Posted on 12/16/2004 1:23:28 PM PST by Gamecock
When we come to study the influence of Calvinism as a political force in the history of the United States we come to one of the brightest pages of all Calvinistic history. Calvinism came to America in the Mayflower, and Bancroft, the greatest of American historians, pronounces the Pilgrim Fathers "Calvinists in their faith according to the straightest system."1 John Endicott, the first governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony; John Winthrop, the second governor of that Colony; Thomas Hooker, the founder of Connecticut; John Davenport, the founder of the New Haven Colony; and Roger Williams, the founder of the Rhode Island Colony, were all Calvinists. William Penn was a disciple of the Huguenots. It is estimated that of the 3,000,000 Americans at the time of the American Revolution, 900,000 were of Scotch or Scotch-Irish origin, 600,000 were Puritan English, and 400,000 were German or Dutch Reformed. In addition to this the Episcopalians had a Calvinistic confession in their Thirty-nine Articles; and many French Huguenots also had come to this western world. Thus we see that about two-thirds of the colonial population had been trained in the school of Calvin. Never in the world's history had a nation been founded by such people as these. Furthermore these people came to America not primarily for commercial gain or advantage, but because of deep religious convictions. It seems that the religious persecutions in various European countries had been providentially used to select out the most progressive and enlightened people for the colonization of America. At any rate it is quite generally admitted that the English, Scotch, Germans, and Dutch have been the most masterful people of Europe. Let it be especially remembered that the Puritans, who formed the great bulk of the settlers in New England, brought with them a Calvinistic Protestantism, that they were truly devoted to the doctrines of the great Reformers, that they had an aversion for formalism and oppression whether in the Church or in the State, and that in New England Calvinism remained the ruling theology throughout the entire Colonial period.
With this background we shall not be surprised to find that the Presbyterians took a very prominent part in the American Revolution. Our own historian Bancroft says: "The Revolution of 1776, so far as it was affected by religion, was a Presbyterian measure. It was the natural outgrowth of the principles which the Presbyterianism of the Old World planted in her sons, the English Puritans, the Scotch Covenanters, the French Huguenots, the Dutch Calvinists, and the Presbyterians of Ulster." So intense, universal, and aggressive were the Presbyterians in their zeal for liberty that the war was spoken of in England as "The Presbyterian Rebellion." An ardent colonial supporter of King George III wrote home: "I fix all the blame for these extraordinary proceedings upon the Presbyterians. They have been the chief and principal instruments in all these flaming measures. They always do and ever will act against government from that restless and turbulent anti-monarchial spirit which has always distinguished them everywhere."2 When the news of "these extraordinary proceedings" reached England, Prime Minister Horace Walpole said in Parliament, "Cousin America has run off with a Presbyterian parson" (John Witherspoon, president of Princeton, signer of Declaration of Independence).
History is eloquent in declaring that American democracy was born of Christianity and that that Christianity was Calvinism. The great Revolutionary conflict which resulted in the formation of the American nation, was carried out mainly by Calvinists, many of whom had been trained in the rigidly Presbyterian College at Princeton, and this nation is their gift to all liberty loving people.
J. R. Sizoo tells us: "When Cornwallis was driven back to ultimate retreat and surrender at Yorktown, all of the colonels of the Colonial Army but one were Presbyterian elders. More than one-half of all the soldiers and officers of the American Army during the Revolution were Presbyterians."3
The testimony of Emilio Castelar, the famous Spanish statesman, orator and scholar, is interesting and valuable. Castelar had been professor of Philosophy in the University of Madrid before he entered politics, and he was made president of the republic which was set up by the Liberals in 1873. As a Roman Catholic he hated Calvin and Calvinism. Says he: "It was necessary for the republican movement that there should come a morality more austere than Luther's, the morality of Calvin, and a Church more democratic than the German, the Church of Geneva. The Anglo-Saxon democracy has for its lineage a book of a primitive society — the Bible. It is the product of a severe theology learned by the few Christian fugitives in the gloomy cities of Holland and Switzerland, where the morose shade of Calvin still wanders . . . And it remains serenely in its grandeur, forming the most dignified, most moral and most enlightened portion of the human race."4
Says Motley: "In England the seeds of liberty, wrapped up in Calvinism and hoarded through many trying years, were at last destined to float over land and sea, and to bear the largest harvests of temperate freedom for great commonwealths that were still unborn.5 "The Calvinists founded the commonwealths of England, of Holland, and America." And again, "To Calvinists more than to any other class of men, the political liberties of England, Holland and America are due."6
The testimony of another famous historian, the Frenchman Taine, who himself held no religious faith, is worthy of consideration. Concerning the Calvinists he said: "These men are the true heroes of England. They founded England, in spite of the corruption of the Stuarts, by the exercise of duty, by the practice of justice, by obstinate toil, by vindication of right, by resistance to oppression, by the conquest of liberty, by the repression of vice. They founded Scotland; they founded the United States; at this day they are, by their descendants, founding Australia and colonizing the world."7
In his book, "The Creed of Presbyterians," E. W. Smith asks concerning the American colonists, "Where learned they those immortal principles of the rights of man, of human liberty, equality and self-government, on which they based their Republic, and which form today the distinctive glory of our American civilization ? In the school of Calvin they learned them. There the modern world learned them. So history teaches," (p. 121).
We shall now pass on to consider the influence which the Presbyterian Church as a Church exerted in the formation of the Republic. "The Presbyterian Church," said Dr. W. H. Roberts in an address before the General Assembly, "was for three-quarters of a century the sole representative upon this continent of republican government as now organized in the nation." And then he continues: "From 1706 to the opening of the revolutionary struggle the only body in existence which stood for our present national political organization was the General Synod of the American Presbyterian Church. It alone among ecclesiastical and political colonial organizations exercised authority, derived from the colonists themselves, over bodies of Americans scattered through all the colonies from New England to Georgia. The colonies in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, it is to be remembered, while all dependent upon Great Britain, were independent of each other. Such a body as the Continental Congress did not exist until 1774. The religious condition of the country was similar to the political. The Congregational Churches of New England had no connection with each other, and had no power apart from the civil government. The Episcopal Church was without organization in the colonies, was dependent for support and a ministry on the Established Church of England, and was filled with an intense loyalty to the British monarchy. The Reformed Dutch Church did not become an efficient and independent organization until 1771, and the German Reformed Church did not attain to that condition until 1793. The Baptist Churches were separate organizations, the Methodists were practically unknown, and the Quakers were non-combatants."
Delegates met every year in the General Synod, and as Dr. Roberts tells us, the Church became "a bond of union and correspondence between large elements in the population of the divided colonies." "Is it any wonder," he continues, "that under its fostering influence the sentiments of true liberty, as well as the tenets of a sound gospel, were preached throughout the territory from Long Island to South Carolina, and that above all a feeling of unity between the Colonies began slowly but surely to assert itself? Too much emphasis cannot be laid, in connection with the origin of the nation, upon the influence of that ecclesiastical republic, which from 1706 to 1774 was the only representative on this continent of fully developed federal republican institutions. The United States of America owes much to that oldest of American Republics, the Presbyterian Church."8
It is, of course, not claimed that the Presbyterian Church was the only source from which sprang the principles upon which this republic is founded, but it is claimed that the principles found in the Westminster Standards were the chief basis for the republic, and that "The Presbyterian Church taught, practiced, and maintained in fulness, first in this land that form of government in accordance with which the Republic has been organized." (Roberts).
The opening of the Revolutionary struggle found the Presbyterian ministers and churches lined up solidly on the side of the colonists, and Bancroft accredits them with having made the first bold move toward independence.9 The synod which assembled in Philadelphia in 1775 was the first religious body to declare openly and publicly for a separation from England. It urged the people under its jurisdiction to leave nothing undone that would promote the end in view, and called upon them to pray for the Congress which was then in session.
The Episcopalian Church was then still united with the Church of England, and it opposed the Revolution. A considerable number of individuals within that Church, however, labored earnestly for independence and gave of their wealth and influence to secure it. It is to be remembered also that the Commander-in-Chief of the American armies, "the father of our country," was a member of her household. Washington himself attended, and ordered all of his men to attend the services of his chaplains, who were clergymen from the various churches. He gave forty thousand dollars to establish a Presbyterian College in his native state, which took his name in honor of the gift and became Washington College.
N. S. McFetridge has thrown light upon another major development of the Revolutionary period. For the sake of accuracy and completeness we shall take the privilege of quoting him rather extensively. "Another important factor in the independent movement," says he, "was what is known as the 'Mecklenburg Declaration,' proclaimed by the Scotch-Irish Presbyterians of North Carolina, May 20, 1775, more than a year before the Declaration (of Independence) of Congress. It was the fresh, hearty greeting of the Scotch-Irish to their struggling brethren in the North, and their bold challenge to the power of England. They had been keenly watching the progress of the contest between the colonies and the Crown, and when they heard of the address presented by the Congress to the King, declaring the colonies in actual rebellion, they deemed it time for patriots to speak. Accordingly, they called a representative body together in Charlotte, N. C., which by unanimous resolution declared the people free and independent, and that all laws and commissions from the king were henceforth null and void. In their Declaration were such resolutions as these: 'We do hereby dissolve the political bands which have connected us with the mother-country, and hereby absolve ourselves from all allegiance to the British crown' .... 'We hereby declare ourselves a free and independent people; are, and of right ought to be, a sovereign and self-governing association, under control of no power other than that of our God and the general government of Congress; to the maintenance of which we solemnly pledge to each other our mutual cooperation and our lives, our fortunes and our most sacred honor.' ... That assembly was composed of twenty-seven staunch Calvinists, just one-third of whom were ruling elders in the Presbyterian Church, including the president and secretary; and one was a Presbyterian clergyman. The man who drew up that famous and important document was the secretary, Ephraim Brevard, a ruling elder of the Presbyterian Church and a graduate of Princeton College. Bancroft says of it that it was, 'in effect, a declaration as well as a complete system of government.' (U.S. Hist. VIII, 40). It was sent by special messenger to the Congress in Philadelphia, and was published in the Cape Fear Mercury, and was widely distributed throughout the land. Of course it was speedily transmitted to England, where it became the cause of intense excitement.
"The identity of sentiment and similarity of expression in this Declaration and the great Declaration written by Jefferson could not escape the eye of the historian; hence Tucker, in his Life of Jefferson, says: 'Everyone must be persuaded that one of these papers must have been borrowed from the other.' But it is certain that Brevard could not have 'borrowed' from Jefferson, for he wrote more than a year before Jefferson; hence Jefferson, according to his biographer, must have 'borrowed' from Brevard. But it was a happy plagiarism, for which the world will freely forgive him. In correcting his first draft of the Declaration it can be seen, in at least a few places, that Jefferson has erased the original words and inserted those which are first found in the Mecklenberg Declaration. No one can doubt that Jefferson had Brevard's resolutions before him when he was writing his immortal Declaration."10
This striking similarity between the principles set forth in the Form of Government of the Presbyterian Church and those set forth in the Constitution of the United States has caused much comment. "When the fathers of our Republic sat down to frame a system of representative and popular government," says Dr. E. W. Smith, "their task was not so difficult as some have imagined. They had a model to work by."11
"If the average American citizen were asked, who was the founder of America, the true author of our great Republic, he might be puzzled to answer. We can imagine his amazement at hearing the answer given to this question by the famous German historian, Ranke, one of the profoundest scholars of modern times. Says Ranke, 'John Calvin was the virtual founder of America.'"12
D'Aubigne, whose history of the Reformation is a classic, writes: "Calvin was the founder of the greatest of republics. The Pilgrims who left their country in the reign of James I, and landing on the barren soil of New England, founded populous and mighty colonies, were his sons, his direct and legitimate sons; and that American nation which we have seen growing so rapidly boasts as its father the humble Reformer on the shore of Lake Leman."13
Dr. E. W. Smith says, "These revolutionary principles of republican liberty and self-government, taught and embodied in the system of Calvin, were brought to America, and in this new land where they have borne so mighty a harvest were planted, by whose hands? — the hands of the Calvinists. The vital relation of Calvin and Calvinism to the founding of the free institutions of America, however strange in some ears the statement of Ranke may have sounded, is recognized and affirmed by historians of all lands and creeds."14
All this has been thoroughly understood and candidly acknowledged by such penetrating and philosophic historians as Bancroft, who far though he was from being Calvinistic in his own personal convictions, simply calls Calvin "the father of America," and adds: "He who will not honor the memory and respect the influence of Calvin knows but little of the origin of American liberty."
When we remember that two-thirds of the population at the time of the Revolution had been trained in the school of Calvin, and when we remember how unitedly and enthusiastically the Calvinists labored for the cause of independence, we readily see how true are the above testimonies.
There were practically no Methodists in America at the time of the Revolution; and, in fact, the Methodist Church was not officially organized as such in England until the year 1784, which was three years after the American Revolution closed. John Wesley, great and good man though he was, was a Tory and a believer in political non-resistance. He wrote against the American "rebellion," but accepted the providential result. McFetridge tells us: "The Methodists had hardly a foothold in the colonies when the war began. In 1773 they claimed about one hundred and sixty members. Their ministers were almost all, if not all, from England, and were staunch supporters of the Crown against American Independence. Hence, when the war broke out they were compelled to fly from the country. Their political views were naturally in accord with those of their great leader, John Wesley, who wielded all the power of his eloquence and influence against the independence of the colonies. (Bancroft, Hist. U.S., Vol. VII, p. 261.) He did not foresee that independent America was to be the field on which his noble Church was to reap her largest harvests, and that in that Declaration which he so earnestly opposed lay the security of the liberties of his followers."15
In England and America the great struggles for civil and religious liberty were nursed in Calvinism, inspired by Calvinism, and carried out largely by men who were Calvinists. And because the majority of historians have never made a serious study of Calvinism they have never been able to give us a truthful and complete account of what it has done in these countries. Only the light of historical investigation is needed to show us how our forefathers believed in it and were controlled by it. We live in a day when the services of the Calvinists in the founding of this country have been largely forgotten, and one can hardly treat of this subject without appearing to be a mere eulogizer of Calvinism. We may well do honor to that Creed which has borne such sweet fruits and to which America owes so much.
Footnotes:
1Hist. U. S., I, p. 463. 2Presbyterians and the Revolution, p. 49. 3They Seek a Country, J. G. Slosser, editor, p. 155. 4Harper's Monthly. June and July, 1872. 5The'United Netherlands, III., p. 121. 6The United Netherlands, IV., pp. 548, 547. 7English Literature, II., p. 472. 8Address on, "The Westminster Standards and the Formation of the American Republic. 9Hist. U.S., X., p. 77. 10Calvinism in History, pp. 85-88. 11The Creed of Presbyterians, p. 142. 12Id. p. 119. 13Reformation in the Time of Calvin, I., p. 5. 14The Creed of Presbyterians, p. 132. 15Calvinism in History, p. 74.
These passages show that man has a responsibility to God even before he is converted. If this is not the case, then the law written on their hearts, the Gentiles being a law to themselves, and other like passages have no meaning whatsoever. To the Hyper-Calvinist, men are only wicked, dead corpses which cannot think about, nor give heed to the revelation of God, which is an unexegetical position to hold in light of special revelation. The Hyper-Calvinist Objects: Hyper-Calvinism says this is logically inconsistent. How can fallen men be called to exercise faith without regeneration? This would seem as though God desires they repent while at the same time He does not give them the ability to repent. The Hyper-Calvinist thinks this is a contradiction, but it is not. What does the Hyper-Calvinist do when the Biblical passages are quoted? They enter into a “so-called” logical debate at the expense of being fair to the Bible’s statements about duty-faith. In essence, they simply deny it. What does the Bible state? What do the offers listed above show us about the call of God to the unsaved, whoever they may be. We are not squabbling over covenant and non-covenant people, but saved and lost people.
I agree with you Dr., that there is no such thing as a 'hyper-Calvinist'only Calvinists.
Calvinism is really about unconditional election vs conditional election.
Yet, what Calvinist on these threads has not defended Regeneration preceding faith at the expense of clear scripture?
Yet, Calvinism expects to reconcile this real contradiction by just stating that it is only apparent, when in fact , it is very real.
If a man cannot repent when the offer is made, (and he can't since he is not elected) then the offer is a farce.
Prayers are with you. Lost my father-in-law a couple of years ago. Go, be with family.
We'll be good. ;-)
If a man repents and possesses the Trinitarian faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, he is among the elect, as best as another human being can assess.
It's a matter of perspective. You say a man decides to repent, believes in Christ and thus possesses faith.
The Calvinist says God gives a man faith, man repents, and is thus saved.
We have differences, but it's important we describe those differences accurately. No one is "prevented" from repenting. All men are exhorted to repent. And if a man does repent, he is recognized as a recipient of God's grace and thus, is among the elect.
But it's God's call because it's God's gift of grace that causes us to believe. Nothing in man can save himself. All that is good is of God, especially salvation.
Sorry, obtuse doesn't work for me. I have to deal with too much of that at work. Besides, even though I'm a car buff, a Yugo is so far off my radar, that I don't really care to know what they look like, let alone be able to identify one on sight. The only things that looks uglier to me that that are those new Scion boxes, and the Honda Element. Soviet styling at it's finest.
***If a man cannot repent when the offer is made, (and he can't since he is not elected) then the offer is a farce.***
Additionally, my fine Calvinist sister, fortheDeclaration's statement here is more than a little reminiscent of the hissie fit that Pelagius threw at Augustine's prayer. It is pretty amusing that Arminians today resort to using those same kind of objections when dealing with Scripture. But, to unravel this statement a bit and reveal why it actually destroys the need for the Atonement, let's look at a few verses.
First off, repentence is not an offer in the gospel; it is expressly commanded:
1. In those days, John the Baptist came preaching in the wilderness and saying, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand!" - Matthew 3:1
2. Now after John was put in prison, Jesus came to Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, and saying, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand. Repent, and believe in the gospel."
Notice, my sister, that this gospel is NOT presented as an offer of repentence, but people are "commanded everywhere to repent" (Acts 17:30). Well, beyond the fact that this means that the Arminians don't even have the right mindset when preaching the gospel, it really does invalidate the Atonement.
You see, if we take as the gospel truth that a man must be able to obey God's commands in order for God to not be playing a kind of sick joke on man (Pelagius' objection to Augustine's prayer & the Arminian's objection to Scripture revelation about man's natural Adamic state) then all men must be born fully able to be perfect on their own:
Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect. - Matthew 5:48 JKV (fortheDeclaration's perfect translation)
So, we can clearly see that a command to be perfect just like God is also given. Therefore, according to Arminian's own reasoning, man must be born with the ability to already be perfect. God wouldn't establish a standard of perfection with man, no matter how young he is, through the Law which man cannot obey otherwise, using this Arminian & Pelagian premise, it would all be a farce.
Ergo, man just needs to get it together and we can forget about all of this sinners needing to be saved business. Just exactly like Pelagius taught and the Pelagians believe, Arminianism's inescapable conclusion is that man simply needs to follow Jesus' & the Father's perfect examples to be perfect. Man does not need to be saved from his nature because he has a perfectly capable nature to be perfect. Man does not need Jesus' sacrifice. And man does not need the regeneration of the Holy Spirit because man already naturally possesses a nature capable of perfection.
So, you see, Arminianism is a perfect trifecta.
1. The Father's election is void because God elects everyone while Satan votes against everyone and man gets to cast the deciding ballot. I've heard more than one Arminian exactly state this, BTW.
2. The Son's sacrifice is meaningless because man simply needs to follow Jesus' example to be perfect. Many Arminians today, in fact, preach and exclusively believe in Grotius' "governmental theory" of Atonement and entirely reject our Reformed Scriptural Penal Substitution.
3. The Holy Spirit need not regenerate anyone in new birth because man must already be able to follow the commands of the Law to be perfect.
In the service of the Lord,
Christian.
All over Hell hands are being raised saying "Excuse me! Excuse me!"
Dr. E., if man cannot repent unless he is regenerated. If the non-elect are not regenerated.
Then, the non-elect are prevented from repenting.
There is no other way to look at Calvinism.
Well, I'd prefer the term obscure. But I get your point.
Of course there is. The reason the Arminian won't, is because he would then see that his doctrinal system collapses. No one wants to be faced with the fact that he has believed the wrong thing. It's embarrassing, and humbling.
if man cannot repent unless he is regenerated. If the non-elect are not regenerated. Then, the non-elect are prevented from repenting.
Prevention of repentance implies an action on the part of God, such as " Look! There's a man about to repent! Oh no you don't! I won't LET you!" That's ludicrous!
God need do nothing to prevent or keep a man from repentance. Man is naturally capable of that little feat all on his own. In fact, because of that Fall, that is man's natural state, inclination, and desire. True repentance is sorrow for one's sins and a desire to turn from them because they offend a Holy God, NOT because one got caught sinning, and is trying to escape the consequences. The repentance a criminal shows is a false repentance. He's not sorry he did it, he's sorry he got caught. Fallen man is not worried that he has offended a Holy God, because he hates that Holy God.
God's requirement that men everywhere repent is not an implication that they are actually ABLE to do so, it is the basis and proof that God is JUST and RIGHT to condemn them for their sins, because as fallen men, they wouldn't repent EVEN IF THEY COULD. God, as the Sovereign Lord of Creation has every right to state what He requires, without consideration as to whether or not His fallen creatures can obey. He is not obligated to only command that which can be acheived or obeyed. That is the hubris of man, thinking that God must be "fair" on MAN'S terms, when those terms are skewed by the fallen nature and fallen mind of man. Man does not dictate the terms, God does. God doesn't ask for man's input, and will not receive it. Salvation of any individual is God's to choose, not man's to choose or demand.
Sorry, meant to ping you to this!
But of course it is and very obviously so. It is a supernatural, non-Divine/God 'salvation' that speaks alternate literal terms in mimicy of God's Word that creates what God Speaks. Free willism/arminainism is the speech which can't create anything building an emotional set/false religion out of speech, denying new birth in Jesus Christ as actual and real truth because arminian speech/non-creating speech/sin can't create anything and flees from being discovered as powerless. So it builds all 'logic' on lack of creation, not the certainty of it, to include the necessaity of why it is spoken--to deliver "information" that the supposed autonoumous soul can "use" and yet not be outright re-created as new creature in Jesus Christ/Word of God which they do not control at all, but uses the term 'new birth' as a mere metaphor for a new emotional rubric that masquerades to those deceived by it as a new emotional skill set delivered by God's 'language' that is supposedly not-God but mere 'holy information'.
Arminianism/free willism/speech of sin is out and out sedition and denial of God as Word. Period. All one can do who is an arminain is be used of Satan to supposedly exploit his or her own emotional skill set and get mad unless they are out and out non-metaphorically born again as real, literal new creation in Jesus Christ. But their mere anger means zilch to God though it impresses the heck out of them as each other.
Arminians must be genuinly born again. One who has already been born again knows the Word by which he or she was re-created and cannot deny God as Creating Word. Period. Yet the arminain denies God all day as Creating Word because he or she knows full and well that God as His Word "would" do away with all free will--and their whole lie is exposed because God IS His Word and Love (not human emotion). Not only are the free willers/arminains used by sin to lie as non-creating speech but they have no defense before God for lying as their only speech is non-creating and not-God.
Proverbs 8:8,9 All the words of my mouth are in righteousness; there is nothing tortuous or perverse in them. They are all plain to him that understandeth, and right to them that find knowledge.
In the Name of Jesus Christ, Amen
***Prevention of repentance implies an action on the part of God, such as " Look! There's a man about to repent! Oh no you don't! I won't LET you!" That's ludicrous!
God need do nothing to prevent or keep a man from repentance.***
I think you've hit the nail on the head here with your overall post. Arminians, rather than face the Biblical implications of their theology would rather misrepresent the Biblical principals that man follows his nature.
Good men bring forth good fruit and bad men bring forth evil fruit.
Because, as you say it is embarrassing and humbling to know that you have wrong theology it is easier to alter the correct theology and point out the flaws in it. This is straw man argumentation.
Of course, we know that God doesn't "prevent" man from repenting. This reveals either a blatant misrepresentation of what the Bible teaches about man's natural state or it is simple ignorance. Man simply will speak out of the abundance of his heart. If his heart is naturally evil, then man will bring forth evil fruit. If man's heart has been changed, then that man will bring forth good fruit. In either case, man is not prevented from repenting. Man is simply acting how he naturally wants to act.
A good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart brings forth evil. For out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks. - Luke 6:44-46
The Lord Jesus is perfectly clear. Man speaks and acts according to his nature. Arminians simply deny this. This is why they have invented this thing called "Libertarian free will." The only problem is that this so called "free will" actually destroys man's moral responsibility.
In the service of the Lord,
Christian.
God Speaking to Himself as Word through our new hearts as we are literal new creation in Him:Gal 4:6 But because ye are sons, God has sent out the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, Abba, Father.
Psalm 139:23,24 Search me, O *God, and know my heart; prove me, and know my thoughts; And see if there be any grievous way in me; and lead me in the way everlasting.
Psalm 90:8 Thou hast set our iniquities before thee, our secret sins in the light of thy countenance.
Psalms 19:12-14 Who understandeth his errors? Purify me from secret faults. Keep back thy servant also from presumptuous sins; let them not have dominion over me: then shall I be perfect, and I shall be innocent from great transgression. Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart be acceptable in thy sight, O Jehovah, my rock, and my redeemer.
Matthew 10:19,20 But when they deliver you up, be not careful how or what ye shall speak; for it shall be given to you in that hour what ye shall speak. For *ye* are not the speakers, but the Spirit of your Father which speaks in you.
In the Name of Jesus Chrit, Amen
I believe any Arminian who repents and possesses the Trinitarian faith in Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior is among the elect because that is what Scripture tells us truly separates the sheep from the wolves.
However, I believe Arminianism is a large portal to all kinds of mischief and error. And that's not good.
It would help if all Christians had a better understanding of the early Gnostics who sought to subvert Christ's teachings and God's sovereignty by re-introducing the Platonic ideal that man already contains perfection within him, if only he can distill it from its earthly, temporal casement.
The idea that man's true "goodness" is confined by the flesh and bones of his humanity is actually a terrible lie that leads to all kinds of philosophical perversions and is at the heart of ALL beliefs other than the strict understanding that ALL men are fallen, but that the elect (all believing Christians) are sanctified by His grace, and thus, are beloved by Him and are blessedly fruitful according to His will.
The Gnostics saw the earth as a confining weight that obscured man's true "inner light."
But the Christian should realize that the earth is God's gift to man, and He has instructed us to use this gift wisely as a means of glorifying His name.
Yet at the same time, the Christian should realize that NOTHING within himself is capable of doing anything God-pleasing unless and until that Christian is first transformed from a fallen, dead sinner and son of Adam into a God-fearing, righteous child of Christ.
And this perfect gift of salvation is not within us fallen creatures to obtain. It is wholly and solely the providence of God's eternal decree.
And thus, unlike the Arminian, a Christian cannot go wrong and lead others into Gnostic error if that Christian attests to God's will alone as the means of all salvation.
Christians would do well to read the history of the early Gnostics. By the grace of God, they will recognize it within the pages of Finney and Arminius and Schuller...
Boettner's point is that the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church was the only model of a trans-colonial, All-American national organization over-arching all the individual Colonies as a distinctly-American National "Government" (in ecclesiastical matters, at least for Americans who were Presbyterian). I don't believe that a Massachusetts Presbyterian would have been governed in any significant respect by the Civil Laws of the Virginia House of Burgesses; but both a Massachusetts Presbyterian and a Virginia Presbyterian were equally governed by the Church Law of the General Assembly.
Under Calvinism...
~ Man cannot repent unless he is regenerated.
~ God does not regenerate everyone.
Therefore, the non-elect are prevented from repenting. If you must, they are prevented from wanting to repent.
But it is never their choice.
They are not allowed to choose otherwise.
It's that simple.
It's that horrifying.
And you say that makes God happy.
I see your point, but you have to understand the perspective of the Virginians. We pretty much think we made it all happen. ;-)
Welcome back.
Wow....this is one of the best posts I have seen in a long time. Nice work.
I hated Calvinism for several years before finally accepting it....I DO NOT like being wrong. It is my sinful nature....I can be a stubborn cuss. But, I gave in because I was wrong. Arminianism is wrong, and I am glad I foud the truth.
Corin, if you choose to believe that your system, in which YOU are the author of your own salvation, in which you are "smarter" than the neighbor down the street who rejects Christ because you somehow "get it all figured out" that salvation is a nice thing and he doesn't, then fine.
But, I would not say that makes God happy.
It makes God a respecter of persons because mental capacities to understand the goodness of God will differ under your system.
Under Calvinism, God makes everyone equal at the bottom of the ocean due to their sin. He then chooses, of his grace alone and not based on anythig in the person, to save some for his glory. Everyone is equal and he chooses to save some out of pure grace. That is amazing.
You obviously think that is unfair, but I think it is not evil for God to show mercy to whom he pleases and keep in teh dark those whom he chooses not to save. You need to read Romans 9. It is abundant grace for Him to even save anyone.
And frankly, it is more unfair and frankly, evil and out of character of God to let people choose to come to faith (despite being dead in sin and unable to see any good in godly things). This creates two classes of people: the dumb and the smart. The smart come to faith and use their brains, while the dumb do not. They don't have the mental capacity to see goodness in God and come to faith. And why do they not come? God made them inferior in their head to the 'smart' ones who do see goodness in God.
Frankly, sir, that is what Arminianism ultimately believes in the end. And it is blasphemy.
I don't.
So there.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.