin1954 stated:

You twist the meaning of the 1689 LBC when you try to make it say that all Calvinists believe that the elect are saved without the preaching of the Gospel. What the section deals with is infants and those incapable of understanding the Gospel, mentally handicapped and such. For you to do so is not dealing honestly with what you are arguing against.

That of course depends on how one wishes to interpret “incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word” in Section 10.3 of The Baptist Confession of Faith (1689) With slight revisions by C. H. Spurgeon.

Does “incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word” really only refer to mental incapacity and the like, or does it include lack of access based on physical location and language differences as well? Note, Section 10.3 does not say “incapable of understanding”, but “incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word”.

Billy Graham, a pastor (minister) ordained by the Southern Baptist Convention, has stated on camera that he believes people of other faiths will be saved without ever hearing the Gospel. That is in line with the plain reading of Section 10.3 of the 1689 LBC. Mr. Graham's statements can be viewed at

and

.

And no matter what he has said and written before or since, nor his motivations for those verbal and written presentations, the real Billy Graham bared his deep convictions at that time.

 

[Pedrito]

Fun continued …


7. When and Where?

In Post #97 twin1954 stated with respect to Section 10.3 of The Baptist Confession of Faith (1689) With slight revisions by C. H. Spurgeon:

What the section deals with is infants and those incapable of understanding the Gospel, mentally handicapped and such

So, if the “all elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word” refers only to people who are exposed to the Gospel but cannot respond because of some impediment, what does the “Infants dying in infancy” described as “regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit” refer to?

Does it refer to those infants who have been exposed to the Gospel, or whose parents have? (i.e. “Children of Christians”?) Does it refer to pagan children as well? Does it include those infants God ordered Israel to slaughter as they occupied the Promised Land? What about the infants wiped out in the Flood and before? How about those infants ordered by God to be killed without mercy in 1 Samuel 15:3?

It would be natural to ask where exactly God's Holy Written Revelation to us, the Bible, defines with precision and clarity, which classes of “infants dying in infancy” (or all of them) are regenerated.

However, has it not already been admitted, both directly and indirectly, in this very forum, that the concept of The Age of Accountability is not found anywhere in the Bible? And are those two concepts (Age of Accountability and Infant Regeneration) not inextricably entwined?

I happen to have the naive perspective that for a doctrine to be upheld and promulgated, it must have clear Scriptural support.


Shame on me.

 

[Pedrito]

Fun continued ...


8. The Prayer Encouraged of Us

In every Baptist church I have attended, without exception, the members were exhorted to pray fervently for their friends and loved ones. It was a common theme in prayer sessions.

However, the members were urged to pray, not that their friends and loved ones would be exposed to the Gospel, but actually that they would be saved.

The members were thus being taught to pray against God's will if Calvinism be true, because there was no certainty that all those people being prayed for were among God's elect.

The incongruity continues unabated to this day, and will of necessity remain unresolved.

Of course, there is no such difficulty if the understanding labelled Arminianism by the Calvinists, is the real truth. Wasn't that “Arminian” understanding held by the vast majority of Baptist churches in London in 1643 (39 of the 46)?

 

[Pedrito]

Fun continued ...

9. Arminians Are Biased. (But Calvinists Aren't. Are they?)

In response to my pointing out in Post #81 that the Baptist historian Thomas Armitage had recorded:

”By 1643, the Calvinist Baptist Churches in and about London had increased to seven, while the non-Calvinistic Churches numbered thirty-nine, forty-six in all. The English Calvinistic Churches, together with a French Church of the some faith, eight in all, issued a Confession of Faith in 1643." --History of the Baptists by Thomas Armitage, 1887, p.460.

JM was happy, in Post #104, to endorse twin1954's response in Post #83:

The fact that Mr. Armitage was brought up and for many years preached as a Methodist, extremely Arminian in theology, tells me that he was a little biased in his history.

Seven Calvinist churches versus Thirty-nine non-Calvinist. Did Mr. Armitage deliberately falsify those figures?

I doubt it.

Now twin1954 might say he was referring to my statement:

In fact, the thought was put forward that the statement was issued to bolster the stance of those seven churches and their as yet unorthodox (within the Baptist movement) doctrine.

But for what reason other than self-bolstering would a small minority of churches issue a statement of doctrine (“confession”) promoting their own particular belief-set, but naming it as though it were a general statement of Baptist doctrine?

So why did twin1954 feel the need to indicate, at least by implication, that the objective facts supplied by Mr. Armitage were actually biased (untruthful in some way)?

Calvinists must find it comforting to believe that they are not biased like those horrible “Arminians”.

 

[Pedrito]

Fun continued ...

10. What a Difference a Day Word Makes

In Post #102 I asked:

Specifically, why does Paul encourage his readers to give thanks to God on behalf of all men?

Note the “give thanks on behalf of” in the question.

In response to that question, in Post #103 twin1954 states:

(1Ti 2:1)I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;

(1Ti 2:2) For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.

(1Ti 2:3) For this

is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;

(1Ti 2:4) Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

The bolded part clearly tells us that Paul is speaking about all kinds of men rather than all men universally. It doesn't take a genius to figure that out but it does take either a blind or willfully deceived man to think otherwise.

Doesn't it look like twin1954 is avoiding giving a simple and direct answer to the “give thanks on behalf of” question? May I suggest that the Bible itself gives a simple, clear and precise answer? But could it just be that that answer conflicts with Calvinist ideology? I leave it to others to find that answer if they are indeed open to finding it.

We pray for our world leaders that God, in His wise and good providence, would give them wisdom to rule according to His purpose.

So God's actions depend upon the actions of Man after all? I thought that was contrary to Calvinist teaching.

We pray for those in the world who have never heard the Gospel that God would send it to them to accomplish His purpose in them.

Including to the non-elect? So that God will accomplish His purpose by sending them to Hell anyway?

I am having difficulty understanding how that makes sense from any perspective.

 

[Pedrito]

Fun continued ...

11. The Baptist Hymnal – “Whosoever Won't Might Come”?

Often have we heard hymn No. 314 in the Baptist Hymnal of 1991, “Whosoever Will May Come”, sung with great fervency. And what wonderful meaning it appears to have – God's grace is available to all.

The hymn seems to imply that people have a choice – they can choose to accept that gift of grace – and the fervent singing of the hymn would give weight to that understanding.

And even were it to be said that the author had some Calvinistic leaning, that did not prevent his words expressing “Arminian” truth.

However, the Calvinists among us would take exception to that idea. They declare that nobody can so will to come – sinners have no free will – only a will bound by and biased by sin. So people have to be drawn to being “saved” against their will, or at least have their will modified by an external influence so that it is no longer really their own will.

So for accuracy and honesty, shouldn't the hymn be rewritten as “Whosoever Won't Might Come”?

As said before, there is no such difficulty if the understanding labelled Arminianism by the Calvinists, is the real truth (as held by 39 of the 46 Baptist churches in London in 1643) – there is no difficulty if God in His sovereign will grants people the right to choose in this regard.

Naturally, Calvinists will put forward arguments like, “Calvinists can sing that hymn meaningfully too, because everyone is invited, but nobody can accept the invitation because their hearts and minds are enslaved and distorted by sin, and therefore without God's direct intervention nobody would accept and be saved”.

Is not that Calvinist doctrine similar to offering pork to religious Jews and Muslims, and saying “whosoever will may eat”?


Is God really that dishonest?


Think on these things.

 

[Pedrito]

Some unplanned fun (afterthought)...


12. When “All” Means “All” After All

JM's words in Post #107 are clever. Please read them.

Does "all" mean every single person who ever lived..."all" the time?

Let's test that assumption.

"And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed." Luke 2

Did the Chinese pay tax? If "all" means every single person what did the Russian peoples pay to Caesar?

Ah, now you want to claim "context!" That is all we are asking you to do. Read the passages in context. "All" does not mean every single person each and everytime it is used.

But it does sometimes.

Have a look at (for instance) 1 Corinthians 15:22:

For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all will be made alive.

where the context shows there is a direct, like-for-like comparison.

And maybe consider what God revealed in His Inspired Hebrew Scriptures that we call the “Old Testament”. (Have you ever done that properly?)

And what about those scriptures that speak of Jesus tasting death for every person and the like? E.G. Hebrews 2:9

But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man[[all]].

Does 1 John 2:2 add any light on the subject?

And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

The whole world as distinct from the Church?


Beware. I had planned to make no more posts in this thread, but I have just laid another red flag trap.