Why Systematic Theology Leads to Divisive Failure
While I don’t have much time to write/respond today, and I will be leading music for the Great Banquet at my church starting this afternoon through Sunday evening (I’m sure the writers here can easily hold the fort without me), an article from CR?N that popped up on my RSS feed was an excellent reminder of the reasons for failure of systematic theologies:
1) They are man-made systems to explain God, and by their very definition, flawed
2) As with Mike and his TULIP, they are elevated to the level of scripture
3) They are used as means to divide the wheat from the tares, which (at least if we are to believe scripture) is not our job.
4) While they may be helpful in understanding a particular scripture or set of scriptures, they, in and of their very nature, become tools of eisogesis, rather than exegesis.
To the article in question, Mike Ratliff attempts to show that Unconditional Election is the only biblical possibility. He states that “Unconditional Election is not for sissies”, though I would probably add a correlary that it isn’t for Christians, either. Rather, it is a series of eisogetical rationales which blend gnostic philosophy, Greek fatalism and determinism into something that was not even in the ballpark of belief in the early church, but is now raised to a dividing line between the ins and the outs, the saved and the unsaved.
If you don’t believe that this man-made doctrine has been raised to the level of scripture, you don’t have to go past the first couple of paragraphs in the article:
Of course, none of their arguments hold any water because they are derived either from man-centered philosophy or from Bible verses taken out of context (eisegesis). On the other hand, the Doctrines of Grace are all completely Biblical and are based entirely in Holy Scripture expositions done exegetically.
And it only goes downhill from there. The entire article is basically a primer on how to eisogete scripture. But hey, who needs Jesus when we have Calvin, Spurgeon and Johnnie Mac to set us straight…
September 20th, 2007 at 11:13 am
It is just another example of a Calvinist telling us that Calvinism is the *only* view that takes the Bible seriously. It gets tiring.
The truth of the matter is that we all choose what to believe. None of us are neutral observers in this thing. We all decide based on a number of factors, and we like to say it’s because the “Bible says soâ€, but in the end there’s a lot more to it than that. Actually when people start a sentence off with the phrase, “the Bible says†I usually tend to ignore what they say next. Usually they are trying to make the Bible say what they want to say, or support their argument.
I believe we can use logic to extract certain truths from Scripture, but we still need to approach the Bible in humility. I think it is human nature to attempt to figure things out and make the evidence fit our system, rather than just let the evidence speak for itself.
September 20th, 2007 at 11:20 am
Interestingly the early church fought against Gnostic heresy… and here we have some fighting for it in its newest form…
It seems that the abstract objective “truth” of Plato’s dualism has replaced the Person of Jesus as The Truth…
Blessings,
iggy
September 20th, 2007 at 11:22 am
Ultimately systematic theology will fail (though is not useless) because God isn’t a system. God is relational in nature, he reveals himself as Father, not as machinery. Jesus came as a man, not as a robot. Systematic theology ultimately reduces God to a mechanism in which he responds if we trigger him with the proper beliefs and practices. The struggle between systematic theologies is largely an argument about what triggers God, rather than dealing with God relationally.
September 20th, 2007 at 11:32 am
It is a shame. I believe the opposite, but I don’t object to presenting Calvinism or even attacking free will, it comes with the territory. When Mike uses the phrase “Those of us who dearly love these doctrines” he shows how Calvinists feel about their views. They don’t just feel strongly about them, they love them. We should love God’s Word not our doctrines, unless you place Calvins views on a par with Scripture.
And the “those of us” reveal the clique many have created. I do not believe I’ve ever heard free willers refer to themselves as “those of us” and surely never loving their doctrines. And the prideful names “doctrines of grace” and “sovereignty doctrines” and all the rest again are insights to how they feel about them and each other. It’s kind of like the Masonic Lodge complete with secret handshakes and all, if you are not in you are not in. I never had to have a doctrinal awakening about elction et. al., it just never made sense. I fear my friend Mike is reacting to what he and others feel are attacks on the “doctrines of grace”.
I have close Calvinist friends and they read my writings. I consider them brothers and in the end they might be right, I just do not believe they are. The problem with many Calvinists is that they do not entertain the notion they may be wrong.
The next letter in the sequence, “L”, is the one that I believe is heretical. Jesus tasted death for every man, and for the sins of the world, unless you torture the Greek language. And if Jesus died and suffered for all, then to imply He didn’t is…heresy.
Sorry, that is simple addition.
September 20th, 2007 at 12:02 pm
Just to clarify–is this about systematic theology, or about Calvinism?
September 20th, 2007 at 12:08 pm
Systematic theology.
Calvinism is just the example, but I know of a few Arminians who are just as adamant and eisogete away examples where predestination of events is clear in scripture.
Similarly, I know of folks who use creeds as their own systematic theology. For them, to deny, for instance that Christ descended into hell between his death and resurrection, is to deny scripture - even though that is nowhere to be clearly found in the scriptures.
So, while Calvinism is the example in the article quoted, it extends beyond the TULIP…
September 20th, 2007 at 12:11 pm
Jazz,
I think that it is that they hold hands. I think we can all agree that we all use some sort of “systematic theology” yet it seems some place their faith in that system over faith in God… and believe they are doing the latter.
The difference is that some of us hold tightly to the core doctrines… faith in Christ Jesus… and hold loosely to things like infant baptism (I do not believe anything happens other than people “feel good” and the little one gets wet).
It is the realization that a “system” does not save us… a doctrine never was hung on a cross to die for our sins and it never was raised from the dead to give us Life.
A Person did all that… and we must have a relationship with Jesus the Person… not a “system.â€
That is why a “system” being of man will fail as only that is in Christ will remain. Some seem to have forgotten that… and that seems mostly in the “Calvinist” corner.
Be Blessed,
iggy
September 20th, 2007 at 12:13 pm
Yes, Chris, it is true. However the reformed group seems to be in the forefront even with self names. I reject all five points but I embrace a certain mystery concerning election and the like. A true Calvinist will not admit a mystery about those five points.
I have been told recently on this blog to “go read a good sytematic theology” by a reformed brother. I would be surprised to hear that from a free will brother.
September 20th, 2007 at 12:17 pm
I’m not sure a true Calvinist would not admit a certain mystery concerning election. I’ve heard Mark Driscoll say that he thinks there are thousands more in Seattle predestined to become Christians, they just haven’t heard the gospel yet and he doesn’t know who is or isn’t saved.
September 20th, 2007 at 12:21 pm
Matt, that is what a free will position would say also. The mystery to which I refer is if and how God chose the saved and unsaved and to what extent free will played before or after election. A true Calvinist believes the Bible is clear with no mystery about that.
September 20th, 2007 at 12:22 pm
And I happen to know one of the criteria God used in His sovereign election.
Geography.
September 20th, 2007 at 12:23 pm
As the resident friendly Calvinist here, I’d also say that I don’t think everything is predestined. Just salvation.
September 20th, 2007 at 12:27 pm
I have been reading up on “systematic Theology” lately…
I think it is a good thing to know your enemy…
JUST KIDDING!!!!!!!!
iggy
September 20th, 2007 at 12:27 pm
Systematic theology reduces God and Jesus to mere doctrinal objects to be nicely boxed and explained in the systematic theological God box.
September 20th, 2007 at 12:33 pm
Matt,
Then you aren’t a true Calvinist, at least according to someone like John Piper. I actually heard John Piper say at a Passion conference that God foreordained evil for His glory. He really does seem to believe that God predestined everything.
September 20th, 2007 at 12:36 pm
Yes, I probably am not a 5 star calvinist. I just can’t get past all the predestination in the Bible concerning salvation.
September 20th, 2007 at 12:37 pm
Matt: I don’t know if I would/could label myself as a “resident friendly Calvinist,” but taken as you stated it in your 12:17 post, I’d say I agree with Driscoll.
Can you expound on your “I don’t think everything is predestined” comment?
Just to throw a fly in the ointment here, our pastor made an interesting observation/statement last night. Paraphrased, he said: “Everyone is a Calvinist when they pray.” Point being, you never hear anyone pray: “God, I don’t think I’ll bother you with this one. I’m pretty sure I can take of it myself.” No. Everyone prays with the heart-felt believe that GOD and God alone is capable of doing/granting what we ask…according to HIS will.
September 20th, 2007 at 12:37 pm
Yes, David, mystery. But for any of us to outline all the major doctrines and conclude that the Scriptures are without some mystery we first need to hide the enormous disagreement among all the men of God both in the past and today.
By the way, Matt B, you are engaging and loving. Great!
September 20th, 2007 at 12:38 pm
Keith, when I pray for someone’s salvation I believe I am praying God’s will!
September 20th, 2007 at 12:45 pm
I used to be an angry Calvinist. I had a Methodist roommate in college. I had to change my ways after that.
Keith- what I mean is, I don’t think God predestined that I wear a green shirt today. I think he gave me free will to choose that shirt. I also don’t think he cares what shirt I wore. I just don’t see God predestining all minute decisions.
I think perhaps there are some things God might, however. Hypothetically, for instance, I might have missed my alarm this morning and as a result, was late to work. But I was able to help out my neighbor because her car wouldn’t start. If I had left earlier, I wouldn’t have been there to help her. Perhaps it was predestined. Of course if I sit around and wonder about whether it was predestined or not, I might be wasting my time.
September 20th, 2007 at 12:46 pm
Keith,
The odd thing is that it sometimes it seems that God gives things to us according to our will rather than His. He doesn’t typically force His will upon people. I look at how Israel asked for a king, and God gave them one even though it really wasn’t his will. I know the typical Calvinist answer would say the whole thing was predestined, but it seems like the Biblical text suggests otherwise.
September 20th, 2007 at 1:01 pm
Keith,
I have heard this before… which I think is an RC Sproul quote… (Who btw endorsed a Bill Hybels book so endorses man-loving-purpose driven-papists)
The truth is that there is not much difference between the core of Arminianism and Calvinism. Most Calvinists miss that Arminus taught “Justification by Faith”, he just saw that man could accept or reject God’s grace and that the atonement was for all mankind and not just the elect…
The confusion is that there is more misunderstanding of Arminianism by Calvinists than the other way around. I have quoted Calvinists teachings and other Calvinists have told me i am wrong and that was not Calvinism… .Therefore, it seems that each Calvinists does not even agree on things like Election, Foreknowledge and such and how they really work.
Yet, I think what is wrong with the statement is that one prays to God not as a Calvinist or whatever… but as a person of faith in Jesus Christ.
Be Blessed,
iggy
September 20th, 2007 at 1:03 pm
Matt: Wow! I DID wear a green shirt today! I don’t think God cares either. I liked your “hypothetical.” I would agree.
Phil: I believe that everything falls within God’s will–otherwise He wouldn’t allow it. Israel asked for a King. He told them how it would be “if” He gave them one. They insisted. They got a King. No surprise to God. My opinion, all part of God’s plan to put David on the throne, David has a son named Solomon, Solomon has a son named Rehoboam…”Jacob has a son named Joseph the husband of Mary, by whom Jesus was born, who is called the Messiah.” The genealogies of Matt 1 and Luke 3 seem to suggest God had a pretty good handle on the whole thing. Admittedly, that’s my “Calvinist answer.”
September 20th, 2007 at 1:05 pm
Stinkin’ RC Sproul! I’m taking him OFF my blogroll!
September 20th, 2007 at 1:19 pm
How about:
God in His eternal existence knows all and sees all in one intuitive glance without regard to the perspectives that accompany time, and in so knowing He pre-acknowledges His creation and the gifts He has given to them in His sovereignty. And with the complete knowledge of every single atomic particle and their lifespan and every single miniscule event in creative history, God has taken man’s will given within His own sovereingty and combined it with His own providencial intervention overlaid with the canopy of His immutability, and with a pre-creation sorting He presents Himself with a perfect, eternal, and timeless mosaic which we call His sovereignty.
And that is a baby-talk description so the cave man brain of God’s followers can think they understand.
And He does all this without having to do or think about anything.
Yea, systematic theology, it captures it all doesn’t it?!?
September 20th, 2007 at 1:41 pm
Keith,
LOL!
iggy
September 20th, 2007 at 2:00 pm
It appears that the systematic theology being discussed is the Calvinistic one. I don’t believe that there is really any valid concern about systematic theology as long as it’s basis IS the Bible itself.
Concerns that Calvinism or the TULIP is given equal or greater status than the Bible itself is overblown, in my opinion. It is understood that it is a TOOL for understanding the things of God as put forth in the Bible.
I don’t believe that Calvinism or any other systematic theology is used for separating “wheat from the tares” as systematic theology itself doesn’t have that capability. One can “believe” in a particular systematic theology, including Calvinism, but not be regenerated.
I see no problem with systematic theology itself as long as it doesn’t invent doctrines that are not derived from correct exegesis of the Bible.
September 20th, 2007 at 2:10 pm
From Mike’s article:
Now it is statements like this that I was referring to in another thread that are so far off that it is hard to respond other than to say… WHAT?
First off, we are “dead in our sins” and we will receive “the wages of sin which is death.” Now, I acknowledge a part of me was dead… and now I am alive…
Even as a hardcore Arminian I knew I was dead in my sins… but I see nowhere in scripture that we are “dead” now… other than being “dead to sin” when in Christ. When the Bible speaks of one being dead now… as in Ephesians 2:1-3 it is that we having sinned, will receive the wages of sin, which is death,… we are as good as dead… but at this moment we are still alive, but perishing without Jesus. Again, show me a clear verse stating we are “dead†now… and I ask then according to scripture how would you know?
Ecclesiastes 9:5
So, this teaching that we are born dead… seems to miss that when I was born I lived and still living and if I be without Jesus will die in body and later experience the second death… with Christ my body is now dead, but I will be raised to Life in Christ. The promise is now, yet will be fulfilled at the Last Judgment.
Be blessed,
iggy
September 20th, 2007 at 2:15 pm
“On the other hand, the Doctrines of Grace are all completely Biblical and are based entirely in Holy Scripture expositions done exegetically.”
If only Wesley had read the Bible.
September 20th, 2007 at 2:47 pm
So here is a question:
If I am one of the elect AND
I have been “regenerated” (I feel like a robot - oh, wait…that’s what I would be if I were a 5-pointer!)
THEN am I able to believe in free will, or am I only predestined to
believe as a Calvinist?
If the latter, then that would explain how Calvinists can call non-Cals heretical.
Just a question swimming around in my head…
September 20th, 2007 at 2:54 pm
Zan - they believe in post salvation free will to an extent. Most Calvinists who were not brought up in church were saved by a free will message.
The entirety is this: Calivism is fatalism, everything is unravelling as a scripted event meant to glorify God with no will in anything but His.
In our part of the country we call it “solitaire”.
September 20th, 2007 at 3:02 pm
Zan - That is of course assuming you are one of the elect. According to Chris the jury’s still out!
September 20th, 2007 at 3:25 pm
Chris L: Sorry to disappoint you, but you, too, have a personal systematic theology. (I think it’s referred to as Chris-L-ism on Wikipedia). Every Christian maintains a personal systematic theology whether acknowledged or not, whether conscious or not, whether well defined and voluminous or just “Jesus loves me this I know for the bible tells me so”. To make ANY kind of judgment on anyone else’s theology (such as a critique of Calvinism) pre-supposes a judgment based on **something** i.e., a **system** of theology against which other the other system is judged.
I chafe at the title “Why Systematic Theology Leads to Divisive Failureâ€. Doctrine divides. That is its function. Why is that “uglyâ€? Why is that “unChristian?†Again, that is its function. This has nothing to do with the unity of the Body, love, kindness, gentleness, longsuffering, charity, grace, forbearance, forgiveness, etc. (Note that a systematic theology incorporates all these points). However, The Body has to be defined before one can move on to consider these other facets. Can I fellowship with you? How would I know? I refer to my personal system of theology. Are you trashing Christian brothers who don’t agree with you? How can I know? I refer to my personal system of theology. Can these systems be flawed? Of course. Can they be mis-applied? Of course. But EVERYONE has a system. From whence does your distain for systematic theology come? From YOUR systematic theological system, of course!
September 20th, 2007 at 3:26 pm
“I chafe at the title “Why Systematic Theology Leads to Divisive Failureâ€.”
When I re-read that “The Wrath of Kahn” came to mind for some reason. Kahn to Captain Kirk - “From the Gates of Hell I spit at thee!” LOL.
September 20th, 2007 at 3:35 pm
Keith,
I knew you would say that; it was predestined.
September 20th, 2007 at 3:41 pm
HJ -
Does everyone have (or share) a “system”? I suppose at some level, you could say that ‘yes, they do’.
The question becomes, though, is when does a system feed scriptural interpretation, rather than the other way around? A systematic structure seeks to create doctrine from groups of scriptures, which is consistent with the methods in use during Jesus’ day. However, where our Western/Greek systems differ from those in use by Jesus and Paul (Eastern/Hebraic methods) is that the W/G ’systems’ view scriptures which plainly depart from their view via convoluted means of eisogesis. In the E/H methodology, if there is an apparent discrepancy in my view with scripture, then it is my view (’system’) which is incorrect most likely. Apparent discrepancies in the text are seen as a way of allowing the mysteries of God to exist, and forcing them into reconciliation is seen as seeking the fruit of the tree in the garden.
My disdain of “systems” comes from their self-reliance and need to ignore scripture or to eisogete it. Additionally, systematic theologies (Calvinism and beyond) tend to pull many of their ‘lynchpins’ from flawed views of scripture which ignore who wrote the scripture, where they were located, and what they were writing within their own context.
Additionally, it is the reliance on creeds rather than scripture (in some ’systems’) which greatly bothers me, as the former is a good teaching tool, but not a good substitute. Creeds were developed in absence of the printing press and other means of mass communication now at our disposal. If you can read the Bible in your native tongue at a reading level appropriate to your understanding, there is no need for a creed…
September 20th, 2007 at 3:55 pm
“But EVERYONE has a system.”
Yes, but mine is based on the Bible not the philosophies of men and especially Chris L’s philosophies!
September 20th, 2007 at 3:58 pm
Chris,
Actually, I agree with your assessments and concur to the most part. My point is, granted, flawed systems exist and need correcting, but everyone has a “system”. It’s basically intrinsic to the way the human mind organizes things. The same with creeds. Every Christian lives by a creed whether written/formalized or not. (I’m not a creedalist BTW). Keep in mind that those of us who discuss theology in such forums as these are in the VAST minority. The “average” Christian couldn’t begin to verbalize the basic tenants of their beliefs. Systematic theologies and creeds certainly have their place, abuses not withstanding.
September 20th, 2007 at 4:01 pm
Rick: “Yes, but mine is based on the Bible not the philosophies of men and especially Chris L’s philosophies!”
Rick, LOL How VERY Calvinistic of you!
September 20th, 2007 at 4:10 pm
Houston John,
I think the point is not that everyone has or does not have a “system” of some sort… the issue is that one deifies the system and makes that system equal with Scripture…
It is like Spurgeon’s quote “Calvinism is the Gospel†Which then if he is wrong and that in anyway Calvinism is not right… then it is another Gospel… that is the reason some do not hold the certainty that in that “systemâ€â€¦ or any “system†for that matter.
To say that one is the only true “system†also is a backwards way of saying anyone who disagrees with that “system†is not saved. Now that is a bold and rather dangerous statement (though I have been a victim of Calvinists stating that.), as it is play into God’s territory of Who God has truly “chosen.†Salvation is of God and God alone yet many Calvinists insist they can judge others salvation. (Jim Bublitz fought me tooth and nail over this issue as he insisted we are MANDATED to judge others salvation.) Again this is God’s territory and man has nothing to do with it… and if Calvinism is right… even more man has no right nor even if “mandated†can judge whether one is elect or not.
If anything Calvinism should make a man meeker and more humble as he has nothing to do with his own eternal destiny… and in that should only worry in that his own election is sure. Yet, there seems to be a lack of these traits.
It is that we use a system but we should not live by it… for we are to Live by Christ and not by teachings of men. (1 Timothy 4; Philippians 1:21)
If Christ is your Life, He covers all doctrine He is more than “Lord†He is what and how one has True Life. It is easier to trust in teachings that prohibit things and call them doctrines… but as Paul stated to Timothy (1 Timothy 4:16)
Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers. Notice it states Life first? For without the Life of Christ, it matters nothing what doctrine one believes.
Remember now I am one of the apostate emergent’s JM hates…
Be Blessed,
iggy
September 20th, 2007 at 4:12 pm
“Remember now I am one of the apostate emergent’s JM hates”
should have had a smiley after it as it was my way of saying,
“Yes, but mine is based on the Bible not the philosophies of men and especially Chris L’s philosophies!â€
SO LAUGH WILL YOU!?
iggy
September 20th, 2007 at 5:18 pm
There is only one true God and Spurgeon/Wesley is His messenger.
Take your pick. It’s a good thing Calvin didn’t rely on former theologians or Calvinism would never have been spawned.
I love the “I go by the Bible” card. Everyone has one and some play it much too early in the game and prove the weakness of their exegisis(man’s paraphrase). Joseph Smith had the same logic only more melodramatic, “I got it from God”. I wait for the plate of Calvin to make an appearance.
Is there any uncertainty? They may be right, but great men of God have disgreed with their interpretation. And they relate their “conversion” to Calvinism in terms that resemble regeneration. Not all, but surely some. And so Rick Warren waters down the gospel? Yes, I believe that. But Calvinists are unassailable in their interpretation of Scriptures? When you get ten free will people in a room generally the subject doesn’t come up, you get eight free willers and two staunch Calvinists and good night nurse, here it comes.
And as much as I find the doctrine itself very wanting, I find the conduits much more offensive. The epiphany itself presumes a God given path from heresy to truth. If Jesus did not die for all men then that view is heresy and the reverse. Oh well, I’ve read all the material and as Jim noted in all my 37 years of obtaining imperical doctrinal knowledge, I must stick with the Bible.
That’s my Bible! No, that’s MY Bible! That Bible backs me up! No, it refutes you! Spurgeon said he agrees with me, are you going to refute Surgeon!?! Yes I am because Wesley could eat Spurgeon alive without a concordance!
OK, I guess you don’t want the truth.
I’m rubber you’re glue…
September 20th, 2007 at 5:28 pm
And oh yea, pray for me because I will take such abuse and harsh words for standing for the doctrines of anti-grace. I am a soldier of doctrine and people talk nasty to me. The front lines are very dangerous but God give me strength as I press the keyboard.
We all seem a little ridiculous sometimes, don’t cha think??
Â
The preacher in Pakistan who was shot in the head in front of his family died because he preached Christ, not because he stood firm in his view of election or not, men and women like him are the truth warriors, surely not the doctrinal badminton players on the comfortable blogasphere who claim to bravely post on blogs. We need a little reality check.
September 20th, 2007 at 5:57 pm
There comes a tipping point where the system itself becomes something of its own force. Every scripture must be shaped and formed to fit the system, and every person is measured by the system itself. I think that’s happened with Calvinism as far as the watchdoggies are concerned.
September 20th, 2007 at 8:53 pm
Rick: “Take your pick. It’s a good thing Calvin didn’t rely on former theologians or Calvinism would never have been spawned.”
??????
Calvinism is nothing more than warmed over Augustinianism.
Were you being facecious?
September 20th, 2007 at 8:59 pm
To me it was a new way of interpreting Scripture. I was referring to the early apostles.
September 20th, 2007 at 9:02 pm
Iggy,
I just want people who poo poo doctrine and theology to understand that EVERYONE has both. I certainly agree that discussions on the ABUSE of doctrinical systems is legitimate, but Iggy everything you believe about Jesus is by definition “doctrine”. BTW I agreed with about everything you said my friend.
September 20th, 2007 at 9:04 pm
HJ - I agree, doctrine is just fancy for teaching. Theology is the understanding of God. I hope we have both without worshiping anything or anyone but God.
September 20th, 2007 at 9:06 pm
Rick, you are my hero BTW.
September 20th, 2007 at 9:12 pm
HJ - Can you have that notarized and provide a copy to my wife?
September 20th, 2007 at 10:32 pm
Houston John…
I get this a lot… yet I never state once I am against “doctrine”… I am stating that I am against “man-made” doctrine and say we should be very careful what we attribute to Jesus.
I have never stated once i am against doctrine (though a guy set up a website against me claiming I did and do)…
I agree we all have doctrine… yet to me we need be careful to not be judging others on things like pews versus sofas, suits versus jean to preach in… whether rock music is as good and hymns… and so on… even to the point where we fight over Arminians versus Calvinism… as both men are of the 16th century and I think both of those men would agree that we now have much more resources than them to search out doctrines. Interestingly these men did agree on a lot… but limited atonement was the big argument between the two and it is today…
John 1: 9-13 shows the atonement was for all men…
In these few verses, we see:
1. Jesus is the Light to all men
2. Jesus came to the world and it did not recognize Him.
3. He came to the Jews (which was his own) and they did not receive Him
4. As He came as the Light of the world to all men so also all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God.
It is simple and one need not do gymnastics to show that the “whosoever” are only the elect… Jesus came as the Light to all men… period… and all that believe will be made sons of God. Period.
I was taught that one starts with a clear verse then moves to the harder verses to prove a teaching or doctrine… and I see as I do that, I cannot accept Calvinism. I accept the Calvinist as a brother in Christ… but I see that there is error in their doctrine. (All have error… as one friend stated to me, “everyone goes to heaven with bad doctrine, but no one goes to heaven without Jesus.”
Be blessed,
iggy
September 21st, 2007 at 12:08 am
Oh Iggy,you are SO Arminian!Would you look carefully at what follows “he gave the right to become children of God.”Free willers seem to stop at where you did alot.Perhaps because it says we are children BY the WILL of God…NOT OF DECISION.And I don’t call myself a Calvinist since there are those who taught this long before Calvin.I am not of Calvin…I am of Christ.
September 21st, 2007 at 10:35 am
Iggy,
I am very much NOT a Calvinist. I heartily agree with everything you just said. The culpret is not doctrine but FALSE doctrine.
September 21st, 2007 at 10:39 am
If you doubt that HJ is not a Calvinist, ask Jim Bulbitz!
September 21st, 2007 at 10:40 am
Oh, but iggy, when you’re a Calvinist, it’s like having a decoder for scripture. You see, when a Calvinist reads that verse, they see it like this:
See, if you just take every reference of the word “all” and tag of “of the elect”, you’ll see the Bible for what it REALLY says.
This is one of my biggest complaints with Calvinists. They end up concluding that their theology is true first, then filter all negative arguments through the Calvinism. You get the point.
The same could be said of some Armenians as well though. It seems to me that there is ample evidence for both though. A mystery? Sure. Embrace it.
September 21st, 2007 at 10:46 am
Please nate, no mystery, it seems so messy and reveals that we may not know everything. And we cannot put up with that, it’s too emergent-like.
We know it ALL, and the word ALL means ALL in this case!
September 21st, 2007 at 11:01 am
Nate,you only presume that that is how Calvinists interpret that passage.You are the only one who I have known to interpret that passage that way.The word “all” does have different meanings depending on its context.Try to remember that the Apostles were dealing with the mindset of Jewish believers that they thought they were the only chosen of God being Jewish.The Apostles had to drive home the point that those of all nations were chosen for salvation.Not for the Jew only but for the Gentiles,too.
September 21st, 2007 at 11:07 am
Sherry,
Isn’t that exactly the mindset we’re dealing with with limited atonement? Perhaps the word “all” has as much significance for Calvinists as it did for early Christian Jews.
September 21st, 2007 at 11:10 am
OK, I have an honest question for my Calvinist brothers and sisters here. What effect does the idea limited atonement have on your walk with Christ? Does it change anything? In the end, does it make a difference? I’m not trying to be snarky - I am genuinely curious. Sometimes I just wonder if Christians on both sides of this issue don’t miss the forest for the trees.
September 21st, 2007 at 11:13 am
It doesn’t effect my walk since I don’t know who is a member of the elect. That’s God’s business to know, not mine.
I used to be an angry Calvinist.
September 21st, 2007 at 11:28 am
Matt - as strongly as you hold to your views do you entertain the possibility you may be wrong?
September 21st, 2007 at 12:25 pm
Sherry,
Then how exactly does a Limited Atonement Calvinist read 1 John 2:2? When it says Christ died for the whole world, does that really mean the “whole world”, or only the elect?
September 21st, 2007 at 12:41 pm
Absolutely I could be wrong. The Church held to the belief that the earth was the center of the solar system. That was obviously wrong.
I also can’t comprehend eternity. My mind won’t allow it. I think there is some sort of free will in this predestination, I think it’s outside of our abilities to understand it. To say we can explain everything in Scripture seems like we have given ourselves over to the god of Reason and Intellect.
I attend a church which sounds similar to ChrisL’s church. We make no statement as to eschatology, predestination, etc, since that only divides. Our mantra is “Major in the majors and minor in the minors.”
September 21st, 2007 at 12:44 pm
Limited atonement means that none of Christ’s blood,not even one drop of it,was wasted by being shed for those who reject Christ also.Your definition is universalistic.Whole world means people of every people group in the world. John is speaking to the Jewish believers when he says,”And not for ours only,but…”Key words are “ours only”(the Jews).Got a site or explanation for me so I can see how you interpret Romans 9?And is anyone going to refute what I pointed out to Iggy on his interpretation of the passage he cited?Another thing,Iggy misread what Mike Ratliff wrote.Perhaps he could reread the part he posted and redo his interpretation of it.
September 21st, 2007 at 1:20 pm
Sherry,
that’s precisely what I’m talking about. Perhaps you didn’t use the “insert elect here”, but you’ve interpreted that passage in light of the assmumption of Limited Atonement. You would probably do something similar for Heb. 2:9 or 1Tim 2:6 or 2Pet. 3:9. “All”, in light of the assumption of Limited Atonement, will always be interpreted as “some”.
September 21st, 2007 at 1:36 pm
No,Nate,”all” is interpreted by me according to its context and the audience it is spoken to.You make God an utter failure when you believe “all” means every single person who has ever lived because God desires no one to perish.If that is so according to your interpretation,then He has failed Himself in saving all.His will be done,no?
September 21st, 2007 at 1:50 pm
Sherry C,
What the real issue is, is that you are confusing atonment with salvation…
Romans 5:
Now here I think it is clear the context is that all men “are dead through sin”, becasue all sinned” so we have the context set here as “all men” meaning” every single human being…
So when Pual then states:
Notice again death came through the one man… so HOW MUCH MORE “will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man,”
Now to end this… Paul stating “just as” all men are condmened…
so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.
There is no way one can take that all men means “just the elect”… as it is the same that all me die becasue of sin… so Jesus brings Life to “all men” IF we believe and receive.
be blessed,
iggy
September 21st, 2007 at 1:51 pm
Sherry,
You continue to prove that you will not step back from the tenants of Calvinism before your interpret scripture. You assume that the verse cannot mean what it seems to mean, because Limited Atonement MUST be true.
What context, other than the assumptive Calvinism, do the other verses have?
And what, exactly, do you think you would conclude about those verses were you not at the mercy of hundreds of years of systematic theology? What I’m asking you to do is to lay aside preconceptions before trying to wedge scripture to fit your predefined, predetermined beliefs.
When you see “all”, you make yourself see “some”. That is the problem, I believe.
September 21st, 2007 at 2:03 pm
Yeah,I won’t step back from my Calvinistic view only because it is the same view as Paul had in Romans 9.Darn that Paul!BTW,I only recently knew of this viewpoint being of Calvin.And this Systematic Theology stuff is new to me,too.I can almost see your point about it as it took me most of one night just to figure out which system was I going to find true biblical doctrine in!BTW,thanks much for the gracious replies.
September 21st, 2007 at 2:22 pm
Sherry,
I hear ya. There’s certainly no doubt that Paul was very strong on the greatness of God. His power, His ability, etc. I don’t deny that. But Paul was ALSO very strong on God’s love for all men (where all means all) and his will that none should perish. I’m suggesting that it’s not necessarily one or the other, but both and at the same time. Somewhere in the mind of God, the two reconcile, but I don’t believe we have the capacity to understand such things. Unfortunately, Christians have gotten into keeping score of which doctrine can find more verses to support it, and the one who has the most wins. I don’t think that’s what God would have wanted us to do really.
Likewise on the conversation. I never once heard the word heretic or man-loving compromiser.
September 21st, 2007 at 3:05 pm
For who has known the mind of the Lord?Or who has become His counselor?Romans 11:34.Nate,I don’t think calling brothers and sisters in Christ is at all godly.I might pick on Iggy ’cause I love him so much I want to hug all the error outta him!He is passionate,though I think to a fault.I know I have missed some questions asked of me.Be patient,I will.
September 21st, 2007 at 3:09 pm
I meant to say its not godly to call brothers and sisters in Christ names over disagreements.
September 21st, 2007 at 3:10 pm
No problem Sherry. If only God could come down and correct us all!!! I’m sure there’s no one in the world who has it all correct, no?
Very nice talking with you.
September 21st, 2007 at 3:33 pm
Sherry C,
In all my error, I took Romans 5 in context and asked you a question… and you only state you wanted to hug all the error out of me…
If I error, show me how Paul states clearly….
As all have sinned… so all are given the gift of Life.
Does the word “all” mean all men or not… if so, then we can only conclude Paul stating the “gift” is offered to “all men” also.
It is plain and simple logic… it is a clear passage and from here we should build from.
Now I see nowhere how “all men” can be turned into “just the elect” with Pauls own words so clear.
As far as calling you or anyone a name I do not recall doing that… to you I am “poor iggy” and “need prayer” yet I am rich in Christ and would welcome your earnest prayer…
Be blessed,
iggy
September 21st, 2007 at 8:43 pm
Yes,Nate,that would be wonderful!But,for now we must pursue truth and have a great love for it.It matters.Sorry,Iggy,I truly did overlook your comment!I didn’t see it!I have picked on you previously from another blog.Please forgive me.Besides,I really like your name-its a good blog name!I came back here to review the questions that I am being asked.You guys are well-versed in this so I don’t want to insult your intelligence with inane answers.Even if you think I am wrong I would like to at least be intelligent,if possible!I also want to correct an error I made about Christ’s blood being spilled on the ground-it is not on the ground but in the Holy of Holies.Who can enter the Holy of Holies?Only believers in Christ.So the blood atonement must be limited to only God’s elect-His divinely chosen believers whom He chose in Christ before the foundation of the world.Iggy!I didn’t mean to imply that you called names!I was giving answer to Nate.Your questions will be the first ones I get to,O.K.?Believe me,everyone here has my prayers,at least as long as I am here.I was serious in asking for your interpretation of Romans 9,everybody,because that is the chapter I studied to try to refute Calvinism,but ended up believing in Divine Election.When I was a free-willer I didn’t think about how this could make the case for free-will since I had no idea about the election doctrine.Big thanks!
September 21st, 2007 at 10:00 pm
Sherry,
If that is the case that only the elect can go into the holy of holies, then hardly any Jews were God’s chosen people, because only the high priest could go in and then only once a year, I believe.
On that note, the Holy of Holies was where God resided. When Christ died, the curtain tore, and God changed his address. No longer does he reside in the Holy of Holies. Now he lives in each one of us.
I am not tracking on what you mean by “Christ’s blood being spilled on the ground-it is not on the ground but in the Holy of Holies.” Can you explain?
Thanks!
Zan
September 21st, 2007 at 10:30 pm
Zan,about the remark about Christ’s blood spilled on the ground,I erroneously said that in reference to unlimited atonement,which,to me,means that if the atonement is for “all”,then some of Christ’s blood would have to be wasted because of those who reject Christ.I probably just confused you more,eh? Remember,the priests represented the people,just as Christ represents us.I was thinking of Hebrews 9:12.
September 21st, 2007 at 10:44 pm
Sherry,
I think you will find that when one is respectful, respect will be given back.
The “other blog” was really nasty and many came to my blog even after I tried to make amends with “that guy”… and all I received was very nasty and mean comments to the point I just closed my comments.
It was weird as I pointed out that “that guy” changed his original stand while I never changed mine at all… He claimed that we are mandated to judge others salvation and I stated, we are not to judge some one’s eternal destiny… later he claimed that is what he stated all along… and meanwhile I was banned and mocked. It was obvious that I had caught him in a lie and he only wanted to make sure I was “controlled” so that others would not find out. It was really sad.
I used to respect “that guy” but as to his childish ways i no longer respect him as I see he really cares little for people… and seems to think that “truth” is to be hidden and redirected from others.
Yet, I do forgive you and note that you stated you would pray for me even there.
I will be writing on Romans 9 soon on my blog.
The issue I see is I have yet to see a Calvinist take Romans 9 farther than verse 24… meanwhile Paul’s punchline in in those last few verses… If one takes the entire passage in context it flips Calvinism on it head.
btw the best Calvinist apologist person I have listened to that does not compromise on the “traditional” view is James White and even he stops at verse 24… he is the one that has gone the farthest as most stop at verse 18.
But suffice it to say… the Jew being vessels of mercy… as they saw themselves… saw the gentiles as vessels of wrath… and God in His mercy revealed to Paul that many of the Jews are vessels of wrath, while the Gentiles are “`my people’ who are not my people”.
James White claims it is not about Nations, it is about individuals.. yet to study it out it is both about individuals and nations…
Here are some things I have already written to give you a bit of what i am stating.
http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/search?q=walking+through+romans
the ones that I recommend are:
All the “Walking Through Romans”
Esau I hated…
Thoughts on predestination.
Be blessed,
iggy
September 21st, 2007 at 11:15 pm
Iggy,your questions of me concerning Romans 5:10-18:First,you said that I am confusing atonement with salvation.I don’t know what you mean by that.Atonement is the part of salvation that makes the Gospel,the Gospel.On the part that “all”means all as far as being dead thru sin,I agree.What you want me to do is to show that that “all” is not the same as the “all”men receiving life thru Christ.I will do my best.Verse 15 speaks of “to the many”concerning those receiving God’s gift of grace thru Christ Jesus.This does not say “all”.In verse 17,we have the words “those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One,Jesus Christ.You will see this as a case for free will,but I can clearly see this as the results of election-that those who recieve are the elect,chosen of God to receive,i.e.,”the many”.Mark 10:45;14:24,and Hebrews9:28 also speaks of Christ giving Himself a ransom for the many,not “all”.You will say that that is because of God’s foreknowledge.I agree.But why does God declare the end from the beginning except that He has already arranged for it to be so.You were chosen,as all Christians are who are truly born from above,before the foundation of the world to be in Christbecause it was prearranged by God.In verse 18,Paul is speaking to a mixed crowd of Jewish and Gentile believers and in anticipation of Judaizers wanting the Gentiles to become Jewish to be truly Christ’s own,he makes the point that all men means people from other than the Jews.Now,verse 19-”…so also by one Man’s obedience many(not all)will be made righteous.”Iggy,this chapter is about the application of justification and not much of a case for election or free will,IMO.You said “…so Jesus brings life to ‘all men’ IF we believe and receive”.But you also said that we are dead in trespasses and sins.How can we,being dead spiritually be able to understand spiritual things except God first makes us alive spiritually to do so?God must give us the spiritual eyes and understanding of spiritual things before we can believe and receive.My very own testimony is proof that I did not choose Him,but He chose me.Let God be magnified!
September 21st, 2007 at 11:52 pm
Thanks for the info,Iggy.You know I won’t change my view but I do want to have insight into these beliefs so there is no bantering back and forth thru misunderstandings.You know that I very much love that blog that “that guy” has and I have grown much and discovered alot of errors that I was in.I appreciate the commenters there.I don’t always agree either.What you are saying is that we do need to judge if one is in the faith as a christian or not.I believe that was what “that guy” meant,too.But you were just trying to say that we are wrong if we judge one’s eternal fate.What little I remember of it,it makes sense now.Odd,how that has been on my mind lately-that we must judge the fruit,but we become the Judge if we say they are hopelessly hell-bound.All the more I ask your forgiveness for having then misunderstood!Let God be magnified!
September 22nd, 2007 at 12:37 am
Sherry,
Thank you for you cordial tone…
First off I want to apologize this is so long. Yet I hope that if one reads through it, one will gain more insight to the teachings of Calvinism. I have some questions here that I have not had any Calvinist answer without comprising the teachings of Calvin…
Iggy,your questions of me concerning Romans 5:10-18:First,you said that I am confusing atonement with salvation.I don’t know what you mean by that.Atonement is the part of salvation that makes the Gospel,the Gospel.
The atonement is like the Door that leads to the Door of salvation.
I agree it is a part of salvation but it is not salvation as a whole as many represent it. Atonement is forgiveness of sins and comes at the Cross… Salvation comes through Christ Jesus’ Resurrection.
Romans 5:10 states this clearly:
For if, when we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life!
We are not saved until we receive the Life of Christ. One is forgiven, but will only be a forgiven dead man as that is the real issue of man’s condition. To equate forgiveness as all of salvation then also misses not only the Resurrection that gives us Life, it also negates the sealing of the Holy Spirit.
The Jews had a way of forgiveness…it was the sacrificial system… yet, they did not have a way to get over the death issue.
On the part that “allâ€means all as far as being dead thru sin,I agree.What you want me to do is to show that that “all†is not the same as the “allâ€men receiving life thru Christ.I will do my best.Verse 15 speaks of “to the manyâ€concerning those receiving God’s gift of grace thru Christ Jesus.This does not say “allâ€.In verse 17,we have the words “those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One,Jesus Christ.You will see this as a case for free will,but I can clearly see this as the results of election-that those who recieve are the elect,chosen of God to receive,i.e.,â€the manyâ€.Mark 10:45;14:24,and Hebrews9:28 also speaks of Christ giving Himself a ransom for the many,not “allâ€.
Really I see this discussion a bit unnecessary as not all will be saved. So the remainders will be the many. Yet, I think that if a verse is clear like Romans 5: 12. Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned—
I think we can agree that “all†men is the same idea Paul used in Romans 3: 10. As it is written: “There is no one righteous, not even one; “ as all means everyman has sinned… for then Paul states. 23. “ for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,†Note Paul is not just saying “many†yet, I will point out that Pau uses “many†in this verse Romans 5:15 “For if the many died by the trespass of the one man,â€. I hope you notice that to take “many†as you are stating then makes Paul teaching that not all died by the trespass of the one man. If we are to use “many†to mean as you are stating then let’s follow through all the way and be consistent. So, do you now say that not “all have sinnedâ€, but only “many†did? SO your use of many seems to negate the earlier teachings of Paul.
You will say that that is because of God’s foreknowledge.I agree.But why does God declare the end from the beginning except that He has already arranged for it to be so.You were chosen,as all Christians are who are truly born from above,before the foundation of the world to be in Christbecause it was prearranged by God.
Now, I see that God exists out or our dimension… He is not limited in time and space. Yet, in this dimension he has limited Himself. So I see both can exist at the same time. Also, foreknowledge is always used in the bible in relation to being “in Christ†. There is only a couple of verses that talk about foreknowledge.
Romans 8:29. “For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.â€
In order to be conformed one must first be in Christ. God knew Jesus as Jesus was in the Father before creation. What a Calvinist does without realizing it is making mortal humans who have not even been created, be known before they are even created. God had a plan of salvation before creation, and that was that those who would be “in Christ†would be predestined to be conformed to His image… and that these that are immortal would later be born of the Spirit. Jesus is the only immortal… and there is no man that has seen God. To say that God knew individuals, before they existed and that they would be “in Christ†and be saved, is stating we do not need the blood of Jesus to save us… we need only realize we existed before we did. This is Gnostic dualism… not Christianity.
TO further my point notice what is always missed by Calvinists.
Ephesians 1:4-5
“4. For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love 5. he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will—“
Note that God chose us “in him†before creation… the focus is not on “us†but on being “in Christâ€. The issue is that you have people “in Christ†before he was raised from the dead and before they are “born again of the Holy Spiritâ€. A Calvinist believes that one can be in Christ before Jesus was incarnated, lived , died and was resurrected and the Holy Spirit poured out on all mankind.
It is simply impossible to be “in Christ†before the Cross… it is only after the Cross and Resurrection we have Life… and become New Creations born of the Spirit as Jesus was.
In verse 18,Paul is speaking to a mixed crowd of Jewish and Gentile believers and in anticipation of Judaizers wanting the Gentiles to become Jewish to be truly Christ’s own,he makes the point that all men means people from other than the Jews.Now,verse 19-â€â€¦so also by one Man’s obedience many(not all)will be made righteous.â€Iggy,this chapter is about the application of justification and not much of a case for election or free will,IMO.You said “…
We are justified at the Cross. So what I am stating is very much about election and free will for without being justified we cannot Live by faith for “the Just shall live by His Faith.†The point of my quoting verse 18 was what I was talking about in verse 12… one cannot make the case that “many†means what you state… it then must be taken Paul only then means “many†died in their trespasses of sin… again “all†either means all… as I state.. or many means “many†as you state.
Again, as I stated, “many†is obvious as not all are saved… some “choose†to not “believe and receive.â€
Let me further my point a bit here.
In John chapter one, we read;
9. The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world.
10. He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11. He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him.
12. Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God– 13. children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.
Here are some points to consider:
1. Jesus is the true Light that give Light to “every manâ€â€¦ not just many…
2. Jesus came to the Jews and they did not receive Him.
3. Yet, to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God-
4. Notice that God states that man has a will… as Jesus was not born out of a man’s will. If God did not reveal to John that Jesus was not born of a man’s will… then why would John have to state this? It implies that man has a will and that Jesus was born not of man, but of the Spirit.
Not one other man was born of the Spirit. Adam was born out of creation… not of the Spirit… he was formed of the dust of the earth and God breathe life into him… he became a living being… but not immortal… for Adam had to eat of the Tree of Life to live. Yet, Jesus is born of the Spirit and that is why He over came sin and death… He was created immortal… and though He died was raised from the dead… and glorified by the Father.
This again leads to the question, how is one “in Christ†before one is created?
so Jesus brings life to ‘all men’ IF we believe and receiveâ€.But you also said that we are dead in trespasses and sins.How can we,being dead spiritually be able to understand spiritual things except God first makes us alive spiritually to do so?God must give us the spiritual eyes and understanding of spiritual things before we can believe and receive.My very own testimony is proof that I did not choose Him,but He chose me.Let God be magnified!
The question is easy… man has the sentence of death, yet is not born dead. He has a dead spirit… yet, God can create out of nothing Faith in a person… by Grace. Yet, I think Romans 10: 17 – 21 makes it clear about this.
“Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ.
But I ask: Did they not hear? Of course they did: “Their voice has gone out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world.”
Again I ask: Did Israel not understand? First, Moses says, “I will make you envious by those who are not a nation; I will make you angry by a nation that has no understanding.”
And Isaiah boldly says, “I was found by those who did not seek me; I revealed myself to those who did not ask for me.” But concerning Israel he says, “All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and obstinate people.”
Many quote this verse and I see it is true.. yet few notice Paul states clearly that Israel did hear… and they did understand… yet not all of those of Israel will be saved. In fact it is those who did not ask for God that God revealed himself to… the Gentiles.
So, one can hear and one can understand and still not believe and receive. To further this point, Hebrews 10â€26-27 states that
“If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God.â€
One can receive the knowledge of truth and still not accept Jesus’ sacrifice for their sins… so if they have received the knowledge of truth, but not the Life, only judgment will come as one rejects the knowledge of truth.
God is who calls us and draws us to Jesus… yet we need respond to the Person of Jesus… and in that believe and receive… or reject… it is a choice.
Man again is not unable to understand Spiritual things as then you need to throw out Romans chapter one.
For if man is born totally depraved, then how can God turn over a person to more depravity.. I think “totally†means totally… Read Romans one very closely… and you will see verse 19 of these totally depraved people… “ since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.â€
Also in verse 21; “For although they knew God.â€
Interestingly again I see these “totally†depraved people who knew God because God revealed himself to them… are in verse 28 given “over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done.†So again how can a totally depraved person be turned over to a depraved mind… I mean come on… they would already possess a depraved mind do you think? There is not way a “totally†depraved person can become more “totally†depraved. If they can, explain that to me please.
Be Blessed,
iggy
September 22nd, 2007 at 7:37 pm
Tim Reed,you asked if the Jewish mindset of being God’s chosen people is any different than the Calvinist mindset of the word “all”.Yes,there is.The Jews were believing in that which was unbiblical(they had the Torah and Paul’s letters to tell them that the Gentiles would be included in salvation through Christ).Calvinists’ mindset of the word “all” is biblical. Look up the word “all” in the Greek and see!
September 22nd, 2007 at 7:57 pm
Sherry,
Somehow I can imagine the same response given by Peter when he had it out with Paul over the Gentile issue. Just look at your response, “the difference is Calvinism is Biblical”, it looks more to me like your thought process is “the Bible is Calvinist”.
So now that we know that “all” doesn’t mean all, what does “whole world” and “none” actually mean?
September 22nd, 2007 at 7:58 pm
Nate,in your comment of 2:22 Sept.21 you said that God desires none to perish(2Peter 3:9).Even as a free willer I believed that the “any” and”all” of this verse meant all who are to be saved throughout all the time that God will allow for it.Now that I believe in election,this verse really changes little to me.Read in the context of all of chapter 3 you will see what I mean.Peter is talking directly to believers in this verse and letting them know of the Lord’s faithfulness concerning His promise.Peter addresses “us”,the “beloved”,the believers”….not willing that any(us-future believers)should perish but that all(of the elect/believers)should come to repentance.”See how your interpretation would be as mine?I just say that these believers are so because of God’s sovereign election before the foundation of the world when we were chosen to be in Him.
September 22nd, 2007 at 8:06 pm
Wow!You are quick,Tim Reed!If what you think is that the Bible is Calvinist,so be it.And Calvinist are biblical in their exegesis,too.Depends on the context of “none” and “whole world” as to what they mean.Must I repeat myself?I am sure I have been clear on this in previous posts.