Some questions for an educated Calvinist

[Skala]

The gospel call applies to all who hear
Faith is the duty of every sinner
The gospel makes some "offer" of Christ, salvation, or mercy to the non-elect.
The offer of divine mercy is free and universal.
There is such a thing as "common grace."
God has some sort of love for the non-elect.

All such above are COMPLETELY inconsistent with -

Total Depravity
Unconditional Election
Limited Atonement
Irresistible Grace

Absolutely FALSE.

TULIP has no bearing on the statements you listed here.

1) The gospel call applies to all who hear
Faith is the duty of every sinner
The gospel makes some "offer" of Christ, salvation, or mercy to the non-elect.
The offer of divine mercy is free and universal.

All of these statements are so closely related I lumped them all together and a single answer will answer each of them.

These are true. It is the duty of every sinner to believe the gospel. When the gospel (repent and believe) is told to a sinner, that sinner is bound to obey it. The gospel is not a well wish, it is a command. It is an imperative. The sinner is COMMANDED to repent and believe by God himself. His choice to not do so is because of his own fallen rebellious nature. Thus he is held accountable for his choice. If any sinner does respond positively to the command to repent and believe, we chalk that up to grace, not because one sinner was just better and more moral and more righteous or smarter than another sinner. We attribute positive responses to the gospel to grace and grace alone.

2) Common grace

I really fail to see how you arrived at such a conclusion. It's a big non-sequitur on your part to conclude that if TULIP is true, then "common grace" cannot exist. Why? How does that logically follow? It doesn't. Common grace is the idea that God is restraining the evil in the world. The only reason the regular sinner down the street is not as evil as hitler or some serial killer is not because he is more moral or has more innate righteousness, but because of God's restraining grace. Common grace also refers to the idea that god does give gifts of grace (Ie, things that we don't deserve) to all people, not just the elect. There are non-elect people who enjoy the gifts of life, family, friends, material things, health, wealth, prosperity, etc. All good things come from above, from the Father of lights. Some people are born into the world diseased, poor, and starving to death. Others are born into the world as the sons and daughters of royalty and wealthy people. These are gifts from God that he dispenses as He pleases. The gift of salvation, like every other gift, is given to whomever God is pleased to give it.

3) God has some sort of love for the non-elect.

The answer to this question was given by Jonathan Edwards already:

"There is nothing that keeps wicked men at any one moment out of hell, but the mere pleasure of God."

If it isn't love that is keeping wicked men out of hell at this precise moment, what is it?

Clearly God demonstrates love to all people, not just the elect. But like a husband who has a special, unique love for his wife (Eph 5:25), Christ has a special love for his bride, too. (ie, the elect)

 

[Caleb Taylor]

Dear Skala,

I really already said "Goodbye" to all, and that though I have gained more understanding of Calvinist ideas, I still saw them as in essence contradictory.

As a closing statement I would like to make one final comment in regard to prayer:

Charles Finney relied on prayer much much more than any Calvinist I ever heard of, and had strong convictions on the connection of prayer with the many Salvations he saw and also found that when he lacked a little in prayer, he was not effective in conversions...

I'm sure the following will explain it (which I mentioned in a previous post) -

Prayer increases the influence of God like in a tug of war (God vs the sinner)...
God never pulls at full strength upon the sinner, but it is increasingly hard to resist his pulling on the "rope" if a strong Christian is praying for you... It is ultimately their own decision to accept Christ and give in to God, but the influence of God can be increased by the prayer of another person and it can be more difficult for them to resist... It's like asking God to talk louder to them...!

I hope this explains at least from an Arminian point of view, why Arminians still pray for the lost...

There were however, interesting occasions where Finney was in fact told by God to stop praying for certain people. He had been praying for them for a long time, and they had supposedly resisted God so much (perhaps the unpardonable sin..?) that God told Finney He didn't want to hear from him about the person again. This however was very rare...

 

[Skala]

Dear Skala,

I really already said "Goodbye" to all, and that though I have gained more understanding of Calvinist ideas, I still saw them as in essence contradictory.

So no comment on the refutations I gave and the proof that in fact it is your view that is contradictory? Huh. Interesting.

Charles Finney relied on prayer much much more than any Calvinist I ever heard of

Proof? Evidence? How could you measure the amount that someone relies on prayer, in order to make such an absolute statement?

Sorry, this is just how my brain works. I don't do well with assertions. I need to see how a person arrives at a conclusion. Otherwise it's not a very convincing argument...

and had strong convictions on the connection of prayer with the many Salvations he saw and also found that when he lacked a little in prayer, he was not effective in conversions...

I'm sure the following will explain it (which I mentioned in a previous post) -

Prayer increases the influence of God like in a tug of war (God vs the sinner)...
God never pulls at full strength upon the sinner, but it is increasingly hard to resist his pulling on the "rope" if a strong Christian is praying for you... It is ultimately their own decision to accept Christ and give in to God, but the influence of God can be increased by the prayer of another person and it can be more difficult for them to resist... It's like asking God to talk louder to them...!

I hope this explains at least from an Arminian point of view, why Arminians still pray for the lost...

Well, that's the weirdest thing I've ever heard.

Bible verses for such a notion? Did Finney get that from the Bible, or did he just make it up out of thin air?

 

[Skala]

That's not in the bible...

Actually it is in the Bible.

See Acts 4;27-28 where God predestined Christ's murder, see the story of Joseph's brother's selling him into slavery per God's design, and see Isaiah where it talks about Assyria and God using them as a tool of judgement in his hands, even while they attack, plunder and pillage Israel.

In all these circumstances, sin was part of God's plan, but God's purposes were righteous, though the men's choices in fulfilling God's plan were inherently sinful and evil.


So, yeah, it IS in the Bible, despite your assertion that it isn't.

 

[Caleb Taylor]

So no comment on the refutations I gave and the proof that in fact it is your view that is contradictory?

Ok then, here goes...

If any sinner does respond positively to the command to repent and believe, we chalk that up to grace, not because one sinner was just better and more moral and more righteous or smarter than another sinner. We attribute positive responses to the gospel to grace and grace alone.

I don't have too much of a problem with this unless, by grace and grace alone, one means we play no part in presenting our own faith in that grace toward God. Even Luther for example would not be so extreme on the sovereignty of God that we play no part...

2) Common grace

It's a big non-sequitur on your part to conclude that if TULIP is true, then "common grace" cannot exist. Why? How does that logically follow?

I think we have a different view of what common grace is. Common grace is to an Armenian, similar to what Christ explained in the talents given in the parable of the talents. "Common grace" in terms of the talents (spiritual light) given cannot exist under Calvinism unless it is efficacious.

The only reason the regular sinner down the street is not as evil as hitler or some serial killer is not because he is more moral or has more innate righteousness, but because of God's restraining grace.

This is no restraint in our view. Calvinists seem to deny this "prevenient/common grace" (as Arminians define it) as Calvinists think grace must always be efficacious... how do you explain the parable of the talents? Is that not common grace? Was it always efficacious?

All good things come from above, from the Father of lights. Some people are born into the world diseased, poor, and starving to death. Others are born into the world as the sons and daughters of royalty and wealthy people.

That is not "grace" in the New Testament sense of "grace" be it "common" or not... Grace in the New Testament is always spiritual.

3) God has some sort of love for the non-elect.

If it isn't love that is keeping wicked men out of hell at this precise moment, what is it?

I agree. But predestination in the Calvinistic sense goes COMPLETELY against this notion. That is why it is inconsistent. If God predetermined already that some would not be saved, how can He love them at all in any sense? Yes I know you can't agree with that as it against the bible. Yet it MUST flow logically from predestination. If they were damned from the beginning, how can there be any love for them?

[regarding ideas of God drawing us a bit like a tug of war...] Bible verses for such a notion? Did Finney get that from the Bible, or did he just make it up out of thin air?

The illustration is my own. But it illustrates what he and many others in my own circles believe and the reason why we as Arminians need to pray...
Bible verse: See the parable of the talents: God's grace (the talents) are His way of working on us to get a response... You could use a thousand other illustrations but the principle is the same: God draws us by His grace in order to get a response from us... The measure of grace given is different for each one (as with the talents)... and ultimately we are responding to His grace... and this grace can be increased upon a person by the prayers of another.... such as even for Christians to become stronger Christians, as in the prayers of Paul in the epistles, and also prayers for the unconverted...

Actually it [predestination/predetermination of sin] is in the Bible.
See Acts 4;27-28 where God predestined Christ's murder, see the story of Joseph's brother's selling him into slavery per God's design, and see Isaiah where it talks about Assyria and God using them as a tool of judgement in his hands, even while they attack, plunder and pillage Israel.

Did you actually read my post?

I said clearly that predestination of sin is ONLY in the Old Testament (OT). The verse you have given are ALL in the Old Testament, except for Judas who was BEFORE the death and resurrection of Christ. There is nothing after that about predetermination of sin in the believer. It is ALL positive things. Eph 1:3-6 for example. But in reality do our lives really reflect these "promises" of God to be holy and blameless etc...? Therefore it is still by faith that we "claim" them... (Our choice)... Find for me an example of predetermination of sin for the believer... Some here have said that God predetermines ALL things including sin. That is NOT in the bible... Not after the time of Christ at least...

 

[Skala]

Ok then, here goes...
I don't have too much of a problem with this unless, by grace and grace alone, one means we play no part in presenting our own faith in that grace toward God. Even Luther for example would not be so extreme on the sovereignty of God that we play no part...

You do play a part. God gives you the gift, and you freely and willingly exercise it.

Why do you insist that faith is something that is self-wrought, rather than a gift from God? The Bible teaches it is a gift from God. See Eph 2:8-9. See Phil 1:29.

Who in their right mind doesn't want to credit God for their faith?

"By the grace of God I am what I am" - Apostle Paul

2) Common grace

I think we have a different view of what common grace is. Common grace is to an Armenian, similar to what Christ explained in the talents given in the parable of the talents. "Common grace" in terms of the talents (spiritual light) given cannot exist under Calvinism unless it is efficacious.


This is no restraint in our view. Calvinists seem to deny this "prevenient/common grace" (as Arminians define it) as Calvinists think grace must always be efficacious... how do you explain the parable of the talents? Is that not common grace? Was it always efficacious?

Where did any Calvinist ever argue that all grace must be efficacious? Not a single time in all my years of study have I ever heard any Calvinist say such a thing. So I think you may be misrepresenting Calvinism here.

By the way, prevenient grace and common grace are not synonymous.

3) God has some sort of love for the non-elect.

I agree. But predestination in the Calvinistic sense goes COMPLETELY against this notion. That is why it is inconsistent. If God predetermined already that some would not be saved, how can He love them at all in any sense? Yes I know you can't agree with that as it against the bible. Yet it MUST flow logically from predestination. If they were damned from the beginning, how can there be any love for them?

It does not logically follow. And here is why. You are viewing predestination wrong. Ephesians 1:4-11 explicitly says that predestination is an act of LOVE on God's part. "In love he predestined us...". For some reason, you think predestination is an act of hate.

Look, predestination has nothing to do with damnation. Predestination doesn't cause anyone to go to hell. Sin causes people to go to hell. Predestination actually rescues sinners who are hell-bound. Without predestination, everyone would go to hell. Predestination is not unloving, it is loving. It is God stepping in and intervening and rescuing billions of people who would have gone to hell otherwise.

Sin is what is the cause of damnation, not predestination. Predestination has nothing to do with a person's condemnation. You are viewing predestination wrongly. God did not pick innocent people and say "You go to heaven, you go to hell, you go to heaven, you go to hell". Instead, God picked guilty, sinful people and said "Out of grace and mercy, I'm saving multitudes, too many to number".

Predestination is a facet of salvation. Every time predestination proper is mentioned, it has to do with salvation, not condemnation. It is the mistake on the non-Calvinist's part to think by "predestination" we mean anything other than what the Bible itself says.

Further, I should flip the question back around on you, brother. How does your own view escape the accusations that you have laid on Calvinism? In your own view, did God not create billions of people that he knew would reject Jesus and end up in hell? If so, why did he create them? Was he hoping that his perfect foreknowledge would be wrong and those people would surprise him and actually be saved? The only possible way you can avoid this dilemma is by embracing some kind of open theism. That is why James White says "The only consistent Arminianism is open theism"

The illustration is my own. But it illustrates what he and many others in my own circles believe and the reason why we as Arminians need to pray...
Bible verse: See the parable of the talents: God's grace (the talents) are His way of working on us to get a response... You could use a thousand other illustrations but the principle is the same: God draws us by His grace in order to get a response from us... The measure of grace given is different for each one (as with the talents)... and ultimately we are responding to His grace... and this grace can be increased upon a person by the prayers of another.... such as even for Christians to become stronger Christians, as in the prayers of Paul in the epistles, and also prayers for the unconverted...

Methinks you are stretching the parable further than Jesus intended. You are arriving at extra conclusions from such a small amount of text. That is eisegesis. The point of the parable is simply that God expects us to be wise stewards of what He has given to us. I'm not quite sure how you came to all the conclusions you did.

That being said, you don't have to "guess" how salvation works. The Bible plainly tells us. Jesus said "All that the Father gives me will come to me". Period. No where does Jesus or anyone else in the Bible say "God tries to get a response from us".

Also, the word "draw" in the Bible is the Greek word helkuo which means to drag, not "woo, persuade, entice", etc. It is the same word used for drawing a sword from a sheath, drawing fish with a net, etc. The meaning of the word is plain, it means to effectually do something, not "try to get a response". You don't "try" to persuade a sword to come out a sheath. You pull it.

I said clearly that predestination of sin is ONLY in the Old Testament (OT). The verse you have given are ALL in the Old Testament, except for Judas who was BEFORE the death and resurrection of Christ. There is nothing after that about predetermination of sin in the believer.

Sorry, I didn't think it was relevant WHERE in the Bible these truths come from, as God is always consistent and is the same yesterday, today, and forever. Also, you are simply incorrect. Acts 4:27-28 is in the New Testament...

By my post I was simply arguing the generic fact that God uses sin for His purposes.

As for sin in the believer we have drastically different views on this point. I believe even my own sin is ultimately decreed by God and was part of God's plan from eternity past. After all, I am part of the world, part of the universe, and God controls the whole universe and the whole world. He works all things according to the council of His will. I cannot even take a breath without his direct involvement. My heart is not beating on its own, but God is literally pumping my heart manually. He controls every atom in the entire universe. There is not a single rogue molecule in existence. In Him I live and move and have my being.

John Owen writes about sin in the believer and how God uses it as part of our sanctification. Sin and repentance have purposes. And they have lasting effects. I highly recommend the book "Overcoming sin and Temptation".

Anyways, thanks for the discussion. I hope I am being helpful, even if in a small way.

 

[heymikey80]

I would likely suggest a reading of Loraine Boettner, "Reformed Doctrine of Predestination" before attempting any allegation of inconsistency. Now true, the book is more interested in a Scriptural defense, but it does factor a lot if logic and reason into it.

Claiming an inconsistency without studying the issues and what the terms mean is best left for Soteriology. Youll find a lot of people to commiserate with who misunderstand them too.

Also for a handbook of what theological terms mean instead of what opponents smear them to mean, Berkhof's "Summary of Christian Doctrine" would help. You are using terms with agreed meanings, yet youre not using them with that meaning. Mayhem normally follows. The reason I mention it, I noticed you used the term "common grace". http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/sdg/berkhof_summary.html#chapter18

 

[A New Dawn]

That's not in the bible...

However, thank you all for your clarification. I have, believe it or not, gained some knowledge of Calvinist beliefs through this forum... And I thank you all for that... I still do think it is all very contradictory. However, thanks anyway. There's probably not much point in continuing... See you all in heaven if you love Jesus. Bye...

I'd be interested in learning what you have learned about Calvinist's beliefs. It doesn't appear from the discussion that you have learned anything, so I am just curious.

 

[Caleb Taylor]

Well for one, I have learned Calvinists seem to be even more extreme than I realised... e.g. God's predetermination of sin in the believer, and ascribing everything to the sovereignty of God including sin... I didn't realise this earlier...

 

[heymikey80]

Well for one, I have learned Calvinists seem to be even more extreme than I realised... e.g. God's predetermination of sin in the believer, and ascribing everything to the sovereignty of God including sin... I didn't realise this earlier...

No, calvinists are not dualistic. One First Cause. But second causes do exist and do have responsibilities.

Should I add the Westminster Confession to the reading list?

 

[Caleb Taylor]

Why do you insist that faith is something that is self-wrought, rather than a gift from God? The Bible teaches it is a gift from God. See Eph 2:8-9. See Phil 1:29.

Well, lets just look at that last verse to get its full meaning...

Phil 1:29 For it has been granted to you on behalf of Christ not only to believe in him, but also to suffer for him (NIV)

Do you suffer for Him? If so, do ALL Christians suffer for Him? If you take "believe" as "granted" = given by God in the Calvinistic sense, why don't ALL suffer also (as it is also "granted"? I think you could name a few at least who do't suffer for Christ. "granted" must mean less than absolute in the sense Paul is using iin otherwise all Christians would suffer.. The overwhelming doctrine in the bible is that faith is our own bit responding to God and the other (comparatively few) scriptures which may appear to say on the surface otherwise, must be interpreted in the light of the majority... (Luke 11:10; 2 Peter 3:9; Acts 2:38; 2 Pet 2:9; John 3:16; Rev 3:20 etc)

Who in their right mind doesn't want to credit God for their faith?

Great! I agree! In a previous post I said God could have reduced His prevenient grace so much that scarcely any would be saved... But He never removes it completely unless we commit the unpardonable sin (what that is exactly I don't know) - (1 John 5:16)

The point is we should praise God for our salvation, yet still view all unsaved as needing to make a choice... No-one (after the time of Christ) has been damned from the beginning... Its a New Covenant and ALL are included.

This is no restraint in our view.

Someone here posted that there was... Have a look for it...

Where did any Calvinist ever argue that all grace must be efficacious?

The "grace" talked of in the bible is always saving grace or growth in grace as a Christian. Therefore there is no point in talking of or defining "common grace" as anything else. As far as I know Calvinists believe saving grace when given is always efficacious as God has predetermined it all... Why talk about "common grace" at all if its just something unspiritual?

By the way, prevenient grace and common grace are not synonymous.

As far as I'm concerned they are; if common grace is just something natural (not applying to salvation or growth as a Christian, its not even theology at all...

For some reason, you think predestination is an act of hate.

Ok: It seems only some more extreme Calvinists believe in double-predestination, which is not in the bible...But you would STILL say the damned have been predetermined in God's sovereignty, before they were born right? Lets not let words be our argument. Essentially you are saying the same thing as them! They have been damned from the beginning. So how could God have any sense of love for them?

Sin is what is the cause of damnation, not predestination. Predestination has nothing to do with a person's condemnation. You are viewing predestination wrongly. God did not pick innocent people and say "You go to heaven, you go to hell, you go to heaven, you go to hell". Instead, God picked guilty, sinful people and said "Out of grace and mercy, I'm saving multitudes, too many to number".

You are going beyond the point here. Calvinists believe that God predetermined sin in the unbeliever and that many would not be given saving grace. Hence you believe God damned them to sin from the beginning AND a lack of saving grace... How could God love in any sense such a person...? Its absolute nonsense...!

Predestination is a facet of salvation. Every time predestination proper is mentioned, it has to do with salvation, not condemnation.

Exactly what I was saying! But Calvinistic "predetermination" (lets not argue words here) essentially still means the SAME thing for the damned as for the saved. God has foreordained some to salvation and some to condemnation right??? That is the essence. There is NO love of God for the damned in Calvinistic theology. I don't believe it even if you say it. You are contradicting yourself...

In your own view, did God not create billions of people that he knew would reject Jesus and end up in hell? If so, why did he create them? Was he hoping that his perfect foreknowledge would be wrong and those people would surprise him and actually be saved? The only possible way you can avoid this dilemma is by embracing some kind of open theism. That is why James White says "The only consistent Arminianism is open theism"

No, I think open theism is wrong. All people of ALL persuasions could ask why did God create us all in the first place...? Why create the Devil when God knew he would fall? Well the simple honest answer to that brother, is I don't know... But its better to give free-choice to the Devil, and for that matter all of us, so that He is glorified in our choice to worship Him, rather than to create a sort of race of "robots" (again don't get caught up in words, you know what I mean) in heaven and on earth who have no choice in the matter (unless God does it all)!

The point of the parable is simply that God expects us to be wise stewards of what He has given to us.

Well Jesus never talked of anything that was not of spiritual significance... Either He was talking here of becoming a Christian OR of spiritual growth (as wise stewards) OR both...
In any case, something spiritual was given to each person (not natural, Jesus didn't care much for that - His parables were about the KINGDOM!), and one person did not do anything with that spiritual gift God gave Him! It was not a natural gift as it was a parable of the KINGDOM illustrating spiritual principles of salvation AND/OR spiritual growth... The point is we can resist God! See also Heb 3:15, and Rev 3:20...

No where does Jesus or anyone else in the Bible say "God tries to get a response from us".

Ah, yes He does... See the two verses I just mentioned, and there are numerous others...

Sorry, I didn't think it was relevant WHERE in the Bible these truths come from, as God is always consistent and is the same yesterday, today, and forever.

It IS relevant. We are in the new covenant, they were in the old! See Rom 9:25

Also, you are simply incorrect. Acts 4:27-28 is in the New Testament...

Umm, that's actually a New Testament reference to some actions that happened BEFORE the new covenant...

As for sin in the believer we have drastically different views on this point. I believe even my own sin is ultimately decreed by God and was part of God's plan from eternity past. After all, I am part of the world, part of the universe, and God controls the whole universe and the whole world. He works all things according to the council of His will. I cannot even take a breath without his direct involvement. My heart is not beating on its own, but God is literally pumping my heart manually. He controls every atom in the entire universe. There is not a single rogue molecule in existence.

Fine.. I agree, but that does not mean that He wills it to happen! He never predetermines sin for the believer. That is not in the bible. See James 1:13. Jesus also told us to pray for God's Will to be done! God. Yes God PERMITS all things that happen, but has delegated some authority (over our choice) to us... and subsequently his Will is not ALWAYS done...

Anyways, thanks for the discussion. I hope I am being helpful, even if in a small way.

Thank you too... I have gained a bit from this discussion...technical terms etc... But I think I will have to leave it at that. I feel I have given a good defence of the truth, but I know you probably won't accept it... Thank for reading through and the discussion anyway...

BTW, I'm trying to get a grasp on the details of Calvinism for an essay comparing Jonathan Edwards and Charles Finney...

 

[heymikey80]

Well, lets just look at that last verse to get its full meaning...

Phil 1:29 For it has been granted to you on behalf of Christ not only to believe in him, but also to suffer for him (NIV)

Do you suffer for Him? If so, do ALL Christians suffer for Him? If you take "believe" as "granted" = given by God in the Calvinistic sense, why don't ALL suffer also (as it is also "granted"? I think you could name a few at least who do't suffer for Christ. "granted" must mean less than absolute in the sense Paul is using iin otherwise all Christians would suffer.. The overwhelming doctrine in the bible is that faith is our own bit responding to God and the other (comparatively few) scriptures which may appear to say on the surface otherwise, must be interpreted in the light of the majority... (Luke 11:10; 2 Peter 3:9; Acts 2:38; 2 Pet 2:9; John 3:16; Rev 3:20 etc)

As for Pp 1:29, Paul is steely clear that the Philippians are adding persecution as a specific to them, and Paul is not requiring persecution of every Christian. You skirted the point Paul did make, that God granted the Philippians to believe. He did it along a clear path of regeneration & calling, changing hearts and growing people in faith, righteousness, and selfless care for one another. He does that stuff. Within you. (1 John 2:29, 3:9, 4:7, 5:1, 4, 8, Pp 2:13).

Your response shows where oddities and errors emerge from not really knowing what is being said with precision. Calvinism generally also sees faith as a human response (cf John Murray, "Redemption Accomplished & Applied" 2.4.2). The distinction here is that people dont believe in a way that is truth and life without a heart (Rom 10:10) and that heart change is by God (John 6:63-65, Rom 2:29). Jesus Himself described this need overall, as needing to be born again John 3:3,5,7.

The additional distinction is that Calvinism doesnt treat faith as "new law". God is not trading faith for salvation. Faith is instead more like the path that grace uses to send people more of what we dont deserve. It is a functioning, living attribute of the new life. And it is used as an indicator of that life.

Lack of love for the reprobate is another odd conclusion. It seems to assume that giving life is some kind of indicator of love, yet: are the reprobate alive? Could God do otherwise? The question of love is often much more akin to niceness when presented against Calvinism, instead of the way Scripture says it. Yet God is indeed being gracious to the reprobate. He sends rain to sustain the reprobate, sun to grow their food, laws to protect them, and institutes family and government to relate with their humanity. The sole difference is a particular gift that nobody deserves, & that God paid an inestimable price for.

Like I said before, you will find a lot of people who dont know what calvinism says and will cheer your ignorance. You can even sell huge books. But I find God detests false witness. So I look for people to be sure. It is far more often characteristic of calvinists that they have looked into such things. Even more so when they are saying things that result in attacks against them.

 

[A New Dawn]

Well for one, I have learned Calvinists seem to be even more extreme than I realised... e.g. God's predetermination of sin in the believer, and ascribing everything to the sovereignty of God including sin... I didn't realise this earlier...

This is why I wondered if you had actually learned anything, or if you just hardened your resolve to not learn anything.

 

[Caleb Taylor]

Dear HeyMikey,

I still believe you re twisting the meaning of "granted" in Phil 1:29. I think that anyone without training in Calvinism, upon first impression would not read into it absolutely sovereign predestination of the elect. We will have to disagree on this one...

Calvinism generally also sees faith as a human response

Well that's certainly not the impression of been given here in this forum unless by that "response" you mean something automatically controlled by God after God makes the changes in the heart, which is not the kind of contributing "response" I am talking about.... If its not "automatic" how does it fit in with the sovereignty of God Calvinists are so clear on...?

The additional distinction is that Calvinism doesnt treat faith as "new law". God is not trading faith for salvation. Faith is instead more like the path that grace uses to send people more of what we dont deserve. It is a functioning, living attribute of the new life. And it is used as an indicator of that life.

Again you appear to be reducing the Sovereignty of God aspect that many others here have stressed so much upon. Please clarify if this "faith" is something controlled by God or not in Calvinism... Also it appears you are attributing "faith" as preceding growth as a Christian but not preceding the initial "growth" into becoming a Christian... This seems a little contradictory... Are you sure other Calvinists believe this also?

Yet God is indeed being gracious to the reprobate. He sends rain to sustain the reprobate, sun to grow their food, laws to protect them, and institutes family and government to relate with their humanity.

Jesus said "What would it profit a man if he gained the whole world yet forfeited his soul." (Mark 8:36) These things are so infinitely TINY compared to eternal damnation that they are hardly worth mentioning... The Old Testament talks a lot about the lack of love God had for the ones He did not chose. In the New Testament the love is extended to all people (in some sense). Calvinists cannot talk about love for unbelievers unless there is some kind of SIGNIFICANCE to that love such as a possibility of salvation for all. (Rain on the just and unjust is just a reason to show us God has not completely given up on their salvation...)

But I find God detests false witness. So I look for people to be sure. It is far more often characteristic of calvinists that they have looked into such things. Even more so when they are saying things that result in attacks against them.

O boy. The Calvinist lies about Charles Finney are very prevalent and all over the web...!

Here's something (if you have time to read it) that is very interesting about Finney, from A BIOGRAPHY OF
CHARLES GRANDISON FINNEY. by G. FREDERICK WRIGHT, D.D., LL.D. Professor in Oberlin Theological Seminary, OHIO 1891: - As it may not fit the description of Finney that you have heard...

...As illustrating the extent to which the personal sentiments and sympathies of the reporter affect his account of a discourse, it is interesting to compare the report of one of Finney's sermons as given by Mr. Brockway, a disaffected member of Dr. Beman's church in Troy,(10) and a report of the same sermon as given by Professor Park, of Andover. Among Mr. Brockway's complaints against Beman was that he had "introduced into his pulpit the notorious Charles G. Finney, whose shocking blasphemies, novel and repulsive sentiments, and theatrical and frantic gesticulations struck horror into those who entertained any reverence either for religion or decency." He complained, likewise, that Finney, in preaching on the text, "One mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" (1 Tim. ii. 5), "after describing the language of the redeemed in heaven as being 'Not unto us, but unto thy name be the glory,'" burst out with the following objectionable language: "We shall see the Restorationists come smoking and fuming out of hell to the gates of heaven, which being opened, they will say, I Stand away, you old saints of God! We have paid our own debt! We have a better right here than you! And you too, Jesus Christ, stand one side! Get out of our way! No thanks to you, our being here: we came here on our merits.' . . . Why, sinner, I tell you, if you could climb to heaven, you would hurl God from his throne! Yes, hurl God from his throne! Oh, yes, if you could but get there, you would cut God's throat! Yes, you would cut God's throat!" By the time the report reached Dr. Nettleton, it was embellished with the statement that Finney said that the sinner would climb to heaven "on a streak of lightning" to hurl God from his throne.

The following is the account of substantially the same discourse as written out for me by Professor Park, who heard the sermon three or four years later at Andover: -

"The exercises at the Anniversary of Andover Theological Seminary in the year 1831 were seriously interrupted by the fact that Rev. Mr. Finney preached in the village church on the evenings of Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday, the evenings devoted to some of the main exercises of the theological students in the Seminary Chapel. There was a decided opposition to Mr. Finney among the professors and the students of the Seminary, but his fame was so great that we were compelled to give up our exercises on those evenings. We regarded it as certain that he would draw away our auditors. Forty-two orations had been committed to memory by the class, but, in consequence of Mr. Finney's sudden invasion, nearly half of them were necessarily given up. On the last evening of our anniversary exercises, the Rev. Justin Edwards, D.D., then a favorite preacher in New England, was to deliver a discourse before, the alumni of the Seminary. Only thirty persons assembled in our chapel to hear him. His expected auditors had gone down to hear Mr. Finney at the village church. That church was thronged. In the midst of the crowd were between two and three hundred men who were already, or were soon to be, preachers of the gospel. In addressing this large and unique multitude Mr. Finney was more highly excited than I had ever seen him before, or have ever seen him since. His discourse was one which could never be printed, and could not easily be forgotten. The eloquence of it cannot be appreciated by those who did not hear it. His text was 1 Timothy ii. 5, 'One mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.' His sermon was just one hundred minutes long. It held the unremitting attention of his hearers, even of those who had opposed his interference with our Seminary exercises. It abounded with sterling argument and with startling transitions. It was too earnest to be called theatrical, but in the best sense of the word it was called dramatic. Some of his rhetorical utterances are indescribable. I will allude to one of them, but I know that my allusion to it will give no adequate idea of it.

"He was illustrating the folly of men who expect to be saved on the ground of justice; who think that they may, perhaps, be punished after death, but when they have endured all the penalty which they deserve they will be admitted to heaven. He was appealing to the uniform testimony of the Bible that the men who are saved at all are saved by grace, they are pardoned, their heaven consists in glorifying the vicarious atonement by which their sins were washed away. He was describing the jar which the songs of the saints would receive if any intruder should claim that he had already endured the penalty of the divine law. The tones of the preacher then became sweet and musical as he repeated the words of the 'ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands; saying with a great voice, Worthy is the Lamb that hath been slain to receive the power, and riches, and wisdom, and might, and honor, and glory, and blessing.' No sooner had he uttered the word 'blessing' than he started back, turned his face from the mass of the audience before him, fixed his glaring eyes upon the gallery at his right hand, and gave all the signs of a man who was frightened by a sudden interruption of the divine worship. With a stentorian voice he cried out: 'What is that I see? What means that rabble-rout of men coming up here? Hark! Hear them shout? Hear their words: "Thanks to hell-fire! We have served out our time. Thanks! Thanks! WE HAVE SERVED OUT OUR TIME. THANKS TO HELL-FIRE!"' Then the preacher turned his face from the side gallery, looked again upon the mass of the audience, and after a lengthened pause, during which a fearful stillness pervaded the house, he said in gentle tones: Is this the spirit of the saints? Is this the music of the upper world? "And every created thing which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and on the sea, and all things that are in them, heard I saying, Unto him that sitteth on the throne, and unto the Lamb, be the blessing, and the honor, and the glory, and the dominion, for ever and ever. And the four living creatures said, Amen."' During this dramatic scene five or six men were sitting on a board which had been extemporaneously brought into the aisle and extended from one chair to another. I was sitting with them. The board actually shook beneath us. Every one of the men was trembling with excitement. The power of the whole sermon was compressed into that vehement utterance. It is more than fifty-eight years since I listened to that discourse. I remember it well. I can recall the impression of it as distinctly as I could a half-century ago; but if every word of it were on the printed page, it would not be the identical sermon of the living preacher."...

 

[Foghorn]

The OP makes a false distinction. To my knowledge all Calvinists would agree that Christ's death was sufficient for all but efficient only for the elect.

I agree if Christ's death was meant for the non-elect, it would be quite sufficient, if it were meant for 1,000 planets full of people it would be no less sufficient. However, it was meant and designed for just the elect, and sufficient as well. If the atonement was not meant for the non-elect, why would anyone consider it sufficient for them?

Of course, if it was meant for them it would be sufficient.

 

[A New Dawn]

I agree if Christ's death was meant for the non-elect, it would be quite efficient, if it were meant for 1,000 planets full of people it would be no less sufficient. However, it was meant and designed for just the elect, and sufficient as well. If the atonement was not meant for the non-elect, why would anyone consider it sufficient for them?

Of course, if it was meant for them it would be sufficient.

You seem to be mixing up efficient and sufficient in your post, and it is confusing. Especially your first sentence.

 

[Foghorn]

You seem to be mixing up efficient and sufficient in your post, and it is confusing. Especially your first sentence.

Your right.
Fixed. Thanks,

 

[A New Dawn]

I agree if Christ's death was meant for the non-elect, it would be quite sufficient, if it were meant for 1,000 planets full of people it would be no less sufficient. However, it was meant and designed for just the elect, and sufficient as well. If the atonement was not meant for the non-elect, why would anyone consider it sufficient for them?

Of course, if it was meant for them it would be sufficient.

Thanks for clearing it up. I wasn't sure what you were trying to say when I read it the first time.

I think the difference between sufficient and efficient explains how something can be sufficient for someone while not being efficient for them.

You stated that you believed that, if Christ's death was meant for the non-elect, it would be sufficient for them. That is all we mean by it, too. It is sufficient for them, but not efficient for them. It is efficient only for the elect.

 

[Foghorn]

Thanks for clearing it up. I wasn't sure what you were trying to say when I read it the first time.

Thanks for pointing it out

I think the difference between sufficient and efficient explains how something can be sufficient for someone while not being efficient for them.

Yes, but it's just explaining the power of something.

You stated that you believed that, if Christ's death was meant for the non-elect, it would be sufficient for them. That is all we mean by it, too. It is sufficient for them, but not efficient for them. It is efficient only for the elect.

I think you may be mixing up efficient and sufficient.

I believe to speak of sufficient plainly means the power of the atonement, not the effect of it. As I said before, if Christ's atonement was for 1,000 planets filled with people it would be sufficient, as it is powerful enough to cover even more, an infinite amount.

But in the case of mankind, here on earth, it was not meant for all of Adam's posterity, but it sure was powerful enough to cover all of Adam's posterity effectively. You see, powerful/sufficient?

But effective is quite different.

 

[A New Dawn]

Thanks for pointing it out
Yes, but it's just explaining the power of something.

I think you may be mixing up efficient and sufficient.

I believe to speak of sufficient plainly means the power of the atonement, not the effect of it. As I said before, if Christ's atonement was for 1,000 planets filled with people it would be sufficient, as it is powerful enough to cover even more, an infinite amount.

But in the case of mankind, here on earth, it was not meant for all of Adam's posterity, but it sure was powerful enough to cover all of Adam's posterity effectively. You see, powerful/sufficient?

But effective is quite different.

No, I am using sufficient and efficient in the manner I mean to be.

Sufficient means adequate, as much as is needed.
Efficient means capable of producing desired results without wasting materials, time, or energy.

Christ's work on the cross is sufficient for everyone meaning that there is as much as is needed for all if all were being saved. The same work can be as much or as little as needed. It is efficient for the elect because it isn't wasted on those who reject Him.