Calling All Open-Minded Reformed/Calvinist

[SavedByGrace]

Not in this situation you don't.

eg?

 

[Reformed1689]

your personal view against what Jesus says, for example in John 3:15-18

I don't believe anything against what Jesus says. Notice Jesus said nothing in that verse about God loving individuals, rather, the world general.

 

[Reformed1689]

eg?

LOL almost every post in this thread.

 

[SavedByGrace]

I don't believe anything against what Jesus says. Notice Jesus said nothing in that verse about God loving individuals, rather, the world general.

That is your reformed twist to it, as no open-minded believer would say that "kosmos" in ver 16 means the entire human race. At least John Calvin got this right. Maybe you should follow him on this?

 

[Reformed1689]

That is your reformed twist to it, as no open-minded believer would say that "kosmos" in ver 16 means the entire human race. At least John Calvin got this right. Maybe you should follow him on this?

No reasonable person assumes world to mean individuals.

 

[SavedByGrace]

No reasonable person assumes world to mean individuals.

you saying that John Calvin was not a reasonable person?

“That whosoever believeth on him may not perish. It is a remarkable commendation of faith, that it frees us from everlasting destruction. For he intended expressly to state that, though we appear to have been born to death, undoubted deliverance is offered to us by the faith of Christ; and, therefore, that we ought not to fear death, which otherwise hangs over us. And he has employed the universal term whosoever, both to invite all indiscriminately to partake of life, and to cut off every excuse from unbelievers. Such is also the import of the term World, which he formerly used; for though nothing will be found in the world that is worthy of the favor of God, yet he shows himself to be reconciled to the whole world, when he invites all men without exception to the faith of Christ, which is nothing else than an entrance into life”

What do you think that they phrase "all men without exception", means?

 

[Reformed1689]

you saying that John Calvin was not a reasonable person?

“That whosoever believeth on him may not perish. It is a remarkable commendation of faith, that it frees us from everlasting destruction. For he intended expressly to state that, though we appear to have been born to death, undoubted deliverance is offered to us by the faith of Christ; and, therefore, that we ought not to fear death, which otherwise hangs over us. And he has employed the universal term whosoever, both to invite all indiscriminately to partake of life, and to cut off every excuse from unbelievers. Such is also the import of the term World, which he formerly used; for though nothing will be found in the world that is worthy of the favor of God, yet he shows himself to be reconciled to the whole world, when he invites all men without exception to the faith of Christ, which is nothing else than an entrance into life”

What do you think that they phrase "all men without exception", means?

Could you at least cite your reference?

 

[SavedByGrace]

Could you at least cite your reference?

I just did, from a leading Reformed scholar. which part do you not understand?

 

[SavedByGrace]

Could you at least cite your reference?

here is another leading Reformed theologian, Robert Dabney:

But there are others of these passages, to which I think, the candid mind will
admit, this sort of explanation is inapplicable. In John 3:16, make "the world"
which Christ loved, to mean "the elect world," and we reach the absurdity that
some of the elect may not believe, and perish. In 2 Cor. 5:15, if we make the all
for whom Christ died, mean only the all who live unto Him—i. e., the elect it
would seem to be implied that of those elect for whom Christ died, only a part
will live to Christ. In 1 John 2:2, it is at least doubtful whether the express
phrase, "whole world," can be restrained to the world of elect as including other
than Jews. For it is indisputable, that the Apostle extends the propitiation of
Christ beyond those whom he speaks of as "we," in verse first. The interpretation
described obviously proceeds on the assumption that these are only Jewish
believers. Can this be substantiated? Is this catholic epistle addressed only to
Jews? This is more than doubtful. It would seem then, that the Apostle's scope is
to console and encourage sinning believers with the thought that since Christ
made expiation for every man, there is no danger that He will not be found a
propitiation for them who, having already believed, now sincerely turn to him
from recent sins.

Systematic Theology , chapter 35, page 805

 

[percho]

I have a ? or so.

A phrase found in the bible. I copied this one from 1 Peter 1:20 - the foundation of the world (κόσμος)

κόσμος - W&H always translates as, a configuration - Scripture4all always translates as, system

Do the words configuration and system show meaning of, orderly assembled? Would that meaning apply everywhere it is used in the word of God.

Consider as used in 1 Peter 1:20 relative with verses 17,18,19 does it not have the same meaning as John 3:16?

God the Father
Christ the Son - As Peter said Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God.
Foreordained before - For God so loved, he gave ???????????????????????


I wonder what Calvin would have thought of this thought?


Heck, I think it means, the world.

 

[Mikey]

I have been a born again believer for almost 40 years, and have never read the works of either side. the greater majority of my commentaries and theological books are from Reformed authors. I have over 500 books.

Isn't that a contradiction? Unless you haven''t read them.

I have been a born again believer for almost 40 years, and have never read the works of either side. the greater majority of my commentaries and theological books are from Reformed authors. I have over 500 books.

You still haven't explained your position. Amyraldism, Provisionalism, Catholicism or other? You reject both Armininism and Calvinism.

 

[Reformed1689]

here is another leading Reformed theologian, Robert Dabney:

But there are others of these passages, to which I think, the candid mind will
admit, this sort of explanation is inapplicable. In John 3:16, make "the world"
which Christ loved, to mean "the elect world," and we reach the absurdity that
some of the elect may not believe, and perish. In 2 Cor. 5:15, if we make the all
for whom Christ died, mean only the all who live unto Him—i. e., the elect it
would seem to be implied that of those elect for whom Christ died, only a part
will live to Christ. In 1 John 2:2, it is at least doubtful whether the express
phrase, "whole world," can be restrained to the world of elect as including other
than Jews. For it is indisputable, that the Apostle extends the propitiation of
Christ beyond those whom he speaks of as "we," in verse first. The interpretation
described obviously proceeds on the assumption that these are only Jewish
believers. Can this be substantiated? Is this catholic epistle addressed only to
Jews? This is more than doubtful. It would seem then, that the Apostle's scope is
to console and encourage sinning believers with the thought that since Christ
made expiation for every man, there is no danger that He will not be found a
propitiation for them who, having already believed, now sincerely turn to him
from recent sins.

Systematic Theology , chapter 35, page 805

And again, I am not arguing that the word world means elect.

 

[Reformed1689]

I just did, from a leading Reformed scholar. which part do you not understand?

Apparently you do not know what a reference is, you did not post the reference for which I asked.

 

[Dave G]

Will YOU accept what the Bible actually does teach on God's Great Salvation, and not what some "theologians", who are clearly AGAINST the Teaching of the Holy Bible, claim to be what the Bible says?

Yes.

Dave Hunt brilliantly deals with the MANY errors of Reformed/Calvinistic "theology".

Respectfully,
I've seen this video several times and while I disagree on some of the finer points of "Reformed Theology", I do agree with much of it, for the most part.

Mr Hunt, while I liked him and respected him as a person, leads off this video believing that God loves everyone, which I do not see in the Bible.
Yes, I do see where several pieces of His word could be taken that way, but not when it's read as a whole.
In addition, I see him misunderstanding, when compared to me, many important truths that are found in God's word...

One of which is that God chooses people to a relationship with Him, and they later believe His words because of that choice... which was made before the foundation of the world ( Ephesians 1:4 ).

I've also read several of his books... and while he seems to make quite a few very persuasive arguments from select pieces of God's word,
it seems that he never did believe other parts of it at face value, I'm sorry to say.
I was also saddened to hear that he passed away several years back, and I believe that the Lord used him to show me many things in the Scriptures, even though I later found myself disagreeing with him on how God actually works salvation in the hearts of His people down through the ages...

He called it "Calvinism", while I see it as the truth.

 

[Dave G]

I wait for the day any reformed/calvinist can show that Jesus only died for the elect from John 3:15-18!

I'm not Reformed, but perhaps I can try to show how I understand it:

" And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:
15 that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."

Here's what I see when I read this for myself, keeping in mind what the Lord has said in other places in His word:

14) The example is given that as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness ( Numbers 21:5-10 ), so must the Son of man be lifted up on the cross...
15) So that the ones believing "in Him" ( those that are in the body of Christ, or His sheep ) should not perish, but have eternal life ( which is to know God and His Son, John 17:3 ).
Immediately I see a limitation placed upon the reason why Jesus Christ went to the cross...and it was for those that believe.

Right there in the above I see what the "Calvinist" calls, "Limited Atonement" or "Particular Redemption".

Also, Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, and those who refused to look upon it, when struck by the fiery serpents, perished.
Similarly, those of mankind who refuse to "look upon" Christ as their Saviour and Lord, will also perish by fire, in eternal torment.

 

[Dave G]

16) The reason that Christ was lifted up in verse 14, was that God so loved ( past tense...how could God love "the world" in the past? See Ephesians 2:1-10, Romans 8:28-30, 2 Timothy 1:9, Matthew 25:34, etc. ) the world that He gave His only begotten Son.
Why?
So that "whosoever believeth in Him" ( the ones believing ) should not perish, but have everlasting life

17) The reason that God sent His Son into the world the first time was not to condemn it ( that comes later when He comes again, see 1 Thessalonians 1:7-10 ), but that the "world" through Him "might" ( signifies purpose ) be saved.

18) The person that believes on Him for the forgiveness of their sins is not ( present tense ) condemned, which tells me that their belief didn't save them, but rather that their lack of condemnation is evidenced by their belief in Him...
While the person that does not believe, is already condemned, and the evidence of that condemnation is the fact that they do not believe.

As for what "world" means here, it's not easy to determine within just the context of this passage, but it can be determined, IMO, by process of elimination:

God loved ( past tense ) a world of people so much, that He gave His Son for them.
They are the "whosoever believeth" in Him because they are associated with one another in the sentence.
"World" = "whosoever believeth" = " shall not perish " = " have eternal life ".

According to verse 18, the one believing is not condemned, but the one that does not is already condemned.
Therefore, the Lord did not love those who are condemned already, because He only sent His Son to die for those who are not, present tense, condemned already.
Condemned versus not condemned, already determined by God.

Follow?
God's love for His people is a love in action and of action.
His elect are the ones not condemned ( but are saved and sanctified by the blood of His Son ) and who evidence that lack of condemnation by their belief in His Son and His work on the cross for them...and they are those that He sent His Son to die for.

I hope that this helps to convey how I understand the passage.


May He bless you in many ways.

 

[SavedByGrace]

Also, Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, and those who refused to look upon it, when struck by the fiery serpents, perished.
Similarly, those of mankind who refuse to "look upon" Christ as their Saviour and Lord, will also perish by fire, in eternal torment

if, as you correctly say, that those who refuse to accept Jesus Christ as their Saviour and Lord, will be damned to eternal punishment, then this means that these have a volition of their own. It is their choice that determines their eternal destiny, and not because they are not part of the elect. This shows that TULI cannot be Biblically correct.

 

[Reformed1689]

if, as you correctly say, that those who refuse to accept Jesus Christ as their Saviour and Lord, will be damned to eternal punishment, then this means that these have a volition of their own. It is their choice that determines their eternal destiny, and not because they are not part of the elect. This shows that TULI cannot be Biblically correct.

and this is where you do not understand Calvinism. Calvinists believe in free choice, but you mean something different when you say free choice.

 

[SavedByGrace]

Calvinists believe in free choice, but you mean something different when you say free choice.

explain

 

[AustinC]

if, as you correctly say, that those who refuse to accept Jesus Christ as their Saviour and Lord, will be damned to eternal punishment, then this means that these have a volition of their own. It is their choice that determines their eternal destiny, and not because they are not part of the elect. This shows that TULI cannot be Biblically correct.

Here is how sin entered and corrupted us:
Romans 5:12-14 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned— for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.