Calvanism Application

[Jerome]

"I am myself persuaded that the Calvinist alone is right upon some points, and the Arminian alone is right upon others. There is a great deal of truth in the positive side of both systems, and a great deal of error in the negative side of both." ---Charles Spurgeon

 

[webdog]

I have read over 15 books by men that claim they are not Calvinist nor are they Arminian. They go on to try to show a new system. 100% of them were Arminian when you read through the smoke. ALL OF THEM.

...in your estimation which makes it purely opinion.

 

[Jerome]

"After awhile, as I expected, they fell to their usual amusement of calling names. They began to say what rank Arminianism this was; and another expression they were pleased to honour with the title of "Fullerism;" a title, by the way, so honourable that I could heartily have thanked them for appending it to what I had advanced. But to say that God should hear the prayer of natural men was something worse than Arminianism, if indeed anything could be worse to them." ---Charles Spurgeon

 

[annsni]

I "assume" you refer to these verses.

Ro 9:15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.

16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.

18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?

20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?

21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

Most calvinist interpret these verses to mean that God created/predestine some people for hell so that God could get "some kind of glory" out of destroying them in front of the saved.

First, Hell was created for Angels, no "image of God" (man) was predestine to hell.

Second, it contradicts God's will none perish.

Third, the "type of vessel" (honor/dishonor) man wants to be is left up to man, a "cistren" (vessel) that will hold Jesus's water (doctrine) or one that won't.

2Ti 2:21 If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master's use, and prepared unto every good work.

Jer 2:13 For my people have committed two evils; they have forsaken me the fountain of living waters, and hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water.

When you interpret these verse within the context of the whole scriptures, you'll find they are an "example/warning" to the lost rather than any "predestination" of some to perish, which would be a contradiction of "God's will".

"Abraham's believed", and "HIS FAITH" was counted as Righteousness,

Man, knowing Good/evil, has the ability to chose between them, same as Adam/Eve, those who choose the Good, (faith) God will save,

There's a purpose in God requiring a person to believe before he'll save, a purpose that doesn't exist under the doctrine of predestination.

Jos 24:15 And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.

"NO PART" of Sin, Man's condemnation, or scripture describing such, can be interpreted as having been "Predestined" by "God's will",

Now read Roman 9 again. :wavey:

Let's go back and read the beginning of Romans 9 that you missed:

"1 I am speaking the truth in Christ—I am not lying; my conscience bears me witness in the Holy Spirit— 2that I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. 3For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh. 4They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. 5To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen.

6But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, 7and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but "Through Isaac shall your offspring be named." 8This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring. 9For this is what the promise said: "About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son." 10And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, 11though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— 12she was told, "The older will serve the younger." 13As it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.""

Not because of anything that they have done - but that God's purpose of election might continue. What does that mean to you? Did Esau have a chance?

 

[webdog]

Let's go back and read the beginning of Romans 9 that you missed:

"1 I am speaking the truth in Christ—I am not lying; my conscience bears me witness in the Holy Spirit— 2that I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. 3For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh. 4They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. 5To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen.

6But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, 7and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but "Through Isaac shall your offspring be named." 8This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring. 9For this is what the promise said: "About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son." 10And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, 11though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— 12she was told, "The older will serve the younger." 13As it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.""

Not because of anything that they have done - but that God's purpose of election might continue. What does that mean to you? Did Esau have a chance?

If it were speaking of Esau...no...but it is speaking of the two nations, and God's election of His people. The lineage of Esau did have the chance to become prosylytes, btw, and serve the one true God.

 

[Me4Him]

Let's go back and read the beginning of Romans 9 that you missed:

Did Esau have a chance?

2Pe 3:9 not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

Did God mean "exactly" what he said here, not willing "ANY"??

Predestination has a "double edges", it's cut both ways.

"IF" good is predestined by God, then "Evil" is also predestined by "Default".

We don't find that in scripture, "man" (Adam) was given "dominion" over the earth, Adam's choice, and man's, made the earth what it is today, full of evil.

Sin is transgessing the known law, God doesn't predestine any to violate the law, that would be against his "Will/Holyness/Righteousness",

God's statement, he "foreknew", what Esau would do before he was born was just that "Foreknowlege", not predestination.

You can read/interpret the statement either way, but a predestination interpretation contradicts other parts of scripture,

Obviously, that won't work.

 

[annsni]

2Pe 3:9 not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

Did God mean "exactly" what he said here, not willing "ANY"??

I don't think you answered my question. IS every person saved? Does anyone perish?

Predestination has a "double edges", it's cut both ways.

"IF" good is predestined by God, then "Evil" is also predestined by "Default".

We don't find that in scripture, "man" (Adam) was given "dominion" over the earth, Adam's choice, and man's, made the earth what it is today, full of evil.

Sin is transgessing the known law, God doesn't predestine any to violate the law, that would be against his "Will/Holyness/Righteousness",

God's statement, he "foreknew", what Esau would do before he was born was just that "Foreknowlege", not predestination.

You can read/interpret the statement either way, but a predestination interpretation contradicts other parts of scripture,

Obviously, that won't work.

You are speaking of double predestination which I do not believe in (in most cases - we can see that God DOES predestine some to evil for His purposes). EVERYONE is going to hell. That's a fact. God chooses to save some. That's a fact. He doesn't choose the others to go to hell - they're heading there on their own.

 

[Jarthur001]

...in your estimation which makes it purely opinion.

humm. Indeed it is my opinion.



Lets see what your opinion is.

1) Election is conditional.
2) Election is unconditional.
3) (please supply a 3rd choice based on the Bible that you hold to).


1) Christ dies for the elect only.
2) Christ died for all.
3) (please supply a 3rd view based on the Bible and you seem to like).

1) grace is irresistible
2) grace is resistible.
3) (please supply a 3rd choice based on the Bible)

1) man is TOTALLY depraved.
2) Man is not totally depraved
3) (please supply a 3rd choice based on the Bible that YOU believe is true).


Or dodge it. Your choice.

 

[gb93433]

Quite a few Calvinists (so-called) don't agree with Calvin 100%...what's the point?

There are many peobaptists who do though.

Many so called calvinists have a buffet theology just like the world which designs its own religion.

 

[GordonSlocum]

I don't think you answered my question. IS every person saved? Does anyone perish?



You are speaking of double predestination which I do not believe in (in most cases - we can see that God DOES predestine some to evil for His purposes). EVERYONE is going to hell. That's a fact. God chooses to save some. That's a fact. He doesn't choose the others to go to hell - they're heading there on their own.

Hi Ann, see there I got it right this time;

Lets say, Ann, that you desire something, a good education for two young people and you have the means and power to make it happen. These two young people have committed the same crime, a very bad crime. You have the capacity, means, and power to show mercy and give blessings to both. You have made your desire known that you desire both to have a good education, but you only provide of one. You decision is not based upon anything about them for they are essentially equal and you have the power and ability to give to each equally, but you don't and you have made it known that you desire both to be educated.

Ann, because you have made it known that you desire both to have a good education and you have the means and power to do it, but you don't then what do you think others would think about you letting everyone know your desire and then not making it possible for both to go by simply doing for both what you did for just one?

Sure it is your money and your power, but you let it be known that you desired both to be educated and only provided for one.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

There are many peobaptists who do though.

Many so called calvinists have a buffet theology just like the world which designs its own religion.

Who are these pedo-baptists?

 

[webdog]

humm. Indeed it is my opinion.



Lets see what your opinion is.

1) Election is conditional.
2) Election is unconditional.
3) (please supply a 3rd choice based on the Bible that you hold to).


1) Christ dies for the elect only.
2) Christ died for all.
3) (please supply a 3rd view based on the Bible and you seem to like).

1) grace is irresistible
2) grace is resistible.
3) (please supply a 3rd choice based on the Bible)

1) man is TOTALLY depraved.
2) Man is not totally depraved
3) (please supply a 3rd choice based on the Bible that YOU believe is true).


Or dodge it. Your choice.

I don't want to get into another spitting match with you, it's really not worth it and grows tiresome...you know my views by now on these matters. Your Red Herring is unnecessary. I simply pointed out it is your opinion that every non-cal author you read turns out to be arminian in your estimation.

 

[Jarthur001]

I don't want to get into another spitting match with you, it's really not worth it and grows tiresome...you know my views by now on these matters. Your Red Herring is unnecessary. I simply pointed out it is your opinion that every non-cal author you read turns out to be arminian in your estimation.

That's no Ford.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

This is one reason I don't post as often as I use to post.

"God desires that all men be saved" has been addressed so many times its not funny. Just read the full chapter and you will get the meaning as a Calvinist sees it. Calvinist are not to "hip" (do they still say hip?) in just pulling one quote out of context.

Ok I'm game. Context:

1I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone— 2for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. 3This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. 5For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6who gave himself as a ransom for all men—the testimony given in its proper time. 7And for this purpose I was appointed a herald and an apostle—I am telling the truth, I am not lying—and a teacher of the true faith to the Gentiles.

1-3 Paul is encouraging Timothy to pray for everyone including kings and all those in authority (not well disposed to christians) Why? Well it pleases God. Makes God happy. Why? Because he wants all men to be saved and come to a knowledge of the Truth. Which is? One God; one mediator between God and men the person known as Jesus Christ(Christ Jesus) who BTW gave himself for All men. Ahhhh. And this action that christ did is a testimony of that very truth. What truth? Well what we just went over and what Paul intends on passing on to gentiles. Does not invalidate God wanting all men to be saved and provided a way if they just choose it.

 

[Jarthur001]

Ok I'm game. Context:



1-3 Paul is encouraging Timothy to pray for everyone including kings and all those in authority (not well disposed to christians) Why? Well it pleases God. Makes God happy. Why? Because he wants all men to be saved and come to a knowledge of the Truth. Which is? One God; one mediator between God and men the person known as Jesus Christ(Christ Jesus) who BTW gave himself for All men. Ahhhh. And this action that christ did is a testimony of that very truth. What truth? Well what we just went over and what Paul intends on passing on to gentiles. Does not invalidate God wanting all men to be saved and provided a way if they just choose it.

Forgive me for being lazy. Being that this is one of four verses that seem to give Calvinism problems, you must understand how many times I have addressed this.

I'm not typing the whole lot, but rather a cut and paste. This guy covers it pretty well. There is a great logic routine that I go through and most on the BB have read my logic on this. Being you have showed you are a man of logic, I would like to run this by you as others yawn. I will address this later as well. We can talk about all of this later tonight. If the thread closes....start a new one.


From this site

1 Timothy 2:4

ESV1 Timothy 2:3-4 This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

Here the "plain meaning" of the text would appear to support opponents of Calvinism. Admittedly, the burden of proof in this case rests with us.

The reformed interpretation of this verse is that "all people" refers to "all kinds of people" meaning without regard for social status, ethnicity, gender, etc. How do we support such an interpretation? Two reasons: first, Paul has a pattern of using the term this way; and secondly, to believe otherwise would require us to believe that Jesus tries and fails to save.

Let's look at Paul's pattern. Here we see it in Titus 2-3 (emphasis added)

ESVTitus 2: 2 Older men are to be sober-minded, ...
3 Older women likewise are to be...
4 and so train the young women to ...
6 Likewise, urge the younger men to be ...
9 Slaves are to be ...
11 For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people, ...
3:1 Remind them to be submissive to rulers and authorities,

Here we clearly see Paul using all people as all kinds of people. It us understandable to see this kind of language in a culture that is so divided by ethnicity, social/economic status, gender, etc. Let's look for more examples since one example is hardly a pattern.

NASBActs 22:15 'For you will be a witness for Him to all men of what you have seen and heard.

Here Luke records Paul's account of Ananias' charge to him. Can "all men" here mean every single person everywhere? Or does it make more sense for this to mean men of every tribe and nation? There are other places where Paul speaks in kinds or categories of people with references to "all."

ESVColossians 3:11 Here there is not Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave, free; but Christ is all, and in all.

ESVGalatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Allegations against Paul take a similar form. In Acts 21:28 is Paul being accused of preaching to every single individual person?

NASBActs 21:28 crying out, "Men of Israel, come to our aid! This is the man who preaches to all men everywhere against our people, and the Law, and this place; and besides he has even brought Greeks into the temple and has defiled this holy place."

Context

In 1 Timothy 2, is there any reason to see Paul as talking about kinds or categories of people? Let's look at the context.

ESV1 Timothy 2:1-4 First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, 2 for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. 3 This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

Now we need to ask ourselves, is Paul urging Timothy to pray for every single person in the world? Every single person in the city of Ephesus? Note what Paul says next, this is the key: "for kings and all who are in high positions." Persecuted Christians here are urged to include kings and high officials (their chief persecutors) in their prayers--a category of people to be included rather than excluded.

More disturbing is the very idea that Jesus tries and fails to save. As James White states in a chapter titled "The Perfect Work of Calvary" in The Potter's Freedom:

In its simplest terms the Reformed belief is this: Christ's death saves sinners. It does not make the salvation of sinners a mere possibility. It does not provide a theoretical atonement. It requires no additions, whether they be the meritorious works of me or the autonomous act of faith flowing from a "free will." Christ's death saves every single person that it was intended to save.1

Can you read Jesus' words in John 6 and come to any other conclusion? Where is there room for failure?

ESVJohn 6:37-40 All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. 38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. 39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. 40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day."

To sum up, in 1 Timothy 2:1-4 we have Paul encouraging Timothy to include the kings and high officials in his (and the church he oversees) prayers. God will draw His elect from among all people, and will fail to save none of them.

 

[Me4Him]

I don't think you answered my question. IS every person saved? Does anyone perish?

If God is not willing for any to perish, Jesus died for the sins of the whole world that they "MIGHT BE" saved,

How many perish as the results of "God's will" that they "MIGHT NOT" be saved??

You are speaking of double predestination which I do not believe in (in most cases - we can see that God DOES predestine some to evil for His purposes). EVERYONE is going to hell. That's a fact. God chooses to save some. That's a fact. He doesn't choose the others to go to hell - they're heading there on their own.

God's "Foreknowledge" of evil people will commit doesn't mean God predestine them to commit that evil, or perish.

Eze 33:11 Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?

Just as God told Israel, there's no reason for you to die, I didn't "predestine" you to die, but you will if you don't turn from your evil.

There's no reason for "ANY" to perish, providing they listen/obey God.

Calvinist read/interpret God's "Foreknowledge" of the future as if that future was "predestine" by God, but that's not the case.

Mt 7:13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:

2Pe 3:9 not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

Between God/Jesus, they have/will do eveything necessary to save every single person, they don't predestine either way, lost/saved, like Israel, people are given the "CHOICE" to turn from their evil and live or die in that sin.

And the reason that "CHOICE" is given to each person is because God can't "predestine/ordain/decree" "LOVE" from a person.

Man, having a choice is at the "heart" of the plan of salvation, and that along "precludes" God's involvement in that decision other than the "CALLING" for people to repent/turn from their evil.

 

[Jerome]

This guy covers it pretty well.

The reformed interpretation of this verse is that "all people" refers to "all kinds of people" meaning without regard for social status, ethnicity, gender, etc.

Spurgeon, on what some Calvinists do when Scripture doesn't fit their "grand theory" [I Tim. 2:4]:

"What then? Shall we try to put another meaning into the text than that which it fairly bears? I trow not. You must, most of you, be acquainted with the general method in which our older Calvinistic friends deal with this text. "All men," say they, —"that is, some men": as if the Holy Ghost could not have said "some men" if he had meant some men. "All men," say they; "that is, some of all sorts of men": as if the Lord could not have said "all sorts of men" if he had meant that. The Holy Ghost by the apostle has written "all men," and unquestionably he means all men. I know how to get rid of the force of the "alls" according to that critical method which some time ago was very current, but I do not see how it can be applied here with due regard to truth. I was reading just now the exposition of a very able doctor who explains the text so as to explain it away; he applies grammatical gunpowder to it, and explodes it by way of expounding it. I thought when I read his exposition that it would have been a very capital comment upon the text if it had read, "Who will not have all men to be saved, nor come to a knowledge of the truth." Had such been the inspired language every remark of the learned doctor would have been exactly in keeping, but as it happens to say, "Who will have all men to be saved," his observations are more than a little out of place. My love of consistency with my own doctrinal views is not great enough to allow me knowingly to alter a single text of Scripture. I have great respect for orthodoxy, but my reverence for inspiration is far greater. I would sooner a hundred times over appear to be inconsistent with myself than be inconsistent with the word of God. I never thought it to be any very great crime to seem to be inconsistent with myself, for who am I that I should everlastingly be consistent? But I do think it a great crime to be so inconsistent with the word of God that I should want to lop away a bough or even a twig from so much as a single tree of the forest of Scripture. God forbid that I should cut or shape, even in the least degree, any divine expression. So runs the text, and so we must read it, "God our Saviour; who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.""

 

[gb93433]

If God is not willing for any to perish, Jesus died for the sins of the whole world that they "MIGHT BE" saved,

How many perish as the results of "God's will" that they "MIGHT NOT" be saved??

2 Peter 3:9, "The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance."

 

[Jarthur001]

Spurgeon, on what some Calvinists do when Scripture doesn't fit their "grand theory" [I Tim. 2:4]:

"What then? Shall we try to put another meaning into the text than that which it fairly bears? I trow not. You must, most of you, be acquainted with the general method in which our older Calvinistic friends deal with this text. "All men," say they, —"that is, some men": as if the Holy Ghost could not have said "some men" if he had meant some men. "All men," say they; "that is, some of all sorts of men": as if the Lord could not have said "all sorts of men" if he had meant that. The Holy Ghost by the apostle has written "all men," and unquestionably he means all men. I know how to get rid of the force of the "alls" according to that critical method which some time ago was very current, but I do not see how it can be applied here with due regard to truth. I was reading just now the exposition of a very able doctor who explains the text so as to explain it away; he applies grammatical gunpowder to it, and explodes it by way of expounding it. I thought when I read his exposition that it would have been a very capital comment upon the text if it had read, "Who will not have all men to be saved, nor come to a knowledge of the truth." Had such been the inspired language every remark of the learned doctor would have been exactly in keeping, but as it happens to say, "Who will have all men to be saved," his observations are more than a little out of place. My love of consistency with my own doctrinal views is not great enough to allow me knowingly to alter a single text of Scripture. I have great respect for orthodoxy, but my reverence for inspiration is far greater. I would sooner a hundred times over appear to be inconsistent with myself than be inconsistent with the word of God. I never thought it to be any very great crime to seem to be inconsistent with myself, for who am I that I should everlastingly be consistent? But I do think it a great crime to be so inconsistent with the word of God that I should want to lop away a bough or even a twig from so much as a single tree of the forest of Scripture. God forbid that I should cut or shape, even in the least degree, any divine expression. So runs the text, and so we must read it, "God our Saviour; who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.""

I can understand why you like Spurgeon so well. However, do you not feel its best that you back your ideas with Scripture? If Scripture did not support my views I would need to change them...right?

So we have 3-4 verse that SEEM to support one idea...and then we have the rest of Gods Word. I have shown why I believe this verse is to be read that way.


Let me as you..... Is all the same as many?

 

[Jarthur001]

2 Peter 3:9, "The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance."

and then we have Cain.