John Wesley's theology

[puritan lad]

PL, I just want you to clarify for everyone. Can one be saved, without believing in the tenets of Calvinism?

Yes.

Is Calvinism's interpretation of the gospel, the only valid interpretation?

Yes. (Nice try. I am familiar with the "you think your view is the only valid view" ad hominem technique.) But we all think this, which is why we have the view that we have. Of course, you would disagree with my view, which is precisely why we are having a discussion.

[RickD]

Form what I gather I think that almost every Christian denomination believes in the same gospel that saves BUT I think that issue is how one gets to that Gospel.
It's sort of like saying that all agree that Christ is the way to God and the ONLY way, BUT the way TO CHRIST is what is being "debated".
Or something like that.

Paul, you and I obviously agree with this. the problem I'm seeing, is that Spurgeon said "I have my own opinion that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified, unless we preach what nowadays is called Calvinism."
So, that seems to me, that it means that one can't preach the saving gospel of Christ, without preaching Calvinism. And, Puritan Lad said :

Correction: The "theological box of Five Point Calvinism" is a biblical response to a "man-made theological construct" called Arminianism at the Synod of Ddort. Far from being harmful, it is the gospel.

So, I want to be sure, where PL stands on this. My disagreement with Calvinism, is a disagreement, that I believe lies within Christianity. What I mean, is I believe that Calvinists, Arminians, and others outside those camps, like myself, all agree on what gospel we believe that saves us. But after reading Spurgeon's quote, and PL's quote, I want to be sure I believe the same gospel. At this point, I'm not even sure that PL believes "believing" in the gospel, is what saves. So, I'd like to clarify this before I move on.

[RickD]

but rather merely makes salvation possible for those who have enough natural virtue to make the right decision using their "free will".

This is a misrepresentation of what Arminianism teaches. Natural virtue, is not at all what Arminianism says is what allows people to believe the gospel. Tell him, Danny. That's an Aunt Sally.

Rick, that's not an Aunt Sal, since whichever way you want to spin it, on Arminianism it is our ultimate decision to come to Christ.

Danny, the part that is an Aunt Sal, is that PL says Arminianism teaches that people " who have enough natural virtue to make the right decision using their "free will".", are the ones who are saved. Arminianism doesn't teach that people have "natural virtue", that saves.

[RickD]

PL, I just want you to clarify for everyone. Can one be saved, without believing in the tenets of Calvinism?

Yes.

Is Calvinism's interpretation of the gospel, the only valid interpretation?

Yes. (Nice try. I am familiar with the "you think your view is the only valid view" ad hominem technique.) But we all think this, which is why we have the view that we have. Of course, you would disagree with my view, which is precisely why we are having a discussion.

PL, that's not what I'm saying. The gospel is pretty self-explanatory:1 Corinthians 15:1-4 Now, brothers and sisters, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. 2 By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.

3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,

If you agree that this is the gospel that saves, then we can disagree on nonessential points, in our discussion. I think that is important to note, that it is non-essential points, we are disagreeing on.

[DannyM]

but rather merely makes salvation possible for those who have enough natural virtue to make the right decision using their "free will".

This is a misrepresentation of what Arminianism teaches. Natural virtue, is not at all what Arminianism says is what allows people to believe the gospel. Tell him, Danny. That's an Aunt Sally.

Rick, that's not an Aunt Sal, since whichever way you want to spin it, on Arminianism it is our ultimate decision to come to Christ.

Danny, the part that is an Aunt Sal, is that PL says Arminianism teaches that people " who have enough natural virtue to make the right decision using their "free will".", are the ones who are saved. Arminianism doesn't teach that people have "natural virtue", that saves.

Rick, of course Arminianism doesn't openly teach that.

[puritan lad]

Rick,

No matter how you slice it, Arminians and Calvinists do not believe the same gospel. If nothing else, that should be clear.

Thankfully, there are very few true Arminians today. True Arminianism denies the substitutionary atonement of Christ (Christ made no payment for sins), meaning that they cannot be saved.

There is clearly a limit to how far one can stray from the true gospel and be saved. Most modern "Arminians" will, on some level, hold that Christ actually paid for sins.

[RickD]

but rather merely makes salvation possible for those who have enough natural virtue to make the right decision using their "free will".

This is a misrepresentation of what Arminianism teaches. Natural virtue, is not at all what Arminianism says is what allows people to believe the gospel. Tell him, Danny. That's an Aunt Sally.

Rick, that's not an Aunt Sal, since whichever way you want to spin it, on Arminianism it is our ultimate decision to come to Christ.

Danny, the part that is an Aunt Sal, is that PL says Arminianism teaches that people " who have enough natural virtue to make the right decision using their "free will".", are the ones who are saved. Arminianism doesn't teach that people have "natural virtue", that saves.

Rick, of course Arminianism doesn't openly teach that.

Then you agree that what PL said was an Aunt Sal.

[puritan lad]

Arminianism doesn't teach that people have "natural virtue", that saves.

Maybe no explicitly, but how else would they explain how one person made a decision for Christ and another rejects Him? Apparently the saved man found enough goodness in himself to make the right decision, whereas the unsaved just couldn't pull it off.

[RickD]

No matter how you slice it, Arminians and Calvinists do not believe the same gospel. If nothing else, that should be clear.

what part about the verses from 1 Corinthians, do Calvinists or Arminians NOT believe in, in your opinion?

Thankfully, there are very few true Arminians today. True Arminianism denies the substitutionary atonement of Christ (Christ made no payment for sins), meaning that they cannot be saved.

What Arminian website are you getting this from? I've seen no such statement, from any Arminian website, I've looked at.

[RickD]

Arminianism doesn't teach that people have "natural virtue", that saves.

Maybe no explicitly, but how else would they explain how one person made a decision for Christ and another rejects Him? Apparently the saved man found enough goodness in himself to make the right decision, whereas the unsaved just couldn't pull it off.

Why don't you read an Arminian site, find out what they actually believe about this, and stop making misrepresentations. I'm not even an Arminian, and I know what you posted isn't what they believe.

Danny you need to throw the Aunt Sal at this one. What's good for the goose, is good for the gander.

[puritan lad]

Why don't you read an Arminian site, find out what they actually believe about this, and stop making misrepresentations. I'm not even an Arminian, and I know what you posted isn't what they believe.

Sure Rick. I don't make statements that I'm not prepared to defend.

How about a statement from J. Kenneth Grider, Wesleyan scholar?

http://www.bibleviews.com/governmentalgrider.html

"The reason Scripture teaches that Christ suffered for us in stead of being punished is in part, as mentioned earlier, because He was sinless and therefore guiltless. It is in part also because God the Father really does forgive us----whereas, if He punished Christ instead of us, He could not then have forgiven us. In Christ's substitutionary punishment, justice would have been satisfied, precluding forgiveness. One cannot both punish and for give, surely."

Will you settle for the statements of the Remonstrance? From John Owen's display of Arminianism.

“The immediate effect of the death of Christ is not the remission of sins, or the actual redemption of any,” Armin. “Christ did not properly die to save any one,” Grevinch.

“I believe it might have come to pass that the death of Christ might have had its end, though never any man had believed,” Corv.

“The death and satisfaction of Christ being accomplished, yet it may so come to pass that, none at all fulfilling the condition of the new covenant, none might be saved,” Idem.

“The impetration of salvation for all, by the death of Christ, is nothing but the obtaining of a possibility thereof; that God, without wronging his justice, may open unto them a gate of mercy, to be entered on some condition,” Rem. Coll. Hag.

“Notwithstanding the death of Christ, God might have assigned any other condition of salvation as well as faith, or have chosen the Jews following the righteousness of the law,” Grevinch.

“Why, then, the efficacy of the death of Christ depends wholly on us.” “True; it cannot otherwise be,” Rem. Apol

.

This is classical Arminianism, a view that, thankfully, most modern "arminians" see as heretical.

[DannyM]

The problem is, Five Point Calvinism is a man-made theological construct that tries to put our omnipotent God, Who transcends time, space, dimension, and parameters we don’t even know about, into a box.

The Five Points of Calvinism were given in direct opposition to James Arminius’ followers‘ formulation of Five-Point Arminianism. Until this time, the major Protestant churches of Europe had all subscribed to the Belgic and Heidelberg Confessions of Faith, which were based solely on Reformation teachings. Followers of Arminius wanted to change all of this, and hence the original Five Points was born.

And its complexity and the circumstances surrounding its extremely late development should be clue to its falsity. Note that for over 1,500 years of church history there was no talk of such a theological construct as Calvinism.

Are you seriously implying that, prior to Calvin, our esteemed church fathers had nothing to say on these issues?

And the complexity of Calvinism necessitates a theological understanding foreign to the common, everyday man – note that Scripture was written so that the poorest, unsophisticated, barely literate man can understand it’s simple truths and thus be saved. It was NOT written just for theologians or for the theologically savvy.

When was scripture written for such men? When was the commission to do such a thing instigated? Who brought the scriptures to the common man?

So what would any common man think: reading 1 Timothy 2:4, that God “desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth”?

1 Timothy 2:3-7

This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Saviour,

4 who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

5 For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,

6 who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time.

7 For this I was appointed a preacher and an apostle (I am telling the truth, I am not lying), a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth.

Rather than mean every individual who ever lived, this simply refers to all men without distinction of nationality, race, rank or social position. To come to the knowledge of the truth is to be brought to a saving knowledge of that truth through the "one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” Even if you don’t accept my explanation, you also have the problem of God’s will. Is it by God’s decretive will that all men be saved? If not, why not?

1 Timothy 4:10

For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Saviour of all people, especially of those who believe.

Again in 1 Timothy 4 Paul talks of all different people groups whom God saves.

Romans 8:32-33

He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things?

33 Who shall bring any charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies.

Here Paul says God gave His Son for “us all,” and that in Him we shall graciously be given all things. Does this apply to the unsaved? Are the unsaved to be graciously given all things?

Or 2 Peter 3:9: “The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting ANYONE to perish, but EVERYONE to come to repentance.”

2 Peter 3:9

The Lord is not slow to fulfil his promise as some count slowness, but is patient towards you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.

Again, this text cannot support a universal ransom theory. Peter is reassuring sinful believers of their salvation, and the “all” modifies the “you,” meaning “all of you.” This is made quite clear, Philip.

And if God is the one who must first regenerate a man before coming to belief, then why is He waiting? On Himself? NO! Who is He waiting on? “YOU!” Or Ezekiel 18:23: “Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign LORD. Rather, am I not pleased when THEY turn from their ways and live?” Well, if it pleases God for man to repent, does it make any sense that it also pleases him for some men to disobey His commands to repent? That He WANTS them to disobey Him and continue in rebellion?

Let’s turn to Calvin himself:

Now we must see how God wishes all to be converted; for repentance is surely his peculiar gift: as it is his office to create men, so it is his province to renew them, and restore his image within them. For this reason we are said to be his workmanship, that is, his fashioning. (Ephesians 2:10.) Since, therefore, repentance is a kind of second creation, it follows that it is not in man’s power; and if it is equally in God’s power to convert men as well as to create them, it follows that the reprobate are not converted, because God does not wish their conversion; for if he wished it he could do it: and hence it appears that he does not wish it. But again they argue foolishly, since God does not wish all to be converted, he is himself deceptive, and nothing can be certainly stated concerning his paternal benevolence. But this knot is easily untied; for he does not leave us in suspense when he says, that he wishes all to be saved. Why so? for if no one repents without finding God propitious, then this sentence is filled up. But we must remark that God puts on a twofold character: for he here wishes to be taken at his word. As I have already said, the Prophet does not here dispute with subtlety about his incomprehensible plans, but wishes to keep our attention close to God’s word. Now, what are the contents of this word? The law, the prophets, and the gospel. Now all are called to repentance, and the hope of salvation is promised them when they repent. this is true, since God rejects no returning sinner: he pardons all without exception: meanwhile, this will of God which he sets forth in his word does not prevent him from decreeing before the world was created what he would do with every individual: and as I have now said, the Prophet only shows here, that when we have been converted we need not doubt that God immediately meets us and shows himself propitious.

Commentary on Ezekiel - Volume 2

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom23.vii.xiv.html

Ezekiel 18 refers to God’s will of command, and not to the will of His good pleasure. Calvin makes a key point:

Since, therefore, repentance is a kind of second creation, it follows that it is not in man’s power; and if it is equally in God’s power to convert men as well as to create them, it follows that the reprobate are not converted, because God does not wish their conversion; for if he wished it he could do it: and hence it appears that he does not wish it.

It requires God to work in us in order for us to achieve the second birth:

John 3:3,6

In reply Jesus declared, I tell you the truth, no-one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again.

6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit.

John 15:16

You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit— fruit that will last. Then the Father will give you whatever you ask in my name.

So since we know that God moves in us prior to belief, it must follow that God does not desire the salvation of all men, for He does not move all men.

“Whoever believes”; “Whomsoever will”; Etc, Etc. So many plain readings show an obvious choice. John 3:16-1: “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.” Note the inclusiveness of the word “world” – it’s EVERYONE. Note that the very same (inclusive) "world" that is under condemnation is also the same one He came to save.

For God so loved the world. The onus is on you to prove this means the whole of mankind, all men everywhere. First of all it might be a good idea for you to work out if God loves all men everywhere in the same way He loves His elect. Then we can see what you come up with.

Calvinism must repeatedly add to the simple, everyday meanings of words like “all men” and “world” to magically become “the elect” and the “elect world.”

It is you who is not grasping the simple, everyday usage of the terms “all” and “world” and have to fit “all men everywhere, past and present, who ever walked the face of the earth” into your theology. The terms “all” and “world” in the New Testament are very rarely universal in scope.

Yet, if these meanings were true, they could have easily been written or elaborated upon, so as to have made such dubious interpretations abundantly clear. But, make no mistake; no common man would ever glean the Five Points from his reading of the Bible. If Five Point Calvinism were a true Scriptural construct, certainly NO one but theologians and the theologically sophisticated would ever have grasped it. And, even Calvinists, there is significant disagreement. But the Bible was written for ALL men to understand its simply message, that God loves ALL and wants ALL to repent!

This is just rhetoric, and has already been shown to be in error. The bible is indeed quite simple to grasp. I wouldn’t do the common man such a disservice if I were you, Philip.

Does God only call SOME to repentance – or ALL? Does Scripture say he desires even SOME men to perish – or NOT ANY? Does God expect those He continuously warns to repent to do so, OR NOT?

The call of the gospel goes out to all nations. The call to repent goes out to all nations.

It does not follow that since God has commanded all men to repent, he has willed that all men repent. The whole is a logical fallacy here. Perhaps we could apply this kind of thinking to Abraham. If God commands Abraham to kill Isaac, then is it God’s pleasure that Isaac be killed? Now as I’m sure you’re aware, it was never God’s pleasure that Isaac be killed. In fact, it was God’s decretive will that Isaac would not be killed.

Does God command things one cannot do? Does God desire that SOME men remain in rebellion to Him – does He DESIRE their continuing sin? Man’s continuing sin brings horrific devastation to both Christians and non-believers – does God desire this?

Scripture:

2 Chronicles 18:20-22

Finally, a spirit came forward, stood before the LORD and said, 'I will entice him.' 'By what means?' the LORD asked.

21 'I will go and be a lying spirit in the mouths of all his prophets,' he said. ‘You will succeed in enticing him,' said the LORD. 'Go and do it.'

22 So now the LORD has put a lying spirit in the mouths of these prophets of yours. The LORD has decreed disaster for you.

Although God has commanded that no one should lie, in His providence He allows the wicked to lie in order that that which has been ordained should come to pass. So yes, God uses the sins of men to bring about His sovereign purpose.

Pre-fall, WHO made Adam sin or Lucifer in Heaven rebel?

Not God. So who?

IF God had designed some me so as to not be able to repent - that He never desired such men to come into relationship with Him or to abandon their rebelliousness - THEN WHY IS HE ANGRY AT THEM? WHY DOES HE REPEATEDLY WARN THEM TO DO WHAT HE SUPPOSEDLY HAS NOT CREATED THEM ABLE TO DO? This makes no sense whatsoever!

Since man in his natural state is God’s mortal enemy, then He has every right to be angry with him. Are you suggesting that God is angry at men for not drawing them Himself? God has chosen to redeem those He chose in eternity. You’re under the misconception that we deserve redemption. None of us deserve to be saved. So if some of us are saved, yet none of us deserve to be saved, then how can it be unjust that some are not saved?

But no one can obey God's commands on their OWN – certainly not within their OWN power. God must help and guide us to belief. A contradiction? NO! Through our God-given free will, ALL men are BORN able to either be WILLING to embrace God's overtures and proactive initiatives - OR to REBUFF them.

This is double-speak. Can you elaborate please on how God guides some and not others to belief. If God bestows His saving grace upon all men, then why do so many remain in unbelief?

God knows exactly who will reject all approaches He will make to them (and certainly through the General Revelation, already HAS; Some He has provided much more - the Gospel).

Again, this just makes no sense. If it wasn’t for the grace of God then none of us would believe. But, on your scheme, if God knows exactly who will reject Him, how can you then turn around and say He is trying to save all men? If God through His foreknowledge of all future choices knows who will be saved and who will be damned, how can one say He is attempting to save more than is possible?

So He knows that Person A will be positively receptive to His initiatives and that they will listen to and obey the promptings of His Spirit, so that HE can LEAD them to belief and salvation - but this can only be accomplished by God, Who made this possible through the Cross, ALONG WITH a person so WILLING to allow God to do what only HE can do (save us).

Where’s your free will in all of this?

God knows that Person B will remain UNWILLING to positively respond to His initiatives and that this UNWILLINGNESS will be permanent. God knows that no matter how much He tries to reach Person B, He will ultimately be rejected.

So God is engaging in logical absurdities? Is God just going through the motions with unbelievers?

It has ALWAYS been God's desire that those He has always known would be WILLING to be led and enlightened, BY HIM, and who HE could accomplish salvation for, through 1) what He would provide them (a free, unearned choice made possible only by Jesus' sacrificial death and resurrection) AND 2) their WILLINGNESS to respond as HE would lead them. ALL men are born either able to BE WILLING or UNWILLING (Acts 7:51: "... you always resist the Holy Spirit. As your fathers did, so do you.") to embrace God's promptings. He leads ALL SO WILLING - all the way to belief and salvation. Thus, God chose the eternal fate of ALL men, before they were born, as He foreknew those who would be WILLING to respond as He desired them to - and those who would NOT. THIS is the basis of His choice. He set the criteria for His people and chose all who He foreknew would meet it (WILLINGNESS to embrace His prompting and leadership). All we can do, as mere beggars, be either WILLING to accept what God wants to make possible for us - or UNWILLING. But HE created the choice, and He gave us the free will to embrace or reject WHAT HE WANTS TO ACCOMPLISH in us (salvation), He approaches us FIRST, and it is HE Who accomplishes HIS saving work! But He does not make our choice for us, and the ultimate ramifications and eternal destinations of our decisions have parameters which He has sovereignly locked into place.

The above is refuted by Christ Himself:

John 6:37-39

All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away.

39And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day.

John 6:44

No-one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day.

If God first approaches all men everywhere, then how does He do this? Jesus says that those whom God approaches and draws will never be lost. Now we know that all men are not saved, so then it must follow that God does not draw all men. Or does God draw some men one way and other men a different way?

You see, God has revealed Himself to ALL men in several ways: Through the “General Revelation,” Scripture says, “For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made.” For others, God has given much more – He’s given them knowledge of the Gospel. So, to ALL men God has already revealed more than enough for man to positively respond to Him, to reach BACK to His ALREADY outstretched hand. But we must reach BACK. God will not GRAB our hands to pull them back to Him, certainly one He well knows has his hand firmly and deliberately locked behind himself, in a stubborn and evil refusal to acknowledge God's Perfect Love.

Scripture:

Philippians 1:29

For it has been granted to you on behalf of Christ not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for him

John 14:17

The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you.

The world does not see and does not know Christ. No-one can come to the Father except through the Son. Jesus came for the elect, for those chosen by God:

John 11:51-52

He did not say this on his own, but as high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the Jewish nation,

52 and not only for that nation but also for the scattered children of God, to bring them together and make them one.

No-one is forced into accepting God‘s hand. What we may disagree on is whether the Holy Spirit has anything to do with us reaching back or not. At times you hint at agreeing with us; at others you drift into confusion.

And those intent upon trumpeting that God has supposedly doomed most men, before they ever sinned or were even born, not based upon any sin, but merely upon God's desire - well, what if they are WRONG? You see, if Calvinists are WRONG, they are doing tremendous damage to evangelism efforts. Unbelievers hearing that THEY might not be one of God's Elect, thinking that THEY might not have ever been meant to be one of them - that God just simply hates them and billions more anyway. Well, do you not think that such a theological understanding of God would repulse them, to make them flee Christianity with all their might? But if CALVINISTS are RIGHT, none of this talk really matters. As God is sovereign, in the end, all will be as He wants it anyway, and so why all the fuss? But God help those trumpeting this belief if they are wrong - as the damage to evangelism and the slander of God's Holy character will have terrible consequences for millions. And I wouldn't want to stand before God accused of THAT!

It would help if you understood Calvinism before making vulgar caricatures, Philip. How does Calvinism, “if it’s wrong,“ do damage to evangelicalism? And who said God “hates billions” of people? How is the Calvinist’s preaching efforts hindered by this doctrine? The gospel call is universal, and Calvinists have no idea who the elect are. How have Calvinists, “if they are wrong,” slandered God’s character? I’d rather stand before God having given Him all the glory and got it wrong than stand before Him having given man some of the glory and got it wrong. Your vulgar caricatures won’t wash here.

[DannyM]

Danny you need to throw the Aunt Sal at this one. What's good for the goose, is good for the gander.

I already told you, Rick, there is no Aunt Sal.

But rather than take little pot shots at side issues, why not deal with the meat?

[Philip]

Puritan Lad: "Maybe no explicitly, but how else would they explain how one person made a decision for Christ and another rejects Him? Apparently the saved man found enough goodness in himself to make the right decision, whereas the unsaved just couldn't pull it off."

Did you read my posts carefully? No one can be saved unless God reaches to them FIRST. However, they can be willing and receptive to His overtures and prompting, or, as Scripture well indicates, they can reject them. God moves on those so willing, that He has always known would be so willing. But so willing for what? Simply willing to be receptive, to listen, to obey. If they will simply be willing, He does ALL the rest - leading them all the way to salvation.

Apparently, you believe millions upon millions of sincere, born-again Christians were saved through evangelism efforts that believed that ALL men COULD be saved if they would only obey God's initiating and have faith in what He has provided them (Himself, Jesus, the Gospel). And that these vast millions and the many martyrs and missionaries that believed God offer of salvation is to ALL receptive were just DELUDED? So many were faithful to death, but yet God let them believe a corrupted Gospel? Oh, and He regenerated to belief all these vast millions/billions (over time) to salvation, but failed to make them understand that He had doomed much of the world, before any sins or even being born, to damnation, unspeakable miseries here, horrific, eternal punishment later. He saved them, but didn't make them understand the Five Points? Really? And amongst these vast millions of saved, not only don't they understand the supposed truths of Calvinism, but are tremendously grieved and repulsed by it. What, did God just forget to explain these supposed great "points" of theology? Come on!

Yes, you trot out the typical interpretations of Calvinism's favorite verses, but you also well know that they can be interpreted quite differently - and ARE by the vast majority of true Christians.

So, let's hear how this God of great love and also cruel hate match up with the God of Scripture's described Holy character and the love He commands us all to have. Oh, and please answer, does God desire that SOME men remain in rebellion - does He DESIRE that they do not obey His command that "all men everywhere repent?" He doesn't want them to obey?

Notice that in Mark 6, Jesus "marveled because of their unbelief (those in His home town of Nazareth). Why would Jesus marvel at this, if He'd not made it POSSIBLE for them to believe (or Calvinism: not yet regenerated them). And in John 4, why did Jesus say, "Unless you people see signs and wonders, you simply will not believe.(?)" And, again, why were Peter and Paul using clever arguments and trying to CONVINCE unbelievers to believe? So we can RESIST the Holy Spirit - an obvious horrible thing, according to Scripture, that man might go against God's Spirit's instruction, buy yet, supposedly, we cannot embrace God if we desire to (and do what He said He WANTS US to do). So He accuses some men of not doing what He has given them no ability to do? None of this adds up! You see, the Five Point box leaks, has bulges in it, and all kinds of junk is oozing out of it. It's a dark, scary theology of a god that hates more than he loves. And, truly, God's supposedly initially hating us has nothing to do with anyone's sin - we ALL sin - and Jesus died for us BEFORE, while we were yet still sinners.

[puritan lad]

Phillip,

I am taking time to go over your arguments one by one, and will deal with your second lengthy post as time permits. Unfortunately, your most recent post lacks anything of substance, though I would be wary of any ad hominem on God. You do realize, however, that the vast majority of missionary endeavors have been conducted by Calvinists.

It is up to you to prove that:

1.) Calvinism is incapitable with God's love. I hold that it is not.
2.) Explain why God hated Esau
3.) Explain why you would arbitrarily choose passages about God's love, and ignore the passages about his absolute sovereignty (Both are equally part of God's character).

In the meantime, I will address your second post/