Why do Arminians...

[drstevej]

I think it fair to say that I lean generally more toward the Calvinist camp than the Arminian camp. I definitaly spend more time arguing with Arminians than Calvinists. But then there are many Calvinists who would readily disown me for strenuously objecting to the doctrine of limited atonement.

I am in your camp. I refer to myself as a Christmas Calvinist (NO-L). Or you might rename it Limited Attainment.

 

[Marvin Knox]

I am in your camp. I refer to myself as a Christmas Calvinist (NO-L). Or you might rename it Limited Attainment.

With respect to limited atonement I am a Calvinist in that I hold the same position Calvin held on the matter. The famous TULIP acronym came along centuries after Calvin died.

No one would ever deny that John Calvin was not "Reformed. I dislike labels. But I suppose I would most proudly wear the label "Reformed" if I had to choose one.

A FEW QUOTES BY CALVIN:

1 John 2:2--"he is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the whole world"----------------------- "CHRIST SUFFERED FOR THE SINS OF THE WHOLE WORLD. and in the goodness of God is OFFERED UNTO ALL MEN WITHOUT DISTINCTION, HIS BLOOD BEING SHED NOT FOR A PART OF THE WORLD ONLY, BUT FOR THE WHOLE HUMAN RACE; for although in the world nothing is found worthy of the favor of God, yet he HOLDS OUT THE PROPITIATION TO THE WHOLE WORLD, since without exception he SUMMONS ALL TO THE FAITH OF CHRIST, which is nothing else than the door unto hope."

Mark 14:24: "This is my blood of the new testament, WHICH IS SHED FOR MANY"..................... "The word 'many' DOES NOT MEAN A PART OF THE WORLD ONLY, BUT THE WHOLE HUMAN RACE: he contrasts many with one as if to say that he would not be the Redeemer of one man, but would meet death to deliver many of their cursed guilt. No doubt that in speaking to a few Christ wished to make His teaching available to a larger number...So when we come to the holy table not only should the general idea come to our mind that THE WORLD IS REDEEMED BY THE BLOOD OF CHRIST but also each should reckon to himself that his own sins are covered.


Romans 5:18: "Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life."
"Paul makes grace COMMON TO ALL MEN, not because it in fact EXTENDS TO ALL, but because IT IS OFFERED TO ALL. Although CHRIST SUFFERED FOR THE SINS OF THE WORLD. AND IS OFFERED BY THE GOODNESS OF GOD WITHOUT DISTINCTION TO ALL MEN, yet not all receive him"

Calvin's "LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT, April 25, 1564":
"I testify also and declare, that I suppliantly beg of Him, that He may be pleased so to was and purify me in the blood which my Sovereign Redeemer HAS SHED FOR THE SINS OF THE HUMAN RACE, that under His shadow I may be able to stand at the judgment-seat...."

 

[FreeGrace2]

No one would ever deny that John Calvin was not "Reformed. I dislike labels. But I suppose I would most proudly wear the label "Reformed" if I had to choose one.

Interestingly, Jacobus Arminius also was "reformed". Just a different reformed than followers of J Calvin.

A FEW QUOTES BY CALVIN:

1 John 2:2--"he is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the whole world"----------------------- "CHRIST SUFFERED FOR THE SINS OF THE WHOLE WORLD. and in the goodness of God is OFFERED UNTO ALL MEN WITHOUT DISTINCTION, HIS BLOOD BEING SHED NOT FOR A PART OF THE WORLD ONLY, BUT FOR THE WHOLE HUMAN RACE; for although in the world nothing is found worthy of the favor of God, yet he HOLDS OUT THE PROPITIATION TO THE WHOLE WORLD, since without exception he SUMMONS ALL TO THE FAITH OF CHRIST, which is nothing else than the door unto hope."

Amen!!

Mark 14:24: "This is my blood of the new testament, WHICH IS SHED FOR MANY"..................... "The word 'many' DOES NOT MEAN A PART OF THE WORLD ONLY, BUT THE WHOLE HUMAN RACE: he contrasts many with one as if to say that he would not be the Redeemer of one man, but would meet death to deliver many of their cursed guilt. No doubt that in speaking to a few Christ wished to make His teaching available to a larger number...So when we come to the holy table not only should the general idea come to our mind that THE WORLD IS REDEEMED BY THE BLOOD OF CHRIST but also each should reckon to himself that his own sins are covered.

Amen, again!!

Romans 5:18: "Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life."
"Paul makes grace COMMON TO ALL MEN, not because it in fact EXTENDS TO ALL, but because IT IS OFFERED TO ALL. Although CHRIST SUFFERED FOR THE SINS OF THE WORLD. AND IS OFFERED BY THE GOODNESS OF GOD WITHOUT DISTINCTION TO ALL MEN, yet not all receive him"

Amen

Calvin's "LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT, April 25, 1564":
"I testify also and declare, that I suppliantly beg of Him, that He may be pleased so to was and purify me in the blood which my Sovereign Redeemer HAS SHED FOR THE SINS OF THE HUMAN RACE, that under His shadow I may be able to stand at the judgment-seat...."

This one is troubling, however. It seems he lacked full assurance, similar to the Puritans, who fretted over whether they were "of the elect".

No one ever needs to "beg of Him" to stand at the judgment seat. All believers will stand at the Bema.

Thanks for the great quotes related to Scripture.

Was it his successor, Beza, who introduced limited atonement?

 

[tulipbee]

The "why" for the Arminian happens in-time.

Time keeps everything from happening at once. "why"don't exist without time. Arminians ask God why all thier lives due to doubt in God. They die in doubt never trusting God's word in the first place. They keep questioning Him with endless questions like children never growing up.
Why
Why
Why
Why
Why

 

[Hammster]

I asked it if WAS a plan. Another typical non-answer.

Here's your question: "If God planned it, then why did he wait thousands of years?"

So it was a "why" question. I answered that question.

Again your limited human concept comes into play here. Who said God waited?

We have to use terms that we understand logically. So when you say "The very same reason He only predestined those who chose His Son as their savior," logically the choice to predestine came after the choice (unless you're now a Calvinist).

 

[Hammster]

So I ask, which came first - His plan of the crucifixion, or His knowing how it would happen?

He knew how it would happen because He planned it.

 

[sdowney717]

With respect to limited atonement I am a Calvinist in that I hold the same position Calvin held on the matter. The famous TULIP acronym came along centuries after Calvin died.

No one would ever deny that John Calvin was not "Reformed. I dislike labels. But I suppose I would most proudly wear the label "Reformed" if I had to choose one.

A FEW QUOTES BY CALVIN:

1 John 2:2--"he is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the whole world"----------------------- "CHRIST SUFFERED FOR THE SINS OF THE WHOLE WORLD. and in the goodness of God is OFFERED UNTO ALL MEN WITHOUT DISTINCTION, HIS BLOOD BEING SHED NOT FOR A PART OF THE WORLD ONLY, BUT FOR THE WHOLE HUMAN RACE; for although in the world nothing is found worthy of the favor of God, yet he HOLDS OUT THE PROPITIATION TO THE WHOLE WORLD, since without exception he SUMMONS ALL TO THE FAITH OF CHRIST, which is nothing else than the door unto hope."

Mark 14:24: "This is my blood of the new testament, WHICH IS SHED FOR MANY"..................... "The word 'many' DOES NOT MEAN A PART OF THE WORLD ONLY, BUT THE WHOLE HUMAN RACE: he contrasts many with one as if to say that he would not be the Redeemer of one man, but would meet death to deliver many of their cursed guilt. No doubt that in speaking to a few Christ wished to make His teaching available to a larger number...So when we come to the holy table not only should the general idea come to our mind that THE WORLD IS REDEEMED BY THE BLOOD OF CHRIST but also each should reckon to himself that his own sins are covered.


Romans 5:18: "Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life."
"Paul makes grace COMMON TO ALL MEN, not because it in fact EXTENDS TO ALL, but because IT IS OFFERED TO ALL. Although CHRIST SUFFERED FOR THE SINS OF THE WORLD. AND IS OFFERED BY THE GOODNESS OF GOD WITHOUT DISTINCTION TO ALL MEN, yet not all receive him"

Calvin's "LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT, April 25, 1564":
"I testify also and declare, that I suppliantly beg of Him, that He may be pleased so to was and purify me in the blood which my Sovereign Redeemer HAS SHED FOR THE SINS OF THE HUMAN RACE, that under His shadow I may be able to stand at the judgment-seat...."

1 John 2 Calvin's Commentaries
Some of Calvin's commentary on 1 John 2

Here a question may be raised, how have the sins of the whole world been expiated? I pass by the dotages of the fanatics, who under this pretense extend salvation to all the reprobate, and therefore to Satan himself. Such a monstrous thing deserves no refutation. They who seek to avoid this absurdity, have said that Christ [63] suffered sufficiently for the whole world, but efficiently only for the elect. This solution has commonly prevailed in the schools. Though then I allow that what has been said is true,

yet I deny that it is suitable to this passage; for the design of John was no other than to make this benefit common to the whole Church.

Then under the word all or whole, he does not include the reprobate, but designates those who should believe as well as those who were then scattered through various parts of the world. For then is really made evident, as it is meet, the grace of Christ, when it is declared to be the only true salvation of the world.

So does it seem to you that Calvin changed his mind? Here Calvin affirms limited atonement as most 5 point Calvinists believe.
Calvin in mentioning scattered is referring to the Holy Spirit prophecy where Caiaphas says

John 11

49 And one of them, Caiaphas, being high priest that year, said to them, “You know nothing at all, 50 nor do you consider that it is expedient for us[e] that one man should die for the people, and not that the whole nation should perish.” 51 Now this he did not say on his own authority; but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation, 52 and not for that nation only, but also that He would gather together in one the children of God who were scattered abroad.

 

[EmSw]

He knew how it would happen because He planned it.

An answer that didn't answer the question. What was so hard that you didn't answer?

I asked which came first. You mixed your answer like a tossed salad.

If I read it correctly, you say He planned it first. So I will assume by your answer, God didn't know how it would happen UNTIL He planned it. Therefore, because God didn't know how it would happen, He had to plan it.

You just threw omniscience out the window. Let's call it Limited Omniscience.

 

[drstevej]

With respect to limited atonement I am a Calvinist in that I hold the same position Calvin held on the matter. The famous TULIP acronym came along centuries after Calvin died.

I did my PhD in Reformation History and Theology at Westminster Seminary. You can find language in Calvin's writings that go each way. It was not an issue formally addressed by him. This was the position of my professor at WTS, G.I. Williamson, in the doctoral course on Calvin's Theology.

 

[Hammster]

An answer that didn't answer the question. What was so hard that you didn't answer?

I asked which came first. You mixed your answer like a tossed salad.

If I read it correctly, you say He planned it first. So I will assume by your answer, God didn't know how it would happen UNTIL He planned it. Therefore, because God didn't know how it would happen, He had to plan it.

You just threw omniscience out the window. Let's call it Limited Omniscience.

Let's not and call it you grasping at straws.

 

[nobdysfool]

I guess that since God inhabits eternity, and is Omniscient, that He cannot have an original thought, because He already has had them all. At least that's what it seems some are arguing, in their failing attempts to corner Calvinists. Funny how many speak as though they, and they alone, understand how God's mind works. Really? Were they there ?

And let's stop with the accusations of logical fallacies and red herrings. Suffice it to say that we all use them. Even the ones who make a fuss about it. No one here is perfect. We all have blind spots. We all have theology that isn't correct. No one is exempt. What is all this wrangling and poking and jabbing over minor points of doctrine, than jockeying for position? This isn't a contest. There are no prizes for 'defeating' or 'refuting' anyone, Calvinist or non-Calvinist.

 

[EmSw]

Let's not and call it you grasping at straws.

Why not say you don't know Hammster? Nobody has provided an answer, but yet some want to continue to say God planned the crucifixion. And, just because you can't answer, no need to bring any straws to the party.

 

[EmSw]

I guess that since God inhabits eternity, and is Omniscient, that He cannot have an original thought, because He already has had them all. At least that's what it seems some are arguing, in their failing attempts to corner Calvinists. Funny how many speak as though they, and they alone, understand how God's mind works. Really? Were they there ?

And let's stop with the accusations of logical fallacies and red herrings. Suffice it to say that we all use them. Even the ones who make a fuss about it. No one here is perfect. We all have blind spots. We all have theology that isn't correct. No one is exempt. What is all this wrangling and poking and jabbing over minor points of doctrine, than jockeying for position? This isn't a contest. There are no prizes for 'defeating' or 'refuting' anyone, Calvinist or non-Calvinist.

I'm not cornering Calvinists; some have cornered themselves by not being able to answer my questions. No one wants to give a straight answer.

Since you brought up red herrings, maybe you can answer my question without using any red herrings.

When did God not know when, where, and how the crucifixion would occur, that He had to plan it? Simple question which requires a simple answer from reason.

 

[sdowney717]

Why not say you don't know Hammster? Nobody has provided an answer, but yet some want to continue to say God planned the crucifixion. And, just because you can't answer, no need to bring any straws to the party.

Your refusing the truth and the answer already given.
What are you up to anyway?

It is this kind of contrary response that Paul tells us to
Titus 3

10 Reject a divisive man after the first and second admonition, 11 knowing that such a person is warped and sinning, being self-condemned.

As in also that Christ the paschal lamb was to be without blemish or spot and then you come back with He was spotted and blemished, marred, and Exodus 12 nothing to do with sin and the paschal lamb, nothing to do with sin... so I count so far at least 2.

Then a third, we can be righteous in our selves, do good works and be accepted in heaven, that is number 3.... you claiming Ezek 18 for proof.

 

[stan1953]

I guess that since God inhabits eternity, and is Omniscient, that He cannot have an original thought, because He already has had them all. At least that's what it seems some are arguing, in their failing attempts to corner Calvinists. Funny how many speak as though they, and they alone, understand how God's mind works. Really? Were they there ?

And let's stop with the accusations of logical fallacies and red herrings. Suffice it to say that we all use them. Even the ones who make a fuss about it. No one here is perfect. We all have blind spots. We all have theology that isn't correct. No one is exempt. What is all this wrangling and poking and jabbing over minor points of doctrine, than jockeying for position? This isn't a contest. There are no prizes for 'defeating' or 'refuting' anyone, Calvinist or non-Calvinist.

Of course that just show you don't really understand what God has done. All God's thoughts are original, but they do not necessarily entail His creation all the time. Nobody was there, so using that kind of argument is simple an escape hatch, and disingenuous to say the least.

Thanks for pointing out the obvious, now if you could just discuss and debate in the same manner we could move on. Matthew 7:3

 

[nobdysfool]

Please do not think to assume to know what I do or don't know. It's rude and condescending. It is precisely because that attitude that i will not debate or discuss with anyone here with the exception of a very few. The sharpness of the words, and the disdain that is contained in them speak so loudly I can't hear what you're trying to say. If I cannot be spoken respectfully to, then don't bother.

 

[OzSpen]

Please do not think to assume to know what I do or don't know. It's rude and condescending. It is precisely because that attitude that i will not debate or discuss with anyone here with the exception of a very few. The sharpness of the words, and the disdain that is contained in them speak so loudly I can't hear what you're trying to say. If I cannot be spoken respectfully to, then don't bother.

To whom are you directing your comments? It is courteous to backquote.

So are you saying that if I reply to you, you won't bother to respond?

 

[OzSpen]

Time keeps everything from happening at once. "why"don't exist without time. Arminians ask God why all thier lives due to doubt in God. They die in doubt never trusting God's word in the first place. They keep questioning Him with endless questions like children never growing up.
Why
Why
Why
Why
Why

This is a false statement as I'm a Reformed Arminian and nothing you stated here is applicable to me as an Arminian.

 

[nobdysfool]

To whom are you directing your comments? It is courteous to backquote.

So are you saying that if I reply to you, you won't bother to respond?

I wasn't speaking to you, Oz. I would very much like to converse with you, if we can without getting sidetracked by other things. As for who I was speaking to, look at the post above my last one, that you replied to.

 

[Marvin Knox]

Interestingly, Jacobus Arminius also was "reformed". Just a different reformed than followers of J Calvin.
Amen!!
Amen, again!!
Amen

This one is troubling, however. It seems he lacked full assurance, similar to the Puritans, who fretted over whether they were "of the elect".

No one ever needs to "beg of Him" to stand at the judgment seat. All believers will stand at the Bema.

Thanks for the great quotes related to Scripture.

Was it his successor, Beza, who introduced limited atonement?

I'm sure Jacobus was a fine saint of the Reformation.
I've never seen him as anything other than that.
I hope others will grant the same for John Calvin and maybe even more so - even if differing somewhat with some of his opinions.

He seemed like a decent man who had some misgivings about what Beza in particular was laying down. And yes it was Beza who laid things out more harshly than Calvin with more emphasis on limited atonement.

Beza, it seems, was much less of a "pastoral" teacher than was Calvin.

Calvin made a few statements earlier in his ministry which could be taken to lean toward limited atonement. I do believe that he was stressing in them more the aspect of limited numbers of those who were to be ultimately saved by the atonement than an actual limited atonement as meant by many reformed today.

It's hard for any of us not to misspeak sometimes particularly when turning out a lot of theological commentary (and Calvin was particularly prolific). Even if he did indeed change some of his opinions over time - "JOIN THE CLUB". What open minded seeker of truth hasn't? Certainly not me.

I'm sure, however, that Calvin had as much assurance of salvation as any man can have. I have some other writings of his that show him so. I believe many of us use terms that probably aren't exactly theologically correct when really on a roll particularly when trying to beat back our all too common pride.