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

The very best route, in my opinion, would be to copy and paste a book of the Bible into a word document. Remove all verses. Double-space the document and then read. Mark all over the document with questions and comments as you observe the passages.

We have to start with a mind open to God revealing Himself in scripture rather than relying upon others to tell us what to think.

It is a guarantee that God will change our thoughts and guide our ways as we read His word. We won't be Arminians, Romanists, Baptists, Calvinists, Mennonites or any other faction. We will be earnestly learning from our Father while sitting down and reading His words. That's a great thing.

 

Does God desire you to sin? I guess you will never sin again.

Or is he too weak to get his own desire?

 

I wonder if the bible authors actually means the world what would he actually have to say?

1 john 4

14We have seen and testify that the Father has sent the Son to be the Savior of the world.



Here some baptist take on limited atonement I think is quite helpful:

 

Remember what I said about having a view no one else has?

I listened to the first 30 seconds until he told me he had a view that nobody else has.

Uti, please summarize the three videos for us. Obviously you listened to them all so you should be able to share the bullet points.

 

Everyone believes in limited atonement. The thing they disagree on is the the limiter, man or God.

 

Here is the HCSB verse,

Though He was delivered up according to God’s determined plan and foreknowledge, you used lawless people to nail Him to a cross and kill Him.

And here is the review of the study note:

Acts 2:23

The study note on Acts 2:23 states: “Peter’s declaration articulates a major paradox of the Christian life: Jesus’s death occurred as a result of the plan and foreknowledge of God, but it was the free (and sinful) acts of human beings that executed that plan. The Bible often affirms the reality of both divine sovereignty and genuine human choice without explaining how the two can possibly work together without conflict.”

Analysis: The study note on Acts 2:23 refers to both “the plan and foreknowledge of God” as well as “the free (and sinful) acts of human beings.” Although many people wrongly import the concept of divine determinism into the phrase divine sovereignty, the study note attempts to clarify the meaning by citing “genuine human choice” rather than the commonly used phrase “human responsibility.” Because many Calvinistic interpreters understand genuine human choice to be compatible with divine determinism, they will probably not object to the explanation of this verse.

In conclusion, the study note on Acts 2:23 should satisfy all evangelicals, both Calvinists and non-Calvinists.

The idea that this study note would satisfy “all …non-Calvinists” presupposes acceptance of the paradox. The alternate view is God predestines some of our actions and sovereignly allows other actions to be autonomous. In this case the actions were predetermined to occur.

 

I agree and would add two comments. The least amount of commentary available is no commentary at all. Definitely check with others, but be sure that you choose reputable Bible believers to check with. (I don't mean to imply you didn't mean this, only that some people out there may need that clarified!)

 

I don't own one, neither do I plan on getting one. Two reasons: (1) I already have the free plain CSB that Lifeway was giving, and (2) nowadays I don't buy study bibles. I like to get my commentary on the books of the Bible from separate/individual commentaries rather than using a study bible.

 

Honestly, not everyone agrees on limited atonement. Universalist being a noted exception.

 

I'm still waiting on Uti to summarize his 3 videos for us regarding limited atonement.

Yes, universalists would not accept limited atonement, all others view atonement as limited by someone as @Aaron stated.
I believe God is the Sovereign King, therefore it's His choice. If you think the Kingdom of God is a democracy, you probably think you get the vote.

 

Here are the HCSB verses,

For those He foreknew He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brothers And those He predestined, He also called; and those He called, He also justified; and those He justified, He also glorified

Here is the review of the study note.

Rom 8:29–30 The study notes on Rom 8:29–30 include these remarks (The bold font appears in the original): “Those he foreknew refers to those whom God set his electing love upon in eternity past. Predestined means that God planned from eternity that ‘those [whom] he foreknew’ would become like Christ through spiritual rebirth. Called is the effectual call in which God opens our heart so we can hear his voice (cp. Ac. 16:14). ‘Calling’ in Paul’s writing never means just an invitation. It is a sovereign summons that draws the sinner from death to life.”

Analysis: Every sentence in the quotation above from the study notes contains theological definitions and presuppositions affirmed by Calvinists only. First, the word “foreknew” (proginōskō) can mean either to know in advance or to choose in advance. (For support, consider these remarks in Louw and Nida’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains, “‘those whom he had chosen beforehand, he had already decided should become like his Son’ Ro 8:29. In Ro 8:29 proginōskō may also be understood as meaning ‘to know beforehand’” (p. 362).

Second, the concept that God in eternity past set his “electing love” on some people but not on others is consistent with Calvinistic presuppositions of eternal decrees and election to salvation. Other Christians, however, affirm that God knows in advance all things (including who will respond in repentance and faith to be saved as well as those who will not respond in repentance and faith but will be condemned) but they reject the view that God selects only some people and passes over others for salvation.

Third, verse 29 states those foreknown were predestined to be conformed to the image of Jesus. If foreknown means “to know beforehand” (against the explanation of the study notes), then predestination refers to the sanctification of believers, not the salvation of unbelievers (against the study notes, which refers to “those whom God set his electing love upon in eternity past”).

Fourth, the last three sentences assume a theological distinction required by Calvinistic theology but rejected by other Christians. Calvinists believe the “general call” occurs when the gospel is heard by all people, but the “effectual call” is the work of the Holy Spirit on the hearts of only some unbelievers to irresistibly call and save them. According to this view, it is not enough for a person to hear the gospel to be saved. The logic is that since not all people will be saved and the Bible refers to believers as “called,” only some people are saved because only some people receive an “effectual call.” Other Christians simply believe that some people hear the message of the gospel and are also drawn by God’s Spirit to repent and believe, but they resist the conviction of God’s Spirit and refuse to repent of sin and believe in Jesus; the failure is on their part because they resist God’s conviction of sin and call to repent, not on God’s part for failing to convict of sin and draw sinners to himself.

In conclusion, the study notes on Rom 8:29–30 are filled with Calvinistic definitions and presuppositions.

The review correctly identifies the study notes as Calvinistic. But the alternate view also does not reflect the best understanding of the text.

First, foreknow does mean to know beforehand, and does not refer to God setting His electing love upon foreseen individuals. But when the term is used in scripture, the idea is away the use of knowledge acquired or formulated in the past, but being used in the present. Here the idea is God’s redemption plan included the spiritual rebirth of those redeemed, making them children of God and siblings of Christ. God’s plan predestined that result for those chosen and redeemed.

Next, to be called by God refers not to a rejectable invitation, but the accomplished fact of being set aside spiritually in Christ, our positional sanctification, our salvation. The use of the term has nothing to do with an “effectual call” which is an invention of Calvinism.

Third, Paul does use “called” to refer to setting us apart in Christ, which transfers us out of the realm of darkness into the kingdom of His Son. The transfer from outside of Christ (in Adam) to being in Christ is our redemption, and is not the same as our being invited (called meaning beckoned) by the gospel to put our faith in God and Christ. Rather it refers to God’s sovereign action of crediting our faith as righteousness and putting us into Christ.

Finally, the study notes on this passage and the alternate view presented in the analysis, both confuse being called (invited and beckoned) by the gospel, with God accepting our faith and transferring us into Christ.

Here is how the study note should read:

Those He foreknew refers to the target group of God’s redemption plan, everyone redeemed by Christ. The redemption plan predestined the spiritual rebirth of those redeemed, making them spiritual children of God and siblings of Christ. Called refers to those God sets apart in Christ, the redeemed. During our spiritual rebirth, the washing of regeneration removes our sin burden, thereby justifying those redeemed. And we are spiritually glorified as a new creation united with Christ.

 

The teaching of foreknowledge and predestination is not a "Calvinist" presupposition. The teaching of foreknowledge and predestination is a biblical fact.
Why it bothers Van is beyond me. I can only conclude that Van wants to be his own sovereign ruler with God as an advisor...only when asked.

 

If I do think that way it is because it is the only way I can think. If God wanted me to think another way, then I would have no choice but to think that way. He obviously must want me to think this way. I am not greater than God and I can not think in a way other than He wills me to think.

 

You truly have no comprehension of Sovereignty. It is one of the downsides to American culture and individualism.
Go study Sovereignty and find out why the King of Britain stood when Handel's "Hallelujah Chorus" was played during the Messiah.
Perhaps then you will understand how foolish your comments are.

 

I understand Sovereignty. What is foolish is that you confuse Sovereignty with totalitarian dictatorship. When and only when it is convenient to your theology, God is in total control.

 

No, you confuse God's Sovereignty and imagine that his rule is the same as Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong and Adoph Hitler. Such a view of God's Sovereignty is anathema and your imagination that His Sovereignty is ungracious makes me shake my head at your ignorance.

 

You can shout ignorant and foolish all you like, that is the common Calvinist defense mechanism. You are the one who has the theology that will not harmonize. God is in total control when and only when it is convenient to your beliefs.

Do you believe the Westminster confession is correct in saying "God ordained all that ever comes to pass."?

 

Yes, God does ordain all that comes to pass.
Do you say that God is a greater version of Hitler because He is Sovereign?
Reynolds, you are showing your ignorance of Sovereignty and more so you show your ignorance of God's word.
Neither you, nor I could have this conversation if God did not ordain our existence at this moment. He holds you and me by a thread. If he so chose to drop us into hell, he could do so immediately.
Do you feel helpless and weak in God's presence? You should. You kneel before the King who has the authority to pardon your lawbreaking or have your head chopped off for your crimes. You cannot escape God. You cannot run away from God. You cannot fight him. You must bow and pray that He is gracious in His judgment.

 

Jn10:26....exposes you as a false teacher.

 

I believe you are showing your ignorance of sovereignty.
You act like Calvinists understand Gods sovereignty. Sproul does not understand it, but you do?
Sproul called this an "excruciating problem."
(1)God can not give anyone the desire to sin.
(2)God must have given Lucifer the desire since:
a. He did not get the desire from his own nature.
b. He did not get the desire from any other creature around him.


You are quick to level insults, but they are thrown to divert attention away from the fact that you can not answer the questions without violating the law of noncontradiction. Calvinists such as Sproul will honestly and readily admit this, but not you. Your answer is to level accusations of ignorance. Accusations of wickedness. Accusations of un Godliness.