Posted on 02/25/2002 11:01:41 PM PST by fortheDeclaration
Did God create them [those who would never repent] knowing that they would not come and yet, still created them anyway? - CCWoodyYes, but He gave them the choice not to come. In His sovereignty, He gave them that choice. - Ward Smythe
The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance. - 2 Peter 3:9
Let's leave the verse for a moment, which you are taking out of context...
God gave them the choice not to come, OK. Laying aside those who never ever get a chance to hear the gospel and even have that choice, let us press on with the subset who hear the gospel at least one time.
You agree that God created them with certain abilities and desires, for God has created all of us. You agree that God has created us with the foreknowledge that He already knows who will not come to Him. You agree that God created them anyway. He saw our substance while it was still unformed and in His book he has already written the days that were fashioned for us, when there were none of them.
One more question: if God has desired and been pleased to do so, could He have created a man differently, with a different set of abilities and desires so that the man would eventually submit to Him?
There is pretty good evidence that late in life, that Calvin himself recanted "limited atonement" and advocated "unlimited atonement."
I am looking for some evidence..not an opinion
It's nice that you know what Wesley was saying. What's he saying here?
All the blessings which God hath bestowed upon man are of his mere grace, bounty, or favour; his free, undeserved favour; favour altogether undeserved; man having no claim to the least of his mercies. It was free grace that "formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into him a living soul," and stamped on that soul the image of God, and "put all things under his feet." The same free grace continues to us, at this day, life, and breath, and all things. For there is nothing we are, or have, or do, which can deserve the least thing at God's hand. "All our works, Thou, O God, hast wrought in us." These, therefore, are so many more instances of free mercy: and whatever righteousness may be found in man, this is also the gift of God. Salvation by Faith
Of course he's saying that to defend his theology. Just as you're defending your own.
For 1500 years after the death of Christ the American Natives, my blood ancestors from my grandmother, never ever even had the chance to hear this good news. In what sense was the gospel REALLY offered to them?
Lots of straw men burning, enough that the smoke brings tears to the eyes.
"Him God set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood for our sins, and not only for ours, but also for the sins of the whole world...But though he died for all, all do not receive the benefit of his death, but those only to whom the merit of his passion is communicated..." - John Calvin
Oftentimes I find that even people who have a 'chink' in their theological armor can be quite sound in other areas. Spurgeon was an immensely prolific fellow, much of which was Scripturally sound.
Unfortunately, he lived in a time when the Calvinist construct was much more widely held than it is today. I like to think that, were he alive today, he would be a more enlightened Biblical scholar in those few areas where his preaching was tainted with the construct.
Like most warm-hearted Christians who carry the excess baggage of the construct, he preached entirely at odds with the construct. He invited people to Christ and preached the Scripture as though it mattered (which of course it greatly does). He would not wasted his breath if he really believed that it had no effect and had all been decided by fiat before the foundation of the world.
That of course is why the Calvinist construct is always at war with true "whosoever will" promise of Jesus.
To answer your question, God can do anything he wants to. If He wanted to he could format the hard drive and wipe us all out and start over from scratch.
He chooses not to.
Calvinists seem to imply that God giving man a choice somehow weakens God. To the contrary. God created us to love Him. Love requires a choice.
A choice He gives us.
Sure no problem with that..my point was it does not change the fact that Wesley saw the fall as deadly and changing man from a creature made in Gods image to one made in Adams image.
Oh, baloney!
Mid-19th century England was characterized by Wesleyan/Arminianism and the revivalism of Finney much more than any "Calvinist construct". C.H. Spurgeon understood the prevailing theological climate of his day and continually attempted to lead men back to the "doctrines of grace" that had been so much neglected and abandoned.
The fact that what we share here (The free offer of the Gospel to all) is the same as that shared by Spurgeon is of little consequence to you, is it? Never mind refuting what we actually believe, it is soooo much easier to make up some "construct" in your mind and then set out to destroy it.
C.H. Spurgeon wasn't called the "last of the Puritans" for nothing. If he was preaching today (and wouldn't that be a hoot!), he would still be proclaiming "...there is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified, unless we preach what nowadays is called Calvinism. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else."
You agree that God created them with certain abilities and desires, for God has created all of us. You agree that God has created us with the foreknowledge that He already knows who will not come to Him. You agree that God created them anyway. He saw our substance while it was still unformed and in His book he has already written the days that were fashioned for us, when there were none of them.To answer your question, God can do anything he wants to.... He chooses not to.One more question: if God has desired and been pleased to do so, could He have created a man differently, with a different set of abilities and desires so that the man would eventually submit to Him? - CCWoody
Exactly the Calvinist point! God, and God alone, in eternity foreknew exactly what the consequences of His actions in Creation would be upon each and every single soul who has ever lived. God, with perfect foreknowledge, has given each and every single man a certain set of abilities, desires, even location in time and the world, with the perfect foreknowledge of exactly how His choice would Predestine that man's eventually eternal resting place. God, with perfect foreknowledge, could have chosen a different course had He been pleased to do so.
ROMANS 8: 28 - 30
And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.
This is the Truth of Scripture, evidenced clearly enough for all to see in what has been called "The Golden Chain of Predestination" in Romans 8: 28 - 30:
God's Foreknowledge of the Eternal Destiny of Men is NOT BASED on His Predestination.
God's Predestination of the Eternal Destiny of Men is BASED UPON His Foreknowledge.
"For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son."
No one can deny that those whom God has Predestined as to their Everlasting Destiny, He first Foreknew as to their Salvation. The exact number, and the every name, of every individual of whom God has Predestined to be called, and justified, and sanctified, and glorified, these very same ones He first Foreknew that He would Save.
The question is not whether God's Predestination of the Saints as to their ultimate Glorification is, or is not, based upon His Foreknowledge as to their Salvation. God has Predestinated based upon His Foreknowledge, that is certain enough.
The Question is this, and this specifically: ON WHAT BASIS has God Foreknown those whom He would Predestine??
Thus, I believe that you should see that God's foreknowledge of the Salvation of His Elect is based ultimately upon His Foreknowledge of His Own actions towards them.
Grant God’s perfect Foreknowledge of All Potentialities, and Sovereign Freedom of Action [i.e. to either choose or not choose as you have done so], and you have just given the Calvinist the entirety of the debate. For if God, alone in Eternity, perfectly Foreknows all possible Creations, and perfectly Foreknows the operations of Free Will in each, from Beginning to End, and with Sovereign Freedom of Action Wills to give Actuality to the Creation of His choosing, then simply by the Act of Creation, He has Predestined all that will occur in that Creation -- having chosen to give Actuality to That One, in preference to all other Potential Creations which He could have willed into existence instead.
Would eventually submit to Him? That's irresistible grace; the doctrine you preach, isn't it? Aren't you the ones who say that God forces them to believe?
You teach that no one is ABLE to believe. You teach that God forces some to believe and he saves those. You teach that God doesn't permit the rest to believe. Then, you teach that he punishes in eternal hell those who don't do what he prevented them from being able to do. Doesn't seem fair to me.
God does not show partiality/favoritism.
You are correct. We believe differently. We believe he created everyone with the ability to make a true, real free choice. Those who choose Him, he saves. Those who reject, he damns.
Our understandings are entirely different.
You and I have gone over this before, Woody. Romans 2.
FOR WHOM
DID CHRIST DIE?John Owen
The Father imposed His wrath due unto, and the Son underwent punishment for, either:
In which case it may be said:
You answer, "Because of unbelief."
I ask, Is this unbelief a sin, or is it not? If it be, then Christ suffered the punishment due unto it, or He did not. If He did, why must that hinder them more than their other sins for which He died? If He did not, He did not die for all their sins!"
No, we don't say that God "forces" us to believe. Is that the only thing you think about when you hear "irresistable"? Not me, I see that the thing that is "irresistable" is of such a nature that I hunger and thirst after it. I found my wife to be "irresistable" and I willingly sought to have her as my wife.
Jesus has been presented to me a being "irresistable", and I have sought Him out. God wooed me and pursued me and crafted all the experiences of my life in such a way that I could no more say no to Him than I could say no to life itself. Where is the "force" here?
B. JOHN CALVIN HIMSELF MODIFIED HIS POSITION AND OPPOSED HIS OWN FORMER TEACHING OF "LIMITED ATONEMENT" IN FAVOR FINALLY OF AN "UNLIMITED ATONEMENT."
We have saved one of the most powerful witnesses until last, namely, JOHN CALVIN HIMSELF. Yes, John Calvin himself, as we will see, is his own most convincing witness AGAINST HIS OWN FORMER ERROR of "LIMITED ATONEMENT" and in FAVOR finally of "UNLIMITED ATONEMENT."
1. Some "LIMITED ATONEMENT" Fanatics Disagree That Calvin, In These Quotes Favored "UNLIMITED ATONEMENT."
I was very much surprised to receive a long, long letter from a very devoted "LIMITED ATONEMENT" man a few weeks ago, who told me that I had misinterpreted John Calvin in the quotations that I will be using here. He interpreted Calvin's words in a "LIMITED ATONEMENT" sense which he claims is the way ALL "LIMITED ATONEMENT" people understood them. Read his quotations very carefully, and see if there can be any doubt whatsoever, unless people are "WRITING OUT OF BOTH SIDE OF THEIR PEN"!!
2. Dr. John R. Rice Quoted August H. Strong On Calvin's MODIFICATION OF HIS VIEWS."
Though I to not concur in everything Rice writes on a number of subjects, yet, as I was reading his book, PREDESTINED FOR HELL? NO! [1958 and 1977] (pp. 11-12), I noted an interesting lead. Rice wrote: However, it is fair to say that CALVIN IS THOUGHT TO HAVE MODIFIED HIS VIEWS SOMEWHAT THROUGH THE YEARS. Dr. Augustus H. Strong, in his standard Systematic Theology Vol. II, Doctrine of Salvation, page 778, quotes CALVIN'S LATER COMMENTS to prove this, as follows:...(op.cit. p. 12). Part of Rice's quotation from Strong was a follows:
The progress in Calvin's thought may be seen by comparing some of his earlier with his later utterances. . . . IN LATER DAYS Calvin wrote in his Commentary on 1 John 2:2--"he is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the whole world"--as follows: "CHRIST SUFFERED FOR THE SINS OF THE WHOLE WORLD. and in the goodness of God is OFFERED UNTO ALL MEN WITHOUT DISTINCTION, HIS BLOOD BEING SHED NOT FOR A PART OF THE WORLD ONLY, BUT FOR THE WHOLE HUMAN RACE; for although in the world nothing is found worthy of the favor of God, yet he HOLDS OUT THE PROPITIATION TO THE WHOLE WORLD, since without exception he SUMMONS ALL TO THE FAITH OF CHRIST, which is nothing else than the door unto hope." (Rice, op. cit., p.12). Let it be very plainly stated: Calvin himself here repudiates "LIMITED ATONEMENT" and affirms an "UNLIMITED ATONEMENT"!! And everyone of his "followers" should do likewise!! No amount of semantical gymnastics can twist the clear meaning of Calvin's words quoted above into anything else but that!!
3. John Calvin Witnesses For "UNLIMITED ATONEMENT" In His Commentary On Mark 14:24.
Mark 14:24 states in English (KJV): And He said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, WHICH IS SHED FOR MANY. (Mark l4:24). Here is the comment that John Calvin made on Mark 14:24, as translated and published in the Harmony of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, Volume III, p. 139 [as published by Eerdmans in Grand Rapids, 1972]:
"The word many DOES NOT MEAN A PART OF THE WORLD ONLY, BUT THE WHOLE HUMAN RACE: he contrasts many with one as if to say that he would not be the Redeemer of one man, but would meet death to deliver many of their cursed guilt. No doubt that in speaking to a few Christ wished to make His teaching available to a larger number...So when we come to the holy table not only should the general idea come to our mind that THE WORLD IS REDEEMED BY THE BLOOD OF CHRIST but also each should reckon to himself that his own sins are covered. (op. cit., p. 139).
In this passage, John Calvin clearly and unmistakably affirms his belief in the "UNLIMITED ATONEMENT" of the Lord Jesus Christ who "SHED" His blood for "THE WHOLE HUMAN RACE" with the result that it can be said that "THE WORLD IS REDEEMED BY THE BLOOD OF CHRIST." What could be clearer? John Calvin by no means took the "Fifth Amendment" on this verse! In fact, where many of his "LIMITED ATONEMENT" followers use the "many" to try to force a "LIMITED ATONEMENT" into that word, John Calvin broadened it out in an "UNLIMITED ATONEMENT" sense as it should be broadened by way of contrast with a "few."
4. .John Calvin Witnesses for "UNLIMITED ATONEMENT" In His Commentary On Romans 5:18:
Romans 5:18 states in English (KJV): Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. (Romans 5:18) Calvin's comment on Romans 5:18, as translated and published in the COMMENTARY ON ROMANS AND THESSALONIANS, 1973, pp. 117-18 [as published by Eerdmans in Grand Rapids] was: "Paul makes grace COMMON TO ALL MEN, not because it in fact EXTENDS TO ALL, but because IT IS OFFERED TO ALL. Although CHRIST SUFFERED FOR THE SINS OF THE WORLD. AND IS OFFERED BY THE GOODNESS OF GOD WITHOUT DISTINCTION TO ALL MEN, yet not all receive him (op. cit., p. 829). If indeed Christ "SUFFERED FOR THE SINS OF THE WORLD," John Calvin was himself (at least at the time of his writing this Commentary on Romans) a confirmed believer, as is the BIBLE FOR TODAY, in an "UNLIMITED ATONEMENT" of the Lord Jesus Christ! Any self-respecting friend of John Calvin presently holding the unscriptural and anti-Scriptural error of "LIMITED ATONEMENT," should immediately get rid of it--If only in deference to their friend! A BETTER reason, however, for getting rid of it, would be because it is unbiblical!
5. John Calvin Witnesses For "UNLIMITED ATONEMENT" In His Last Will, And Farewells
Calvin's "LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT, April 25, 1564" as printed in the History of the Christian Church, Vol. 8, pp. 828-29, by Philip Schaff [as published by Eerdmans in Grand Rapids, 1972], states: "I testify also and declare, that I suppliantly beg of Him, that He may be pleased so to was and purify me in the blood which my Sovereign Redeemer HAS SHED FOR THE SINS OF THE HUMAN RACE, that under His shadow I may be able to stand at the judgment-seat...."(op. cit., p 829). Here is a clear testimony made by John Calvin who was about to die, in 1564, that He, at least at the end of his life, had come to believe most definitely that the Lord Jesus Christ "SHED" his precious "BLOOD" "FOR THE SINS OF THE HUMAN RACE "
This is, in very essence, an "UNLIMITED ATONEMENT" for which we have been speaking, writing, and arguing these many months [28 to be exact]. Again, let me urge every follower of John Calvin, because of the biblical truth of his position, to JOIN HIM in this sound belief in the "UNLIMITED ATONEMENT" that is, that the Lord Jesus Christ "HAS SHED" His blood "FOR THE SINS OF THE HUMAN RACE"!! Notice that in these words, John Calvin, however, seemed to be in DOUBT of HIS SALVATION! Thus he sounded like he no longer was certain, for himself, at least in the "perseverance of the saints." This is a rather SAD statement, I believe, for Calvin himself to make on his death bed!
Nice try Woody (see my post #148), but not quite.
God knows that man sins; for he knows all things: Yet we do not sin because he knows it, but he knows it because we sin; and his knowledge supposes our sin, but does not in anywise cause it. John Wesley on Predestination.
Your concept of God's foreknowledge limits God in space and time. It binds God by man's definition of time.
I can see why you have trouble with the concept.
Not yet anyway.
Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. - Revelation 21:1
The day is coming stuart.
Your esteemed Dr. Waite does not recognize one very important fact.
John Calvin's Commentaries were devotional in nature. Even Jacob Arminius declared the excellence of them.
John Calvin's Institutes contained his systematic theology. Never once did Calvin claim that the theology so carefully defined in the Institutes was defective. Not once did he repudiate their content.
Only those who are looking for some type of disagreement between the devotional content of the Commentaries and the systematic nature of the Institutes see a contradiction, or claim that Calvin "softened" his approach.
The fact that there are those who claim these things arises from the fact that they cannot "logically" see how his systematic theology fits with his devotional material. They proclaim "You can't offer the Gospel to all, it just doesn't make sense!"
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.