My Stance and Does God Want Everyone Saved

[Reformed1689]

Cal

I feel Calvinists are stretching things to make them make sense. If God's sovereignty was so easy to understand then why the doxology of Romans 11? Why not just spell out the one, maybe two, sentences needed in scripture clearly? Instead of leaving us guessing in this forum between two well meaning sides? God's sovereignty applies to our available revelation in the bible. If this is true, then something does not make sense if Calvinism is correct. God has the power to make it plain if Calvinism is true, but He didn't, otherwise this forum would not exist.

Calvinism is plainly true in Scripture. We have already shown your errors in verses and your inconsistency when it comes to exegetical work.

 

[Steven Yeadon]

Cal

Calvinism is plainly true in Scripture. We have already shown your errors in verses and your inconsistency when it comes to exegetical work.

You do have a good point on liking a paradox too much. I will have to reflect on that part of what I am doing because I agree it is inconsistent.

Although, you guys have done little to show the verses are misinterpreted exegetically. Except, you do have the Arminian understanding of 2 Peter 3 nullified since it could easily be the Calvinist understanding.

 

[Yeshua1]

Are not those that hate God going to hell upon death? If they repent like David with Bathsheba, then they may be spared. I think you are trying to split a wire that can't be split.

Point is that you cannot use that passage in Zeck to try to support a spiritual aspect of salvation, as it refers to just physical death due to commited a capital crime in Israel!

 

[Reformed1689]

You do have a good point on liking a paradox too much. I will have to reflect on that part of what I am doing because I agree it is inconsistent.

Although, you guys have done little to show the verses are misinterpreted exegetically. Except, you do have the Arminian understanding of 2 Peter 3 nullified since it could easily be the Calvinist understanding.

Which ones do you want me to tackle? I've already handled Romans. There is nothing there to indicate that God wants every individual saved.

As far as not taking pleasure in the death of the wicked, that doesn't mean he doesn't will the death of the wicked. It doesn't mean he does not receive glory from it. It just means he doesn't get enjoyment out of it like a sick psychopath.

 

[Marooncat79]

I did not read all of the thread, but the central issue for me is this

If God wants all men everywhere saved, then God’s absolute perfect will is NOT being done.

Ask yourself- Is that the God of the Bible? I mean really. If that is how you understand God then the God that you claim to worship is NOT sovereign and NOT worthy of worship.

Read Daniel chapter 4. He made a man to eat grass and live like an animal for 7 yrs and was glorified in doing so.

 

[David Kent]

scripture?

Luke 8:12

 

[Steven Yeadon]

Ok, I must admit that Limited Atonement makes a lot of sense. Especially given John 6. I am being confronted with my understanding of scripture' s entire narrative and metanarrative. I will write more when I wrap my mind around what I understand and why and possible scriptural options.

 

[Marooncat79]

Luke 8:12

Calvinists totally believe that passage

 

[Van]

Once again the obvious is being ignored. God desires all people to be saved. Anyone who denies this simply denies obvious biblical truth.

God does not compel all people to be saved. Anyone who denies this simply denies obvious truth.

Therefore, obviously, God desires all people to be saved "according to His redemption plan" where believers act as His ambassadors begging the lost to be reconciled to God. If a person chooses to truth in Christ fully, and God knows his or her heart, then God is faithful to credit his or her faith as righteousness and places them "in Christ" where they are reborn, made alive, their sin burden removed (justified) and indwelt forever.

There is no paradox, only false teachings.

 

[atpollard]

There is no paradox, only false teachings.

Like Pelagianism.

 

[Steven Yeadon]

Ruminating and study has brought some conclusions to test with you all.

After a lot of study, I arrive at why I am predisposed towards synergism.

First a hard truth. God does not desire all to be saved equally, if His purpose is to save all. This is incontrovertible given scriptures like Matthew 11:23. He will have mercy and compassion on whom He wants.

1. God tempts no one. This is another near-show stopper to me. God made the serpent and did not tempt him or Eve or Adam. He did not program them to fail like computer programs, because that is to author sin and slyly tempt.

Thus, if there is ultimate responsibility in man, angel, and the serpent for sin and God does not tempt anyone nor program them to fail on His accord, there must be choice somewhere in the system. This choice is what makes us responsible.

2. I cannot make sense of God if He chose to be a passive victim of history. He suffered so much with man, Israel, and the world. Why would He do that to Himself? Why be longsuffering? Why regret making man and judge the pre-ancient world with the Flood? When the whole show is predetermined, why such emotional vaccillation and pain in the Prophets, if everything was chosen by Him?

3. Why make covenants? God wills they be broken if fully in charge. So, why make them and from His end break them by pre-ordaining sin?

I have a lot more to reflect on or research.

Now, God could make children of wrath. But why do it this way we call history? It makes no sense to me. God looks deceptive.

Still God's character to me is now scary to my modern sensibilities. Romans 9 makes sure of that. I now worship a God Who has utter sovereign choice. My problems are now not about personal morality or how I want God to be but biblical. Who authored sin?

The real problem is while Limited Atonement makes systematic theology reasonable. It breaks my understanding of the Old testament. My biblical studies is in tatters and needs to be understood through my systematic theology. A scary proposition to me. I came out of liberal Christianity that does something similar when it comes to interpreting the bible in light of theology.

 

[Reformed1689]

The real problem is while Limited Atonement makes systematic theology reasonable. It breaks my understanding of the Old testament. My biblical studies is in tatters and needs to be understood through my systematic theology. A scary proposition to me. I came out of liberal Christianity that does something similar when it comes to interpreting the bible in light of theology.

On the contrary, your systematic theology needs to be understood through the Scriptures.

 

[Steven Yeadon]

On the contrary, your systematic theology needs to be understood through the Scriptures.

My bigger problem is the question that historically splits the Rebaptisers like us. Who authored sin? You have dissolved my personal concern to incorrectly "defend" God's character except for this question of authoring sin.

 

[Steven Yeadon]

BTW where did the Arminians of the last thread go?

 

[Reformed1689]

My bigger problem is the question that historically splits the Rebaptisers like us. Who authored sin? You have dissolved my personal concern to incorrectly "defend" God's character except for this question of authoring sin.

Did God foreordain evil? Yes. We see this clearly in Acts 2:23, but He is not the chargeable cause of that sin.

 

[Steven Yeadon]

Did God foreordain evil? Yes. We see this clearly in Acts 2:23, but He is not the chargeable cause of that sin.

I guess I read Acts 2:23 differently.

Acts 2:23 NASB
23 this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death.

God delivered Jesus into the hands of his enemies and used their sin, yes. Where did their sin originate? Where does sin originate originally?

 

[Reformed1689]

I guess I read Acts 2:23 differently.

Acts 2:23 NASB
23 this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death.

God delivered Jesus into the hands of his enemies and used their sin, yes. Where did their sin originate? Where does sin originate originally?

This may help: What Is Evil & Where Did It Come From? by R.C. Sproul

 

[atpollard]

My bigger problem is the question that historically splits the Rebaptisers like us. Who authored sin? You have dissolved my personal concern to incorrectly "defend" God's character except for this question of authoring sin.

I have no idea if this will be of any help to you at all, but something that helped me was to go back to the analogy of the Potter in Romans and realize that the “universe” revolves around the Potter rather than the pots. The pots exist to serve the Potter ... as a positive example of His grace (with the focus on the Potter) or as a negative example of the Just Wrath that the objects of His grace were spared from (with the focus on the Potter).

Is there any sense in which allowing the existence of EVIL somehow brings GOD glory? (That is a question for you to answer in your own mind. I am not looking for a response.)

Think about Jesus for example. God could have arranged for Jesus to be born rich and treated as a Royal High Priest if God had desired it. So was there some reason for God to choose to be incarnated and live a more humble life associating with the lower classes? Does the evil that befell Christ reveal something about God that brings God more glory and honor than being wealthy and famous and dying a quick death would have?

I believe that EVIL serves a purpose in God’s plan.
You will need to decide for yourself.

 

[Steven Yeadon]

I have no idea if this will be of any help to you at all, but something that helped me was to go back to the analogy of the Potter in Romans and realize that the “universe” revolves around the Potter rather than the pots. The pots exist to serve the Potter ... as a positive example of His grace (with the focus on the Potter) or as a negative example of the Just Wrath that the objects of His grace were spared from (with the focus on the Potter).

Is there any sense in which allowing the existence of EVIL somehow brings GOD glory? (That is a question for you to answer in your own mind. I am not looking for a response.)

Think about Jesus for example. God could have arranged for Jesus to be born rich and treated as a Royal High Priest if God had desired it. So was there some reason for God to choose to be incarnated and live a more humble life associating with the lower classes? Does the evil that befell Christ reveal something about God that brings God more glory and honor than being wealthy and famous and dying a quick death would have?

I believe that EVIL serves a purpose in God’s plan.
You will need to decide for yourself.

I am watching the R.C. Sproul message right now.

Romans 9 is clear God derives something from children of wrath.

22 What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? 23 And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory,

In this case it is the knowledge of the riches of His glory upon children of mercy.

I will get back, I am very odd now it seems, theodicy was a favorite of mine at a liberal seminary. I'll explain my thinking after the R.C. Sproul message.

 

[atpollard]

Arminians are Calvinists. There is such thing as neither.

Its their own boogeyman word to argue how you see things by putting words in your mouth and insisting you believe something you don't.

If your not a Calvinist. Your saved yourself and are a pelagian.

Ask any christian if they saved themselves.


Get down to the character of God on what is his WANT and DESIRE.

Ask a Calvinist does GOD WANT YOU TO SIN TODAY OR TOMORROW? And twist this knife.


Calvinism and Common Sense never go together.

They make God out to be some angry chimp who smashes his Car because he forgot to put gas in it.

Their Gospel is so stupid and simple I could deliver better then Jesus Christ or any apostle in a single line:

"If God likes you than you will be saved, If God hates you then you are damned"

You have no bearing on your salvation, You can't save you, I can't save you , no one can save you. Doesn't matter if you want it or not. Doesn't matter what you do.

Either God loved you before you were even born and you are chosen elect, Or God unconditionally hated you and his love skipped right over your worthless soul, hating you even before you were born.

They can complain how I put it.... but they can't deny its absolutely true to them.

The Smartest Calvinist are like Westboro Baptists and HYPER CALVINIST.

Like if we compare westboro baptist and what part of the theology they got wrong with a Calvinist here, THEY GOT NOTHING WRONG, other then not hiding what appears like an obnoxious attitude.

GOD HATES _______ You can fill that blank with pretty much anything you want it makes perfect Calvinism.

God hates Children, God hates whites, God hates blacks, God hates muslims, God hates etc

It is always refreshing to find yet another example of expert testimony on what Calvinists believe by a self-proclaimed non-Calvinist. Perhaps you could offer an explanation on why you can never explain what YOU believe with the same clarity that you misrepresent what I believe?

How are men saved?