Overcoming

[Ascetic X]

But if it turns out that all men naturally tend to not want to believe and if that is truly universal among men then it certainly is inability. So when a Calvinist says this what I don't accept is a repetition of the "fact" that Calvinists are saying that God shuts men out by asking them to do what they can't possibly do, when in reality they are saying that natural men, by their own free will naturally sin, don't want to stop sinning, and don't think they need to come to Christ because they by their own free will consider doing so as weak and stupid. And as long as they do that they cannot come because they will not come.


I admit it is confusing. And I admit I certainly don't have it all figured out. And I at least admit that guys like John Lennox (a free willer) and William Lane Craig (a Molinist) are definitely not idiots and I don't dismiss them out of hand. They have lots of good points. But all I ask is that you guys who are not Calvinists give the same respect to Calvinist theologians as you give to them and stop the dismissing all they say out of hand. Demanding further explanation is certainly proper and I appreciate those types of questions.

Inability of men to seek God or to repent?

Then why did Jesus preach, “Repent and believe the gospel?“

Many natural, unsaved men actually do want to stop sinning. They feel shame and hate the destructive effects and addictive strength of gambling, adult entertainment, fornication, adultery, substance abuse, lying, gluttony.

So total depravity and complete inability for people to respond to God are not true.

Calvinism is a system placed on top of the gospel to try to summarize and explain it. But some of us cannot accept this system.

You admit that Calvinism is confusing. So why do you cling to it?

 

[DaveXR650]

Inability of men to seek God or to repent?

Both, but once again, in the way I explained it. The warnings that Calvinists preached was that when you hear the gospel you need to respond immediately or else God might withdraw gracious influences and you will not be able repent later - because you won't any longer have a desire to do so. That is called "reprobation" and it is fatal, not that you technically can't do so, but that you will never again feel the need and desire to do so. This frankly, was the plain fundamental Baptist preaching I grew up with without any consciousness of it being "Calvinist" in nature. But it nevertheless is those guys who put in down as a systematic theology. And I give them credit.

Many natural, unsaved men actually do want to stop sinning. They feel shame and hate the destructive effects and addictive strength of gambling, adult entertainment, fornication, adultery, substance abuse, lying, gluttony.

So total depravity and complete inability for people to respond to God are not true.

The Calvinist concept of total depravity does not say men can't do that or be truly virtuous, have a sense of honor and integrity or have remorse and repent of some deeds. It says we cannot have a sense of the value of Christ and an accurate enough understanding of our sinfulness before God to truly close with Christ for salvation without divine help. (And some, but not me, go on and say without prior regeneration.)

Calvinism is a system placed on top of the gospel to try to summarize and explain it. But some of us cannot accept this system.

That would be a fair statement and you can search my posting on here and will find that I never have put the system above the gospel or said that Calvinism is in any way necessary for salvation. It is I believe the best package of systematic theology though. I do not believe all of it. I do not believe for example that the atonement is in any way functionally "limited". I believe the free will of men in the truest sense possible for human beings to be absolutely true even while I also believe God either allows as part of his plans or actually desires all actions that men do - or else they don't occur. That goes against what some Calvinists think - but not all.

You admit that Calvinism is confusing. So why do you cling to it?

Because it's a good system (as man made systems go). And it was confusion that inspired men to come up with it. Confusion from reading verses in scripture that seem to contradict each other. Confusion from resolving to turn around and do better and then sinning again and not knowing what to do about it. Confusion from wondering why God knows the future yet leaves me apparently free to go anything I want without changing God's predicted future. (Shoot, even Star Trek episodes and Back to the Future dealt with those themes.)

Look. Men who take the TULIP or Calvinistic theology and put it up as equivalent to scripture make two mistakes. One is that it doesn't equal scripture in importance, and two, they must not have read many sermons or papers by Calvinist preachers because they themselves didn't do that either. But I do then get frustrated when someone insists that I not use a scriptural quote about being saved or living a Christian life by a Calvinist preacher because it simply can't be so because they, hundreds of years later, think it doesn't align with their newfound discovery of Calvinism as they know it, and which they got from the internet.

 

[DaveXR650]

Repetition is not refutation. Restating a system louder or more often does not repair its cracks. The reason the blotting out passages go unanswered is simple: they do not fit the architecture of your system.

Anthony. I think I told you before that I have never heard of the "blotting out argument" and am not going to address it. My opinion is that you are doing something that more than a few on these amateur theology sites do in that you come up with some strange ideas and then think you have a definitive approach. People also do that on here with the atonement as you well know. I am not dismissing what you say completely - just saying I personally don't have the time or knowledge to address that subject so please leave me out of the "blotting out argument against Calvinism".

 

[Ascetic X]

Anthony. I think I told you before that I have never heard of the "blotting out argument" and am not going to address it. My opinion is that you are doing something that more than a few on these amateur theology sites do in that you come up with some strange ideas and then think you have a definitive approach. People also do that on here with the atonement as you well know. I am not dismissing what you say completely - just saying I personally don't have the time or knowledge to address that subject so please leave me out of the "blotting out argument against Calvinism".

You cannot respond to Anthony’s quotation of a verse in Revelation?

You accuse Anthony of “coming up with a strange idea”?

Is it because the verse contradicts Calvinism?

You say you never heard of the “blotting out argument”?

This unfortunately makes me think that if Calvinism does not deal with a theological idea, you cannot deal with it on your own. It’s implying that Calvinism is your sole source of spiritual understanding.

Revelation 3:5

He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name from the Book of Life, but I will confess his name before My Father and before His angels.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

Anthony. I think I told you before that I have never heard of the "blotting out argument" and am not going to address it. My opinion is that you are doing something that more than a few on these amateur theology sites do in that you come up with some strange ideas and then think you have a definitive approach. People also do that on here with the atonement as you well know. I am not dismissing what you say completely - just saying I personally don't have the time or knowledge to address that subject so please leave me out of the "blotting out argument against Calvinism".

Dave, the blotting‑out passages are not my invention. They are in Scripture. You may not have encountered the argument before, but that does not make it strange or amateur. It simply means your system has never required you to deal with those texts.

If you do not wish to address the passages, that is your choice. But the refusal to engage them is telling. The argument stands or falls on Scripture itself, not on whether someone has heard it before.

 

[DaveXR650]

You cannot respond to Anthony’s quotation of a verse in Revelation?

You accuse Anthony of “coming up with a strange idea”?

Is it because the verse contradicts Calvinism?

You say you never heard of the “blotting out argument”?

Yes. That's what I'm saying. I honestly have never heard of that argument. But since you guys insist I will respond.
At first glance it would seem to me that this passage would be a good Pelagian argument in that there is no original sin and all men start out saved and then drop off if they sin in certain ways. This has been regarded as heresy by the vast majority of Christendom for hundreds of years and it would seem to me to be up to you to show that that is not what you are saying.

Secondly, as used in Revelation, it might just be a free will Baptist support in that once in the book of life it is still possible to have your name removed by future apostacy.

Lastly, it might as well support Calvinism in that it shows the free will of men, and the sovereignty of God and how that since God is all knowing and sovereign, he already and always has known the final version of the book of life because it was written in the beginning and yet it threatening as well as promising that men can by their own responses to God's will, have a true effect on the final version - even though it is indeed already known in it's final form by God. For you to refute this will require that you explain how God knows the final version now and yet can change it based apparently upon someone's personal choices yet in the future. Is God not all knowing, or is does he not know the future? That is for you to explain. I will await your answer.

 

[DaveXR650]

If you do not wish to address the passages, that is your choice. But the refusal to engage them is telling. The argument stands or falls on Scripture itself, not on whether someone has heard it before.

Yeah, now that I think about this it indeed may be the strongest argument for Calvinistic determinism yet. The book of life was known in the beginning, and truly in a sense, before the fall, everyone's name is in it. Because God is all knowing we know that he always knows the final version which will be revealed at the end of Revelation. Since God does not wait to find out or learn new truth as we do (and I think we all agree on that) we are left then with the explanation that these references to the book of life as pertaining to us and our behavior must be a way of showing that God, without giving up absolute sovereignty (which would require that he wait and see along with us who is in the book of life) never the less, plainly is telling us to take heed because our decisions do somehow influence our being in the book of life. You may be on to something here. At least you are proving the compatibilist version of Calvinism. Welcome aboard.

 

[Ascetic X]

Yeah, now that I think about this it indeed may be the strongest argument for Calvinistic determinism yet. … At least you are proving the compatibilist version of Calvinism. Welcome aboard.

This orientation to Calvinism is what concerns me.

Shouldn’t we as Christians be more focused on proclaiming Bible truths, rather than cheering for a man-made theological system?

I do not see anyone on this forum promoting Wesleyism, Finneyism, Barthism, Mohlerism, or any other theologian or theological system.

It seems to always be Calvinism that is defended, as if it has replaced Christianity itself.

Calvin appears to be on the same level as the apostle Paul.

But Paul had people executed prior to getting saved, whereas John Calvin had people executed after his alleged conversion.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

Yes. That's what I'm saying. I honestly have never heard of that argument. But since you guys insist I will respond.
At first glance it would seem to me that this passage would be a good Pelagian argument in that there is no original sin and all men start out saved and then drop off if they sin in certain ways. This has been regarded as heresy by the vast majority of Christendom for hundreds of years and it would seem to me to be up to you to show that that is not what you are saying.

Secondly, as used in Revelation, it might just be a free will Baptist support in that once in the book of life it is still possible to have your name removed by future apostacy.

Lastly, it might as well support Calvinism in that it shows the free will of men, and the sovereignty of God and how that since God is all knowing and sovereign, he already and always has known the final version of the book of life because it was written in the beginning and yet it threatening as well as promising that men can by their own responses to God's will, have a true effect on the final version - even though it is indeed already known in it's final form by God. For you to refute this will require that you explain how God knows the final version now and yet can change it based apparently upon someone's personal choices yet in the future. Is God not all knowing, or is does he not know the future? That is for you to explain. I will await your answer.

Dave, none of the categories you listed are what I argued. I did not appeal to Pelagianism, Free‑Will Baptist theology, or any other system. I simply quoted the text. The blotting‑out passages are not my invention; they are part of Scripture, and they must be dealt with on their own terms.

Your response reframes the issue into systems rather than the words of the passage. The question is not, “Which theological label does this resemble?” The question is, “What does the text actually say?”

Revelation 3:5 states plainly that a name can be blotted out. That is the language of removal, not hypothetical warning, not philosophical tension, and not a metaphysical puzzle about God’s omniscience. The text itself presents a real possibility, not an illusion of one.

You are asking me to explain how God can know the final version of the Book of Life while also issuing real warnings. But that question only arises if one begins with a system that cannot accommodate the plain sense of the passage. I am not required to reconcile the text with a framework the text does not teach.

I do not need the approval of men or of theological systems to confirm or deny Scripture. My concern is simply what the text says. Revelation speaks of blotting out. Your system says that cannot happen. I am content to stand with the words of Scripture rather than reshape them to fit a framework.

The issue remains simple: The passage says a name can be blotted out. Your system says it cannot. One of those must give way.

I am content to stand with the text.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

Yeah, now that I think about this it indeed may be the strongest argument for Calvinistic determinism yet. The book of life was known in the beginning, and truly in a sense, before the fall, everyone's name is in it. Because God is all knowing we know that he always knows the final version which will be revealed at the end of Revelation. Since God does not wait to find out or learn new truth as we do (and I think we all agree on that) we are left then with the explanation that these references to the book of life as pertaining to us and our behavior must be a way of showing that God, without giving up absolute sovereignty (which would require that he wait and see along with us who is in the book of life) never the less, plainly is telling us to take heed because our decisions do somehow influence our being in the book of life. You may be on to something here. At least you are proving the compatibilist version of Calvinism. Welcome aboard.

Dave, nothing in the passage says that everyone’s name was originally in the Book of Life, nor that the book was written “in the beginning” in the sense you are describing. Those are theological constructions, not statements of the text. I am not arguing for Pelagianism, Free‑Will Baptist theology, or compatibilism. I am simply reading what the passage says.

Revelation 3:5 speaks of a real possibility of a name being blotted out. Your explanation requires adding assumptions that the text itself does not state in order to preserve a system. My concern is not to make the passage fit a framework, but to let the words stand as written.

If the text says a name can be blotted out, then the text says a name can be blotted out. I do not need to reinterpret it to make it compatible with a theological system.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Sovereigngrace, you did not exegete Hebrews 2:9. You replaced it with John 10. This is not exegesis; it is substitution. The text says Christ tasted death for every man. You have not addressed the universal language, only reinterpreted it through later Calvinist categories. If you want to engage the argument, deal with the words in front of you rather than importing a system to override them.

We use scripture to build upon scripture. Scripture does not contradict itself. Jesus said He was laying His life down for the sheep. We see that the Bible classifies ppl into either sheep or goats, and He did not say He was laying His life down for the sheep.

 

[SovereignGrace]

View attachment 14212

You abandoned this real quick: “You talk about men who you say were Calvinists. I am persuaded by scriptures, not men.”

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

We use scripture to build upon scripture. Scripture does not contradict itself. Jesus said He was laying His life down for the sheep. We see that the Bible classifies ppl into either sheep or goats, and He did not say He was laying His life down for the sheep.

Sovereigngrace, I agree that Scripture does not contradict itself. But using one passage to override another is not “building upon Scripture”; it is replacing one text with a preferred text. Hebrews 2:9 says Christ tasted death “for every man.” That universal language is what I raised, and it still has not been addressed.

John 10 speaks of Christ laying down His life for the sheep. That is true. But it does not say He did not die for anyone else, nor does it redefine “every man” in Hebrews 2:9. The sheep/goat distinction in Scripture concerns judgment, not a limitation clause on Hebrews 2:9.

My point remains simple: Hebrews 2:9 uses universal language. If you believe that “every man” there does not mean what it appears to mean, then the burden is to show that from the text itself, not by importing later categories to narrow it.

 

[Ascetic X]

You abandoned this real quick: “You talk about men who you say were Calvinists. I am persuaded by scriptures, not men.”

You need to look at the image again.

It contrasts Early Church vs. Calvinists.

The statements of the Early Church are what is stated in the New Testament, as given to us by the Early Church.

So, yes, I am persuaded by scriptures, not men.

 

[SovereignGrace]

You need to look at the image again.

It contrasts Early Church vs. Calvinists.

The statements of the Early Church are what is stated in the New Testament, as given to us by the Early Church.

So, yes, I am persuaded by scriptures, not men.

“So, yes, I am persuaded by scriptures, not men.”


As am I.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Sovereigngrace, I agree that Scripture does not contradict itself. But using one passage to override another is not “building upon Scripture”; it is replacing one text with a preferred text. Hebrews 2:9 says Christ tasted death “for every man.” That universal language is what I raised, and it still has not been addressed.

John 10 speaks of Christ laying down His life for the sheep. That is true. But it does not say He did not die for anyone else, nor does it redefine “every man” in Hebrews 2:9. The sheep/goat distinction in Scripture concerns judgment, not a limitation clause on Hebrews 2:9.

My point remains simple: Hebrews 2:9 uses universal language. If you believe that “every man” there does not mean what it appears to mean, then the burden is to show that from the text itself, not by importing later categories to narrow it.

What we are debating about is the extent and scope of the atonement. We both agree that Christ’s death made atonement for sin. It paid the sin debt in full. If this was for all mankind indiscriminately, then all mankind indiscriminately have had their sin debt paid in full. Meaning, seeing that many will reside in the lake of fire, if the death of Christ paid all mankind indiscriminately have had, many will be there who had their sin debt paid in full. That’s why I reject universal atonement.

 

[SovereignGrace]

You need to look at the image again.

It contrasts Early Church vs. Calvinists.

The statements of the Early Church are what is stated in the New Testament, as given to us by the Early Church.

So, yes, I am persuaded by scriptures, not men.

And yet, I am sure the teaching of men has impacted your beliefs. We are not Christians left to ourselves and our own personal study, but are a body of believers who work together to get a deeper and fuller understanding of the scriptures.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Sovereigngrace, I agree that Scripture does not contradict itself. But using one passage to override another is not “building upon Scripture”; it is replacing one text with a preferred text. Hebrews 2:9 says Christ tasted death “for every man.” That universal language is what I raised, and it still has not been addressed.

John 10 speaks of Christ laying down His life for the sheep. That is true. But it does not say He did not die for anyone else, nor does it redefine “every man” in Hebrews 2:9. The sheep/goat distinction in Scripture concerns judgment, not a limitation clause on Hebrews 2:9.

My point remains simple: Hebrews 2:9 uses universal language. If you believe that “every man” there does not mean what it appears to mean, then the burden is to show that from the text itself, not by importing later categories to narrow it.

I showed the context in an earlier post.

For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings. For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren, Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee. And again, I will put my trust in him. And again, Behold I and the children which God hath given me.[Hebrews 2:10-13]

As you can see, vss 10-13 clarifies who the “every man” is.

 

[Ascetic X]

And yet, I am sure the teaching of men has impacted your beliefs. We are not Christians left to ourselves and our own personal study, but are a body of believers who work together to get a deeper and fuller understanding of the scriptures.

Yes, teachings of men have reached me, but I am persuaded by scriptures, not theology.

For example. If the Bible says “for the sins of the whole world”, then a theologian claims this means “only for the sins of the elect”, I go with the scriptures rather than the theologian.

1 John 2:2

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

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

What we are debating about is the extent and scope of the atonement. We both agree that Christ’s death made atonement for sin. It paid the sin debt in full. If this was for all mankind indiscriminately, then all mankind indiscriminately have had their sin debt paid in full. Meaning, seeing that many will reside in the lake of fire, if the death of Christ paid all mankind indiscriminately have had, many will be there who had their sin debt paid in full. That’s why I reject universal atonement.

Sovereigngrace, you’ve shifted away from Hebrews 2:9 again. I raised a specific text that says Christ tasted death “for every man.” Your reply does not exegete that verse; it moves to a logical argument about the extent of the atonement. But the question on the table is not, “What do we think the atonement should imply?” It is, “What does Hebrews 2:9 actually say?”

Your argument assumes a definition of “atonement” that Hebrews 2:9 itself does not supply. You are importing a later theological conclusion (“if paid in full, then all must be saved”) and using that to reinterpret the plain wording of the verse. That is the very thing I cautioned against.

The text says Christ tasted death for every man. If you believe “every man” there means “every elect man,” then the burden is to show that from the passage itself. Logical consequences drawn from a system cannot override the inspired wording.

I’m not asking for a philosophical defense of limited atonement. I’m asking for an exegetical explanation of Hebrews 2:9. Until that is addressed directly, the actual text remains untouched.