Jesus was a Calvinist?

Still, they are your children.

Bro. Dallas

 

Where the Pharisees of Matt. 23 still God's children?

 

I don't know who are God's children.

Even if you were to see my children you may not know them, unless it was told you they are mine. I do not attempt to determine who is and isn't, I preach the Gospel and let the Spirit call those who God has given to Christ.

Bro. Dallas

 

Dallas, you're avoiding the issue here.

Read Matt. 23 and tell me based upon the fruits of his audience and the words that he speaking if you think they are Children of God, and why.

 

I think John 17 is a case of calvinists taking a passage of scripture and making it mean more than (other than) what it says by emphasizing the statements that agree with their theological system and de-emphasizing others.

Clearly, two theological truths are presented in 17:1-3. First, it is clear that God is sovereign. Second, it is clear that God chooses men to salvation. I deny neither of these.

However, let me show you how calvinism overstates these concepts and comes to false conclusions. Of the five points of calvinism, T U L I P, I detect only two of the points being addressed here: U and L.

So does John 17 teach Unconditional Election? Well, in verse 2, Jesus says "...to give eternal life to all whom you have given him." UH OH, sounds like non-calvinists are in trouble. But wait a minute, look at verse 20 where Jesus says "I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me..." Salvation is according to God's election, but it is also by man's faith. Both sides are presented in these verses. Calvinists emphasize the one that fits their theology and make it triumph over the other. This emphasis does not reflect what is being said in the text.

What about Limited Atonement? Many calvinists (perhaps they are moderate calvinists?) say that Christ's death is sufficient for all but efficient only for the elect. I would add to that statement that salvation is available to all but received only by those who believe. This statement reflects the theology of John just as well as the first since both election and faith are seen as necessities in the passage.

 

So? Obviously, Jesus is referring to those given to Him who are not in the room where He is speaking. You have grasped at a straw and it has fallen through your hand.

Salvation is totally the work of God. It is not, as the false teaching of Arminianism states, partly by the effort of God and partly by the effort of man.

 

Ken the Spurgeonite,

Jesus was falsely accused, and falsely convicted of blasphemy, a sin. Jesus was not made to be sin, only the appearance of sin based upon those false charges. Therefore, Jesus was crucified totally innocent of any sin whatever. In that innocence (the spotless lamb of God) His death on the cross atoned for the sins of the guilty...all mankind, in the same manner as the sacrifices for the atonement of sin in the Old Testament. This was prophesied by Isaiah, and in accordance with God's plan of redemption from the foundation of the world.

If you expect me to feel sorry for a dying man on a cross, sorry to fail you. I am on my knees in awe of God's magnificent plan to redeem sinners like myself. He does not want us to concentrate on his death, because all mankind must die once and then the judgment. He wants us to concentrate on his resurrection, which we celebrate this coming week. For by it, he demonstrated his power over death. He demonstrated that he has the power to save mankind. The only thing he does not do is save those who do not believe in Him or his Father.

As for making him sin so that he would die, you are sadly mistaken, He died sinless! The worthy lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world.

[ April 14, 2003, 01:14 AM: Message edited by: Yelsew ]

 

How did he take away the sins of the world?

I have no dispute with you that he died sinless, nor would Ken, but yet you must agree He was made our scapegoat to carry away those sins, or else you and I and all others have a surprise coming, that we too must tread the winepress of the wrath of God, and Is. 63 will teach us what happens to man if he attempts this.

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

 

Did the old testament animal sacrifice for sins take away the sins? No, but the blood of the animal represented the payment God demanded for sin. The animals were substitutionary for the one who offered the sacrifice. Those Sacrifices were the forerunner of Jesus willing sacrifice. Jesus blood is the substitute for our own blood. The penalty for sin is paid for us. Jesus death on the cross does not save us, our belief in Jesus saves us, and his payment for our sins makes it possible for us to escape the penalty due us for our sins. Those who do not believe in Jesus do not believe in his blood or his atonement for sin.

You agree that he was sinless. Yet you stated that he was made sin! That does not compute! He died sinless in order to complete the work of the father which is the establishment of ALL the parameters necessary for the redemption of sinful man, his creation. Once again, Atonement does not equal belief in Jesus!

 

Once again, Atonement is a covering, and depending upon the voice in which it is used it denotes "a covering"; "to cover"; and the need to "cover".

Why does the Bible say that whosoever is hung on a tree is cursed; why does the Bible say he became sin; I agree that the life is in the Blood, but it is as the O.T. figure shows in the scapegoat that He carried away the sin of the World.

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

 

First you ignore the clear wording of the text.

Then you assert your position with no proof.

Typical.

The straw that is breaking the back of the calvinist camel!

 

Swaimj, I especially enjoyed your two last posts on this thread. Your arguments were very clear and to the point and still go unrefuted. I would like to repost the parts I particularly liked:

Oh, I guess that was all of it.

Hey, prepare yourself for Larry to pop in and tell you that your views have no support from modern scholarship.

 

Come one now ... even from where you are graduating from you should know better. No CAlvinist denies the necessity of belief, even though some over there would like to paint that picture. We agree with what you have said. We do not believe that you agree with what you have said, since you appear to deny unconditional election, which SCripture clearly teaches (Eph 1; John 6; 2 Thess 2; etc.).

As for Bill's comments about modern scholarship, he is trying to place you in teh same category he is in. He has been unable or unwilling to give us anyone besides himself to read. I know where your views can be found. Bill seems to be making his up. Don't let him fool you with his accusations.

Again, no Calvinist would disagree with this. You have apparently reacted against something you don't understand. We do not deny this. We completely and absolutely affirm these statements.

This is the confusing part to me: You use our arguments in support of your view, as if we disagree. I don't get that at all.

 

He never said you denied the necessity of belief, he said you emphasis one side to trump over the other. He is right.

I already told you one source where my views are supported, you ignored it just like you did Swaimj's post.

Swaimj pointed out one of the same principles I pointed out which was the emphasis in the first part of John 17 is different than in the second part. If you have any ability of perception you will also see that the referents are different as well, which is a significant point you would like to over look because it doesn't support your view.

 

Once again, Atonement is a covering, and depending upon the voice in which it is used it denotes "a covering"; "to cover"; and the need to "cover".

Why does the Bible say that whosoever is hung on a tree is cursed; why does the Bible say he became sin; I agree that the life is in the Blood, but it is as the O.T. figure shows in the scapegoat that He carried away the sin of the World.

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas </font>[/QUOTE]Is that "coverage" like life insurance or "a get out of jail free card". Life insurance does the covered no Good, because the covered must die for the policy to pay. The get out of Jail free card does not work either, because that is what salvation does. Atonement is not salvation!

So atonement Coverage must apply to sin only. Atonement applies to all mankind. Since the sins of all mankind are atoned for by the Death of Jesus, that leaves only one thing for Salvation, and that is belief in Jesus, the Son of God, the Messiah. It is by such belief that one's name is written in the Lambs book of Life. It is by such belief that one's spirit is transformed so that when judged, the believer is not cast into the lake of fire.

 

Pastor Larry, here is the original statment of superdave on this thread in reference to John 17:

superdave makes these statements and entitles them "Jesus was a Calvinist" or something. In the first paragraph, I agree. I think he said basicly what I said, though he did not explain it from the text. The second paragraph I agree with, except I would simply state that God has sovereign control. Control is either sovereign or it is not. When calvinists add adjectives to describe sovereignty, I think it is indicative of the fact that they are overstating what it means. I simply attempted to go into the context and look at several elements that are in the text and show that different aspects are in view, not just sovereignty.

Let me respond directly to some of your statements.

That's an irresponsible remark, Pastor Larry. Discuss the issues, not the people who hold them.

Still there is an issue of whether faith is neccesary for salvation or whether it is the result of salvation. I showed from the text of John 17 that both faith and sovereignty are involved and I showed why they are equal rather than being in an heirarchy. Are you saying you agree with that? If so, I think we have resolved our differences, at least on that issue.

I realize that the first statement is a calvinist formula. Frankly, I think calvinists speak out of both sides of their mouth on this issue. They argue vociferously that Christ died only for the elect, yet when pressed they back off and state his death was also sufficient for all men. As to the second statement I made, I have never seen a calvinist say that in print to my knowledge. If you can cite it, I'll look it up and read it.

 

Here is Charles Hodge, from his systematic theology.

I think this is a pretty clear statement that "salvation is available to all but received only by those who believe."

I hope that helps.

 

What a classic Christian position! You must believe to be saved! Whosoever believeth....You know the rest!

If Calvinists don't believe that, it's little wonder their Christianity comes under question.

 

Russell55,
Thanks for the post. I agree with what was said. It was, to borrow a phrase "fair and balanced". From the posts I have read by calvinists on this board, I don't think some of them are aware that this is the calvinist position. Perhaps you could point this out to them the next time they overstate their case.

 

He was wrong. We do not allow one to triumph over the other. That is simply wrong. We believe both.

Where?? I didn't see it. I saw you cite someone who is over 400 years dead. That is not a contemporary author, which is what I asked for.

I hardly think so. I haven't overlooked anything. You are simply unwilling to deal with the text. Not surprising, but disappointing that after all this time you are not any closer to dealing with the text.