Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in '2000-02 Archive' started by KenH, Oct 3, 2002.
I don't believe in reinventing the wheel for each non-Calvinistic argument that comes along.
John Piper is arguably one of the best apologists for Calvinism living today - right up there with Dr. James White.
But if you don't feel like taking on the best Biblical arguments that Calvinism has on its side, I understand.
The question viewed, I believe, in the minds of those who would pose this question is similar to one of my children's stage of development.
According to their ability to reason, if I and their mother love them, why do we discipline them?
The question restated: Seeks a love to man from God, void of His Sovereignty, and Justice.
This is exhibited by the statement of a co-worker:
"I believe in God, and in Jesus, but I do not believe God will send anyone to hell. If God loves everyone, how could He condemn anyone?"
This definitely denies the Justice, Holiness and Righteousness of God, while pretending man by his own definition answer to these.
[ October 11, 2002, 01:00 PM: Message edited by: Frogman ]
I too, would rather discuss the Scriptures with these brethren, rather than read the 'spoon fed theology' coming out of places like Westminster Theological Seminary. Thank God that they still believe in salvation through Christ, but much of their theology is copied from Father, John Calvin's Institutes. They still hold to Reformation theology. I guess we all have to believe in something.
Pastor Larry has gone to a great deal of effort to argue that God DOES love all and to complain when any Arminian argues that only Arminians AGREE that "God so LOVED the WORLD that He GAVE HIS SON" John 3:16 - to be the "SAVIOR of the WORLD" 1John 4:14.
Pastor Larry complains when Arminians point out that Calvinists REDEFINE this down to "God LOVED the arbitrarily elect FEW of MAtt 7 that He GAVE His Son as the Savior of the Arbitrarily elect FEW"
Pastor Larry has complained that such a redefinition for God's Love should NOT be attributed to Calvinists - they do not believe it.
And yet... Piper says that while God may so love that he lets the sun shine on the lost - YET in terms of giving His son as the atoning sacrifice for Our sins and not our sins only but for those of the WHole World - Piper says...
Therefore, I also accept the inference that there are people who are not the objects of God's electing love.
The defense rests.
[ October 12, 2002, 10:42 PM: Message edited by: BobRyan ]
1.There is no one definition for love. God, and we, love in a variety of ways depending upon the person. For example, I love my wife, I love my other relatives, I love my co-workers, I love my dogs, I love you, Bob , but each in a different way. Please see www.founders.org/library/boyce1/ch10.html .
2.It is true, Bob, that we do not accept your caricature of love as exposited from the Scriptures by those who adhere to Reformed Theology.
3.True, the Bible teaches that God gave His Son in intent only for the elect, though there are certain benefits that those who reject God receive since God is longsuffering to wait for all of His chosen ones to repent and believe as He does not want any of them to be lost(2 Peter 3:9); therefore, He has not destroyed this present world and those damned along with it.
How does a Sovereign God love?
Answer this question and I'll tell you.
How would we know what love is, apart from the Sovereign God?
When that context is selected explicitly "God so LOVED the World that HE GAVE HIS SON.." John 3:16 then we ARE specifically and explicitly speaking of that very love that you say is only for the elect .
And even though you hope that babies dying and a variant view of the millenium will solve the "MANY vs FEW" Contrast of the lost vs the saved - as given by Christ... MOST Calvinists are not appealing to dead infants to get out of the "many vs Few" statements of Christ in Matt7.
Rather they simply accept that in fact FEW are going to heaven JUST as Christ stated. And therefore that Christ died for the "arbitrarily elect FEW of Matt 7" IS perfectly fit for defining the "ELECT".
IF the ELECt are the only ones that God died for - and the only ones the Father Gave His Son for - then the statement stands.
"God so loved the World that He gave His son for the Arbitrarily elect FEW of Matt 7 and then chose to CALL THAT so loving the World".
Comes in graphic details when we consider God saying to you or me "Sure I could have saved your precious daughter who is now writhing in agony in hell, IF I had cared to" - in that Calvinist "heaven" of the future.
I can only tell you what I believe and why concerning the number of people that God will save by His grace and mercy. What others, including you, believe on the subject and why each person will have to explain for himself.
You wrote: "Comes in graphic details when we consider God saying to you or me "Sure I could have saved your precious daughter who is now writhing in agony in hell, IF I had cared to" - in that Calvinist "heaven" of the future."
By the way, since you seem so eager to put words in the Almighty's mouth, are you the author behind those silly black-and-white signs I read from time to time that also put words in God's mouth?
But seriously, better the Calvinist view of heaven than yours as in your heaven there would only be the Trinity and the holy angels. All human beings would be in hell because you claim that man must do something while spiritually dead and separated from God before he becomes spiritually alive. And, as has been clearly explained in this forum, the natural man cannot do that and Jesus said man cannot do that(John 6:44, 65) . Therefore, you are in opposition to the clear statement of God on the subject. In your scheme, you put God in the place of being unable to save anyone, regardless of how much He wants to, because your unBiblical scheme says He can't touch man's fallen nature and corrupted will because that would violate your desire to have at least some claim that you did something to bring about your salvation as your unBiblical, powerless scheme takes away part of God's glory and gives it to the creature.
[ October 13, 2002, 01:42 AM: Message edited by: Ken Hamilton ]
You mean the ones about the "10 suggestions"?
I have shown the Calvinist view "Sure I could have saved your child, IF I had Cared to".
Now lets see the Arminian view -
No principle of the Arminian doctrines claims that "no one will be in heaven".
But there IS a principle in Calvinism that claims that God does NOT love the lost in a way such that He actually does die for their sins and that without any disctinction. So that His answer truly is accurately stated "IF I had Cared to"
We claim that the "Drawing" of John 12:32 is "sufficient" to solve the "innability" problem of "depravity" - JUST as Cavlinists claim.
The DIFFERENCE is that we claim the John 12:32 drawing CAN DO THIS even BEFORE one is born-again. Cavlinism claims it is impossible for God to accomplish this feat without first "causing" the lost to be saved, born-again.
There has not been any evidence given here or in John 6 showing the John 12:32 drawing to be 'unnable' to enable the lost to "HEAR His voice and OPEN the door".
In fact Calvinism claims that the John 12:32 drawing is MORE than sufficient to do that.
You're simply not following the points made on this subject.
Nope. We have repeatedly shown that there are indeed saints that choose life - they are the "FEW" of Matt 7.
hmmm -- you continue to misrepresent even the basic principles of the Arminian point of view. Why not accurate state the principles and then show your dissagreement with them? How does it help to not get the basics right?
Notice the Calvlinist example given above is compelling precisely because it gets the Calvinist princple dead-on.
[ October 13, 2002, 04:23 PM: Message edited by: BobRyan ]
I have the basics of the false teaching of Arminianism down quite well as I was a vehement advocate of Arminianism/Pelagianism until I was almost 43 years old. I used to be like you, believing in a false teaching that has no power to save, giving credit to man that he does not deserve. But I did so in ignorance. I thank my Father that He rescued me from teaching that has no life in it.
[ October 13, 2002, 04:45 PM: Message edited by: Ken Hamilton ]
There is no inherent life in either Arminianism or Calvinism. Life, the Bible says, is in the Son. Those who believe in Jesus are saved forever. Those who neglect the Son remain in spiritual and eternal death. Let's not suggest that any man made theologies have any life giving power leading to salvtion for humankind. The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit should received all honor and glory because They have provided salvation to all who believe.
Jumping theological ship proves nothing about being either right or wrong. What proves that a theology being correct is when you have all the answers that agree with all of the other Scriptures in the Word of God. What proves that you are wrong is when you cannot dovetail all of His holy Scriptures.