Anyone have good arguments against Calvinism.

zoidar said:

I would say Calvin is discussing faith, not the extent of Christ's atonement.

Click to expand...

bbbbbbb said:

Indeed, without faith, the atonement is meaningless, having no effect.

Click to expand...

zippy2006 said:

These arguments will go nowhere until someone says clearly what they mean by "atonement."

Click to expand...

zoidar said:

When it comes to your analogy of packages being lost, to me it would be more like everyone got a home delivery with a vaccine, but some people refuse to open the package. God's intent was to make the vaccine/salvation available for everyone, not that everyone would be saved conditionless.

I don't think it was worse or harder for God to take the punishment of all sin, than for some chosen ones. The torment Jesus went through had been just as servere if he just died for one person's sins. I think we should think of sin as a disease, and Jesus as the vaccine. So in that sense it would only make sense God made a vaccine for everyone's disease, since it's the same disease.

You have the question to answer why God didn't elect all, when He could have. And I have the question to answer why God made atonement for everyone's sins, knowing all along not all would receive Christ. These are of course different questions, but both carry their own tension.

Click to expand...

zoidar said:

I agree Calvin teaches only the elect are given faith and only they will seek Christ and have life. But that's about the application of the atonement, not its extent. The passage says who believes, not for whom Christ died.

Your logic seem to follow three steps:

1. Only the elect are given faith.

2. Only those with faith receive the benefits of Christ's atonement.

3. Therefore, Christ died only for the elect.

This may seem logical from your view, but 3 does not necessarily follow 1 and 2.

From my view, who receives the atonement has nothing to do with the extent of the atonement. I don't understand why it would. You say since some are chosen to believe, the atonement was only made for them. Why would that follow? You haven't explained why this must be so.

The statement "No faith, no atonement" is a theological stance, most denominations and churches don't agree with. If you were to say: "No faith, no application of the atonement" I would agree. The extent and the application are two different things.

Click to expand...

bbbbbbb said:

I like your modification of the analogy to represent a vaccine being sent out. That still leaves the obstacle in which the packages simply are undeliverable either because there is no postal system for delivery at all in many countries (which is an actual fact in today's world), people moving and not giving forwarding addresses, bureaucratic errors in delivery, etc. You can also introduce the hypothetical problem of language. If the vaccine is sent out with instructions in Arabic, but virtually nobody speaks or reads it, then even those who have it delivered to their mailbox will ignore it. As well, instructions in properly using the vaccine can be misunderstood, etc. The bottom line might be that a teensy weensy proportion of the population will be anti-vaxxers who will knowingly reject the vaccine. Thus, all the good intentions will, in the end, be of minimal value.

I see no reason to expect God to save anyone at all, much less to provide atonement for anyone, much less everyone.

Click to expand...

Hentenza said:

I never argued that some are chosen for salvation because that would also mean that some are chosen not to believe. I don’t believe in double predestination. No one knows who the “elect” are except for God but the logical conclusion proves the syllogism in your post.

God is omniscience and immutable. God’s foreknowledge is absolute because if it wasn’t then He would have to change to adapt to what He didn’t know so He could not be immutable either. The “choice” of who is saved and who is not has been known to God since before the foundation of the world. So the atonement is only efficacious for those who were going to believe according to Gods foreknowledge. God’s foreknowledge doesn’t cause anyone to believe or not believe it is merely His foreknowledge which action was always going to be as He knew it was going to be.

Click to expand...

Hentenza said:

Unless you are ready to argue that God is not aware of a present synergistic action then you cannot argue that the extent of the atonement is equal to who receives the atonement.

Click to expand...

zoidar said:

How does your example connect with the Biblical account? It seems this has drifted far from what the Bible actually teach. God is sovereignly paying for everyone's sins, how is that a lost delivery, or instructions in the wrong language?

Did God have to save anyone? Certainly not! But if you love mankind, that is what you do. The reason is that God is love!

The one who does not love does not know God, for God is love.
— 1 John 4:8

I want to share this clip on the atonement. Maybe it helps you see my view. (About 10 minutes long)

Click to expand...

bbbbbbb said:

Would you kindly provide such a definition for discussion?

Click to expand...

zippy2006 said:

If I were making claims about the atonement I would of course be willing to define what I mean by 'atonement'. But I see people talking past each other without attempting to define the central words of disagreement.

Click to expand...

bbbbbbb said:

I see your point and hope you see mine. If an outside, less subjective, definition were to be provided by someone such as yourself it might provide for fruitful discussion.

Click to expand...

The English word atonement was created for the purposes of bibli-
cal translation and has no earlier etymological history. Wycliffe used
the phrase “at one-ment” in his fourteenth-century translations of the
Vulgate into Middle English to convey humanity’s being reconciled
or “at one” with God. In the sixteenth century, this was combined
into the word “atonement.” Because the word was coined, it offers lit-
tle insight into the concept as it is employed in the Scriptures. Some
modern English translations have moved to the translation “recon-
ciliation” in many instances to parallel Wycliffe’s original usage. In
contemporary scholarly sources, “purification” has become widely
popular, with “purgation” as another popular alternative.

The origin of the term is in the Hebrew word group kfr. Hebrew
words have three-letter roots that can then be used to form related
verbs and nouns with connected meanings. A form of this word cre-
ates the name for the holy day Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement.
The kfr root appears to be derived from a parallel Akkadian word that
formed the verb “to wipe.” In Hebrew, it can mean to wipe, smear,
or cover. In the Hebrew Scriptures, this invokes a deliberate word-
play on, for example, the description of the Day of Atonement ritual
(Leviticus 16). The act of smearing or wiping blood in the sanctuary
wipes away sin. By covering the objects in the tabernacle with blood,
sins are covered from the sight of God. Similarly, incense covers the
appearance of God Himself within the sanctuary on that day so that
the high priest does not see Him and die.

This action is central to all Israelite worship. The lid of the ark of
the covenant is “the atonement cover,” though often translated “mercy
seat” in English. The later temple is referred to as the “house of atone-
ment” (e.g., 1 Chr. 28:20). Despite the centrality of the term in rit-
ual contexts, it is also used throughout the Hebrew Scriptures with
regard to human relationships. It is used, for example, when Jacob is
preparing to meet his brother Esau for the first time in many years and
sends offerings ahead of himself in the hopes that they will “cover,” or
more literally “atone” Esau’s face (Gen. 32:20). The kfr word group not
only pertains to the restoration of relationships between persons and
community in a general sense but also includes ritual elements aimed
at removing or covering over the cause of estrangement...

Fr. Stephen De Young, Religion of the Apostles, 167-8

Click to expand...

C. Atonement

The term ἱλασμός is the subject of discussion primarily regarding two competing views of the
meaning of atonement. These two views take as their starting point the terms propitiation and
expiation. These both represent understandings of how atonement deals with sin and restores
unity between parties. Propitiation sees sacrifices of atonement as a means by which the wrath or
anger of one of two divided parties is mollified.[285] A formerly embittered or alienated party is
rendered propitious through an offering. Expiation treats sin or general wrongdoing as a cause of
alienation, a barrier to unity, which is removed using the offering.[286]

Fr. Stephen De Young, Not only for our sins but for the whole world: 1 John 2:2 against the Jewish background of 1 John, 89-90

Click to expand...

These two elements, both propitiation and expiation, can be seen within atonement as it is
described within the Hebrew Scriptures, including and exemplified by the Day of Atonement
ritual.[302] The sins of the people and the stain of uncleanness left by the sins of the people
represent an impediment to God’s continued dwelling among his people.[303] Sacrifice is necessary
to remove this impediment, and cleansing is required to remove this taint of uncleanness.[304] If
such atonement does not take place, there is a continued danger of the presence of God breaking
forth within the camp as fire and consuming the people along with their sins, as was the case for
Nadab and Abihu (Lev 10:2). Their deaths represent a description of God’s wrath, giving the
atoning offerings the character of propitiatory sacrifices.

Fr. Stephen De Young, Not only for our sins but for the whole world, 93-4

Click to expand...

bbbbbbb said:

Thank you for sharing your clip.

My example connects with the parable of the sower which, as we all know, has a variety of interpretations. In my example, as modified, the seed is vaccine to cure a fatal illness. In the parable, the seed is freely given out - except that it is distributed by the sower as he walks along his path, not to each and every spot of land, which would be impossible. However, if one wishes to set aside that issue and take it to mean that the seed is freely sown everywhere, the analogy is still weak, at best. The reality with the gospel of Jesus Christ is that it has been available since the day of Pentecost, but the vast majority of mankind has never had any access to it. One can postulate various reasons for this problem. One obvious reason is human inadequacy. Christians have failed, oftentimes through no lack of purpose on their part, but because of resistance and/or logistical issues. Linguistic translation has been an enormous obstacle. Another reason could be that God, knowing full well that this problem would arise, has somehow provided another means of salvation for those who, through no fault of their own, have found themselves facing an unknown eternity. Or, that God has mystically applied the atonement of Jesus Christ to them, saving all who prove themselves worthy of the atonement. Or, that God, being a God of love, has atoned for their sins, declaring them sinless after they have died in their sins (as hinted at in the video with the example of the innocent man who was executed for a sin he never committed, but was exonerated after death). In the case of the unfortunate man he was still quite dead and the judicial actions only cleared his reputation, but did not bring him back to life. I am unsure as to what advantage was obtained in this action, other than to bring solace to his surviving family members.

The argument presented in the clip is curious to me. If God, through the atonement of Jesus Christ, has lovingly cleared each person from the guilt of his sin, but still condemns them for not having availed themselves of His atonement, on what basis does God condemn them if, in actual, fact they are legally sinless? It seems that the only sin left would be not having availed oneself of the atonement. It really does not matter, ultimately, the number or severity of one's sin since the judgement is the same. If one's name is not found in the Lamb's book of life which was written before the foundation of the work, one is just as condemned as anyone else, are they not?

Click to expand...

Mark Quayle said:

Of course. "Everyone believing", or, "All those believing", is the Greek, which in English I think valid, is, "Everyone that is believing".

Click to expand...

Mark Quayle said:

One of the things I gain from being an MK (missionary kid)/ 3rd culture kid/ bilingual with some knowledge of other language structures, is to very well understand that what one person means by something is not quite universal with what another means by the very same term, even within one contemporary social culture. When you step outside that culture, to a VERY foreign culture, subjugated to another, using yet another language to work between the two and used also as a common 'trade language' with still other cultures, in a world without common [electronic] communication and fast transportation between trade points, a word like, "world", would,—I'm projecting here—run the gamit. In such cases the listener learns to sit back and let the rest of what is being said give context to such words before concluding that it means only his usual use of it, and even his use of the context.

You too, I expect, have seen the phenomenon, which is driven not only by whatever lens a person prefers or assumes valid, but by their hurry to render meaning to what is being said, ignoring the rest of a perhaps long speech, post or paragraph. I expect it's been done to you as it has to me. Just one example: We have watched people take the book of Ecclesiastes, quoting this and that out of it, without regard for the introduction and 'conclusion to the matter'. They apparently never considered the whole book to be one statement—one sentence, if you will—one argument. In a certain sense, the whole Bible is like that. It is ALL of it context. The whole story is the Gospel.

Click to expand...

Mark Quayle said:

I'm going to say this, too, which may ruffle feathers in both 'Self-Actualizer' and Calvinistic Camps: One of the favorite hermeneutic principles in Bible study is to ask, "What did the original audience understand by the term, (phrase, story, etc)?" The problem with asking that question is to assume that therefore, it is what the human author meant by it, and it is therefore, what God meant by it, and that it therefore, cannot mean more than that, AND (this is the objectionable part) that God knew very well—in fact, intended—that modern man would read it and understand things and misunderstand things by it, which God will use for his own purposes. SO: The original Greek word is not so easy to nail down as all that.

Click to expand...

Mark Quayle said:

One of the things Bible students like to do also is to assign only to some places, a method or style or category, or 'here it is poetry'- 'here they use the old 'school master' teaching method' etc etc. to the loss of realizing that each style does not necessarily fade out of other passages. We love to organize what doesn't well adapt to organizing. When John wrote John 3 (and the whole book of John) he was not just narrating, not just commenting, not just rendering judgement, not even just prose. (This is something that I find mindboggling about how God can write—using human words to move human concepts through the ages to produce thoughts full of mistakes and selfish uses, all dancing around the truth, yet every jot and tittle is truth.)

So: When God says, "world", there is a whole lot of thinking foreign to our immediate judgement on it. For myself, I prefer to sit back and read and read, context, commentary on the context, Biblical record concerning the context and force of the passage's grammar/syntax/logical argument, implications of different views and meanings, etc. THAT is why I don't accept either POV on, "world", and why I am even skeptical of my own favorite way to look at it.

I have concluded that the verse cannot MEAN the common use in people's minds: "God loved everyone in world so equally and so much that he offered his son as a sacrifice to be, in case just anyone's by their own free will should maybe just happen to choose to do so, accepted in the place of their own deserved punishment—deserved, because if there is no free will, punishment is monstrous—which needs also to be explained, that this accepting necessarily implies an exhaustive relinquishing of control, at least for the moment, to God."

Naturally, that is exaggerating, but all that is commonly read into the verse—not just brought to bear in considering the verse, but become part of the meaning of the terms in the verse.

Yes, I agree. It most definitely doesn't determine the meaning of John 3:16 and context. But it is assumed to do so, and that is my point. It should not be. That someone believes does not imply that they chose to believe. I easily grant that they think it is by their choice, and God does not often berate them for that. Eventually, I hope, they begin to see the gracious hand of God in bringing them to believe and placing them "in Christ", when they were helpless and 'dead' (Ephesians 2), unable to do anything spiritual (1 Corinthians 2), at enmity with him (Romans 8).

Click to expand...