Misconceptions on both sides of the debate...

Pastor Larry,

You said, 'The world is obviously people, Ray.'

Ray is saying, 'I agree with you that the term world refers to people.'

You said, 'And to say that God "would not would not call 'whosoever' if He was going to pick out for His elect, just a few people" seems a little arrogant.'

Ray: 'If God had not already said that He was going to draw all sinners to Himself,' [John 12:32] then I would be arrogant or even blasphemous. But since Jesus is God of justice then He is fair toward all of His lost creation of sinners. Notice Jesus words were not, 'And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all the elect unto Me,' not unless you arrogantly think that it was His oversight.

You said, 'Who are you to tell God what he would or would not do? He said "whosoever" and followed it with "believes." The whosoever is limited to those who believe. Those who do not believe are not part of the whosoever.'

Ray: 'Who are you to qualify what the Lord has not said. It is the true minister's job/ministry to declare only what God has said. John 5:24 does not qualify your Augustinian perception as to the Lord, somehow speaking to only the elect in this passage, and in fact, words that came directly from His heart and mouth/voice.

You said, 'I think we should let the text stand as it does. God loved the world in this
way: That he sent his only Son into the world to save whoever believes in
him so that they will not perish.'

Ray: 'You probably find it difficult to believe verses like I Timothy 2:6; I John 2:2 and II Peter 3:9 and so on . . .'

You said, 'I don't think the teaching of hte verse, and either Calvinism or Arminianism
hangs on the definition of "world." We have shown ample evidence that the
meaning of "world" always depends on context. Calvinists understand this
verse differently, as do arminians. This is not the smoking gun and it is
ridiculous to act like Calvinists don't believe God loves the world. But it is
even more ridiculous to say what God would have done in a particular
instance. He did what he did ...'

Ray: Refresh our memories. Where is your 'ample' evidence? Your view portrays the concept that the Lord only loves part of the world, because He hates the non-elect who He has autocratically condemned to the 'second death.' [Revelation 20:14] Condemning to eternal flames forever, is a vast distance from Divine Justice and love toward all His lost ones. [Romans 2:11; Romans 5:18] The latter verse says,

'Therefore as by one offence of one (Adam) judgment came upon ALL MEN to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of One {Jesus} the free gift came on ALL MEN unto justification of life.'

The possibility of justification for all sinners is a fact. Another fact is that only those who believe, receive everlasting life.'

 

But notice that you did not say what God said. God said he would draw "all" to himself ... all who??? You have decided that it was all men without exception. Yet the text supports no such thing. The text supports all men without distinction.

I haven't qualified what God has not said. That doesn't even make sense. I showed that "Whosoever" is qualified by God himself. Johna 5:24 and 3:16, as well as the rest of Scriptures are completely consistent with Calvinistic teaching. Those who hear/believe/come are those who get saved. No one else does.

[/qbNot a bit. I love all those texts and have preached them all. They are wonderful texts for the Calvinist.

All throughout this forum.

No it doesn't. I have already clarified that in this very post. You are simply ignorant of our view.

Rom 5 very clearly teaches Calvinism. Those who are saved are teh "all in Christ" vs. those who are in sin are the "all in Adam." That passage clearly refutes the notion that of a non-specific atonement. Again, that is a passage we have beat to death before in here and good study works are widely available that dispense with the view that you are trying to force on the text.

For the future, please use the quote function to make your posts readable.

 

So God so loved the WORLD (all humans on this planet) that He GAVE His only son for that WORLD that WHOEVER believes in Him should not perish...

Out of His LOVE for the ENTIRE WORLD God did this? NOT just out of His love for the FEW of Matt 7?

I can't believe I have a Calvinist who will own up to this.

But so far you are reluctant to elaborate on this point -- is there a reason for that?

Or is it that you are really 3-pt Calvinist? Certainly THEY believe God REALLY so loved THE WORLD. No question.

In Christ,

Bob

 

John 12:32 "I will DRAW ALL" the FEW of Matt 7.

Is not in the text.

But what IS there is the UNQUALIFIED ALL - the NON-restrictive ALL.

The ALL encompassinig - ALL which is why the term "man" or "mankind" is so often the translation that we see by modern Bible translators.

And no wonder.

In Christ,

Bob

 

You so quickly forget that I've shown you alternate scholarly translations - even one that says "all men" but qualifies it as [both Jews and Gentiles] to demonstrate that it means "all peoples".

It only says "all". You cannot prove it means what you want it to mean any more than I can prove it means what I think it means.

This is what fascinates me - Arminians take words like "all" and "whosoever", words used in ways that are dispuatable even in the context and even rendered differently from one translation to another, and make them the foundation of their soteriology.

Then they do mental gymnastics to explain away all the clearly stated verses on election - entire verses, not single words, that are not in any way ambiguous.

Go figure.

 

First of all - you "now" claim that God "So loved the WORLD" not just "some from among Jews and some from among Gentiles" -- that HE gave HIS SON for them ... to die for them... to be the atoning sacrifice for them..

You "now" claim that "World" to Calvinists is the SAME as "world" for the Arminians! (Amazing progress here - I can hardly believe it!).

This means 1John 2:2 "HE is the atoning sacrifice for OUR sins and NOT our sins only but for the sins of the WHOLE WORLD" is not "the sins of SOME from among the Gentiles and SOME from among the Jews" but in fact - "The Whole World" just as the Arminians would accept that term. (At least if we accept Pastor Larry's response and your response to that term "World" on this thread)

Now you want to take the unqualified, unlimited, unrestricted term "ALL" and say that this is "ALL of the FEW of Matt 7"?

Particularly when almost every translator does not insert "all kinds of people both Jews and Gentiles" into the text.


John 12:32 for those who would escape it

Why change now When you were doing so well?

In Christ,

Bob

 

Several issues:

1. With respect to world, you were talkign about John 3:16 and then switched to 1 John 2:2. While many Calvinists would affirm the same meaning for both, many also would not. In any case, you can't switch boats in the middle of the river.

2. With respect to "all men" in John 12:32, the context of Greeks wanting to see Jesus but being denied make it explicit that the reference is to Jews and Greeks (all nations). If you ignore the context, then you can come up with your teaching. The point is not necessarily to say that God doesn't draw all men without exception. I believe that, in some ways, he does (i.e., revealed himself in nature, sent the Spirit to convict the world of sin, etc. ). But the truth of the matter is, no matter whether Calvinist or Arminian, John 12:32 does not teach your point. It is about Greeks vs. Jews. You cannot rip a verse from its context.

 

Who are the "many Calvinists who would accept the same meaning for both"? 3-Pt Calvinists only?
(You have yet to show how this Calvinist acceptance of WORLD just as Arminians mean it - gets you to limited atonement). If God So LOVED the WORLD - then when He says of them "HE is not willing for ANY TO PERISH" is "ANY" still "ANY"??

When does "World" stop being "World"?


The fact that the greeks came looking for Jesus in no way limits his statement to "Greeks" nor to "Some from among the Jews" nor to "Some from among the Jews AND the Greeks".

The unqualified, unlimited, unrestricted "ALL" is rightly translated by most translators as "ALL people" or "all men" as in "All mankind".

The point remains.

In Christ,

Bob

 

No, I know quite a few five point Calvinists who do, myself among them.

It is unrelated. You are trying to connect the wrong things, and probably misunderstanding limited atonement.

Yes, any is any ... Buy any who???? You see, when you fail to ask the right question, and then study the text to find the right answer, you come up with all sorts of bad arguments.

It doesn't. No one says that it does. But what does "world" refer to??? That is the question.

Typical bad attempt at argumentation. In teh context, some Greeks wanted to see Jesus. Jesus said, No, not yet. Obviously, at that time, he was talking only to Jews. But when he was lifted up (just a few days later), all would be drawn ... not just the Jews. Read Morris' commentary on John to help your understanding of this passage.

But you are simply wrong. It is not unrestricted. The context shows what the meaning of all is restricted to. Again, study will help you to clear up your confusion, if you are willing to do it.

That it does ... Hopefully you will believe it.

 

Wow - that was informative!

Ok - so once again... "HOW" does it help 5 point Calvinists to argue that God DOES LOVE the World - (and by that you "say" you mean the SAME world that Arminians are talking about - (ALL HUMANS on this world)) --

When in fact 5 pt Calvinism states that God only dies for the arbitrarily select FEW of Matt 7 because THEY are the only ones HE cares to save.

Are you simply missing another chance to redefine WORLD?

In Christ,

Bob

 

Why do you think Calvinism needs help??? Our commitment is to the text of Scripture. Our Calvinism comes from the proper understanding of Scripture. Our Calvinism does not dictate our understanding of Scripture.

Calvinism states no such thing. You continue to misrepresent things based on your own misunderstanding. Learn what you are talking about and then come back and talk.

We have never "redefined" world. "World" has a meaning in context. We have simply recognized that.

 

I realize that some Calvinists like to pretend that Calvinism is really "that difficult" to understand, but come on - let's be serious.

So anyway - the point remains to be answered. We already know that limited atonement is already justified by Calvinist by claiming that God selects and then dies for those mentioned in Matt 7. (You know - the FEW)

Calvinism already admits (as Spurgeon's quote proves) that nothing "about the person" selected determines their being selected. Not family, not race, not skill, not inclination.

So the question could still be answered instead of circling back to explore the same points already known about limited atonement.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Actually, the basics are not that hard to understand. It is pretty simple.

What point??

The atonement of Christ is not limited in its sufficiency. IT is sufficient for all the world. It was intended to save only part of the world, no matter whether you are arminian or Calvinist. You yourself limit the atonement to the few--to those who believe.

The Bible clearly teaches this.

I am quite sure the "question" has already been answered, but since I don't know what the "question" is, I can't direct you to it. You are probably still trying to get mileage out of misconceptions and misrepresentations.

 

Here it is "again"

By embracing the term world and claiming that you do so JUST as do Arminians - you lose the entire basis for "limited atonement".

If God really is "So loving the World" (all of it) that He gives for us "His only Son" -- then all the world is now the scope for the "Giving" of His Son -- "NOT just the elect".

Instead of paying the debt of sin for just SOME of the World - Christ pays for "our sins and not for our sins only but for those of the WHOLE WORLD".

By claiming that God realy does love the whole WORLD, (and claiming this is the SAME WORLD as the Arminian view would define it) -- you set yourself up for limited-atonement-collapse do you not?

In Christ,

Bob

 

I do not "limit" the price paid at the cross. I claim as does John in 1John 2 that Christ is the "Atoning Sacrifice for OUR sins and NOT four OUR sins only but for the sins of the WHOLE world"!

The "price OWED" is "fully paid" for ALL - every man woman and child that ever lives. "The WHOLE World" of humans.

Limited atonement chokes on that thought.

But it is the clear teaching of scripture --

Christ is the "Atoning Sacrifice for OUR sins and NOT four OUR sins only but for the sins of the WHOLE world"!


In Calvinism - the idea is that God did not "pay the price OWED by the whole world --" They argue God "ONLY pays the PRICE for those HE elects" - only those arbitrarily selected (Those that God calls the FEW in Matt 7 as opposed to the MANY of MAtt 7) or "loved so much that the PRICE is paid for them".

Your point above is that some Calvinists will engage in a kind of "double-speak" where they CLAIM that God has concern for the world while STILL only actually paying the DEBT for the arbitrarily select "FEW". Sort of a "REAL" love for the FEW and a "marketing style facade Love" for the MANY - love that does not actually PAY the debt that they OWE nor SELECT them as the elect.

Calvinism engages in a kind of a gamesmanship with the Gospel.

In Christ,

Bob

 

So you either are a universalist or believe that God is unjust. Which is it?

I claim that too.

Nice of you to add to what John said.

No it doesn't. Limited ateonemtn agrees with John that an actual propitiation was accomplished at the cross, not a possible propitiation.

When will you take the time to learn what Calvinism actually teaches??? More than any other question I ask, that is the one I would like the answer to.

I guess if loyal and faithfulness preaching of the gospel is gamesmanship, then I will plead guilty.

 

Bob Ryan,

The five points of Calvinism are very simple, but then you get into deeper concepts that force these people into horrendous error.

Their predeterminism as to salvation leads to the humanistic and secular concept of fate. Here is a god who for some hidden, unknown reason damns the majority to Hell.

Their more difficult idea to swallow is that this god can send the unborn and children under the age of accountability to Hell, via the leverage of His own will and divine purposes.

In that they do not believe in free will [Revelation 22:17f, this quasi-Biblical theology forces their god into becoming the author of sin. Adam had no choice; therefore, the Lord made them submit to temptation and the Fall of man. The highest of angels had no choice; so the Lord tilted the scales and caused them to turn into the Devil and his demons.

Limited atonement brings about the demise of the authority of His blood, so allegedly, Jesus only died for the few, [Matthew 7:14] when in fact Christ died for all sinners. [John 5:24; I Timothy 2:6; I John 2:2 & Revelation 22:17] This view, if you will, takes the 'punch' out of the reconciliation of Christ toward all the lost.

 

Ray, I will ask you the same question I asked Bob: When will you take the time to learn what Calvinism actually teaches??? You, for some reason, keep saying things that simply aren't true, that indicate a gross misunderstanding of the thing you profess to hate so much. Why not just learn?

 

Neither one. I accept GOD's explanation of atonement HE has given in Lev 16 instead of relying on the stories that Calvinism tells.

I then rely on the fact that 1John 2:2 is telling the truth when it says that Christ paid the full price as "The Atoning Sacrifice" and He did this "For our sins and NOT for our sins only but for the sins of the WHOLE WORLD"!!

And of course that sin offering - that atoning sacrifice - is full and complete at the cross.

As Lev 16 shows - the sacrifice of the sin offering is NOT the end of the Day of Atonement and the work of the High Priest.

As Heb 8 - 10 shows - Christ is NOW functioning as our High Priest.

Without redefining terms?

Meaning the same "World" as "real World" ? (As Arminians do?)

Meaning the Same "Atoning Sacrifice" as we see used in 1John 2 and Lev 16?

I find that surprising coming from a Calvinist.

How then do you get limited atonement back into the picture?

Is "this the part" where you "admit" that you are changing the meaning for "Whole world" and revising it down to "the arbitrarily selected FEW of Matt 7"???

Arminians are claiming that the propitiation - as ATONING SACRIFICE -- as is ALSO used in Lev 16 - is FULL and complete at the cross.

The PRICE is paid but the ENTIRE process of atonement as God defines it in Lev 16 did not end with the atoning sacrifice!

Instructive is He not?

Is this your way of making a substantive point to the limited atonement facts I listed above?

I am looking for details in your response to that point.

In Christ,

Bob