To the Calvinists here: what part of Non cal theology Bothers you the Most?

[Iconoclast]

This verse does not say Jesus did not die for those who are not saved, it simply says by Jesus's one offering he has PERFECTED THEM THAT ARE SANCTIFIED, that is, those who are saved.

It does not say one word about Jesus only dying for some persons.

So, you are reading Limited Atonement into this verse when it is not there.

Winman,

I know you would rather not see it...It is in speaking of the cross saying what has happened to the saved.....But in discussing the once for all time sacrifice the writer explains what happened and who it happened for....

remember it was not potential...BUT Actual...so-
14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.

15 Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before,

16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;

17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.

18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.

19 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,

20 By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;

21 And having an high priest over the house of God;

22 Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.

Not one of these highlighted items is true of the unsaved.It is a mistake to twist this out from what it says.:thumbs:


the unsaved are not;
perfected forever
they do not have the Holy Ghost
they are not in the Covenant
they do not have God's law in their heart or mind,as the saved do
they do not have God saying he will remember their sins no more....because he will at the white throne.

 

[Winman]

Winman,

I know you would rather not see it...It is in speaking of the cross saying what has happened to the saved.....But in discussing the once for all time sacrifice the writer explains what happened and who it happened for....

remember it was not potential...BUT Actual...so-
14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.

15 Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before,

16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;

17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.

18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.

19 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,

20 By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;

21 And having an high priest over the house of God;

22 Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.

Not one of these highlighted items is true of the unsaved.It is a mistake to twist this out from what it says.:thumbs:


the unsaved are not;
perfected forever
they do not have the Holy Ghost
they are not in the Covenant
they do not have God's law in their heart or mind,as the saved do
they do not have God saying he will remember their sins no more....because he will at the white throne.

You still don't get it, I am not saying the saints are not perfected.

What I am saying is that you are reading Limited Atonement into scripture when it is not there. Verse 14 does not say Christ died only for the elect, it simply says that by Christ's sacrifice these persons were perfected. It makes no mention of the non-elect at all.

I have noticed that Calvinists continually read their theology into scripture when it is not there. This is a perfect example. You believe verse 14 is saying Jesus only died for the elect, it says no such thing.

That is the problem when you let others tell you how to think. Think for yourself.

 

[Winman]

Let me give you an example of what I'm saying.

Suppose I said, "I love my children".

Does that mean I do not love my wife? Does it mean I do not love any other children like my nephews and nieces?

That is where you Calvinists often err. If Jesus says he lays down his life for his friends, then you ASSUME he was saying he laid down his life for ONLY his friends. That is not necessarily true. And if you read all scripture, then you find Jesus laid down his life and died for all men.

See, you let your presuppositions affect how you interpret scripture. The result is many serious errors.

 

[DrJamesAch]

This verse does not say Jesus did not die for those who are not saved, it simply says by Jesus's one offering he has PERFECTED THEM THAT ARE SANCTIFIED, that is, those who are saved.

It does not say one word about Jesus only dying for some persons.

So, you are reading Limited Atonement into this verse when it is not there.

Skip all that, I want to see how the premise develops for arguing that we limit atonement for angels. Where in scripture does it say that Jesus tasted death for every ANGEL? Heb 2:9. Calvinists consistently use angels as a scapegoat when comparing limited atonement and election (the elect angels) with absolutely no foundation to support it.

Why not take it one step further, we limit atonement for the trees too. Although at one point in my life, I did try to witness to a tree, but it wasn't elected. With this new epiphany I now realize that only some trees will go to heaven, and the rest will be turned into toilet paper. Next thing you know Calvinists will be using trees as an example of irresistible grace, since the tree had no choice in the matter of become a cabin log.

 

[Aaron]

Of course. God also planned my spiritual rebirth.

But you believe you can thwart God's plan for your spiritual rebirth. Just wanting to know if you think God's plan for first birth could have been thwarted.

 

[Winman]

double post

 

[Winman]

But you believe you can thwart God's plan for your spiritual rebirth. Just wanting to know if you think God's plan for first birth could have been thwarted.

I believe God knows who will be saved by foreknowledge. God knew I would accept Christ when I heard the gospel. God also knows who will not believe.

Jhn 6:64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.

Jesus knew from the beginning that Judas would not believe and would betray him. Did God determine this? Yes and No. God did determine to allow Judas to betray Jesus to bring about the crucifixion, but God did not cause Judas to reject Jesus, God NEVER tempts any man to sin.

But God knowing Judas would betray Jesus allowed him to use Judas to bring about his purpose.

The scriptures are clear that God desires all men should be saved. But God does not force (you would say cause) people to be saved as you falsely teach.

 

[Herald]

Skip all that, I want to see how the premise develops for arguing that we limit atonement for angels. Where in scripture does it say that Jesus tasted death for every ANGEL? Heb 2:9. Calvinists consistently use angels as a scapegoat when comparing limited atonement and election (the elect angels) with absolutely no foundation to support it.

Why not take it one step further, we limit atonement for the trees too. Although at one point in my life, I did try to witness to a tree, but it wasn't elected. With this new epiphany I now realize that only some trees will go to heaven, and the rest will be turned into toilet paper. Next thing you know Calvinists will be using trees as an example of irresistible grace, since the tree had no choice in the matter of become a cabin log.

I'm allergic to tree pollen. I prefer to use forsythia as an example.

 

[Aaron]

I believe God knows who will be saved by foreknowledge. God knew I would accept Christ when I heard the gospel. God also knows who will not believe.

Jhn 6:64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.

Jesus knew from the beginning that Judas would not believe and would betray him. Did God determine this? Yes and No. God did determine to allow Judas to betray Jesus to bring about the crucifixion, but God did not cause Judas to reject Jesus, God NEVER tempts any man to sin.

But God knowing Judas would betray Jesus allowed him to use Judas to bring about his purpose.

The scriptures are clear that God desires all men should be saved. But God does not force (you would say cause) people to be saved as you falsely teach.

So you're really saying God didn't determine your first birth. Your first birth was determined by others. He just knew about it.

 

[Winman]

So you're really saying God didn't determine your first birth. Your first birth was determined by others. He just knew about it.

How could I be saved unless Jesus died for me? If Jesus had not died for me, I would have no remedy for my sin and would be certainly lost.

How could I be saved unless God had revealed the gospel to me? How could I believe in Jesus unless I heard of him?

Rom 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

The scriptures say, For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved, but how could I call on whom I have not heard? And how could I hear without a preacher?

So unless God by his grace had revealed the gospel to holy men who preached the Word, I could have never been saved.

But once I heard the gospel, and that whosoever shall call upon Jesus shall be saved, I was enabled by that revelation to call upon Jesus.

But before I was ever born, God knew I would believe when I heard the gospel. He knows who will believe and who will not.

 

[Iconoclast]

Let me give you an example of what I'm saying.

Suppose I said, "I love my children".

Does that mean I do not love my wife? Does it mean I do not love any other children like my nephews and nieces?

That is where you Calvinists often err. If Jesus says he lays down his life for his friends, then you ASSUME he was saying he laid down his life for ONLY his friends. That is not necessarily true. And if you read all scripture, then you find Jesus laid down his life and died for all men.

See, you let your presuppositions affect how you interpret scripture. The result is many serious errors.

Winman,

Thanks for trying to help, but you are confusing yourself.

let me simplify this for you

On a piece of paper...draw a large circle and draw inside of it the words...
them that are not sanctified

now draw a circle inside the first circle....
write in it.....them that are sanctified

That is who Jesus saved....

 

[Aaron]

How could I be saved unless Jesus died for me? If Jesus had not died for me, I would have no remedy for my sin and would be certainly lost.

How could I be saved unless God had revealed the gospel to me? How could I believe in Jesus unless I heard of him?

Rom 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

The scriptures say, For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved, but how could I call on whom I have not heard? And how could I hear without a preacher?

So unless God by his grace had revealed the gospel to holy men who preached the Word, I could have never been saved.

But once I heard the gospel, and that whosoever shall call upon Jesus shall be saved, I was enabled by that revelation to call upon Jesus.

But before I was ever born, God knew I would believe when I heard the gospel. He knows who will believe and who will not.

So you're just a happenstance, and the reason you're saved is because you don't hate Christ as much as others do. You're a fortunate happenstance.

God has elected the fortunate happenstances that elect themselves.

That's your gospel.

 

[Winman]

So you're just a happenstance, and the reason you're saved is because you don't hate Christ as much as others do. You're a fortunate happenstance.

God has elected the fortunate happenstances that elect themselves.

That's your gospel.

I don't think you understand election, God chooses those who believe on his Son. He doesn't choose who will believe on his Son. There is a huge difference.

There is an example of God's election in scripture with Gideon.

Jud 7:1 Then Jerubbaal, who is Gideon, and all the people that were with him, rose up early, and pitched beside the well of Harod: so that the host of the Midianites were on the north side of them, by the hill of Moreh, in the valley.
2 And the LORD said unto Gideon, The people that are with thee are too many for me to give the Midianites into their hands, lest Israel vaunt themselves against me, saying, Mine own hand hath saved me.
3 Now therefore go to, proclaim in the ears of the people, saying, Whosoever is fearful and afraid, let him return and depart early from mount Gilead. And there returned of the people twenty and two thousand; and there remained ten thousand.
4 And the LORD said unto Gideon, The people are yet too many; bring them down unto the water, and I will try them for thee there: and it shall be, that of whom I say unto thee, This shall go with thee, the same shall go with thee; and of whomsoever I say unto thee, This shall not go with thee, the same shall not go.
5 So he brought down the people unto the water: and the LORD said unto Gideon, Every one that lappeth of the water with his tongue, as a dog lappeth, him shalt thou set by himself; likewise every one that boweth down upon his knees to drink.
6 And the number of them that lapped, putting their hand to their mouth, were three hundred men: but all the rest of the people bowed down upon their knees to drink water.
7 And the LORD said unto Gideon, By the three hundred men that lapped will I save you, and deliver the Midianites into thine hand: and let all the other people go every man unto his place.


This story is a good example of election. First note that God told Gideon he had too many men. God did not want Israel to believe they saved themselves.

So, when you are elect you do not save yourself. I am sure you would agree.

Now, we see God told Gideon that whosoever God said shall go with him, these are the men Gideon shall choose. So God is the one who makes the choice. I am sure you would agree to that as well.

Now note that only 300 men picked up water in their hands and lapped like a dog. These are the men God told Gideon to choose.

Did these 300 men do something different that the other 9,700? Yes. And this is who God chose. Did God know beforehand that only 300 would drink like a dog? Yes.

And it is the same with salvation, God has already determined to choose those who will believe the gospel when they hear it. The vast majority of men will not believe when they hear the gospel, but a few will. Those few who do believe the gospel are chosen, they are the elect.

But it is God who determines the conditions. God determined only those who lapped like a dog would be chosen, and God determines only those who believe the gospel when they hear it shall be chosen.

I simply believed the gospel when I heard it, but God had already determined those who believe would be chosen before I was ever born.

Now, there is election in the scriptures if you will accept it.

 

[DrJamesAch]

I don't think you understand election, God chooses those who believe on his Son. He doesn't choose who will believe on his Son. There is a huge difference.

There is an example of God's election in scripture with Gideon.

Jud 7:1 Then Jerubbaal, who is Gideon, and all the people that were with him, rose up early, and pitched beside the well of Harod: so that the host of the Midianites were on the north side of them, by the hill of Moreh, in the valley.
2 And the LORD said unto Gideon, The people that are with thee are too many for me to give the Midianites into their hands, lest Israel vaunt themselves against me, saying, Mine own hand hath saved me.
3 Now therefore go to, proclaim in the ears of the people, saying, Whosoever is fearful and afraid, let him return and depart early from mount Gilead. And there returned of the people twenty and two thousand; and there remained ten thousand.
4 And the LORD said unto Gideon, The people are yet too many; bring them down unto the water, and I will try them for thee there: and it shall be, that of whom I say unto thee, This shall go with thee, the same shall go with thee; and of whomsoever I say unto thee, This shall not go with thee, the same shall not go.
5 So he brought down the people unto the water: and the LORD said unto Gideon, Every one that lappeth of the water with his tongue, as a dog lappeth, him shalt thou set by himself; likewise every one that boweth down upon his knees to drink.
6 And the number of them that lapped, putting their hand to their mouth, were three hundred men: but all the rest of the people bowed down upon their knees to drink water.
7 And the LORD said unto Gideon, By the three hundred men that lapped will I save you, and deliver the Midianites into thine hand: and let all the other people go every man unto his place.


This story is a good example of election. First note that God told Gideon he had too many men. God did not want Israel to believe they saved themselves.

So, when you are elect you do not save yourself. I am sure you would agree.

Now, we see God told Gideon that whosoever God said shall go with him, these are the men Gideon shall choose. So God is the one who makes the choice. I am sure you would agree to that as well.

Now note that only 300 men picked up water in their hands and lapped like a dog. These are the men God told Gideon to choose.

Did these 300 men do something different that the other 9,700? Yes. And this is who God chose. Did God know beforehand that only 300 would drink like a dog? Yes.

And it is the same with salvation, God has already determined to choose those who will believe the gospel when they hear it. The vast majority of men will not believe when they hear the gospel, but a few will. Those few who do believe the gospel are chosen, they are the elect.

But it is God who determines the conditions. God determined only those who lapped like a dog would be chosen, and God determines only those who believe the gospel when they hear it shall be chosen.

I simply believed the gospel when I heard it, but God had already determined those who believe would be chosen before I was ever born.

Now, there is election in the scriptures if you will accept it.

It is also similar to the story in I Kings 19, and where God says "Yet I have left me seven thousand in Israel, all the knees which have not bowed unto Baal, and every mouth which hath not kissed him" (19:18). This verse is used as an example of election in Romans 11:4.

The major problem with the Calvinist view of election is that they see that God ACTS in election based on His foreknowledge instead of foreknowledge simply being that He KNOWS. Again, they see election as FUNCTIONAL instead of POSITIONAL.

Notice the often quoted Romans 8:29. Here is the Calvinist view:

CALV: "For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate"

BIBLE: "For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren."

The purpose of the predestination was that God was laying out the desire to not only save, but conform those saved into the image of Christ. The emphasis is on the objective which is the entire plan from justification to glorifcation. The explanation in God predestinating us, is He is explaining the PLAN for the believer, and the process of that plan as God seen it before we were saved.

The order of Romans 8:29-30 is not describing the PROCESS OF SALVATION, but the THINGS GOD DID TO THOSE WHO WERE THE CALLED ACCORDING TO HIS PURPOSE. Thus predistination is not prescriptive, but descriptive of our God's intentions for us as believers from beginning to end.

If you notice, the Bible never lays out an explanation like this for those who are LOST. Why? because it was not God's plan, nor His desire for any to be lost. 2 Peter 3:9, Ezekiel 33:11.

But if the Calvinist view is taken to its uttermost conclusion, it has God enjoying the damnation of sinners. Because if God determines everything that He desires, and that He ONLY desires the salvation of the elect, then it naturally follows that He desires the damnation of the lost because God could have saved them if He wanted to, He could have desired it, but did not. As Jerry Walls pointed out, this defies the nature of God, because before God was sovereign over creation, He was loving someone from eternity!

 

[Van]

I see Iconoclast offered up the usual shuck and jive. Presenting Calvinism's Limited Atonement as if Christ did not become the propitiation for the whole world. Or he did not lay down His life as a ransom for all. Shuck and jive folks.

Any man is redefined to mean certain preselected men. Chosen in Him is rewritten to read individually chosen in Him. On and on it goes, shuck and jive, and rewritten verse after verse.

There is no actual support for the TULI of the Tulip in scripture, all they do is reference rewritten scriptures.

Any man does not mean certain preselected men. Thus Calvinism reverses the meaning of verse after verse.

What do Calvinists find offensive about non Calvinist doctrine?

Calvinists believe in Total Spiritual Inability, thus when non-Calvinists quote scripture that demonstrates unregenerates seek God and heaven, they hate it. Matthew 23:13.

Calvinists believe in Unconditional Election, thus when non-Calvinists quote scripture that demonstrates God chooses people for salvation through faith in the truth, they hate it. 2 Thessalonians 2:13.

Calvinists believe in Limited Atonement, thus when non-Calvinists quote scripture that demonstrates Christ laid down His life as a ransom for all, they hate it. 1 Timothy 2:6

Calvinists believe in Irresistible Grace, thus when non-Calvinists quote scripture that demonstrates unregenerate men can understand the milk of the gospel, they hate it. 1 Corinthians 3:1

But most of all they hate discussing the faults of Calvinism, and so constantly seek to discuss the faults of Arminianism.

 

[Van]

Draw a large circle. Label it "all mankind" Then write Christ laid down His life as a ransom for all.

Now draw a smaller circle. Label it "all set apart in Christ"
Below that write, those saved.

The issue as Winman carefully and corrected pointed out is that the smaller circle is within the larger circle. Calvinism has only one circle and denies Christ laid down His life as a ransom for all mankind. They have God desiring that all men be saved but then Christ dying for only a few. In a word, irrational.

 

[saturneptune]

I see................. There is no actual support for the TULI of the Tulip in scripture, all they do is reference rewritten scriptures.

Any man does not mean certain preselected men. Thus Calvinism reverses the meaning of verse after verse.

What do Calvinists find offensive about non Calvinist doctrine?

Calvinists believe in Total Spiritual Inability, thus when non-Calvinists quote scripture that demonstrates unregenerates seek God and heaven, they hate it. Matthew 23:13.

Calvinists believe in Unconditional Election, thus when non-Calvinists quote scripture that demonstrates God chooses people for salvation through faith in the truth, they hate it. 2 Thessalonians 2:13.

Actually, you do not see anything but the end of your nose. You contridict yourself many times, but I will point out one. First of all, you say when unregenerated folks seek God and heaven, as in Matt 23:13, Calvinists hate it. Then, in the very next paragraph, you say that Calvinists hate it when you read Scripture that states God chooses people for salvation through faith in the truth.

In other words, you are saying the lost person in his present state can seek God, then you turn right around and say God chooses "through faith in the truth" whatever that means. So which is it, does man choose or God choose? It is hard to tell which side you are on.

 

[Luke2427]

Therein lies the crux of the argument Luke, and I agree with you.

What is being asked is NOT "Biblical" though, as much as each side would like to claim it were.

You are asking something to the effect of:

WHY? does one "will" one thing and not another.

Unfortunately, the answer is that the Arminian claims that there is no CAUSAL force or reason or answer as to "WHY" a person might choose one thing or another....

but the Calvinist system insists that there are explanatory factors as to "WHY" a person "chooses" one thing or another. (See the notion of "depravity" et. al.)

What that does in the Calvinist System is create a set of "guarantors" of decisions (I will obviously refuse to now call them "free").
But, Arminianism rejects the notion that any set of factors are a guarantor of why someone chooses anything.
Whatever surrounds it, is somewhat ancillary.

As to the answer to the last question The answer is.....dum dum dum.........Arminians don't propose an answer to "why".....They don't pre-suppose there IS a "why". Nothing is "guaranteed" as far as a creaturely decision is concerned....it's merely a propositional statement that subject x made decision y in circumstances c....
There IS no answer as to "WHY"?

I'll put it this way:
Arminians assume that IF there is a "WHY"....than the answer was not "free"...it would have been necessesarry by definition or decree.
Whatever the difference is, Luke, unfortunately........it rests upon some Philosphical pre-suppositions, not "Biblical" ones. Anyone who claims that they don't import Philosophical notions INTO their hermeneutic is lying to themselves or ignorant.....

I believe that you know other-wise.

I think some understanding of God's Omniscience is required here:
I divide it into three distinct spectrums for brevity:
1.) (Calvie view) God is Omniscient and knows all things because he decreed them...and there is a causal explanation for every "WHY". And that explanation is generally centered in God's ultimate decree.

2.) (Simple foreknowledge) God is Omniscient inasmuch as he transcends time and has a PERCEPTUAL knowledge [foresight] of all creaturely decisions....

3.) (My view, which is a Molinistic one which is Arminianism plus garlic)

God "foreknows" all things PROPOSITIONALLY . Or, rather....God's "Omniscience" boils down to the fact that God simply believes all true propositions and believes no false ones.
Thus, God's Omniscience is a propositional knowledge (not perceptual, nor strictly decretal) inextricably linked to the necessity of his being.

God's Omniscience is as much a necessary facet of his being as his Aseity is or his Omnipotence.

Omnipotence......is a trait Calvies are right to defend
but,
Molinist/Arms like me view God's Omniscience as EQUALLY interr-laced with God's being, a necessary part of his existence...

God doesn't "perceive" reality (simple Arm foreknowledge) nor does he "decree" it (classic Calvinist foreknowledge)
God, rather, simply......"knows"..propositionally (as a necessary facet of his being) what a creature will do in the future. NOTHING though explains the "why" because...........there IS no "why". If there were a "why" than it wasn't a "free" decision but, rather a "decreed" one (or causally guaranteed)..........and that's Calvinism.

Good to see you ma' brutha' Peace and Love and what-not :1_grouphug:

This is in my opinion philosophical gymnastics. You do not apply this kind of logic to anything else in life.

You do not say, "The house is burned down."
Why
Because it caught on fire.
Why?
Because the lamp fell.
Why?

There is no cause! You are begging the question! My whole POINT is that there is no cause behind the fall of the lamp! It is terribly narrow minded of you to demand that the fall of the lamp has a cause.

Do you see?

You don't get to just pick the stage of answering why that suits you, that gets you to where you want to be and then shut down the investigation- not and be taken seriously.

Someone might come along and shut it down before the lamp fell- in other words someone else might come along and. just as arbitrarily as you shut it down at free will, shut it down BEFORE it gets down to free will.

Why is Jack in hell"
Because he did not repent when confronted with the Gospel.
Why did he not repent?
There is no cause!
But I think he made a free will choice not to repent.
NO! His lack of repenance ha NOHING behind it.
But why did he not repent?
THERE IS NO REASON, not within himself or externally!

You would say, "There has to be a REASON he did not repent."

But what just happened is you got bested at your own game. He just arbitrarily shut down investigation before you could.

Do you see?

 

[jonathanD]

Frame argues that libertarian choices are arbitrary (actually, he argues that they don't exist, but if they did, they would be arbitrary).

 

[jonathanD]

HoS, I wish I had more time this week to interact with what you've said. I disagree with your conclusions, but I think you've truly hit on the issues here.

Would you disagree with my borrowed statement that , in your view, for an act to be free, it must be arbitrary (there can be no why)?

Also, I have wondered how you understand the act of creation by a perfectly efficient creator who knows all things propositionally? How does he create without decreeing?