Who Said That?
Friday, June 9, 2006 at 09:21AM 
Who Said That?
"Indeed, God would save all men if He could . . . . God will achieve the greatest number in heaven that He possibly can. He does not love just some men; He loves all and will do everything within His loving power to save all He can . . . . God will save the greatest number of people that is actually achievable without violating their free choice."
You know the drill! Leave your answer in the comments section. Google searches do not count! Answer to follow in a few days.
Kim Riddlebarger
Many of you got this one right since a number of Reformed writers make mention of these words!
This comes from Norman Geisler, in an essay he wrote in 1982, entitled, "God, Evil, and Dispensation," in the book, A Tribute to John Walvoord (Moody Press, 1982), 102-103.
Reader Comments (56)
As a Reformed teacher in a dispensational, Arminian environment I often find I'm telling my students why I believe differently...then I try to give them the strongest case for their position. Let me suggest you do two things: 1. Read the passages, in full context that discuss God's sovereignty (especially regarding salvation). They are as clear as they can be, and Arminians must do serious verbal gymnastics to get around them 2. Don't rely on your logical a prioris to define Scripture...Is God's mind more creative or ours? Is His will more free or ours? If the answer is "His" in both cases, then is it more limiting to be defined by His directives, or ours? Arminius made not only Scriptural errors, as a result of his sinful nature (which we all share) he translated those into argumentative errors. They "make sense" to us..but only because our hearts and minds are distorted. You may have already considered those things and still aren't convinced...if so, you might want to look through the annals of Church History and see what has been most consistently taught by Christians through the ages. Not always a guarantee of correctness, but something that should be given weight.
Nope, that is Universalism and is not supported by scripture.
In Christ
Mike Ratliff
boy, those are all good guesses ( just came to this site...longtime whi/mr listener/reader...i got the other charles stanley one right about his protestant version of purgatory! good for me.)
i like that one about KR in 1978, especially having seen kim redaily admit he passed out chuck smith books at one point.
while i love kim and all the guys at whi, and while i am eternally indebted to them for getting me out of that awful evangelicalism and into solid reformation for the last 11 years, and while i find this corner on the site fun...i wonder...who the heck cares who said that! we know it's garbage ;)
maybe it's my own exhaustion in living with a whole set of in-laws that are patent arminians in their IFCA bible church (er, i mean IFCA GCCOS...glorified conference center and office space) eeeevangelicalism, but i get tired of pointing out all the bad guys, beating my head against a wall.
the better part of me says...let's turn our efforts to shaping up our own reformed churches; let rome be rome and colordao springs be colorado springs. they are both lost causes. the real lament should be our own that call themselves reformed and presbyterian and act like evangelicals. maybe if we spent more time catechizing our kids instead of assuming they will pick-it-up-as-they-go (an evangelical pedagogy) while we reveal the...
sorry, i know the good fight has to be fought. i just don't want it done at the expense of our own. maybe i just find it easier to pour good augustianian-calvinism into my child's soft and pliable head than banging the life out of my fundamenatlist-revivalist preacher FIL's hard head. know what i mean?
REFORMATION NOW!
You must still remember what Paul said to the Galatians about the Judaizers. Paul and Jesus said things that many would just call unloving and disrespectful. Also, the statement about God casting excrement on the faces of his priests is found in Malachi 2:3.
With due and proper respect, Dave Hunt has shamed the name of Christ. He has acted arrogantly, presumptously and ignored the loving appeal and reproof from peers to retreat the manuscript before publication (so many horrendous misstatements; self-imposed ignorant and slanderous references therein.) Talk to James White about it.
Due to Mr. Hunt's awful book, Calvary Chapels launched campaigns to "hate Calvinism" and Calvinists. Having experienced encounters with some of the proponents, I attest that their blind-rage towards those who embrace a deeper, Biblical view of theology is scary and certainly ungodly. Dave Hunt's book breeds self-righteous,intellectual "bigotry."
Curiously, no one's yet mentioned the credentials of Dr. Riddlebarger which appropriately merit his evaluation.
Anyone writing a work on ANY subject they have no training or education on and amazingly brag about the ignorance, is the height of arrogance. Dave Hunt does this.
I'm sad your sense of fun and humor can't embrace the obvious, in reference to the Pope. That outfit IS rediculous in view of a serious read and understanding of Holy Scripture.
Jesus died for his "different doctrine."
May the true Christian care about truth more than the praises or approval of men.
ha-ha...got'chya, kim...
isn't providence a wonderful thing? i just came across this web site yesterday. i have also been working my way through the latest WHI cd's and this morning the first thing that it picked up on during the 'peace with God' installment was ol' KR giving this exact quote and ascribing it to the lovable and talented mr norm 'i hate everything biblical' geisler.
sorry, kim...you gave yourself away to the faithful on this one! ;)
REFORMATION NOW!
i know that this is going a bit off topic...but i did solve this one just above, so i think i am entitled...
the above posts are taking on some wrangling tones. wrangling is good. for my part, i have no real interest in takin gthe time to prove to non-calvinists how steeped in wrong ness they are. i lived and still live with them in my daily life.
for what it is worth (and perhaps to generate other discussion):
1. as much as i love ol' KR, as grateful as i am he is on the right side, as smart and able as he is, and as indebted to his work (and horton's) as i am, there is something to be said about his relative inablity to shake the shackles of his fundamentalist swaggerish ways; in keeping with the above sentiments to maintain at least a bit of brevity, you know i love ya, KR ;) but you do swagger! and this was a huge part of my disgust and eventual departure from my own IFCA tradition. their problem is that they can't afford it because they don't even understand the issues involved. i also can relish in the fact that i never really thought of myself as a fundamentalist (a detestable thing to an educated and cultured secularist prior to conversion...now i am an educated and cultured augustianian-confessional-reformed-presbyterian-liturgical-calvinist ;)) poor kim must admit that he handed out chucky smith books as an uncouth and misguided way to engage his neighbors (i.e. witness). kudos, kim, for owning up to it! that sort of thing would have gone with ME to my grave! i do find kim and other good calvinists a bit too much on the uncouth side sometimes, which makes it hard to distinguish good calvinists, who should be well educated and cultured, from rough-around-the-edges- revivalists; some things on this site do us no favors in our witness, kim. but, like i say, on the other hand, you can afford it. furthermore, i am loathe to adopt the weak-kneed approach to "win friends and influence people." good christian orthodoxy has teeth! keep biting, but do some licking as well.
2. the whole pope thing is just in good fun, people! there is no latent homophobia in the joke (well, i can't rule it out totally), just a lot of irony (which is what makes a good joke!) i hate homophobia for many reasons, one of which is that it reveals the self-righteousness of the 'phobe. but even more than that i love the da vinci reference. evangelicals and catholics slay me when they get led around by the nose by pop culture, acting like freaks in the general culture then getting all hot and bothered by yet another fad that comes along! chicken little stuff, if you ask me; oh no, the church is going to fall because...gulp...DAN BROWN is on the loose...oh, whatever shall we do? i know WHI did a whole program on it (what was up with paul meyers' guffawing through the whole interview--i know it's all stupid ancient heresy warmed over but pull your socks up and get ahold of yourself, man, before you wet yourself. geez, orthodoxy should have more confidence than that!), and yes, there should be some response in the name of general popular apologetic, but chill out! this stuff comes along all.the.time.
REFORMATION NOW!
I was fortunate to see/hear it first hand. While there was nothing groundbreaking; and I doubt it will change anyone's views, the dialog between these two seminary professors and theologians was a model of how this issue can be addressed in a respectful and intelligent way by those who interpret Scripture differently. Mohler presented the Reformed view (all 5 points) and Patterson (saying he is neither Calvinist nor Arminian) a "three point" view (the T,U & P).
No matter what our views of election and predestination may be, we must remember the importance - the centrality of the gospel. We should be careful that we don't become so consumed with debating Calvinism that we become lax in spreading the good news.
We can disagree lovingly; and we can also have fun sparring theologically. Trouble comes when we start "throwing bombs." Doctine is important, and it is not well served name calling and vitriol. Andrew makes some good points, although I think he should take less offense at "Just Plain Nutty" stuff - which is good natured enough.
I believe a serious, comprehensive study of the Bible (Old & New Testaments) points clearly to ideas summed up by the Five Solas of the Reformation and the Five Points of Calvinism; but these ideas, as fundamental as they are, are only part of the whole story. And we should adress these doctrines as part of the entire revelation of God through His inspired Word - not the only revelation.
There is a place for discussion and even loving disagreements at times among Christians. "Loving" is the operative word. Calvinists should remember that we were all born Arminian, and Arminians should at least study Calvinism before they dismiss it as hateful, elitist and anti-evangelical.
Again, I recommend the Mohler / Patterson discussion. And I stand by my original answer to Pastor Kim's question: it was Norman Geisler.
"No matter what our views of election and predestination may be, we must remember the importance - the centrality of the gospel. We should be careful that we don't become so consumed with debating Calvinism that we become lax in spreading the good news."
i wonder if you might elaborate here. it seems to me that you might pit the former doctrines against the Gospel? or am i reading you wrong?
spurgeon once wrote that calvinism is just a word used to help us understand the Bible, as it were. are you suggesting that calvinism is merely the idiosyncrisy of certain branches within christendom and really has no meaningful impact or direct impact on the Gospel itself? i fail to see how calvinism--or its debate--is incidental to the Gospel. to me it's like saying, "go to school or don't--the important thing is that you get educated; go to work or don't, but if nothing else make sure to bring home a pay check."
i do appreciate your call here to an elevated tone when discussing these things. as a rule i hate blogs and boards as they masquerade as honest and meangingful modes of dialogue (especially when fuled by religious themes as well as those who don't even grasp the themes in the first place). i am breaking something of my own rule by even being here. we'll have to see if this blog can rise above the 98% i have experienced!
You wrote:
"it seems to me that you might pit the former doctrines against the Gospel? or am i reading you wrong?"
Let me clarify: my intent was in no way to pit the doctrines of Calvinism against the gospel, and I regret it if my words left that impression. One of the most frustrating things for me is when people who are not Calvinists (and who generally don't understand Calvinism) make the assumption that if you are a Calvinist you don't believe in evangelism. Of course, to many of those who make this argument, evangelism is defined by the Charles Finney style altar call.
I agree with the Spurgeon quote you cited, and I was not saying that the Biblical ideas expressed by the 5 points of Calvinism are in any way incidental to the gospel. However the term "Calvinism" itself most definitely is incidental - as that is just a term that describes something greater.
We also need to remember that the doctrines of Calvinism - Biblical though they are, do not constitute a comprehensive Biblical theology. For instance there is far more in Calvin's Institutes of Christian Religion than those five points. Let's remember that the 5 points were a response to Arminianism, and are by design limited in theological scope. That was really the point I was attempting to make - some people run the risk of building everything in their ministry or theology upon the five points to the exclusion of everything else. I believe it's best to preach the Bible (expositionally, of course) and let these truths be revealed, as opposed to preaching "Calvinism" from the pulpit.
Even though I disagree with Arminian beliefs and methods, I don't doubt that many have been truly saved by grace through faith in Arminian churches or at sawdust trail revival services.
My hope and prayer is that through Christian growth and a deeper understanding of God's Word that people who hold to Arminianism would come to see the the ideas expressed in the Canons of Dort are indeed reflections of Biblical truth. It would be great if we could all agree, but that will never happen in this age, and I think being Calvinists we would have to agree that God, in His wisdom, has ordained it as such.
In the meantime, we can try to persude our non-reformed brothers in the spirit of Christian love, not in acrimony. Despite our major disagreements, those Arminians that are truly born again are our brothers and sisters in Christ. What has become troubling to me is the negative, sarcastic often un-Chistian tone that accompanies much of the debate (on both sides).
We should be careful that we don't become so caught up in the debate that it becomes the foundation of all we do. Al Mohler (a Calvinist) chided those who would "drive across a state to debate Calvinism, but wouldn't walk across the street to share the gospel with someone." I see that as a potential danger for some who get so caught up in debating these issues. It also gives extra ammunition to those on the other side who already so often malign Calvinists. It's important for us to check the state of our hearts when we get into a disgreement over the doctrines of grace with someone, and be sure that we are conducting ourselves in a worthy manner.
My friend, I'm glad you chose to "break your rule" and contribute to this discussion. I've enjoyed exchanging ideas with you, and I thank you for pointing out some areas that may not have been clear in my previous post. I believe this blog along with a handful of others does maintain a higher level of discourse than most, and I think we can both appreciate that.
God bless!
In paragraph six what I meant to say was:
"I don't doubt that many have been truly saved by grace through faith while at Arminian churches..."
not through faith in those churches. I hope my intent was clear, even if my syntax wasn't. Obviously we're only saved by grace through faith IN CHRIST. Amen.
i quite agree that it is quite trap for calvinists to fall into with regard to getting way too focused on the 5 points. at the same time, when i discuss it with my arminian FIL he himself makes the point that he is a "4 point calvinist" without any provocation from me about TULIP or whatever. he brings it up, not me--thus i have to run down TULIP again for him and explain that one simply cannot cut and paste biblical doctrines. there is no such thing, in reality, as a 4- or 3- or 2-point calvinist. one is either calvinist or arminian. and they are not mere -ism's, they are tools by which we understand the Gospel. some say, "well, i just read the Bible. that's all you need." well, so do A LOT of people. the difference is how you conclude what you read. secularists read it, cultists read it, sectarians read it, to name a small sample! everyone--everyone--has a theology no matter how little he is aware of it--everyone. saying i read the Bible is not good enough. sounds real pious, sounds good. and who can begrudge reading the Bible? but you have to be aware of the lense through which you read the blessed thing.
in almost all my past arminian camps one could always find a intellectualized debate over calvinism and arminianism. that's because they usually don't have closed doctrine, like calvinist camps. arminians never want to close the door but leave it open. so a lot of psuedo-intellectual debate goes on..and on...and on...and on. and it becomes clear that most of them have closed the door. they are arminian. and most times, in their fear of institution, they don't have forms of unity that make conclusions so they think it's still open debate, yet one sense it really isn't at the same time. it's a strange experience.
but even beyond that,, laying a systematic approach aside, my real interest is in how we put our theologies into real practice. doctrinal, confessional or theological debates are fine and very good, no argument from me at all. but what do you do with it? like the WHI crew always says, want practical?
for example, the whole "let's not quibble" approach i find by and large comes from those of arminian persuasions, like my FIL. ok, let's stop "doing doctrine" over coffee. fine. sunday is going to come, though, just like it does every week. what are you going to do at the close of the service--benediction or altar call? i say benediction for many reasons. he says altar call, sinner's prayer, etc. now the fact that worship is not evangelism can also be set aside for the sake of my point here. maybe we are out doing evangelism. is your evangelism, your announcment of Law and Gospel and the call to faith, complete if you do not have the altar call or sinner's prayer? i say it quite is, he says it isn't. for him it's the final note from "shave and a haircut.' he's got to have his 'two bits.'
this is my kind of conversation. you may say on paper your are a calvinist...you may even tell me your a "solid 5 pointer," that "salvation is by faith alone APART FROM ANY WORKS." but what do you then do? you implore sinners to storm the gates of heaven my their own works, their own willing and running? then you have quite a problem on your hands. you are not, in fact, practicing what you preach.
this confuses my arminian friends to no end; when they say "i am a calvinist," and i ask, "you must have real problems with atar calls, sinner's prayers, rededications, etc." they get real perplexed because they have come to see these practices as orthodox. have they really thought about their supposed calvinism?
so, terry, your point is well taken that at some point "mere" doctrinal discussions only go so far. and endless debates become just that. it's just like worship topics. how one actually worships speaks volumes beyond what he tells you over coffee. we all think we agree on so much, then visit each other's house of worship and it is clear that we are very far apart. Stage or chancel; podium or pulpit; moralistic and psycho-spiritual pep talk/lecture or sermon; business suit or vestment; adolescent sing-song or mature hymnody; entertainment or painstaking liturgy; sentiment or sacrament; program or worship; mantra or prayer; classes on any myriad of spiritualized “felt needs” sinners demand they need help with or instruction concerning the truth of God as He has declared sinners need; self-improvement or Gospel.