Calvinists' Dilemma

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Calvinists like Lon believe that God is the author of sin thru the serpent. Anyone who can't see that their doctrine is antichrist and not worthy. Everything that God created was perfect at inception. Sin is a violation of the Divine will, a violation of God's sovereignty. Sovereignty is presented by the Calvinist as an impenetrable wall of the Almighty but the reality of the situation on the ground is that it has been breached. Sin refutes God's sovereignty.

This is naive word salad.

Nothing contravenes God's sovereignty, else there is something more sovereign than God, and then God is but some lesser god to the so-called contravening principle you are claiming.

Do you seriously believe God did not ordain, for His own good purposes, the sinful action of a moral creature in that God was clueless that the moral creature, e.g., the devil, would act accordingly? Do you honestly believe there are moral agents running about outside the sovereignty of God? What do you think sovereignty means? No, contrary to your nonsense, the existence of sin confirms God's sovereignty, else God is some hand-wringing, impotent being among the Greek Pantheon of gods, lamenting the actions of moral agents He has no rule over. Yours is the view that meaningless evil exists and God is not able, nor willing, to do something about it.

The sovereignty of God means the supremacy of God, the kingship of God, the god-hood of God. To say that God is Sovereign is to declare that God is God. To say that God is Sovereign is to declare that He is the Most High, doing according to His will in the army of Heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth, so that none can stay His hand or say unto Him what doest Thou? (Dan. 4:35). To say that God is Sovereign is to declare that He is the Almighty, the Possessor of all power in Heaven and earth, so that none can defeat His counsels, thwart His purpose, or resist His will (Psalm 115:3). To say that God is Sovereign is to declare that He is "The Governor among the nations" (Psa. 22:28), setting up kingdoms, overthrowing empires, and determining the course of dynasties as pleaseth Him best. To say that God is Sovereign is to declare that He is the "Only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords" (1 Tim. 6:15). Such is the God of the Bible.

Take some instruction from Pink on the topic:

Spoiler

The conception of Deity which prevails most widely today, even among those who profess to give heed to the Scriptures, is a miserable caricature, a blasphemous travesty of the Truth. The God of the twentieth century is a helpless, effeminate being who commands the respect of no really thoughtful man. The God of the popular mind is the creation of maudlin sentimentality. The God of many a present-day pulpit is an object of pity rather than of awe-inspiring reverence.

To say that God the Father has purposed the salvation of all mankind, that God the Son died with the express intention of saving the whole human race, and that God the Holy Spirit is now seeking to win the world to Christ; when, as a matter of common observation, it is apparent that the great majority of our fellowmen are dying in sin, and passing into a hopeless eternity; is to say that God the Father is disappointed, that God the Son is dissatisfied, and that God the Holy Spirit is defeated. We have stated the issue baldly, but there is no escaping the conclusion. To argue that God is "trying His best" to save all mankind, but that the majority of men will not let Him save them, is to insist that the will of the Creator is impotent, and that the will of the creature is omnipotent. To throw the blame, as many do, upon the Devil, does not remove the difficulty, for if Satan is defeating the purpose of God, then, Satan is Almighty and God is no longer the Supreme Being.

To declare that the Creator's original plan has been frustrated by sin, is to dethrone God. To suggest that God was taken by surprise in Eden and that He is now attempting to remedy an unforeseen calamity, is to degrade the Most High to the level of a finite, erring mortal. To argue that man is a free moral agent and the determiner of his own destiny, and that therefore he has the power to checkmate his Maker, is to strip God of the attribute of Omnipotence. To say that the creature has burst the bounds assigned by his Creator, and that God is now practically a helpless Spectator before the sin and suffering entailed by Adam's fall, is to repudiate the express declaration of Holy Writ, namely, "Surely the wrath of man shall praise Thee: the remainder of wrath shalt Thou restrain" (Psalm 76:10). In a word, to deny the Sovereignty of God is to enter upon a path which, if followed to its logical terminus, is to arrive at blank atheism.

The Sovereignty of the God of Scripture is absolute, irresistible, infinite. When we say that God is Sovereign we affirm His right to govern the universe which He has made for His own glory, just as He pleases. We affirm that His right is the right of the Potter over the clay, i. e., that He may mold that clay into whatsoever form He chooses, fashioning out of the same lump one vessel unto honour and another unto dishonour. We affirm that He is under no rule or law outside of His own will and nature, that God is a law unto Himself, and that He is under no obligation to give an account of His matters to any.

God has a morally sufficient purpose for evil. No doubt one of those purposes is to display His mercy and justice such that His full glory be made manifest. God's glory includes all His attributes, for all God's attributes inhere one another and cannot be separated out as things or parts of God, for God cannot be decomposed into constituent parts, and thus is His attributes.

AMR

 

[Lon]

It looks like you are saying that Jesus was addressing the elect in His audience. Granting that I understood you correctly, so Jesus was saying to the elect: "Unless you repent, you will all likewise perish". If Jesus tells that to Calvinists now, Lon, won't they sort of remind Him, Hey, Lord, the elect cannot perish! Seems like the Lord will be obliged to point out Matt 8:11 - 12.

"How" do we know we are elect and 'when?' Before we turn toward Christ? We can't remind of what we don't know. Jesus hadn't died yet so there is no salvation other than by trusting in God, and doing sacrifices following Jewish law and customs. Jesus is either or both only talking to a Jewish audience (which is of course the case, they were the only ones there hearing this), or He was talking to them so they would write it down, that Jews and gentiles would note the point after His work was completed. Either way, it still amounts to a description of what must take place, as a preliminary. Like the baseball analogy, having to throw the ball is a condition to be met. The coach has to actually teach the skill to some, and correct the skill in others. The coach may well know who is who by experience past. God certainly knows, but the kids don't. Telling kids the condition does not ensure that every kid will make the team. Only those able/enabled will make the cut.

What if those able kids REFUSE to throw the ball? Will the coach, knowing they simply refused, admit them to the team? My answer is Yes, IF the coach is a Calvinist, like you, Lon. But I don't think Jesus, Who said that even children of the kingdom could be thrown out, is a Calvinist.

I'm never sure why a systematic theology is attacked, rather than appreciated. All of our systematics carry problems for another's systematic. Not one of us has exactly the same systematic. I don't have to become just like you to be right with God, nor do you have to become a Calvinist. I ask simply that you appreciate, or endeavor, at least, to appreciate this answer: As a Calvinist-type coach according to you analogy, I would have done all I could to ensure those kids that can make the team, will make the team. God, in omniscience, knows already. It only makes His tenacity assured, that all who can play and are willing, will indeed make the team. The kid that doesn't want to, and God would know, can be encouraged to try, because that is what try-outs are all about. Leaving baseball analogy, I am assured that God only knows how to be effective in His calling and is even tenacious with those who are tough-sells. He knows which can be turned around. Ephesians 2:8-10, to me, explains an irresistible grace and an efficacious atonement and election. I believe the repeated use of the word election, would be an odd term other than as it can only apply to God choosing those saved. It is a word, I think, that demands a purposefulness (in Loving tenacity) to seek and save those lost. I think you can at least appreciate it, though not Calvinist, in this sense: God saves all that will/can be saved. There are none lost that He can help it (a little awkward for proper Calvinist doctrine, but I'm still fairly new at Calvinism so forgive, at times, some of the awkward).

You can ask an Arminian, I'm not. Arminians believe in a universal BUT conditional atonement. I believe in a universal, unconditional atonement. Unlike Calvinism's limited atonement, I believe in unlimited atonement that Christ died for all of Adam's race. Hence every man is among the Elect. But just like what Jesus said, Unless the elect repent, they will all likewise perish.

As in universal salvation? Can you explain this a bit further? It is a bit off topic, I'm just wanting to know your position that I might best be able to explain the Calvinist position for future conversation. Thanks -Lon

 

[patrick jane]

You can ask an Arminian, I'm not. Arminians believe in a universal BUT conditional atonement. I believe in a universal, unconditional atonement. Unlike Calvinism's limited atonement, I believe in unlimited atonement that Christ died for all of Adam's race. Hence every man is among the Elect. But just like what Jesus said, Unless the elect repent, they will all likewise perish.

Adam's race was destroyed in the flood. Noah then filled the earth

 

[Samie]

Well, of course I would agree. Repentance is a word that applies to many things.

Not the repentance embodied in the gospel that Jesus preached which is salvific repentance.

In the account where Jesus told His audience "Unless you repent, you will all likewise perish", perishing sinners are the issue. And Jesus said He was sent to call sinners to repentance. And repentance is embodied in the gospel that Jesus preached. And the gospel is God's power to save.

Hence, the repentance Jesus spoke about concerns salvation. And it is God's goodness that leads the elect to repentance, through the Holy Spirit. To be among the elect is to have been first regenerated, made spiritually alive. And then one can repent.

And if the elect refuse to repent, then they perish. For Calvinism, there is no possibility the elect could be lost. But Jesus said there will be from among the elect who will be doomed (Matt 8:11 - 12).

My quibble is with the presumption that calls for repentance prior to the regenerative act of the Holy Spirit, which is essentially Samie's argument.

Repentance PRIOR to the regenerative act of the HS? Is that even possible?

That brings us back to a similar scenario where Lon would be asking his dog to sing the Star-Spangled Banner, gets mad when the dog barks instead of sing, and then throws his dog into a burning furnace!

And that is the scenario painted by Calvinists saying only Calvinism's elect can repent relative to God's commanding ALL people everywhere to repent. Why would God COMMAND all when not everyone had been enabled?

This is why I had been shouting in many threads that all in Adam's race compose the elect.

 

[Samie]

Adam's race was destroyed in the flood. Noah then filled the earth

Ohh-ohhh, Patrick. Did you soon forget Noah descended from Adam? Read Gen 5 as reminder.

 

[Epoisses]

This is naive word salad.

lol. That's actually kind of funny.

To say that God ordained sin makes you a Satan.......hissssssss

 

[patrick jane]

Ohh-ohhh, Patrick. Did you soon forget Noah descended from Adam? Read Gen 5 as reminder.

Just testing you

 

[Samie]

"How" do we know we are elect and 'when?' Before we turn toward Christ?

By faith, Lon, the faith of the Son of God, when the Holy Spirit makes us aware of that fact. It's the HS Who leads the children of God, remember?

We can't remind of what we don't know.

I agree.

Jesus hadn't died yet so there is no salvation other than by trusting in God, and doing sacrifices following Jewish law and customs.

There is only ONE WAY, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Animal sacrifices can't cleanse people from sin (Heb 10:11).

Jesus is either or both only talking to a Jewish audience (which is of course the case, they were the only ones there hearing this), or He was talking to them so they would write it down, that Jews and gentiles would note the point after His work was completed.

Shifting sand defense? In an earlier post you were telling me the farmer was talking to the wheat instead of tares, though wheat and tares are intermixed with each other in Jesus' audience. And the wheat are the elect. Now, you are saying, He was talking to only the Jews. And many Jews rejected Him. That brings you back again to the dilemma where the elect (Jews) could be lost.

Either way, it still amounts to a description of what must take place, as a preliminary. Like the baseball analogy, having to throw the ball is a condition to be met. The coach has to actually teach the skill to some, and correct the skill in others. The coach may well know who is who by experience past. God certainly knows, but the kids don't. Telling kids the condition does not ensure that every kid will make the team. Only those able/enabled will make the cut.

I think it is better said, only those enabled "could" (instead of "will") make the cut". Remember Matt 8:11 - 12?

I'm never sure why a systematic theology is attacked, rather than appreciated.

The issue is preaching the gospel, Lon. And Jesus told His disciples the gospel of the kingdom MUST be preached to all the world as witness to all nations and ONLY THEN can He come. And despite the preaching for centuries of Catholic, Calvinist and Arminian brands of gospel, still the Lord hasn't come. Why? I surmise the gospel Jesus wanted preached had NOT yet been preached to the world. Just maybe. And I could not, by His Spirit, keep silence.

All of our systematics carry problems for another's systematic.

Show me the problems my position has against Scriptures, please. You could start another thread for that purpose. This thread is to show what I perceive are Calvinism's inconsistencies against Scriptures.

Not one of us has exactly the same systematic. I don't have to become just like you to be right with God, nor do you have to become a Calvinist.

I agree. That's why I believe your name and mine and that of all others were all written in the book of life because God had made us ALL right with Him. He has ALREADY reconciled us all to Himself by the death of His Son! But only overcomers will NOT be blotted out from it.

I ask simply that you appreciate, or endeavor, at least, to appreciate this answer: As a Calvinist-type coach according to you analogy, I would have done all I could to ensure those kids that can make the team, will make the team. God, in omniscience, knows already. It only makes His tenacity assured, that all who can play and are willing, will indeed make the team. The kid that doesn't want to, and God would know, can be encouraged to try, because that is what try-outs are all about. Leaving baseball analogy, I am assured that God only knows how to be effective in His calling and is even tenacious with those who are tough-sells. He knows which can be turned around. Ephesians 2:8-10, to me, explains an irresistible grace and an efficacious atonement and election. I believe the repeated use of the word election, would be an odd term other than as it can only apply to God choosing those saved. It is a word, I think, that demands a purposefulness (in Loving tenacity) to seek and save those lost. I think you can at least appreciate it, though not Calvinist, in this sense: God saves all that will/can be saved. There are none lost that He can help it (a little awkward for proper Calvinist doctrine, but I'm still fairly new at Calvinism so forgive, at times, some of the awkward).

Although, I don't agree your answer is 100% correct, your request is granted. Your answer is hereby appreciated, brother.

As an aside, however, regarding the phrase you used "to seek and save those lost", I ask you to please contemplate even for a short while upon this simple question: Have you lost anything that is not previously in your position?

As in universal salvation? Can you explain this a bit further? It is a bit off topic, I'm just wanting to know your position that I might best be able to explain the Calvinist position for future conversation. Thanks -Lon

Yes, universal salvation. But entirely different from what Bociferous and his Universalist allies are proposing.

You may have already noticed this above in this post and in other threads where I said all our names were written in the book of life. This was all because of what God through Christ has done FOR man. All grace because of God's love; NOT an iota of human participation. God gave us this grace through Christ BEFORE the world began! see 2 Tim 1:8-10. This is what I call the Past Tense of Salvation, or the First Dimension of the Gospel. All of Adam's race benefited, whether they know it or not; whether they like it or not.

And there are two more tenses. Present and Future.

 

[Lon]

Although, I don't agree your answer is 100% correct, your request is granted. Your answer is hereby appreciated, brother.

Amen

As an aside, however, regarding the phrase you used "to seek and save those lost", I ask you to please contemplate even for a short while upon this simple question: Have you lost anything that is not previously in your position?

I already have because it is actually part of the Calvinist view of the elect. We all belong to God (Romans 9), even the unsaved. He owns the cattle on a thousand hills.
A few verse for the coffee table:

2Co 5:17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come.
2Co 5:18 All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation;
2Co 5:19 that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation.
2Co 5:20 Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.
2Co 5:21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

Yes, universal salvation. But entirely different from what Bociferous and his Universalist allies are proposing.

You may have already noticed this above in this post and in other threads where I said all our names were written in the book of life. This was all because of what God through Christ has done FOR man. All grace because of God's love; NOT an iota of human participation. God gave us this grace through Christ BEFORE the world began! see 2 Tim 1:8-10. This is what I call the Past Tense of Salvation, or the First Dimension of the Gospel. All of Adam's race benefited, whether they know it or not; whether they like it or not.

And there are two more tenses. Present and Future.

Thanks. We have a number of the other kind on TOL and I had to be certain with whom I was conversing. Thanks for taking the time. Blessings in Him -Lon

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

And that is the scenario painted by Calvinists saying only Calvinism's elect can repent relative to God's commanding ALL people everywhere to repent. Why would God COMMAND all when not everyone had been enabled?

The doctrine of the free or well-meant offer of the gospel depends in part on a theological distinction between God’s decretive will and God’s preceptive will. God’s decretive will is what God has resolved to carry out Himself. God’s preceptive will refers to God’s commandments and ethical expectations for humans.

It is not illogical or schizophrenic for Apostle Paul to desire all sinners to be saved, on the one hand, and yet to affirm God only decrees some sinners to be saved, on the other hand. Paul did not know, nor do we, who God did and did not elect unto salvation.

We are commanded to preach the gospel promiscuously and rest in the fact that none who call upon the name of the Lord will be turned away. Attempting to bring the decretive will of God into the command to go into the world is an unsanctioned desire to peek behind the curtain to see what God is up to, contrary to Deut. 29:29. We must give priority to the revealed will (the preceptive will) of God over the secret will (the decretive will) in the outworking of salvation in any individual’s experience. The Scriptures reveal to men, as creatures, to have creaturely confidence, the maximal possible confidence they can have, that Christ is offered for their salvation in the Gospel. They need not peer into hidden things and wonder about whether they have been hypothetically or really decreed to believe the Gospel. It is sufficient for them to hear and believe or reject the historical proclamation of the Gospel.

Of course the offer of the Gospel is a loving request of God. The gospel holds out the love of God to sinners. But it does this indefinitely, to sinners as sinners, not to this or that man in particular. It is the person who believes the gospel and closes with Christ who knows himself as the particular object of love and redemption.

The gospel offer is, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved." Holy Scripture teaches it in express terms. Nowhere in Scripture do we find a sinner addressed with the offer, "Christ died for you if you will believe on Him." Your hypothetical universalism is an invention of the human brain. It is pure sentimentality. It begins with an anthropocentric view of God's love and works its way like leaven through the Scripture's soteriological system until it has taken away the assurance of faith. Your hypothetical universalism swallows up the bread of life in pure conjecture. Having no real basis in the saving work of Christ, your view has to create artificial categories and speak of hypotheticals as if they were real.

Particular redemption is true because it sets forth an actual, real redemption of men as sinners, and the gospel offers this particular redemption to sinners as such. No person has to go up to heaven to discover God's secret decree to give faith and repentance to some. No person has to descend into the depths of their own experience to conclude they have been called. The gospel itself gives a full and free warrant to receive and rest upon Christ alone for salvation.

We are to regard repentance and faith as the means by which the great commandment to love God and love our neighbor finds fulfillment. This duty to love God and neighbor existed before the fall and Adam certainly enjoyed the ability to do so. Our love of God is therefore still obligatory, and the means through which it is to be realized, namely repentance and faith, are likewise obligatory. All mankind owe God our love and trust by the very fact that all are His rational creatures. Adam had the ability to love and trust God before the Fall. All are still responsible to love and trust God despite the Fall.

Note that an imperative (the time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel) cannot be deduced from an indicative (man has the creaturely power within him to do as he is told). Romanists, Arminians, openists, and you assume that the biblical call to perfection implied it is a possibility. Thanks be to God Luther knew better!

What can be and what ought to be are not necessarily coordinate. That all who hear the Good News are under obligation to repent and believe, irrespective of election or reprobation, is not disproved by the reality of the fallen mind. After all, the elect had carnal minds, too, when they first heard the gospel. God's command to believe presupposes man's ability to do so. Two reasons should suffice. Firstly, in consideration of man's original ability, lost by the fall. Secondly, from a renewed ability, in which the Holy Spirit determines the will of the elect so that they can receive and embrace the gospel offer. The rabid Hyper-Calvinist will deny this "duty-faith" on the basis that man now has no ability to believe, but the proper response to that nonsense is that the Creditor does not lose His right simply because the Debtor has lost his estate.

In summary, fallen man is duty-bound to repent and believe in Christ—even though left to himself he is unable. Biblically speaking, responsibility to God does not imply or necessitate ability on our part. Yet, the basis and motive for the gospel call is not man's duty, but the grace of God in Christ. God everywhere in Scripture commands what man cannot supply, such that we may pray as did Augustine, Demand what You will, O Lord, and give what You demand.” Faith and repentance are not merely duties; they are also gifts of God. The warrant to believe is the revealed will (preceptive will) of God, but the gift to believe (actual salvation) is decreed by God (decretive will).

This is why I had been shouting in many threads that all in Adam's race compose the elect.

From my response above this is why you will continue to do so. You have your answers, but you just don't like them and continue to "shout" about. Try closing your mouth and opening your mind by reviewing all that I have posted in response to you. Your failure to identify salvation as the object of the decretive will of God turns salvation into a duty to be performed by man, which makes the gospel a new law—Neonomianism.

AMR

 

[Epoisses]

In other words he doesn't believe that Jesus is the savior of the world and has to go so far as to change the meaning of the word world to fit his Calvinist paradigm. Jesus didn't actually die for everyone on the cross. He had a list of who's naughty and nice and only died for them - oh wait that's Santa Claus.

 

[Samie]

Thanks for your response, AMR.

The doctrine of the free or well-meant offer of the gospel depends in part on a theological distinction between God’s decretive will and God’s preceptive will. God’s decretive will is what God has resolved to carry out Himself. God’s preceptive will refers to God’s commandments and ethical expectations for humans.

God's decretive will is to save the spiritually dead by making them spiritually alive. This He did when on the cross He fashioned humanity into the body of His Son such that when Christ the Head died, the Body died; and when the Head resurrected, His Body was likewise resurrected TOGETHER with Him, born again into a living hope.

It is not illogical or schizophrenic for Apostle Paul to desire all sinners to be saved, on the one hand, and yet to affirm God only decrees some sinners to be saved, on the other hand.

Disagree.

Not simply Paul, but God Himself desires ALL men to be saved:

1 Timothy 2:3-4 NIV 3 This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

Because God desires ALL to be saved, Paul said Jesus gave Himself a ransom for ALL:

1 Timothy 2:5-6 NIV 5 For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony borne at the proper time.

Paul AFFIRMED all sinners died with Him being His Body, and were made alive TOGETHER with Him when He rose from the grave. Hence ALL had been made spiritually alive, being part of the Body of Christ.

Why did Jesus come to earth: To save sinners. 1 Tim 1:15

Who sinned: ALL sinned, every one in Adam's race, hence ALL are sinners. Rom 3:23

For whom did Jesus die: He died for ALL, for every man. 2 Cor 5:15; Heb 2:9

What did Paul conclude since Jesus died for ALL: ALL died. 2 Cor 5:14, 15.

How could ALL die when only Jesus died: God fashioned ALL into the Body of His Son on the cross. Eph 2:11-19

When were they made alive: made alive TOGETHER with Christ. Eph 2:4-6; Col 2:13

Who caused people to be born again and how: 1 Peter 1:3 3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead

Paul did not know, nor do we, who God did and did not elect unto salvation[/U].

God knows. He wants all to be saved. So, He must have elected all unto salvation, otherwise had He elected only some, then there is partiality with Him as far as man's salvation is concerned. But there is no partiality with God. The above given verses speak for themselves that Paul knows God elected ALL, and saved (past tense) us ALL, not just some. BUT of this ALL, only the overcomers will NOT be blotted out from the book of life.

Comments on the remaining parts of your post comes next.

 

[patrick jane]

The above given verses speak for themselves that Paul knows God elected ALL, and saved (past tense) us ALL, not just some. BUT of this ALL, only the overcomers will NOT be blotted out from the book of life.
.

What does it take to be an overcomer ?

 

[Samie]

We are commanded to preach the gospel promiscuously and rest in the fact that none who call upon the name of the Lord will be turned away. Attempting to bring the decretive will of God into the command to go into the world is an unsanctioned desire to peek behind the curtain to see what God is up to, contrary to Deut. 29:29. We must give priority to the revealed will (the preceptive will) of God over the secret will (the decretive will) in the outworking of salvation in any individual’s experience. The Scriptures reveal to men, as creatures, to have creaturely confidence, the maximal possible confidence they can have, that Christ is offered for their salvation in the Gospel. They need not peer into hidden things and wonder about whether they have been hypothetically or really decreed to believe the Gospel. It is sufficient for them to hear and believe or reject the historical proclamation of the Gospel.

What you refer to as God's "secret will (the decretive will) in the outworking of salvation in any individual’s experience", had already been revealed. Hence, it is no longer secret that ALL - Jews and Gentiles alike - were made part of the Body of Christ on the cross. Eph 2:11-19; 3:3-6.

Of course the offer of the Gospel is a loving request of God. The gospel holds out the love of God to sinners. But it does this indefinitely, to sinners as sinners, not to this or that man in particular. It is the person who believes the gospel and closes with Christ who knows himself as the particular object of love and redemption.

The gospel offer is, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved." Holy Scripture teaches it in express terms. Nowhere in Scripture do we find a sinner addressed with the offer, "Christ died for you if you will believe on Him." Your hypothetical universalism is an invention of the human brain. It is pure sentimentality. It begins with an anthropocentric view of God's love and works its way like leaven through the Scripture's soteriological system until it has taken away the assurance of faith. Your hypothetical universalism swallows up the bread of life in pure conjecture. Having no real basis in the saving work of Christ, your view has to create artificial categories and speak of hypotheticals as if they were real.

Gulp... I could drown in your theological jargons, but no, Scripture's on my side, I guess.

"Christ died for you if you will believe on Him." This does not apply to my position, so why bring it up? I have always maintained that Jesus died for ALL, as Scriptures EXPLICITLY say (2 Cor 5:14, 15). No IF's, no BUT's. And that's what you call my 'hypothetical universalism', an invention of the human brain. Who's brain? Paul's? I simply quoted him. And Paul says he has the mind of Christ (1 Cor 2:16). So there, it's Christ's 'universalism' likewise. And since you castigate the idea, it is quite clear who you are up against.

Particular redemption is true because it sets forth an actual, real redemption of men as sinners, and the gospel offers this particular redemption to sinners as such. No person has to go up to heaven to discover God's secret decree to give faith and repentance to some. No person has to descend into the depths of their own experience to conclude they have been called. The gospel itself gives a full and free warrant to receive and rest upon Christ alone for salvation.

If instead of 'particular', you change it to 'general redemption', that would be more Scripturally wholesome. When you mentioned that Paul, when actually it is God Himself who, desires ALL sinners to be saved, as gleaned from 1 Tim 2:4, he also said that it is for this ALL that Jesus gave Himself as ransom, v6. I wonder why it appears you are now hinting the ALL in v4 is not the ALL in v6.

We are to regard repentance and faith as the means by which the great commandment to love God and love our neighbor finds fulfillment. This duty to love God and neighbor existed before the fall and Adam certainly enjoyed the ability to do so. Our love of God is therefore still obligatory, and the means through which it is to be realized, namely repentance and faith, are likewise obligatory. All mankind owe God our love and trust by the very fact that all are His rational creatures. Adam had the ability to love and trust God before the Fall. All are still responsible to love and trust God despite the Fall.

The keyword is "responsible". If one is responsible, then he must be capable of carrying out the given responsibility. Your newly born daughter is not responsible for doing the laundry, is she? Hence, you never asked her to do the laundry. So if God COMMANDS all people everywhere to repent, they must be capable of repenting, and if they don't, then, Christ said they perish.

But you teach that Calvinism's Elect cannot perish, hence, who are you against? Me? Not just against me because I simply believe in what Jesus said and in what other parts of Scriptures say that the elect is not exempt from perishing. see Matt 8:11-12; Rom 11:22.

Comments for the remainder of your post come next...

 

[Samie]

What does it take to be an overcomer ?

It takes the Power of Christ Who is our Strength to overcome evil. And attached to Him being part of His Body, you, Patrick, have His Power to overcome. You, Patrick, just like Paul, through Christ, can do all things, among which is overcoming evil with good.

Hence, if in the final analysis God decides that Patrick is NOT an overcomer and blots his name from the book of life, he has no one else to blame but himself, for it is not a question of INABILITY, but one of REFUSAL to overcome evil with good. For instead of using Christ's Strength to overcome evil with good, Patrick used it for doing evil.

And by Patrick, I mean all of us, brother.

 

[flintstoned]

Hi Lon.
I'm not so sure this is true. Just because someone can repent without help, doesn't mean they don't need to be saved:

1. From their specific sins prior to repentance (repentance implies prior sins)
2. From original sin/curse of death all men are under

There's got to be some merit to the argument that if God calls anyone to repent, there's a implicit understanding that anyone can, actually, repent. That repentance is not enough for salvation, as outlined above. But it appears to be a necessary thing, at least in most presentations of the gospel in the New Testament.

That would be an unsupported assumption.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

The keyword is "responsible". If one is responsible, then he must be capable of carrying out the given responsibility.

No. Responsible means someone can hold you to account, nothing more. Responsibility presumes there is someone that can hold another to account...God. And in my post I explained giving at least two reasons why man can be considered able to do as God commands. I also pointed you here for more details in a previous post.

Morally, all are responsible to God for all that they do, think, or say. The accountability to God is not requiring one possesses any ability to obey, too. Accountability is the key to responsibility. No one is responsible if there is no higher authority that can hold them into account. Stop trying to also assign responsibility to God for these hard sayings by diluting the Scriptures to mean something else.

Abilities, per se, are real or perceived mitigating issues that may or may not be taken into account by the one holding another responsible as to guilt or innocence. In other words, one's abilities do not escape the fact that one can be held accountable.

From your continued ignoring of my posts, I have to assume you just want to argue and not actually digest what those of us responding to you actually have said. Spurgeon had your sort in mind.

AMR

 

[flintstoned]

It appears the Calvinists' dilemma is here to stay. It's been 5 days and counting.

I don't know what dilemma you are referring to. Of course the elect have to repent! The elect also have to believe, be regenerated, etc. The elect are unsaved sinners just like the rest of the world, until they are brought to eventual belief and salvation by God, through Jesus Christ.

 

[patrick jane]

I don't know what dilemma you are referring to. Of course the elect have to repent! The elect also have to believe, be regenerated, etc. The elect are unsaved sinners just like the rest of the world, until they are brought to eventual belief and salvation by God, through Jesus Christ.

Romans 10:13 KJV

 

[Derf]

Well, of course I would agree. Repentance is a word that applies to many things. My quibble is with the presumption that calls for repentance prior to the regenerative act of the Holy Spirit, which is essentially Samie's argument.

I agree.

AMR

Then you don't believe in man's total inability? Man can repent of some things prior to regeneration?