What Dr. James P. Boyce thought about Arminians

Dr B, and TomVols...it matters not if your friend Dr Geisler, or Dr Pinnock, be an angel from heaven, or even the apostle Paul himself...you can read the conclusion of the matter for yourself in Galatians 1:9 and context.

TomVols...I never said that Dr Geisler didn't believe ANYTHING. He is obviously a believer in something. Whether it is the Gospel of Grace, or another gospel, is, of course, a matter of opinion.

connieman

[ June 04, 2002, 12:37 AM: Message edited by: connieman ]

 

Mortal man cannot know the mind of God. The fact God loves His elect and hates the non-elect of His creation may not be understood on this side of eternity, but it cannot be denied. David wrote, "The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity." (Ps. 5:5) Paul wrote in his epistle to the Romans, "As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated." (Rom. 9:13) When one tries to summarize God, confusion is certain. Moses wrote, "The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law." (Deut. 29:29) God has already revealed to His people in this time world that His thoughts are not our thoughts, and His ways are not our ways (Is. 55:8, 9). It is like trying to figure out the old saying, "Why do bad things happen to good people?" The children of God do not have perfect knowledge of all things. I am still in the dark concerning the idea that only a minority of the creation will ultimately go to Heaven, and the majority will go to Hell. You keep entertaining this thought, but the Bible does not teach it. John wrote, "After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands; And cried with a loud voice, saying, Salvation to our God which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb." (Rev. 7:9, 10) Indeed no man can number the elect of blood-bought saints! You make it seem as though the number of the elect can be counted on fingers and toes. Arminians hardly come close to even admitting there is such a doctrine as election. I certainly would not appeal to the number of books someone has written to determine truth. Billy Graham has written a considerable number of books, but he is a heretic! People adress him as "reverend," a title only applied to God (Ps. 111:9). He teaches the fire in hell is, in fact, not literal. In my humble opinion, Billy Graham and the rest of his bunch are nothing but false teachers. Any man who walks hand-and-hand with the Pope (Gr. pappas, father) is no man worth looking up to. Jesus said, "And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven." (Matt. 23:9) Is there a pattern here? Reverend, God or Billy Graham? Father, God or the Pope? It makes sense for prideful and arrogant heretics to put themselves on the same rank as God. Most in the Christian world seem to think of them as gods, but as for me and connieman, we do not consider them such to be honored. "American Christianity" is certainly in need of reform.

[ June 04, 2002, 01:10 AM: Message edited by: Primitive Baptist ]

 

Ray,

Your own comments also reflect that you do not have a proper understanding of Calvinism since you think Calvinists are in the blame God routine. I suggest you read R.C. Sproul's Chosen By God for a refresher.

I attended a Fundamentalist Seminary and while I appreciate my education there, the teaching against Calvinism was incorrect. Some of the most idiot theologians today have Th.d, Ph.d attached to their name (Clark Pinnock, John Shelby Spong, Tim Lahaye are examples of that from 3 differant theological perspectives).

I believe Dave Hunt himself "a supposed scholar" admitted in his own words he had not read any of Luther or Calvin until 2000. And he is qualified to write on Calvinism? It appears he just read about it to write against it. I think a Seminary education is great so don't interpret I am against it, but I also know that a Seminary degree can mean that one just has a piece of paper and nothing more.

[ June 04, 2002, 08:14 AM: Message edited by: Kiffin ]

 

Ray, just want you to know I can wholeheartedly agree with your assertion.

It's unfortunate that Reformed position considers absurd the idea that if Christ died for literally all men but all men for whom Christ died are not saved then, Christ death was in vain. The point I like to bring out is simply that that was the risk Christ took on the Cross and yet if was still willing to die for mankind, t"waste his life away" if need be; such is the love of the Godhead for man.

But even if all men turned away, I don't think God would consider it in vain. As Father of all, to Him it was worth the try.

However, the reality is that there are those who believe and are saved. Those who reject Christ, it can be said for all intents and purposes, do not render the Cross in vain but their own lives as vain.

I love God because he loves all men. If He did not love all, how can I know for certain that He loves me.

Without aiming to be funny and with all due respect to the work of Sunday School teachers in Reformed churches, I can understand why children are not told the real "truth" about God's salvation according to the view of limited atonement. It would be taught something like:

"Okay children, I want you all to know that God loves you. Well, the truth is, not all of you but maybe a couple here and there. You see Christ died on the Cross for a few of you and the rest will just go to hell because you all deserve it anyway...so...your loss. But, anyway, isn't that wonderful?! Now, my dear Sunday school children, loved of God...well, again, remember...not all of you...but, anyway, let's sing, 'Jesus Loves Me' and even if he doesn't, let's all sing it anyway because it is still wonderful that God will glorify Himself by sending some of you...well...most of you to hell."

 

1. No mortal man can know the mind of God.
2. PrimitiveBaptist is a mortal man.
3. Primitive Baptist cannot know the mind of God.

Question: According to the above logic, if mortal man cannot know the mind of God (and your statement includes yourself) how can you know, and know in absolute terms, that the Reformed/Calvinistic doctrine of election is a truth that "cannot be denied" from the "mind of God"?

 

Because the Bible declares it! I do not know why God, in His infinite goodness, chose to save some of His creation and pass over the rest. He did not have to save anybody! By the way, I never claimed to know the mind of God. Maybe you should read posts more closely.

This is straight garbage! Speak for the god you may serve, but my God accomplishes what He purposes. He does not "try" to do anything. Daniel wrote, "And all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?" (Dan. 4:35) Does this describe a god who is "trying" to save people but cannot because they will not give their hearts to him? In the Gospel according to Matthew, he wrote, "And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins." (Matt. 1:21) The text does not say that He would try to save His people, but that He shall save His people. Isaiah wrote, "Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand." (Is. 53:10) The pleasure of the LORD prospered in His hand! The gospel preached today is not one of prosperity. Jesus died and did all He could do, but the results are still uncertain. Isaiah said that Jesus saw His seed, that is, the elect (Rom. 9:8-11). He saw them coming out on the other side as a redeemed and justified people. It pleased the LORD to bruise His Son. Would it have pleased Him to bruise His Son with the full knowledge multitudes for whom He died would ultimately perish? No! You speak of a defeated christ. One who was not victorious in His attempt to save sinners. But let me tell you one thing. That certainly is not the Christ of the Bible. Jesus said, "And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day." (John 6:39) He will not lose anything the Father has given Him. Not even one of His sheep will perish (John 10:28). Jesus gave Himself in the place of His people. If He died for their sins, they do not have to. He tasted death for them, they do not have to. Just blaspheme the cross a little more next time, will you?

 

Primitive Baptists do not have Sunday School. The early church did not have it and neither do we. There are many children and teenagers who have been baptized into my church, and they know the truth of the atonement. I guess some children are, like you, afraid the admit God is sovereign and man is not. I guess particular redemption is something hard to choke on if you follow a humanistic theology like Arminianism.

 

Connie,


Nuff said.

 

Nelson wrote:

Worth the try? Is that all God did at the cross? Give it His best shot? Think of the implications of this my friend. Think long and hard. Do you really believe the Bible depicts a God who just rolled the dice and lost His wager?

As for your supposed SS dialogue, any Calvinist worth his salt would know such teaching to be unScriptural and an abomination.

 

That is a point you cannot prove. Spurgeon has the opposite opinion of yours(which again cannot be proven), that more will be in heaven than lost in hell. Which makes a certain amount of sense only because God is absolutely sovereign and He can save more people than are lost because of Satan's intervention into our world. If salvation is in the hands of man's fallen, corrupted free will, then certainly more will be in hell than in heaven. I prefer the optimistic hopefulness of the doctrines of grace to the pessimistic defeatism of the opponents of God's free, sovereign grace.

One redeemed by Christ's blood,

Ken

 

I am of the opinion, and with all due respect, that what the Bible declares and what you interpret the Bible to declare are two different things.

I did and your post strongly implies that you have knowledge of the facts of truth without anything false mixed in. You state: "Billy Graham has written a considerable number of books, but he is a heretic!...He teaches the fire in hell is, in fact, not literal. In my humble opinion, Billy Graham and the rest of his bunch are nothing but false teachers."

Doesn't sound to me like a "humble opinion."

I notice you say that you are "still in the dark," but that, it seems, is only with reference to how what you believe to be a fact can be; you do not seem to affirm the possibility of being in the dark regarding the fact itself.

In other words, your message comes across as if there is no possibility that you may be wrong regarding the manner in which you interpret the Bible.

Okay. The God I serve has made salvation available for all because He is "not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance."

1. God cannot not desire to "pass over" the rest and, at the same time, have "good pleasure" in passing over the rest.

2. That some do not come to believe in Jesus who died for them is no insult to God's sovereignty or to the efficacy of the atonement but a testimony of the extent of His love in being "patient toward you."

3. That the Cross embraces all men, without exception, makes it even more imperative that we "judge nothing before the time," but if we must judge, to "judge righteously" for "Who are you to judge another's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for God is able to make him stand."

 

KenHamilton...did you ever hear the scripture about the strait gate, and the narrow way? About how there be only a "few" that find the way to eternal life?

And about the "many" that are on the broad way that leads to destruction? Now, I don't know the number, precisely, but I do know the difference between "few" and "many". Mr. Spurgeon must have forgotten this, at least temporarily.

Of course, just how many will depend upon the number of the elect, which was fixed "before the world began", and cannot be increased or decreased by human will or activity.

We do know that those to whom the Lord said, "Depart from Me, ye that work iniquity, I never knew you" will be on the broad road to destruction.

connieman

[ June 04, 2002, 08:39 PM: Message edited by: connieman ]

 

Good points, connieman. But with all of the abortions that have taken place throughout history as well as the natural deaths and deaths in violence and war that have taken place throughout history, these add up to a lot. Then you add in those who were saved when they were older and you get quite a number there.

(Rev 7:9 NKJV) After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could number, of all nations, tribes, peoples, and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, with palm branches in their hands,

One redeemed by Christ's blood,

Ken

 

Kiffin,

I read your post with interest. I do know that people like you believe that God has chosen some for Heaven and 'bypasses' the rest of humanity. You actually believe this. I was merely saying, from my frame of reference, people like you are blaming God for doing this unthinkable act of selection.

I agree with you that most evangelical churches should first set their own house in order. But then it must begin with me.

 

Professor Geisler made these comments in His book, "Chosen But Free." p. 88 & 89.

'So, whereas there is nothing in the sinner to merit God's love, nonetheless, there is something in God that prompts Him to love all sinners. {In speaking of Calvinism he said,} ' . . . then God is neither essentially loving nor all-loving. In extreme Calvinism, an action is right (whether loving or not) simply because God wills it. But this is both a denial of God's unchanging nature and an ultimate slur on the character of God.' Extreme Calvinism voluntarism reduces God's "essence" to an arbitrary will.'

Interesting . . . .

 

Honestly, I hope you're right and I'm open to being convinced that you are right. Please supply verses to support your point. Also, if the verse - "many are called but few are chosen" - does not have reference to salvation, to what then does it refer?

 

Deleted for repeating already discussed misrepresentations in an inflammatory way. Nelson, you have been warned about your methods privately. This is an inappropriate way to carry on the debate.

[ June 05, 2002, 04:17 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

Oh...my bust...

[ June 05, 2002, 07:51 PM: Message edited by: Nelson ]

 

Do you guys meet every day of the week? The early church did.

 

KenHamilton...there will be just as many in heaven as God has ordained to eternal life, and not one more. That "great multitude" is not so large that there is no number on the numberline to describe it; only a number which is known of God, but unknown to any man.

A "great multitude" is still relativly "few" compared with 100,000 times "a great multitude", right? Still, there is a difference between "few" and "many".

connieman (God has told me the number, but I am not to tell you)