Non-Calvinists Redefine Terms

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by Rippon, Jul 23, 2007.

  1. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,403
    Likes Received:
    328
    I know that non-Cals here on the BB like to say we ( the ones who follow Paul who followed Christ ) give new meanings to what they regard as established terms like "world" and "all" . However , it is the other side which continually redefines in a most unbiblical manner the nature of the atonement .

    If someone's sins have been actually propitiated --- why does the wrath of God still abide on them ? To propitiate means it is a done deal -- satisfaction has been made . But non-Cals twist that around to accomodate their particular understanding of the scope of the atonement .

    What sort of reconciliation is it when a separation between God and the reprobate continues into eternity ? Answer : No reconciliation . It is a fiction .

    What kind of freedom is it when captives are still in bondage after their ransom has supposedly been paid ? Answer : Not the liberty of the cross .

    Calvinists maintain that a real deal has been accomplished in Christ's cross-work . There was nothing possible or potential about it . Sins are not paid for only to say : " Well the check wasn't cashed after all." Away with this nonsensical potentiality talk . There were no strings of contingency attached . Christ's work was done most deliberately .His work was declared "FINISHED" !

    The elect and the elect alone are the recipients of the atonement . Christ died to secure and ensure that their sins alone would be paid for.

    Isaiah 53:11 ( in the ESV ) says : Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied ; by his knowledge shall the righteous one , my servant , make many to be accounted righteous , and he shall bear their iniquities .
     
  2. TCGreek

    TCGreek
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2006
    Messages:
    7,373
    Likes Received:
    0
    1. I will admit, Rippon, that at first, the L was the most difficult for me to agree to, but the more I looked at Scripture contextually as to the definition of "world" and "all", I had to accept. Isaiah 53:11 was one of them.

    2. Yes, away with that "Potential nonsense."

    3. But they have also charged us of using too much Logic.
     
  3. Allan

    Allan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2006
    Messages:
    6,888
    Likes Received:
    0
    In your OPINION, but we state the same Rippon. We non-Cals follow the teachings of Paul who was a follower of Christ. If you look at our bibles we have his epistles in them and take our stand and belief according to context and consistancy of the scriptures, which BTW were written (NT) in great measure by Paul.

    I am in agreement the word 'all' means both ALL of everything it is referencing, and also 'all' of a group within the whole.

    However, your position on the word "world" is of the greatest laughing matter I know. You have to re-define what it means NOT US. Please show me just ONE usage of the term 'world' in the OT where it references God's people, His Chosen ones. Just ONE instance. The NT writters quote the OT very often so they to know the definition of the term 'world'. It has only 3 meanings with small variations and keeping with the main idea. 1. the world (our universe or planet) 2. to geographic location (example: known world at Christs time was the Roman World) 3. and All sinful wicked mankind.

    John in particular comes to mind as he uses alot of prophetic language and pasages in his gospel and epistles so the rendering of the word 'world' is consistant with the OT view of it. (either the planet, geographical location, or wicked sinners).

    If the definition was consistant for the first half of Gods word without 're-defining' it, (which is the larger half by the way) we have no reason to give it any other meaning than that which it has been consistantly through out the scripture been given by God Himself.

    It is the reconciliation and atonement you seem to not understand because you allow your theology to tell the bible what it means. This is why many Calvinists and Reforms DO NOT AGREE with you in regard to the 'L'. They see the scripture and believe IT. Yes, they held the Real Deal just was we Non-Cals who do not hold to the "L".

    Your Isa quote speaks directly to the application of His Atoning Work.
     
    #3 Allan, Jul 24, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 24, 2007
  4. Allan

    Allan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2006
    Messages:
    6,888
    Likes Received:
    0
    That Potential nonsense is scripturally supported and held by many Calvinists and Reformers. As I posted in the other thread that both Calvin and Luther spoke of it. I can give a great many more. So I am content with company I have on this position, From Christ to the Apostles all the way down to us today.

    But your number 3 amuses me. I have been told that we Non-Cals use to much logic and that Cals don't use much logic at all in their theology. It just amused me is all.
     
  5. skypair

    skypair
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2006
    Messages:
    4,657
    Likes Received:
    0
    Rip,

    Your talking about a special group of non-Cals called "Millennial Exclusionists," correct? Their error seems to be in thinking that, if they are "good," they will be resurrected into the Millennial Kingdom of Christ like Israel and not raptured to heaven like the church. Otherwise they endure some kind of "purgatory" waiting for the eternal kingdom.

    I'm with you on this one.

    skypair
     
  6. Charles Meadows

    Charles Meadows
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    2,276
    Likes Received:
    0
    Rippon,

    You are wise to note the tension in Calvin regarding the cross. The words "world" and "all" are an interesting point of difference in the thought of different reformers. Beza and others saw "world" and "all" as meaning that the elect would come from every group and walk of life - not a reference to all humanity. This was not the case with Bullinger or Zwingli who did see this as an example that the cross was for "everyone".

    My main problem here, as it regards election, is that election, viewed a priori, predates the cross - and thus Jesus sacrifice and His resurrection are not THE central event - rather they are a step in bringing about the redemption of the predetermined elect.
     
  7. russell55

    russell55
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2002
    Messages:
    2,424
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm not sure whether you speaking about election predating the cross in the actual events of history, or in the plan of God?

    Either way, the incarnation, cross and resurrection (taken as one whole) is central in history. It's the way God brings about the redemption of creation. It's the way God reverses the effects of sin. It's the way God defeats death. It's the way God sums up all things. He does that, in part, by redeeming those he has elected to redeem.

    Everything in history before Christ's historical work is showing the need for it, and everything in history after Christ's work is leading to the consummation of all things, when everything that was accomplished by Christ's work will all finally be realized.

    The planner, the sender, the "willer" is God the Father, and election is part of the planning and the sending and the willing. It is not an event, though, because it is not historical. The doer, the one who accomplishes the plan, the one who does the Father's will, is Christ.

    Everything hinges on Christ's work because plans are just plans without the accomplishment of them. No one would actually be saved without the cross. There would be no redemption of creation without the cross. There would be no summing up of all things without the cross. This is because Christ's work is the whole grounds by which those things are accomplished. Christ's work is not just a step toward redemption, but the whole basis for it.
     
  8. J.D.

    J.D.
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2006
    Messages:
    3,553
    Likes Received:
    8
    Well I don't know why God would ever refer to ISRAEL as the world, BUT the election of grace is "out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation", and again "Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles".

    And how does your definition of World (which I happen to agree with) fit with John 3:16, the grand proclimation of the arminian gospel:

    1. "For God so loved our universe or planet"
    2. "For God so loved the geographic location"
    3. "For God so loved all sinful wicked mankind"

    Now if you pick #3 as your definition, that's fine. Can you provide scripture that indicates that God loves wicked men from the OT? Or is the definition of World different in the NT than that of the OT?

    Are there ANY of your definitions that can be understood to mean "all people without exception"? Let me predict that you would say #3 fits that description. If that is the case, who is it that God refers to as "righteous" in the OT, as opposed to "wicked"? So can "wicked", in the OT, refer to all people without exception? No.

    Now please define propitiation for us, and see if you can fit it into YOUR theology without redefining it.
     
  9. webdog

    webdog
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    24,691
    Likes Received:
    0
    All of the above.
     
  10. J.D.

    J.D.
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2006
    Messages:
    3,553
    Likes Received:
    8
    1. Does God indicate that he loves the planet here: "the elements shall melt with a fervent heat"

    2. Does God love this geographic location: Sodom.

    3. Does God love this wicked person: Esau.

    Again, is there anything in this definition to indicate that "world" means "every person without exception"?
     
  11. webdog

    webdog
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    24,691
    Likes Received:
    0
    1. Yes. That's why there will be New Earth...not a new planet. He will purify this one.

    2. Yes. Do you have Scripture stating God loves certain acreage and hates others?

    3. Yes. He's part of the world.
     
  12. Charles Meadows

    Charles Meadows
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    2,276
    Likes Received:
    0
    Russell55,

    I was speaking about the significance of the events.

    If election and reprobation occur before creation and the fall then I think we have difficulty situating the resurrection as central. This is one of the main points of tension I see in supralapsarian calvinism.

    If the resurrection (and thus atonement) of Jesus are central in history then they must apply to all of creation. However if election and reprobation occurred before the creation and fall then the resurrection was an event significant only for the elect.

    There is no complete reconciliation of these points. In terms of argument either one favors God's omnipotence (ala Beza) or His goodness (ala Bullinger). I find the latter a better place to start.
     
  13. J.D.

    J.D.
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2006
    Messages:
    3,553
    Likes Received:
    8
    1. New earth, but not new planet. Huh?

    2. Good point. No, I don't have scriptures that indicate that God hates or loves a certain patch of ground. Which actually proves my point. Allen's definition #2 has nothing to do with John 3:16, or any other NT "world".

    3. a) If he loves Esau, why did He say that He hates Esau? b) Which world is Esau part of -- the one that we are commanded not to love (1 Jn 2:15), that will be destroyed (1 Pet 3:12), that we (the saved) are not destroyed with thanks to the chastening of the Lord (1 Cor 11:32); or the world that God so love that He gave His only Begotten Son that if whosoever believeth in him (does this describe Esau?) should not perish but have everlasting life?

    Can you provide me with ONE example of the word "world" to clearly mean "every person without exception"?

    And me and Rippon are still waiting for an arminian to apply the word propitiation to their theology without redefining it.
     
  14. webdog

    webdog
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    24,691
    Likes Received:
    0
    1. Is a "new car" void of wheels, windshield, steering wheel and doors? A new planet would be an admission of defeat by God that sin ruined His perfect creation...and He has to start over. No, the earth will be resurrected in it's original, perfect form, as our bodies will.

    2. Kosmos is also translated universe. That consists of elements, too.

    3. Sane and Miseo are what is used in describing Esau...not our word "hate".
     
  15. J.D.

    J.D.
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2006
    Messages:
    3,553
    Likes Received:
    8
    1. Oh, I thought planet and earth were sort of the same thing. My mistake. BTW God does not "admit" anything, it is Satan that will have to admit that everything went according to God's plan.

    2. Can't you just admit that I got one right?

    3. Okay, let's put it this way: "Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I saned and/or miseo'ed. And here we see God's attitude toward those that he sanes/miseos:

    "And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever:"

    Yes, I would say God loved them less -- A LOT LESS!

    Still waiting for that definition of propitiation, and an example of world meaning every person without exception.
     
  16. webdog

    webdog
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    24,691
    Likes Received:
    0
    1. earth and planet can be the same thing...but are not always the same thing.

    2. I believe Allan got it right with his definition of world.

    3. Why does God have to love them A LOT less? True, you love your children more than your neighbors children, but I would not wish them harm in any way. They are in hell because they rejected Christ, not because God created them for hell.
     
  17. russell55

    russell55
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2002
    Messages:
    2,424
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm still not clear whether you are talking about the order of decrees or the order of the events in history. I think you are talking about decrees, since you mention supralapsarianism, but then in your subsequent remarks you seem to be talking about events in history.

    You seem to have flipped back to speaking of events in history here. But never mind: Are the fallen angels part of creation? Does the atonement apply to fallen angels?

    Only supralapsarianism has the decree of election logically before the decree to create and the decree to permit the fall, so I'm not sure what this has to do with Calvinism in general, since the majority of Calvinists are not supralapsarians.

    And Biblically the resurrection is significant not only as a saving event, but also as proof of certain things about Christ The resurrection shows the whole world that Jesus is the Son-of-God-in-power, for instance (Romans 1:3-4), and that Jesus is the Messiah (Acts 2: 29-36). Moreover, the resurrection is proof that Jesus has been appointed Judge-of-all (Acts 17:30-31). So the resurrection has a purpose even for those who are not being saved: It proves certain things to them and takes away any excuses for not knowing these things.

    In my opinion, then, your argument that supralapsarianism makes the resurrection significant only for the elect doesn't really hold water, since the resurrection plays an crucial role in things other than redemption, too.

    I don't know why you call one thing omnipotence and the other thing goodness. The purpose of supralapsarianism is (supposedly) to preserve God's freedom, by preserving his right to damn creatures based on his freedom, without their condition compelling him damn them. I don't buy that the freedom to damn people without their condition compelling him is necessary for God to be completely free, since God's freedom is freedom to act according to his nature, and if it is his own righteous nature that compels him to damn sinners, then he still acting freely when he damns them.

    Those orders of the decrees that put God's decree of election after his decree to permit the fall are preserving what is most often called his righteousness or justice. Given this logical order, damnation is grounded in God's justice: people are damned soley because of their own sin.

    So I don't see that there's any sort of contradiction between God's freedom and already existing (in the mind of God) grounds for damnation in reprobation, so I don't think there's really any favouring of one attribute over another in an infralapsarian view.
     
  18. Allan

    Allan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2006
    Messages:
    6,888
    Likes Received:
    0
    That is precisely the point. He does not call them the world nor does He call believers the World either. We are called OUT OF the World. We are a holy NATION. God never changes His definition of 'World'. The reason it MUST be something different is because it does not line scripture up with your theology. You have to redefine the word so it keeps your theology correct instead of allowing for it's scritpural definition ALREADY set forth in the scriptures. However if this happened it would show a slight problem with your understanding for whom Christ died.

    No, it is not different. The word is defined by scripture and therefore by God Himself. If world in John 3:16 doesn not mean the planet in our galaxy, and it isn't referencing a specific geographical location, the then it must hold to the last definition established by scripture - the whole of wicked and sinful man.
    He is just a few verses that state God desires the wicked to turn from sin (Repent) and live for He takes no pleasure in their death. He equates sinning and rebellious Israel with the wicked because they were in sin and though His chosen people THESE were not in a relationship (saved) with God unless they would Repent and leave their sins behind. God's love is toward His creation, man who is now sinfilled and wicked (Jhn 3:16) that He would send His Son to redeem it. This does not mean redeem ALL of it but to keep the whole of it from utter destruction because He loves it.

    Do you need some more?

    Yes. But NOT the word World (#3) which means all sinful wicked men. The righteous are not included therein, unless it is describing a geographical location as in a Kingdom (#2). In THAT definition all people OF THAT AREA are apart of the 'all'

    It doesn't take much to predict it would have to be #3 since it is the only viable choice.

    The righteous were ONLY those who had believed and were saved, evidenced by a life of faith. The wicked are obviously those not in the righteous group. Yes, Wicked in the OT refers to and of all people in the OT who were not Saved just as it does in the NEW. Thus the term 'world' in the OT (regarding #3) is always referencing all sinful and wicked men

    That is a topic for another thread. But suffice to say it too has not changed.
     
    #18 Allan, Jul 24, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 24, 2007
  19. Allan

    Allan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2006
    Messages:
    6,888
    Likes Received:
    0
    JD - Esau and Jacob passage of Romans 9 are referencing two nations not people, and Rom 9 is about election or being chosen to and or for a purpose (Israel being Gods chosen people but not all of Israel are saved).
     
  20. Charles Meadows

    Charles Meadows
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    2,276
    Likes Received:
    0
    Russell55,

    I think that if one applies Aristotelian logic to reformed thought he/she inevitably ends up with a supralapsarian stance. I think this is what led Beza to take the stance he did in his debates with the Lutherans. If God is omnipotent then how could He not have foreordained everything from the very beginning?

    If the decree for election and reprobation occurred before the fall then how can Christ's resurrection not be restricted to the elect? And if it is restricted to the elect then how is it if universal significance?

    Beza and Calvin warned against prying too deep into the secrets of the "Deus absconditus" - but in the end they do just that, in attempts to logically justify their stances.

    I think one can not logically say that the resurrection was for everyone and was the great and defining event in salvation history and at the same time say that election and reprobation were already sorted out before man's need for a savior was realized.

    You may see traces of Thomas, Armstrong, or Strehle in my stance - I admit they have influenced my thought greatly here.

    In the end I am comfortable with the tension that exists here.
     

Share This Page

Loading...