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

[Bob Jones Student]

Hello again,

I'm still sorting through things in my mind, and wish to learn more about Calvinistic and Reformed Theology. Here is my main question, could someone provide a list of all of the so-called hard passages that non-calvinists and arminians will point to and claim that calvinism is heresy. Then could you provide an exegesis of that passage, and show how it should be properly understood in the light of the Bible and other passages?

I've seen explanations for I Timothy 4:10, and II Peter 2:1, but I know there are more passages, and I don't have them off-hand.

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. I'm just wondering how John 3:16 should be truly taken, as some calvinists will say one thing, others will say another thing, non-calvinists and arminians will say another thing. I know that "whosoever" translates the greek word "pas", and that "believeth" is a participle. I know that Dr. James White (I believe, though I might be wrong) has said that it could be translated "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten son, in order that all the believing-ones into him shall not perish, but have eternal life." Can it be taken that way, and by that kind of implication, would it not actually have a limiting effect? Namely "...in order that all the believing-ones into him shall not perish, but have everlasting life".

Now I do not want to slip into heresy. It's bad enough that Calvinism is spoken of as heresy, but to me, as a system of theology, it seems that it legitimately interprets the word correctly... But I do know, and understand that the Bible is the key, and everything that we as humans do, must be correctly and rightly based on the Bible.

Thanks

 

[larryjf]

For therefore we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those that believe. (1Ti 4:10)

Savior doesn't always mean one who saves from Hell. It also means one who saves in a more general sense. Consider...

And the LORD gave Israel a savior, so that they went out from under the hand of the Syrians: and the children of Israel dwelt in their tents, as formerly. (2Ki 13:5)

So the 1 Tim 4:10 passage is speaking of God being the savior of all men in that He allows the sun to shine both on the reprobate and the elect. Being the savior especially to those who believe is speaking of salvation from Hell.

The 2 Peter passage is similar in that the sacrifice of Christ "bought" blessings not only for the elect, but for all of creation, but they are temporal and not eternal.

 

[-Z-]

So, here are a few verses that we ought to discuss that can be seen absurdly enough as hard verses...

Total Depravity
Romans 10:9 - 10, 17
Mar 16:16
Acts 8:37
Unconditional Election
Matthew 23:37
Limited Atonement
John 1:29
Hebrews 2:9
1 Timothy 2:5-6
1 John 4:14
1 John 2:1-2
Isaiah 53:6
Irresistable Grace
Acts 7:51
Perserverance of the Saints.
I refuse to even loo for scriptures on this. You show me one verse in the whole countenance of scripture that supports this and then I will.

 

[nill]

You've been here four and a half years, and you still don't know the rules? The "Ask a Calvinist" subforum was not intended for non-Calvinists to answer. You can debate a Calvinist in the right forum around the corner from this one, or, in your case, it seems you'd better fit in the Soteriology forum, where "Calvinism is an evil lie from Satan" is chanted by the mob.

 

[Bob Jones Student]

So, here are a few verses that we ought to discuss that can be seen absurdly enough as hard verses...

Total Depravity
Romans 10:9 - 10, 17
Mar 16:16
Acts 8:37
Unconditional Election
Matthew 23:37
Limited Atonement
John 1:29
Hebrews 2:9
1 Timothy 2:5-6
1 John 4:14
1 John 2:1-2
Isaiah 53:6
Irresistable Grace
Acts 7:51
Perserverance of the Saints.
I refuse to even loo for scriptures on this. You show me one verse in the whole countenance of scripture that supports this and then I will.

Though this isn't suppose to be a debate, the context is key on those passages. But what does everyone else say about those passages posted? I looked up a few of them, and to me, knowing that God has elected, and with our knowledge of John 6, and the other election passages, those all fit fine, and can be properly exegeted.

So for the perseverance of the saints, are you stating that you do not believe that once God has saved a person, then they can remain saved? From the way you made it sound like, a person could lose their salvation. Which is not true according to the word, and I can provide many passages stating otherwise if need be. John 6:37, John 10:28-29, Romans 8:29-through the end, etc.

But for the rest of the people who are Calvinists, could you provide a sound exegesis of the so-called hard passages. Thanks!!

 

[Iosias]

could you provide a sound exegesis of the so-called hard passages

Perhaps you could show why those verses would be difficult for Calvinists?

 

[Bob Jones Student]

Here's John 1:29 (all passages are from the ESV):

The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!

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

Here's 1 John 2:2:

He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.

???

Isaiah 45:22:

Turn to me and be saved, all the ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other.

???

John 5:24:

Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.

???

John 5:34:

Not that the testimony that I receive is from man, but I say these things so that you may be saved.

???

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.

 

[-Z-]

Let me add a dislaimer to my posts. My attention isn't to be a viscious calvinist hater. But I have every right to respond as well as contribute to the topic at hand, which I feel i effectively did. Now I am waiting for a alvinist to answer.

If you want to learn about calvinism without the deceptiveness of what most of the user on here will reply in, I suggest you download podcasts for free from itunes from 5 point preachers teaching on calvinism. You will get the strongest arguments for it. Sadly enough if any one point of the doctrine is taken dogmatically it is heresy... Like I said i'm not hating because arminianism is heresy to..

Now I know about the election passages, but all of these things throw the proverbial monkey wrench into the system,

This is exactly it. The word of God teaches both the sovreignty of God as well as free will. And because calvinists in general would rather have more faith in their intellect than God they seize those passages that support their doctrine and remove the others so that they can fit salvation and the act of it into an academic science of sorts...

 

[-Z-]

So for the perseverance of the saints, are you stating that you do not believe that once God has saved a person, then they can remain saved? From the way you made it sound like, a person could lose their salvation.

Quite on the contrary I do believe in eternal security. I refuse to debate perserverance of the saints because it is not even remotely biblical in any sense... I am open to correction though. Is there one single verse that supports it?

 

[Bob Jones Student]

Quite on the contrary I do believe in eternal security. I refuse to debate perserverance of the saints because it is not even remotely biblical in any sense... I am open to correction though. Is there one single verse that supports it?

Are you coming in the sense that "perseverance of the saints" gives a general impression that it's the saints doing there own preservation?

To me, perseverance of the saints is biblically once saved, always saved. You as a saint persevere because God has saved you, and you will remain saved. Perseverance isn't because of the Christian doing the persevering. (Though I do agree the wording for it could be cleaned up a little).

As a further note, everyone should read this article written by John Piper:

(Due to me not having 50 posts, I cannot post the link) But if you peace this together, you should get a working link. Put dots where there need to be dots, and remove the (removethis), and back space everything until it's in line. Everyone should read this.

www (dot) desiringgod (dot) org/(removethis)ResourceLibrary/

(removethis)Articles/ByDate/1995/

(removethis)1580_Are_There_Two_Wills_in_God/

If a mod should see my post, can this rule be nulled and void? Not being able to post links is not a very good idea.

 

[bradfordl]

But I have every right to respond as well as contribute to the topic at hand, which I feel i effectively did.

The forum is "Ask a Calvinist". You are not a Calvinist. You have no ethical business answering questions posted here. I believe it is a violation of the forum rules, but more importantly, it is dishonesty and uninvited invasion, which contrary to the arrogance that moves you to defy such things, is unchristian.

That alone should raise a red flag in your own conscience, but it appears to have no effect, which may indicate you have none, or that what little you do have is seared beyond usefulness. He asked a Calvinist, you rebelliously and arrogantly supposed your input was needed or wanted. Neither is the case. I know not what stripe of "christian" you call yourself, but if that sort of dissemblence is characteristic of it, perhaps you should identify it so that real Christians may know to avoid it.

Your participation here is unwanted, unedifying, and unwelcome. I would counsel you, if you claim Jesus as your Lord, to repent of your pride and rebellion, and pander your drivel elsewhere.

 

[nill]

I have every right to respond as well as contribute to the topic at hand

Not here.

Subforum's title, in case you missed it:
The forum to ask Calvinists questions about their beliefs.

Check your PM.

 

[nill]

Ah, brad... beat me.........


......to it.

When in doubt, size 7 + bold!

 

[-Z-]

The forum is "Ask a Calvinist". You are not a Calvinist. You have no ethical business answering questions posted here. I believe it is a violation of the forum rules, but more importantly, it is dishonesty and uninvited invasion, which contrary to the arrogance that moves you to defy such things, is unchristian.

Oh, blast.... I must have missed the election bus then as according to you I really don't have control over... well... anything I do....

That alone should raise a red flag in your own conscience, but it appears to have no effect, which may indicate you have none, or that what little you do have is seared beyond usefulness.

I'm sorry, I was not called to have a conscience.

He asked a Calvinist, you rebelliously and arrogantly supposed your input was needed or wanted. Neither is the case. I know not what stripe of "christian" you call yourself, but if that sort of dissemblence is characteristic of it, perhaps you should identify it so that real Christians may know to avoid it.

Oh please child, that is dumb. I did contribute. I contributed verses that could be responded too... Unfortunately they were disregarded and only my additional colorful commentary was noticed.

Your participation here is unwanted, unedifying, and unwelcome. I would counsel you, if you claim Jesus as your Lord, to repent of your pride and rebellion, and pander your drivel elsewhere.

This is unedifying rather. The only accurate thing about your post is pride. But is this your position to address me on? I would venture to accuse you of pride, and biblically I am to address my own first... But since I missed the bus I guess I don't need to worry about that right?

 

[nill]

-Z-

Close your mouth and stop posting here unless you have a sincere question about Calvinism that you wished to have answered by Calvinists, which oddly enough, sounds a lot like the purpose of this forum.

I wonder if there's a forum, somewhere out there, in the great sea of the World Wide Web, where one might debate a Calvinist instead... could it be called... "Debate with a Calvinist"? That would fit perfectly, wouldn't it. Golly gee willickers, there IS one!

Debate with a Calvinist

Then again, your particular brand of debate involves just making sharp jabs against Calvinists based on total ignorance and misunderstanding. Ah, that would belong here:

Soteriology

What you write here is about as welcome as a "God Hates Faġs" sign at a military funeral.

 

[-Z-]

Sounds somewhat like I touched a nerve... That is sad. I did offer scriptures for you to address which you never did.. Anddon't worry I type with my mouth closed.

 

[bradfordl]

Oh, blast.... I must have missed the election bus then as according to you I really don't have control over... well... anything I do....

Apparently you don't.

I'm sorry, I was not called to have a conscience.

Then your own words stand as a testimony against you.

Oh please child, that is dumb. I did contribute. I contributed verses that could be responded too... Unfortunately they were disregarded and only my additional colorful commentary was noticed.

You have now resorted to name-calling because you aren't getting your own admittedly conscienceless way. There is no need to respond to your posts, seeing you are posting in violation of christian ethics and the board rules.

This is unedifying rather.

The opinion of a man devoid of ethics is less than immaterial.

The only accurate thing about your post is pride.

The accusations of a man devoid of conscience are, again, immaterial.

I would venture to accuse you of pride,

There you go again....

and biblically I am to address my own first...

They don't hang here... nor do they belong here.

But since I missed the bus I guess I don't need to worry about that right?

Therein lies your error. You didn't miss the bus. It wasn't scheduled to stop for you.

Please go away.

 

[bradfordl]

Sounds somewhat like I touched a nerve... That is sad. I did offer scriptures for you to address which you never did.. Anddon't worry I type with my mouth closed.

No nerve touched. We've heard your brand of man-centered blasphemy many times before, and find it best to try to appeal to any inkling of christian ethics within your ilk to steer you towards doing what is right rather than engage in your inanity. Sadly, we find none present, therefore the only thing left to do is what the Apostle John has told us to do:

2Jn 1:9-11 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. (10) If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: (11) For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.

We do not wish to partake of your evil deeds, therefore it is best that you depart.

 

[-Z-]

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!

 

[nill]

See, atheists would not even get this mad at me or treat me in this manner.

Yeah, all the Methodists and Anglicans would shrug it off, too, but I know for a fact that all the Pentecostals would probably get together to pray over your soul. Pretty sure all the Hindus would sit back and laugh and have a cigar. All the Muslims would send angry emails and protest. And definitely all the Jews would get angry. They totally do that. All of them.

Then again, a few of us humans just get annoyed at your typical idiocy on display. Oh, but not the atheists. No sir. They're all kind and loving and would never say anything angry or treat you poorly, right? 'Cause they're atheists, right? And all of them always treat Christians with respect no matter what, right?

You act like a tickhead, you get treated like one. Stop crying foul. I gave you two links to carry your lame whining to. Yet you're still here. You have no idea how to follow instructions.

But since I missed the bus I guess I don't need to worry about that right?

Missed the short bus, maybe, yeah. You should try to catch up with that one. Seems you've missed one too many of your classes already--I don't think you can afford to miss any more.