Why I am not a Calvinist

Read the ENTIRE chapter, you are taking this verse out of context, the ANY and ALL are the elect of God.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pioneer:
II Peter 3:9 tells me that God is not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance. Salvation is for all people not just a select few.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep, reading the Bible and letting the spirit teach is the "only way" to know the "truth".

Limited atonement denies that Jesus die for the sins of the "whole world".

Total depravity teaches that none seek God "on their own", yet the Churches are full of people seeking to enter, saying "lord, lord" but have never been saved.

Predestination denies that a person is justified by "their faith" in Jesus, but by the "luck of the draw" in being Chosen.

It also denies that "Unbelief" condemns a person, again, the "luck of the draw" in being "unchosen".

Kinda make you wonder how they were saved, "luck of the draw"???

 

I'll give an amen to that brother Eph 1:4 and if you are of the Primitive Baptist belief please email me so we can talk in private... Brother Glen

[ December 21, 2001: Message edited by: tyndale1946 ]

 

To illustrate some of the problems with your simplicity in acting as if this solves it, consider the following four interpretations:

1. God does not desire the perishing of the wicked. Here it would be equivalent to Ez 33:11, 2 Tim 2:4. This would be consistent with his moral makeup. Thus it is not referencing his decrees. They are altogether separated. The problem is that the word used here (boulamai) is not the same word used elsewhere for will (thelo). Thus a case can be made that this refers to what is in accordance with his nature, not necessarily what his decree is.

2. It could be interpreted that God has not determined or decreed any to perish. This is arminianism or universalism. The problem is that we are told elsewhere that his decree is not to save everybody. Therefore, we know this view to be false.

3. God has not determined that the elect should perish. Here the "any" in the context is any of the elect. This is the reformed position. The problem is that the tense is wrong for it makes it appear present when it should be past. It also implies that the delay is so that believers do not perish.

4. God is not planning things with a view toward mankind perishing. God is not actively seeking the perdition of the nonelect. He is simply letting them go. This verse is a denial of double of election.

Obviously, 2 is ruled out by other Scripture (interpreting the obscure in light of the clear). 3 is workable but has some problems. 1 or 4 are the best options.

As you can see, it is not just as simple as saying God does not want any to perish; therefore, I am an Arminian. That does not even begin to address the issues discussed in this verse.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>This would be consistent with his moral makeup. Thus it is not referencing his decrees. They are altogether separated. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This would explain alot. God's moral makeup is the reason people believe He would not send people to Hell without any chance for salvation. But that means nothing, because His "decree" overrides that. So His decrees are separate from (do not stem from) His moral character. This is creating more problems than it purportedly solves. Even though giving man a chance to receive or reject Him is constantly portrayed as "weak" and "putting man in control", etc. it is consistent with God's character which led Him to lay aside His glory and die for any sinner period. In all this talk of "sovereignty", people forget this foundational principle. He can accomplish is will through so-called "weakness"
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>God is not planning things with a view toward mankind perishing. God is not actively seeking the perdition of the nonelect. He is simply letting them go. This verse is a denial of double of election.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
But then as I mentioned elsewhere, the use of Romans 9 as the final proof that those who perish are simply "vessels of wrath" contradicts this. If people are "vessels of wrath" as opposed to "vessels of glory" that assumes double predestination.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> God's moral makeup is the reason people believe He would not send people to Hell without any chance for salvation.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is a non sequitur.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> So His decrees are separate from (do not stem from) His moral character. This is creating more problems than it purportedly solves. Even though giving man a chance to receive or reject Him is constantly portrayed as "weak" and "putting man in control", etc. it is consistent with God's character which led Him to lay aside His glory and die for any sinner period. In all this talk of "sovereignty", people forget this foundational principle. He can accomplish is will through so-called "weakness"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This creates fewer problems than the alternative. If God is as you say, then he is at the mercy of man. He could not have guaranteed the sacrifice of his son because in “free will” the soldiers may have refused to sacrifice him; or Pilate may have refused to turn him over; or Herod may have released him; or the Jews may have accepted him. Indeed, to cede his authority would open up the universe to endless possibilities and leave God forever chasing after the whims of man.

God has accomplished his will through weakness. It was the weakness and inability of man through which God is accomplishing his eternal purpose.

I will be the first to admit that I cannot reconcile the infinite perfections of God in my mind. I am perfectly willing to allow God to be God. I do not feel compelled to figure it all out. I do allow Scripture to speak for itself and accept what it says rather than forcing it to say what it doesn’t.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>But then as I mentioned elsewhere, the use of Romans 9 as the final proof that those who perish are simply "vessels of wrath" contradicts this. If people are "vessels of wrath" as opposed to "vessels of glory" that assumes double predestination.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is a potential problem. However, some make a distinction between predestination and election and if you read my post, I said election. Predestination deals with all things that come to pass; election deals with salvation in technical terms. In general terms predestination deals with both. Suffice it to say that the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction are a part of God’s sovereign decree. However, we know from revelation that they have freely and voluntarily rejected God.

I do not see where that is contradictory to anything I have said.

I am a Calvinist because of Scripture. I take it for what it says. I do not approach it with a preconceived notion of what it must say. I do not explain away those things which I do not understand.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>This creates fewer problems than the alternative. If God is as you say, then he is at the mercy of man. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is just the way Calvinists portray it. No non-Calvinist ever says this, but Calvinists always try to force the issue into "either you believe God determined all the evil men do or he is 'at their mercy'".

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>He could not have guaranteed the sacrifice of his son because in “free will” the soldiers may have refused to sacrifice him; or Pilate may have refused to turn him over; or Herod may have released him; or the Jews may have accepted him. Indeed, to cede his authority would open up the universe to endless possibilities and leave God forever chasing after the whims of man. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It was obvious by man's nature that those things woulf happen. This does not address the issue of whether God was the one who CAUSED people to be evil or not. It stands that they were, and they did all those things that fulfilled God's plan.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I will be the first to admit that I cannot reconcile the infinite perfections of God in my mind. I am perfectly willing to allow God to be God. I do not feel compelled to figure it all out. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think the limited atonement/reprobation postulation is an attempt to "figure it all out" (i.e. how God's sovereignty over man and the reality of man's sin and evil fit together). Then Calvinists admit "it is above our comprehension", but still after maintaining such a scandalous idea, to have the last word. But such a position is the result of crossing into what is above our comprehension.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> That is a potential problem. However, some make a distinction between predestination and election and if you read my post, I said election. Predestination deals with all things that come to pass; election deals with salvation in technical terms. In general terms predestination deals with both. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I thought that was a typo, but still,
"double-election" would carry a similar implication, and "double-predestination" is simply the more common term.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Suffice it to say that the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction are a part of God’s sovereign decree. However, we know from revelation that they have freely and voluntarily rejected God. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This chapter is still talking about Israel as a national entity, with Pharaoh and Esau as examples of God's purpose. It is not talking about the eternal damnation of individuals, but rather temporal, hnece the reference to Paharaoh and Esau. A big proof of this that I just realize is that taking this chapter to mean eternal judgment contradicts what Calvinists always say: They accuse the Arminian sentiment of "why God causes them to sin to punish them" to assume man starts out "neutral" when in fact he starts out bad. But Romans 9 is using the analogy of "clay vessels"-- which suggests neutrality! The neutral items are then assigned for "good" or "bad" purposes. It's precisely the use of this passage that raises the sentiment of the "poor neutral vessel" in the non-Calvinist questioner in the first place. But if man is not neutral then this passage cannot be describing man in the sense that he is a fallen sinner. It is describing a neutral aspect of humanity, namely a particular group that was "raised" by God (chosen) at first, but now punished while the gentiles [in the Church] are now "chosen" to fulfil the plan of God. [i.e. "vessels of honor"]
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I do not see where that is contradictory to anything I have said. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
God is still electing/predestinating (whatever) some to destruction, by the process of omission, even though you now deny thiss

 

2 Peter 3:9..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. This chapter speaks of the Lord's return, Peter is saying that the Lord will return when ALL of the chosen ones have been born-again. If the Lord is NOT willing that ANY should perish, then guess what? The ANY will NOT perish. BTW, S Baptist, Romans 3:11, There is none that understandeth, there is NONE that SEEKTH after God. Pioneer, you ARE arminian to the core. Study boys...Steve

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by EPH 1:4:
2 Peter 3:9..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. This chapter speaks of the Lord's return, Peter is saying that the Lord will return when ALL of the chosen ones have been born-again. If the Lord is NOT willing that ANY should perish, then guess what? The ANY will NOT perish. BTW, S Baptist, Romans 3:11, There is none that understandeth, there is NONE that SEEKTH after God. Pioneer, you ARE arminian to the core. Study boys...Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
S.Baptist:

Try to argue scripturally and theologically. Your ad hominem and argumentum ab absurdo add nothing the the debate, and all similar future arguments will be deleted.

[ December 22, 2001: Message edited by: Chris Temple ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by S. Baptist:

S.Baptist:

Try to argue scripturally and theologically. Your ad hominem and argumentum ab absurdo add nothing the the debate, and all similar future arguments will be deleted.

[ December 22, 2001: Message edited by: Chris Temple ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes Sir, everytime I post something that puts your argument in the dirt, you delete it.

Is that the only way you have to answer???

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pioneer:
Because you are a Calvinist you feel the need to interpret the passage to fit your theology. The "us-ward" in this verse is speaking of the general population of the earth. Your interpretation is laughable considering the CONTEXT of the chapter.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How is this different than you approach. You cannot let passages speak for themselves because you must arrive at your predetermined conclusion. The interpretation you are laughing is solidly rooted in the context of the passage, as are all four of the ones I gave above. The determining factor must be analogia scriptura.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by S. Baptist:


Yes Sir, everytime I post something that puts your argument in the dirt, you delete it.

Is that the only way you have to answer???<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You have yet to put any Calvinist argument "in the dirt", and post ridiculous comments and ad hominem arguments which prove nothing. Your "objections" have been answered several times. You just refuse the answers that are found in the Scriptures.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chris Temple:


You have yet to put any Calvinist argument "in the dirt", and post ridiculous comments and ad hominem arguments which prove nothing. Your "objections" have been answered several times. You just refuse the answers that are found in the Scriptures.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Perhaps you can explain why Jesus died for the sins of the "whole world" while God didn't
intend to save the "whole world".

It doesn't seem like Jesus and God were of "one mind" and "one accord", in their purpose,
does it???

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by S. Baptist:
Perhaps you can explain why Jesus died for the sins of the "whole world" while God didn't intend to save the "whole world".

It doesn't seem like Jesus and God were of "one mind" and "one accord", in their purpose,
does it???<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This was answered in several places already. Why have you not read those answers and responded to them??

 

Well then everyone--let's add some hopefully completely new thoughts.

The verse in question shows God not willing for something to happen (someone perishing) when he knows very well it will. In Calvinist thought, he wills the elect to be saved, chose them and decrees them to be saved etc. His will concerning the elect comes to pass. His will concerning the non-elect doesn't come to pass. I know, I know--it's his determinate will and his desired will

But if God has DIRECTLY determined who the elect are, then he has at least INDIRECTLY determined who the non-elect are. Therefore, it's a mockery to consider that God didn't desire for them to perish when in fact by his election he determined they would perish (whether man's volition is held intact or not). It's then also a mockery to consider God's long-suffering because then we'd all ask--what is he waiting for? Just save the elect and fulfill the promise of your coming. Long-suffering has no purpose then. Of course, we know that's not true --because the Bible plainly shows why God is long-suffering and what he is waiting for. He's waiting for others to believe. "..the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation.." verse 15-compare to Romans 2:4-5. Here the long-suffering of God is rejected and therefore the long-suffering represents an appeal to those who will finally reject the Gospel as well as to those who will believe.

Eph 1:4---I'm assuming you feel us-ward refers to the elect who are saved, and the word "any" and "all" refers to the elect that will be saved in the future. But if you would see the context again, you would realize that the all refers to "scoffers" (verse 3), "willingly are ignorant" (verse 5) "judgment and perdition of ungodly men (verse 7). All refers to all, not just the elect. I've said that many times now, yet another scripture passage to prove it.

If these thoughts of mine are addressed elsewhere, then I repent in sackcloth and ashes!!

 

trueliberty,

Yes, the normative meaning of "all" is "all", and literalists would interpret it that way--unless it contradicted their Calvinist presuppositions, which in this case it does, whereby they become contortionists fit for a circus act or dancers of that dance started by Chubby Checker.