How does the Reformed view defend against these scriptures?

[friend of]

Do note that I would appreciate it if this discussion were to focus only on the verses provided and not trail off into something else. I'm looking for the Reformed's exegetical rebuttals and so you must forgive me if I preserve mild skepticism toward responses that are considerably on-the-spot eisegesis. Attempts are still welcomed. Remember to be charitable.

I'll be using (ESV) a version so Standard that Standard is its middle name.

1 Timothy 2:3-6
3 This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior,
4 who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
5 For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,
6 who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time.

2 Peter 3:9
9 The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.

1 John 2:2
2 He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.

These verses are strongly suggestive of Unlimited Atonement, including the infamous John 3:16.

Matthew 22:14
14 For many are called, but few are chosen.

Now, unless God is in the business of practicing redundancy, (He is not Hebrews 13:8) this verse suggests Resistible Grace. Not to mention Matthew 18:10-14 the Parable of the Lost Sheep.

Matthew 10:38
38 And whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me.
Luke 9:23
23 And he said to all, "If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me.
Mark 8:34
34 And calling the crowd to him with his disciples, he said to them,"If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.

 

[Tree of Life]

The reformed view does not defend against Scripture. Rather we regard all Scripture as the word of God and seek to hear what he is saying and to let Scripture, and good and necessary consequences thereof, be the sole rule for our doctrine.

 

[Hammster]

Do note that I would appreciate it if this discussion were to focus only on the verses provided and not trail off into something else. I'm looking for the Reformed's exegetical rebuttals and so you must forgive me if I preserve mild skepticism toward responses that are considerably on-the-spot eisegesis. Attempts are still welcomed. Remember to be charitable.

I'll be using (ESV) a version so Standard that Standard is its middle name.

1 Timothy 2:3-6
3 This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior,
4 who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
5 For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,
6 who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time.

2 Peter 3:9
9 The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.

1 John 2:2
2 He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.

These verses are strongly suggestive of Unlimited Atonement, including the infamous John 3:16.

Matthew 22:14
14 For many are called, but few are chosen.

Now, unless God is in the business of practicing redundancy, (He is not Hebrews 13:8) this verse suggests Resistible Grace. Not to mention Matthew 18:10-14 the Parable of the Lost Sheep.

Matthew 10:38
38 And whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me.
Luke 9:23
23 And he said to all, "If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me.
Mark 8:34
34 And calling the crowd to him with his disciples, he said to them,"If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.

We just redact them from our bibles.

But seriously, what are we supposed to be defending against?

 

[Albion]

Those are pretty easily defended IMO, but I will let a self-described Calvinist or member of one of the Reformed churches answer.

 

[Tolworth John]

Jesus's rightousness is unlimited, there is no limit to what or how many people he can forgive etc, but that forgiveness is only available to those who ask for it.

 

[Tree of Life]

1 Timothy 2:3-6
3 This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior,
4 who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
5 For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,
6 who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time.

Paul probably means "all kinds" of people. That is - people in high positions and low positions, men and women, people from every nation. "All" here does not mean every individual. It's easy to see this from the immediate context. In 1 Timothy 2:1 Paul says to pray for all people, probably meaning "all kinds of people".

2 Peter 3:9
9

The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.

My first guess here is that "any" corresponds with "you". If this is so, then Peter is referring to the church. The Lord is not willing that any of his people would perish.

1 John 2:2
2

He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.

By "whole world" John means "every nation".

This can be seen in a parallel statement in his gospel. In John 11:51-52 John says - "He did not say this of his own accord, but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but also to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad."

Matthew 22:14
14

For many are called, but few are chosen.

This occurs in the context of the parable of the wedding banquet. It's a parable teaching about the difference between the visible and the invisible church. Many hear the call of the gospel but comparatively few are chosen by God for salvation.

Matthew 10:38
38

And whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me.

Whoever is not willing to die to self cannot be a follower of Jesus. I don't see how this notion is a problem for the reformed view.

Luke 9:23
23

And he said to all, "If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me.
Mark 8:34
34 And calling the crowd to him with his disciples, he said to them,"If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.

Same as above.

 

[friend of]

Whoever is not willing to die to self cannot be a follower of Jesus. I don't see how this notion is a problem for the reformed view.

Really. Really?

The entire reformed view is that those who will follow the Lord have no choice in the matter.

I have recently come to understanding the Calvinism vs. Armenianism discourse in the same way I view the Nature vs. Nurture debate. They can both play a role and God's presence in the life of one of His will not always be the same.

 

[friend of]

We just redact them from our bibles.

You can't do that though.

But seriously, what are we supposed to be defending against?

Whatever you like.

 

[Hammster]

The entire reformed view is that those who will follow the Lord have no choice in the matter.

No it isn't.

 

[Hammster]

You can't do that though.



Whatever you like.

There's nothing to defend.

 

[frienden thalord]

It is simple. If how we understand a scrip contradicts what Jesus taught
we understood the scrip wrongly. He never said all WOULD be saved
in fact only few.
Plus paul also said for ALL men have not faith. DOES that mean ALL MEN don't have faith.
NO, it means not everyone has faith.
Just remember when it comes to any scrip, if what we understand agrees with JESUS
teachings...it was rightly understood. IF not andin any way contradicts what JESUS said
we have minsinterpreted what we read. Its that simple.

 

[Hammster]

It is simple. If how we understand a scrip contradicts what Jesus taught
we understood the scrip wrongly. He never said all WOULD be saved
in fact only few.
Plus paul also said for ALL men have not faith. DOES that mean ALL MEN don't have faith.
NO, it means not everyone has faith.
Just remember when it comes to any scrip, if what we understand agrees with JESUS
teachings...it was rightly understood. IF not andin any way contradicts what JESUS said
we have minsinterpreted what we read. Its that simple.

What if what you understand is wrong, yet you think it agrees with scripture?

 

[friend of]

No it isn't.

I'm sure you're aware of the Reformationist concept that God's Grace is irresistible. Are you a 5-point TULIP? Or 4-point?

 

[Hammster]

I'm sure you're aware of the Reformationist concept that God's Grace is irresistible. Are you a 5-point TULIP? Or 4-point?

Five pointer. And I'm aware that His grace is effective. There's not much power in grace if it's not effective.

 

[friend of]

There's not much power in grace if it's not effective.

Are you suggesting I think it otherwise?

 

[Hammster]

Are you suggesting I think it otherwise?

I have no idea what you think.

 

[friend of]

My first guess here is that "any" corresponds with "you". If this is so, then Peter is referring to the church. The Lord is not willing that any of his people would perish.

My contention is that if any could be lost, than so too could any be saved.

By "whole world" John means "every nation".

What scripture do you have to back this up?

Whole World is pretty specific to All. Every Nation is pretty specific to All.


Matthew 10:38,
Luke 9:23
Mark 8:34

Each of these passages are conveying the same message. The use of would and let both imply a decision on behalf of one to accept Christ by their own volition.

This is similar to the meaning found in the Last Supper. Christ broke bread and drank wine. Bread and wine are both created through the efforts of Man and God. Man planted the wheat and God carried it to harvest. Man Planted the vine and God grew it. Man grinded the wheat and grapes and God allowed the production of Man's effrort to be edible and satisfying.

The sacrament of the Lord's supper signifies a concerted effort on part of Man and God together. Calvinism denies that man has any part in this relationship, as it states that God is wholly responsible for Man's Faith in it's entirety. Man has no part in co-creation, because God does it all, as far as saving Faith is concerned.

If this is the case, then what desire could God possibly have to create man in the first place? Man without freedom to follow Him is pointless. Reformation denies the very essence of Faith in things unseen. Hebrews 11

 

[frienden thalord]

What if what you understand is wrong, yet you think it agrees with scripture?

might want to give an example.

 

[Hammster]

Reformation denies the very essence of Faith in things unseen.

No it doesn't. But I'm sure you can elaborate on why you think so.

 

[friend of]

No it doesn't. But I'm sure you can elaborate on why you think so.

Because of the concept of Irresistible Grace, which you yourself just claimed to ascribe to.