|
 |
| |
Conversation with a Calvinist
What the Calvinist Means When He Says He Is "Saved by Grace"
Back in 2003, I received
a note from an avowed Calvinist, based on with some materials posted on a website with which I have a nominal relationship.
These writings call into question the basis of Calvinist thinking, and are based those writings on the body of extensive
writing, from both John Calvin and those who espouse his teaching, that is widely and easily accessible on the Internet.
Here is the note I received (all information that might identify the author has been deleted):
"Beings that you are part of the www.bible.ca organization, I was wondering what you view is on Calvinism and if you also personally believe
it to be heresy. If so, then I would love to begin a discussion with you on the topic."
His
reply was signed with a typical email signature which also contained the following:
"John 17:17"
and
"Salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, as revealed
in the Scripture alone to the glory of God alone."
I could not righteously fail to reply to
any legitimate questions in the mind of the author and so I wrote back, as follows:
"Thank
you for your note. I am always happy to sit with those who are interested in spiritual matters. However, I am not interested
in a harangue with someone who proudly wears the name of his theological father as though it is a badge of honor.
"I wonder why anyone, who would worship and serve the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, would proudly
wear the name and revel in the theological identity of someone who lived and died 1500 years after Jesus died so that we
might be called by His name and find salvation in him only. I wonder why anyone would pat himself on the back for writing
an email signature that denies both the spirit and the word of God's eternal revelation.
"I
wonder why anyone would cite John 17:17 in his signature, even as he propounds a dogma that denies it to be true. I wonder
how on Earth a person can read the Word of God and then consent to bend to the will and way of a man who never understood
the nature of God, the scriptural identity and work of Christ, the revelation of the Divine mystery of redemption, the work
of the Holy Spirit, the nature of the church, the nature and fruits of faith, and the nature of Divine grace?
"I wonder why anyone would claim to believe in grace when ~every~ element of the theological system he wears
is fraught with legalism and the open exaltation of salvation by flawless deeds and works of human merit?
"Shall we begin with James 2:24, or will you also deny that the epistle of James is inspired of God and profitable
for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped
for every good work? Will you take that scripture for what it says and preach it exactly as James wrote it, without saying
that James did not mean what even the ignorant can read that he said?
"Or, should we consider
Colossians 2:12? Or, perhaps you would prefer to discuss Ephesians 2:8-9?
"Have you ~ever~
had an original thought from the scriptures, or one that did not suckle the teat of a 29-year old fanatic and murderer of
God's people? Will you continue the pogram of the man whose name you wear?"
No doubt, my
words were strong, as they were intended to be. They were intended to be the thrown-down gauntlet of a crusader for the will
of God. I do not think myself to be the possessor of all truth, but I know God has revealed Himself and am willing to let
Him speak for Himself.
And so, the correspondence continued...
In the following reply to my post, my sincere, but deluded correspondent underlined his own comments
and left citations from my post without any underlining. He wrote from his heart and, without a doubt, he pressed his reply
with vigor and conviction. Here's what he wrote:
"Man
you are pretty harsh. *grin* But that ok. Just shows the true colors of both you and the "following" that you
are with. You claim to preach truth is love, but all I see is hatred, misunderstanding, misrepresentation, sarcasm, etc...
There is no love in the words that you speak. Is there no love in your heart? For the most part man, I got all of this from
the website. Later on in the email, you asked me if I have ever had a an original thought from the scriptures. Have you?
All I see is the same old rhetoric that can be found on the site. I want your opinion, not the opinion of the "following"
that you are affiliated with. Let me hear you thoughts. Or are these thoughts your thoughts? I sure hope not due to the
amount of hatred and discussed. Are the following thoughts your own? Or are they conditioned responses due to your affiliation
with this "following"? "I am reluctantly going to reply to the "lovely"
email that you sent, point by point, underlining my reply for clarity. I am not in any way expecting these words to reach
you ears. I am merely doing this because I fell lead by God to preach the truth in LOVE.
"Thank
you for your note. I am always happy to sit with those who are interested in spiritual matters. Happy to DISCUSS or just happy and quick to pronounce? However, I am not interested in a harangue with someone who proudly wears the name of his theological
father as though it is a badge of honor. For not wanting
to argue you sure are good and trying to get ones dander up with offensive words, nasty remarks, and hatred. *grin* Just
so you know, I have dealt with your type and worse before. If you are looking for some joy out of getting me upset, its
not going to work.
"John Calvin is not MY theological father. And I am in no way wearing
his name as a name badge, but yes, I proudly hold to the system of beliefs that bears his name for they and they alone are
truth. If you would like me to, I can refer to them as the Doctrines of Grace from now on.
"I wonder why anyone, who would worship and serve the God of Abraham,
Isaac and Jacob, would proudly wear the name and revel in the theological identity of someone who lived and died 1500 years
after Jesus died so that we might be called by His name and find salvation in Him only. As the great Charles Spurgeon said,
Calvinism is just a nickname for Christian. But thats beside the point. You sure seem to take allot of time slashing and
bashing the name of Calvin rather than dealing with the issue, whether the systems of Calvinism are true. Why don't you
stick to that? I wonder why anyone would pat himself on the back for writing an email signature that denies
both the spirit and the word of God's eternal revelation. How have I patted myself on the back? How do you know what
I have done? That is a very bold assumption. And how does it deny the spirit and the word of God's Eternal Truth?
"I wonder why anyone would cite John 17:17 in his signature, even
as he propounds a dogma that denies it to be true. Why? How do I propound a dogma that denies that John 17:17 is true. You
are all about making factitious statements, derived from your own mind, rather than stating the truth. Maybe you should
try that next time. A little less accusation and a little more supports for your beliefs. I wonder how on Earth a person can
read the Word of God Well wonder no more... and then consent to bend to the will and way of a man who never understood
the nature of God And how do I do this?, the scriptural identity and work of Christ, the revelation of the Divine
mystery of redemption, the work of the Holy Spirit, the nature of the church, the nature and fruits of faith, and the nature
of Divine grace? Like I have said several times before, you are so quick to make these claims, but you add no support.
You say that I do this and that, but where is the proof? "I wonder why anyone would claim
to believe in grace when ~every~ element of the theological system he wears is fraught with legalism and the open exaltation
of salvation by flawless deeds and works of human merit? You need to take less time slamming and name calling and
take a little more time studying what true Calvinism is. Calvinism IS grace. Calvinism has NOTHING to do with legalism,
but rather opposes it. Calvinism is the foremost opponent of what is known as Christian Liberty. Calvinism DOES NOT believe
in "the open exaltation of salvation by flawless deeds and works of human merit.",but rather that man is unable
to come to God on his own due to the amount of sinfulness and blindness as a result of the fall of man and that He is saved
only because God has grace on Him. Do you know anything about true Calvinism? Or just what your "following" teaches
you to believe? It seems more of the later.
"Have you ~ever~ had an original
thought from the scriptures Have you?, or one that did not suckle the teat of a 29-year old fanatic and murderer of God's people?
Man, do you have any grace and forgiveness in your heart? Have you done anything wrong in your life? Calvin was a
sinner just as we all are. He did something that was very very wrong and he knew that, repented and was forgiven for that.
Who are you to hold that above his head? Are you God that you should not forgive? Will you continue the program of
the man whose name you wear? Yes I shall.
"Shall we begin with James 2:24,
or will you also deny that the epistle of James is inspired of God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction,
for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work? Will you take that scripture
for what it says and preach it exactly as James wrote it, without saying that James did not mean what even the ignorant can
read that he said? Or, should we consider Colossians 2:12? Or, perhaps you would prefer to discuss Ephesians 2:8-9? We can begin
whereever you like. I do not fear the word of God, but imbrace ALL of it as truth. So, lets get down to buisness now that
you have hopefully gotten over your name calling and remarks without support or backing, maybe now we can actually discuss
what the Word says. So, please, throw anything out there you would like. "Remember,
lets actually deal with scripture."
Truly, the last sentence of my correspondent
should be the focus of our exchange. I have found, however, there are many who claim to want to "actually deal with
scripture," but they end up citing historical personages and writings of other, even as my young correspondent did
in his reply to my response.
The next post in this series will contain my reply to the post cited above. Before
I go, let me be careful to thank you for your interest and attention to my musings. I have no intention to serve any other
than my Lord and I hope that conviction is evident throughout this exchange.
After receiving the
reply of my correspondent, this is what I answered by return email:
Is it not interesting that all you "see is hatred, misunderstanding, misrepresentation, sarcasm, etc.,"
and then judge me on that basis? You pontificate with the same fanaticism of your father, Calvin, and judge that there is
no love in my heart and no love in the words that I speak. And, your cynical little *grin* disclaimers do not suit the discussion.
Did Jesus *grin* when He cleansed the Temple of the money-changers; And, while you are answering that, consider also whether
His righteous indignation was seen by those He removed as "hatred, misunderstanding, misrepresentation, sarcasm, etc."?
Please understand something from
the outset, ____________. I wear no name, but the name of Christ. I am not a part of any following that is not following
Christ. I preach no doctrine, but the doctrine of Christ. I have no opinion, but the opinion of Christ, except in those
matters concerning which God has expressed indifference. Surely you don't think doctrinal matters between us are matters
of indifference to God, do you?
I'm
glad you've dealt with my "type and worse before" (actually, I'd love to point you to a good English teacher
for a bit of instruction in grammar and syntax, but I understand what you are saying and so I'll just plod on). With
that experience, you have some understanding of those who take no pride in the flesh and who make it their aim, in all things,
to be pleasing to Christ. No doubt, you know I have no righteousness of my own derived from law-keeping, but "that
which comes by faith in Christ, that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings,
being conformed to His death, if by any means I may attain to the resurrection from the dead." If you have dealt with
my type "and worse" (they must be ~really~ bad folks, to be sure!) you will, perhaps, remember that "I have
been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the
flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me."
On the other hand, ____________, I have NOT dealt with many who believe
as you do, proclaiming as you do of the teachings of Calvin that "they and they alone are truth." Oh, I run into
a lot of people who ~think~ they believe as you, but they don't really believe what you believe, if indeed your precious
Calvinism is what you believe. They do not really believe in a God Who has acted arbitrarily to deny even the most minute
atomic particle of His mercy to miserable creatures He has created for the sole purpose of damnation--and by that damnation
to glorify Himself. They do not really believe in a God who holds the sin of one to be the actual cause of eternal damnation
of all ~except~ those who could never be damned by that sin, being created for the sole purpose of salvation--and by that
arbitrary, capricious salvation to glorify Himself. They do not really believe in Calvin's sick God, even though some,
like you apparently, do believe in that God.
They do not really believe that a vengeful God would unjustly impute
to the righteous that which is not their own, nor impute to the unrighteous that which they are not. They do not believe
in a capricious and vengeful God Who waits as a blood-thirsty vulture to pounce upon the damned with amazing and unconscionable
cruelty and bitter brutality. They do not believe in a system that reflects the callousness of its bitter God by compelling
the unbelieving to bend to its ruthless will under penalty of death, dismemberment and disreputable heartlessness.
What they really believe, or rather
want to believe, is that God created man in His Own image and after His Own likeness. They really believe that God's
righteous character entrusted them with a moral will and the power of moral choice. They really believe that their woeful
spiritual condition is because of the wrong choices they, like all men, have made in the face of the revelation of God's
will for all man. They really believe that they stand to be judged by God without partiality for their disobedience and
rebellion. They really believe that the same righteous God Who created them for His own good pleasure and to be in fellowship
with Him, was so moved according to His goodness and merciful eternal wisdom and knowledge, that He saw the choices they
would make before they ever made them, and prepared by the willing gift of His Own nature, to graciously attend to their
need.
They really believe that
it is a gracious God Who emptied Himself to take on their mortal nature and to endure their own weaknesses, yet without
surrendering His Own true nature as God. They believe that it was not the merit of His Godlike wisdom and flawless moral
choices that appeased a blood-thirsty and vengeful God, but rather that the driving mercy of His gracious gift was a moral
sacrifice in their behalf, and that through the simple faith that responds and trusts and confesses and bows to the ways
and choices that differ so much from their former choices, He saves them by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.
They really believe that His mercy,
and not His vengefulness, leads them to repentance. They really believe that He called a man of faith to be His friend and
by his friendship, prepared for all who would follow in his steps a simple example of believing when doubt surrounds them,
of trusting when it seems so futile to do so, of hoping when all hope seems lost, of obeying when the frail and pathetic
will seems so inadequate.
They
really believe that the God of Heaven and Earth is loving, gracious and filled with mercy. They do not believe in Calvin's
God, Who of All who ever existed, is capricious, harsh, vengeful, implacable, ruthless, uncharitable and without pity. They
do not believe, in spite of what ignorant or just plain stupid teachers have tried to beat into their heads, that the God
of Heaven and Earth turned His back on the Incarnate Messiah, despising and abhorring the affliction of the afflicted. They
do not believe that He hid His face from Him, but that when He cried to Him for help, He heard.
You say, "Calvinism IS grace. Calvinism has NOTHING
to do with legalism, but rather opposes it. Calvinism is the foremost opponent of what is known as Christian Liberty. Calvinism
DOES NOT believe in 'the open exaltation of salvation by flawless deeds and works of human merit.", [sic] but rather
that man is unable to come to God on his own due to the amount of sinfulness and blindness as a result of the fall of man
and that He is saved only because God has grace on Him." But, you don't really believe that. You are either lying
about what you believe, or you are woefully deceived (the only other alternative is that you are a fool, but I can see that
is not true and will not even consider it to be true).
You believe what Calvin taught. You believe what "the reformers" believed. You believe what Spurgeon
believed, and this is what it is:
"He
who knows the word "substitution," and can spell its meaning aright, will see that there is nothing due to punitive
justice from any believer, seeing that Jesus Christ has paid all the believer’s debts, and now God would be unjust
if he did not save those for whom Christ vicariously suffered, for whom his righteousness was provided, and to whom it is
imputed. Grace is on the throne by conquest, and sits there by right" (Spurgeon, sermon "The Throne of Grace").
Unfortunately, Spurgeon knew no more about grace than you,
____________. He thought that grace was on the throne by conquest, sitting there "by right." He thought that God
~owes~ the elect salvation, because Jesus earned it and it is their "by right." You, like Spurgeon and Calvin, believe that grace was EARNED by the vicarious
obedience and death of Jesus Christ. You, like Spurgeon and Calvin, believe that it is ~only~ the FLAWLESS MERIT OF OBEDIENCE
TO THE LAW OF GOD that saves man. Here's how Spurgeon put it, and no doubt, you will agree: "The law of God was more vindicated by the death of Christ than it would
have been had all transgressors been sent to Hell. For the Son of God to suffer for sin was a more glorious establishment
of the government of God, than for the whole race to suffer" (Spurgeon, "Just and the Justifier," pg. 22).
Spurgeon believed that the law of God was vindicated, kept
flawlessly and His wrath eternally satisfied -- and that in whatever way it may be called "grace," God owes the
elect because, in Christ, the law of God is vindicated, kept flawlessly and imputed to them. That's what you believe,
____________. And, again... "It
must be so, that since expiation is made, God is able to forgive without shaking the basis of His throne, or in the least
degree blotting the statute book. Conscience gets a full answer to her tremendous question. The wrath of God against iniquity,
whatever that may be, must be beyond all conception terrible. Well did Moses say, 'Who knoweth the power of thine anger?'
Yet when we hear the Lord of glory cry, 'Why hast thou forsaken me?' and see Him yielding up the ghost, we feel
that the justice of God has received abundant vindication by obedience so perfect and death so terrible, rendered by so
divine a person. If God himself bows before His own law, what more can be done? There is more in the atonement by way of
merit, than there is in all human sin by way of demerit" (op.cit.) Like Spurgeon, you believe that "the justice of God has received abundant vindication by obedience so perfect
and death so terrible" that God was OBLIGATED to bow before His own law and to save "by way of merit." Deny
it, though you will, that is what Calvinism is, ____________. Neither Spurgeon nor any other Calvinist who has walked upon this Earth has EVER believed in grace, for to them
grace is only the forensic (legal) vindication by flawless moral excellence and perfect obedience imputed to them. Only
then, with the law vindicated and wrath satisfied, are they legally--not graciously--acquitted. Not saved, ____________,
for they need no salvation; they are flawless, morally upright and seen only in the light of Christ's moral excellence.
But, since you cannot see that your theology demands universal salvation for all (since Jesus took the place of all), you
have accepted Calvin's bastardized explanation that Christ died only for those whom a capricious God did not individually
and personally choose for eternal damnation. You cannot see that respect of persons is a fundamental principal of Calvinism.
You and all Calvinists believe that God has
no grace that does not flow out and because of LEGAL vindication. You are legalists of the rankest sort, who find nothing
of grace in the nature of God, ...no mercy
without compliance, ...no kindness without the
appeasement of wrath, ...no love that does
not demand forensic satisfaction. You say, "John
Calvin is not MY theological father," but there is not a single point in which you would defer from his pontifications,
if your testimony is to be believed. Not only is Calvin your theological father, but Augustine is your theological grandfather
-- and neither of them is a son of the Father in Heaven (before you get in a snit over those words, consider what Jesus
said in John 8:33-47). Both denigrated salvation in Christ Jesus and proved in their lives and writings that they knew little
or nothing of the scripture. Both were unwilling to rise to the challenge of a moral appeal to those whom God created in
His image and likeness, choosing rather to slander all and bring disrepute on the revelation of God in Christ Jesus. Both
were progenitors of systems of FORENSIC justification, and both were wrong...as you are wrong, ____________.
As God is my witness, ____________, I have not one shred
of ill-will toward you, nor am I pleased to have to speak with such plainness of speech and apparent harshness. My heart
is filled and overflowing with deep love for you and a prayer for your enlightenment, according to truth. I have no intention
of having fellowship with you in what is wrong, but neither am I content to leave you in error and soul-endangering sin.
It is because of the merciful and gracious character of the God of Heaven and Earth, the Father of our Lord and Savior Jesus
Christ, that I appeal to you to repent. But, if you will not come because of His gracious goodness---and make no mistake
about it, ____________, you have NEVER come to Him on that basis, choosing rather to believe that His blood-thirst and implacable
wrath must first be LEGALLY SATISFIED before you can approach Him---I say, if you will not come by His goodness, then knowing
the terror of the Lord and the certainty of a coming day of judgment, I would appeal to you in strong words and (hopefully)
Christ-like persuasion to repent and come to Him Who knew no sin, but was made a sin-sacrifice that you might be the righteousness
of God in Him. Incidently, you quoted me as
saying something I ~DID NOT~ say. I did not ask if you would continue the ~PROGRAM~ of the man whose name you wear (you
changed the spelling of my word in your response). I asked, "Will you continue the pogram of the man whose name you
wear?" Rather than me running the risk of you misunderstanding my point, perhaps you should look up that word and in
the context of my question, answer it again. I
am always happy to discuss the scriptures with reasonable men and women of goodwill and integrity of heart. My warmest personal
regards attend this way-too-long note, and I await your faithful reply.
Not one to be cowed by a straightforward reply, my correspondent
set his pen to the task of answering me. The next post (#4 in the series) contains his reply...
In reply to my response to his answer, my young correspondent
wrote the following (he is very inconsistent in his use of underlining and quotation marks, but I understood what he was
saying and found no reason to unduly put the discussion on a wrong footing of personal attack):
Ok, I am only going to deal with a few points for now, because I am still deciding
whether or not to continue this discussion. I would give you a reason, but you would just come to your own conclusions anyway
and tell me that I think either this or this and that what I say cannot be what I mean, so I won't bother. But I will
say that, you NEED to look into the mirror of God's word man. You are nothing but hateful, arrogant, rude and prideful.
I could name a few, but I won't. You say, "Calvinism IS grace. Calvinism
has NOTHING to do with legalism, but rather opposes it. Calvinism is the foremost opponent of what is known as Christian
Liberty. Calvinism DOES NOT believe in 'the open exaltation of salvation by flawless deeds and works of human merit.",
[sic] but rather that man is unable to come to God on his own due to the amount of sinfulness and blindness as a result
of the fall of man and that He is saved only because God has grace on Him." But, you don't really believe that.
I don't? And how is that? I say that I do, but you
do not believe me? Why? Please tell me and show me why I d not believe this. You are either lying about what you believe, How
am I lying about what I believe? or you are woefully
deceived How is that? (the only other alternative is that you are a fool, but I can see that is not true and will not
even consider it to be true). From what you have written,
is it really that much of a stretch that I could be? *grin*
You believe what Calvin taught. You believe what "the reformers" believed. You believe what Spurgeon believed,
and this is what it is: The word of God, pure and
simple.
Unfortunately, Spurgeon knew no more about grace than you, ____________. He thought that grace
was on the throne by conquest, sitting there "by right." He thought that God ~owes~ the elect salvation, because
Jesus earned it and it is their "by right." From
this, once again, can be seen your ignorance. You have shown clearly that you know nothing of neither myself, Calvinism,
nor Spurgeon. Spurgeon did not believe that God owes man anything, nor that God is obligated to save anyone. You may be able
to twist spurgeons words with others and pit them against his, but you cannot do this with me.
You, like Spurgeon and Calvin, believe that grace was EARNED by the vicarious
obedience and death of Jesus Christ. You, like Spurgeon and Calvin, believe that it is ~only~ the FLAWLESS MERIT OF OBEDIENCE
TO THE LAW OF GOD that saves man. If by this you mean
through CHRISTS flawless merit or obedience to the law of God, then yes. If it were not by these means, then how is it
that men are saved?
Spurgeon believed
that the law of God was vindicated, kept flawlessly and His wrath eternally satisfied Yes, substitutionary atonement
-- and that in whatever way it may be called "grace," God owes the elect because, in Christ, the law of God is
vindicated, kept flawlessly and imputed to them. That's what you believe, ____________. Once again I will state for clarity, I DO NOT believe that God owes man
anything. Nothing, No, Zero. Zilch. Nada.
You know RP, I was going to go on, but it doesn't change. I don't need to have this conversation with you,
because it seems that you know me better than I know me. *grin* And I don't need to say anything, because your just
going to tell me that I don;t believe that I have said or that I believe something else, so as for now I am done. I was really
hoping that we could discuss this topic, but it seems that we cannot. If you ever want to lose the chip on your shoulder,
surrender the pride to the Lord and come down off of that horse of yours, then we may be able to discuss this as two adults.
But as long as you are going to tell me what I believe, I will have no part in that. It is neither edifying to the Lord
nor to myself.
Have a good one*grin*
I must
confess that I was disappointed that my correspondent chose to seque out of the discussion with this post, especially since
he was the one who initiated the contact and suggested that we discuss the matter. But, I cannot control how others think,
so my only option was to reply and hope that he might retain some of what I was trying to say to him.
The next
post (#5) contains my reply...
After receiving the reply from my young correspondent, informing me that he did not
desire to continue the discussion, I felt that I had to reach out in sincerity in a final attempt to shake some doubt into
his confidence in the teachings of Calvin. Here's what I wrote:
Why are you so angry? I am not your enemy
because I tell you the truth. You don't even understand how terribly you contradicted yourself in the following (my
reply with your response underlined):
"Spurgeon believed that the law of God was vindicated, kept flawlessly and His
wrath eternally satisfied Yes, substitutionary atonement -- and that in whatever way it may be called "grace,"
God owes the elect because, in Christ, the law of God is vindicated, kept flawlessly and imputed to them. That's what
you believe, ____________. Once again I will state for clarity, I DO NOT believe that God owes man anything. Nothing,
No, Zero. Zilch. Nada."
____________, you cannot have it both ways. Either
the vicarious obedience and death of Jesus Christ imputed to man EARNS him salvation, or it is of grace. I believe it is
by grace through faith, embodied and expressed in obedience (Colossians 2:12). But every Calvinist on the Planet, who knows
what Calvin and the reformers taught, knows that Calvin argued that the MERIT of the FLAWLESS MORAL EXCELLENCE and PERFECT
OBEDIENCE of Christ (1) vindicated the law of God, and (2) satisfied Divine justice, and (3) appeased otherwise implacable
Divine wrath. THAT is what Calvinism teaches, and THAT is what Spurgeon believed and taught. Furthermore, THAT has man saved
by MERIT and NOT by grace, your whinings and the preachments of Calvinists to the contrary, notwithstanding.
My prayers for your repentance
attend this note. I will patiently await your reply, but understand that you may not want to continue the discussion.
Quite frankly, I did not expect a reply. But, to my surprise, my correspondent sent a final reply:
RP, Once again, I will follow the same path as I have before, except
this time, I'll write my response in bold.
Why are you so angry? *grin* I don't know where you get that I am angry. Upset, yes? Why? Because you
are trying to tell me what I believe. That is very haughty, prideful and irritating. I am not your enemy because
I tell you the truth. I never said that you were my enemy, and about the truth, yes it is your version of the truth.
Thus far you have given me NO scripture to support this supposed truth. You don't even understand how terribly
you contradicted yourself in the following (my reply with your response underlined):
"Spurgeon believed that the law of God was vindicated, kept flawlessly
and His wrath eternally satisfied Yes, substitutionary atonement -- and that in whatever way it may be called "grace,"
God owes the elect because, in Christ, the law of God is vindicated, kept flawlessly and imputed to them. That's what
you believe, ____________. Once again I will state for clarity, I DO NOT believe
that God owes man anything. Nothing, No, Zero. Zilch. Nada."
____________, you cannot have it both ways.
Yes you can. Either the vicarious obedience and death of Jesus Christ imputed to man EARNS him salvation,
or it is of grace. I do not see why you are trying to separate the two. The two work hand in hand. The salvation
that WE receive is all of grace and not by the works of man, but by Christ's perfect work, through the keeping of the
law, and His sacrifice. God desires a sacrifice for the sins of men, either that of man's soul, or that paid by with
the blood of Christ. You are trying to pit the work of Christ against the grace of God when they work hand in hand.
I believe it is by grace through faith Who's faith?, embodied and expressed in obedience Who's
obedience? (Colossians 2:12). But every Calvinist on the Planet, who knows what Calvin and the reformers taught,
knows that Calvin argued that the MERIT of the FLAWLESS MORAL EXCELLENCE and PERFECT OBEDIENCE of Christ (1) vindicated
the law of God, and (2) satisfied Divine justice, and (3) appeased otherwise implacable Divine wrath. Amen. So I
suppose I fail to see your point.Wrong. The deed had to be done for man to be saved. But salvation is
still by the grace of God for it is given freely, not out of compulsion or obligation. God was not obligated to save anyone.
In fact, if it were not for the grace of God and the work of Christ, all men would perish and burn in hell for eternity.
, your whining and the preachments of Calvinists to the contrary, notwithstanding. THAT is
what Calvinism teaches, and THAT is what Spurgeon believed and taught. Furthermore, THAT has man saved by MERIT and NOT
by grace My prayers for
your repentance attend this note. Repentance from what? To what? I will patiently await your reply,
but understand that you may not want to continue the discussion. You know, it seems that we are both standing firm
on what we believe. We can continue to discuss this issue if you like, but I don't see the point. I will just be praying
that the Lord will reveal to you His truth in His time.
By the way, how exactly do you believe that
man is saved? If it is not by the work that Christ has done then what is it by? Man's own works?
I must admit that the reply from this young and sincere correspondent gave me some hope for
his future conversion to Christ. I was surprised that he tried to diminish the force of my contrast between flawless works
and grace, since he must understand that his system of theology tries--howbeit in vain--to uphold that contrast (but one
of many contradictions in Calvinism).
At the end of his reply, he posed a fair question and I replied, hoping
it might induce him to reply, yet again and thus, to prolong the discussion until such a time as we could be brought to
agreement on the scripture and the truth contained therein. Having posed a fair question, he deserved an honest reply...and
I gave it. The final post in this series contains my reply to his question...
|
|
|
