For Whom Did Christ Die? - Calvinism

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

[Joyful Wisdom]

Your faith is based on fear and ignorance. It is sad.

[George W. Bush]

ftD to Jerry_M: Thus, your expressions of grace, love, mercy are meaningless, since you attribute to God a coldness that only Calvin himself had. They are like most of Calvinist words-empty of any real meaning.

Actually, some members of this particular group are quite unrepresentative of Calvin. You really must have a very limited acquaintance with Calvin's actual work. Calvin was neither cold nor careless. He was a very sober and diligent Bible student. The Institutes might be considered a dry and intellectual work by some but his Commentaries are outstanding in scholarship and are second to none in their devotional quality. I think if you examine his Commentaries, you'd readily see the real passion and love he had for the Word.

Arminius himself, while rejecting the teachings of the Institutes, recommended Calvin's Commentaries to his followers over all other reading except for the Bible itself, specifically mentioning that Calvin's work was more worthy reading than the patristic fathers. And Arminius was right to do so. Please do not tar the gentle and learned Calvin of Geneva with the failings of those who lay claim to his legacy. They routinely repudiate him while claiming him anyway.

One of the more amazing things about these "Calvinism" threads is that Calvin's most original contribution to theology is actually never discussed. His most original work dealt with what can be known of the Holy Spirit from scripture and is considered seminal in the development of theology. His Institutes and the derived TULIP doctrines are, as he readily admitted, directly tracable to Augustine and represent a forceful and more modern defense of Augustine's teachings on the subject, applied within the context of the Reformation. Calvin merely restated and reinforced the Augustinian position. He didn't invent predestinarian theology nor did he make a particularly extreme statement of it.

[Tares]

We reject Unconditional election since it is not taught in Scripture

What are the conditions Scripture teaches that someone must meet in order to be saved?

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Your faith is based on fear and ignorance. It is sad. 761 posted on 1/23/02 5:12 PM Pacific by Joyful Wisdom

My faith is based on confidence and knowledge.

I am confident that Christ rose from the dead; and...

I know that He is returning for the purpose of trampling His enemies under His feet and splattering their blood upon His garments (Isaiah 63), and to this doom He pre-destined his enemies before the foundation of the world (1 Peter 2).

That is the Jesus of the Bible; you must now love His words, or hate them.

[George W. Bush]

But if you do not preach, you have denied him even the opportunity to accept or reject the Gospel. Thus, "his blood be on thy hands", for though he would never have taken the offered opportunity (being unregenerate), *you* did not even offer him the opportunity at all, as was your duty!! Hope that is clearer.

But what good does it do a reprobate to accept the Gospel if preached to him if God has predestined him to damnation? Perhaps you can explain how a person "accepts" the Gospel in any meaningful way but is still predestined to damnation. Does preaching to the Reprobate glorify God or serve another purpose?

I can't find your scripture quote anywhere in the KJV. Can you cite it?

I speak not of some class of persons who would be saved if only they were preached the Gospel, but rather of Preachers who "share their guilt" in an ethical sense, for never having bothered to offer them the opportunity for salvation in the first place. They would reject, sure, but the Preacher would at least have done his duty.

Well, I am relieved that salvation is never a "work". I thought I must be seeing things! However, how can a preacher, i.e. any believer, share the "guilt" of someone not predestined to salvation? If they were not predestined, how can there be guilt for failing to preach to them?

I am not saying Christians do not have an obligation to Preach. You know how much I've liked your other posts on the subject. But this is a new element in your argument on the subject. I always accepted it in the sense that we are commanded to Preach To Obey. Not in hope of reward or fear of punishment. But because the Word clearly instructs it. And so to Obey the Word, we Preach the Word. I think that is a fair summary of what you've written many times.

Why should God blame His preachers for failing to preach to those who will never hear the Word anyway? How precisely can the blood of the predestined Reprobate be upon their hands? Is God blaming His followers for failing to do that which He Himself will not do and never intended to do? Is the value of Preaching to the Reprobate in that it restrains the evil that arises from man's depravity? I have read arguments on this last one before but haven't seen them supported scripturally yet.

I think this new element actually weakens your previous writings on the topic. I wish I could formulate it better. Do you have some scripture to explicitly support this new argument?

[RnMomof7]

Hey GW..My two cents on this..

Didn't Jesus know that Israel would refuse the gospel? Yet in Matthew 10 we read
6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
7 And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand.
8 Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give.
13 And if the house be worthy, let your peace come upon it: but if it be not worthy, let your peace return to you.
14 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.
15 Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.
16 Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.

I think the perfect example was Noah

2 Peter 2
4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;
5 And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;
Noah preached to no effect but he was rewarded for his obedience.

I believe we have an obligation to share the Good News with everyone. The result is not in our hands. I had not considered it as OP put it ..but that seems correct..The order of God was that the gospel should be preached to everyone..and there will be a cost if we are not obedient in that

[George W. Bush]

I believe we have an obligation to share the Good News with everyone. The result is not in our hands. I had not considered it as OP put it ..but that seems correct..The order of God was that the gospel should be preached to everyone..and there will be a cost if we are not obedient in that

I agree with that. But that is not my point. Nor was it O.P.'s. And I still can't find his scripture quote anywhere.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

But what good does it do a reprobate to accept the Gospel if preached to him if God has predestined him to damnation? Perhaps you can explain how a person "accepts" the Gospel in any meaningful way but is still predestined to damnation. Does preaching to the Reprobate glorify God or serve another purpose?

The Reprobate won't accept the Gospel (for his spirit hates it), but he has been presented that opportunity (which is the Preacher's duty).

I suppose I could say that some will "accept" the Gospel in the sense of a non-saving assensus ("Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?") But that is not really my point. I say that the Reprobate will never accept the Gospel, but that it is still the preacher's duty to present it, that the reprobate may "bring upon themselves the righteous destruction to which they are doomed" (Calvin).

However, how can a preacher, i.e. any believer, share the "guilt" of someone not predestined to salvation? If they were not predestined, how can there be guilt for failing to preach to them?

Some are predestined by God's permission to commit murder, but the blood of their victims is, in a sense, upon the hands of those who failed to try and stop the murder, if they had the opportunity to try and stop it.

Certainly, God does not necessarily promise that efforts to defend the innocent from murder will necessarily be successful, but he has ordained that it is our righteous duty to attempt the defense (and He will ordain/already has ordained the results).

Likewise, even though the Reprobate may be predestined to eternally murder himself, confirming the natural spiritual death into which he is born, nonetheless, it is a righteous duty to attempt to offer him the Gospel.

Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head.

I submit that what is true of lesser charities, is true of the presentation of the Gospel.

And, failure to perform this righteous duty is a moral shame upon the Preacher who fails to do it, even though the Reprobate will be condemned either way (by sins of "criminal negligence" in the absence of the Gospel, or by rejection of the Gospel when offered).

[CCWoody]

I noticed that Gal.5:22 lists love before joy, wouldn't you say that love is synonymous with happiness?

I do apologize for laughing at your realier post. Unfortunately for you this is deadly serious and this comment above about love being synonymous with happiness is just more evidence to that fact. I have treated your state far too lightly the last few days and for that I am sorry.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

I believe we have an obligation to share the Good News with everyone. The result is not in our hands. I had not considered it as OP put it ..but that seems correct..The order of God was that the gospel should be preached to everyone..and there will be a cost if we are not obedient in that ~~ I agree with that. But that is not my point. Nor was it O.P.'s. And I still can't find his scripture quote anywhere.

I am afraid I have to disagree with RnMomof7's phrasing also. There will not necessarily be a "cost" to the Weak Preacher in the Eternal sense, for the Sin of having failed to Preach is equally covered by the blood of Christ as any other sin. Hence, the blood of the Reprobate be on our heads if we fail to preach, but even our offense in that is covered by the Blood of Jesus.

Nonetheless, it is an Offense in the first place.

When I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; and thou givest him not warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life; the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand.

Yet if thou warn the wicked, and he turn not from his wickedness, nor from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul. (Ezekiel 3: 18-19)

[Jerry_M]

There are a number of things that I have been forced to do (especially concerning my children, but sometimes concerning the discipline of adults) out of love that have been anything but happy. However, there is a joy connected with doing the will of God, even when the performance of that will is not a pleasant task.

Face it, you don't want to be seen as agreeing with us "evil" Calvinists on any level, thus your stubborn refusal to accept that we may have been correct on this point.

[Jerry_M]

Re. 754.

Face it, you really do hate God (unless He somehow conforms to your understanding). Go ahead and worship the god of your imagination, I will worship the Creator who has revealed Himself through all of His Word and in the person of Christ Jesus.

He is Sovereign and Merciful, the Omnipotent Judge and the Lover of my soul, the One to be feared and the loving Father.

[CCWoody]

Actually, some members of this particular group are quite unrepresentative of Calvin. - George W. Bush

Given the contex of his comments, I'll err on the side of his insulting you again.

[RaceBannon]

Is this what you are referring to? You object to God's sovereignty in salvation?

Since the explanation I gave is what you erroneously call Sovereignty, yes.

[nobdysfool]

But do you level the same charge against the Gospel?

No, not necessarily. Apples and Oranges, my friend. The Gospel can be presented in many ways, some of which I'm sure you would object to, but as long as the core truth is presented, that Man is a sinner in need of salvation, and Christ is the Savior who offers that salvation, the Gospel will produce results in those to whom it is given, and to the rest, it will be foolishness. That's as it is, and as it should be.

Actually, your question is a trick question which you intend to use as a straw man to negate my comments. I see it for what it is. Calvinism is not the Gospel, my friend; It is a doctrinal stand ABOUT the Gospel and the God behind it, but it is NOT the Gospel. As such, it is appropriate for teaching and equipping believers, but wholly unsuited to be a primary means of presentation of the Gospel to the unsaved. It needlessly complicates what should be a simple Gospel. You don't have to know what TULIP means to be saved.

[nobdysfool]

This was the exact question that Arminius caused him to differ from Calvin. God looked down the eons of time and knew who would accept or reject. His decrees included the freedom of will to accect or reject. Yet Christ died for all. Man is without excuse.

Not arguing that point at all! I happen to believe that also. I have no quarrel with Calvinism from a doctrinal standpoint. What I object to is the archaic Bible-thumping, hellfire and brimstone way it's often presented. That does not attract unbelievers to Christ. In reality, preaching Calvinism to the unsaved is to load them down with information they aren't equipped to handle, much less respond to. Even Believers choke on it! It's not the job of the Calvinist to "weed out" the wheat from the chaff, that's God's job, and His angels. Our job is to present the Gospel simply, directly, and to use words when necessary. Our lives are (or should be) the biggest part of our testimony. I am not an advocate of "scaring" people into the Kingdom...those kind of conversions don't have a high retention rate.

[zadok]

"I am not an advocate of "scaring" people into the Kingdom...those kind of conversions don't have a high retention rate."

The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.

[maestro]

UR# 763) We reject Unconditional election since it is not taught in Scripture

What are the conditions Scripture teaches that someone must meet in order to be saved?

" Therefore by the deeds of the 'law' there shall NO flesh be justified (made acceptable) in HIS (God's) sight:..."

ROMANS 3:20

[CCWoody]

Re #778: vu ja de

[CCWoody]

Actually, your question is a trick question which you intend to use as a straw man to negate my comments.

No! I was simply trying to find out if you knew that the Gospel is meant to be offensive to many.