Good News, Really?

[janxharris]

No, I didn't. You continually say it's not fair that God doesn't extend mercy to every single person. You believe God owes us grace. You don't believe you deserve hell.

With respect, I don't believe you read carefully what I wrote.

I am not saying God has been unfair. I am saying that the doctrines of Calvinism make him seem unfair. I don't believe God owes us grace. I am sinful and deserve what every I get.

This is what I wrote and would be grateful if you would kindly respond to it:

Men go to hell if they are not covered by Jesus Christ. If sin were the reason they went to hell then believers would go there too since they also sin. Reformed Theology teaches that only the elect, through regeneration, will be covered by Christ; the rest are unwilling and unable to have the faith necessary to be covered. God, in Reformed Theology, has withheld the very thing that the non-elect need to avoid hell and is therefore unjust.

To repeat, I am NOT saying God is unfair; I am saying Reformed Theology's doctrines make Him seem unfair and therefore must be false.

 

[janxharris]

So you consider it damaging that God saved billions of people that He should have just let perish justly into hell?

WHAT A TROUBLING CONCEPT!!!!!!! GASP!! THE HORROR!!!!!!!

I am not troubled by God saving.

 

[janxharris]

How have I misunderstood? This is what you said:

If the following is true:

1. All men deserve Hell
2. No person has the moral ability to accept the gospel
3. God elects and regenerates some men
4. The others are left alone

Then God is unjust, because He could've elected/regenerated everyone. Therefore, you are putting the salvation of man at the top of God's priority list, right? Nothing else can come first? And if something is more important to God than the salvation of all men, He is unjust. Is that your conclusion?

If it isn't, how can that be?

No, this is a misunderstanding. Apologies if I have not explained myself correctly. I will attempt a re-write.

 

[guuila]

Men go to hell if they are not covered by Jesus Christ.

True.

If sin were the reason they went to hell then believers would go there too since they also sin

Believers have their sin atoned for. That's the difference.

Reformed Theology teaches that only the elect, through regeneration, will be covered by Christ;

Synergism teaches this too. Unless, you believe the non-elect will be covered by Christ?

the rest are unwilling and unable to have the faith necessary to be covered.

Right. Just like you're unwilling to like something you hate like Calvinism.

God, in Reformed Theology, has withheld the very thing that the non-elect need to avoid hell and is therefore unjust.

How can you say this and at the same time say you don't believe God owes man grace? Read the quote in my signature. God cannot be unjust for not bestowing that which was never due. If God doesn't owe a person something, how is God unjust for withholding that something? I honestly don't know if there is any other way to phrase this... your religious traditions are keeping you from seeing your contradictions.

To repeat, I am NOT saying God is unfair; I am saying Reformed Theology's doctrines make Him seem unfair and therefore must be false.

Your continual contradictions are the only thing that's false here.

 

[Eddie L]

I believe every man has a limit beyond which his faith would falter.

If God said in His Word that He operated by giving each person born the grace to decide whether or not to accept the gospel as plainly as we believe He has stated that this isn't the way He operates, every Calvinist I've ever met would change accept it because Jesus bought His bride and owns the Truth. If the Bible says ANYTHING that is hard for us we do not have the luxury of ignoring it or blowing it off because Jesus bought us and He owns the Truth. He IS the Truth, and part of that truth is that Scripture is God-Breathed. If God speaks, we will listen if we trust Him, right? We don't only move when we like what He says. We move because He says. Right?

Further, I disagree that there is a point at which anybody's faith would falter, because I believe that true faith is given by God. This is what removes from me the temptation to doubt my faith. My faith is a part of the promise of God, and because that is what I believe "divorce" is not an option. Where else would we go?

Calvinism is that limit for me (and many others it would seem judging by what has been written here). Do you not comprehend how damaging we consider this doctrine?

I do, but I also believe you are considering it the wrong way. Your conclusions are incorrect and what you are concerned about is a false concern. It is this over-reaction and wrong conclusions, I think, that are a wedge between some synergists and the truth of Scripture. If a passage leads them in the direction of sovereign grace, it is quickly dismissed as a hard to understand passage or something to generalize or make unimportant. Therefore, in not being considered, the ideas they present do not have the correct affect on the believer.

I've seen many people go from anger about Calvinism to "happy tears" as they finally move into right conclusions where they see the sweetness of sovereign grace. Nothing changes for anyone who will not believe the gospel in Calvinism. Nothing changes in our zeal for the outward call and the preaching of the Word. There are many realizations, though, that change things for those who are in Christ.

 

[Skala]

I am not troubled by God saving.

That's what we are saying God does.

Are you misunderstanding us?

 

[guuila]

*crickets*

 

[gmm4j]

People live in bad news everyday. Then the gospel comes along. It is good news to everyone, both to those who receive and to those who consider it folly. Because people consider it folly does not change the "goodness" of the message - it was still good news to them - They just rejected the good news.

1. Good news: You've won a million dollars.
2. You don't believe it.
3. The news that you've won the million dollars hasn't changed. The value of the millions dollars hasn't changed. The good news didn't become bad news to you because you rejected it. You won a million dollars.


1. Jesus loves you and died for you and you can have his salvation if you look to Him.(Good News)
2. You reject it. (consider it folly)
3. Jesus still loves you and died for you. Still Good News. It didn't become bad news.


1. God only elects some, He most likely doesn't love you, Jesus probably didn't die for you, and you most likely won't even be able to trust in Him because only a few are elected to be able to. (Bad News)
2. You reject it.
3. The content of message remains bad news. I'm even one of the elect and I can see the content of this message is bad news . This is why a Calvinist doesn't present TULIP (their doctrine on soteriology, getting saved) when presenting the gospel to a sinner.

 

[nobdysfool]

Too bad you don't know what you're talking about, concerning Calvinism. Just more straw men.

 

[Johnnz]

Too bad you don't know what you're talking about, concerning Calvinism. Just more straw men.

For all the various terms used to defend/explain a philosophically based explanation of some biblical verses, the essential elements of Calvinism remain: some have no hope because God has not chosen them and Christ only dies for those who were elected i.e. double jeopardy and limited atonement.

John
NZ

 

[Arcoe]

If God said in His Word that He operated by giving each person born the grace to decide whether or not to accept the gospel as plainly as we believe He has stated that this isn't the way He operates, every Calvinist I've ever met would change accept it because Jesus bought His bride and owns the Truth. If the Bible says ANYTHING that is hard for us we do not have the luxury of ignoring it or blowing it off because Jesus bought us and He owns the Truth. He IS the Truth, and part of that truth is that Scripture is God-Breathed. If God speaks, we will listen if we trust Him, right? We don't only move when we like what He says. We move because He says. Right?

I have found this to be false when I have given passages which speak of removing sin from our hearts. You may like for us to think this is how you operate, but it isn't. How many times have I given the passage from Ezekiel, and have heard nothing but excuses of why we can't, don't, or have no need to do this?

Do Calvinists 'move because He says'? Hardly. They move when they feel like it and it agrees with them. Why do they not cleanse their hearts as Jesus said? Why do they not walk in the Spirit so they will not fulfill the lust of the flesh? Why do they not love God with all their heart? Why do they not abstain from wickedness? Why do they not put away bitterness, anger, wrath, clamor, and slander from themselves? Why do they not lay aside the deeds of darkness? Why do they not lay aside the old man?

This is not to condemn you in any way. This is a rebuttal of your words, that says you 'move because He says'. Even 'believers' have the free will to choose as they desire, even if it means they do not keep the words of the Lord.

I've seen many people go from anger about Calvinism to "happy tears" as they finally move into right conclusions where they see the sweetness of sovereign grace. Nothing changes for anyone who will not believe the gospel in Calvinism. Nothing changes in our zeal for the outward call and the preaching of the Word. There are many realizations, though, that change things for those who are in Christ.

I've seen some go from Calvinism and move into the right conclusions, as they see obedience of themselves is of utmost importance.

The bolded part above is a pretty bold statement, don't you think? I do not believe the gospel of Calvinism, and plenty has changed for me.

 

[Eddie L]

Arcoe,

You never seem to have a clue what we're talking about. It's like you don't even read the posts. Your answers very seldom have anything to do with the posts your answering. I'm not saying this to condem you. I'm just tired of wasting my time.

 

[Arcoe]

Arcoe,

You never seem to have a clue what we're talking about. It's like you don't even read the posts. Your answers very seldom have anything to do with the posts your answering. I'm not saying this to condem you. I'm just tired of wasting my time.

Why do I not have a clue Eddie? I've seen what you all have written. God has given me a mind which can reason, understand, and perceive.

Did you not say, "We don't only move when we like what He says. We move because He says"?

I understand that to mean if God says it, you do it. However, when I present passages from God's word, I hear excuses as to why you all can't do that, that nobody can do that. Am I wrong in this?

When I presented Jesus' very own words to love the Lord with all your heart, not one Calvinist agreed with me. NOT ONE! That is very revealing. I thought you can do ALL things through Christ, who gives you the strength.

This reminds me of the hen who made the pie, but nobody else wanted to help make it, but they sure wanted to eat it. Sure, we all can claim all the promises and heavenly delights, but it becomes problematic to some when commanded to obey His word, especially when it has to do with sin. You can't win if you do not run the race.

If presenting you with the very words of our Savior is wasting your time, then I can only wish you well. If the teachings of Calvinism satisfy your soul, then by all means go all out for it. But please don't ignore or explain away the very words of God which commands us to deal with sin in our lives. God bless Eddie.

 

[janxharris]

Arcoe,

You never seem to have a clue what we're talking about. It's like you don't even read the posts. Your answers very seldom have anything to do with the posts your answering. I'm not saying this to condem you. I'm just tired of wasting my time.

I've seen many people go from anger about Calvinism to "happy tears" as they finally move into right conclusions where they see the sweetness of sovereign grace.

From the reprobate's perspective, would you explain how it is possible to describe the Gospel as the 'Sweetness of sovereign grace'?

 

[janxharris]

Too bad you don't know what you're talking about, concerning Calvinism. Just more straw men.

This was your response to gmm4j's:

People live in bad news everyday. Then the gospel comes along. It is good news to everyone, both to those who receive and to those who consider it folly. Because people consider it folly does not change the "goodness" of the message - it was still good news to them - They just rejected the good news.

1. Good news: You've won a million dollars.
2. You don't believe it.
3. The news that you've won the million dollars hasn't changed. The value of the millions dollars hasn't changed. The good news didn't become bad news to you because you rejected it. You won a million dollars.


1. Jesus loves you and died for you and you can have his salvation if you look to Him.(Good News)
2. You reject it. (consider it folly)
3. Jesus still loves you and died for you. Still Good News. It didn't become bad news.


1. God only elects some, He most likely doesn't love you, Jesus probably didn't die for you, and you most likely won't even be able to trust in Him because only a few are elected to be able to. (Bad News)
2. You reject it.
3. The content of message remains bad news. I'm even one of the elect and I can see the content of this message is bad news . This is why a Calvinist doesn't present TULIP (their doctrine on soteriology, getting saved) when presenting the gospel to a sinner.

What doesn't gmm4j know what he is talking about? Where are the straw men?

If our position is erroneous then please correct us.

 

[gmm4j]

Mark 16:15-16
He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. 16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

Based on your understanding of particular atonement, how is it "good news to all creation," when according to Calvinism, God had Jesus sufficiently suffer enough to save the whole human race1, but chose and predetermined before anyone had done anything good or bad, to not elect, regenerate, give faith to, or even give Christ’s sufficient sacrifice to most of creation, thereby, effectively condemning them to hell?

(The question is referring to the content of the message of particular atonement, not the hearer’s perception)



1Limited atonement correctly recognizes that Christ’s death was of infinite value and lacking in nothing. In fact it is of such value that had God so willed, Christ’s death could have saved every member of the human race. Christ would not have had to suffer any more or do anything different to save every human who ever lived than He did in securing the salvation of the elect. But that was not God’s purpose in sending Christ to the cross. God’s purpose in the atonement was that Jesus would secure forever the salvation of those the Father had given to Him (Hebrews 7:25). Therefore while Christ’s atonement was limited in its intent or purpose, it was unlimited in its power.


Election from the foundation of the world based on an unconditional decree makes condemnation unreal to the elect, and makes the offer of salvation unreal to the non-elect. For the elect there is no bad news and for the non-elect there is no good news – even though Scripture indicates otherwise.

 

[gmm4j]

Election from the foundation of the world based on an unconditional decree makes condemnation unreal to the elect, and makes the offer of salvation unreal to the non-elect. For the elect there is no bad news and for the non-elect there is no good news – even though Scripture indicates otherwise.

 

[Hammster]

Election from the foundation of the world based on an unconditional decree makes condemnation unreal to the elect, and makes the offer of salvation unreal to the non-elect. For the elect there is no bad news and for the non-elect there is no good news – even though Scripture indicates otherwise.

So can the non-elect be saved?

 

[gmm4j]

So can the non-elect be saved?

Election and salvation are based on faith. No faith, No election, No salvation.

 

[gmm4j]

So can the non-elect be saved?

If election is not based on faith, can there be good news for the non-elect?