Posted on 02/25/2002 11:01:41 PM PST by fortheDeclaration
Jerry, you keep saying this at different moments. Why is it that everyone else in the entire world defines calvinism in terms of that fatalistic tulip formula EXCEPT for you folks that isn't calvinism.
Would you please, finally, write down the acronym and give a nice succinct definition of each of the points so we do know in one package what you do believe about tulip?
To further quote you: "Oh, baloney." The Calvinist construct is so brutal, so cold-hearted, so contrary to a real offer of salvation to all that its modern-day defenders (blessedly few) are reduced to highjacking phrases and turning them into half-truths and then claiming that they are being misquoted or misunderstood when the logical premise is made clear.
The modern day defender of the construct says "we offer the Gospel to all" but then conveniently 'forgets' to add, "But it doesn't really matter since who is going to be saved and who is to be sent to hell was determined by our god 'before the foundation of the world.'" So, it's an "offer" (get it?) but not everyone can accept. Isn't that clever? Wow. And that's supposed to be the Calvinist's version of the "Good News".
Now just how is that "Good News" to one of the little children the Calvinists so proundly declare were damned to hell from the foundation of the world? Nope, you can keep your little "Good News" (good only for your little church group) and your proud damnation of little children and innocent babies and your little god (too small to be confused with the real God). I will take Jesus and His true offer of salvation, capable of being accepted by anyone -- anyone! -- who will believe in Him.
At least be honest enough to admit that, where the Bible teaches Christ died for all the ungodly, the construct teaches He only died for your little group and all others are damned without hope.
You know, there are many areas where I am willing to live and let live in Christian doctrine, but the true availability of salvation in Christ to everyone who believes is one I cannot compromise. And I personally think that telling people that Christ only died for some is pretty dangerous ground. I personally would not want to hear Christ say, "You told them what?"
It would also be a pretty good exercise to follow some of the links on the page as well, they lead to some really good material, not only on Calvin himself, but on Calvinism as a whole.
Do I understand you to be saying that Calvin felt free to teach error in his devotional material???? Seems quite odd to me.
By the way, Waite is esteemed. ThD AND PhD. I don't have those. Do you? (Ignore this if your words weren't intended to be sarcastic.)
As a result, don't expect any more responses from me until you can develop the charity to concede that we can be Calvinist in theology and still make a legitimate free offer of the Gospel to all.
Thanks Jerry! Great link!
Pretty well sums up what I thought you guys were saying all along.
Jerry, according to Dr Waite, above, a true calvinist cannot stand in front of a group of people unknown to him and also say, "Christ died for your sins." Waite says the calvinist cannot do this because he cannot be sure how many of the non-elect are out there.
Can YOU tell EVERYONE you meet that Christ did die for THEIR sins?
No, there is no error in Calvin's Commentaries. However, they serve a different purpose than the Institutes, which is something that Dr. Waite doesn't seem to understand.
I will give you a personal example: When I share the Gospel, I never use the words "predestine", "atonement", "propitiation", etc. I share the Word of God with men, and plead with them to come to Christ in faith. Even though I know that they will not come unless the Father draws them, I do not know who He is drawing. I simply plead with them to come, knowing that their positive response will be in response to His election and calling. However, once that man is saved, as part of my discipleship training of that man I will show him the nature of the work of God that saved him. Does this make sense?
Exactly..they make it sound like God drags you kicking and screaming.I used the term wooing you and that got mocked..but the truth is it never entered my mind to want anything else...." the father draw him" do they think those are just words?
Here is what I tell men: Christ died for sinners.
Those who are convicted by the Holy Spirit of their sin and drawn to Christ by grace will know that it is their sins that Christ died for.
Absolutely a great question. No problem for the Biblical Christian as that is indeed the Good News.
Well, all you defenders of the construct, can you?
Once again Mom, as a Wesleyan, or a former one, you know better.
I don't intend this to sound cruel, but I can only wonder why you have posted some of the things you have if this is what you have been thinking all along.
"I do think you underestimate your grasp of the logic being used. You are an invaluable ally of the true scriptural position of an UNLIMITED ATONEMENT. Christ truly did die for all. And all truly are capable of coming to him."
Does this mean all the sins of all men were hung on the cross with Christ? And if so, why, then, are not all men forgiven of all their sins? (Jerry is getting to this as well)
"We must keep our eyes on those truths of scripture, because all of the logic we use trying to explain it is just that....human logic."
We must also realize when to NOT use human logic when explaining scriptural truth.
If we insist the truth of Scripture is ALWAYS logically consistant, then:
Buh-bye Creation out of Nothing
Buh-bye Trinity
Buh-bye Miracles
Buh-bye Virgin Birth
Buh-bye Incarnation of Christ
Buh-bye Resurrection of Christ
Buh-bye Resurrection of the body
Buh-bye God relating to the created
In other words, Buh-bye Christianity
Last evening I read Mr. Wesleys sermon. I found him to be incredibly logical and sound in his reason. But, the thing which really stood out to me, is his insistance that Calvinists really do not believe what they say they believe, but that they really must believe what are the logical conclusions of their beliefs. In doing so, Mr. Wesley does not argue from Scripture, he argues from mere human reason. This is an emotional argument which uses logic to insist what Calvinists should believe what is logically required of them, and in doing so, brings up tremendous emotion as to why they are wrong. What really suprised me most was the fact that he did not argue from Scriptue until he had made his logical argument of what Calvinists should believe. Nary an citation was present until he had mischaracterized reformed theology. By insisting that Calvinists do not believe what they really believe, he then used scripture to argue against what he thinks Calvinists should believe. This is a very persuasive argument when one doesn't realize this tactic. In otherwords, Mr. Wesley is using logic to argue from emotion and is not arguing from Scripture. The problem with this is that this argument then denies the Trinity, Creation out of nothing, the resurrection of Christ... For we hold all these doctrines to be absolutely true even though they are all thoroughly illogical.
I then read George Whitefield's response and I could not put it down (only 16 pages? DANG!). He rebutted Mr. Wesleys entire debate with Scripture and not emotion.
If these arminians insist that we Calvinists really believe what logic requires of us, then I insist that they argue that we do not also believe in the Trinity, Creation out of Nothing, The resurrection of Christ, The incarnation of Christ...for when one considers logic in these doctrines, how can they be?
Jean
I prefer the term "Limited Redemption", for God has only predestined to irresistibly cause a limited number of people to repent and be redeemed.. The Atoning Blood certainly suffices for Joseph Stalin, but it was never intended to apply to the Sins of Joseph Stalin. The Father knew full well that He had not chosen to elect Stalin to have his personality unilaterally re-engineered by the Spirit ("regenerated") so that he would Want to Repent; as such, God caused it to be certain, before Stalin was ever born, that Stalin never would repent.
And Jesus, the Son of God, certainly did not go to the Cross under the delusion that He was dying to give Stalin "a chance". Statistically speaking, Stalin had precisely a zero percent chance of Repenting from before the foundation of the world, because the Father had specifically predestined Stalin to Not Repent.
So while the Atonement (being an infinite transaction) was sufficient for Stalin, God certainly never intended that it should be efficacious to him.
That is really clever. Kind of like 'begging the question'.
I'm really glad the Apostle Peter didn't play such word games when he preached: "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins." [Acts 2:38]
But then he didn't have to defend the construct, did he?
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.