Amillennialist

Calvinism blasphemes the Living God

In Calvinism, Double Predestination, Limited Atonement on August 23, 2008 at 9:36 AM

What makes Calvinism unreasonable (to a Christian) is that by attributing to God what He does not say, it contradicts what He has said.

Calvin’s god creates people for Hell and denies the grace of God to all (Double Predestination and Limited Atonement, respectively).

To teach such heresy, a Calvinist must deny that God has “bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.”

Watch how a Calvinist negates the clear language of the Word of God to justify his false doctrine: Not only did Christ not die for the sins of the whole world, but He actually creates people for Hell!

So, you’re a universalist!

I am someone who makes it his goal to say only what God has said, nothing more nor less.

We should all speak His words and remain silent where He does.

What does God say? He says that Christ died for the sins of the “whole world.” He says that He is not willing that any should perish, but that all should have eternal life. In lamenting over Jerusalem He says, “I longed to gather you like a hen gathers her chicks, but you were not willing.”

Was He lying?

Don’t blame God because someone rejects Him through unbelief. To attribute to God the evil we create is not only unjust, it is blasphemy.

Strong Tower writes:

Why is it that anti-Calvinists never, ever quote all of Scripture like you did with Romans 11: What then? Israel failed to obtain what it was seeking. The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened, as it is written, “God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes that would not see and ears that would not hear [. . . .]”

Here he tries to use a discussion of (natural) Israel’s unbelief to prove that God creates people for Hell. One shouldn’t use Romans 11 for that, since verses 20 and 21 state:

That’s right! They were broken off because they didn’t believe, but you remain on the tree because you do believe. Don’t feel arrogant, but be afraid. If God didn’t spare the natural branches, he won’t spare you, either.

Why were those members of Israel rejected (“broken off”)? Because of unbelief!

It’s also worth nothing here that God warns believers against being rejected also through unbelief.

(So much for “Once saved, always saved.”)

Look also at verse 23, which reads:

If Jewish people do not continue in their unbelief, they will be grafted onto the tree again, because God is able to do that.

There goes Double Predestination and Limited Atonement. Broken-off unbelievers rejoining the people of God!

Strong Tower continues:

And the same with what Jesus said: [. . .]“To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given [. . .] I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. Indeed, in their case the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled [. . . .]’”

Later in Matthew 13, the Apostles receive an explanation of the parable of the sower. Does that mean the Apostles were blind, deaf, and uncomprehending unbelievers?

No. The Apostles listened to God, and He gave them explanations to His parables in and to which an unbeliever would have neither interest nor access.

Note also in this parable that the Word of God goes out to all soils (hearts).

Does God steal the seed? No, the devil does.

Does He make the soil rocky? No, that’s a faith that falls away.

Does He make the thorns grow and choke the Word? No, those are human cares and lusts.

Do not make examples of Man’s unbelief proof of God’s malice.

If it was the mere preaching of the Word that saves and that all could be saved by the mere hearing of it and choosing to believe it, why is it that Jesus says that the preaching that he did actually accomplished the opposite in some. Why too would Jesus not pray for the entire world, John 17:9 if indeed what you are saying is true?

I’ve never said that we “choose” to believe the Gospel. One dead in trespasses can choose nothing. In fact, Christ said, “You did not choose Me; I chose you.” All we can do is reject God’s gifts through unbelief, as noted above.

What does God say? “faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ” (Romans 10:17). We are saved by His grace, through faith, and God offers these to all.

Do not make the fact that some reject God’s gift proof of His not giving it.

As for John 17, He says He was praying specifically for His disciples. This was just before He was to be betrayed. Is it unusual to pray for loved ones before leaving them?

Is not praying for someone proof of condemning them? That makes no sense, especially in light of the many passages where God states explicitly His love for all people.

The reality of what Scripture teaches is that God does as he wills and in part that includes the blinding and hardening of the people not elect.

We’ve seen that the hardening is connected to unbelief, and that God says unbelievers will be accepted if they “do not continue in their unbelief.”

In response to my questions, “Are you implying that Christ only wants some people to be saved? Where does He say that?” Strong Tower responds with:

Will all people be saved? Then no . . . .

He wants to blame God’s “sovereignty” for the fact that people will be condemned.

But that is not what God says. He says that those who end up in Hell do so entirely on their own account: First, they sin. Second, they reject the only payment for sin (other than their own torment), which is the body and blood of Christ given and shed for them.

Jesus said, “Many are called, but few are chosen.” God calls “many” (all), but most reject His call through unbelief.

One last observation: Using Strong Tower’s logic, Christ’s executioners were Christians, since He prayed for His murderers, “Father, forgive them.”

Advertisements
  1. How do you look at the things Jesus says later on in John 6? Namely, that the full number of those whom God gives to Him WILL come to Him, and that out of that number not a single one will be lost? Just curious.

    I notice you tend to accuse Calvinists of bringing blasphemous charges against God’s character, when in reality what’s happening is that you’ve decided that there are certain things implied by Reformed theology which, in your opinion, are tantamount to blasphemous charges against God’s character–and then YOU bring the charges. There’s a difference between Calvinists proclaiming that God is malicious, for example, and Calvinists proclaiming something that makes God seem malicious in your own personal judgment.

    The character judgments against God that I’ve read in your posts aren’t Calvinism’s but yours. I’ve never heard a Calvinist call God “malicious” or “blame” God’s sovereignty for people going to hell. That’s all you, buddy.

    And hey– do you believe that God, before creating this existence, foresaw the situation of lots of people going to Hell, and yet decided to create this existence anyway? Well, if you do (and how can you not, as a theologically responsible Christian), then how do you not also “blame God’s sovereignty” for the fact that people go to hell? God could have created this existence differently and He didn’t. Voila–He’s to blame (not to mention malicious). Shame on you for believing such a thing.

    Do you, as a theologically correct sort, believe that God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-present? (That is, that God is sovereign?) If so, how do you justify believing in your own version of a cruel, malicious God? You know what I mean, right? The God who is sitting there as you read this refusing to intervene in the brutal beating and worse of a little child at the hands of her mom’s drunk boyfriend (3rd time this month)… and Who will send that little child to hell when she dies of a drug overdose 19 years from now after a life of bitterness and unbelief, which He could have done something to prevent by putting a stop to the brutal beatings and worse 19 years before…

    That’s, of course, just one sickening (and unfortunately unimaginative) example of the soul-squashing evil that people’s lives are saturated with all over the world on a daily basis–evil which the loving, non-malicious, all-powerful God you believe in allows. Stuff that plays a huge part in stoking the UNBELIEF of people everywhere, which unbelief–as you yourself profess–is the reason why people go to hell.

    Nice, well-thought-out beliefs (and accusations) you’ve got going here. What a noble defender of God’s character you are.

  2. How do you look at the things Jesus says later on in John 6? Namely, that the full number of those whom God gives to Him WILL come to Him, and that out of that number not a single one will be lost? Just curious.

    I notice you tend to accuse Calvinists of bringing blasphemous charges against God’s character, when in reality what’s happening is that you’ve decided that there are certain things implied by Reformed theology which, in your opinion, are tantamount to blasphemous charges against God’s character–and then YOU bring the charges. There’s a difference between Calvinists proclaiming that God is malicious, for example, and Calvinists proclaiming something that makes God seem malicious in your own personal judgment.

    The character judgments against God that I’ve read in your posts aren’t Calvinism’s but yours. I’ve never heard a Calvinist call God “malicious” or “blame” God’s sovereignty for people going to hell. That’s all you, buddy.

    And hey– do you believe that God, before creating this existence, foresaw the situation of lots of people going to Hell, and yet decided to create this existence anyway? Well, if you do (and how can you not, as a theologically responsible Christian), then how do you not also “blame God’s sovereignty” for the fact that people go to hell? God could have created this existence differently and He didn’t. Voila–He’s to blame (not to mention malicious). Shame on you for believing such a thing.

    Do you, as a theologically correct sort, believe that God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-present? (That is, that God is sovereign?) If so, how do you justify believing in your own version of a cruel, malicious God? You know what I mean, right? The God who is sitting there as you read this refusing to intervene in the brutal beating and worse of a little child at the hands of her mom’s drunk boyfriend (3rd time this month)… and Who will send that little child to hell when she dies of a drug overdose 19 years from now after a life of bitterness and unbelief, which He could have done something to prevent by putting a stop to the brutal beatings and worse 19 years before…

    That’s, of course, just one sickening (and unfortunately unimaginative) example of the soul-squashing evil that people’s lives are saturated with all over the world on a daily basis–evil which the loving, non-malicious, all-powerful God you believe in allows. Stuff that plays a huge part in stoking the UNBELIEF of people everywhere, which unbelief–as you yourself profess–is the reason why people go to hell.

    Nice, well-thought-out beliefs (and accusations) you’ve got going here. What a noble defender of God’s character you are.

  3. Thank you for visiting and commenting, Dusty.

    You’ll find my reply here: http://amillennialist.blogspot.com/2008/08/if-calvinist-cannot-state-accurately.html

  4. Thank you for visiting and commenting, Dusty.

    You’ll find my reply here: http://amillennialist.blogspot.com/2008/08/if-calvinist-cannot-state-accurately.html

  5. amillenialist,

    There are some things that I have to agree with in dusty’s comment (although not with his hostile tone – if we can’t be gracious there’s no point having a discussion). One of them is that God being malicious is something that you’ve drawn out of a Calvinist view, not Calvinists. God works on a scale of just to merciful, unjust or malice don’t enter his character at all.

    I don’t think the parable of the sower has anything to do with predestination. There are plenty of tensions in the bible that are held together in different ways. I think directly comparing that parable with Romans would not be faithful to the issues that those passages are dealing with.

    On the topic of Romans, what so you make of Romans 9 especially verses 14-24. I would think that this passage clouds the issue of God’s will in choosing and man’s role in accepting. As well as whether people can actually be destined for Hell. I’m still considering my thoughts on this passage, but when considering how God chooses I think it’s essential to include this passage.

  6. amillenialist,

    There are some things that I have to agree with in dusty’s comment (although not with his hostile tone – if we can’t be gracious there’s no point having a discussion). One of them is that God being malicious is something that you’ve drawn out of a Calvinist view, not Calvinists. God works on a scale of just to merciful, unjust or malice don’t enter his character at all.

    I don’t think the parable of the sower has anything to do with predestination. There are plenty of tensions in the bible that are held together in different ways. I think directly comparing that parable with Romans would not be faithful to the issues that those passages are dealing with.

    On the topic of Romans, what so you make of Romans 9 especially verses 14-24. I would think that this passage clouds the issue of God’s will in choosing and man’s role in accepting. As well as whether people can actually be destined for Hell. I’m still considering my thoughts on this passage, but when considering how God chooses I think it’s essential to include this passage.

  7. Thanks for visiting and for your courteous comments, Kristarella.

    My reply is here: http://amillennialist.blogspot.com/2008/09/romans-9-shows-gods-compassion-and.html

  8. Thanks for visiting and for your courteous comments, Kristarella.

    My reply is here: http://amillennialist.blogspot.com/2008/09/romans-9-shows-gods-compassion-and.html

  9. It would be nice if your bias was a little less severe so that you could quote scripture accurately:

    you said:

    “I longed to gather you like a hen gathers her chicks, but you were not willing.”But it’s actually:

    “I longed to gather your children like a hen gathers her chicks, but you were not willing.”what’s the difference?

    One is a false proof text taken out of context.

    The other is Jesus rebuking the pharisees for their behavior and pronouncing woe’s upon them…no mention of Him weeping over their ability to “resist his attempts at saving them”

    You accuse others of bias but you have a streak of bias a mile wide and it’s showing.

  10. It would be nice if your bias was a little less severe so that you could quote scripture accurately:

    you said:

    “I longed to gather you like a hen gathers her chicks, but you were not willing.”But it’s actually:

    “I longed to gather your children like a hen gathers her chicks, but you were not willing.”what’s the difference?

    One is a false proof text taken out of context.

    The other is Jesus rebuking the pharisees for their behavior and pronouncing woe’s upon them…no mention of Him weeping over their ability to “resist his attempts at saving them”

    You accuse others of bias but you have a streak of bias a mile wide and it’s showing.

  11. I will reply on the main page, Go Share Your Faith.

  12. I will reply on the main page, Go Share Your Faith.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: