Spurgeon- I cannot imagine a more ready instrument in the hands of Satan for the ruin of souls than a minister who tells sinners that it is not their duty to repent of their sins or to believe in Christ, and who has the arrogance to call himself a gospel minister, while he teaches that God hates some men infinitely and unchangeably for no reason whatsoever but simple because he chooses to do so. - New Park Street Pulpit - Vol 6, 28-29
Sproul- If some people are not elected unto salvation then it would seem that God is not at all that loving toward them. - Chosen, pg.32
Sunday, May 4, 2008
Sunday, March 30, 2008
Two Conflicting Wills Part2
Calvinists have a problem. According to the theory of Calvinsim, God has two wills in conflict : one will desiring for mankind to repent and be saved, and the other for most of mankind to perish in Hell. There are some issues with this attempt to harmonize a faulty theory and plain Scripture.
Number one- Eph 1:11 b- a favorite verse used by Calvinists-being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will: So which will does God work out? Nowhere does Scripture say God has two wills that conflict. Once again Calvinists have no Scripture to support their claims. We are just to take their word on it.
Number two- James 1:8- A double minded man is unstable in all his ways. Would not God be doubleminded if He has two wills that contridict each other?
John MacArthur said this in his study Bible: " Ultimately, God's choices are determinded by His sovereign, eternal, purpose, not His desires." So God can have "desires" that are contrary to His sovereign, eternal purpose? God double minded? Inconceivable!
Dave Hunt summed it up nicely with this in his book What Love Is This : The Calvinist is caught in the horns of a dilemma. How can he maintain the position that God decrees and causes all, and yet exonerate God for the wickedness and eternal punishment of the vast majority of mankind? He falls back on the theory that God really doesn't want this state of affairs, and yet His eternal purpose and His decrees demand it. What a contradiction!
Number one- Eph 1:11 b- a favorite verse used by Calvinists-being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will: So which will does God work out? Nowhere does Scripture say God has two wills that conflict. Once again Calvinists have no Scripture to support their claims. We are just to take their word on it.
Number two- James 1:8- A double minded man is unstable in all his ways. Would not God be doubleminded if He has two wills that contridict each other?
John MacArthur said this in his study Bible: " Ultimately, God's choices are determinded by His sovereign, eternal, purpose, not His desires." So God can have "desires" that are contrary to His sovereign, eternal purpose? God double minded? Inconceivable!
Dave Hunt summed it up nicely with this in his book What Love Is This : The Calvinist is caught in the horns of a dilemma. How can he maintain the position that God decrees and causes all, and yet exonerate God for the wickedness and eternal punishment of the vast majority of mankind? He falls back on the theory that God really doesn't want this state of affairs, and yet His eternal purpose and His decrees demand it. What a contradiction!
Sunday, March 23, 2008
John 6:44 part 2
The following is a quote from Dave Hunt's book What Love is This:
Read the entire text again carfully (John 6:35-65). Christ does not say that all whom the Father draws, but all whom He gives to the Son, will come to Him, and He will lose none of them whom the Father gives Him.
He doesn't say that everyone whom the Father draws actually comes to the Son and is saved.
Christ's statement is clear that not everyone who is drawn, but "everyone which seeth the Son, and believeth on him may have everlasting life...
Read the entire text again carfully (John 6:35-65). Christ does not say that all whom the Father draws, but all whom He gives to the Son, will come to Him, and He will lose none of them whom the Father gives Him.
He doesn't say that everyone whom the Father draws actually comes to the Son and is saved.
Christ's statement is clear that not everyone who is drawn, but "everyone which seeth the Son, and believeth on him may have everlasting life...
Sunday, March 16, 2008
John 6:44
Let me out it out there for anyone interested- John 6:44. We have played with this verse some in the past, but I thought it interesting to bring it up again. What does this verse say? What does it not say? What are the thoughts out there? Please stick with this verse or those in the context. I will read and respond by midweek. Remember the main verse, please.
Monday, March 10, 2008
More Quotes
John Calvin-
Augustine is so wholly with me, that if I wished to write a confession of my faith, I could do so with all fulness and satisfaction to myself out of his writings. A Treatise on the Eternal Predestination of God
Augustine is so wholly with me, that if I wished to write a confession of my faith, I could do so with all fulness and satisfaction to myself out of his writings. A Treatise on the Eternal Predestination of God
Sunday, March 9, 2008
God less benevolent?
Spurgeon raised an interesting point- As it is my wish that it should be so, as it is your wish that it might be so, so it is God's wish that all men should be saved; for, assuredly, he is not less benevolent than we are. http://www.apibs.org/chs/1516.htm
The question to any Calvinist out there is this- Is it God’s wish that all mankind be saved? Simple enough.
The question to any Calvinist out there is this- Is it God’s wish that all mankind be saved? Simple enough.
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Can anyone answer these questions?
More questions unanswered by Calvinist. Hear they are-
1. What did John Calvin trace his conversion too?
2. Do you agree with Calvin that infant baptism is good and right?
1. What did John Calvin trace his conversion too?
2. Do you agree with Calvin that infant baptism is good and right?
Saturday, March 1, 2008
100% dead, but not 100% alive afterwards
There is no way I can adequately address the issue of Total Depravity in one blog. So we shall simply, for now, adopt the same logic utilized by Calvinist to test the theory of Total Depravity.
The main two verses that Calvinist use are Eph 2:1,5 which states
The main two verses that Calvinist use are Eph 2:1,5 which states
And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;
Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)
The idea is that man is a corpse, unable and unwilling to respond to the gospel. Because there is no verse in the entire realm of Scripture that states man is so dead that he cannot respond, these are as close as they get. The logic is utilized that dead means dead and that a dead man can no more respond to the gospel then a physically dead man. Never mind that man can reject the gospel, a point some Calvinists skirt around. I mean, if man is so, so dead that he cannot respond, how can he reject it? It would seem that our corpse could respond in some way to the gospel after all.
Ok. Let us assume that the man is a corpse unable to do anything but be dead. Let us imagine that our dead man is a rotten, stinking corpse, unable to move himself and reach toward Christ. According to Calvinism, God gives the corpse new life and makes him willing to believe. God himself has brought new life to a once dead corpse. “Praise be to God,” the once dead corpse explains.
However, what happens when we insert the same logic into the “new life” scenario. The same man is 100% alive. He can do nothing but what God wants him to do. After all, God gave him new life and made him willing to obey the preaching of the gospel. He no longer has to worry about the dead life that once weighted him down. After all, alive is alive. Let us see what thus saith the Lord about this matter.
Romans 7
17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.
19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.
20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.
24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?
Whoa Paul! What are you saying here? Do you still BATTLE the old man, that corpse that was given life? Does your corpse rear his ugly head when you attempt to do right? How can this be right? I though new life was new life! You mean the very thing that made you a corpse (sin), still dwells within you? Paul, you mean there are times when the “100% dead corpse that was given 100% new life actually wins the battle some time?
To the Calvinists out there, they may not recognize the irrational and inconsistency that apparently new life still means battle with the old life. They are willing to take dead in these verses and carry it to an extreme, but as seen it doesn’t seem to work that way with the new life. Did the new life that God supposedly gave them prior to salvation not work? Did it wear off? Why did the power that caused them to believe mysteriously go away?
Why must we still battle the old man? I thought the old man was given 100% life, to combat his 100% death.
The logic doesn’t seem to add up. “But dead means dead” Does the exact same greek word nekros used in the following verses mean the exact same thing?
Lu 9:60 Jesus said unto him, Let the dead bury their dead: but go thou and preach the kingdom of God.
Lu 15:24 For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found. And they began to be merry.
Lu 15:32 It was meet that we should make merry, and be glad: for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found.
Lu 16:30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.
No doubt man is dead in sins. But nowhere does the Bible say he is so dead that he can’t respond to the gospel.
As I wrap this up, think of all the feats this corpse can do without God giving him new life.
1.Give his life for others- wait, Jesus said greater love hath no man than this….
2.Do good deeds and place his needs under those around him- wait, you mean he can actually do the second greatest commandment…
3.Obey Scripture and even bless the food.
But He cannot see his need for a Savior? Hmmmm
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Until Sunday
Quotes from Leading Calvinists:
Calvin-“The word many does not mean a part of the world, but the whole human race” Mark 14:24 Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries
“…by baptism we are ingrafted into the Body of Christ…” Institutes of the Christian Religion
Piper-“We must also own up to the fact that our final salvation is made contingent upon the subsequent obedience which comes from faith.” TULIP: What We Believe about the Five Points of Calvinism: Position Paper of the Pastoral Staff
Sproul- “God wills all things that comes to pass…” Almighty All Over pg.54
Spurgeon- If I am to preach faith in Christ to a man who is regenerated, then the man, being regenerated, is saved already, and it is an unnecessary and ridiculous thing for me to preach Christ to him, and bid him to believe in order to be saved when he is saved already, being regenerate.Am I only to preach faith to those who have it? Absurd indeed! " The Warrent of Faith"
Calvin-“The word many does not mean a part of the world, but the whole human race” Mark 14:24 Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries
“…by baptism we are ingrafted into the Body of Christ…” Institutes of the Christian Religion
Piper-“We must also own up to the fact that our final salvation is made contingent upon the subsequent obedience which comes from faith.” TULIP: What We Believe about the Five Points of Calvinism: Position Paper of the Pastoral Staff
Sproul- “God wills all things that comes to pass…” Almighty All Over pg.54
Spurgeon- If I am to preach faith in Christ to a man who is regenerated, then the man, being regenerated, is saved already, and it is an unnecessary and ridiculous thing for me to preach Christ to him, and bid him to believe in order to be saved when he is saved already, being regenerate.Am I only to preach faith to those who have it? Absurd indeed! " The Warrent of Faith"
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Sola Scriptura and Regeneration
According to Scripture, regeneration does not take place before belief. Consider the following passages:
John 3:15,16That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Ephesians 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise.
Acts 16:30,31-And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
Why do Calvinists insist that the new birth (regeneration) takes place before belief? Some, such as Authur Pink, rush to 2 Thess. 2:13-God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth. The only problem is this- that verse is not giving the order of salvation. It is clear by the previous passages what the order is.
There are sincere Calvinists that use the phrase “Sola Scriptura” and attempt to live by it. Yet when is comes down to being confronted with clear passages of Scripture, they run to respected authors such as John Piper, John MacArthur, Authur Pink, and John Calvin to quote their works. Some run to confessions and creeds to back up the theory of Calvinism. The question I ask is this, “What happened to “Sola Scriptura?” If they really lived the motto, there would be no question about the order of regeneration and belief. Who is the final authority? Is it God, or man?
John 3:15,16That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Ephesians 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise.
Acts 16:30,31-And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
Why do Calvinists insist that the new birth (regeneration) takes place before belief? Some, such as Authur Pink, rush to 2 Thess. 2:13-God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth. The only problem is this- that verse is not giving the order of salvation. It is clear by the previous passages what the order is.
There are sincere Calvinists that use the phrase “Sola Scriptura” and attempt to live by it. Yet when is comes down to being confronted with clear passages of Scripture, they run to respected authors such as John Piper, John MacArthur, Authur Pink, and John Calvin to quote their works. Some run to confessions and creeds to back up the theory of Calvinism. The question I ask is this, “What happened to “Sola Scriptura?” If they really lived the motto, there would be no question about the order of regeneration and belief. Who is the final authority? Is it God, or man?
Saturday, February 23, 2008
Two Conflicting Wills?
If Calvinism is true, then my three children's fate has been secured by what God has degreed. God has either damned them all to hell, some to hell, or none to hell. If I were a consistent Calvinist, I would have to resign myself to the fact that no amount of prayer would change their "election status". Some would even say that to desire what God does not is a sin. They would say, " Who are you to want what God does not want?" Some Calvinist would agree, some would not.
Some would even go so far as to say that God does desire the salvation of all. They explain that God has two wills that contradict each other. Will someone explain how the sovereign God of Calvinism can have two wills opposite of each other? Oh wait, they would say it is a mystery. Some say mystery, some say contradiction. If this is biblical, show me.
Meanwhile explain this passage- Eze 33:11 Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?
Some would even go so far as to say that God does desire the salvation of all. They explain that God has two wills that contradict each other. Will someone explain how the sovereign God of Calvinism can have two wills opposite of each other? Oh wait, they would say it is a mystery. Some say mystery, some say contradiction. If this is biblical, show me.
Meanwhile explain this passage- Eze 33:11 Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Questions That Have Yet To Be Answered
In dissusing Calvinism, I have raised questions that have been ignored or unanswered. I am sure that more will follow in the years to come. These questions will not stump/silense/ all Calvinists. You must first know what they believe by what they state in conversing with them. They are as follows:
1- Does God get His 100% perfect will 100% of the time?
2- Is my humanistic desire for all mankind to be saved a sin?
As stated ealier, some could answer quickly and others may hvae to ponder awhile on it. There will be more to follow. For the non-Calvinites out there, the most likely retreat that a Calvinist will make when "cornered" will be phrases like " It is a mystery." Or " You just don't understand Calvinism." Just a heads up.
1- Does God get His 100% perfect will 100% of the time?
2- Is my humanistic desire for all mankind to be saved a sin?
As stated ealier, some could answer quickly and others may hvae to ponder awhile on it. There will be more to follow. For the non-Calvinites out there, the most likely retreat that a Calvinist will make when "cornered" will be phrases like " It is a mystery." Or " You just don't understand Calvinism." Just a heads up.
John Calvin and Universalism
Many Calvinists mistakenly believe that for one to believe in the unlimited atonement, that would have to make him believe in universalism. They have built this charge on a faulty theory that the death of Christ secures the salvation of the elect. It is the theory of Calvinism that has made this an issue. It should be noted that universalism teaches all will be saved, not that all could be saved. I cannot speak for all that believe in the unlimited atonement, but this is one preacher that does not believe in universalism. Furthermore, I believe that man still has to accept by faith the free gift of salvation. Or course, the Calvinist believes that God gives man the faith to believe.
As for the double payment theory, there is one sin that Jesus could not die for, the sin of unbelief. Calvinist seem to skim over that particular discussion. Even if God did exact double payment for lost people's sins, who are Calvinist to bemoan how God uses His power? Is He not sovereign? "There is no justice in a God that would do that" would be the rally cry. Yet they themselves are oblivious to the fact they believe God is pleased to damn billions, while offering them salvation they could never accept, according to their theory. Where is the justice in that?
When it is all said and done, it is man's unbelief (John 3:18) that sends him to hell. It is not that he is unable to believe, he is just unwilling.
Finally, where does John Calvin tie in with all of this discussion of universalism? As anyone that has studied his works will tell you, Calvin traced his conversion to when he was baptized as an infant. He also forced people to partake in the Eucharist. He killed those that disagreed with his theory about baptism. Is this not a type of universalism? Baptize all the infants to secure their salvation? Force the Eucharist upon those unwilling? And Calvinists accuse me of teaching universalism, when I say the death of Christ made salvation a possibility? At least I do not believe that baptism and the Eucharist made possible the salvation of those willing and unwilling to partake in. If you are reading this and you believe what the Bible says about baptism, know that hundreds of years ago John Calvin would have attempted to silence you also. Thank God we were not in Geneva during the reign of Calvin.
So who really taught universalism?
As for the double payment theory, there is one sin that Jesus could not die for, the sin of unbelief. Calvinist seem to skim over that particular discussion. Even if God did exact double payment for lost people's sins, who are Calvinist to bemoan how God uses His power? Is He not sovereign? "There is no justice in a God that would do that" would be the rally cry. Yet they themselves are oblivious to the fact they believe God is pleased to damn billions, while offering them salvation they could never accept, according to their theory. Where is the justice in that?
When it is all said and done, it is man's unbelief (John 3:18) that sends him to hell. It is not that he is unable to believe, he is just unwilling.
Finally, where does John Calvin tie in with all of this discussion of universalism? As anyone that has studied his works will tell you, Calvin traced his conversion to when he was baptized as an infant. He also forced people to partake in the Eucharist. He killed those that disagreed with his theory about baptism. Is this not a type of universalism? Baptize all the infants to secure their salvation? Force the Eucharist upon those unwilling? And Calvinists accuse me of teaching universalism, when I say the death of Christ made salvation a possibility? At least I do not believe that baptism and the Eucharist made possible the salvation of those willing and unwilling to partake in. If you are reading this and you believe what the Bible says about baptism, know that hundreds of years ago John Calvin would have attempted to silence you also. Thank God we were not in Geneva during the reign of Calvin.
So who really taught universalism?
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
The Atonement
Verses Used By Limited Redemptionalists
Isaiah 53:5- But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.Those that believe the atonement was limited to the elect often use this verse to show that Christ was killed for them. In context, the Jews are whom the pronouns are referred to. Did the Lamb of God die for Israel and Israel only? That would be absurd to state that. If limited proponents wish to use this as a "proof" verse for limited atonement, they choose a good one, for it limited the death for the Jews only. Because the death extended to the Gentiles also, we know that this passage is not the best one for Calvinist to use.
Matthew 1:21- And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.Again, if this verse limits the atonement, it would limit it to Jesus’ people- the Jews. Matthew begins by explaining in great detail who "his people" are.
Matthew 20:28- Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.Matthew 26:28-For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.Hebrews 9:28- So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.Calvinist and others that limited the extent of the death of Christ use these passages to say, " See, the Bible says many. Why does it not say all?" They wish to use the verses to show that Jesus only died for a select group of people, not every individual. But do they prove that Jesus died for them and them only? If Jesus only died for many because these verses say many, then some problems arise. Not only do we have the difficulty found with Isaiah 53:5 and Matthew 1:21, but Galatians 2:20 must now be taken into consideration, which states "I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me." Did Christ die for Paul only? Not all aspects of a truth are always found in one verse. This is proven by Galatians 2:20 and Matthew 20:28.
Unlimited redepmtionalists have no trouble with these passages. Christ certainly died for many, and also for Paul. Concerning Matthew 20:28, Lightner states the following: " The preposition translated "for" clearly teaches substitution- one in the place of another" Accomplished exegete Tasker agrees in his commentary on Matthew. He says, it "conveys the idea of substitution. Christ was to die in the place of (anti) many the death which they, but not He, deserved.
John 10:11, 15- I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.vs.11As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep. Vs.15That Jesus died for the sheep is not the issue. Yet, does the proof that Jesus only died for the sheep lie in these statements? Strict Calvinist must insert the word" only "before the phrase " for the sheep". To further illustrate, consider the Sunday school teacher that give her entire class a piece of candy. As she passes one of her pupil’s parents in the hall, she comments " I gave Johnny a piece of candy today for attending." She accurately stated a fact, yet the entire class received a prize. In is only postulated in the mind of the parent that Johnny and Johnny alone got some candy.
Acts 20:28- Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.Ephesians 5:25- Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;Lightner again sums it up with this statement: " Unless the church is made to refer to the saints of all ages (which cannot be done without departing from a literal interpretation; cf. Matt. 16:18; 1 Cor. 10:32; Heb. 12:22,) this passage must also be extended beyond the borders of that new entity established entity.... No one who believes Israel and the church are distinct and entirely separate can appeal to this passage in Ephesians 5 to support the limited redemptionlist view.
In taking in all of these verses, unlimited redemptionlists have zero difficulty in harmonizing God’s Word with their view of the extent of the atonement. The same cannot be said of the other side of the coin. Not one single verse in the Bible says Jesus did not die for every individual. As we will see, the Bible plainly and clearly teaches the blood was available to anyone.
Verses Used By Unlimited Redemptionlists
Multiplied dozens of verses are used to proclaim the great Biblical truth that Jesus died for all individuals. Most of all the following verses must be rewritten to fit the mold of Calvinism. We will begin with verses that use the word "whosoever". It should be noted that in his theology book, Chafer tells us " the word whosoever is used at least 110 times in the New Testament, and always with the unrestricted meaning"
John 3:16- For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.Perhaps there is no other verse more memorized and more quoted by believers everywhere. The love of God and His plan of redemption are evident in this great passage of Scripture. When one reads the context of this verse, he is reminded that just as anyone could look to the brazen serpent and live, so can anyone that looks to Jesus. Wiersbe wrote in his book "He (Jesus) became the ‘uplifted serpent.’ The serpent in Moses’ day brought physical life to dying Jews; but Jesus Christ gives eternal life to anyone who trusts Him. He has salvation for the whole world!"
Romans 10:13-For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.Revelation 22:17-And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that hearth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.As one will see while debating a Calvinist, they restrict the word "whosoever" when dealing with salvation, but not other subjects. Of the verses that say "whosoever", none read "whosoever of the elect". One must ask "Why?"
Luke 19:10- For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.What a wondrous statement. Hours could be spent expounding on the truths of this verse. How does a limited redemptionalist handle this verse? They retreat to tactic of twisting Scripture. There is no evidence that this verse means anything else but that Jesus came to save that which was lost. Everyone is lost at one time or another.Retreat by restrictionPerhaps the saddest fact of the whole concept of limited atonement is the automatic restriction put on the words "all, world, whosoever, etc". When pertaining to salvation, it is a given that the preceding words apply to the elect. Everywhere else, study is put into the context of how the word is used. The inconsistency and lack of scholarship is embarrassing and lacks the blessings of God. 2 Timothy 2:15 clearly states, "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." When one fails to properly study and divide, it is a shame to him. What if we were to restrict the word "all" anywhere we wished? How about I Corinthians 10:31-"Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God." Consider John 1:3-"All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made." Incongruous, is it not? Yet when it comes to Titus 2: 11, which states "For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,"- routine restriction is applied.
I Timothy 2:4 falls prey to the same attack- "Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth." Because of the various views of the extent of the atonement, these verses provide only moderate difficulty for some. However, as seen by those on the frontlines of debate, retreat is often made by restriction."World" is strongly constrained, perhaps most famously in John 3:16. The cry among limited redemptionalists is that the "world" mentioned is the "world of the elect", or the "world in the sense tribes and nations, not just the Jews". John 1:29 and 1 John 2:2 face similar guillotines. John Calvin answered in his commentary about I John 2:2 that "I pass by the dotages of the fanatics, who under this pretence extend salvation to all the reprobate, and therefore to Satan himself." I cannot speak for the fanatics that Calvin mentions, but nowhere does the Bible say that salvation is offered for the angels. Just the opposite is attested to in Scripture. I Peter 1:12 is proof of this- "Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into,". Furthermore, the death of Christ was not to save all of mankind, but to make it possible.
Worked out by weird wording
If strict Calvinists were correct in their view of the atonement, how strange would I John 2:2 read? It would read similar to this: And he is the propitiation for our sins (sins of the elect): and not for ours (the elect) only, but also for the sins of the whole world (world of the elect). Other verses are butchered in similar manners. It is here I insert a quote that is long, yet important for one to see the danger of this practice.
Robert Lightner uses this in his book The Death Christ Died. (p.108)"I am willing to grant, for the sake of giving your objection all possible force, that these words are used in the various senses you mention. Not, however, that I believe the word 'world' is ever used for God's people as distinguished from others. What then, is the force of your objection? It is plainly this, that because these words are sometimes used in a limited sense, they may be so used in the texts I have quoted, and that you are at liberty to put this construction upon them if you please. But where will this principle lead us? Let us apply it to a few cases. The word God is sometimes used to signify a civil ruler; therefore, according to this principle of interpretation, it may be so understood in any given text. 'In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,' may mean, In the beginning a civil leader created the heavens and the earth. The word everlasting is sometimes used to signify a limited duration; therefore, it may be so understood in any given text; and, 'These shall go away into everlasting punishment,' may mean, These shall go away into a punishment of limited duration. And when the saints are promised everlasting life, it may mean a life of limited duration. And when Christ is styled the 'Mighty God, the Everlasting Father,' it may mean, the mighty civil ruler, the Father of a limited duration. The word salvation is sometimes used to signify deliverance from a temporary calamity therefore, it may be so understood in any given text, and there may be no salvation but deliverance from temporal calamities. The word resurrection is sometimes used to signify regeneration; therefore it may be so understood in any given text, and there may be not resurrection foretold in the Scripture but regeneration. The word baptism is sometimes used to signify sufferings; therefore, it may be so understood in any given text; and the command to the apostles to go out and baptize all nations may mean that they [109] should go and inflict sufferings upon all nations. A principle of interpretation which leads into such absurdities cannot be admitted as a correct rule of interpreting the Word of God. Under the operation of such a rule, the Bible would become, as some pretend it is, a book by which anything can be supported, and nothing proved. Every part of it would become 'vague and ambiguous in its meaning.' ''
Odd Offers
The offer of the gospel to every creature is Biblical and mandatory. While some Calvinists insist on not taking the responsibility seriously, others do it with tongue in check. Many Calvinists emphasize that although the atonement is particular, Christ died only for the elect, yet the offer of the gospel is for everyone. This is the unexplainable paradox that limited proponents are content to live with. What kind of farce is this? God offers His Son, yet He did not offer His Son. Because this teaching is closely intertwined with unconditional election, a brief mention of this dangerous doctrine will do.Calvinism teaches that from eternity past, God has unconditionally elected certain ones to salvation regardless of any merit on their part. Unconditional emphasizes that election is not conditioned on God’s foreknowledge that certain ones will believe in Christ. Election is not conditioned on man’s ability or response. Unconditional emphasizes that God alone initiates the process. If God has elected certain ones to salvation from eternity past, then it logically follows that He will also provide for the redemption of precisely those whom He has chosen.Thus we have missionaries, preachers, and Sunday School teachers wasting time by giving the gospel to those it was not really offered to. Imagine poor Paul, as he labored to convert the Jews and Gentiles. What did he really mean when he penned Romans 10:1- "Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved." Consider Matthew 9:38-" Pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, that he will send forth laborers into his harvest." Did Jesus had the desire to see more laborers wasted their time? Did He really want people to give the gospel to those that He did not die for? What would the Lord need more laborers for: a world where He died for everyone, or a world where He only died for some? Remember, in context Jesus was seeing the masses-the multitudes.If Jesus died for only some, then it stands to reason that it is not remotely possible that everyone could be saved. The basis for a worldwide verbal offer of the gospel is the reality that Jesus bled for the entire world. The converse side is a contradiction, not a paradox, of "thus saith the Lord". William Evens correctly relates that " The offer of the Gospel to all is not a pretence but a reality on the part of God."
Isaiah 53:5- But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.Those that believe the atonement was limited to the elect often use this verse to show that Christ was killed for them. In context, the Jews are whom the pronouns are referred to. Did the Lamb of God die for Israel and Israel only? That would be absurd to state that. If limited proponents wish to use this as a "proof" verse for limited atonement, they choose a good one, for it limited the death for the Jews only. Because the death extended to the Gentiles also, we know that this passage is not the best one for Calvinist to use.
Matthew 1:21- And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.Again, if this verse limits the atonement, it would limit it to Jesus’ people- the Jews. Matthew begins by explaining in great detail who "his people" are.
Matthew 20:28- Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.Matthew 26:28-For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.Hebrews 9:28- So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.Calvinist and others that limited the extent of the death of Christ use these passages to say, " See, the Bible says many. Why does it not say all?" They wish to use the verses to show that Jesus only died for a select group of people, not every individual. But do they prove that Jesus died for them and them only? If Jesus only died for many because these verses say many, then some problems arise. Not only do we have the difficulty found with Isaiah 53:5 and Matthew 1:21, but Galatians 2:20 must now be taken into consideration, which states "I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me." Did Christ die for Paul only? Not all aspects of a truth are always found in one verse. This is proven by Galatians 2:20 and Matthew 20:28.
Unlimited redepmtionalists have no trouble with these passages. Christ certainly died for many, and also for Paul. Concerning Matthew 20:28, Lightner states the following: " The preposition translated "for" clearly teaches substitution- one in the place of another" Accomplished exegete Tasker agrees in his commentary on Matthew. He says, it "conveys the idea of substitution. Christ was to die in the place of (anti) many the death which they, but not He, deserved.
John 10:11, 15- I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.vs.11As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep. Vs.15That Jesus died for the sheep is not the issue. Yet, does the proof that Jesus only died for the sheep lie in these statements? Strict Calvinist must insert the word" only "before the phrase " for the sheep". To further illustrate, consider the Sunday school teacher that give her entire class a piece of candy. As she passes one of her pupil’s parents in the hall, she comments " I gave Johnny a piece of candy today for attending." She accurately stated a fact, yet the entire class received a prize. In is only postulated in the mind of the parent that Johnny and Johnny alone got some candy.
Acts 20:28- Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.Ephesians 5:25- Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;Lightner again sums it up with this statement: " Unless the church is made to refer to the saints of all ages (which cannot be done without departing from a literal interpretation; cf. Matt. 16:18; 1 Cor. 10:32; Heb. 12:22,) this passage must also be extended beyond the borders of that new entity established entity.... No one who believes Israel and the church are distinct and entirely separate can appeal to this passage in Ephesians 5 to support the limited redemptionlist view.
In taking in all of these verses, unlimited redemptionlists have zero difficulty in harmonizing God’s Word with their view of the extent of the atonement. The same cannot be said of the other side of the coin. Not one single verse in the Bible says Jesus did not die for every individual. As we will see, the Bible plainly and clearly teaches the blood was available to anyone.
Verses Used By Unlimited Redemptionlists
Multiplied dozens of verses are used to proclaim the great Biblical truth that Jesus died for all individuals. Most of all the following verses must be rewritten to fit the mold of Calvinism. We will begin with verses that use the word "whosoever". It should be noted that in his theology book, Chafer tells us " the word whosoever is used at least 110 times in the New Testament, and always with the unrestricted meaning"
John 3:16- For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.Perhaps there is no other verse more memorized and more quoted by believers everywhere. The love of God and His plan of redemption are evident in this great passage of Scripture. When one reads the context of this verse, he is reminded that just as anyone could look to the brazen serpent and live, so can anyone that looks to Jesus. Wiersbe wrote in his book "He (Jesus) became the ‘uplifted serpent.’ The serpent in Moses’ day brought physical life to dying Jews; but Jesus Christ gives eternal life to anyone who trusts Him. He has salvation for the whole world!"
Romans 10:13-For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.Revelation 22:17-And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that hearth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.As one will see while debating a Calvinist, they restrict the word "whosoever" when dealing with salvation, but not other subjects. Of the verses that say "whosoever", none read "whosoever of the elect". One must ask "Why?"
Luke 19:10- For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.What a wondrous statement. Hours could be spent expounding on the truths of this verse. How does a limited redemptionalist handle this verse? They retreat to tactic of twisting Scripture. There is no evidence that this verse means anything else but that Jesus came to save that which was lost. Everyone is lost at one time or another.Retreat by restrictionPerhaps the saddest fact of the whole concept of limited atonement is the automatic restriction put on the words "all, world, whosoever, etc". When pertaining to salvation, it is a given that the preceding words apply to the elect. Everywhere else, study is put into the context of how the word is used. The inconsistency and lack of scholarship is embarrassing and lacks the blessings of God. 2 Timothy 2:15 clearly states, "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." When one fails to properly study and divide, it is a shame to him. What if we were to restrict the word "all" anywhere we wished? How about I Corinthians 10:31-"Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God." Consider John 1:3-"All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made." Incongruous, is it not? Yet when it comes to Titus 2: 11, which states "For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,"- routine restriction is applied.
I Timothy 2:4 falls prey to the same attack- "Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth." Because of the various views of the extent of the atonement, these verses provide only moderate difficulty for some. However, as seen by those on the frontlines of debate, retreat is often made by restriction."World" is strongly constrained, perhaps most famously in John 3:16. The cry among limited redemptionalists is that the "world" mentioned is the "world of the elect", or the "world in the sense tribes and nations, not just the Jews". John 1:29 and 1 John 2:2 face similar guillotines. John Calvin answered in his commentary about I John 2:2 that "I pass by the dotages of the fanatics, who under this pretence extend salvation to all the reprobate, and therefore to Satan himself." I cannot speak for the fanatics that Calvin mentions, but nowhere does the Bible say that salvation is offered for the angels. Just the opposite is attested to in Scripture. I Peter 1:12 is proof of this- "Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into,". Furthermore, the death of Christ was not to save all of mankind, but to make it possible.
Worked out by weird wording
If strict Calvinists were correct in their view of the atonement, how strange would I John 2:2 read? It would read similar to this: And he is the propitiation for our sins (sins of the elect): and not for ours (the elect) only, but also for the sins of the whole world (world of the elect). Other verses are butchered in similar manners. It is here I insert a quote that is long, yet important for one to see the danger of this practice.
Robert Lightner uses this in his book The Death Christ Died. (p.108)"I am willing to grant, for the sake of giving your objection all possible force, that these words are used in the various senses you mention. Not, however, that I believe the word 'world' is ever used for God's people as distinguished from others. What then, is the force of your objection? It is plainly this, that because these words are sometimes used in a limited sense, they may be so used in the texts I have quoted, and that you are at liberty to put this construction upon them if you please. But where will this principle lead us? Let us apply it to a few cases. The word God is sometimes used to signify a civil ruler; therefore, according to this principle of interpretation, it may be so understood in any given text. 'In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,' may mean, In the beginning a civil leader created the heavens and the earth. The word everlasting is sometimes used to signify a limited duration; therefore, it may be so understood in any given text; and, 'These shall go away into everlasting punishment,' may mean, These shall go away into a punishment of limited duration. And when the saints are promised everlasting life, it may mean a life of limited duration. And when Christ is styled the 'Mighty God, the Everlasting Father,' it may mean, the mighty civil ruler, the Father of a limited duration. The word salvation is sometimes used to signify deliverance from a temporary calamity therefore, it may be so understood in any given text, and there may be no salvation but deliverance from temporal calamities. The word resurrection is sometimes used to signify regeneration; therefore it may be so understood in any given text, and there may be not resurrection foretold in the Scripture but regeneration. The word baptism is sometimes used to signify sufferings; therefore, it may be so understood in any given text; and the command to the apostles to go out and baptize all nations may mean that they [109] should go and inflict sufferings upon all nations. A principle of interpretation which leads into such absurdities cannot be admitted as a correct rule of interpreting the Word of God. Under the operation of such a rule, the Bible would become, as some pretend it is, a book by which anything can be supported, and nothing proved. Every part of it would become 'vague and ambiguous in its meaning.' ''
Odd Offers
The offer of the gospel to every creature is Biblical and mandatory. While some Calvinists insist on not taking the responsibility seriously, others do it with tongue in check. Many Calvinists emphasize that although the atonement is particular, Christ died only for the elect, yet the offer of the gospel is for everyone. This is the unexplainable paradox that limited proponents are content to live with. What kind of farce is this? God offers His Son, yet He did not offer His Son. Because this teaching is closely intertwined with unconditional election, a brief mention of this dangerous doctrine will do.Calvinism teaches that from eternity past, God has unconditionally elected certain ones to salvation regardless of any merit on their part. Unconditional emphasizes that election is not conditioned on God’s foreknowledge that certain ones will believe in Christ. Election is not conditioned on man’s ability or response. Unconditional emphasizes that God alone initiates the process. If God has elected certain ones to salvation from eternity past, then it logically follows that He will also provide for the redemption of precisely those whom He has chosen.Thus we have missionaries, preachers, and Sunday School teachers wasting time by giving the gospel to those it was not really offered to. Imagine poor Paul, as he labored to convert the Jews and Gentiles. What did he really mean when he penned Romans 10:1- "Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved." Consider Matthew 9:38-" Pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, that he will send forth laborers into his harvest." Did Jesus had the desire to see more laborers wasted their time? Did He really want people to give the gospel to those that He did not die for? What would the Lord need more laborers for: a world where He died for everyone, or a world where He only died for some? Remember, in context Jesus was seeing the masses-the multitudes.If Jesus died for only some, then it stands to reason that it is not remotely possible that everyone could be saved. The basis for a worldwide verbal offer of the gospel is the reality that Jesus bled for the entire world. The converse side is a contradiction, not a paradox, of "thus saith the Lord". William Evens correctly relates that " The offer of the Gospel to all is not a pretence but a reality on the part of God."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)