Truth or Calvinism - That should do it.

[Benefactor]

Hn to phos to alathinon ho “it was the light to true one which

photizie tanta anthroton epxomenon eis ton kosmon

enlightens all men coming into the world.

The blue are in the nominative

The red are in the accusative

That being the case, the fact and in fact the cases too tells us that all of humanity that are born into this world are enlightened by Christ.

What does it mean and how should it be understood is a matter of dispute as will be seen following this post. The Calvinist will put a spin on it to support their view but others will let the verse speak for itself.

Revelation:

(1) We have natural revelation. Paul speaks of this in Romans 1:20. Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse;

(2) We have universal revelation of the light of Christ in John1:9 as noted accurately above.

This light of all men coming into the world is not universal salvation but universal revelation of Christ. How this is accomplished in not stated, but we do know that it is true or else this statement is a lie and discredits the Word of God. This statement does not of itself take sides in the TULIP - Anti TULIP debate. But each group has their spin on it and I am sure that will follow.

Up front the TULIP / Calvinist spin is wrong, but you expected that. Sorry Calvinism bites the dust once again.

 

[Pastor Larry]

God desired for Israel to turn to Him but He "passed them over" as Cal's say.

But don't you say the same thing? He didn't save them, though he could have, even in your view. So he "passed" them over.

That does not make sense in the Calvinist view.

Au contraire. It makes perfect sense in the Calvinist view. It's just that you disagree with the Calvinist view.

It does make sense to me though. God desires that all be saved, but not all will believe, because He has given us free will to choose or reject.

So you are saying that God wanted to save them, but didn't want to save them bad enough to do everything he could to save them?

 

[Dale-c]

So you are saying that God wanted to save them, but didn't want to save them bad enough to do everything he could to save them?

This is the end result of arminianism right here.
God wanted to, but not enough.

 

[Pastor Larry]

(1) We have natural revelation. Paul speaks of this in Romans 1:20. Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse;

(2) We have universal revelation of the light of Christ in John1:9 as noted accurately above.

Could you be more specific about which of these Calvinists have a problem with, and why they have this problem.

On #2, could you be more specific about "universal revelation of the light of Christ"? I am not sure what you mean by that.

 

[Benefactor]

It's the "passing over" part I cannot accept for any good reason. You mean God saves ANYONE He chooses? Once they are regenerated they can't resist and will believe 100 times out of 100, no exceptions. Then why doesn't God choose to save everyone if He desires it and HE can if HE wanted to? So why doesn't HE?? To show what mercy is on those whom are elect?? Too bad for the non elect?? I don't buy it.

:jesus:

Darren

I fully agree Darren. The language is very clear in Romans 11:32, and in John 1:9 and in I Tim. 2:4 and the passages that Christ died for all and add to that - that election is according to foreknowledge / prescience means to me that God gives to Jesus all He knows and yes sees will believe and God personally draws them and gives them to His Son. This is the only interpretation that eliminates contradiction. (Sinners are elected in Christ and it is called the election of grace based upon foreknowledge of all who God knew from eternity would receive Christ.) I almost forgot John 12:32. and I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself."

If you go the TULIP route or the Universal Route you force the word of God to contradict itself. Calvinist and Universalist redefine words and will go to unlimited extremes to reason and argue away the truth. We see that in his thread concerning Romans 11:32 and we will see it concerning John 1:9 and of course are seeing it concerning I Tim. 2:4 not to mention the false view already given concerning the word foreknowledge as Peter used it.

 

[Dale-c]

Your line of questioning is amusing really. Shall I apply the law of excluded middle to your questions? Do I have to take A or B but not C? IF not A than B? Now since God planned NOT to save everyone but only some WHY?? did God not plan to save ALL? That was my question. Since when does omnipotence have anything to do with accept or reject or deny, obey or disobey, love or don't love, on the part of man?

You completely avoided my questions.
So I will repeat them:

Are you saying that the triune God of scripture is unable to save someone who does not want to be?
Is He unable to save the entire world if that was His plan?
Is he not really omnipotent after all?

 

[Tom Butler]

If God is powerless to save anyone who won't allow him to, why do we pray to him for anybody's salvation? Why do we have prayer meetings prior to a revival to ask God for revival?

Lemme tell you, I have loved ones who show no interest in spiritual things. I am praying that God will do a number on them. That he will display his power to them, that he will slap them up the side of the head to get their attention. That he will scare the daylights out of them by showing them their sin and the consequences. And finally that he will change their heart and over-ride their will and save them. I pray for God to make them willing.

When it comes to their salvation, I'm not the least bit worried about God's violating their will. I want him to do what it takes to save my loved ones.

When you pray for God to save someone, what do you pray?

 

[Pastor Larry]

The language is very clear in Romans 11:32

But didn't we already establish (and you agreed) that Rom 11:32 was talking about "all" as in "Jew and Gentile" as in Romans 3? Are you changing your mind on that already?

foreknowledge / prescience

I don't recall this coming before. Can you show that the biblical word translated 'foreknowledge' always only means prescience? Can you specifically deal with the use of the word in Rom 11:2? Can you also explain why foreknowledge is never used of a fact about people? And explain how God doesn't foreknow unbelievers in the same way? (You might have to think about that for a minute, but when you do it will totally blow your whole theology away).

Actually, let me just explain: God foreknows everything by your definition. So God foreknows the unbelievers as well. And if he saves those whom he foreknows, then he will save unbelievers since he foreknows unbelievers as well as believers. Only if you properly define foreknowledge in its biblical usage can you avoid this problem.

means to me

This is a major problem. You are establishing your own truth based on what it means to you. Yet truth is universal. It means the same thing to everyone.

If you go the TULIP route ... you force the word of God to contradict itself.

I would interested to see how. This as been charged many times, but no one has ever actually stepped up to show this.

 

[Me4Him]

The Bible clearly teaches that God desires all men to be saved (1Tim 2:3-6). Because of that desire, He gave His Son to be "a ransom for all" so that anyone who believes in Him would have eternal life (Jn 3:16, etc).

After all, if God desires all men to be saved why does He not draw all men to Christ in a saving way. Certainly that is not beyond His ability.

Yet He has choosen not to do that. Simply because God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked, simply because God desires that all be saved, does not mean that He will save everyone or elect everyone. That is clear in Scripure and it should be clear in daily life (ie...not everyone is saved).

This is a "Classical" response from most clavinist, one the one hand, God desires, on the other, he doesn't,

Jesus died for all sins that the world might be saved, but God's "desire" is not to save the whole world.

Your doctrine is not "Consistence" throughout the scriptures, and a double minded God is unstable in all his ways.

However the Bible is very clear that left to ourselves no man would seek the True God (Rom 3:9-12).

Apart from the drawing of the Father men do not seek the True and Living God on His Holy and Righteous terms. Rather, left to oursleves, man creates his own gods.

In order to be saved a person must first be given to and drawn to the Son by the Father and only then they will come to the Son in faith. So, apart from election nobody would or could be saved. There is no contradiction here.

Pr 1:28 Then shall they call upon me, but I will not answer; they shall seek me early, but they shall not find me:

The contradiction occurs when you try to place it in context with the "whole Bible", rather than just the NT.

Man's "depravity" didn't grow worse from the OT to the NT.

Jer 29:13 And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart.

Pr 8:17 I love them that love me; and those that seek me early shall find me.

The question is "who" will believe? The Biblical answer is those the Father has given to the Son (the elect).

Amen.

God never told Abraham he would stop him before he sacrificed Issac, as a matter of fact, Abraham "BELIEVED" God was going to let him go through with the sacrifice and then "RESURRECT" Issac from the dead.

Heb 11:17 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,

18 Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called:

19 Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure.

Job 34:3 For the ear trieth words, as the mouth tasteth meat.

Pr 17:3 but the LORD trieth the hearts.

Faith come by "hearing", but depending on your "taste" for "Light or darkness", you can swallow or spit it out.

God "TRIES" everyone, same as he did Abraham.

Ro 4:3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it (Abraham's faith) was counted unto him for righteousness.

 

[Benefactor]

But didn't we already establish (and you agreed) that Rom 11:32 was talking about "all" as in "Jew and Gentile" as in Romans 3? Are you changing your mind on that already?

No you gave your view not mine. I don't have a problem with R3 and R3 does not cancel out my view it supports it. I do not agree with your view. .

I don't recall this coming before. Can you show that the biblical word translated 'foreknowledge' always only means prescience? Can you specifically deal with the use of the word in Rom 11:2? Can you also explain why foreknowledge is never used of a fact about people? And explain how God doesn't foreknow unbelievers in the same way? (You might have to think about that for a minute, but when you do it will totally blow your whole theology away).

I can't make you accept the statement "according to foreknowledge” that is your problem not mine. I don't have to redefine the word to make it fit my theology, you do. Paul's use of "whom he foreknew" does point to those that love Him and I believe I stated that somewhere else. The passage in Romans 8 does not tell us the basis for which those that love Him are foreknown, but Peter makes that perfectly clear.

Actually, let me just explain: God foreknows everything by your definition. So God foreknows the unbelievers as well. And if he saves those whom he foreknows, then he will save unbelievers since he foreknows unbelievers as well as believers. Only if you properly define foreknowledge in its biblical usage can you avoid this problem.

Slick but wrong

This is a major problem. You are establishing your own truth based on what it means to you. Yet truth is universal. It means the same thing to everyone.

I know the problem is your view

I would interested to see how. This as been charged many times, but no one has ever actually stepped up to show this.

You are a Calvinist and as such it does not matter what others say you will not agree with the truth. I have stepped up and you don't accept it.

For God so loved the world

 

[Robert Snow]

Are you saying that the triune God of scripture is unable to save someone who does not want to be?
Is He unable to save the entire world if that was His plan?
Is he not really omnipotent after all?

Is this the only lame excuse that Calvinist can come up with?

If the Sovereign God allowed a free will choice, how would my choice affect His Sovereignty?

 

[Martin]

God desired for Israel to turn to Him but He "passed them over" as Cal's say. Calvinists use this argument against non-cals all the time.

==I don't know why you can see that. God could have turned Israel to Him at that time if He wanted to. However His plan was to allow a hardening in Israel until the fullness of gentiles has come in (Rom 11:25-32). It is all part of God's plan (Acts 4:27-28).

They say if God desires someone to be saved, then they will be saved. Yet you are saying quite the opposite.

==I have never seen a Calvinist say that just because God desires someone to be saved they will be saved. What I believe, and I think most Calvinists would agree with me, is that God desires all to be saved (1Tim 2:1-6) but only those who come to Him in faith will be saved (Jn 3:16, etc). However no man can/will come to Christ in saving faith (Rom 3:9-12, Jn 6:44) unless they are given to the Son by the Father (Jn 6:37) and drawn to the Son (Jn 6:40,44). These are those who believe and are saved (Jn 17:1-3).

Simply because God desires something does not mean He will bring that something to pass. That is a mystery.

God desired Israel to turn to Him, yet did not choose them or elect them for salvation. ?????? That does not make sense in the Calvinist view.

==God desires all men to come to Him and be saved. However only the elect (those given to the Son by the Father) will do so (Jn 6:37-40, 10:26-29, etc).

God desires that all be saved, but not all will believe, because He has given us free will to choose or reject.

==I don't agree with that. Man's freewill will always choose to reject (Rom 3:9-12, etc). Only when God works will the sinner turn to Christ.

As was the case with Israel. They chose to reject their Messiah. God came to them, yet you are saying that He had no intention of saving them, (they were not the elect) or He would have. Quite confusing.

==The door of salvation was open to them. However, because they were not of His sheep, they did not believe (Jn 10:26-27).

I think we have to stop trying to make election make sense to us. We cannot fully understand election. All we can do is repeat what Scripture says. Sometimes that leaves us scratching our heads, sometimes it cofuses us, sometimes it makes perfect sense, but we must always go with the Scriptures.

 

[Martin]

You mean God saves ANYONE He chooses?

==That's right (Eph 1:3-9, Jn 10:26-27, 17:1-2).

Once they are regenerated they can't resist and will believe 100 times out of 100, no exceptions.

==Once God starts working to draw a person to the Son they will come. He has 100% success rate, for He never fails. That is what Jesus said when He stated, "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me" (Jn 6:37, see also Rom 8:29-30). There are no exceptions. Those the Father has given to the Son will come to the Son. No exceptions, no failures.

Also it is not that they "can't" resist, it is that God works in their lives in such a way that they choose to come to Him. How does that work? I'm not sure, but I know that the Bible clearly teaches that at the very moment of salvation God gives a person a new heart and puts His Spirit in them (Ez 36:26-27). That causes the person to obey Him (vs27). That is why we follow Christ, because the Spirit is in us (1Jn 3:9-10).

Then why doesn't God choose to save everyone if He desires it and HE can if HE wanted to?

==That is a question no humanbeing can answer (Deut 29:29). Btw, rejecting Calvinism does not solve that mystery.

To show what mercy is on those whom are elect?? Too bad for the non elect?? I don't buy it.

==I doubt the Word of God, or it's Divine author, determines truth by what we "buy" or "understand". It is up to us to prayerfully dig into His Word and see what He says. I am disturbed by the all too human logic in your reply. We must rely 100% on Scripture. We can't understand anything spiritual, much less election, on our own. We need the Holy Spirit and His Word.

 

[Martin]

Your doctrine is not "Consistence" throughout the scriptures, and a double minded God is unstable in all his ways.

==No double mind here. Simply following the entire witness of Scripture.

Pr 1:28 Then shall they call upon me, but I will not answer; they shall seek me early, but they shall not find me:

The contradiction occurs when you try to place it in context with the "whole Bible", rather than just the NT.

==I'm not clear how you reached that conclusion. After all, election is in the Old Testament as well. Why did God choose to reveal Himself to Abraham? Moses? David? Joseph? And not to others? We can't answer those questions. Why did God choose the 11? Why did He choose Paul? Why? We can't answer those questions. It is the mystery of Divine Election.

Man's "depravity" didn't grow worse from the OT to the NT.

==Nobody said it did.

Jer 29:13 And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart.

Pr 8:17 I love them that love me; and those that seek me early shall find me.

==I'm not clear why you think those verses refute election because they don't. Those are statements of fact. Recall what I said above? We need to follow the entire witness of Scripture. Jesus said that no man can (is able) to come to Him unless they are drawn to Him by the Father (Jn 6:44). Paul said that no man, left on his own, seeks after the true God (Rom 3:10-12). There are others, but those are just two examples off the top of my head.

God never told Abraham he would stop him before he sacrificed Issac, as a matter of fact, Abraham "BELIEVED" God was going to let him go through with the sacrifice and then "RESURRECT" Issac from the dead.

==I'm not sure what that has to do with the topic of election. Btw, I don't disagree with what you said here.

Faith come by "hearing", but depending on your "taste" for "Light or darkness", you can swallow or spit it out.

==Thats true. Only the elect, those given to the Son, will "swallow" it (to use your terminology). Thats what Jesus taught.

 

[Benefactor]

Could you be more specific about which of these Calvinists have a problem with, and why they have this problem.

On #2, could you be more specific about "universal revelation of the light of Christ"? I am not sure what you mean by that.

It's very clear what Paul said and I don't know of any Calvinist who don't accept that, but Calvinist to my understanding do not accept John 1:9. I don't need to add any commentary to it for it is clear that the enlightenment is universal. This coincides with R11:32 in that God has mercy on all with a condition and that condition is of course trusting in Christ by faith such as in R10:10 and L7:50.

Again these verses clearly teach that Universalism is false and that special election is false.

 

[Amy.G]

God could have turned Israel to Him at that time if He wanted to. However His plan was to allow a hardening in Israel until the fullness of gentiles has come in (Rom 11:25-32). It is all part of God's plan (Acts 4:27-28).

The hardening was a result of their rejection of Jesus as Messiah.

==I have never seen a Calvinist say that just because God desires someone to be saved they will be saved.

? They say it all the time. They say if God desires something then He will do it or else He is not sovereign.

What I believe, and I think most Calvinists would agree with me, is that God desires all to be saved (1Tim 2:1-6) but only those who come to Him in faith will be saved (Jn 3:16, etc).

No. Calvinists say that God only desires that the "elect" be saved. That is why He passes over the others.

==The door of salvation was open to them. However, because they were not of His sheep, they did not believe (Jn 10:26-27).

If Israel wasn't His sheep, then what was the point of Him coming to them?

 

[Me4Him]

==Thats true. Only the elect, those given to the Son, will "swallow" it (to use your terminology). Thats what Jesus taught.

Let's skip all the other and answer this, because it answers all the other.

1. Jesus told Israel, "I would, you wouldn't", and that was "BECAUSE" they had closed their eyes/ears/hearts to his messiage.

If "Sovereign will/predestination" had "decreed" that God wasn't going to give them to Jesus to "MAKE" believers out of them,

"WHY" would Jesus make an offer against the "predestine will of God", and then "ACCUSE Israel" of being at "FAULT" for closing their eyes/ears/hearts to his message???

Jesus was only sent to Israel, and "his own received him not",

Your doctrine is "BLAMING GOD" for not given them what they "NEEDED" to be saved,

but Jesus died for all sins that the whole world "might be" saved,

So your doctrine also "ACCUSES GOD" of witholding what is "NEEDED" to be saved from the "whole world".

Predestination "denies" that it is "POSSIBLE" for the whole world to be saved, fulfiling God's "DESIRE" that "NONE PERISH",

But everyone won't have "FAITH", and without man "FIRST" having Faith, God won't save, Grace/salvation/regeneration only comes "AFTER" faith, never before.

And God has a reason for sitting up the plan of salvation this way.

 

[Pastor Larry]

No you gave your view not mine. I don't have a problem with R3 and R3 does not cancel out my view it supports it. I do not agree with your view.

So you don't that that all, both Jew and Gentile, are under sin? Because the all of Romans 3 is intended to include both Jew and Gentile.

I can't make you accept the statement "according to foreknowledge” that is your problem not mine.

I accept it. You don't have to make me.

I don't have to redefine the word to make it fit my theology, you do.

then show how.

Paul's use of "whom he foreknew" does point to those that love Him

No it doesn't. The point is that they don't love him. Did you even read Rom 11:2? It talks about God casting off people. It is not talking about God loving people. You see, you cant' even deal with the Scripture in its context.

The passage in Romans 8 does not tell us the basis for which those that love Him are foreknown, but Peter makes that perfectly clear.

In both cases, it is people who are foreknown, not facts about people.

Slick but wrong

I can't help but notice you don't have an answer. Why not explain how I am wrong?

You are a Calvinist and as such it does not matter what others say you will not agree with the truth. I have stepped up and you don't accept it.

You haven't yet made an argument. You keep making assertions, but you haven't used the text to support you. That's bad. You have not stepped up. You haven't even begun. At least some of the others here actually tried. They failed miserably because the text is just too clear, but at least they tried. You haven't.

For God so loved the world

Yes, excellent truth. Isn't it. If you accept that, then you have much in common with Calvinism.

It's very clear what Paul said and I don't know of any Calvinist who don't accept that, but Calvinist to my understanding do not accept John 1:9.

Have you stopped to think that your understanding might be faulty? I can't speak for others, but I know I fully accept John 1:9.

I don't need to add any commentary to it for it is clear that the enlightenment is universal.

But what is the enlightenment? That's what I am asking.

This coincides with R11:32 in that God has mercy on all with a condition and that condition is of course trusting in Christ by faith such as in R10:10 and L7:50.

But you acknowledge that the verse doesn't say that, right?

Again these verses clearly teach that Universalism is false and that special election is false. [/quote]Show how, please. I feel like a broken record. But you aren't actually saying anything here.

 

[Lux et veritas]

So you don't that that all, both Jew and Gentile, are under sin? Because the all of Romans 3 is intended to include both Jew and Gentile.



I accept it. You don't have to make me.

then show how.

No it doesn't. The point is that they don't love him. Did you even read Rom 11:2? It talks about God casting off people. It is not talking about God loving people. You see, you cant' even deal with the Scripture in its context.

In both cases, it is people who are foreknown, not facts about people.

I can't help but notice you don't have an answer. Why not explain how I am wrong?

You haven't yet made an argument. You keep making assertions, but you haven't used the text to support you. That's bad. You have not stepped up. You haven't even begun. At least some of the others here actually tried. They failed miserably because the text is just too clear, but at least they tried. You haven't.



Yes, excellent truth. Isn't it. If you accept that, then you have much in common with Calvinism.

Have you stopped to think that your understanding might be faulty? I can't speak for others, but I know I fully accept John 1:9.

But what is the enlightenment? That's what I am asking.

But you acknowledge that the verse doesn't say that, right?

Again these verses clearly teach that Universalism is false and that special election is false.

Show how, please. I feel like a broken record. But you aren't actually saying anything here.[/QUOTE]

Don't feel too bad Pastor Larry. He hasn't answered a single one of my posts yet either. It's the common way of dealing with an opponent in a debate when you don't have an answer.

 

[Pastor Larry]

The hardening was a result of their rejection of Jesus as Messiah.

Then how do you explain it's existence in Isaiah 6, long before the coming of Christ? How do explain Matt 13 where the parables are told, not to clarify, but to conceal so that they will be hardened.

Calvinists say that God only desires that the "elect" be saved.

Not all. You need to learn a bit more about Calvinism. Most see that there is a difference between his desire and his will, based on the use of certain words in the Greek NT. It is an argument worth considering.