The PuritanBoard - Calvinism & The Doctrines of Grace

Some Practical Implications of Particular Redemption, Part 1: The Doctrine Defined

Dr. Bob Gonzales — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 15:17:37 GMT

Pastor Jeffrey Smith, one of the professors for Reformed Baptist Seminary, has commenced a series of posts on some of the practical implications of the doctrine of particular redemption. In the first installment below, he'll clarify what is and what is not meant by "particular redemption." Then in Parts 2, 3, and 4, he'll tease out some of the practical ramifications of the doctrine.

Some Practical Implications of Particular Redemption, Part 1: The Doctrine Defined

Your servant,

Blot name from Book of Life

cecat90 — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 23:49:38 GMT

I was discussing Perseverance of the Saints this summer with someone and we got to a point where she told me that people can be "blotted" out of the "Book of Life". The passage she was referring to is:

Rev. 3:5 "The one who conquers will be clothed thus in white garments, and I will never blot his name out of the book of life. I will confess his name before my Father and before his angels."

Reading this, one could incorrectly assume the Arminian point of view of salvation (based on works). The reason is that the name of a person was once written in and there is the potential that a name can be blotted out based on the "I will never blot his name out" which would suggest that one has to "conquer" to not be blotted out. If one does not conquer then he will have his name blotted out, making salvation based on works. In other words, the line of thinking (Arminian) is that when one is saved his name is written in the Book of Life. However, if that person does not conquer the world, which in this case would be through works, then his name will be blotted out of the Book of Life. On the other hand, if the person does conquer, then his name will not be blotted out. In my opinion, the reason that a person would come to this way of thinking would be that if it is mentioned that the one who conquers will not have his name blotted out, the logical conclusion of the one who does not conquer will be for his name to be blotted out.

My question is: What exactly is meant by this verse.? The context of the verse is:

Rev. 3:1-6: "And to the angel of the church in Sardis write: 'The words of him(A) who has the seven spirits of God and the seven stars.
"'I know your works. You have the reputation(B) of being alive,(C) but you are dead. 2Wake up, and strengthen what remains and is about to die, for I have not found your works(D) complete in the sight of my God. 3(E) Remember, then, what you received and heard. Keep it, and repent. If you will not wake up,(F) I will come(G) like a thief, and you will not know at what hour I will come against you. 4Yet you have still a few names in Sardis, people who have not(H) soiled their garments, and they will walk with me(I) in white, for they are(J) worthy. 5(K) The one who conquers will be clothed thus in white garments, and I will never(L) blot his name out of(M) the book of life.(N) I will confess his name before my Father and before his angels. 6(O) He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.'

Another question is: What conquer specifically means here?
And how to refute this way of thinking?-specifically with the "Book of Life", which people take literally or metaphorically. (many Arminian people I've talked to believe in this "having ones name taken out literally because of not staying faithful to the end" mentality).

I don't know if I made my question clear or if it's understandable. Let me know. I can elaborate on it some more perhaps.

Molinism Vs Calvinist view on the foreknowledge of God

Dragoon — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 21:03:48 GMT

So I have to defend the Calvinist view of Gods foreknowledge in a debate in my issues in theology class.:amen:I have not had any problems finding good argument against the Arminian view (simple foreknowledge) and Open Theism but I can�t seem to find and good articles on the middle knowledge or Molinism view. Can anyone link me to some?:gpl:

Thanks

Libertarian Freedom in Glory

dissidentcynic — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 14:01:54 GMT

Do those that believe libertarian free will allowed the fall to happen believe there will be the same type of libertarian freedom in heaven? I have heard some reformed folks take jabs at Arminians and say that the implications of libertarian free will (especially if God 'has' to give) is that we could introduce sin into heaven. Is this an accurate accusation, or just an assumption? I am unfamiliar with the Arminian position, I am only familiar with compatibilism.

Has anyone heard of Curtis Hutson

Bern — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 21:25:06 GMT

I've just read an article by Curtis Hutson called "Why I Disagree with all 5 points of Calvinism."

Why I Disagree With All 5 Points of Calvinism

Has anyone heard of this guy? From what I can gather, he believes in free will to choose Christ, but also believes eternal security, and that we are kept by God's power afterward. What is this position called... its not really Arminianism is it?

He mentions how some verses are distorted by Calvinists, such as verses that indicate Christs death was for the whole world, and that God wills men everywhere to be saved. I've heard the reformed viewpoint on these verses, but sometimes even I think they sound like a bit of a stretch.

Anyone got any thoughts?

Can the Calvinist be sure of his election?

steadfast7 — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 20:35:46 GMT

I've been debating friend of mine and last night he insisted that Calvinism taught that a person cannot know if he/she is elect? In other words, one cannot be sure of his salvation.

I hadn't this in detail, only remembering hearing a couple of lectures on the Puritans that they did struggle with assurance.

Is this true?

Muller -- "Was Calvin a Calvinist?"

Marrow Man — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 17:55:16 GMT

This is an interesting essay (transcript of a lecture) by Richard Muller. It examines the old "Calvin v. Calvinism" issues. I thought this paragraph, though, was particularly interesting:

Quote:

1. The Problem of TULIP. By way of addressing these issues, we should note
first and foremost the problem of TULIP itself � an acrostic that has caused much trouble for the Reformed tradition and has contributed greatly to the confusion about Calvin and Calvinism. (I don�t plan to tiptoe through this issue.) It is really quite odd and a-historical to associate a particular document written in the Netherlands in 1618-19 with the whole of Calvinism and then to reduce its meaning to TULIP. Many of you here know that the word is actually �tulp.� �Tulip� isn�t Dutch � sometimes I wonder whether Arminius was just trying to correct someone�s spelling when he was accused of omitting that �i� for irresistible grace. More seriously, there is no historical association between the acrostic TULIP and the Canons of Dort. As far as we know, both the acrostic and the phrase �five points of Calvinism� are of Anglo-American origin and do not date back before the nineteenth century. It is remarkable how quickly bad ideas catch on. When, therefore, the question of Calvin�s relationship to Calvinism is reduced to this popular floral meditation � did Calvin teach TULIP? � any answer will be grounded on a misrepresentation. Calvin himself, certainly never thought of this model, but neither did later so-called Calvinists. Or, to make the point in another way, Calvin and his fellow Reformers held to doctrines that stand in clear continuity
with the Canons of Dort, but neither Calvin nor his fellow Reformers, nor the
authors of the Canons, would have reduced their confessional position to TULIP.

Taking on the Institutes

Michael Turner — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 02:28:43 GMT

:calvin: :calvin: :calvin: :calvin: :calvin: :calvin: :calvin: :calvin:

This week I'm starting an 8-month journey through the Institutes led by the elders of my church. It'll be my first time going cover to cover. The elders have questions for us to answer at the end of each section. I plan on keeping track of everything at my new blog.

If you are so inclined, please pray that I persevere this study!

P.S. Yes, I am very aware of Reformation 21's Blogging the Institutes and will no doubt be gleaning what I can from their commentary.

Calvin on Attending to the Image of God in Others

Sven — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 19:15:34 GMT

Here:

Beholding the Beauty: Positive Dogmatics: Attending to the Image of God in Others

Happy Michael Servetus Day?

DMcFadden — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 15:36:45 GMT

Today marks the anniversary of the death of Michael Servetus.

Quote:

Michael Servetus (also Miguel Servet or Miguel Serveto; 29 September 1511 – 27 October 1553) was a Spanish (Aragonese) theologian, physician, cartographer, and humanist. He was the first European to describe the function of pulmonary circulation. His interests included many sciences: astronomy and meteorology; geography, jurisprudence, study of the Bible, mathematics, anatomy, and medicine. He is renowned in the history of several of these fields, particularly medicine and theology. He participated in the Protestant Reformation, and later developed a nontrinitarian Christology. Condemned by Catholics and Protestants alike, he was arrested in Geneva and burnt at the stake as a heretic by order of the Protestant Geneva governing council.

More pointedly, his death has become THE blot on the reputation of John Calvin who was falsely blamed for it as the "tyrant of Geneva." One need take into account several factors:

* The sensibilities of the 16th century were quite different from those prevalent today. Atttacks on the trinity were taken rather seriously back then as endangering the public order, tempting weak persons into soul destroying damnable heresy, and a challenge to the political structures of society.
* Servetus was condemned to death by the Roman Catholics prior to his ill-fated visit to Geneva.
* Calvin was an "expert witness" in the trial, not the one entrusted with the authority of the sword. He was not even granted bourgois status in Geneva until 1559 (6 years after Servetus' death) and his popularity was at a particularly low ebb in 1553 when Servetus was put on trial.
* The Council sought the opinion of surrounding cantons, receiving the unanimous recommendation to execute Servetus.
* Everyone on all sides in Calvin's day agreed with the execution.
* During an era when hundreds of people were executed in Germany and religious atrocities were not uncommon (cf. Peasants' War in 1525 and the M�nster Rebellion of January 1534), Calvin's quarter century combined tenure in Geneva was marked by all of ONE religious execution . . . Servetus (banishment was more common, I count the case of Jacques Gruet as civil, not religious).
* Calvin and the Genevan ministers petitioned the court to mitigate the sentence of Servetus by a more humane method of execution than burning. They were denied.
* Calvin made several efforts to persuade Servetus to repent.

Nevertheless, since the death of Servetus on October 27, 1553, Calvin has been tarred by historians and in the popular imagination as a cruel and bloodthirsty tyrant. NOT true. Considering the weight of historical opprobrium piled on Calvin since then in the popular mind, one might argue about who really "got burned" by the death of Servetus.

Original Sin Debate

charliejunfan — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 19:12:53 GMT

Here is a debate about Original Sin, the Calvinist does a great job but the Synergist twists things and is very deceitful with semantics and hermeneutics.

YouTube - Original Sin Debate

unlimited atonment

duncan001 — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 15:24:01 GMT

Please kindly refer to this:

Calvin and Calvinism � Blog Archive Gardner Spring (1785-1873) on Election, Unlimited Atonement and the Free Offer

especially for this:

2. It is no part of the doctrine of Election, that Christ died exclusively for the Elect. Such a representation is an unjustifiable perversion of the doctrine, and exposes it to unanswerable questions. Though there would have been no atonement but for God�s design to save the elect, and though there could have been no designs of mercy toward the elect without an atonement; yet the doctrine of atonement and election are two distinct things. Much idle breath and illiberal crimination might have been spared, by giving them that place in the Christian system which they hold in the word of God. It has never yet been proved that Christ died exclusively for the elect. If language has any meaning, we are bound to believe that �he tasted death for every man.� One would imagine that if the Apostle had intended to put this question forever at rest, he could not have said more than he has in these memorable words: �And he is the propitiation for our sins; and not for our sins only, but also for the sins of the whole world.�

Any comments?