S
savedbygrace57
Guest
What you said is false !
-
-
-
-
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join Hidden in Him and For His Glory for discussions on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/become-a-vessel-of-honor-part-2.112306/
-
-
-
-
Why not Calvinism?
- Thread starter Oats
- Start date
What you said is false !
D
Dennyh
Guest
John 3:16 For God so loved the world that WHOSOEVER BELIEVETH on Him shall not perish, but have everlasting life. (my emphasis added)
This tells me that anyone has the option to believe and be saved.
How does that fit into Calvinism?
This tells me that anyone has the option to believe and be saved.
How does that fit into Calvinism?
Mike
Member
- Mar 13, 2010
- 15,286
- 1,475
Calvinism is the dogma that doesn't fit.
1 Timothy 2:
"1I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone— 2for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. 3This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. 5For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6who gave himself as a ransom for all men—the testimony given in its proper time. 7And for this purpose I was appointed a herald and an apostle—I am telling the truth, I am not lying—and a teacher of the true faith to the Gentiles."
First, let me say that I am a self admitted Calvinist. Other writers in many of the threads will identify me as one of the few Calvinists in these forums. I hope that in replying, that I in no way have said anything without charity and grace toward those of you who are my fellow brothers in Christ.
Second, it is very rare to see anyone properly represent what Calvinists believe. As a Calvinist, one of my most difficult tasks is that 99% of all those who differ with Calvinist will set up straw men, and misrepresent Calvinists. Also, few have a deep understanding of TULIP. Some of the fault with the misunderstanding lies with Calvinists who use the TULIP acrostic for teaching purposes. While I am a so called 5 point Calvinist, I do not think TULIP is the best instrument for teaching. If anyone reads the history of that acrostic, it has its foundations in the "Remonstrance." The Remonstrants made a protest on 5 points against Dutch Calvinists. The synod of Dort reversed much of the terminology put forth by the Remonstrants to create the 5 points. This is an issue of history, but what I am asking is for people to be cautious and humble in representing Calvinists. The frequent straw men become tiring.
I do wish to address the exegesis of the verse below.
In this context, the issue is what is meant by the greek term "all" (pas pasa pan). The word is used multiple times in the context. Lets go over each use.
VERSE 1----It is used in verse 1 to speak of an order. First in the order of "all" the things in the context is the idea of verse 1.
VERSE 1--- The second use also occurs in verse 1. Prayers are to be made for "all" men. I must admit, I have never sat down with a phone book and started praying for each name in the phone book. Of course that would be the way to pray if you view this verse as teaching a universal prayer for all men living. What about the dead? What about men who will live in the future? Can we really read this use of the term "all" as applying to all men, in all history, everywhere? The context below bears out that Paul is speaking of "all kinds of men" or "all categories of men." Notice the context as Paul describes what he means when he says pray for "all men."
Verse 2 --- The third use is in verse 2. He names "kings" and "those in authority." This speaks of categories of men. Our prayers might not include the mayor of some town in outer mongolia, or the dead rule of the Aztec indians. Yet we are to pray for all kinds of kings, rulers and authorities.
Verse 4 --- The forth use is in verse 4. God wants all men to be saved. Here is where Calvinists interpretation divides. Some Calvinists like John Piper and John MacArther view God has having two wills. The will speak of God's decree and Gods desire. They believe that God does desire the salvation of each and every man that ever lived, but that God did not decree the salvation of each and every man. While I am aware of this reading, I do not agree with those Calvinists. It seems an inconsistent interpretation to me. I would suggest that the word "All" in verse 4 should be read the same way as in verses 1-2. It simply speaks of "all kinds and categories of men." It is much like this-----> God wants people of "All" tribes, tongues, and nations" to be saved. I do not think the word "all" establishes that God wants everyone that ever lived in history to be saved. I cannot picture God as wanting all men to come to a knowledge of truth, but unfortunately God is just to whimpy to accomplish what he really wanted. Is God really a universalist at heart, but his grace is insufficient for all those he desires to save? That of course would not be the powerful saving God I know.
Verse 5------- While verse 5 does not contain the word "all" I want the reader to notice the ministries of Christ in this passage. It is nothing less then the "mediatorship of Christ." What does the shed blood of Christ mediate? What does it accomplish? Does Christ mediate for the unbeliever? If he mediates for the unbeliever, then what does that mediatorship accomplish? So then, Christ appeals on the basis of his shed blood, but the Father rejects it as insufficient and still sends the unbeliever to hell? To say that he is not mediating for "all" would do the context violence. Christ is mediating for "all," but the "all" is not each and every person that ever lived. It is simply "all kinds of people." Now I must admit, that some readers might be what is called "universalists." I am not referring to their exegesis, but the point is the inconsistency of those who believe Christ mediated his shed blood, but did not save.
Verse 6------- Verse 6 has the 5th use of the word "All." Here the word "all" refers to a "Ranson." Who did Christ by back out of slavery to sin. IF you view the shed blood of Christ as a ranson for each and every person that ever lived, then each and every person will not be under sin any longer. The ranson has been paid and the person is free. The choices again seem universalism or Calvinism. That is unless you take the view that Christs blood payment never really saved, and that a synergistic contribution from men must be made. Of course then salvation would not be by Grace alone.
Verse 8 (8 I desire therefore that the men pray in every place, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and disputing.) This is the final context where the passage uses the term "All." Paul calls for men to pray in "all" places. Now if we again take the word "all" in an exhaustive understanding, then you are obligated to pray in each and every place. Should this not include each and every space in the universe? Did you pray in Siberia? Did you pray from the center of the earth or the moon? Of course not, it is natural to understand this term "all" not to be universal and exhaustive. This means we can pray anywhere, but not that we are obligated to pray everywhere. If we understand the term "All" to be limited to praying anywhere, then why cannot we view the same identical term when used of saving men as referring to an atonement of many, but not an atonement of all.
(Hebrews 9:28 so Christ also, having been once offered to bear the sins of many, shall appear a second time, apart from sin, to them that wait for him, unto salvation.)
He died for the Church (25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself up for it; ) He died for his "friends." Many passages speak of the crosswork of Christ as being for "his people."
My conclusion is that when non-Calvinists look at certain passages, like 1 Tim 2, or 2 Peter, or 1 John 2:2 or the common passages, they read into terms like "all" or "world" meanings that simply do not come from a proper understanding of the greek terms behind the english words. 1 Tim 2 is a typical example of how people read into the term "all" a meaning that was never intended by the original greek.
Second, it is very rare to see anyone properly represent what Calvinists believe. As a Calvinist, one of my most difficult tasks is that 99% of all those who differ with Calvinist will set up straw men, and misrepresent Calvinists. Also, few have a deep understanding of TULIP. Some of the fault with the misunderstanding lies with Calvinists who use the TULIP acrostic for teaching purposes. While I am a so called 5 point Calvinist, I do not think TULIP is the best instrument for teaching. If anyone reads the history of that acrostic, it has its foundations in the "Remonstrance." The Remonstrants made a protest on 5 points against Dutch Calvinists. The synod of Dort reversed much of the terminology put forth by the Remonstrants to create the 5 points. This is an issue of history, but what I am asking is for people to be cautious and humble in representing Calvinists. The frequent straw men become tiring.
I do wish to address the exegesis of the verse below.
Calvinism is the dogma that doesn't fit.
1 Timothy 2:
"1I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone— 2for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. 3This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. 5For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6who gave himself as a ransom for all men—the testimony given in its proper time. 7And for this purpose I was appointed a herald and an apostle—I am telling the truth, I am not lying—and a teacher of the true faith to the Gentiles."
In this context, the issue is what is meant by the greek term "all" (pas pasa pan). The word is used multiple times in the context. Lets go over each use.
VERSE 1----It is used in verse 1 to speak of an order. First in the order of "all" the things in the context is the idea of verse 1.
VERSE 1--- The second use also occurs in verse 1. Prayers are to be made for "all" men. I must admit, I have never sat down with a phone book and started praying for each name in the phone book. Of course that would be the way to pray if you view this verse as teaching a universal prayer for all men living. What about the dead? What about men who will live in the future? Can we really read this use of the term "all" as applying to all men, in all history, everywhere? The context below bears out that Paul is speaking of "all kinds of men" or "all categories of men." Notice the context as Paul describes what he means when he says pray for "all men."
Verse 2 --- The third use is in verse 2. He names "kings" and "those in authority." This speaks of categories of men. Our prayers might not include the mayor of some town in outer mongolia, or the dead rule of the Aztec indians. Yet we are to pray for all kinds of kings, rulers and authorities.
Verse 4 --- The forth use is in verse 4. God wants all men to be saved. Here is where Calvinists interpretation divides. Some Calvinists like John Piper and John MacArther view God has having two wills. The will speak of God's decree and Gods desire. They believe that God does desire the salvation of each and every man that ever lived, but that God did not decree the salvation of each and every man. While I am aware of this reading, I do not agree with those Calvinists. It seems an inconsistent interpretation to me. I would suggest that the word "All" in verse 4 should be read the same way as in verses 1-2. It simply speaks of "all kinds and categories of men." It is much like this-----> God wants people of "All" tribes, tongues, and nations" to be saved. I do not think the word "all" establishes that God wants everyone that ever lived in history to be saved. I cannot picture God as wanting all men to come to a knowledge of truth, but unfortunately God is just to whimpy to accomplish what he really wanted. Is God really a universalist at heart, but his grace is insufficient for all those he desires to save? That of course would not be the powerful saving God I know.
Verse 5------- While verse 5 does not contain the word "all" I want the reader to notice the ministries of Christ in this passage. It is nothing less then the "mediatorship of Christ." What does the shed blood of Christ mediate? What does it accomplish? Does Christ mediate for the unbeliever? If he mediates for the unbeliever, then what does that mediatorship accomplish? So then, Christ appeals on the basis of his shed blood, but the Father rejects it as insufficient and still sends the unbeliever to hell? To say that he is not mediating for "all" would do the context violence. Christ is mediating for "all," but the "all" is not each and every person that ever lived. It is simply "all kinds of people." Now I must admit, that some readers might be what is called "universalists." I am not referring to their exegesis, but the point is the inconsistency of those who believe Christ mediated his shed blood, but did not save.
Verse 6------- Verse 6 has the 5th use of the word "All." Here the word "all" refers to a "Ranson." Who did Christ by back out of slavery to sin. IF you view the shed blood of Christ as a ranson for each and every person that ever lived, then each and every person will not be under sin any longer. The ranson has been paid and the person is free. The choices again seem universalism or Calvinism. That is unless you take the view that Christs blood payment never really saved, and that a synergistic contribution from men must be made. Of course then salvation would not be by Grace alone.
Verse 8 (8 I desire therefore that the men pray in every place, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and disputing.) This is the final context where the passage uses the term "All." Paul calls for men to pray in "all" places. Now if we again take the word "all" in an exhaustive understanding, then you are obligated to pray in each and every place. Should this not include each and every space in the universe? Did you pray in Siberia? Did you pray from the center of the earth or the moon? Of course not, it is natural to understand this term "all" not to be universal and exhaustive. This means we can pray anywhere, but not that we are obligated to pray everywhere. If we understand the term "All" to be limited to praying anywhere, then why cannot we view the same identical term when used of saving men as referring to an atonement of many, but not an atonement of all.
(Hebrews 9:28 so Christ also, having been once offered to bear the sins of many, shall appear a second time, apart from sin, to them that wait for him, unto salvation.)
He died for the Church (25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself up for it; ) He died for his "friends." Many passages speak of the crosswork of Christ as being for "his people."
My conclusion is that when non-Calvinists look at certain passages, like 1 Tim 2, or 2 Peter, or 1 John 2:2 or the common passages, they read into terms like "all" or "world" meanings that simply do not come from a proper understanding of the greek terms behind the english words. 1 Tim 2 is a typical example of how people read into the term "all" a meaning that was never intended by the original greek.
Vic C.
Member
- Mar 16, 2003
- 18,230
- 4
Dora, I'm not picking you out for any particular reason: I just feel your statement raises a misconception held by many who haven't studied or debated with a Calvinist:
Rom 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
The Calvinist would not say God chooses some to an eternal death. They above verses would dictate that is the destiny for ALL mankind.
The Calvinist would say God choose to save some and leave others to the fate that was set for sinners. Who is a sinner? Each and everyone of us. What is the fate of a sinner? Death.
We all deserve this fate. God didn't chose it for some; all deserve this fate. He did choose to pull some from their fate and into an everlasting life for HIS glory.
1 John 4:19 We love him, because he first loved us.
IMO, this is where the discussion/debate should begin.
Whatever is or isn't Gospel truth, one this is certain, we should never lay claim to something in which we are incapable of achieving on our own.
Amen!
There is no need to get around anything. That's not what a student of the reformed belief would tell you. They may quote two verses to start:
Rom 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
The Calvinist would not say God chooses some to an eternal death. They above verses would dictate that is the destiny for ALL mankind.
The Calvinist would say God choose to save some and leave others to the fate that was set for sinners. Who is a sinner? Each and everyone of us. What is the fate of a sinner? Death.
We all deserve this fate. God didn't chose it for some; all deserve this fate. He did choose to pull some from their fate and into an everlasting life for HIS glory.
1 John 4:19 We love him, because he first loved us.
IMO, this is where the discussion/debate should begin.
Whatever is or isn't Gospel truth, one this is certain, we should never lay claim to something in which we are incapable of achieving on our own.
Amen!
John 3:16 easily fits into Calvinism. I am not sure what you are reading into the phrase you highlighted. Let me say that the words "whosoever believeth" is in greek "pas pesteuwn." There are some issues about greek grammar here that need to be mentioned. The word pas (whosover) is not indefinite or relative. Rather it speaks of a known group. Here, it is the group that believe. Let me try an illustration.
If there were a nuclear attack, and someone stood up and told 100 people to stay in a certain fortified bunker by exclaiming "do not leave, whosoever is in this bunker will be safe." That does not mean that the whole world is in the bunker, or that the whole world is safe, neither that the whole world is invited to the bunker. He is merely speaking to the group of 100 people int he bunker and and saying that they are safe in the bunker.
The point I am trying to make, is that when the word "pas" (all-every- or whosoever when used with a participle) cannot be taken the way most non-Calvinists take it.
I listened to preaching of non-Calvinist on this verse and they often preach that "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever" ... and then they stop. I am always waiting for them to finish the verse, and they never do. "Whosoever believeth" is a limited group of people. Each and every person that ever lived is not believing in that verse.
By the way, Tyndale, in an early english translation, did not use the term "whosoever." He actually transalted it correctly in a different way. He translated it "for god so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that everyone who believes in him should not perish." (english updated from Tyndales middle english by me.). The point is that the word "whosoever" does not absolutely have to be put in the passage. And the point is that the term cannot imply anything indefinite or relative. There are particles in greek to make it indefinate (an), but those are not used in this context.
Concerning predestination/foreknowledge, and double predestination....
It is true that Calvinists believe in double predestination. I do not want to take the time to detail what we mean by that, but I want to warn readers that Calvinists do not believe that God actively reprobates people by making them evil. Reprobation (evil predestination) is not the same as salvation (good predestination). God did not make Pharaoh evil. He was already evil, but God hardened his heart by allowing this evil man to be unrestrained in his evil. He did this by "Raising him up" to be a rule of Egypt. Generally, non-Calvinists present Calvinists as saying that God somehow participates in evil in double predestination. That of course would be a straw man. God may choose not to restrain evil, and because the person is evil, God hardens his heart by not restraining the evil that already exists.
Concerning foreknowledge... The word foreknowledge is not like God has a crystal ball and looks into the future, it is much more then that. When God looks into the future, he lovingly sees a person, and on the basis of Gods own love he elects, and not on the basis of foreseen faith. Foreknowledge is an intimate, loving, relationship before the person exists. A person believes because God foreknows him and God drew him to that faith. So then, foreknowledge does not foresee faith, but rather it causes faith.
It is true that Calvinists believe in double predestination. I do not want to take the time to detail what we mean by that, but I want to warn readers that Calvinists do not believe that God actively reprobates people by making them evil. Reprobation (evil predestination) is not the same as salvation (good predestination). God did not make Pharaoh evil. He was already evil, but God hardened his heart by allowing this evil man to be unrestrained in his evil. He did this by "Raising him up" to be a rule of Egypt. Generally, non-Calvinists present Calvinists as saying that God somehow participates in evil in double predestination. That of course would be a straw man. God may choose not to restrain evil, and because the person is evil, God hardens his heart by not restraining the evil that already exists.
Concerning foreknowledge... The word foreknowledge is not like God has a crystal ball and looks into the future, it is much more then that. When God looks into the future, he lovingly sees a person, and on the basis of Gods own love he elects, and not on the basis of foreseen faith. Foreknowledge is an intimate, loving, relationship before the person exists. A person believes because God foreknows him and God drew him to that faith. So then, foreknowledge does not foresee faith, but rather it causes faith.
watchman F
Member
- Feb 1, 2010
- 1,298
- 0
I see nothig in it that would cause anyone to believe calviniastic predestination.
watchman F
Member
- Feb 1, 2010
- 1,298
- 0
It is a disgrace for anyone that would believe God predestines people to Hell. Thiis belief opposes the gosple
No true believer in Christ would believe your satanic lies.
watchman F
Member
- Feb 1, 2010
- 1,298
- 0
What you say is false, and worse it is satanic.
jasoncran
Member
- May 17, 2009
- 38,271
- 185
that is my understanding of predestination. i see that easily. the lord doenst make one evil or good just knows the outcome. we have a will and he being outside the timeline knows our choices. we make decisons good or bad and in his pov its already over. he didnt make us to die, and go to hell, but lets us make our choice even though he knows are choices and has acted accordingly.
interesting.
dadof10
Member
- Nov 5, 2006
- 2,718
- 0
ALL men are created totally depraved and are incapable of any salvific act. Only the Grace of God can save them. God CHOOSES to save some and ALLOWS OTHERS TO REMAIN IN THEIR SIN, thereby ALLOWING them to be damned. Therefore He doesn't actively participate in their damnation, only ALLOWS them to remain as they were created, which is totally depraved, damned.
This is the way I've heard it explained many times and all Calvinists I've talked to through the years seem to agree with this basic definition. Is this what you mean by DP, Mondar?
hello jasoncran,
Thank you for your comments. Its always been good to talk with you. While we agree that God does not make anyone evil, or cause anyone to think or act evil, I do think God causes men to act and think in good ways. One of the best ways men can think is by looking at the promises of God in faith. Faith pleases God (Heb 11:6). I think one of the major differences, is that the Calvinist sees God as the cause of good things, and the non-Calvinist attributes some good things like faith to the unregenerate will of man. The term "regenerate" or "unregenerate" is key. Calvinists see regeneration as the cause of faith, and so then, the "choice" of faith that man makes with his will, that faith has God as its source. So then, God is the source of good things, but not evil things.
Seems fair enough to me.
jasoncran
Member
- May 17, 2009
- 38,271
- 185
were getting into the u part of the five points.
and also the irrestible grace as well. hmm that i dont see yet, i maintain that God calls all but he lets us make the choice even though he knows the answer. he knows who will follow him yet doesnt make them choose.
thanks for the compliment. i was wondering where you went.
You could say the issue is the "U." However, I think if one truly understands the 5 points, he will recognize they are interdependent and inseparable.
If I can distinguish between two ways the word "call" can be used.... God might "call" all men everywhere in all times to salvation in the sense that each man has the responsibility to believe. So then evangelism is to all men. However, the "call to salvation" in the sense of election is not to all men.
Concerning the word "choose".... Again, there is a sense in which God makes men choose, and a sense in which he does not. God does not make the choice for men, the will of man remains active. Rather he changes the heart. Why then do men choose God? It is because God has inclined their heart (or nature, such as in regeneration) to choose him.
There are plenty of scriptures to discuss concerning this doctrine. Probably the best one would be 1 John 5:1. In that text the "born of God" is a perfect verb. This means it is a past action with present results. We can discuss that if needed.
jasoncran
Member
- May 17, 2009
- 38,271
- 185
heres where i disagree.
why does the writer hebrews warn that we arent to harden our hearts(if he wrote to believers as that is the audience) and peter did he not also say that we are to make sure are salvation.
and paul said that we are to work out our salvation with fear and trembling. why then if its us being choosen in the manner you say do we have to do this?
i do believe in the perseverance of the saints but not in the same way you do.
why does the writer hebrews warn that we arent to harden our hearts(if he wrote to believers as that is the audience) and peter did he not also say that we are to make sure are salvation.
and paul said that we are to work out our salvation with fear and trembling. why then if its us being choosen in the manner you say do we have to do this?
i do believe in the perseverance of the saints but not in the same way you do.
Danus
Member
- Jan 17, 2010
- 3,674
- 142
Your welcome. While your right that we are seeing a wide array of views, none are too far of the mark from my simple take. As well, there have been some fantastic ...and I'd say little more true to John Calvin's views as I understand them, posted.
Calvin, I think, is one of the most misunderstood of the reformers. Yes, there are some hard concepts, but taken in bite sizes and properly measured to scripture, he had some meaty arguments. Good stuff to ponder.
I'm just a broker by trade. A sales man, who is a Christian. A Christian hungry like we all are for more of God's word. I don't know Greek or Latin. I can't tell you about translations and such. All I do know is that I love God and that the only place I find him truly is within my own heart. There he guides me to what he needs me to know further within his word which he makes clear through scripture and experience together with the relationship I have with him. I am called to weigh it out just like anyone, against what we know of his word, but also to what he has placed in my own heart, and to what he test me on.
So, I'm no Calvin killer. I don't look down on anyone who is a 5 or 4 point Calvinist. I've really not found anything I can identify as clear heresy to mainstream or orthodoxy of Christianity anymore than some of the many thoughts people have in places where the bible is largely silent, or compared to other sideways ideas that don't seem to have much biblical foundation at all. (Like the idea of salvation through baptism)...as example.
Anyway, good thread and many great post both for and against.
Jason, the harden your hearts phrase is found 3 times in Hebrews. They are quotes from the OT which is referring to the wanderings in the wilderness. Certainly I could not affirm that all the Jews that rejected God in the wilderness were saved. In fact at no point in Israel's history could I say that they were all saved. This subject might be a little complex, but not all Israel was Israel (Romans 9:6). I would discuss that in detail, but I fear others making in convoluted. In essence, that text is saying that not all genetic Israel was saved.
Concerning working out our salvation, I do not see how that means we are not chosen. Would not that mean that we are in fact chosen to salvation? You might want to explain that one.