Predestination

Theo1689

Well-known member
Are you familiar with TULIP, five of the central doctrines that identify the Calvinist position?
Especially the L, limited atonement(though they sometimes change the name )
This is the concept that on the cross, Jesus only atoned for a chosen group. It means that some people did not have their sins atoned for and therefore will never have the opportunity to receive Jesus and be saved,

So let's talk a little bit more about TULIP, and especially the "L".
Both Arminians and Calvinists are into relative agreement that the points of "TULIP" are all interrelated, and that they all stand or fall together. The "T" (total depravity) and the "P" (persverance/preservation of the saints) are believed by many non-Calvinists today. And in fact, the original Remonstrants affirmed "total depravity", and were undecided on whether one can lose their salvation.

Practically speaking, the "L" tends to be the most difficult point to accept, so much so that "4-Point Calvinists" (who believe in TU-IP) have their own name, "Amyraldists", after Moses Amyraut, one of the earlier Christians who held this belief. B.B. Warfield has written that Amyrauldism is "an inconsistent and therefore unstable form of Calvinism", and I would agree.

First of all, let's look at Scripture.

Matt. 1:21She will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins.”

Notice two things.... Jesus didn't come to save "everyone". He came to save "his people".
And it doesn't say, "he will OFFER salvation".
And it doesn't say, "He will TRY to save".
It says, He WILL save HIS PEOPLE".

So this not only affirms limited atonement, but perseverance of the saints.
His people WILL be saved.


John 10:11I am the good shepherd; the good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep.

John 10:15 even as the Father knows Me and I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep.

Christ is our shepherd, and He saves our lives, by laying down His own (on the cross).
He doesn't lay down his life for "everyone".
He lays down His life "for the sheep", for His own sheep.

Are all Christ's sheep? Nope:

John 10:26 “But you do not believe because you are not of My sheep.

Can one "become" one of His sheep by "believing"? No.
We become a sheep to believe.
We don't become a sheep by believing.
It does not say, "you are not my sheep BECAUSE you do not
believe."
It says, "You do not believe BECAUSE you are not of my sheep".

Being His sheep, causes believing. Not the other way around.


Now, since some posters like to argue with rationalization, instead of Scripture, let's look at some logical situations IN ADDITION to the above Scripture.

Both sides agree that God is omniscient, and prescient, He knows the end from the beginning, He knows the future. That's how prophecy works, after all. Calvinists believe He knows the Scripture because He determines and decrees it, Arminianism believe that He simpy "looks down the corridor of time", or something like that. At any rate, both sides believe that God knows the future. Therefore, God knows who will be saved, and who will be lost. So why would God have Christ's atonement include those whom God KNOWS will never use it? It makes no sense.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
I think you read your attitude into my post. Mine was a simple invitation to explain what he sees. Your POV lays sarcasm on it, because that is how you roll

You could have omitted "Can you do that?" without losing anything in your post.
There was only one reason for it.
It was a completely gratuitous remark.

But just like the "cuddle" comment, you refuse to ever take ANY responsibility for anything you post.
 

Chalcedon

Well-known member
I think you read your attitude into my post. Mine was a simple invitation to explain what he sees. Your POV lays sarcasm on it, because that is how you roll
that is how you make excuses so you can get out of exegeting a passage, its nothing but a diversion tactic you employ here 24/7.
 

Sethproton

Well-known member
I did not read anything from the Bible in your response . You left out scripture. I’m only interested in reading what others have to say about the Bible with the scriptures included with their comments. I did not see that in your reply to me . Thank you for your thoughts.
That is my approach here. Talk the truth, and then if questioned show what the Bible has to say.
So I can ask you again to engage in a truth discussion. Tell me what you disagreed with and we can talk scripture.
 

Chalcedon

Well-known member
That is my approach here. Talk the truth, and then if questioned show what the Bible has to say.
So I can ask you again to engage in a truth discussion. Tell me what you disagreed with and we can talk scripture.
Yes thanks for admitting your unbiblical approach. The Apostles used Scripture, Jesus used Scripture and believers are commanded to use Scripture.

It looks like you did not get the memo.

Oh and BTW how could he disagree since you left the bible out of your opinions. Its hard to disagree with an opinion when you leave out the BIBLE. How convenient of you seth.

Try including the bible in your posts so that there is a point of reference in which to work from. And when you do make sure to include the chapter and verse you are referencing along with the words in the verse.

hope this helps !!!
 

Sethproton

Well-known member
You could have omitted "Can you do that?" without losing anything in your post.
There was only one reason for it.
It was a completely gratuitous remark.

But just like the "cuddle" comment, you refuse to ever take ANY responsibility for anything you post.
It was a polite invitation. Nothing else. You read into the words your own attitude,
And yes, I am amazed at the calvinist who read "cuddle up with a poster" and tell me I am expecting them to physically cuddle.
 

Sethproton

Well-known member
Yes thanks for admitting your unbiblical approach. The Apostles used Scripture, Jesus used Scripture and believers are commanded to use Scripture.

It looks like you did not get the memo.
Civic, talking truth and giving scriptural references is exactly what Jesus did. But you often criticize me for copying the way Jesus taught
 

Sethproton

Well-known member
First, I would like to point out that Seth has offered ZERO Scriptures to support his heretical view. He will claim he has them, but he will never show them. If he responds to this post, he won't offer Scripture, but he will play games, and say, "I have Scripture, and if anyone wants to see what Scriptures my claims are based on, let me know and I will show the Scripture". But he never does.



Of course, this is not Biblical. This is merely rationalization.

If "we are still unrighteous", how are we unrighteous? It is sin that causes unrighteousness, so if we are still unrighteous, then it is because of unatoned sin. And if that's the case, then the atonement can't be "unlimited".



Seth teaches the heresy that salvation is by the WORK of "receiving Christ".
But it would follow that not "receiving Christ" is a sin, and if one commits the sin of "not receiving Christ", then that sin should be atoned for according to "unlimited atonement". Since it is not, the atonement must be limited.



But "rejecting Jesus" is a sin, so why is it not included in the "unlimited atonement"?
Therefore, the atonement must be limited.

This is a common heresy found in Christendom, that Christ's atonement atones for ALL sin except for "accepting Christ". So your sins are atoned for, but you're still not saved until you "choose" to be saved.



This is a very bizarre statement, that "God will be FORCED to ban you".
So God is "forced" to do something...
Who is the one "forcing" God?
God created the universe, and creation, so why is He "forced" to do something He doesn't want to do?

In this kind of heresy, God's will is "thwarted", by the will of man.
He apparently doesn't WANT to condemn anyone, to show His wrath and make His power known (Rom. 9:22), but every soul who is lost to hell is a "failure" to God and to the atonement.
Strange Theo. You start off by claiming I never give scripture then you gave NO scripture,
 

Chalcedon

Well-known member
There are at-least 850 direct OT quotes in the NT and many scholars believe there are more than 1000 references to the OT in the NT.
 

Chalcedon

Well-known member
Of course I do, You know I do. we discuss scripture all the time. Why do you pretend?
You didn't do that for johnnybgood and he specifically asked you to do that and you still refused to show him scriptures. You only gave him your long running paragraph about your ideas of a mediator.
 

Sethproton

Well-known member
You didn't do that for johnnybgood and he specifically asked you to do that and you still refused to show him scriptures. You only gave him your long running paragraph about your ideas of a mediator.
let me correct you. As soon as Johnny asked for scripture, I asked him to tell me which idea he wants supported. Time will tell if he really wants to discuss scripture, or is just another calvinist acting in the standard calvinist approach

Also you talk about my ideas of a mediator as if i invented something about what a mediator does. The Bible uses specific words for specific reasons. part of understanding the Bible is understanding what the words mean. You on the other hand come up with your own personal ideas about what a mediator is and does. That is different from me, using the scripture and a Greek lexicon to define mediator.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
2 Peter 3:9 is a favourite verse of mine, since while it's abused by Arminians to try to prove "unlimited atonement", when understood properly it is a very encouraging passage. And I think this verse is an excellent example of how Arminians poorly and improperly interpret Scripture, and a good example of proper exegesis when done right.


The Arminian Presentation

First, let's see the Arminian presentation:

God is "... not willing that any should perish ..."

That's it.
They quote half a verse. Sometimes they'll rearrange Scripture like a ransom note created out of newspaper words, and include John 3:16, "God so loved the world, and is not willing that any should perish", as if God wrote it that way.


The Calvinist Presentation

2Pet. 3:8
But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

One of the things people learn when interpreting the Bible in particular, or any text in general, is to note (1) the author, (2) the audience, (3) the context/topic, (4) the culture, etc.

This section of Peter's epistle is directed at a group called "beloved" (v.8), and "us-ward" (v.9). "Us-ward" refers to the first-person plural pronoun, a group of multiple people, of whom the speaker includes himself. This is in contrast to "them", third person plural. In this passage, the "them" is found in 2 Pet. 3:3-7, "scoffers" who are unbelievers, and are trying to dissuade believers:

2Pet. 3:3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. 5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

So we have a "they" group in vv. 3-7, and a "we/us" group in vv. 8-9.
And it is the "us-ward" that v. 9 is speaking of:

2Pet. 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any [of us-ward] should perish, but that all [of us-ward] should come to repentance.

2 Pet. 3:9 is not a "universal" text. The SCOPE of vv. 8-9 is this "beloved/us-ward" group. And it says God is not willing for any of the "beloved" to perish. And that is perseverance of the saints. God is not willing for any of His people to perish. He WILL save all of His people. But Arminians have destroyed this passage as an encouragement that God WILL do as He promised, in order to try to instead twist it into a "universal atonement" teaching, which was never intended.


Who are the "Beloved"?

We see that the group in vv.8-9 is identified as "beloved", and "us-ward". Can we find out any other information on who this group is? Yes, we can. We read at the beginning of the chapter:

2Pet. 3:1 This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance:

Peter has written two epistles to "beloved".
This second one is 2 Peter.
The first one is 1 Peter, which we also have.
Who was 1 Peter written to?:

1Pet. 1:1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, 2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

Peter was writing to "the elect".
The "beloved" are "the elect".
It is "the elect" whom "God is not willing for any to perish" (2 Pet. 3:9)


Day vs. Thousand Years

2Pet. 3:8
But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

Why did Peter write v.8? To Arminians, it seems like a throw-away verse, out of place, interrupting the message more than anything else. But consider this. We just saw in 2 Pet. 3:3-7 that there were "scoffers" bothering the Christians, saying, "Where is your Christ? Why hasn't He come yet? Are you sure He even really exists?" Why hasn't Christ come yet? It's a valid question.

But remember, Peter wrote his epistle almost 2000 years ago. To you and me, that's a LONG time. But to God, it's a drop in the bucket. There are people thinking or saying, "It's been so long! Why hasn't Christ come yet?" Butt consider this. You and I are God's elect. He chose us from before the foundation of the world (Eph. 1:4). If Christ had come during the time of Peter, we wouldn't have been part of it, since we hadn't been born yet. God has chosen to scatter His elect people throughout nations, and over time. And Christ's second coming is not going to happen until EVERY SINGLE ONE of His elect has come to salvation.

Why? Because God is NOT WILLING FOR ANY [of His elect, His "beloved", His "us-ward"] to perish.


God's Will

"God is not willing for any to perish".

Arminians believe this is universal, that God doesn't "want" anyone to perish. But most agree that some will. So God doesn't get what He wants, which to me is ridiculous. God is omnipotent. "Whatever God wants, God gets". If He doesn't get what He wants, then either (1) He isn't omnipotent after all, or (2) He didn't really "want" "will" "desire" it.

According to the Calvinist view, the scope of "not willing for any to perish" is the "elect", the "beloved", and since God is God, and God is omnipotent, none of the elect WILL perish. God will save EVERY ONE of His sheep.

Praise God!
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
let me correct you. As soon as Johnny asked for scripture, I asked him to tell me which idea he wants supported.

And of course, the answer is ALWAYS, "ALL of them".
Show Scripture for EVERYTHING you assert.

It's not that difficult.

Time will tell if he really wants to discuss scripture, or is just another calvinist acting in the standard calvinist approach

<sigh>
More insulting rhetoric against Calvinists.
Go and do a Bible study on "charity", please...
 

Sethproton

Well-known member
Jesus and the Apostles did that you DO NOT.
Make up your mind. First you agreed that was what I did and you demeaned me for it, now you are saying Jesus did it and I don't.
It would be easier to chat with you if you stuck to a particular POV
 

Sethproton

Well-known member
And of course, the answer is ALWAYS, "ALL of them".
Show Scripture for EVERYTHING you assert.

It's not that difficult.



<sigh>
More insulting rhetoric against Calvinists.
Go and do a Bible study on "charity", please...
let johnny speak for himself as to what he would like to see in scripture
 
Top