Does the Bible Support or Oppose Five-Point Calvinism?

[WirSindBettler]

But since you asked…..

I didn't ask, and if you back up a page or two, you'll see I've made lengthy posts against Calvinism's point of view.

 

[Katallina]

Some very interesting things here. I think that, in a nutshell, we're lucky that our salvation isn't going to be decided based on whether we ascribe to Calvinism (or any other theory we come up with) but rather to the ultimate decision of God.

With that said, if I understand correctly the biggest issue with Calvinism is whether or not we have free will and that tends to be supported by Romans 9. However, as we read along in that chapter of Romans, we eventually come to a part where Paul is talking about Clay. In several debates I've seen around the forums, I have seen many people talk about the Jacob / Esau portion of this area of the chapter, but the clay issue tends to remain untouched.

This, to me, is unfortunate. The clay reference actually refers to events in Jeremiah 18, where God has Jeremiah go and observe a potter who is working with some clay that is not shaping up quite the way he likes it. Instead of throwing the clay out, the potter instead changes his plan for it and takes it in a new direction which allows for something else of beauty to be made instead.

The way I interpret this--and I could be mistaken, as there are many, many ways to interpret the Bible since it's sort of a maze of interlocking stories--is that while God can and does have the power to plan and control every aspect of everything, that is not always or entirely what he chooses to do. (If that were so, how would it actually benefit Him for there to be Hell? If he knows who's going there, why create them to begin with? Why would he have permitted Satan's rebellion? Are we to believe that God is the source of all evil / suffering / depravity in the world, rather than the Devil--as the Earth is his (the Devil's) domain?)

With all due respect, I cannot buy that. I think the best way to express how I've come to see it--and again, this is only my view. I don't necessarily think others need to agree--is the idea that God works in conjunction with what we do, much like we learn how to do defensive driving. He's the master planner who always has a heavenly plan B if we decide to veer to the right when he would have liked us to veer to the left. Our relationship with God is, in essence, a cosmic dance--and one in which the steps would look, feel, and be so much better if we would learn to let Him lead. I somewhat think that this ability to recognize our role in that dance, and our daily effort to learn to work in harmony with God, is part of what growing as a Christian is about?

Now... I do have some good news for you. One thing I do believe is that we most certainly do not decide whether we are saved. This is something I use to struggle with a lot when I tried to grasp and understand the Christian faith. It somewhat reminds me of when I was a kid and my little brothers and I went on a ride at Disney where there was water shooting down and explosions in the background. My six year old brother screamed: "We're gonna die! We're gonna die! What if we're already dead and don't know it?"

Well... My question always use to be "What if I only think I believe? What if I'm not saved and don't know it?" ... The conclusion that I have reached is that it is not up to me whether or not I am saved. The best that I can do is believe, have faith that I *am* (faith being belief in that which is not known) and to make peace with the idea that God will know what is in my heart and the hearts of all others--even if we don't necessarily know the truth of this ourselves.

Anyway! Sorry if that got somewhat ramblely or off on random tangents. I would like to thank you for the extremely interesting information about Calvinism. It's late here and I did not get to go over it all with the fine-toothed comb I'd like to, but hopefully I'll get to that tomorrow. Have a great day!

 

[rnmomof7]

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.

3956/pás ("each, every") means "all" in the sense of "each (every) part that applies." The emphasis of the total picture then is on "one piece at a time."


3650hólos (a primitive adjective and the root of the English term "whole") – properly, wholly, where all the parts are present and working as a whole – i.e. as the total, which is greater than the mere sum of the parts. This factor is especially significant in metaphorical contexts or those focusing on the spiritual plane.


In the time frame these were written ...Jews considered themselves the sole recipient of the grace and mercy of the one true God.. they considered the others "the world"

Jesus had made clear to the apostles that His work, His gospel was not for the jews alone ..It was also to be taken to the "heathen " gentiles..

So when we see the apostles writing or teaching Christ was for the 'whole world" they are teaching that Jesus is the Savior of men of all nations , races, sexes .....

Have you ever gone to a party and the next day told a friend "everybody was there " ?

Was EVERYBODY THERE ? Or did you know your friend would know WHO you were talking about ?

I have a large family ..spread around the country as well as a few near me...

So I will say on Thanksgiving that the whole family came... those who know me will know who I mean.. that I do not mean all my family without exception ...

 

[FreeGrace2]

3956/pás ("each, every") means "all" in the sense of "each (every) part that applies." The emphasis of the total picture then is on "one piece at a time."

The phrase "that applies" is key. Only when "all" becomes further defined in the sentence that it is used can one determine what actually applies. So, when 2 Cor 5:14 and 15 says twice that "Christ died for all", it does apply to all. Not "all of some kind", or "all the elect", or any other way the Calvinists have tried to spin it.

Jesus had made clear to the apostles that His work, His gospel was not for the jews alone ..It was also to be taken to the "heathen " gentiles..

Yeah, actually ALL of them. Not some of them.

So when we see the apostles writing or teaching Christ was for the 'whole world" they are teaching that Jesus is the Savior of men of all nations , races, sexes …..

Except in those verses about the "whole world" there is no mention of any kind of parsing. No verse says that Christ is the Savior "of men of all nations, races, sexes". That is just made up. The Bible says that He is the Savior of the world. That He atoned for the sins of the whole world.

Have you ever gone to a party and the next day told a friend "everybody was there " ?

Sure. And by that very statement we have CONTEXT; the party I went to. Could not possibly refer to every alive person on earth, much less everyone who has ever been born or will be born.

I have a large family ..spread around the country as well as a few near me...

So I will say on Thanksgiving that the whole family came... those who know me will know who I mean.. that I do not mean all my family without exception ...

Once again, context determines what is understood. So, please show me any verse that I have cited in which the context has limited the meaning of "all" or "whole world" to mean clearly less than the entire human race.

 

[rnmomof7]

The phrase "that applies" is key. Only when "all" becomes further defined in the sentence that it is used can one determine what actually applies. So, when 2 Cor 5:14 and 15 says twice that "Christ died for all", it does apply to all. Not "all of some kind", or "all the elect", or any other way the Calvinists have tried to spin it.


Yeah, actually ALL of them. Not some of them.


Except in those verses about the "whole world" there is no mention of any kind of parsing. No verse says that Christ is the Savior "of men of all nations, races, sexes". That is just made up. The Bible says that He is the Savior of the world. That He atoned for the sins of the whole world.


Sure. And by that very statement we have CONTEXT; the party I went to. Could not possibly refer to every alive person on earth, much less everyone who has ever been born or will be born.


Once again, context determines what is understood. So, please show me any verse that I have cited in which the context has limited the meaning of "all" or "whole world" to mean clearly less than the entire human race.

Either you are a universalist or you do not understand that all does not always mean 100%

Are those that have never heard of Jesus saved too??

 

[Job8]

Either you are a universalist or you do not understand that all does not always mean 100%

One does not have to be a Universalist to believe that Christ died for all humanity. Note carefully what John the Baptizer said in John 1:29: The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

There any many others Scriptures which tell us that Jesus is the Propitiation for the sins of the WHOLE WORLD and that He came to save THE WORLD and that He is THE SAVIOUR OF THE WORLD. Please look them up for yourself so that you know this first-hand. All you need is a Concordance.

Universalists pervert the truth by claiming that all will be saved regardless of whether they obey the Gospel. That is an entirely different and false doctrine. At the same time to claim that Christ DID NOT die for the sins of the whole world is also false doctrine. God holds each one accountable for promoting false doctrine.

 

[Marvin Knox]

One does not have to be a Universalist to believe that Christ died for all humanity. Note carefully what John the Baptizer said in John 1:29: The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

There any many others Scriptures which tell us that Jesus is the Propitiation for the sins of the WHOLE WORLD and that He came to save THE WORLD and that He is THE SAVIOUR OF THE WORLD. Please look them up for yourself so that you know this first-hand. All you need is a Concordance.

Universalists pervert the truth by claiming that all will be saved regardless of whether they obey the Gospel. That is an entirely different and false doctrine. At the same time to claim that Christ DID NOT die for the sins of the whole world is also false doctrine. God holds each one accountable for promoting false doctrine.

Although I am what most would can Reformed in my doctrine I tend to generally agree with the the concepts expressed in this post. That includes the things expressed in the last paragraph.

I say that even though I value highly much or most of the teaching of the many Calvinists who's work has meant so much to me over the years.

Of the two positions expressed in that last paragraph - the first is the most troubling. That is because it effects the preaching of the gospel in a mighty way.

Although I disagree with "limited atonement" somewhat (as it is often expressed) - it doesn't effect the preaching of the gospel much at all. Perhaps the wording of the invitations will be different from that of a non-Calvinist. But the basic saving message and invitation to make it all personal pretty much remains the same.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Either you are a universalist or you do not understand that all does not always mean 100%

First, heaven's NO, I am not a universalist. In fact, the majority of the human race will spend eternity in the lake of fire.

Second, my post was either not read, or read so quickly that my point was completely missed. Context ALWAYS determines how "all" is being used. In every case. And the verses I cited do NOT show any context to take "all" in those verses as less than all of humanity.

If any do, I have already asked to show me where the context demands that "all" means "less than 100%".

Are those that have never heard of Jesus saved too??

No. Why should they be?

Did God reveal His divine power and attributes to all or just to some? Rom 1:19-20 is a good reference point for the answer.

Did God create mankind to seek Him or not? Acts 17:26-27 is a good reference point for the answer.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Although I am what most would can Reformed in my doctrine I tend to generally agree with the the concepts expressed in this post. That includes the things expressed in the last paragraph.

I say that even though I value highly much or most of the teaching of the many Calvinists who's work has meant so much to me over the years.

Of the two positions expressed in that last paragraph - the first is the most troubling. That is because it effects the preaching of the gospel in a mighty way.

Although I disagree with "limited atonement" somewhat (as it is often expressed) - it doesn't effect the preaching of the gospel much at all. Perhaps the wording of the invitations will be different from that of a non-Calvinist. But the basic saving message and invitation to make it all personal pretty much remains the same.

From my dealings with 5-point Calvinists, the general approach to the gospel is to de-personalize it. This is done by phrasing the gospel in general terms, such as: all who will believe on Christ will be saved. In fact, many of them will take great pains to NOT tell them that Christ died for them (because they don't believe the He did die for everyone, and they don't know who He didn't die for).

This became a "hot thread" on one of the forums some years back regarding what 1 Cor 15:1-11 was about. The 5-pointers strongly resisted the idea that Paul was reminding the Corinthian church of what his gospel message to them was before they believed. Of particular note is v.3 in which Paul says "of first importance, that Christ died for our sins". They insisted that Paul was only reminding them of what he preached to them after they had accepted the gospel. But whether one reads the passage from the NASB or the NIV, the message is clear: it is what Paul preached to them before they believed.

 

[Lazy_Proverb]

I think this thread has become a debate between few individuals and it appears your remarks go unnoticed.
I appreciate your personal testimony of faith and your insight and openheart toward the topic itself.
Thank you for sharing here.

Some very interesting things here. I think that, in a nutshell, we're lucky that our salvation isn't going to be decided based on whether we ascribe to Calvinism (or any other theory we come up with) but rather to the ultimate decision of God.

With that said, if I understand correctly the biggest issue with Calvinism is whether or not we have free will and that tends to be supported by Romans 9. However, as we read along in that chapter of Romans, we eventually come to a part where Paul is talking about Clay. In several debates I've seen around the forums, I have seen many people talk about the Jacob / Esau portion of this area of the chapter, but the clay issue tends to remain untouched.

This, to me, is unfortunate. The clay reference actually refers to events in Jeremiah 18, where God has Jeremiah go and observe a potter who is working with some clay that is not shaping up quite the way he likes it. Instead of throwing the clay out, the potter instead changes his plan for it and takes it in a new direction which allows for something else of beauty to be made instead.

The way I interpret this--and I could be mistaken, as there are many, many ways to interpret the Bible since it's sort of a maze of interlocking stories--is that while God can and does have the power to plan and control every aspect of everything, that is not always or entirely what he chooses to do. (If that were so, how would it actually benefit Him for there to be Hell? If he knows who's going there, why create them to begin with? Why would he have permitted Satan's rebellion? Are we to believe that God is the source of all evil / suffering / depravity in the world, rather than the Devil--as the Earth is his (the Devil's) domain?)

With all due respect, I cannot buy that. I think the best way to express how I've come to see it--and again, this is only my view. I don't necessarily think others need to agree--is the idea that God works in conjunction with what we do, much like we learn how to do defensive driving. He's the master planner who always has a heavenly plan B if we decide to veer to the right when he would have liked us to veer to the left. Our relationship with God is, in essence, a cosmic dance--and one in which the steps would look, feel, and be so much better if we would learn to let Him lead. I somewhat think that this ability to recognize our role in that dance, and our daily effort to learn to work in harmony with God, is part of what growing as a Christian is about?

Now... I do have some good news for you. One thing I do believe is that we most certainly do not decide whether we are saved. This is something I use to struggle with a lot when I tried to grasp and understand the Christian faith. It somewhat reminds me of when I was a kid and my little brothers and I went on a ride at Disney where there was water shooting down and explosions in the background. My six year old brother screamed: "We're gonna die! We're gonna die! What if we're already dead and don't know it?"

Well... My question always use to be "What if I only think I believe? What if I'm not saved and don't know it?" ... The conclusion that I have reached is that it is not up to me whether or not I am saved. The best that I can do is believe, have faith that I *am* (faith being belief in that which is not known) and to make peace with the idea that God will know what is in my heart and the hearts of all others--even if we don't necessarily know the truth of this ourselves.

Anyway! Sorry if that got somewhat ramblely or off on random tangents. I would like to thank you for the extremely interesting information about Calvinism. It's late here and I did not get to go over it all with the fine-toothed comb I'd like to, but hopefully I'll get to that tomorrow. Have a great day!

 

[Lazy_Proverb]

Proverbs 16:4
The Lord has made everything for its purpose, even the wicked for the day of trouble.

Our God is in the heavens;he does all that he pleases. Psalm 115:3

 

[Marvin Knox]

From my dealings with 5-point Calvinists, the general approach to the gospel is to de-personalize it. This is done by phrasing the gospel in general terms, such as: all who will believe on Christ will be saved. In fact, many of them will take great pains to NOT tell them that Christ died for them (because they don't believe the He did die for everyone, and they don't know who He didn't die for).

That is exactly the way it is carefully phrased by many Calvinists.

But that doesn't have to "depersonalize" things - since there can still be a personal appeal for each person to trust in Christ for the forgiveness of sins - just as is done by non Calvinists.

The highly evangelical work of the likes of George Whitefield, in past centuries - and - more recently, D. James Kennedy (Evangelism Explosion) come to mind here.

Seldom does an evangelical Calvinist preach the distinctive doctrines of election and such at the same time that the gospel is proclaimed - although it is sometimes unwisely done.

No more does an evangelical Calvinist do that than an evangelical non-Calvinist preaches other doctrines such as the Millennium, the Rapture, the Judgment Seat of Christ or any one of a dozen other doctrines.

It was my personal experience in my life, however, that an evangelical appeal for a personal commitment was sometimes lacking in Calvinistic oriented churches.

This became a "hot thread" on one of the forums some years back regarding what 1 Cor 15:1-11 was about. The 5-pointers strongly resisted the idea that Paul was reminding the Corinthian church of what his gospel message to them was before they believed. Of particular note is v.3 in which Paul says "of first importance, that Christ died for our sins". They insisted that Paul was only reminding them of what he preached to them after they had accepted the gospel. But whether one reads the passage from the NASB or the NIV, the message is clear: it is what Paul preached to them before they believed.

As I see it - the Corinthian passage can be approached from either side of the doctrinal fence and not do any injustice to the meaning of the passage.

Let's not re-litigate the issue again here though.

 

[gordonhooker]

And yet you chose to enter here and say that.

Exactly just as you have chosen to respond to an old post without adding any value.

 

[Lazy_Proverb]

Exactly just as you have chosen to respond to an old post without adding any value.

To the contrary. This is an active thread as one can read quite easily.
My posts do add value. They share scripture that supports the validity of Calvinism.
While yours show us that you have no respect for Calvinism, can't be bothered to discuss Calvinism, as you've said early on. And yet you return again and again to goad Calvinists and flame the faith of Calvinism.

I think you may wish to commit to the introspection that allows you to find out why you repeat that behavior. If Calvinism is to be avoided, you do not do that even when it comes to a discussion you've stated early on you won't enter into.
The negative condescending remarks you post are derogatory and skirting the rules of proper conduct in a debate or dialog here. If you're happy not being a Calvinist why do you commit to such action in a Calvinist thread?

This isn't intended to be an invite to a conversation. It's an observation and a request that you stop interjecting venom into this thread.
Thank you.

 

[FreeGrace2]

To the contrary. This is an active thread as one can read quite easily.
My posts do add value. They share scripture that supports the validity of Calvinism.

Please direct me to any verse that clearly indicates that Christ did not die for everyone in humanity.
Please direct me to any verse that clearly indicates that God chooses who will believe.
Please direct me to any verse that clearly indicates that all believers will persevere in the faith to the end of their life.

Just for info, I am not an Arminian. I do believe in eternal security.

Thanks.

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

Calvin's intent for TULIP was for people to under stand that the Bible altogether, point by point, passage by passage, book by book, outright conveys it's teaching. It is a doctrine directly from the entirety of the scriptures.

So I mean, to say that the Bible outright opposes Calvinism requires an ample amount of opposition.

 

[rnmomof7]

First, heaven's NO, I am not a universalist. In fact, the majority of the human race will spend eternity in the lake of fire.

Second, my post was either not read, or read so quickly that my point was completely missed. Context ALWAYS determines how "all" is being used. In every case. And the verses I cited do NOT show any context to take "all" in those verses as less than all of humanity.

If any do, I have already asked to show me where the context demands that "all" means "less than 100%".


No. Why should they be?

Did God reveal His divine power and attributes to all or just to some? Rom 1:19-20 is a good reference point for the answer.

Did God create mankind to seek Him or not? Acts 17:26-27 is a good reference point for the answer.

Acts 17:
26 and He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation, 27 that they would seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us;


If you read Acts 17:26 it tells you that God is sovereign on when and where you are born, thus your exposure to the gospel

Verse 27 lets us know HOW HARD it is to find God...." it very strongly intimates, how dim and obscure the light of nature is; since those, who have nothing else to direct them, are like persons in the dark, who "feel" and grope about after God, whom they cannot see; and after all their search and groping, there is only an "haply", a peradventure, a may be, that they find him: "(gill)


Romans 10:20
But Isaiah is very bold, and says, I was found of them that sought me not; I was made manifest unto them that asked not after me.


I know that verse was true in my case ....

 

[rnmomof7]

One does not have to be a Universalist to believe that Christ died for all humanity. Note carefully what John the Baptizer said in John 1:29: The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

There any many others Scriptures which tell us that Jesus is the Propitiation for the sins of the WHOLE WORLD and that He came to save THE WORLD and that He is THE SAVIOUR OF THE WORLD. Please look them up for yourself so that you know this first-hand. All you need is a Concordance.

Universalists pervert the truth by claiming that all will be saved regardless of whether they obey the Gospel. That is an entirely different and false doctrine. At the same time to claim that Christ DID NOT die for the sins of the whole world is also false doctrine. God holds each one accountable for promoting false doctrine.

One more time...we need to understand the culture ... The Jews believed that they had an exclusive relationship with God... when speaking to them the WORLD would mean that gentiles might be included in this salvation

And Christ is styled the Lamb "of God", in allusion to the same, whom the Cabalistic Jews (e) call the secret of the mystery, and , "the Lambs of God"; because God has a special property in him; he is his own Son; and because he is of his providing and appointing, as a sacrifice for sin, and is acceptable to him as such; and to distinguish him from all other lambs; and to give him the preference, since he does that which they could not do, "taketh away the sin of the world": by the "sin of the world", is not meant the sin, or sins of every individual person in the world; for some die in their sins, and their sins go before hand to judgment, and they go into everlasting punishment for them; which could not be, if Christ took them away: rather, the sin which is common to the whole world, namely: original sin; but then it must be observed, that this is not the only sin Christ takes away; for he also takes away actual sins; and the Arabic and Ethiopic versions read in the plural, "the sins of the world"; and also that this he takes away, only with respect the elect; wherefore they are the persons intended by the world, as in John 6:33, whose sin, or sins, Christ takes away: and a peculiar regard seems to be had to the elect among the Gentiles, who are called the world, in distinction from the Jews, as in John 3:16, and the rather, since the lambs of the daily sacrifice, to which the allusion is, were only offered for the sins of the Jews: but John here signifies, that the Lamb of God he pointed at, and which was the antitype of these lambs, not only took away the sins of God's people among the Jews, but the sins of such of them also as were among the Gentiles; and this seems to me to be the true sense of the passage. The phrase "taking away sin", signifies a taking it up, as Christ did; he took it voluntarily upon himself, and became responsible to divine justice for it; and also a bearing and carrying it, for taking it upon himself, he bore it in his own body on the tree, and carried it away, as the scape goat did under the law; and so likewise a taking it quite away: (gill)

 

[Job8]

One more time...we need to understand the culture ... The Jews believed that they had an exclusive relationship with God... when speaking to them the WORLD would mean that gentiles might be included in this salvation

God's truth is CULTURE-INDEPENDENT. You have simply tried to dodge the plain meaning of Scripture. That is to your own detriment, because when we deny the Light, or dodge the Light, we receive even less Light.

The Bible is not Jews speaking to sinners but GOD speaking to sinners and inviting all sinners to be saved by grace. We could multiply the Scriptures ad infinitum, but when people are determined to dodge what the Bible plainly states, it is a sheer waste of time and energy.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Calvin's intent for TULIP was for people to under stand that the Bible altogether, point by point, passage by passage, book by book, outright conveys it's teaching. It is a doctrine directly from the entirety of the scriptures.

So I mean, to say that the Bible outright opposes Calvinism requires an ample amount of opposition.

Please direct me to any verse that clearly indicates that Christ did not die for everyone in humanity.
Please direct me to any verse that clearly indicates that God chooses who will believe.
Please direct me to any verse that clearly indicates that all believers will persevere in the faith to the end of their life.

Just for info, I am not an Arminian. I do believe in eternal security.