Does the Bible Support or Oppose Five-Point Calvinism?

[rnmomof7]

Conclusion

Calvinism is one more illustration of the futility of systematic theology. God's truths, particularly relating to soteriology, are too lofty to be put into concise formulae. The Five Points of Calvinism oversimplify the profound truths of God. They derive their force from proof-texts rather than the general tenor of Scripture.

More than that, the doctrines frequently create a spirit of division, elitism and theological snobbery. The system erects walls between believers. It creates a class of Christians within the church general who are supposedly part of a worthy "inner circle."

Many Calvinists read nothing but Reformed titles, hence these brethren seldom learn new perspectives. On the contrary, they are continually reaffirming their own "theological correctness." Such authors such as A. W. Pink, the Puritans, John Murray and such publishing companies as Banner of Truth become the sole staple for many. I say without intending offense that such exclusiveness differs little from that of Jehovah's Witnesses or other authoritarian groups.

Of course, I do not intend to paint all Calvinists with this brush. Many are thinkers who read outside literature, even Arminian literature. But the overarching trend in this tradition - a tradition of which I was once a part - is often one of narrow-mindedness and doctrinal superiority. As we have seen, the Scriptures give no warrant for such bigotry. The average Calvinist may be amazed at just how weak his system is when scrutinized in the light of revealed truth.

May our brethren see fit to adopt a Berean spirit (Acts 17:11) and honestly rethink their Calvinism. We would urge them to, for a time, lay aside the commentaries of Calvin and Gill, the theology of Warfield and Hodge. With an open Bible and mind, may they take a second look at the so-called "doctrines of grace" to see if they truly are the doctrines of Christ.

To believe that God did not intend and indeed ordain the fall is to remove His omniscience ....

 

[Dialogist]

And as you know the church fathers did not even agree with each other most of the time..

On points of dogma they did, or else they acknowledged the point as theolougemena (opinion); or else, they were anathematized like Origen and were not later considered to be Church Fathers. Councils like the Synod of Jerusalem I mentioned were convened precisely to ensure that the Church Fathers (or hierarchs) had consensus.

(I am speaking of the Orthodox Church, which at the time of the Synod comprised principally the Patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Constantinople; Rome having broken communion some 600 years earlier).

 

[rnmomof7]

What rubbish. Who are you to say what God intended or not.

However, good to hear from a self admitting supra-lapsarian hyper calvinist. Well done. Most, if not all calvinists I have met have been too scared to come out, resorting to the most amazing grammatical dynamite to support their dogma. Just as Spurgeon described in his famous sermon.

Bravo rnmomof7

If He did not intend it, it would not have happened

 

[nobdysfool]

So God intended the fall even before Adam and Eve fell ? Obviously leading to thought of if God intended each and everyone's sin then how can God hold his clay responsible.

Please expound your thoughts and views on this.

Are you of the opinion that God is reacting to things he wasn't sure would come to pass?

There is a difference between God's intentions, and man's actions

 

[EmSw]

Are you of the opinion that God is reacting to things he wasn't sure would come to pass?

There is a difference between God's intentions, and man's actions

Why would God's reactions to man's deeds be suspect to some?

Zechariah 1:6 -
Yet surely My words and My statutes, which I commanded My servants the prophets, did they not overtake your fathers?
So they returned and said:
Just as the Lord of hosts determined to do to us, according to our ways and according to our deeds, so He has dealt with us.

 

[Lazy_Proverb]

I couldn't be bothered discussing it I have been there done that elsewhere and have no intention of going anywhere near it again.

And yet you chose to enter here and say that.

 

[Lazy_Proverb]

I think what Calvinism may offer us is that God's in charge of his world.
George Carey

 

[Job8]

John 3:16 is sufficient to oppose Five Point Calvinism. No need for lengthy and wordy debates. Those who hold to this teaching will never abandon it, and those who reject it will never accept this fundamentally flawed belief.

 

[WirSindBettler]

John 3:16 is sufficient to oppose Five Point Calvinism. No need for lengthy and wordy debates.

I'm not even a Calvinist, but haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.

God loved the world . . . whoever believes in Him . . . nowhere does John 3:16 say Christ died for all.

 

[Lazy_Proverb]

John 3:16 is sufficient to oppose Five Point Calvinism. No need for lengthy and wordy debates. Those who hold to this teaching will never abandon it, and those who reject it will never accept this fundamentally flawed belief.

That verse is one that Arminians often use hoping to refute Calvinism and limited atonement. But it does not.
I'm not yet able to post links. There is an excellent article that speaks to this and is entitled, "Limited Atonement vs. John 3:16" and can be found at the website, Reformed Answers. They can do a far more thorough job than myself.

 

[Job8]

I'm not even a Calvinist, but haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.

God loved the world . . . whoever believes in Him . . . nowhere does John 3:16 say Christ died for all.

That God so loved the world confirms and establishes that He died for all.

How much simpler do you want it? Had that Scripture said "God so loved only the elect" you could go hahaha. Then the elect could also say Wir Sind Besser.

 

[Job8]

That verse is one that Arminians often use hoping to refute Calvinism and limited atonement. But it does not.
I'm not yet able to post links. There is an excellent article that speaks to this and is entitled, "Limited Atonement vs. John 3:16" and can be found at the website, Reformed Answers. They can do a far more thorough job than myself.

It is not Arminians who refute Five Point Calvinism. It is God Himself, and Christ Himself, who refute it in that one simple verse (which does not need any lengthy dissertations). Even a child can understand what God is saying, and THOSE ARE THE WORDS OF CHRIST HIMSELF.

 

[WirSindBettler]

That God so loved the world confirms and establishes that He died for all.

No, it doesn't.

Let me set the record straight: I am not a Calvinist; I believe that Christ died for all. However, John 3:16 could be taken a lot of different ways. God loved "the world" but does the verse explicitly state that He died for all? No. The verse even states that salvation is limited to whoever believes. Plus, in context, there's no reference to the work on the cross.

If you want to argue against limited atonement, pick verses which actually reference Christ's death.

Then the elect could also say Wir Sind Besser.

German much?

 

[Lazy_Proverb]

That God so loved the world confirms and establishes that He died for all.

How much simpler do you want it? Had that Scripture said "God so loved only the elect" you could go hahaha. Then the elect could also say Wir Sind Besser.

It is not Arminians who refute Five Point Calvinism. It is God Himself, and Christ Himself, who refute it in that one simple verse (which does not need any lengthy dissertations). Even a child can understand what God is saying, and THOSE ARE THE WORDS OF CHRIST HIMSELF.

That's John's book, his chapter, writing about salvation.
You're choosing to take the whole chapter out of context to push one verse that you think refutes Calvinism. It does not.
It contains nothing in that verse that relates to the cross, Jesus' death or atonement.

 

[Job8]

That's John's book, his chapter, writing about salvation.
You're choosing to take the whole chapter out of context to push one verse that you think refutes Calvinism. It does not.
It contains nothing in that verse that relates to the cross, Jesus' death or atonement.

C'mon Lazy_Proverb, you know better than that. Did you check John 3:14? Does it speak of the cross, Jesus death, and atonement? What does "must the Son of Man be lifted up mean" except be lifted up on the Cross, and Christ said "And I, if I be lifted up from the eath, WILL DRAW ALL MEN UNTO ME" (Jn 12:32). And just so we would not mistake what God meant, the next verse says "This He said, signifying WHAT DEATH HE SHOULD DIE" (Jn 12:33).

So for the nit-pickers, John 3:16 states the words of Christ in the context John 3:10-21, which includes the following words which explain what "the world" means (v. 17):
For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

 

[Job8]

If you want to argue against limited atonement, pick verses which actually reference Christ's death.

Since you are one of the nit-pickers, read, study, meditate upon and digest 2 Corinthians 5:14,15: For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead: And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again.

Did Christ die for all? Does all include the world? Are all human beings sinners, and dead in their trespasses and sins? Was it not then necessary that Christ die FOR ALL? And if He died for all, why would He not offer eternal life freely to all? Then why do puny, fallible, humans argue with God? There are many Christians just like Jonah, who would rather have seen Nineveh in Hell than saved by the grace of God.

 

[WirSindBettler]

Since you are one of the nit-pickers

You don't have to convince me Christ died for all, I already know it. But if you're trying to get your point across to Calvinists, you have to have no cracks in your defense.

 

[Lazy_Proverb]

It also helps to know the Koine Greek translation differences in the original text.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I'm not even a Calvinist, but haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.

God loved the world . . . whoever believes in Him . . . nowhere does John 3:16 say Christ died for all.

But since you asked…..

Heb 2:9 says that Jesus tasted death for all.

2 Cor 5:14 and 15 both say that Christ died for all.

Rom 5:6 In due time, when we were without strength, Christ died for the ungodly (are only the "elect" ungodly, or is all of humanity ungodly?

Luke 19:10 "For the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost." (are only the "elect" lost, or is all of hiumanity lost?

Titus 2:11 For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all (pas) men. (not some men)

1 Tim 1:15 Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners-of whom I am the worst. (are only the "elect" sinners", or is all of humanity sinners)

1 Tim 4:10 (and for this we labor and strive), that we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all (pas) men, and especially (malista) of those who believe.

1 John 2:2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole (holos) world. Holos: all, all together, every whit, throughout, whole

2 Pet 2:1: But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves.

I think the point has been made regarding who Christ died for.

 

[Lazy_Proverb]

1st Timothy 4:10 is often invoked by those who hold to universalism.
While the whole of John 17 supports the Calvinist position. Particularly verse 19, as relates to limited atonement.

Those who believe, are The Elect.
Ephesians 1:4
Even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love

As are mentioned throughout scripture. As are references to his sheep who's name Jesus knows. Recalling of course God's foreknowledge and predestination of all lives before the womb, those whom he knew before the womb.

1 Peter 1:2
According to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in the sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with his blood: May grace and peace be multiplied to you.

John 6:44-45 All scripture here is ESV)
No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day. It is written in the Prophets, ‘And they will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me—
1 Corinthians 2:14
The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.

Now that I can post links there's more opportunity to pursue this topic.