The God of Calvinism

[JM]

lol, you're as bad as Dave Hunt!

From a popular theological dictionary, not a quick google search:

1. [Hyper-Calvinism] is a system of theology framed to exalt the honour and glory of God and does so by acutely minimizing the moral and spiritual responsibility of sinners . . . It emphasizes irresistible grace to such an extent that there appears to be no real need to evangelize; furthermore, Christ may be offered only to the elect. . . .

2. It is that school of supralapsarian 'five-point' Calvinism [n.b.â€â€a school of supralapsarianism, not supralapsarianism in general] which so stresses the sovereignty of God by over-emphasizing the secret over the revealed will of God and eternity over time, that it minimizes the responsibility of sinners, notably with respect to the denial of the use of the word "offer" in relation to the preaching of the gospel; thus it undermines the universal duty of sinners to believe savingly in the Lord Jesus with the assurance that Christ actually died for them; and it encourages introspection in the search to know whether or not one is elect. [Peter Toon, "Hyper-Calvinism," New Dictionary of Theology (Leicester: IVP, 1988), 324.]

Quote:
A hyper-Calvinist is someone who either:
Denies that the gospel call applies to all who hear, OR
Denies that faith is the duty of every sinner, OR
Denies that the gospel makes any "offer" of Christ, salvation, or mercy to the non-elect (or denies that the offer of divine mercy is free and universal), OR
Denies that there is such a thing as "common grace," OR
Denies that God has any sort of love for the non-elect.

http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/hypercal.htm
http://www.founders.org/FJ24/article1.html

"The hyper-Calvinist, then, makes the same mistake as the Arminians and free-willists, only he draws a different conclusion. Both think that to command or demand repentance and faith of dead sinners must imply that such sinners are not dead and have in themselves the ability to repent and believe. The free-willist says, then: "To command must imply ability, therefore, men have the ability." The hyper-Calvinist says: "To command must imply ability, therefore we will not command any but the elect." Ron Hanko

Please, if you don't know what you're talking about, don't comment. DN knows nothing about Calvinism. If you want to know what Calvinists believe visit http://www.monergism.com.

Here's more about hyper Calvinism.
http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/a ... inism.html

 

[DivineNames]

You go down that path, you may reach the conclusion that you don't need to worry about trying to convert people.

Then will you explain to me why the greatest evangelists and missionaries of the past believed in election?

Will you please explain this?

How exactly does that counter the point I made? I can't see that it does.

 

[DivineNames]

JM, your OWN SOURCE admits the danger. Some with Calvinist thinking, go down that path...

Please, if you don't know what you're talking about, don't comment. DN knows nothing about Calvinism. If you want to know what Calvinists believe visit http://www.monergism.com.

:-D

It was your own source mate! If it is rubbish, then that is your fault. And actually, I think I get the basics with regard to Calvinism.

 

[DivineNames]

2 Peter 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

What do Calvinists make of this verse? (It is used, of course, against, "limited atonement")

 

[JM]

[that's one of the main three Arminians use]

Many folks will claim this means God is trying (but not able) to save all men, but this passage isn’t speaking of salvation it's speaking of bring men to repentance (v. 10 the day of the Lord is in view). Many assume that ‘you’ includes the world and this idea is based upon presuppositions about salvation and God in general. This is natural, but we need to 'think God's thoughts after Him' as we conform to the word of God. Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ: Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord, According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue: Peter is speaking to those who have ‘obtained’ the gift of God already, this epistle is not written to all mankind but to the saved. The context then should be viewed in light of the audience to whom the epistle is written. As the Geneva Bible states, “A reason why the last day does not come too soon, because God patiently waits until all the elect are brought to repentance, that none of them may perish.â€Â

In case you wan the other two...

1 Timothy 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

What does “all men†mean? Well, I believe it refers to all kinds of men as we see in the context of the chapter, the subject of that prayer is mentioned in v. 1 (kings and those in authority). This same idea is upheld by Titus 2:11 where we see that the Grace of God has appeared to all men, but this can’t mean everyone that has ever lived has heard the Gospel, the meaning is, God’s Grace has appeared to all kinds of men regardless of their station in life. If you view Titus 2 and 3, you’ll soon see my point. God is no respecter of persons. Those who believe in an unlimited atonement (still limit the atonement in power but that’s besides the point), have to answer this: If God did in fact supply an atonement for the whole world (meaning the whole mass of mankind), how is it that God failed to supply a means for the whole world throughout history to hear the Gospel that gives them that offer? This would mean God did not give to everyman equally the chance to accept or reject the Gospel offer.

Matt. 23:37 "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!"

Who is ‘Jerusalem’ in the context of this passage? Some folks believe Jerusalem to be in reference to individual Jews, but this can’t be. Starting at the beginning of Matthew 23 we find our Lord speaking of the leaders of Jerusalem, the Scribes and Pharisee, those who killed the prophets:

v. 2 “...Pharisees sit in Moses sit...â€Â
v. 6 “...chief seats in the synagogues...â€Â
v. 7 “...Rabbi, Rabbi...â€Â
v. 13 “But woe unto you, Scribes and Pharisees...â€Â
v. 14 “Woe unto you, Scribes and Pharisees...â€Â
v. 15 “Woe unto you, Scribes and Pharisees...â€Â
v. 16 “Woe unto you, ye blind guides...â€Â
etc, etc. I think you get the picture.

1Ti 2:6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

In the broader context of atonement passages, this is easy to explain, but those who believe in unlimited atonement (still limit the atonement in power but that’s besides the point), want us to isolate this passage. Where the rubber hits the road…if Christ wants all to be saved and is a ransom for all (meaning every single person in the whole world) then Christ must be the mediator. We know this because of Hebrews 10 “this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down on the right hand of God.†If unbelievers reject the Gospel offer then Christ’s work as mediator fails and the “will†of God spoken of in 1 Tim. 2:4 is over ruled by fallen sinful man with the unregenerate mind. This robs God of His status as “savior†and turns Him into the “great assister.†This cannot be true if Heb. 10:14 means what it says, simply this, the offering ALWAYS RESULTS IN THE PERFECTION OF THOSE WHO THE OFFERING WAS MADE.

If Christ is the mediator for the whole world (because He’d have to be if His offering was made on behalf of the whole world) then why doesn’t He pray for them? “I pray for them. I do not pray for the world but for those whom You have given Me, for they are Yours.†That’s interesting to know, Christ isn’t praying for everyone, just those who the Father has given Him. Did the Father give the Son ALL men? No, if so then all are going to be raised up on the last day as we read in John 6:39 and the context is to everlasting life in v. 40.

Calvinist exegesis is the only true exegesis of scripture when it comes to soteriology and the only possible way to make sense of scripture.

 

[DivineNames]

[that's one of the main three Arminians use]

Many folks will claim this means God is trying (but not able) to save all men, but this passage isn’t speaking of salvation it's speaking of bring men to repentance

To me, it looks like it connects with the "ransom" theory of atonement-

Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time. (1 Timothy 2:6 KJV)

For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many. (Mark 10:45 KJV)

That is, when it says that the Lord "bought" them, it is talking about that ransom.

 

[DivineNames]

Also-

Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot (1 Peter 1:18-19 KJV)

 

[Drew]

1 Timothy 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

What does “all men†mean? Well, I believe it refers to all kinds of men as we see in the context of the chapter, the subject of that prayer is mentioned in v. 1 (kings and those in authority).

Alright, lets look at the first 4 verses as rendered in the NASB:

1First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men,

2for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity.

3This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior,

4who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

I submit that the most natural reading of this text is that indeed all men are being referred to in verse 4. Note the structure of the first 2 verses. First, we have (in verse 1) a reference to all men as the intended target population for prayer. I think this rather clearly establishes a context in which all men are indeed being addressed. Now it is admittedly followed with a more specific reference to "kings and all those in authority". But "normal" english usage would not convey an intention of scope reduction. Consider some parallel examples:

"I urge that prayers be made for all who suffer, for those with cancer..."
"I urget that prayers be made for all soldiers, for those in Iraq......"
"I urget that prayers be made for all women, for those who are mothers..."

The general form of these types of sentences seems to involve a reference to a wider population, followed by an example. I am certainly in no position to "prove" this - however it seems much more natural, given the way we normally speak in North American english anyway, to interpret the Paul's intent (in this letter) as indeed establishing a context of all men, followed by the provision of an example subset (namely kings and those in authority). It seems more awkward to try to make the context shrink to only "kings and those in authority".

 

[Drew]

If Christ is the mediator for the whole world (because He’d have to be if His offering was made on behalf of the whole world) then why doesn’t He pray for them? “I pray for them. I do not pray for the world but for those whom You have given Me, for they are Yours.†That’s interesting to know, Christ isn’t praying for everyone, just those who the Father has given Him. Did the Father give the Son ALL men? No, if so then all are going to be raised up on the last day as we read in John 6:39 and the context is to everlasting life in v. 40.

I will repeat a post from a previous discussion that deals with the challenging material from John 6:

JM has posted John 6:35-40 under the heading "What Christ secured with the atonement" Although he does not come right out and say it, the implication is that this text supports the notion of an "elect". And I certainly understand how it could be read that way - "All that the Father gives me will come.....all that He has given me will be raised up at the last day". Now clearly all humans are not raised up to heaven. So, in order for this clearly false conclusion to be avoided, it might seem that this text is saying that only a subset of all people are "pre-selected to be raised".

I think this conclusion is not really supported by an analysis of this text. The following is shamelessly based on argument I read from Rev. Steve Witzki (whoever he is). It is by no means a copy - I have co-opted the idea but tried to express it in my own words (although I do steal a sentence or 2 from him, I think). We start with the text of Jonh 6:37-40 as rendered in the NASB:

37. All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out.

38. "For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.

39"This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day.

40"For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day."

What exactly does “all that†in v37 and v. 39 refer to?

Calvinists will identify the "all that" in verses 37 and 39 as "those whom, in his great love, he elected long ago to save." We shall see that this is not the only possible conclusion when we consider the possible meanings of the "all that" found in verse 39 in light of the the content of verse 40, taking into account some significant structural similarities between v 39 and v. 40. Note the parallel structure of verses 39 and 40 – they each have 3 clauses that map almost perfectly from one verse to the other. They both have the same A-B-C structure.

First, we should note the connective word "for" in verse 40. This establishes a logical connection between these two verses, suggesting an act of clarification on Jesus’ behalf. The "all that" in verse 39 whom the Father "has given" to Jesus is none other than "everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him" as per verse 40. You can probably see where I am going. If we allow verse 40 to be used as a clarifying referent to disambiguate the "all that" in verse 39, the 2 verses taken together can be seen to be consistent with a reading that "all who freely come to believe in Jesus" are given to the Son by the Father. The people that are "given" are given in their state of already having freely accepted Jesus offer of salvation.

So the Calvinist is indeed correct in asserting, "only some have been given by the Father to the Son." However, the "some" that the Father has selected to be given to the Son are none other than the set of all believers – and verse 40 tells us that that this set is everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him (and this can be a free will act). Therefore, certain persons are not selected and then given to Jesus in order to become believers, as Calvinist's assert, people are given to Jesus because they are already believers.

Now a legitimate rejoinder from the Calvinist camp might be to ask what exactly is accomplished by God giving people to Jesus who have already believed in Jesus? Aren't they obviously given to Jesus precisely for the reason of Him procuring their salvation? This question deserves some kind of answer which I hope to take a shot at in another post.

The above is not intended to be a completed attempt to refute a Calvinist reading of this text. To keep post length under control, I have just given a flavour.

 

[JM]

I see a connection between DN and Drew, while one claims to be a "Christian" the other doesn't, yet both agree as to what good and bad theology is.

hummmm....

:

 

[Sothenes]

Good Day, Sothenes

I will await an answer from your church...

I have not read them all. Not sure how this quote proves your assertion.

Saying that Scripture is the primary cause is mmuch differnet than what you posted.

Peace to u,

Bill

I'm sorry if I don't get back to you quickly but I have been writing personal term papers every night for the last couple of years for people who are skeptical of something. I'm just tired out.

Sothenes

 

[Drew]

I see a connection between DN and Drew, while one claims to be a "Christian" the other doesn't, yet both agree as to what good and bad theology is.

hummmm....

:

Maybe my computer is acting up. The part of your post where you actually respond to my posts with reasoned counterargument seems to have been deleted........ :D

 

[DivineNames]

JM, if I thought the Bible supported limited atonement, I would say so. I have no bias on this issue. With some of the verses on atonement, it seems to me plausible that they could be read as compatible with the idea of a limited atonement. But it doesn't appear that all of them can. There are certain verses where it seems obvious that the Calvinist is in the position of having to try and explain them away. They are genuinely in conflict with limited atonement.

Perhaps your dogma is preventing you from realizing that the Bible doesn't support this doctrine? Perhaps I am spiritually blind. Whatever...