Does Anybody Agree with this Quotation XI

by Antonio da Rosa

In an article on Christian assurance, D.A. Carson quotes I. Howard Marshall:

"... the Calvinist 'believer' cannot fall away from 'true' faith, but he can 'fall away' from what proves in the end to be only seeming faith. The possibility of falling away remains. But in neither case does the person know for certain whether he is a true or a seeming disciple... he sees signs in his life... but these signs may be misleading... Whoever said, 'The Calvinist knows that he cannot fall from salvation but does not know whether he has got it', had it summed up nicely... The [Arminian] knows that he has salvation... but is aware that, left to himself, he could lose it... IT SEEMS TO ME THE PRACTICAL EFFECT IS THE SAME."


Responding to these quotes, D.A. Carson says:

"At a... mechanistic level, I think this analysis is largely correct."
"at certain levels the practical effect is the same"
"Calvinism... [with its] forms of introversion... strangely mirror... their Arminian counterparts"
"Thus at their worst, the two approaches meet in strange and sad ways."


My Commentary:
In a very real sense, John MacArthur and Lordship Salvation preach the same 'gospel' as Dan Corner and the Arminians:

Unless you persevere in faithfulness and good works, and die in such a state, you go to hell. Faith alone is not enough.

Perseverance of the Saints is not "Eternal Security"

it is Conditional Security:

If you persevere, you are saved.

If you fail to persevere, you are damned.

Does Anybody Agree with this Quotation X

by Antonio da Rosa

Antinomianism Or A False Gospel, says Lloyd-Jones

R.T. Kendall states that his predecessor, D. Martin Lloyd-Jones, used to say "If the gospel we preach is not accused of being antinomian, it is probably because we haven't really preached the gospel!" (In Pursuit of HIS Glory, p. 97).

Does Anybody Agree with this Quotation IX

by Antonio da Rosa

The Calvinist's View of Divine 'Sovereignty' and Human Responsibility

Staunch Calvinist, Dr. Edwin Palmer, one time Professor of Systematic Theology at Westminster Theological Seminary, from his book, The Five Points of Calvinism:

Concerning divine sovereignty and human responsibility, he writes that the true Calvinist must embrace:

"both sides of the antinomy. He realizes that what he embraces is ridiculous."



Palmer goes on to admit that:

"It is impossible to harmonize these two sets of data [divine sovereignty and human responsibility]"



Palmer concludes it this way:

"This is the awesome biblical asymmetry. God ordains sin and man is to blame."

("Assymetry"!!?? Talk about understatement!)



What does the true Calvinist, according to Palmer, understand the ordination of God to entail?

"God is in back of everything. He decides and causes all things to happen that do happen ... He has foreordained everything 'after the counsel of his will': the moving of a finger, the beating of a heart, the laughter of a girl, the mistake of a typist - even sin"

Frank Turk says, 'The offer is real'

by Antonio da Rosa

Frank Turk says in a post on Pyromaniacs The Inconsistency and Contradictions of Calvinist Gospel Preaching [Note: this is my name of his clever post]:

"The offer is real"
(Speaking about the Gospel offer to all)

What is the offer, Frank?

How is it real?

John Calvin:
“Paul teaches us that the ruin of the wicked is not only foreseen by the Lord, but also ordained by his counsel and his will... not only the destruction of the wicked is foreknown, but that the wicked themselves have been created for this very end -- that they may perish” (Commentaries Romans 9:18)

“... he arranges all things by his sovereign counsel in such a way that individuals are born, who are doomed from the womb to certain death, and are to glorify him by their destruction...God ... arranges and disposes of them at his pleasure... all events take place by his sovereign appointment” (Institutes III, xxiii, 6)

What is an offer?

My dictionary gives this as a definition of the verb:

"to present for acceptance or rejection"

What is 'real'?

My dictionary gives this:

"true; not merely ostensible, nominal, or apparent"

Is the Calvinist 'gospel' a real offer for everyone?

I would argue that it is a real offer to not a single soul (note the use of that word soul, denoting the temporal person).


There is no 'real' offer to the reprobate:

Christ did not die for him. God chose him for hell.

What can be offered him? How is your Calvinist message a 'real offer' to him?

How can you "REAL"-ly offer something to someone that you have no intention of making good?

How can you "REAL"-ly offer something to someone who cannot hear or understand your offer?

How can you "REAL"-ly offer something to someone who cannot legitimately respond affirmatively to it?

And the hardest to answer for the Calvinist:

How can you "REAL"-ly offer something to someone in whom you have made NO PROVISION WHATSOEVER FOR THEM CONCERNING THE OBJECT YOU ARE SUPPOSEDLY OFFERING?

According to Calvinism, Christ did not die for the reprobate. He did not provide the gift for them. How can eternal life and reconciliation "REAL"-ly be offered to them when it isn't Christ's to give to them? (Because Christ did not purchase the gift for them)

How can it be a "REAL" offer when you do not have the item for that person?

Only in the realm of that fantastical deductionistic theological framework called "Calvinism" could one attempt to say with a straight face that a 'real offer' is given to the reprobate.

Does God wish to give a 'real offer' to those who are 'doomed from the womb' unto destruction, apart from any consideration of them whatsoever? There is no offer to the reprobate. His fate was sealed in the counsels of God's all-encompassing decree.


There is no 'real' offer to the elect:

The elect have salvation sovereignly imposed upon them. They are deaf, dead, and blind until God sovereignly imposes His 'grace' upon them, regenerating them.

Were they offered anything? They didn't even have ears to hear!

By the time they can hear, they don't have a choice, in that they, apart from any desire whatsoever (actually they desired to stay in their sins and rebel against God, right?) they were regenerated.

No offer here. Just the whim of a God who thinks he will be glorified by creating people in order to populate hell and heaven.

Imagine the glory God receives, Frank:

To God be the glory for creating a sub-division of humanity He made for the express purpose and pleasure of torturing in hell forever!

Such a notion inspires praise on MY lips (I hope you sense the sarcasm).

Antonio da Rosa