Clarifying Calvinism (Part 2)
January 14th, 2009
(By Phil Johnson) 
Part II: Spurgeon: “Calvinism IS the Gospel” There are, these days, quite a few self-styled Calvinists who disagree with my assessment of Arminianism and insist that Arminianism entails an absolute denial of certain fundamental gospel truths. Those wishing to make that argument will invariably quote a famous statement by Spurgeon, taken from the chapter in his autobiography titled “A Defence of Calvinism” in which Spurgeon said this:
I have my own private opinion that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified, unless we preach what nowadays is called Calvinism. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else. I do not believe we can preach the gospel, if we do not preach justification by faith, without works; nor unless we preach the sovereignty of God in His dispensation of grace; nor unless we exalt the electing, unchangeable, eternal, immutable, conquering love of Jehovah; nor do I think we can preach the gospel, unless we base it upon the special and particular redemption of His elect and chosen people which Christ wrought out upon the cross; nor can I comprehend a gospel which lets saints fall away after they are called, and suffers the children of God to be burned in the fires of damnation after having once believed in Jesus. Such a gospel I abhor.
I absolutely agree with what Spurgeon says there, in the sense that he meant it. And the context of that statement explains clearly what he meant. He was pointing out that the principle at the heart of all gospel truth is the same principle that drives Calvinism: “Salvation is of the Lord.” Salvation is God’s work; it’s not something we do for ourselves. That’s the truth he was defending.
Spurgeon was not saying that we ought to use the five points of Calvinism the way Campus crusade people use the “Four Spiritual Laws.” He wasn’t saying that all you ever talk about is the doctrines of election and reprobation you are faithfully preaching the gospel and the whole counsel of God. Unfortunately, I think that’s what a lot of careless Calvinists think Spurgeon meant when he said “Calvinism is the gospel.”
But if you read Spurgeon’s whole article on Calvinism, he makes very clear what he meant. In fact at the beginning of that very same paragraph—as his preface to remarking that “Calvinism is the gospel”—he wrote this:
“Salvation is of the Lord.” [Jonah 2:9.] That is just an epitome of Calvinism; it is the sum and substance of it. If anyone should ask me what I mean by a Calvinist, I should reply, “He is one who says, Salvation is of the Lord.” I cannot find in Scripture any other doctrine than this. It is the essence of the Bible. “He only is my rock and my salvation.” Tell me anything contrary to this truth, and it will be a heresy; tell me a heresy, and I shall find its essence here, that it has departed from this great, this fundamental, this rock truth, “God is my rock and my salvation.”
Did Spurgeon believe Arminianism was in error? Absolutely. So do I.
Did he believe it was damnable error? Absolutely not, and he made that clear, too.
At the peak of the Downgrade Controversy, some of Spurgeon’s critics accused him of being driven by a doctrinaire Calvinist agenda. It’s not really Modernism that Spurgeon hates, they said. It’s anything that departs from his old fashioned Calvinism. This whole controversy is a furtive campaign against Arminianism. That’s what really has Spurgeon bugged. He thinks modern Christians aren’t Calvinistic enough.
Spurgeon replied in The Sword and the Trowel with a paragraph that said this:
Certain antagonists have tried to represent the Down Grade controversy as a revival of the old feud between Calvinists and Arminians. It is nothing of the kind. Many evangelical Arminians are as earnestly on our side as men can be. We do not conceal our own Calvinism in the least; but this conflict is for truths which are common to all believers.
In another place, he was even more explicit:
We care far more for the central evangelical truths than we do for Calvinism as a system; but we believe that Calvinism has in it a conservative force which helps to hold men to the vital truth, and therefore we are sorry to see any quitting it who have once accepted it.
So he had a bone to pick with people who once affirmed the doctrines of grace and had now abandoned Calvinism in favor of new ideas that smacked of Socinianism. But he regarded evangelical Arminians as his true brethren and fellow soldiers—as long as they affirmed the doctrine of justification by faith, the principle of sola fide, the absolute authority of Scripture, the penal aspect of Christ’s atonement, and other essential gospel truths.
Speaking of Arminians in particular, he said:
Those who hold the eternal verities of salvation, and yet do not see all that we believe and embrace, are by no means the objects of our opposition: our warfare is with men who are giving up the atoning sacrifice, denying the inspiration of Holy Scripture, and casting slurs upon justification by faith. The present struggle is not a debate upon the question of Calvinism or Arminianism, but of the truth of God versus the inventions of men. All who believe the gospel should unite against that “modern thought” which is its deadly enemy.
So Spurgeon did not regard Arminians as hell bound heretics. He regarded them as brethren. Did he think they were in error? Yes? Were they guilty of gross inconsistency in their own theology? He would have answered emphatically, yes. Was their main error significant? Spurgeon did not shrink from referring to it as “heresy”—meaning unorthodox doctrine, heterodoxy, serious error. But he was very careful to make clear that he did not regard Arminianism per se as damnable heresy or utter apostasy from essential Christianity. Virtually all mainstream Calvinists from the time of the Synod of Dort until now would agree with him on every count.
For example, Gordon Clark, one of the highest of high Calvinists, said this with regard to whether Arminians are authentic Christians or not:
An Arminian may be a truly regenerate Christian; in fact, if he is truly an Arminian and not a Pelagian who happens to belong to an Arminian church, he must be a saved man. But he is not usually, and cannot consistently be assured of his salvation. The places in which his creed differs from our Confession confuse the mind, dilute the Gospel, and impair its proclamation.”
Which is to say that Arminianism is inherently inconsistent. Arminians technically affirm the fundamental, essential truths of the gospel. Then they try to build a theology on top of that which is totally inconsistent with the solid foundation they have affirmed.
I agree with that assessment of Arminianism. It’s an attempt to reconcile the sovereignty of God with human responsibility—and the Arminian method of reconciling those two truths involves a view of human free will that is inherently inconsistent with certain gospel truths every Arminian actually affirms.
In some posts yet to come, I will explain further why I believe that is the case.
Beloved brother Phil,
Is the distinction more between the Theology of Palagianism and Biblical truth?
What is the truly heretical varations between Armenianism, Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism?
Is is fair to say that the SYSTEMATICS of Armenian Theology is the herecy; rather than those who describe themselves as Armenian/Free will Evangelicals?
Or is there a true problem between what is actual Biblical truth and what is the views of the brothers who affirm Arminianism?
As previously, I affirm that there are those Armenians who truthfuly have Repented, trusted in Christ Alone and affirm the Inerrancy and Inspiration of Scripture Alone as the Very Word of YAHWEH; but who may not practice the Sufficiency thereof (The greatest concern I have at current lies with the lack of trust in the SOLA of Scriptura as ALL Sufficient for ALL life and godliness, even amongst our brethren).
Your servant for the glory of our King and High Priest Alone,
W
A VERY helpful booklet is:
Evangelistic Calvinism
by John Benton
http://www.covenanterbooks.com/book/975/Evangelistic%20Calvinism
“..the principle at the heart of all gospel truth is the same principle that drives Calvinism”
Amen. The Good News of Christ glorifies God, and also is the power that touches a dead soul, and a stone hard heart, and makes the soul alive, and the heart soft as flesh.
Nice teaching. Great stuff. Phil J. & CH Spurgeon. Very edifying.
Phil,
I’m following this much needed series with great interest. Thanks for the teaching.
With every good wish in Christ!
If Calvinism IS the gospel, then are those who don’t believe it not Christians? Hardly. I find Dave Hunt’s What Love is This? a very good book, though I certainly don’t agree on all points.
These are good posts. I’d like to clarify something as well. (Many) Calvinists INSIST that if you’re not a Calvinist, you are, by default, Arminian. This is simply untrue. I do not for an instant believe that salvation can be lost. Some protest, “well, but if you are responsible to get yourself saved, then you must keep yourself saved”. That is complete nonsense. No one I know believe they ‘deserved’ to be saved or ‘got themselves saved’ or intiated reconciliation with God ar anything like that.
I have a question for the brethren here: John MacArthur said in his book The God Who Loves that God both loves and hates the sinner. I can agree with this. Therefore it would be fair to say God loves all and to tell a sinner God loves them. I believe God, being omniscient, knowing the rejection that will come of the love He extends, loves them initially and hates them for rejecting Him and choosing darkness. Many Calvinists insist however that God decided to hate them FIRST and that’s why they reject Him. What say you? God looks at two blank slates, identical, and ‘decides’ to utterly hate and condemn one (with a malice we cannot comprehend) and loves and blesses and ‘rejoices over with singing’ the other?
Also, can you really tell a sinner that God wants them to be saved? I think not.
“loves them initially”
God does love all His elect before He created the world. Amen. Even though He knew we would be children of wrath, and so under His judgment. Why would He ever love these rebels who despise Him, and mock Him, and sin against Him is the mystery.
Surely He judge us. I know I’m deserving of being a child of wrath, and His wrath is due me.
But God with His great love, granted me mercy.
I know all this to be true, for God foreknew me, as He does all His elect children, the children of promise, those who were predestined, and called, and justified, and glorified.
Like CH Spurgeon says, ” If anyone should ask me what I mean by a Calvinist, I should reply, “He is one who says, Salvation is of the Lord.” I cannot find in Scripture any other doctrine than this. It is the essence of the Bible.”
David,
I like your comments, though we don’t totally agree. First off, I can’t think of any instance of evangelism where the apostles ever made the statement “God wants you to be saved.” Correct me if I’m in error. If the early church never seemed to think it was a necessary thing to tell unbelievers, then I don’t see a strong reason to be concerned about telling them that.
That being said, I DO believe there is a sense in which God desires the salvation of every human being. But that doesn’t refute election. I’m aware that this makes God seem psychizophrenic, but I think your view has similar problems. In your view (correct me if I’m misrepresenting) God already knows perfectly who will certainly NOT come to faith in Christ, yet He still pleas for them to do just that, even though it is certain to Him that they won’t. Doesn’t that make God seem a little….crazy? I believe He can, in one sense, desire the salvation of every human being, while also purposing to save only those He’s chosen.
Analogies always fail, but I like this illustration: A father does not desire (in a sense) disciplining his child, but the father knows that ultimately it is best for the child. So the father has two real desires that seem to be in total opposition to each other. If human beings have this kid of complexity of desires/wants, how much more complex could the will of God be?
I know this isn’t a perfect illustration, but I think it sheds some light.
God bless!
donsands,
This is the feedback I was hoping for…so you ARE saying that God never loved the non-elect. MacArthur (and I) disagree.
When I said “loved intially”, I was referring to the lost.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not of the “God-loves-you-and-has-a wonderful-plan-for-your-life” school, nor the “Bible is a ‘love letter’ to mankind” (that one makes me particularly ill)and I would never have a ‘Smile, God Loves You” bumper sticker (a dangerous message is ever there was one), but i do feel at least justified in telling a sinner God loves them even if that alone won’t save them unless they repent.
David M,
I shall only answer with Scripture, which you agree to be the final, inerrant, sufficient Counsel of the Almighty, which He has decreed for our obedience and preaching:
Romans 9:6-13
“But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel, nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but, “In Isaac your seed shall be called.” That is, those who are the children OF THE FLESH,THESE ARE NOT the children of God; but the children OF THE PROMISE are counted as the seed. For THIS IS THE WORD OF PROMISE: “At this time I will come and Sarah shall have a son.”
And not only this, but when Rebecca also had conceived by one man, even by our father Isaac (for the children NOT YET BEING BORN, NOR HAVING DONE ANY GOOD OR EVIL, that the purpose of God ACCORDING TO ELECTION might stand, not of works BUT OF Him WHO CALLS), it was said to her, “The older SHALL serve the younger.”[Genesis 25:23] As it is written, “Jacob I HAVE LOVED, but Esau I HAVE HATED.”[Malachi 1:2, 3]”
John 1:10-13
“He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world DID NOT KNOW Him. He came to His own, and His own DID NOT receive Him. BUT as many as RECEIVED Him, to them He GAVE the right to become children of God, TO THOSE WHO believe in His name: WHO WERE BORN, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, NOR OF THE WILL OF MAN, BUT OF God.”
Ephesians 2
“1 And you He MADE ALIVE, who WERE DEAD in trespasses and sins…
3… and were BY NATURE children OF WRATH, just as the others.”
4… BUT God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, 5 even WHEN WE WERE DEAD IN trespasses, MADE US ALIVE together with Christ (BY GRACE you have been saved), 6 and RAISED us UP together, and MADE us SIT together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus…”
8 For BY GRACE YOU HAVE BEEN SAVED through faith, and that NOT OF YOURSELVES; it is THE GIFT OF God…LEST ANYONE should boast.”
1 Corinthians 1-2
“18 For the message of the cross IS FOOLISHNESS TO THOSE WHO ARE PERISHING, but to us who are being saved it is THE POWER OF God. 19 For it is written:
“ I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
And bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.”
20…Has not God MADE FOOLISH the wisdom of this world? 21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world THROUGH WISDOM DID NOT KNOW God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. 22 For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom; 23 but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews A STUMBLING BLOCK and to the Greeks FOOLISHNESS, 24 but to THOSE WHO ARE CALLED, both Jews and Greeks, CHRIST THE POWER of God and the wisdom of God.”
26 …For you see YOUR CALLING, brethren, that not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called. 27 BUT God HAS CHOSEN the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God HAS CHOSEN the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty; 28 and the base things of the world and the things which are despised God HAS CHOSEN, and the things which are not, to bring to nothing the things that are, 29 THAT NO FLESH SHOULD GLORY in His presence. 30 BUT OF Him you are in Christ Jesus, WHO BECAME FOR US wisdom from God—and righteousness and sanctification and redemption— 31 that, as it is written, “He who glories, let him glory in YAHWEH.”[ Jeremiah 9:24]”
2:4…And my speech and my preaching were not with persuasive words of human wisdom, but IN DEMONSTRATION OF THE Spirit AND OF POWER, 5 that YOUR FAITH SHOULD not BE IN the wisdom of men BUT IN THE POWER OF God.”
… 7 But we speak the wisdom of God IN A MYSTERY, the HIDDEN WISDOM which God ORDAINED BEFORE THE AGES for our glory, 8 which none of the rulers of this age knew; for had they known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
9 But as it is written:
“ Eye has not seen, nor ear heard,
Nor have entered into the heart of man
The things which God has prepared for those who love Him.”[Isaiah 64:4]
10 But God HAS REVEALED them to us THROUGH His Spirit.”
11… Even so NO ONE KNOWS the things of God EXCEPT THE Spirit of God.”
13… These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches BUT WHICH THE HOLY SPIRIT TEACHES… 14 But THE NATURAL MAN DOES NOT RECEIVE THE THINGS OF THE SPIRIT OF God, for they are foolishness to him; NOR CAN HE KNOW them, because they are spiritually discerned.”
Romans 3:10-12
“As it is written:
“ There is none righteous, no, not one;
There is NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS;
There is NONE WHO SEEKS AFTER God.
They have all turned aside;
They have together become unprofitable;
There is none who does good, NO, NOT ONE.”[ Psalms 14:1–3; 53:1–3; Ecclesiastes 7:20]”
Now ALL I ask is that you reconcile these Scriptures, which stand for ever, with your reasoning.
Then I would, that you REFUTE (If you believe it at all possible), BY SCRIPTURE Alone these Scriptures; WITHOUT pitting the Authority of God against Himself and His WHOLE Counsel in the Scriptures, which is One UNIT of His VERY OWN WORD AND AUTHORITY.
I DO NOT ask you to like it, reason it further or to even enjoy these doctrines; but may YAHWEH Himself bring you into the fear of Him, that would enable you to see all the more clearly, by these very Scriptures and Doctrines of Scripture the desperate plight of those who remain DEAD in their sins and trespasses – This MUST give any Calvinist who would put the Royal Law of Love into practicable Faith, that ZEAL for the souls of the LOST that would see a REVIVAL such as when the Spirit was pleased to reveal these things through the simplicity of the PERSON and WORK of Messiah Jesus preached, convicting of sin, righteousness and judgement; in the days of Jonathan Edwards, George Whitfield, CH Spurgeon, John Calvin, Martin Luther etc…
John 16:7-9
“Nevertheless I tell you the truth. It is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I depart, I will send Him to you. And when He has come, He WILL CONVICT THE WORLD OF SIN, AND OF RIGHTEOUSNESS, AND OF JUDGEMENT: of sin, because they do not believe in Me…”
I am sure that you will submit to this ONE SINGLE QUESTION AND ANSWER:
IS IT ABSOLUTELY AND TOTALLY NECESSARY for the HOLY SPIRIT OF GRACE AND TRUTH to CONVICT AND TO ENABLE ANY sinner to REPENT and TRUST in CHRIST Alone as the ONLY ONE CAPABLE of REDEEMING him/her from their SIN NATURE?
I would submit that ANY TRULY REGENERATED and REBORN person would be required by conscience to say “YES”; whereas the UNREGENERATED and those who remain in bondage to the lust and desires of their sins and thus REMAIN spiritually DEAD, would be very unsure as to the TOTAL NECESSITY and what FUNCTION the Spirit would fulfil in practice.
Your servant with the Glorious Gospel of liberty and grace to the captives of sin,
W
Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us: we implore you on Christ’s behalf, be reconciled to God. 2 Co 5:20
No Calvinist can explain why God exhorts us to ‘choose life’ when he clearly has no need to do so (He could just bust out a can of Irresistible Grace). Neither why he told Cain he must master sin. Nor Jeroboam I, nor ‘Jezebel’ in Thyatira.
Most of the scriptures used by Calvinists can be ascribed to God’s prescience (which strangely these defenders of God’s soveriegnty seem to deny, implying that He couldn’t know the future unless He wrote it in advance).
Today if you hear His voice, harden not your heart…a senseless thing to say if man has no capacity to resist. That one sentence neuters Total Depravity and Irresistible Grace.
I love my Calvinist brothers (like J. Mac, whose material I always read) but I cannot, from scripture, accept these doctrines. As Spurgeon said, if you must reject it, then do so. I do.
BTW, what DO you say to a sinner? “God probably hates you and has decided you should burn for eternity. If He wants you, He’ll let you know.”?
You preach the Gospel to them. We don’t measure up to God’s standard of perfection, Christ died to take away the sins of His people, repent and trust in Christ.
You say are not of the “God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life” school yet the last statement you make seems to point to that conclusion. How do you evangelize the lost? “Come to my church and we’ll entertain you and you can see how wonderful being a Christian is.”
I agree that Calvinism is indeed the Gospel of Christ. We are wretched sinners, we deserve Hell, God in His grace elected those whom He willed to be the recipient of His grace. He died for those whom He elected and His grace will not be thwarted by man’s will. Those who come will endure to the end, to the glory of God.
I’ll leave you with this quote concerning by default being a Arminian if not a Calvinist:
“On several crucial issues related to soteriology, then, no middle ground or hybrid between Calvinism and Arminianism is logically possibly. Calminianism can only be held in defiance to reason; ultimately every Calminianism turns out either to be a disguised form of Calvinism or Arminianism, or it slides inexorably into one or the other. Many people claim to be “four-point Calvinists,” by which they usually mean they agree with total depravity, unconditional election, irresistable grace and perseverance of the saints but reject limited atonement. When pressed, however, such four-point Calvinists often turn out to have misunderstood the Calvnist idea of limited atonement, and when it is explained to them correctly (i.e., universal in sufficiency but limited in scope to the elect), they embrace it. Some doubt exists whether Calvin himself believed in limited atonement, but it does seem to be part and parcel of the Calvinist system. Why would God intend Christ’s suffering to atone for the guilt of those God had already determined woiuld not be saved? Some Arminians call themselves “two-point Calvinists,” especially if they live, work or worship in contexts where Reformed theology is considered the norm for evangelicalism. By this they usually mean that they affirm total depravity and perseverance of the saints. (This is especially common among Baptists.) However, by rejecting unconditional election, limited atonement and irresistable grace, they show taht they are really Arminians and not Calvinists at all.” (Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities by Roger E. Olson; pp. 76-77)
Hi, Joel
That is correct.
I believe this is just to remove any excuse. No the apostles didn’t stress God’s desire to save per se but commanding all men everywhere to repent (Acts 17:30) is tantamount to the same thing. God does say “Choose life” and “Why would you die?” and similar things.
God is no putty tat, to be sure, as many Calvinists seem to think we believe. He DOES know who’s going to reject Him and allows them to come to accountability anyway. That’s ’severity’ indeed! (Romans 11:22)
Anyway, I enjoy chatting with you. On You Tube I would have been told I was going to hell several times by now! lol!!
“..so you ARE saying that God never loved the non-elect.”
I was focusing on salvation. God seeks and saves the lost sheep, each and every one. It’s the Father’s good pleasure to give His flock His kingdom. There are those who are not His sheep, and so they don’t have faith in Christ.
Does God love those who are not His sheep? Yes, however it’s not the same foreknowing love He has for His beloved sheep, whom Christ laid His life down for.
I love my grandsons. I would give my life for them, and rotect them, and it’s a love unlike any love I have for other children. I do love and care for other children, but not the way I love my grand kids.
God owes not one human His love, but we know He shows His graciousness to an earth full of people who hate Him. Adn out of these rebels God has purposed to save a peole for Himself.
He has mercy on whom He wills.
Persoanlly, I wish God would have mercy on everyone. But I know He should have mercy on no one.
You just said you wished God would have mercy on everyone…therefore you are pretty much saying God’s way isn’t perfect. I believe God saves ‘whosoever will’, therefore being responsible for no one’s damnation.
I agree the Lord loves (in some way) everyone (Deut 7:8) in Israel and the stranger (Deut 10:18). I don’t agree that even though He purposes to damn them without giving them a choice (or, as you say, making the choice for them (since “‘making someone wlling’ is an oxymoron” as Dave Hunt says), that giving them earthly comforts is ‘love’
“you wished God would have mercy on everyone…therefore you are pretty much saying God’s way isn’t perfect.”
No I’m not. Paul wished that he could be cursed for his brothers the Jews, but he knew God has mercy on who He will. Rom. 9
I am deserving of condemnation, as is every soul on the earth. God’s owes us nothing.
If God would have decided to save no one, and had mercy on no one, He would have been perfect in His purpose to do so.
If the Lord decides to save some of these wrath deserving sinners, and yet doesn’t want to show mercy on them all, He is perfect not only in His saving grace, but also in His judging those He didn’t have mercy on.
Salvation is of the Lord. Jesus came to seek and save His lost sheep. It’s the Father’s good pleasure to give His kingdom to His flock.
Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God.Rom 10 : 17. Each person who hears will have to decide if they will respond in obedient faith.John 7 : 17.
Ray,
What’s the difference in the one who is obedient in faith, and the one who isn’t? that’s the big question i have as a Calvinist.
Don ,
In the current discussion and in the language being used , free will to choose.
David M,
Here is the answer you believe no Calvinist can answer:
1) We share the hope that we have;
* Because YAHWEH has inclined our evil hearts to love Him and His commands, from purified hearts.
* Because YAHWEH has inclined our evil hearts to love all His created, especially His Body -not however neglecting the Unregenerated, from purified hearts.
BECAUSE this fulfills the Commandments and is the sum of them ALL, which is the Royal Law of love, mercy and grace; NEVER to the neglect of justice and righteousness.
2) We share the hope that we have, because it pleases the Father of all mercies to ordain the MEANS, through preaching the Scriptures; as well as the Power, which is Regeneration by the Spirit Alone.
3) Because He COMMANDS it!
4) Neacuse His Word does not return void unto Him:
* Either unto judgement in the UNPARDONABLE sin of Unbelief;
OR
* Unto salvation, by the work and Persons of the Trinity Alone, through the means of the presentation of the Scriptures Alone.
Because WE also where idolators, blasphemers, haters of God – “master”, “lord”,”king” and “ruler” of our own selves; untill He convicted us of sin, righteousness and judgment and He plucked us out of the fires of Hell for His OWN glory, joy and purposes (Which we have no privvy to). In fact our own view is that we are more damnable that the damned, for we see our sins for what they where and are, whereas the Unregenerated love and desire their sins.
For the Kingdom, your servant with the Gospel of mercy to the damned.
W
“free will to choose.”
So one person says, “Alright, I’ll choose the Gospel, I’ll choose to believe the good news of Jesus, and heaven and forgiveness of sin, and I’ll repent and be His disciple, instead of perishing and being forever forsaken by God.”
The next person says, “I don’t want this eternal life, nor Jesus, nor do I want to be His disiple, I will take the condemnation, instead of the Gospel, the good news, I will not repent, nor choose to believe.”
The repentance, faith, and all that accompany this is a simple free will choice?
No big deal really, just a choice of a sinner’s free will. Some simply choose to repent and believe, and other’s choose not to believe and repent.
Ray, why did you choose to repent and believe? If it’s alright to ask.
Don , Great discussion. Because I heard the word and believed , repented , confessed and then was baptized to receive the forgiveness of sins. On Pentecost all those who heard were given the same message and given the same command to repent and to be baptized to have their sins forgiven. Three thousand chose to obey and be forgiven. They believed the truth concerning Jesus.
Ray,
Why would anyone not believe? If all these can believe then shouldn’t everyone believe? Seems simple enough. I figure of some sinners use their free will to choose, then surely all sinners would.
Makes no sense that the Jews were looking for the Messiah, and He comes into their midst, pure love and perfect power, working great wonders and signs right in their midst, and yet they would not believe. How come?
Some loved darkness and not the light. Some want to stay in their sins and others do not.
So some sinners love the light, or just don’t love the darkness? They have a bit more light about them, or less darkness than other sinners?
Some sinners do not desire to be a sinner? They desire to be righteous then?
There is ALWAYS a misunderstanding regarding Freewill and the Bondage of our limited FREE Will; which in essence is in bondage to the lusts and desires that are our sins.
We do not deny RESPONSIBILITY; what we argue is that Scripture and forensic experience affirms that our Free Will is limited in it’s inclination toward sin, therfore not desiring or able (Without Devine intervention, mercy and grace) to seek True Righteousness or godliness; but rather that our “FREE WILL” in Spiritual and godliness is enslaved and LIMITED by our sinfulness and our own lusts and desires.
Jonathan Edwards made some wonderful deductions from Scripture and experience as has R.C. Sproul, Martin Luther and countless other Evangelicals; it is that sin is so sinful and that we love it so much (In our natural state) that we cannot free ourselves from it; but that we require a Miracle and Deliverance from that which we will NOT TO DO (Romans 6-8). We find that sin in our very nature compels even a regenerate man to stumble at times when walking according to the flesh and not in the Spirit, who Himself is the power unto salvation by the Gospel and Law preached.
I trust that this makes more clear sense?
Some who have heard and believe come to the light, desire the light , some hear and do not. Jonh 1 : 10- 13 ; John 3 : 19 – 21 .
“Who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, BUT of God.” John 1:13
Amen.
“…were by nature children of wrath, even as others. …BUT God, …Even when we were dead in sins, has made us alive, has quickened us, together with Christ”.
“SO THEN, it is not of him that wills, or of him that runs, BUT of God who shows mercy to whom He purposes.”
I agree salvation of a sinner is all of God. He foreknew us, and predetermined us, called us, justified us, and glorified us!
What a Savior! He gets all the glory, and I’ll never understand why he would take this dead sinner and make me alive together with Christ.
Have a blessed Lord’s day tomorrow.
The Father gets all the glory for every blessing we have.
Amen. And every blessing, even the trials, are only through His garec, and for Christ’s sake.
have a joyful Lord’s day tomorrow in His grace and love.
Phil:
Isn’t there a dfference between evangelical Arminianism like that of John Wesley, and the classical Armianism of the Remonstrants like that of Conrad Vorstius?
Ray,
You quoted the verse containing the words, “Faith comes by hearing” as if it supported your view that anyone has the ability to come to Christ. However, as I have told you before, that is not the explicit teaching of the verse. The explicit teaching is that faith cannot come without hearing. The verse does not say that faith is a necessary result of hearing (for that is explicitly denied by the parable of the sower). The verse also does not say that everyone who hears has the choice to have faith or not. The verse ONLY says that hearing the Word is the method by which God has chosen to impart faith. Whether or not the faith is man’s decision or God’s decision is not the intended meaning of this verse. We must go elsewhere to find the Biblical teaching concerning that issue.
Daniel ,
My point was that faith comes from hearing the word of God. That is the explicit teaching of the verse.
Thank you very much, Phil for your clarification on this matter. It has certainly helped clear up some things in my mind and has encouraged me greatly. My family are all believers in the Lord, and they attend a church that teaches what you might call Arminian doctrine. But, as far as I can tell, they hold to all those foundational truths of which you speak. It’s funny that you mentioned that it often is in an attempt to reconcile God’s sovereignty with human responsibility where the error occurs. I find that to be the case in nearly all my discussions with them. I am so thankful that you have chosen to tackle such a contentious issue, and have done so with gentleness and clarity. Thanks again for your wonderful ministry.
Blessings,
Pete T.