Something I don't understand about Calvinism

From page one:

JMF --

This is a subject I am interested in studying. I
especially need to read such threads as this
particular one, in which Scriptures are used,
rather than something said by some other
author.

Unfortunately, I have only WebTV. This limits
my screen width, making it impossible for me
to read the posts where anyone adds a long
line like the dashes in your last post, or any
other long line, like a long site address.

Would it be possible for you to cut the long line
of dashes down so that I may read your post
and others'? Thank you! 8o)

[ November 05, 2002, 08:34 PM: Message edited by: Abiyah ]

 

Helen,

Revelation is apocalyptic literature and is intended to be interpreted figuratively. When God condescends to our weaknesses to communicate in terms of our frame of reference, it is to our own hurt that we think that the heavenly things are anything like what we experience in this world. As the Scriptures say, "Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him."

You have studied the Creation accounts. The sun and moon and stars were placed for "times and seasons." Yet in the world to come, there is no need of the sun, for the Lamb is the light of it.

Hebrews says, "But exhort one another daily, while it is called To day," and "While it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts, as in the provocation."

There will come a "day" when we will not be able to call it, "Today." It will be too late for repentance. "Today" only has meaning in this world.

Now is the appointed time.

In our world, our coronation is a future event, but from an eternal viewpoint, we are already seated with Him in the heavenlies. Eph. 2:6.

 

Amen, Ray.

Ken
A Spurgeonite

[ November 05, 2002, 08:43 PM: Message edited by: Ken Hamilton ]

 

JMF Please Check your PMs

 

Rev G.
God loves all of those created in his image the same. The difference that you preceieve is not a varing degree of love. The difference that you attempt to define is called a relationship.

God loves all that he created, yet he does not have a personal relationship with all. You see, God is a just God.

I do not love my wife more than i love my mother, my brother, or my sister. With my mother i have a relationship, with my wife i have a personal relationship. The husband and wife relationship is the one coveted by God with man. It is God's desire that we cling to him. Mom want's us to love her equally as the wife, but she realizes that the relationship is different. If a healthy relationship exist between you and mom, she would rather you cling to the wife.

God loves all, the visible difference that you seek to explain is called relationship..

 

A quick response to a few here:

To Ray, thanks.

==========

To Rev.G., you have a point about 'all' with the understanding that when it is used in context as many times as it is, when 'whosoever' and 'world' etc. are all used as well to indicate salvation is available to all, then the all becomes quite inclusive.

A couple of those verses, as an example showing you are pulling them out of context:

1 Cor. 15:22 you pulled violently out of context, as Paul explains exactly what he means by all. Here it is in context. The quote to hauled out to try to prove your point that all doesn't mean all is in bold:

But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. But each in his own turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power.

He defines 'all' there as all the saved. The definition is in the passage that follows. As Ray said, context is everything.

Now look at Romans 5:18 -- you did the same thing there, for Paul is explaining on either side of that quote you pulled out, exactly what he is talking about:
But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! Again, the gift of God is not like the the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ. Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

In addition, although the justification that brings life for all men is through Christ, it is very clear from the rest of the Bible that that can be refused by any man, and that is the point of so much of what is written!

The verse in Matthew 3, by the way, refers to the fact that people came from all the areas of Judea, not that all Judea came to him. Here is the verse:

People went out to him from Jerusalem and all Judea and thw whole region of the Jordan. Confessing their sins, they were baptized by him in the Jordan River.

The fact that you had to pull verses out of context and clear meaning shows how desperate the case for Calvinism is.

On the other hand, when we read God so loved the world that he gave is one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of the God's one and only Son.

The meaning is not qualified there at any point.

In the same way, 2 Peter 3 also does not qualify the use of the word 'any':

The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.

This follows a section talking about the end times and not the elect, so there is no qualification preceding it, either. Following this passage is the one describing the day of the Lord and the destruction of earth. So that does not qualify the quoted passage either to mean anything other than "anyone" and "everyone".

Context, context, context, as Thomas said when he was here. Bible explains Bible. Pulling quotes out of context only shows desperation in trying to prove a point. I know a woman who claimed that because "God is love," her adulterous affair was of Him. Interesting way to argue...

==========

Aaron, Jesus' definition of eternal life is different from yours. Please read John 17:4.

And as far as Revelation is concerned, are you redefining words such as 'flow' 'every month' and such? These indicate consecutiveness to me, even though I don't know how time is in the creation to come. If you are so sure you know, then great.

Yes, I agree with you that the fact of much is already realized by God, but just as Jesus was the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, but it had to be played out in time, there is a lot about existence outside of our time FRAME which we have no clue about. What will be gone is our time frame; time as measured by consecutiveness is evidently not gone. I don't understand, nor do I pretend to, but the fact that consecutive actions are associated with the new creation cannot be ignored.

[ November 06, 2002, 11:35 AM: Message edited by: Helen ]

 

Helen,

I think you made Rev G's point that "all" does not always mean "all without exception." In those verses, he did not pull them out of context; he showed that in their context "all" did not mean all men that ever lived with exception but rather "all of a particular group." You are right to say that the "all" is qualified. That is exactly what the calvinists say. You must read the context to determine what the "all" refers to.

For instance, in John 3:16, "whoever" (Greek reads Pas -- all) is qualified by belief. Therefore, "all" is not all without exception but rather all who believe. That narrows it down to show that not all men have eternal life but rather all who believe have eternal life. In determining the meaning of "all," you must consider context.

The question in 2 Peter 3:9 is a bit more complicated that "he was talking about the endtimes earlier, not the elect." His whole book has been "to the elect" (cf. 1:1-2) which at the very least calls into question your contention. Additionally you must wrestle with the issue of God's will.

So I think Rev G hasn't pulled any verses out of context. As I understand what you and he wrote, you made his point, and in so doing undermined your previous point. The bottom line is that calvinists do believe that "all" means "all" and "world" means "world." It is simply that the context is taken into account.

 

As someone else said, context is everything.

John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."

1 John 2:15 "Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him."

Both "worlds" are "kosmos" so there's no difference in the Greek. So either the context makes "world" different (which is IMO the correct way to look at it) or our Father in Heaven is saying, "Do as I say, not as I do." I think the latter is unlikely.

 

I think the point has been made regarding context for those questioning Calvinism. It takes a lot of squirreling around to get around what is so clear.

 

I agree that it is hard to get around what is so clear. My difficulty is understanding why you think we deny that "all" means "all" when you agree with us. You agreed with us that "all" does not always mean "all men without exception." You yourself said that sometimes "all" means "some." So why do you agree with us on this point and then say that we are denying what is clear?

 

I'm not pulling these verses out of context, Helen. Please pay closer attention to what I stated:

As far as the other verses I listed, I didn't take them out of context either. I simply asked questions about them. Let's take a look at what I actually stated:

It was to this that you responded:

Hardly, Helen. In fact, that you ignored what I actually stated and took me out of context and then created a straw man goes a far way to dispute your claim.

Rev. G

 

Anyone interested at looking at John 3:16 in the Greek? "Whosoever" is "the one who."

Not only that, but the "whosoever" in John 3:16 does not declare "all" (as in individuals). It states that whosoever / whoever / the one who believes shall be saved. This is NOT denied by those of us who are Reformed. We believe exactly that - that whosoever believes will be saved.

The question is, WHO will believe? And WHY will they believe? Is it those who are more "broken", more "humble", more "aware", more "spiritual", more "pliable", more of something than those who remain lost? Or does it have something to do with God's work? That He has caused the light of the Gospel to shine in a dark, sinful heart? (2 Cor. 4). That He has taken out a heart of stone and replaced it with a heart of flesh? (Ez. 36).

Is faith the cause of salvation, or is it a gift to receive salvation?

Rev. G

 

Wow, thanks for the tip. I never noticed the "o" before. It's not just "pas" but "pas o" or "whosoever the one" believes.

 

Larry, the Bible makes it pretty clear when 'all' is qualified and when it means 'all'.

And world really does mean world.

And whoever or whosoever really does mean that...

etc.

 

Helen, I was previously confused. I think I have it now.

World means world when the word for world sounds like world.

Ditto for all, everyone, whoever (whosoever for rabid KJV1611 folk).

In the context of the verse, world might be understood to mean world. However, if it is qualified, world means world that is qualified.

 

LOL, I think the Bible is quite clear via a straightforward reading. When there is a qualification of a word, the writer states that in the context. That is what I was showing on the previous page. Otherwise the meaning would be the standard one given that word.

The purpose of language is to communicate. God knows how to do that.

 

You mean, like adding "the one" after "whoever"?

 

JMF writes:
II Peter 3:9 says "The LORD is not slack concerning His promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward,not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance(Ezekial 18:23,32& 33:11)

Scott responds:
In your post, you have placed the emphasis of this scripture on the word "WILLING". Even though this reply does not reflect it, you have used the *bold type* to emphasize the statement made by the apostle.

You are coorect, God is not willing that any perish. (I pray I am not repeating that which has alreay been said.)In that, none will perish.

To begin with, proper exegesis is warranted when trying to understand scripture. This 1st Peter passage shows the need.

Who wrote this epistle, to whom, what is the point of the epistle, etc.

For instance:
In the opening statement, Peter says:

2Pe 1:1 Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained a like precious faith with us in the righteousness of our God and the Saviour Jesus Christ:
2Pe 1:2 Grace to you and peace be multiplied in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord;
2Pe 1:3 seeing that his divine power hath granted unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that called us by his own glory and virtue;
2Pe 1:4 whereby he hath granted unto us his precious and exceeding great promises; that through these ye may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped from the corruption that is in that world by lust.

These are saved individuals that the Apostle is writing to.

You quote ch 3:9
II Peter 3:9 says "The LORD is not slack concerning His promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering toward us ,not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance

Seems simple enough huh.......the Lord is longsuffering toward US......not willing that any of US (the saved) perish.

John 6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
John 6:38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.
John 6:39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.

You also quote John 1:12, 13

The qualifier to John 1:12 is verse 13. "Who were born not of....But (Born)of God. God birthed their receiving, their accepting, their coming to Him. It contrasts itself to Jesus' statement about being born again (Anothen (Greek) "from above")in John 3:3

*Forgive me if I am repeating that which has already been said

[ November 06, 2002, 07:36 PM: Message edited by: Scott_Bushey ]

 

Scott..if you're saved how on earth is there a possiblility of you perishing??? If you're of the "ELECT" how are you ever in danger of perishing?? your not. So obvioulsy the Lord isn't speaking about saved people when he says "Not willing that Any should perish"

there are two sets of people taked about..Men(ubsaved)..and us(saved). not willing that Any should perish... Men..(everyman that Jesus died for)

which lines up with what God said in Ezekel:
33:11
"Say unto them, As i liveth, saith the Lord God, I have No pleasure in the death of the wicked;but that the wicked turn from his evil way and live."

By the way what do you do with Verses like
2peter 2:1?

But there were False prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall brig damnable heresies, EVEN DENYING THE LORD THAT BOUGHT THEM.

and Hebrews 10:26-29??

"If we sin WILLFULLY AFTER that we have recieved the Knowledge of the truth, there remaintheth no more sacrafice for sins,

But a certain fearful looking of judgemnet and fiery indgination, which shall devour the adversaries

He that depised Mose's law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, WHO HATH TRODDEN UNDER FOOT THE SON OF GOD, and Hath counted the blood of the convenant, WHEREWITH HE WAS SANTIFIED,an unholy thing, and hath done despite into the Spirit of Grace"

You've taken this out of context.
Here you have God here doing the giving, which if you actually read the context of 6:44 and 45 isnt what you make it out to be..

Jesus said that the HOLY SPIRIT would reprove the WORLD of sin.(Jn.16:8) After all John 3:16 says that God so loved the world that he gave his only that WHOSOEVER believeth on him should not perish but have everlasting life" "Who gave his life a Ransom FOR ALL"..1 Tim 2:6

And that JESUS would draw ALL men. Not the father Drawing all men or giving all men...

Also the will of the Father is "Who will Have All men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. God said that was Good and acceptable in HIS sight! 1 Tim. 2:3,4

[ November 06, 2002, 09:23 PM: Message edited by: shilo ]

 

I don't see any difference there. The word eternal means no beginning or end. It is eternal life to know God and Jesus Christ that He has sent. There is no difficulty there at all.

And as far as Revelation is concerned, are you redefining words such as 'flow' 'every month' and such? These indicate consecutiveness to me...

Where do you get this stuff? I don't redefine 'flow' or 'every month' any more than I redefine the words lamb, lion, locust, dragon, etc. Yet well I know that Christ is not a lamb or a lion. I know that the devil is not a dragon. I know what a sword is, though well I know that Christ is not holding one in His mouth.

These are types and shadows. Not the real things.

I don't know how time is in the creation to come. If you are so sure you know, then great.

I said from the very beginning, that no one knows or understands, but I do know that it will not be a moment by moment existence. Everything in this creation has a beginning. Nothing in the world to come has a beginning, because it is eternal.


Yes, I agree with you that the fact of much is already realized by God, but just as Jesus was the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, but it had to be played out in time, there is a lot about existence outside of our time FRAME which we have no clue about. What will be gone is our time frame;

True.

time as measured by consecutiveness is evidently not gone. I don't understand, nor do I pretend to, but the fact that consecutive actions are associated with the new creation cannot be ignored.

This is an interpretation, and one that does not agree with the definition of the word eternal.