How, then, is the Calvinist refuted?

[LJSGM]

John 3 16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,[a] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life


God so loved the WORLD, which includes ALL MEN.

 

[Rick Otto]

But what about Esau?
Ro 9:13 - Show Context As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
John must've meant all kinds of men, or else Paul was mistaken, right?

 

[heymikey80]

I'm not sure what you're saying here? Why does God find fault if they reject God's one and only son? These are the Jews that rejected Jesus that we're refering to. The rest believed and were saved.

I'm saying what's said in the context. The context states the "if" side.

So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires. You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?"
​

The "if" side is, "God has mercy &etc." Why does God find fault if God has mercy & etc.? It can be distributed out to anyone who's hardened. Anyone.

No, it's not limited to Jewish people, but it is limited to unbelievers, which both Jew and gentile are included. Have you an example of God hardening a believer? I'd like to see it.

Why would I be looking for this, when I consider belief to be an effect of mercy and not a cause? But to show that the elect may be partly hardened, that's readily done -- which I believe I've cited before?

For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this mystery--so that you will not be wise in your own estimation--that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in Rom 11:25

From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of God's election they are beloved for the sake of the fathers; for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. Rom 11:28-29
​

But it's even worse than that. Paul's answer obliterates any thought that Paul is retracting back to, "Oh, He's only hardening those who didn't have faith." No, God intentionally formed them and hardened them. It's what the passage says. It's what Paul is arguing. It's just not what you're arguing.

I'm not sure how you came to this conclusion. Verses may help.

That was the passage you were quoting. I was making an observation of fact, not an assertion of interpretation.

You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?" On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, "Why did you make me like this," will it? Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? Rom 9:19-21
​

This just shows God's foreknowledge of who he would love, Which I know that God is all knowing. This is your predestination... God foreknew.

For what it's worth, God foreknew everything about everyone. If it were just that God knew about the person, the verse proves too much. God knew about everyone. So God called everyone, justified everyone, glorified everyone. Turning back to Romans 8, I scan the text for Paul talking about foreknowing about someone's faith. It's not there.

And there's a clear alternative: that God foreknew people the way you and I know friends and others we love. I don't say "I know John Calvin", even though I know quite a bit about him and even feel a kinship with him. God's saying, "I foreknew John Calvin." He was a personal Friend to Calvin before Calvin even existed.

Well, it means sorta the same thing, if they would just only believe they would recover their inheritance.

Um, how would they have their inheritance in the first place again, without believing? They wouldn't be recovering what belonged to them ... although that's what Paul says about the Jewish people. If the basis is faith, then inheritance is through faith. If there's a natural connection though, the inheritance would naturally extend to the children. And by the same token, to Gentiles whose descendants didn't persist in the faith.

Yes, it is hard to cross over from a physical kingdom to a now spiritual one and understand everything pretaining to the promises made to the physical nation of God.

Can you really read through Romans 11 as if the election of the Jewish people is to a physical nation, while the election of the Gentiles is to a spiritual one now? I've never seen it pulled off successfully here.

 

[heymikey80]

mmm. So in your view Spirit == righteousness == salvation == promise. If you make everything the same, then nothing will come out any differently.

not sure what you're saying here.

Your quotation jumps from one word to the other without caring very much about which is which. I think Paul had specific intent in using each of these words, and they don't always swap out with one another.

So if they're all the same, then yes it's possible to mistake what's going on. When they can all merge together, you can break them back out in a given theology as you please.

It just won't be the way the Apostle used the words.

ok... first off, lets put to light these verses that you are refering to that say this, then we can discuss it.

Yes, well, new birth by the Holy Spirit generates faith in God, which gains a declaration that you're righteous before God

Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God 1 John 5:1

I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but rubbish so that I may gain Christ, and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith, Pp 3:8-9

​

No. For were your last phrase true, then no one would believe in Jesus.

Jesus answered and said to him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God." ... Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not be amazed that I said to you, 'You must be born again.'" John 3:3, 5-7
​

It doesn't work in this order simply because no one can have a faith that saves without the Spirit of God.

Therefore I want you to understand that no one speaking in the Spirit of God ever says "Jesus is accursed!" and no one can say "Jesus is Lord" except in the Holy Spirit. 1 Cor 12:3
​

Are you calling the plan of salvation a blob?

Only if it's not split out Scripturally into how Scripture uses the concepts.

Yes, in most cases, men's hearts are hard because of their own will, only a few cases does God "harden" a heart of an unbeliever to bring about a greater purpose. Perhaps this person, he foreknew he would reject him, so he uses him as an object of wrath.

The heart of man is in the Hand of God. If God's election is not from the human will, it must be paradoxical that some people just sit on the fence with no molding by the Hand of God. It certainly isn't in Paul's view in Romans 9. Nor Jesus: "Those who aren't for me are against me; those who don't gather with me, scatter."

You then are a universalist? Because God has already revealed to us that his will is that All men be saved.

Clearly not, for if God wants all men to be saved with no other qualification, they would be saved. God's omnipotent, right?

We're discussing the qualification. You have one: human will. I have one: God's purposes.

Otherwise you believe he just picks a few people at random to enter the kingdom. This is non-sense.

Excluded middle. Nobody said it was random. Is every choice God makes random in your estimate? Would you trust God with choosing the events of your life? By the logic above you'd be trusting in random choices.

No, there's a clear difference between randomness and God's choices. God isn't randomness. So neither are His choices.

I think the biggest problem people seem to have is that they think that faith is a work.

I believe I pointed out election is not of human will in Romans 9:16. For this idea to work personal faith can't be from the will, either.

The bible makes it clear that it definitely is not because they are in contrast. Faith/belief is a choice, that anyone can make, the choice is reject him or believe HIm, this includes repentance. This is the only way that we can recieve his mercy, is if we ask for mercy, it is the only way that God can use us, is if we repent which comes through true belief. Then if we die to ourselves, we can recieve His new life. This is His plan of salvation.

I neglect the point because I do think faith can be considered meritorious just like works. "I have faith so you've gotta let me in." That's what contradicts salvation by grace (even by grace through faith, as an instrument, not a warrant). Works were a problem because they were thought of as obligating God, like a wage (cf Rom 4:1-4). Faith can be considered the same thing.

 

[Ben johnson]

I say He could and I am hardly alone in that answer.

God cannot create/author/cause evil. God is love, He is GOOD --- and both those are THINGS, not qualities. God is perfect, and cannot stand sin; He cannot cause/sanction/approve of it.

God cannot glory in sinful destruction; His glory is a quality of Himself.

This point is furthered in John5:39-47; Jesus rebukes them because they were unwilling to come to Jesus that they might have life.

...and the reason they were unwilling, was because they "sought men's glory rather than God's".

This is an important point. God's glory stands alone from men.

Does anyone disagree with that? God's glory stands alone; men can SEEK His glory, or they can seek MEN'S glory.

If anyone can disagree with this, please explain how; else it's established that "God does not glory in the perishing of men."

 

[drstevej]

God can not change Ben's will ???

 

[nobdysfool]

Romans 8

29For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.

You need to learn what foreknew means in a biblical sense. It is not just awareness of something, which is what we usually understand to know something. God knows everything, by virtue of the fact that He is God.

In Genesis, it is said that Adam knew his wife, and a son was born to them. Did Adam not know who Eve was before she bore him a son? Of course not! Knew, in this context, means intimate relations, or intimate knowledge.

That is what is meant by "those God foreknew, He also did predestine". He set His Love on certain individuals (by no means just a "few" as is often falsely charged by anti-Calvinists), and those individuals He predestined to be saved (conformed to the Image of His Son). These people are referred to as the Elect of God. Scripture shows us that Election is before the foundation of the world. hence the term "Foreknew", as in knew intimately, before the foundation of the world. In the Psalms, David said that God knew all his inward parts, and all of his days, before there were any of them. And we know that God had a special love for David, a man after His own Heart. David was one of the Elect.

You have to learn the way words were used in the times, and in the vernacular of the day. Even English usage changes over time, so the KJV is often hard to understand, because the word usage is archaic, and we don't speak that way now, as they did back then (1600's)

I like the ESV. Very readable, yet very accurate.. The NKJV is also good.

 

[Rick Otto]

God cannot create/author/cause evil. God is love, He is GOOD --- and both those are THINGS, not qualities. God is perfect, and cannot stand sin; He cannot cause/sanction/approve of it.

You have judged Him by His action, not by His motive.

God cannot glory in sinful destruction; His glory is a quality of Himself.

WE din't say He "glories in"
we say it SERVES His glory.

If anyone can disagree with this, please explain how; else it's established that "God does not glory in the perishing of men

same as above

 

[drstevej]

FYI:

Poll: Should Christian be removed from this website title ???

 

[cygnusx1]

John 3 16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,[a] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life


God so loved the WORLD, which includes ALL MEN.

I find it really challenging to examine just what is being said in John 3:16

The word “world” cannot be loosely translated as meaning every one for all time, including those who have already perished. No one would grant that it includes all men in hell, or those who had previously been in hell at the time of the crucifixion. But by not granting this, the scope of those for whom God “so loves” is already limited. I quote John Owen at length, “First…Now, this love we say to be that, greater than which there is none. Secondly, by the “world,” we understand the elect of God only, though not considered in this place as such, but under such a notion as, being true of them, serves for the farther exaltation of God's love towards them, which is the end here designed; and this is, as they are poor, miserable, lost creatures in the world, of the world, scattered abroad in all places of the world, not tied to Jews or Greeks, but dispersed in any nation, kindred, and language under heaven. Thirdly, “i[na pa/j o` pisteu,wn” “in order that every believer,” is to us, and is declarative of the intention of God in sending or giving his Son, con­taining no distribution of the world beloved but a direction to the person whose good was intended, that love being an unchangeable intention of the chiefest good. Fourthly, “Should not perish, but have life everlasting,” contains an expression of the particular aim and intention of God in this business; which is, the certain salvation of believers by Christ. And this, in general, is the interpretation of the words which we adhere unto, which will yield us sundry arguments, efficient each of them to evert the general ransom; which, that they may be the better bottomed, and the more clearly convincing, we will lay down and compare the several words and expression of this place, about whose interpreta­tion we digress, with the reason of our rejecting the one sense and embracing the other:­ The first difference in the interpretation of this place is about the cause of sending Christ; called here love. The second, about the object of this love; called here the world. Thirdly, Concerning the intention of God in sending his Son; said to be that believers might be saved.[24] As Owen again states, “It is the special love of God to his elect, as we affirm, and so, consequently, not any such thing as our adversaries suppose to be intended by it, - namely, a velleity or natural inclination to the good of all.”[25] It must be kept in mind that Owen did believe God gave good things to lost men, but it does not argue a natural disposition in Him to do so in this saving sense.

http://www.apuritansmind.com/Arminia...OfJohn3_16.htm

 

[Ben johnson]

You have judged Him by His action, not by His motive.

His "motives" are just as pure as He is. He can't stand sin; how could He want anyone TO sin?

WE din't say He "glories in"
we say it SERVES His glory.

He hates sin; how could it serve His glory?

When eternity has come, there will be no sin. If "sin serves God's glory", what will He do then?

(asked with sincere respect)

 

[Rick Otto]

Close, so close...
Your editing again.
It isn't that God wants man to sin.
Will & desire are not the same thing just like predestination (determinate council) is not will.
You have a desire, so you form a plan(intent), then you will
execute it. Or not.
Sin will have served God's glory by giving reason for both His jutice & His mercy.
Cool, huh?
I think you may have gotten the knack for brevity!
Imagine what a monotonous existence we'd have if we didn't know how good we have it.
How deeply happy can you be if you've never been sad?

 

[LJSGM]

But what about Esau?
Ro 9:13 - Show Context As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
John must've meant all kinds of men, or else Paul was mistaken, right?

Ok, I'm not sure what the point is that you are making, but...the true "context" would have been ALL of Romans chapters 9-11, because this is were he's explaining the relationship between the jews and the gentiles in this plan of salvation.

Jacob and Esau is an example of God's true election. Esau was "born into" his inhertiance, that is that it rightfully belonged to him because he was the "first" born. But what Paul is saying is even if you were "born" a Jew, does not make you a jew, true election is by faith. God chose/elected Jacob because he loved him, and Esau he hated, not because he was the first born. Therefore Jacob recieved the inheritance when he shouldn't have if it was based on being born into it (Jews). It does not go into detail as to why God hated Esau in these verses, but perhaps if we go back to the Old testament we can see why. It definately does not say that God created Esau to be hated, or he created Esau that way, so this does not point to calvanism and is not the evidence of it.

 

[LJSGM]

God can not change Ben's will ???

Yes, God can, but he chose from the beginning not to. Thus, it would no longer be "free" will if he forced us. We would then be robots. Are you saying that we are just mere robots? what's the point in saving us then? Oh, I forgot, God couldn't glorify himself without punishing us. I wonder all of the fuss with trying really hard to not punish us and give us mercy through the cross? Wouldn't he be even more glorified with more people being punished?

 

[LJSGM]

You need to learn what foreknew means in a biblical sense. It is not just awareness of something, which is what we usually understand to know something. God knows everything, by virtue of the fact that He is God.

In Genesis, it is said that Adam knew his wife, and a son was born to them. Did Adam not know who Eve was before she bore him a son? Of course not! Knew, in this context, means intimate relations, or intimate knowledge.

That is what is meant by "those God foreknew, He also did predestine". He set His Love on certain individuals (by no means just a "few" as is often falsely charged by anti-Calvinists), and those individuals He predestined to be saved (conformed to the Image of His Son). These people are referred to as the Elect of God. Scripture shows us that Election is before the foundation of the world. hence the term "Foreknew", as in knew intimately, before the foundation of the world. In the Psalms, David said that God knew all his inward parts, and all of his days, before there were any of them. And we know that God had a special love for David, a man after His own Heart. David was one of the Elect.

You have to learn the way words were used in the times, and in the vernacular of the day. Even English usage changes over time, so the KJV is often hard to understand, because the word usage is archaic, and we don't speak that way now, as they did back then (1600's)

I like the ESV. Very readable, yet very accurate.. The NKJV is also good.

Use the word knew in any way, and the meaning is still the same. The verse really says that first he foreknew, then he predestined, meaning that from this knowledge, he made the decision to predestine and call the elect. Still not "evidence" for calvinism.

God has to at least leave a few men out of the plan for salvation, just so he can glorify himself in their torture, right?

 

[LJSGM]

You have judged Him by His action, not by His motive.


WE din't say He "glories in"
we say it SERVES His glory.


same as above

but you are saying that God's motive is to glorify himself in their punishment (I have heard no other motives). If God creates evil men, he thus created evil as well, making him the author of evil, thus making him evil. Satan is the author of evil as well, what makes him different from God? There is no other way around it. This is a dangerous belief, because it brings a heap of blasphemy onto God, and I don't know which is worst, believing that men become Gods, and that Jesus and satan are brothers, or believing that God is evil... at least you don't have a whole other bible I guess.

 

[LJSGM]

I find it really challenging to examine just what is being said in John 3:16

The word “world” cannot be loosely translated as meaning every one for all time, including those who have already perished. No one would grant that it includes all men in hell, or those who had previously been in hell at the time of the crucifixion. But by not granting this, the scope of those for whom God “so loves” is already limited. I quote John Owen at length, “First…Now, this love we say to be that, greater than which there is none. Secondly, by the “world,” we understand the elect of God only, though not considered in this place as such, but under such a notion as, being true of them, serves for the farther exaltation of God's love towards them, which is the end here designed; and this is, as they are poor, miserable, lost creatures in the world, of the world, scattered abroad in all places of the world, not tied to Jews or Greeks, but dispersed in any nation, kindred, and language under heaven. Thirdly, “i[na pa/j o` pisteu,wn” “in order that every believer,” is to us, and is declarative of the intention of God in sending or giving his Son, con­taining no distribution of the world beloved but a direction to the person whose good was intended, that love being an unchangeable intention of the chiefest good. Fourthly, “Should not perish, but have life everlasting,” contains an expression of the particular aim and intention of God in this business; which is, the certain salvation of believers by Christ. And this, in general, is the interpretation of the words which we adhere unto, which will yield us sundry arguments, efficient each of them to evert the general ransom; which, that they may be the better bottomed, and the more clearly convincing, we will lay down and compare the several words and expression of this place, about whose interpreta­tion we digress, with the reason of our rejecting the one sense and embracing the other:­ The first difference in the interpretation of this place is about the cause of sending Christ; called here love. The second, about the object of this love; called here the world. Thirdly, Concerning the intention of God in sending his Son; said to be that believers might be saved.[24] As Owen again states, “It is the special love of God to his elect, as we affirm, and so, consequently, not any such thing as our adversaries suppose to be intended by it, - namely, a velleity or natural inclination to the good of all.”[25] It must be kept in mind that Owen did believe God gave good things to lost men, but it does not argue a natural disposition in Him to do so in this saving sense.

http://www.apuritansmind.com/Arminia...OfJohn3_16.htm

I don't really care how this Owen person twisted the meaning of the word "world." The world means still means all men. The verse means that God loves all men and wishes all men to come to repentance. Otherwise he would have said. "God so loved those he loved" or "God so loved his elect, that he..." ect. This STILL is not evidence for calvinism. I still do not see ANY evidence for Calvinism, and it is a very dangerous belief. I guess it has gone unnoticed for centuries because it is a subtle difference and a subtle twisting, but it does make a world of difference in our attitudes and life view, in the gospel, in one word "Everything" we believe in.

John 1
10He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him.

The world was made through him, and all men were made through him, not just the elect, therefore the world is all men.

John 7

7The world cannot hate you, but it hates me because I testify that what it does is evil.

Believers do not hate Him, therefore the world means "all men," or you could make the case that the world means those that are NOT the elect, but we won't do that, now will we?

John 8


23But he continued, "You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world.

This implies that "the world" are those that are on the earth.

John 14

17the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be[a] in you.

This could also make that case that the "world" are those that do NOT know him (or he does not know you), or not the elect.

I could go on and on, but it's obvious to me what the "world" means.

John 12:32 But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself."

 

[LJSGM]

God first created evil men, and caused them to do evil, then punished them. How could God judge them when in fact God was the one that caused it?

This does not glorify God, it makes him out to be a monster.

 

[LJSGM]

It's like the child who stole a necklace, then gave it back to his mother's friend saying that he found it. The Child was glorified in the act, but did that make the child good in doing it? No, the child is wicked and decieving for doing it.

 

[frumanchu]

Two simple questions:

1. Did God know beforehand that Adam and Eve, if put in the situation and circumstances they were, would sin?

2. Was God sovereign over the situation and circumstances under which they sinned?

Men were created upright, free from sin. They were created with the ability to sin and the ability to not sin. Why they ultimately chose to sin is a mystery the Scriptures do not reveal, but we do know without question that God did not author the evil in their hearts that led them to sin. Nevertheless, it did not take Him by surprise, nor was He unable to prevent it. Rather, He chose according to His own good purposes to ordain those circumstances which He knew would result in their own free choice to sin.