For Whom Did Christ Die? - Calvinism

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

[Jerry_M]

"God is powerful enough, Righteous enough, and loving enough to provide a way. Do you believe that God is powerful enough to provide a way for a sinful man to turn to Christ?"

Then, why pray tell, does He choose not to be powerful enough to provide a way for all men to turn to Christ? Why some, and not others? As you concede, He is powerful enough, now why doesn't He exercise that power?

[Jerry_M]

"Would you care to comment on post #853?"

Yes.

I would assume that these admonitions apply equally to those who would presume to deny the Biblical doctrine of predestination as it does to those who affirm it. Why don't you feel that you have been painted by the same brush?

[xzins]

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'

Since Jesus knows what REAL FREE CHOICE is, therefore, is God POWERFUL enough to provide REAL FREE CHOICE to ALL of His creatures?

Jesus had a REAL capacity (capability) to choose for God and to choose against God. (Propensity means nothing without REAL capacity.) Therefore, is God POWERFUL enough to provide a REAL CAPABILITY (Real Free Choice) to ALL of His creatures?

There are two possible answers: (1) The omnipotent God is Powerful enough, or (2) The omnipotent God is NOT powerful enough.

Which do you choose?

[xzins]

why doesn't He exercise that power?

Jerry, do you believe that God is ALL POWERFUL?

[Jerry_M]

"Jerry, do you believe that God is ALL POWERFUL?"

Discounting such falacies as "Is God powerful enough to create a rock that He cannot move?", YES.

Yet, you fail to answer my simple question to you: Why is it that God does not exercise His power to ensure the salvation of all?

(It appears that we are in agreement concerning His power, maybe you can begin to contemplate His purposes.)

[xzins]

Why is it that God does not exercise His power to ensure the salvation of all?

You misstate your question in that I am not a universalist.

A correct question would be: "Why is it that God does not exercise His power to make possible the salvation of all?"

The answer is that God IS POWERFUL ENOUGH to make POSSIBLE the salvation of all!"

[Jerry_M]

No, I didn't misstate my question due to the fact that I assumed you are not a universalist. (A universalist would state that God is saving all, so why all the fuss.)

It appears that we are going to talk right by each other, and I don't see any profit in that.

[xzins]

Do you believe that God is All-Loving in addition to being All-Powerful? (We are not talking past each other. If you think so, then perhaps I am not being adequately clear.)

Also, please respond to #883. Thanks.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

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.

The things I had to say, I wanted to be seen by all parties, and to this day I rarely use FReepMail for "circulars", but rather for one-on-one chats.

I could've sent it around one-at-a-time via FReepMail, just not my habit.

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.

Okay. My intent was not to suggest a multi-party "FRmail discussion", and I would admit there have been some pretty messy rows over FRmail botch-ups and the like.

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.

No one, of course, can ever force you to accept a compliment. ;-)

I just meant that it is not atypical of unregenerate men in general to sacrifice truth on the altar of their animosities (i.e., to avoid saying anything charitable about their enemies, even if honesty would demand it); regenerate men ought not do this kind of thing.

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.

Except that Christians should always seek reconciliation with their brethren. Just identifying an ethical duty.

However, I refrain from stirring animosity needlessly and try not to exclude them.

Yes, I acknowledge this.

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.

I did not see Jerry's latest as a "backstab", as he said nothing about you one way or the other, but made reference to the fact that a certain verse has become favored by many FR Calvinists for its eternal security implications. The fact that you are not among that group does not, in and of itself, make you the target of a back-stab. (It is, after all, possible for Jerry to talk about the verse itself, without intending to reference you in any way).

However, I also recognize that, absent any accompanying explanation, it was not unreasonable for you to suspect that Jerry was making you the target of his comments -- and so I cringed a little in expectation that such would occur. I was, however, pleased that at least it went no farther than it did.

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.

Allow me to re-phrase: It is not my desire to "get into the specific particulars of the matter" now but only to state, again, for the record that Reconciliation is to be considered a desired Good between Christians inside or outside of the strict confines of church membership accountability.

Consider my post to be me walking up to the podium in the public square, clearing my throat, and saying, "For the record, Reconciliation from disputes is a desirable Good between Christians. That is all". Because it is and continues to be a desirable Good, and I continue to maintain that it should be sought. And that, is all I'm really trying to say.

[George W. Bush]

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

Calvinism in a nutshell-we don't know!

Calvin is very careful. As a methodical theologian and exegete, his efforts to avoid overstatement or understatement of scripture are almost insuperable. I'm speaking here of his methods, not necessarily his conclusions to which you obviously object. He was in this sense, I think, at least the equal of Augustine and more consistent in his methods and principles than Luther proved to be.

[Jerry_M]

I thought that I had answered 883.

I believe that God loves perfectly. That is not synonymous with "all-loving". The Bible makes it plain that God loves those whom He desires to love, and hates those whom He desires to hate. In fact, when He hates, He hates perfectly.

A naughty person, a wicked man, walketh with a froward mouth. He winketh with his eyes, he speaketh with his feet, he teacheth with his fingers; Frowardness is in his heart, he deviseth mischief continually; he soweth discord. Therefore shall his calamity come suddenly; suddenly shall he be broken without remedy. These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren. - Proverbs 6:12-19

[xzins]

I believe that God loves perfectly. That is not synonymous with "all-loving".

Do you believe that "God is Love?"

[RnMomof7]

A correct question would be: "Why is it that God does not exercise His power to make possible the salvation of all?"

I would ask why does He save any??

[George W. Bush]

Allow me to re-phrase: It is not my desire to "get into the specific particulars of the matter" now but only to state, again, for the record that Reconciliation is to be considered a desired Good between Christians inside or outside of the strict confines of church membership accountability. Consider my post to be me walking up to the podium in the public square, clearing my throat, and saying, "For the record, Reconciliation from disputes is a desirable Good between Christians. That is all". Because it is and continues to be a desirable Good, and I continue to maintain that it should be sought. And that, is all I'm really trying to say.

Well, one can hardly object to these remarks and your consistent inclination toward urging charity and harmony among believers. I am in general agreement with the rest of your remarks and see no need to re-examine them line-by-line and will instead simply wish you a pleasant day.

[Jerry_M]

At what point do you begin to reconcile with this?

(Note that this was his first "contribution" to this thread, "You and the_doc are false and evil teachers.", and it went downhill from there. It does me no good to proclaim that he was the furthest person from my mind while posting my latest on Heb 10:14, he is going to believe the worst anyway. Note also, in subsequent posts, that we have become hyper-Calvinists, something that he knows not to be true.)

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Well, one can hardly object to these remarks... will instead simply wish you a pleasant day.

I canno' object to that.

[xzins]

I would ask why does He save any??

What answer would you give to yourself?

[Jerry_M]

Even though you don't think so, it is readily apparent that we are talking right by each other. You will discover, earlier on this thread, that I specifically affirmed that "God is love".

Yet, it appears that you will not grant to Him the right to love whom He pleases, and expect that He be forced to show His love towards all, something that you would not require of any human, since you don't want to violate their volition.

[Jerry_M]

RnMomof7: I would ask why does He save any??

xzins: What answer would you give to yourself?

Because He chooses to do so in accordance with the desires of His will.

[Precisian]

It is a lie to say that "Calvin himself had serious doubts" as to what he wrote in the Institutes.

Calvin was prolific. I challenge you to produce ANYTHING by Calvin that supports your lie. If you cannot do this, be decent enough to retract your false statement. And remember, it is a sin to bear false witness.

Thanks.