Improper Feelings About Doctrine

I was traveling through my various links of inspirational material this morning and I came upon a post, whereupon I was confused by something that the author of the site said.

You can read the post here; I like this site and in particular it's been useful to me, but something about today's post smacked of humanism...and while I do not judge the author, in the sense that I think there's anything more wrong with him, more so than any of us, and also in the sense that he may have violated some rule of faith that only I abide by, I am forced to correct what seems in error with the scriptures.

He speaks of an experience, to which I can relate, which is working with Arminians. In his case he says it's an Arminian pastor. The author of this site relates; 

" I know he is a good man who is concerned for the souls of men. He weeps for souls. " 

Wait...first issue. We've got a logic problem. What is a good man? Why do you call him good? There is none good but God..."Jesus".

Perhaps he means to relate his 'former' sentiment and not be specific to his doctrinal thesis and thus imprecise. Perhaps. Yet, we have more evidence of humanistic arguments that follow. If that were all, I might be well enough to leave it alone. Yet there is more.

The Arminians belief system is not rooted in logic nor the scriptures. His weeping is not for having the truth, but for his emotional in ability to accept reality; namely that men are born unto vessels of wrath. Since there is no truth in him (at this moment at least), why would we expect to believe his weeping? "For many walk...and now tell you weeping, they are enemies of the cross....who's end is destruction..." (Paul)

So then, he has no heart for the lost because he has no mind for truth. He rejects truth and replaces it with his own vain philosphy and elementary principle of the world. How hard is it to be sad that someone will not understand the root principle that hope alights the soul of fear?

Then the author, when he hears "Jesus Loves You", questions it. Rightly so...and says "does He really?"

Let's finish with the evidence...

Here is the remainder of his work - un-edited. First, he makes his case on so-called 'hyper-calvanism, thereby setting up his straw-man argument and then he attacks it. As-if his definition of hyper-calvanism, yet undefined is equal with all untruth...yet no explanation of why Arminans can be "good" and "love people". Yet, unbeknownst to him, he attacks his own unscriptural application of his theology.

I grew up a typical Southern Baptist, which means I believed in Jesus and eternal security, but that was about it. After my conversion, I met a man who was a pastor of a Primitive Baptist church. He loved Jesus, and he was the only one who would talk to me about Romans 9. This pastor was a hyper-Calvinist, though I did not have a category for such a thing at the time. I testify that such men exist, and not just as boogey-men in the dreams of Arminian evangelists. He was the first man to ever tell me God had no intention of saving every man, and even that God did not love all men. After all, God hated Esau. 

I hear the pastor plead with us. He tells us that God will save whoever will come to him, but I know that when he says it he doesn't just mean the elect. This pastor wants all men to come. This pastor believes God might save every man who hears him; he believes that Jesus loves every child in VBS; this man would have pled with Esau even if he had read Romans 9. 

I decided that day that I would plead for the souls of men as if God could and would save every man that I talked to about Christ. I decided that God's love for every child is genuine, even if they do not number amongst the elect. I decided that election would be a comfort to me and not a sorrow; it guaranteed the salvation of many, and yet damned no man to hell. Only sin can do that, and every man's sin is not due to his status in election. 

It was in this way that I finally began to be Reformed. Not simply by confession or creed, but by an overwhelming need for the gospel to be good news to all men, especially for those that believe.

"I hear the pastor plead with us, he tells us that God will save whoever will come to him"...

This is a TRUE STATEMENT! The pastor is right in so saying. Preach the gospel and make disciples. Who cares what the pastor "MEANS"...he does rightly to plead with the wicked to turn to God. He must!

Then in the final analysis, the thesis statement comes forth. "I decided that God's love for every child is genuine, even if they are not numbered among the elect"...

"I decided [calvanism] would not be a sorrow, but a comfort...[calvanism] guaranteed the salvation of many and damned no man to hell. Only sin can do that and every man's sin is not due to his status in election.

If we replaced calvanism, since it's implied here and stated elsewhere with "the gospel", I wonder if he would believe his thesis to stand up? The Gospel states that, so that the counsel of God's own will would stand, he would, have mercy on whom he desires and harden those he desires.

God does not love everyone in the same way. It could be said that even giving you life is to love you, by common grace. However, the Bible is repleat with examples of God hating the wicked and saying so! He HATES the wicked. It would be better that they were never born, yet save his immutable purpose...he provides them as vessels of destruction. While that author may know that, what he appeals to his humanistic argumentation and emotion rather than the scripture. The falsity of his claim is that somehow Calvanism or even Hyper-Calvanism erodes the loving nature or the decree of God to expound the gospel to all men. You are to share with all. The problem that this person has is that they cannot seperate the biblical exegesis of sound evangelism and the popularly taught "Come to Jesus" movement of America.

Jesus doesn't want and will not accept the wicked and the apostate. He only accepts his elect. It just so happens that only He knows who they are, and we're to love everyone until they prove to be wicked and support, by means of your capability, everyone, regardless of their status as you understand it. Period. Get over the traditions of men, they send people to hell.