Why are you a Calvinist?

Jarthur001 · Feb 19, 2010

Winman said: ↑

Well, then you must have only read scripture presented to you by Calvinists, there are volumes of scripture that contradict Calvinism. I have presented dozens of verses myself here in the last several months.
Click to expand...

Let me repeat what I said....

There are no contradictions. NONE Becaue you don't understand does not mean there is contradictions.

It is not a paradox....there are two truths, One of which you are not able to get you head around, therefore you deny the power of God. That is a shame.

Jesus died for 100% of mankind, even those who do not accept his offer of salvation. I will show you that.
Click to expand...

READERS PLEASE TAKE NOTE:

As is the case with most questions posed to this member, he never addresses them, but rather changes to another subject or verse.

Let me repeat….

2 Corinthians 5:12

that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men’s sins against them.
Click to expand...

Is it all of the world?...everone that is born?
Is it part of the world?
Click to expand...

2 Pet 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.
Click to expand...

I would be GLAD to address this verse....now please answer what I asked.

Notice the words… Master (despo,thj despotes)…. and bought ( avgora,zw agorazo).

The traditional non-Reformed interpretation is that the Master refers to “Jesus” and bought means “purchased” or “redeemed.” What we have is a redemptive passage wher Christ died for these men but they rejected Him as evidenced by their false teaching and hence brought condemnation to themselves.

On the surface the assumed interpretation sounds plausible. But what did Peter mean here? If we show case on one verse it seems to mean that.

Its much like a Jehovah’s Witness taking one verse… John 14:28

28Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I. “……is not the passage much easier to understand if we simply take it as it is written as therefore affirming that the Son is inferior to the Father?”

This is especially so when such proof-texting is detached from context such as the JWs do by divorcing John 14:28 from 14:1-27.

James White helps us here…

Of course, Peter did not write his epistle in English, but in Greek. It is necessary, then, to listen to him as he originally spoke by studying his own words in his own context. This is not to say that an understanding of Greek is essential to the understanding of the text (as the earlier discussion underscored). It is to say, however, that all assumed understandings of the English text must be consistent with the terms the writers themselves used originally. Hence a knowledge of the Greek language may not be absolutely essential but it is surely very helpful.

Finally, I reiterate that if we assume the allegedly “simple” meaning of the text as it is often portrayed, we must deny eternal security and embrace the interpretation put forward by historic Arminianism. Allow me to explain. The text, as it is written, states that these false teachers were not potentially bought (as the questioner initially assumed) but bought. They were “denying the Lord who bought them.” The normal objection seems to present the idea that bought or purchase and redeem are distinct concepts. The implication is that bought or purchase has to do with intent (died to purchase) and can be extended to all men indiscriminately while redeem is restrictive to those who appropriate the work of Christ. It should be noted, though, that the biblical terms redeem (lutro,w lutroo) and bought (avgora,zw, agorazo), when used redemptively, have believers as their objects and hence function synonymously. Therefore, if the non-Reformed believer is to be consistent with his position of a redemptive context, then redeem and purchase are synonyms and not distinct concepts. Is it not the position of even non-Reformed folk that all who are redeemed are also obviously saved? Can one provide a New Testament text that supports the position that Christ has redeemed someone who is not saved (unless 2 Peter 2:1 be the lone exception)? This text does not say He “died for” them, but that he “bought” them.

The position of general (non-specific) atonement maintains that there are multitudes for which Christ died whom He does not actually redeem. However, the position does not assert that there are multitudes Christ redeemed that He actually does not save.
Click to expand...

NOW ONCE AGAIN ANSWER THIS...

2 Corinthians 5:12

that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men’s sins against them.
Click to expand...

Is it all of the world?...everone that is born?
Is it part of the world?
Click to expand...

While you are at it, address the other verses too

Peter is clearly speaking of unsaved, lost men here. They are heretics and they are spreading "damnable heresies". They are bringing upon themselves swift destruction.
Click to expand...

:laugh:

Want to see more?
Click to expand...

I want you to address the verse I asked about....not dodge it.

Rom 5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
Click to expand...

This verse says that because of the sin of Adam, the death penalty passed upon all men. Now, even you would agree that means 100% of mankind.

But now, read further, the very same verse says that by the righteousness of Jesus the free gift came upon "all men" unto justification of life.

Now, how can the first "all men" shown mean 100% of mankind in this verse, and the second "all men" mean only a few elect?

What you fail you understand is that Jesus has paid for 100% of mankind's sins, but this free gift must willingly be accepted through faith.
Click to expand...

Again..context context context...

Lets start with this. This is a good case where looking at the Greek would help. You are a KJV only. Please look and see if that word " the free gift came" is in italics. After you check that out, get back to me and we will look at context.

Now how about .....

2 Corinthians 5:12

that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men’s sins against them.
Click to expand...

Is it all of the world?...everone that is born?
Is it part of the world?
Click to expand...

******

Heb 4:2 For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.

Here the writer (most likely Paul) says the gospel was preached to those who are saved and lost. It profited those who believed, but did not profit those who did not believe.

If Jesus did not die for the lost, then faith would be of no avail.
Click to expand...

Brothers...:tonofbricks:
2For indeed we have had the glad tidings [Gospel of God] proclaimed to us just as truly as they [the Israelites of old did when the good news of deliverance from bondage came to them]; but the message they heard did not benefit them, because it was not mixed with faith (with [c]the leaning of the entire personality on God in absolute trust and confidence in His power, wisdom, and goodness) by those who heard it; [d]neither were they united in faith with the ones [Joshua and Caleb] who heard (did believe).

NOW...please dodge no long. This is typical of how you answer...which is not to answer anything. PLease please answer...not just the ONE verse you ran from, but all others.

Thanks...James

Jarthur001 · Feb 19, 2010

Jerome said: ↑

"I have never cultivated the acquaintance nor desired the approbation of those men who shut their eyes to Truths of God which they do not wish to see. I never desired to be reputed so excessively Calvinistic as to neglect one part of Scripture in order to maintain another. If I am thought to be inconsistent with myself, I am very glad to be so, so long as I am not inconsistent with Holy Scripture. Sure I am that all the Truth of God is really consistent, but equally certain am I that it is not apparently so to our poor, finite minds. In nine cases out of ten he who is nervously anxious to be manifestly consistent with himself in his theological system, if he gains his end, is merely consistent with a fool!" —Charles Spurgeon, General and Yet Particular
Click to expand...

For those that may wonder what is missing...

I have never cultivated the acquaintance nor desired the approbation of those men who shut their eyes to truths which they do not wish to see. I never desired to be reputed so excessively Calvinistic as to neglect one part of Scripture in order to maintain another. If I am thought to be inconsistent with myself, I am very glad to be so, so long as I am not inconsistent with holy Scripture. Sure I am that all truth is really consistent, but equally certain am I that it is not apparently so to our poor, finite minds. In nine cases out of ten, he who is nervously anxious to be manifestly consistent with himself in his theological system, if he gains his end, is merely consistent with a fool; he who is consistent with Scripture is consistent with perfect wisdom; he who is consistent with himself is at best consistent with imperfection, folly, and insignificance.

To keep to Scripture, even though it should involve a charge of personal inconsistency, is to be faithful to God and men's souls. My text seems to me to present that double aspect which so many people either cannot or will not see. Here is the great atonement by which the Mediator has the whole world put under his dominion; but still here is a special object for this atonement, the ingathering, or rather outgathering of a chosen and peculiar people unto eternal life.

..................................

Let us observe one self-evident truth. It is a remarkable fact, that where the gospel is not preached in its general aspect, God does not seem to work out his special object to any large extent. I mean to say that if you will go into any chapel in London, and you find a minister there who preaches nothing whatever of the Word of God, except that one part of it which is most blessedly and sweetly true—God's electing love: if you will listen to that man, and hear him preach from the first of January to the end of December, upon that one topic—the speciality and peculiarity of divine grace—you need not go into the vestry to ask the deacons if they have many conversions. I am certain you will find there are few indeed, and those mostly among persons who were convinced of sin and aroused elsewhere, and who obtain liberty under the gracious doctrine; but the absolute conversion of many is not a thing to be expected, and certainly not a thing found where the preacher is so restrained by his sense of electing love as to be unable boldly to preach the rest of the gospel, and say, "Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved."

You have only to try it, dear friends—put your feet into binding shoes, and prevent their growing to the proper size, in order to keep them in ecclesiastical comeliness, and you will soon find your walk of usefulness very much restricted. Hold on to the point of being consistent; make that the main thing; banish those texts which speak about anything general; never open your mouth with a universal invitation; make it out that the Bible has not a word in it directed to men as men, but only to the chosen, and I will undertake that unless there be an unprecedented act of God's sovereignty, you shall preach from one end of the year to the other and you shall not be troubled at the number of the elect people. There will be very few who will ever come forward.

But I know also (and he who will look candidly will see it), that the most effective ministry is this—which is not ashamed of the doctrine of grace, the ministry which does not stutter or stammer in talking about election; does not trim or cut the divine sovereignty of God, but which is equally clear upon the other point that God hath declared his own solemn oath, "I will not the death of a sinner, but had rather that he should turn unto me and live;" a ministry which holds sovereignty but holds responsibility too, which dares to talk about God's special object with bold voice and yet insists upon it that he has proclaimed to every creature under heaven this gracious proclamation, "Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved."

..................................

We too often measure God after a human standard, and hence make mistakes. Remember that God has such an abundance of mercy, and grace and power, that he never has to calculate how much will be necessary for the accomplishment of his purpose, but he doeth largely and literally like one who cannot but act in an infinitely gracious manner. If you have some chickens, and you wish to feed them, you will only throw down as much barley as the fowls will want, but you do not think of feeding all the sparrows of the neighborhood; it would be a very good thing if you could for they all need food; but you throw down as much as will accomplish your purpose.

Now our God never has to stint himself in this way, but with large handsful he feedeth the special objects of his care, and the ravens and kites besides. God, again, exhibits a kingly character in his great methods of general love.

At the coronation of the old kings, the fountains in Cheapside ran with red wine. Now you will say, "What a waste." The gutters ran down on both sides with wine. It was not necessary, was it? The king's object was that his subjects might have wine. Well if that were his only object that might have been accomplished by opening the bottles one by one, and stopping when there was just enough to satisfy their thirst. Why did it run down the streets? Was it a waste? Not at all, it exhibited the royal glory. The king was glad to give the people wine to drink, but he wanted also to show himself a king, and as nobody but a king could make gutters run with wine, therefore he did it to illustrate his own magnificence; and our God, when he is about to exhibit mercy, does not say, "So much will just accomplish my purpose and save mine elect"—that is his main object—but behold he makes the rivers run with wine and the floods with milk, so there is enough and to spare and yet no waste, because his grander object is his own glory, and he is glorified even by that love which does not effectually save.

..................................

I am not to make God's decrees the rule of my walk. I am to make God's revealed will my rule of action. Christ tells me to "Preach the gospel to every creature;" and if I were absolutely certain there was not one elect man upon earth, I would obey and preach the gospel for all that; because if there were not a single soul saved by it, we are unto God a sweet-smelling savor.

So then, I say to you individually, talk about Christ everywhere: preach Jesus Christ to every creature. Say to every man and woman you meet, "There is life in a look at the crucified One." Tell men that "Whosoever cometh unto him, he will in no wise cast out;" and let this be always your comfort, that all that the Father giveth to him shall come to him, that Jesus shall see his seed; that of all that the Father hath given him he will lose none, but will present them all at his right hand at last.

Fly back to God's electing love, and the decrees of God as the pillow of your rest; but take the general command and the universal power of Christ over all flesh as the sword with which you fight and the staff upon which you lean.
Click to expand...

:tonofbricks:
Why keep posting only part???????????

pinoybaptist · Feb 19, 2010

jarthur:

these guys are not really interested in your answers, and they're not interested in answering your questions.
you see, you (and I and others here who believe in the absolute sovereignty of God in ALL things) are, as far as they are concerned, the living dead, because we hold that we once were dead in sins in Adam, and now are alive in Christ, so what they want to do is to drive their righteous stakes through our hearts and reduce us to ashes.
do you smell the garlic ? (sniff, sniff).
be afraid, be very afraid.

pinoybaptist · Feb 19, 2010

Jarthur001 said: ↑

For those that may wonder what is missing...

:tonofbricks:
Why keep posting only part???????????
Click to expand...

he's not Arminian for nothing, and that is no reflection on Jacobus Arminius, only on his adherents (whether they admit it or not) or those who think they are Arminians, that's how they treat Scripture, small wonder they do that when quoting a Calvinist to prove that even some Calvinists think the way they do.

Rippon · Feb 19, 2010

Jarthur001 said: ↑

For those that may wonder what is missing...

:tonofbricks:
Why keep posting only part???????????
Click to expand...

Because of his elliptically challenged agenda.

psalms109:31 · Feb 19, 2010

Gospel

Actual there is no contradiction. They fail to see the Gospel changes all that after Christ was glorified. Then whosoever can come to Jesus Christ.

Jesus word is Spirit and life so His word gives you the ability to walk away and continue in your death, or believe and have life.

See Jesus word is also the Fathers and His word is not His own but the Father who sent him, and that is how the Father draws us.

If you are just following a crowd then you have not been drawned by the Father.

The cross is the only place in all eternity that God and sinful man meet face to face. You can meet Christ there and come and He will in no wise cast you out.

Don't you just want to praise God that we do have the Key to knowledge and whosoever can enter.

Jarthur001 · Feb 19, 2010

psalms109:31 said: ↑

Actual there is no contradiction. They fail to see the Gospel changes all that after Christ was glorified.
Click to expand...

hello psalms....

Well ....I agree with you on these points...as all that have studied Scripture and theology would say...... There is indeed no contradiction. There is only truth and error.

Also it can be said that all that hear the gospel, it will change in some way. Most, will reject it, but the gospel still will change them.

Peace James..

BTW Psalms...I have seen growth in your post. Keep studying the Word, and God will teach you each day.

psalms109:31 · Feb 20, 2010

scripture

You cannot believe in one side of the coin and not the other. In eph we learn about those who was chosen before the foundation of the world and then he goes on and says that God has also included those who heard the Gospel of our salvation having believed.

Then we see Paul talking to the elect and telling them about we need to make peace with everyone, then continued talking about these people not the elect. He says God wants all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth. Then goes on and says he wasn't lying because just like people today they did not believe him.

Winman · Feb 20, 2010

2 Corinthians 5:12

that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men’s sins against them.

Is it all of the world?...everone that is born?
Is it part of the world?
Click to expand...

First of all, you are quoting verse 19, not 12. And yes, God through Christ is reconciling all mankind to himself. He has satsified his justice in that sin has been paid for.

What you cannot grasp is that this free gift must be received. It is there and available for all, but only profits those who receive it by faith.

Considering 2 Peter 2:1 you said:

The traditional non-Reformed interpretation is that the Master refers to “Jesus” and bought means “purchased” or “redeemed.” What we have is a redemptive passage wher Christ died for these men but they rejected Him as evidenced by their false teaching and hence brought condemnation to themselves.

On the surface the assumed interpretation sounds plausible. But what did Peter mean here? If we show case on one verse it seems to mean that.
Click to expand...

There's nothing on the surface about it. Peter is saying that the Lord bought these heretics. His blood paid for their sins.

Then you said:

Its much like a Jehovah’s Witness taking one verse… John 14:28

28Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I. “……is not the passage much easier to understand if we simply take it as it is written as therefore affirming that the Son is inferior to the Father?”

This is especially so when such proof-texting is detached from context such as the JWs do by divorcing John 14:28 from 14:1-27.
Click to expand...

Well, if you think I am misrepresenting 2 Peter 2:1, then tell me the proper interpretation if you think you know so much. You implied I was wrong but offered no alternate interpretation.

Actually, what Jesus said was true if properly understood. Jesus came down and took the form of a man, a servant, and in this position was less great than his Father.

Phil 2:5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

So, just another illogical argument from you. Because the Jehovah's Witnesses misinterpret John 14:28 you argue that I misinterpreted 2 Peter 2:1? Ridiculous. I could make this same ridiculous argument against anything you say.

Then concerning Romans 5:18 you said;

Again..context context context...

Lets start with this. This is a good case where looking at the Greek would help. You are a KJV only. Please look and see if that word " the free gift came" is in italics. After you check that out, get back to me and we will look at context.
Click to expand...

Who was asking about the free gift? I was asking you how the first "all men" can mean 100% of mankind, and the second "all men" in the very same verse can only mean a few elect men?

And of course you did not offer any explanation, just as you did not offer to explain 2 Pet 2:1. And I have seen this repeatedly from Calvinists, when you present scripture that clearly contradicts their doctrine, they ignore it and refuse to address it. You tried to change the focus of the question I asked, and made statements about "the free gift".

Why don't you answer the real question? How can the first "all men" mean 100% of mankind, and the second "all men" mean only a few men?

Rom 5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

I find your style of debate very disingenuous.

psalms109:31 · Feb 20, 2010

Lost

I believe we are lost in the wilderness and generation after generation is perishing until we do as God ask, believe Him.

One day we will and there will be amount that will come to Christ that can not be counted.

Why are you a Calvinist?

Jarthur001 Active Member

Jarthur001 Active Member

pinoybaptist Active Member
Site Supporter

pinoybaptist Active Member
Site Supporter

Rippon Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

psalms109:31 Active Member

Jarthur001 Active Member

psalms109:31 Active Member

Winman Active Member

psalms109:31 Active Member

Useful Searches

Why are you a Calvinist?

Jarthur001 Active Member

Jarthur001 Active Member

pinoybaptist Active Member Site Supporter

pinoybaptist Active Member Site Supporter

Rippon Well-Known Member Site Supporter

psalms109:31 Active Member

Jarthur001 Active Member

psalms109:31 Active Member

Winman Active Member

psalms109:31 Active Member

pinoybaptist Active Member
Site Supporter

pinoybaptist Active Member
Site Supporter

Rippon Well-Known Member
Site Supporter