Does Calvinism limit God?

[Z Man]

Originally posted by godrulz

It is obviously the pleasure and will of God to redeem ALL men. His sacrifice was not only intended for the 'elect'.

Scripture says otherwise:

John 10:11
"I am the good shepherd. the good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep."

John 11:50-53
"...you do not understand that it is expedient for you that one man should die for the people, and not that the whole nation should perish." He did not say this of His own accord, but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus should die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad. So from that day on they took council how to put him to death.

Acts 20:28
Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you guardians, to feed the church of the Lord which he obtained for Himself with His own blood.

Eph 5:25-27
Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her...

Rom 8:32-34
He who did not spare His own Son but gave Himself up for us all, will He not also give us all things with Him? Who shall bring any charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies; who is to condemn?

Please refrain from voicing your opinion based on your feelings, and try to base your belief on Scriptures alone.

Theology must be theocentric, but that does not mean that we are not the apple of His eye. We are in the image of God with a glorious future.

It does not prove God's glory to damn the majority of people. What a stupid belief. Hell was prepared for the devil and demons. It was never God's intent that men go there.

Your view explains the lostness of man as being a failure of God to exercise His power and will to save all men.

.
.
.

Where on earth in the above thoughts do you think I think the universe revolves around us?

You are so enamored with the "popular" view of God, so enwrapped with false doctrine, that you are too stubborn to be open minded towards Scripture. You cannot fathom a God who would hate men, or create some for the sole purpose of being destroyed. In your mind, mankind is some sort of "god" in and of themselves, and that God is somehow "awed" by our presence. He is so "amazed" and "pleased" with us, that His ultimate purpose is to please us and make sure that we all feel loved and comfortable.

That's just not so Godrulz. That's not the sole purpose of God. You stated earlier that, "Your (referring to me) view explains the lostness of man as being a failure of God to exercise His power and will to save all men." The emphasis is that God has failed if He has the power to save all but doesn't. This statement from you alone proves that you believe God revolves around mankind. For if my view, the calvinistic belief was true, and God saved and damned who He wished, according to His will, then you believe it makes God out to be a failure since He does not save all although He has the power to. That means you believe God can only succeed if salvation is granted unto men.

Thus, to you, the salvation of men is God's ultimate purpose. The universe revolves around men. And that is why your view is 100% false and totally un-Scriptural.

 

[lee_merrill]

Hi Godrulz and Z Man,

John 10:11
"I am the good shepherd. the good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep."

John 11:50-53
... he prophesied that Jesus should die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad.

These verses are certainly true! There are other verses, that seem to show that Christ died for all, too, as well as for his sheep:

1JN 2:2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.

2CO 5:14 For Christ's love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died.

JN 3:17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.

Z Man: You cannot fathom a God who would hate men, or create some for the sole purpose of being destroyed.

God does hate the wicked (Ps. 11:5). But he loves them, too:

JN 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

1TI 2:4 ... who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.

And a verse for Godrulz! I agree with Z man that God cannot be frustrated, and the verse from Job is good in reference to that. Here are two more:

PS 33:10-11 The Lord foils the plans of the nations; he thwarts the purposes of the peoples. But the plans of the Lord stand firm forever, the purposes of his heart through all generations.

PR 19:21 Many are the plans in a man's heart, but it is the Lord's purpose that prevails.

Blessings,
Lee

 

[godrulz]

Originally posted by godrulz

Lee, I appreciate your good spirit and heart.

To be cupable, blameworthy, and sinful, we would have to willfully sin. A young baby is not morally aware nor responsible. His need for protection, food, sleep, diaper changes, etc. are not in the realm of morals. These are legitimate needs that a responsible Creator (God) and co-creator (parent) must look after since they cannot on their own.

My suggestion was that as time goes on, King Self continues to live a self-centered life in the flesh and it eventually does become sinful since we knowingly move into sins (not just legit physical needs) and put ourselves ahead of God and others (selfish vs love) in thought, word, and deed. i.e. the case between a new born and Hitler is not parallel. cf. a 20 year old mentally handicapped person from birth who may not have moral faculties like an Oxford scholar should.

Ps. 51:5 has been used as a proof text for original sin. Psalms are not didactic (teaching) passages. I believe this is a Hebrew idiom meaning that the Psalmist was sinful from as long as he can remember, and not literally born with Adamic sin (Augustine's/Catholic's Federal Headship Theory...not necessarily a fact).

The Psalmist did not literally lie, steal, murder, lust, hate, etc. as a 10 pound baby, did he? Sin is a wrong moral choice/lawlessness and requires a minimum of mental and moral maturity, or there is no intent or culpability. Sin is not a substance lodged in our genes (metaphysics). If it was, we would not be held accountable or responsible. It is in the realm of morals and choice, as evidenced by the majority of didactic or historical narrative descriptions of sin in the Bible.


I would check the literal Hebrew also. Translations tend to smuggle in preconceived theologies...e.g. NIV wrongly translates 'flesh' as 'sinful nature (original sin)' in the NT.

Ps. 71:6 uses a similar idiom "From my birth I have relied on you..." The one day old Psalmist did not actively pray at birth on literally rely on God. He recognized God's providence through his parents, but from a young age He personally did rely on God.

v.17 "...since my youth...you have taught me..."

(He could have used the 'from birth' idiom here and we would understand that his mind was not taught in a fruitful way until he had the mental or moral capacity to understand...God does not hold babies responsible since they do not actively reject or hate him...being hungry is not a sin like fornication).

Lee: I might add Ps. 58:3 as another Hebraism in poetic (not didactic) literature. It cannot be taken literally, but is a figure of speech.

"Even from birth the wicked go astray; from the womb they are wayward and speak lies."

It is impossible for a newborn to speak lies. He does not have the moral or physical capacity to talk, let alone lie. This is a Hebrew figure of speech, like Ps. 51; 71, that is not meant to be taken literally, nor to build a doctrine of original sin on it. It is an exaggerated statement to indicate from a young age we all go astray. We must interpret verses in light of the linguistic, cultural use of words, not our preconceived North American wooden literalism. The Bible has many idioms and figures of speech that are not intended in a narrow, literal sense. This is true in any work of literature, including the Word of God.

 

[godrulz]

ZMAN: You just don't get it. I wish I could be more help.

Yes, Christ died for the church. This does not mean that the atonement was meant to be a limited one for a select few. God corporately elected a people that would form the Body of Christ. He did not elect or deselect specific individuals. Those who would believe (whether it would turn out to be a few or millions) would be added to the Body of Christ. Whosoever will may come and would not be rejected. Those who refused the offer of grace and mercy would not form the group. The atonement was intended for all and unlimited. The fact that not everyone avails themselves of the provision does not mean that it was not intended for them.

Read my lips. The universe does not revolve around man. The fact that God created us and died for us shows that we have value and were intended to share in God's experience. We are not gods, nor are we worms. The plan of redemption should not be minimized and seen as a threat to God's sovereignty or glory. Your mocking tone is not necessary. A non-TULIP view can uphold God's greatness and glory as much or more than a narrow TULIP view that does not reconcile all Scriptures.

Your proof texts are also ones that open theists and Arminians know, love, and preach. There is an alternate understanding of them that fits better with all of Scripture.

Zman: Perhaps we can start with one of your favorites?

Pick one, and I will give another possible interpretation. You decide if it is even remotely plausible, even if you do not agree with its conclusions. We did this on another thread months ago. Opinions are not authoritative. So let's look at a verse. You comment on what it means in your theological view, and I will give a possible alternative way to look at it from a non-TULIP view.

 

[lee_merrill]

Hi Godrulz,

I might add Ps. 58:3 as another Hebraism in poetic (not didactic) literature. It cannot be taken literally, but is a figure of speech.

"Even from birth the wicked go astray; from the womb they are wayward and speak lies."

It is impossible for a newborn to speak lies.

Here is the NASB, on this verse:

PS 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb; these who speak lies go astray from birth.

So from the womb they are estranged, and go astray, later, they speak lies, is how I would read this. But let's say the NIV is correct. Then "speak lies" is metaphorical, as you say. Certainly "Their venom is like the venom of a snake" is metaphorical in the next verse. But I don't think you can apply that same conclusion to "from birth" or "from the womb."

PS 92:14 They will still bear fruit in old age.

Surely that means "old age" quite literally, and is not metaphorical here.

PS 71:9 Do not cast me away when I am old; do not forsake me when my strength is gone.

And the same is true here, too, "old", I think contrasts intentionally with "from birth" in verse 6, and shows that that Psalmist has trusted the Lord from when he was born to this time of old age.

The Bible has many idioms and figures of speech that are not intended in a narrow, literal sense. This is true in any work of literature, including the Word of God.

Then what is "old age" a figure of speech for in Ps. 71:9? If that is your position on this...

Blessings,
Lee

 

[godrulz]

There is no reason to see 'old age' as figurative since you can obey or disobey as an old person. You simply cannot obey or disobey as a one day old infant. There are several verses separating the thoughts. They are a contrast, but v. 9 (literal) is not an idiom, whereas v. 6 (figurative) is.

 

[lee_merrill]

Hi Godrulz,

There is no reason to see 'old age' as figurative since you can obey or disobey as an old person. You simply cannot obey or disobey as a one day old infant. There are several verses separating the thoughts. They are a contrast, but v. 9 (literal) is not an idiom, whereas v. 6 (figurative) is.

But people with autism cannot obey or disobey, regardless of age. So is "old age" therefore a metaphor for them here in verse 9?

And how about this:

PS 71:6 You brought me forth from my mother's womb.

Surely this refers to the actual time of birth, I don't see how this can mean "for as long as I can remember, you brought me forth"...

Blessings,
Lee

 

[Z Man]

Originally posted by godrulz

Yes, Christ died for the church. This does not mean that the atonement was meant to be a limited one for a select few.

But I just showed you Scripture that says God died explicitly for the Church/His sheep. Yet, you disagree?!?! You still proclaim that Christ died for every singly human being that exists on this planet?

It is shocking to see the great lengths that OV'ers go to to preserve their belief. Even if it means to dismiss certain passages of Scripture that does not fit well into your beliefs.

God corporately elected a people that would form the Body of Christ. He did not elect or deselect specific individuals.

Romans 8:29-30
For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom He predestined,THESE He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.

Ephesians 1:3-14
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, just as He chose US in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, having predestined US to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, by which He has made us accepted in the Beloved.

These verses speak of a specific election of individuals, not of corporate predestination.

Those who would believe (whether it would turn out to be a few or millions) would be added to the Body of Christ.

That's not how Christ put it. He said that those in the Body of Christ are the ones who believe, not vice versa:

John 10:26
But you do not believe, BECAUSE you are not of My sheep...

Read my lips. The universe does not revolve around man.

I know that. But that's not what you believe. You may say you don't, but your beliefs are founded on that very core; the universe revolves around men. The evidence for that is the very fact that you believe Calvinism speaks of a lesser God who is mean and is a failure since He has the power to save everyone but chooses not too. Thus, in your view, God's success depends on the salvation of men. Since it's obvious that not all men are saved, you go to another option apart from Scripture to support your claims, stating that men have "free will" and are responsible for their own salvation. That way, the damnation of men cannot be attributed to God and He is no longer a failure in your eyes.

To you, God's ultimate purpose is the salvation of mankind. You believe the universe revolves around us.

The fact that God created us and died for us shows that we have value and were intended to share in God's experience.

Everything God does is for Himself. His sacrifice for us wasn't intended to show that "we have value"; it was done to display the ultimate glory and love of God! To Him be the praise and glory!

We are not gods, nor are we worms.

No, of course not. We are worse than worms! Worms cannot sin. But mankind has rebelled against God. We hate Him and sin against Him - the Perfect and Holy Annointed Creator of all the Earth, the Almighty God of the Cosmos who is forever Glorious - every stinkin' day of our lives. Yes, we are worse than worms, who deserve to be apart from the presence of God for all eternity!

Your proof texts are also ones that open theists and Arminians know, love, and preach.

I've never heard of an Arminian or OV'er preach and cherish the verses that us Calvinists use so dearly. They try to ignore them. Anytime they talk of those particular verses, it's usually in defense of their own false doctrines. They have to write volumes of books just to try and explain themselves, because they will never find support for their heresies in Scripture.

There is an alternate understanding of them that fits better with all of Scripture.

I never understood Scripture any better than the day I turned from believing in free will to realizing that the Scriptures did not support such false doctrines. Scripture is so much clearer now than ever before.

Zman: Perhaps we can start with one of your favorites?

Pick one, and I will give another possible interpretation. You decide if it is even remotely plausible, even if you do not agree with its conclusions. We did this on another thread months ago. Opinions are not authoritative. So let's look at a verse. You comment on what it means in your theological view, and I will give a possible alternative way to look at it from a non-TULIP view.

I have done nothing BUT give Scriptural evidence for my beliefs in nearly every post of our discussion. I have yet seen you give any for support of your false beliefs. None, zero, zip. The only evidence you ever come up with to support your beliefs is from some kind of stupid book. You always tell me to go read something from some author who believes in the false ways of Open Theism / Armenianism.

Show ME Scripture that supports your beliefs. I've given my fair share...

 

[godrulz]

Originally posted by lee_merrill

Hi Godrulz,



But people with autism cannot obey or disobey, regardless of age. So is "old age" therefore a metaphor for them here in verse 9?

And how about this:

PS 71:6 You brought me forth from my mother's womb.

Surely this refers to the actual time of birth, I don't see how this can mean "for as long as I can remember, you brought me forth"...

Blessings,
Lee

I don't think autism precludes morality. A severely mentally handicapped person would not be morally responsible if they could not form intent or have no awareness.

 

[godrulz]

John 3:16 "For God so love the WORLD (not just the Jews or the 'elect') that He gave His one and only Son, that WHOEVER (not just Jews or the 'elect') believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life."

This is a universal invitation, because the atonement is unlimited and efficacious for all who believe. There is a conditional aspect (Jn. 1:12 you must receive, not reject Christ to appropriate the universal provision).

Jn. 3:17 "For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world (not just the elect or Jews) through Him. WHOEVER believes in Him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe (free moral choice) stands condemned already (why? because he is not part of the arbitrary elect? No!) because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son."

Jn. 3:36 "Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, BUT whoever rejects the Son (act of will) will not see life, for God's wrath rmains on him."

The Gospel is a call to faith/belief. The ones who harden their hearts will be condemned by it. It is a fragrance of life to some, but death to others (Cor.). We all start out from the womb on equal ground. Our destinies were not fixed in the mind or will of God fatalistically trillions of years ago. There is an urgent call to preach the Gospel in love and power. It is literally a matter of life or death as destinies lie in the balance. Calvinism offers no such urgency to fulfill the Great Commission, because everything is fixed negating love, holiness, freedom, and relationship.

The reason that the universal atonement does not lead to universalism is that it is not a literal payment for sin (Commercial Transaction Theory). This view necessarily leads to the limited atonement concept. Get one doctrine wrong, and others go with it (TULIP). It was not just a payment for the elect. It solved governmental problems for the Moral Governor of the universe who loving wants to freely extend mercy, but cannot do so without undermining truth and holiness.

Though good intentioned, your view minimizes the great love of God. His plan is on every page of the Bible. To accuse my view of being man-centered is disingenuous and ignores the heart of God on every page of Scripture. To love and die for humanity does not make us the center of the universe. It does not negate God's rightful place as Creator and Sovereign Ruler. These concepts are not mutually exclusive. It is both God's glory and man's good. Not either God or man. His story involves our story without confusing the distinction between Creator and creature. Ps. 8 says we are a little lower than angels and Genesis says we are in the image of God. We are not lower than earthworms. You do not have to denigrate His creation to make Him bigger. He is infinitely awesome and is not threatened by us.

Ps. 8 "O Lord, our Lord, how majestic is your name in all the earth!"

Theologian Karl Barth was asked the greatest theological truth he knows. He said: "Jesus loves me this I know, for the Bible tells me so."

The above passages in John 3 should be taken in simpicity. He died for all men. Not all men will appropriate the provision. It is not that God only died for the elect. It is that some will refuse to come to Him that they may have life. If they would have come to Him, they would have had life and been part of the ever expanding elect. It grieves God that people perish unnecessarily. Jesus (God with a face= the Father heart) wept over Jerusalem and would have gathered them, but they were not willing. This is not a picture of a blueprint plan to only save some, and toast others to display His glory?! A stern theology that distorts God's heart of love and holiness is not biblical.

 

[John Reformed]

Jn. 3:17 "For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world (not just the elect or Jews) through Him. WHOEVER believes in Him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe (free moral choice) stands condemned already (why? because he is not part of the arbitrary elect? No!) because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son."

Is it at all possible to believe what one does not believe? You either believe it or you don't! This business of belief being a function of the will is (as Mr. Spock was noted for saying) illogical.

For instance: If I were to offer you a million dollars, on the condition that you would GENUINELY believe something that you currently believed to be false... I guarentee that you could not do it!

Before a person can believe what he formerly felt was false, he first must be convinced (by the evidence) that he was mistaken to begin with, and that what he now being asked to believe is the truth of things. One cannot simply choose to believe one way or another!

In the case of the things of God (ie; spiritual things) the problem is compounded by the fact that, the natural man does not have the capacity within himself to even understand the new information (The Gospel) which he is recieving!

1Cr 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.

To many this appears unfair. How is it that God can hold a person to account for not believing that which he cannot comprehend in the first place? Well.. for one thing the man is actively suppresing the truth already. He not only cannot, but indeed, desires not to believe the evidence that is all around him. Secondly, He is Not condemned for rejecting the gospel; he is "condemned already" because of his wicked sins.

Lastly, God is soveriegn. He shows mercy to the undeserving sinner according to His own good pleasure. And no one, who has has not recieved mercy, is in a place to reply against God. They know their guilt! They know that, in their hearts that they hate him and love sin. Such were we all.

"...but whoever does not believe stands condemned already..."

 

[godrulz]

Christianity differs from religions like Scientology in that it is factual based on God's revelation and intervention in space-time history. The natural man does not discern spiritual truth and thinks the cross is foolishness because they are perishing. This is the work of the Holy Spirit (and the Gospel through the church) to convict of sin and righteousness, open blind eyes, woo rebellious hearts, etc. He does this impartially for all men, but not all men respond to His voice...they harden their hearts...the sun can melt wax or harden clay depending on the substance (cf. the human heart; parable of seed sown on different soils).

The Gospel involves verifiable, historical data. The existence of God, the Deity of Christ, the resurrection, the validity of Scripture are truths the Spirit communicates through us to draw all men to Himself. We are to reason from Scripture, and preach Christ and Him crucified. How is an agnostic, atheist, sinner, etc. to come to Christ if we are not sent and the message is not preached so they can hear and repent (Romans)? Do Calvinists right off most of humanity and say they do not deserve the truth because they are not part of the elect (due to their disinterest in God)? Many evolutionists are now creationists and lovers of God in the Kingdom because a believer relationally and rationally loved them and spoke the truth in love. The impact on their mind and will and the work of the Spirit led them to repentance and faith and transformation.

Jn. 3:16, 17, 36 If these passages that talk about the 'world' are really only intended for the elect (as Calvinists must believe= limited atonement...only died for the elect), how would the writers under the inspiration of the Spirit then convey the theoretical truth that the atonement is unlimited and not just for the elect???? It must be grammatically possible to convey this truth. My answer is that they would have wrote it exactly the way it is written in Greek and English. Your answer should be the same and you should expect a different translation to support limited atonement...e.g. For God so loved the church or elect of God, that He gave His one and only Son...the word 'world' (universal) should not be used....and belief should not be a condition of salvation...since God supposedly unilaterally saves people only based on His will and pleasure.

Heb. 2:9 "We see Jesus...he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for EVERYONE (not just the elect or Jews).."

I Jn. 2:1,2 " ...He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins (the elect/believers), and NOT only for ours but ALSO for the sins of the WHOLE WORLD (provisionally, whether they will eventually believe or not)."

Note the differentiation which should not be made if the atonement was limited to the elect. TULIP is not explicit in these passages, but would have to be creatively argued with mental gymnastics.

Why is it so hard to accept the universal love of God and the power of the atonement to save whosoever will come in response to His drawing? Why is it hard to think God is just and impartial instead of arbitrary? Gloss it up with God not having to save anyone (true) and showing his grace by also having to show wrath (partially true, but this could be accomplished by 'electing' the majority instead of the minority...it is also a weak argument in that the atonement demonstrates His mercy and grace even if every person humbled themselves and believed...which they did not anyway).

Albert Barnes ("The Atonement") "No language could express the universality of the design of the atonement more clearly or strongly. No rules of fair exegesis can make this language consistent with the idea that He died for a part only of the race of man. No one can explain the fact that, if the atonement was only for a part, the sacred writers should have used language so unguarded; so certain to convey erroneous views of the subject on which they wrote, and to deceive mankind on the most vital of the doctrines of revealed religion: language which, if the atonement is limited, has actually led, and will forever lead, a large part of the world into error."

Scriptures declare that He died for all mankind (Jn. 3:16). On the ground of the atonement made by the Redeemer, salvation is offered by God to all mankind (not just the 'elect'...those who believe become part of the elect...not those who win the cosmic lottery).

There are numerous and free invitations offered in Scripture addressed to all of mankind in the language of God. "Can it be believed that he would offer heaven to those for whom no atonement had been made? Can it be believed that He is tantalizing his creatures with offers which are insincere, hollow, and unmeaning?"

This makes our preaching of the Gospel bizarre if we are preaching to the non-elect to repent and obey when God has no intention of saving them because He did not die for them?! We do not know who the so-called elect or damned are...Calvinism blunts the force of evangelism, as seen throughout church history (though it does not have to and has not always done so...but practice does not match belief then).

The atonement is sufficient for all men. There is no distinction in Scripture between preaching to the elect or non-elect (false categories before humans fix their destiny at death).

2 Cor. 5:14 "For Christ's love COMPELS us, because we are convinced that ONE died for ALL
(not some)..." (Christ died for all men, because all were universally depraved).

2 Peter 2:1,2 false prophets bring destruction on themselves because they now deny the Lord who BOUGHT them...====some for whom He died will perish, thus showing that He died for some who are not of the 'elect' and who will not be ultimately benefited by His death.

For two thousand years, men of all backgrounds who have responded to the Gospel have not been turned away, but have been born again. They applied to God for pardon on the grounds of Christ's atonement and met the conditions of repentance and faith. They were never turned away because they were not part of the mysterious 'elect'.

The stream of salvation never runs dry. Preach the Gospel in season and out with love and authority. He is able to save to the uttermost...why? because He died for all men (if they are not saved, it is not God's will nor fault...we each are responsible for what we do with Jesus Christ, the Great Divider of humanity...you are either for Him or against Him).

If He can save Paul, He can save anyone...am I to believe I am saved, but there is no hope for my lost loved ones? God does not break up families purposely to show His glory (though many will have lost loved ones breaking our heart and God's).

I Tim. 1:15,16 "Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world (Why?) to save SINNERS (all humanity, not just the elect)- of whom I am the worst. BUT for that very reason I was shown MERCY so that in me, the worst of sinners (and likewise in all men who believe), Christ Jesus might display his unlimited patience as an example for those who would believe on Him and receive eternal life (not exclusive or limited club). Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory for ever and ever. Amen."

2 Tim. 4 "Preach the Word...do the work of an evangelist..." Why? 2 Peter 3:9 "He is patient with you, not wanting ANYONE to perish, BUT EVERYONE to come to repentance."

How on earth does this mean the 'elect' only? (It would if you wrongly substitute 'elect'/some for 'anyone/everyone'). How on earth could the writer then theoretically say, under the inspiration of the Spirit, that the atonement was unlimited and not just for the elect? God could not communicate this concept in any other way than He explicitly has (go ahead and try to communicate the non-Calvinistic view in plain English based on the verses wording). We should change our theology if it contradicts the Word. Take these few verse, among many, at face value and the conclusion is indisputable.

The extent of the atonement is not limited to the 'elect' (though those who receive Christ will ultimately be the only humans forming the 'elect', the people of God who came by way of the cross).

 

[John Reformed]

Originally posted by godrulz

Christianity differs from religions like Scientology in that it is factual based on God's revelation and intervention in space-time history. The natural man does not discern spiritual truth and thinks the cross is foolishness because they are perishing. This is the work of the Holy Spirit (and the Gospel through the church) to convict of sin and righteousness, open blind eyes, woo rebellious hearts, etc. He does this impartially for all men, but not all men respond to His voice...they harden their hearts...the sun can melt wax or harden clay depending on the substance (cf. the human heart; parable of seed sown on different soils).

The Gospel involves verifiable, historical data. The existence of God, the Deity of Christ, the resurrection, the validity of Scripture are truths the Spirit communicates through us to draw all men to Himself. We are to reason from Scripture, preach Christ and Him crucified. How is an agnostic, atheist, sinner, etc. to come to Christ if we are not sent and the message is not preached so they can hear and repent (Romans)? Do Calvinists right off most of humanity and say they do not deserve the truth because they are not part of the elect (due to their disinterest in God)? Many evolutionists are now creationists and lovers of God in the Kingdom because a believer relationally and rationally loved them and spoke the truth in love. The impact on their mind and will and the work of the Spirit led them to repentance and faith and transformation.

Jn. 3:16, 17, 36 If these passages that talk about the 'world' are really only intended for the elect (as Calvinists must believe= limited atonement...only died for the elect), how would the writers under the inspiration of the Spirit then convey the theoretical truth that the atonement is unlimited and not just for the elect???? It must be grammatically possible to convey this truth. My answer is that they would have wrote it exactly the way it is written in Greek and English. Your answer should be the same and you should expect a different translation to support limited atonement...e.g. For God so loved the church or elect of God, that He gave His one and only Son...the word 'world' (universal) should not be used....and belief should not be a condition of salvation...since God supposedly unilaterally saves people only based on His will and pleasure.

Heb. 2:9 "We see Jesus...he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for EVERYONE (not just the elect or Jews).."

I Jn. 2:1,2 " ...He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins (the elect/believers), and NOT only for ours but ALSO for the sins of the WHOLE WORLD (provisionally, whether they will eventually believe or not)."

Note the differentiation which should not be made if the atonement was limited to the elect. TULIP is not explicit in these passages, but would have to be creatively argued with mental gymnastics.

Why is it so hard to accept the universal love of God and the power of the atonement to save whosoever will come in response to His drawing. Why is it hard to think God is just and impartial instead of arbitrary? Gloss is up with God not having to save anyone (true) and showing his grace by also having to show wrath (partially true, but this could be accomplished by 'electing' the majority instead of the minority...it is also a weak argument in that the atonement demonstrates His mercy and grace even if every person humbled themselves and believed...which they did not anyway).

Albert Barnes ("The Atonement") "No language could express the universality of the design of the atonement more clearly or strongly. No rules of fair exegesis can make this language consistent with the idea that He died for a part only of the race of man. No one can explain the fact that, if the atonement was only for a part, the sacred writers should have used language so unguarded; so certain to convey erroneous views of the subject on which they wrote, and to deceive mankind on the most vital of the doctrines of revealed religion: language which, if the atonement is limited, has actually led, and will forever lead, a large part of the world into error."

Scriptures declare that He died for all mankind (Jn. 3:16). On the ground of the atonement made by the Redeemer, salvation is offered by God to all mankind (not just the 'elect'...those who believe become part of the elect...not those who win the cosmic lottery).

There are numerous and free invitations offered in Scripture addressed to all of mankind in the language of God. "Can it be believed that he would offer heaven to those for whom no atonement had been made? Can it be believed that He is tantalizing his creatures with offers which are insincere, hollow, and unmeaning?"

This makes our preaching of the Gospel bizarre if we are preaching to the non-elect to repent and obey when God has no intention of saving them because He did not die for them?! We do not know who the so-called elect or damned are...Calvinism blunts the force of evangelism, as seen throughout church history (though it does not have to and has not always done so...but practice does not match belief then).

The atonement is sufficient for all men. There is no distinction in Scripture between preaching to the elect or non-elect (false categories before humans fix their destiny at death).

2 Cor. 5:14 "For Christ's love COMPELS us, because we are convinced that ONE died for ALL (
not some)..." (Christ died for all men, because all were universally depraved).

2 Peter 2:1,2 false prophets bring destruction on themselves because they now deny the Lord who BOUGHT them...====some for whom He died will perish, thus showing that He died for some who are not of the 'elect' and who will not be ultimately benefited by His death.

For two thousand years men of all backgrounds who have responded to the Gospel have not been turned away, but have been born again. They applied to God for pardon on the grounds of Christ's atonement and met the conditions of repentance and faith. They were never turned away because they were not part of the mysterious 'elect'.

The stream of salvation never runs dry. Preach the Gospel in season and out with love and authority. He is able to save to the uttermost...why? because He died for all men (if they are not saved, it is not God's will nor fault...we each are responsible for what we do with Jesus Christ, the Great Divider of humanity...you are either for Him or against Him).

If He can save Paul, He can save anyone...am I to believe I am saved, but there is no hope for my lost loved ones? God does not break up families purposely to show His glory (though many will have lost loved ones breaking our heart and God's).

I Tim. 1:15,16 "Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world (Why?) to save SINNERS (all humanity, not just the elect)- of whom I am the worst. BUT for that very reason I was shown MERCY so that in me, the worst of sinners (and likewise in all men who believe), Christ Jesus might display his unlimited patience as an example for those who would believe on Him and receive eternal life (not exclusive or limited club). Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory for ever and ever. Amen."

2 Tim. 4 "Preach the Word...do the work of an evangelist..." Why? 2 Peter 3:9 "He is patient with you, not wanting ANYONE to perish, BUT EVERYONE to come to repentance."

How on earth does this mean the 'elect' only? (It would if you wrongly substitute 'elect'/some for 'anyone/everyone'). How on earth could the writer then theoretically say, under the inspiration of the Spirit, that the atonement was unlimited and not just for the elect? God could not communicate this concept in any other way than He explicitly has (go ahead and try to communicate the non-Calvinistic view in plain English based on the verses wording). We should change our theology if it contradicts the Word. Take these few verse, among many, at face value and the conclusion is indisputable.

The extent of the atonement is not limited to the 'elect' (though those who receive Christ will ultimately be the only humans forming the 'elect', the people of God who came by way of the cross).

May I take it (by virtue of your non-response) that I have you over a barrel?

 

[godrulz]

May I take it by virtue of your not understanding or replying to my response, that I have YOU over a barrel? Do I need to clarify something, like what the word 'world' and 'anyone/everyone' means?

 

[John Reformed]

Is it at all possible to believe what one does not believe? You either believe it or you don't! This business of belief being a function of the will is (as Mr. Spock was noted for saying) illogical.

For instance: If I were to offer you a million dollars, on the condition that you would GENUINELY believe something that you currently believed to be false... I guarentee that you could not do it!

Please address the above question. Through the implimentation of plain common sense, one may easily percieve that belief is not subject to the "will".

Where is the flaw in my logic?

 

[godrulz]

Originally posted by John Reformed

Is it at all possible to believe what one does not believe? You either believe it or you don't! This business of belief being a function of the will is (as Mr. Spock was noted for saying) illogical.

For instance: If I were to offer you a million dollars, on the condition that you would GENUINELY believe something that you currently believed to be false... I guarentee that you could not do it!

Please address the above question. Through the implimentation of plain common sense, one may easily percieve that belief is not subject to the "will".

Where is the flaw in my logic?

I am not a logician. Belief is not merely a function of the will. This is the final component of surrendering and trusting in the object of our belief, the person and work of Jesus Christ. Remember the Latin theologians?

Faith is multifaceted.

i) notitia= knowledge...there must be content and an object of our belief...knowledge is perceived through the intellect, not the will.

ii) assensus= mental assent...our mind gives assent that something is true. I suppose our wills are also involved in that we chose to give assent to it or not (whether we do or do not does not change the veracity or falseness of content).

iii) Lastly, fiducia= trust...this involves our wills as we surrender our will, intellect, and emotions to the truth.

All three components are necessary for biblical faith in Christ. If we believe Jesus is a created angel, our trust in a counterfeit is worthless. Our faith is only as good as the object we believe in.

Faith in error is presumption and objectively invalid (sincerity does not create truth or make error true).

The devil believes and trembles. This involves his knowledge of who Jesus is. He does not trust and surrender though.

Faith in Christ involves repentance, love, trust, obedience, relationship, etc. It is not mere head knowledge or easy believism.

I am not sure what your point is. I concur you cannot truly believe what you do not truly believe in (?). Faith involves our whole being: will, intellect, and emotions (emotions follow the will, mind). We are personal beings in the image of God. God's omniscience does not just involve the will, so why would our belief only involve the will? Yet, His actions flowing out of His truth and beliefs involve His will. Our belief in Christ will be initiated by the will, informed by the intellect as God inspires and enables us. We are whole beings. Why artificially dissect the will, intellect, and emotions? You cannot divorce belief from will and mind. They function together.

.e.g. "Unless you repent, you will perish" (Lk.) We must turn from something to something/someone. This involves our will (say 'no' to sin and seflishness and 'yes' to the Lord Jesus and the ways of righteousness. A minimum level of understanding is needed to make an intelligent choice.

He who believes on Him will have eternal life. He who rebels and rejects Him will perish. These are acts of the will and intellect, are they not? If God and man does not freely exercise will and intellect (actions and thoughts), then we are impersonal (contrary to Scripture).

This is not man-centered salvation nor a work. Belief is the entrance to relationship with God, the essence of salvation (as opposed to religion and ritual). Unbelief perpetuates separation from God.

Any thoughts on how to reword the verses in my previous posts to make them teach unlimited, universal atonement (even if you disagree with that) (not to be confused with universalism)? There must be a way to explicitly teach the opposite of what you believe (TULIP), since you think those verses should be interpreted as a limited atonement for the elect only (despite the wording of 'world', everyone/anyone'---check the Greek and English meanings of the words....they mean what they say). The only thing I can think of is that they are mistranslations and should have the word elect or some inserted (which the original does not support).

 

[John Reformed]

Originally posted by godrulz

I am not a logician. Belief is not merely a function of the will. This is the final component of surrendering and trusting in the object of our belief, the person and work of Jesus Christ. Remember the Latin theologians?

Faith is multifaceted

i) notitia= knowledge...there must be content and an object of our belief...knowledge is perceived through the intellect, not the will.

ii) assensus= mental assent...our mind gives assent that something is true. I suppose our wills are also involved in that we chose to give assent to it or not (whether we do or do not does not change the veracity or falseness of content).

iii) Lastly, fiducia= trust...this involves our wills as we surrender our will, intellect, and emotions to the truth.

All three components are necessary for biblical faith in Christ. If we believe Jesus is a created angel, our trust in a counterfeit is worthless. Our faith is only as good as the object we believe in. .

I agree that knowledge is essential. Rom 10:14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

Having received the knowledge of the truth, the question arises whether or not the person in question has believed what he has been told (i.e., mental assent). Why would any one receive the gospel in the first place? The Bible says in 1Th 1:5” For our gospel came not unto you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance;”

Why then would any one presented with the gospel remain unbelieving? Because those who “believe not are condemned already” (John 3:18). The evidence of their reprobation is that the gospel came to them in word only. What was missing was the power and the Holy Ghost!

You will say that they willfully refused to place their faith in Christ. But nowhere in scripture does it teach that fallen man has retained any spiritual gifts. In fact, throughout it says precisely the opposite.

 

[godrulz]

We are all condemned and remain under His wrath unless we believe. Those who believe will have eternal life. Those who persist in unbelief will perish. I guess we kind of agree on these facts. We differ as to the mechanism of belief and extent of the atonement. We have defaced the image of God, but that does not mean that our personality is totally wiped out (we have residual will, intellect, and emotions or we are not human).

 

[John Reformed]

Originally posted by godrulz

We are all condemned and remain under His wrath unless we believe. Those who believe will have eternal life. Those who persist in unbelief will perish. I guess we kind of agree on these facts. We differ as to the mechanism of belief and extent of the atonement. We have defaced the image of God, but that does not mean that our personality is totally wiped out (we have residual will, intellect, and emotions or we are not human).

The problem with the theory, that the unregenerate may freely choose good or ill, lies in the fact that Scripture portrays their condition as bondage, and not as freedom.

John 8:31 Then Jesus said to those Jews who believed Him, "If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed. 32 And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."
33 They answered Him, "We are Abraham's descendants, and have never been in bondage to anyone. How can You say, 'You will be made free'?"
34 Jesus answered them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, whoever commits sin is a slave of sin. 35 And a slave does not abide in the house forever, but a son abides forever. 36 Therefore if the Son makes you free, you shall be free indeed.

Some of the crowd believed the word of Christ, but others did not.
Pay attention to the reason which our Lord said made the difference:

Jhn 8:47 He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear [them] not, because ye are not of God.

How would you explain Jhn 8:47?

 

[smaller]

I will always submit that God can be just a little bit greater than either of you see in your limited views.

God in your respective views is indeed limited by the scope of your own visions. This is the reality of every viewer.