NOBTS professor detects Calvinistic tilt in study notes of LifeWay’s new Bible (CSB)

[Reynolds]

Nobody who believes in Particular Redemption denies that Jesus died for all. We just know the difference between dying for them in the soteriological sense.

1 Timothy 4:10 For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

I have had Calvinists emphatically tell me that Jesus only died only for the elect. They say had He died for everyone, then everyone would be saved.

I understand the doctrine of limited atonement, but I do not understand how there seems to be 1000 interpretations of it.

 

[Revmitchell]

Jesus died for everyone (John 3:16). Everyone has an equal opportunity to respond to the gospel and believe (.2 Peter 3:9; Romans 10:13-17). Everyone has the exact same ability to respond to the gospel (Romans 10:17). We all have the same ability from birth to place our faith in Christ (John 3:1-6) While we are born with Adam's sin nature (Romans 5:12) We bear the guilt of no one but our own sin (Romans 5:12b)

 

[Revmitchell]

Once again, Rev, you display your ignorance of that bible doctrine which you love to hate.

You say: "Reformed theology, also known as Calvinism, teaches that Jesus only bore the sins of the elect and that He did not die for the sins of everyone who ever lived."

It is important that you recant this statement and acknowledge, in order to maintain integrity, that I quoted someone and did not myself say this. The link was provided with the quote no need to miss that.

Now I provided the quote to prove that yes reformed folks do say what you say they have not said.

 

[TCassidy]

I have had Calvinists emphatically tell me that Jesus only died only for the elect. They say had He died for everyone, then everyone would be saved.

I have had non-calvinists emphatically tell me that everybody will be saved eventually, there is no hell, and we will travel the universe as angels in space ships. But that does not imply I think you believe such nonsense.

I understand the doctrine of limited atonement, but I do not understand how there seems to be 1000 interpretations of it.

The same reason there are 1000 interpretations of non-calvinist soteriology. Does the fact that there are 999 positions that disagree with your position make you wrong?

If you really want to know what "Calvinism" teaches read "The Canons of the Synod of Dordt." The English translation is a bit stilted but if you study it you will be able to see what the Canons actually say, rather than what some non-calvinist says they say.

 

[Revmitchell]

I have had non-calvinists emphatically tell me that everybody will be saved eventually, there is no hell, and we will travel the universe as angels in space ships. But that does not imply I think you believe such nonsense.

The difference is that "non-calvisnist" is not a label that narrows to a specific system of theology. Calvinism is. Your comparison falls apart on that point.

 

[TCassidy]

It is important that you recant this statement and acknowledge, in order to maintain integrity, that I quoted someone and did not myself say this. The link was provided with the quote no need to miss that.

LOL! ROFLOL! Nice job of going back and adding quotation marks after the fact.

 

[Revmitchell]

LOL! ROFLOL! Nice job of going back and adding quotation marks after the fact.

I did in fact do that however, I also originally included a link. Not sure why that needs to be explained.

 

[TCassidy]

The difference is that "non-calvisnist" is not a label that narrows to a specific system of theology. Calvinism is.

Really? So all "Calvinists" walk in lock-step?

The whole point of my conversation with Reynolds is that they don't walk in lock-step, as he pointed out the 1000 different opinions!

 

[Revmitchell]

Really? So all "Calvinists" walk in lock-step?

The whole point of my conversation with Reynolds is that they don't walk in lock-step, as he pointed out the 1000 different opinions!

Uh you said they all walk in lockstep in this very thread:

"Nobody who believes in Particular Redemption denies that Jesus died for all."

 

[JonC]

Well, at least Lifeway is titling towards something.

 

[TCassidy]

"Nobody who believes in Particular Redemption denies that Jesus died for all."

You do understand that the use of a negative does not address what they believe? Right? 3rd grade grammar?

 

[Revmitchell]

You do understand that the use of a negative does not address what they believe? Right? 3rd grade grammar?

Ok please do not change the subject. You first claim no one who is calvinists believes something. That statement does in fact make a monolithic claim about calvinists (i.e. ".walk in lock-step)

Then later you claim calvinists are not monolithic (i.e. "walk in lock-step)

 

[Reynolds]

If you really want to know what "Calvinism" teaches read "The Canons of the Synod of Dordt." The English translation is a bit stilted but if you study it you will be able to see what the Canons actually say, rather than what some non-calvinist says they say.

I have read books by Calvinists and non-Calvinists. The Calvinists that come to mind being D. James Kennedy and John Macarthur. Kennedy did a wonderful job of being practical and not being circular. Macarthur likewise did a good job.
I will try to read your recommendation. Hopefully my ADHD (literally, not figuratively) won't kick in. There are many things I try to but can't read. My eyes see the words but my brain has drifted off somewhere else. I suddenly realize I have "read" 40 or 50 pages but have no clue what they said.

MacArthur just does not seem to agree with what you say. He is plain that Jesus only died for His sheep. Any mentions of all etc. are references to Jews and gentiles, but not all individuals if those groups.
https://www.gty.org/library/sermons-library/90-363

 

[TCassidy]

He is plain that Jesus only died for His sheep.

But he is only speaking Soteriologically, not generally or practically.

 

[TCassidy]

Ok please do not change the subject. You first claim no one who is calvinists believes something. That statement does in fact make a monolithic claim about calvinists (i.e. ".walk in lock-step)

Then later you claim calvinists are not monolithic (i.e. "walk in lock-step)

Apples and Oranges. Rather like your confusing the Father with the Son.

 

[Reynolds]

But he is only speaking Soteriologically, not generally or practically.

Sounded general, practical, and Soteriological to me.

 

[Yeshua1]

I know that. I will find the thread where someone was admonished by some on here for his saying Jesus died for everyone.

He did, in the sense that His death was enough to save all sinners, but that saving grace was intended to be applied towards only those elected out by God to receive Him.

 

[Yeshua1]

Jesus died for everyone (John 3:16). Everyone has an equal opportunity to respond to the gospel and believe (.2 Peter 3:9; Romans 10:13-17). Everyone has the exact same ability to respond to the gospel (Romans 10:17). We all have the same ability from birth to place our faith in Christ (John 3:1-6) While we are born with Adam's sin nature (Romans 5:12) We bear the guilt of no one but our own sin (Romans 5:12b)

How can those though are are called enemies of God and dead to spiritual things somehow will themselves to believe now and wake up?

 

[Revmitchell]

How can those though are are called enemies of God and dead to spiritual things somehow will themselves to believe now and wake up?

You define dead as in lazarus where I define dead as in separated like the prodigal son. Spiritual death means separation period.

 

[Revmitchell]

Apples and Oranges. Rather like your confusing the Father with the Son.

I see no answer for your inconsistency.