How do Calvinists interpret John 3:16

Interesting - But I never said anything about predestination but that Johns view on Christ dieing for All men changed. Here are some other excerts:

However with due regard to the whole predestination/foreknew/election argument it is one not from scripturally substantiated design but of philosophical extrapilation with regard to texts. It has NEVER been a proven or provable VIEW, since it of itself is not Truth but a view OF that truth. This is why it is still dabated even today with regard to the Immutable truths we ALL hold so dear.

 

Anyone who knows anything about what is called Calvinism, Reformed Theology, or the Doctrines of Grace, knows the above statement is not correct. The doctrines of Calvinism were believed before the life of John Calvin and many Calvinists come to believe in Calvinism apart from studying the works of John Calvin.

 

Granted and I should have been a little more discerning in my choice of words there. My appolgies for I know you are a follower of Christ and His word. But in a sense (and a sense only) you do follow the 'teaching' of Calvin and all those who hold to the same theological bent use his teaching as their standard or with regard to truth. So in this sense you do follow Calvin as his work is the guide for all who hold his view.
John Calvin established as a system of theological construct known as Calvinism.
It was not a systemized theological process until John Calvin formulated it and brought it forth but was in the past a disjointed system (as in not formulated as it is now) of thought that had not been properly set forth and articualated as of yet. Though many Calvinist do not fully follow the whole teaching of John Calvin (which is Presbitarianism) they do hold to its 5 essential elements that constitute the basis of the doctrine he held, known to us as the 5 points or TULIP derived not by him (I don't 'think' he personally would have appreciated people taking bits of his theology and not the whole IMO) but others who studied his veiw. It 'seems' to many that in light of this one is a follower of Calvin to better know God.

True, but they do not hold that God is really offering that salvation TO all, just telling all about it.

I am actaully almost through both his institutes (3/4) and his Commentaries (85%) and I will say some of it is dizzying but I also see much truth as well.
... you'll understand that he doesn't mean by this that God is actually reconciled

I no of no one (non-Cal) who would disagree with this statment.

So then either he is inconsistant in his theology or wrong on some point of it.
As I have shown in just a couple of places in his 'Commentaries" (and yes there are more but I just use these three for now) but...well look at Mat 26 as an example and his comments:

 

That is not technically true. You are a Calvinist because the systematic theology you adhear to was formulated articulately by John Calvin. You are not following Cavlin but are following after his theological teachings OF scripture. This does not make you a worshipper of Calvin unless you hold him as infallible. Though the understanding of Calvinistic principles were known since Augustine, they had no real construct in a systemized view that was studied as a whole until Calvin and is why it named after the man who formulated this system.

I know.

Have studied it, taught it, and even preached on it. What I was showing is that though believers are already reconciled (past tence) God is still reconciling the World (present continual tense).

This is technically incorrect. God commands all to believe without exception (granted and agreed) but without distinction is the part incorrectly ascribed. There is a huge disctinction here as God (in Calvinism) commands all to repent and believe but does not intend on the non-elect to obey because He wont allow them to. God makes some believe and will not make others.

Ok, granted.
2. No, it is displayed for all that God can but is not actually offered but to those whom God Elected (in the Calvinistic sense) If there is no intent to honor this to all whom it is offered then it stands as a falsehood because it is only partially true toward some and not others.

3.Atonment and salvation are not the same thing - Granted in their definitions but they are inseperable in functionality and purpose. You can not have the salvation of God apart from the Atonment but conversly you can not have the atonment without the promise of said salvation. One dwells in the fulness of the other.


IMO you define The Atonment of Christ incorrectly which in turn gives you and incorrect view of the intent and design of that Atonment. IF Christ didn't die and shed His blood for the Elect ONLY then your view of the design and intent MUST take on a new meaning.

 

First off, I NEVER stated that. I simply showed that 13 discribes the event of 12. John wrote what he meant via the Holy Spirit and said what God and how God wanted him to say it. Born in 13 is a direct reference to that which transpired OF God in 12 (He gave the right to be CALLED the Sons of God - Salvation)

Ok - just for the sake of discussion- if the man believing is an excersize of mans will then what is the "WILL of the flesh" that the scripture is talking about??

But... You are correct that men are not born agian of will of Man (which simply means as spoken of in multiple areas of scripture) meaning without God. Man can not save OF himself or by himself, save himself but that salvation is something done by God alone. There in not one non-cal I know who does not affirm this.

Seeing that scripture records this in the prophets as Gods Judgment being DUE TO THEIR UNBELIEF previously, you bet! Yes it was being refrenced in Romams CONCERNING God blinding the Jews so the gospel could go out to the Gentiles. Not that God blinded the gentiles. Which verse are you speaking of in Romans??

Quote:
Jhn 5:24 ¶ Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

You have absolutely NO scriptural support for your contention of regeneration before salvation as it is based on pure philosophy. Especially here! They that hear AND believed have eternal life and will not be condemned. It is all one train of thought in the Greek and in English. They are not born again then hear, scripture does not say, allude, nor infer such. But the latter of the verse contends they were dead and now alive but what was previously stated is that they have ETERNAL Life and not just alive. This is about salvation and before they were given Eternal Life they were Dead.

To my knowledge we have never actually engaged in scriptural references before with regard to this issue. You have always stated this and not given scripture to substantiate it. (but that is to my knowledge at current - I do forget sometimes) Oh - are you refering to John 1:12-13 Please show me your exegsis of those passages which show regeneration before salvation by showing via the literal reading concerning word for word and in allowing the words in context to define themselves and their functional process.

But if not - then what I stated stands without error.

Granted because both refer to salvation and salvation is something that without God man is left with no hope.

You still have yet (nor anyone in Calvinism) to conclusivly show or prove scripturally that regeneration is before salvation. It is a Philosophical view and one that has to be read into scripture holding to presupposition and redefination of terms.

I never said you did, and believe you follow the Word just as I do according to our understanding of the Word and the mechanics of His immutable Truths.

Don't go under the impression I think you are without understanding I just think you have a different view.

 

The Non-Cals call themselves biblicists and have been for as long as I can remember. Will you help us attain that as well??
I will help you if you help me.

 

No, we are a Calvinist because we believe Scripture teaches certain things about salvation. It is true that Calvin’s name was attached to them, but the teachings, we believe, are found in Scripture.

Actually, the principles go back several hundred years to the time of the apostles.

This is patently false. God does not “not allow” some to believe. They refuse to believe. He is more than willing to accept them if they will believe. Furthermore, he doesn’t “make others” believe. They believe willingly because of their new nature.

No, it is completely true towards all. God will honor his command in all who respond.

Correct on the first, not on the second.

What is my definition of the atonement that you are responding to?

No, because I don't think you are true biblicists. I think there are parts of the Bible that you cannot fully affirm. The reason why non-Cals call themselves biblicists is because they do not want to be called Arminians, which is what they really are. As I have previously pointed out, this is binary. A person either believes God unconditionally elects individuals to salvation (Calvinist) or they don't (Arminian). I have pleaded for someone to show me a middle ground and no one has been able to do so.

 

That isn't what I said so why would you act as if it were?

 

If you are alive then it is impossible for you not to metabolize... Is that a violation of your will?

IMO, trying to order it chronologically is useless if not a hinderance.

I think it is more a matter of preeminence than an order in time. Salvation is of God. God is timeless. It seems to strip Him of glory and sovereignty to try to restrict Him by our conception of time.

IOW's, rather than "What came first?" ask "What is first necessary in a cause/effect relationship?"

Hopefully, we can all agree that God is the prime cause of all creation without making Him guilty of every evil that has come as a later effect. By that same reasoning, God can be the cause of salvation for the elect by a special creation of a new spirit within us while bearing no guilt whatsoever concerning those who choose of their sinful nature to reject Him.

 

...and this might be the reason we do not call calvinists "biblicists". We subscribe to the same thought pattern.

To state that all non cal's are arminians in not accurate in the least. I do not believe I can freely come to God...nor "jump out of His hand" at will. To borrow one of your lines..."please learn something" about the non cal position.

Again, you do not represent ALL non calvinist's positions....only one. Are you a 4 or 5 pointer? Are 4 pointers arminians, since techinically all 5 points need to be adhered to in order to be called a calvinist? Are 4 pointers "biblicists"?

...or do you just refuse to see it?

 

Do you know how many different types of Baptist there are? Which Baptist doctrine do you follow? It has been explained to you that we do not follow Calvin, but we do follow Biblical doctrine. I would imagine that you think following "Baptist" doctrine is Biblical?

 

Well Allan, if I provided scripture which in my (and many other Calvinists) opinion makes salvation monergistic, which we have been over many times in the past, it would not change your position. You are synergistic, according to what I think you believe. Is this true? That may be a point in which maybe we could discuss, to determine more about the scriptures we disagree. Please don't ask that I beat a dead horse, lets just cut to the chase here and determine if you think salvation is all of God or if we help Him in the process.

 

The difference is that we are correct on what the Bible teaches, inasmuch as we can explain all the relevant passages, whereas there aer passages that your side simply cannot give legitimate explanations of. That is why we should be called biblicists.

Neither do Arminians. Perhaps you should "please learn something" about the non cal position.

Four pointers are typically actually five pointers by the way limited atonement is traditionally defined. And all five points do not need to be adhered to be a Calvinist. The door hinges on unconditional election. Either you believe it (Calvinist) or you don’t (arminian). Where is the third option.

I am perfectly willing to see it. Please show it to me. Please tell me where you fall between God unconditionally elects and God does not unconditionally elect.

 

No, I just think you misunderstand what Calvin means when he uses the word world and other universal terms. He uses them, as he explains in his commentary on 1 John 2:2, to refer to " the whole church, or to " those who should believe", including "those scattered throughout various parts of the world."

But this is all a big red herring, because what Calvin said about any particular verse or verses means very little to me. I didn't come to my view by reading Calvin, and I never quote Calvin in support of my arguments, so I don't know why I need to answer for what he says, either.

No, God intends to honor the offer to every single person, without exception, who believes.

 

There is no offer of eternal salvation to anyone, not even the elect, and therefore God is not under obligation to honor anyone, or honor an offer because He never made any to anyone.
He saved His people on the basis of His decision to do so, answerable to no one but Himself, and He did not save them without a price. He saved them with His Son's blood as the price.
This is in answer to that part of Allan's post quoted by Russell55.

 

How does that fit with the story of the rich young ruler? He decided that the price to follow Jesus was higher than he was willing to pay. This is in direct contract to the story of Zachaeus who willingly took up the "yoke of Christ."

 

Eisegesis doesn't count

You didn't know that arminians believe they could lose their salvation...and achieve salvation on their own? Wow. You know even less about the non cal position than I thought. What would you consider a catholic to be?

Prove it...

The third option is what most Christmas calvinists hold to...the door hinging on the "L", not the "U".

 

Which is why the arminian position does not hold water. It involves too much eisegesis and too little exegesis. If you show me a passage Calvinists can’t deal with, you will be the first.

Some do. Not all.

Arminians don’t believe this. Arminians believe in total depravity with a prevenient grace that restores the ability to man.

No I don’t. I know more about it than you do, as has been demonstrated for several years. The difference between you and I (among others) is that I have taken time to find out what the other position actually believes.

How is that relevant here?

Limited atonement means that the atonement was sufficient for all (unlimited) and efficient for the elect (limited). If you ask a four pointer to evaluate that statement, virtually all will agree. If you ask a five pointer to evaluate that statement, virtually all will agree. There are some exceptions on both, but very few. I came to realize this several years ago when I was talking to a five pointer. I claimed to be a four pointer. He asked what I meant. I explained just what I said above. He laughed. He said, “You’re a five pointer. That’s what we all believe.”

What happens so much in this discussion is that people misunderstand the question, or ask it in a way that leads to a particular answer without critical examination of other possibilities.

That’s not a third option. That’s a different topic. The discussion of limited or unlimited atonement is a different discussion than that of unconditional or conditional election. They are related, but separate issues. A person can believe in unconditional election and come down on either side of limited atonement. They are Calvinists. If you deny unconditional election, you are an arminian.

So again I ask, where is the third option between unconditional and conditional election? Please don’t try to change the subject (or illustrate you really don’t know what you are talking about by thinking Limited atonement is somehow related to that question).

Seriously, Webdog, as much as we have been through this, why haven’t you learned a few things? As I have often said, you don’t have to agree with us, but at least understand what we believe. It makes no sense for your to continue down this path as long as you have been here.

 

How does the story of the rich young ruler fit with my question to webdog about if he thinks that believeing is an act of the will?

Do you think believeing is an act of the will?

The rich young ruler was not born again of God.

Zachaeus was apparently born again of God. He didn't question at all, since he had a new nature. I think that all believers in the OT were believers much the same as believers are today. They are born again of God. Did Abraham question God or just obey? Seems that there was something different about him huh?