Secondary Causes

[Flynn]

That said, Sean, I wish you wouldn't speak abusively, for God peradventure might grant David repentance to the acknowledging of the truth. Even if David believes in screaming as a means of grace, we don't, so we should continue to instruct those that oppose us in meekness. Blessings!

You guys crack me up. It was a metaphor used in a very protracted debate I was having with Winnen Russ, Michael Leathers, John Pederson <?> and others, all well known hypers who have gone so far as to say all Arminians are unsaved.

Metaphor.

Man you guys are killing me here.

 

[Magma2]

I don't think the offer of the gospel to reprobates is a sign of impotence in God at all. There's nothing Arminian in pleading with sinners to repent and believe in Jesus Christ. That has been a hallmark of reformed preaching since the Reformation.

Of course it is my hope Patrick that you miss the point. The question is not whether the gospel should be proclaimed to all, it should, but whether or not God is yelling and screaming trying to wake and save those whom, according to His sovereign predestination, He has determined not to save.

The picture David paints and which you call the hallmark of Reformation preaching is pure Arminianism. The idea David has been putting forward on every thread he´s been apart of on these boards, whether he´s started them himself or not (and he´s been playing the same song for years all over the Internet), is that God loves all men, Christ died for all men universally, and that God desires and longs for the salvation of all men. This is Arminianism. The problem here is that his impotent and false god cannot affect the very ends he desires. He doesn´t even control the means. Is this the god you worship? Is this the god of Reformation preaching? I confess that is news to me, but I will say that after renouncing my own Arminianism more than a dozen years ago I was somewhat surprised to find many of those calling themselves Reformed embracing and teaching the very same ideas and doctrines. I guess it´s like Democrats and Republicans, basically the same political philosophy in different suits

I'm not sure what your problem is here. Isn't God meek? Patient? Longsuffering? Doesn't God delight in repentence and obedience? Does he not demand that of all men? I cannot reconcile why God would plead with reprobates to turn. But it's there in Scripture. It's part of His revealed will.

Where does God plead with reprobates to turn? How about a verse or two and maybe some exegesis to support your point? What happened to many are called but few are chosen and those who are chosen are chosen by God so that none will be lost? What happened to "œthe firm foundation of God stands, having this seal, "˜The Lord knows those who are His´"? What happened to "No one can come to Me, unless the Father who sent Me draws him"? So what part of His revealed will are you speaking of?

For what it's worth it seems to me you too make the same error of trying to infer something in the indicative from something written in the imperative. Yes, God does command the Gospel to be preached to all and for all to believe, but how you get from this a desire or a longing on the part of God to save those He has sovereignly ordained to perdition is indeed a mystery. It certainly isn´t logical, but I guess that doesn´t matter since you say "œit´s there in Scripture." However, this is precisely why Reymond accuses Murray of imputing irrationality to God in his development of the so-called "œwell meant offer." Of course, I suppose the reason such an irrational view of God was so widely embrace (again) has to do with the widespread influence of Van Tilianism where the embrace of contradictions and paradox has become the hallmark of Reformed epistemology and piety in most circles.

However and despite Ponter´s adept sophistry, Calvin clearly saw a different purpose in God´s command for the universal proclamation of the Gospel:

When he addresses the same Word to the reprobate, though not to correct them, he makes it serve another use: today to press them with the witness of conscience, and in the Day of Judgment to render them the more inexcusable. Thus, although Christ declares that no one except him whom the Father draws can come to him, and the elect come after they have "œheard and learned from the Father" [John 6:44-45], still Christ does not neglect the teacher´s office, but with his own voice unremittingly summons those who need to be taught within by the Holy Spirit in order to make any progress. Paul points out that teaching is not useless among the reprobate, because it is to them "œa fragrance from death to death" [2 Corinthians 2:16], yet "œa sweet fragrance to God."

And again,

Christ reminds the Apostles, and, through them, all the teachers of the Gospel, to reserve the treasure of heavenly wisdom for the children of God alone, and not to expose it to unworthy and profane despisers of his word. But here a question arises: for he afterwards commanded to preach the Gospel to every creature, (Mark 16:15) and Paul says, that the preaching of it is a deadly savor to wicked men, (2 Corinthians 2:16) and nothing is more certain than that it is every day held out to unbelievers, by the command of God, for a testimony, that they may be rendered the more inexcusable. I reply: As the ministers of the Gospel, and those who are called to the office of teaching, cannot distinguish between the children of God and swine, it is their duty to present the doctrine of salvation indiscriminately to all.

It seems to me Ponter and others are desperate to transfer their own desire for the salvation of all men, and that the death of Christ might have procured the remission of sins for all men, to God. Of course, if Ponter is correct that Christ died for all men and propitiated the wrath of God on account of sin for all men, then it follows necessarily that all men must be saved. That not being the case it stands to reason that there is something seriously flawed in his reasoning. Of course, it's always dangerous to use our own imaginings as the basis for our theology, but this is what David does routinely even while attempting to wrap himself in "œprimary sources."

As for what you infer from my question, I haven't the foggiest idea what David holds to on these issues other than the snippets you posted. I only see your constant accusations against him (apparently from some previous baggage) without anything productive to the discussion at hand. If you have personal issues with David then handle them outside the Puritan Board. If you can't offer anything constructive then don't post.

I do have a long history with David and I confess I was pleased that he seemed to have fallen off the Reformed chat forums for quite a few years only to resurface again recently here. As for whether or not my contributions have been positive, some think it positive even if others think my rhetoric too strong. If it is any consolation, I´ll try my best to ignore him in the future.

 

[Magma2]

You guys crack me up. It was a metaphor used in a very protracted debate

Of course it is a metaphor, but one which accurately illustrates your view of God and Gospel. That was, after all, what the metaphor intended to do and how you used it. After all, you weren't describing just some Arminian in the abstract, you were describing yourself.



Ignoring . . . . now!

[Edited on 8-24-2006 by Magma2]

 

[JM]

What is the nature of sin, is it "something?" How can it exist without being created?