3 Tactics Calvinists Use Against Non-Calvinists

[Grandpa]

Universal atonement, believed by free-willers, does teach that the atonement applies to everyone, though, even if they are ultimately lost. I wouldn't hold their belief on this. But, it is irrelevant because the only thing it provides is a theoretical chance for those who never believe, and this theoretical chance does them no good because they will never believe.

How do they get around Hebrews 10 and the fact that unbelievers will be judged for their sin that was supposedly Atoned for???

There is nothing that could be judged against unbelievers if the atonement is universal.

How come this is not understood?

I guess I just really don't understand the other sides argument. Doesn't seem biblical, just wishful humanist thinking.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

How do they get around Hebrews 10 and the fact that unbelievers will be judged for their sin that was supposedly Atoned for???

[keep in mind while reading this post, that I am neither Arminianist (so I'm not "answering" from that perspective) NOR Calvinist]

A few days ago, I posted an article by Paul Wilson called "The Two Goats of Leviticus 16" which I'll place again in this thread, next post.

But for this post, I'd like to try to address the question regarding Hebrews 9:28 (which was a question earlier in this thread--perhaps you mean another verse??), from my perspective (which post I've also put before, and am copying here):

[quoting that post]

I posted a brief study about this verse awhile back.

Hebrews 9:28 [written out in the following way, to try to show my point] -

--so also the Christ, once having been offered to bear the sins of many [*one version has "the many"],

--a second time apart from a sin-offering [/apart from sin] shall appear [passive; G3708],

--to those waiting for him -- to [/unto] salvation!


Note the word "shall appear [passive; G3708]". Out of the TOTAL 684x this word is used in the NT,

this word is only used 10x in the passive (as here), with regard to Jesus (5x of which referred to His physical [glorified Body] presence on the earth with the disciples [not the entire world, or "widely," you might say] FOLLOWING His death and resurrection;
the other 5x referring to having appeared to one particular person [who I believe is a TYPE of the future 144,000!] FROM [His position IN] HEAVEN--not present on the earth, with said person [ALSO FOLLOWING His death and resurrection]).


Every one of those 10x speaks of that which took place AFTER His "death and resurrection"; and

NONE of those 10x speaks of anything which took place BEFORE His "death and resurrection".


Boiling down the entire study (without putting the entire study here in this post), I'll just say, I do not believe this verse is speaking to either "our Rapture [in the air]" OR "His Second Coming to the earth" (in the same way the other instances of its usage [total 10x re: Jesus "appeared [passive]"] ALL were not); The other verses spoke to the FIRST time this occurred [ALL *AFTER* His death and resurrection; the SECOND time this will take place (and what I believe this verse speaks to) does not speak of EITHER the Rapture OR His Second Coming to the earth.)

[end quoting]

____________

So, IF the verse (Heb9:28) says "the many" (I'm not super great at reading Greek, but there's at least one version that states it this way);

and considering the above quoted post (regarding what I believe to be its "timing" [i.e. AFTER our Rapture and BEFORE His Second Coming to the earth]);

and considering what Luke 2:34 has to say (about "is set for the falling and rising up of many in Israel...");

and considering how Daniel 9:27's wording [most likely] says, "and he [I believe this is the AC/'prince THAT SHALL COME'] shall confirm the/a covenant with THE MANY for one week [7-yrs],"

...then I think it's fair to say that this verse could have specific reference to "HEBREWS" (i.e. Jews/Israel... in their "future," particularly, in the 70th Week of their "70 Weeks are DETERMINED UPON thy [Daniel's] PEOPLE, and upon thy [Daniel's] holy city," Dan9:24), that is, referring to "the many" (of Israel; and contrasted with, say, Isa2:3's "many people [H5971 H7227; plural plural]"); I tend to believe this is what it is specifically referring to, not that Christ didn't "bear the sins" of all other saints of all other time periods ("the Church which is His body" of "this present age [singular]," for example [and Hebrews 9:8-9 just spoke about "a parable for the present time" ('this present age'/the Church which is His body) re: the tabernacle in the wilderness, I've posted on recently too]), but that this verse is possibly/likely[?] speaking specifically of "the many" (of Israel/particular ones, and of a particular [future] time-slot [following 'this present age [singular]']).

That's kind of how I'm seeing it; not that this verse can be used to argue either point of the debate in question, considering its context, etc.


[the other article... continued in next post]

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

Paul Wilson - [Source: Biblecentre, link below]

"The Two Goats Of Leviticus 16

"The "limited atonement" doctrine is built upon a premise that lacks understanding of the two views of the cross of Christ as regards His work, that is, propitiation and substitution. The types used on the day of atonement in Leviticus 16 are set aside in deference to a theory, a doctrine of men (be they good men or bad is not the point). On that memorable day, which occurred once a year in Israel's history, there were, among other similitudes two goats - one called the Lord's lot, and the other the people's. The goat of the Lord's lot was killed and its blood taken inside of the veil by the high priest, where he sprinkled the blood once upon the mercy seat and seven times on the desert sand before it. It was there above the mercy seat that God dwelt among the people, and as they were sinners He must needs have the evidence of death presented before Him - the blood was sprinkled there. This was propitiation - a satisfaction rendered to God whereby He could act in grace toward a sinful people. On the head of the other goat, the sins of the people were confessed by the high priest, and it was led into a land not inhabited, so that their sins were removed. This was substitution.
"In a sense, both goats are one in the matter of sin - the one being slain and its blood presented before God, and the other bearing the sins away to be remembered no more - for without the blood of the one goat there could be no bearing away of sins on the other. Let us notice the words of another:

"Denial Of Substitution

""There is a continual tendency in the different classes, even of believers in Christendom, to ignore one or other of these truths. Take for instance those zealous that the gospel go out to every creature. It is notorious that most of these deny God's special favor to the elect. They overlook or pare down any positive difference on God's part toward His own children. They hold that a man throughout his course may be a child of God today and not tomorrow. This destroys substitution [seen in the live goat led away]. They hold propitiation [seen in the blood of the other goat as presented before God], and there they are right, and quite justified in preaching the gospel unrestrictedly to every creature, as the Lord indeed enjoined, But how their one-sidedness enfeebles the proper portion of the saints!

"Denial Of Propitiation

"But look for a moment at the opposite side [Mr. Pink's], which holds that all God has done and reveals is in view of the elect only, and that all He has wrought in Christ Jesus is in effect for the Church, and that He does not care about the world, except to judge it at the last day. This may be put rather bluntly, for I do not present such grievous narrowness toward man and dishonor of God and His Son in as polished terms as those might desire who cherish notions so unsavory and unsound. But it is true that a certain respectable class around us do see nothing but the elect as the object of God. Their doctrine supposes only the second goat, or the people's lot. They see the all-importance of substitution, but Jehovah's lot has no place as distinct."

--Paul Wilson; http://biblecentre.org/content.php?mode=7&item=892

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

I think everybody believes this but if you tell them its Calvinism for some reason they're trained to hate it.

Here's is one aspect where I disagree with it (I've posted this quote in the past):

[quoting past post]

I disagree with John Calvin, here (that is, I believe this is NOT what Scripture says):

John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion -

"Those, therefore, whom God passes by, he reprobates, and that for no other cause but because he is pleased to exclude them from the inheritance which he predestines to his children.

"But if all whom the Lord predestines to death, are naturally liable to sentence of death, of what injustice, pray, do they complain because by his eternal providence they were before their birth doomed to perpetual destruction, what will they be able to mutter against this defence? Of this, no other cause can be adduced than reprobation, which is hidden in the secret counsel of God.

"Now since the arrangement of all things is in the hand of God, He arranges that individuals are born, who are doomed from the womb to certain death, and are to glorify him by their destruction. God, according to the good pleasure of his will, without any regard to merit, elects those whom he chooses for sons, while he rejects and reprobates others.

"It is right for him to show by punishing that he is a just judge. Here the words of Augustine most admirably apply. When other vessels are made unto dishonour, it must be imputed not to injustice, but to judgment."

--John Calvin

[end quoting that post]


____________

And speaking of the word "counsel" ^ (G1012 - boule / boulēn ), I've discussed this with Melach in past posts also [used in Eph1:11 and Lk7:29-30 ]

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

How do they get around Hebrews 10 and the fact that unbelievers will be judged for their sin that was supposedly Atoned for???

There is nothing that could be judged against unbelievers if the atonement is universal.

How come this is not understood?

I guess I just really don't understand the other sides argument. Doesn't seem biblical, just wishful humanist thinking.

I think the whole reason for universal atonement is simply to avoid the reality of election.

REFORMED CONVICTIONS ABOUT LIMITED ATONEMENT

• Election saves no one; it only marks out certain individuals for salvation. The atonement of Jesus on the Cross secures their salvation.
• Jesus came to earth, took upon himself a human nature, and secured their salvation on the Cross by dying a substitutionary death on the Cross as the legal representative or substitute of the elect. He was the “second Adam” who reverses the work of the “first Adam”.
• The atonement accomplished its intended purpose, which was to redeem a particular people for Himself from all nations on the earth.
• These particular people are the “sheep” that the Father has given to Jesus Christ, mentioned in John 6, 10.
• Christ’s redeeming work was intended to save the elect only, and is not general.
• His redemptive work secured everything necessary for their salvation.
• The atonement is limited in terms of its scope (it applies only to the elect), but unlimited in terms of its effectiveness (all the elect, who are the only believers, are saved).

FREE-WILLER RESPONSE

• Their view is called “universal redemption” or “general atonement” or "unlimited atonement"
• Christ’s redeeming work made it possible for everyone to be saved, but did not actually secure salvation for anyone.
• Although Christ died for all men and for every man, only those who believe are saved.
• His death enabled God to pardon sinners on the condition that they believe, but did not actually put away any person's sin.
• Christ’s death is only effective if man chooses to accept it.
• The atonement is unlimited in terms of its scope (it applies to all), but limited in terms of its’ effectiveness (only those who believe are saved).

This is the origin of the "general" versus "particular" divisions between Baptists, by the way. General Baptists believe in a general atonement, and particular (Reformed Baptists) believe in limited atonement.

I think I got all this right..I am still working on some scriptural support related to limited atonement.

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

Paul Wilson - [Source: Biblecentre, link below]

"The Two Goats Of Leviticus 16

"The "limited atonement" doctrine is built upon a premise that lacks understanding of the two views of the cross of Christ as regards His work, that is, propitiation and substitution. The types used on the day of atonement in Leviticus 16 are set aside in deference to a theory, a doctrine of men (be they good men or bad is not the point). On that memorable day, which occurred once a year in Israel's history, there were, among other similitudes two goats - one called the Lord's lot, and the other the people's. The goat of the Lord's lot was killed and its blood taken inside of the veil by the high priest, where he sprinkled the blood once upon the mercy seat and seven times on the desert sand before it. It was there above the mercy seat that God dwelt among the people, and as they were sinners He must needs have the evidence of death presented before Him - the blood was sprinkled there. This was propitiation - a satisfaction rendered to God whereby He could act in grace toward a sinful people. On the head of the other goat, the sins of the people were confessed by the high priest, and it was led into a land not inhabited, so that their sins were removed. This was substitution.
"In a sense, both goats are one in the matter of sin - the one being slain and its blood presented before God, and the other bearing the sins away to be remembered no more - for without the blood of the one goat there could be no bearing away of sins on the other. Let us notice the words of another:

"Denial Of Substitution

""There is a continual tendency in the different classes, even of believers in Christendom, to ignore one or other of these truths. Take for instance those zealous that the gospel go out to every creature. It is notorious that most of these deny God's special favor to the elect. They overlook or pare down any positive difference on God's part toward His own children. They hold that a man throughout his course may be a child of God today and not tomorrow. This destroys substitution [seen in the live goat led away]. They hold propitiation [seen in the blood of the other goat as presented before God], and there they are right, and quite justified in preaching the gospel unrestrictedly to every creature, as the Lord indeed enjoined, But how their one-sidedness enfeebles the proper portion of the saints!

"Denial Of Propitiation

"But look for a moment at the opposite side [Mr. Pink's], which holds that all God has done and reveals is in view of the elect only, and that all He has wrought in Christ Jesus is in effect for the Church, and that He does not care about the world, except to judge it at the last day. This may be put rather bluntly, for I do not present such grievous narrowness toward man and dishonor of God and His Son in as polished terms as those might desire who cherish notions so unsavory and unsound. But it is true that a certain respectable class around us do see nothing but the elect as the object of God. Their doctrine supposes only the second goat, or the people's lot. They see the all-importance of substitution, but Jehovah's lot has no place as distinct."

--Paul Wilson; http://biblecentre.org/content.php?mode=7&item=892

Who is Paul Wilson, and what are his credentials, that he should be considered as a reputable source of information?

 

[Melach]

I think the whole reason for universal atonement is simply to avoid the reality of election.

REFORMED CONVICTIONS ABOUT LIMITED ATONEMENT

• Election saves no one; it only marks out certain individuals for salvation. The atonement of Jesus on the Cross secures their salvation.
• Jesus came to earth, took upon himself a human nature, and secured their salvation on the Cross by dying a substitutionary death on the Cross as the legal representative or substitute of the elect. He was the “second Adam” who reverses the work of the “first Adam”.
• The atonement accomplished its intended purpose, which was to redeem a particular people for Himself from all nations on the earth.
• These particular people are the “sheep” that the Father has given to Jesus Christ, mentioned in John 6, 10.
• Christ’s redeeming work was intended to save the elect only, and is not general.
• His redemptive work secured everything necessary for their salvation.
• The atonement is limited in terms of its scope (it applies only to the elect), but unlimited in terms of its effectiveness (all the elect, who are the only believers, are saved).

FREE-WILLER RESPONSE

• Their view is called “universal redemption” or “general atonement” or "unlimited atonement"
• Christ’s redeeming work made it possible for everyone to be saved, but did not actually secure salvation for anyone.
• Although Christ died for all men and for every man, only those who believe are saved.
• His death enabled God to pardon sinners on the condition that they believe, but did not actually put away any person's sin.
• Christ’s death is only effective if man chooses to accept it.
• The atonement is unlimited in terms of its scope (it applies to all), but limited in terms of its’ effectiveness (only those who believe are saved).

This is the origin of the "general" versus "particular" divisions between Baptists, by the way. General Baptists believe in a general atonement, and particular (Reformed Baptists) believe in limited atonement.

I think I got all this right..I am still working on some scriptural support related to limited atonement.

if atonement is made all sin is gone then. so verses like revelation 21:8 that teach people who do certain sins go to hell, does it only work for non believers and not elect because they are atoned for? is that how reformed teaches it?

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

if atonement is made all sin is gone then. so verses like revelation 21:8 that teach people who do certain sins go to hell, does it only work for non believers and not elect because they are atoned for? is that how reformed teaches it?

Reformed theology would teach that all non-elect go to eternal punishment, and none of them would have been believers.

The fact that one is elect means that he will believe, and will accept Christ because he is regenerated and responds in faith and repentance due to the changed nature. Additionally, he is joined to Christ in faith, and perseveres until the end. God continues to conform the believer to the image of Christ throughout his life. Therefore, he won't be characterized by any of those sins. He will be characterized by Christ. Through union with Christ, he is being progressively transformed into the image of Christ throughout his life.

It's not to say that a believer won't stumble on occasion, or even through a season of sinning, but that God will progressively transform him into the image of Christ through the indwelling Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit.

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

Paul Wilson - [Source: Biblecentre, link below]

"The Two Goats Of Leviticus 16

"The "limited atonement" doctrine is built upon a premise that lacks understanding of the two views of the cross of Christ as regards His work, that is, propitiation and substitution. The types used on the day of atonement in Leviticus 16 are set aside in deference to a theory, a doctrine of men (be they good men or bad is not the point). On that memorable day, which occurred once a year in Israel's history, there were, among other similitudes two goats - one called the Lord's lot, and the other the people's. The goat of the Lord's lot was killed and its blood taken inside of the veil by the high priest, where he sprinkled the blood once upon the mercy seat and seven times on the desert sand before it. It was there above the mercy seat that God dwelt among the people, and as they were sinners He must needs have the evidence of death presented before Him - the blood was sprinkled there. This was propitiation - a satisfaction rendered to God whereby He could act in grace toward a sinful people. On the head of the other goat, the sins of the people were confessed by the high priest, and it was led into a land not inhabited, so that their sins were removed. This was substitution.
"In a sense, both goats are one in the matter of sin - the one being slain and its blood presented before God, and the other bearing the sins away to be remembered no more - for without the blood of the one goat there could be no bearing away of sins on the other. Let us notice the words of another:

"Denial Of Substitution

""There is a continual tendency in the different classes, even of believers in Christendom, to ignore one or other of these truths. Take for instance those zealous that the gospel go out to every creature. It is notorious that most of these deny God's special favor to the elect. They overlook or pare down any positive difference on God's part toward His own children. They hold that a man throughout his course may be a child of God today and not tomorrow. This destroys substitution [seen in the live goat led away]. They hold propitiation [seen in the blood of the other goat as presented before God], and there they are right, and quite justified in preaching the gospel unrestrictedly to every creature, as the Lord indeed enjoined, But how their one-sidedness enfeebles the proper portion of the saints!

"Denial Of Propitiation

"But look for a moment at the opposite side [Mr. Pink's], which holds that all God has done and reveals is in view of the elect only, and that all He has wrought in Christ Jesus is in effect for the Church, and that He does not care about the world, except to judge it at the last day. This may be put rather bluntly, for I do not present such grievous narrowness toward man and dishonor of God and His Son in as polished terms as those might desire who cherish notions so unsavory and unsound. But it is true that a certain respectable class around us do see nothing but the elect as the object of God. Their doctrine supposes only the second goat, or the people's lot. They see the all-importance of substitution, but Jehovah's lot has no place as distinct."

--Paul Wilson; http://biblecentre.org/content.php?mode=7&item=892

Regarding Paul Wilson, if I understand correctly, he has a theory that the two goats on the Day of Atonement are separate in terms of the group of people they deal with.

The first goat, related to the propitiation, applies to all mankind. The second goat, relating to expiation, or carrying away the burden of sin, only applies to believers.

Instead of calling it his theory, though, he is stating it as fact, and then criticizing Reformed individuals, including Arthur Pink, for holding a different view.

He was part of the TW Brethren..I don't know what that means, but perhaps that's a clue on his particular religious views. I'm sure he's not Reformed, though...Brethren are more like Arminians.

Anyways, I think Mr. Wilson isn't considering that only the sins of the people of Israel were dealt with on the Day of Atonement. If the Mosaic Covenant is typological of the New Covenant (and I believe it is), this would translate to only the sins of believers applying to Christ's sacrifice.

Those who deny the typology between Israel and the Church (hint, hint) would disagree with my position on that, but I think it's solid

Anyways I detect a pompous nature behind Paul Wilson that is reminiscent of myself.

By the way I'm not sure about all of this..but this is what I'm picking up as I read a few of Paul Wilson's articles. I don't usually like to read materials by people I'm not familiar with, but I decided to glance at them out of curiosity.

I can tell he's a Millennialist, though, so I am wondering if he's a dispy or if he's historic premillennialist.

 

[CS1]

can i add to your list?

"you are misrepresenting the reformed position"
"you just dont understand"
"you are semi-pelagian"
"you are saving yourself"
"you dont give God all the glory you take some for yourself"
"are you just smarter than your neighbor for choosing Christ so you can boast in heaven"
"you worship free will"
"if God doesnt micromanage everything or decree everything He isnt really sovereign"
"it doesnt mean all men, it means all kinds of men"

and many more

1. Name Calling sometime we prove them right .....

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

Here's an article on limited atonement that I think is good

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/...one-questions-on-the-extant-of-the-atonement/

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

Who is Paul Wilson, and what are his credentials, that he should be considered as a reputable source of information?

Perhaps you can find your answer here:

https://bibletruthpublishers.com/all-library-authors/lua [listed (scroll to far right) under "Wilson, P" ]

[Paul Wilson, 1899-1966]

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

Anyways, I think Mr. Wilson isn't considering that only the sins of the people of Israel were dealt with on the Day of Atonement. If the Mosaic Covenant is typological of the New Covenant (and I believe it is), this would translate to only the sins of believers applying to Christ's sacrifice.

^ From your paragraph here, I would direct you to the posts I've made in the past, regarding:

--Romans 1 thru Romans 5:11 = "sinS"

--Romans 5:12 thru Romans chpt 8 [end] = "Sin"



____________

later in that article (I provided at link) [I think], he points out the actual wording of 1Jn2:2, as here:

https://biblehub.com/text/1_john/2-2.htm

 

[Whispered]

​

sin was in the world before the law was given​

(Romans 5:13) ​

But of course. Satan fell to earth before Adam and Eve were created. This is how he in serpent form entered into Eden knowing of God's forbidden tree and the first law that was uttered from their creator's mouth. Thou shalt not eat ....​

​

so is this how you'd say Satan fell?
he ate from the tree?
so Satan didn't fall until after Adam was created and told not to eat of the tree?

What an unusual interpretation of the Genesis account.
I would refer you to the passages that pertain to the fall of Lucifer and his fellow angels after their loss of the war in Heaven.
Unless your faith doctrine teaches you that Lucifer, as the serpent in Eden, was acting as God's agent so as to lead Eve to eat of the forbidden fruit.
Is that the doctrine you follow?

 

[Nehemiah6]

How do they get around Hebrews 10 and the fact that unbelievers will be judged for their sin that was supposedly Atoned for???

Grandpa, all sins have been atoned for all humanity. But the application of that atoning work is only good for those who obey the Gospel. It is that simple.

Let's take a mundane example. There is a disease raging in your city that requires a vaccine. This vaccine is freely available all, and all are urged to take it. Many do, but many do not (for whatever reason) and they die because of their own negligence. Now are you going to blame (1) the manufacturer, (2) the health care system, (3) the local government, or are you going to put the blame squarely where it belongs?

So now let's get back to the spiritual issue:

1. Christ died for the sins of the whole world
2. The Gospel must be preached in all the world and to every creature
3. God commands all men everywhere to repent and believe
4. Many do, but many do not obey the Gospel
5. Those who do not believe are damned (Mark 16:15,16)

But what Calvinism does is dump the blame on God for those who are damned by claiming that He is the one who elects some for damnation. Now that is a damnable doctrine!

 

[notuptome]

Yes, one of the few still teaching it.

Most definately.


Yes again. Questions like this make me wonder if you have ever taken the time to listen to Calvinist preachers of the word? Alls they do is talk about these things. Why would they not preach repentance?

Man is always responsible for their own sins. Just like those who crucified Jesus were held accountable for their actions and evil intentions of their hearts DESPITE all of it being predestinated by God to bring about GOOD, the death burial and resurrection of His Son.

Acts 4:27-28 for truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place.

^That right there shows the predestination and how it was all planned. God is in control.

But these verses right here shows that despite this humans are RESPONSIBLE

Acts 3:13-15 The God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, the God of our fathers, glorified his servant Jesus, whom you delivered over and denied in the presence of Pilate, when he had decided to release him. But you denied the Holy and Righteous One, and asked for a murderer to be granted to you, and you killed the Author of life, whom God raised from the dead. To this we are witnesses.


Great tool for Bible study is Scripture with Scripture.

Not really when you boil them down to the bottomline.

Man cannot resist the grace of God. Elect will be saved and no one or anything can prevent that. Man has no will to submit as he cannot resist God. See what I am saying?

Adam had a choice to sin. We have a choice to accept Christ.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[Whispered]

Does Calvinism teach repentance of sin? Does Calvinism teach that the sinner whom they deem to be elect must express sorrow over their sinfulness? Sorrow over past sin, present sin and yes the sin they will sin in the future? Or does the Calvinist lay all the burden upon God making God wholly responsible for man sinning?

For the cause of Christ
Roger

To answer your question, Does Calvinism teach repentance of sin?
No.
John Calvin's god was like unto Dr.Frankenstein. And the human race his creatures. All totally controlled by the doctor with no free will of their own. And predestined to be totally depraved, evil, vile, incapable of good.

To help with the one frame of reference in the article below, the definition of the oft used term, Concupiscence = strong sexual desire; lust.
Examining the Doctrine of Total Depravity – is Total Depravity true or false? What does the Bible teach? Quotes from John Calvin and Canons of Dordt on TULIP, Free Will, No Free Will


Excerpting from the full article above. That is a rather extensive though one page piece concerning precisely what its title describes. It is filled with scripture that sustains points that refute , through application of proper Bible context passages, all of John Calvin's most ardent protestations about the depraved nature of the human race. If you have the time it is very much worth the read.


Excerpt: These two excerpts answers the question, does Calvinism teach repentance of sin? After these excerpted quotes when you go to the article link site itself you will see the Biblical rebuttal of these points John Calvin made in his teaching the doctrine of what came to be called, Calvinism.
These excerpts encapsulate the unbiblical state of John's doctrine.



Quotes from John Calvin: “For our nature is not only utterly devoid of goodness, but so prolific in all kinds of evil, that it can never be idle. Those who term it concupiscence use a word not very inappropriate, provided it were added, (this, however, many will by no means concede,) that everything which is in man, from the intellect to the will, from the soul even to the flesh, is defiled and pervaded with this concupiscence; or, to express it more briefly, that the whole man is in himself nothing else than concupiscence.” (Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 2, Chapter 1, Section 8)

Concupiscence is the Greek word “Epithumia” which means: “desire, craving, longing, desire for what is forbidden, lust.” (KJV New Testament Greek Lexicon online at Crosswalk Bible Study Tools) Concupiscence means to desire or long for something that is forbidden, that which is not of God. John Calvin is stating that man is completely in the state of concupiscence in which man can do no good at all unless it is God who first changes the will of man to do good. John Calvin and the teachings of Calvinism teach that man is dead in sin and there is nothing that man can do which is good, therefore man has no ability or free will to choose God because he is in a state of concupiscence. [end excerpt]


Quote from John Calvin: “What can a dead man do to obtain life? But when he enlightens us with the knowledge of himself, he is said to raise us from the dead, and make us new creatures.” (Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 14, Section 5) John Calvin taught that man was dead in their sins, and according to Calvinism this means that a person who is dead in their sins has no more ability to choose God than a dead man in a tomb can do anything.



Quote from Canons of Dordt on Total Inability: “Therefore, all people are conceived in sin and are born children of wrath, unfit for any saving good, inclined to evil, dead in their sins, and slaves to sin; without the grace of the regenerating Holy Spirit they are neither willing nor able to return to God, to reform their distorted nature, or even to dispose themselves to such reform.” (Canons of Dordt, III & IV, Article 3) Canons of Dordt are official statements on what Calvinism teaches, this quote is concerning “Total Inability.” This statement indicates that a person cannot be willing to choose God unless the Holy Spirit regenerates them. The Canons of Dordt explains what Calvinism is, and is in agreement with what John Calvin taught on “Total Inability.”

 

[Nehemiah6]

Universal atonement, believed by free-willers, does teach that the atonement applies to everyone, though, even if they are ultimately lost.

You are either ignorant about what the Bible says, or you are deliberately suppressing the truth. And stop using the insulting term "free-willers". The Bible states again and again that Christ died for the sins of the whole world, and that He was sent so that the whole world might be saved.

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. (John 3:16,17)

Even the Geneva Bible could not change this verse:
For God so loveth the world, that he hath given his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him, should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world, that he should condemn the world, but that the world through him might be saved.

 

[ForestGreenCook]

I would say that Jesus taking the sins of the world upon Himself on the cros
Death, Thanatos in the Greek.
θάνατος (thanatos)
Strong: G2288
GK: G2505
death, the extinction of life, whether naturally, Lk. 2:26; Mk. 9:1; or violently, Mt. 10:21; 15:4; imminent danger of death, 2 Cor. 4:11, 12; 11:23; in NT spiritual death, as opposed to ζωή in its spiritual sense, in respect of a forfeiture of salvation, Jn. 8:51; Rom. 6:16



If we were still spiritually dead after Christ's sacrifice on the cross, what purpose would there have been for our Lord to tell His Apostles to go forth and preach the Good News unto every living creature , that all may come to the faith and believe if those people of the world would not be able to receive that message?

The message delivers the promise and the promise quickens the heart for which the Good News resonates as truth.

As I have stated before; Salvation is "a deliverance" and many salvation scriptures do not have reference to eternal deliverance, but to a deliverance we receive while we live here in this world. There is a deliverance (not eternal) that we receive when we come to a knowledge of the truth of the Gospel, as evidenced in Romans 10; Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel (Jacob's name was changed by God to be called Israel, who is representative of God'd elect) is, that they might be saved (delivered from a lack of knowledge of the gospel), For I bear them record that they have a zeal (evidence that they are born of the Spirit) of God, but not according to knowledge, For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness (by their good works) have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God. The inspired scriptures were not written to those who are not of the elect, but are written only to the elect, teaching them how God wants them to live their lives as they sojourn here on earth. Jesus instructed his Apostles to go and preach to the lost sheep (God's elect) of the house of Israel (Jacob). The Apostles were to teach them the gospel that explains how Jesus has already saved them eternally and imputed his righteousness unto them so that they don't have to go about to establish their own righteousness, by their works. Romans 30-31, Now I beseech you, brethren, for the Lord Jesus Christ's sake, and for the love of the Spirit, that ye strive together with me in your prayers to God for me, That I may be delivered from them that do not believe in Judea, and that my service which I have for Jerusalem may be accepted of the saints (elect). Why do you think that Paul only wanted to preach to those that already believed? Jeremiah 50:6, My people hath been lost sheep, their shepherds have caused them to go astray (probably teaching them that they have to do good works to get eternally saved - just my guess);

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

TheDivineWatermark said:
I've never seen a Calvinist endeavor to explain this (without "glossing over" what the texts actually say and grasping context).

hi friend can you explain it?

It's doubtful I can.

It's that Calvinism tends to marinate (and camp out) on Romans 8:28-30 [recall, I'm pointing out the two distinct Greek words used in BOTH Romans 8:28,30 (<--the two Greek words here) AND Matt22:3-14 (<--the two Grk words here)--I listed them in that post (to which you refer) and then wrote my bracketed comment under one of its usages in Matt22--look there and see my bracketed comment... and see if you can make out my point. I'm saying that I've not seen Calvinists address this, but skim past it instead ]

...along with this ^ , recall also our convo concerning "counsel [G1012 - boule / boulen]" as used in both Eph1:11 and Lk7:29-30

also side question do you believe speaking in tongues is for today? just yes or no is ok just interested in you