Churchwork
05-30-2009, 02:28 AM
Luther in The Bondage of The Will presented God just as sadistic as Calvin did, "deservedly taunting and mocking" the lost by calling upon them to come to Christ when they couldn't without the help He refused to give them!
It is one thing to mock those who, having been given genuine choice, have willingly rejected salvation and have persisted in their attempt to dethrone God. It is something else for Calvin's and Luther's God, having created man without the possibility of repenting and believing the gospel, then to mock him in the doom to which he has been predestined.
This is so sick, in fact, that I would rather go to Hell than ever accept Calvinism.
Calvin explained his teaching that some are predestined to salvation and others to destruction was "the only sure ground of confidence [that one was truly saved]," a confidence that only the elect possess. But how could the belief that God had predestined some to heaven and others to hell give anyone confidence that he was chosen for heaven?
Reading Calvin and not being able to understand anything he says would lead one to the conclusion according to John Calvin you are not saved, eternally lost and without hope. On the other hand, if the reason why nothing John Calvin says makes any sense is because Calvin's spirit is dead to God and thus, Calvin is trying to rationalize a lie, then this explains why nothing he says makes sense. The latter seems to be a more reasonable assessment because it is the standard we apply to ourselves and our fellow man. Why should God hold to a lesser standard?
Ironically, Loraine Boettner actually exposes Calvinism to be a heresy when admitting, "This cardinal truth of Christianity was first clearly seen by Augustine...." Why couldn't the saints see it before Augustine? Is the Word of God not clear enough in the 66 books of the Bible that it had to wait till Augustine to make it understood?
MacArthur admits, "the universal love of God is hard to reconcile with the doctrine of [Calvinism] election...." Because he is embarrassed by the god of Calvinism, he claims there are two different kinds of love: the love he has for sending those to hell and the other kind of love for his elect. How is this moderate Calvinism really any different than hyper-Calvinism? All 5 points are still held.
So we are left with the idea hypers denied God loves everyone. To them, "For God so loved the world" didn't mean every person "without exception, but without distinction" (a mystifying phrase which fails when dissected). "Without distinction"? What does that mean? It means all kinds of people that comprise the elect, but not every individual in every kind. But hold on. That still means the god of Calvinism doesn't love some people. The mystifying phrase is used because of embarrassment so it is used to cover up, hoping people stop short of understanding it is still embarrassing.
MacArthur tries to rationalize this insanity further. "The fact that some sinners are not elected to salvation is no proof that God's attitude toward them is utterly devoid of sincere love.... He loves the elect in a special way reserved only for them. But that does not make His love for the rest of humanity any less real." Is it really real love by sending them to Hell without any opportunity to be saved? So God has (or had) a real love for those He never intended to save? "What nonsense!" a Christian will reply. Why not just admit the truth? The god of Calvinism is not powerful enough to have love for everyone.
MacArthur is being dishonest with himself. He believes the same thing a hyper-Calvinist believes. Then traps himself in a serious contradiction when he says God loves everyone, but it is without the love given to the elect. Is that really love? I really don't feel the love in a doubletongue, do you?
Is it real love to predestine someone to eternal torment who could have been saved? His nature is to love everyone; it's not an obligation. And if to love everyone in different ways is His prerogative, how is that loving to predestine them for Hell when we ourselves don't consider that love to not love someone enough to help them if they are drowning or in trouble of some kind?
Love your neighbor as yourself, but what kind of love would it be to put your neighbor's house on fire? If you agree, then you must disagree with Calvinism. Otherwise, you fall back into doubletalk defending the god of Calvinism for predestining multitudes to the Lake of Fire for eternity, and there was nothing they could do about it.
People are born sinners, so sending them to Hell is a false verdict, unless they have free-will and use that free-will to refuse God's salvation. So how is it love for God to exclude any that He could save? MacArthur admits that Christ "employed the universal term whosoever , both to invite all [I]indiscriminately to partake of life, and to cut off every excuse from unbelievers." How can you call everyone indiscriminately, but only save some discriminately? This is more doubletalk. In MacArthur's same book, The Love of God, he quotes Calvin, "but the elect alone are they whose eyes God opens...." Not free to refuse such eyes are the eyes of robots without a conscience, not human beings made in God's image. The Bible says be "not doubletongued" (1 Tim. 3.8).
You don't see the contradiction? God invites everyone to salvation-including those whom Christ didn't die and whom He has already from a past eternity determined not to save and has predestined to eternal torment? You think this makes sense? Only the Devil himself could concoct such a contradiction and pass it off as palatable to deceive souls and create a cult called Calvinism which are just the same old false teachings from Augustine then propagate it among the masses like Hitler's 3rd Reich and Calvin's Geneva to create another Crusade and Spanish Inquisition.
The Calvinist responds, "Just because it seems like a contradiction to us..." Calvinism teaches God doesn't want everyone to be saved. He only opens the eyes of the elect! If He did love everyone, everyone would be saved. That's like inviting everyone at your local church to come to your house for dinner but only telling a select group where you live and keeping your address secret from the rest. How do you think the congregation would react to such duplicity? Calvinist friends will stick up for that person and insist that he really wants everyone to come, even though he makes it impossible for most to find him. That's double talk! And it's like this throughout all Calvinist writings. These are really bad morals. How can you find justification in such low morals and blatant contradictions unless you are not born-again? These are shamefully obvious contradictions that form the very basis of Calvinism. The fact you can't repent of Calvinism indicates you are not born-again. It means you will never repent. You will use Calvinism and total depravity teachings to keep yourself eternally separated from God. For realize your conscience does not convict you, nor do you sense the Holy Spirit telling you this is wrong either. You're lost. A Calvinist might secretly say to himself such a person was never given the enabling grace to believe in Christ; at best all he can do is worship a false Christ of Calvinism.
The hypocrisy of moderate Calvinists is horrendous. Though no less unsaved, at least the hyper-Calvinist is true to Calvinism.
A Calvinist will be less apologetic than a Christian because what was the point? The elect need no evidence or persuasion, and it would do the non-elect no good. If done, it would all be a pointless charade anyway. Delivering the gospel of salvation is just for show.
It is one thing to mock those who, having been given genuine choice, have willingly rejected salvation and have persisted in their attempt to dethrone God. It is something else for Calvin's and Luther's God, having created man without the possibility of repenting and believing the gospel, then to mock him in the doom to which he has been predestined.
This is so sick, in fact, that I would rather go to Hell than ever accept Calvinism.
Calvin explained his teaching that some are predestined to salvation and others to destruction was "the only sure ground of confidence [that one was truly saved]," a confidence that only the elect possess. But how could the belief that God had predestined some to heaven and others to hell give anyone confidence that he was chosen for heaven?
Reading Calvin and not being able to understand anything he says would lead one to the conclusion according to John Calvin you are not saved, eternally lost and without hope. On the other hand, if the reason why nothing John Calvin says makes any sense is because Calvin's spirit is dead to God and thus, Calvin is trying to rationalize a lie, then this explains why nothing he says makes sense. The latter seems to be a more reasonable assessment because it is the standard we apply to ourselves and our fellow man. Why should God hold to a lesser standard?
Ironically, Loraine Boettner actually exposes Calvinism to be a heresy when admitting, "This cardinal truth of Christianity was first clearly seen by Augustine...." Why couldn't the saints see it before Augustine? Is the Word of God not clear enough in the 66 books of the Bible that it had to wait till Augustine to make it understood?
MacArthur admits, "the universal love of God is hard to reconcile with the doctrine of [Calvinism] election...." Because he is embarrassed by the god of Calvinism, he claims there are two different kinds of love: the love he has for sending those to hell and the other kind of love for his elect. How is this moderate Calvinism really any different than hyper-Calvinism? All 5 points are still held.
So we are left with the idea hypers denied God loves everyone. To them, "For God so loved the world" didn't mean every person "without exception, but without distinction" (a mystifying phrase which fails when dissected). "Without distinction"? What does that mean? It means all kinds of people that comprise the elect, but not every individual in every kind. But hold on. That still means the god of Calvinism doesn't love some people. The mystifying phrase is used because of embarrassment so it is used to cover up, hoping people stop short of understanding it is still embarrassing.
MacArthur tries to rationalize this insanity further. "The fact that some sinners are not elected to salvation is no proof that God's attitude toward them is utterly devoid of sincere love.... He loves the elect in a special way reserved only for them. But that does not make His love for the rest of humanity any less real." Is it really real love by sending them to Hell without any opportunity to be saved? So God has (or had) a real love for those He never intended to save? "What nonsense!" a Christian will reply. Why not just admit the truth? The god of Calvinism is not powerful enough to have love for everyone.
MacArthur is being dishonest with himself. He believes the same thing a hyper-Calvinist believes. Then traps himself in a serious contradiction when he says God loves everyone, but it is without the love given to the elect. Is that really love? I really don't feel the love in a doubletongue, do you?
Is it real love to predestine someone to eternal torment who could have been saved? His nature is to love everyone; it's not an obligation. And if to love everyone in different ways is His prerogative, how is that loving to predestine them for Hell when we ourselves don't consider that love to not love someone enough to help them if they are drowning or in trouble of some kind?
Love your neighbor as yourself, but what kind of love would it be to put your neighbor's house on fire? If you agree, then you must disagree with Calvinism. Otherwise, you fall back into doubletalk defending the god of Calvinism for predestining multitudes to the Lake of Fire for eternity, and there was nothing they could do about it.
People are born sinners, so sending them to Hell is a false verdict, unless they have free-will and use that free-will to refuse God's salvation. So how is it love for God to exclude any that He could save? MacArthur admits that Christ "employed the universal term whosoever , both to invite all [I]indiscriminately to partake of life, and to cut off every excuse from unbelievers." How can you call everyone indiscriminately, but only save some discriminately? This is more doubletalk. In MacArthur's same book, The Love of God, he quotes Calvin, "but the elect alone are they whose eyes God opens...." Not free to refuse such eyes are the eyes of robots without a conscience, not human beings made in God's image. The Bible says be "not doubletongued" (1 Tim. 3.8).
You don't see the contradiction? God invites everyone to salvation-including those whom Christ didn't die and whom He has already from a past eternity determined not to save and has predestined to eternal torment? You think this makes sense? Only the Devil himself could concoct such a contradiction and pass it off as palatable to deceive souls and create a cult called Calvinism which are just the same old false teachings from Augustine then propagate it among the masses like Hitler's 3rd Reich and Calvin's Geneva to create another Crusade and Spanish Inquisition.
The Calvinist responds, "Just because it seems like a contradiction to us..." Calvinism teaches God doesn't want everyone to be saved. He only opens the eyes of the elect! If He did love everyone, everyone would be saved. That's like inviting everyone at your local church to come to your house for dinner but only telling a select group where you live and keeping your address secret from the rest. How do you think the congregation would react to such duplicity? Calvinist friends will stick up for that person and insist that he really wants everyone to come, even though he makes it impossible for most to find him. That's double talk! And it's like this throughout all Calvinist writings. These are really bad morals. How can you find justification in such low morals and blatant contradictions unless you are not born-again? These are shamefully obvious contradictions that form the very basis of Calvinism. The fact you can't repent of Calvinism indicates you are not born-again. It means you will never repent. You will use Calvinism and total depravity teachings to keep yourself eternally separated from God. For realize your conscience does not convict you, nor do you sense the Holy Spirit telling you this is wrong either. You're lost. A Calvinist might secretly say to himself such a person was never given the enabling grace to believe in Christ; at best all he can do is worship a false Christ of Calvinism.
The hypocrisy of moderate Calvinists is horrendous. Though no less unsaved, at least the hyper-Calvinist is true to Calvinism.
A Calvinist will be less apologetic than a Christian because what was the point? The elect need no evidence or persuasion, and it would do the non-elect no good. If done, it would all be a pointless charade anyway. Delivering the gospel of salvation is just for show.