For Whom Did Christ Die? - Calvinism

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

[RnMomof7]

God placed us under Adam's sin after the Fall so that we all could be savable based on what the 2nd Adam did (Rom.5). Now, it is up to man to make a decision. God had to allow freedom to run its course, even allowing the fall of both Satan and Adam if He (God) was going to have a real relationship with His rational creatures. No freedom, no Fall, no Freedom, no relationships. That was the dilemna that God faced! Look what it cost Him, His own death! See how seriously God takes His own desire to share His love with His creation. It is God who would not have gotten anything out of making robots out of mankind. Nor, does He develop a relationship by making anyone love Him. Would you want that type of relationship with your children?

Did God know that Adam was going to sin?

[RnMomof7]

Another response to your question would be that He DID choose to intervene ( He sent a Saviour ). He sent His only begotten Son. That makes your point moot.

Not at all, God foreknew the fall correct? He could have decided that the tree would cause man to fall and never have placed it there correct?

He could have barred the snake from the Gardern correct? He could have given Eve the Grace to refuse to hear the snake correct? He could have had Adam assume the positon of headship He had given him correct?

Yet He did not. He instead chose to allow them to sin and to be lost..why?

[Jerry_M]

"You either see God as a real Person who desires to share Love or as some cold, distant King, whose only concern is about 'glory'."

I think that ftD could use a little bit of John Piper: "He is most glorified when we are most satisfied in Him" (Desiring God: Meditations of a Christian Hedonist).

[connectthedots]

CTD: Have you read either Calvin's Institutes or Mere Christianity? Have you read Edwin Palmer's the Five Points of Calvinism? I've read them all. Do you even know for what Edwin Palmer is most widely known?

NO I have read the Bible..(does that count:>)

It is on my list of things to do (read the Institutes) right now I am in the middle of 3 books.....

All I do is ask questions..that is my lot in life (as opposed to lot's wife:>))Sorry that silliness just jumped out

I believe a plain reading of scripture reinforces the reform position. I do not believe that it is a matter of salvation..but it should be of the utmost importance to every Christian to give all the glory to God for his salvation..

You've not read Calvin's Institutes, nor Palmer's Five Points of Calvinism, yet you attempt to come across as an authority on Calvinism? Part of your problem is you are arguing your position based on what you think Calvin wrote, not what he actually wrote. On top of that, anyone who has not read C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity can hardly claim to be knowledgeable on the subject of the nature of God and the "Law of Nature". If you were knowledgable on this topic, you might very well re-evaluate your loyalty to a man-devised theology like Calvinism as articulated by extremists within that school of thought.

It is one thing to ask questions, but quite another to make pronouncements as to the meaning of scripture and its support of a particular viewpoint (Calvinism in this case) when you really have no basis for making those claims, other than what others may have told you.

Calvin, inspite of his great intellect, was quite a loner and and as a result, a bit of a whack-job. You also make the mistake of equating the Reformation movement with Calvinism, something that cannot be supported by the facts.

[connectthedots]

Yet He did not. He instead chose to allow them to sin and to be lost..why?

Because love requires that the object of ones love have a choice in deciding whether to respond to your love. If there is no choice, there can be no love. The is the best argument possible against pre-destination. Loving involves taking risks that your love may not be returned, but God was willing to risk rejection and did it anyway.

[connectthedots]

Why do some knock at the door and others not?

Isn't it Christ who is knocking at the door, and isn't each persons decision whether to open it so Christ can come into his life? If it is Christ who knocks on the door, just who makes the decision; the knocker (Christ) or the person who can either open the door or keep it closed? It would seem that the pre-destination position would be that there is no reason for Christ to knock if he is going to enter regardless of the response to His "knocking on the door".

[connectthedots]

Did God know that Adam was going to sin?

In my opinion, the answer is "NO", but God intentionally allowed for the possibility that Adam would be disobedient. God wanted Adam to Love/obey Him, but if Adam did not have a possibility of disobeying God, how would God know whether or not Adam did love Him?

If you are maintaining that God knew Adam was going to sin, and that was part of God's plan, then you would also have to agree that Adam's sin was caused by God, and since God is good, the fall of Adam was good. I doubt that you would go that far. If you did, you would then be in agreement with a basic tenet of Mormon theology which claims that Adam's sin was actually a good thing. Are you going to try and argue that Adam had no choice whether he was going to sin, or not? I will be shocked if you claim that Adam did not have the power to choose whether or not to sin against God?

If Adam had the ability to choose to either obey, or disobey, God; why would you think that a present-day man does not have that same choice.

It has been my experience that the main reason Calvinists argue the untenable position of pre-destination with such emotion is that they recognize that an admission that pre-destination doesn't make sense will naturally require that person to reject the other four tenets of Calvinism as articulated by the acronymn 'TULIP'. Even Calvinist theologians agree that if any one of the five tenets fails, they must all fail because they are completely intertwined with the others.

[PleaseNoMore]

Could've, would've, should've.

God could have done anything He wanted. His nature would not allow Him to have done or not done all of those things you asked. You see, God desired fellowship so He created man. He already had the MULTITUDES of angels. Why could He not have simply fellowshipped with them? He, by design, created us in His image. He created us to be one with Him. The angels were not created this way. They were created to serve His commands. We were created to commune and fellowship with Him and to have a spiritual relationship with Him. The angels did not have this privelege, apparently or there would have been no "need" for us.

Regardless of what you say or rather what your denomination says, God is not some slave driver in the sky. He sets forth His guidelines for us to follow that we may live a Holy life. He does not beat us over the back with a whip to force us to serve Him. He allows us the freedom to serve Him.

[RnMomof7]

You've not read Calvin's Institutes, nor Palmer's Five Points of Calvinism, yet you attempt to come across as an authority on Calvinism? Part of your problem is you are arguing your position based on what you think Calvin wrote, not what he actually wrote. On top of that, anyone who has not read C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity can hardly claim to be knowledgeable on the subject of the nature of God and the "Law of Nature". If you were knowledgeable on this topic, you might very well re-evaluate your loyalty to a man-devised theology like Calvinism as articulated by extremists within that school of thought. It is one thing to ask questions, but quite another to make pronouncements as to the meaning of scripture and its support of a particular viewpoint (Calvinism in this case) when you really have no basis for making those claims, other than what others may have told you
. Calvin, inspite of his great intellect, was quite a loner and and as a result, a bit of a whack-job. You also make the mistake of equating the Reformation movement with Calvinism, something that cannot be supported by the facts.

I didn't know that reading Calvin was a requirment to believe in predestination..who did Augustine read I wonder?:>) I do not think I have misrepresented myself. I usually flag someone or will say the OLD time Calvinists would say.......

In the case of this thread most of them are around.. I figure if I wander too far away one of them will pop up..

I have read some of CS Lewis stuff actually I am not a fan ....But I have never thought that a test of my salvation or doctrine

I was raised a Catholic..saved for 25 years...studied scripture on many levels including the college level...(at a Wesleyan College)...I have studied Armenian Theology extensively ( as I attend a Wesleyan church).....I know the nature of God through His word.......and He lives in me and I in Him. We have an intimate relationship..

I am trying to understand your point here..I may ask questions but I may not form an opinion as to the meaning of any scripture until I read the approved books from your list??

You have read all the books but you have read them without understanding!

[CCWoody]

No, not in the sense that he "predestined" some to be saved and some to be damned. He clearly states in His word that He desires ALL to be saved. He has said or done nothing contrary to that desire. God being all knowing, did know what would happen in the course of man's existance. I do not doubt that. However, man has been given the choice of whether to accept Him or not. I believe that your responses are bordering on semantics.

He clearly states in His word that He desires ALL to be saved. He has said or done nothing contrary to that desire.

You don't understand at all just how off base your statement really is. See Post #63 & #99 by OrthodoxPresbyterian

See Post #73 by the_doc :

(How can the Third Person of the Trinity be said to be committed to the salvation of these folks in particular if He does not pull out all stops to get the gospel message to them in particular? And if the Second Person of the Trinity died to save them in particular, how come the Third Person of God is not always clearly and dynamically interested in saving them in particular? [Sometimes the Omnipotent Spirit deliberately leaves providential doors of opportunity closed!])

My point is that the Lord's atoning death can offer folks no saving good whatsoever if they never even get to hear the message. (This is precisely why Calvinists are such energetic jungle missionaries. We know that the unevangelized souls are doomed as having no atonement if we Christians can't even get to them with the New Testament message.)

God being all knowing, did know what would happen in the course of man's existance. I do not doubt that. However, man has been given the choice of whether to accept Him or not.

See my post #405 for God's foreknowledge and predestination

I believe that your responses are bordering on semantics.

Not at all! You are clearly not grasping what is being said to you. Enjoy the posts; they really do show just how off base you really are.

[Jerry_M]

RnMomof7: Did God know that Adam was going to sin?

connectthedots: In my opinion, the answer is "NO"

Well, at least connect is honest in his "open theology". It is really the only intellectually honest "opinion" that an anti-presdestinarian can have.

Isn't it interesting that Christ would be "slain before the foundation of the world" even though there was the possibility that man would not sin? That certainly cheapens the atonement somewhat!

[Jerry_M]

"You see, God desired fellowship so He created man."

What is your Scriptural basis for such a claim? Where in all the Bible does it say that God was seeking fellowship?

I can show you a hundred passages that state that God created man to glorify Him, but cannot lay my finger on a single "God is a lonely guy lookin' for a buddy" passage.

[Jerry_M]

I am glad that you haven't caved under connect's "If you haven't read my list of books your can't have an informed opinion" approach.

Calvinism is somewhat like Rush Limbaugh. Rush would be the first one to tell you that you don't learn much new from him, he simply confirms what you already believe.

Like Woody, I didn't come to my Calvinistic stance by reading Calvin. Neither did the_doc. What we learned, from reading Calvin and Augustine and Piper and Sproul and Edwards and Owens and Charnock and... and... was that there were others who saw the same things in Scripture that we already saw. My Calvinism is deeply rooted in the Bible.

[connectthedots]

You have read all the books but you have read them without understanding!

First of all, I do not question your salvation for even a second. Yes, I have read the books. I was also a member of a very, very Calvinistic church for a number of years (but not born and raised in it). I do find it interesting that you have not read the books I mentioned, yet claim I "have read them without understanding". On what basis can you make such an outrageous claim? I am also not here to defend Armenian theology either (I do have a real problem with their apparent position that one can 'lose their salvation', amongst other issues). My point in my posts is that God desires that all be saved, but allows each indivdual the free wil to make that decision because a decision devoid of choice is no decision at all and without the option of choosing to reject the love of God, there can be no real love returned.

[RnMomof7]

Did God know that Adam was going to sin? In my opinion, the answer is "NO", but God intentionally allowed for the possibility that Adam would be disobedient. God wanted Adam to Love/obey Him, but if Adam did not have a possibility of disobeying God, how would God know whether or not Adam did love Him?

Scripture tells us that Christ was the first of those predestined Before the foundation of the earth

So God knew before He made the sun and the stars...before He formed Adam from the clay that Adam would sin and that we would need a saviour

1 Peter 1
19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:
20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,
21 Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God.

Hebrews 9
25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;
26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.:

Revelation 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

==========================

So God did know that Adam would fall....and He provided a remedy for that fall before Adam was ever formed..God by not interfering did indeed allow man to fall..He allowed Adam to do as he willed. The fact He did nothing to stop it in effect predestined it.

[connectthedots]

I am trying to understand your point here..I may ask questions but I may not form an opinion as to the meaning of any scripture until I read the approved books from your list??

Actually, Palmer's The Five Points of Calvinism is very much pro-Calvinism. Palmer could well be considered a Calvinist anmongst Calvinists. You most certainly form opinion as to the meaning of scripture without reading books I suggest; after all, they are only suggestions.

[Codie]

I find that Protestants who convert to the Catholic Church are much more at peace with themselves than Catholics who go the other route.Why is that?

[connectthedots]

So if God knew "Adam would fall" if tempted, why did God present Adam with the 'opportunity to sin'? If love does not require a decision/choice by the object of ones love, why not eliminate the possibility of rejection by not providing the opportunity to 'fall'? Couldn't God have merely eliminated the possibility of Adam's 'fall'? If so, why didn't He?

[RnMomof7]

What does that mean??

[RnMomof7]

So if God knew "Adam would fall" if tempted, why did God present Adam with the 'opportunity to sin'? If love does not require a decision/choice by the object of ones love, why not eliminate the possibility of rejection by not providing the opportunity to 'fall'? Couldn't God have merely eliminated the possibility of Adam's 'fall'? If so, why didn't He?

I could have sworn that was my question to you..:>)

He allowed Adam to do as He willed. Just as He lets you do as you will. The question is never one of will ,it is always one why man wills the way he does. God chose to allow Adam to do as he willed without intervention .