What verses are against calvinism?

That's a rather loaded way of phrasing it, since the early Christians and others in doctrinal agreement with them against eternal security and limited atonement (called today by the term Arminian) did/do believe in election.

I haven't been spending as much time here lately as I had been, so I don't know how much I'll be able to contribute to this discussion. But as a help to those who would, here is the list of verses that Robert Shank refers to as those commonly misunderstood by Calvinists. Perhaps others here (and I, occasionally) could go over them one at a time.

Matthew 18:23-35
Matthew 24:4, 5, 11-13, 23-26
Matthew 25:1-13
Luke 8:11-15
Luke 11:24-28
Luke 12:42-46
John 6:66-71
John 8:31,32
John 8:51
John 13:8
John 15:1-6
Acts 11:21-23
Acts 14:21,22
Romans 6:11-23
Romans 8:12-14,17
Romans 11:20-22
Romans 14:15-23
I Corinthians 9:23-27
I Corinthians 10:1-21
I Corinthians 11:29-32
I Corinthians 15:1,2
II Corinthians 2:4
II Corinthians 11:2-4
II Corinthians 12:21-13:5
Galatians 5:1-4
Galatians 6:7-9
Philippians 2:12-16
Philippians 3:34-41
Colossians l:21-23
Colossians 2:4-8
I Thessalonians 3:1-8
I Timothy 1:3-7,18-20
I Timothy 2:11-15
I Timothy 4:1-16
I Timothy 5:8
I Timothy 5:11-15,5,6
I Timothy 6:9-12
I Timothy 6:20,21
II Timothy 2:11-18
II Timothy 2:22-26
II Timothy 3:13-15
Hebrews 2:1-3
Hebrews 3:6-19
Hebrews 4:1-16
Hebrews 5:8,9
Hebrews 6:4-20
Hebrews 10:19-21
Hebrews 10:32-39
Hebrews 11:13-16
Hebrews 12:1-17
Hebrews 12:25-29
Hebrews 13:9-14
Hebrews 13:17,7
James 1:12-16
James 1:21,22
James 2:14-26
James 4:4-10
James 5:19-20
I Peter 1:5-9,13
II Peter 2:1-22
II Peter 3:16,17
I John 1:5-2:11
I John 2:15-25
I John 2:29-3:10
I John 5:4,5
I John 5:16
II John 6-9
Jude 5-12
Jude 20,21
Revelation 2:7
Revelation 2:10,11
Revelation 2:17
Revelation 2:18-28
Revelation 3:4,5
Revelation 3:8-12
Revelation 12:11
Revelation 17:14
Revelation 21:7,8
Revelation 22:18,19

 

John 3:16 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.

Here's what Richard Baxter wrote over 300 years ago:
"Now I would know of any man, would you believe that Christ died for all men if the Scripture plainly speak it? If you would, do but tell me, what words can you devise or would you wish more plain for it than are there used? Is it not enough that Christ is called the Saviour of the World? You’ll say, but is it of the whole World? Yes, it saith, He is the propitiation for the sins of the whole World. Will you say, but it is not for All men in the World? Yes it saith he died for All men, as well as for all the World. But will you say, it saith not for every man? Yes it doth say, he tasted death for every man. But you may say, It means all the Elect, if it said so of any Non-Elect I would believe. Yes, it speaks of those that denied the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. And yet all this seems nothing to men prejudiced."

1 John 4:14
1 John 2:2
1 Timothy 4:10
Hebrews 2:9
2 Peter 2:1

Here is a very interesting sermon to listen to by David Cloud,
The Calvinism Debate, Who is the Enemy?

 

Southern, "one verse at a time" is the worst possible way to study the bible. Just as we modern folk, in our normal conversations, do not say one sentence at a time, but rather speak to each other in thoughts and not mere words, the Holy Scriptures are written in thoughts. Subdividing thoughts into "verses" came long after the original text was written. About the only verse in the bible that cannot easily have its meaning changed in a stand-alone scrutiny is John 11:35, "Jesus wept". I do not see any other possible meaning for that verse than Jesus wept. Of course it doesn't give the cause, or the length of time, or any other setting description, so one must have the context in order to know that Jesus wept for Jerusalem the beloved City of God.

A study of each thought that opposes Calvinism is appropriate, and well worth the effort. So with that in mind. I offer 1 Peter 1:13-25 in which Peter completely refutes the notion that one must be regenerated before believing, and instead clearly states that regeneration is the work of the Word of God.

It also refutes the notion that man is not capable of controlling his behavior, by clearly stating that it is the mind of man whereby man controls his own behavior.

 

So, It must be true that Calvinists do not read the whole bible. OR maybe that is where they are now, reading the bible so that they can find the truth instead of taking selective verses out of context.

 

Yelsew:

Reading one chapter or verse of the Bible and interpreting it to mean what you think it means apart from the light of what the whole Bible says about that subject is [unwise and a questionable method]. What, will you refute that Satan knows the Bible even better than you or anyone in the board ?

The Bereans set the example.

Neither do the Scriptures you cited prove that spiritually dead men have ears that have been opened until regenerated for these men and women that Peter were addressing are believers already and not about to become believers.

Prove from these verses, without referring to other books, chapters and verse, that they were spiritually dead men who needed no regenerating to hear the Word and understand it and see the kingdom of God.
_____________________________

Moderator's note: Please refrain from those kinds of comments. They are unnecessary.

[ November 25, 2003, 05:02 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

Peter is writing to Christians everywhere and he tells us all that our being born again, our regeneration, is the result of God's Holy Word. It should be clear to you that understanding (hearing} and believing, are all matters of the spirit. For without the spirit we are nothing more than animals who can be conditioned to behave a certain way.

We are spirit, which is the life of the flesh, as the flesh has nothing to offer; and truly, when the flesh dies, it decomposes back into dust from whence we were made. It is spirit where belief resides, where reason resides, where self control resides, etc. It is spirit that when disconnected from God by sin, is considered by God to be as if dead. For it has no relationship with Creator God. But when the spirit takes in the Word of God, and the belief system gets changed by the Word, the spirit becomes alive and receptive to the Spirit which is God. Divine spirit and human spirit can once again commune. This makes the once dead spirit alive in Christ!

The Peter is correct, Faith cometh by hearing and Hearing by the word of God. Faith in God is regeneration!

 

Exodus 30:
11 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
12 When thou takest the sum of the children of Israel after their number, then shall they give every man a ransom for his soul unto the LORD, when thou numberest them; that there be no plague among them, when thou numberest them.
13 This they shall give, every one that passeth among them that are numbered, half a shekel after the shekel of the sanctuary: (a shekel is twenty gerahs an half shekel shall be the offering of the LORD.
14 Every one that passeth among them that are numbered, from twenty years old and above, shall give an offering unto the LORD.
15 The rich shall not give more, and the poor shall not give less than half a shekel, when they give an offering unto the LORD, to make an atonement for your souls.
16 And thou shalt take the atonement money of the children of Israel, and shalt appoint it for the service of the tabernacle of the congregation; that it may be a memorial unto the children of Israel before the LORD, to make an atonement for your souls.


I believe that these are against Calvinism. First, it was for an atonement. Secondly, it was required of each person! And lastly, it was to be the same for either rich or poor.

Salvation is by repentance and faith. It is required of all. It is the SAME requirement regardless of who you are.

 

Yelsew:

Peter is not writing to Christians everywhere. He was addressing the believers of the particular church he wrote the letter to but I do agree that whatsoever things were written by all the writers of all scriptures under inspiration of the Spirit were written for the instruction of believers everywhere.

Now, we seem to be agreed that regeneration is thru God's Word, however, I disagree that it is a result of one's belief. Rather, God having regenerated whom He wishes to regenerate, that person now is able to both see the Kingdom of God with spiritually alive ears.

From reading one of your posts I get the impression that you hold the view that there is something good in man which served as the basis for God's sending His only begotten Son to save man.

Sadly, the scriptures disagree with you. Consider the following:

The spirit, you say, is the life of the flesh, but that is not what the Bible says, either.

God does not merely consider the spirit (or soul) as if dead, it is dead. All mankind is dead in sins and trespasses, unable to submit themselves to God in God's terms and way. They seek to be accepted of God according to their ways, presenting their own righteousness, thinking, as you do, that there is worth in them, otherwise, why should God send His only Son to redeem them ? Well, here's why:

Mercy. That is the reason God saved anyone at all. Is anyone deserving of salvation apart from God's mercy ? No. Not one.

God's mercy is an affront to fallen man's heart and pride because mercy means that he has no part at all, no merit at all, not one iota of participation in the pardon he gets.

The Doctrine of Grace is an affront to humanists, which Arminians are, really, because it shows them to their face that their salvation, if they indeed are saved, is not a cooperative effort, not a joint project, between them and the Triune God.

 

A simple view of 1Peter 1:1 should solve this:

"Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,"

Peter is writing to strangers (Gentiles) scattered throughout these different Roman provinces. By his own writing, it is not addressed to any one particular church.

Can the dead hear? John 5:25 says that the time now is that the dead hear -- notice not the "regenerated", nor the living, but those who are then dead do hear. How do you explain this?

The Bible is an affront to HyperCals who refuse to allow God to state for Himself who He will save and who He will not. If God chooses to say, "Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool," then who are we to dispute it? If it is Jesus Christ who sets the condition in Luke 13:3,5 of repentance, why would anyone dare tell Him nay?

 

Way to go Pappabear! I thought immediately of the first verses of the book, too, where the apostles establish whom they are writing too!

That seems to confirm my belief that Calvinists, and PinoyBaptist overlook very important parts of the bible, in order to establish their convoluted doctrines.

 

Surely you don't think Calvinism says anything different do you????

 

I'm looking into this doctrine and I think in this case just like in every doctrine, there is a balance where one can not go off the deep end with. To me, the logic of predestination makes sense in the fact that God knew and knows everything. HE knows those that choose Him and those that do not. So, HE already knew before who would and who would not. Plus, in looking at it from that perspective, than it is easy to see that if we believe that God is in control, then all things that happen to us is divine, who we meet, how we live, where we were born, etc. etc. and what we will choose.

Yet, when everything is said and done, there still is the cry I believe in God's Heart to all to change their ways and follow HIM.
For I believe that all God's promises are conditional. Consider Ninevah, Hezekiah, etc.

Yet, in the end, we come full circle that God knows the outcome in all things and He is in control.

If election causes a person to think that they do not need to evangelize or witness to others or preach the Word, because it is a said and done issue, then I think they went off the deep end.

In other words if predestination makes a person lazy in their witness, or makes grand assumptions, then I think the view is wrong.

But if we obey God, then we are on the right track.

 

Surely you don't think Calvinism says anything different do you???? </font>[/QUOTE]Unless I am mistaken, Calvinists do not affirm that salvation is conditional upon repentance and faith. You are so much more knowledgable than I, but I had been laboring under the mistaken impression that Calvinists taught that the atonement was limited to only the elect, and not to all men? It is nice to know that you, at least, believe in conditional election and that Christ is the atonement for all men.

*hat tip &lt;/)

 

Quite true. That is because they tend to be more familiar with the writings and reasonings of Calvinists than the Word of God, for which they generally have only grudging respect. I have found that in the majority of cases, when they cite a passage or draw upon an isolated scripture, a little review of the context sets them off and running to their next "prooftext."

*hat tip &lt;/)

 

You're mistaken.

In this area, it appears so, but it is nothing that can't be remedied by laying aside your preconceptions and dealing with the actual facts of what we believe. Careful study of what Calvinism teaches helps to avoid some of the simple mistakes that are so often made. Additionally, being careful to say about your opponent only what he would say about himself goes along ways towards avoiding these misrepresentations. I make it a practice not to accuse arminians of believing something they don't believe. You should do the same towards calvinists. Just because you don't like their position doesn't mean you get to make up their position so that it is easier to refute.

It depends on the question you ask. The efficiency of the atonement (the actual atoning work) is limited to the elect. The sufficiency of the atonement is unlimited, i.e., if God decides to save every single person who ever lived, no more would be required.

As to the first, I don't. As to the second, it depends on what question you ask. All men who desire to come can come and Christ atoned for their sin. The ones who don't come, don't come because they don't want to come.

 

You're mistaken. </font>[/QUOTE]Do you even see how this contradicts this next statement?

As to the first, I don't.</font>[/QUOTE]In the first statement, you claim I am mistaken in believing that Calvinists deny the CONDITIONS of repentance and faith in salvation. In the second statement, you affirm that you believe in UNCONDITIONAL election. Which is it?

 

No ... the only problem is your understanding of it and your desire to paint me a certain way.

Both. This shows that what I said earlier is absolutely true. You do not understand the issue.

Here, you confuse "election" with "salvation." They are not the same. If you knew Calvinism enough to refute it, you would know that. You quite obviously have not done enough study. Get out some theologies and study what people mean when the say "election." Then look up "salvation" and study it. Then you will see why this is not a contradiction. You will see that your understanding is deficient.

 

Gentlemen, It may be quite appropriate to Post the Calvinist definition of "Election" and "Salvation" so that a common understanding can be established.

Please leave out the "personalities" as that does not aid the discussion.

I would be very interested in knowing the definition of 'Election', because I believe God clearly established his elect in the Jews. The entire Old Testament is devoted to God dealing with His elect! That is what the Old Covenant is all about.

The New Testament establishes something new, and sometimes the word "elect" is used. In some of the uses, it refers to the Jews, God's chosen race, and in others it appears to refer to all "believers" that are established under the New Covenant. And, in a couple of instances, the meaning is not clear to me yet.

 

Both. </font>[/QUOTE]I can only shake my head in amazement. It is much like the little kid asked the circus contortionist once -- "Doesn't that hurt?"

Oh, I realize that very well. I was trying to come your way a bit with your terms, unfortunately you want to see the issue only through Calvinist technicalities. I certainly agree that national "election" is different from the individuality of "personal" salvation. Now, so I can quote you elsewhere, Pastor Larry, will you unequivocally affirm the following?

"All Calvinists would agree with me that Calvinism teaches that the conditions of God's salvation of the sinner is repentance from sin and faith in Christ. Without meeting these conditions, no man can come to Christ."

If you cannot affirm it, then please twist a bit more if you can, and explain why not?

No thank you, my Bible will do just fine. There is the major difference in what we believe. For me, my theology is based in God's word, while yours is based on human logic found in theologies and theoretical ambiguities.

Did you enjoy your Thanksgiving today? Did company come over? I think today has been a blessed one for my family and me.