Finestwheat
05-28-2009, 07:48 PM
The calvinist comment by Robert Zins forgets God's love when he states:
To say that God "allows it" but does not "will it" but lets it take place, puts you in no better position than the Calvinist who says that God could give irresistible grace to all but does not want to do so. How is it that one can feel better about God allowing corruption, abortion, murder and lust, when He could stop it...?
God could stop all evil immediately (by wiping out mankind), but God gave man the genuine power of choice so that he could receive God's love and love Him in return. The cessation of sin could only come by destroying the human race as He once did by the flood. However, in His grace and love He allowed Noah and his family to survive. Sadly, through them sin survived and grew into the horror we see occurring daily. The God of the Bible, however, has a loving solution for sin for all who will believe in the gospel and receive the Lord Jesus Christ as Savior.
Instead of wiping out man or irresistibly coercing them into salvation or preventing them the opportunity to be saved, God's solution is best and realistic to provide us the choice.
Calvinism, on the other hand, claims God could rescue everyone from hell by imposing His will upon them-which He does for the elect only (OSAS Arminians do not say God could rescue everyone unless they were willing). He could deliver everyone from all suffering and disease and death-but foreordained the wickedness rampant today. He could have left this world a paradise without sin ever invading it, because man has no real choice under Calvinism, and therefore, God himself is even the author of evil. Calvinism's love is not love at all and is a libel upon God's character. It is a denial of God's sincere love for man.
Dave Hunt correctly says:
The issue we have been dealing with is very simple: Which God is the biblical One-the God of Calvinism, or the God of love who is not willing that any should perish, but has given the right to choose? There is no question which God rings true to the conscience that is given even to the unsaved. And this is the God of the Bible.
As Paul foretold, so it has happened: "But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived" (2 Tim. 3.13). Nor is that condition what God desires for man, but contrary to His will, though He allows it.
I think we can be quite confident here, in complete agreement, that Dave Hunt does not believe Calvinists are saved. Not that all Calvinists are unsaved, but most would be unsaved and thus, going to Hell. There can be a rare exceptions to the rule given extenuating circumstances, for even a born-again believer can be deceived, obsessed, even possessed by the evil spirit.
Men are responsible for their sin and for their eternal destiny, because salvation is offered to all as a free gift and all have the ability either to receive it or reject it. Calvinism insists that man has no such capability, yet he is responsible anyway as Robert Zins states:
The Word of God teaches that all men are responsible before God and accountable. That all men are equally "unable" to please God is also undeniable. But inability does not diminish responsibility.
The Bible also says Robert Zins, be "not doubletongued" (1 Tim. 3.8). Don't say man is responsible yet not given the means or opportunity or grace to be saved. To hold someone responsible for failing to do what he cannot do would be like saying that a baby is responsible to run the 100-meter high hurdles in a world-record time.
Robert Zins, the Holy Spirit says you have never been born-again and do not worship God of the Bible, so says the Bible, you are already condemned (John 3.18).
Zins quotes R. L. Dabney to the effect "that the absence of volition in God to save all does not imply a lack of love. God has true love which is constrained by consistent and holy reasons known only to Himself." Such rationalizations fail because genuine love never fails. There are no "holy reasons" why God could not do for the reprobate what He does for the elect! There is no whitewashing Calvinism's God from His failure to rescue those whom He could rescue. Nor can this lack of love and compassion be excused due to "reasons known only to Himself." Who declares there are some unknown reasons other than the unsaved Calvinist who himself doesn't know those reasons? Whether a moderate or hyper-Calvinist, this problem still exists for your faith.
Baal is exposed as a false god not worthy of worship because of its demand that children be sacrificed in the sacred fires on its altars. Can Baal be excused by "reasons known only to himself"? Any supposed deity that is less gracious, less loving, less kind, and less merciful than man's conscience tells him he cannot be the true God.
Let us pray for Robert Zins that he may one day give his life to Christ. Amen.
To say that God "allows it" but does not "will it" but lets it take place, puts you in no better position than the Calvinist who says that God could give irresistible grace to all but does not want to do so. How is it that one can feel better about God allowing corruption, abortion, murder and lust, when He could stop it...?
God could stop all evil immediately (by wiping out mankind), but God gave man the genuine power of choice so that he could receive God's love and love Him in return. The cessation of sin could only come by destroying the human race as He once did by the flood. However, in His grace and love He allowed Noah and his family to survive. Sadly, through them sin survived and grew into the horror we see occurring daily. The God of the Bible, however, has a loving solution for sin for all who will believe in the gospel and receive the Lord Jesus Christ as Savior.
Instead of wiping out man or irresistibly coercing them into salvation or preventing them the opportunity to be saved, God's solution is best and realistic to provide us the choice.
Calvinism, on the other hand, claims God could rescue everyone from hell by imposing His will upon them-which He does for the elect only (OSAS Arminians do not say God could rescue everyone unless they were willing). He could deliver everyone from all suffering and disease and death-but foreordained the wickedness rampant today. He could have left this world a paradise without sin ever invading it, because man has no real choice under Calvinism, and therefore, God himself is even the author of evil. Calvinism's love is not love at all and is a libel upon God's character. It is a denial of God's sincere love for man.
Dave Hunt correctly says:
The issue we have been dealing with is very simple: Which God is the biblical One-the God of Calvinism, or the God of love who is not willing that any should perish, but has given the right to choose? There is no question which God rings true to the conscience that is given even to the unsaved. And this is the God of the Bible.
As Paul foretold, so it has happened: "But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived" (2 Tim. 3.13). Nor is that condition what God desires for man, but contrary to His will, though He allows it.
I think we can be quite confident here, in complete agreement, that Dave Hunt does not believe Calvinists are saved. Not that all Calvinists are unsaved, but most would be unsaved and thus, going to Hell. There can be a rare exceptions to the rule given extenuating circumstances, for even a born-again believer can be deceived, obsessed, even possessed by the evil spirit.
Men are responsible for their sin and for their eternal destiny, because salvation is offered to all as a free gift and all have the ability either to receive it or reject it. Calvinism insists that man has no such capability, yet he is responsible anyway as Robert Zins states:
The Word of God teaches that all men are responsible before God and accountable. That all men are equally "unable" to please God is also undeniable. But inability does not diminish responsibility.
The Bible also says Robert Zins, be "not doubletongued" (1 Tim. 3.8). Don't say man is responsible yet not given the means or opportunity or grace to be saved. To hold someone responsible for failing to do what he cannot do would be like saying that a baby is responsible to run the 100-meter high hurdles in a world-record time.
Robert Zins, the Holy Spirit says you have never been born-again and do not worship God of the Bible, so says the Bible, you are already condemned (John 3.18).
Zins quotes R. L. Dabney to the effect "that the absence of volition in God to save all does not imply a lack of love. God has true love which is constrained by consistent and holy reasons known only to Himself." Such rationalizations fail because genuine love never fails. There are no "holy reasons" why God could not do for the reprobate what He does for the elect! There is no whitewashing Calvinism's God from His failure to rescue those whom He could rescue. Nor can this lack of love and compassion be excused due to "reasons known only to Himself." Who declares there are some unknown reasons other than the unsaved Calvinist who himself doesn't know those reasons? Whether a moderate or hyper-Calvinist, this problem still exists for your faith.
Baal is exposed as a false god not worthy of worship because of its demand that children be sacrificed in the sacred fires on its altars. Can Baal be excused by "reasons known only to himself"? Any supposed deity that is less gracious, less loving, less kind, and less merciful than man's conscience tells him he cannot be the true God.
Let us pray for Robert Zins that he may one day give his life to Christ. Amen.