The worst thing about Calvinism

[Hammster]

It says WHOLE world and it contrasts it with believers in 1 John 2:2. It is what the verse plainly says.
But you do not like what this verse says because it goes against what you believe.


...

Where have I ever said I didn't like the verse? When you start attacking the person, it's a sign of a weak argument.

And yes, I know it says whole world. I'm sure I've never disputed that.

 

[Hammster]

True, you haven't, but of course the Calvinist must insist that world does not actually mean everyone of the world to support their peculiar doctrine of limited atonement and if that were not the case you would read 1 Jn. 2:2 in a normal way. There is nothing in the context to suggest a hyperbolic view of the word world. On the contrary, the contrast within the verse between "our sins" which refers to those of saved believers/ the elect and "the sins of the whole world" is an unambiguous declaration that Christ is the propitiation for the sins of all mankind...the whole world. Just as it is plainly stated elsewhere, even specifically denoting that...."Christ tasted death for every man" ( Hebrews 2:9).

Logically, as Christ is the Son of Man and the second Adam He represents the entire human race and His death and victory over sin paid for Adam's sin which brought all sin into the world and death upon all mankind.

Actually, the contrast is between the readers of the letter and the rest of those who have had God's wrath removed from them. We know from John's own writings that this isn't everyone because some people have God's wrath remaining. That means it never left them.

 

[Ronald]

I am not a Calvinist. You don't have to be a Calvinist to believe in predestination or the coming Judgments and wrath of God.
TULIP was Calvin's attempt to frame Christianity and our spiritual nature in a nice neat flowery way. The only thing I agree with is Perseverance. To understand these concepts goes beyond scripture and into the realm of the mind of infinite God. Total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace fail and cannot be completely supported by scripture.
Packaging these concepts is like putting God in a box. It requires omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence! This covers far more territory than we can conceive. It encompasses God's plan involving the entire lives of every person throughout history. Election, Atonement and Salvation cannot be analyzed and framed as Calvin attempted to do! The Bible gives us all we need to know about it, but the rest is beyond what we can know.
We cannot choose God unless He draws us first -- no argument there.
That said, predestination is scriptural. "For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified."Romans :29, 30
"also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will,"Eph. 1:11
The inheritance is eternal salvation in heaven.
"And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire."Rev.20:15 All the inhabitants of Hades throughout the history of man (except the ones taken to Paradise) will be thrown into the lake of fire (hell) and destroyed! This includes all that have the mark of the beast in the book of Revelation.
Even Jesus condemned the Pharisees to the Gehenna. That's another translation and concept of the lake of fire.

If everyone is eventually saved as Universalists believe and if Christ died for everyone, then why did He say we must believe in Him to be saved?
"He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of god abides on him." John 3:36
It sounds cut and dry to me, you are either with Him or without Him!
If everyone got saved, might as well throw out all the scriptures that pertain to Judgment Day, the book of Revelation, Daniel 12, etc. And there will be no Millennial Kingdom because that can't happen unless their is a cleansing of some kind. All the teachings about the curse of sin having on humanity would be useless. All the judgments in the past wouldn't be lessons for us to learn.
"The wages of sin is death" is a primary theme throughout the Bible that resonates and warns us of its consequences. What, shall we think there are no consequences to sin? Actually, the Good News would have somewhat of a different message if that were so: "Everyone rejoice, ya'll are goin to heaven no matter what you believe, whatever path, religion, philosophy, good or bad, even if you don't believe in God, ya'll get it!" Yippie Ki Yo Ki Ya! ... Or hallelujah.
No, everyone does not get in. Sin needs to be judged and Christ made it clear that if you believe in Him, His death washes away your sins. But He also made it clear that if you do not, you will suffer death. That is not physical death He is talking about, it is spiritual death, separation from God and it means judgment -- destruction. The Book of Life contains names in advance of all whom He has chosen, the elect. To be fair, He calls all men to Himself, but many resist and reject His call. He does not desire that any should perish but that they would come to the LIGHT and receive LIFE. He doesn't force you to love Him. He knocks on your door over and over and over again throughout your life and tries to get your attention. It is man's callous heart that rejects God and therefore chooses his own destiny. Knowing this in His foreknowledge He chooses those whom He knows will receive Him. Why would you chose someone who you know will reject you?
It is evident that Jesus has many enemies, they reject and resist Him and choose other ways, other religions. But Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life, NO ONE comes to the Father but by Me." And so narrow is the way to heaven ... few find it.

 

[RisenInJesus]

Actually, the contrast is between the readers of the letter and the rest of those who have had God's wrath removed from them. We know from John's own writings that this isn't everyone because some people have God's wrath remaining. That means it never left them.

Only a Calvinist would come to this conclusion by redefining the word world, to suit their theology because the epistle itself gives the correct meaning and contrast being expressed by John. In 1 John 3:1 it says... the world does not know us, because it did not know Him. Certainly "us" refers to the redeemed in contrast to "world" and cannot possibly mean other Christians or the rest of the redeemed. 1 john 3:13 then says...Do not marvel, my brethren, if the world hates you, making the same contrast between the saved and the unsaved who hate them. Then in 1 John 4:5-6 again...they are of the world. Therefore they speak as of the world, and the world hears them. We are of God. Finally, 1 John 5:19...We know that we are of God, and the whole world lies under the sway of the wicked one.

If you want to be consistent with your handling of "world" and the contrast you're espousing in 1 John 2:2 you will have to believe that all Christians throughout all time and all places hate the believers John was writing to and lie under the sway of the wicked one. I think it is so much better to let the scriptures speak for themselves without imposing presuppositions upon them. Throughout the epistle the word "world" consistently means exactly what a reasonable reader would expect: the world is in contrast to the body of believers and the word "world" in 1 John 2:2 cannot legitimately be an exception or cannot have a different meaning than elsewhere in the epistle. So I can only conclude the Christ is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world and not only for the elect, as the verse clearly states and which is supported by the rest of the epistle and Bible.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Where have I ever said I didn't like the verse? When you start attacking the person, it's a sign of a weak argument.

Well, I want you to know that I honestly do love you in the Lord Jesus Christ. My words were not meant to hurt you in any way, but they were meant as a little cold splash of water in love. So my words were not an attack but merely a mild observation of what we all know to be true.
Jesus says we can judge righteous judgment; And I was being very very mild in my judgment here. For I was not writing a long paragraph about you.
If it makes you feel better, you can look at my words as saying how you do not like something like say, how you may not like peanut butter and pickle sandwiches, and or french poodles who leave brown tootsie rolls on your carpet, etc.
But if you are offended in some way, I deeply apologize.
It was not my intention to cause hurtful words towards you in any way.

But you have to realize that you would not seek to change what 1 John 2:2 plainly says if you liked what it says, my friend. I know how this works. There are verses and or passages in the Bible that were hard for me to accept (because at first I did not like what I heard them say), but they are true none the less.

And yes, I know it says whole world. I'm sure I've never disputed that.

I am not sure how you can change this plain straight forward meaning of this verse.
1 John 2:2 contrasts the propitiation for:

(a) Our sins (with that of):
(b) The WHOLE world.​

It is what it says. To deny this is to deny basic English (and how most humans normally read and understand the English language as a whole).

So what do you think the contrast is?

Anyways, may God bless you;
And may you please be well.

With loving kindness to you in Christ,

Sincerely,

~ Jason.


...

 

[Bible Highlighter]

So you believe God saves sheep (i.e. those who He knows would choose Him of their own free will if after He regenerates them)?

Close enough.

Jesus says,
"Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No.'.." (Matthew 5:37).

It is either a "yes" or a "no."

If you were to say that God regenerates somebody based on how their free will choices would turn out for the good or the better after regenerated, then I could agree with your belief as being moral and good (even if it was not exactly biblical).

So do you believe this?

Yes, or no?


...

 

[Hammster]

Only a Calvinist would come to this conclusion by redefining the word world, to suit their theology because the epistle itself gives the correct meaning and contrast being expressed by John. In 1 John 3:1 it says... the world does not know us, because it did not know Him. Certainly "us" refers to the redeemed in contrast to "world" and cannot possibly mean other Christians or the rest of the redeemed. 1 john 3:13 then says...Do not marvel, my brethren, if the world hates you, making the same contrast between the saved and the unsaved who hate them. Then in 1 John 4:5-6 again...they are of the world. Therefore they speak as of the world, and the world hears them. We are of God. Finally, 1 John 5:19...We know that we are of God, and the whole world lies under the sway of the wicked one.

If you want to be consistent with your handling of "world" and the contrast you're espousing in 1 John 2:2 you will have to believe that all Christians throughout all time and all places hate the believers John was writing to and lie under the sway of the wicked one. I think it is so much better to let the scriptures speak for themselves without imposing presuppositions upon them. Throughout the epistle the word "world" consistently means exactly what a reasonable reader would expect: the world is in contrast to the body of believers and the word "world" in 1 John 2:2 cannot legitimately be an exception or cannot have a different meaning than elsewhere in the epistle. So I can only conclude the Christ is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world and not only for the elect, as the verse clearly states and which is supported by the rest of the epistle and Bible.

I've consistently stated that world has multiple definitions depending upon the context. I've demonstrated why the context in 2:2 does not allow it to be every person for all time because God's wrath cannot remain on someone if it was satisfied by Christ's death. The grammar allows for my understanding. So you are being disingenuous to say that I've redefined the word.

 

[Hammster]

Well, I want you to know that I honestly do love you in the Lord Jesus Christ. My words were not meant to hurt you in any way, but they were meant as a little cold splash of water in love. So my words were not an attack but merely a mild observation of what we all know to be true.
Jesus says we can judge righteous judgment; And I was being very very mild in my judgment here. For I was not writing a long paragraph about you.
If it makes you feel better, you can look at my words as saying how you do not like something like say, how you may not like peanut butter and pickle sandwiches, and or french poodles who leave brown tootsie rolls on your carpet, etc.
But if you are offended in some way, I deeply apologize.
It was not my intention to cause hurtful words towards you in any way.

But you have to realize that you would not seek to change what 1 John 2:2 plainly says if you liked what it says, my friend. I know how this works. There are verses and or passages in the Bible that were hard for me to accept (because at first I did not like what I heard them say), but they are true none the less.



I am not sure how you can change this plain straight forward meaning of this verse.
1 John 2:2 contrasts the propitiation for:

(a) Our sins (with that of):
(b) The WHOLE world.​

It is what it says. To deny this is to deny basic English (and how most humans normally read and understand the English language as a whole).

So what do you think the contrast is?

Anyways, may God bless you;
And may you please be well.

With loving kindness to you in Christ,

Sincerely,

~ Jason.


...

Grammatically, could John be using it hyperbolicly?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Grammatically, could John be using it hyperbolicly?

No. What is the contrast being made here?

The propitation of our sins WITH the sins of the whole world.

It makes no sense to contrast our sins WITH our sins.

Even if 1 John 2:2 was speaking as a metaphor (of which there is no indication of the text suggesting that) what exactly is the metaphor contrasting?


...

 

[Hammster]

Jesus says,
"Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No.'.." (Matthew 5:37).

It is either a "yes" or a "no."

If you were to say that God regenerates somebody based on how their free will choices would turn out for the good or the better after regenerated, then I could agree with your belief as being moral and good (even if it was not exactly biblical).


...

That's nice. But Christ saves His sheep, and only His sheep. So the Coast Guard saves those theybare supposed to save.

 

[Hammster]

Grammatically, could John be using it hyperbolicly?

No

Then the conversation is over. If you can't even agree that grammatically it could be hyperbole, then you are so blinded by your traditions that there's no point in continuing.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

That's nice. But Christ saves His sheep, and only His sheep. So the Coast Guard saves those theybare supposed to save.

No. The wicked would be those who want to remain lost at sea in this scenario. They would refuse the help of the Savior (or the coast guard) and prefer to stay where they are at. Free will is the determining factor of whether someone desires to be saved or not.

Now, the only two verses that sounds slightly Calvinistic in the Bible to me are Revelation 13:8 and Revelation 17:8. It says that those who worshiped the beast never had their names in the book of life since the foundation of the world. This means that even as babies, they were not saved. Granted, all of these individuals grew up into adults to worship the beast of their own free will. But that's it. Everyone else had their sins paid for so that Christ could offer every other man the free gift of salvation openly to all (Whereby each of them have the free will choice to reject or accept Christ under the drawing of Christ).


...

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Then the conversation is over. If you can't even agree that grammatically it could be hyperbole, then you are so blinded by your traditions that there's no point in continuing.

But you are not telling me what the contrast is, though.
Even if 1 John 2:2 was speaking metaphorically there should be TWO different things being contrasted with one another. Like light vs. darkness. Good vs. evil. The world vs. believers, etc.


...

 

[Hammster]

No. The wicked would be those who want to remain lost at sea in this scenario. They would refuse the help of the Savior (or the coast guard) and prefer to stay where they are at. Free will is the determining factor of whether someone desires to be saved or not.

Now, the only two verses that sounds slightly Calvinistic in the Bible to me are Revelation 13:8 and Revelation 17:8. It says that those who worshiped the beast never had their names in the book of life since the foundation of the world. This means that even as babies, they were not saved. Granted, all of these individuals grew up into adults to worship the beast of their own free will. But that's it. Everyone else had their sins paid for so that Christ could offer every other man the free gift of salvation openly to all.


...

So to win your argument, you've taken to redefine what I believe? I don't think that's how this is supposed to work.

 

[Hammster]

But you are not telling me what the contrast is, though.
Even if 1 John 2:2 was speaking metaphorically there should be TWO different things being contrasted with one another. Like light vs. darkness. Good vs. evil. The world vs. believers, etc.


...

A metaphor and hyperbole are not the same thing. So I cannot defend it being used metaphorically.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

So to win your argument, you've taken to redefine what I believe? I don't think that's how this is supposed to work.

Something may sound slightly Calvinistic but that does not mean that it is Calvinistic.
There is a difference.


...

 

[Hammster]

Something may sound slightly Calvinistic but that does not mean that it is Calvinistic.
There is a difference.


...

You asked me to address your scenario. Which I did. And based on some of your views on what you think Calvinists believe, I don't think you're qualified to give an opinion on what Calvinists believe.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

You asked me to address your scenario. Which I did. And based on some of your views on what you think Calvinists believe, I don't think you're qualified to give an opinion on what Calvinists believe.

At the heart, Calvinism is saying that God chooses some to be saved and others to not be saved. This does not involve man's free will choices in any way. I would wager in many cases that this is not even based upon what God knows they are going to do in the future after regenerated, too. Meaning, if God regenerates a person that turns out to be a bad apple, then He will not regenerate them. Most Calvinists do not believe this. Most of them I have encountered believe God just chooses some to be saved and others to not be saved for no real good or moral reason. God just does what He does. Morality does not play into God choosing who is saved or not saved (According to the Calvinists I have talked with). If I am wrong, then please by all means correct me and give quoted sources from Calvinistic websties.


...

 

[Hammster]

At the heart, Calvinism is saying that God chooses some to be saved and others to not be saved. This does not involve man's free will choices in any way. I would wager in many cases that this is not even based upon what God knows they are going to do in the future after regenerated, too. Meaning, if God regenerates a person that turns out to be a bad apple, then He will not regenerate them. Most Calvinists do not believe this. Most of them I have encountered believe God just chooses some to be saved and others to not be saved for no real good or moral reason. God just does what He does. Morality does not play into God choosing who is saved or not saved (According to the Calvinists I have talked with). If I am wrong, then please by all means correct me and give quoted sources from Calvinistic websties.


...

Back up, now. Are we still discussing your Coast Guard scenario? You have a habit of not sticking with a topic.

 

[Hammster]

At the heart, Calvinism is saying that God chooses some to be saved and others to not be saved. This does not involve man's free will choices in any way. I would wager in many cases that this is not even based upon what God knows they are going to do in the future after regenerated, too. Meaning, if God regenerates a person that turns out to be a bad apple, then He will not regenerate them. Most Calvinists do not believe this. Most of them I have encountered believe God just chooses some to be saved and others to not be saved for no real good or moral reason. God just does what He does. Morality does not play into God choosing who is saved or not saved (According to the Calvinists I have talked with). If I am wrong, then please by all means correct me and give quoted sources from Calvinistic websties.


...

And for the record, no Calvinist believes the tripe you just spewed.