• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Why do Calvinists....

heymikey80

Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur
Dec 18, 2005
14,496
921
✟41,809.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
No one denies that Christ died for them. It is only denied that Christ died exclusively for them. It does not follow from such a statement that Christ died for his church, or for his sheep, that he did not die for anyone else, unless, of course, the passage specifically states that it was only for them that he died...
Using the same sort of logic we could use John 11:51 and Isaiah 53:8 to teach that Christ died only for Israel.
Well, there's a basic issue with that convention, too.

Reformed people like me, we assert Jesus Christ died to receive authority (ie, Lordship) over the entire Creation. In fact I don't know of anyone who disagrees with that. So the basic issue is narrower still: the issue whether Jesus Christ specifically died for the salvation of those who are not ultimately saved.

We do know that Jesus died especially for those who believe. So there is a special sense in which He died for those who believe. The Reformed believe that special sense was that He intended to actually accomplish our salvation by His sacrifice. So no more accomplishment would then be needed -- the only thing left to play out is history.
 
Upvote 0

GrinningDwarf

Just a humble servant
Mar 30, 2005
2,732
276
60
✟26,811.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Using the same sort of logic we could use John 11:51 and Isaiah 53:8 to teach that Christ died only for Israel.

Your logic here uses two errors in 'pick-and-choose' theology.

Error one: chopping a verse out of it's immediate context

Error two: misapplying the 'children of Abraham'

John 11:51 says

He did not say this on his own, but as high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the Jewish nation...

Why didn't you continue to verse 52?

...and not only for that nation but also for the scattered children of God, to bring them together and make them one.

So there we have it, using your own Scripture citation, proving my point that Jesus died for the elect.

I assume that in Isaiah 53:8, you are focusing on the last phrase "for the transgresion of my people he was stricken", and trying to equate 'my people' with the physical nation of Israel. Do you forget that Paul gives us more information in the New Testament about who the children of Abraham are? Read the first few verses of Romans 9, especially verses 6-8. This also applies to the John citation above.
 
Upvote 0

Boxmaker

Senior Member
Dec 28, 2006
596
9
Arvada, CO
✟23,292.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Well, there's a basic issue with that convention, too.

Reformed people like me, we assert Jesus Christ died to receive authority (ie, Lordship) over the entire Creation. In fact I don't know of anyone who disagrees with that.
Now you do. Jesus is God and was present with God at the creation. The demons know who Jesus is and they obeyed Him and fled when so commanded. Jesus has always had authority over creation.
 
Upvote 0

heymikey80

Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur
Dec 18, 2005
14,496
921
✟41,809.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Now you do. Jesus is God and was present with God at the creation. The demons know who Jesus is and they obeyed Him and fled when so commanded. Jesus has always had authority over creation.
Well, I'll stick with Paul's version.
And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. Pp 2:8-11
 
Upvote 0

Boxmaker

Senior Member
Dec 28, 2006
596
9
Arvada, CO
✟23,292.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Well, I'll stick with Paul's version.
And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. Pp 2:8-11
What was He before He found Himself in human form?
 
Upvote 0

KEK

Active Member
Apr 4, 2007
51
0
United States
✟22,695.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Your logic here uses two errors in 'pick-and-choose' theology.

Error one: chopping a verse out of it's immediate context

Error two: misapplying the 'children of Abraham'

John 11:51 says



Why didn't you continue to verse 52?



So there we have it, using your own Scripture citation, proving my point that Jesus died for the elect.

I assume that in Isaiah 53:8, you are focusing on the last phrase "for the transgresion of my people he was stricken", and trying to equate 'my people' with the physical nation of Israel. Do you forget that Paul gives us more information in the New Testament about who the children of Abraham are? Read the first few verses of Romans 9, especially verses 6-8. This also applies to the John citation above.

Exactly, and I'm glad you see that, because saying that "Christ died for His sheep" is using the same pick-and choose tatic, which ignores not only what else John wrote, but moreover what else Scripture says outside of John's writtings. John also said:
John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have eternal life.
John 4:42 and they said to the woman, Now we believe, not because of thy speaking: for we have heard for ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Saviour of the world.
John 6:51 I am the living bread which came down out of heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: yea and the bread which I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world.
1 John 2:2 and he is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the whole world.
1 John 4:14 And we have beheld and bear witness that the Father hath sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world.
 
Upvote 0

GrinningDwarf

Just a humble servant
Mar 30, 2005
2,732
276
60
✟26,811.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Exactly, and I'm glad you see that, because saying that "Christ died for His sheep" is using the same pick-and choose tatic, which ignores not only what else John wrote, but moreover what else Scripture says outside of John's writtings. John also said:
John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have eternal life.

We aren't using 'pick-and-choose' at all, but using proper exegesis and language skills to understand what a verse is saying and not molding it like a wax nose to make it say what we want it to say.

I don't have time to address every verse you cited, but I'll point out the first one, John 3:16. Western 'evangelicals' like to believe that 'the world' that God so loved is each and every individual on the planet. You only believe that because that's what you've always been taught it means, just like I was before I got Reformed, but John 3:16 does not say that. Does 'the world' always refer to each and every individual on the planet in Scripture? No. You can do the study on that one; I'll just say that in the context of John 3:16, we can see that Jesus is talking to a Pharisee who believes that salvation is only for the Jews. Jesus is setting him straight and saying that God loves 'the world', or Jew and non-Jew.

It's not 'pick-and-choose'...it's 'being accurate with the language' and not stopping a quote at the end of a verse but not at the end of the sentence like you did.
 
Upvote 0

KEK

Active Member
Apr 4, 2007
51
0
United States
✟22,695.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
John 3:16 Does 'the world' always refer to each and every individual on the planet in Scripture? No.

The standard lexicons (such as Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich, Thayer, Bullinger, Vine, etc.) are unanimous in saying that kosmos (world) as used in John 3:16 refers to "mankind, the human race." This is the obvious sense of the word in this context. To say that kosmos in John 3:16 refers to "the world of the elect" is very unnatural. It is a meaning that is forced by one’s theology, not by the text itself, nor by the context. This is why J.C. Ryle said, "It seems to be a violent straining of language to confine the word world to the elect...The world means the whole race of mankind...without any exception...I have long come to the conclusion that men may be more systematic in their statements than the Bible, and may be led into grave error by idolatrous veneration of a [theological] system."
 
Upvote 0

GrinningDwarf

Just a humble servant
Mar 30, 2005
2,732
276
60
✟26,811.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
The standard lexicons (such as Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich, Thayer, Bullinger, Vine, etc.) are unanimous in saying that kosmos (world) as used in John 3:16 refers to "mankind, the human race." This is the obvious sense of the word in this context. To say that kosmos in John 3:16 refers to "the world of the elect" is very unnatural. It is a meaning that is forced by one’s theology, not by the text itself, nor by the context. This is why J.C. Ryle said, "It seems to be a violent straining of language to confine the word world to the elect...The world means the whole race of mankind...without any exception...I have long come to the conclusion that men may be more systematic in their statements than the Bible, and may be led into grave error by idolatrous veneration of a [theological] system."


First...I never said 'the world' was synonomous with 'the elect'. Nobody that is Reformed says that. I said it meant "peoples from all over the world, Jew and non-Jew". This is an error I committed myself before I 'got Reformed'. I thought a Reformed paraphrase of John 3:16 would say "God so loved the elect...that the elect who believe on Him should not perish..."....but that is not what we are saying. It would be more like "For God so loved ALL TYPES of people (including non-Jews that Nicodemus...the original audience...thought could not be saved) that whosover believes on Him should not perish..." Anybody who does believe...Jew or gentile...will have eternal life. The Reformed distinctive comes into play when we consider who will believe.

Second... Vine applies definition 'C' for kosmos in John 3:16: the "human race, mankind". As a general statement, yes. However, even Vine does not say 'each and every individual'.


How else is kosmos used?


John 12:19
So the Pharisees said to one another, "See, this is getting us nowhere. Look how the whole world has gone after him!"

So, based upon this verse, are you saying that every sinlge individual on the planet had gone after Jesus?
 
Upvote 0

KEK

Active Member
Apr 4, 2007
51
0
United States
✟22,695.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
First...I never said 'the world' was synonomous with 'the elect'. Nobody that is Reformed says that. I said it meant "peoples from all over the world, Jew and non-Jew". This is an error I committed myself before I 'got Reformed'. I thought a Reformed paraphrase of John 3:16 would say "God so loved the elect...that the elect who believe on Him should not perish..."....but that is not what we are saying. It would be more like "For God so loved ALL TYPES of people (including non-Jews that Nicodemus...the original audience...thought could not be saved) that whosover believes on Him should not perish..." Anybody who does believe...Jew or gentile...will have eternal life. The Reformed distinctive comes into play when we consider who will believe.

Second... Vine applies definition 'C' for kosmos in John 3:16: the "human race, mankind". As a general statement, yes. However, even Vine does not say 'each and every individual'.


How else is kosmos used?



So, based upon this verse, are you saying that every sinlge individual on the planet had gone after Jesus?

The world (ton kosmon). The whole cosmos of men, including Gentiles, the whole human race. - Robertson's Word Pictures on the use of "world" in John 3:16

And concerning John 12:19:
First - The verse you referred to is a common example of hyperbole.
Secondly - Who was speaking? The Pharisees right?
Thirdly - In (John 12:19), where the Pharisees complain that the "whole world" is gone after him, is clearly an expression or linguistic overstatement. But more importantly, who would take the word of a Pharisee, in determining the meaning of "world?"

John 1:29 On the morrow he seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold, the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world!
John Calvin says of this verse: "He uses the word sin in the singular number for any kind of iniquity; as if he had said that every kind of unrighteousness which alienates men from God is taken away by Christ. And when he says the sin of the world, he extends this favor indiscriminately to the whole human race."
Ryle similarly states: "Christ is...a Savior for all mankind....He did not suffer for a few persons only, but for all mankind...

In the following verse we get a very clear picture of who is intended by the word "world"
1 John 2:2 and he is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the whole world.
"Christ is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world; and hence those who wish to exclude the reprobate from participation in Christ must place them outside the world."
Ryrie's NASB Expanded Study Bible comments concerning this verse, "Christ died for the sins of the whole world, the entire human race."
 
Upvote 0

bradfordl

Veteran
Mar 20, 2006
1,510
181
✟25,108.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
John 1:29 On the morrow he seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold, the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world!
Funny you should use that quote. By your own interpretation that would mean that there is no longer sin in the world, for it has all been taken away. But you see that already, and know what the Reformed position is. The only debate here is over which interpretation is faithful to the whole of scripture, and you know we hold that ours is that. So are you here to troll and argue, or do you have a legitimate question?
 
Upvote 0

KEK

Active Member
Apr 4, 2007
51
0
United States
✟22,695.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
do you have a legitimate question?

Scripture says:
John 1:29 - Behold, the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world!

Question 1 - What does the phrase "taketh away the sin of the world!" mean.

Below is the same verse from another translation.

John 1:29 - The next day {John} sees Jesus coming towards him and says, "Look! The Lamb of God, the One taking away the sin of the world! - ALT

Commenting on the above verse John Calvin stated:
"He uses the word sin in the singular number for any kind of iniquity; as if he had said that every kind of unrighteousness which alienates men from God is taken away by Christ. And when he says the sin of the world, he extends this favor indiscriminately to the whole human race."

Question 2
Do you agree with the above comment on John 1:29 from Calvin?
 
Upvote 0

bradfordl

Veteran
Mar 20, 2006
1,510
181
✟25,108.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
More pick and choose. I agree with the entire statement. I note that you truncate the very sentence upon which you hang your point, because the balance of the statement refutes your postulation. So do you really have a question, or are you bent on this sort of obfuscation to falsely support an unscriptural position?

.....he extends this favor indiscriminately to the whole human race; that the Jews might not think that he had been sent to them alone. But hence we infer that the whole world is involved in the same condemnation; and that as all men without exception are guilty of unrighteousness before God, they need to be reconciled to him. John the Baptist, therefore, by speaking generally of the sin of the world, intended to impress upon us the conviction of our own misery, and to exhort us to seek the remedy. Now our duty is, to embrace the benefit which is offered to all, that each of us may be convinced that there is nothing to hinder him from obtaining reconciliation in Christ, provided that he comes to him by the guidance of faith.
Besides, he lays down but one method of taking away sins. We know that from the beginning of the world, when their own consciences held them convinced, men labored anxiously to procure forgiveness. Hence the vast number of propitiatory offerings, by which they falsely imagined that they appeased God. I own, indeed, that all the spurious rites of a propitiatory nature drew their existence from a holy origin, which was, that God had appointed the sacrifices which directed men to Christ; but yet every man contrived for himself his own method of appeasing God. But John leads us back to Christ alone, and informs us that there is no other way in which God is reconciled to us than through his agency, because he alone takes away sin. He therefore leaves no other refuge for sinners than to flee to Christ; by which he overturns all satisfactions, and purifications, and redemptions, that are invented by men; as, indeed, they are nothing else than base inventions framed by the subtlety of the devil.
The verb ai]rein (to take away) may be explained in two ways; either that Christ took upon himself the load which weighed us down, as it is said that he carried our sins on the tree, (1 Peter 2:24 ) and Isaiah says that
the chastisement of our peace was laid on him, (Isaiah 53:5 )
or that he blots out sins. But as the latter statement depends on the former, I gladly embrace both; namely, that Christ, by bearing our sins, takes them away. Although, therefore, sin continually dwells in us, yet there is none in the judgment of God, because when it has been annulled by the grace of Christ, it is not imputed to us. Nor do I dislike the remark of Chrysostom, that the verb in the present tense -- oJ ai]rwn, who taketh away, denotes a continued act; for the satisfaction which Christ once made is always in full vigor. But he does not merely teach us that Christ takes away sin, but points out also the method, namely, that he hath reconciled the Father to us by means of his death; for this is what he means by the word Lamb. Let us therefore learn that we become reconciled to God by the grace of Christ, if we go straight to his death, and when we believe that he who was nailed to the cross is the only propitiatory sacrifice, by which all our guilt is removed.
 
Upvote 0