why I am not a Calvinist

[Iconoclast]

37818,

L
I do not believe the provided atonement, propitiation, is limited. 1 John 2:2, ". . . he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the whole world. . . ." I do believe that this serves two purposes: First, to make our Lord Judge of all, and second to allow Him to be our Savior and secure salvation for His elect. And that making Him Lord of both the dead, the lost and the living, the saved. Romans 8:34. Romans 14:9-11.

Everyone has a limited atonement.

You use the term....provided atonement. I ask what you mean by that?
Is it an actual atonement, an actual propitiation? or are you posting about an abstract potential atonement and propitiation that does not atone or propitiate?

 

[rockytopva]

I am a supporter of the bible broadcasting network and am also supporting a niece in going to Liberty University in Lynchburg, VA. I am also very active in the media ministry at work at have shared the gospel with many. I am Pentecostal, but not anti-Baptist either. One guy, after reading one of the books I gave him, wanted to get saved, but not in the Pentecostal Holiness church that I attend. He explained to me that he was brought up Baptist and would rather go to a Baptist church.

A guy I worked with is a Calvinistic Baptist by the name of Ray and I looked him up. Ray said they had a Franklin Graham testimonial film that Sunday night and there I brought my friend. After the film he went tearfully up... But there was no altar! They took him to a room, in which I followed, and then proceeded to talk him out of it! I am like... He has tears running down his cheek! The man is ready to get saved! We then prayed the sinners prayer and my friend got saved.

That whole episode is why I am not Calvinist.

 

[JonC]

@37818 ,

The Propiation (as used by John in your reference is NEVER limited. Christ Himself is the propitiation for all human sin.

Scripture teaches that because of Christ's work all judgment is given Him.

To borrow from C.H. Spurgeon, the lost are not lost out of want of a Savior. Their sins are included, as Calvin noted, in the sins for which Christ is the propitiation.

That said, limited atonement refers to those for whom Christ died to save (those who believe, who are given Him).

 

[Iconoclast]

Propitiation in I John 2:2 by Dr. Gary D. Long

Propitiation in the New Testament

The term "propitiation" (hilasmos) means "satisfaction," "appeasement." Theologically, propitiation means that God's wrath against sin, demanded by His justice, is appeased on account of the death of Christ for sinners.
There are four primary references in the New Testament where the word "propitiation" is used (cf. Rom. 3:25; Heb. 2:17; 1 John 2:2; 4:10). Three of the four references clearly teach that propitiation is strictly limited to a definite people, namely, the elect of God.
Romans 3:25 states that God set forth Christ "a propitiation through faith in his blood." From this reference it may be observed that, if Christ is a propitiation "through faith,"4 He cannot be a propitiation to those who never have faith, and "all men have not faith" (II Thess. 3:2).
Hebrews 2:17 states that Christ was made a "merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation (should be translated propitiation) for the sins of the people." In context, "the people," are identified as the "children which God hath given" Christ, (v. 13), "the seed of Abraham" (v. 16). Are not "the people" of verse 17 also to be identified with the "many sons" in verse 10 and the "every man" in verse 9 for whom "by the grace of God he should taste death"?
I John 4:10 reveals the motivating cause of propitiation. "Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins."5 The propitiation is restricted here to the definite pronouns, "we," "us," and "our"; that is, to believers, God's elect. Therefore, it is concluded that at least three of the four major passages on propitiation are restricted in design to God's elect.

 

[Iconoclast]

"rockytopva,

A guy I worked with is a Calvinistic Baptist by the name of Ray and I looked him up. Ray said they had a Franklin Graham testimonial film that Sunday night and there I brought my friend.

After the film he went tearfully up... But there was no altar!

So What?
Catholic churches have an altar, Baptist churches do not.

They took him to a room, in which I followed, and then proceeded to talk him out of it!

A person cannot be talked into, or out of salvation...Biblical salvation is of the Lord

I am like... He has tears running down his cheek! The man is ready to get saved!

We do not get saved by tears running down your cheek. There can be tears, or no tears..

We then prayed the sinners prayer and my friend got saved.

How do you know? The sinners prayer is no guarantee

That whole episode is why I am not Calvinist.

No, you are not a Calvinist because you do not believe the teaching

 

[JonC]

The error some make in 2 Jn 2:2 is ignoring the object of the actual words in favor of theological eisegesis (this does not in any way refute limited atonement but we have to honor the actual biblical text). The subject is not sin but Christ (who is this propitiation). Extensive commentary is not necessary (words have meaning).

Propitiation - something that propitiates specifically : an atoning sacrifice

 

[Iconoclast]

The error some make in 2 Jn 2:2 is ignoring the object of the actual words in favor of theological eisegesis (this does not in any way refute limited atonement but we have to honor the actual biblical text). The subject is not sin but Christ (who is this propitiation). Extensive commentary is not necessary (words have meaning).

Propitiation - something that propitiates specifically : an atoning sacrifice

The error some like you make is explaining away a word, that those who are judged at the White throne will find that no propitiation was made for their sin as God's wrath is eternally poured out on them. The wrath was not turned away at all
.Biblical usage is not eisegesis.

 

[Iconoclast]

"37818,

U
I believe God's election is conditional, not unconditional. The primary condtion is it is wholly unmerited on the part of those whom He has chosen. John 3:16. Faith in His Son is a condition without any merit on the part of those who believe. Romans 4:4-5. Titus 3:5.

No one had faith to begin with so election was not conditional.

Isa536 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

rom9
16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

 

[JonC]

The error some like you make is explaining away a word, that those who are judged at the White throne will find that no propitiation was made for their sin as God's wrath is eternally poured out on them. The wrath was not turned away at all
.Biblical usage is not eisegesis.

We cannot explain away words (that is my complaint). I believe you ate missing the point.

In the verse Christ (not sin) is the focus. Christ IS the Propitiation for human sin. This is why historic Calvinism could affirm 2 Jn 2:2 without compromising the doctrine that Christ died not only as a propitiation for the sin of man but also to save those who believe, who are given of the Father.

It is wrong to assume Scripture redefines words to make some sort of code to be decoded through ones theology. It is, in fact, biblical illiteracy. These words had a meaning to the audience and that was why they were chosen.

"Propitiation" is something (here Someone) that propitiates. The word is not difficult (it is an atoning sacrifice with the turning of wrath in view).

I encourage you, @Iconoclast , to lean a little less on commentaries. Given the extent of your use it appears you search for pices if writing that agree with you. This is a very dangerous way to do theology.

 

[Iconoclast]

We cannot explain away words (that is my complaint). I believe you ate missing the point.

In the verse Christ (not sin) is the focus. Christ IS the Propitiation for human sin. This is why historic Calvinism could affirm 2 Jn 2:2 without compromising the doctrine that Christ died not only as a propitiation for the sin of man but also to save those who believe, who are given of the Father.

It is wrong to assume Scripture redefines words to make some sort of code to be decoded through ones theology. It is, in fact, biblical illiteracy. These words had a meaning to the audience and that was why they were chosen.

"Propitiation" is something (here Someone) that propitiates. The word is not difficult (it is an atoning sacrifice with the turning of wrath in view).

I encourage you, @Iconoclast , to lean a little less on commentaries. Given the extent of your use it appears you search for pices if writing that agree with you. This is a very dangerous way to do theology.

The Biblical usage is all that matters.
The commentaries I use mostly are from very gifted people who know more that you or I.
There is an agreement and unity among them that you cannot seem to find.
The links I offer are from mainstream teachers and are profitable to multitudes.
As always you are free to follow your own path, and a different drummer.

 

[JonC]

The Biblical usage is all that matters.
The commentaries I use mostly are from very gifted people who know more that you or I.
There is an agreement and unity among them that you cannot seem to find.
The links I offer are from mainstream teachers and are profitable to multitudes.
As always you are free to follow your own path, and a different drummer.

The biblical use is what matters. Scripture uses words that have meanings - words that the inteded audience would understand.

What you are expecting us to believe is John uses a tense wrongly (points to sin and man rather than Christ) in 2 John. Not only do you expect us to believe that John says Christ is the Propitiation but means Christ has propitiated, you also expect us to believe the word represents an entire commentary on the act of propitiating instead of its actual definition.

This is eisegesis by definition. Words have meanings. Scripture uses real words, not "biblical words" removed from their actual meaning.

My suggestion is that you take a break from commentaries and simply read and study Scripture- NOT as a companion to theology but as its source. When you do not understand a word look it up (but do not superimpose an entire commentary into a passage as you will miss the point of the actual text.

 

[Iconoclast]

The biblical use is what matters. Scripture uses words that have meanings - words that the inteded audience would understand.

What you are expecting us to believe is John uses a tense wrongly (points to sin and man rather than Christ) in 2 John. Not only do you expect us to believe that John says Christ is the Propitiation but means Christ has propitiated, you also expect us to believe the word represents an entire commentary on the act of propitiating instead of its actual definition.

This is eisegesis by definition. Words have meanings. Scripture uses real words, not "biblical words" removed from their actual meaning.

My suggestion is that you take a break from commentaries and simply read and study Scripture- NOT as a companion to theology but as its source. When you do not understand a word look it up (but do not superimpose an entire commentary into a passage as you will miss the point of the actual text.

I only take advise from proven persons who have stood the test of time.
You offer much that seems to come short of truth as taught by trusted guides..
I have mentioned this before. I will not listen to your ideas as they have consistent errors.
You interject your own carnal thoughts that distort the issue.
When you do you post it in the way to suggest your view is obvious to all who read it. It is not. In fact it is made unclear to those who read it.
I am sure you mean well, but it is not happening the right way.
I will stick with my sources and proven teachers, rather than poor assumptions .

 

[JonC]

I only take advise from proven persons who have stood the test of time.
You offer much that seems to come short of truth as taught by trusted guides..
I have mentioned this before. I will not listen to your ideas as they have consistent errors.
You interject your own carnal thoughts that distort the issue.
When you do you post it in the way to suggest your view is obvious to all who read it. It is not. In fact it is made unclear to those who read it.
I am sure you mean well, but it is not happening the right way.
I will stick with my sources and proven teachers, rather than poor assumptions .

The issue is one of biblical literacy. Unfortunately too many people rely on commentaries and the opinions of men who "tickle their ears", so to speak. Some people choose a camp and then choose to follow teachers in that camp.

What I am saying is that we need to study Scripture rather than follow whomever "tickles our ears".

Biblical literacy HAS to be learned or truth (regardless of dictrine) dies.

The first question we ask when interpreting a text is "what did this mean to the original audience". Words have meaning. We can't link a word to a commentary on the meaning of a passage and declare it the "biblical meaning". That is not being honest to the text of Scripture.

I do not reject your definition of propitiating, but at the same time I don't know why you cannot see the subject if the passage in 2 Jn 2:2 as being Christ rather than man-centered. I think it should be obvious to anyone with a basic understanding of the language.

Words have meaning. The issue is NOT what Scripture means to you (your commentaries) but what Scripture actually means.

 

[JonC]

@Iconoclast , to clarify - I am not saying these scholars are not of value.

In terms of the subject here, my view is represented by people like John Piper, D.A. Carson, J.I. Packer, and Charles Spurgeon. If you want to know where I stand on the topic read those guys as they hold this view you think "comes up short".

I disagree that you are justified in the claim that my view on the topic (which I share with Spurgeon, Keller, Piper, Carson, and Packet) as somehow coming up short. You make t bg e claim often, but when called out you come up short on validating the accusation.

You really need to stop placing yourself as some standard others must strive to meet. This is not an echo chamber.

But while I share the views of these scholars, they do not dictate my understanding.

It is unfortunate you cannot seem to dialogue and remain faithful to God's instruction of how we are to dialogue. You have never been able to provide a point where I depart from orthodoxy on this point, yet you find it appropriate to insult my own scholarship (which ironically exceeds yours). It is even more ironic in that where we disagree is in passages you turn away from the actual text of Scripture in favor of theological summaries.

 

[Iconoclast]

JonC,

The issue is one of biblical literacy. Unfortunately too many people rely on commentaries and the opinions of men who "tickle their ears", so to speak. Some people choose a camp and then choose to follow teachers in that camp.

Some people might do that. Others have started with scripture and seen what it teaches. Over time then they see others who gave seen the same thing and more. To understand others have more of a gift and also have started from scripture is to be a companion of wise men; prov13
20 He that walketh with wise men shall be wise: but a companion of fools shall be destroyed.

What I am saying is that we need to study Scripture rather than follow whomever "tickles our ears".

Wise men as in proverbs 13:20 do not tickle ears but impart God-given wisdom.
God has given Pastors and teachers to the church for that purpose.

Biblical literacy HAS to be learned or truth (regardless of dictrine) dies.

I am comfortable with where I am doctrinally. I keep pressing forward to grow in grace and knowledge despite your insinuations to the contrary.

The first question we ask when interpreting a text is "what did this mean to the original audience".

No...it might be who was God speaking to, what did he say. If God was writing to unsaved persons it does not matter what it meant to them, because they did not understand it. No need to speculate on this because scripture is clear on this.

Words have meaning. We can't link a word to a commentary on the meaning of a passage and declare it the "biblical meaning". That is not being honest to the text of Scripture.

The biblical meaning comes from the Spirit of God.
1cor2
10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.

12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.

 

[JonC]

JonC,




Some people might do that. Others have started with scripture and seen what it teaches. Over time then they see others who gave seen the same thing and more. To understand others have more of a gift and also havestarted from scripture is to be a companion of wise men; prov13
20 He that walketh with wise men shall be wise: but a companion of fools shall be destroyed.

Wise men as in proverbs 13:20 do not tickle ears but impart God-given wisdom.
God has given Pastors and teachers to the church for that purpose.

I am comfortable with where I am doctrinally. I keep pressing forward to grow in grace and knowledge despite your insinuations to the contrary.



No...it might be who was God speaking to, what did he say. If God was writing to unsaved persons it does not matter what it meant to them, because they did not understand it. No need to speculate on this because scripture is clear on this.



The biblical meaning comes from the Spirit of God.
1cor2
10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.

12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.

I take it you have never studied (formally) the biblical languages, exegesis, or even theology.

There is an excellent resource - Grasping God's Word, that I recommend.

Grasping God's Word: A Hands-On Approach to Reading, Interpreting, and Applying the Bible

We cannot substitute commentaries for the actual study of Scripture. Your trust in your teachers is misplaced. Learn from them but first learn to study the Bible.

 

[Rockson]

Paul says we cannot discern spiritual truth (Christ) unless born again.

“But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” 1 Corinthians 2:14 (KJV 1900)

= false Christ unless born again.

Nope...sorry Dave. That was talking about if ones chooses to stay a carnal Christian they would not understand the deep things of God. Carnal Christians and sinners can understand basic things of salvation but not DEEP THINGS. 1 Cor 2:10 1 Cor 3:1-3

 

[37818]

Everyone has a limited atonement.

What does that interpretation mean?

 

[Iconoclast]

JonC, ,

to clarify - I am not saying these scholars are not of value.

You say that, but your posts usually say something on both sides of the fence, so it is never clear.

In terms of the subject here, my view is represented by people like John Piper, D.A. Carson, J.I. Packer, and Charles Spurgeon. If you want to know where I stand on the topic read those guys as they hold this view you think "comes up short".

I have my sources. I have everything that Spurgeon has mostly written. None of those I check agree with you.
I like Piper sometimes, but he is a bit of a wild card. He is more emotional than doctrinal.

J.I. Packer does not agree with you in Knowing God pages 161-165, does not agree with you
He rejects your notion of the pagan concept of the word, saying...it condemns paganism as a "monstous distortion of the truth"pg162
next paragraph he says the idea of averting God'sanger by an offering goes right through the bible., then goes to see the Nt usage...he addresses severL ERRORS SUCH AS YOU SUGGEST, THEN QUOTES jOHN mURRAY IN REFUTING THE ERRORS AND STEERING THE DISCUSSION TO THE BIBLICAL USAGE ON PAGES 166-173... YOU MIGHT WANT TO RE-READ IT.

I disagree that you are justified in the claim that my view on the topic (which I share with Spurgeon, Keller, Piper, Carson, and Packet) as somehow coming up short.

RE-READ IT AND SEE FOR YOURSELF. I HAVE SAID I DO NOT WISH TO HAVE SUCH INTERACTION WITH YOU AS YOU SEEM TO NOT BE ABLE TO DO SO WITHOUT TWISTING WHAT I ACTUALLY SAY, INTO SOMETHING ELSE.

You make t bg e claim often, but when called out you come up short on validating the accusation.

Do not worry. I am on to you now and will have the exact wording next time if it comes to that.
I do not care what you personally believe, that is between you and God. i have no confidence in anything you say because I see what you are up to.
I have said about a dozen times, you go your way, I will go mine. I do not need or want your advice.

You really need to stop placing yourself as some standard others must strive to meet

.

This is another wicked accusation on your part. Where do I say any such thing. This is the kind of insinuation that causes me to suggest you leave my posts alone. Post your own thoughts, I do not need you as a spokesman, or advisor.,Thanks

This is not an echo chamber.

You post what you want, I will post what I do. iF people like my posts fine...you have some who enjoy yours..rm, van, mb, have liked your posts. You should be happy with that.

But while I share the views of these scholars, they do not dictate my understanding.

You can go with that if you want. Of course you always seem to correct all of these men don't you?

It is unfortunate you cannot seem to dialogue and remain faithful to God's instruction of how we are to dialogue.

This is yet another evil slimy accusation here. you are welcome to your view and slanderous thought. It might be better to keep such wicked ideas to yourself. It is you who are consistently not following biblical directives on this, even though you try and twist it toward me. people see what you are doing. Stop it JonC, I have asked your repeatedly to stop this sad display.

You have never been able to provide a point where I depart from orthodoxy on this point,

You are suggesting this idea all by yourself. Do you have a post saying such?
I am not interested in what you believe, or what you recently claim to believe. Your posts speak for you.
I have no interest in what you say you affirm , and I am not really free to say much more. I do not need to. I ask you once again to go your own way. Stop twisting things

yet you find it appropriate to insult my own scholarship (which ironically exceeds yours).

I am sure you think it does, but I am not looking to trade my understanding for yours any time soon.I have not "insulted" anything. When you post on an open forum as a poster, and you post things that are not correct that get answered, why do you take that as an insult?

It is even more ironic in that where we disagree is in passages you turn away from the actual text of Scripture in favor of theological summaries.

Your view of the verses is jaundiced, I offer good links with good verses...you do not seem to welcome them.Once again JonC...I suggest you avoid my posts, you do not understand them at all.

 

[37818]

Nope...sorry Dave. That was talking about if ones chooses to stay a carnal Christian they would not understand the deep things of God. Carnal Christians and sinners can understand basic things of salvation but not DEEP THINGS. 1 Cor 2:10 1 Cor 3:1-3

The lost do not understand the gospel or else would not be lost. ". . . t if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: . . ." -- 2 Corinthians 4:3,