so, who is the majority here

[npetreley]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
...where "World" in that context is NOT defined as "The Arbitrarily select FEW of Matt 7".]

Why do you keep inserting that word into Calvinism? Do you honestly believe that Calvinists know why God chooses one over another, and that they have discovered that the process is purely arbitrary?

 

[Charlie T]

5 pt Calvinists DO limit the term "world" in John 3:16 to - just the FEW of MAtt 7 - arbitrarily select by Sovereign God.

"Few"?

Here is what Spurgeon said:

The Father's love is not for a few only, but for an exceeding great company. "A great multitude, which no man could number," will be found in Heaven. A man can reckon up to very high figures; set to work your Newtons, your mightiest calculators, and they can count great numbers, but God and God alone can tell the multitude of His redeemed. I believe there will be more in Heaven than in hell. If anyone asks me why I think so, I answer, because Christ, in everything, is to "have the pre-eminence," and I cannot conceive how He could have the pre-eminence if there are to be more in the dominions of Satan than in Paradise.

"Arbitrarily selected"?

I think Paul anticipated such protest in Romans 9

14 What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be!
15 For He says to Moses, "I WILL HAVE MERCY ON WHOM I HAVE MERCY, AND I WILL HAVE COMPASSION ON WHOM I HAVE COMPASSION."
16 So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy.
17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "FOR THIS VERY PURPOSE I RAISED YOU UP, TO DEMONSTRATE MY POWER IN YOU, AND THAT MY NAME MIGHT BE PROCLAIMED THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE EARTH."
18 So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires.
19 You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?"
20 On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, "Why did you make me like this," will it?
21 Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use?
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

I understand why some reject Paul's doctrine, but in fact it is a type of rebelling against God's Sovereignty.

Charlie

 

[Eric B]

No one here reject's Paul's doctrine. Some just notice the context of that passage is not talking about people being passed over for final salvation, which is what people "protest".

 

[Charlie T]

Eric,

The context is God loving Jacob and hating Esau before they were ever born. The context is God hardening Pharoah's heart. It seems to me that the context is exactly God choosing some and not choosing others. Choosing to "final salvation".

In my opinion that is.

Charlie

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Charlie T:
Eric,

The context is God loving Jacob and hating Esau before they were ever born. The context is God hardening Pharoah's heart.

Charlie

Close. But not really. Look at where "Jacob I loved, Esau I hated" comes from. Paul is referring to God's cry about the love and hate of Israel and Edom. I hope that clears some things up for you. Romans 9 doesn't say anything about GOd loving and hating someone before they were born. Read the rest of Malachi to understand WHY God hated Malachi...

 

[Primitive Baptist]

ScottEmerson, since all us "Calvinsts" are having a hard time "rightly dividing" Romans 9, maybe you could show us the word of God more perfectly. It clearly says, "Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated."

 

[Eric B]

The context is God loving Jacob and hating Esau before they were ever born. The context is God hardening Pharoah's heart. It seems to me that the context is exactly God choosing some and not choosing others. Choosing to "final salvation".

That us not the [whole] context. It is itself a point Paul makes that is apart of a bigger context that is being glossed over when people quote/cite only v.11-24 to prove reprobation/preterition. Jews thought they were saved by inheritance and works of the Law, while the gentiles were dogs whom God didn't even care about; yet as Paul shows, many of them were not saved, and in fact, Israel in general was being "hardened" (God was removing some of His light for the time being) so grace could be opened up to the gentiles, not so that particular individuals could be singled out for inescapable damnation (which is not the point anyway)
The choice of the Israelites for one role in God's plan and the gentiles for the other is what the Jacob/Esau and Pharaoh references were corresponding to.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
...where "World" in that context is NOT defined as "The Arbitrarily select FEW of Matt 7".]

npetreley
Why do you keep inserting that word into Calvinism? Do you honestly believe that Calvinists know why God chooses one over another, and that they have discovered that the process is purely arbitrary?

Indeed they have. The claim is that "there IS NOTHING about you that recommends YOU to God for selection over the person next to you". God is not "selecting you because YOU are better, or because You show more promise, or because of ANYTHING about you" - rather it is HIS sovereign CHOICE alone without ANY consideration of who you are, or what you might do, or who you know, or what family you live in - nothing about you determines the choice.

Oh - yes BTW - that is how I am defining the term "arbitrary selection".

I mean to emphasize the "nothing about you" point of their teaching on the "FEW" of Matt 7.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Scott
Look at where "Jacob I loved, Esau I hated" comes from. Paul is referring to God's cry about the love and hate of Israel and Edom. I hope that clears some things up for you. Romans 9 doesn't say anything about GOd loving and hating someone before they were born. Read the rest of Malachi to understand WHY God hated (Edom/Esau...)

Right on target as usual.

As pointed out on "Hardening the Heart" --

God Loves ALL and is not willing for ANY to perish but for ALL to come to Repentnce. HARDENING the heart on God's part is in the Jer 5:3 process of Loving and Drawing the wicked to Himself and then when thye "refuse correction" the result is hardening the heart against God.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

9 For this is the word of promise: “AT THIS TIME I WILL COME, AND SARAH SHALL HAVE A SON.”

Really good example of foreknowledge here - but a real Calvinist problem since God willed Sarah to have a child and was apparently ALSO willing Sarah to laugh at God over it at the time. Obviously Sarah did NOT of her own free will choose such a thing in the model of Calvinism - since she never had free will to begin with (according to Calvin). At each turn so far - Cavlinism is frustrated by the points highlighted.

10 And not only this, but there was Rebekah also, when she had conceived twins by one man, our father Isaac;
11 for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God’s purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls,
12 it was said to her, “THE OLDER WILL SERVE THE YOUNGER.”

Good example of God knowing the future. Although I am sure some Calvinists would point this out as God arbitrarily picking Jacob without any reference to the actual choices for obedience vs rebellion in the two men. However the text itself only deals with relationship between the two brothers - not good vs evil or love-vs-hate. The mother is told which Son will be dominant - which one will have the blessing.

13 Just as it is written, “JACOB I LOVED, BUT ESAU I HATED.”

Interesting quote of Malachi AFTER both Jacob and Esau were dead and the history of Rebellion was fully manifest in Esau's descendants (and referenced in that chapter).

Would have worked MUCH better for Calvinism if that quote had come from something said before the twins were born, as if God has ALREADY decided to hate Esau arbitrarily (instead of not wishing for any to perish but for ALL to come to repentance). But that is not the source of the quote

Instead of quoting a pre-birth event for Esau in the book of Genesis - Paul is speaking of the case in Malachi regarding the DESCENDANTS of Esau and Jacob - EDOM and Israel. He shows who each of them has played out their own rebellion or obedience toward God - and then how that has translated into their history. Rather than a pre-birth condemnation of Esau - this is a post-Nation evaluation of the History of two nations in Malachi 1:1-5

Paul appeals to the nature of the fact that God showed past-tense his actions toward the descendants of Esau who were in constant rebellion - and the descendants of Jacob.

In Christ,

Bob

[ December 15, 2002, 10:11 PM: Message edited by: BobRyan ]

 

[Pete Richert]

Obviously Sarah did NOT of her own free will choose such a thing in the model of Calvinism - since she never had free will to begin with (according to Calvin). At each turn so far - Cavlinism is frustrated by the points highlighted.

I'm not even really a Calvinist and I can tell you that is not what they believe. Sarah, under Calvinism, did have free will. She had the free will to sin and she did exactly that.

 

[Lone Pilgrim]

I voted "a Calvinist", yet I believe Baptists predate Calvin. That's the main reason I would also say that I'm not a Protestant. Many say that I'm a Primitive Baptist, but I don't identify with the Old-Line limited predestinarians, believing rather that God is sovereign in all things. I try to witness every day, but in reality I'm more of a Hyper-Calvinist than anything else, an Old School Sovereign Gracer.

 

[Pete Richert]

Calvinism is just the label we assign to the beliefs because Calvin was a major figure of late who wrote about them. They were believed by many before him including Augustine, and (if they are correct) Paul, Peter, John, and Jesus. Calling yourself a calvinist does not mean the belief does not predate calvin anymore then calling yourself a fundlementalist means your beliefs do not predate this century.

 

[BobRyan]

Bob5 pt Calvinists DO limit the term "world" in John 3:16 to - just the FEW of MAtt 7 - arbitrarily select by Sovereign God.

Charlie T
"Few"?

Here is what Spurgeon said...

Here is what Christ said about the FEW..

Matt 7

13 "" Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it.
14 ""For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it.
..
20 ""So then, you will know them by their fruits.
21 "" Not everyone who says to Me, "Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter.

It is Christ the divides mankind into two groups at the end of time. And He says that the MANY are those who go to hell and the FEW are those who go to heaven.

5pt Calvinists argue that Christ "ONLY" loved the FEW of Matt 7 that go to heaven - even Spurgeon makes that argument - God does not love the WORLD - just the Saved - the "FEW" of Matt 7.

The point remains.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Charlie T]

Bob,

I think that you understand.

There are MANY in the Elect. Spurgeon went so far as to say that MORE would be saved, but most disagree with that. The Number will be large though in my opinion.

Jesus words are figurative as you know. The meaning is clear that it is easier to go to Hell and more will be in Hell.

So both of us say that more men will be in Hell than Heaven. I say that this is because God has graciously chosen some. None deserve salvation, but God will save ALL that He has GRANTED.

You say that God wants to save all, but fails miserably. This is a very sad doctrine. Not even with the Son of God's wondrous preaching did many respond and follow Him. How can we expect more from mere earthly preachers?

But ultimately more will be damned and fewer saved. But few in numbers by no means.

Charlie

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />npetreley
Why do you keep inserting that word into Calvinism? Do you honestly believe that Calvinists know why God chooses one over another, and that they have discovered that the process is purely arbitrary?

Indeed they have. The claim is that "there IS NOTHING about you that recommends YOU to God for selection over the person next to you". God is not "selecting you because YOU are better, or because You show more promise, or because of ANYTHING about you" - rather it is HIS sovereign CHOICE alone without ANY consideration of who you are, or what you might do, or who you know, or what family you live in - nothing about you determines the choice.</font>[/QUOTE]So am I to understand that you disagree with the above? You think God chooses us for salvation because we're better or because we show more promise, or because of something we do, someone we know, or the superiority of our family background?

 

[Charlie T]

So am I to understand that you disagree with the above? You think God chooses us for salvation because we're better or because we show more promise, or because of something we do, someone we know, or the superiority of our family background?

Are you addressing this to me?

If so then I agree with BobRyan's statement. All men are completely without merit and the very best works of the very best man are but filthy rags to God. We are all equally deplorable before Christ until He changes us.

Charlie

 

[Daniel David]

As to the original question, Calvinists are always on the side of the majority. Remember, God is the majority.

 

[Lone Pilgrim]

Pete, It would seem that your reference to Calvinism is within the parameters of the Doctrines of Grace. If being a Doctrines of Grace Baptist makes one a Calvinist then so be it. BUT, as a Baptist, I disagree with Calvin's teachings on church government, covenant children, baptism, etc. There are many Doctrines of Grace Baptists that see themselves much more as Baptists than Calvinists. I have a much greater interest in the Bible, Jesus Christ, and Baptist history than Calvin, Luther, Presbyterian history or Luthernism for that matter. Not opposed to it, but it's just that I'm first and foremost a Baptist and not ashamed of it. LP

 

[Pete Richert]

Calvinism is within the parameters of the Doctrines of Grace

Agreed. I think that most take Calvinism to be the Doctrines of Grace. If you wish to refer to everything else he taught it is sometimes refered to as Reformed with a capital R even though I see many on this board who call themselves Reformed refering to the Doctrine of Grace. Perhaps we can just call it Old School Prebyterian.