3 Tactics Calvinists Use Against Non-Calvinists

[posthuman]

2. Scripture Quotations
Along with name calling, Calvinists seem to think that everybody would become a Calvinist if they would just “read their Bible.” I often find that when Calvinists disagree, they think they can settle the argument by telling the person to go “read their Bible.”
Of course, I find this tactic used by many various groups within Christianity. Most people seem to think that what they believe is exactly what the Bible teaches, and if people would read the Bible, they would come to the same beliefs.

What many Calvinists do not seem to grasp is that reading the Bible is one thing; understanding it is another. Even highly educated and well-respected scholars and Bible teachers disagree with each other about the meaning of the text.
Do I read and study the Bible? Of course! I have been reading and studying it for decades. In fact, it is exactly because of my reading and studying that I eventually abandoned Calvinism.
Often, along with inviting non-Calvinists to just “read the Bible,” Calvinists like to type out longs lists of Bible quotes which the Calvinists thinks proves and defends the Calvinistic system of theology.
Their approach goes like this:
You heretic! If you had simply read the Bible, you would know that you are filled with the lies of the devil! Here’s proof:
Bible Quotation 1
Bible Quotation 2
Bible Quotation 3
etc …In fact, one classic book on Calvinism (The Five Points of Calvinism) contains little else but pages upon pages of Bible quotations.
In a post from several years ago, I referred to this tactic as Shotgun Hermeneutics. Some people seem to think they can win theology debates by simply quoting a lot of Bible verses, as if the other person was not aware of those verses and had never read them in the Bible.
Usually, when Calvinists do this to me, I simply reply with a comment like this:
I am fully aware of all of these verses. I have read them many, many times, and I have deeply studied most of them in the Greek or Hebrew, as well as in their historical, cultural, and grammatical contexts. I simply have a different understanding of these verses than you do, and if you read some of the others posts on this blog, you will learn how I understand those texts you quoted.

what is 'bad' about quoting scripture?

why does this guy not like for people to quote scripture?

is OP arguing that we should develop theology from 'common sense' rather than from what the Bible says?

even if, as he argues, 'he may simply have a different understanding' then isn't the wise thing to quote those scriptures and discuss what they really mean rather than pooh-pooh citing the Bible as a reference, as if it's some kind of disingenuous strategy to pull the wool over someone's eyes?

i quote scripture in threads like this because it's relevant and needs to be dealt with no matter what one's theological framework is. scripture exists and is the basis of the revelation of the person and work of God -- you can't have any kind of viable systematic theology if it contradicts what scripture says, and if it appears to, then you've got to sort out why it does or doesn't. otherwise you're just making up your own God of your own imagination. if you ignore the Bible when you determine what you believe about God and how He works, then you're just imagining you're own religion.
is that not so?

 

[Grandpa]

what is 'bad' about quoting scripture?

why does this guy not like for people to quote scripture?

is OP arguing that we should develop theology from 'common sense' rather than from what the Bible says?

even if, as he argues, 'he may simply have a different understanding' then isn't the wise thing to quote those scriptures and discuss what they really mean rather than pooh-pooh citing the Bible as a reference, as if it's some kind of disingenuous strategy to pull the wool over someone's eyes?

i quote scripture in threads like this because it's relevant and needs to be dealt with no matter what one's theological framework is. scripture exists and is the basis of the revelation of the person and work of God -- you can't have any kind of viable systematic theology if it contradicts what scripture says, and if it appears to, then you've got to sort out why it does or doesn't. otherwise you're just making up your own God of your own imagination. if you ignore the Bible when you determine what you believe about God and how He works, then you're just imagining you're own religion.
is that not so?

The OP is arguing that there are several different interpretations of the same scripture.

And because the OP has studied Greek and Hebrew he knows the interpretation of scripture better than anyone else.

And because of his expertise all Calvinists and those who hold to Reformed Theology are wrong.


He's gone on to say that it was BECAUSE of his studying of scripture that he doesn't believe in Calvinism or Reformed Theology.


Ephesians 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

I think this simple scripture says it best. If we could take the instructions in the bible and follow them and obey them then we could boast in our work that caused our own Salvation.

But I think that everyone who has been saved must have been shown that it was not because of their work, or understanding, or strength, that caused their salvation. So that when they talk to people about salvation they are gentle and not harsh. Knowing that Salvation is from Christ and not from men explaining instructions to other men.

Perhaps some of those explanations of instructions are helpful. And other explanations not as helpful. But in the end, it is the Lord that Saves and this keeps us who have been Saved from becoming Prideful and Boastful and hurting those who are coming to Christ. Hopefully...

 

[Angela53510]

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.”

Please stop doing this. You copy and paste pages, including footnotes on translational issues, Which are unnecessary, making me believe you don't read half of what you post. Or understand it!

You keep citing the Greek, word studies out of the blue letter Bible. (Or whatever!) Sorry, I have 2 years of Masters degree Greek, and word studies are basically useless for theological studies. Further, all you are doing is quoting some glosses out of English sources. Try and use BDAG (Bauer) which is the most reputable Greek lexicon. And learn the Greek alphabet, while you are at it. If you are going to quote Greek, learn about syntax and grammar, which is very different than English, and can make a lot of difference in the meaning.

You keep trying to explain Reformed theology to Reformed people. Why don't you stick to explaining your own views, instead of reams of copied and pasted internet sites. You do not have a clue what you are talking about.

I am not a Calvinist, I am Reformed. I believe in believer's Baptism, not infant. Although I downloaded a copy of Calvin's institutes, I've never read it. Instead, writers like RC Sproule have helped me understand my myths about Reformed theology, and why I was wrong. There are so many good Reformed writers, Why don't you read them, figure out if you agree or disagree, then come back and discuss this in your own words, using shorter Bible passages. Usually, when explaining, you don't need chapter after chapter. I'm not saying don't read it in context, it is vital to read the Bible that way. But it is just excess when discussing theology.

Probably take some Master's degree theology courses, too. While there are many people on CC who have studied the Bible on their own, and have a good grasp of the Bible and theology, you are not one of them.

Please take what I am saying to heart! It will help you grow into a mature Christian, and understand the Bible better.

 

[Angela53510]

"ἁμαρτία hamartia
Word Origin
from hamartanó
Definition
a sin, failure
NASB Translation
sin (96), sinful (2), sins (75)

παράβασις parabasis
Word Origin
from parabainó
Definition
a going aside, a transgression
NASB Translation
breaking (1), offense (1), transgression (2), transgressions (2), violation (1)"

Just to point out that harmatia is used 173 times in the NT, whereas parbasis is only used 7 times in the NT, meaning it is a very low frequency word.

In fact, sin, in its various forms, is an essential word. It is a foundational word in explaining the existence Fall of humanity and the gospel.

Transgression, a different word, God used for certain purposes. It is not really part of the gospel, one does not repent of their transgressions. I'd like to look closer at it, but it's late, and I need to be at church in the morning.

Again, these word studies are shallow, and need to be researched well, before someone like Whisperer decides to make a doctrine of of them!

 

[Angela53510]

I just want to add, I never understood or believed Arminian doctrine when I was in Arminian churches. It didn't agree with salvation experience, and It was not what I was trading in my Bible daily, over many years.

Then several people gave me the titles of some good Reformed books to read. The light went on.

Before I was saved, I was a professional musician that played in bars. And all that meant. I was a devotee of the New Age mov't. A revival started where I lived. I watched so many people get saved. I knew they believed in Jesus, but my heart was as dead as a stone. I even started reading the Bible, to try and understand. I usually read it late at night after drinking in the bar.

I heard testimony after testimony, gospel presentation after gospel presentation, and I didn't believe. I was dead spiritually! I said sinner's prayers! God was not real. Finally my future husband sat me down, and we started talking about the Bible and God. He was determined to make me understand my sinfulness. But I already knew that.

Then God spoke to me. He told me to believe, read my Bible daily and to follow him, because he was the Saviour of the world. My life was transformed in that brief space of time. I didn't understand how I was so blind, before. I was dead, and God made me alive. He cleansed me of my sins, and I repented. It was amazing! There was no decision on my part, just God giving life to a dead woman. God saved me in spite of my wicked lifestyle, my crazy beliefs in the New Age nonsense. I stopped drinking, never touched alcohol again.

I've been walking with Christ for 39 years. He has never left me, although I few times I got angry when I became so sick, and turned from him. But he brought me back, forgave me, and continues to lead and guide me.

Only Reformed theology puts the emphasis on God, and him saving us. I did not make a decision to become born again! That was all the Holy Spirit. I did not make a decision to change, God did that. Although yes, I did have to obey God, AFTER he saved me. I could not earn God's unmerited favour. Salvation was totally from God. Long before I had ever heard of Reformed theology!

 

[posthuman]

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.

here is some of what A. Pink says of Leviticus 16 --

The most important of all the types is that which is found in Leviticus 16: the appointed ritual for the great day of atonement. The type of Leviticus 16 goes much farther than does the one in Exodus 12: the Passover illustrated the redemptive character of Christ’s sacrifice; that of Leviticus 16 its propitiatory nature. In Exodus 12 we see the blood sheltering from judgment those who are under it; in the early chapters of Leviticus, we see the power of the blood restoring to communion the penitent transgressor; but in Leviticus 16 we behold the blood opening a way into the very presence of God, entitling the penitent and believing worshipper to come with boldness unto His very throne.​

​

By a careful comparison of Deuteronomy 27 and Leviticus 16 we may discover how the law was, and still is, a "schoolmaster" unto Christ (Gal. 3:24). In the former chapter, we see that the law demanded implicit and complete obedience to its demands (v. 10); and how that the Levites pronounced with "a loud voice" a curse on the transgressor of it (vv. 14, 15). That curse was repeated twelve times, according to the number of Israel’s tribes, and on each pronouncement thereof "all the people" were required to say "Amen": the final word being "Cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them" (v. 26)— cf. Galatians 3:10. The law required sinless perfection under the penalty of eternal damnation, and thus it revealed the imperative need of an atonement. While in Leviticus 16 we see how that law by its great sin-offering, with its blood of atonement, pointed forward to Christ.​

​

The sacrificial system of Judaism reached its climax on the great day of atonement. As the ark was the chief object in the tabernacle, so the annual Day of propitiation was the chief one in Israel’s religious calendar. On that auspicious occasion the high priest divested himself of his robes of "glory and beauty" (Exodus 28), and put on "the holy linen" garments (Lev. 16:4). The spotless white in which he was clothed spoke of the perfect righteousness of Christ, which, tested as it was both by man (John 8:46) and Satan (John 14:30), and then passing through the infinitely searching scrutiny of God under the fiery trial of the cross, insured the Divine acceptance of that satisfaction which He made to God on behalf of His people.​

​

Two young goats were selected "for a sin-offering;" though there were two animals, it was but one offering. Two goats were selected in order that a fuller representation might be given: the one being designed more expressly to exhibit the means, the other the effect of the atonement. They were brought and presented together before the Lord (v. 7), the Lord determining by lot which of them was to be slain. The other animal stood by and was atoned for (Hebrew of verse 10) by the dying victim, and then bore away the sins laid upon it into the land of eternal forgetfulness (vv. 21,22): a blessed figure of that remission of our sins when we believe on the Lord Jesus Christ unto salvation.​

​

Passing by what was done with the bullock, we confine our attention unto the two goats. After the one had been killed, the high priest took its blood within the veil and sprinkled it upon the mercy-seat not once, but seven times "before" Him to provide a perfect standing ground for His people. The antitype of this is seen in Hebrews 9:12, "But by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption" (Heb. 9:12). The consequence of this is that "Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way which he hath consecrated for us" (Heb. 10:19, 20).​

​

After the high priest had finished his work inside the sanctuary, we are told, "he shall bring the live goat, and Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel... and shall send him away by the hand of a fit man into the wilderness: and the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities into a land not inhabited" (vv. 20-22).That was a continuation and completion of the ceremony concerning the sin-offering, so that this symbolic transfer of their sins to the head of the scapegoat, which bore them away, plainly signified that the atonement effected by the sacrifice of the first goat was the complete removal of all their transgressions from before the face of God.​

​

"And Aaron shall come into the tabernacle of the congregation, and shall put off the linen garments, which he put on when he went into the holy place, and shall leave them there" (Lev. 16:23). Why? To denote that his work was finished. The blessed antitype of this we see in Luke 24:12: on the resurrection morning, those who came to Christ’s empty sepulcher "beheld the linen clothes" lying there, a token that He was risen from the dead, and so of atonement completed, and accepted by God. ​

​

i'm not sure i see where it is at odds with P. Wilson? but Pink's understanding is that the goat chosen to be slain represents the means of atonement, and the goat chosen to live represents the effect. it seems to me that if the slain goat is present, but the living goat is not, then atonement has been made, but its effect is not applied. this is as though, yes, Christ tasted death for every man, but if we do not join Him on His cross in death, in order that we may also join Him in being risen to life, then we are in the "all" for whom He died but not among the "many" whose sins He bore -- because both goats are representative of Him, but one perishes, and the other lives: there is a definite distinction, just as there is a definite distinction between atonement - which is covering - and bearing, which is to lift up and carry. this would seem to me to be the case which Wilson's understanding speaks of, but it's not necessarily contrary to Pink, just that - Pink speaks of Christ, and Wilson speaks of how man responds to Him.

what do you think?

 

[garee]

Two young goats were selected "for a sin-offering;" though there were two animals, it was but one offering. Two goats were selected in order that a fuller representation might be given: the one being designed more expressly to exhibit the means, the other the effect of the atonement. They were brought and presented together before the Lord (v. 7), the Lord determining by lot which of them was to be slain. The other animal stood by and was atoned for (Hebrew of verse 10) by the dying victim, and then bore away the sins laid upon it into the land of eternal forgetfulness (vv. 21,22): a blessed figure of that remission of our sins when we believe on the Lord Jesus Christ unto salvation.

I think it can be compared to the Mathew 4 account at the beginning of Christ's ministry .The father sent him out in the wilderness as our scapegoat .He proved the father as true by the words given to the Son . As it is written...again and again.

 

[posthuman]

Still droning on in the absence of knowledge.

All are goats until they come to Christ and receive the indwelling Holy Spirit. They become sheep in keeping with your analogy when they are saved from their sins and become heirs of the promise of eternal life.

You cannot reconcile your position with the scriptures.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

hmm, John 10:3 says:

He calls His sheep by name
His sheep hear His voice and follow Him


seems like you've got:

He doesn't have any sheep; they're all goats and aren't His
He calls all the goats
the goats all hear His voice
some of the goats decide to follow Him
by the goats sovereign decision they become sheep and become His


do i have your position right?
how to reconcile it with John 10?
i see how @ForestGreenCook's position jives.
it's an hard thing to accept, possibly, but it jives.

 

[posthuman]

And according to Calvinism, that is not possible of their own accord. But rather, God makes them able to hear the voice and to follow him.

so, God turns goats into sheep.
i don't see a problem with that. in Ezekiel 37 i don't read about dry bones creating for themselves sinew and flesh and bringing themselves to life; i read about God doing all this by His own hand.

i see a bigger problem with goats turning themselves into sheep - the Lord says His sheep hear His voice, and that He calls them by name. to me that's way more consistent with what you're calling 'calvinisim' than it is with 'arminianism' -- and i can see why the church rejected Arminius' doctrine as heresy, on this point.

you've said you are not an arminian, and you spend a lot of your time detesting calvin. i assume you have a 3rd view?
what's you're take on John 10:3?

 

[posthuman]

What about your doctrine of faith as pertains to that question? If God only saves His Elect from Sin then why would God take the sins of the whole world upon himself on the cross, when God did not intend the whole world to be saved from their sin?

for the same reason that God asks Adam and Woman where they are in the garden.
same reason He asks who told them they were naked.
for the same reason God asks them if they have eaten of the tree.
not because He doesn't know. He's omniscient God.

He's asking because He's holding court. evidence is being entered into the testimony.

 

[posthuman]

You mix analogies and entrench your error. Goats represent unsaved and sheep the saved of the nations of the earth. All are unsaved until they come to Christ and are saved by grace. The new birth in Christ is when they become new creatures.

at issue here is whether it is the new & living creation that hears His voice when He calls them by name, or whether it is the old man dead in His sins, hater & enemy of God and unable to see the kingdom, unable to discern spiritual things who hears His voice?

i think there is a turning point ((apologies to D. Jeremiah -- really don't think you can copyright that)) at this saying: He calls His sheep by name.

He came to call the lost - so He's calling the lost. but He calls them by name - so they are His when He calls them, and they are sheep when He calls them.

perhaps the key is in recognizing that this voice that calls is the voice that speaks and lo, it is. the voice of creation saying let there be light, and there is light - when before He spoke, it was not. if that makes any sense to anyone? do goats become sheep at the sound of His voice?

is it possible that when you are a goat, you think you're the one tuning in to the sound - but when you are a sheep, you realize that it was Him creating in you a sheep's ear? as in, brother you didn't have your finger on some spiritual radio dial; you had an empty hole in your dashboard. God was installing a stereo. lol

 

[posthuman]

Re-Formed Theology, Calvinism, makes prayer of none effect.
Why? Because those who are Totally Depraved are incapable of praying due to their condition.

what is the alternative you are presenting?

i know what the reformed doctrine says; that God by His Spirit works in a person to redeem them, turning their hearts toward Him, healing their depravity, so that they look to Him and call on Him. this kinda makes your accusation a misrepresentation & non-issue, because it is God who sanctifies and makes a person able to pray a righteous prayer, bringing the dead to life in Himself.

i take it you detest that idea -- so what is the alternative that you believe is the truth of this thing?

to wit:

prayer isn't what saves us.
Jesus Christ is who saves us.

 

[posthuman]

Again, these word studies are shallow, and need to be researched well, before someone like Whisperer decides to make a doctrine of of them!

thank you Angela -- i am sorry that shallow word studies are the only kind i am qualified to do. i realize that i don't know much more than to recognize that two different words are two different words, and i try to limit what i say about such things to what i can definitely support. to my understanding the particulars ((at least some)) of the meaning of two different words being in Romans 4:15 & 5:13 is elucidated in things like the fall of Satan and of mankind and whether all are saved or only a portion, which things i don't need supporting linguistic studies for, but only the clear scripture and the message of the gospel.

i'm not very good with people =\

 

[Melach]

I just want to add, I never understood or believed Arminian doctrine when I was in Arminian churches. It didn't agree with salvation experience, and It was not what I was trading in my Bible daily, over many years.

Then several people gave me the titles of some good Reformed books to read. The light went on.

Before I was saved, I was a professional musician that played in bars. And all that meant. I was a devotee of the New Age mov't. A revival started where I lived. I watched so many people get saved. I knew they believed in Jesus, but my heart was as dead as a stone. I even started reading the Bible, to try and understand. I usually read it late at night after drinking in the bar.

I heard testimony after testimony, gospel presentation after gospel presentation, and I didn't believe. I was dead spiritually! I said sinner's prayers! God was not real. Finally my future husband sat me down, and we started talking about the Bible and God. He was determined to make me understand my sinfulness. But I already knew that.

Then God spoke to me. He told me to believe, read my Bible daily and to follow him, because he was the Saviour of the world. My life was transformed in that brief space of time. I didn't understand how I was so blind, before. I was dead, and God made me alive. He cleansed me of my sins, and I repented. It was amazing! There was no decision on my part, just God giving life to a dead woman. God saved me in spite of my wicked lifestyle, my crazy beliefs in the New Age nonsense. I stopped drinking, never touched alcohol again.

I've been walking with Christ for 39 years. He has never left me, although I few times I got angry when I became so sick, and turned from him. But he brought me back, forgave me, and continues to lead and guide me.

Only Reformed theology puts the emphasis on God, and him saving us. I did not make a decision to become born again! That was all the Holy Spirit. I did not make a decision to change, God did that. Although yes, I did have to obey God, AFTER he saved me. I could not earn God's unmerited favour. Salvation was totally from God. Long before I had ever heard of Reformed theology!

i feel love in this post i like you. you are a pleasant person. i am not arminian or calvinist im just bible believer

 

[Sipsey]

Just my 2cents. I’ve read a great deal about the sovereignty of God and mans role in creation as it is recounted in Scripture. I read of a war in heaven that reached down to the garden that forever marked the path of mankind.

I also believe the war still rages. Even if/when Satan and his minions are subdued, we still battle ourselves. I know that David said, “The battle is the Lords,” and it is, but throughout scripture we are told to “choose.”

The issue seems to boil down to how we define God’s foreknowledge and predestination. It has been debated since it was penned. We are told to “study” and to “work out” our own salvation. In the end it boils down to how we answer the question Jesus posed to Peter when He said, “Who do you say I am?”

Anyway, I’m kinda a fan of the writings of Tozer and this one seems to add a sense to what I’m trying to convey;

“If you have ever given much thought to this present world in which we live, you have some idea of the power of interpretation. The world is a stable fact, quite unchanged by the passing of years, but how different is modern man's view of the world from the view our fathers held. The world is for all of us not only what it is; it is what we believe it to be, and a tremendous load of wealth or woe rides on the soundness of our interpretation! In the earlier days, when Christianity exercised a dominant influence over American thinking, men conceded this world to be a battleground. Man, so our fathers held, had to choose sides. He could not be neutral-for him it must be life or death, heaven or hell! In our day, the interpretation has changed completely. We are not here to fight, but to frolic! We are not in a hostile foreign land; we are at home! It now becomes the bounden duty of every Christian to reexamine his spiritual philosophy in the light of the Bible. So much depends on this that we cannot afford to be careless about it!”
A. W. Tozer Sermon: Man's View of This World

 

[posthuman]

here is some of what A. Pink says of Leviticus 16 --

The most important of all the types is that which is found in Leviticus 16: the appointed ritual for the great day of atonement. The type of Leviticus 16 goes much farther than does the one in Exodus 12: the Passover illustrated the redemptive character of Christ’s sacrifice; that of Leviticus 16 its propitiatory nature. In Exodus 12 we see the blood sheltering from judgment those who are under it; in the early chapters of Leviticus, we see the power of the blood restoring to communion the penitent transgressor; but in Leviticus 16 we behold the blood opening a way into the very presence of God, entitling the penitent and believing worshipper to come with boldness unto His very throne.​

​

By a careful comparison of Deuteronomy 27 and Leviticus 16 we may discover how the law was, and still is, a "schoolmaster" unto Christ (Gal. 3:24). In the former chapter, we see that the law demanded implicit and complete obedience to its demands (v. 10); and how that the Levites pronounced with "a loud voice" a curse on the transgressor of it (vv. 14, 15). That curse was repeated twelve times, according to the number of Israel’s tribes, and on each pronouncement thereof "all the people" were required to say "Amen": the final word being "Cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them" (v. 26)— cf. Galatians 3:10. The law required sinless perfection under the penalty of eternal damnation, and thus it revealed the imperative need of an atonement. While in Leviticus 16 we see how that law by its great sin-offering, with its blood of atonement, pointed forward to Christ.​

​

The sacrificial system of Judaism reached its climax on the great day of atonement. As the ark was the chief object in the tabernacle, so the annual Day of propitiation was the chief one in Israel’s religious calendar. On that auspicious occasion the high priest divested himself of his robes of "glory and beauty" (Exodus 28), and put on "the holy linen" garments (Lev. 16:4). The spotless white in which he was clothed spoke of the perfect righteousness of Christ, which, tested as it was both by man (John 8:46) and Satan (John 14:30), and then passing through the infinitely searching scrutiny of God under the fiery trial of the cross, insured the Divine acceptance of that satisfaction which He made to God on behalf of His people.​

​

Two young goats were selected "for a sin-offering;" though there were two animals, it was but one offering. Two goats were selected in order that a fuller representation might be given: the one being designed more expressly to exhibit the means, the other the effect of the atonement. They were brought and presented together before the Lord (v. 7), the Lord determining by lot which of them was to be slain. The other animal stood by and was atoned for (Hebrew of verse 10) by the dying victim, and then bore away the sins laid upon it into the land of eternal forgetfulness (vv. 21,22): a blessed figure of that remission of our sins when we believe on the Lord Jesus Christ unto salvation.​

​

Passing by what was done with the bullock, we confine our attention unto the two goats. After the one had been killed, the high priest took its blood within the veil and sprinkled it upon the mercy-seat not once, but seven times "before" Him to provide a perfect standing ground for His people. The antitype of this is seen in Hebrews 9:12, "But by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption" (Heb. 9:12). The consequence of this is that "Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way which he hath consecrated for us" (Heb. 10:19, 20).​

​

After the high priest had finished his work inside the sanctuary, we are told, "he shall bring the live goat, and Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel... and shall send him away by the hand of a fit man into the wilderness: and the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities into a land not inhabited" (vv. 20-22).That was a continuation and completion of the ceremony concerning the sin-offering, so that this symbolic transfer of their sins to the head of the scapegoat, which bore them away, plainly signified that the atonement effected by the sacrifice of the first goat was the complete removal of all their transgressions from before the face of God.​

​

"And Aaron shall come into the tabernacle of the congregation, and shall put off the linen garments, which he put on when he went into the holy place, and shall leave them there" (Lev. 16:23). Why? To denote that his work was finished. The blessed antitype of this we see in Luke 24:12: on the resurrection morning, those who came to Christ’s empty sepulcher "beheld the linen clothes" lying there, a token that He was risen from the dead, and so of atonement completed, and accepted by God. ​

​

i'm not sure i see where it is at odds with P. Wilson? but Pink's understanding is that the goat chosen to be slain represents the means of atonement, and the goat chosen to live represents the effect. it seems to me that if the slain goat is present, but the living goat is not, then atonement has been made, but its effect is not applied. this is as though, yes, Christ tasted death for every man, but if we do not join Him on His cross in death, in order that we may also join Him in being risen to life, then we are in the "all" for whom He died but not among the "many" whose sins He bore -- because both goats are representative of Him, but one perishes, and the other lives: there is a definite distinction, just as there is a definite distinction between atonement - which is covering - and bearing, which is to lift up and carry. this would seem to me to be the case which Wilson's understanding speaks of, but it's not necessarily contrary to Pink, just that - Pink speaks of Christ, and Wilson speaks of how man responds to Him.

what do you think?

more of A. Pink here from the same document:

In Numbers 19 there is yet another most important type upon which we can only now say a few words. In it we see how the death of Christ has made full provision for those defilements which His people contract while passing through this evil world. In it too we behold again the steady progress in the types, and the deeper instruction which God gave to Israel from time to time. They were yet in the land of Pharaoh when the passover was instituted: the doom of Egypt and their own deliverance therefrom were the thoughts then presented to their souls. Later, they were brought nigh to God, Himself tabernacling in their midst, and in Leviticus 16 they are shown the high demands of His holiness. Now in Numbers 19, they are taught that even the unavoidable contact with death (the world lying in the Wicked one) defiles. But God has provided cleansing from it.​

​

In closing, we call attention to one other deeply important value of the types and the use to which they may be put: they furnish an infallible rule by which can be tested any man’s (our own included) interpretation of the New Testament Scriptures concerning the Atonement! He who denies the penal and vicarious nature of Christ’s death, repudiates the clear testimony of the types; he who sets aside the efficacy of His sacrifice by reducing it to a merely "making possible" the salvation of men does likewise, for the types know nothing of an ineffectual sacrifice. So too in them we see plainly the limitation of God’s love to His elect people, for no lamb was provided for the Egyptians, nor did Aaron make any atonement for the sins of the Midianites and Ammonites! ​

​

at the close there he points out that atonement in Numbers 16 isn't made for all the nations, but for His people -- so is it, the difference in Wilson & Pink is typology of the whole vs typology of the two goats in particular? the scriptures to me so often appear with a fractal geometry - in which the same patterns are present both in fine, micro-scale and in wide, macro scale. if i zoom in, i see the same message as when i zoom out! almost as if the Person who wrote this book is the same who made creation
what other book is like this!

 

[Whispered]

Please stop doing this. You copy and paste pages, including footnotes on translational issues, Which are unnecessary, making me believe you don't read half of what you post. Or understand it!

You keep citing the Greek, word studies out of the blue letter Bible. (Or whatever!) Sorry, I have 2 years of Masters degree Greek, and word studies are basically useless for theological studies. Further, all you are doing is quoting some glosses out of English sources. Try and use BDAG (Bauer) which is the most reputable Greek lexicon. And learn the Greek alphabet, while you are at it. If you are going to quote Greek, learn about syntax and grammar, which is very different than English, and can make a lot of difference in the meaning.

You keep trying to explain Reformed theology to Reformed people. Why don't you stick to explaining your own views, instead of reams of copied and pasted internet sites. You do not have a clue what you are talking about.

I am not a Calvinist, I am Reformed. I believe in believer's Baptism, not infant. Although I downloaded a copy of Calvin's institutes, I've never read it. Instead, writers like RC Sproule have helped me understand my myths about Reformed theology, and why I was wrong. There are so many good Reformed writers, Why don't you read them, figure out if you agree or disagree, then come back and discuss this in your own words, using shorter Bible passages. Usually, when explaining, you don't need chapter after chapter. I'm not saying don't read it in context, it is vital to read the Bible that way. But it is just excess when discussing theology.

Probably take some Master's degree theology courses, too. While there are many people on CC who have studied the Bible on their own, and have a good grasp of the Bible and theology, you are not one of them.

Please take what I am saying to heart! It will help you grow into a mature Christian, and understand the Bible better.

I guess he PM'd for support.
Oh, and by the way, I started this thread. Please don't presume to tell me I'm not entitled to opine and do not throw credentials into this thread when it has gone 15 pages without your presence and the first introduction you make is one that is passive aggressive.

Not a good look as far as first impressions go however, eerily familiar as the behavior of others who's names have appeared in their postings for longer.

 

[notuptome]

hmm, John 10:3 says:

He calls His sheep by name
His sheep hear His voice and follow Him


seems like you've got:

He doesn't have any sheep; they're all goats and aren't His
He calls all the goats
the goats all hear His voice
some of the goats decide to follow Him
by the goats sovereign decision they become sheep and become His


do i have your position right?
how to reconcile it with John 10?
i see how @ForestGreenCook's position jives.
it's an hard thing to accept, possibly, but it jives.

No you missed it entirely.

There are none righteous all have gone out of the way and become unprofitable. There are no sheep until God saves them by grace through faith. You remove from man any and all responsibility for his sin. You make God responsible for man becoming a sinner.

Adam chose to sin. Man must choose between his sin and Christ. One becomes elect when he receives Christ and is saved. Man is not saved and does not receive Christ because he is elect.

Fof the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[Melach]

Probably take some Master's degree theology courses, too.

worst idea especially with how these are today so liberal. Jesus had no master's degree, apostles were simple workers like fisherman. only educated one was st.paul who was a pharisee.
do we really need to spend money to understand the bible? because university is not cheap. what we need is Holy Spirit to open us the truth, no need for any degrees. these are neat things to have. chuck missler had one but he always agreed you dont really need it all you need is the Holy Spirit.

 

[oldethennew]

AMEN...