New-school Calvinists are Arminians in Essence

 

October 14, 2011
https://www.facebook.com/sing.f.lau/posts/pfbid0DyTptTc5XCKb12yWgRxyvEgYPLao6wDUP2gSrUJzi18NMDK453F6xA5yxiBgqhnal

A teacher states the following about hyper-calvinism:

1. Denies that the gospel call applies to all who hear,
OR
2. Denies that faith is the duty of every sinner,
OR
3. Denies that the gospel makes any “offer” of Christ, salvation, or mercy to the non-elect (or denies that the offer of divine mercy is free and universal),
OR
4. Denies that there is such a thing as “common grace,”
OR
5. Denies that God has any sort of love for the non-elect.
-------

What do you think of each of them... regardless of who believes or rejects them? 
Let's dissect each one of them.

Joseph
Re: #1 - affirm
Re: #2 - affiirm
Re #3 - while the gospel is given to be disseminated generally, it will only have its effect especially. It is to be delivered with the command to repent & be converted to all men under its sound, yet it will only have its effect on the regenerated elect (whether regenerate at the time of hearing or to be regenerated at some time in the future). Since we know not the state of all men, we as ministers are to broadcast and let the Lord work the effect.
Re: #4 - if by "common grace" is meant the rain falling on the elect & the non-elect, blessings on the house of a non-elect as a benefit stemming from blessings upon an elect in their household, etc., then I agree. If by "common grace" one means there is sufficient grace bestowed upon the non-elect to allow for their redemption, then I proclaim "hogwash"!
Re: #5 - affirm. The Lord hates the wicked, and that right proper!

Michael
A belief in the sovereign election and particular redemption coupled with the Fullerite idea of a "free offer" of salvation to all via the gospel makes for an uncomfortable indictment of the Veracity of God. How is the claim that God offers salvation to those who are not embraced in His covenant favour morally consistent with Divine Holiness? Our God is not schizophrenic.

Sing
The elitist Calvinists are oblivious to their utter inconsistencies and confusion... while they haughtily bash their 'intellectually' inferior 'Arminians' cousins! <LOL>

5. Denies that God has any sort of love for the non-elect.

Let's deal with this first.
A biblical distinction is the essence of sound theology.

God, as the Creator, in the covenant of creation, bound Himself to love and take care of all His creatures.

God, as the Redeemer, in the covenant of redemption, bound Himself to love His elect only.

Redemptive love of the Redeemer is restricted to the elect only.

The providential love of the Creator extends to all His creatures.

When someone is incapable of distinguishing the two, he should just keep quiet for a while instead of denying this and that.

Michael 
Regarding #4 and #5, it is crucial to distinguish between God's benevolence (His general goodwill toward all His creatures, arising from His loving nature) and God's love of complacency (His special, particular affection for his own and the delight He finds in relationship with them). When Scripture speaks of God's "love", it speaks in terms of the second definition. When His benevolence is under consideration, it speaks of His kindness, goodness, etc (i.e. "His tender mercies are over all His works;" "The Lord is good to all...").

Sing 
1. Denies that the gospel call applies to all who hear...

The gospel is the good news of what HAS HAPPENED, i.e. what the Triune God has done to save for Himself a people.

And the gospel call is to call out those whom God has saved to believe the truth of such salvation by the power and grace of God.

The gospel call is IRRELEVANT to all of them who are not embraced in the redemptive work of God. To say otherwise is to impugn upon the wisdom and character of God...

The preacher DOES NOT need to know who the elect are to declare that the gospel is relevant ONLY to those embraced in the redemption by Jesus Christ. Scriptures declare plainly that Christ came to save His people... and the gospel is relevant to His people only... and the gospel call is relevant to His people only.

If some preachers are schizophrenic, God is not.

God is not like the US government. Only the US government offers everything to the people in the USA - legal citizens as well as illegal aliens! Worse, often favouring the criminals.

Only universalists can consistently insist that the gospel call applies to all who hear... since they believe Christ died to save all, and the decision of the hearers determines their salvation!

Sing 
2. Denies that faith is the duty of every sinner

If believing in Jesus Christ is the duty of every sinner, then Christ must have died for every sinner.

... if you are not a stiff-necked die-hard Calvinist, you will protest that Christ did not die for every sinner.

Ok, if Christ did not die for every sinner, and you insist that it is the duty of every sinner to believe that Jesus Christ is their Savior, are you not insisting that it is the duty of some sinners to believe something which is not true of them, i.e. to believe a fat lie.

Ah, that your god - one who requires people to believe a lie, and permits his servants to peddle LIES. It is like Obama telling all of them illegal aliens that they are citizens... welcome to the USA!

That duty is imposed by some liars so that many sinners are to believe a LIE! Let God be true but every man a LIAR!

That's not the God I believe. The God I believe requires His people to believe the truth of their salvation by His free and sovereign grace.

Sing
3. Denies that the gospel makes any “offer” of Christ, salvation, or mercy to the non-elect (or denies that the offer of divine mercy is free and universal),

Please go and offer some food to the dead, like the superstitious heathen do, before you deny this or affirm that <LOL>

Christ said, 'GO... FEED... FEED... FEED my sheep... lambs...'

Deceived and deluded preachers think they are sent to go around to OFFER... OFFER... OFFER... and offering to the dead in trespasses and sins, with the hope that their offering may be blessed to bring eternal life to the dead!!!

Go and FEED... but only deceived and deluded preachers believe that the Lord Jesus tells them to go and FEED the dead!

Could there be a greater tragedy than this confusion! This must surely be one of those doctrines of the devils warned by Apostle Paul... 1Ti 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

Think about this:

Offering salvation to those who are still dead in their trespasses and sin is plain foolishness.... as foolish as the superstitious Chinese do offer food to their dead ancestors! They even offer paper Rolls Royce to them.

Offering salvation to those who are saved (already effectually called to grace and salvation) is equally foolish, and presumptuous... the offer not only comes too late but is also irrelevant. Why offer salvation to someone whom God has already bestowed salvation by His free and sovereign grace? Shameless presumption to do so!

So, to whom are the preachers, Calvinists and Arminains alike, offering salvation? (as though they were sent out to OFFER salvation!)

Christ didn't send His servants out to OFFER anything. The devil does that. Christ sends out His servants to FEED His sheep, the elect whom He has given eternal life.

They are sent to proclaim the good news of salvation to God's children, thus nourishing them with the truth of their salvation by God's free and sovereign grace.

Charles
@Joseph, you said "whether regenerate at the time of the hearing or to be regenerate at some time in the future"

Would regeneration clearly have to be accomplished in the past before hearing?

Charles
On the surface, I am in agreement with all the above. However 'Hyper-Calvinism" is akin to the Word we use here in America to define African Americans "nigger" Both words are defamatory and ridiculing

You cannot name a single hyper-Calvinist to my understanding. To my knowledge, the closest comes to Abraham Kuyper, yet I have two of his books I read and it is good Calvinism, no free offer!

Sing
Would regeneration clearly have to be accomplished in the past before hearing?
========

The issue is whether regeneration is conditioned upon hearing of the gospel and whether the gospel is the necessary means to bring about regeneration.

The sincere gospel regenerationists insist that without their preaching, there CAN BE no regeneration.

Regeneration is independent of human means.

Gospel may have been preached to an unregenerate. he will think the preacher a foolish babbler... and the gospel foolishness.

Sing 
To all the new-school Calvinists, all the old-school Calvinists are hyper-Calvinists.

However, the tragedy is, that many new school Calvinists are embracing bland Arminianism now... e.g. "saving faith precedes imputed righteousness."

The new-school Calvinists are just a deluded bunch... they make themselves the standard.... those to their right are hyper... and those to their left are Arminians.

Charles
@Joseph, you said "whether regenerate at the time of hearing or to be regenerate at some time in the future"

Would regeneration clearly have to be accomplished in the past before hearing?

Sing
Would regeneration clearly have to be accomplished in the past before hearing?
=======

Depends on what hearing you have in mind?

Without regeneration, there would be no hearing of spiritual things.

Of course, a man might have been preached to and heard the gospel outwardly... but there can be no spiritual hearing without the new birth!

Charles
The canon of Dordt rejected the notion that regeneration and believing could be at the same time and nearly indistinguishable and yet in essence this is precisely the modern Reformed position. Its position is one itti bitti step into Arminianism something they adamantly deny!!!

The SBC is one itti bitti step going into reformed theology soon they will unite into a one world religion. That's syncretism for you!

Sing
The half-baked Calvinists are calling the old-school reformed people hyper... not realizing it is they themselves that have degenerated toward bland Arminianism!!!

Charles
It is not idle playful talk Sing, it is anguishing truth especially for me right now, this very morning. It is a tormenting truth that has ripped my own family apart and when I speak to them about all this "Calvinism" they are mean and attack me even though we have a criminal pervert as a part of our faction. My own daughter has now said if Danny (the pervert) and Daddy are going to heaven then I want to go to hell.

Sing
Brother, I assure you that I experience some of those perverse hateful talk all because we desire them to know the truth!

Truth is no idle talk... and all who would live godly SHALL suffer persecution.

Old School versus New School on Faith and Justification

October 7, 2023

On Faith and Justification

Dr John Gill: 1697-1771, was an early particular-baptist theologian, universally esteemed by his contemporaries of various denominations, and by...

Dr Robert L Reymond (1932-2013, was a renowned reformed theologian, highly regarded by many too.

Dr Reymond said of John Gill:
"Gill (1697-1771), a Baptist puritan pastor, writes a thorough defence of Calvinistic theology."

The above note is listed under "Selected General Theological Bibliography" on page 1137 of Dr. Robert L Reymond's "A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith" Nelson, 1998.

Dr John Gill on faith and justification:
"Faith is not the cause, but an effect of justification; it is not the cause of it in any sense; it is not the moving cause, that is the free grace of God... nor even the instrumental cause... it is not in any class of causes whatever; but it is the effect of justification... Now if faith is not the cause, but the effect of justification; then as every cause is before its effect, and every effect follows its cause, justification must be before faith, and faith must follow justification."
- A Body of Doctrinal Divinity Book II, Chapter V, section II. (1769)

Dr Robert L Reymond on faith and justification:
"The New Testament everywhere makes it plain that faith in Jesus Christ is the instrumental 'precondition' [in italic] of justification before God... Therefore, faith in Jesus Christ... must precede justification as its logical (not chronological) prius... Thus we have the order: effectual calling... and faith in Jesus Christ, justification, and glorification."
- A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, page 707. (1998, Nelson)

How vast is the difference between the old-school and the new-school theology?
- it is a gulf unbridgeable!

If the words of Mr Luther - "the doctrine of justification is the article of a standing or falling church" - were true, then how of the many reformed churches are standing churches today? Is your church standing?

=======

 Sing
I shared the above post with these Facebook groups
- Scripture Alone 
https://www.facebook.com/groups/915381792601792

- Theology for the Thinking Believer 
https://www.facebook.com/groups/2867308139962524

- Reformed Christians/ Doctrines of Grace
https://www.facebook.com/groups/775537956487669

It is REJECTED by the Administrators of ALL the three groups. 
How telling!

Danny
I don't doubt it. In my experience, the modern "Reformed" are unaware of how much their theology has been hijacked by Arminian ideas and uninterested in looking at the evidence that proves this point.

Danny
The change in how justification and faith are described between Gill (1769) and Reymond (1998) is enormous. Gill's clear understanding of the matter is in extremely short supply in our day. Reymond's take dominates the landscape of Arminian and Calvinists alike. This position fails to recognize that the gospel is a DECLARATION OF JUSTIFICATION for God's people. If God's people are not ALREADY JUSTIFIED by Christ, then faith has precisely nothing upon which to lay hold. The gospel comes to a child of God and says:

1. Christ HAS JUSTIFIED his people.
2. Those who believe this are among them.
3. Faith is the evidence of that fact.

The gospel is not offering a CHANCE AT JUSTIFICATION provided you do A, B, and C; though this idea is widely promoted in Christendom. The gospel declares that the sheep ARE JUSTIFIED by what Christ has done and that believing this declaration proves that you have faith (Galatians 5:22), are born again (John 3:3), and therefore are one of his chosen sons (Galatians 4:6). As a result of this gospel declaration, believers are exhorted to become a disciple of the one who JUSTIFIES the ungodly.

In the final mix we must recognize JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH is not BEDROCK JUSTIFICATION. God's people were TRANSACTIONALLY JUSTIFIED at Calvary by the blood of Christ (Romans 5:9). That is an extant fact that is independent of man's opinion of the matter. THAT is BEDROCK JUSTIFICATION and it is what the gospel declares. JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH is the experiential means whereby a child of God may come to know and find comfort in this declaration by believing it. It communicates the truth of JUSTIFICATION to the conscience as a cognitive reality. It affirms a pre-existing truth. It does not initiate one's state of JUSTIFICATION actually, it merely affirms it experimentally.

Gill says, "Faith is not the cause, but an effect of justification." I have often said, "Faith is not a CONDITION of the covenant; faith is a PROVISION of the covenant."

Aaron 
It very often vexes me that as I look around at all the people who claim the name of Christ have failed to realize that scripture itself speaks in volume of who He is and what His gospel is, His gospel not the gospel as we perceive it upon our own understanding, but upon a rightly dividing of His scriptures that speak so abundantly of what eternal justification is and isn’t. The degree of belief in that which is not another gospel but an exaltation of one’s own efforts rather than the work of Christ is quite pridefully sly in its message and very deceptive to its followers and those who would seek some form of glorification for their own justification rather than the justification that is actually had by Jesus Christ.

Aaron
It seems to be an unwillingness to lay down self at the feet of the Lord and admit we are nothing in His sight without Christ. There’s a natural carnal desire to be confident in one’s own self in all aspects of life and to take that away from someone thinking carnally seems unthinkable to them.

sing
Some years ago I heard a statement, "Some have faith in their faith." It was too profound for me then; now it makes some sense.