Calvinism and Christianity - incompatible?

This wouldn't be a one Philip Edgecumb Hughes would it? The man who was warmly welcomed and taught classes at Westminster Seminary, the heart of militant Calvinism? It is like asking a fat kid about whether he'd like to eat cake.

 

Your rejection of scholars is hardly Anglican at all... just consider Cranmer's reliance on other scholars' work. It's a rare form of puritanism you've embraced here, and also gives you the ability to reject other people's work off of some sense of pride in your own thoughts.

Second, it is Phillip Edgecumb Hughes. One of the finest Anglican scholars of the last century.You cannot comment on a work you haven't read.

 

I was actually having a bit of trouble with the video. My Internet connection does not seem to enjoy loading it.
Could you provide a summary of the video's contents?

 

Sorry for the delay in replying

I found an almost transcript of the video online:

http://www.ligonier.org/blog/the-meaning-of-mans-will-pt-1/

The issue of free will is complicated, It would be great if you share yoru views. And if Calvinism is unable to be reconciled to Christianity then to show where. I do believe a lot of the issues people have against the Calvinist view of free will is due to misunderstanding.

 

Since I seem to be the only 5 pointer on her at the moment I will give a bash at answering this point

This is probably one of the most controversial points, and there are many Calvinists who accept the other 4 points but reject this one. And it is debated whether Calvin himself taught it. 5 pointers though would argue that limited atonement is a logical necessity.

John Owen, the great puritan theologian sums up the logic of limited atonement:

The Father imposed His wrath due unto, and the Son underwent punishment for, either:

1. All the sins of all men.
2. All the sins of some men, or
3. Some of the sins of all men.

In which case it may be said:

1. That if the last be true, all men have some sins to answer for, and so, none are saved.
2. That if the second be true, then Christ, in their stead suffered for all the sins of all the elect in the whole world, and this is the truth.
3. But if the first be the case, why are not all men free from the punishment due unto their sins?

You answer, "Because of unbelief."

I ask, Is this unbelief a sin, or is it not? If it be, then Christ suffered the punishment due unto it, or He did not. If He did, why must that hinder them more than their other sins for which He died? If He did not, He did not die for all their sins!"​

On 1John 2:2 the preposition "for" is "ambiguous with respect to the specific sense in which Christ is the propitiation "for" the sins of the world. Peri [ greek for] means simply "concerning" or "with respect to"...it would be entirely consistent with the language of the verse to think John simply is saying that Christ is the atoning sacrifice who is available to pay for the sins of the hole world (Grudem systematic theology, p598)

Christ's sacrifice is available to all and none should be barred from coming being told His death was not for them. the free offer of the gospel extends to every single person. But only the elect respond to it

In 1 Timothy 2:5-6 5 there are arguments that "ransom for all" refers to "all kinds or groups of people" rather than every single person. I'm not convinced about this. I think Grudem gives a better reason when he believes that all refers to the availability of Christ's death to all.

There are some bible verses that do appear to support a limited atonement:

John 10:11, John 10:15, Acts 20:28, Ephesians 5:25, Matthew 1:21, Mat 26:28

 

The issue is in this first formulation. Christ died for all men potentially, but for some men effectually.

You apply his death to your life by believing in Him. It isn't applied to your life until you believe in him.

Christ offered this gift to the whole human race. But he did not die for all men effectually, because all men are not saved (and they would be if he died for all of them). But the Scripture does say that God loved 'the world', and died for 'all mankind'. Hence the distinction between potential and effectual application of his death to one's life.

 

God shows no partiality, thus he died for all men. You cannot have the former without the latter.

 

I say yes

 

I was going to answer this one but The Hackney Club and Scottish Knight already got it covered.

 

Sorry but I couldn't resist bringing this up Isn't the second one a little philosophical...

Why can't God be impartial and elect only some? (Note: This question is just to add to the discussion!)

I guess some Calvinists (I don't know if all agree with this) view this as maybe not philosophically consistent; however, they also view it as Biblically consistent. Could this be one of the mysteries?

As noted before, I hope we don't start degrading each other and in turn, lose our wits. Respect and charity go a long way! I'm sure we all struggle with this (some more than others) and are passionate about what we believe; however, I'm also sure we are intelligent enough not to denigrate into useless name calling match that seems so prevalent when this topic is aroused...
.

 

I just want to point out, for the sake of this discussion, actual chapters in the Bible. Anyone reading Romans 9 (especially verse 23) with a clear mind will see what we'd call Calvinist overtones. Other works of Paul are not so Calvinist-sounding.

Maybe some of you would like to consider just how intense is the predestination in Paul's argument here:

1 I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost,
2 That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart.
3 For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:
4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;
5 Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.
6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.
9 For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sara shall have a son.
10 And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;
11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth; )
12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.
18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

 

Interesting how the book of Romans led to some of the most famous conversions, including the two most well known monergist theologians Augustine and Luther

 

Christ did not die a potential death but an effectual one. He did not willingly submit Himself to torture and pain so that salvation might become a possibility to all men, but so that some men would actually be saved.

All those whom the Father had given Him are indeed saved and no-one can snatch them out of the Father's hand. The elect believe in Him, and all the benefits and fruits of faith are applied to them, because God willed them to believe in Him who justifies the ungodly to begin with. No-one can say Jesus is Lord unless the Holy Spirit moves him to do so, and no-one can be saved unless God mercifully elected them out of the mass of perdition, the massa damnata, that they belong to by natural birth.

 

Right, an effectual death for all those who believe in him. He did not die for those who would never believe in him.

But all can believe in him, because the gospel was offered to all the world; Christ died for all mankind.

That's not what scripture says. Scripture says that he died for all mankind.

That's true. But God saves those who believe in him. "If one loves God, one is known by Him."

That's nowhere in scripture my friend. You don't talk threateningly to a rock.

 

Love you post Stalwart how true! how true!

I often reflect on this....

 

This is just my opinion, but:

If Calvinism is true, the Old Testament become very awkward for those who believe in the good & wise Lord. I mean the times when God's grief and anger (at Israel's consistent choice to commit sin & idolatry) leads to punishment of Israel for her evil choices. All this comes off as a bit passive-aggressive on God's part; it's mere theatrics.

Above all, why would the Fall have occurred under Calvin's concept of God? Monergistic control of created free-will means that He wouldn't have any reason to allow human beings to fall in Paradise. History since the Fall becomes a bit of a vaudeville production if God could've just held our will captive in eternal Eden.

Sorry if I don't use all the theological terminology, but I look at this from my little human viewpoint. I want God to be real, and Love, and wise, and holy - not a god which throws a temper tantrum at His own divine providence.

 

I should add:

1 John 4:8 He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.
1 Corinthians 13:4 Love suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up

"Vaunteth not" could be translated "does not insist on its own way" (to an exaggerated degree).

Just saying...

 

All men are born into this world spiritually dead, they live "in trespasses and sins" and they are "by nature the children of wrath." (Ephesians 2:1-3). When it comes to the life of the spirit all men are, to use your language, like "rocks."

Therefore, it is quite evident that no-one can believe in Christ unless the Holy Ghost moves the sinner to repentance and faith to begin with. "Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost." (1 Corinthians 12:3) And whom will the Holy Ghost move if not the elect? Those men and women who were given by the Father to Christ since the foundation of the world and that no-one can snatch out of the Father's hand. It is for them that Christ died and it is them that He saves.

If He had died for every single man and woman that will ever exist, then none would perish. Christ's blood was not spilt in vain. "The world" or "all mankind" or any other similar expression means the huge variety of men and women from different backgrounds, races and time periods that comprise the elect.

And those who believe in Him, and are thus justified by faith, do so because God refashioned their hearts of stone unwilling to repent and believe, into hearts of flesh. No-one is entitled to grace, God dispenses His favour to whom He wills. All of mankind is in a state of rebellion and corruption: it is perfectly just for God to leave some to wallow in their own iniquity and, in fact, He does so. All men come from the same vitiated lump of Adam but the divine Potter does not fashion all such vessels unto honour and mercy. The grace of salvation is not offered to all, and not all men are His sheep. Some indeed are vessels of wrath and dishonour, or to use another scriptural term, goats. "For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?" (Romans 9:15-24)

Not quite. Only the Spirit can illuminate our darkened mind since the "natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned" (1 Corinthians 2:14).

When the church was in its infancy, Luke records in Acts that when Lydia was taught the gospel by Paul (Acts 16:14b): “the Lord opened her heart to give heed to what was said by Paul". What happened to Lydia (and Paul on the Road to Damascus) is what happens to everyone who comes to faith in Christ. If the Lord "opens our heart", the Holy Spirit is doing a supernatural work upon our closed heart, so that we "will give heed". The passage makes clear that resistance is no longer thinkable because the desire now is to give heed since the Spirit has taken what was once a dark heart and illumined the understanding. If the Lord "opened Lydia's heart to give heed" and then the Bible recorded that she still resisted, it would be a contradictory and nonsensical statement, yet this is what synergists would have us believe. If God overcame the will in the example of Lydia then there should be no further debate as to whether He does this in everyone who comes to faith in Christ.If hostile sinners are to believe, God must initiate the making our heart of stone into a heart of flesh: "Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. "I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances." (Ezekiel 36:26-27)

If God takes away our heart of stone and then gives us a heart of flesh, we will infallibly come to believe and obey. There is no possibility or thought of resistance after the fact. Indeed fallen humans resist the Holy Spirit every day they live in unbelief, but God can sovereignly make His influences irresistible by changing the disposition of our hardened hearts which transfers us from death to life. The following passage even goes further by showing a unity between God's granting ability to come to Him with the work of the Spirit who alone gives life: "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life. "But there are some of you who do not believe." ...65 And He was saying, "For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father." John 6:63-65

This gift of life is what we speak of in the inaugural work of God in regeneration. This verse clearly unites the Spirit, who gives life, and God who grants His people to come to Him. The words, "for this reason" point us back to the previous text. The flesh alone, without the life of the Spirit, profits nothing, according to Jesus own words. The passage carries a universal negative to the possibility of anyone naturally coming to Christ on their own ... but the Spirit gives the life, which is another way of saying, only that which is granted by the Father comes to Him. The words of Christ themselves carry the power of life as the Spirit works in and through them.

In 1 Thessalonians 1:5 Paul speaks plainly of the Spirit working with the word as the only means the Thessalonians came to know the Savior. Word alone is not enough to transform our heart: He says, "...for our gospel did not come to you in word only, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction." Later, in the same epistle, Paul thanks God for the faith that enabled the Thessalonians to believe: "For this reason we also constantly thank God that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but for what it really is, the word of God, which also performs its work in you who believe." (I Thess. 2:13)

Notice that it is man's reception of the Gospel that is the explicit grounds for which Paul is thanking and glorifying God! Paul gives God all the glory for man's initial reception of the Gospel, and correspondingly thanks God for it. In his second letter to the same church Paul reminds them again who deserves thanks for their faith: "But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth. It was for this He called you through our gospel, that you may gain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ." (2 Thessalonians 2:13)

Our entire salvation, from first to last, is due to God alone, "the author and perfector of our faith" (Heb 12:2), for from Him and to Him and through Him are all things ... and, therefore, all the praise, glory, thanks and honor for our new life is to be given to God alone. We must conclude that it is not scriptural to thank and praise God for His "95%" in salvation, and then give man credit for the last remaining bit. If God is thanked for man's new life in Christ, it must be because He alone is perceived as responsible for it.

 

I snipped out that which I felt I should not comment about...

I realize that by snipping so much text I have changed the meaning of this post, but in reading your entire post this is the whole centre of the matter....

Christs life, death and resurrection was all about including EVERYONE and all of those who love God and one another will be saved.