Posted on 05/20/2005 3:29:00 AM PDT by Gamecock
I'm more Calvinist than not but stamping oneself with some guys name isn't very smart really.
I think Calvinism has been misunderstood by both sides. It isn't that God has predetermined our lives ... it's just that he knows what we will do before we do it.
That God has created millions upon millions of souls that He knows will never respond to the Gospel is not disputable. So they are vessels made for common use. God allowed the creation of Islam. Abraham was going to kill Ishmael but God prevented him and even helped Ismael to prosper. Thus God has created a group of people 99% of whom not only will not respond to the Gospel but will actively seek to kill every Christian and Jew they can by ANY means possible. Is that predistination?
I meet many people who's minds and hearts are absolutely closed to God. I don't waste many words of evangelism on them. I shake off the dust on my shoes gathered in their presence. But perhaps God will reach them yet. Ya never know.
That folks wander the planet who are little but cannon fodder for the war of Armagedon is plain. Calling them predestined I think is a poor use of the term. God knows. We don't.
So though I am calvinistic I think the term predestination should have never been used. It has lead to much error.
God left the ignorant and gullible Adam and Eve in the garden and allowed their temtation by an evil super-being. It was like leaving a couple two year olds alone in a house with a gas stove and a large box of matches. Now don't touch the matches children.
Who created the evil super-being?
Maybe THIS is predestination.
I have a lot of questions for God. It is hard for me to emotionally love a God who has done this. I have no choice however. I either trust Him ... that all this is worth whatever he is up to ... or I risk Hell fire.
Maybe you should ask more questions, and make fewer assertions about the eeeeevils of Calvinism. You might learn something.
If you are right, then we are all calvinists here. I think you will find that most the Calvinists on Free Republic who identify themselves as Calvinists would take issue with your definition. I think you will find that they believe that God not only knows what we will do, but he has decreed what we will do and has arranged for everything that does take place to take place exactly as he wanted it to. I think you will find that they tend to believe that the only way that God can be in control of his creation is to control every move they make. IOW God is the script writer and we are merely the players.
If you believe that God merely knows what is going to happen and that is why things are predestined and that they are not predestined because God has predetermined everything in advance according to some divine script, then I think you will find yourself numbered among the Arminians on this forum.
But if your definition holds, then we are all Calvinists.
****GOD's desire is for all to be saved.****
Then all would be.
***no biblical reference for Calvinism. ****
Actually, it's throughout all of Scripture. There is no Biblical evidence what so ever for man "choosing" Christ of his own free will.
What position do you take?
Was it God's predetermined will that you insert spaces into the word 'whatsoever'?
The following is excerpted from "The Dangers of Reformed Theology," George Zeller, Middletown Bible Church, 349 East St., Middletown, CT 06457. This study and a companion one entitled "For Whom Did Christ Die?" are available from Pastor Zeller for $2.75 each postpaid.
The teaching that Christ died only for the elect is commonly known as a belief in a "limited atonement" (some reformed men like to refer to it has "definite atonement"). It is the teaching that Christ died on the cross and paid the penalty only for the sins of the elect. He did not die for the ones who eventually will be in the lake of fire. Often it is worded as follows: "Christ died for all men WITHOUT DISTINCTION but He did not die for all men WITHOUT EXCEPTION." This is a subtle game of semantics which makes it possible for them to say that He died for all without really meaning that he died for all. What they really mean is that Christ died for all kinds of people and all classes of people, but He did not die for every single person. That is, He died for Jews and Gentiles, rich and poor, slave and free, male and female, etc., but it is understood that He died for only elect Jews and Gentiles, only elect rich and poor, etc. Dr. Paul Reiter has clearly and simply summarized the Scriptural teaching on this issue. FOR WHOM DID CHRIST DIE? HE DIED...
1. For all (1 Timothy 2:6; Isaiah 53:6).
2. For every man (Heb. 2:9).
3. For the world (John 3:16).
4. For the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2).
5. For the ungodly (Rom. 5:6).
6. For false teachers (2 Peter 2:1).
7. For many (Matthew 20:28).
8. For Israel (John 11:50-51).
9. For the Church (Eph. 5:25).
10. For "me" (Gal. 2:20).
One believer who was not committed to the belief that Christ died for all men made this remarkable concession: "If Christ really did die for all men then I don't know how the Bible could say it any clearer than it does." How true! It is evident that the extreme Calvinist must ignore the clear language and obvious sense of many passages and he must force the Scriptures and make them fit into his own theological mold. Limited atonement may seem logical and reasonable, but the real test is this: IS IT BIBLICAL? "What saith the Scriptures?" (Romans 4:3). In child-like faith we must simply allow the Bible to say what it says. Those who promote this erroneous doctrine try to tell us that "world" does not really mean "world"' and "all" does not really mean "all" and "every man" does not really mean "every man" and "the whole world" does not really mean "the whole world." We are told that simple verses such as John 3:16 and Isaiah 53:6 must be understood not as a child would understand them but as a theologian would understand them. That is, we must re-interpret such verses in light of our system of theology. The true doctrine of the atonement could be stated as follows: The Scriptures teach that the sacrifice of the Lamb of God involved the sin of the world (John 1:29) and that the Saviour's work of redemption (1 Timothy 2:6; 2 Pet. 2:1), reconciliation (2 Cor. 5:19) and propitiation (1 John 2:2) was for all men (1 Timothy 4:10), but the cross-work of Christ is efficient, effectual and applicable only for those who believe (1 Timothy 4:10; John 3:16). We could even say it in a simpler way: "Christ's death was SUFFICIENT FOR ALL but EFFICIENT only for those who believe." The cross-work of Christ is not limited but the application of that cross-work through the work of the Holy Spirit is limited to believers only 'The extreme Calvinist would say that the cross was designed only for the elect and had no purpose for the "non-elect" (persistent unbelievers). But the death of God's Son had a divine purpose and design for both groups. For the elect, God's design was salvation according to His purpose and grace in Christ Jesus before the world began (2 Tim. 1:9; 2 Thess. 2:13). For unbelievers, God's purpose and design is to render the unbeliever without excuse. Men are CONDEMNED because they have rejected the Person and WORK of Jesus Christ and refused God's only remedy for sin (John 3:18; 5:40). Unbelievers can never say that a provision for their salvation was not made and not offered. They can never stand before God and say, "The reason I am not saved is because Christ did not die for me." No, the reason they are not saved is because they rejected the One who died for them and who is the Saviour of all men (1 Tim. 4:10). They are without excuse. This issue is not merely academic. It is extremely practical. It affects the very heart of the gospel and its presentation. The gospel which Paul preached to the unsaved people of Corinth was this: "Christ died for our sins" (1 Cor. 15:3). Do we really have a gospel of good news for all men (compare Luke 2:10-11)? In preaching the gospel, what can we say to an unsaved person? Can we say, "My friend, the Lord Jesus Christ died for you. He paid the penalty for your sins. He died as your Substitute"? One reformed writer said this: "But counselors, as Christians, are obligated to present the claims of Christ. They must present the good news that Christ Jesus died on the cross in the place of His own, that He bore the guilt and suffered the penalty for their sins. He died that all whom the Father had given to Him might come unto Him and have life everlasting. As a reformed Christian, the writer believes that counselors must not tell any unsaved counselee that Christ died for him, FOR THEY CANNOT SAY THAT. No man knows except Christ Himself who are His elect for whom He died" [emphasis mine] (Jay Adams, Competent to Counsel, p. 70). As C.H. Mackintosh has said, "A disciple of the high school of doctrine [extreme Calvinist] will not hear of a world-wide gospel--of God's love to the world--of glad tidings to every creature under heaven. He has only gotten a gospel for the elect." If the reformed preacher were really honest about it, he would need to preach his doctrine along these lines: "Christ may have died for your sins. If you are one of God's elect, then He died for you, but if not, then you have no Saviour. I cannot tell you that Christ died on the cross for you because I don't know this for sure. If you believe the gospel then this proves that you are one of God's elect, and then it is proper to speak of Christ dying for you." What an insult to the God "who will have all men to be saved and to come unto the knowledge of the truth" (1 Timothy 2:4). The Apostle Paul was not so handicapped when he preached the gospel to the unsaved Corinthians. He clearly proclaimed that "Christ died for our sins [yours and mine!]." If Paul could preach that message, so should we and so must we!
Boy o boy, are you in for it!
mercy, would you as a self-professed Calvinist say then that when Scripture says God predestined men to salvation from before the foundation of the world that He chose them based upon their response in faith to the Gospel which He (being omniscient) foresaw from before creation?
I'm calvanistic not Calvinist.
I'm pretty sure it was predetermined that you would buy one of my CDs ..... :)
Actually it's doing real well (thanks for asking). I don't have a place on the internete where people can listen to any of them yet. Amazon costs to much to do that.... and I just haven't set up a web site to do it yet. I've not met anybody that bought one that didnt' like it though. If you like that kind of music... it's good. And several freepers have bought one too!
Enough sales pitch :)
I got sunburned yesterday, but I don't worry about it... because I'm sure I was predetermined to get it.....
Anyway, since you said "Calvinism has been misunderstood by both sides" I figured I would verify what your understanding of predestination is.
So, as a "calvanistic" person, do you agree with what I posted in #50?
Wherever the missionary character of the doctrine of election is forgotten; wherever it is forgotten that we are chosen in order to be sent; wherever the minds of believers are concerned more to probe backwards from their election into the reasons for it in the secret counsel of God, than to press forward from their election to the purpose of it, ... that they should be Christ’s ambassadors and witnesses to the ends of the earth, wherever men think that the purpose of election is their own salvation rather than the salvation of the world: then God’s people have betrayed their trust. ... Lesslie Newbigin (1909-1998), The Household of God [1953]
Ahh, yes...yet another "Calvinist in the Arminian tradition"
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.