Understanding Calvinism

Skala · Oct 4, 2011

The "they" in the phrase "they will all be taught of God" is the same group of people that Jesus is already talking about. Those that the Father draws to Jesus, gives to Jesus.

Why would you assume it's some other group of people?

As for Matt 23:37, your mistake is not understanding the context. The verse is not Jesus weeping about unbelievers, it's about Jesus condemning them. For the past 36 verses Jesus has pronounced woe's upon the Jewish leaders, ie, Jerusalem. They have kept the truth from the Israelites, and instead made them into children of hell.

When it gets to verse 37, Jesus is further condemning them for not being willing that the people come to God.

Notice, there's two groups of people in verse 37, not just one group as you erroneously assume.

Here they are:

"I longed to gather YOUR CHILDREN...but YOU were not willing"

Notice, Jesus doesn't say "I longed to gather YOU, but YOU were not willing". It's not the same group. Jesus is saying he longed to gather Israel, but the Jewish leaders were not willing for it to happen. Hence the prior 36 verses of condemnation and woe upon them.

The mistake on your part, in ignoring the context and instead handling God's word so terribly, is that you assumed the group that Jesus longed to gather was the same group that wasn't willing.

It's amazing what context does. You know what's sad, James White has documented several Arminians who mis-quote this verse in debates and in books, by quoting it like this: "I longed to gather you like a hen..but you were not willing"

Calvinists never misquote the verse. Imagine that.

rturner76 · Oct 4, 2011

Skala said:
As for Matt 23:37, your mistake is not understanding the context. The verse is not Jesus weeping about unbelievers, it's about Jesus condemning them. For the past 36 verses Jesus has pronounced woe's upon the Jewish leaders, ie, Jerusalem. They have kept the truth from the Israelites, and instead made them into children of hell.

When it gets to verse 37, Jesus is further condemning them for not being willing that the people come to God.

Notice, there's two groups of people in verse 37, not just one group as you erroneously assume.

Here they are:

"I longed to gather YOUR CHILDREN...but YOU were not willing"

Notice, Jesus doesn't say "I longed to gather YOU, but YOU were not willing". It's not the same group. Jesus is saying he longed to gather Israel, but the Jewish leaders were not willing for it to happen. Hence the prior 36 verses of condemnation and woe upon them.

The mistake on your part, in ignoring the context and instead handling God's word so terribly, is that you assumed the group that Jesus longed to gather was the same group that wasn't willing.

It's amazing what context does. You know what's sad, James White has documented several Arminians who mis-quote this verse in debates and in books, by quoting it like this: "I longed to gather you like a hen..but you were not willing"

Calvinists never misquote the verse. Imagine that.

I'm surprised you would bring up context because you butcher it here. Jerusalem is the city. Jerusalem is always set as the holy city. What Jesus is talking about is not two groups of people. He is talking about the city of Jerusalem. It is obviuos. He laments,

O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it!" The city which was to always receive the divine revelation always kills her prophets

How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing!
(Matthew 23:37 ESV)
How many times have the children of Israel been gathered under a blessed prophet only for you to stone, kill, or this time crucify him. No more are being sent!

Calvin does not look at the scripture for what it says, he misinterprets to fit his own hypothesis. It does not fit but for the sake of following a doctrine, people choose to follow it like it's a sports team or something. Team Calvin. You must see the misguided slant. All in an effort to be closer to God but it is a mistake, I'm not just trying to "win" an argument. this Calvin stuff is really flawed.

cygnusx1 · Oct 4, 2011

Tzaousios said:
I don't understand the point of the exercise you have put people through in Soteriology. It would have saved an enormous amount of time and bandwidth if you had been forthcoming at first. Giving the impression that you were having "a change of heart" or coming to some kind of new, progressive revelation concerning Calvinism only tipped people off to the reality behind it.

Yeh Gordon always blows it in the end.

heymikey80 · Oct 4, 2011

Pinkman said:
This is all quite in keeping with the very next verse after John 6:44 if you would read it. It says,

John 6:45 "It is written in the prophets, 'AND THEY SHALL ALL BE TAUGHT OF GOD.' Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me.

On the universal nature of the call, Jesus said, "And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself." (John 12:32) And by this He referred to the cross (v,33)

It is unfortunate that not all who are drawn will come. This was the lament of Jesus of His own people, Israel.
"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling. (Mat 23:37)

Where have I heard this before? Same old saw.

65And he said, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is given him by the Father."

Compare the only other place where "I told you" something similar:

44No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.

Comparing :44 with :65, being drawn is being given.

37All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.

Comparing :37 with :65, being given shall result in coming to Christ.

So all those drawn, are given. And thus all those drawn come to Christ.

This has been discussed at length on Soteriology in the past.

heymikey80 · Oct 4, 2011

ConsumedByHisCall said:
Who should we ask exactly? If we ask John MacArthur he would say that God loves all of humanity and genuinely desires all to be saved and rebukes others like Pink who suggest otherwise.

John MacArthur is a relatively recent arrival to 5-pt Calvinism, as a number of Calvinists will point out who were previously ousted from his ministry team. Mac's also a dispensationalist, a rather unusual combination for a Calvinist. Covenantal theologians are typical for Reformed, Calvinistic theology.

ConsumedByHisCall said:
As I've quoted before, Calvinists are seriously divided among themselves and always have been.

They're not. Most Calvinist denominations are on good terms with one another.

Pinkman · Oct 5, 2011

heymikey80 said:
They're not. Most Calvinist denominations are on good terms with one another.

The early posts to this thread prove you wrong. Those who posted here were against hyper calvinism for example.

Also there are thos whom cyg calls inconsistent calvinists.

Pinkman · Oct 5, 2011

It could be that this is an experiment to see if two calvinists feel they have to dominate this board.

So insecure tht they must always have the last word.

OR It could be that non calvinists have an excellent platform to contrast Scripture with man made philosophy.

Tzaousios · Oct 5, 2011

Pinkman said:
OR It could be that non calvinists have an excellent platform to contrast Scripture with man made philosophy.

You indicate the exact level that your desperation has reached when you start employing the prototypical rhetorical tropes of anti-Calvinism.

cygnusx1 · Oct 5, 2011

Tzaousios said:
You indicate the exact level that your desperation has reached when you start employing the prototypical rhetorical tropes of anti-Calvinism.

Amen , can't debate a point with scripture and history so just deny your opponent his humanity : and even if it was "man made philosophy" which it certainly is not (who could dream up a plan that shatters every last vestige of pride) , it would be an attack upon the very thing "they" love : free-will and independent rights. "why attack me for what I chose to believe" ?

Skala · Oct 5, 2011

Perhaps you can quote Calvin himself here so we can all see his thoughts on the verse?

rturner76 said:
I'm surprised you would bring up context because you butcher it here. Jerusalem is the city. Jerusalem is always set as the holy city. What Jesus is talking about is not two groups of people. He is talking about the city of Jerusalem. It is obviuos. He laments,

O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it!" The city which was to always receive the divine revelation always kills her prophets

How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing!
(Matthew 23:37 ESV)
How many times have the children of Israel been gathered under a blessed prophet only for you to stone, kill, or this time crucify him. No more are being sent!

Calvin does not look at the scripture for what it says, he misinterprets to fit his own hypothesis. It does not fit but for the sake of following a doctrine, people choose to follow it like it's a sports team or something. Team Calvin. You must see the misguided slant. All in an effort to be closer to God but it is a mistake, I'm not just trying to "win" an argument. this Calvin stuff is really flawed.

Pinkman · Oct 5, 2011

Pinkman said:
Gotta say like I see it.

Not saying that ALL calvinist are ALL wrong.

Nor ALL type of Calvinist are ALL wrong.

But like all others, all types of Calvinist make all types of errors.

rturner76 · Oct 5, 2011

Skala said:
Perhaps you can quote Calvin himself here so we can all see his thoughts on the verse?

If I misinterpret I apologize, I was commenting on what I see being put forth on this thread, thinking it is his position.

Pinkman · Oct 5, 2011

Team Calvin

Fall decreed by God

"...salvation is freely offered to some while others are barred from access to it". Book 3, Ch 21, Section 5

"...it is utterly inconsistent to transfer the preparation for destruction to anything but God's secret plan." "..God's secret plan is the cause of hardening". Book 2, Ch 23, Section 1

Change mind - take two - Fall NOT decreed by God

"Man falls according as God's providence ordains, but he falls by his own fault". Book 3, Ch 23, Section 8

"Moreover, the Wicked bring upon themselves the just destruction to which they are destined". Book 3, Ch 24

Take your pick, its your choice.

Blessings

Pinkman · Oct 5, 2011

John Calvin

God “Predestines people to damnation” !!

Some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and accordingly, as each has been created for one or the other of those ends, we say that he has been predestined to life or death.” Book 3, Ch 21, Section 5

But - No – God “Passes Over”??

"Therefore, those whom God passes over, he condemns; and this he does for no other reason than that he wills to exclude them from the inheritance which he predestines for his own children." Book 3, Ch 23, Section 1

AndOne · Oct 5, 2011

Pinkman said:
John Calvin

God Predestines people to damnation !!

Some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and accordingly, as each has been created for one or the other of those ends, we say that he has been predestined to life or death. Book 3, Ch 21, Section 5

Therefore, those whom God passes over, he condemns; and this he does for no other reason than that he wills to exclude them from the inheritance which he predestines for his own children." Book 3, Ch 23, Section 1

Romans 9:21-23
21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? 22What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory

Pinkman · Oct 5, 2011

My point is not to 'nail' John Calvin into the ground. He was a clever and gifted man as is plain to see by his mountain of commentaries.

The point is that John Calvin was a finite man. Not to be worshiped. Even the angels forbade the apostles to fall at there feet when they appeared.

Also Calvin;s thought were some times unfinished and some times changed over time.

Nothing wrong with that. He was finite man after all. The problem comes when people split into faction and take some of his writing as inspired by God and above the Bible.

If John Calvin was going to write more scripture then it would be clearly expounded in the Bible. It is not.

The last two quotes - predestined vs passes over show where different faction take different texts to extreme.

Hardly Sola Scripture.

AndOne · Oct 5, 2011

Pinkman said:
My point is not to 'nail' John Calvin into the ground. He was a clever and gifted man as is plain to see by his mountain of commentaries.

The point is that John Calvin was a finite man. Not to be worshiped. Even the angels forbade the apostles to fall at there feet when they appeared.

Also Calvin;s thought were some times unfinished and some times changed over time.

Nothing wrong with that. He was finite man after all. The problem comes when people split into faction and take some of his writing as inspired by God and above the Bible.

If John Calvin was going to write more scripture then it would be clearly expounded in the Bible. It is not.

The last two quotes - predestined vs passes over show where different faction take different texts to extreme.

Hardly Sola Scripture.

see post 437

Pinkman · Oct 5, 2011

Behe's Boy said:
Romans 9:21-23
21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? 22What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory—

Nice quote. Why has the clay the right to demand 5 point theology which is not in the Bible. Calvinists - ok some calvinists - should remember - They are NOT the potter.

Yours in Christ

PM

AndOne · Oct 5, 2011

Pinkman said:
Nice quote. Why has the clay the right to demand 5 point theology which is not in the Bible. Calvinists - ok some calvinists - should remember - They are NOT the potter.

Yours in Christ

PM

Not sure what you're talking about - I'm just pointing out the verses.... that is all...

Pinkman · Oct 5, 2011

Calvin accurately taught the correct concept of man before the fall: "Man, in his state of innocency, had freedom and power to will and to do that which is good and well-pleasing to God; but yet mutably, so that he might fall from it." "God has endued that will of man with that natural liberty and power of acting upon choice, that it is neither forced for, by any necessity of nature, determined to do good or evil." (Westminster Confession of Faith) This freewill nature of man did not change when Adam and Eve sinned but is the same today

Unfortunately many calvinist ignore this causing much strife even with calvinism itself.

Understanding Calvinism

I'm a Saint. Not because of me, but because of Him

Domine non-sum dignus

Jacob the twister.....

Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur

Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Αυγουστινιανικός Χριστιανός

Jacob the twister.....

I'm a Saint. Not because of me, but because of Him

Well-Known Member

Domine non-sum dignus

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deliver me oh Lord, from evil men

Well-Known Member

Deliver me oh Lord, from evil men

Well-Known Member

Deliver me oh Lord, from evil men

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency