Admin
|
Serious Answers to Serious Questions for Calvinists
Posted : 4 Jul, 2011 07:31 PM
SOME SERIOUS ANSWERS TO SOME SERIOUS QUESTIONS FOR CALVINISTS
>
> A personal friend of mine here in County Cork and an encouragement to
> me in the ministry has posted these questions on his church website.
> He is evidently a non Calvinist. I have sought to honestly answer his
> questions and so shed some light on what Calvinists do and do not
> believe and why we believe what we believe. His Questions/comments are
> in black�my answers/comments as ever in red. Here goes�!
>
> Some Serious Questions for Calvinists
>
> What follows are some very simple, straight-forward questions for
> people who consider themselves "Calvinistic" in their approach to the
> Bible. The questions have been left simple so that Calvinism can be
> shown to be very complex compared to the Bible.
> ANSWER: It is always ten times easier to ask one liner questions than
> to answer them. Calvinism is no more complex than any other branch of
> theology put into the position of having to explain itself. Even the
> Bible itself has "things hard to be understood" (2 Peter :16) although
> all things are plain to him that understandeth, and right to them that
> find knowledge. Proverbs 8:9 CH Spurgeon would certainly disagree with
> the thought that Calvinism is "very complex" He could say: "It is a
> fact that the system of doctrines called the Calvinistic, is so
> exceedingly simple and so readily learned, that as a system of
> Divinity it is more easily taught and more easily grasped by
> unlettered minds than any other. The poor have the Gospel preached to
> them in a style which assists their memories and commends itself to
> their judgements. It is a system which was practically acknowledged on
> high philosophic grounds by such no as Bacon, Leibnitz, and Newton,
> find yet it can charm the soul of a child and expand the intellect of
> a peasant." MTP Volume 7 p.556
>
> Much of what John Calvin taught was good, and Biblical. But his ideas
> of predestination, limited atonement, and other doctrines are huge
> stumbling-blocks to the simple truth that, "God now commandeth all men
> everywhere to repent!"
> ANSWER: Wherein lies these huge stumbling blocks? If God commands men
> everywhere to repent, any reference to the doctrines of grace as an
> excuse are only that - an excuse! Billy Sunday rightly observed that
> an excuse is just the skin of a reason stuffed with a lie. None of the
> great Calvinist preachers of the past ever considered this to be a
> stumbling block of any proportion.
> So, here goes!
>
> * Why preach `repent or perish' when the non-elect can't repent and
> the elect can't perish?
> ANSWER: We preach "repent or perish" because God commands all men
> everywhere to repent. (Acts 17:30-31) It falls to us as His witnesses
> to convey that command. The moral inability of the non elect to repent
> does not put them outside the pale of responsibility. The unsaved
> elect are perishing and will perish unless they repent. (Luke 13:3)
> Thankfully, the goodness of God leads them to repent (Romans 2:4)
> through the preaching of the gospel. The question is a good one as why
> we urge something upon people to do that they cannot naturally do. Why
> do we preach the 10 Commandments and exhort men to refrain from murder
> and adultery etc., when we know that they are unable to keep the law
> perfectly and offending in one point are guilty of all? Answer: We all
> do it because man's sinful inability does not remove him from the
> sphere of responsibility before God. The same holds for the
> requirement of faith and repentance.
>
> * How can God hold the non-elect responsible for `not believing' and
> condemn them for it, when He deliberately did not give them the faith to
> enable them to believe in the first place?
> ANSWER: The non elect are damned for all their sins including the sin
> of unbelief. God is not under any obligation to give any one faith to
> believe - if He were, salvation would not be of grace. Grace, by its
> very definition, must be totally undeserved and beyond any obligation.
> Having said that, we can only answer that God's reasons for not
> purposing to save every last sinful son of Adam lies in Himself. The
> above question is an evangelical application of the thought in Matthew
> 11:25 i.e. "Why has God hid these things from the wise and prudent and
> revealed them unto babes?" leaving us only to say with the Lord Jesus,
> "Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight." (Matthew 11:26)
> I cannot go beyond the answer which the Lord Jesus gave.
>
> * If Christ has already made an efficacious atonement for the sins of
> an elect person, is that elect person actually lost during the period
> prior to their being saved?
> ANSWER: Yes. He is like the sheep out in the mountain (Luke 15:3-7)
> Jesus came specifically to "Seek and to save that which was lost."
> Luke 19:10)
>
> * During the period before an elect person gets saved, how are they
> condemned already (for not believing) when their unbelief (which is a
> sin) has already been paid for by Christ on the cross?
> ANSWER: As long as they remain in non belief, they remain in sin and
> so are condemned already. When they come to faith in Christ, then they
> are justified (Romans 5:1) and so the condemnation is lifted. This is
> an excellent question. If we apply it to the
> Christ-died-equally-for-every-last sinful-son-of Adam theory, we might
> ask the question: "During the period before any one gets saved, how
> are they condemned already (for not believing) when their unbelief
> (which is a sin) has already been paid for on the Cross?" The problem
> is greater for the General Redemptionist believer than it is for the
> Calvinist. Indeed if Christ has paid the price of redemption even for
> people now in hell�why are they in hell at all? How many times does
> the price for sin need to paid? Has their unbelief (which is a sin)
> has already been paid for? If He did not die for their sin of
> unbelief�then He did not die for all their sins. Spurgeon rightly
> points out that there are a thousand times more horrors with the
> doctrine of General Redemption than are said to be associated with
> Particular Redemption. (Spurgeon's views on Particular Redemption)
>
> * If repentance is a gift only given to the elect, what did Jesus mean
> when He said that some of the people in hell would have repented if
> they had had the same opportunity as the people to whom He preached?
> ANSWER: A reference to Matthew 11:20-27 A number of things. 1) It is a
> hypothetical observation: "If" This does not mean that it has no
> force�it's reality heightened the condemnation of those in Capernaum
> who wilfully despised their day of opportunity. 2) Why did the folk in
> Tyre and Sidon etc., not have the same opportunity as those in
> Capernaum? A non Calvinist protest at this point might be: "Is that
> fair?" Why are some people today left in total ignorance of the gospel
> while others are surrounded by gospel preaching churches? We may
> rightly say (today) that the Church has failed in her commission. But
> why has it been allowed to fail? Could God have overridden the
> failure? The history of Christian missions is full of men - both
> Calvinist and non Calvinist - who broke out of the failure because God
> opened doors for them. Why have more doors not been opened? Again�the
> answer lies in the passage itself: "Even so, Father: for so it seemed
> good in thy sight." (Matthew 11:26) I can but pray as a responsible
> believer that it will so please God to open the door for people to go
> and if it should be that He would have me specifically to go�then pack
> my bags and obey His will, believing, as I do, that every last man
> alive on earth today is to hear the message. 3) We may conclude that
> God withheld repentance from those men in Tyre and Sidon. They were
> not treated equally with the Children of Israel and were left to
> perish in their wilful and chosen sin.
>
> * Why does the Spirit of God strive and convict some sinners who later
> prove, by dying and going to hell, that they were non-elect? What is
> the purpose of such movings of the Spirit?
> ANSWER: When men refuse to repent and believe the gospel, they make a
> statement that they prefer sin to Christ. They do so often despite the
> striving of the Spirit of God. The purpose of such strivings is to
> leave them further without excuse. It magnifies the justice of God who
> rightly damns men for their stubbornness. No one in hell blames God
> for their damnation. They recognise that they have "destroyed
> [themselves]" (Hosea 13:9) Even Judas who went "as it was written of
> him" (Matthew 26:24) put the blame where it rightly belonged - on
> himself: "I have betrayed the innocent blood" (Matthew 27:3) As did
> Peter who said that "Judas by transgression fell" (Acts 1:25) Again
> the question is two-edged. What is the purpose of the Spirit so moving
> with men who later went to hell when, according to His foreknowledge,
> He knew that they would resist Him? No matter how hard He strove or
> tried? Why did God create such people in the first place? The
> questions are endless and they are deep for us all. Whatever purpose
> the Spirit has in striving with the non elect, no man can ever say
> that His sovereign purpose was to save them. If so�we are left with a
> frustrated God whose comments like: "The LORD of hosts hath sworn,
> saying, Surely as I have thought, so shall it come to pass; and as I
> have purposed, so shall it stand�For the LORD of hosts hath purposed,
> and who shall disannul it? and his hand is stretched out, and who
> shall turn it back?" (Isaiah 14:24/27) must not be taken too literally
> and can be watered down in the all important doctrine of salvation.
>
> If the following is true:
> ANSWER: We are moving here into the realm of the hypothetical: "If the
> following is true�" This leaves us a lot of movement, because the
> natural thing would be to say: "What if the following is not true�"
> and it may not be true either on the basis that it fails to state all
> the position or states something which is not believed at all.
> Whatever�we will seek to get at what Calvinists believe even if the
> statement falls short.
>
> * John Smith is deliberately foreordained to commit sin:
> ANSWER: Such foreordination makes sin certain but not necessary. John
> Smith commits such sin because he wants to. He despises the warnings
> of God, rejects the mercy of God to turn away from it and the mercy of
> God to be saved from it and is therefore allowed to free fall into his
> chosen sin. He has no one to blame but himself. Such is the case again
> and again in the Bible. This is the most consistent way in which we
> are to interpret the case of Pharaoh in Romans 9:17 or Judas in Luke
> 22:22 or Pilate and Herod etc., in Acts 2:23/4:27/28 or Shimei in 2
> Samuel 16:11 etc.
> Click here for Shedd's explanation on this point. I have supplied
> paragraph headings to make it even easier to read.
>
> * Is hated by God before He is born
> ANSWER: "Is hated by God before He is born" is inadequately stated. It
> would be more balanced and therefore more truthful to say that the non
> elect are hated by God because they are viewed as being sinful in
> Adam. Contrary to popular opinion, they are not viewed in a state of
> neutrality but in a state of sin. The elect are chosen undeservingly
> out of a mass of sinful humanity and the rest are passed by. The
> wonder, as ever, is not how did God hate Esau�but how did God ever
> love Jacob?
>
> * Is predestined to go to hell before he is born
> ANSWER: As above�to leave out the sin element is to change the whole
> face of what Calvinists believe. Reprobation is made up of two parts.
> In the case where God passes viewed-as-sinful men by and leaves them
> in their sin�this is sovereign. Such preterition does not make man a
> sinner nor is it the grounds on which men are condemned to hell. Men
> go to hell because of sin (Ezekiel 18:4) Condemnation is a judicial
> act and proceeds solely on the grounds of personal guilt. This is also
> John Calvin's position: "Accordingly we should contemplate the evident
> cause of condemnation in the corrupt nature of humanity - which is
> closer to us - rather than seek a hidden and utterly incomprehensible
> cause in God's predestination." (Institutes 3:23:8)
>
> * Cannot repent because God deliberately refuses to give him the
> gift of repentance
> ANSWER: Again inadequately stated. The immediate cause of man's
> inability to repent is his sinful heart. It is true that God
> deliberately withholds repentance from some men, but this is not the
> immediate cause of their inability. Sin blinds the mind and heart. God
> simply declines to open the heart and leaves them to their chosen sin.
> There is no obligation on God to give any repentance, and so it is
> said to be the goodness of God (Romans 2:4) and the grant or gift of
> God (Acts 11:18) when He does.
>
> * Cannot believe because God deliberately refuses to give him the
> gift of faith
> ANSWER: As above�only substitute the word faith for repentance. Saving
> faith likewise is the gift of God. All men have not faith (2
> Thessalonians 3:2)
>
> * Was not, is not and never will be loved by God in the slightest
> degree
> ANSWER: Very few Calvinists believe that even the non elect was not,
> is not and never will be loved by God in the slightest degree. Most of
> us believe that The LORD is good to all: and his tender mercies are
> over all his works. (Psalm 145:9) evidenced by His sending of rain - a
> real blessing in the east - upon the just and unjust (Matthew 5:45)
> etc., Many of us hold that the world which God so loved in John 3:16
> is the whole world of elect and non elect alike. This, for instance,
> was John Calvin's position; as his comments on John 3:16 prove:
>
> "For God so loved the world. Christ opens up the first cause, and, as
> it were, the source of our salvation, and he does so, that no doubt
> may remain; for our minds cannot find calm repose, until we arrive at
> the unmerited love of God. As the whole matter of our salvation must
> not be sought any where else than in Christ, so we must see whence
> Christ came to us, and why he was offered to be our Saviour. Both
> points are distinctly stated to us: namely, that faith in Christ
> brings life to all, and that Christ brought life, because the Heavenly
> Father loves the human race, and wishes that they should not perish."
>
> God tells us that He would have all men to be saved�but none of us
> (Calvinist and non Calvinist alike) can go as far as to say that He
> has purposed to save all men. Unless you are prepared to go back to
> the thought of a frustrated God playing second fiddle in His own
> universe, we cannot get round this doctrine. I just accept it by
> faith, content to know that God knows, and that whatever His reasons
> may be�they are just and good and wise.
>
> * Was deliberately excluded from the group of people Jesus died for
> on the cross so that salvation was intentionally and for ever put
> completely out of his reach:
> ANSWER: Again, the sinner will blame himself for missing out on
> salvation. The ultimate cause of damnation is unbelief (Mark 16:15-16)
> Men will lament forever in hell with the thought�why was I so foolish
> as to neglect so great salvation, freely offered to me? Why did I
> chose sin when God said "Choose life"? etc.,
>
> * Then, how is it John Smith's fault that he will end up burning
> forever in the lake of fire?
> ANSWER: As said�the immediate cause of His damnation is his own
> personal sin which he, in his folly, clung to and refused to forsake
> (Isaiah 55:6-7) Nothing more and nothing less.
>
> Bible - "Ye MUST be born again!"
> Calvin - "Ye are, or ye are not already chosen to be born again! So
> don't worry!" (this is not a quote, but a summary)
>
> ANSWER: It is true to say that we are either born again or we not.
> Just as it is true to say that we are either saved or not�justified or
> not�condemned or not. If we are not saved or justified�then we
> certainly need to be! And we certainly need to be born again. All men,
> whether elect or reprobate, must be born again. Calvin's statement
> regarding the state of men's heart is therefore most scriptural. The
> elect's regeneration may be decreed from eternity (Surely this is the
> belief of all Christians, whether Calvinistic or not. Can it be that
> one who is now born again was not chosen to the new birth from
> eternity?) and may be infallibly sure to happen�but until it happens,
> they are still unregenerate and in the depravity of their sins and
> under condemnation (Ephesians 1:4/2:3)
>
> However�It is a misrepresentation to father on Calvin, the words "So
> don't worry" (Calvin wrote to a challenger so long ago: "If you will
> attack my doctrine, why not at least show candour enough to quote my
> own language.") These words are neither a quote or even a summary of
> his position. It is an over zealous imagination at work! If a summary,
> then they must be based on something which he has said to that effect.
> Something either explicit where he uses words to the effect "So don't
> worry!" or something implicit where he denies man's responsibility and
> so implies that man can sit back and do nothing. Unless we embrace the
> Roman Catholic idea that man can either regenerate or help regenerate
> his own heart, then we must admit that the new birth is the sole work
> of God. But this does not rub the sinner of his responsibility and
> subsequently Calvin, the soulwinner, teaches that the sinner is to
> seek God. I will forbear multiplying quotes - Calvin's commentaries
> are readily available on the internet - and it is just a matter of
> looking up those verses which teach man's responsibility. His
> comments, for instance, on Isaiah 55:6 (Seek ye the Lord) and also
> Matthew 11:12 (The Kingdom of Heaven taken by force) are found below.
> Note that both of them deal with those folk who would effectively say:
> "So why worry?"
>
> Isaiah 55:6 WHILE HE IS FOUND. "The time of finding" is here used not
> exactly in the same sense as in Psalm 32:6, but as the time when God
> offers himself to us, as in other passages he has limited a fixed day
> for his good-pleasure and our salvation. (Isaiah 49:8) Yet I readily
> admit that it likewise denotes the time when necessity prompts us to
> seek God's assistance; but we ought chiefly to remember that God is
> sought at a seasonable time, when of his own accord he advances to
> meet us; for in vain shall indolent and sluggish persons lament that
> they had been deprived of that grace which they rejected. The Lord
> sometimes endures our sluggishness, and bears with us; but if
> ultimately he do not succeed, he will withdraw, and will bestow his
> grace on others. For this reason Christ exhorts us to walk while it is
> day, for the night cometh when the means of pursuing our journey shall
> be taken from us. (John 12:35) We ought to draw high consolation from
> being assured that it is not in vain for us to seek God. "Seek," says
> Christ, "and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened; ask, and it
> shall be given to you." (Matthew 7:7)
>
> Matthew 11:12 VIOLENT TAKE THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN BY STORM: The meaning
> therefore is, A vast assembly of men is now collected, as if men were
> rushing violently forward to seize the kingdom of God; for, aroused by
> the voice of one man, they come together in crowds, and receive, not
> only with eagerness, but with vehement impetuosity, the grace which is
> offered to them. Although very many are asleep, and are no more
> affected than if John in the wilderness were acting a play which had
> no reference to them, yet many flock to him with ardent zeal. The
> tendency of our Lord's statement is to show, that those who pass by in
> a contemptuous manner, and as it were with closed eyes, the power of
> God, which manifestly appears both in the teacher and in the hearers,
> are inexcusable. Let us also learn from these words, what is the true
> nature and operation of faith. It leads men not only to give, cold and
> indifferent assent when God speaks, but to cherish warm affection
> towards Him, and to rush forward as it were with a violent struggle.
> The claim that Calvin believed the sinner had nothing to worry about
> falls far short of truth. What is to be gained by propagating
> something is that is untrue?
>
> It is so much more important to be a Bible-believer, instead of a
> Calvin-believer!
> ANSWER: I agree completely. 100%. I only believe Calvin when what he
> says is in agreement with the word of God. Where he parts company with
> the Bible, I must disagree with him. This, of course, can be said of
> any commentator or preacher.
>
> THE END
> -o0o-
>
Post Reply
|
