Calvinism and its Secret Universalism

[Hammster]

That would be a fairly redundant thing to write. If the first section (e.g. “our sins”) talks about the whole scope of the recipients of Christ’s atoning sacrifice, namely Christians, then the author adds “but not just our sins”(!) “but the sins of the whole world…) they would be doing nothing by that but contradicting themselves, since they wrote in between the whole thing “not just our sins.”

Well, is the author reiterating his point or introducing a new group? Seems fairly obvious he’s inviting a wider scope.

If someone thought that the author meant the already mentioned group within the world, that would be such a useless and nonsensical thing to write.

Useless because the author already mentioned the whole group, and nonsensical because they wrote “not just our sins…”(!)

That interpretation is so laboured, clunky and unnatural. It’s a walking contradiction, almost as if there’s some large philosophical presupposition underpinning the whole interpretation.

It’s not redundant. If he’s saying to a group (Jewish Christians) that Christ died for their sins, it’s that group that is in mind. But if he wants to expand that, he can just say that it’s not for “our” sins (his and his immediate audience) but for people all throughout the world.

So my point is, grammatically it works.

 

[Hammster]

Real good job of steel manning the opposing point of view here.

Then go ahead and respond to his post.

 

[Cormack]

Then go ahead and respond to his post.

My point is that “….but freewill or…. something” is a disrespectful, dismissive, surface level attempt at characterising libertarian freewill.

If you don’t like being seen as surface level, maybe you should try steel manning the opposite sides point of view. I know your view, and because I know your view I can comfortably write it’s wrong. Can you say you know @John Mullally view even in a general way?

Probably not because…. Free will…. Or something.

But if he wants to expand that, he can just say that it’s not for “our” sins (his and his immediate audience) but for people all throughout the world.

“Our” in the letter isn’t about his private collection of friends who are watching him write an epistle, it’s directed towards all Christians. You read the book as though it were written to you. “My dear children” starts our chapter division, it’s directed towards brothers and sister in Christ.

That’s why in the very same chapter John explains what he means by “the world,” in the section we title “on not loving the world.” This world he describes as prideful, fleshy, lustful, not qualities we associate with Christians scattered abroad.

His use of the phase “the world” in the chapter isn’t meant to be read as “the world of other believers who aren’t present right here.”

“Grammatical” it’s reaching and an act of dismissing the plain sense of the text in favour of philosophical presuppositions, your philosophy trumps what the words say.

 

[Hammster]

My point is that “….but freewill or…. something” is a disrespectful, dismissive, surface level attempt at characterising libertarian freewill.

I’ve been doing this a long time. And that’s what it boils down to…free will.

I know the argument because not only have I seen it in this thread, but I’ve made it myself because I used to hold to that view.

 

[Hammster]

“Our” in the letter isn’t about his private collection of friends who are watching him write an epistle, it’s directed towards all Christians. You read the book as though it were written to you. “My dear children” starts our chapter division, it’s directed towards brothers and sister in Christ.

It’s actually directed to the church he’s writing to. That is how the epistles worked. They were letters to specific churches or specific people.

 

[Cormack]

And that’s what it boils down to…free will.

Once again that’s just you being dismissive and surface level towards the other side. It’s a waste of those thousands and thousands of messages you write when you aren’t even willing to explain their view in a way that they recognise.

It’s actually directed to the church he’s writing to. That is how the epistles worked. They were letters to specific churches or specific people.

I suppose you won’t bother to read or cite the epistle any longer, since not only are you unaware of if Christ died for your sins (e.g. limited atonement,) but you’re also not the intended audience.

I’m still waiting on you to interact with that massive section of exegesis on what the phase “the world” means in 1 John 2, unless you’re more into writing about how long you’ve done this. You know, the really big issues.

I suppose the fussy work of trying to explain how epistles work is more important to you than defining what John intends by writing “the world” in the chapter we are discussing.

 

[Hammster]

Once again that’s just you being dismissive and surface level towards the other side. It’s a waste of those thousands and thousands of messages you write when you aren’t even willing to explain their view in a way that they recognise.

The comment was to one who already knew what I was taking about.

 

[Hammster]

I suppose you won’t bother to read or cite the epistle any longer, since not only are you unaware of if Christ died for your sins (e.g. limited atonement,) but you’re also not the intended audience.

It was written for us, just not to us. So proper hermeneutics dictates that we read it I that light. Otherwise, you’ll make words like “our” mean every single person in the human race, when it wasn’t intended that way by the author.

 

[John Mullally]

You aren’t seeing the problem. If God’s wrath is satisfied, that means He’s no longer angry at the sinner. That means that Christ’s sacrifice actually did something. He took the punishment that was deserved. So if the Father sends someone to hell, in your understanding, then He is unjust because He’s punishing someone for sins that His Son paid for. There’s just no basis for sending someone to hell. This is why “whole world” in 1 John cannot mean every person who ever lived. It puts a rift in the Trinity.

I have argued that the New Testament teaches that Christ died for all humanity based upon 1 John 2:2 and 2 Peter 2:1. You could not point out a flaw in that logic, so you found a new angle. You are arguing that Christ's sacrifice or propitiation for all of humanity is absurd based upon your flawed understanding of how the promises of God are received. Hebrews 4:1-3 indicates that God's promises are received through faith and not automatically as you presume.

 

[Hammster]

I have argued that the New Testament teaches that Christ died for all humanity based upon 1 John 2:2 and 2 Peter 2:1. You could not point out a flaw in that logic, so you found a new angle. You are arguing that Christ's sacrifice or propitiation for all of humanity is absurd based upon your flawed understanding of how the promises of God are received. Hebrews 4:1-3 indicates that God's promises are received through faith and not automatically as you presume.

I did point out the flaw. You just chose to not respond.

 

[John Mullally]

I did point out the flaw. You just chose to not respond.

2 Peter 2:1 states the "Lord bought" the worst kind of people - false prophets spreading heresies. In Post #148, I asked you how did the Lord buy them and you did not respond. That is just super annoying.

 

[Hammster]

2 Peter 2:1 states the "Lord bought" the worst kind of people - false prophets spreading heresies. In Post #148, I asked you how did the Lord buy them and you did not respond. That is just super annoying.

I explained how your understanding of propitiation splits the Trinity. There’s not much else to be said.

 

[John Mullally]

I explained how your understanding of propitiation splits the Trinity. There’s not much else to be said.

So your answer several posts down indicates that God's word tears apart your unbiblical theology. Answer the question directly.

 

[Hammster]

So your answer several posts down indicates that God's word tears apart your unbiblical theology. Answer the question directly.

No, my answer was that your theology has Jesus being crushed by the Father for sins that someone else will eventually have to pay for. That makes the Father unjust.

 

[John Mullally]

No, my answer was that your theology has Jesus being crushed by the Father for sins that someone else will eventually have to pay for. That makes the Father unjust.

Christ died one time for humanity - He will not be crushed again. You ask questions frequently and have insisted that I answer your questions. It is now you turn. Answer the following question directly:

2 Peter 2:1 states the "Lord bought" the worst kind of people - false prophets spreading heresies. How did the Lord buy them?

 

[Hammster]

Christ died one time for humanity - He will not be crushed again. You ask questions frequently and have insisted that I answer your questions. It is now you turn. Answer the following question directly:

2 Peter 2:1 states the "Lord bought" the worst kind of people - false prophets spreading heresies. How did the Lord buy them?

He’s not referring to Jesus. He’s referring to the Father. It’s used in the sense of common grace.

 

[John Mullally]

He’s not referring to Jesus. He’s referring to the Father. It’s used in the sense of common grace.

You are saying that that payment refers to God being good to these false prophets. As in God sending rain on their land and causing his wife and critters to be fertile. If that is the case, then the phrase "even denying the Lord that bought them" is misleading as scripture contains no record of payment tor this common grace. But hey, I pressured him to give an answer and he did not disappoint his ilk. Wikipedia says the term "Common Grace" was invented in the 19th century by the Reformed Theologians who also gave us "Divine Reprobation" (post #129). If you are among the unfortunate that are predestined to it, they formulate that your life starts out nicely with "Common Grace", but then "Divine Reprobation" kicks in and you spend an eternity in Hell. This evil is turned into being a good thing because God gets glory. Reformed Theologians ironically package this as the "Doctrines of Grace". Check it out in Wikipedia.

My turn: The phrase "even denying the Lord that bought them" indicates that the only payment referenced in the NT for humanity (Christ's Propitiation) was provided for false prophets. It wont do any good based upon reading the rest of 2 Peter 2:1.

 

[Hammster]

For those interested in 2 Peter 2:1, here’s a great article on it.

2 Peter 2:1 and Universal Redemption

 

[John Mullally]

For those interested in 2 Peter 2:1, here’s a great article on it.

2 Peter 2:1 and Universal Redemption

Nice, but when Peter wrote his letters he was addressing his congregation, not lawyer types that can explain anything away (even your salvation) in 20 pages of diatribe. You have to consider the comprehension of those Peter, like modern day Apostles (Eph 4:11) address - if you need to use terms not present at that time or require more than a quarter-page of explanation you are off, try again.

 

[John Mullally]

He’s not referring to Jesus. He’s referring to the Father. It’s used in the sense of common grace.

So as you say the one's addressed by Peter are expected to believe that the "Lord paid for" in 2 Peter 2:1 is referring to the common grace brought about by His blessing of the False Prophet's property with rain, his wife's fertility, etc as being a payment from the Lord. That's not obvious in the 2 Peter 2:1 because no False Prophets were identified by name. In addition Peter's audience is not impressed with this common grace argument - per the fear of the Lord instilled by the Ananias and Saphira incident. Try again.