50 Passage Challenge

[T.U.L.I.P.]

Here are the 5 points of Arminianism as expounded at the Synod of Dort:

1. God elects or reproves on the basis of foreseen faith or unbelief.

2. Christ died for all men and for every man although only believers are saved

3. Man is so depraved that divine grace is necessary unto faith or any good deed.

4. This grace may be resisted.

5. Whether all who are truly regenerate will certainly persevere in the faith is a point which needs further investigation

Here are the 5 counter points of "Calvinism" formulated to reprove the 5 "Arminian" points:

T. otal Depravity-man is completely incapable of doing any spiritual good.

U. nconditional Election-God choses who He will save based on nothing but His own decree and good pleasure.

L. imited Atonement-Christ laid down His life for the sheep; not the goats (i.e. died only for the elect.)

I. rresistable Grace-the grace of God will save those whom He has elected-it is in-obstructable by man's "free will"

P. reservation of the Saints-the Elect are kept by the power of God and nothing can cause them to lose eternal life.

I would like to challenge anyone subscribing to the first set of points mentioned(should you like a modification discuss this with me) to make a list of 50 passages of scripture, each followed by a one (1) sentence commentary supporting your position, with a brief commentary at the end and after you post your list I will post mine.

I can't stand discussions over Calvinism that result in the Arminians running out of Bible and reverting to philosophy, emotionalism, and logic to make their often shallow points and making big deals over the very general terms "Calvinism" and "arminianism" to change the subject of discussion and make Calvinists appear to be some sort of idolaters that read The Institutes rather than the Bible so this will give us a chance to just talk Bible-no extended commentary, no deep theological scripture twisting, just plain Biblical Discussion.

I look forward to replies.

Thank you, TheBiblicalLiteralist (i.e. TheCalvinist)

 

[BobRyan]

I can't stand discussions over Calvinism that result in the Arminians running out of Bible and reverting to philosophy, emotionalism, and logic to make their often shallow points and making big deals over the very general terms "Calvinism" and "arminianism" to change the subject of discussion and make Calvinists appear to be some sort of idolaters that read The Institutes rather than the Bible so this will give us a chance to just talk Bible-no extended commentary, no deep theological scripture twisting, just plain Biblical Discussion.

I can't either - fortunately - I don't do it.

Were the Bible not limited to 66 books - the case for Aminianism would be almost infinite.

But what is the "50 text" limit all about?

Does an entire chapter count as "one"? (Ezek 18 comes to mind).

How about half a chapter? Is that "another ONE"?(Matt 18 comes to mind)

Or are you saying each VERSE is "ONE" (John 3:15 comes to mind) as well as about a zillion others.

How do you want to play the game?

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Oh BTW - when we are through with your 50 text game - how about your addressing the "Calvinist FUTURE" challenge?

Recall that in the 50 point game the Arminian "distinctive" is going to be "God So Loved the World that HE GAVE... Really!".

In the 4 and 5 point Calvinist meltdown - the future scenario "exposes" the weakness that in those views one must be "allowed" a heartless disregard for the non-elect "in the end".

(And obviously we won't KNOW who the non-elect are until "The End" - so no need to debate how we react in the "not knowing" phase).

5 and 4 pt Calvinist Future Scenario:
“Showing” the requirement of 4 and 5 point Calvinism to have the “luxury” of a cold disregard for the non-elect “When the non-Elect are finally Known”. This scenario simply removes that “luxury” in order to emphasize the point it makes about God Himself – vs the view that “God so Loved the World that He Gave…Really” (something that both Arminians and 3-pt Calvinists seem to Agree on).

When the 4 OR 5-point-Calvinist finds himself in heaven enjoying the perfect love, unity and selfless concern for others that is not possible here on this sinful earth - and then peeking over the ramparts of heaven - observes his OWN precious sweet daughter who passed the age of accountability as the MANY of Matt 7 -- now writhing in the agony of eternal roasting in hell - he may well run to his sovereign lord with the cry "Oh My Lord, my great God and Savior! Couldn't you have done Something for my precious child??"

And of course the answer will come back that Calvinism so loves to hear - "Why of course I COULD - IF I had Cared to"!

"Hallelujah!" cries out the Calvinist - that IS the Gospel I was proclaiming!! Ahh that blissful eternity with calvinism's God that unfairly saved you but not your precious daughter - and you will be praising through all eternity that YOU were spared though she was not. (For it IS all about You in the end) Blessing the fact that He chose You - that it was "unfair" as you say - but it was graciously unfair IN YOUR favor - just not your precious daughter's. So just enjoy! Enjoy! Unjust Mercy - oh the Calvinist bliss.

You see the problem when the Calvinist model is not allowed the "luxury" of disregarding the fate of the lost - as in the case above?

God who arbitrarily selects out the FEW of Matt 7 and loves THEM alone - and then represents that to Calvinists as "So Loving the World". Oh the pure joy that thought must cause the calvinist mind.

Here is a direct quote of one of our Calvinist brethren overjoyed on this very point.

http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=35;t=000806
posted June 18, 2003 04:29 PM
Tyndale1946 (Glenn)
I love the doctrine of Election because it tells me of a Sovereign God who was in control of the Eternal Salvation of his children before Man ever graced this earth... The doctrine of Election is beautiful because it tells us God know and will save ALL his children he purposed to save and none else... Some will say that the doctrine of election is unjust... Is it?... Would not the Sovereign God Of All Glory been justified if seeing the end from the beginning and those thing not yet done... Said I will do all my pleasure!... The Son of God saying... Father they have sinned against you and are not worth it let them all die in their sins... There is no redemption for their like... Did we not ALL deserve a sinners HELL?... GOD FORBID!

Pastor Larry
Christ was Arminian? (Page 6) posted April 16, 2003 10:55 AM
You said How can Calvinists speak of Docrtines of Grace when behind the title--God selects the majority for Hell and only saves the relative few? Is this something to shout about?. The biblical response is "Yes, this is something to shout about since the angels in heaven shout over even one." The "relative few" (in your words) are certainly more than one and bring great joy, and great shouting in heaven.

Notice the “focus” is always on “you” the one that is arbitrarily selected and then justifying the callous disregard of your precious child under the guise of “Well God does not HAVE to care about ANYONE just be glad YOU made it”.
Fascinating!


All well and good for the Cavlinist position - but what about the Arminian view?

And for us Arminians (and our 3-Pt Calvinist Bretheren) - well we will just have to be content with the fact that God really DOES "So Love the World" not merely the "Few " of Matt 7 - and He is the "Atoning sacrifice for OUR sins and NOT our sins only - but for those of the WHOLE WORLD" 1John 2::2.

We will have to be content in all eternity with the God that DOES Love ALL and died for ALL and "IS not WILLING for any to perish but for ALL to come to Repentance". Somehow that will have to help us enjoy eternity too. I wonder how we will fair by comparison.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[T.U.L.I.P.]

I am defining passages as selections which represent a coherant thought. Often we like to use verses that are understood better in context and so this is your opportunity to use the context within reason. Naturally, we could just paste the whole Bible in here and call it our defense but let's be reasonable and select 50 passages that specifically deal with the points mentioned without overdoing using the context. What I'm interested in is a clear Biblical picture of what each side believes as a tool to understanding this conflict a little more.

 

[T.U.L.I.P.]

However, bobryan, I think you've already deviated from the purely scriptural approach that I am reccomending by appealing to emotion concerning the damnation of the reprobates. If you like, we can include Absolute predestination and Reprobation as points to be brought to scriptural light through this "debate".

Also, to those interested in taking me up on this, let's define our terms and the specific points we will be dealing with as well as our personal definitions of these points prior to posting our lists so we can be sure that we are to the point and that we don't deviate from the subject matter at hand. Thank you and God Bless

 

[T.U.L.I.P.]

A few more things. First of all, this is not a game and I resent to it being referred to as such and secondly, 50 is a purely arbitrary number-should you desire to change the number to anything else(provided it is at least over 30) include that as a modification to the positions to be considered in light of Scripture. This is simply a chance for us to make a long list of the scripture supporting our doctrines and examine for ourselves who has the more scriptural postion.

 

[BobRyan]

TULIP
I am defining passages as selections which represent a coherant thought. Often we like to use verses that are understood better in context and so this is your opportunity to use the context within reason. Naturally, we could just paste the whole Bible in here and call it our defense but let's be reasonable and select 50 passages that specifically deal with the points mentioned without overdoing using the context. What I'm interested in is a clear Biblical picture of what each side believes as a tool to understanding this conflict a little more.

OK - so when I quote Romans 5 (half the chapter) and observe that Paul makes a couple of points there - it is still just counted as "one".

In the same way John 16:7-13 is "ONE".

So whether the number is 31 or 51 when the list is presented what is the "metric" that we will use to determine which set of 31 or which set of 51 is "the more Biblical Bible"?

What is your proposal?

Will it be that almost the entire chapter makes "my point" but yours is limitted to isolated snippets or a word-rewrite saying the "translators did not select the right Word" in the text?

I mean what is to be the objective measure?

What are you proposing?

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Felix]

I am looking forward to all future posts in this thread. And what my brother said, I would like to emphasize it even more: Scripture alone please and forget about all human philosophical mambo jambo!!!!

Something else which I think is important for all these posts: please do not answer a question with another question. If it happens, we will just assume that the person has no answer and can not find a way out...

Fair enough

God bless everyone

Felix

 

[BobRyan]

Tulip --
However, bobryan, I think you've already deviated from the purely scriptural approach that I am reccomending by appealing to emotion concerning the damnation of the reprobates.

No I appeal to the text of scripture "God so Loved the WORLD" and call for a consistent rendering EVEN in the case of our OWN loved ones. (As far fetched as that must sound to 5 pt Calvinism).

TULIP
If you like, we can include Absolute predestination and Reprobation as points to be brought to scriptural light through this "debate".

Actually - the "disctintive differences" of 5PT Calvinism vs 3 Point Calvinism are themselves "enough" to generate the 50 text delta.

(Assuming the definitions are agreed upon)

Your expected failure in the areas of limited atonement and of irresistable grace should suffice.

TULIP

Also, to those interested in taking me up on this, let's define our terms and the specific points we will be dealing with as well as our personal definitions of these points prior to posting our lists so we can be sure that we are to the point and that we don't deviate from the subject matter at hand.

Lets start with a sample definition.

"Atoning Sacrifice" as is used in 1John 2:2.

This is a reference to the Death of Christ on the Cross and the slain lamb of Lev 16 "day of Atonement".

The corresponding "Limited Atonement" used to speak specifically of the "PRICE paid" at the cross and to claim that Christ did NOT pay the price for the sins of the non-elect - becomes "more precisely" "Limited Atoning Sacrifice" where it is GOD "selecting" who He will suffer and die for and who He will not suffer and die for.

The problem "without that definition" is that EVEN the Arminian view accepts that the lost forfeit the atonement Christ offers them - by their own refusal to accept the Gospel. So by definition they do not benefit from the atoning sacrifice made for them - and do not receive atonement.

On the other hand - the 5-pt Calvinist "distinctive" is already apparent "At the point of the sacrifice". It can be debated from the very start.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

To further the clarification --

The 5 Arminian points are fine with me.

Regarding the TULIP -

T. otal Depravity-man is completely incapable of doing any spiritual good.

My point will be that man is totally depraved apart from the John 12:32 Drawing of ALL mankind.

U. nconditional Election-God choses who He will save based on nothing but His own decree and good pleasure.

My point will be that God has CHOSEN to save all mankind - but no one made Him choose that AND He ALSO sovereignly CHOOSES the free will for His intelligent creation - no one made Him choose that either.

L. imited Atonement-Christ laid down His life for the sheep; not the goats (i.e. died only for the elect.)

That is perfect for Calvinism. It limits the scope to the suffering of Christ RATHER than lumping in the final disposition of the atonement for each person. It identifies the differences well.

I. rresistable Grace-the grace of God will save those whom He has elected-it is in-obstructable by man's "free will"

Perfect distinctive - ready to debate

P. reservation of the Saints-the Elect are kept by the power of God and nothing can cause them to lose eternal life.

Nothing can "cause" them - including their own choice (since by Calvinism they did not CHOOSE to become saved - neither can they CHOOSE to be lost) and thus a perfect distinctive ready to debate.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
When the 4 OR 5-point-Calvinist finds himself in heaven enjoying the perfect love

I do hope you have a copyright on that. This is, what, about the 665th time you have posted it?

At least you do admit that Calvinists will be in Heaven.

 

[T.U.L.I.P.]

BobRyan, I'm sorry that we have barely begun and you are already accusing me of being a Bible corrector

Will it be that almost the entire chapter makes "my point" but yours is limitted to isolated snippets or a word-rewrite saying the "translators did not select the right Word" in the text?

Your expected failure in the areas of limited atonement and of irresistable grace should suffice.

Why do we have to resort to these kinds of statements in a Biblical discussion? If you want to post your list than do it, and please simply use common sense when selecting your passages. Only choose those that concisely deal with your points and just enough context to clarify them. We're not trying to paste the whole Bible in here and we're not trying to take stuff out of context. Please use your head.

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by T.U.L.I.P.:
Why do we have to resort to these kinds of statements in a Biblical discussion?

You must be new here.

Bob Ryan will take care of the whole debate. He'll tell what all sides are "really" saying and reach a conclusion that clearly shows he is right and that is DEVASTATING to his opponents.

He's a hoot to read!

 

[BobRyan]

Why do we have to resort to these kinds of statements in a Biblical discussion? If you want to post your list than do it, and please simply use common sense when selecting your passages. Only choose those that concisely deal with your points and just enough context to clarify them. We're not trying to paste the whole Bible in here and we're not trying to take stuff out of context. Please use your head.

And you are accusing "me" of calling you a "Bible corrector" - notice your opening post. Notice your last post.

The "tone" was already set - I was simply responding with the same sense of directness.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

TULIP -

You have not answered the question posted - what is the "basis" for the comparison of which list of Bible texts is "more Bible"?

Or are you saying that we will post each "list" and then move on to something else?

Or are you saying that we should also respond to each of the other-guy's list of 50?

What is your expected format?

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Also for clarity - are you 4 or 5 pt Calvinist.

Instead of using "Perserverance" you use "preserving the Saints" as in OSAS.

Am I to understand that you do not take the typical 5pt stand on "perserverence"?

(Just for clarity).

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

TULIP - Given the massive amount of bible material on the Arminian view - I find it hard to get 50 references down to anything less than about 10 posts. Is that acceptable?

Would you like to have the first round to set the stage for the brevity you expect?

My posts will include the text and my comment showing how each section supports the Arminian view - and that does get long in a 50 reference set - so I want to stay in whatever form you are "expecting".

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Felix:
I am looking forward to all future posts in this thread. And what my brother said, I would like to emphasize it even more: Scripture alone please and forget about all human philosophical mambo jambo!!!!

Something else which I think is important for all these posts: please do not answer a question with another question. If it happens, we will just assume that the person has no answer and can not find a way out...

Fair enough

God bless everyone

Felix

Now wait a minute - I thought we are supposed to show how each text referenced is making the point.

And when whole chapters or half chapters are making Arminian case after arminian case - are you saying I should not comment or just keep the comments brief?

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by KenH:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by BobRyan:
When the 4 OR 5-point-Calvinist finds himself in heaven enjoying the perfect love

I do hope you have a copyright on that. This is, what, about the 665th time you have posted it?

At least you do admit that Calvinists will be in Heaven.

</font>[/QUOTE]Yes Calvinists in heaven - and I have improved it to give space for the 3-pt Calvinist view that is basically the same as the Arminian view in the case of the point emphasized there.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by KenH:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by T.U.L.I.P.:
Why do we have to resort to these kinds of statements in a Biblical discussion?

You must be new here.

Bob Ryan will take care of the whole debate. He'll tell what all sides are "really" saying and reach a conclusion that clearly shows he is right and that is DEVASTATING to his opponents.

He's a hoot to read! </font>[/QUOTE]Shhh! Ken, you will spook the Calvinist.

By the way (I think this one is a 4 pointer).

In Christ,

Bob