Why I am no Longer a Calvinist

[dogs4thewin]

I'm not sure you really comprehended what I was saying. Be that as it may, it sounds to me more like you're trying to create or find a theology that demands less from you, rather than looking to Jesus and allowing Him to work in you that which He wills. To coin a phrase, "resistance is futile". If you have trusted Him as your Savior, trust Him with your life, and quit worrying about the random stuff. You are not responsible for every bird that flies overhead, only the ones that land in your hair. In similar fashion, the enemy will fly thoughts by you to discourage you, to tempt you, and to cause you to doubt. You only have to do something about the ones you let into your mind and start to think about. That's where the biblical idea of bringing every thought into captivity to Christ comes in. Compare those thoughts against the Word, and if they don't line up, toss 'em! Changing your mind is a decision, not an emotion.

yes and I can make the decision to disobey if I am willing to deal with the results of being misable lonely ECT

 

[ForHisGlory60]

yes and I can make the decision to disobey if I am willing to deal with the results of being misable lonely ECT

But why do you want to, if you're a Christian?

 

[dogs4thewin]

But why do you want to, if you're a Christian?

asks GD He asks why I wanted Hell and I gave him the answer through PM. Put it this way I am heavy in the justice side for myself.

 

[bsd058]

no not smarter but just seeing the grace and believing. No one has answered me as to IF Calvinism is true why it is that I would knowing and believing in that gift and having accepted it I would want Hell on and off for years ( even while still believing in Christ's gift and even while still sharing that gift with OTHERS and yet not wanting it for my own sins.

Look, if you've been justified you're as good as glorified. Everyone who has been justified has been glorified according to Paul.

"Those whom he justified, these he also glorified." (Rom 8:30)

If you've been on and off for years, I would challenge the idea that you ever loved God at all during those years and were justified. Who walks away from someone they truly love? Who can fall from justification and the imputation of your sins to Christ's account and Christ's righteousness to your account? No one.

Therefore, if you truly "fall away" renouncing Christ you never were a Christian.

"They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us." (1 John 2:19)


As to your question:
IF Calvinism is true why it is that I would knowing and believing in that gift and having accepted it I would want Hell on and off for years ( even while still believing in Christ's gift and even while still sharing that gift with OTHERS and yet not wanting it for my own sins.

The devil believes and trembles. (James 2:19) Believing in your mind doesn't mean that you will take to heart a love for Christ. How would you view a woman who loved a man on and off again for years...she comes to him and leaves him, comes and leaves, on and off, over and over again. Would you suggest to me that this woman actually loved this man the way she ought? Of course not!

If you are constantly coming to God and leaving Him, I would question whether or not you actually loved Him to begin with. It's like the parable of the sower. You were not good soil. If you were good soil, the good word of God would continue to produce life in you.

You came to Him on a surface level, not because you truly loved Him.

The better way to do theology is to look at the Bible, and not merely at your own personal experience, as I suggest you might be misinterpreting your experience.

If you are one of Jesus Christ's sheep you cannot pluck yourself out of God's hand.

"My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand." (John 10:29)

Although, there is another possibility. That is that you never actually walked away from God, wanting the world again. That he has kept you, but that you've been overcome by your sins and just keep repenting. Though, the way you worded it, I doubt this is your situation according to you.

If you truly believe and repent, then you love God already, and you will not ever truly fall away. Sometimes a Christian walks away for a time, but never truly loses their salvation (who is Christ).

 

[DiligentlySeekingGod]

Great post, bsd058.

 

[lesliedellow]

Salvation is a free gift, and God desires all to be saved, it is only a willful rejection that prevents this.

I hear that many times, but it is basically saying that all atheists are lying when they deny that they have ever felt the call of God. That may be true of a minority, but I am personally do not give much credance to sweeping generalisations - especially when they are motivated by a desire to squeeze facts into a preconceived framework.

 

[bsd058]

I hear that many times, but it is basically saying that all atheists are lying when they deny that they have ever felt the call of God. That may be true of a minority, but I am personally do not give much credance to sweeping generalisations - especially when they are motivated by a desire to squeeze facts into a preconceived framework.

All ungodly men (including atheists) know and deny their Creator. (Romans 1:21) There is no mistake about that. But that doesn't mean that they are called in the salvific sense.

There is always an outward call (no one can deny that-Rom 1 establishes it), but of course they haven't had an inward call. If they did, they would be justified. (Romans 8:30)

So I disagree with them, too, lesliedellow.

 

[jrg40]

In all honesty, I have had similar struggles with Calvinism as described by "A Love Devine". Most of my life, I had been of a completely Calvinistic persuasion. I grew up in a church that was staunchly calvinistic. Well into my adult years, my circle of spiritual influence has been largely Calvinistic.
While I have not completely abandoned all of my former Calvinistic convictions, there are areas of the teaching I had to eventually reexamine. Not the least of which was one pointed out by "A Love Devine" which is the area of "Total Inability". I have become at least partially convinced that the Calvinist reads far more into Genesis 3 than is really present. The eating of the forbidden fruit by Adam clearly had catastrophic effects on himself and the posterity of subsequent mankind. Physical and spiritual death entered the human race. Having read the passage numerous times, however, it seems to be a monumental leap in logic to conclude (as the Calvinist does) "total inability" as a by product. In my estimation, a gentleman by the name of George Burnap hit the nail on the head with this particular statement on the matter regarding total inability by Calvinism:
If this doctrine is true, God did not tell man the true penalty, neither the truth, nor the whole truth, nor a hundredth part of the truth. To have told the whole truth, according to this hypothesis, He should have said, 'Because ye have done this, cursed be that moral nature which I have given you. Henceforth such is the change I make in your natures: that ye shall be, and your offspring, infinitely odious and hateful in my sight. The moment their souls shall go forth from my hand...if they are suffered to live, such shall be the diseased constitution of their moral natures: that they shall have no freedom to do one single good action, but everything they do shall be sin....What an awful blot would such a curse be on the first pages of Scripture!

 

[jrg40]

In all honesty, I have had similar struggles with Calvinism as described by "A Love Devine". Most of my life, I had been of a completely Calvinistic persuasion. I grew up in a church that was staunchly calvinistic. Well into my adult years, my circle of spiritual influence has been largely Calvinistic.
While I have not completely abandoned all of my former Calvinistic convictions, there are areas of the teaching I had to eventually reexamine. Not the least of which was one pointed out by "A Love Devine" which is the area of "Total Inability". I have become at least partially convinced that the Calvinist reads far more into Genesis 3 than is really present. The eating of the forbidden fruit by Adam clearly had catastrophic effects on himself and the posterity of subsequent mankind. Physical and spiritual death entered the human race. Having read the passage numerous times, however, it seems to be a monumental leap in logic to conclude (as the Calvinist does) "total inability" as a by product. In my estimation, a gentleman by the name of George Burnap hit the nail on the head with this particular statement on the matter regarding total inability by Calvinism:
If this doctrine is true, God did not tell man the true penalty, neither the truth, nor the whole truth, nor a hundredth part of the truth. To have told the whole truth, according to this hypothesis, He should have said, 'Because ye have done this, cursed be that moral nature which I have given you. Henceforth such is the change I make in your natures: that ye shall be, and your offspring, infinitely odious and hateful in my sight. The moment their souls shall go forth from my hand...if they are suffered to live, such shall be the diseased constitution of their moral natures: that they shall have no freedom to do one single good action, but everything they do shall be sin....What an awful blot would such a curse be on the first pages of Scripture!

 

[Elderone]

This link might help with the understanding of Total Depravity.

 

[bsd058]

In all honesty, I have had similar struggles with Calvinism as described by "A Love Devine". Most of my life, I had been of a completely Calvinistic persuasion. I grew up in a church that was staunchly calvinistic. Well into my adult years, my circle of spiritual influence has been largely Calvinistic.
While I have not completely abandoned all of my former Calvinistic convictions, there are areas of the teaching I had to eventually reexamine. Not the least of which was one pointed out by "A Love Devine" which is the area of "Total Inability". I have become at least partially convinced that the Calvinist reads far more into Genesis 3 than is really present. The eating of the forbidden fruit by Adam clearly had catastrophic effects on himself and the posterity of subsequent mankind. Physical and spiritual death entered the human race. Having read the passage numerous times, however, it seems to be a monumental leap in logic to conclude (as the Calvinist does) "total inability" as a by product. In my estimation, a gentleman by the name of George Burnap hit the nail on the head with this particular statement on the matter regarding total inability by Calvinism:
If this doctrine is true, God did not tell man the true penalty, neither the truth, nor the whole truth, nor a hundredth part of the truth. To have told the whole truth, according to this hypothesis, He should have said, 'Because ye have done this, cursed be that moral nature which I have given you. Henceforth such is the change I make in your natures: that ye shall be, and your offspring, infinitely odious and hateful in my sight. The moment their souls shall go forth from my hand...if they are suffered to live, such shall be the diseased constitution of their moral natures: that they shall have no freedom to do one single good action, but everything they do shall be sin....What an awful blot would such a curse be on the first pages of Scripture!

I would disagree with this. It's more of a leap in logic to assume that just because God didn't tell Adam about all of the logical implications of death, that He somehow didn't tell the truth to Adam. Death brings inability, whether spiritual or physical. I think the author is reaching for an argument that isn't really even persuasive. But that's probably because there is no argument against the total inability of man to please God apart from God's grace.

That's besides the point. Calvinists don't really derive the doctrine solely from the idea of death as a consequence of the fall (though it does explain why man is incapable of pleasing God it doesn't follow necessarily from that alone). We actually get this idea of "inability to please God" from other passages of the Bible. To name a few:

Genesis 6:5 - Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

Genesis 8:21 - The LORD smelled the soothing aroma; and the LORD said to Himself, "I will never again curse the ground on account of man, for the intent of man's heart is evil from his youth; and I will never again destroy every living thing, as I have done.

Rom 3:10 - as it is written, “THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE; 11 THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS, THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD;
12 ALL HAVE TURNED ASIDE, TOGETHER THEY HAVE BECOME USELESS; THERE IS NONE WHO DOES GOOD, THERE IS NOT EVEN ONE.”
13 “THEIR THROAT IS AN OPEN GRAVE, WITH THEIR TONGUES THEY KEEP DECEIVING,” “THE POISON OF ASPS IS UNDER THEIR LIPS”;
14 “WHOSE MOUTH IS FULL OF CURSING AND BITTERNESS”;
15 “THEIR FEET ARE SWIFT TO SHED BLOOD,
16 DESTRUCTION AND MISERY ARE IN THEIR PATHS,
17 AND THE PATH OF PEACE THEY HAVE NOT KNOWN.”
18 “THERE IS NO FEAR OF GOD BEFORE THEIR EYES.”
19 Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God;


So all people who are under the law (not under grace) do not fear God, they keep deceiving, have become useless (in other words, they are unable to do good), they don't seek God, they don't understand. They don't do any good as far as God is concerned. So, according to Paul (quoting from the Prophets and Psalms) not even a single human being does any good. (aside from Christ who is also our God).


Romans 8:7 - For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot.


Jeremiah 13:23 - Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots? Then also you can do good who are accustomed to do evil. (shows the inability of man to change his nature)



Isaiah 64:6 - We have all become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment. We all fade like a leaf, and our iniquities, like the wind, take us away. (even the things that seem on the outward to be righteous, are evil in God's eyes. If the above deeds were truly righteous, do you think the prophet would have described them as filthy?)


Romans 7:18 - For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out.



So, the idea that Calvinists derive this doctrine from Genesis 3 is just kind of a misunderstanding. I grew up Pentecostal in an Arminian church, and I even know that this leap from Genesis 3 cannot be made without the further revelation in Genesis 6, the Prophets, the Psalms, the Gospels, and the Epistles.


God has made it pretty clear throughout His word multiple times that we can do nothing good in and of ourselves. Even Roman Catholics admit to prevenient grace in order to solve the problem of man's inability to do good. Reformed folks just don't see that idea anywhere in scripture, since in such passages like John 6:37, Irresistible Grace is mentioned by Christ when he says: "All that http://biblia.com/bible/esv/John 6.37#footnote1the Father gives me will come to me, and http://biblia.com/bible/esv/John 6.37#footnote2whoever comes to me I will never cast out." It leaves no room for the person given by the Father to Jesus to say no. To resist coming. All that the Father gives will necessarily come to Christ. And Christ will not reject them (all that the Father gives to him), nor will he ever throw them out of the kingdom (by necessity).



So, man's inability is a necessary consequence of reading the scripture as a whole. But I'll admit, if the Bible were to stop at Genesis 3, we might not know about Total Depravity.

 

[ALoveDivine]

I just wanted to make note here that I no longer hold to the views as outlined in my original post. Through much study and prayer I've come to conclude that the Doctrines of Grace are, in fact, true. The problem was not with the doctrines themselves but with my understanding of them, as they related with certain passages of scripture.

Much study of resources from Ligonier and Reformed Theological Seminary, as well as the bible itself, have convinced me that reformed soteriology is the most consistent and biblical theology of salvation. As I said earlier, my problems were twofold; certain verses that seemed to contradict the DoG, and an emotional conflict over the idea of unconditional election.

Ultimately none of us deserve to be saved, and God doesn't in any way owe us anything but Hell. I am just so thankful that God, in his wonderful grace, chose to save a wretched sinner like me. I'm gonna continually pray for those who aren't saved, especially my loved ones, but I am under no illusion that I can somehow get them saved. That's God's work, not mine. I can present the Gospel, and live a life whereby the light of Christ shines through me, but that's all I can do.

 

[GrinningDwarf]

Woo-HOO!

 

[DiligentlySeekingGod]

I just wanted to make note here that I no longer hold to the views as outlined in my original post. Through much study and prayer I've come to conclude that the Doctrines of Grace are, in fact, true. The problem was not with the doctrines themselves but with my understanding of them, as they related with certain passages of scripture.

Much study of resources from Ligonier and Reformed Theological Seminary, as well as the bible itself, have convinced me that reformed soteriology is the most consistent and biblical theology of salvation. As I said earlier, my problems were twofold; certain verses that seemed to contradict the DoG, and an emotional conflict over the idea of unconditional election.

Ultimately none of us deserve to be saved, and God doesn't in any way owe us anything but Hell. I am just so thankful that God, in his wonderful grace, chose to save a wretched sinner like me. I'm gonna continually pray for those who aren't saved, especially my loved ones, but I am under no illusion that I can somehow get them saved. That's God's work, not mine. I can present the Gospel, and live a life whereby the light of Christ shines through me, but that's all I can do.

Amen! Praise God!

 

[Exodus20]

Deleted.

 

[christ disciple]

Reply by "Christ Disciple" to Alovedivine.
Romans 5:15
But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many.

Why does this scripture not say “ALL”?
What does John 3:16 say?
John 3:16
16 “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.

Who are the whoever ?
What does John 3:3-9 say must take place first?

John 3:3-9
3 Jesus answered and said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
4 Nicodemus *said to Him, “How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born, can he?” 5 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Do not be amazed that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ 8 The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit.”

How does this relate to Ezekiel 36:25-27?
Ezekiel 36:25-27
25 Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. 26 Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27 I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances.


Quote by "Alovedivine"
"First I must say that I do firmly believe two of the points are biblically accurate. Man is totally depraved, this is clear throughout scripture. However, I can find no solid biblical evidence of the idea of total inability. No one seeks God, no one does good, there is none righteous, etc. All true. But no where does the word of God say that, when the Gospel is brought to a man, that that man is unable to respond to it. The way I now see it is that God's word is so powerful, that when the Gospel is presented to a man it basically breaks the chains of depraved ignorance, and that person can at that point repent and believe upon Christ for salvation."


Response by "Christ Disciple"

Psalm 115:5
They have mouths, but they cannot speak; They have eyes, but they cannot see;

Isaiah 6:10
“Render the hearts of this people insensitive, Their ears dull, And their eyes dim, Otherwise they might see with their eyes, Hear with their ears, Understand with their hearts, And return and be healed.”
Jeremiah 5:21
‘Now hear this, O foolish and senseless people, Who have eyes but do not see; Who have ears but do not hear.
Mark 8:18
Having eyes, do you not see? And having ears, do you not hear? And do you not remember,
Matthew 13:15
For the heart of this people has become dull, With their ears they scarcely hear, And they have closed their eyes, Otherwise they would see with their eyes, Hear with their ears, And understand with their heart and return, And I would heal them.’

Acts 28:27
For the heart of this people has become dull, And with their ears they scarcely hear, And they have closed their eyes; Otherwise they might see with their eyes, And hear with their ears, And understand with their heart and return, And I would heal them.”’

Romans 11:8
just as it is written, “God gave them a spirit of stupor, Eyes to see not and ears to hear not, Down to this very day.”
Who grant eyes to see and ears to hear?

What is the context of this scripture 2 Peter 3:9?

Who is Paul speaking to? Believers or non- believers?

2 Peter 3:8-9
8 But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day. 9 The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.

Is “ALL” inclusive or exclusive?

Does it mean every person in the world or the beloved (toward you)?

If God were not patient then what would happen to His Beloved?

Would they not perish with the rest having not been given the opportunity to repent?

What is Paul calling Timothy and us to do in 1 Tim 2?

Is it not to pray for all (inclusive)? Why?

Is it not because we do not know beforehand who will be saved?

1 Timothy 2
First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, 2 for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity. 3 This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony given at the proper time. 7 For this I was appointed a preacher and an apostle (I am telling the truth, I am not lying) as a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth.
Your question, I believe, is “Is the word “ALL” inclusive of everyone?

1 Timothy 1:16-17
16 Yet for this reason I found mercy, so that in me as the foremost, Jesus Christ might demonstrate His perfect patience as an example for those]who would believe in Him for eternal life. 17 Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen.

Who did God demonstrate patience toward? Why? (Compare this to 2 Peter 3:9)


Who are those that believe?


Matthew 11:28

28 “Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest.

Who will respond to the call?



John 10:27

My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me;


Once again, Who grants eyes to see and ears to hear?


Romans 10:17

So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.


Can the written Word have any effect without the Living Word?


Is it possible to hear with the ears and see with the eyes and yet not have understanding?


If so, why not?


If, as you say, one is “Totally Depraved”, then does this mean we are as wicked as we can be or does it mean we have the capacity to be so?


Question? Why do we not just reform ourselves?


If there is the capacity of some good within us then could we not progress in this goodness on our own?


Why would we need Christ then, if we are able?


What would God then premise Grace upon?


Our possible goodness?


Self – righteous works?


Would this not show partiality based on performance?


Tell me, if God premised His decision upon His foreknowing my decision by looking into the future, then who is Sovereign?


Him or Me?


Would He not be making His decision based upon mine?


Tell me, How could God be Sovereign if He had to look down the corridor of time to know what my decision would be?


In order to be Sovereign, Would He not need to be Omnipotent?


Who is determining the outcome in your scenario?


Omni-present?


Is there a place that God is not Present?


Omniscient?


Is there anything that God does not Know or does anything take Him by surprise?


Are you suggesting there is information that God is not privy to?


Are these not the inherent traits of His Godhood?


Inability does not remove responsibility. It demands, "Respond-to His- Ability".


As far as the" P "goes, that is "Perseverance" of the saints not "preservation" saints even though we know that it is God who preserves us.


Matthew 24:13

But the one who endures (perserveres) to the end, he will be saved.


Who are those that have the capacity to endure?


Are they not the Saved?


Why the issue of "Limited Atonement"?


True, He did die for the whole world, but who is the blood applied to?


Quote by "Alovedivine"



"And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world."

- 1 John 2:2



Response from "Christ Disciple"


The only question is “ Who will see the reality of this”?


What is wrong with Philosophy?


A question I have for you is, “Does your Philosophy govern your Theology or does your Theology govern your Philosophy”


Quote by "Alovedivine"



T - Total Depravity - Man is totally wicked, but does not suffer from some inability to respond to the Gospel.

C - Conditional Election - the power of God in the Gospel, the responsibility of man to respond, election according to the foreknowledge of God regarding such response.

U - Universal Atonement - Christ died for all, but salvation by his propitiatory substitutionary work must be received by faith.

R - Resistable Grace - The Gospel itself, and Gods word in general, in the power of the Holy Spirit, can and do open a sinner's heart and soul to God's grace, but it can be turned down by an act of will.

P - Preservation of the Saints - All those who are truly saved are eternally secure and are kept by the power of God through faith, and will never totally or completely fall away.



Response by "Christ Disciple"


1) (T) How does one receive the ability to respond ?


2) (C) What conditions need to be met to earn the right to be chosen?


3) (U) Why does God not just save everyone?


Why the need for Christ death?


4) (R) How does one receive or obtain Faith?


If I have received genuine “Grace” by the Spirit of God, why would I reject it?


Apart from Him, How could I receive it?

 

[christ disciple]

I just wanted to make note here that I no longer hold to the views as outlined in my original post. Through much study and prayer I've come to conclude that the Doctrines of Grace are, in fact, true. The problem was not with the doctrines themselves but with my understanding of them, as they related with certain passages of scripture.

Much study of resources from Ligonier and Reformed Theological Seminary, as well as the bible itself, have convinced me that reformed soteriology is the most consistent and biblical theology of salvation. As I said earlier, my problems were twofold; certain verses that seemed to contradict the DoG, and an emotional conflict over the idea of unconditional election.

Ultimately none of us deserve to be saved, and God doesn't in any way owe us anything but Hell. I am just so thankful that God, in his wonderful grace, chose to save a wretched sinner like me. I'm gonna continually pray for those who aren't saved, especially my loved ones, but I am under no illusion that I can somehow get them saved. That's God's work, not mine. I can present the Gospel, and live a life whereby the light of Christ shines through me, but that's all I can do.

Amen brother!

 

[DocNH]

While I too am very happy to see your recantation of the error and false doctrine of Arminianism, the texts you mentioned in your original post were not addressed. I know the text that kept me from being Reformed (Heresies - 2 Peter 2:1) had to be addressed prior to me making a commitment.

Today we have to deal with several types of misunderstandings. Besides the numerous types of false teaching of the cults, there is relativism – "I believe the Scripture is teaching this and you can believe that the Scripture teaches something else." Though one or both of us is twisting, turning, and torturing the text, "I'm ok, you're ok" is the philosophy of many. There is also the classic scenario of just not understanding how to look at Scripture – how to interpret it (an important reason for good teachers – Eph. 4). Some assert:

Judas "went and hanged himself" (Matt. 27:5), then "said Jesus unto him, 'Go and do thou likewise'" (Luke 10:37), and 'do it quickly' (John 13:27).

While all these verses are connected, the above interpretation is far from the truth. However, it does illustrate how far some will go in their interpretation gymnastics. But there is no gold medal for them.

You mentioned some texts in your original post in which you built a foundation of your error. Since I did not see these dealt with (but I only read the first and last page of posts) I would like to comment briefly upon them. For instance, you mention:

1 John 2:2 - He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.

First, we need to realize that John was a Jew. Second, as a Jew he would embraced two people groups – us and them, or more specifically Jews and Gentiles, or Jews and the rest of the world. Third, the term "world" has numerous definitions in Scripture. Take for instance part of A.W. Pink's study of the term "world" (kosmos) in Scripture:

"Kosmos" is used of the Universe as a whole: Acts 17: 24 - "God that made the world and all things therein seeing that He is Lord of heaven and earth." is used of the Universe as a whole: Acts 17: 24 - "God that made the world and all things therein seeing that He is Lord of heaven and earth."

"Kosmos" is used of the earth: John 13:1; Eph 1:4, etc., etc.- "When Jesus knew that his hour was come that He should depart out of this world unto the Father, having loved His own which were in the world He loved them unto the end." "Depart out of this world" signifies, leave this earth. "According as He hath chosen us in Him before the foundation of the world." This expression signifies, before the earth was founded — compare Job 38:4 etc.

"Kosmos" is used of the world-system: John 12:31 etc. "Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the Prince of this world be cast out" — compare Matt 4:8 and I John 5:19, R. V.

"Kosmos" is used of the whole human race: Rom. 3: 19, etc. — "Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God."

"Kosmos" is used of humanity minus believers: John 15:18; Rom 3:6 "If the world hate you, ye know that it hated Me before it hated you." Believers do not "hate" Christ, so that "the world" here must signify the world of unbelievers in contrast from believers who love Christ. "God forbid: for then how shall God judge the world." Here is another passage where "the world" cannot mean "you, me, and everybody," for believers will not be "judged" by God, see John 5:24. So that here, too, it must be the world of unbelievers which is in view. is used of humanity minus believers: John 15:18; Rom 3:6 "If the world hate you, ye know that it hated Me before it hated you." Believers do not "hate" Christ, so that "the world" here must signify the world of unbelievers in contrast from believers who love Christ. "God forbid: for then how shall God judge the world." Here is another passage where "the world" cannot mean "you, me, and everybody," for believers will not be "judged" by God, see John 5:24. So that here, too, it must be the world of unbelievers which is in view.

"Kosmos" is used of Gentiles in contrast from Jews: Rom 11:12 etc. "Now if the fall of them (Israel) be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them (Israel) the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their (Israel's) fulness." Note how the first clause in italics is defined by the latter clause placed in italics. Here, again, "the world" cannot signify all humanity for it excludes Israel!

"Kosmos" is used of believers only: John 1:29; 3:16, 17; 6:33, 12, 47 I Cor 4:9; 2 Cor 5:19. We leave our readers to turn to these passages, asking them to note, carefully, exactly what is said and predicated of "the world" in each place. is used of believers only: John 1:29; 3:16, 17; 6:33, 12, 47 I Cor 4:9; 2 Cor 5:19. We leave our readers to turn to these passages, asking them to note, carefully, exactly what is said and predicated of "the world" in each place.

Fourth, John is not here refuting what he wrote earlier concerning limited atonement. For instance, only those the Father gives Christ will come to will him (John 17:6, 9; 6:44, 65). Christ came to die for the sheep, not the goats (John 10:15). The Lamb's Book of Life written before the foundation of the world contains for whom Christ died (Rev. 13:8; 17:8). In essence, an interpretation of 1 John 2:2 which puts it at odds with the rest of what John and others (Paul, Peter, etc.) wrote cannot be correct. See Atoning sacrifice - 1 John 2:2


Other texts were cited (1 Timothy 2:4, 2 Peter 3:9, Matthew 11:28) as meaning that God desires each and every person in the world without exception saved. However what does the "context" and the "words" actually mean in these texts?

For instance, in 1 Timothy 2:4, Paul is speaking about "all kinds of people" not every person in the whole world.

1 Tim. 2:1-4 First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, 2 for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. 3 This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

In 1 Tim. 2:1-3, the text just before 1 Tim. 2:4, Paul speaks about all kinds of prayers (requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving), but not every type of prayer (cf. imprecatory prayers such as Psalm 55:15, 69:28, and 109:8).

What Paul is doing is that in response to the narrow perspective of the false teachers (1 Tim 2:7; cf. 1 Tim 1:7), he addressed the issue of those for whom Christians should pray. As can be seen from the expression - "for kings and all those in authority" - this does not mean for "every human being" but rather for "all types of people," whatever their station in life. Paul makes this point thru-out his letter dealing with "all types of people" mentioning: (1) men – 1 Tim 2:8), (2) women (1 Tim. 2:9-15), (3) young men (1 Tim. 4:12), (4) old men (1 Tim. 5:1-2), (5) old and young widows (1 Tim. 5:3-16), (6) slaves (1 Tim. 6:1-2), etc. Christ is the Savior of all types of people (1 Tim. 4:9-10).

Kistemaker reveals the "full counsel of God" (Acts 20:27) regarding the meaning of the term "all," does not always necessitate understanding it to mean "each and every without exception." What about:

(a) Every member of the human race regarded John the Baptist as a prophet (Mark 11:32).

(b) Every member of the human race wondered whether John was, perhaps, the Christ (Luke 3:15).

(c) Every member of the human race marveled about the Gadarene demoniac (Mark 5:20).

(d) Every member of the human race was searching for Jesus (Mark 1:37).

(e) It was reported to the Baptist that all members of the human race were flocking to Jesus (John 3:26).

Cleary, as demonstrated above, the meaning of the word "all" (or "every", or even "world," etc.) in these verses does not mean "every member of the human race." Paul is saying that Christ died for all kinds of sinners, but not every sinner.

As RC Sproul (Ligonier Ministries, the teaching fellowship of R.C. Sproul) explains:

But what about Paul's statement that God wants everyone to be saved? If not all people will be saved (Matt 25:3146), do Paul's words contradict the truth that no purpose of the Lord's can be thwarted (Job 42:2; Matt 19:26)? Or must we embrace a universalism in which God will one day redeem hell itself?

Let us consider two answers to these questions. First, if "all people" means everyone without exception, the Lord's will is not ultimately done when people reject Him. Yet as Reformed teachers have often said, the Greek word translated "all people" can mean all kinds of people - leaders, followers, rich, poor, Jew, Gentile, and so on. This interpretation makes good sense, as Paul lists a certain class of people - rulers - when he tells us to pray for "all people" (1 Tim 2:12). John Calvin says that God's desire for the salvation of all "means there is no people and no rank in the world that is excluded from salvation."

Second, if "all people" refers to every person without exception, then universalism is our conclusion only if God's desire to save is absolute. But the Lord desires one thing more than the salvation of all - His glory (Isa 48:11). In one sense, God can truly want all who have ever lived to be saved; however, this desire always defers to His will to glorify Himself, the will in view when the Bible says His will is always done. The Lord is glorified when sin is punished in hell, and so God's supreme desire is met even when people are not redeemed.

See: Everyone - 1 Timothy 2:1-3

2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.

Note that the scope of the word "everyone" (literally, "all") is qualified by the word "you." So, the repentance in view, for the sake of which God delays judgment, is that of God's people rather than that of the world at large. God is not willing that any of his elect should perish (John 10:28-29).

Matthew 11:28 Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest.

This verse must be interpreted with in the context of the preceding verse "All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him."

So, the ones being summoned by Christ's "come unto me, all you who" is qualified by the "no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him." The ones Christ is calling, are the same ones he is revealing the revelation of God too. This does not entail "everyone" without exception (cf. Matt. 25:31-46, et. al.). As Jesus says, "For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day" (Matt. 11:22-24). In other words, Jesus did not do certain miracles in Sodom that would have caused them to repent. This is not unjust as the people in Sodom - save Lot - were not his people.

Arminians limit the Cross as only "an opportunity" for salvation. By claiming Christ died for every person without exception, Christ is seen as actually accomplishing the salvation of no one – it merely provides a way. In other words, in order to say that Christ died for all men in the same way, the Arminian must limit the atonement to a powerless opportunity for men to save themselves from their own depravity. But they are dead in trespasses and sin (Eph. 2:1-3) and dead men cannot choose anything. So, in essence Arminianism offers a gospel – another gospel (Gal. 1:6-9) which cannot save. On the other hand, in Calvinism we do not limit the power and effectiveness of God and his atonement. The Cross actually accomplished salvation for those whom Christ died (Isa. 53:11-12; Mark 10:45; Heb. 9:28; 13:20; cf. Tit. 2:14).

One of the arguments used against election is that it is "unjust." However, when understood biblically it is not. See if this helps: Election - A Concise Account (PDF file – read the first 4-5 pages).

 

[twin1954]

While I too am very happy to see your recantation of the error and false doctrine of Arminianism, the texts you mentioned in your original post were not addressed. I know the text that kept me from being Reformed (Heresies - 2 Peter 2:1) had to be addressed prior to me making a commitment.

Today we have to deal with several types of misunderstandings. Besides the numerous types of false teaching of the cults, there is relativism – "I believe the Scripture is teaching this and you can believe that the Scripture teaches something else." Though one or both of us is twisting, turning, and torturing the text, "I'm ok, you're ok" is the philosophy of many. There is also the classic scenario of just not understanding how to look at Scripture – how to interpret it (an important reason for good teachers – Eph. 4). Some assert:




While all these verses are connected, the above interpretation is far from the truth. However, it does illustrate how far some will go in their interpretation gymnastics. But there is no gold medal for them.

You mentioned some texts in your original post in which you built a foundation of your error. Since I did not see these dealt with (but I only read the first and last page of posts) I would like to comment briefly upon them. For instance, you mention:

1 John 2:2 - He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.

First, we need to realize that John was a Jew. Second, as a Jew he would embraced two people groups – us and them, or more specifically Jews and Gentiles, or Jews and the rest of the world. Third, the term "world" has numerous definitions in Scripture. Take for instance part of A.W. Pink's study of the term "world" (kosmos) in Scripture:



Fourth, John is not here refuting what he wrote earlier concerning limited atonement. For instance, only those the Father gives Christ will come to will him (John 17:6, 9; 6:44, 65). Christ came to die for the sheep, not the goats (John 10:15). The Lamb's Book of Life written before the foundation of the world contains for whom Christ died (Rev. 13:8; 17:8). In essence, an interpretation of 1 John 2:2 which puts it at odds with the rest of what John and others (Paul, Peter, etc.) wrote cannot be correct. See Atoning sacrifice - 1 John 2:2


Other texts were cited (1 Timothy 2:4, 2 Peter 3:9, Matthew 11:28) as meaning that God desires each and every person in the world without exception saved. However what does the "context" and the "words" actually mean in these texts?

For instance, in 1 Timothy 2:4, Paul is speaking about "all kinds of people" not every person in the whole world.



In 1 Tim. 2:1-3, the text just before 1 Tim. 2:4, Paul speaks about all kinds of prayers (requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving), but not every type of prayer (cf. imprecatory prayers such as Psalm 55:15, 69:28, and 109:8).

What Paul is doing is that in response to the narrow perspective of the false teachers (1 Tim 2:7; cf. 1 Tim 1:7), he addressed the issue of those for whom Christians should pray. As can be seen from the expression - "for kings and all those in authority" - this does not mean for "every human being" but rather for "all types of people," whatever their station in life. Paul makes this point thru-out his letter dealing with "all types of people" mentioning: (1) men – 1 Tim 2:8), (2) women (1 Tim. 2:9-15), (3) young men (1 Tim. 4:12), (4) old men (1 Tim. 5:1-2), (5) old and young widows (1 Tim. 5:3-16), (6) slaves (1 Tim. 6:1-2), etc. Christ is the Savior of all types of people (1 Tim. 4:9-10).

Kistemaker reveals the "full counsel of God" (Acts 20:27) regarding the meaning of the term "all," does not always necessitate understanding it to mean "each and every without exception." What about:



Cleary, as demonstrated above, the meaning of the word "all" (or "every", or even "world," etc.) in these verses does not mean "every member of the human race." Paul is saying that Christ died for all kinds of sinners, but not every sinner.

As RC Sproul (Ligonier Ministries, the teaching fellowship of R.C. Sproul) explains:



See: Everyone - 1 Timothy 2:1-3

2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.

Note that the scope of the word "everyone" (literally, "all") is qualified by the word "you." So, the repentance in view, for the sake of which God delays judgment, is that of God's people rather than that of the world at large. God is not willing that any of his elect should perish (John 10:28-29).

Matthew 11:28 Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest.

This verse must be interpreted with in the context of the preceding verse "All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him."

So, the ones being summoned by Christ's "come unto me, all you who" is qualified by the "no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him." The ones Christ is calling, are the same ones he is revealing the revelation of God too. This does not entail "everyone" without exception (cf. Matt. 25:31-46, et. al.). As Jesus says, "For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day" (Matt. 11:22-24). In other words, Jesus did not do certain miracles in Sodom that would have caused them to repent. This is not unjust as the people in Sodom - save Lot - were not his people.

Arminians limit the Cross as only "an opportunity" for salvation. By claiming Christ died for every person without exception, Christ is seen as actually accomplishing the salvation of no one – it merely provides a way. In other words, in order to say that Christ died for all men in the same way, the Arminian must limit the atonement to a powerless opportunity for men to save themselves from their own depravity. But they are dead in trespasses and sin (Eph. 2:1-3) and dead men cannot choose anything. So, in essence Arminianism offers a gospel – another gospel (Gal. 1:6-9) which cannot save. On the other hand, in Calvinism we do not limit the power and effectiveness of God and his atonement. The Cross actually accomplished salvation for those whom Christ died (Isa. 53:11-12; Mark 10:45; Heb. 9:28; 13:20; cf. Tit. 2:14).

One of the arguments used against election is that it is "unjust." However, when understood biblically it is not. See if this helps: Election - A Concise Account (PDF file – read the first 4-5 pages).

Could you increase your font size so that I can actually see your posts and be able to read them.

 

[DocNH]

Could you increase your font size so that I can actually see your posts and be able to read them.

Sorry. I have changed my default font to "5" (from "4"). I am viewing the posts from app. 12' away and on a 55" monitor and it seems almost too large now. Please let me know if this helps more ....