For Whom Did Christ Die? - Calvinism

The Spurgeon Archives ^ | Delivered on Lord's-Day Morning, September 6th, 1874 | C.H. Spurgeon

[RnMomof7]

I already wrote to you about that here, because you brought it up earlier.

. Is it not true that Mormonism acknowledges the divinity of Christ,but that it teaches that Jesus, Lucifer, and all the demons, as well as all mankind, are actually all spirit brothers and sisters, born in the spirit world as spirit babies to our man-god Heavenly Father and his goddess wives. Mormon leaders have consistently taught that God the Father ("Adam-god") had sexual relations on earth with Mary (his own spirit daughter), to produce the physical body of Jesus. Early Mormon apostles also asserted that Christ was a polygamist, and that His wives included Mary and Martha (the sisters of Lazarus) and Mary Magdalene

That is pretty far from Biblical Christianity WM . Do you also believe the Bible is in error?

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

That is your opinion. There you go again, OPie, copying and pasting the same stuff. Your #1008 is a repost of your #936. Have you not understood my replies thus far? You need to read Matthew 11:23, and my #962, more carefully.

It would be silly for me to trouble myself again with your #962; its arguments were already smashed in my #979. I see no need to revisit your failure in this regard.

In general terms, Calvinism has been utterly refuted over and over by many talented and eloquent posters... etc.

(Yawn) You state once again your personal opinion, as is your constitutional right.

That said, Mormons, of course, being unregenerate, possess zero spiritual discernment. Your silly protestations that Calvinism has been "disproved" have as much validity as if you were to tell me that the Divinity of Jesus had been "disproved". It would be absurd for a Christian to assign spiritual credit to the opinion of a Mormon in either case. We don't ask corpses to judge bake-offs.

The Bible does not tell us the current state of anyone who has died other than Jesus Christ, God the Son, who stands at the right hand of God the Father, Abraham, in whose bosom the righteous dwell, and the inhabitants of Sodom, who are in hell. Let me know if there are others you want to add. The point still is that neither we, nor Augustine, nor Calvin, know the current fate of the inhabitants of Tyre and Sidon, because the Bible does not tell us.

Sure it does. Jesus said that had equivalent miracles been presented to Tyre, they would have repented "long ago". Ergo, any Tyrians and Sidonians who would have Repented had they seen these miracles, and died impenitent during that long span of time, are in Hell (for they died impenitent).

Of course, the Mormon can deny this, believing as he does in a "second-chance afterlife". But the Christian cannot, and affirms that all who died impenitent during those long ages in which Tyre dwelt in spiritual darkness without the demonstration of those miracles which would have provoked a general repentance, is in Hell everlasting.

Now regarding Sodom, a careful reading of Matthew 11:23 shows that Christ did not say they would have repented, like Tyre and Sidon. He says the city would have remained until that day. I think the difference means something. In the days of Abraham and Lot, it would have been spared had ten righteous been found in it. There were not that many, and the righteous were apparently all removed before the fire and brimstone fell. Ten would have kept that city around despite all the wicked in it, so it is not fair to say that the city would have repented.

Even should I grant the point, we know that at least ten would have repented given the performance of miracles, for God would have spared the city for ten righteous -- and Christ said it would have "remained to this day" had God seen fit to perform salvific miracles in Sodom. Ergo, we know that the city would have Repented at least to the degree required for its preservation. But God, having this option available to His omnipotence, chose to damn Sodom instead.

And while Mormons believe in an "escape-hatch hell", Christians do not.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Your statement is fallacious in your 979: "God alone decided before all Time whether or not they would choose to Repent, by choosing whether or not they would be shown the miracles which He knew would bring about their Repentance.", because: You are confusing miracles with grace to repent, You implicitly assume that God predetermines and controls whether people will repent or not, and causes them to repent (assume Calvinism, and lo and behold, Calvinism is proved), You erroneously assume that miracles are the only way and only opportunity for God to obtain repentance from them, and You do not know what you claim to know about their condition when they died and their condition now, as we do with Sodom. You are relying too much on the miracles. Faith comes not by signs, but signs follow those that believe. According to your own Calvinism, regeneration must come before the reprobate pays any useful attention to such things. Your logic, as I said, is dreadful.

"My logic is dreadful"?!

Mormon, if a gourmet chef samples a 6-course meal prepared by a McDonald's fry-cook, and tells the McDonald's fry cook that the meal is poorly prepared... it probably is. The chef is a professional, and knows what he is doing in the kitchen, and how to do it. The fry-cook might be making a sincere affort, but he is severely out of his depth.

On the other hand, Mormon, if a McDonald's fry-cook tells a gourmet chef that the meal is poorly prepared... the fry-cook is behaving like a petulant child. For all he knows, the meal is ethnic Nepalese gourmet, and is prepared perfectly, and the fry-cook just has no taste for Nepalese fare. He doesn't even know what he is talking about; he doesn't comprehend the practice of cooking well enough to critique the chef.

You, White Mountain, our resident McDonald's fry-cook of logical argumentation, are behaving as that petulant child.

Logic, in actual practice, is like gourmet cooking. It is a learned skill. And I have warned you before not to put on airs with me and affect the pretense that you are actually schooled and knowledgeable in the proper practice of the discipline

You ain't. And you are out of your depth. As someone who has been on the inside of the American Debate Association national tournament as a member of the single most successful university debate program in the history of American professional debate, I am qualified to make this judgment, because I know what I am talking about.

You, on the other hand, are merely playing a bluff -- and fooling no-one. Sure, you can say, "your logic is dreadful", because your fingers can type the words. But you really have no more concept of how to judge good logic from bad, than the McDonald's fry-cook knows how to judge Nepalese cooking.

I warned you that you would be made to look silly.

---

Let's take just one portion of your points above:

You are confusing miracles with grace to repent,

Logical Analysis: I have never encountered such a shocking bad example of definitional incompetence in the world of professional debate. You should be embarrassed that you even made this point; and what is self-evidently worse, is that you do not even comprehend how bad an argument it is -- and how deeply it discredits you. To wit:

grace (grs)
n.

• A favor rendered by one who need not do so; indulgence.

To exclude "miracles" from the definition of "grace" is as glaring a definitional error as you could possibly make. Miracles are a favor which ONLY God can bestow, which He owed no-one, which are totally unmerited by the recipient, which are clearly an indulgence from the natural order... there are few things more Gracious and Graceful than God's decision to demonstrate a miracle. Of course miracles are a form of Grace; and when effected for the purpose of provoking repentance, they are "graces to repentance" (for they are a Grace which is being effected for the purpose of provoking repentance).

You invented a pedantic definitional distinction between Miracles and Grace for the purpose of pretending that you had "identified" an "error" in my argument, to lend credence to your pretense of knowing how to practice applied argumentative logic. But -- not having a clue how the discipline of logic is actually practiced -- you blundered into one of the most shocking displays of definitional argumentative incompetence of which I have had to cringe at reading in years. "Confusing miracles with grace"? Miracles are a Grace, White Mountain, by any possible meaning of the term (Naturally, this error on your part invalidates most of the rest of your post. can you figure out why, or do I have to walk you by the hand and show you?) I am not confusing miracles with grace; you are confusing yourself with an actual practitioner of logic.

Your posts are riddled with these kinds of stunning amateurish errors. I have been kind to you so far in not thrashing you mercilessly for each and every one.

So don't put on airs with me. You just look silly.

[CCWoody]

I already wrote to you about that here, because you brought it up earlier.

Ahhh! I see you were kind enough to link it. Of course, the question of the day for me is "President Young" a prophet or not? For that matter, how about Joseph Smith? Is he a prophet or, like all false prophets, is he even now waiting upon the sure expectation of the Lake of Fire?

These are simple enough questions to answer plainly. But we shall see if one must wade through the "onion" of mormon mysticism.

[nobdysfool]

I realize now that I got carried away in my zeal for the truth that I know is contained within the scripture. In the process hurt a fellow believer and for that I am truly sorry. Please forgive me for my lack of love displayed towards you in my prior responses.

It's easy to do, and we've all done it at one time or another. I have a fairly thick skin when it comes to things like that, so you did me no harm. My primary purpose in "taking you to task", so to speak, was to remind us all that faith works by love, and that we need to be mindful of our fellows, the same as Jesus is. I have seen too much of the "blood and thunder" approach. It's dramatic, and great theater, and it has its place, but I believe it's over-used (my personal opinion), and believe that we need to allow the Holy Spirit to lead us and guide us in our presentation.

Brother, you go on standing up for the truth, I would never ask you not to. If I'm wrong on something (and believe me, I have been), gentle persuasion and a loving concern go a lot further than bluster and swinging the sword like a broad-axe, not only for me, but many others, methinks. Truth will stand regardless, it does not need our puny efforts to bolster it or preserve it. It is a bulwark and refuge. God's Truth shall stand forever!

Oh, and you're forgiven, although there was no offence taken. Thanks!

[zadok]

Thank you! =-)

[White Mountain]

Your #1123:

Calvinist, your arrogance and rudeness are shocking (well, not any longer), your errors of fact are legion, your depravity profound, your claim to be a Christian quite tenuous in view of your behavior, and your logic is getting worse with each post. All that debate training has done you no good. It seems to have scrambled your brains.

I said, "You are confusing miracles with grace to repent".

Your so-called "logical analysis" included this gem:

To exclude "miracles" from the definition of "grace" is as glaring a definitional error as you could possibly make.

Your deplorable logic has totally failed you, turning "confusing" into "exclude" and dropping the "repent" from "grace to repent". Then you pretend that is what I said, and think no one will notice your clumsy deception.

Since you know what I am getting at, Calvinist, you could suggest another wording if you thought one was necessary, but instead you make mincemeat of your own credibility, and embarrass yourself in front of everyone. Your choice.

[White Mountain]

Your #1125:

What a fine post! Too bad I have this other stuff to respond to, with your gentle post sandwiched in between. I much prefer the cordial discussion, but sometimes I feel I need to talk to the aggressive in their own language. They don't seem to understand anything else!

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Calvinist, your arrogance and rudeness are shocking (well, not any longer), your errors of fact are legion, your depravity profound, your claim to be a Christian quite tenuous in view of your behavior, and your logic is getting worse with each post.

Arrogance is, among other things, the affectation of a pretence of competence in an area where one is, in fact, unlearned, unschooled, and incompetent.

Your silly attempts to "stand in judgment" of my logic thus far fits that bill.

All that debate training has done you no good. It seems to have scrambled your brains.

Says the fry-cook to the chef.

As I have said -- you are not even schooled in the discipline, and not competent to judge.

I said, "You are confusing miracles with grace to repent". Your so-called "logical analysis" included this gem: To exclude "miracles" from the definition of "grace" is as glaring a definitional error as you could possibly make. Your deplorable logic has totally failed you, turning "confusing" into "exclude" and dropping the "repent" from "grace to repent". Then you pretend that is what I said, and think no one will notice your clumsy deception.

Au contraire. One cannot "confuse" Apples with Fruit, because Apples are Fruit. To regard Apples as Fruit, is to apprehend their nature correctly.

Your statement that I "confused miracles with grace" is as nonsensical as saying "You confuse apples with fruit".

Nor does it serve you to promulgate the blatant lie that I "dropped the "repent" from "grace to repent"". This falsehood will not stand; I specifically addressed the point: "when effected for the purpose of provoking repentance, they are "graces to repentance" (for they are a Grace which is being effected for the purpose of provoking repentance)." A Grace to Repentance is a performance of Grace intended to effect the provision of conditions for, and provoke the consummation of, Repentance in the object of the Grace. Thus, where miracles (which are a Grace) are performed for the purpose of provision for and provocation of Repentance, they are Graces to Repentance.

Your invented pedantic distinction was an obvious fraud. I let it go when you first raised it; but continue to behave arrogantly and petulantly, and I will continue to shame you with your fraud.

Since you know what I am getting at, Calvinist, you could suggest another wording if you thought one was necessary, but instead you make mincemeat of your own credibility, and embarrass yourself in front of everyone. Your choice.

No "other wording" was necessary. Your invented pedantic distinction was ridiculous on its face.
Ergo, I barbecued it.

And I gave you fair warning that I would do this if you persisted in putting on airs.
So, your backpeddling whining is just sour grapes. Suck it up.

[VaBthang4]

"Your position was that if after being saved, I do not seek forgiveness from God for transgressions then I never was saved in the first place.
You have misunderstood my position.
If a person claiming to be a believer does not willingly repent of his or her sin, they were never a believer to begin with."

I comprehend your position fully.....now for the what...third or fourth time...

Would you show me in scripture where this is supported. I would like to see two [2] scriptures that make this clear.

[A.J.Armitage]

But my main point was not so much to butter you up, as to emphasize (by hyperbole) to "VaBThang" how inappropriate it was for him to trash-talk your reading of Scripture when he, apparently, cannot digest 8 verses at once. I was upbraiding him for his arrogance.

And rightly so. He seems unable (or unwilling) to follow even the simplest argument or take the plainest statement in Scripture at face value.

And has anyone seen his much-claimed refutation of Ephesians? Anywhere?

[White Mountain]

Your #1124, and RnMom's #1119 and #1121:

They are true prophets and apostles.

If you really want me to answer this stuff, you might want to give me some reliable basis to believe that these are honest questions. When both of you run my faith down in the process of asking the questions, I know better.

Considering your track record, it will take quite a bit for you to build up a reliable basis. However, I might answer some of these things for my own amusement anyway.

[CCWoody]

Lucifer was perfected. He will be thrown into hell.

No, Lucifer has never been perfected. Salvation is not offered to the Angles who rebelled against God.

Eternal salvation is for those that love God and keep his commandments forever. God will not keep anyone in heaven against there will. He wants willing servants.

Great! At what point do you turn your will over to God?

[VaBthang4]

Honestly...

I hope you will understand but you are simply being brutish. I have been patient with your questions that apparently cannot be explained any other way but one.

I have answered oblique questions that are not germain to the point at which you joined the questioning of me.

Now...unless you can ammend your approach towards me and the subject matter in general I am simply going to ignore you.

I do not want to...I think free and open discussion of the points is good...but I wont be harrassed into going down side streets of doctrine that simply do not bring forth any fruit or understanding.

Perhaps I am a little too simple to wrap my brain around what you are driving at...eitherway....dumb it down and show some respect or you can simply question someone else.

:o)

Like it or not...

[VaBthang4]

A.J. I am sorry to you also but I have made my answer plain...if you do not want to recieve it then fine.

Unless you have anything else for me then I think we are done.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Perhaps I am a little too simple to wrap my brain around what you are driving at...eitherway....dumb it down and show some respect or you can simply question someone else

I am asking for information. My questions are plain and simple:

Regarding "Once Saved Always Saved":

Are unrepentant murderers and adulterers ever indwelt by the Holy Spirit?

If a Saved Christian man committed adultery and murder and six months passed and he did not repent one bit, would he still be Saved if he died that night? Why or why not?

---

Regarding Predestination -- read Matthew 11:20-27 and answer, "yes" or "no":

• Did the omniscient God foreknow that Tyre and Sidon would freely choose TO REPENT in the case of His performance of Miracles like unto those He performed in Chorazin and Bethsaida?

• And did the omniscient God foreknow Tyre and Sidon would freely choose NOT TO REPENT in the case of His non-performance of such Miracles?

• And did the omnipotent God CHOOSE not to perform these Miracles in Tyre and Sidon, a choice which had as its perfectly foreknown result the NON-Repentance of Tyre and Sidon, just as He foreknew?

---

I've already "dumbed it down" to the point that these questions simply require one-word, "yes" or "no" answers. That could scarcely be simpler or plainer in requirement. "Yes" or "No" to each question will do.

[A.J.Armitage]

A.J. I am sorry to you also but I have made my answer plain...if you do not want to recieve it then fine.

If I don't want to recieve it?!?! I've asked where it is over and over! Either you don't want to answer, or you're a liar and can't answer.

Just tell me and the discussion can go forward... unless that's what you're afraid of.

[CCWoody]

Correct, it just says that God has made it possible (hapily)

Ya' see, this just makes you look desperate. You must take me for some kind of fool to think that you can say that "haply" means possible and that I don't know any better. It does not.

Acts 17:27 does not mean what you want it to mean. It never has and it never ever will. You are so desperate to deny that God is in control that you are just inventing things in the scriptures.

ara {ar'-ah}
probably from 142 (through the idea of drawing a conclusion); part

AV - therefore + 3767 7, so then + 3767 4, now therefore + 3767 1, then + 1065 2, wherefore + 1065 1, haply + 1065 1, not tr 7, misc 7; 51

1) therefore, so then, wherefore

[VaBthang4]

I gave you a shot Ortho...

Bye.

[CCWoody]

The purpose to God in all of this(according to Calvinism) is His own glorification.

The purpose to God in all of this (according to the Bible) is His own glorification. Gosh, it is right there in black and white (and red), depending upon your edition.