The so-called hard passages that non-calvinists and arminians point to...

bradfordl

Veteran
Mar 20, 2006
1,510
181
✟17,608.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
See now you are just being mean, for calling me arminianistic is stepping over boundries. I am sorry that I started a debate, I honestly began postng in the ASK forum unintentionally but the hostility makes me laugh so I linger. You thankfully have proven similar to ever calvanist I have ever discussed with or debated though so congradulations on being uniform. For you guys ALWAYS get angry, its funny but sad all at once. See, atheists would not even get this mad at me or treat me in this manner. Now can we get back to my questions or should I have another user(name) post the reference so we can stop topic-hijacking and return to the OP. Yikes!
You work very hard to gloss over your offense here with fallacious portrayals of yourself as the poor persecuted soul. You came into a forum where you have no business except to ask questions and instead answered one. This was pointed out to you and you were asked to desist, and you refused. You displayed unchristian behavior contrary to your claim to be one, and were rebuked for it, and now want to plop down thumb in mouth and whine about how mean those old calvinists are. You still have not got the point of what we're saying. You have no business here. If you were a christian, it would seem a regenerate conscience would move you to do what is right. But that would be so bruising to your pride that it doesn't even seem feasible. "What? Quietly go away? Even if I'm wrong, I don't want to do that. It's too humiliating." Instead you do what pleases you right or wrong.

I posted the biblical method of dealing with folks like that from 2 John. You don't want to think of yourself as one of those he addressed, but you want to continue in your sin, so you whiningly try to blame others for it. Old as Cain. And you use the post-modernist's favorite smoke screen, "He's mad therefore I'm right". What hilarity. No-one is mad. We just want you to leave. But even if we were, it does not prove any assertion you've made valid. We've all heard it all before, so shocking as it may be to you, we are unimpressed.

If you have a question for a calvinist, start your own thread. If you want to debate a calvinist, start your own thread there. But if there is a grain of integrity in you, you will leave this one and go your merry way.

The similarity you find among calvinists is that we don't suffer rude behavior lightly, and we don't fall for your dog-eared rhetorical parlor tricks. Maybe you'd have better luck impressing folks with them in your own denom forum. Calvinists don't tend to be impressed with that sort of thing.
 
Upvote 0

Bob Jones Student

Active Member
Jul 14, 2008
169
13
37
✟366.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Well... could we get back to the topic at hand?

-Z- if you wouldn't mind, it probably would be best for you to leave (though I'm not saying this in a hostile manner). I invite you to at least read over this thread for the future. I also don't appreciate the hostility towards you, but they do have a point in that this is the ask a calvinist section.

To the rest, cannot someone who doesn't affirm calvinism, be a Christian? Of course they can be. Does that make anyone who does not affirm Calvinism an instant Arminian? Shame to those who think such things. If a person doesn't want to be called an Arminian or a Calvinist, then deal with them on the level that they profess to be. No one is totally correct in our Theologies. What matters is the Gospel.

Which makes me ask, cannot God work through an imperfect presentation of the Gospel to bring about the salvation of the elect? Cannot someone be saved in a Baptist, or a Wesleyan Church? The non-Arminians, and the Arminians both affirm God's sovereignty in the matters of salvation, but (and as long as they aren't heretical on this) they know that a person must receive Jesus as his or her Savior. Yes I know that they uphold the freewill of man. Yes I get a little tense when I hear that. And yes I know a lot of people have been deceived into praying a prayer. But, and this is a big but... God has still given man the responsibility to hear the Gospel, to understand the Gospel, and to receive Jesus as his Lord and Savior. A person must ask God to save them through Christ's sacrifice on the cross. Yes, faith is a gift of God, and cannot work apart from God, and yes, this is the entire mystery of the Bible, and this is what I've been trying to reconcile. God is Sovereign. God has chosen whom will be saved. But God has given Man the responsibility to believe, and if man does not receive Christ, they're damned. If he receives Christ, he's saved. Does that mean they acted on their own freewill? How is anyone to be saved unless they call upon the name of the Lord? We cannot sit around moping, "I wonder if I'm of the elect, I wonder if God will regenerate me to believe." Such is foolishness. If a person understands the Gospel, and has come to a sincere understanding of their sinfulness before God, they can be saved, and they will be saved if they ask Jesus to save them.

To continue, am I a calvinist? I understand the points of the system. I affirm 4/5, with the possibility still towards limited atonement or particular redemption. Why don't I fully affirm limited atonement? What has been the point of this thread? There's many passages in the Bible that throw the proverbial monkey wrench at calvinism and seize it up. Yes, in one sense I know that Christ died to redeem the elect, but yet in another sense, Christ died for the world, though all won't be saved. We know this from the Bible. Will God punish us for not fully understanding everything in the word? I think God intentionally hid many things from us, and would just rather have us trust Him. What is the most important thing when we're talking about Calvinism, Arminianism, and other beliefs of those who affirm neither Calvinism or Arminianism? It's the GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST! As said above, God has given man the responsibility to believe, and unless you ask Jesus to save you, you will not be saved!!

So lets get back to the topic at hand. Is there any way to fully reconcile the passages that -Z- wrote on the first page?
 
Upvote 0

Iosias

Senior Contributor
Jul 18, 2004
8,171
227
✟9,648.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Private
To me, in context, does that not go against limited atonement?

Both of these verses need to be interpreted in their context. John the Baptist was a Jew and the Jews called Gentiles the world. Note also that John was carrying out the message of Isaiah 40-55 of a new exodus, announcing the kingdom of the suffering servant who shall die for both Jew and Gentile and so take away their sin.

As for 1 John, try this.

Isaiah 45:22

This is God's command to all nations to repent and believe. It does not effect the truth or falsehood of Calvinism.

I cannot shake all of these passages that God, as it seems, has given the choice and the responsibility to man to repent and to believe on Christ.

We need to differentiate between God's will of command and his will of decree. The gospel concerns God's command, what men are to do. God's will of decree determines what men will do.

Have a read of Gill's The Cause of God and Truth. :)
 
Upvote 0

Bob Jones Student

Active Member
Jul 14, 2008
169
13
37
✟366.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Interesting... thank you Iosias.

Though I haven't studied much into the concept of the will of command and the will of decree, my post earlier in this discussion linked to John Piper's article on the subject, and it makes legitimate sense. Though it isn't exhaustive.
 
Upvote 0

edie19

Legend
Site Supporter
Sep 5, 2005
20,808
10,316
67
NW Ohio (almost Michigan)
Visit site
✟91,291.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
MOD HAT ON




Just a couple of gentle reminders

1. This is 'Ask a Calvinist' - that means that only those who subscribe to Calvinist/Reformed tenets may answer the OP

2. Stick to the OP rather than addressing off topic posts please

Let your speech always be with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer each one.
Colossians 4:6

MOD HAT OFF
 
Upvote 0

mlqurgw

Well-Known Member
Aug 19, 2005
5,828
540
69
kain tuck ee
✟8,844.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Well... could we get back to the topic at hand?

-Z- if you wouldn't mind, it probably would be best for you to leave (though I'm not saying this in a hostile manner). I invite you to at least read over this thread for the future. I also don't appreciate the hostility towards you, but they do have a point in that this is the ask a calvinist section.

To the rest, cannot someone who doesn't affirm calvinism, be a Christian? Of course they can be. Does that make anyone who does not affirm Calvinism an instant Arminian? Shame to those who think such things. If a person doesn't want to be called an Arminian or a Calvinist, then deal with them on the level that they profess to be. No one is totally correct in our Theologies. What matters is the Gospel.

Which makes me ask, cannot God work through an imperfect presentation of the Gospel to bring about the salvation of the elect? Cannot someone be saved in a Baptist, or a Wesleyan Church? The non-Arminians, and the Arminians both affirm God's sovereignty in the matters of salvation, but (and as long as they aren't heretical on this) they know that a person must receive Jesus as his or her Savior. Yes I know that they uphold the freewill of man. Yes I get a little tense when I hear that. And yes I know a lot of people have been deceived into praying a prayer. But, and this is a big but... God has still given man the responsibility to hear the Gospel, to understand the Gospel, and to receive Jesus as his Lord and Savior. A person must ask God to save them through Christ's sacrifice on the cross. Yes, faith is a gift of God, and cannot work apart from God, and yes, this is the entire mystery of the Bible, and this is what I've been trying to reconcile. God is Sovereign. God has chosen whom will be saved. But God has given Man the responsibility to believe, and if man does not receive Christ, they're damned. If he receives Christ, he's saved. Does that mean they acted on their own freewill? How is anyone to be saved unless they call upon the name of the Lord? We cannot sit around moping, "I wonder if I'm of the elect, I wonder if God will regenerate me to believe." Such is foolishness. If a person understands the Gospel, and has come to a sincere understanding of their sinfulness before God, they can be saved, and they will be saved if they ask Jesus to save them.

To continue, am I a calvinist? I understand the points of the system. I affirm 4/5, with the possibility still towards limited atonement or particular redemption. Why don't I fully affirm limited atonement? What has been the point of this thread? There's many passages in the Bible that throw the proverbial monkey wrench at calvinism and seize it up. Yes, in one sense I know that Christ died to redeem the elect, but yet in another sense, Christ died for the world, though all won't be saved. We know this from the Bible. Will God punish us for not fully understanding everything in the word? I think God intentionally hid many things from us, and would just rather have us trust Him. What is the most important thing when we're talking about Calvinism, Arminianism, and other beliefs of those who affirm neither Calvinism or Arminianism? It's the GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST! As said above, God has given man the responsibility to believe, and unless you ask Jesus to save you, you will not be saved!!

So lets get back to the topic at hand. Is there any way to fully reconcile the passages that -Z- wrote on the first page?
Since it seems that you are struggling with particular redemption here is an article that I wrote a while back on the subject. I am sure that it will not answer all your questions but hope it will help you to grasp the Scriptural truth of it. I don't have a lot of time to spend here anymore but will do my best to give you answers to any specific passage that gives you trouble. Please read this first and then ask what you will.


Particular Redemption


Let me begin by saying I am not very fond of the term “limited atonement’. All but Universalists limit the atonement in some way. I prefer the term “Particular Redemption” as it speaks more plainly to the teaching of the Scriptures and leaves less room for misunderstanding. I will take as my text John 10:11. I am the Good Shepherd: the Good Shepherd giveth His life for the sheep. Now if that were the only passage of Holy Scripture that speaks to the doctrine of a definite and particular redemption we would still be bound to believe what it says. There seems to me to be absolutely no wriggle room in this statement by our Lord.
I want to speak to this issue from 3 perspectives as the Scriptures speak: Christ as our Surety, Christ as our sin bearer and Christ as our substitute. It is my purpose to show how and why we can trust Christ’s work for all our salvation.
A proper understanding of the atonement of Christ is crucial to the Gospel. There really is no Gospel without it. Let me see if I can explain: The good news of the Gospel lies in the truth of what Christ accomplished on the cross. Either He, by His death, actually accomplished redemption for someone or His death really means nothing. Where is the good news in an atonement that didn’t atone? Where is the wonderful message in a redemption that that didn’t redeem? How can a sinner look to a Savior with confidence who didn’t actually save? The only hope a sinner can have is that Christ did actually make an atonement for his sin. This is the ground of assurance we preach and believe. Our hope is in the finished work of the Savior.
Now our text says that the Good Shepherd gives His life for the sheep. No one took His life, they had neither the authority nor power to do so, He gave it up for the sheep. He repeats the fact that He lays down His life for the sheep again in verse 15 of John 10. He makes it even more plain in verses 17and 18 of the same chapter. He told Pilate that he had no power over Him unless it was given him from above. (John 19:11) Christ laying down His life for the sheep was a voluntary act on His part. There was no force or coercion involved. Infinite love and fathomless mercy toward the sheep moved Him to act.
This brings us to a question: How is it possible that Christ could voluntarily lay down His life for the sheep? It is true that no court in the world would allow such a thing. No righteous judge could possibly put to death an innocent person. God says in Proverbs 17:15, He that justifieth the wicked and he that condemeth the just, even they both are an abomination to God. How then can God be righteous and put to death that One who was holy, harmless, undefiled and separate from sinners? The answer rests in the fact that the Lord Jesus Christ was no mere man. A mere man has no authority to lay down his life because his life doesn’t belong to him. All men answer to a higher authority, God, and have no right to give that which doesn’t belong to them. That isn’t the case with Christ. As God, He has every right over His own life and may give it as He pleases. He alone is able to lay down His life for the sheep. The word translated power in John 10:18 is authority.
Are you still with me? I know I have taken the long way around to get here but I believe it was necessary to lay a foundation in order to properly grasp the meaning of Scripture when it speaks of Christ’s atonement. So with what has been already said in mind lets now look at 3 ways the Bible speaks of Christ. I hope to answer the question as to how God can righteously put to death His darling Son in the place of chosen sinners. Once that has been answered we are able to see that the death of Christ on the cross was for the sheep alone.
Christ our surety.
The writer to the Hebrews tells us in 7:22 that Jesus was made a surety of a better covenant. What is a surety? The modern idea of a surety is like a co-signer on a loan but that isn’t the Scriptural concept. We have 2 examples given for us that will take us a long way in understanding what the Scriptures mean by a surety. The first is in Gen. 43:9. Judah becomes a surety for Benjamin. As a surety he agrees to bear all the blame for any failure. He takes upon himself full responsibility and by doing so relieves Benjamin of guilt for his failure to return. The second we find in Philemon 18. Paul became a surety for Onesimus. In essence Paul is saying that his debt is mine, I make it mine and agree to repay all he owes. Because Paul became surety no debt could be charged to Onesimus. He must go free. The debt is now Paul’s to repay. Onesimus no longer owes anything to Philemon. So we see that a surety doesn’t agree to pay only the part that is left unpaid, as a co-signer, but takes the whole debt in its entirety. The debt becomes solely his who is surety and that one for whom he becomes surety must go free because he no longer owes anything.
In the Covenant of Grace, made between the three persons of the Godhead before the foundation of the world, Christ became Surety for all that the Father gave Him. (John 6:39) As the Great Shepherd of the sheep He took full responsibility for them and must bear the blame for any that are lost. As their Surety He guarantees their safety and must bring them into the sheepfold. (John 10:16) If He fails to do what He agreed to do then the blame isn’t on the sheep but on Him. Again, as the Surety of the sheep He took all their debt as His own. In that everlasting covenant ordered in all things and sure He said, “Whatever they owe I will repay. They must go free.” Justice no longer can seek satisfaction from them, they have a Surety. The creditor can no longer require payment from them, they have a Surety. They are free from all debt and blame; their Surety has taken it as His own. We have a beautiful picture of Christ our Surety when the men came to take Him in John 18:7,8. Then asked he them again, Whom seek ye? And they said, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus answered, I have told you that I am he: if therefore ye seek me, let these go their way:
There are some in this world who are not the sheep for whom Christ became Surety. In verse 26 of John 10 we find our Lord telling some men that they believe not because they are not His sheep. He was neither their Surety nor their Shepherd. If He had been He couldn’t have said those words to them.
This thought ought to strike terror in the heart of unbelievers. How awful it will be to stand before the judge of the whole earth without a Surety. No wonder it is said in Rev. 6:16 that they will cry for the mountains and the rocks to fall on them and hide them from the wrath of the Lamb. Do you have a Surety? If you believe on Him who is the Surety of a better covenant you do. Trusting Him alone as taking your debt and making it His own is evidence that He is your Surety.
Christ our sin bearer.
Next I want us to look at Christ the sin bearer. There are several passages of Scripture that speak of Christ bearing sin. Probably the most well known is Isa 53. In verse 6 we read that the Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all. In verse 11 we read that He shall justify many for He shall bear their iniquities. And in verse 12 we read He bare the sin of many. In what way did Christ bear sin?
Sin incurs guilt. If I rob a bank it makes no difference whether I am caught I am still guilty of bank robbery. I have committed a crime and deserve the just reward of my deed. I bear the guilt for my crime. Peter tells us in 1Pet. 2:24 that Christ bore our sins in His own body on the tree. The great mass of guilt that was the burden of all the elect of God He took upon Himself. He bore it as a burden that was His own. He suffered under the heavy weight of it. The guilt of sin was imputed to Him in an act of justice. We read that the Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all. A transfer was made from the sinner to the Savior. (Remember what I said about Christ being the only one who has the authority to do such a thing) We have this typified for us in the scapegoat. Lev. 15:21,22
We read that Aaron shall lay both his hands on the head of the scapegoat
confessing the sin of the people putting them on the head of the goat typifying a transfer of guilt. In verse 22 we find that the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities. The scapegoat is then led away by the hands of a fit man (I love the way the KJV puts it) into the wilderness and let go never to be seen again. In the same way Christ, as our scapegoat bearing the sin of His people, has born sin away so thoroughly that God says of it that it shall be looked for but shall not be found. Jer. 50:20 He bore it away as far as the East is from the West. How far is that? North meets South at the poles but East never meets West. You may travel East forever without ever traveling West. He has removed our sin so completely that even God who sees everywhere can’t find it. He carried it away in His own body on the tree, blotting out the handwriting of ordinances against us taking it out of the way nailing it to His cross. In Hebrews 1:3 we read that He has (notice it is past tense) purged our sins. That means it is completely removed and no longer exists. When you purge something not even a small remnant of it remains. It is gone. Even the sin that I do today and will do tomorrow is gone. Christ bore it away.

Continued:
 
Upvote 0

mlqurgw

Well-Known Member
Aug 19, 2005
5,828
540
69
kain tuck ee
✟8,844.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Continued:

Christ our substitute.
Next is Christ our substitute. The passage that speaks to this is 2Cor. 5:21. I will be the first to admit that the word substitute isn’t in the Scriptures but certainly the idea is. 2Co 5:19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. 20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God. 21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. An old preacher friend of mine once said, “ God must first do something for Himself before He can ever do something for the sinner.” We said earlier that sin incurs guilt. There is something else that sin incurs; it incurs the wrath of a holy and just God. He cannot just overlook and forgive sin. We are able to do that because we are ourselves sinners in need of forgiveness. He has sworn and will not go back that the soul that sins must die, Ezek. 18:4. Strict unbending justice demands the death of the sinner and before mercy can be granted justice must be satisfied. If God were to be merciful and forgive sin without satisfying the demand of strict justice He would cease to be God. His holiness and righteousness would fall to the ground. In Psa 85:10 we read that mercy and truth are met together; righteousness and peace have kissed each other. There is only one way this can ever take place: in Christ our substitute. God hath made Him to be sin for us!
Can it be true? Was Christ made to be sin? Yes it is because He was. Remember what we said about no righteous judge putting an innocent man to death? The act of imputation that took place was no mere pasting on but a transfer of guilt. He didn’t just carry our sin it became His. He took it as His own and died under the wrath of God because of it. With one tremendous draft of love, He drank damnation dry. Again I refer you to 1Pet. 2:24. We read that He bore our sin in His own body on the tree not on His body. Psalm 40 is generally accepted as a Messianic Psalm. It is interpreted as Christ speaking. Hear what He says in verse 12: Psa 40:12 For innumerable evils have compassed me about: mine iniquities have taken hold upon me, so that I am not able to look up; they are more than the hairs of mine head: therefore my heart faileth me
The Lord our Savior Jesus Christ satisfied all the demands of justice against the sin of all for whom He was the substitute. He stood in their place and suffered as a sinner until wrath was spent and could no longer rise up against His people. God can never again punish any for whom Christ was the substitute. God can never be wrathful against any sinner for whom Christ died. He may, in love, chastise and correct them but never again punish them. God did something for Himself in order to be merciful to sinners. He exhausted His wrath against the sin of His elect and satisfied His strict justice in a perfect substitute.
Conclusion.
There are more ways that Christ is spoken of in the Scriptures having to do with atonement by Him that I haven’t dealt with: propitiation, redemption, ransom, Passover, sacrifice, the Lamb of God and Jehovah’s Servant. All of which, when properly understood, speak of Him doing something for a particular people. Christ laid down His life for the sheep. There are no hypotheticals involved. As the Surety of His people He made their debt His. As their sin bearer He has removed their sin. As their substitute He stood in their place and put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. By His own blood He entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption. Heb. 9:12
In light of these things the objections raised pale by reason of the glorious truth that Christ is the Good Shepherd that lays down His life for the sheep.
 
Upvote 0

mlqurgw

Well-Known Member
Aug 19, 2005
5,828
540
69
kain tuck ee
✟8,844.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
John 3:16
John 3:16 is one of several passages used to prove that God loves all men and that Christ died for all men. It is used in this manner as a proof text and is commonly misunderstood because it is taken out of its context. The message of our Lord here isn’t who God loves, as in the quantity, but how much God loves, as in quality. It is to miss the message of the passage to make it say what it doesn’t intend.
Now in order to understand the meaning that our Master is intending we need to set the context. A high Jew, a Pharisee named Nicodemus, who was a religious ruler at the time, had come to Him. This high Jew considered himself righteous by his outward keeping of the Law. He had all his life stood afar off from all whom he considered sinners. The Gentiles were dogs to him and he wouldn’t have anything to do with them because of the traditions taught him from his youth. He believed that God only loved Jews.
When Christ Jesus told him that God so loved the world it was not to teach that God loves all men without exception, that would go against all the teaching of the Old Testament Scriptures given to the Jews, but that God doesn’t just love Jews. I am convinced that this Pharisee understood it that way because he could not have taken it any other way.
The teaching of the passage is simply this: God so loved the world, both Jew and Gentile, that He gave His only begotten Son ( Thanks be unto God for His unspeakable gift) that whosoever, Jew or Gentile, believeth in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. The emphasis isn’t who God loves but how much He loves.
 
Upvote 0

mlqurgw

Well-Known Member
Aug 19, 2005
5,828
540
69
kain tuck ee
✟8,844.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
1Tim. 2:4
Once more the context gives us the clear understanding of the text. The Apostle Paul in the first three verses sets the context and meaning of “all men” in verse four. Paul isn’t teaching that God would have all men to be saved, that would be contradictory to his teaching in other places as in Rom. 9. What he is saying is that God is no respecter of persons. He will bring all sorts of men, as shown in verses one through three, to Himself. Both high and low, rich and poor, wise and foolish, good and bad, mighty and weak, all sorts of men. It isn’t necessary to read into the passage that which we see clearly shown, it is clear enough.
 
Upvote 0

mlqurgw

Well-Known Member
Aug 19, 2005
5,828
540
69
kain tuck ee
✟8,844.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
2Pet. 2:1
In this passage we read that the Lord bought even those who deny Him. How are we to understand this passage? It is simple actually. Look at the word translated Lord in the passage. It is the word from which we get our English word despot. The clear meaning is that our Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, bought the whole created world as a man by His perfect obedience to the will of the Father in all things. He bought the right, or authority, to set on the throne as a man, the God-man to be sure, and rule all creation as He wills. He bought those that deny Him as His possession as King. He didn’t by them as His chosen and redeemed ones. He now sets as the Sovereign Lord Jesus, King on His throne, ruling all things for the glory of His name and the good of His people. Even the reprobate is subject to Him as King because God has set Him on the throne. Though they may deny Him they still belong to him as their sovereign Lord and ruler.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

mlqurgw

Well-Known Member
Aug 19, 2005
5,828
540
69
kain tuck ee
✟8,844.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Here's John 1:29 (all passages are from the ESV):



To me, in context, does that not go against limited atonement?
I have no answer for that one.

Here's 1 John 2:2:



???

Isaiah 45:22:



???

John 5:24:



???

John 5:34:



???

Now I know about the election passages, but all of these things throw the proverbial monkey wrench into the system, and seize it up. I cannot shake all of these passages that God, as it seems, has given the choice and the responsibility to man to repent and to believe on Christ. I know in my other thread I asked why does it seem like throughout the OT and NT that God is pleading with sinners to repent and to believe. Someone stated that God uses the means as an end, but to me, that seems to make God deceptive if He's telling people to repent and to come to Him, if in fact they cannot because He hasn't effectually called them. I've been struggling with Calvinism for almost 2 years now, and I'm still well reserved on it (though for a while I thought I could be a 5-point calvinist). But as I was reading through the Gospel of John last night, those varied passages quoted above, are yet, throwing more monkey wrenches into the system. As I've said before, I understand John 6, and Romans 9, along with the other elections passages, but to grapple these passages with the passages that emphasize Man's responsibility is driving me insane. If they can be reconciled, please do so, if they cannot, then something is wrong with calvinism.


Edit: Please note that I didn't come for debating. I'm seriously wanting to learn about Calvinism. I also believe that there is much wrong in modern preaching and teaching, and disagree with Arminianism.
The idea that we must reconcile all that the Scriptures teach concerning the Sovereignty of God in salvation and man's responsibility is false. I have learned over the years that there are some things taught clearly in the Scriptures that I may not be able to reconcile with my theology. Yet that doesn't mean my theology is wrong. It simply means I don't have all knowledge. The Scriptures as a whole clearly teach the sovereignty of God in salvation and everything else besides. I drove myself crazier than I already was trying to make everything fit. It simply doesn't need to. I have no problem with understanding that it is God alone who saves without man's help or co-operation. Man is simply the recipient of God's grace. At the same time he is responsible to believe because it is most reasonable and true. A man who continues in unbelief is not only a fool but an insane fool. He is calling the God of Heaven a liar to His face. 1John 5:10,11. The so-called difficult passages are really no problem when read in context with a clear understanding of foundational truth as to who God is. We need not read into passages that which we believe according to our theology. We simply apply that which God clearly declares of Himself to our understanding of the passages. And it is really OK to not be able to reconcile things that we don't quite grasp. It is up to Him to give us more light as He sees fit. The fact that someone disagrees with what I know to be true and can quote several passages to disprove it doesn't make what I know to be true false. It simply shows he has not the same light that I do. The question isn't who is right but does it give God all the glory? The answer to that question will determine whether any doctrine of the Scriptures are true or false.
 
Upvote 0

beloved57

Well-Known Member
Jun 16, 2006
4,017
43
✟4,663.00
Faith
Calvinist
Also, is it legitimate to say that the word "world, kosmos" can be limited in certain contexts (John 3:16 for example) or should "kosmos" have the same definition throughout.

Here is an excellent study on the word world in scripture:

Study on the word world by David Hucklebee
Study on the word world by David Hucklebee

STUDIES ON THE WORD "WORLD"​
for.gif
which world did Christ die?" At first appearance, this question may not appear very sensible, for some will immediately ask, "How many worlds are there?" But this is because most people erroneously assume that the word "world" is consistently used but one way throughout the Scriptures. The Greek word of which this is a translation (kosmos), is found 188 times in the New Testament, and only rarely, comparatively speaking, is it ever used with such a latitude of meaning as that which is assumed to be its only meaning. There are five Greek words which are translated "world" in the English version, and these are aiōn, aiōnios, gē, kosmos and oikoumenē, but it is only with the word kosmos that we wish to deal with in this study, for this is the word about which there is the most confusion in men’s minds.
John 3:16-17 will serve as a fitting starting point for this study, for this text is one of the most embattled texts in this present matter, and has been the scene of many theological battles. "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved."
Many people say that Christ died "for all men" without exception, but that the benefits avail only for those who believe. This sounds good at first appearance, but when we begin to examine the terms used, we run into some contradictions that put a question mark over the statement. Romans 5:6 and 8 tells us: "For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly...But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." The word here rendered "for" (Grk. huper), like the English word "for" has a twofold significance; it means: (1) In the place of, which, of course, refers to Christ’s substitution, in the present verse. (2) For the benefit of, which points to the saving benefits of Christ’s redemptive work. If some men do not receive the benefits of Christ’s death, then it is clear that He did not die for them in this sense of the word "for," and if not in this sense of the word, then not in the sense of being a substitute for them either, for this word cannot be divided, so as to take half of the meaning of it. Christ’s death cannot be "for" a man, and yet him not benefit by it, for this is an integral part of the meaning of the word.
Let us examine the word "world" to see what its meaning is, and how it is used, and then we shall learn for whom Christ died, for both of these are necessary in determining the significance of Biblical terms.
I. THE DEFINTTION OF THE WORD "WORLD."
The primary meaning of this word will probably surprise many people, for it does not, as commonly supposed, mean "all mankind." If it ever has this meaning, it will lie in its usage, rather than in its primary meaning. W. E. Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words says that it means "primarily order, arrangement, ornament, adornment," while J. H. Thayer’s Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament, says it means, "in Greek writings from Homer down, an apt and harmonious arrangement or constitution, order." He proceeds to give eight different meanings and applications of it, the last of which is "Any aggregate or general collection of particulars of any sort." With this meaning, we can easily see how it can be used in such a wide range of applications and contexts as we shall shortly note. Richard Trench in his Synonyms of the New Testament (lix) also mentions this variety of meanings, and shows that its common usage was significant more of limitation than of extensiveness.
This present writer was amazed when it first came to his attention that this word had more than one meaning and application, and he has since, in subsequent studies found that it is used in at least fourteen different ways in the New Testament. Let us note these:
(1) It is used of the universe as a whole. Pythagoras first used it in this sense because of the obvious order that was discernable in the universe. "God that made the world and all things therein..." (Acts 17:24). The parallel clause reveals the latitude of meaning that the word here has. "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen ..." (Rom. 1:20).
(2) It is used of the earth, and it will be noted that this is a more limited meaning than the foregoing: "That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world" (Matthew 13:35). "Now before the feast of the passover, when Jesus knew that his hour was come that he should depart out of this world unto the Father" (John 13:1). His departure was not to be out of the universe, but out of the earth only as He returned to His Father in the third heaven. "And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written.." (John 21:25). "According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world" (Eph. 1:4). We believe that it will be found that the phrase "the foundation of the world" refers in all ten of its appearances to the creation of the earth. "For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain that we can carry nothing out" (1 Tim. 6:7). "Although the works were finished from the foundation of the world" (Heb. 4:3). "For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world..." (Heb. 9:26).
(3) It is used of the present world-system, generally with the suggestion of its opposition to God: "Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them" (Matthew 4:8). "The world cannot hate you; but me it hateth, because I testify of it, that the works thereof are evil" (John 7:7). "And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world" (John 8:23). "Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out" (John 12:31). "And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness" (1 John 5:19). The reader will note that in all these texts, there is an evident contrast of this word either with heaven, or with the things of God, which helps in the determination of the meaning of the word.
(4) Sometimes it is used of the whole human race. This is the meaning that many people erroneously assume is the constant and unvarying meaning of the word throughout the New Testament, but one has but to take a concordance and carefully and without prejudice examine each usage of the word to find that not even in the majority of instances does it have this meaning. In some instances, more than one meaning and application may be merged in one text. "Ye are the light of the world" (Matthew 5:14). "That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not" (John 1:9-10). "Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God" (Rom. 3:19). "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law" (Rom. 5:12-13).
(5) It is used of the Gentiles as distinguished from, and excluding the Jews; this is one of the several instances where this word cannot mean all mankind, for a segment is expressly excluded. "Now if the fall of them (the Jews) be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness?...For if the casting away of them (the Jews) be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead" (Rom. 11:12,15). It is notable that in verse 12 "world" is used in apposition to the Gentiles, and this is doubtless the meaning in many instances. Dr. John Gill, one of the most noted authorities on Jewish writings, says:
"The phrase, the whole world, is frequently used by the Jews in a limited and restrained sense" of the Jews, and also "Nothing is more common in the Jewish writings, than to call the Gentiles the world; and the whole world." —The Cause Of God And Truth, pp. 65, 66. Sovereign Grace Book Club, Evansville, Indiana, no date.
(6) It is again used in a limited sense of humanity minus believers; in this sense, it applies to the world of unbelievers. "If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you" (John 15:18). Clearly, the word cannot here include believers, for they do not hate Christ. "God forbid: for then how shall God judge the world" (Rom. 3:6). Here again the word cannot have application to believers, for John 5:24, R. V., expressly declares, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth him that sent me hath eternal life, and cometh not into judgment, but hath passed out of death into life." Equally expressive is John 17:16: "They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world."
(7) It is used in an extremely limited sense of a portion of the people of Palestine in John 12:19: "The Pharisees therefore said among themselves, Perceive ye how ye prevail nothing? behold, the world is gone after him." It is obvious that all mankind is not referred to here, nor even all of the inhabitants of Palestine, for the Jewish leaders themselves had not gone out after the Lord Jesus. This confirms from the Scriptures the statement made by Dr. John Gill above, of this limited sense of this word among the Jews.
(8) It is used of the then known world, or the so-called Roman or civilized world: "First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world" (Rom. 1:8). It is clear that this is a limited usage of the word "world," for the gospel had not gone out beyond the limits of the Roman world, and many parts of the world, including the Americas, were as yet undiscovered.
(9) It is used of the professing Christians world in 1 John 4:1: "Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world." There would be no danger of any Christians being deceived by any spirit or prophet unless it posed as Christian, for they had been often warned about the unbelieving world, but now they are further warned of dangers from within the "Christian" world.
(10) It is used of the New Earth that is some day to cone to pass: "For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith" (Rom. 4:13). We arrive at this application of the word by considering Acts 7:5 where we are told that Abraham never received so much as a foot of the land that was promised to him as an heritage, but Hebrews 11:8-10 declares that he looked forward to the New Jerusalem for the fulfillment of this promise.
(11) It is used of the sum of material possessions: "For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?" (Matthew 16:26). "And they that use this world, as not abusing it: for the fashion of this world passeth away" (1 Cor. 7:31). In both these verses the word is used in reference to material possessions, and indeed, our English language uses it in much the same way when it speaks of the "business world," yet clearly it is a restricted usage, and not referring to mankind at all.
 
Upvote 0

heymikey80

Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur
Dec 18, 2005
14,496
921
✟34,309.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Here's John 1:29 (all passages are from the ESV):
To me, in context, does that not go against limited atonement?
I have no answer for that one.
Every sin is going to be judged and sentenced by Christ. But not every sin will be atoned by Christ (else everyone would be atoned-for).
Here's 1 John 2:2:
???
He's the one appointed -- there's no other for the world. It can't mean Jesus did propitiate for everyone -- because if they're propitiated, then they're propitiated. It would then be wrong to punish someone whose sins have been propitiated.
Isaiah 45:22:
???
This is a call, not an atonement. God does call everyone to His salvation, externally the Gospel goes out to everyone in the world. But only some are truly called by the Spirit of God to accept the Gospel for their sins.
John 5:24:
???
I don't see the issue?
John 5:34:
???
I don't see the issue?
Now I know about the election passages, but all of these things throw the proverbial monkey wrench into the system, and seize it up.
I think you may be confusing the decree of election from the means of carrying it out. Distinguish those two and John 5:24, 34 fall out. These are the means of salvation.
 
Upvote 0