Holy Scripture declares plainly that God is love (1 John 4:7-8), that He is good to all and His mercies are over all His works (Psalm 145:9), and that He commands His people to love their enemies in order to imitate Him (Matthew 5:43-48). It is no wonder then, that Reformed theologians have historically held that John 3:16 teaches that God loves the world. In regard to John 3:16, John Calvin wrote:
[Two] points are distinctly stated to us: namely, that faith in Christ brings life to all, and that Christ brought life, because the Father loves the human race, and wishes they should not perish. . . . [In John 3:16, the Evangelist John] has employed the universal term whosoever, both to invite all indiscriminately to partake of life, and to cut off every excuse from unbelievers. Such is also the import of the term world, which he formerly used; for though nothing will be found in the world that is worthy of the favor of God, yet he shows himself to be reconciled to the whole world, when he invites all without exception to the faith of Christ, which is nothing else than an entrance into life. Let us remember, on the other hand, that while life is promised universally to all who believe in Christ, still faith is not common to all, but the elect alone are they whose eyes God opens, that they may seek him by faith.
Sounding similar to the Reformer, Princeton’s B. B. Warfield penned these words:
Certainly here “the world” and “believers” do not seem to be quite equipollent terms: there seems, surely, something conveyed by the one which is not wholly taken up by the other. How, then, shall we say that “the world” means just “the world of believers,” just those scattered through the world, who, being the elect of God, shall believe in His Son and so have eternal life? There is obviously much truth in this idea: and the main difficulty which it faces may, no doubt, be avoided by saying that what is taught is that God’s love of the world is shown by His saving so great a multitude as He does save out of the world. The wicked world deserved at His hands only total destruction. But He saves out of it a multitude which no man can number, out of every nation, and of all tribes, and peoples and tongues. How much must, then God love the world! This interpretation, beyond question, reproduces the fundamental meaning of the text.
A gentleman with whom I’ve had the pleasure of spending time, Reformed Baptist leader from Great Britain, Erroll Hulse, writes in regard to the matter of God’s love for all:
How can we say God loves all men when the Psalms tell us He hates the worker of iniquity (Ps. 5:5)? How can we maintain that God loves all when Paul says that He bears the objects of His wrath, being fitted for destruction, with great patience (Rom. 9:22)? Even more how can we possibly accept that God loves all men without exception when we survey the acts of God’s wrath in history? Think of the deluge which destroyed all but one family. Think of Sodom and Gomorrah. With so specific a chapter as Romans [1], which declares that sodomy is a sign of reprobation, could we possibly maintain that God loved the population of the two cities destroyed by fire? How can we possibly reconcile God’s love and His wrath? Would we deny the profundity of this problem? . . . . The will of God is expressed in unmistakable terms. He has no pleasure in the destruction and punishment of the wicked (Ez. 18:32; 33:11). . . . We are left in no doubt that the desire and will of God is for man’s highest good, that is his eternal salvation through heeding the gospel of Christ.
Hulse then adds, quite pointedly:
We will not be disposed to invite wayward transgressors to Christ, or reason with them, or bring to them the overtures of the gospel, unless we are convinced that God is favorably disposed to them. Only if we are genuinely persuaded that He will have them to be saved are we likely to make the effort. If God does not love them it is hardly likely that we will make it our business to love them. Especially is this the case when there is so much that is repulsive in the ungodliness and sinfulness of Christ-rejecters.
Let the Reformed be quoted at conferences regarding John 3:16 and God’s love for the world.
* * *
- John Calvin, Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, trans. William Pringle (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979), 125. Emphasis original.
- B. B. Warfield, The Saviour of the World (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, repr. 1991), 114.
- Erroll Hulse, “The Love of God for All Mankind,” Reformation Today (Nov – Dec 1983), 18-19.
You said, “Let the Reformed be quoted at conferences regarding John 3:16 and God’s love for the world.”
I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for this if I were you.
this statement seems redundant and superfluous: “Especially is this the case when there is so much that is repulsive in the ungodliness and sinfulness of Christ-rejecters.”
First there is no such person as a sinner who rejects Christ. They are totally depraved, ungodly and sinful. Yet Christ didn’t find them replusive. he drank wine with them. He found religious leaders repulsive. With ease of a spoken word he casrt out demons, legion in numbers. Yet He didn’t attempt deliverance to those most tied up in Satan’s hold, religious leaders.
My Calvinism gives me a perspective to view thoes I work with who are ungodly and sinful without the religious view that they are repulsive.
It has endeared me friendships with everyone I work with and I don’t have to win them to Christ.
The Holy Spirit does that. He regenerates freely and liberally in greater measure than if I were choosing.
Frankly as a ‘religious man’ there were people that I would not save if I were God. They were repulsive to me! God saves people like that according to the good pleasure of his sovereign will.
Arminians love love! God loves people and thoes He loves he died for and seals them by his Spirit.
He loves the created world he made. Organic and inorganic and it brought him pleasure. But the sin of Adam brought on his curse and all are under his wrath. He does not love the sinner, He loves the world He created. They are dead to him; as though they never existed. He is just and right in this and can not be found at fault because of his holiness.
When God sought Adam in the garden after the fall, He scared Adam and Eve because God’s call to them was one of a scorned sovereign mocking and ridiculing them “where are you?” “Adam, you worthles little piece of pondscum!” He winked at their ignorance. His displeasure was not loving but severely angry and their sin was insurmountable.
Doomed to eternal destruction he could burn them all. He almost drown all yet eight he saved.
So His election of thoes He chooses is unconditional. His atonement is limited to thoes he loved, His grace is irresistible, and they persevere to the end.
If you find sinners repulsive you maybe a Christ-rejecting believer. God may find you are repulsive. Don’t Christian snobs repulse you? They do me! Sinners bring out the best in me thru the Holy Spirit. Christian snobs bring out the worst in me and I can be their worst enemy! I am Christ-like.
What?! Let Calvinists define Calvinism?
Hmm. It’s so sneaky … it just might work.
Les, I won’t.
Charles, I must confess I’m not sure what you mean when you state, “…there is no such person as a sinner who rejects Christ. They are totally depraved, ungodly and sinful. Yet Christ didn’t find them replusive [sic].”
Haven’t some sinners rejected Christ and the offer of forgiveness in the Gospel when you have witnessed to them? Are you equating “sinner” with “repulsive”? I wonder if that’s the case because you state you view, “thoes [sic] I work with who are ungodly and sinful without the religious view that they are repulsive.” Sin is repulsive, but that doesn’t mean you have to “recoil in horror” when around “sinners.” Yes, the Lord Jesus ate meals and drank wine with sinners (I thought you said you were Baptist?!?). . . . because He *loved* them. In fact, all of His people are sinners.
Here’s a little Latin lesson for you – simul justus et peccator. It means “justified and sinful at the same time.” In other words, we are sinners saved only by grace. In our current condition we counted righteous solely by the imputed righteousness of Christ Jesus. Our position is blessing in Christ. Practically, that reality is being worked out every day. We are being sanctified, made more like Christ Jesus every day.
Frankly, what makes God’s love and grace so amazing is that He saves any person – religious or irreligious or in-between. We have all rebelled against our Creator, insulted His majesty, defied His authority, and spurned His mercy. Some people may seem more repulsive to us than others, but when we get a peek within our own wretched hearts (oh! the process of sanctification!), we wonder why God would choose to save us!!!
Brother, “Arminians” love God. Can they be infatuated with a sense of “love” to the point they forget about holiness and wrath and such things? Certainly. They get to preaching their “free love” at times to the point they forget some important matters, such as what the Holy Trinity does in salvation. But, they do believe God loves people and that He died for sinners. Upon that we can agree.
Not sure what you mean with the statement,
“He does not love the sinner, He loves the world He created. They are dead to him; as though they never existed. He is just and right in this and can not be found at fault because of his holiness.” Is your point that John 3:16 is referring to the planet (terra firma) rather than people? If so, then the meaning of “whosoever believes on Him should not perish” is negated. Therefore, such an interpretation would be invalid. However, since I’m uncertain as to what you meant, please clarify.
You write of Adam and Eve in Eden, being sought by God who is a “scorned sovereign mocking and ridiculing them,” paraphrasing the Almighty as declaring, “Adam, you worthles [sic] little piece of pondscum!… His displeasure was not loving but severely angry and their sin was insurmountable.”
I certainly could not disagree with you more! While He could have taken their lives from them instantly, dispensing justice, He didn’t. He let them live because of His mercy. Not only that, but while they were naked – aware of their sin and their shame – He took the life of an animal and covered their shame with skins (He shed blood, prefiguring the work of the Lord Jesus). He did this *after* promising to send “the Seed of the woman” – the Messiah, the Lord Jesus. Their sin was not insurmountable because God’s grace is infinite – “Grace greater than all our sin”! Adam and Eve received mercy and grace and love when they could have justly met wrath.
Election is unconditional in that it is God’s choosing of those who are unworthy, who are rebels, who are sinners. They are unable to earn God’s favor in any way whatsoever. God’s grace is free.
The atonement limited?!? NEVER! “Arminians” limit the power of the atonement, but we “Calvinists” relish the fact that there is “power in the blood”! We hold to substitutionary atonement. BTW, interesting that “modern Arminians” often hold to this view of the atonement whereas historical Arminianism had to deny it because of its very nature. We believe that God has made an actual substitutionary atonement, that *God saves sinners*!
Is God’s grace “irresistible”? Well, there are some places in Scripture where God is resisted. Isn’t there? But if you mean that God’s grace – intertwined with the doctrines of election and atonement – overcomes hardened sinners, changing their hearts of stone into hearts of flesh (see the New Covenant in Ezekiel), then I’ll definitely roll with that.
And do His people persevere to the end? Certainly, because they are preserved by God.
Do Christian snobs repulse me? Well, the type who say that “Calvinists,” “Arminians,” “Charismatics,” “Presbyterians,” “Lutherans,” “Methodists,” “Episcopalians/Anglicans,” and “Baptists” aren’t really Christians, or aren’t really spiritual, or the like, then yes, they do repulse me. There are certainly individuals within each of those groups who are repulsive because of their hatred for God and their fellow human beings, masked in religion. But there are also many wonderful, God-fearing people within each of those camps.
Gunny:
It’s a novel concept, eh?
I am really confused as to what Calvinists believe. The picture of Arminians “in love with love” is scary, but so is the picture of a God who arbitrarily chooses who will be saved.
Interesting that most of what I sense in “calvinist” postings is anger and judgment (theirs not God’s).
In a Sunday School class once, a “calvinist” lady said to me that that love stuff is “fluff.” When i tried to change the subject and mentioned that one of our members had miraculously recovered, her response was “Well if he had died, he would have been as well off-or better off” (as best I can remember this was her response.)
She was at Southern during the take-over, and often reminded us that the old guard could say some very uncomplimentary things. However, one of the professors did apologize to the class for his remarks. And that struck me as very interesting. Because i have NEVER heard any of the leaders of the CR apologize for anything.
Now I must be fair with my friend, she was a missionary who was married and divorced twice. So I think she had a chip on her shoulder.
I mention this to say that this has been my experience with many of those who profess Calvinist beliefs. Not much love abounds for those with whom they disagree.
It seems to me that debates in public never get to a middle ground. Many of those who argue their position seem to focus on the “worst case scenario” whether it be abortion, theology, or ecology. In other words, if I say love, then some will say ‘the next thing will be gays and lesbians being ordained.” Can’t we as fellow believers (and I believe there are those in both camps) find some common ground to rejoice in God’s grace and salvation together? Just my opinion. I’m no Greek, Hebrew, English or Latin scholar, just one who wants to be faithful to my Lord.
There you go again . . . giving facts! Man, no one wants facts when it is so easy to just feel that others are wrong. Actually, good quotes. I fear that the “John 3:16″ conference will just be a bash anything Calvinistic . . . sorta contrary to John 3:16, or at least John 13:34-35. At a time when we ought to be together for the Gospel (not the conference, just in real life) some choose to attack other brothers and sisters in Christ. A sad day indeed.
Our sin is insurmountable. The reformers taught that original sin has radically perverted man and destroyed his freedom; they identified the sin inherited by each man with the tendency to evil (concupisentia), which would be insurmountable.
In contrast to this the Catholic Church at the council of Orange and the council of Trent that man has a wonded nature inclined to evil but not insurmountable. Man is depraved yet redeemable.
I wholly reject this view which is adopted by the majority of evangelicals today in various forms.
Man’s sinful condition is insurmountable.
Adam and Eve knew this from the beginning. When God found them they were involved in a hopeless effort to attone their own sin with leaves. It was a religious observance. they were naked and had to be covered.
God provided attonement as a shadow of the Cross to come. It was not merely symbolic and leagal the lamb was slain and Adam and Eve had a connection with the animal world unknown to us today. They made eye contact with the dying lamb. They had never seen the glint of a swift blade across the throat of an animal. They had never seen blood sprut, the cry of a dying animal and blood wasted on the ground. They had never seen death and God did not appear loving but angry. I’m sure he slung the lamb so that blood was all over himself and the sinful couple.
Their weak religious efferts paled in comparison to God’s plans. Ask them if their sin was insurmountable and they would say, YES!
Charles
Attonement is limited. We have the certainty that God’s Word will not return void. God’s promises will be fulfilled. God does not cast His pearls to swine and He doesn’t expect us to either.
Whoever Christ died for are redeemed. Their redemption was predetermined. All that the Father gives unto Christ are saved. If attonement is not limited then depravity is not total. If attonement is not limited then it is conditional on human will and it is not all of grace.
We would be singing “almost amazing grace” and that just don’t sing.
Milton:
I graduated from SWBTS ten years after you. Would rather not say where I live in Texas in the open forum, but if you e-mail me at rev_galyon@hotmail.com, I’d be glad to let you know. As to my connection w/ China Aid Assoc., I blog for the persecuted church and CAA is one of my primary sources of information. I think Bob is a great guy!
Milton:
I think part of the reason you may be confused as to what “Calvinists” believe is because there is: 1) a great deal of misinformation and mischaracterization put forward by those who detest the doctrines of grace; and 2) several Hyper-Calvinists posing as “Calvinists” and saying rather ludicrous things.
Election is in no way arbitrary. God chooses His people in love (Ephesians 1). It is a mystery why God chooses to redeem a multitude of rebellious sinners for salvation, known only to Him. It isn’t for us to inquire, quite frankly (e.g., Romans 9). Nonetheless, we know He does it in love.
I hate hearing your observation about the “Calvinist” postings being filled with anger and judgment. IMO, such folks may very well be in the “cage stage” – the doctrines of grace have filled their heads but have not yet sunk down into their hearts, where they need to be; they need to be “locked up” until that happens.
There need to be apologies from both sides of the CR – Moderate and Conservative – regarding some of the things which were said and done.
Brother, even if you don’t agree with my “Calvinist” soteriology, I’ll be glad to find our common ground in God’s grace and salvation and rejoice with you over that! Like you, I want to be faithful to our Lord!
Milton, I’m so glad you stopped by 2WC. I hope you will come back often and give your input and ask questions, my friend.
Charles:
If you mean by your declaration regarding our sin being “insurmountable” in the sense that we can do nothing about it, then I concede your point. I contend that God’s grace is greater than all our sin, however. Are you with me on that? You’re right, Adam and Eve tried to cover their sin and shame with the works of their own hands/ works (e.g., fig leaves). God, in His grace, covered them with the skins of an animal. Did you catch what I was stating in my previous post on that point? If you asked Adam and Eve, “Is your sin insurmountable?” They would’ve replied, “If left to ourselves, yes. By God’s grace, no!”
Did you read what I said about the atonement? You obviously need to read some Spurgeon, my friend!
The atonement is not limited. It is efficient, it is substitutionary, it accomplishes redemption. Just a bit of advice – don’t get so caught up in the TULIP (phraseology) that you miss the beauty and significance of these truths.
I only sing “Amazing Grace,” and just as the “Calvinist”/Anglican John Newton penned it.
Anybody who gets blood spattered on them is redeemed! The smell of mint and the splattering of blood meant limited attonement to the Hebrews.
An angry God passes over you and if you don’t have the blood , well, there goes your first born son.
No one with the stain of Christ’s blood on their garments will go to Hell. Not a single ‘atamos’ of the blood of Christ will be consumed in the fires of hell.
Charles:
Take a breath, brother! I don’t think you’re actually reading what I’m saying about that unfortunate term upon which you are focused. I encourage you to read some of the old divines on the topic of particular redemption / definite atonement, particularly Spurgeon.
Charles, here is a little Spurgeon for you:
We are often told (I mean those of us who are commonly nicknamed by the title of Calvinists—and we are not very much ashamed of that; we think that Calvin, after all, knew more about the Gospel than almost any man who has ever lived, uninspired), we are often told that we limit the atonement of Christ, because we say that Christ has not made a satisfaction for all men, or all men would be saved. Now, our reply to this is, that, on the other hand, our opponents limit it: we do not. The Arminians say, Christ died for all men. Ask them what they mean by it. Did Christ die so as to secure the salvation of all men? They say, “No, certainly not.” We ask them the next question—Did Christ die so as to secure the salvation of any man in particular? They answer “No.” They are obliged to admit this, if they are consistent. They say, “No; Christ has died that any man may be saved if”—and then follow certain conditions of salvation. We say, then, we will go back to the old statement—Christ did not die so as beyond a doubt to secure the salvation of anybody, did He? You must say “No;” you are obliged to say so, for you believe that even after a man has been pardoned, he may yet fall from grace, and perish. Now, who is it that limits the death of Christ? Why, you. You say that Christ did not die so as to infallibly secure the salvation of anybody. We beg your pardon, when you say we limit Christ’s death; we say, “No, my dear sir, it is you that do it.” We say Christ so died that He infallibly secured the salvation of a multitude that no man can number, who through Christ’s death not only may be saved but are saved, must be saved, and cannot by any possibility run the hazard of being anything but saved. You are welcome to your atonement; you may keep it. We will never renounce ours for the sake of it.
Rev,
A great post.Please give us more.
Bill
Keep posted, Bill. Keep an eye out next week, after Holy Week is over.
“We say Christ so died that He infallibly secured the salvation of a multitude that no man can number, who through Christ’s death not only may be saved but are saved, must be saved, and cannot by any possibility run the hazard of being anything but saved.”
limited and irresistible; are we now on the same page?
Charles:
We’ve been on the same page, but I’m trying to stretch you so that you consider some of the terminology employed in the discussion. Is “limited atonement” the best way to label substitutionary atonement? IMO, no, it isn’t. Is “irresistible grace” the best term to employ for “effectual calling”? IMO, no, it isn’t. We’ve been on the same page, just using different chapter titles.
Interesting post… you had time with my good friend Errol?
Errol preached a whole day conference for me in Sydney 12 years back. He was an ex-Pentecostal Elim Tabernacle pastor, and my church had been charismatic before I came to it. He marvelously explained the riches of the Believer’s Biblical experiences rather than the fake experiences of some of our friends.
It was marvelous. Later I caught up with Errol again at John Piper’s conference, where we sat together because I was the only gentleman there that spoke his tongue..English!
Thanks for stopping by SBC OUTBACK…
catch you on the bounce.
Steve
sbcoutback
What do you mean by: “… the fake experiences of some of our friends.”
I’m new here, elaborate for me, please. Thank you.
Charles
Rev
Give me your opinion of this: ” In the transgression of Adam he fell under the condemnation of God’s holy law, and that all his posterity were corrupted in him, and so are condemned in sin, and have neither will nor power to deliver themselves from this state and condemnation.
God chose a definite number of particular persons of the fallen posterity of Adam in Christ before the foundation of the world to salvation. The reason for this choice is wholly of grace, and is unconditional on the part of the creature.”
Rev
Give me your opinion of this: “original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin;”
and this: “Through the temptation of Satan man transgressed the command of God, and fell from his original innocence whereby his posterity inherit a nature and an environment inclined toward sin. Therefore, as soon as they are capable of moral action, they become transgressors and are under condemnation. Only the grace of God can bring man into His holy fellowship and enable man to fulfill the creative purpose of God.”
Charles:
As to the first statement, I concur.
As to the second statement, I do not concur.
As to the third statement, I concur, though I believe there is more than just an “inclination” toward sin.
Rev
What is the difference between the second and third?
Charles:
Had to edit my previous comment… didn’t read the statements carefully enough. I concur with number three, but believe there is more than just an “inclination” toward sin. Also, I would insert the word “actual” in front of “transgressors.” God’s Word is infallible, I’m not.
I’m reluctant to quote Pink lest I appeared “caged”and “not really spiritual” with just head knowledge without it being “sunk down into my heart”.
Like a fool here goes: “To tell the Christ-rejecter that God loves him is to cauterize his conscience as well as to afford him a sense of security in his sins. The fact is, the love of God is a truth for the saints only, and to present it to the enemies of God is to take the children’s bread and cast it to the dogs.” -”The Sovereignty of God” Baker Book House 1992, p. 200
Charles
Hulse: “The will of God is expressed in unmistakable terms. He has no pleasure in the destruction and punishment of the wicked (Ez. 18:32; 33:11). . . . We are left in no doubt that the desire and will of God is for man’s highest good, that is his eternal salvation through heeding the gospel of Christ.”
How can I be certain that I myself am saved if God is impotent to save all those he wills to be saved? Am I desired or decreed?
Charles:
Did you take the “cage stage” statement personally? Conviction or sensitivity?
Is Pink correct? His caution should certainly be considered. Nowhere in the Book of Acts does an Apostle do evangelism centered upon the love of God. The declaration is always centered around the resurrection. The coming judgment is prominent, but not the love of God. Something for people to think about seriously and soberly. I disagree with his assertion, however, that God’s love is limited to the elect. While the degree and nature of God’s love is different for His Bride, this does not negate the fact He loves the world.
You asked, “How can I be certain that I myself am saved if God is impotent to save all those he wills to be saved? Am I desired or decreed?” I reply, The Lord isn’t impotent, He is the Almighty. If you are a believer, you are desired and decreed.
I mean the claim of some to a restoration of the biblical gift of speaking in tongues, Mr. watching…I pastored a charismatic church for 6 years…most know deep down that they are “putting on the gift” when they do it, and doubt deep down that it is genuine. Solid biblical exposition and preaching on assurance of salvation usually obviates the need for the gift.
Steve
Steve:
I’m glad you dropped by 2WC. Hope you’ll do so often. Yes, I was able to visit with your friend several years ago when he made a tour through the US. Really enjoyed that time together.
Do you happen to know John Campbell? Gavin Woolhead? Just curious.
Steve
I pastored Pentecostal congregations for over 25 years and now attend a SBC. While I had discouraging experiences with the denomination I found most were genuine and not putting on though there were some. There were abuses of the gifts yet good solid exposition and the gifts work together to edify believers. (There does seem to be a difference between Classical Pentecostals and Charismatics.)
Mainly I left the Pentecostal church over the Arminian preaching (not just that but mostly so..) thinking I could find good Bible Exposition in a Baptist Church only to find a more confusing message.
At least you knew a Wesleyan message whether you liked it or not but these Baptist preachers, you don’t have a clue who they are. If they know then they are not telling anyone. It will be a shame if I find out they don’t know.
It’s not God’s love that is limited to the elect but his attonement, his redemptive love.
His redemption goes out to the ones not perishing. The ones not perishing are the ones believing on Him. They are the objects of His redemption. God secures the “actual” salvation of the ones He loves. It is not a universal attonement that secures the possibility of salvation for everyone.
The “world” in John 3:16 is not every person in the human race but the world of believers.
Charles:
What do you think of this statement – “The atonement is sufficient to save the whole world, but efficient only for those who believe (the elect)”?
I strongly disagree with you (and Pink) regarding your take on the “world”/John 3:16. Fortunately, I’ve got Calvin, Warfield and Hulse to back me up.
Sufficient, if He had purposed, to redeem every single man, woman, and child that would ever live.
“For God there stretches forth his hand without a difference to all, but lays hold only of those, to lead them to himself, whom he has chosen before the foundation of the world.” (John Calvin, Commentary on 2 Peter 3:9)
“For Christ is made known and held out to the view of all, but the elect alone are they whose eyes God opens, that they may seek him by faith.” (John Calvin, Commentary on John 3:16)
Rev, I’m no scholar but can copy and paste with the best. The problem with c&p is that the translators are not innerrant by a long shot and on both sides of the issue their objectivity is questionable. I do not have access to the original copies. If I did I would not be able to read Deutch or French. Arguing Calvinism from Calvin is like establishing doctrinal clarity from a Biblical paraphrase.
Today at work I ask my JW friend if he believed that God was able to save all He wanted to save?
He said yes but then launched into his speech that God saves thoes who want to be saved.
As I contemplated that thru the day, it occured to me that the JWs believe in limited atonement with the heavenly class of 144000 and the innumerable host of earthly class on earth experience the reign of Christ with the 144000.
When we speak of limited atonement the anti-Calvinist imagine a limited group unrealistically disproportionate to the world’s population. (which I continually bring up to my JW friend constantly)
But as Warfield says, the elect are a host of unnumberable peoples. God’s provision of atonement is liberal and grand, yet specifically limited.
Hulse IMHO is a Reformed Arminian, possibly an Amyraldian. I strongly disagree with you about limited atonement, I have Calvin and Warfield to back me up!
Charles:
I agree, you are no scholar, but trust you “study to show yourself approved.” “Arguing Calvinism from Calvin is like establishing doctrinal clarity from a Biblical paraphrase.” I disagree. The problem, it seems, is that you can’t seem to wrap your mind around the fact that Calvin and Warfield assert both God’s love for humanity and particular redemption.
You disagree with me about particular redemption?!? What… you no longer believe it?!? I’ve never denied particular redemption, but I have been telling you that “limited atonement” is a poor phrase to employ in discussing substitutionary atonement / particular redemption. Go back and read carefully what I’ve stated in previous comments.
The quote from above (“sufficient… efficient”) is from the Canons of the Synod of Dort. If you want to take “Calvinism” beyond Dort, Calvin and Warfield, something is amiss.
Hulse an Arminian? That’s laughable! If he is, then so are Calvin, Warfield, Spurgeon and the divines who assembled in Dordrecht to repudiate the Remonstrants.
I’m really not a scholar. I though that particular and limited atonement was the same thing.
Again, I’m not a scholar and in “naivete” I believed that L meant “limited atonement” and limited atonement is atonement limited to the elect. How simple of me! Will I ever be a scholar?
I guess I am destined (Predestinated) to be a poor plowman. I’ll never be able to understand the Bible.
What is laughable is that Calvin, Warfield, Spurgeon and the men of Dort are Arminian. Or that they bear any resemblance to what many today call themselves “Reformed”. From my uninformed opinion Hulse like Adrian Rogers is anti-Classical Calvinist. Adrian Rogers was anti-Calvinist building a straw man to make Reformed people look like Hyper Calvinist.
God doesn’t take a baby and decide that it is predestined to hell! A baby is the descendent of Adam and is destined to hell as such. God from before the foundation of the earth determine who of the sinful race would be saved according to the good pleasure of his will.
You can argue till you are blue in the face about God loving the non-elect. Is Particular redemption the same thing as unlimited atonement? Is substitionary atonement in agreement with limited or unlimited atonement.
Isn’t “Unlimited Atonement” one of the remonstrants? After the Synod of Dort there were thoes who were “not content to affirm that the intrinsic value of Christ’s atonement was infinite, and capable, had God so pleased, of being extended to all mankind, they maintained that, along with a sufficiency of value, there was a certain destination of Christ’s death, on the part of God and of the mediator, to the whole human race.” -George Smeaton
This group still survives today rejecting both Arminianism and Classical Calvinism (Rogers, Biblicism) yet insisting on a sovereign election of God, while holding forth an Arminian gospel appeal. They are inconsistent Arminians! -James White
Can you be a true Reformer and still give a “Finney like” altar call?
Answer: no! If you give a Finney like altar call in a Church that at one time was Calvinistic (SBC) then you have to preach a sermon “Why I am not a Calvinist” preferably on a Sunday night in the summer slump. It is important you break with orthodoxy and reemerge as neo-orthodox. To successfully do this you drag a red herring across the path to confuse the theological dogs. The red herring is the Inerrancy of the Word. It’s like attaching pork to the end of a unpopular bill. To argue for orthodoxy is to reject Inerrancy!
To argue for orthodoxy will affect your wallet and so you are content that “pickles have souls”
Charles, particular redemption is the same thing as limited atonement. It’s just a better way of saying it, IMO. That’s why I told you to go back and read my comments carefully. You’re using sarcasm in your posts… make note of it when others use sarcasm or humor (though it can be difficult at times to “read” it).
Never said you were predestined to be a poor plowman. Said you weren’t a scholar who could never understand the Bible, but hoped that you would “study to show yourself approved.” Is there anything wrong with that?
Calvin, Warfield, Spurgeon and the men of Dort are Arminian in your opinion? Dude, you can’t be serious!!! If you believe that, then please do not call yourself a “Calvinist.” And saying Hulse is an anti-Classical Calvinist? Do you even know the man?!? Do you even know what a ludicrous statement that is? Steve — where are you?! Help me out, bro.!
I agree that Adrian Rogers built straw men and made Reformed folk look like Hyper-Calvinists. Hey, how ’bout that, we agreed on something else, Charles! Nonetheless, I do not doubt his salvation. I trust that at this moment he is worshiping God without interruption.
You’re right, I can argue with you until I’m blue in the face about God loving the non-elect. The question is, what do you do with the passages I brought up about God loving His enemies and not delighting in the death of the wicked? What do you do with the quotes from honest-to-goodness “Calvinists,” namely Calvin and Warfield?
Is particular redemption the same as unlimited atonement? No. Is substitutionary atonement in agreement with limited atonement? Yes (historically, “Arminians” have shunned substitutionary atonement for that very reason). Nice Smeaton quote. Not sure what the point is, however. Why are you trying to prove particular redemption to someone who affirms it? Smeaton agrees with Dort (and me). You can quote James White if you like, but he is describing Amyraldians, not “Calvinists.” It doesn’t apply here.
By “Finney-like” altar call, do you mean *any* call for a response (done carefully and respectfully), or a heart tuggin’ – “If you love yo’ mama, and your life’s a mess, better come up here and say a prayer?” with a song refrain repeated 57 times until some poor slouch, who just wants to get home for lunch, finally walks to the front? If you mean *any* call for a response (done carefully and respectfully), then YES. If you mean the emotionally manipulative form, relying upon the power and persuasion of the preacher, then NO.
If I were you, I wouldn’t throw around the terms “orthodoxy” and “neo-orthodox” when discussing this topic. Trust me, advocating “neo-orthoxy” is not a good thing, even if what you are advocating is a good thing.
So, have I dragged a red herring across the path to confuse someone? Or have you? What does the “altar call” have to do with the original topic? Affect my wallet? Pickles have souls? What in the world are you talking about, Charles?
I use limited atonement. Its classical gas. Ruffles feathers, which necessitates explanation. A shot across the bow one might say before bringing her abroadside with full guns to bear.
I am slowly learning to be more repleat with alternate terms that explain more deeply. There is no doubt about the particularity and generality of the atonement in Calvin’s writing. But, you must be sure to apply his definitions and not just read his generality into his particularity. I find it common among those who claim Calvin did not believe in a limited atonement. They selectively take out of context passages that he is using in a general sense of believers and make the language apply universally to all, unbelievers included. The bias becomes obvious. It is cheery picking. Terminology is our greatest weakness. We us the word love in so many contexts that when we want it to mean something in particular we have to go to great lengths to explain it. This becomes even more difficult when trying to answer the skeptic. Because if they are unwilling to accept you usage in context, the conversation is over.
Central to the message of sovereignty is God’s omnicience. Gene Bridges does a masterful job in answering some confusion at Founders blog.
Thomas:
Classical gas that ruffles feathers and shoots across the bow. You upstart!
I agree with you, there is no doubt about where Calvin uses particularity and generality in regard to the atonement. Paul Helm’s book is masterful in treating the issue of Calvin’s views.
“The problem, it seems, is that you can’t seem to wrap your mind around the fact that Calvin and Warfield assert both God’s love for humanity and particular redemption.”
You are right I can’t wrap my mind around the fact that God loves the non-elect part of humanity. I completely wrap my mind around limited atonement (particular redemption) but why would God go into a morgue and love the dead non-elect? Just don’t make sense. Now He will go into a morgue and regenerate the elect and then have an object of love. These are the believers who God loves and gave his son to die for. The rest are walking dead, perishing.
“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who spitefully use you and persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet your brethren only, what do you do more than others? Do not even the tax collectors do so? Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect.” – Matthew 5:43-48
Rev
Are you responding to me or God?
Rev
God is omniscient. I on the other hand aint
God’ love is based on full knowledge, my love is finite and I am commanded to love everyone, the non-elect included. Why, I even love Arminians!
They are fodder for good conversation! It is difficult to discuss with those embarrassed by Calvinism’s beautiful flower, the TULIP!
Do you believe in a pre conversion grace that enables the sinner to make a choice for Christ?
Since I am not a scholar I would kindly request a yes or no answer and not a long drawn out answer explaining the middle position. A delete counts as yes.
Charles
Steve
I assume that you are familiar with a knife and sheath and probably have a perference when you go out into the outback.
What kind of knife and sheath did God wear in the garden when he walked with Adam in the cool of the day. Did Adam have to ask what the knife was for? I lived in Turkey and witnessed the sudden sliting of a cow’s throat before it dropped to the ground on it’s knees. I was sitting in traffic and blood went everwhere.
In the middle east a shepherd has a good sharp knife sheathed.
If Adam had said no to God when God handed the bloody skin and said, “here, cover your shame” would he have been a Christ-rejecter? Wasn’t the TULIP already in effect? (before Calvin was born)
How do you say no to an angry God? You don’t. You say LORD, LORD with your face in the dirt like a worm. Depart from me, I am a worker of iniquity. He makes you wear that bloody garment!
If this is the love for the elect imagine God’s love for the non-elect. Or does the perishing of the non-elect demonstrate His love for the elect? Jacob have I love and Esau have I hated.
Things to ponder about John 3:16
Charles:
- Responding to you, my friend.
- God is omniscient and still loves His enemies, showing them kindness and patience and forbearance while realizing they will not turn from their rebellion. We are to imitate His love, as the passage says. God loves the world, as it says in John 3:16. I believe all of God’s Word.
- I don’t believe in prevenient grace. I’m not a Wesleyan, I’m a “Calvinist.”
- TULIP is not a beautiful flower, it is an acrostic. The doctrines of grace, however, are truths related to our beautiful Lord and His marvelous, amazing grace. These doctrines are precious and beautiful.
- That scholar comment really got under your skin, eh? Dude, you were the one who stated it. I just agree. Don’t forget, though, that I said I’m sure you would “study to show yourself approved.”
If you a “Calvinist” like Erroll Hulse and you believe in “Christ-rejecters” who are “totally depraved” then some sort of pre conversion supernatural illumination must moderate the depravity of the sinner so they can reject Christ.
You can’t reject something you are not enlightened about.
Charles:
I’m trying to follow you…please let me know if I am.
Are you saying Rev. Hulse and I believe in prevenient grace because we hold that those who reject Christ are totally depraved?
Do you believe those who reject Christ have been enlightened and are not totally depraved?
Please help me understand where you are coming from on this point.
James
Calvinist believe that faith and belief follow regeneration and not precede it. This is because of total depravity. Man is not capable of making a choice for God; therefore regeneration is a necessity toward choosing. “You must be born again”
If you believe that a sinner has rejected Christ and you believe in TD there has to be a modification of depravity in order for the sinner to make a choice. This moderation is a preconversion illumination/enlightenment that makes the sinner “enabled” to choose. IMO this is pure and simple Arminianism – not Calvinism. (I personally don’t accept 4 point Calvinism JMO – but who am I?)
If you don’t believe in TD then the sinner is free to choose.
Now if you and Hulse believe in TD and there is no pre conversion illumination (conviction of sins) and the sinner still “rejects Christ” something else has to be modified and I have no idea what it could be. . .if you really believe in TD.
Sorry I can’t make it clearer.
Charles:
I know what “Calvinists” believe, and I understand the issue of regeneration preceding faith. I’m having difficulty understanding your position, though, because it is not generally the Reformed understanding. The Reformed position holds that because of total depravity sinners suppress the truth in righteousness (Rom 1:18) and choose to stay out of the light – which is rejecting Christ (John 3:18-20). People reject Christ because of their depravity, not because they have been enlightened. In fact, the it is only through the illuminating work of God with the proclamation of the Gospel that totally depraved sinners will comprehend the truth of the Gospel for themselves and place their faith in Christ (2 Cor 4:3-6). If you want to call this “Arminianism,” that’s fine, but understand you are calling Warfield, Hodge, Spurgeon, Edwards and other Reformed stalwarts such. . . . and you might want to reconsider your labels.
Sinners are always free to choose exactly what they want (per Augustine, J. Edwards). The problem is with their desire, which is affected by their depravity. Sinners will always make a decision against Christ Jesus – they will reject Him, they are “Christ-rejecters” – unless the Lord overcomes their depravity by His grace. There may be (and often is) conviction of sin without conversion.
Really, isn’t this discussion about total depravity.
There are Wesleyans who believe in TD and they insist on prevenient grace granted by the Holy Spirit to be saved.
The counterparts to Wesleyans are the Arminians who don’t believe in TD and they are the “whosoever will” crowd.
There are Arminians who follow the teachings of Arminius and they believe in TD not straying far from Calvinism. (Dort) I am not personally aware of what they believe.
There are Reformed Arminians and they believe in TD and I am not sure what they believe.
I have a good friend who is a scholar and he believes he is a Keswick Reformed and he doesn’t believe in TD. He says he is marred but still redeemable. He belongs to a Wesleyan Pentecostal Church and he says his beliefs are more in tune with the A/G (non-Wesleyan Pentecostal)
It does seem to me that the dividing line is what you believe about TD and are you being truthful about that belief. The reason it is hard to be truthful about TD is that with your head you will lie about it nearly always. TD has to come from your heart. You have to know in your heart that you are a miserable wretch and amount to a pile of sh**. You can’t lie about that! Only a fool would lie about that. Luther said it and Isaiah probably said it when the angel from his own hand touched his lips and tongue with a hot coal.
When you touch a hot coal what do you say? That came from your heart, it bypassed your brain.
I hope I am not comming across as sarcastic but:
“I’m having difficulty understanding your position, though, because it is not generally the Calvinist understanding. The Calvinist position holds that because of total depravity sinners were dead through the trespasses and sins. . . but were made alive together with Christ. (Eph 2:1-5)
People don’t reject Christ because of their depravity. They are blinded by the god of this world. They are veiled even from the truth that they are perishing. (II Cor 4:3-6)
You are using an Argumentum AD Verecundiam to appeal to the prestige of Warfield, Hodge, Spurgeon, Edwards and other divines to support your idea. Now I don’t know what their positions are personally and you probably do, but how do I know that you know, I don’t know. I seem to know for certain what the outcome of the Synod of Dort was and a simple, even circular logical person like me can comprehend it. TULIP In the end we have confidence in authority and my confidence in Dort which nearly equals the confidence I have in the King James council far exceeds the confidence I have in esteemed inviduals, even Calvin, Spurgeon etc.
Isn’t it a shame that modern day theologies have so mudded the waters that we can’t just make our appeal to the Bible? You can’t argue with anti-Calvinist because he claims to be Biblicist. Neither can you debate with JWs because they believe the Bible. The Church of Christ believes the Bible. Who doesn’t? Westminister and Heidleberg Confessions just get better and better.
They lead us out of the modern mess and teach us what brighter men believed.
Charles:
Please refrain from using profanity. I’ve edited your comment, though the gist of what you’ve written is still evident.
I know of no Wesleyans who believe in total depravity. None. All Wesleyans, however, do insist upon prevenient grace. Wesleyans *are* Arminians, not merely their counterparts.
I’m part of the “whosoever will” crowd – but I’m not an Arminian. I’m a biblicist, but you don’t like that term. I’m a “Calvinist” – a Dortian Calvinist, if you will. If you don’t know what about the Synod of Dort, then you aren’t really familiar with the history of this issue. It might prove helpful to you to look into that particular bit of history.
I’ve not heard of Reformed Arminians, which sounds oxymoronic, a bit like “government organization,” or “jumbo shrimp.” You speak of a friend who is “Keswick Reformed,” but doesn’t hold to total depravity. My thought on that is that he is Reformed in name only, as is someone like Robert Schuller. Now, his belief that he is marred but still redeemable, well, I’m not sure I would completely disagree with that. We’re all marred, we’re all redeemable (though not all will be redeemed). That, however, doesn’t make me a Wesleyan.
Am I being truthful about holding to total depravity? And you call me a liar? Charles… pulling out the “casting doubt on your integrity” card. Why can’t you play nice?
I do affirm total depravity. I know it in my head and from my own depraved heart. I know that my only hope is in Christ. ‘My hope is built on nothing less than Jesus’ blood and righteousness; I dare not trust the sweetest frame, but wholly lean on Jesus’ name.’ When I sing ‘Amazing Grace,’ that line about, “that saved a wretch like me,” I feel it, brother.
Don’t quote Luther to me…he held to election and to God loving the world.
I wouldn’t say you are coming across as sarcastic. No, that’s not how I would describe it.
You bring up 2 Cor. 4:3-6, which I brought up earlier (even though you say I’m not using Scripture in this discussion), and tell me people don’t reject Christ because of their depravity? What is your definition of depravity? Depravity is sin, brother. People reject Christ because of their sinful, selfish, hateful hearts…their depraved hearts. Are they blinded? Yes! But does that mean they are without fault? NO! Their rejection is because of their sin and is itself sinful.
‘Argumentum ad Verecundiam’ – nice bit of Latin. I’m not merely appealing to Warfield, et al, to support my idea, but to point out that the major Reformed theologians agree upon this point. That should say a little something to you. If you don’t know their positions personally, it might not hurt you to read them and find out.
Earlier you said you weren’t familiar with Dort, and later said you have confidence in Dort and the ‘King James Council,’ which exceeds your confidence in Spurgeon, et al. Then you speak of “modern day theologies” being “muddled” and not appealing to Scripture. I have appealed to Scripture. You don’t recall Matthew? Romans? 2 Corinthians? Gospel of John? Then you go to comparing Biblicists to JWs and the like? C’mon, Charles!
I take it you don’t like the Westminster Confession or Heidelberg Catechism (not confession), eh? And yet you want to be considered a “Calvinist”? Odd. Or were you not being sarcastic at that point, and saying you actually do like those documents?
So, in your view of total depravity…
Is it possible for anyone to reject Christ?
Are the elect totally depraved prior to regeneration? After?
Wow, salute ordo salutis!
Something tells me someone has a bit of confusion about regeneration in the actual and declarative senses. This is were I get hung up with people. They tend only to think in temporal logical sequencing and don’t get the BIG picture. O well, unless one is born again he can not see…
By the way, you guys need to go to bed!
Now I need a nice winking smiley face for you!
My only comfort in life and death is that I belong body and soul to my Lord and Savior.
It is impossible for a TD sinner to reject Christ. He follows the god of this world robotically without free will. I suppose the only way for him to reject Christ is that the god of this world illuminates him and that ain’t going to happen.
Yes, the elect are TD prior to regeneration. Of course! “All have sinned . . .”
Afterwards they are a new creation, born again, but not glorified and have the potential for sin. They have freed will to follow Christ.
Whatever your position is it is similar to the Wesleyan. Both of you are TD and need a divine grace to make a choice. You are an Arminian who believes in TD like John Wesley. Unlike John Wesley you believe in Eternal Security which makes your view inconsistent Arminian. (Too much reading James White)
You are like Adrian Rogers and John Rice. You are not Arminian but you are a free willer and you are not Calvinist but you believe in ES! You don’t preach anti-Arminianism sermons because you want to be evangelistic. So you preach anti-Calvinist sermons, because they are not evangelistic.
If Adrian Rogers had converted to Wesleyanism and led the SBC into a Wesleyan resurgence he would have been more consistent but still wrong and maybe still alive today. IMO
And maybe Paul Williams’ life would not have taken that evil detour the same year ‘Love Worth Finding” was started (and the new buildings were being built on Appling Road)
But instead he remained in a Finney mode following the marketing values of a near “Pelagian” constructing straw man arguments of Calvinist. You call yourself a Biblicist, dragging God’s Holy Inerrant Word across the trail to confuse the heresy hunting dogs!
How is that for “mean”? ‘winking, smiling,yellow’
“If you don’t know what about the Synod of Dort, then you aren’t really familiar with the history of this issue. It might prove helpful to you to look into that particular bit of history.”
Just so we are on the same page when I read give me the translators you use. There are modern day paraphrases of Dort, Calvin and Spurgeon which bear likeness but are revisions.
The old inerrancy argument applies here. I appeal to the original documents and not just the
rendering of the bias of the translators. How is that for scholarship?
Thomas –
The time shown isn’t the actual local time. I was in bed at 3:43 am.
Charles –
By stating that your only comfort in life and death is that you belong body and soul to the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, are you affirming the Heidelberg divines?
Here is where you and I disagree and disagree strongly, wholeheartedly, etc., etc., etc. You state:
“It is impossible for a TD sinner to reject Christ. He follows the god of this world robotically without free will. I suppose the only way for him to reject Christ is that the god of this world illuminates him and that ain’t going to happen.”
You are off the scale with this statement/ affirmation. You have departed Reformed Theology / Calvinism and slipped into Hyper-Calvinism, my friend. You need to study the topic of free will a bit more closely. You should also take a closer look at the doctrine of original sin.
My position is Wesleyan? I’m an Arminian? Hardly! I know all about semi-Pelagianism. The only person who would call my position such is a Hyper-Calvinist.
I am like Adrian Rogers and John Rice? Dude, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
You say I preach “anti-Calvinist sermons” and am therefore “not evangelistic.” Dude, you have no clue.
Don’t pollute our “conversation” with the mess at Bellevue. It doesn’t apply. Folks on the other side of the aisle might well bring up people on the Calvinistic side with their issues.
As to what Adrian Rogers taught about “Calvinism,” that is more than acceptable in this discussion. I agree with you that he constructed straw man arguments against Calvinists. Have you felt the pain inflicted by his sermons/ pamphlet? I have, my friend, I have. And so did my family and so did my church.
This is quite a statement, Charles, “You call yourself a Biblicist, dragging God’s Holy Inerrant Word across the trail to confuse the heresy hunting dogs!” Does that make me a heretic? Does that make you a dog? Truth be told, you are the one who has gone beyond the bounds of orthodoxy.
As far as translations go, you can read Spurgeon in the original English since he was British. If you want to go to the original sources, not just with Dort and Calvin, but with Scripture, are you ready to pull out your Greek and Hebrew?
Yes, I am affirming the Heidelberg divines. I like Westminister but prefer the beauty and style of Heidelberg.
I am not afraid of hyper-Calvinism. I figure I am going to err and I prefer to err on the side of sovereignty of God rather than the will of man.
I also am not afraid to list the issues I am struggling with.
*God is the source of sin and evil – Where did Satan come from? Before sin entered the scene, how did Satan get his ideas? There is a mystery here.
*men have no will of their own and secondary causes are of no effect. This doesn’t mean that men are as evil as they could be. There is a restraint.
*God cares only for his elect and has nothing but hatred for the non-elect. Jacob and Esau are not just nationalities but individuals.
I can fake humility. (joke) actually I was over the line when I said: “You call yourself a Biblicist, dragging God’s Holy Inerrant Word across the trail to confuse the heresy hunting dogs!” I really meant that remark to reference ARs anti-Calvinism and not you. I ask you to forgive me.
I will not bring up the subject of Bellevue but just make one statement. It pertains to our discussion in that IMO there is a cause and effect with what AR preached and the mess left to Steve Gaines (multiple personal and Church issues) There is the hand of God’s judgement manifested in too much circumstantial happenings and right at the time of his death, with his total lack of knowledge. Folks who think this issue of Calvinism is second tier problems should take notice because these “circumstantial events” will continue making plain God’s judgement.
Your testimony is a confirmation of the fact that our theology affects our walet. If you preach an acceptable sermon then you will succeed. The current acceptable evangelical sermon is not the gospel. The gospel is not marketable.
I really hope you do not tune me out as I really desire to understand the present situation with the gospel message.
Charles –
I’m glad you affirm the Heidelberg Catechism. I also like the Westminster Confession, but prefer and affirm the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith.
I understand your preference to err on the side of divine sovereignty. It’s always better to go with centering on God rather than humanity, isn’t it?
I’m unsure if you mean you are struggling with God being the source of sin and evil or simply wondering from where sin and evil have come. I may not help much in this area, but here goes…
Satan is a created being. An angelic being, Lucifer, one of the three arch-angels. Unlike Michael and Gabriel, Lucifer was filled with pride, rebelled against God, and influenced one-third of the angels to join his rebellion (those whom we now refer to as demons). Why was Satan filled with pride? Where did he get his ideas. You noted, “There is a mystery here.” I agree. It is a mystery, and we have to stop right there. It’s a mystery.
I disagree with the assertion that human beings have no will of their own and secondary causes are of no effect. The 1689 puts it this way in Ch. 3, Sec. 1:
“God hath decreed in himself, from all eternity, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably, all things, whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby is God neither the author of sin nor hath fellowship with any therein; nor is violence offered to the will of the creature, nor yet is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established; in which appears his wisdom in disposing all things, and power and faithfulness in accomplishing his decree.” (Is 46:10; Eph 1:11; Heb 6:17; Rom 9:15, 18; Jas 1:13; 1 Jn 1:5; Acts 4:27-28; Jn 19:11; Eph 1:3-5).
I agree with you that Jacob and Esau are not only nationalities, but individuals. Even if the Apostle Paul were referring strictly to nationalities in Rom. 9, it shouldn’t be forgotten that nationalities are made up of individuals. Right? So that argument (made by Rogers and others) doesn’t work. Nonetheless, we need to ask what it means that God “hates” Esau. I believe it means He leaves Esau to follow his own path, to do exactly what he chooses to do. I believe this is how God hardened pharaoh’s heart. I don’t believe it was an “active” hardening, but God let him have exactly what he wanted. Sort of like giving him all the rope he wanted to make his noose. That is why the Scripture states both that God hardened his heart and that he hardened his own heart.
Thank you for the apology regarding the “hunting dogs” statement. I forgive you.
I agree with you, the gospel is not “marketable.” I praise our Lord, however, that it is the power of God unto salvation!
Charles, I’m not tuning you out brother. Told you I’d be your Huckleberry. I’ve got thick skin and can handle tough discussions. At times I’m sure we’ll use humor, even sarcasm, at other times we may be a bit sharp and pointed. I trust we can apologize to each other when we need to do so. We may not always agree, and don’t expect to, but I hope we can benefit each other.
“Buona Pasqua” We celebrate Christ’s wonderful resurrection!
http://motonacciu.blogspot.com/2008/03/happy-eastern.html read my comment to this blog
Living in a foreign country is always interesting!
our holy God involved Himself in mankind’s sin.
His sovereignty is at stake in this discussion. Is He truly omnipotent or is there an equally or lesser omnipotent power that controls evil?
If this an unsolvable mystery I would choose that God has no equals neither lesser equals. There is an ursurpation of power but no equals lesser or equal. Yet the Bible says God cannot sin and this cannot be violated. But neither can a lesser god be exalted. Too much talking with JWs.
Rev
Is it possible to be a good acceptable hyper-Calvinist? I am certain that the Primitive Baptist would reject me for my views. I attend a good, very good, growing SBC but I am not a member because of their message. My wife wants us to join. They will have to improve their gospel and that just doesn’t seem possible. Oh, I forgot all things are possible with God! But they are not going to change just for me. I am discussing it with the pastor. He doesn’t pressure me because 1.) He is not willing to make the adjustment. (they are in a 13 million dollar construction for a sanctuary.) 2.) I have talked with a very anti-Calvinistic cheif deacon. Construction superintendent. (Pastor doesn’t really know his views!) 3.) He doesn’t really care whether I join or not. (actually not true but a consideration for me) 4.) I’m certaintly not going to conform to their message. (Proud ain’t I) 5.) Heck, I had to leave the Pentecostal church I was raised in for over forty years, why would I step back into more confusion? 6.) Strangely, God is directing me to this Church and the pastor has been with me in this direction. Strange indeed!
I am involved with a very exciting Bible fellowship Class that is outgrowing the room. I am an outspoken bold, Spirit Filled, Evangelistic, Calvinist.
PTL they are becomming evangelistic! I told them today that they should abandon any ideas of a cowardly lifestyle evangelism, they should have compulsive oral evangelism. The teacher ask us why don’t we tell others what God has done for us? I said “cause God ain’t done anything for us!” Believe me, when God speaks your first name in Calvinistic fashion you run to tell someone. Evangelism is more caught than taught.
Jesus just spoke “Mary’s” name and she went running to tell the disciples. If you are not telling then God ain’t done nutin fer yall! Regenerative evangelism. From the labor and delivery room to the waiting room and out to the streets.
Since the tulip is wilted and the name Calvinism is mudded with hypo, moderate, modified, universal, well-meant offer, 4, 3, 2, 1, point and hyper is kin to a dirty word, why can’t we say super-Calvinist to mean that the elect are so large in number in heaven as to be innumerable. While atonement is limited to the elect particularily and God is so liberal in choosing that the humble need not fret over responsibilities, obligations or merits; they find rest and comfort in their election.
Let the anti-Calvinist fret over duty, burdens and obligations. Let the anti-Calvinist (Arminians) pay the bills for fat cat preachers to live in abundance. Christ’s redemptive love does cover a multitude of sinners and the only ones needing to worry and fret are the preachers who risk being last when rewards are distributed. They man pulpits Sunday after Sunday heaping responsibilities and obligations on the people destroying hope and trust in a sovereign God.
Charles:
The adjective “good acceptable” never applies to hyper-Calvinism.
Interestingly enough, some of the younger Primitive pastors would accept your views (though the older ones would reject your evangelistic bent and your insistence on Christ alone). Many of the younger men in that group are solid Evangelicals.
Interesting to hear about your involvement with the local SBC congregation. I’ll be praying for you all regarding your decision to join, etc. Very happy to hear that fellowship class is becoming evangelistic. Keep spurring them on, brother!
Thomas said: “This is were I get hung up with people.”
Maybe I can help you since I am not a scholar, yet I have “scholar envy”. Theology is determined by economics and not thoughtful contemplation. Don’t get hung up with actual and declarative senses or temporal logical sequencing.
Measure the worth of a gospel presentation by “will it be marketable?”
Let me illustrate this. I was listening to John MacArthur and he was preaching a marketable message that anyone (esp inconsistent Arminians) would want to order; tapes (about $20 not incl S&H) and maybe buy his Study Bible with his personal study notes. (about $50 not incl S&H) His 30 minute message ended with a brief explanation of regeneration and faith not being in chronological order and other words I could not understand and stay in the fast lane on the interstate without being rear-ended!
Listen, study to show yourself to be all things to all people that some (a sizeable warm market)may buy your product. A chronological idea limits your market to just Classical Calvinist rather a simple non-chronology lets you address an Arminian market while secretly hiding your beloved Calvinist heritage.
I’m no scholar but a shrewd ad campaigner!
Wow, salute ordo salutis!
The first work of the grace of the Holy Spirit is conversion, effecting justification in accordance with Jesus’ proclamation at the beginning of the Gospel: “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” (Mt 4:17) Moved by grace, man turns toward God and away from sin, thus accepting forgiveness and righteousness from on high.
not to wory. The above was a paste from the Catholic Catechism as to ordo salutis.
James, What do you think of this?:
Classical Arminianism -Wikipedia
Classical Arminianism (sometimes titled Reformed Arminianism or Reformation Arminianism) is the theological system that was presented by Jacobus Arminius and maintained by the Remonstrants[6]; its influence serves as the foundation for all Arminian systems. A list of beliefs is given below:
Depravity is total: Arminius states “In this [fallen] state, the free will of man towards the true good is not only wounded, infirm, bent, and weakened; but it is also imprisoned, destroyed, and lost. And its powers are not only debilitated and useless unless they be assisted by grace, but it has no powers whatever except such as are excited by Divine grace.”
Atonement is intended for all: Jesus’ death was for all people, Jesus draws all people to himself, and all people have opportunity for salvation through faith.
Jesus’ death satisfies God’s justice: The penalty for the sins of the elect is paid in full through Jesus’ work on the cross. Thus Christ’s atonement is intended for all, but requires faith to be effected. Arminius states “Justification, when used for the act of a Judge, is either purely the imputation of righteoussness through mercy… or that man is justified before God… according to the rigour of justice without any forgiveness.” Stephen Ashby clarifies “Arminius allowed for only two possible ways in which the sinner might be justified: (1) by our absolute and perfect adherence to the law, or (2) purely by God’s imputation of Christ’s righteousness.”
Grace is resistible: God takes initiative in the salvation process and His grace comes to all people. This grace (often called prevenient or pre-regenerating grace) acts on all people to convict them of the Gospel, draw them strongly towards salvation, and enable the possibility of sincere faith. Picrilli states “indeed this grace is so close to regeneration that it inevitably leads to regeneration unless finally resisted.” The offer of salvation through grace does not act irresistibly in a purely cause-effect, deterministic method but rather in an influence-and-response fashion that can be both freely accepted and freely denied.
Man has free will to respond or resist: Free will is limited by God’s sovereignty, but God sovereignly allows all men the choice to accept the Gospel of Jesus through faith, simultaneously allowing all men to resist.
Election is conditional: Arminius defined election as “the decree of God by which, of Himself, from eternity, He decreed to justify in Christ, believers, and to accept them unto eternal life.” God alone determines who will be saved and his determination is that all who believe Jesus through faith will be justified. According to Arminius, “God regards no one in Christ unless they are engrafted in him by faith.”
God predestines the elect to a glorious future: Predestination is not the predetermination of who will believe, but rather the predetermination of the believer’s future inheritance. The elect are therefore predestined to sonship through adoption, glorification, and eternal life.
Eternal security is also conditional: All believers have full assurance of salvation with the condition that they remain in Christ. Salvation is conditioned on faith, therefore perseverance is also conditioned. Apostasy (turning from Christ) is only committed through a deliberate, willful rejection of Jesus and renouncement of belief.
I am particularily interested in Stephen Ashby’s view of this. Are you familar with him?
The first work of the grace of the Holy Spirit is conversion-
This is where I get hung up with people, for the first work of grace is regeneration.
Now if we define coversion as the quickening, the making alive from the dead, then yes conversion is. But, that is not what Jesus had in mind.
According to him the first work is the anothen gennao, the new birth, then understanding, conviction, repentance, coversion.
That is why it is necessary to preach the Gospel clearly. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God. The hearing in order precedes the faith. But, according to Jesus, the new birth precedes understanding which according to him is the hearing (seeing). Faith, as Murray states has at least three essential components, Calvin’s list is considerably longer, but Murray states them in summation as knowledge, conviction, and belief (trust). These cannot come except that one is born again. First one must hear, to hear one must have been born again, hearing gives rise to understanding of the knowledge of the Holy, which, as with Isaiah, convicts us of sin, but conviction means more than that, it means to be convinced of the knowledge that is given, which then causes the convict to throw his trust into Jesus.
So we preach, repent and believe in your heart. Loving trust comes after repentance, but repentance cannot come before the knowledge of sin, which must be born out of the light of the Holy shinning in darkness, so that those who are born of God will by his will come forth so that it may be shown (declarative) that the works they do have been wrought by God.
Anyway, we do not at first explain the theology. But, rather, we begin with Jesus and unless a man is born again he cannot understand. We preach sin and repentance from it, we preach as if the understanding preexists. Otherwise, we would be speaking words into the wind. We obey and open our mouths in the presence of all in hopes that by some means some will be saved. And knowing that God has already openned some ears, some surely will.
God bless whs…
a poor uneducated servant
tt
James
Dec 22, 2005 Things took a dramatic change in my life. These changes came to me suddenly without my conscious efforts to bring them about. It was at the Fedex hub and involved a Jehovah Witness. I was on fire to tell the JW about Jesus.
It was a firey debate so that people thought we might fight! It consumed me to tell everyone about Jesus, literally everyone! I went to my bosses and announce to them my bold intentions to tell everyone at work about Jesus. I said you can fire me, I can find another job, I can’t find another Jesus. They said go right ahead thatr was over two years ago and thoes two bosses are my spiritual accountability friends. I tell them all the bizare things that are going on!
I went to the pastor on Dec 29, 05 and told him of my desire for boldness. He opened the Bible and read John 15:1,2 That began a supernatural intervention of God on my behalf to heal my personality and on the morn of the new year I was one ot the strangest Calvinist you will ever meet! Bold, Spirit Filled (with PPL), Evangelistic and now that I am talking with you, Hyper, which by my search means I just take the TULIP literally without qualifications.
My pastor said he didn’t understand what was going on but I should put my mouth up to that spicket and drink till it runs out. (He implied I was on a mountain and I would eventually have to come down to reality) “Hey, pastor I’m still up there drinking,” I tell him all the time.
Will the Holy Spirit lead you to be that kind of Calvinist? I’ve got to go to work to tell others about Jesus.
Charles
Thomas
I pasted from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, so that is why you read first conversion. It seems to me that if you want to understand the typical SBC gospel you can find it clearer in the CCC!
Yes, regeneration precedes all applications of grace. Just don’t tell me that hearing, believing and regeneration take place chronologically at the same moment as not to distinguish which came first. My simple circlicular logical mind can’t embrace that!
Charles
Charles:
My opinion of the Wikipedia entry… it has a better of grasp of J. Arminius than the “typical” modern “Arminian.” Arminius and the Remonstrants were much closer to “Calvinism”/ the Reformers than general modern Evangelicalism.
I’m not too familiar with Ashby, though I know the name.
Ashby is Reformed Arminian following Arminius.
He says”Christ’s atonement was for all, indeed for the whole world, and God’s salvation is conditional – the condition being faith in Christ.”
“It is simply by faith and is open to all.”
However like the Calvinist he affirmes total depravity.
Charles
James.
I’m struggling to come across as genuine and not sarcastic. You said: “I’m part of the “whosoever will” crowd – but I’m not an Arminian. I’m a biblicist”
I drove an 8″ self propelled howitzer in the Army and when we positioned we set our sights on a standard by “zeroing in” Our firing direction and elevation would be from that point. Often I think in those terms.
Using Adrian Rogers as a standard explain to me your statement: “I’m part of the “whosoever will” crowd – but I’m not an Arminian. I’m a biblicist.” How are you different from Dr Rogers?
Isn’t it a shame that we can’t use the Bible as a standard? (I can hear the out cry now “well I do!!!”)
Well everyone claims to be a Biblicist, cults included even more so.
Charles:
Let me ask you this in response to your question…Are all people commanded to repent of their sin and trust Christ alone for salvation? Are all invited to salvation? Does the Bible use the term “whosoever”?
I differ from Adrian Rogers in that I believe in total depravity, unconditional election, particular redemption, overcoming grace, and perseverance of the saints. Also, I’m not a Dispensationalist.
I’m similar to Adrian Rogers in that I believe in the authority and infallibility of Scripture, the necessity of faith in Christ alone for salvation, substitutionary atonement (though I believe his view – the general contemporary Evangelical view – is skewered because of his overall soteriology), and believer’s baptism.
Charles:
Have you read Iain Murray’s Spurgeon v. Hyper-Calvinism? If not, I highly recommend it. I think it might help put the “whosoever will” matter into perspective from a “Calvinist” viewpoint for you.
James
No and No “Whosoever will” are thoes believing. Thoes believing are the ones not perishing and are commanded to repent and are called to salvation.
I like this statement: “We obey and open our mouths in the presence of all in hopes that by some means some will be saved. And knowing that God has already openned some ears, some surely will.
I will order and read Murray’s book
Hyper-Calvinism as defined by John R Rice: “Those who believe in eternal salvation wholly of grace are usually called Calvinists simply because, in the Protestant Reformation, Calvin strongly emphasized that doctrine long contradicted under the Roman heresy of salvation by merit and church rites. So any person who is not Armenian in faith but rather believes in eternal security of the believer is likely to describe himself as a Calvinist. Or where Calvinism has not been carried to its more unscriptural, unevangelistic, arrogant extreme, one might probably call himself a “moderate” Calvinist. Most of those who might be called Calvinists do not believe in a limited atonement, for example, nor do they believe that some are foreordained by unconditioned election to go to Hell and so could not be saved, that salvation was never provided for nor offered for them. But they do believe in eternal salvation by grace, the principal truth Calvin emphasized.”
“Those who do believe a doctrine of God’s limited love, limited grace, limited atonement, and unchangeable plan to damn millions who could not be saved, are called hyper-Calvinists.”
“These extreme doctrines were first taught somewhat by Augustine. Then for about a thousand years no one found them in the Bible, of course, till Calvin developed such a theology. Adopting the theory men then persuaded themselves that they find it in the Bible.”
“Salvation by grace, eternal salvation, without works, is a Bible doctrine. I believe hyper-Calvinism is not a Bible doctrine but is a perversion by proud intellectuals who thus may try to excuse themselves from any spiritual accountability for winning souls.”
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Books,%20Tracts%20&%20Preaching/Printed%20Books/Dr%20John%20Rice/hypercalvinism.htm
our associate pastor e-mailed this response to me awhile back. Give me your opinion
“The term “awakened soul” is a term I learned thirty years ago from the British preacher Major Ian Thomas. It helped me to grasp the difference between a person who is merely aware of their need for Christ, or “under conviction,” and a person who had actually made a faith commitment to Christ. In my understanding, our “soul” involves our mind, emotions and will. We can be stirred intellectually and emotionally without ever making an authentic commitment to the Lord Jesus Christ. As the popular song of about ten years ago said so well, “I’m tired of being stirred but not being changed.” God gave to Orpha the light (spiritual revelation) she needed to make her commitment to Naomi’s God, but she gave evidence by her subsequent behavior that what had appeared to be a genuine commitment was really spurious.”
Charles
Charles –
In my understanding, an “awakened soul” is the same as a “quickened soul” or a soul which has been “born-again.” It differs from one who is merely under conviction.
It is definitely possible for one to be stirred intellectually and emotionally without ever making an authentic commitment to the Lord Jesus Christ.
so grace is irresistable
Aw shoot! I meant to say grace is resistable according to this view
Charles
One under conviction may undergo a spurious conversion without being awakened/ quickened/ born-again. Calvin spoke about people having the faith of “devils” (see James 2).
I do not believe this view is contrary to overcoming grace (what you like to call ‘irresistible grace’).
James White: “Do you feel that the Reformers Martin Luther and John Calvin were in error in emphasizing the deadness of man in sin and the absolute necessity – not just necessity, but sufficiency – of the grace of God to bring a man to salvation?”
Dave Hunt: “Well, first of all, James, I’m very ignorant of the Reformers. I have not had time to read them. There are truckloads, I guess, of their writings. I like to just kinda’ pretend that we’re back there in the days of the apostles before all these things were written. And I like to go to the Bible. So whether the Reformers said this or that, I don’t know.”
So Calvin believed that the “faith of devils” could lead a sinner to true salvation if they don’t resist it?
Is the “faith of devils” resistable? NO! Eph 2:1-3
A sinner cannot choose to flee Satan! Orpha stayed where she was because she didn’t really have a choice. Ruth didn’t have a choice either but a light was shown that caused her to be “steadfastly minded” she was particularily elected to go with Noami. Otherwise she would have returned with Orpha after both (common grace) kissed and embraced saying good bye to Naomi.
How are you different from AR. True he was a dispensationalist. He believed in total depravity but that depravity had to be modified by spiritual enablement for the sinner to walk down the isle.
Of course that would mean that he didn’t believe in unconditional election, limited atonement nor irrestible grace but he did believe in the believer’s eternal security.
True, he believed the necessity of faith in Christ alone for salvation, substitutionary atonement and believer’s baptism.
But since I am hardheaded I can’t see where your views differ. Don’t you have to hold to his view of depravity for your views of particular atonement and overcoming grace to sync with “whosoever will” ? And don’t your views of eternal security conform to Arminian views rather than Reformed?
Charles
Charles:
- The Reformers were not in error.
- Dave Hunt is ignorant of the Reformers; he needs to go back to the Apostles and the Bible and such, just like he says
- No, Calvin did not believe the “faith of devils” could lead a sinner to salvation, per se. Only authentic faith in Christ alone leads to salvation. It is possible to believe things about God, Christ, etc., yet not trust God
- you are correct, a sinner cannot choose to flee from satan. . . . because they desire to remain in the darkness (Jn. 3:18-20)
- Adrian Rogers didn’t believe in total depravity
- Why do you think my views are the same as his? Especially since I do affirm total depravity, unconditional election, irresistible grace, limited atonement, and perseverance of the saints?
- Coming back to the “whosoever will” bit…. here’s where I think you should get a hold of Spurgeon v. Hyper-Calvinism (and you said you were planning on it)…. pore over it, let it sink in, and then let’s chat about it. Sound like a good idea?
- My views are not “Arminian” in any form
- BTW, I was raised a 5-Pt. Arminian/Charismatic (AoG), so I know what “Arminianism” looks like up close and personal
James
If you can convince me that AR didn’t believe in TD I would appreciate it. How do you know this?
How could a man be such a leader in the SBC and not believe in TD? This is beyond me. I’m sure I am showing my ignorance.
Charles
James, I like this!
Question
hi! ok here is my question. i attend regularly and am a member of a local ARP church. (Associate-reformed presbyterian) I just recently found out that my pastor is a calvinist? apparently hes not a “pure” calvinist, but he is a calvinist. I want to talk to him about it but i want to be prepared before i do. I have been trying to research the subject but i am slightly confused and would like to know an outsiders opinion. i know what i believe, i just dont know whawt i believe in terms of the spectrum. so basically…what is calvinism? predestination etc?
thanks!
Answer
Hello,
My first church was going to be an ARP church in Tampa, Fla. I admire how the ARP has stayed true to scripture through the years.
All “Reformed and Presbyterian” Churches are considered to be “Calvinistic” in belief and practice. Many have left their roots and are Arminian or worst
Here is the jist of Calvinism.
l. We believe in sovereign grace. Calvin preached that the Bible teaches us that we are so completely fallen by the original and our own sins and that we are completely unable to save ourselves. Salvation is completely God’s Work in us through the cross of His only begotten Son Jesus Christ. Thus comes predestination which is another emphasis on God’s sovereignty. God foreknew and forchose us. Scripture says that we were elect before we were even born. God choses us not on our merit but on His grace.
2. All life is religion. Calvin taught that we worship God not only in church but in everything we do in life. Thus our work becomes our worship and our vocation. Calvinism has always emphasized that we do the best we can with the gifts that God has given us as “living in Christ”. God is at work in all realms of existence, including the spiritual, physical, and intellectual realms, whether secular or sacred, public or private, on earth or in heaven.
Accordingly, the plan of God is worked out in every event. God is seen as the creator, preserver, and governor of each and every thing. This produces an attitude of absolute dependence on God, which is not identified only with temporary acts of piety (for example, prayer); rather, it is an all-encompassing pattern of life that, in principle, applies to any mundane task just as it also applies to taking communion. For the Calvinist Christian, all of life is the Christian faith.
3. Flowing from this understanding of scripture Calvinists sum up their beliefs in the accrostic TULIP:
Total Depravity, Unconditional election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible grace and Perseverance of the Saints.
This is the traditional understanding of Calvinism. Liberalism, Armininism and you name it have come into the Reformed church and corrupted Calvin’s teaching.
Most Presbyterian churches, including the ARP have a latitute of what they let their pastors believe and teach.
So you will not find many true “Calvinists” left in most Reformed denominations.
Hope this helps.
What do you think?
Charles
…and I know what Wesleyan Arminianism looks like up close and personal!
Charles
James
My evangelistic hero is J R Ryland father of John Ryland who baptized and supported William Carey and Andrew Fuller in their missionary endeavor. My Calvinistic evangelism is best understood by the Father.
Charles