Before the real antics begin today, our friends at Triablogue have digitally-published a book called The Infidel Delusion to respond to John Loftus' cadre of sad-faced clowns' most recent book, the Christian Delusion -- because it's the Christians, you see, who slavishly follow the thoughts and edicts of their mentors and heroes.
Anyway, Peter Pike's announcement for the book is worth the read as well, and there you can download the PDF for your reading pleasure. Bring a Lunch.
The best way to ensure, by the providence of God, that I will have a full week at work is to promise to post something controversial which will require significant moderation and a lot of time disambiguating people regarding their own bum preconceptions.
So on Monday, I promised to write a blog post where hating on Calvinism would be on-topic. And here we are.
Back in February 2009, Challies made a post called A Portrayal of Calvinism in which he was reviewing two different books entitled Finding God in The Shack (ugh -- and he survived) where the authors of these books were taking pot-shots at Calvinism.
Before we get to the meat there, I just want to point something out: the real barking dogs of horrible theologically who want to still call themselves Christians always always always find it necessary to beat down on Calvinism in order to say, "see how much better my system of thinking about the Bible and Jesus and God and people is?" Why is that I wonder? Why is Calvinism the whipping boy for people who want to find God in the Shack, and the people who want to say God doesn't know the future, and the people who want to say all roads lead to the same God Almighty, and the ecumenicists, and the social gospelists, and so on?
Why is it that all these people hate Calvinism -- if it's such an obvious falsehood?
That's a thought to ponder if you want to fire up your vitriol in the comments -- in fact I insist: why do all the nut-jobs hate Calvinism most of all rather than, for example, the idea that God is the Eucharist, or that your soul will suffer in purgatory for your sin before you get to spend eternity with God and the Virgin Mary? Why is Calvinism the one they know they have to overcome?OK -- back to Challies. In what may be the most strongly-worded statement Tim has ever made publicly, he had this to say about the way these books treated Calvinism:
My reaction when reading all of this was, if not anger, real frustration. I hate to think that thousands of people will read such an inaccurate, uninformed, fictitious view of Calvinism (and this by an author who has some credibility by virtue of his position as a Professor of Theology). Even where Rauser is correct, his words often lack the charitable nuance we might well hope for. But in so many ways he is really, really wrong. Not surprisingly, he does not quote any sources; I know of none that would support his statements.You know: Challies was almost angry. That's saying a lot.
But people hate calvinists, right? I mean, let's do some benchmarking here. I dropped this into Google, and look at the results I got:
About 557,000 sites which are decidedly not Arminian, yes? But when we put the competition into Google, check it out:
Wow! Like DOUBLE the number of sites! Seriously -- if the problem is that there's quite a lot of venom going around, check the internet, because clearly someone out there is wrong.So what's your beef? You hate Calvinism? Really? Let's hear your beef - in comments which are neither vulgar nor insulting, si vous plait - with only one limiting factor: one comment of complaint per customer, limited by Blogger's new-found character limit of about 4,000 characters.
Have at it. You loyal Calvinists need to buck up for this because it's going to be instructive one way or the other. Stay away from brawling and responding to taunts. You have heard this all before, and all I'm asking is that you spend you time today thinking about why people will be glad to dump on Calvinists in the first place.
I'll moderate at will. Enjoy.
254 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 254 of 254Karen, I can't imagine any Calvinist who wouldn't agree witha you there!
Karen, if you tell unbelievers that Jesus died for them as many times as the apostles told unbelievers that Jesus died for them, you'll be doing just fine.
Karen:
What's wrong with telling them "Jesus died for the sins of those who will repent and believe"? Isn't that the truth?
Calvinism didn't give us Todd Bently.
"I'm a Calvinist because I cannot escape what I see taught clearly in the whole of scripture (not based on cherry picking my favorite verses, but considering all of Genesis through Revelation). My prayer is that God would move people to grab that dusty Bible off the shelf and just READ the thing, asking honest questions, and not rest until they get the soul-satisfying answers they really need." s dr.
I have a good non-Calvinist friend who would say the same thing. And for us Calvinist he would add, I think.
It is amazing how two believers, who both love the Lord, and long to bring glory to God can differ on, well, basically election and free-will; the reformed theology of the Bible in a nut shell.
It is what it is.
I was raised in a non-denominational Arminian home/church/ school, left the church for 20 years and only recently started reading about Calvinism. I've never studied theology (I don't think my Basic Christianity class in college counts) so my questions are from a lay person's perspective. I'm not sure this is the proper forum for my questions, but I'm going to post them anyway in the hope that I can get some clarification.
In Calvinism, God has already chosen who will be saved and who will be damned, right? Is it possible, then, for someone to WANT to come to God, to want to believe but to be unable to because they are not one of the elect? To pray for belief and faith and not receive it?
Thanks
In response to Mike: I agree that the ultimate intent (and effect) of Christ's work is different between the elect and non-elect. That fact doesn't imply that the provision of the atonement discriminates at all. For example, some say that the atonement purchases faith for the elect, which is not an assertion I've seen anywhere in Scripture.
In reply to Aaron: the next argument would be, Does the granting actually cause the recipients to irresistibly come to God?
Clara:
No, dear; that's not possible.
Clara:
I should expand: If someone has the desire to call out to God "please have mercy on me, a sinner" it means he is elect.
Robert, that sounded a bit
condescending. Maybe it was a stupid question but it was a sincere question.
oops, I posted my previous comment before you expanded. Sorry about that.
This is interesting: I was telling Clara, succinctly, that no, it isn't possible for someone to want to repent and believe and then be denied because they "aren't elect." She took it as condescending until she saw my expanded explanation.
I think her conditioning in her earlier church had her expecting condescension. I also suspect red-herring misinformation from her earlier church led to her initial comment. I don't think any of this is her fault.
I think it was the "dear." I think (hope) you meant it to be friendly; I was afraid she'd take it as condescending, as if you were patting her on her poor empty head.
Which, I sincerely hope, you weren't.
Sorry, I frequently use "dear"; it's a term of endearment.
I like Calvinists, don't have a problem with them, but I'm not one.
Like some, it's because it's just not where I think the Bible leads.
I don't accept the Calvinist position of Limited Atonement, as I think Scripture states that Christ died for the whole world. Context Context Context saying it 100 more times isn't goint to change the plain language.
Second, I don't believe in baptizing babies. Calvin did. I understand that's not "Calvinism," but Calvin, being a man, believed certain things and being a Calvinist fairly defined should mean believing as Calvin did. (If being a Calvinist only meant I believe as Calvin did to the extent that it is Biblically true, then I guess I would be a Calvinist, but I'd also be committing a criminal abuse against language a violent assault.)
Are many Calvinists genuinely saved? Some not? Yup... Not much different than many Bible-believing churches. I believe most Calvinists are genuinely interested in the Word and Christ, I just don't see Scripture saying the same thing they do, so I don't claim the name.
Robert Warren, Yes it was the "dear" (rather than conditioning in my earlier church) that made me think you were being condescending. As for none of this being my fault--what is "this" ?
No sound man, I presume, can now doubt how rashly the Church is disturbed by those who excite quarrels and disturbances because of paedobaptism. For it is of importance to observe what Satan means by all this craft, viz., to rob us of the singular blessing of confidence and spiritual joy, which is hence to be derived, and in so far to detract from the glory of the divine goodness.
Calvin wrote that...
Something that could be interpreted as suggested that Credo Baptism is a belief fostered by Satan.
Need I say more?
Clara:
"this" referred to the dreadful caricature of Calvinism that I detected in your original comment. I've heard it dozens of time before, frequently from people who ought to know better. In your case, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't realize you had been lied to about Reformed Theology.
Gov98,
But you do believe that the atonement is limited unless you believe that all men are going to be saved. The difference is that Arminians say that Christ died for all but all will not be saved because of their "free-will" so that the atonement is limited by man. Calvinists say that Christ died for His sheep (those unconditionally elected by God for salvation) so that the atonement is limited by God.
The Bible teaches unconditional election and therefore limited atonement. This brings about the improper response that there is injustice in God (exactly the response Paul got for preaching salvation by grace - see Romans 9), a response that isn't brought up by the Arminian explanation of the gospel - there's a reason for that!
Clara:
I should also share with you a resource. One of the finest presentations I have heard regarding Reformed Theology is by Art Azurdia. You can find the series here:
http://www.spiritempoweredpreaching
.com/sermons.htm
Scroll down to near the end of the page.
Olan...
Some wise person yesterday said that Matthew 22 "is the Gospel"
I agree.
"Go to the street corners and invite to the banquet anyone you find."
I believe that if we go out and invite all to the banquet saying "Christ died for your sins"
We are telling the truth. Whether it legally satisfies the due punishment for your sins...is another question.
If limited atonement is true telling someone "Christ died for you" could be a lie. I think God genuinely invites ALL to the banquet.
Matthew 22 is not the gospel because the invitation in itself is not the good news of what has been done for us in Christ, the announcement of the gospel is key, but it itself is not the gospel.
"I think God genuinely invites ALL to the banquet"
I think He does too, but unless He also chooses some to accept, no one would.
The age-old argument goes like this: Calvinists complain that Arminians want love void of truth, and Arminians complain that Calvinists want truth void of love.
But we know that truth takes precedence over love, it has to because it defines what true love is.
Some big revelation, huh?
Great post, Frank!
http://twitter.com/Frank_Turk/status/18952680827
Well at least on Matt 22 Frank and I agree!
As to
I think He does too, but unless He also chooses some to accept, no one would.
Kind of like a Seinfeldian Unvitation
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=unvitation
We're just going to agree to disagree.
Robert Warren, thanks for the link. I will read it. To clarify, I wasn't lied to about Reform Theology--it was simply never mentioned. I started reading about Calvinism this spring when the pastor at the Presbyterian Church I had been attending mentioned the "great Reform Tradition."
It was during my reading that the question in my original post was formulated. The question was really about me and my fear that I'm not on the right "list." It wasn't a theoretical question; it's something with which I have been struggling for a while.
Clara, are you back in a Bible believing church and saved by faith in Christ alone? If no, then discussing the tenets of Calvinism is the wrong thing to be pursuing.
If yes, then the answer to your question is this: No true believer would be turned away by God because the person would not be a true believer in the first place unless God had first chosen them as part of his elect.
Gov98, the most common use of the term "Calvinistic" and sometimes even "Calvinism" refers to Calvin's soteriology. If someone was to say they agreed with every word Calvin ever wrote down because it is Biblical, they would be claiming he was infallible and inerrant. If you know someone like this, please reference them here. Anyone who's read Calvin's commentaries will easily be able to find something they disagree with him on.
Also, regarding Matt. 22, you miss the point of the whole parable. "Many are called", meaning that many people hear the general outward call, the Word being preached. "But few are chosen", meaning that of all those who hear the call, only the ones who are chosen truly respond and submit to the Lordship of Christ. This is why in v. 12 the man is thrown out. He's invited by the outward call, but he isn't really a believer at heart, which only the chosen can be.
To answer your last question, where in the Scriptures does it say "Christ died for you", you being the unbelievers? Paul's sermon to the pagans in Acts 17 does not mention it. All other texts regarding Christ died for "sinners" or the "ungodly" is Paul speaking directly to the church, who are already believers. This cannot be stretched to include all men. If Christ's died on the cross as a punishment for all the sins of those who have ever lived, then why are unbeliever's also punished in hell? Is this not double punishment?
Gov98:
Read A.W Pink and Loraine Boettner's (The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination) concerning the words ALL and WORLD, it will give you a new perspective on Limited Atonement. I think Pink discusses this in his book "The Sovereignty of God."
A.W. Pink said :
But there is further reason, and a pressing one today, why we should write upon our present subject, and that is to expose the modern and pernicious error of Dispensationalism. This is a device of the Enemy, designed to rob the children of no small part of that bread which their heavenly Father has provided for their souls; a device wherein the wily serpent appears as an angel of light, feigning to "make the Bible a new book" by simplifying much in it which perplexes the spiritually unlearned. It is sad to see how widely successful the devil has been by means of this subtle innovation.
Not that that disproves everything he says...BUT...Frank made a point about people hating Calvinists...but look at the language Calvinists use towards Dispensationalists and CredoBaptists. Pretty harsh language in the realm of Christian Charity (calling them satanic almost).
Covenant theology is something I see HUGE doctrinal errors with that should be plain to see. Any person who thinks that God's promises to Abraham are meant to be taken metaphorically, which Abraham understood as literal promises RISKS being in a world of heart if God treats his literal promises of heaven the same way to the church.
I think many Covenant Theologians are saved people, but Covenant theology, in general, is a theology that arose because in general people (I believe) believed the Lord's hand was too short to bring about the restoration of Israel. Oh how sad to be my Doctrinal Premise.
Clara:
Have you ever seen the movie "Cool Hand Luke"? The most famous line is "Gentlemen...what we have here is a failure to communicate." That might sum up our exchange... and shed some light on a lot of what the post is about.
I hope that Azurdia's MP3s help you with your questions.
Not a scholar. Total amateur. Probably gonna get ripped apart for using something as elementary as a Strong's.
But I see the "all" argument again in relationship to 1 Tim. 2:6. I hear this a lot from the vocal Arminian camp and I can't make sense of that, when the same word is used in Rev. 19:17-18. Howcome nobody wants to argue that one? All means all, right?
Gov98,
Matthew 22 is not the Gospel but the third parable in a series of parables that the chief priests and Pharisees understood that Jesus was speaking about them. The Lord destroyed their false notion of salvation by merit (conditional election), showed them their wretched estate, and showed them that salvation was for the Gentiles also. And He ended that parable with the truth of election.
Also, regarding Matt. 22, you miss the point of the whole parable. "Many are called", meaning that many people hear the general outward call, the Word being preached. "But few are chosen", meaning that of all those who hear the call, only the ones who are chosen truly respond and submit to the Lordship of Christ. This is why in v. 12 the man is thrown out. He's invited by the outward call, but he isn't really a believer at heart, which only the chosen can be.
Ahhhhhhhhh Running and Screaming sadly
He's not kicked out because he's not a geninue believer (he's not), he's not kicked out because he wasn't chosen(he wasn't). He's kicked out, because he insists on remaining in his filthy rags...a works based salvation.
Olan - Not to be difficult, but I am going to use your "not the gospel."
Frank, Look if there's a "fear" of Calvinists by non-Calvinists like myself it may be for the very reason we see here. Matt 22 is "not the gospel." I think Matt 22 and the Wedding is an on-point Gospel parable. It picture, literal hell, works righteousness, the invitation to all men. But "it doesn't mean that it means something else" No it doesn't.
If Christ's died on the cross as a punishment for all the sins of those who have ever lived, then why are unbeliever's also punished in hell? Is this not double punishment?
Let me say as to the Christ died for the world...John says it best "Behold the Lamb of God who taketh away the sin of the world." Done Over End of Story, why go further, why fight Scripture World isn't even humanity "elect men" its practically "universe." So lets move past that.
As to the double punishment, I don't understand it, I think somebody somewhere thought it was a good argument, but it isn't. It's using human justice to explain God's sometimes that works sometimes it doesn't. Suffice it to say the human law does not say that if you break the law in one part you transgress it all.
Furthermore there are LOTS of times one person can be murdered and more then 1 life will be paid in return. So double punishment, eh sorry. Christ's punishment is not credited to the unbeliever's account. That simple.
And now for something different...I was neo-pelagian (yes, Sword of the Lord - if you've heard of them - is firmly proudly neo-pelagian), and every single neo-pelagian I met was the most arrogant jerk who displayed nothing of the love of Christ or the fruits of the Spirit. And they loved hating Calvinism and Calvinists. The most decent guy I knew in Bible school was a Calvinist (and -gasp - a charismatic). When I accepted the clear teachings of the doctrines of grace and started fellowshipping with "Calvinists", I found them to be gracious and salty, and not even concerned with shoving "Calvinism" down my throat. That's my experience. Assuming, of course, that experience has got anything to do with this whole systematic theology thing...
@Renee,
That does make sense.
Thanks for the kind response.
Charles
mikeb, you say "No true believer would be turned away by God because the person would not be a true believer in the first place unless God had first chosen them as part of his elect." What about someone who believes most of the time but has serious doubts some of the time? Or someone who really struggles w/ their faith but wants to believe? Or someone who sincerely comes to God and asks for faith and belief? Would God turn them away?
As for a bible believing church, I just joined a Presbyterian church. I think it may be on the liberal side, though.
Gov98, the most common use of the term "Calvinistic" and sometimes even "Calvinism" refers to Calvin's soteriology. If someone was to say they agreed with every word Calvin ever wrote down because it is Biblical, they would be claiming he was infallible and inerrant. If you know someone like this, please reference them here. Anyone who's read Calvin's commentaries will easily be able to find something they disagree with him on.
I understand but when claiming "Calvinism" that is what people are doing a system of action or belief based upon what Calvin said (cribbing from dictionary). That's why the term should be (I believe) avoided). My pastor has said in the past he's "Calvinistic in his soteriology." I would say that I'm "Calvinistic in my soteriology" too. Why? Because I think Calvin was most correct of the reformationish age in his soteriology. Do I think he's right on? No, but closest yes.
But if that's what you mean, that's what you should say, Not to crib Rush Limbaugh here, but still, Words means things. And as Christians we should endeavor that our words are precise and full of true meaning.
“Kind of like a Seinfeldian Unvitation”
No, not at all. The invitation is real, but the one it’s being offered to has no ability on their own to accept.
Now I’m ready to agree to disagree ;-).
Clara,
What about someone who believes most of the time but has serious doubts some of the time?
Everyone has doubts about different things, especially when they are newly converted. But if a person is truly repentant of their sins and believes in Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior, God will not turn them away.
I think you're asking serious questions about your faith, and I respect that. But I don't think you should be concerned about if you are the "elect" or not, and more concerned at this point if you are truly repentant of your sins and trusting in Jesus Christ as Savior.
I recommend you watch this video:
http://www.christianity.com/ligonier/?speaker=macarthur1
Or someone who really struggles w/ their faith but wants to believe? Or someone who sincerely comes to God and asks for faith and belief? Would God turn them away?
If they sincerely come, God would never turn them away. Because they can not sincerely come unless God has chosen them. Jesus said "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him." John 6:44
As for a bible believing church, I just joined a Presbyterian church. I think it may be on the liberal side, though.
If you think it's liberal, no doubt it probably is. In my opinion, you got 2 choices. 1) If they are not "liberal" what counts (The gospel message as set forth in the Scriptures)AND it's the only church in your area, you may want to stay. Check their doctrinal statement and/or ask an elder. 2) If no to either of these, then I would quickly flee to the closest Bible believing church that takes doctrine seriously. Your heartfelt questions above will likely not be answered biblically in a "liberal church."
Gov98,
But if that's what you mean, that's what you should say
I agree. I prefer the term Doctrines of Grace, not Calvinism.
I think Burk Parsons says it best in this talk:
http://www.christianity.com/ligonier/?speaker=parsons2
I'm late to the show, dang!
@Matt,
You are completely misunderstanding the Servetus incident (Dave Hunt has done a great disservice for many). You need to read John T. McNeil's: History and Character of Calvinism. I think the ecclesiopolitical context in which Calvin lived needs to be strongly considered (not only that, but Calvin had no power to put anyone to death; only the prelates or politicians of Geneva did).
Addressing Frank's post,
My primary disagreement with Classic Calvinism (CC) is that it makes God a predicate or contingent upon His creation via placing the "absolute decrees" as prior to Christ's Incarnation. In other words, "CC" makes God subserviant to His decrees which are grounded in salvation-history (creation) thus allowing creation/time-space to determine and shape the God we see in Jesus Christ (which provides another problem, it divides God's immanent or ontological nature from His economic or evangelical nature so that there is no necessary correspondence between who God is in time vis-a'-vis to who He is in eternity --- and this is contrary to what Jesus says in Jn 14:6 amongst other passages).
There's my beef with "CC".
Bobby Grow
Frank, I'm going to go out on a limb and say something I KNOW will make the apologizers to the arminians (and the arminians and pseudo-calvinists) hopping mad.
However, I'm not saying it because I want that effect. I'm just saying what I've observed.
And what I've observed is that those resistant to the Doctrines of Grace are the ones who tend to be arrogant, condescending, spiteful, and rabid. I DO know of exceptions, one of whom being one of the strongest holders TO the non-reformed position that I know that I still count as a brother in Christ. However, even he is more "I don't want to argue this," and is pretty persistant about that when I post pro-calvinist stuff on my fb wall (funny that). So, he's not so peaceful as passive/aggressive about it (he's still polite, which is why I still try and interact with him).
What I do NOT see are these massive droves of offending calvinists. Are there SOME? I'm sure there are, but saying that we calvinists have a problem as if its typical for many calvinists to be mean and arrogant and essentially lacking in the 2 of the 3 gifts which Paul said abided forever, is disingenuous at best in my observation, and for some I am convinced they are being downright dishonest. The truth is that MOST of the reformed men and women I have met regularly put me to shame in practically (there's an application of your latest post, Dan ;)) living out grace and patience and reliance upon God. They are some of the most loving, brotherly/sisterly, Christians I know and they bring MUCH honor upon the name of Christ in the practical living out of the doctrines of grace in their lives.... that is, as Spurgeon so aptly put it, the very gospel itself: God saves sinners.
Sure some of us are cage-stage or were as such, but that's not limited to calvinists but to ALL Christians upon having our eyes opened to the wonderful truth of scripture (whether it be the wonderful, new-life breathing wonder of regeneration and embrace of the gospel, or the wonder and worship of realizing the truth of the sovereign grace of God and His freedom in salvation). Over-zealousness is not unusual, and mix that with some resentment at being lied to by the non-reformed, and you get the typical cage-stage calvinist.
However, do you know how those cage-stagers usually calm down? The influence of older, stronger calvinists.
Hyper-calvinists are NOT calvinists and I would even question some of their professions of faith (depends on the person) because Hyper-calvinism makes a mockery of the gospel and essentially does as much harm to the gospel as the stench of pelagianism. it's heresy and something which NO calvinist can really stomach hearing (which is why Fred Phelps gets such a strong reaction out of me. I HATE that man's disgusting message with a fiery passion).
So, I'd like to see these droves of calvinists that these non-reformed folk are touting as being the ones who put them off from reformed doctrine. I can point, I'm sure to many MORE who actually live consistently with their doctrinal profession of holding to the five points and showing how they are truly Doctrines of GRACE.
Also, I'm afraid many non-reformed folk see "arrogance" when a Calvinist is simply firmly defending the scriptural truth of God's sovereign freedom to save. Actually defending doctrine is seen as being prideful and arrogant.
Continued b/c of some new character limit by blogger:
Of course this attitude itself is grossly unscriptural and the doctrines suppressed and whose defense is silenced are those which bring God much glory; so those who do the suppressing are in fact, in my opinion, DIShonoring the Lord. Though as I know you will be rightly quick to point out, Frank, Christ died for even those sins. And I'm sure you'd also agree that just because Christ paid for those sins too, that it's okay to remain there. We don't back down to return to error just because it might cause less superficial. We stick to the truth because God's glory is paramount.
It's that determination that also gets martyrs killed: they wouldn't back down from their profession and as a result have their heads lopped off or worse.
Not saying that because we endure silly little attacks from arminians that we are on par with the sufferings of the persecuted church, but I AM saying that the same dogged sticking to the truth of scripture that the persecuted believers so admirably exhibit is the same spirit we calvinists hold to the truth of the doctrines of the grace and for the same reasons that the martyrs were unrelenting: because they were convinced by Scripture (thanks to the Holy Spirit).
So, I'll repeat what I said earlier: I highly doubt these constant claims of calvinist-abuse. Is SOME of it actually valid? I'd be silly and a fool to say "No." But I do highly question the extent and the level to which those making the accusations blow them up to be.
Gov98: I think Matt 22 and the Wedding is an on-point Gospel parable.
I didn't say it wasn't an on-point Gospel parable - I said it wasn't the Gospel. You know, the Gospel, the one with Christ crucified, buried, and raised from the dead on the third day!
As I said that parable is the third in a series. They give a prophetic picture of Israel's rejection of God's prophets, God's Son, and God's apostles because of their self-righteousness (hence their dependence upon conditional election) and hatred the truth of their total inability and need for grace.
Clara,
I would point to Romans 3:10-18 to show that there is no one who really seeks for God on their own initiative. This pulls together a lot of OT text to show that ALL people are condemned under the law and that only by God's grace can any be saved. It is all His work and He chose His elect before the beginning of time. I don't know the exact quote, but I like how Spurgeon said that God would not have had any reason to choose to save him (Spurgeon) had he looked forward into time to look at his life.
I would recommend the book "Foundations of Grace" by Steve Lawson for anybody here that wants to see the biblical basis for the doctrines of grace. This is the first of a five volume set (the remaining volumes are still in the works) and it goes through each of the authors of the books of the Bible and breaks down how each book develops each of the doctrines of grace. The introduction (or maybe it's the preface) by MacArthur is also a wonderful look into how we fit into the whole thing and made me feel totally in awe of how blessed we are.
I don't remember who wrote the comment, but I have always wondered the same thing about the thought that Jesus died for all. How can Jesus have already paid the price and taken on the wrath of God for sinners who wind up being punished in hell? That does not fit with God being just because He does not punish twice. And Jesus never mentions some abyss separate from heaven or hell...it is always the fire, where the worm never turns and there is wailing and gnashing of teeth or else heaven. Same for Revelation...lake of fire or heaven.
Karen said...
I don't hate Calvinists, but I don't understand the whole "don't tell folks Christ died for them, because you don't really know that for sure" bit. Quite honestly, what in the world can I offer my unsaved friends, if not Christ, and Him crucified?
DJP said...
Karen, if you tell unbelievers that Jesus died for them as many times as the apostles told unbelievers that Jesus died for them, you'll be doing just fine.
Hi Karen.
DJP made a good point. Of course, it is nowhere recorded in the Scriptures that the apostles ever told unbelievers that.
Here is a follow-on to that, however, something that you CAN tell your unsaved friends. It is from the late John Gerstner. Notice the exact wording.
"Jesus Christ calls everyone, everywhere to confess his sin and trust in Jesus for his salvation and deliverance"
...
"I call everyone, everywhere to come who will acknowledge his sin and bring his guilt and need to Jesus Christ, and I assure him, without any qualification, that in doing that he will most certainly be saved eternally by the blood of Jesus Christ."
(from A Primer on the Atonement)
You idiots just advocated the death penalty for blasphemy...just like Jesus would do.
Stupid is as stupid does.
I started to read the comments before contributing and 20 minutes later realized there are 250 of them!! Yikes!
Anyway, in case it hasn't been said before, I believe the primary issue for many who are opposed to Calvinism is their bias toward one simple word: PREDESTINATION.
As a new believer, I remember one of my good friends telling me that he considered himself a Calvinist. I told him that I could never be one, because of the idea of predesitination (people being chosen for salvation and for destruction). Two hours later, as he went thru the basics of Calvinism, I found out that my beliefs were already in fact Calvinist.
Perhaps, most of us get hung up on semantics a lot of the time - (not always).
Stranger: amen. Scripture really is sufficient. When we find ourselves itching to add, we should fight the temptation and re-examine ourselves.
Thank you Frank.
That was a pretty intense thread. Now I need to go over to Challies' blog to wind down.
Anybody want to go with?
Craig
I think Brass nailed it, and now I'm closing the comments.
Thanks to all how spent time on this today.
Post a Comment