How the Gospel Works

[musterion]

For the life of me, I don't know why calvinists hate to hear that salvation has appeared to ALL men.

1 Timothy 4:10 KJV -

Titus 2:11 KJV -

At least Nang is being honest about what TULIP demands. Got to give her credit for that.

 

[Nang]

Now I am going to leave this right here:

The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. 2 Peter 3:9

3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;

4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; 1 Timothy 2:3-5

It's right there in the Bible. Now what are you going to do with it.

I rejoice in every word of God, and accept these scriptures as teaching Remnant Theology: that is, God has elected to save a remnant of mankind out of all the tribes, peoples, and nations of His world. Revelation 5:9, 7:9, 21:24, 22:2

The only alternative to this understanding of the verses, is "Universalism."

And it is my opinion that interpreting any scripture universally fails, for scripture speaks throughout about unjustified souls being condemned according to the moral, natural, and formal Laws of God. See Revelation 22:11-15

Here is the God I worship:

"Our God is in the heavens; He does all He pleases." Psalm 115:3

". . I blessed the Most High, and praised and honored Him who lives forever, 'For His dominion is an everlasting dominion, and His kingdom endures from generation to generation. All the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, and He does according to His will among the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay His hand or say to Him, "What have you done?"'" Daniel 4:34b-35

I worship the Sovereign BEING who is our God . . not a soteriological process.

If I am to be hated, opposed, or sanctioned for such belief, so be it.

 

[Nang]

So is it your contention that God created some people with the express intent of not allowing them to believe and then condemning them to hell for their unbelief?

No, it is not.

 

[Nang]

Nicely done, Lon.

I do not know anyone who has spent time studying what Calvin has written who would deny that he held to double predestination. All Calvinists and Reformed do. So do most non-Calvinists. The issue is whether Calvin advocated equal ultimacy {<--will be leveraging this link below) in the double predestination or not. This equal ultimacy can in no way be assigned to Calvin. Unfortunately most do not take the time to understand this distortion:

The distortion of double predestination looks like this:
There is a symmetry that exists between election and reprobation. God WORKS in the same way and same manner with respect to the elect and to the reprobate. That is to say, from all eternity God decreed some to election and by divine initiative works faith in their hearts and brings them actively to salvation. By the same token, from all eternity God decrees some to sin and damnation (destinare ad peccatum) and actively intervenes to work sin in their lives, bringing them to damnation by divine initiative. In the case of the elect, regeneration is the monergistic work of God. In the case of the reprobate, sin and degeneration are the monergistic work of God. Stated another way, we can establish a parallelism of foreordination and predestination by means of a positive symmetry. We can call this a positive-positive view of predestination. This is, God positively and actively intervenes in the lives of the elect to bring them to salvation. In the same way God positively and actively intervenes in the life of the reprobate to bring him to sin.
....
This is not the Reformed view of predestination, but a gross and inexcusable caricature of the doctrine. Such a view may be identified with what is often loosely described as hyper-Calvinism or often involves a radical form of supralapsarianism. Such a view of predestination has been virtually universally and monolithically rejected by Reformed thinkers.
​

God does not work evil in us by creating evil in us. A Luther observed (op. cit.):

He who would understand these matters, however, should think thus: God works evil in us (that is, by means of us) not through God's own fault, but by reason of our own defect. We being evil by nature, and God being good, when He impels us to act by His own acting upon us according to the nature of His omnipotence, good though He is in Himself, He cannot but do evil by our evil instrumentality; although, according to His wisdom, He makes good use of this evil for His own glory and for our salvation
​

Which is to say, God wills righteously, what men do wickedly. All are fallen, none deserve mercy. Those who are not shown mercy, are not able to not sin and all the actions of God upon them, while yielding more sin given their sin natures, is made good use of by God.

Thus, the mode of operation in the lives of the elect is not parallel with that operation in the lives of the reprobate. God works regeneration monergistically but never sin. Sin falls within the category of providential concurrence.​

Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, Zanchius, Turrettin, Edwards, Hodge, Warfield, Bavinck, Berkouwer, and more held to an asymmetrical view of double-predestination, as do all Confessional Calvinists and Reformed. It is only some loosely-defined hyper-Calvinists leveraging a distortion of supralapsarianism, who claim God's decree to reprobate some did not contemplate the fall of man in the Garden. Historic Calvinism and Reformed views plainly state that the decree of reprobation by God was made with the view of the fall of man. In other words, the lump of clay was contemplated as a fallen lump of clay.

I have extracted content above from the article so linked above as I am certain not a few will simply not read it, or if they do, not really study it carefully.

In any case, other than the usual misunderstandings highlighted above, the whole "Calvin was {insert a pejorative here}" as an argument hoping to prove something about soteriological matters is a smokescreen of the desperate. I have yet to find a Calvinist who believed each and every thing Calvin actually advocated in his writings. Some folks just like to use "man worshiping" arguments because they make for good crowd appeal and can hide the lack of depth in the things that are being actually discussed.

Most Calvinists are Confessional, so when folks want to argue or discuss what we believe, they should be pointing to our Confessional summaries of Scripture, such as the LBCF, Belgic, Heidelberg, Helvetic, or the WCF. These confessions define the boundaries of a community of believers, what is in and what is out. They are subordinate standards to our ultimate standard, Scripture, and carry authoritative weight only as long as they are shown to be accurate summaries of Scripture.

Want to summarize what a Calvinist believes about predestination?
Try one of the linked Confessions above.

What do Calvinists think about falling away from the faith?
Again, see one of the Confessions above.

What do Calvinists believe about the Sabbath?
Again...etc. etc.

Telling me how mean and nasty Calvin was, as if that is somehow the distinguishing factor of some theological discussion, only tells me how desperate a person has become to make their point. Calvin could have ate baby angels for breakfast each morning, for all men are sinners from birth. What little or nothing that has to do with one's understanding of who God is and what God has revealed seems lost on some folks.

Determining and understanding theology proper or soteriology are weighty efforts, not for the faint of heart, the lazy, or the choleric. Sadly, it is much easier to dismiss one's opponent with a few pejorative statements and then smugly declare victory.

AMR

"What little or nothing that has to do with one's understanding of who God is and what God has revealed seems lost on some folks."

Amen.

 

[Nang]

With all respect, believing in the Deity of Christ is not the sole ground for fellowship, according to Paul. Rejoicing in the Gospel of grace is the primary basis for fellowship,

This is prioritizing process versus trusting in the Being of the Son of God.

 

[musterion]

WHO GOD IS, is one who cannot lie. That's what the Bible says.

But if all men were NOT meant to be reconciled to Him, if the sins of all men were NOT dealt with at the Cross, if Christ is NOT the Mediator for all, then can the Bible be true when it says He wants ALL to repent and be reconciled to Him?

No, it can't be true.

And that makes Him a liar.

 

[Nang]

WHO GOD IS, is one who cannot lie. That's what the Bible says.

But if all men were NOT meant to be reconciled to Him, if the sins of all men were NOT dealt with at the Cross, if Christ is NOT the Mediator for all, then can the Bible be true when it says He wants ALL to repent and be reconciled to Him?

No, it can't be true.

And that makes Him a liar.

Of course God does not lie, so why aren't all men saved? Why does God Almighty not get what He wills and wants?

 

[musterion]

This is prioritizing process versus trusting in the Being of the Son of God.

Who He is and what He did does nothing for those you already admitted were not chosen to benefit from it:

Sinners are saved only if they have been chosen for redemption in Christ Jesus. Ephesians 1:3-4

But correct me if I read you wrong there -- are you saying ALL have been chosen to be saved -- every single person who hears the Gospel, without exception, CAN be saved by God? That ALL are, in that sense, elect?

 

[musterion]

Of course God does not lie, so why aren't all men saved?

Because many who hear the saving Gospel choose to not believe it and be saved, and they'll be condemned for it.

Why does God Almighty not get what He wills and wants?

God is God. If God chose some to be saved and the rest not to be saved, that is His prerogative as God and none of us would be justified in arguing with Him about it.

But the Bible doesn't say that, as Sherman quoted earlier.

Either He willed that all CAN be saved, or He willed that only some WILL be saved.

Which is it?

 

[Nang]

Who He is and what He did does nothing for those you already admitted were not chosen to benefit from it:



But correct me if I read you wrong there -- are you saying ALL have been chosen to be saved -- every single person who hears the Gospel, without exception, CAN be saved by God? That ALL are, in that sense, elect?

All souls who are given ears to hear the Gospel, and who thus believe, constitute the Elect of God. I Corinthians 2:9-15

 

[musterion]

All souls who are given ears to hear the Gospel, and who thus believe, constitute the Elect of God. I Corinthians 2:9-15

Okay, are all souls given ears to hear the Gospel?

 

[Nang]

Because many who hear the saving Gospel choose to not believe it and be saved, and they'll be condemned for it.



God is God. If God chose some to be saved and the rest not to be saved, that is His prerogative as God and none of us would be justified in arguing with Him about it.

But the Bible doesn't say that, as Sherman quoted earlier.

Either He willed that all CAN be saved, or He willed that only some WILL be saved.

Which is it?

Right. I agree.

Either Holy Scripture is to be interpreted universally, or it is to be understood as particular.

There is no middle ground . . .

If God wanted to save universally, there would be no condemnation, no teaching of hell, no unjust souls kept out of His kingdom.

The bolded above is what I believe, and what you apparently also believe.

So our differences seem to come from the question of whose will sovereignly determines the fate of men? God's will or the creatures' will?

 

[Nang]

Okay, are all souls given ears to hear the Gospel?

No. Only the souls regenerated to new spiritual life by the resurrection power of the Holy Spirit. Only these are given new hearts, minds, wills, ears and eyes to comprehend and believe the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

The rest of humanity is left in their lost state; dead in trespasses and sins of unbelief.

 

[heir]

It is our Christian duty to declare moral human accountability before God: to believe in Him and to repent of sins.

The topic is the gospel and what you write and believe is not the gospel of our salvation.

That was the original command given to Adam, and it has never been rescinded.

made up

The fact that Adam did not obey these commands and thereby cast all his offspring into bondage to sin and death (Romans 5:12) does not nullify human accountability and responsibility to obey God's commands.

The topic is salvation and you reject the good news of yours.

Not knowing who God might regenerate through the hearing of this Gospel Truth, and because we do not know who God will bestow His saving grace upon, we pray for God's grace and gift of faith and repentance be provided to whom He will. An unbelieving sinner, listening to these commands today, might be indwelt with the Holy Spirit tomorrow; and thereby saved by the power of this Gospel message.

Since we do not know, we proclaim the full Gospel message to all . . .

Your words are vain, void of the gospel of our salvation.

 

[Nang]

The topic is the gospel and what you write and believe is not the gospel of our salvation.

made up

The topic is salvation and you reject the good news of yours.

Your words are vain, void of the gospel of our salvation.

You are merely responding with your own opinions . . .

 

[musterion]

Right. I agree.

Either Holy Scripture is to be interpreted universally, or it is to be understood as particular.

There is no middle ground . . .

EXACTLY RIGHT.

If God wanted to save universally, there would be no condemnation, no teaching of hell, no unjust souls kept out of His kingdom.

No, we're talking about universal atonement, not universal salvation. Those are two very, very different propositions. Please do not confuse them.

The bolded above is what I believe, and what you apparently also believe.

I said "if."

So our differences seem to come from the question of whose will sovereignly determines the fate of men? God's will or the creatures' will?

The real question is, Is the saving Gospel open and valid for any and all who hear it, or only to an elect predestined to believe it? I say all, you say elect.

Fair enough?

 

[musterion]

No.

Thank you for finally clarifying that. For what it's worth, you are now on the top of TOL's honest and consistent Calvinists list, right alongside B57. I may hate your doctrine (and I do) but I respect you for being honest about it.

 

[musterion]

One last thing, Nang.

Given all of the above, would you agree that one of us is preaching a very wrong gospel?

 

[Right Divider]

No, it is not.

So you don't believe in predestination?

I've seen you post that God only gives "the elect", as individuals, the faith to believe. The Bible says that faith is required to receive eternal life. So, according to you, God withholds "faith" from those that are condemned to hell and then condemns them to hell for their unbelief.

I've seen you post that God chose who will be saved and who will be lost, as individuals, before the world began. Is this not your story anymore?

How can Christ be the Savior of all men if that is the case?

1Tim 4:10 (KJV)​

(4:10) For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe. ​

How can that verse be true if your limited atonement doctrine is also true?

I say that the Bible is true and that your doctrine is FALSE!

 

[Nang]

No, we're talking about universal atonement, not universal salvation.

Oh, I thought we were talking Scriptural Gospel.

Those are two very, very different propositions. Please do not confuse them.

Agreed. I would not interpret Christ's atoning work on the cross as universal, but perhaps applied temporally in some instances. Salvation is always particular for Universalism is scripturaly untenable.

But there are depths to the cross work of Jesus Christ and other doctrines that must be remembered; such as Justification. Do you believe all souls were justified (forgiven) by Jesus on the cross? Was all death eliminated through His death? Was the power of Satan totally removed from this earth? etc, etc

The real question is, Is the saving Gospel open and valid for any and all who hear it, or only to an elect predestined to believe it? I say all, you say elect.

My Reformed teachers taught me that my Christian responsibility and desire should be to indiscriminately proclaim the Gospel to all, and trust in the power of the Holy Spirit to produce salvific results. The Gospel has the power to save souls, but only those first spiritually raised to new life and enabled to believe and repent in response to the light and Truth of Christ's Gospel, prove to be the redeemed of the Lord. John Chapter 3

The heart of the sinner must be changed before he can believe . . .and only God can change hearts and grant the necessary repentance unto salvation.