Hmmmm, the stars are out!!!!! ROTFLOL

I had never thought about Point 4......that's a good one!!!!! One to file away for when I need it!

Hi Pastor Bob, hopefully the artile I posted is helpful. Would you consider a Calvinist to be a Christian? Heretical? Anathema? I have been told many different things.

I would consider Hyper-Calvinism (believing that no one should share the gospel) to be outside the biblical mandate.

Craig,

# 6 & 7 are good questions.

My take on predestination is to understand it as God's foreknowledge. It says in 1 Peter 1:1-2 that that the elect were chosen according to God's foreknowledge. Romans 8:29 says those he foreknew, he predestined. So foreknowledge works together with predestination. But how?

I believe it helps if we realize that God sees time in the future the same way we see time in the past. God is omniscient, so he already knows everything in the future. Now think about this. I can tell you that on April 26, 2009 I will eat beignets in the Cafe du Monde in New Orleans. It is certain and cannot be different. Why can I say that? Because it is a past event. Yet I was totally free to eat somewhere else, nobody forced me to eat beignets in the Cafe du Monde. Likewise, God knows every detaila about who will believe, and that cannot change, because he knows it will happen, yet we are free to make our choices.

Byron,
I would consider a Calvinist to be a Christian, yes. In fact, I would consider myself a two-point Calvinist. I believe in total depravity and perseverance of the believer.

Do you believe in all five points? How do you define "unconditional predestination"? Do you define it as meaning double-edged predestination, that some are destined to damnation?

[star!]

I believe what Earthen said. We can choose Christ or remain in Adam. We have a choice. That's why God said faith comes by hearing. Hopefully after hearing, many will choose Christ.

So was Judas predestined to betray Christ and die, or anyone could have played the role of Judas (Peter, John, etc.)

Destiny,

Judas is a good example of God's foreknowledge. God knew ahead of time it was going to happen, but in no way did it take away Judas' free will. See my comments above.

Hi Pastor Bob...

I wrote a response to your artice (2 actually) and they are both at my blog:

http://www.mychurch.org/blog/429965/5-Answers-to-5-Man-Centered-Questions

and 

http://www.mychurch.org/blog/429961/Do-Illegals-Deserve-the-Gospel

here is a preview:

BONUS!

6. Why would it be written that God desires that none perish?

Credited to yachadhoo at http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080427151309AA6jnRz

because I ran out of time writing 2 articles and my response is really long!

1) If it was God's will that none should perish, then none would perish. Period.

Your understanding and interpretation of 2 Peter 3:9 is incorrect (though, you probably don't even know you are referring to this verse). This verse actually says that He is long-suffering towards US or "us-ward" (in the original Greek). The "us" is those for whom Jesus Christ died.

2) God did not create the universe with flaws. He created all things perfect, and even declared that it was all "very good" when He was done. It was man who sinned and brought forth the flaws. We are responsible. In Adam, we sinned. We are all sinners and we all fall short of the glory of God.

3) Jesus Christ is the "Lamb slain before the foundation of the world". So why did he decree that sin should come...and death (flaws) through sin? To bring glory to Himself, a Redeemer. He desired to display and magnify His grace, love, and mercy! And because it pleased Himself to do such, He decided to do this by creating man, having man fall, and then becoming man Himself to redeem man in a wonderful display of His grace, mercy, and love. For since we all fall short of the glory of God...and we are all are sinners, we deserve nothing but the eternal punishment of God. But God so loved the world that He gave His only Son that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life.

4) Finally, your "view" of the universe and God is "man-centered", as if God only exists FOR man. As if man were God's CHIEF concern. But what is man? Nothing but dust. God's ultimate "goal" is His glory. He is the center of the universe and the purpose of the universe. If God desires to display and magnify the glory of His power, His justice, and His wrath in punishing sinners, than so be it!

As it is, humans are always wanting "Justice"! If a child is molested and murdered, the parents plea, beg, and fight for justice to be served, and the guilty to be convicted and punished! When they are, they celebrate! Indeed, when the wrath of God pours out on sinners, then the righteous shall stand and celebrate the glory of the Lord.
 

Curtis,

Thanks for writing. For the information of other readers on this blog, I preached a sermon on this subject on May 3, and these "five questions" posted on this blog are a part of that sermon. Mr. Snead is referring to a remark I made in the sermon, in which I made a statement that I got from Norman Geisler, who said, "God is love. True love never forces itself on anyone. Forced love is rape, and God is not a divine rapist!" (Norman Geisler, Predestination & Free Will: Four View of Divine Sovereignty & Human Freedom, Downer's Grove, Illinois, IVP Academic, 1986, p. 69.)

I think this provocative statement makes a valid point about a problem with concept of irresistible grace. It makes God into something that would be morally reprehensible in a human. C. S. Lewis said something similar: "He cannot ravish. He can only woo." (C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letteres, New York: Macmillan, 1961, p. 38.) I'm sorry if that offends you, but it is a difference of opinion. I respect you if you disagree. I hope you will respect me for agreeing with C.S. Lewis and Norman Geisler.

I don't expect you to agree with me. As you heard me say in the sermon, I consider myself a two-point Calvinist, and I said that I do not have a disagreement with moderate Calvinism, my disagreement is with hyper-Calvinists who have taken the teachings beyond where John Calvin himself intended it to go. For example, Calvin himself made statements that imply he did not believe in limited atonement, for John Calvin commented on the "many" for whom Christ died in Mark 14:24 by saying, "the word many does not mean a part of the world only, but the whole human race" (John Calvin, Calvin's New Testament Commentaries, 3:139.)

Feel free to write again to clear up any misunderstandings. Any interested persons can hear the audio version of my sermon at www.fbcrincon.com by clicking on "Listen Online." It should be posted on the website by tomorrow.

Pastor,

 Thanks for responding to my comments. Your humility is appreciated in that you certainly were not obligated to respond. Just a few comments...
 The Calvinism that you present and the idea of rape that you put forward is not reflective of any Calvinist that I've met or read and I have read some leading Calvinist...Packer, Sproul, Pink, Piper etc. None of which have presented Calvinism as you have. I believe that you are misrepresenting what Calvinist believe. In Calvinism there is no conflict between free will and election. They are both true. God's purpose in election will stand according to the pleasure of His will but at the same time we still exercise a faith in Christ that is very real and very genuine. It is mysterious but that does not make it untrue. The doctrine of the Trinity is similar, God is One but three at the same time. Seeming contradiction but biblical truth. I fear that your audience is not getting a complete picture of Calvinism and are getting a false impression of it.
 I too have read C S Lewis...Mere Christianity, The Great Divorce, The Screwtape Letters among others. He was an accomplished writer who had an exceptional view of God. Interestingly I have never read any of Calvin's writings. I only refer to myself as a Calvinist because of the way I view the scriptures is similar to his view. I do not base any of my theology on any man's teaching or writings. I only ask God to reveal Himself to me in His word and I trust that He is. I saw Calvinism in the scriptures before I knew what Calvinism was. It is very clear to me in the scriptures and in my personal experience that while I chose God, He first chose me, according to His loving kindness and for His name sake.
 I ask you to take a new fresh look at Calvinism, not to change your mind but that you would understand that there is great value and sincerity in the theology. I grew up Baptist and have become a Presbyterian. There is great misunderstanding of Reformed Theology in the Baptist church. Many dislike what they really do not understand.
Thank you for your time and this forum,
Curtis
 

Curtis,

You're welcome. Just to clarify, I do not have a quarrel with John Piper, R.C. Sproul. J. I. Packer, and other Calvinists like them. I love their books. However, as I said in my sermon, I have questions for the extreme hyper-Calvinist. While you feel that this extreme view is not reflective of any Calvinist you know, it is reflective of some Calvinists I know. In fact, I had a personal conversation with a pastor here in Rincon where I pastor, who interpreted Romans 9:15 to mean that some people are born already predestined to be damned to hell. He was from a local church here in Rincon. So when I was dealing with the issue from my pulpit, please understand that it is a real distortion of Calvinism that does exist, and I was confronting that mindset in my sermon because it is being preached here in our town.

I agree that many, and perhaps most, of the people who call themselves Calvinists would agree that there is no conflict between predestination and free will. And remember, I said in my own sermon that, "If you don't believe in predestination, you don't believe the Bible, because the Bible talks about predestination." The only issue is what you mean by predestination, and then I went on to say that I believe the saved are predestined to heaven, but I do not believe that God predestined individuals to go to hell.

Pastor,
 I suppose this is where the two of us disagree. We disagree as to just what a "Hyper Calvinist" is. Apparently, your view is that anyone that is a five point Calvinist is a "Hyper Calvinist" or that anyone who believes in "double predestination" is an "Extreme" hyper Calvinist. I have never seen anyone refer to a five point Calvinist as "Hyper". I assure you that among reformed circles five point Calvinism is quite common and ordinary. You are labeling a large group of your brothers and sisters in Christ with a divisive term. This is not unifying or edifying. I'll state it now, according to you, I am an "extreme hyper Calvinist". I believe that the scripture is clear about God's sovereignty. It is clear about His choice verses ours. I do believe in double predestination. If God chooses to except some, then by necessity he is choosing to exclude others. To view it another way is illogical. I believe if anything you are an Armenian and like other Armenian thinkers you base your view of God's sovereignty on your own fleshly concept of justice. Calvinism holds mainly to scripture for it's views. Predestination and election are difficult concepts for fallen men to accept, yet we should. We should not because of how it makes us feel but because God said so in His word. We are not His judge. He is ours. Nor should we judge his word and how he presents himself by claiming that He is unfair. I know you deny it but Paul was speaking to people just like you in Romans nine referring to those who would claim that God was unfair to love Jacob and hate Esau. He said "One of you will say to me: "then why does God blame us? For who resists His will?" But who are you, O man, to talk back to God?"
 Again, I am not trying to convince you concerning Calvinism. You are free to understand the scriptures as you feel led by God to understand them. What I do have an issue with is your hostility towards and mischaracterization of a whole group of sincere, bible believing Christ followers. They too are seeking to understand God as He has revealed Himself in His word. They too are trying to comprehend the incomprehensible. I thank God that He has given us His Spirit to guide us and to shine a light in the darkness of our minds.
 I sincerely appreciate your time. I know that your a busy man doing many good things for the Kingdom. For that I admire you. I also admire your willingness to preach on the tough issues. Many in the pulpit today shy away from what is difficult.
Again in Christ's Love,
Curtis

I would say that believing that humanity is the highest crown in all of creation, is not man-centered, but God-centered.  God created us for relationship and He is a God of relationship.  Beginning with the creation of Adam and Eve.  If God's main goal was not relationship and was His own glory (which I believe can only come when we walk in relationship with God) then why was creation before Adam not complete?

I would hold that  God created humankind/universe for redemption.  He did not have a "plan B" when Adam and Eve messed up.  He did not predestin man to perish.  He knew all the time what would happen.  It was his plan in the beginning for Jesus to come and bring redemption to humanity.  God has a will, but does not force His will upon anyone.  And everyone does not follow His will, otherwise the whole world would be Christian.  I know that ultimately we cannot always explain His ways, but the best way I see it is to give an example regarding my daughter.  I have a will, and so does she.  I can not force her to do my will, and when I do she ends up kicking and screaming (she is 2 and a half).  If I always forced her to do my will, she would not be herself and would not be able to grow in her own personality.  When I cultivate my relationship with her and spend time with her, she usually ends up doing what is best.  I can teach her the ways of the Lord and be an example to her, but cannot force her to do my will.  I can discipline her and do other things to show her the best choices to make.  It is the same with God.  His will is the best, but if He forced it on anyone it would not be a loving relationship - we would be automatons.  That is ultimately what "hyper-Calvinism" theoritically makes humanity out to be - no will of their own, no choice in the matter.  We are all "predestined" to either go to heaven or hell.  

I take a more synergistic view.  I am not fully Arminian in the sense that it is all man and no God, but I would go halfway, working together God and man involved in the process.