Can Armenian Calvinists Co-Exist?

[Rippon]

And agian scripture does not state He died ONLY for the sheep. And yes we DO have scripture which states His death was for more than JUST His sheep:

According to John's usage of the phrase 'whole world' it constistantly refers to the sinful and unregenerate world.

Rip: As a matter of fact, no. When you bring up 1 John 2:2, you need to cross-reference it with John 11:51,52:"He [Caiaphas -- Rip]did not say say this on his own, but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus was about to die for the nation, and not for that nation only, but to gather into one the dispersed children of God."( NRSV)

Allen, I'm sure you know that the term 'whole world' by John has application to several different meanings. You have admitted that before. Perhaps you need some sleep. John does not 'constistantly':laugh: use the same meaning of the term throughout his writings.

 

[Allan]

God does not accomodate opposites being true.Spurgeon had given an example of some folks not be able to reconcile mans' responsibility with divine foreordination. Calvinists have no problem with that. It's not a contradiction, although many on the other side of the theological aisle think so.

Rip: In response to the above Allen said that both sides have a problem with this. Could you please furnish any evidence that any Calvinist has an issue in proclaiming that man stands guilty and is thus responsible for his sins before the Thrice Holy God? No Calvinist denies the full accountability of man.Document your charge. If you can't do the impossible, then admit you were wrong about that.

Apparently you have problem with basic comprehension skills.

Actually what I said was:

He was a staunch Calvinist

Refering to Spurgeon who was speaking of those tensions.


Secondly, I never spoke specifically regarding anything you are claiming I said.
I was speaking of the tensions in scripture, you are adding a great deal to what I posted.

I said Calvinists agree there are 'tensions' in scripture and Spurgeon was such Calvinist but for another who is current and one we all know - TCGreek amoung others.

Or here (Center for Reformed Theology and Apologetics):

This doctrine does not rule out, however, man's responsibility to believe in the redeeming work of God the Son (John 3:16-18). Scripture presents a tension between God's sovereignty in salvation, and man's responsibility to believe which it does not try to resolve. Both are true -- to deny man's responsibility is to affirm an unbiblical hyper-calvinism; to deny God's sovereignty is to affirm an unbiblical Arminianism.

Or here (at Monergism):

"Let us arose ourselves to the sternest fidelity, labouring to win souls as much as if it all depended wholly upon ourselves,
while we fall back, in faith, upon the glorious fact that everything rests with the eternal God."
- C.H. SPURGEON


The great error to be found in both Hyper-Calvinism and Arminianism is the neglect one side of the word of God. They each tend to reject the twin biblical truths that go together: that God's will is sovereign and effectual in the salvation of men AND that man is responsible to believe the gospel. In contrast to these extremes, classic evangelical Calvinism has always taught that while repentance and conversion are the resulting and effectual work of the Holy Spirit alone, it also heartily proclaims the duty of all men to repent and be converted. Like the above quote by Spurgeon, we must all hold these truths in the appropriate biblical tension.
...
We conclude that a truly biblical Calvinism must never cease to be evangelistic and we must always hold in tension the equal biblical truths that God desires all men to turn and be saved, together with the truth that those who are saved receive salvation because of the grace of God alone and not because of some virtuous choice we make or good He sees in our actions (John 1:13).

Or here concerning Danny Akin discussing the tensions from "Founders Ministries":

Danny Akin’s discussion of “God’s Purpose of Grace” gives a frank warning about extremes. Some Calvinists can be extreme and thus unresponsive to the evangelistic realities of Scripture and obvious human need. Some non-Calvinists can be simplistic and dismissive of the clear scriptural warrant for dealing honestly with such biblical ideas as election, predestination, human inability, and implications of divine sovereignty. He discussed the tension involved in divine sovereignty and human responsibility, gave a brief outline of the “Five Points,” and delivered a biblical and pastoral defense of “Eternal Security/Perseverance of the Saints.” He pointed to Charles Spurgeon as one who maintained a proper emphasis on both divine sovereignty and human responsibility (42–53).

To name just a few

 

[Allan]

What's a Pelganian? Whatever it is,I'm sure I'm not one. Allan, you have to admit that your theology veers toward the Arminian side of the equation.This is especially evident since you think Christ died for the goats as well as the sheep.That is far from a Calvinistic understanding of Christ's cross-work.

IF that were all that made one Calvinistic then yes. But that is not all.
And actaully I lean more toward a Calvinistic bent

 

[Allan]

Rip: As a matter of fact, no. When you bring up 1 John 2:2, you need to cross-reference it with John 11:51,52:"He [Caiaphas -- Rip]did not say say this on his own, but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus was about to die for the nation, and not for that nation only, but to gather into one the dispersed children of God."( NRSV)

So you believe that Christ's death was for the whole nation (all the Jews)? Then you believe everyone who is Jewish is to be saved since He was to die for them all?? It does not say for some of those IN that nation and in other nations but specifically states FOR THE Nation, and not THAT Nation ONLY..

Remember the sacrifice was for ALL of Israel but not ALL of Israel was saved because of the sacrifice. It could only be applied to the people by or through faith.

You have to do A LOT of twisting the scriptures to make it say some of those in the nations when it specifcially says He was to die for that nation and not for that nation only. A nation is an all inclusive term regarding all of a certain people.

Allen, I'm sure you know that the term 'whole world' by John has application to several different meanings. You have admitted that before. Perhaps you need some sleep. John does not 'constistantly':laugh: use the same meaning of the term throughout his writings.

Actually it doesn't but to be on the safe side let's look at how John uses the phrase "whole world" shall we
Here is every time the phrase is used by John:

1Jo 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for [the sins of] the whole world.

1Jo 5:19 [And] we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness.

Rev 12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

Rev 16:14 For they are the spirits of devils, working miracles, [which] go forth unto the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty.

Seems pretty consistant.
Whole world = the wicked and decieved (unregenerate) - and NOT all mankind - but ALL unregenerate
And if you like I will even say there can be one other definition seen - Whole World = All people non-Jewish ('all' here being inclusive every non-Jew just as "our" is inclusive of every Jew)

 

[Rippon]

Scripture From The NRSV

And agian scripture does not state He died ONLY for the sheep.

Rip: So, Allen, at the judgment of the nations as described in Matthew 25 we have the sheep and goats contrasted by the Lord. They are separated. The sheep are at the Lord's right hand and the goats at His left . The sheep will go to glory. "Come, you that are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world."( verse 34)However, the goats -- people which you insist that Christ died for, are accursed! In verse 41 Christ tells them to depart from Him..."into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels." We are told in verse 46 that the sheep ( known as the righteous) will enter into eternal life, but the goats will "go away into eternal punishment."

The sheep are the same ones described in Romans 9:23:" ... the objects of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory."

While the goats are described in verse 22 of Romans 9: as "... the objects of wrath that are made for destruction."

Allen, do you deny that the sheep are also known as the Church which Christ purchased with His own blood? Do you maintain that :"Yes, Christ died for the Church, but He also died for everyone else too."?!

Do you deny that the goats are those who "were designated for this condemnation"( Jude 4. See also 2 Peter 2:3 ).

Christ did not die for those He refused to pray for. He did not die for those He did not know. He did not die for those whom He has hidden the truth of the Gospel. He did not die for, pay the sin debt for,propitiate, suffer for, love those who He did not elect before the foundation of the world.Spurgeon and I are on the same page on this. You are on some other page in another book altogether.

 

[Rippon]

God does not accomodate opposites being true.Spurgeon had given an example of some folks not be able to reconcile mans' responsibility with divine foreordination. Calvinists have no problem with that.
Rip : To which Allen replied:"He was a staunch Calvinist."

It's not a contradiction, although many on the other side of the theological aisle think so.

Rip: To which Allen replied:"On both sides you mean."

I think reading and spelling deficiencies are in Allen's realm primarily.

Again Allen, what Calvinists can you cite who have problems with believing that both the foreordination of God and mans' responsibility are both taught in God's Word?"Both sides do not have a probem with these doctrines. But clearly, non-Cals while acknowledging the responsibility of men before the Lord, deny the foreordination of God. Even on the accountability issue non-Cals water it down to a free-willism thingie.

 

[Allan]

And agian scripture does not state He died ONLY for the sheep.

Rip: So, Allen, at the judgment of the nations as described in Matthew 25 we have the sheep and goats contrasted by the Lord. They are separated. The sheep are at the Lord's right hand and the goats at His left . The sheep will go to glory. "Come, you that are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world."( verse 34)However, the goats -- people which you insist that Christ died for, are accursed! In verse 41 Christ tells them to depart from Him..."into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels." We are told in verse 46 that the sheep ( known as the righteous) will enter into eternal life, but the goats will "go away into eternal punishment."

Yes. Do you deny that without faith that which Christ paid for on the cross does nothing for the person? That it is by faith the propitiation is applied as it states in Rom 3:25

Rom 3:25 Whom God hath set forth [to be] a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

Do you deny that the sacrifice in the OT was made for ALL of the nation of Israel and yet not all of the Nation of Israel was saved?

The sheep are the same ones described in Romans 9:23:" ... the objects of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory."

No because Rom 9 isn't speaking specifically about eternal salvation but about the purpose of God for those (the Jewish Nation) whom He did save in contrast against the other Nations.

While the goats are described in verse 22 of Romans 9: as "... the objects of wrath that are made for destruction."

Again, a distortion of Rom 9 to mean individual salvation when Romans 9 is about the Nation of Israel and it's being chosen for God's purpose. Yes, salvation is with in that purpose but it is not referencing that specifically but IS refering to purpose.

Allen, do you deny that the sheep are also known as the Church which Christ purchased with His own blood? Do you maintain that :"Yes, Christ died for the Church, but He also died for everyone else too."?!

Since that is what Scripture says that then both are true.

Do you deny that the goats are those who "were designated for this condemnation"( Jude 4. See also 2 Peter 2:3 ).

Yes. But why were they designated- because they rejected the truth who could have saved them (2 Thes 2:10-12) because God desires all men to repent and come to the knowledge of truth. (1 Tim 2:3)

Christ did not die for those He refused to pray for.

Where do you find that Christ "refused" to pray for someone or a group. What we see is Christ praying for those of His -because- they will remain and go through trials and tempations. He was praying for their encouragement and unity and in that kind of prayer there was no need to pray for the lost world. Yet we do see Christ weeping over Jerusalem, those whom the Lord would have gathered them to Himself if they would have come but instead they rejected Him. Why weep over the lost and condemned whom you have no love for??

He did not die for those He did not know. He did not die for those whom He has hidden the truth of the Gospel. He did not die for, pay the sin debt for,propitiate, suffer for, love those who He did not elect before the foundation of the world.

And yet scripture speaks expressly the opposite of your theological opinion.

Spurgeon and I are on the same page on this. You are on some other page in another book altogether.

I never stated Spurgeon didn't hold to Limited Atonement or that I did. I said Spurgeon agreed there were tensions in scripture and thus it is apparent you and Spurgeon are not on the same page in that (my orginal contention) but he and I are in this.

 

[Allan]

I think reading and spelling deficiencies are in Allen's realm primarily.

Thank you
However childishness seems to be one of yours. -BTW- It's spelled A-L-L-A-N, can't you read it just across from my picture??

Again Allen, what Calvinists can you cite who have problems with believing that both the foreordination of God and mans' responsibility are both taught in God's Word?"Both sides do not have a probem with these doctrines. But clearly, non-Cals while acknowledging the responsibility of men before the Lord, deny the foreordination of God. Even on the accountability issue non-Cals water it down to a free-willism thingie.

I did not ever once state any Calvinist have a problem believing anything, I stated they acknowledge the tensions that are there in scripture. BTW - I cited you 4 of them not including the Spurgeon one already given.

You have a complete misunderstanding of what Non-Cals beleive (much like Skypair regarding Calvimsim). We do not deny God foreordained we just view it differently than Calvinists do.

 

[Rippon]

Rom 9 isn't speaking specifically about eternal salvation but about the purpose of God for those (the Jewish Nation) whom He did save in contrast against the other Nations.

Rip: To deny that Romans 9:22 is about individual savation, and to also deny that Verse 23 of the same chapter deals with individual damnation is a denial of the obvious biblical truth.


Again, a distortion of Rom 9 to mean individual salvation when Romans 9 is about the Nation of Israel and it's being chosen for God's purpose. Yes, salvation is with in that purpose but it is not referencing that specifically but IS refering to purpose.



Where do you find that Christ "refused" to pray for someone or a group.

Rip: In John 17:9.

 

[Rippon]

Rip: So, Allen, at the judgment of the nations as described in Matthew 25 we have the sheep and goats contrasted by the Lord. They are separated. The sheep are at the Lord's right hand and the goats at His left . The sheep will go to glory. "Come, you that are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world."( verse 34)However, the goats -- people which you insist that Christ died for, are accursed! In verse 41 Christ tells them to depart from Him..."into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels." We are told in verse 46 that the sheep ( known as the righteous) will enter into eternal life, but the goats will "go away into eternal punishment."

Rip: To which Allen gives a measured yet mystical reply of :"Yes." Huh? Could you please elaborate for us Allen?

 

[Rippon]

Do you deny that the goats are those who "were designated for this condemnation"( Jude 4. See also 2 Peter 2:3 ).

Rip: To which Allan gives the long-winded response of :"Yes."At least we now know that in his theological maze goats are not designated for condemnation. Allan clearly goes against God's Word here.

 

[Allan]

Rip: To deny that Romans 9:22 is about individual savation, and to also deny that Verse 23 of the same chapter deals with individual damnation is a denial of the obvious biblical truth.

This thread isn't about salvation or Rom 9 or any of the rest of the stuff you keep on about.. however suffice to say Rom 9 is about the Nation of Israel (vs 23 - His people ) and the Gentile Nations (vs 22 - those not His people).

Regarding the thread - (or back to it) There are some who can not be unified with those who are different on some theological points and there are those who can and will continue to do the Lords work side-by-side

Where do you find that Christ "refused" to pray for someone or a group.

Rip: In John 17:9.

this does not state Christ refused to pray for them. Try again.

 

[Allan]

Rip: So, Allen, at the judgment of the nations as described in Matthew 25 we have the sheep and goats contrasted by the Lord. They are separated. The sheep are at the Lord's right hand and the goats at His left . The sheep will go to glory. "Come, you that are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world."( verse 34)However, the goats -- people which you insist that Christ died for, are accursed! In verse 41 Christ tells them to depart from Him..."into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels." We are told in verse 46 that the sheep ( known as the righteous) will enter into eternal life, but the goats will "go away into eternal punishment."

Rip: To which Allen gives a measured yet mystical reply of :"Yes." Huh? Could you please elaborate for us Allen?

Why? I agree.

 

[Allan]

Do you deny that the goats are those who "were designated for this condemnation"( Jude 4. See also 2 Peter 2:3 ).

Rip: To which Allan gives the long-winded response of :"Yes."At least we now know that in his theological maze goats are not designated for condemnation. Allan clearly goes against God's Word here.

No. I just didn't earse the 'yes' which was part of another responce I began when I say that question. I do agree the goats are those who will be condemned.

 

[Allan]

I'm out of the back and forth on this one Rippon because we are going way off topic here, so how about we get back to the OP.

The fact is there are those (cal's and non-cals) who will work together for the glory of the Lord and those who refuse to.

 

[Rippon]

Allen, do you deny that the sheep are also known as the Church which Christ purchased with His own blood? Do you maintain that :"Yes, Christ died for the Church, but He also died for everyone else too."?!

Rip: To which Allan says:"Both are true." No,the Bible does not deal in the nonsensical. The Church is distinguished from the world constantly in the Scripture. Shame on you.Why would Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, take the time and trouble to specifically mark out delineations between the world and the Church if the Church is really a meaningless term. Christ died for the Church Paul is saying in your unsytematic theology, but really He died for everyone else also.

The same thing applies to the sheep. It is sheer nonsense for Christ to speak of the sheep as if they really aren't significantly diferent from the goats. Christ laid down His life for the sheep -- but hey, lump in the goats too. So in Allan's distorted thinking Christ may as well be a goat-herder. There is no big deal in that He referred to Himself as the good Shepherd. Away with such inanity! A shepherd herds sheep -- not goats too!

 

[Rippon]

BTW- It's spelled A-L-L-A-N, can't you read it just across from my picture??

Rip: O, I made a mistake. Is it pronounced any differently than 'Allen'? It's sort of the same level of difference between 'Cindy' and 'Cindi'.


I did not ever once state any Calvinist have a problem believing anything, I stated they acknowledge the tensions that are there in scripture.

Rip : You said that people on both sides have problems reconciling the responsibility of man with God's foreordination. I say that Calvinists have no such problems.Do you get it now?

You have a complete misunderstanding of what Non-Cals beleive (much like Skypair regarding Calvimsim). We do not deny God foreordained we just view it differently than Calvinists do.

Rip: A "complete misunderstanding"?! So I have an absolutely wrong understanding totally devoid of any semblance to their belief system?! Wow! Are you really sure?

You certainly do have a different understanding of God's foreordination. You believe in Divine forsight of faith. And that messed-up notion of yours impacts the doctrine of Total Depravity. You don't really believe in it. Man retains some power in your thinking.

 

[Allan]

Allen, do you deny that the sheep are also known as the Church which Christ purchased with His own blood? Do you maintain that :"Yes, Christ died for the Church, but He also died for everyone else too."?!

Rip: To which Allan says:"Both are true." No,the Bible does not deal in the nonsensical.

Your right it doesn't.

The Church is distinguished from the world constantly in the Scripture.

I agree, so you are the one with the problem - not me when scripture states He is the propitiation for our sins and not ours only but the sins of the whole world

Why would Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, take the time and trouble to specifically mark out delineations between the world and the Church if the Church is really a meaningless term.

Good question for you to answer in relation to Christ propitiation being for the not ours only but the whole world. But that is just one.

So in Allan's distorted thinking Christ may as well be a goat-herder.

And of course you can't have any kind of conversation with Rippon without the consistant insults and put-downs that fall tirelessly from his keyboard.

anyway - back to the OP.

 

[Allan]

Rip : You said that people on both sides have problems reconciling the responsibility of man with God's foreordination. I say that Calvinists have no such problems.Do you get it now?

Again WRONG! Please quote where I have said "that people on both sides have problems reconciling the responsibility of man with God's foreordination. " No where. I have spoken of the tensions in scripture and shown where Calvinist DO say so.

You certainly do have a different understanding of God's foreordination. You believe in Divine forsight of faith.

See, I told you that you don't have a clue most specifically as to what I believe. No I nor most of the Non-Cals I know hold to such. There are those who do but there are those who don't hold to the 'forsight' argument.

Now can we get back to the OP>>>>

 

[Rippon]

So in Allan's distorted thinking Christ may as well be a goat-herder. There is no big deal in that He referred to Himself as the good Shepherd. Away with such inanity! A shepherd herds sheep -- not goats too!

I repeat: Why does Christ refer to Himself as the Great Shepherd? If folks like Allan think that Christ died for the goats too, then there is no particular reason for Christ to be known as the Shepherd of the sheep. Scripture makes it abundantly clear that Christ specifically died for His sheep. Christ never said He died for the goats. Christ never said that goats turn into sheep. Christ is not a goat-herder!

The Lord has sovereign discrimination. He places the Church in counter-distinction to the world. He places the elect against the condemned. He puts the sheep up against the goats. Allan is doing some unwarranted mixing where the Bible shows definitive lines of separation.

Christians need to distinguish between things that differ. Scripture tells us very plainly what they are.