Why I am not a Calvinist.. the ACTUAL topic of this thread

[JonC]

I have never seen any other, on this or other boards.#

Then allow me to point you in the right direction.

A Cute Diddy On God Violating Free Will

Is God Unjust if Arminianism is true?

Monergism vs Synergism

The Atonement-Scarcely Uunderstood Today

If you are into SDA bashing, we have some of that as well. Or perhaps your taste leans more towards bashing Catholics. Well, I've got good news. We have us some good Catholic bashing around here. Christus Victor hater? We've got a place for you.Here at the BB we aim to please.

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

Scripture teaches that quite plainly,

only in the minds of the "elect"!

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

This is another thread bashing Calvinists.

or simply pointing out some of the errors of "Calvinism", which bears the name of John Calvin, who actually believes that Jesus died for "everyone without exception", and not just the "elect", as his own comments on John 3:16, Mark 14:24, etc, show.

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

Scripture teaches that the Elect were chosen before the foundations of the earth. Where many Calvinists fail is that Scripture does not consider anyone elect until they actually believe.

While I am not a Calvinist, I really don't have any problem with the five points as headlined in the Canons of Dort (I do disagree about infants being saved by virtue of their parents faith). I believe that, in terms of salvation, men are incapable of saving themselves. God's actions are not conditioned upon men. Jesus died to save those who believe. God's will is going to be accomplished. Those who believe have eternal life.

"Jesus died to save those who believe", yes, but NOT only, as John 3:16, which is about God's love and salvation, very clearly shows.

 

[TCassidy]

Calvin, who actually believes that Jesus died for "everyone without exception", and not just the "elect",

Which, for about the 10th time, is what most of us believe. He died for all. He atoned ONLY for believers.

But instead of learning, you keep posting the same falsehood over and over and over again.

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

Which, for about the 10th time, is what most of us believe. He died for all. He atoned ONLY for believers.

But instead of learning, you keep posting the same falsehood over and over and over again.

How about you learning for once? You say that Jesus "atoned" only for believers? The Bible teaches different. 1 John 2:2 very clearly states that Jesus is the "ἱλασμός" for the entire world, where Liddell and Scott in their Greek lexicon, define this noun as "ATONEMENT, sin offering". The LXX uses "ἱλασμός" for the Hebrew "כִּפֻּרִ֔ים" in most if not all its cases, as being the equivalent Greek term. The Hebrew, according to the lexicon of Brown, Driver and Briggs, means "ATONEMENT". The LXX lexicon defines "ἱλασμός" as “expiation, ATONEMENT, propitiation, sin-offering Lv 25,9; forgiveness Ps 129(130),4” (Johan Lust, Erik Eynikel, Katrin Hauspie; A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint)

So regardless of what you ASSUME the Bible to teach, this verse in 1 John proves you to be WRONG. I am aware of those like John Trapp, who try to limit 1 John 2:2, to mean only believers, Jews and non-jews, but there is not a single verse anywhere in this Epistle, that warrants this. Nor does the use of "the whole world", which again John contrasts "we are of God" in 1 John 5:19, which clearly shows that the term means the entire human race. It is for pure theological purposes that anyone, who cannot accept what the Bible plainly teaches, to put their "spin" on verse like 1 John 2:2, rather than humbly admit they are wrong. The conservative commentary by Jamieson, Faussett and Brown, puts it well:

"Also for the sins of the whole world. Christ's advocacy is limited to believers (1Jn_2:1; 1Jn_1:7): His propitiation extends as widely as sin: note, 2Pe_2:1, "the whole world" cannot be restricted to the believing portion (cf. 1Jn_4:14 and 1Jn_5:19). 'Thou, too, art part of the world: thine heart cannot think, The Lord died for Peter and Paul, but not for me' (Luther). "

 

[JonC]

"Jesus died to save those who believe", yes, but NOT only, as John 3:16, which is about God's love and salvation, very clearly shows.

Absolutely. And this is what Calvinism teaches. Have you read the Canons of Dort? Men do not perish for a lack in the sufficiency of the Cross but because they refuse to believe. Christ died for all men, but also to save those who believe.

You are fighting windmills. I disagree with Calvinism, but what you are arguing against is not what Calvinism itself teaches.

 

[Revmitchell]

You are fighting windmills. I disagree with Calvinism, but what you are arguing against is not what Calvinism itself teaches.

the difficulty is phrases and word meanings are different for each side and no one ever discusses that.

For instance when one say "Christ died for all men" it means something entirely different to everyone else than it does to a Calvinist.. When we say it it means all men everywhere in all of time have an equal opportunity to be saved and the same level of grace is offered to all men equally.

That is not what calvies mean.

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

Absolutely. And this is what Calvinism teaches. Have you read the Canons of Dort? Men do not perish for a lack in the sufficiency of the Cross but because they refuse to believe. Christ died for all men, but also to save those who believe.

You are fighting windmills. I disagree with Calvinism, but what you are arguing against is not what Calvinism itself teaches.

Jon, I don't think that even Calvinists or Reformers actually know what they believe! Take a look at what I have copied from the Reformed.org website:

"Limited Atonement (Particular Redemption)
Limited Atonement is a doctrine offered in answer to the question, "for whose sins did Christ atone?" The Bible teaches that Christ died for those whom God gave him to save (John 17:9). Christ died, indeed, for many people, but not all (Matthew 26:28). Specifically, Christ died for the invisible Church -- the sum total of all those who would ever rightly bear the name "Christian" (Ephesians 5:25).

This doctrine often finds many objections, mostly from those who think that Limited Atonement does damage to evangelism. We have already seen that Christ will not lose any that the father has given to him (John 6:37). Christ's death was not a death of potential atonement for all people. Believing that Jesus' death was a potential, symbolic atonement for anyone who might possibly, in the future, accept him trivializes Christ's act of atonement. Christ died to atone for specific sins of specific sinners. Christ died to make holy the church. He did not atone for all men, because obviously all men are not saved. Evangelism is actually lifted up in this doctrine, for the evangelist may tell his congregation that Christ died for sinners, and that he will not lose any of those for whom he died!"

Calvinism Soteriology Topics

******************************************************************

This is from my response to TCassidy, who has told me a number of times, that Christ "died for all, but atoned ONLY for believers", to which I said:

How about you learning for once? You say that Jesus "atoned" only for believers? The Bible teaches different. 1 John 2:2very clearly states that Jesus is the "ἱλασμός" for the entire world, where Liddell and Scott in their Greek lexicon, define this noun as "ATONEMENT, sin offering". The LXX uses "ἱλασμός" for the Hebrew "כִּפֻּרִ֔ים" in most if not all its cases, as being the equivalent Greek term. The Hebrew, according to the lexicon of Brown, Driver and Briggs, means "ATONEMENT". The LXX lexicon defines "ἱλασμός" as “expiation, ATONEMENT, propitiation, sin-offering Lv 25,9; forgiveness Ps 129(130),4” (Johan Lust, Erik Eynikel, Katrin Hauspie; A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint)

So regardless of what you ASSUME the Bible to teach, this verse in 1 John proves you to be WRONG. I am aware of those like John Trapp, who try to limit 1 John 2:2, to mean only believers, Jews and non-jews, but there is not a single verse anywhere in this Epistle, that warrants this. Nor does the use of "the whole world", which again John contrasts "we are of God" in 1 John 5:19, which clearly shows that the term means the entire human race. It is for pure theological purposes that anyone, who cannot accept what the Bible plainly teaches, to put their "spin" on verse like 1 John 2:2, rather than humbly admit they are wrong. The conservative commentary by Jamieson, Faussett and Brown, puts it well:

"Also for the sins of the whole world. Christ's advocacy is limited to believers (1Jn_2:1; 1Jn_1:7): His propitiation extends as widely as sin: note, 2Pe_2:1, "the whole world" cannot be restricted to the believing portion (cf. 1Jn_4:14 and 1Jn_5:19). 'Thou, too, art part of the world: thine heart cannot think, The Lord died for Peter and Paul, but not for me' (Luther). "

 

[JonC]

the difficulty is phrases and word meanings are different for each side and no one ever discusses that.

For instance when one say "Christ died for all men" it means something entirely different to everyone else than it does to a Calvinist.. When we say it it means all men everywhere in all of time have an equal opportunity to be saved and the same level of grace is offered to all men equally.

That is not what calvies mean.

There is an issue with meaning, I agree. The Calvinist believes that Christ died sufficiently for the whole world, but effectively only for the elect (John Calvin, 1 John Commentary). Christ's death was sufficient for all, so those who do not believe are condemned not for a lack in the work of Christ to save them but because of their own disbelief. Many who have been called through the gospel do not repent or believe in Christ but perish in unbelief. This is not because the sacrifice of Christ offered to them on the cross is insufficient but because they, themselves, are at fault (Canons of Dort, Second main point, Article 6).

What differs is that most Baptists assume a Calvinistic view of how Christ's death pays for the sins of men, but most do not assume a Calvinistic view of predestination.

 

[JonC]

Jon, I don't think that even Calvinists or Reformers actually know what they believe! Take a look at what I have copied from the Reformed.org website:

"Limited Atonement (Particular Redemption)
Limited Atonement is a doctrine offered in answer to the question, "for whose sins did Christ atone?" The Bible teaches that Christ died for those whom God gave him to save (John 17:9). Christ died, indeed, for many people, but not all (Matthew 26:28). Specifically, Christ died for the invisible Church -- the sum total of all those who would ever rightly bear the name "Christian" (Ephesians 5:25).

This doctrine often finds many objections, mostly from those who think that Limited Atonement does damage to evangelism. We have already seen that Christ will not lose any that the father has given to him (John 6:37). Christ's death was not a death of potential atonement for all people. Believing that Jesus' death was a potential, symbolic atonement for anyone who might possibly, in the future, accept him trivializes Christ's act of atonement. Christ died to atone for specific sins of specific sinners. Christ died to make holy the church. He did not atone for all men, because obviously all men are not saved. Evangelism is actually lifted up in this doctrine, for the evangelist may tell his congregation that Christ died for sinners, and that he will not lose any of those for whom he died!"

Calvinism Soteriology Topics

******************************************************************

This is from my response to TCassidy, who has told me a number of times, that Christ "died for all, but atoned ONLY for believers", to which I said:

How about you learning for once? You say that Jesus "atoned" only for believers? The Bible teaches different. 1 John 2:2very clearly states that Jesus is the "ἱλασμός" for the entire world, where Liddell and Scott in their Greek lexicon, define this noun as "ATONEMENT, sin offering". The LXX uses "ἱλασμός" for the Hebrew "כִּפֻּרִ֔ים" in most if not all its cases, as being the equivalent Greek term. The Hebrew, according to the lexicon of Brown, Driver and Briggs, means "ATONEMENT". The LXX lexicon defines "ἱλασμός" as “expiation, ATONEMENT, propitiation, sin-offering Lv 25,9; forgiveness Ps 129(130),4” (Johan Lust, Erik Eynikel, Katrin Hauspie; A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint)

So regardless of what you ASSUME the Bible to teach, this verse in 1 John proves you to be WRONG. I am aware of those like John Trapp, who try to limit 1 John 2:2, to mean only believers, Jews and non-jews, but there is not a single verse anywhere in this Epistle, that warrants this. Nor does the use of "the whole world", which again John contrasts "we are of God" in 1 John 5:19, which clearly shows that the term means the entire human race. It is for pure theological purposes that anyone, who cannot accept what the Bible plainly teaches, to put their "spin" on verse like 1 John 2:2, rather than humbly admit they are wrong. The conservative commentary by Jamieson, Faussett and Brown, puts it well:

"Also for the sins of the whole world. Christ's advocacy is limited to believers (1Jn_2:1; 1Jn_1:7): His propitiation extends as widely as sin: note, 2Pe_2:1, "the whole world" cannot be restricted to the believing portion (cf. 1Jn_4:14 and 1Jn_5:19). 'Thou, too, art part of the world: thine heart cannot think, The Lord died for Peter and Paul, but not for me' (Luther). "

Yep. There is a broad range of Calvinistic churches. Many would reject @TCassidy 's view of limited atonement (even when the Canons of Dort was being written there was differences of opinion within Calvinism). There have been (and probably still are) Calvinists who fall under the teachings of Daniel Parker. And then there are Calvinists who are more akin to those like John Piper.

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

Yep. There is a broad range of Calvinistic churches. Many would reject @TCassidy 's view of limited atonement (even when the Canons of Dort was being written there was differences of opinion within Calvinism). There have been (and probably still are) Calvinists who fall under the teachings of Daniel Parker. And then there are Calvinists who are more akin to those like John Piper.

That is why I say to stick to what the Holy Bible, the Word of God teaches, without the need to impose any human speculation on what it says.

 

[The Archangel]

How about you learning for once? You say that Jesus "atoned" only for believers? The Bible teaches different. 1 John 2:2 very clearly states that Jesus is the "ἱλασμός" for the entire world, where Liddell and Scott in their Greek lexicon, define this noun as "ATONEMENT, sin offering". The LXX uses "ἱλασμός" for the Hebrew "כִּפֻּרִ֔ים" in most if not all its cases, as being the equivalent Greek term. The Hebrew, according to the lexicon of Brown, Driver and Briggs, means "ATONEMENT". The LXX lexicon defines "ἱλασμός" as “expiation, ATONEMENT, propitiation, sin-offering Lv 25,9; forgiveness Ps 129(130),4” (Johan Lust, Erik Eynikel, Katrin Hauspie; A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint)

So regardless of what you ASSUME the Bible to teach, this verse in 1 John proves you to be WRONG. I am aware of those like John Trapp, who try to limit 1 John 2:2, to mean only believers, Jews and non-jews, but there is not a single verse anywhere in this Epistle, that warrants this. Nor does the use of "the whole world", which again John contrasts "we are of God" in 1 John 5:19, which clearly shows that the term means the entire human race. It is for pure theological purposes that anyone, who cannot accept what the Bible plainly teaches, to put their "spin" on verse like 1 John 2:2, rather than humbly admit they are wrong. The conservative commentary by Jamieson, Faussett and Brown, puts it well:

"Also for the sins of the whole world. Christ's advocacy is limited to believers (1Jn_2:1; 1Jn_1:7): His propitiation extends as widely as sin: note, 2Pe_2:1, "the whole world" cannot be restricted to the believing portion (cf. 1Jn_4:14 and 1Jn_5:19). 'Thou, too, art part of the world: thine heart cannot think, The Lord died for Peter and Paul, but not for me' (Luther). "

There is a fallacy here... you are assuming your interpretation to be correct without proving it to be so. You’re assuming your position of “all _____” to be as correct as “sunrise is at [whatever time] today.” The sunrise is self-evident; your interpretation of “all” is not.

Furthermore, if the sins of all have been propitiated, then you have—ipso facto—universal salvation, from Billy Graham to Adolph Hitler.

We know that not all will be saved. We know what propitiation means. And we know that all doesn’t always mean “everyone without exception.” In John’s account of the Triumphal Entry, he has the Pharisees saying about Jesus, The while world has gone after Him.” Obviously that cannot mean everyone without exception since those Pharisees (and many others from all walks of life) did not follow Him.

So, you too have a theological bias in your reading of 1 John that may be blinding you to what the text is actually saying. So before you go trying to pull anything out of someone else’s eye, check yours first. Who knows, even you might learn something.

The Archangel


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

There is a fallacy here... you are assuming your interpretation to be correct without proving it to be so. You’re assuming your position of “all _____” to be as correct as “sunrise is at [whatever time] today.” The sunrise is self-evident; your interpretation of “all” is not.

Furthermore, if the sins of all have been propitiated, then you have—ipso facto—universal salvation, from Billy Graham to Adolph Hitler.

We know that not all will be saved. We know what propitiation means. And we know that all doesn’t always mean “everyone without exception.” In John’s account of the Triumphal Entry, he has the Pharisees saying about Jesus, The while world has gone after Him.” Obviously that cannot mean everyone without exception since those Pharisees (and many others from all walks of life) did not follow Him.

So, you too have a theological bias in your reading of 1 John that may be blinding you to what the text is actually saying. So before you go trying to pull anything out of someone else’s eye, check yours first. Who knows, even you might learn something.

The Archangel


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

then why don't you show me from Scripture, where I am wrong?

 

[JonC]

That is why I say to stick to what the Holy Bible, the Word of God teaches, without the need to impose any human speculation on what it says.

That's what they believe they are doing.

Think about this - the Reformation, and Calvinism, had a great impact on how we view things today. There are probably doctrines that we believe - or emphases on certain biblical doctrines - that came out of the Reformation, perhaps even are of Calvinistic origin. If challenged we would not turn to Calvin or Luther. We would turn to Scripture, and once there we'd apply those presuppositions to our interpretation of the passages.

 

[The Archangel]

then why don't you show me from Scripture, where I am wrong?

Again a fallacy... why don’t you show me we’re your right.

The Archangel


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

Again a fallacy... why don’t you show me we’re your right.

The Archangel


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

you have responded to my post, and criticize it. I ask to show where what I have said is not right from the Bible, and your response shows me that you can't

 

[The Archangel]

you have responded to my post, and criticize it. I ask to show where what I have said is not right from the Bible, and your response shows me that you can't

Bait much?

I have already pointed out from The Gospel of John where “the whole world” cannot mean everyone without exception. Now you are trying to have the burden of proof reversed to me when the volley is in your court.

Neither a logical fallacy (which reversing the burden of proof is) nor baiting your opponent is a good strategy.

The Archangel


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Iconoclast]

the difficulty is phrases and word meanings are different for each side and no one ever discusses that.

For instance when one say "Christ died for all men" it means something entirely different to everyone else than it does to a Calvinist.. When we say it it means all men everywhere in all of time have an equal opportunity to be saved and the same level of grace is offered to all men equally.

That is not what calvies mean.

Of course not. That is because they take the time to work through the verses and understand what they actually mean.

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

Bait much?

I have already pointed out from The Gospel of John where “the whole world” cannot mean everyone without exception. Now your trying to have the burden of proof reversed to me when the volley is in your court.

Neither a logical fallacy (which reversing the burden of proof is) nor baiting your opponent is a good strategy.

The Archangel


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

your error is a very common one. you are assuming that every use of a word or term must have the same meaning. this is wrong. for example, "all" and "world", does not mean in every instance "the whole number", and can have a limited meaning. Likewise "eternal" does not always mean "without end". Each use meaning must be determined by the context it is used in. John uses the phrase "the whole world" in his First Epistle twice, once in 2:2, and the other 5:19. In both uses contextually they have the same meaning. Can you show me from these two uses, and the Epistle itself, where this does not refer to the entire human race? Also, can you show who this "whole world" does refer to, if not the entire human race?