Winning The Non Elect?

 BLURB OF BOOK ON CALVINISM BEING A TROJAN HORSE

A divided church is a weak church. To win and reach a lost and dying world for Christ with the gospel of free salvation for “all” is the central theme of the Word of God. Calvinism brings serious damage into our churches rendering them weak and powerless, and as well subverts the simple plan of salvation. To say that booklets such as this cause division in the church is in deep error. The truth is Calvinism brings division and strife into local churches, Christian colleges and seminaries, and must be stopped that the true message of free salvation for all can go forth in power and victory. It is this author’s goal and delight, to win the so called “non-elect” to saving faith in Jesus Christ. Let’s go soul winning today! “How shall they hear without a preacher and how shall they preach except they be sent?” Romans 10:14. Terry Lee Miller Sr. presently resides alone in Elgin, S.C. and is the father of 4 grown children. He is an avid soul winner active in the prison ministries and as well is involved in writing apologetic Christian literature. His favorite motto is “Truth will stand examination.”
Oh dear! At the risk of someone reading these words and still  buying the above book, I'll link to it anyway. If the blurb is anything to go on, only the gullible will swallow it and (as said before) it is only a matter of time before they get caught on somebody's hook anyway. 

There is a number of things I could comment on, but I will limit my remarks to two. 

1) Calvinists agree that the gospel invite is for "all" and by that we mean "all without any exception." 

2) Who are these "non elect" which the blurb speaks about? If we sealed all the exits in a shopping mall and filtered out the hundreds of shoppers, could he with any authority divide the sheep from the goats? Certainly, no Calvinist purports to be able to do it. How are we to say that shopper #562, although not yet professing faith in Christ, will never ever come to the Saviour? Calvinism sees all men still alive as potentially elect. We use the potentially here, because we have no insight into the Lamb's Book of Life to see whose names are written there. Therefore, as in the first point, we preach to all indiscrimately. We seek to knock on every last door and press a gospel tract into every last hand. 

No matter what your views on election might be i.e. whether you are an Unconditional Election man or a Conditional Election man, if you are within New Testament Christianity, you do not believe that the non elect will ever be saved. That is why (to state the glaringly obvious) they are non elect. 

Enough said...

 * CALVINIST INDEX
* PROTESTANT INDEX
* CH SPURGEON INDEX
* EVANGELISM INDEX
* HERE AND THERE INDEX
* YOUTUBE VIDEO INDEX
* 3 MINUTE AUDIOBOO INDEX

Ach and Matthew 19

 

Spoof account or not, (I do not know) Mr Ach certainly provides good fodder for this Calvinist blog. What happened in Matthew 19:18-22?

He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet? Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me. But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions. (AV)

Where does the Bible say that this young man was non elect? Answer: it doesn't. Why should anyone ever think him "non elect"? Because he went away sorrowful? Does someone have to get saved the first time he is confronted with the claims of Christ to be saved? If so, there would be very few saved. I certainly did not get converted the first time I heard the gospel. Neither did Saul of Tarsus. And I suspect, neither did many of the readers of this article.

No wonder Calvinism is safe when this kind of attack is made upon it. I don't know what kind of "Calvinism" Ack embraced for 15 years, but if he swapped it for this kind of exegesis, then it mustn't have much to start with.

BTW: Sinners are commanded in the gospel for a number of reasons, not least:

[i] They are reminded of their responsibility before God. Man cannot sin himself out of his responsibility before God.

[ii] Often with the command, comes the ability to perform it. Why did Christ command a dead corpse to come forth out of the grave in John 11? Because the power to do so accompanied the command. 

There does not appear to be any specific reference to this young man again. His parting from Christ in Matthew 19 is not very encouraging at all, but we are certainly in no position to blandly pontificate, as Ach does, that he was non elect. Yes, Calvinism is safe with critics like this around. No wonder, I perpetuate their attacks on this blog. #FluffStuff


UPDATE:

No one is claiming that the Rich Young Ruler ever got saved. We are not told in Scripture as to his later life and simply therefore we do not know. We do know that he didn't get saved at the meeting with Christ in Matthew 19 and would never be saved as long as he held on to the position that he occupied at that time. I repeat again, that very few of the elect come to Christ on the first hearing of the gospel and therefore to blandly say that this man was not elect because on one occasion he rejected the gospel is to play fast and loose with the word of God. Election is God's prerogative. It is entirely sovereign and for any to come along and pontificate whether someone still in this life is not elect is to try and seize the steering wheel from the hand of God. From such, may the good Lord deliver us.

Yes, this young man rejected Christ at that time. Of course, sinners can reject the gospel. I am always amazed at how some anti Calvinists put this forth as if it were an argument against Calvinism. I suggest before they quote verses John 5:40 and Acts 7:51 etc., that they do some very simple homework first i.e. look up the key Calvinist commentators, Calvin, Poole, Henry, Barnes, Jamison, Fausset and Brown etc., and read their comments. The simple homework is done here. That way, they have a better chance of being taken seriously.

 
* CALVINIST INDEX
* PROTESTANT INDEX
* CH SPURGEON INDEX
* EVANGELISM INDEX
* HERE AND THERE INDEX
* YOUTUBE VIDEO INDEX
* 3 MINUTE AUDIOBOO INDEX

cloudelection

 TRIPPING OVER YOUR OWN FEET:

 In my opinion (documented here) David Cloud does not excel himself on the Calvinism issue.  While he readily (and thankfully) acknowledges that there are a number of things he likes about Calvinism, he tends to go into some kind of theological mist when he decides to go on the attack. 

 “Of course, you  would say that!” is perhaps the reaction of some readers to this observation of mine. Yes – but even the non Calvinists would have to agree with me on this one when we turn to Cloud’s latest offering on his Way of Life site.

Cloud teaches the usual non Calvinist stuff that we owe our election to our faith. I reject this position, seeing my faith as the gracious fruit of His election. I believed through grace. I was justified by faith and in the golden chain of Romans 8:28-29 the Bible places justification in the purposes of God after I, as an individual, was foreknown, predestined and called. If Cloud wants to mess up God’s order, then that is his business. I am happy to follow Paul here. On this matter, Evangelical Christians have disagreed, so this is not the issue. At least not at this time.

Cloud then makes a bit of noise about the whosoever will part of the gospel and takes it to mean everyone. Calvinists, generally, don’t have a problem with insisting that whosoever means everyone without exception. Certainly, John Calvin didn’t. Neither do I, nor (I suspect) the majority of Calvinists. This is Cloud making an issue where there is no issue. IMO, he would be better adding this “Whosoever” matter to the things he likes about Calvinism as linked above.

Where I think Cloud loses the plot BIG TIME as far as basic Christianity (Calvinist and non Calvinist alike) is concerned is in the following statement. Check it in the original article for context etc. He says: 

 "God is  not playing games with sinners. He is not offering eternal life to all, but only giving it to the 'elect.'" 

Eh? At this point, it matters nothing whether we are Conditional Election or Unconditional Election Christians. We both hold that "the elect" will ultimately prove to be the believer in Jesus. A soul who lives and dies without faith in Jesus Christ, according to both camps, is lost and goes to Hell. He is not the recipient of eternal life because he did not exercise faith in Jesus Christ and therefore the wrath of God abides upon him (John 3:18-19/3:36) This is basic Evangelical theology. Yet look at what Cloud has gone into print with. As the words stand, in their immediate and simplest sense, God does not only give eternal life to the elect i.e. to the believer. IOW: He gives it to a group wider than the believer.

Cloud has probably been clumsy in his language here.  If I were tasked with defending him, I would point to many other places in his voluminous writings where he affirms the damnation of the unbelieving. Mischief making is not my scene. But here, he trips over his own feet. 

The main thrust of Cloud's article centres round a simple question: 

Can any man be saved?

Apparently a Calvinist friend of his declined to answer with a simple affirmative  but "wanted to go into an intricate theological explanation." I have commented before on Cloud's "Granny test" so an "intricate theological explanation" need not conjure up thoughts of deep, mysterious doctrine. I suggest, in the absence of Cloud actually telling us what this was, that the good man  was merely putting the provisos that the Bible itself puts on salvation. For example, let me ask you the following questions and see how you get on.

01) Can a man who wants to hold on to the sin of fornication be saved?

02) Can a man who wants to hold on to the sin of idolatry be saved?

03) Can a man who wants to hold on to the sin of adultery be saved?

04) Can a man who wants to hold on to the sin of effeminacy be saved? 

05) Can a man who wants to hold on to the sin of being an abuser of himself with mankind be saved? 

06) Can a man who wants to hold on to the sin of thieving be saved? 

07) Can a man who wants to hold on to the sin of covetousness be saved? 

08) Can a man who wants to hold on to the sin of drunkenness be saved?

09) Can a man who wants to hold on to the sin of reviling be saved?

10)  Can a man who wants to hold on to the sin of extortion be saved?

You would answer all 10 questions in the negative, would you not? Of course, we know that thieves and idolaters etc., have been saved because 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 9 (from whence this list was drawn) tells us so. "Such were some of you, but ye have washed etc." But they repented and forsook those sins. There is no salvation for the stubborn wicked who live and die ultimately in their sins and unbelief. Therefore, we must say that it is impossible for any man to be saved unless he repents and believes the gospel. God Himself has not made it possible for the impenitent to be saved. I distinctly remember a parable which Jesus told about a man sitting among the very wedding guests being removed, bound hand and foot and thrust into hell.

 In closing, Cloud wrongly again suggests that Calvinism teaches that the reason why people are lost is because they have not been sovereignly elected. Calvinism does not father the damnation of any soul on God, but (as documented here) puts the blame where it fairly and squarely belongs i.e. on the guilty sinner himself. This is simply Cloud going boldly where anyone who has done their homework on Calvinism refuses to go. 

That's it.  One advantage of such attacks upon Calvinism is another opportunity to put the record straight and show how ultimately every attack on these Doctrines of Grace must ultimately wallow in their own failure.

THE END

* Answering David Cloud's lament that Calvinism is on the march!
* Answering David's Cloud's 'Calvin's Camels' attack 
* David Cloud's 'Hot sermon' on 'Calvinism - Who is the enemy?' analysed

INDEXES:

* CALVINIST INDEX
* PROTESTANT INDEX
* CH SPURGEON INDEX
* EVANGELISM INDEX
* HERE AND THERE INDEX

bhcacts18

Click on picture to enlarge

THE END

INDEXES:

* CALVINIST INDEX
* PROTESTANT INDEX
* CH SPURGEON INDEX
* EVANGELISM INDEX
* HERE AND THERE INDEX