top 5 against calvinism?

Yelsew wrote

Frogman wrote

Peter wrote

"...wanting nobody to be lost and everybody to be brought to repentance."

Do you think that Peter was speaking to the elect? How did he know they were the elect? The Only ones who God identifies as the elect are the children of Israel. And of Course, Peter is the leader of the Church in Jerusalem, so He was speaking to those whom God identified as the elect. Paul however, in his writings, was speaking to the Gentiles who were not considered in scripture to be "the elect", until they through their own faith become part of the family of God.

 

That is false, Yelsew. Perhaps you need to look up the word "elect" in a concordance and do some Biblical research on its usage.

 

Hi Ken;
Your the one challenging Yelsew why don't you prove him wrong
Romanbear

 

Okay, romanbear, that's simple enough to do.

Romans 8:26-39(NASB)
26 In the same way the Spirit also helps our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we should, but the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words;
27 and He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He intercedes for the saints according to the will of God.
28 And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.
29 For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren;
30 and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.
31 What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who is against us?
32 He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him over for us all, how will He not also with Him freely give us all things?
33 Who will bring a charge against God’s elect? God is the one who justifies;
34 who is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus is He who died, yes, rather who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us.
35 Who will separate us from the love of Christ? Will tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?
36 Just as it is written,
“For Your sake we are being put to death all day long;
We were considered as sheep to be slaughtered.”
37 But in all these things we overwhelmingly conquer through Him who loved us.
38 For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers,
39 nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, will be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

2 Thessalonians 2:13(NASB)
13 But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth.

 

"The Moody Handbook of Theology" written by Dr. Paul Enns speaks about II Peter 3:9 and the word, 'all.' He states that it is an 'equivalent term, denoting everyone. Christ died for the ungodly-everyone is ungodly (Romans 5:6); Christ died for all, suggesting everyone (II Cor. 5:14-15; I Tim. 2:6; 4:10; Titus 2:11; Hebrews 2:9; II Peter 3:9).

The Triune God has sent seven arrows, if you will, toward the Christian world clearly suggesting that His atonement has reached every person. And before someone says, "If He died for everyone, why will not everyone be saved at last,?" let me answer this question.

While salvation has been paid for each sinner, only personally receiving Christ brings about redemption, regeneration and the 'new birth.' God in His sovereignty has pivoted everything concerning salvation on bowing the human will to His regal Divine Being. [John 3:16] The reason why I say that everything pivots on belief and trusting in Jesus, is because if it does not swivel on this spiritual reality then Universalism would be the truth.

Dr. Paul P. Enns earned his Th.D. from Dallas Theological Seminary and has taught there and at Talbot Theological Seminary. He has four volumes of the Bible Study Commentary Series: Joshua, Ruth, and Ezekiel.

 

I am adressing the original post:

All of arminist/freewill arguments are based upon inference. They take verses like "God desires all to be saved" and infer "All man have a freewill to choose God."

My suggestion to you, Go to the book of John and see what Christ says about salvation. I tell you, Christ Jesus never taught that it was our responsibility to choose him. He preached a depraved and fallen man and a soverign God.

I was once of the freewill mindset, but now, I read the scriptures and see who man is and who God is.

 

Ken, you call my interpretations "wild" but you never state any reasons or arguments of your own. That's not debate. That's just "pig wrestling" as you call it.

Please deal with the text. How can you say that 1 Tim 2:4 is not speaking about all people in light of the context? Please formulate somekind of an argument, otherwise it's just a waste of time. Thank you.

 

TheTravelingMinstrel,

That's a blind grope! But both statements are true, but not so when connected as you have done!

 

Yes, read the book of John, but please read the whole book and not just the segments that seemingly support the Calvinistic premise of total inability and you will read passages like this:

12:37-41
Even though He had performed so many signs in their presence, they did not believe in Him. But this was to fulfill the word of Isaiah the prophet, who said: Lord, who has believed our message? And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed? This is why they were unable to believe, because Isaiah also said: He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts, so that they would not see with their eyes or understand with their hearts, and be converted, and I would heal them. Isaiah said these things because he saw His glory and spoke about Him.

Hello! Why couldn't Jesus' audience believe in the message He was proclaiming?

Was it because they were born totally depraved as a result of the imputed sin nature of the Fall of man by Adam in the garden, as Calvinists suggest? Not according to this passage!

Notice the reason that they could not believe! They were hardened by God. We know from other passages (Acts 28:26-28; Matt. 21:41; Mark 4:10-11; and Romans 10 and 11) that this hardening was temporary for the purpose of ingrafting the Gentiles, it was unique to all Israelites (with the exception of the Remnant) and that unlike the hardened Israelites the Gentiles will listen!

It is amazing how much clearer the book of John is when you read it in it entirety and understand the historical context in which it was written.

God Bless.

 

I've been enjoying not participating on this part of the board, but I have browsed the topics now and then. I couldn't resist addressing this point, since it is based on a pretty big error.

The word translated as "any" in 2 Peter 3:9, "not willing that any should perish" is "tinaß", which means "some" or "certain" as in "certain people". A different form of the word appears earlier in the verse, and is translated as "some".

So a more accurate translation of this verse would be:

Here are a few other examples of the exact same word translated above as "any" in "any should perish", same form (in bold):

There may be some examples I missed, but of all the occurrances of this word, I only found one other verse where the word was translated "any", but it is still an obvious reference to a subset:

When you combine that with "us-ward", which is inclusive of the author, 2 Peter 3:9 obviously doesn't mean what arminians wish it meant.

 

Nick, buddy! I've missed you!

I have to say that I disagree with your usage of the word "any" and I will be glad to explain to you the reasons, but I really don't think that is needed because there are a least 2 other passages that we have mentioned that support the fact that God does desire for all to be saved. I'll allow those passages to help us interpret this one until you can give us some good reasons those passages should not be accepted to mean what they appear to mean.

Matt. 23:37 and 1 Tim 2:1-4

Thanks, and it's good to have you back, I'm sure you missed me too.

 

1 Tim. 2:3 This is good, and it pleases God our Savior, 4 who wants everyone to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

I could stop there but I will go on:


You should have gone on in Timothy. Notice that "everyone" is singular. EVERY ONE; who is this everyone? Everyone that will accept Christ? No. Everyone whom HE Will reveal Himself to, and everyone of these were chosen in Him before the foundation of the world.

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

 

No doubt you have an arsenel of things that don't appear in scripture that you can drag out in your defense.

This verse sounds to me like an excellent expression of how total depravity makes God sad.

Your error regarding 1 Timothy 2 can be demonstratedy by the context:

Paul is talking about all men as in "not just we commoners, but kings and all those in authority, etc." Look at the words I put in bold, and you can see that if you interpret it YOUR way, it contradicts the very words of Jesus:

Not in the least. It has been getting away from you that felt so refreshing. Sorry. Tact is not one of my better traits, but honesty is.

 

top 5 against Calvinism? hmmmm....

i only have one concern with regards to Calvinism. though it comes strong with sovereignty, the calvinists cannot put the blame to the non-elects for recieving the second death.

it is for the reason that a non-elect was born spiritually dead, and thus was there without his choice. more so, the dead condition that a non-elect has recieved regardless of his volition caused him the inability to respond to respond to God's general call.

therefore, the non-elects are depraved regardless of their choice, and they cannot recieve spiritual life due to that depravity that was passed to them. thus, with Calvinism, one can rejoice for God's sovereignty, but none can blame the non-elects for getting condemned. they are victims!

and if a Calvinist will say that the non-elects still have their personal sins that deserve condemnation, it is to be recalled that the same depravity which was passed to them without their choice is also the one that caused them to commit such condemnation-worthy sins.

it can be summed up with a compound word: double predestination. so, a Calvinist is actually a double predestinarian. otherwise, if he would say that the non-elects are condemned because of their choice, he would self-contradicting.

 

That's not what the passages says! It says "how often have I wanted" or "longed to;" not "you make me sad." And it says, "but you were not willing;" not "you were unable to will."

Deal with the text.

The fact that he changes from using word "everyone" when talking about those he desires to be saved to using the term "many" when refering to those he ransoms only proves my point. We all agree that God only ransoms those who believe (exept maybe Ken (universalist) and Yelsew (?)). What we are debating is God's desire to see people saved. You are arguing that God doesn't really want to gather his unwilling chicks under his wings and that he really doesn't "desire that everyone be saved." Despite the fact that he has just said to pray for everyone, especially the kings and authorities. Do you think the Kings and the authorities of that day were considered "elect" as apposed to everyone else? Your interpretation is way off base here Nick.

I know, believe me I know. I don't blame you for disliking me Nick. Honestly, when I was a Calvinist I would have disliked someone like me too. Someone who forces me to think outside my normal boundaries, someone who challenges me to think before I give a "pat answer," someone who know scripture, someone who use to believe exactly the way I did but now doesn't, someone who is as arrogant and persistant as I am, yep that would have been annoying. Which is exactly why I missed you! You may annoy me, but you also challenge me. Thanks.

God bless you Nicholas Petreley!

 

Brother Bill,

Don't give any credence to writers who use inflammatory words like, 'wild interpretations;' this is merely a ploy to make a person look like their view is off the scope of clear theological thinking. All intelligent people would not fall for such a poor response to a discussion.

It is more than a fair statement to say, "Calvinists are excellent at repeating their dogma but are way below Biblical standards in interpreting the Word of truth."

 

Speaking of inflammatory Ray, this is embarrasing for you. The fact that you disagree with an interpretaton does not make us bad in interpreting. It could well be you who are bad, and this far in teh discussion, you have given us no reason to believe differently. You have not supported your arguments well. YOu have ignored a host of Scripture. You have redefined other Scriptures to fit your conception.

You then complain about the phrase "wild interpretations" as being inflammatory while coming up with your ridiculous closing comments. It, quite frankly, is disappointing even from you. Let's lift the discussion, not drag it down.

On a personal note, I have not been posting much in here lately because of time. Perhaps I will have time soon to get back and answer some of the questions that were asked. My failure to answer has not been because of a lack of answers; it is because of a lack of time.

 

Pastor Larry,

I received your message and post. No one on this board would even think that you would not have answers to any question posed. Blessings from God on your ministry to people!

Brother Ray

 

I know what you wish this verse said...

Matthew 23:37 "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but so few of you were willing."

That would demonstrate that Jesus depends upon the free will choice of people. But it isn't what the verse says. It says,

Matthew 23:37 "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing."

By the way, this verse also does not have this hallucinogenic meaning...

Matthew 23:37 "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but since most of you aren't willing, I figure I'll ask the Father to harden you all and take away your free will ability to respond to the Gospel, after which I'll eventually ask Paul to take the Gospel to the Gentiles who will still have the free will ability and will respond."

You're right. You want us to think outside boundaries. The boundaries are scripture, and you want people to think outside it -- to add to it here, change it in another place, and ignore it there -- in order to reach your bizarre conclusions. That's called heresy, Bill. If that's what floats your boat, I say go for it. If God wants to use us to open your eyes, then praise God. If God wants to use us to harden you even more, then praise God. But I call 'em as I see 'em, and your doctrines and reasoning are from the pit.

 

Hi Npetreley;
Welcome back Nick;
A quote from you;
-------------------------------------------------

The word translated as "any" in 2 Peter 3:9, "not willing that any should perish" is "tinaß", which means "some" or "certain" as in "certain people". A different form of the word appears earlier in the verse, and is translated as "some".
-------------------------------------------------

Here is a copy of the verse in greek from the texus receptus first;
2Pe 3:9 ou bradunei o kuriov thv epaggeliav wv tinev braduthta hgountai alla makroqumei eiv hmav mh boulomenov tinav apolesqai alla pantav eiv metanoian xwrhsai

Now from the greek new testament;

2Pe 3:9 ou bradunei tsbo kuriov thv epaggeliav wv tinev braduthta hgountai alla makroqumei eiv aumav tsbhmav mh boulomenov tinav apolesqai alla pantav eiv metanoian xwrhsai

I was going to say that I didn't see it but now that I've cut and pasted it here the fonts have changed and I think it's the seventh word from the end in the last post.

This below is strongs definition;
G5100
τίς
tis
tis
An enclitic indefinite pronoun; some or any person or object: - a (kind of), any (man, thing, thing at all), certain (thing), divers, he (every) man, one (X thing), ought, + partly, some (man, -body, -thing, -what), (+ that no-) thing, what (-soever), X wherewith, whom [-soever], whose ([-soever]).

Which doesn't prove or disprove what you claim.
Romanbear

Romanbear