One horrendous doctrine

[Daniels]

One of the worst faces of Reformed doctrine is its insistence that God has set his love on a small fraction of the human family. The story is that before he created the human family God chose some to enjoy eternal life with him and the rest he consigned to eternal torture. Some of these teachers are bolder than others and without apology they insist that not only did God foreordain the saved to be saved (independent of anything God foresaw in them) he also foreordained the lost to eternal torture (independent of anything he foresaw in them). Others who sense the horror of such a view try to ease the situation by saying that God chose some and "simply passed by" the rest. Hard-line Calvinist, John Piper (rightly in my view), thinks that lacks consistency and follows John Calvin who made no bones about it: he said God created some (including those that die in infancy) for no other reason than to consign them to eternal torture. (He admitted it was a horrible decree but thought if the Bible taught it he should go along with it.)
Many of us take 1 John 2:2 at face value and think that Christ died to deal with the sins of the entire human family (even John Calvin believed that) but people like Piper and Sproul, Packer and Feinberg tell us that "the world" really means the elect that are scattered throughout the nations of the world. They limit the love of God to the relatively few he chose.
http://www.jimmcguiggan.com/weekly2.asp?id_message=295

 

[BlakeRussell]

http://www.pacifichighlander.postkiwi.com/images/Can-of-worms.jpg

 

[BlakeRussell]

On a more serious note, there is one thing that is of utmost importance and it is this. It goes way beyond doctrine. The last sentence in particular is what I'm making most of my reference to.

"[SIZE=-1]Two young Moravians heard of an island in the West Indies where an atheist British owner had 2000 to 3000 slaves. And the owner had said, "No preacher, no clergyman, will ever stay on this island. If he's ship wrecked we'll keep him in a separate house until he has to leave, but he's never going to talk to any of us about God, I'm through with all that nonsense." Three thousand slaves from the jungles of Africa brought to an island in the Atlantic and there to live and die without hearing of Christ.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Two young Moravians heard about it. They sold themselves to the British planter and used the money they received from their sale, for he paid no more than he would for any slave, to pay their passage out to his island for he wouldn't even transport them. As the ship left its' pier in the river at Hamburg and was going out into the North Sea carried with the tide, the Moravians had come from Herrenhut to see these two lads off, in their early twenties. Never to return again, for this wasn't a four year term, they sold themselves into life time slavery. Simply that as slaves, they could be as Christians where these others were. The families were there weeping, for they knew they would never see them again. And they wondered why they were going and questioned the wisdom of it. As the gap widened and the housings had been cast off and were being curled up there on the pier, and the young boys saw the widening gap, one lad with his arm linked through the arm of his fellow, raised his hand and shouted across the gap the last words that were heard from them, they were these, "MAY THE LAMB THAT WAS SLAIN RECEIVE THE REWARD OF HIS SUFFERING!"[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]This became the call of Moravian missions. And this is the only reason for being, That the Lamb that was slain may receive the reward of His suffering!"[/SIZE]

 

[Erinwilcox]

One of the worst faces of Reformed doctrine is its insistence that God has set his love on a small fraction of the human family. The story is that before he created the human family God chose some to enjoy eternal life with him and the rest he consigned to eternal torture. Some of these teachers are bolder than others and without apology they insist that not only did God foreordain the saved to be saved (independent of anything God foresaw in them) he also foreordained the lost to eternal torture (independent of anything he foresaw in them). Others who sense the horror of such a view try to ease the situation by saying that God chose some and "simply passed by" the rest. Hard-line Calvinist, John Piper (rightly in my view), thinks that lacks consistency and follows John Calvin who made no bones about it: he said God created some (including those that die in infancy) for no other reason than to consign them to eternal torture. (He admitted it was a horrible decree but thought if the Bible taught it he should go along with it.)
Many of us take 1 John 2:2 at face value and think that Christ died to deal with the sins of the entire human family (even John Calvin believed that) but people like Piper and Sproul, Packer and Feinberg tell us that "the world" really means the elect that are scattered throughout the nations of the world. They limit the love of God to the relatively few he chose.
[URL="http://www.jimmcguiggan.com/weekly2.asp?id_message=295"]http://www.jimmcguiggan.com/weekly2.asp?id_message=295[/URL]

One of the key things that many who dislike and misconstrue doctrines such as predestination and limited atonement miss is the fact that God is sovereign over all things. Sure they're willing to sing about it, talk about how God is in control, but they limit His sovereignty to helping them or others and to working things for their good. However, a proper understanding of God's sovereignty can lead to a better understanding of why Reformed believers believe as they do.

Realizing that God, being completely sovereign over all, is the creator of the universe and is in complete control of His creation is key. If God really created all things, does He then not have power over them? When a potter forms something from clay, can he not do with it as he wills? Does the clay have any say over what it is being formed into? No. In the same way, we need to realize that God is our potter and we are merely the dirt that He forms. He can do with us as He wills. He chose to give me blue eyes, freckles on my nose, dark curly hair, and He chose to make me five feet and four and a quarter inches. If it had been up to me, I probably would have made myself taller, changed my hair into something more manageable, etc. But it wasn't up to me. Now, I know that nobody would dispute that. However, if God so formed me, so chose what to make me, doesn't that give Him the right to do what He wills with me? If God decided that I was to die in my sleep tonight or that my life was to end in a car crash on the way to church tomorrow morning, that is his
prerogative. There is no way that I can tell God to change His mind because that isn't what I want. He is in control. THAT being said, God is a god of love.

Now, in that love, God, before the foundation of the world, knew that man would fall from the state of grace that he was created in and into a state of sin. The Bible says that the wages of sin is death. Any who sin deserve hell; therefore, without Christ, the entire world would be damned. You would not disagree with that. The Bible also says that there is none righteous, no not one. We are told that all of our "good works" are as filthy rags in the sight of God. “They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.” Now, what is believing in Jesus? If salvation is completely up to man, then would not choosing God be considered a good work? I wouldn't call it sin, so it must be a good work. However, God has told us that there is none righteous, none that does good. So how does man choose God if no man does good? Also, we are taught that man is dead in his trespasses and sins. What does dead mean? If we listened to the Princess Bride theology, there is a state called "mostly dead". . .but the Bible says dead, not mostly dead, not almost dead, DEAD. What is a dead man capable of? Can he smell the flowers? Is he able to eat his favorite dinner? No, he's dead. So how does a dead man call out to God? Often, a portrait of a man drowning in the ocean and reaching up to God is used to demonstrate salvation. Since the Bible says that man is dead and not drowning, I think a better illustration would be a dead man floating in the water with God pulling him out of the water and breathing life into him. Obviously, a dead man can't reach out to God. In His infinite love and mercy, God chose to send Jesus to die. But why would God send His only begotten Son to die for a race of dead men? That is where predestination and God's sovereignty come in. God, before the foundation of the world, in His good pleasure, chose to save some from sin and darkness. Chose to give them eternal life and save them from damnation. Merciful God that would do this. He had created a perfect world with sinless people who scorned Him, sinned, and threw the world into a state of sin. They ruined His creation. God was the Creator. If He had just left man to his sinful and evil ways, would that not have been righteous? Would it have been wrong? It was His creation to do with as He pleased. In His wonderful mercy, He chose to save some out of darkness and to bring them into light. To draw them to Himself and grant them salvation. He didn't have to do that. He could have let us all be damned. And we would have deserved it. But He didn't. Now, though, people, instead of praising Him for His mercy, scorn Him for not saving everyone. He didn't have to save ANYONE. Man, in his sinful, dead state, would not choose God. Man loves his sin. When offered grace, the sinful man laughs in its face. God will not turn away any who come to Him. But who will come? Those whom He draws to Himself in love and mercy. What of those who are not saved? Well, many of them heard the Gospel and refused it, choosing to remain in their sinful, fallen condition instead. Man, a slave to sin (as taught in the Bible), will not choose God. That is why God saves sinners. Again, it is His creation, He didn't have to save anyone. But He has. And praise God for His sovereignty in salvation. Without it, neither you nor I would be saved.

 

[Beoga]

One of the worst faces of Reformed doctrine is its insistence that God has set his love on a small fraction of the human family. The story is that before he created the human family God chose some to enjoy eternal life with him and the rest he consigned to eternal torture. Some of these teachers are bolder than others and without apology they insist that not only did God foreordain the saved to be saved (independent of anything God foresaw in them) he also foreordained the lost to eternal torture (independent of anything he foresaw in them). Others who sense the horror of such a view try to ease the situation by saying that God chose some and "simply passed by" the rest. Hard-line Calvinist, John Piper (rightly in my view), thinks that lacks consistency and follows John Calvin who made no bones about it: he said God created some (including those that die in infancy) for no other reason than to consign them to eternal torture. (He admitted it was a horrible decree but thought if the Bible taught it he should go along with it.)

Here I thought the God loves and Christ died for a great multitude that cannot be numbered:
Revelation 7:9 After this I looked, and behold, ba great multitude that no one could number, cfrom every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, dclothed in white robes, with epalm branches in their hands,

God is free to set His love on whomever He pleases, and God is free to set His wrath on whomever He pleases. It would be foolish enough to think that God's love is more important than His wrath, for God is glorified in the displaying of His wrath just like He is glorified in the displaying of His love. The Potter has the right to do whatever He wants with His clay, and the clay has no right to talk back or question what the Potter has chosen to do.

Many of us take 1 John 2:2 at face value and think that Christ died to deal with the sins of the entire human family (even John Calvin believed that) but people like Piper and Sproul, Packer and Feinberg tell us that "the world" really means the elect that are scattered throughout the nations of the world. They limit the love of God to the relatively few he chose.
http://www.jimmcguiggan.com/weekly2.asp?id_message=295

Do you really take at face value the words of 1 John 2:2? What then is your understanding of the word "propitiation?"
What value then does Christ's shed blood has if He died for everyone yet not everyone is saved? Does His shed blood sufficient enough to actually accomplish what Christ set out to do, and that is to save His people from their sins? Or is His shed blood inefficient and need the aid of the willingness of us creatures?
We Reformed folk believe that Christ accomplished what He set out to do. All that the Father has given to Christ will be raised up on the last day. This is because Christ died for those given to Him thus guaranteeing and securing their salvation. We believe that salvation is completely the work of God and is not aided by any works done by us. Christ's blood was sufficient for all, but it was only efficient for those it was spilled for.

 

[heymikey80]

Given that you have over 5000 posts, have you reflected on the additional constraints of posting to this particular discussion?

The Synod of Dordt, essentially the constitution of Reformed Theology, denies that God "foreordained the lost to eternal torture (independent of anything he foresaw in them)." So your shot fires at another.

If John Piper made such a statement (and context is often quite significant) he's wrong. I've never seen Calvin say such a thing, though I can certainly come up with statements close enough to make anti-Calvinists think he did. Produce the citations from Calvin, and if you can from Piper.

But either way, you are posting a complaint about hypercalvinism from a viewpoint I'm pretty sure isn't Calvinistic. So please remain irenic and inquiring in this discussion, because a couple of mistakes have already been made.

Hence it clearly appears that those of whom one could hardly expect it have shown no truth, equity, and charity at all in wishing to make the public believe:

--that the teaching of the Reformed churches on predestination and on the points associated with it by its very nature and tendency draws the minds of people away from all godliness and religion, is an opiate of the flesh and the devil, and is a stronghold of Satan where he lies in wait for all people, wounds most of them, and fatally pierces many of them with the arrows of both despair and self-assurance;
--that this teaching makes God the author of sin, unjust, a tyrant, and a hypocrite; and is nothing but a refurbished Stoicism, Manicheism, Libertinism, and Mohammedanism;
--that this teaching makes people carnally self-assured, since it persuades them that nothing endangers the salvation of the chosen, no matter how they live, so that they may commit the most outrageous crimes with self-assurance; and that on the other hand nothing is of use to the reprobate for salvation even if they have truly performed all the works of the saints;
--that this teaching means that God predestined and created, by the bare and unqualified choice of his will, without the least regard or consideration of any sin, the greatest part of the world to eternal condemnation; that in the same manner in which election is the source and cause of faith and good works, reprobation is the cause of unbelief and ungodliness; that many infant children of believers are snatched in their innocence from their mothers' breasts and cruelly cast into hell so that neither the blood of Christ nor their baptism nor the prayers of the church at their baptism can be of any use to them; and very many other slanderous accusations of this kind which the Reformed churches not only disavow but even denounce with their whole heart.​

 

[Paleoconservatarian]

Good point, mikey... I think we ought to require that anyone who wants to come on here and criticize Calvinism (especially outside of the Debate with a Calvinist or Ask a Calvinist subforums) must first have read at least the Canons of Dordt. It doesn't take long.

 

[GrinningDwarf]

This thread need to be moved to 'Debate a Calvinist' or 'Ask a Calvinist'. (Although the tone of the OP would suggest 'Debate' would be a better fit.)

 

[bradfordl]

One horrendous doctrine

A-trolling we shall, a-trolling we shall go, hi ho arminio, a-trolling we shall go!

Repent of your blasphemous pride. God needs nothing from you to carry out His will, and anything you could offer is corrupted filth. He will save for Himself the exact number He determined before creation to glorify Himself in mercy, and He will send to hell the exact number He determined at the same time to glorify Himself in justice. Your bleating that any of that is "unfair" only exposes the arrogant opinion you have of yourself. You deserve nothing from God but the flames of eternal hell, and you have deserved that from the moment you were born.

 

[heymikey80]

OP was crossposted by the originator.

 

[arunma]

Sorry brother Daniels, but I've got to disagree with you on this one. The Bible very clearly teaches Reformed doctrine, and I don't see how it could be read otherwise. I'd be happy to discuss specific Scriptures with you if you like.

Regarding John Piper: back in college I attended his church. Even today I continue to listen to his sermons and read his books (in fact I plan to move back to Minneapolis and return to his church when I finish my PhD). So I'm quite familiar with the man. If you'd like to discuss specifics on John Piper's teaching, I'd also be happy to do so.

 

[JimfromOhio]

I am finding him everywhere

 

[Daniels]

Thank you so much for all your sincere views.

 

[cygnusx1]

A-trolling we shall, a-trolling we shall go, hi ho arminio, a-trolling we shall go!

Repent of your blasphemous pride. God needs nothing from you .........

but what's the tune brad ?

 

[calmcoolandelected]

but what's the tune brad ?

The Farmer in the Dell....do you guys have that one over there or am I going to have to post a mp3 of me singing it??? It'll make you

CC&E

 

[BBAS 64]

One of the worst faces of Reformed doctrine is its insistence that God has set his love on a small fraction of the human family. The story is that before he created the human family God chose some to enjoy eternal life with him and the rest he consigned to eternal torture. Some of these teachers are bolder than others and without apology they insist that not only did God foreordain the saved to be saved (independent of anything God foresaw in them) he also foreordained the lost to eternal torture (independent of anything he foresaw in them). Others who sense the horror of such a view try to ease the situation by saying that God chose some and "simply passed by" the rest. Hard-line Calvinist, John Piper (rightly in my view), thinks that lacks consistency and follows John Calvin who made no bones about it: he said God created some (including those that die in infancy) for no other reason than to consign them to eternal torture. (He admitted it was a horrible decree but thought if the Bible taught it he should go along with it.)
Many of us take 1 John 2:2 at face value and think that Christ died to deal with the sins of the entire human family (even John Calvin believed that) but people like Piper and Sproul, Packer and Feinberg tell us that "the world" really means the elect that are scattered throughout the nations of the world. They limit the love of God to the relatively few he chose.
[URL]http://www.jimmcguiggan.com/weekly2.asp?id_message=295[/URL]

Good Day, Daniels

I have moved your thread to this debate fourm....

So, then let's debate


In the OP you said:

but people like Piper and Sproul, Packer and Feinberg tell us that "the world" really means the elect that are scattered throughout the nations of the world

Please provide the source for such a broad statment for each of these people to paint with your assertion.

Do you deny the word "world" is used in scripture to mean "people from every tribe and nation" ?

Yet another, You said:

God created some (including those that die in infancy) for no other reason than to consign them to eternal torture

Please provide a source for this also.

In Him,

Bill

 

[cygnusx1]

The Farmer in the Dell....do you guys have that one over there or am I going to have to post a mp3 of me singing it??? It'll make you

CC&E

sounds like olde mcdonalds had a farm

 

[cygnusx1]

man loves to be the center of things , man will welcome a God who is love and nothing more . Man will tolerate a God who loves everyone exactly the same , leaving all at men's hands to determine their own destinies by their own will and works , to leave much room for boasting and grandstanding . this they can agree to .

but man controls very little , whatever his boast.

"Nae man can tether time nor tide." Bunyan

IF God loves the world , then it is for the sake of the elect. (see Romans 11;28)

 

[Elect]

One of the worst faces of Reformed doctrine is its insistence that God has set his love on a small fraction of the human family. The story is that before he created the human family God chose some to enjoy eternal life with him and the rest he consigned to eternal torture. Some of these teachers are bolder than others and without apology they insist that not only did God foreordain the saved to be saved (independent of anything God foresaw in them) he also foreordained the lost to eternal torture (independent of anything he foresaw in them). Others who sense the horror of such a view try to ease the situation by saying that God chose some and "simply passed by" the rest. Hard-line Calvinist, John Piper (rightly in my view), thinks that lacks consistency and follows John Calvin who made no bones about it: he said God created some (including those that die in infancy) for no other reason than to consign them to eternal torture. (He admitted it was a horrible decree but thought if the Bible taught it he should go along with it.)
Many of us take 1 John 2:2 at face value and think that Christ died to deal with the sins of the entire human family (even John Calvin believed that) but people like Piper and Sproul, Packer and Feinberg tell us that "the world" really means the elect that are scattered throughout the nations of the world. They limit the love of God to the relatively few he chose.
[URL]http://www.jimmcguiggan.com/weekly2.asp?id_message=295[/URL]

I do not believe that it is a horrendous Doctrine. What ever God does is just and we should praise Him for it.

 

[Iosias]

A-trolling we shall, a-trolling we shall go, hi ho arminio, a-trolling we shall go!