lydiasellerofpurple@yahoo.com said, on July 28, 2012 at 1:12 AM
Paul, It was the Scream of the Damned that did it for me. I already had serious problems the Reformed movement but that was the very last straw for me. Steve CAmp was the only REformed person that took them on for it and I have never seen so much parsing and redefining of a common word in my life. I realized at that point, they were just more shock jocks. No better than the mega seeker performers.
Seriously? Great Theologians like Mohler, etc, did not speak out on Piper and Mahaney’s heresy?
“My question is: why is the idea that Christ died for those that he knew would not choose Him impossible?”
Answer: Easy. Because God would be unjust to punish Jesus for the sins of men that He would punish them again for in hell. That’s two punishments per one sin. If their sins were paid for once, they were paid for forever.
paulspassingthoughts said, on July 28, 2012 at 7:01 AM
BR,
The Hebrew writer warned not to “neglect” such a great salvation. Where there is no forgiveness of sins there is no salvation. You can’t “neglect” something that is NOT a legitimate offer.
Thank you for the link. I honestly did not know to what you were referring when you wrote “The Scream.” And I’d never heard the phrase “The scream of the damned” applied to Jesus. Also, I know you go to the sources. Thanks for pointing me to them.
That “Resolved” video was typically disturbing and sensationalized. That, and some other things they’ve said, give the impression that they somehow get off on talking about sin and damnation. I don’t detect any sorrow about it; it’s more like they’re trying to attract the young (males) by bringing it down to the level of Batman fighting evil. It’s kind of cool, ya know?
I’m sorry Sproul said “scream of the damned” in connection with Jesus, and that Piper picked up on it (it’s expected of Mahaney, but Piper is also becoming less reliable.) Sounds more like Kenneth Copeland than Scripture. I don’t think that Sproul would say that he meant that Christ was condemned to hell, but, yes, it could be interpreted that way. Very irresponsible of him.
Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that Limited Atonement is true. If God ordains means as well as ends, would He have Scripture say, “Do not share the gospel because I have chosen those who will be regenerated and who will then receive My Son”? I see what you’re getting at, but I don’t think that the presence of verses that say “Preach the Gospel” and “Have faith in Jesus” necessarily means that there can not be Limited Atonement.
Surely you know the verse you cited in Hebrews re: neglecting so great salvation was not an offer of salvation but salvation itself. The verse is written to professed believers.
paulspassingthoughts said, on July 28, 2012 at 10:23 PM
Ya, to “believers” who were thinking about turning their backs on Christianity and returning to Judaism. Don’t tell me how to read my Bible Randy, I can read it for myself.
Do you people believe Jesus was condemned to death and separated from his Father judicially as a substitute for all who would ever trust him? If not, I would be interested in hearing how you believe he satisfied the demands of God’s law for the sinner’s death and condemnation.
Calvinists don’t believe TULIP is the gospel. We believe part of it is very bad news. We are totally depraved prior to regeneration. Part of it is the gospel–Jesus secured our salvation by his death on the cross [wrongly labeled “limited atonement.” and enables us by his Spirit to persevere in grace, and part of it is what makes the gospel work–Since we would never, apart from grace, have chosen to seek God, he chose apart from any goodness or faith he foresaw in us, sought us and enabled us to believe (wrongly labeled “irresistible grace”–effectual calling is much better) what we never would have believed otherwise.
“Paul did say in Scripture that the church was a mystery and of course free will and predestination fit into this category because these have to do with salvation and the church. But when one makes predestination a PRIMARY dogma to a doctrine you are bound to run into problems Scripturally. The same can be said for Arminianism, although there seems to be more noise on the Calvinist side. The problem with Calvinists is that they make the TULIP the gospel and this where it becomes heresy. I really do not care if a Christian may have differences with issues of doctrine (as far as the secondary issues, such as in eschatology or predestination); we can debate those things, but I do care when it becomes infused with Justification and Sanctification. The mainstream Calvinists today are doing exactly that.”–Trust4Himonly
And this is where the Calvinists have arrived at the effective conclusion BEFORE the Arminians, or anyone who disagrees with Calvinist theology, to their significant advantage. The Calvinists, you’ll notice, never concede the idea that there is really any truth to “free will” at all. If you read John Edwards’ treatise on free will, you’ll notice that nowhere does he even remotely accept that man has the ability to freely choose anything…for all life’s choices are merely dominoes falling, and God pushes the first domino. Therefore, all choices are predestined by God. In this regard, the Calvinists have it right (not the doctrine, but the refusal to concede anything to the Arminians). They understand that it is simply not possible that these two ideas exist in tension in the Bible. They understand that they are mutually exclusive concepts, and thus, they always teach from the assumption that man is totally depraved and must be compelled entirely. They may pay lip service to man’s responsibility, because you can clearly see the Bible commanding things and that presumes that man can actually choose to do them…so again, lip service for the sake of at least affirming that there is some (superficial) point to their own position as “teacher” and “pastor”, But if you listen closely to their teachings, they never concede anything resembling Arminianism. Again, this is smart.
We must do the same. We must learn that if we “compromise”…if we concede in any way that “election{” as they teach it is, in fact, true, then we have lost the debate, and our beliefs must logically proceed down the path of mystic despotism same as theirs. For which of the two concepts, when both are accepted as they are taught by either Calvinists or Arminians, has the greater weight? For which shall we choose to live our lives by, ultimately, if they are BOTH true. Ultimately, we must accept that GOD’s PREDESTINING will is more powerful than our “free” will (and in fact, one readily, even if subconsciously, understands that there can be no free will in light of God’s predestining power). So, compromise in this case, accepting that BOTH are true, means that we have, in fact, handed the argument to the Calvinists. If they are right about election, then they cannot help but be right about all they teach and interpret, and man’s will is utterly irrelevant at the end of the day.
Therefore, it behooves all of us who are concerned with the obvious tyranny of New Calvinism to stop conceding that “election” means what the Calvinists mean. It simply does not. It CANNOT, in light of scripture and all logic. If we concede that the two greatest foundational tenants of Calvinism, are in fact true (inability/total depravity and election) then anything else we think is moot. For I don’t care if you believe in free will…as a Calvinist, I would merely say “Who are you, Oh man, to argue with God…”. And, what is your will compared to God’s?
I urge you who can see the obvious destruction of Calvinist doctrine, please, please, stop conceding election. It is a FALSE doctrine. We can show it is FALSE.
Now, that being said, think about this: if God can see all man’s choices from beginning to end, and determine who is saved and who is not, can He not thus rightly call man “elected”, “appointed”, “predestined”, “glorified”, “justified”? And can we not understand that God, seeing who is saved and who is not from his throne of omnipresence, and omnipotence, as the Creator, can also declare that if one is saved, then he is also everything else at the same time (call, justified,glorified, etc., per Roman’s 8), how does this in anyway run contrary to man’s free will? It doesn’t! God’s omnipotence and omnipresence is CONFIRMED by free choice/will; not limited by it.
I call this theory “Retroactive Inevitability of Choice”. All this means is that once made, man’s choices cannot be unmade, but they are no less FREE. God can see the entirety of man’s life, which he created, and thus logically declare “election”. But this does not presuppose that God CHOOSES for man. In fact, it really means that God’s “election” is CONFIRMED by free will, not by God’s arbitrary choice. Thus, God’s can both both an all powerful creator AND a just judge. And the fact that God’s will always prevails in spite of man’s free will is a greater testimony to his omnipotence than the Calvinist interpretation of “election”.
(I would also submit that any concept of predestination cannot be possible without man’s free will/choice; and I will be happy to explain that. It really revolves around the fact that if man does not possess free will, than his existence is utterly pointless and man is himself moot…a vehicle for God proving His power to Himself only; and that speaks volumes about the nature of God; insinuating that he cannot exist, and thus, predestination is not possible. No I’m not crazy. 🙂 )
Look at all the verses on predestination and then apply the theory of Retroactive Inevitability of Choice, and you will see that it works every time, I think.
If it is true, as you say, that Calvinists believe that man has no free will, that God predetermines every act of every human being, that, in effect, man is a puppet through which God acts – does this mean that Calvinists believe that God performs every sinful act Himself that man supposedly performs but doesn’t actually perform?
paulspassingthoughts said, on August 6, 2012 at 5:14 PM
Jeff,
I know you didn’t ask me the question, but if I may:
All mankind, including Christians, are left to their total depravity except for the good works that God preordained for them to perform. That is why their eschatology only calls for one judgement for justification, and not rewards as dispensationalists teach. God performs and predestines ALL good works, and then leaves total depravity to fill the void which is a realm that He has nothing to do with anyway. that’s my take on what Calvin said in the Institutes.
Um, is it just me, or does 2Peter 2:1 pose a problem for limited atonement?
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
Paul, It was the Scream of the Damned that did it for me. I already had serious problems the Reformed movement but that was the very last straw for me. Steve CAmp was the only REformed person that took them on for it and I have never seen so much parsing and redefining of a common word in my life. I realized at that point, they were just more shock jocks. No better than the mega seeker performers.
Seriously? Great Theologians like Mohler, etc, did not speak out on Piper and Mahaney’s heresy?
LikeLike
“My question is: why is the idea that Christ died for those that he knew would not choose Him impossible?”
Answer: Easy. Because God would be unjust to punish Jesus for the sins of men that He would punish them again for in hell. That’s two punishments per one sin. If their sins were paid for once, they were paid for forever.
LikeLike
BR,
The Hebrew writer warned not to “neglect” such a great salvation. Where there is no forgiveness of sins there is no salvation. You can’t “neglect” something that is NOT a legitimate offer.
LikeLike
Paul,
Thank you for the link. I honestly did not know to what you were referring when you wrote “The Scream.” And I’d never heard the phrase “The scream of the damned” applied to Jesus. Also, I know you go to the sources. Thanks for pointing me to them.
That “Resolved” video was typically disturbing and sensationalized. That, and some other things they’ve said, give the impression that they somehow get off on talking about sin and damnation. I don’t detect any sorrow about it; it’s more like they’re trying to attract the young (males) by bringing it down to the level of Batman fighting evil. It’s kind of cool, ya know?
I’m sorry Sproul said “scream of the damned” in connection with Jesus, and that Piper picked up on it (it’s expected of Mahaney, but Piper is also becoming less reliable.) Sounds more like Kenneth Copeland than Scripture. I don’t think that Sproul would say that he meant that Christ was condemned to hell, but, yes, it could be interpreted that way. Very irresponsible of him.
LikeLike
Jeff,
And worse yet, Mac sat by and let it go on without protest.
LikeLike
BR,
I think that’s a good answer.
Paul,
Yes, it was sad about Mac.
Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that Limited Atonement is true. If God ordains means as well as ends, would He have Scripture say, “Do not share the gospel because I have chosen those who will be regenerated and who will then receive My Son”? I see what you’re getting at, but I don’t think that the presence of verses that say “Preach the Gospel” and “Have faith in Jesus” necessarily means that there can not be Limited Atonement.
LikeLike
Paul,
Surely you know the verse you cited in Hebrews re: neglecting so great salvation was not an offer of salvation but salvation itself. The verse is written to professed believers.
LikeLike
Ya, to “believers” who were thinking about turning their backs on Christianity and returning to Judaism. Don’t tell me how to read my Bible Randy, I can read it for myself.
LikeLike
trust4himonly,
Don’t you think love motivates one to do his best to keep others from continuing in their belief of false doctrine?
LikeLike
Do you people believe Jesus was condemned to death and separated from his Father judicially as a substitute for all who would ever trust him? If not, I would be interested in hearing how you believe he satisfied the demands of God’s law for the sinner’s death and condemnation.
LikeLike
trust4himonly,
Calvinists don’t believe TULIP is the gospel. We believe part of it is very bad news. We are totally depraved prior to regeneration. Part of it is the gospel–Jesus secured our salvation by his death on the cross [wrongly labeled “limited atonement.” and enables us by his Spirit to persevere in grace, and part of it is what makes the gospel work–Since we would never, apart from grace, have chosen to seek God, he chose apart from any goodness or faith he foresaw in us, sought us and enabled us to believe (wrongly labeled “irresistible grace”–effectual calling is much better) what we never would have believed otherwise.
LikeLike
“Paul did say in Scripture that the church was a mystery and of course free will and predestination fit into this category because these have to do with salvation and the church. But when one makes predestination a PRIMARY dogma to a doctrine you are bound to run into problems Scripturally. The same can be said for Arminianism, although there seems to be more noise on the Calvinist side. The problem with Calvinists is that they make the TULIP the gospel and this where it becomes heresy. I really do not care if a Christian may have differences with issues of doctrine (as far as the secondary issues, such as in eschatology or predestination); we can debate those things, but I do care when it becomes infused with Justification and Sanctification. The mainstream Calvinists today are doing exactly that.”–Trust4Himonly
And this is where the Calvinists have arrived at the effective conclusion BEFORE the Arminians, or anyone who disagrees with Calvinist theology, to their significant advantage. The Calvinists, you’ll notice, never concede the idea that there is really any truth to “free will” at all. If you read John Edwards’ treatise on free will, you’ll notice that nowhere does he even remotely accept that man has the ability to freely choose anything…for all life’s choices are merely dominoes falling, and God pushes the first domino. Therefore, all choices are predestined by God. In this regard, the Calvinists have it right (not the doctrine, but the refusal to concede anything to the Arminians). They understand that it is simply not possible that these two ideas exist in tension in the Bible. They understand that they are mutually exclusive concepts, and thus, they always teach from the assumption that man is totally depraved and must be compelled entirely. They may pay lip service to man’s responsibility, because you can clearly see the Bible commanding things and that presumes that man can actually choose to do them…so again, lip service for the sake of at least affirming that there is some (superficial) point to their own position as “teacher” and “pastor”, But if you listen closely to their teachings, they never concede anything resembling Arminianism. Again, this is smart.
We must do the same. We must learn that if we “compromise”…if we concede in any way that “election{” as they teach it is, in fact, true, then we have lost the debate, and our beliefs must logically proceed down the path of mystic despotism same as theirs. For which of the two concepts, when both are accepted as they are taught by either Calvinists or Arminians, has the greater weight? For which shall we choose to live our lives by, ultimately, if they are BOTH true. Ultimately, we must accept that GOD’s PREDESTINING will is more powerful than our “free” will (and in fact, one readily, even if subconsciously, understands that there can be no free will in light of God’s predestining power). So, compromise in this case, accepting that BOTH are true, means that we have, in fact, handed the argument to the Calvinists. If they are right about election, then they cannot help but be right about all they teach and interpret, and man’s will is utterly irrelevant at the end of the day.
Therefore, it behooves all of us who are concerned with the obvious tyranny of New Calvinism to stop conceding that “election” means what the Calvinists mean. It simply does not. It CANNOT, in light of scripture and all logic. If we concede that the two greatest foundational tenants of Calvinism, are in fact true (inability/total depravity and election) then anything else we think is moot. For I don’t care if you believe in free will…as a Calvinist, I would merely say “Who are you, Oh man, to argue with God…”. And, what is your will compared to God’s?
I urge you who can see the obvious destruction of Calvinist doctrine, please, please, stop conceding election. It is a FALSE doctrine. We can show it is FALSE.
Now, that being said, think about this: if God can see all man’s choices from beginning to end, and determine who is saved and who is not, can He not thus rightly call man “elected”, “appointed”, “predestined”, “glorified”, “justified”? And can we not understand that God, seeing who is saved and who is not from his throne of omnipresence, and omnipotence, as the Creator, can also declare that if one is saved, then he is also everything else at the same time (call, justified,glorified, etc., per Roman’s 8), how does this in anyway run contrary to man’s free will? It doesn’t! God’s omnipotence and omnipresence is CONFIRMED by free choice/will; not limited by it.
I call this theory “Retroactive Inevitability of Choice”. All this means is that once made, man’s choices cannot be unmade, but they are no less FREE. God can see the entirety of man’s life, which he created, and thus logically declare “election”. But this does not presuppose that God CHOOSES for man. In fact, it really means that God’s “election” is CONFIRMED by free will, not by God’s arbitrary choice. Thus, God’s can both both an all powerful creator AND a just judge. And the fact that God’s will always prevails in spite of man’s free will is a greater testimony to his omnipotence than the Calvinist interpretation of “election”.
(I would also submit that any concept of predestination cannot be possible without man’s free will/choice; and I will be happy to explain that. It really revolves around the fact that if man does not possess free will, than his existence is utterly pointless and man is himself moot…a vehicle for God proving His power to Himself only; and that speaks volumes about the nature of God; insinuating that he cannot exist, and thus, predestination is not possible. No I’m not crazy. 🙂 )
Look at all the verses on predestination and then apply the theory of Retroactive Inevitability of Choice, and you will see that it works every time, I think.
LikeLike
Argo,
Susan and I finally found time to read and discuss your paper. Yes, we think it certainly has merit.
paul
LikeLike
Hi, Argo,
If it is true, as you say, that Calvinists believe that man has no free will, that God predetermines every act of every human being, that, in effect, man is a puppet through which God acts – does this mean that Calvinists believe that God performs every sinful act Himself that man supposedly performs but doesn’t actually perform?
LikeLike
Jeff,
I know you didn’t ask me the question, but if I may:
All mankind, including Christians, are left to their total depravity except for the good works that God preordained for them to perform. That is why their eschatology only calls for one judgement for justification, and not rewards as dispensationalists teach. God performs and predestines ALL good works, and then leaves total depravity to fill the void which is a realm that He has nothing to do with anyway. that’s my take on what Calvin said in the Institutes.
LikeLike