-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
I am not Reformed.
- Thread starter KJB1611reader
- Start date
Would not be considered a 5 point Calvinist by Hyper-Calvinists!!
A Normal Calvinist does not believe Christ died as a ransom for all.
A Normal Calvinist does not believe many lost individuals will seek the narrow door, but not find it.
A Normal Calvinist does not believe God is the author of sin, thus an open theist.
A Normal Calvinist does not believe the lost can understand some spiritual things, even though many seek the narrow door.
I could go on, but you get the idea, Calvinists hide their actual beliefs behind a smokescreed of vague verbiage.
A Normal Calvinist does not believe many lost individuals will seek the narrow door, but not find it.
A Normal Calvinist does not believe God is the author of sin, thus an open theist.
A Normal Calvinist does not believe the lost can understand some spiritual things, even though many seek the narrow door.
I could go on, but you get the idea, Calvinists hide their actual beliefs behind a smokescreed of vague verbiage.
atpollard
Well-Known Member
Did Christ die as a ransom for Satan and my Rottweiler?
[I think "all" needs at least some clarification. Clearly it does not mean "all" in the broadest imaginable sense of redeeming fallen angels and all dogs go to heaven.]
So "normal calvinists" are not alone in questioning the meaning of "all".
I am pretty sure that all refers to people. I never wondered if my dog was going to heaven.
Since the Word was revealed to men, I expect that all means all men.
Let’s not over complicate it.
David Lamb
Well-Known Member
They believe what Jesus said, that He lay down His life for the sheep.
The bible, which Calvinists believe, says:
“"Strive to enter through the narrow gate, for many, I say to you, will seek to enter and will not be able.” (Lu 13:24 NKJV)
Both the bible and experience shows that people seek the narrow door, but they cannot be doing so in the sense of seeking the Saviour, because Jesus also said:
“"Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you.” (Mt 7:7 NKJV)
I'm not really knowledgeable about Open Theism, but I must say I didn't think not believing God to be the author of sin constituted Open Theism.
They believe what the bible says about the natural man (the lost):
“But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.” (1Co 2:14 NKJV)
In my experience, Calvinists are no more or less verbose than Arminians.
atpollard
Well-Known Member
What about Esau (whom God hated) and Judas (whom Jesus knew COULD NOT be saved ... the son of perdition that must be lost to fulfill prophecy)? Did Jesus die for those he KNEW he WOULD NOT save? What about Jesus himself ... did he die for himself (even if he had no sins)?
I am pointing out that "all" = "every person WITHOUT EXCEPTION" may have some issues.
... and once the door is opened a crack to "some exceptions"
... can "all" mean "For You were slain, And have redeemed us to God by Your blood Out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation," - Revelation 5:9 [Jesus died for "all" that he redeemed - mission 100% successful!]
[EDIT: Correct "Enoch" to Esau"
]
Last edited:
David Lamb
Well-Known Member
Were the words, "What about Enoch (whom God hated)" a typo for something else? Enoch is mentioned 12 times in the bible, but I couldn't find anywhere where we are told that God hated him. Quite the opposite, in fact:What about Enoch (whom God hated) and Judas (whom Jesus knew COULD NOT be saved ... the son of perdition that must be lost to fulfill prophecy)? Did Jesus die for those he KNEW he WOULD NOT save? What about Jesus himself ... did he die for himself (even if he had no sins)?
I am pointing out that "all" = "every person WITHOUT EXCEPTION" may have some issues.
... and once the door is opened a crack to "some exceptions"
... can "all" mean "For You were slain, And have redeemed us to God by Your blood Out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation," - Revelation 5:9 [Jesus died for "all" that he redeemed - mission 100% successful!]
“And Enoch walked with God; and he was not, for God took him.” (Ge 5:24 NKJV)
I wonder if perhaps you meant Esau.
atpollard
Well-Known Member
YES!!! Thank you for the correction. I still had time to edit it.
[Technically, I was playing a little "fast and loose" with Malachi since it really seems to be the 'nation' that God is out to get ... but Paul makes it personal in Romans 9, so I am not completely making it up.]
This Jesus said as he taught that people who try to come any way but by Him are not His. Context does not deny salvation available to all. It denies salvation to any who attempt to find God any other way.
1) The sheep is vague, Christ laid down is life as a ransom for all. To deny this is to deny scripture.
2) Pure fiction, Jesus is speaking not to the lost, but only to those born anew.
3) It does, either God predestines everything or God does not, which is open theism.
4) No they do not! They add to scripture, rewriting "the things" as "all the things." Not how it reads, and since many do seek the narrow door, which is a spiritual thing, the rewrite is false doctrine.
5) We are to compare ourselves with Christ, not with others saying why I am not as bad as you name it.
Funny thing about that verse, it never says that is what all means.What about Esau (whom God hated) and Judas (whom Jesus knew COULD NOT be saved ... the son of perdition that must be lost to fulfill prophecy)? Did Jesus die for those he KNEW he WOULD NOT save? What about Jesus himself ... did he die for himself (even if he had no sins)?
I am pointing out that "all" = "every person WITHOUT EXCEPTION" may have some issues.
... and once the door is opened a crack to "some exceptions"
... can "all" mean "For You were slain, And have redeemed us to God by Your blood Out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation," - Revelation 5:9 [Jesus died for "all" that he redeemed - mission 100% successful!]
[EDIT: Correct "Enoch" to Esau"
It actually says that we are not all physically descended from Abraham. God’s people are not just Jews.
Just because Jesus died for the sins of every man, doesn’t mean he gives salvation to every man. We do have to come to God and believe in Him.
Have you kept missing this? I keep posting it.
1 John 2:2
And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
But if you want to insist that it is just some of every tribe and tongue and people and nation,
Then…
Some Out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation have sinned and come short of the Glory of God.
Romans 5:15-17
But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)
Those who receive it don’t get it like a punch in the face they didn’t ask for. They come to Jesus and meet Him where He is waiting. Not for us only but also the whole world.
But since you are so anxious that some people not be accepted, there are people who don’t come in the accepted time and are not saved. Yes God already knows who they are. What business is that of yours?
Where does it say Judas could not be saved?
Only one of the two, Jacob or Esau, was able to receive the blessing and birthright individually. Esau rejected both.
Jacob said I will not let you go until you bless me.
Heb. 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
There is something outside of predestination for everything and open theism.
God doesn’t have to make everything happen. But that doesn’t mean God doesn’t know what happens that we are responsible for.
Are you saying that God made Nebuchadnezzar say that he had made the kingdom for himself so that God could put Nebuchadnezzar out to pasture? I find it hard to believe that Daniel knew so little of determinism (if true) that he had the audacity to offer counsel to the king that would try to change the determinate counsel of God.
I don’t think Daniel was a good Calvinist or he would have known better.
And I am not an open theist because I don’t believe in determinism.
Van said:
Let me add a little to this:
Most of the anti-open theism arguments define open theism as complete, God neither knows the future, nor predestines the future, which of course is absolute malarkey. Lets refer to partially open theism, where God knows what He has chosen to know, past, present and future, but also that God has chosen not to know everything, allowing a partially open future. This is the open future that has not authored our sin by predestining it.
First you are an open theist (or a partially open thiest) if you belief God has not predestined "whatsoever comes to pass."
I know you claim God can know the future, yet some other future, not predestined by His perfect knowledge of what will happen, could happen.
To my way of thinking that is not logically possible. A choice of only one choice is not a choice. Or the double door scenario, where you choose to through door "A" or door "B." You can say you had a choice, but if both doors provide entry into the same room, you really had no choice. Some claim we are free to sin via door A or door B so we are responsible for choosing to sin, but either door leads to damnation, so we really were not responsible for choosing damnation.
We must be able to choose damnation or salvation, in order for us to be held responsible for choosing damnation, or so it seems to me.
I agree we have a choice. I don’t believe that God has to close His eyes and pretend not to know what is happening. God’s omniscience is not limited by our choices.
But I am not a deterministic thinker either. I don’t believe that knowing something makes it happen.
I don’t believe in the think it hard enough that it happens concept.
If God wants something to happen, He can make it happen or not make it happen. I don’t believe that God wanted Adam to eat the fruit when He told Adam not to. I don’t believe that God didn’t know that he would take the fruit or Jesus would not be the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
David Lamb
Well-Known Member
I am not to clear what you mean by "people who try to come any way but by Him are not His." In the context, He had already said that He lay down His life for the sheep. Then He tells some hearers that they do not believe because they are not of His sheep. If He had said, "You are not of My sheep because you do not believe," then what you wrote about denying salvation to any who attempt to find God any other way would be true. But He didn't; He told them that they did not believe because they were not of His sheep.