God Wants All men to Repent and be Saved

[Byzantine_Wolf]

One good starting point is this from John Piper’s website: What We Believe About the Five Points of Calvinism. As might be expected from the title, it explains the Doctrines of Grace. When a friend of mine became a Reformed Baptist it was one of the first places I turned in order to fully understand what he believed.

While I do not agree with the Reformed position (and my friend knows this) I think a lot of people criticize it without even fully understanding what it really is, or what their own apologists have already said.

 

[SemperReformada]

One good starting point is this from John Piper’s website: What We Believe About the Five Points of Calvinism. As might be expected from the title, it explains the Doctrines of Grace. When a friend of mine became a Reformed Baptist it was one of the first places I turned in order to fully understand what he believed.

While I do not agree with the Reformed position (and my friend knows this) I think a lot of people criticize it without even fully understanding what it really is, or what their own apologists have already said.

Thaknks for posting the link. John Piper, RC Sproul, and Spurgeon all come to mind as good sources for gaining an understanding of what Reformed theology is and isn’t.

As can be evidennced here at CAF, there are many, many, many who oppose Calvinism (Reformed theology) but very few actually take the time to understand it. I typically don’t even attempt to discuss it anymore due to the many straw men that are constructed and burned.

 

[SemperReformada]

SR,

Hi!

We could speculate on his early quick responses and his silence of late. Evidence on this thread indicates that he does severely misrepresent the Reformed position. Perhaps you could suggest a good book for him to read and see how he responds? I gave up on the thread earlier because it seemed like he was not responding to me in a meaningful way.

I brought up the difficulty of the two wills of God versus the idea of the simplicity of God. I would like to hear it if you have an answer for that.

-Tina

I would recomend googling Spurgeon, Sproul, and Piper and reading their works. Of course their are many more but these are certainly very popular Reformed theologians and have many books available as well as quite an extensive amount of work available on the net.

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

Thaknks for posting the link. John Piper, RC Sproul, and Spurgeon all come to mind as good sources for gaining an understanding of what Reformed theology is and isn’t.

I also think John MacArthur talks on it somewhat, although not as much as Piper and others. He also analyzes both sides, from what I remember.

I’d also say James White is a good supplement, especially in regards to what Reformed theology is not…but honestly, I sometimes space out when I listen to him. Even my friend disagrees with him from time to time. He sometimes takes the extreme position on things, such as stating that God doesn’t love all men, even though men like Piper (as I said earlier) believes God loves all men, He simply wills the elect to be saved. White isn’t a hypercalvinist, but I must confess at times, especially during apologetics, he comes close to sounding like one.

 

[TinaG]

I am a member of a Reformed church that subscribes to the Westminster Confession of Faith. I am slowly reading through an enormous reading list. There are many doctrines I don’t fully understand. This stuff can be complex and subtle.

-Tina

 

[TinaG]

Just when this discussion was getting interesting…

-Tina

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

Just when this discussion was getting interesting…

-Tina

It would be nice to have other Reformed members of this forum chime in, or at least those willing to partake in good dialogue. Too often I find a thread whose title relates to the Reformation, and when I click on it expecting to see interesting points made from either side all I see are repeated posts of, “OMG KATHLICKS SUX!” or “LUTHER LAWLS MOAR LYK LUSER”

 

[TinaG]

It would be nice to have other Reformed members of this forum chime in, or at least those willing to partake in good dialogue. Too often I find a thread whose title relates to the Reformation, and when I click on it expecting to see interesting points made from either side all I see are repeated posts of, “OMG KATHLICKS SUX!” or “LUTHER LAWLS MOAR LYK LUSER”

I have a growing suspicion a certain percentage of the posts are simply repetitions of other threads:

Catholic: 30,000 denominations!
Protestant: Oh, yeah? Means nothing!
Catholic: Did the Holy Spirit speak only to YOU?
Protestant: He sure didn’t speak to YOU!

on and on it goes.

So, my friend, do you have an “interesting point” to make? I have read some few Orthodox articles, and I always find Orthodoxy interesting.

-Tina “THA REFFORMMATION ROX” G

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

Catholic: 30,000 denominations!
Protestant: Oh, yeah? Means nothing!
Catholic: Did the Holy Spirit speak only to YOU?
Protestant: He sure didn’t speak to YOU!

That’s way too educated. They usually go:

Catholic: Follow the pope!
Protestant: Read the bible!
Catholic: I did…it says your mom’s ugly!
Protestant: $*%# YOU!
Moderator: Locked, suckaz.

So, my friend, do you have an “interesting point” to make? I have read some few Orthodox articles, and I always find Orthodoxy interesting.

-Tina “THA REFFORMMATION ROX” G

I have my blog, which speaks about Orthodoxy See my sig.

As for Reformed theology, one thing that might be interesting to discuss is the common accusation of the source of sin. Many people who misunderstand Reformed theology believe that it claims God is the author of sin if he has such “complete control” over everything. I know that many have pointed to the Westminster Confession which points out that sin can come about through secondary means. I think this would be an interesting topic to discuss.

 

[TinaG]

That’s way too educated. They usually go:

Catholic: Follow the pope!
Protestant: Read the bible!
Catholic: I did…it says your mom’s ugly!
Protestant: $*%# YOU!
Moderator: Locked, suckaz.

Eloquently put.

I have my blog, which speaks about Orthodoxy See my sig.

I took a glance. Nice!

As for Reformed theology, one thing that might be interesting to discuss is the common accusation of the source of sin. Many people who misunderstand Reformed theology believe that it claims God is the author of sin if he has such “complete control” over everything. I know that many have pointed to the Westminster Confession which points out that sin can come about through secondary means. I think this would be an interesting topic to discuss.

It could be. You seem to be driving.

-Tina “Along for the Ride” G

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

It could be. You seem to be driving.

-Tina “Along for the Ride” G

After digging up the link to the Westminster Confession (I used to have it on my old laptop, but that…uh…fell asleep in the Lord, so to speak), I found this:

Nevertheless, they may, through the temptations of Satan and of the world, the prevalency of corruption remaining in them, and the neglect of the means of their preservation, fall into grievous sins… [Westminster Confession, 7:3, http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/”]link]

Therefore, as I said earlier, Reformed theology admits to the presence of sin and God’s control, but believes that there are also secondary means (the influence of the devil and his demons, our fallen nature, etc); therefore it is not correct to say that Reformed Christians believe (let alone argue) that

Granted, there may be some hypercalvinists who do think God is the author of sin, but they are perhaps the extreme opposite of open theists, who believe God has absolutely no control over a human being. Other traits of hypercalvinists, at least to the extent of my knowledge, include:

• A rejection of evangelizing. They believe that if God wills a person to be saved, He will do it by Himself and it is not worth the trouble to preach to people. John MacArthur has been criticized by some hypercalvinists because he is a Calvinist yet fervently supports evangelizing.
• An extreme view of election that argues babies who die early are only saved if they are among “the elect.” This is sometimes used by anti-Calvinist folk (such as Ergun Caner) for an emotional response against Reformed theology.

Just some additional thoughts. I admit I haven’t really presented anything coherent here in terms of a solid lesson, but I suppose I can only plant the seed and hope it sprouts a discussion.

• Byzantine “You can drive so long as I can pick the music” Wolf

 

[TinaG]

I suppose we could look at the hypothetical antithesis of the OP’s statement:

God Wants All men to Go to Hell

and see where it takes us. We know:

1. All are under the wrath of God and subject to His fierce judgement. Under this scheme, His Justice is His primary motivator and other motivations, such as mercy, are subsidiary.
2. Not all men go to hell, so there must be some reason not all do.
3. What ever that reason is, it must be consistent with points 1 and 2.
4. Under the axiom of the “conservation of wrath” (His holy wrath and judgement must be executed and cannot be impeded, delayed or thwarted) His wrath went somewhere to allow some to go to heaven.

From there, somehow, we must work around to the incarnation, crucifixion, resurrection of Christ and the logically subsequent salvation of some (some must go to hell, as otherwise God’d desire would be entirely thwarted, and we cannot have that). My brain sort of petered out and I will pass the ball to you.

-Tina “Fried Brain” G

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

Well, here is where we split between the Orthodox understanding and that which developed through the scholastics and into the Reformation. The Orthodox understanding is not that God is wrathful against His creation, but that mankind is rather wrathful against Him. The place of damnation is by a person’s free will to reject or embrace Him. The fire of hell is in fact the fire of heaven, which is all the light of God. The pain felt in hell is the despising hate that the damned have for God.

But of course, the very argument that “God wants all men to go to hell” (or maybe more exactly “God does not want all men to be saved”) in relation to Reformed theology is silly to begin with. That isn’t what Reformers argue. They simply argue for the supreme control of God over mankind’s spiritual path and guidance to save us from our sin and death.

 

[TinaG]

Well, here is where we split between the Orthodox understanding and that which developed through the scholastics and into the Reformation. The Orthodox understanding is not that God is wrathful against His creation, but that mankind is rather wrathful against Him. The place of damnation is by a person’s free will to reject or embrace Him. The fire of hell is in fact the fire of heaven, which is all the light of God. The pain felt in hell is the despising hate that the damned have for God.

But of course, the very argument that “God wants all men to go to hell” (or maybe more exactly “God does not want all men to be saved”) in relation to Reformed theology is silly to begin with. That isn’t what Reformers argue. They simply argue for the supreme control of God over mankind’s spiritual path and guidance to save us from our sin and death.

I agree the premise is silly. It was posited to explore its ramifications and to gain an understanding of what is true by looking at what is not true - I believe the term is apophatic, a rather solidly Orthodox methodology?

In Reformed thought, God is sovereign. Man’s free will is typically portrayed as truly free but nonetheless subject to the sovereignty of God. From what I have seen, these are held as mystery, mystery being another thing the Orthodox cherish.

-Tina “Rather Silly Myself” G

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

Hmmm…aren’t there other Reformed Christians on this board?

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

I agree the premise is silly. It was posited to explore its ramifications and to gain an understanding of what is true by looking at what is not true - I believe the term is apophatic, a rather solidly Orthodox methodology?

In Reformed thought, God is sovereign. Man’s free will is typically portrayed as truly free but nonetheless subject to the sovereignty of God. From what I have seen, these are held as mystery, mystery being another thing the Orthodox cherish.

-Tina “Rather Silly Myself” G

I believe the flaw in reformed theology is:

God can remain 100% sovereign and man can have free will if it was God’s will to create man with free will.

Calvinists will argue that man’s free will somehow interferes with God’s sovereignty.

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

I believe the flaw in reformed theology is:

God can remain 100% sovereign and man can have free will if it was God’s will to create man with free will.

Calvinists will argue that man’s free will somehow interferes with God’s sovereignty.

I don’t think that’s quite what they argue. They want to avoid the conclusion of open theists, who might argue mankind has complete control over God. The idea is can God save to the best of His ability, or can He save completey - ie, save all the elect, those He predetermined to be saved. So mankind’s free will is not “interfering,” but granting too much control to man’s free will would, in their eyes, violate God’s will.

 

[TinaG]

I believe the flaw in reformed theology is:

God can remain 100% sovereign and man can have free will if it was God’s will to create man with free will.

Calvinists will argue that man’s free will somehow interferes with God’s sovereignty.

The Calvinists I know believe BOTH are true:

1. God is sovereign. Nothing impedes His sovereignty.
2. Man truly has free will. That will has been twisted by sin and so man is in bondage to sin, and it is freed only by the grace of God. Man is answerable for his sin but not able to change from it on his own.

They recognize ta mystery here in an apparent contradiction. Nothing, not even man’s free will, impedes God’s sovereignty. Likewise, God’s sovereignty does not impede man’s free will.

And this makes a whole lot of sense to me.

-Tina