For Whom Did Christ Die? - Calvinism

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

[rdb3]

Can you find fault with what this author has written? If so, where is he wrong?

Certainly. The writer is incorrect when he says, "Let them remember that when they inquire into predestination they are penetrating the sacred precincts of divine wisdom. If anyone with carefree assurance breaks into this place, he will not succeed in satisfying his curiosity and he will enter a labyrinth from which he can find no exit." He or she is incorrect about "penetrating the sacred precincts of divine wisdom." Those of us who teach on predestination are only expounding upon what His Word has given us. It is not a matter of any interpretation, for His Word does in fact clearly demonstrate election, or "predestination."

Tell you what. Why don't we leave out the writings of other men and go to the source to see? For example, I demonstrated what the Word of God says in my post #377 (go ahead and click this link and another window will appear so that you won't lose your place). Go there and refute what the Word says, NOT what I say.

I don't do this for self-congratulatory reasons. And I don't rely on what others say, be they Spurgeon or Pink (I love Spurgeon, but Arthur W. Pink is absolutely outstanding).

[fortheDeclaration]

Do you think ANY sin can be committed without God's permission? God is sovereign over both good and evil.

No, nothing can be done unless God allows it directly or indirectly (permission). The point is that Calvinists are very hesitant to admit a permissive will, since that opens a door for free will.

God's will then is allowing actions which go against what He wants. This is against the tenets of Calvinism which state that nothing can go against God's will.

OP will forget he mentioned the permissive will when some aspect of resistance or rejection of God's perfect will comes up ('for who hath resisted his will'(Rom.9:19)

[fortheDeclaration]

Every mainstream Christian, perhaps every true Christian believes in an atonement which is wide enough for all. But that is not even the issue. What we Calvinists are talking about is the Power of the Cross of Christ.

That power is able to save all men

for I am not ashamed of the gospel: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also the Greek (Rom.1:16)

[fortheDeclaration]

So, then, do you think that since Jesus does know what free choice is that he is POWERFUL enough to provide free choice to ALL of His creatures

Amen and Amen. You are getting into another Calvinist doctrine 'non posse peccare'posse non peccare'-'not able to sin, able not to sin'

[fortheDeclaration]

God makes no one be with him, it's your choice where you spend eternity.

Amen!

[George W. Bush]

I'll ask that any responses directed to those points be sent me by Private FReepMail.

Then why didn't you send me the post via FReepmail if you wanted it to be private? Obviously, those to whom you addressed the public post are all familiar enough with the facts, having been here the entire time except that two of them did not receive all the FRmail that was passed behind the scenes. In the future, if you want to conduct discussion of a personal matter via FRmail, you should initiate the discussion by FRmail.

Frankly, I've seen too much of some others' nasty FRmail tricks to get involved in FRmail discussions again. And I have stated that before as well. If your memory is good, you might recall that that is where it all actually started, not in the following dispute over Hebrews 10:14. Well, it's not as though the actual origin of the dispute means much to any party at this late date anyway.

There is no reason that you should be enthusiastic at the prospect, GWB; you are plainly out of fellowship with "the_doc" and "Jerry_M" at the moment, and no fooling.

I can't imagine that anyone was fooled. I repeatedly declared my separation from their tactics on public threads what, eight or nine months ago? I can't recall the exact post where I declared myself as separated from their tactics but I could find it. But my basic position has not changed.

I don't regard FR as a church. It's an internet political discussion forum whose owner is kind enough to tolerate some religious threads which he probably regards as not only off-topic but far more trouble than they're worth. Others can pretend FR is a church with binding membership and discipline if that what they wish for self-serving purposes. I don't think that JimRob or anyone outside this tiny circle actually considers FreeRepublic.com to be anything remotely resembling an ecclesiastical entity.

Nonetheless, if we were to judge one's spiritual status by the spiritual honesty implicit in this kind of statement: ...

I wan't being "spiritually honest". Just honest about what I've observed over a considerable period of time. If you somehow think that my remarks indicate that I am interested in reconciling with them, that is not the case. There could be no purpose. However, I refrain from stirring animosity needlessly and try not to exclude them. This does not mean I have a spiritual obligation to play the doormat if they consider it their "spiritual obligation" to backstab me without even flagging me.

It would be tempting (at least to me) to regard the speaker as Regenerate, no matter what doctrinal controversies and abrogations of fellowship have occurred. As such, it should be the conviction of all Regenerate parties to the disputations, to seek reconciliation if at all possible.

I'm not applying for church membership. FR is not a church. It is a little bizarre to have to point out something so obvious. Since you are obviously intelligent, I can regard such statements as mere rhetorical devices. There is a rather peculiar selectivity of discerning regeneration and salvation via IP packet-switched network within this circle. I'm afraid it's too advanced for my humble discernment. However, you might consider that if I am actually unregenerate as you suggest, that it is perhaps your Duty to Obey by Preaching in order to glorify God by increasing my presupposed Reprobation. It is a distinct possibility, well within the parameters of application of your earlier theological discussion. Of course, problems arise when various factions all determine that this is their Duty toward others.

I do not say this out of any desire to "get into the matter" now. In fact, I don't think this is the time or the place, and expect it would be folly to try at the moment. I only want to express my desire that reconciliation could possibly be effected at some point, and my continuing desire that it should be sought when possible.

But you did, in fact, "get into the matter" now and on a public thread, obviously spending enough time to consider the matter of public vs. private communication as you wrote it. Your decision is evident since only a rare typist could have composed your post in less than a minute. It's not of any great importance anyway. If the_doc and Jerry want to repent their harsh and unloving attitude toward so many people, that is their decision. Grudges actually have little purpose. Obviously, they harbor and nurse far more animosity toward me than I have for them. Of course, their story about why they are angry does keep evolving in interesting ways, doesn't it? In comparison, your own attitude and remarks have been absolutely consistent throughout.

There is a reason why Baptists are more fractious than traditional Protestant denominations. It is intrinsic to the organization and independent operation of Baptist churches. It is historically both a strength and a weakness. You must already know this.

[fortheDeclaration]

We don't always give verse numbers. But you are a slanderer, friend.

Hey, you are not suppose to be talking to me!

For one thing, we cover a lot of ground fast. For another thing, we can't always remember verse numbers. For another thing, the verses we give without bothering to give chapter-verse citations are verses which you should already know. i.e., shouldn't even need to look up. For another thing, we assume you have a concordance.

It is a common courtousy to give the reference. I stated that one might excuse once in a while someone forgetting to cite a verse, but this is a consistent habit among you guys.

So, your insinuation that we are trying to keep you from looking up the verses is false. One has to wonder (a bit) what that makes you.

I wonder why you find it so hard to give the verse? I think you are trying to intimate those who do not know their Bible. Since this has gone on for a long time, and you all do it, it gives one something to ponder

My point is that gratuitous insults such as yours are typical of reprobates at worst and carnal spiritual brats at best. Which are you?

It wasn't me who stopped talking to you, but you to me. So who is the childish one.

You are getting ground to powder in this debate. We don't delight to do this to you, but you leave us no choice. There are other souls at stake, even I do not assume that this exercise will do you any good. I want them to notice what kind of spirit you have in slandering us.

I am! Well, what a shock to me! Ofcourse, if you say so, Doc, it must be true

It is very instructive, I suspect.

Oh, it is. I see more evasion and scripture wresting among you guys then anywhere else. It is an education on the nature of Calvinism and what it does to peoples minds and spirits

Besides, my conscience is clear. You have already had plenty of calm opportunities to repent, so if you get more and more angry from this point, don't blame us for your obstinacy of Adamic pride masquerading as Christian grace and love for God's Truth. As OP has repeatedly pointed out, you just hate the truth of God's absolute predestination.

You know Doc, I really missed you. They should pay you to post on free republic. I am laughing even as I write. What I do hate is the satanic lie known as TULIP. But, hey that's me, what do I know right?

(I think our God, the real God, frightens you in a kind of carnal fear-and-loathing. Well, that is the expected reaction to the God of Romans 9, not to mention Matthew 11.)

Matthew 11-what does that have do with a born again washed in the Blood child of God? Mixing up your Dispensations again.

Don't be a stranger Doc, you always give my spirits a lift!

[fortheDeclaration]

A dead man cannot seek God,

That they should seek the Lord, if haply the might feel after him and find him, though he be not far from every one of us.(Acts.17:27)

[fortheDeclaration]

I still can't seem to find any idea of how the Reprobate "accept" the Gospel in a meaningful way. Throughout the chapter, it seems that the only value in preaching to the Reprobate that Calvin distinguishes is in how God glorifies Himself and in how the Reprobate are predestined without having any cause since both Elect and Reprobate cannot excuse even one transgression in a thousand. There is also some mention that such preaching increases the damnation of the Reprobate nad hardens their hearts still further though God's purpose in this seems unscrutable since it seems that such hardening would inevitably lead to greater acts of evil than if their reprobation had not been increased by God's will.

What a theology! God's purpose in this seems inscrutable

Calvinism in a nutshell-we don't know!

[fortheDeclaration]

The scripture makes it plain that God's love extends to all mankind and in order for Man to love God back...then he must choose to, otherwise it is not love...it is tyranny

you will have to explain 'love' to them they get it confused with Sovereignty.

[fortheDeclaration]

Such an action, though volitionally possible

What?? OP you are a heretic from Calvinism. You are saying that the voliton is still present? How can there be volition in a 'dead' object? No wonder you are so confused on Matt 11!

[fortheDeclaration]

And had God seen fit to Predestine these people to Repent and be Saved, He could have used the Grace of Miracles to bring about their Repentance. In fact, Jesus says it is certain that they would have Repented, had God seen fit to display such miracles.

It would not have been the Grace of miracles that would have led to salvation but the fact they would have had to be regenerated (according to Calvinism a point that Zadok just stated)first.

The fact that the Lord brought up the issue that they would have repented shows that the decision was theirs in rejecting what was offered to them at first, and it would have been theirs had those miracles been done.

Free will is all over that passage.

[fortheDeclaration]

As I said -- give Tyre and Sidon all the free will and natural moral competence you like, and you still cannot escape from the fact that God, by His election, absolutely predestined their NON-Repentance unto Damnation. This is what you are desperately trying to avoid... and you can't.

I noticed that your posts are making less and less sense. Maybe if you just keep saying to me over and over again that you are right that will do it-nah! just kidding.

Nothing was predestinated. Those cities had a choice and they rejected it-period. The fact that the Jews were now rejecting even a greater choice seems to elude you guys. Why is Christ rebuking them if it has already been predestinated, they are after all dead right? It must be another one of those inscrutable mysteries that Calvinism is riddled with.

[fortheDeclaration]

Word, homey

Funny, I didn't see one scripture in there? What word?

[fortheDeclaration]

However, my remarks really dealt with your apparent suggestion that this might be a deliberate obfuscatory tactic. I would not agree. You may not like the doctrine or some rhetorical tactics but that is not the same thing as deliberately avoiding citation in a dishonest way

If I thought these guys were honest I would agree with you. I noticed that OP took that snippet of my post accusing me of not believing in Omniscience and hasn't produced the whole post. I have seen the half-truths, double talk, misrepresentation and generally lack of Christian charity that this group engages in (even with you!)

Jerry was even bragging a while back that he had driven me off the threads.

I put nothing past this group.

[fortheDeclaration]

I asked you if you are a Once saved always saved type of guy. Yes.

Hey, look at that, something we can agree on! So am I brother!

[George W. Bush]

This is the more proper translation and, I believe, more faithful to the body of Calvin's extensive writings.

Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Chapter 21, subsection 1 (Beveridge):

But before I enter on the subject, I have some remarks to address to two classes of men. The subject of predestination, which in itself is attended with considerable difficulty is rendered very perplexed and hence perilous by human curiosity, which cannot be restrained from wandering into forbidden paths and climbing to the clouds determined if it can that none of the secret things of God shall remain unexplored. When we see many, some of them in other respects not bad men, every where rushing into this audacity and wickedness, it is necessary to remind them of the course of duty in this matter. First, then, when they inquire into predestination, let then remember that they are penetrating into the recesses of the divine wisdom, where he who rushes forward securely and confidently, instead of satisfying his curiosity will enter in inextricable labyrinth.49[6] For it is not right that man should with impunity pry into things which the Lord has been pleased to conceal within himself, and scan that sublime eternal wisdom which it is his pleasure that we should not apprehend but adore, that therein also his perfections may appear. Those secrets of his will, which he has seen it meet to manifest, are revealed in his word--revealed in so far as he knew to be conducive to our interest and welfare.

Obviously, the key sentence is a substantial difference between the idea of "concealed within Himself" and "hidden from Himself". The difference is glaring to a Calvinist.

Arminians do have a pronounced tendency to wish to believe that God hides things from himself. We have often seen this in explanations that God created the infallible prophecies of the Bible and then subsequently abandoned His foreknowledge in order to be able to respect man's free will. The obvious internal contradiction of such views is obviously fantastic if one understands the chronological implications. These are exactly the sorts of explanations required theologically if one denies God's foreknowledge in any substantial way.

I would like to see the original source of your quoted material. That one sentence is enough to make any Calvinist suspicious of the translation.

---

ftD, I was glad to see that you reminded ctd to cite his source. Consistency is a good quality and the Berean impulse is always commendable according to scripture.

[George W. Bush]

I have seen the half-truths, double talk, misrepresentation and generally lack of Christian charity that this group engages in (even with you!)

I am friendly toward O.P. and RnMomof7. I obviously do not regard the others in the same way.

It seems that you and some others somehow think that there is only one kind of Calvinist. There are actually quite a variety of Calvinists. From your own viewpoint, I would suggest that closer investigation would reveal significant differences between Calvinist factions. But perhaps an Arminian might find those differences unimportant. Personally, I try to recognize the doctrinal differences within the Arminian camp because there is such a variety.

It's always easy to look over the fence and think that those on the other side are really all the same. It really would be convenient if it were absolutely true.

[Jerry_M]

I get the feeling that there are some on this thread who expect the Calvinists to operate within a tiny little box of their (anti-Calvinist) construction. The second that we operate outside of that artificial constraint, they yell "Foul!".

What they (the anti-Calvinists) have never done is to acknowledge that Calvinism is much more expansive and sublime than they can imagine.

[Jerry_M]

Re. 799 (and others).

I get the feeling (again) that there are some here who desire the freedom to sin once they enter into glory. Otherwise, how could they freely enjoy the presence of God.