Total Posts:21|Showing Posts:1-21
Jump to topic:

John 3:16 & TULIP

joneszj
Posts: 1,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2012 11:12:28 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
@jharry

You asked how can/does John 3:16 fit in TULIP. "World does not mean elect". Also, It is inevitable to end up discussing multiple points of TULIP as they all intertwine.

1. Verses of universal / limited interpretation
In the Bbile we have many verses like John 3:16 that say God died for all or desires to save all. There are also many verses that say God died for a 'specific' and 'limited' amount of people. I will list some of both at the end of this point (see 1a). The verses that speak of God saving a 'specific' and 'limited' amount of people can only be interpreted one way. The verses that mention God saving the 'world' can be interpreted in atleast two ways (see 1b). It would follow that to be consistent the verses that may be interpreted in many ways must follow in consistency the verses that can only be interpreted one way. The problem is that if they are interpreted as the whole world then those verses are in direct confliction with the verses that are specific and limited to who God is saving.

1a: Universal/Limited verses list
Verses of universal
-John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life."
-John 12:32: "But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself."
-1 Timothy 2:4-6: "who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for all..."
Verses of limited
-Matt. 26:28: "for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins."
-John 10:11: "I am the good shepherd; the good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep."
-John 17:9: "I ask on their behalf; I do not ask on behalf of the world, but of those whom Thou hast given Me; for they are Thine."
-Eph. 5:25-27: "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her."

"When we examine the scriptures, we see that "all" when used in the context of salvation can be interpreted in at least two ways: 1) It can only mean the elect, 2) it can mean everyone. As I mentioned above, when two sets of related scriptures have various interpretations and there are a few that can only be interpreted one way, then it seems best to interpret all the scriptures in such a way so that they agree.
When God wants all men to be saved, they are. God predestines. He died for those He predestined. And He has been working from all eternity to atone for, sanctify, and glorify His elect. It will occur because God has ordained it so. " http://www.mslick.com...

For a more complete list with explinations: http://www.mslick.com...

1b: Universal terms are not absolutely objective universal terms, 'all' the time. It depends on the context of who is being spoken to.

2. Can God fail to do anything?
If God did died for everyone and not everyone is saved then either 1) God failed to save everyone, or 2) those he died for are being punished for something that was already paid for in full. Either way makes no sense. Calvinists do not see salvation as a 'possibility' but instead something that was determined and effectual.

3. Limted/universal atonement
"The term "limited atonement" addresses the question, "For whom did Christ die?" But behind the question of the extent of the atonement lies the equally important question about the nature of the atonement. What did Christ actually achieve on the cross for those for whom he died?" I do not have the time I need to go over this but the link does a good job at explaining how Limited Atonement is biblically consistent and it it universal atonement that actually is limited in its effect. http://www.monergism.com...

The question rather is what is the purpose of Christ's death, and what He accomplished in it. Did Christ intend to make salvation no more than possible? Or did He actually save those for whom He died? Reformed theology stresses that Jesus actually atoned for the sins of those the Father had chosen. He actually propitiated the wrath of God toward His people by taking their judgment upon Himself, actually redeemed them, and actually reconciled those specific persons to God. A better name for "limited" atonement would be "particular" or "specific" redemption.
http://www.reformedreader.org...

4. A close examination of John 3:16
In John 3:16 God is not saying Christ died for the world. It simply says that God loved the world. To be more specific Christs death is effectual to 'whoever believes'. Whoever believes is obviously not the world because the world does not believe.

I apologize, this is rushed as I am at work and pressed on time. The links below are some of what I used and go into greater detail of what I discussed above. I hope to some degree I was able to show that they are at the least not incompatible :-) If time permits at work I will make another thread addressing the POE & Calvinism, or it will have to wait until I get home. Grace & peace!

Links:
http://www.mslick.com...
http://www.monergism.com...
http://www.reformedreader.org...
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2012 12:28:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/26/2012 11:12:28 AM, joneszj wrote:
@jharry

You asked how can/does John 3:16 fit in TULIP. "World does not mean elect". Also, It is inevitable to end up discussing multiple points of TULIP as they all intertwine.

Yes it is. This will probably get a whole lot bigger very soon.

1. Verses of universal / limited interpretation
In the Bbile we have many verses like John 3:16 that say God died for all or desires to save all. There are also many verses that say God died for a 'specific' and 'limited' amount of people. I will list some of both at the end of this point (see 1a). The verses that speak of God saving a 'specific' and 'limited' amount of people can only be interpreted one way. The verses that mention God saving the 'world' can be interpreted in atleast two ways (see 1b). It would follow that to be consistent the verses that may be interpreted in many ways must follow in consistency the verses that can only be interpreted one way. The problem is that if they are interpreted as the whole world then those verses are in direct confliction with the verses that are specific and limited to who God is saving.

1a: Universal/Limited verses list
Verses of universal
-John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life."
-John 12:32: "But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself."
-1 Timothy 2:4-6: "who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for all..."
Verses of limited
-Matt. 26:28: "for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins."

This verse can't really be used to substantiate TULIP. Many can be any number, the only thing we can really know it is not for a few.

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

This verse implies that people that truly believe will know His voice, there is nothing that implies there are only an elected amount of sheep. And Jesus was making this address to certain people, and He was making a point amount a certain matter.

-John 17:9: "I ask on their behalf; I do not ask on behalf of the world, but of those whom Thou hast given Me; for they are Thine."

This verse is best viewed in complete context. He was speaking to His disciples in the chapter before 17. He was giving a prayer for His disciples. If we try to force TULIP into this verse then it looks like on the disciples were to be saved.

-Eph. 5:25-27: "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her."

This verse describes His Love for the Church, it does not imply that only certain people will be this Church.

"When we examine the scriptures, we see that "all" when used in the context of salvation can be interpreted in at least two ways: 1) It can only mean the elect, 2) it can mean everyone. As I mentioned above, when two sets of related scriptures have various interpretations and there are a few that can only be interpreted one way, then it seems best to interpret all the scriptures in such a way so that they agree.
When God wants all men to be saved, they are. God predestines. He died for those He predestined. And He has been working from all eternity to atone for, sanctify, and glorify His elect. It will occur because God has ordained it so. " http://www.mslick.com...

Here is where this discussion gets a whole lot bigger.

" When God wants all men to be saved, they are. God predestines."

It seems TULIP rests solely on this statement. But this statement has not been shown to be true in light of Scriptures.

For a more complete list with explinations: http://www.mslick.com...

1b: Universal terms are not absolutely objective universal terms, 'all' the time. It depends on the context of who is being spoken to.

Every letter of scripture has to be viewed in full context. But several verses you have offered have to be viewed narrowly to give even a hint of supporting TULIP.

2. Can God fail to do anything?
If God did died for everyone and not everyone is saved then either 1) God failed to save everyone, or 2) those he died for are being punished for something that was already paid for in full. Either way makes no sense. Calvinists do not see salvation as a 'possibility' but instead something that was determined and effectual.

This is where Free will comes in. I can desire my children to do as I want, but because I can't change their free will I am limited. BUT, I'm only limited by my love for them. It is not that I can not force them to do as I wish. I could lock them in their rooms and provide only what the law requires. But I love them so I will not. And I am wise enough to understand that this will be detrimental in the future. Now, if I could remove their will then I would no longer have children. I would have robots and I don't want robots for children.

3. Limted/universal atonement
"The term "limited atonement" addresses the question, "For whom did Christ die?" But behind the question of the extent of the atonement lies the equally important question about the nature of the atonement. What did Christ actually achieve on the cross for those for whom he died?" I do not have the time I need to go over this but the link does a good job at explaining how Limited Atonement is biblically consistent and it it universal atonement that actually is limited in its effect. http://www.monergism.com...

Christ fulfilled Our Fathers promise made to our first parents and Satan. He restored the relationship between God and Man. Jesus reopened the door to Heaven which had been sealed due to sin. He set the captives free that had been in exile from Adam to the death of our Lord. Satan no longer has a grip on the world, Jesus broke those chains. He made all things new.

The question rather is what is the purpose of Christ's death, and what He accomplished in it. Did Christ intend to make salvation no more than possible? Or did He actually save those for whom He died? Reformed theology stresses that Jesus actually atoned for the sins of those the Father had chosen. He actually propitiated the wrath of God toward His people by taking their judgment upon Himself, actually redeemed them, and actually reconciled those specific persons to God. A better name for "limited" atonement would be "particular" or "specific" redemption.
http://www.reformedreader.org...

Please post some verses that back up your interpretation of what Jesus died for, posting a link isn't really the best way to do this.

I'm not going to go through this link and comment on every verse it gives. Please pick a few that you feel are solid and post them, thanks.

4. A close examination of John 3:16
In John 3:16 God is not saying Christ died for the world. It simply says that God loved the world. To be more specific Christs death is effectual to 'whoever believes'. Whoever believes is obviously not the world because the world does not believe.

I apologize, this is rushed as I am at work and pressed on time. The links below are some of what I used and go into greater detail of what I discussed above. I hope to some degree I was able to show that they are at the least not incompatible :-) If time permits at work I will make another thread addressing the POE & Calvinism, or it will have to wait until I get home. Grace & peace!

Links:
http://www.mslick.com...
http://www.monergism.com...
http://www.reformedreader.org...

Again, I am also pressed for time too. Please post some verses and arguments for them so I can
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
InquireTruth
Posts: 723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2012 12:59:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
You forgot a very important one:

1 John 2:2
He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.


It is even clearer in the Greek, as it conjoins Kosmos [world] with Olos [whole or all]. So while the author of 1 John makes it clear to decipher between believing Christians when he says "our sins" (the introduction is clearly to Christians) he also conjoins "not just our sins" to make a distinction that Christ died for the sins of all of the world.
joneszj
Posts: 1,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2012 1:46:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/27/2012 12:28:03 PM, jharry wrote:
At 1/26/2012 11:12:28 AM, joneszj wrote:
@jharry

You asked how can/does John 3:16 fit in TULIP. "World does not mean elect". Also, It is inevitable to end up discussing multiple points of TULIP as they all intertwine.

Yes it is. This will probably get a whole lot bigger very soon.

1. Verses of universal / limited interpretation

1a: Universal/Limited verses list
Verses of universal
-John 3:16
-John 12:32
-1 Timothy 2:4-6
Verses of limited
-Matt. 26:28: "for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins."

This verse can't really be used to substantiate TULIP. Many can be any number, the only thing we can really know it is not for a few.

Many does not mean few, yet it does not mean the world. It does however mean a limited number (which is what TULIP teaches).

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

This verse implies that people that truly believe will know His voice, there is nothing that implies there are only an elected amount of sheep. And Jesus was making this address to certain people, and He was making a point amount a certain matter.

?

-John 17:9: "I ask on their behalf; I do not ask on behalf of the world, but of those whom Thou hast given Me; for they are Thine."

This verse is best viewed in complete context. He was speaking to His disciples in the chapter before 17. He was giving a prayer for His disciples. If we try to force TULIP into this verse then it looks like on the disciples were to be saved.

In context the scope is all life that He has given eternal life to not just the desciples. Look at John 17:2- he says that those the Father have given him are those who recieve eternal life the scope being all flesh. Over all flesh Christ gives eternal life to those the Father gave him. All flesh is not limited to the desciples. Explain how 'all' in v10 is limited to the desciples only. Also v20 Jesus specifies that the prayer was not 'just' for the desciples but for all those who believe. TULIP demonstartes that only those the Father gave Christ are saved.

-Eph. 5:25-27: "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her."

This verse describes His Love for the Church, it does not imply that only certain people will be this Church.

It implys that Christ died for his church, not the world. I think you are targeting a different aspect then what Calvinists pull from the verse.

"When we examine the scriptures, we see that "all" when used in the context of salvation can be interpreted in at least two ways: 1) It can only mean the elect, 2) it can mean everyone. As I mentioned above, when two sets of related scriptures have various interpretations and there are a few that can only be interpreted one way, then it seems best to interpret all the scriptures in such a way so that they agree.
When God wants all men to be saved, they are. God predestines. He died for those He predestined. And He has been working from all eternity to atone for, sanctify, and glorify His elect. It will occur because God has ordained it so. " http://www.mslick.com...

Here is where this discussion gets a whole lot bigger.

Lolz.

" When God wants all men to be saved, they are. God predestines."

It seems TULIP rests solely on this statement. But this statement has not been shown to be true in light of Scriptures.

Re-read some of the verses above. This thread was not meant to be comprehensive by any means. We would need to have many different threads to really discuss this.

For a more complete list with explinations: http://www.mslick.com...

1b: Universal terms are not absolutely objective universal terms, 'all' the time. It depends on the context of who is being spoken to.

Every letter of scripture has to be viewed in full context. But several verses you have offered have to be viewed narrowly to give even a hint of supporting TULIP.

Humbly I submit to you that in context the TULIP fits more appropriatly then Arminianism. Demonstrating so in a single thread is not plausible.

2. Can God fail to do anything?
If God did died for everyone and not everyone is saved then either 1) God failed to save everyone, or 2) those he died for are being punished for something that was already paid for in full. Either way makes no sense. Calvinists do not see salvation as a 'possibility' but instead something that was determined and effectual.

This is where Free will comes in. I can desire my children to do as I want, but because I can't change their free will I am limited. BUT, I'm only limited by my love for them. It is not that I can not force them to do as I wish. I could lock them in their rooms and provide only what the law requires. But I love them so I will not. And I am wise enough to understand that this will be detrimental in the future. Now, if I could remove their will then I would no longer have children. I would have robots and I don't want robots for children.

Using verses substantiate free will as you are using it.

3. Limted/universal atonement
"The term "limited atonement" addresses the question, "For whom did Christ die?" But behind the question of the extent of the atonement lies the equally important question about the nature of the atonement. What did Christ actually achieve on the cross for those for whom he died?" I do not have the time I need to go over this but the link does a good job at explaining how Limited Atonement is biblically consistent and it it universal atonement that actually is limited in its effect. http://www.monergism.com...

Christ fulfilled Our Fathers promise made to our first parents and Satan. He restored the relationship between God and Man. Jesus reopened the door to Heaven which had been sealed due to sin. He set the captives free that had been in exile from Adam to the death of our Lord. Satan no longer has a grip on the world, Jesus broke those chains. He made all things new.

The question rather is what is the purpose of Christ's death, and what He accomplished in it. Did Christ intend to make salvation no more than possible? Or did He actually save those for whom He died? Reformed theology stresses that Jesus actually atoned for the sins of those the Father had chosen. He actually propitiated the wrath of God toward His people by taking their judgment upon Himself, actually redeemed them, and actually reconciled those specific persons to God. A better name for "limited" atonement would be "particular" or "specific" redemption.
http://www.reformedreader.org...

Please post some verses that back up your interpretation of what Jesus died for, posting a link isn't really the best way to do this.

One intentionally noncomprehen thread is not the best way to do this.

I'm not going to go through this link and comment on every verse it gives. Please pick a few that you feel are solid and post them, thanks.

4. A close examination of John 3:16
In John 3:16 God is not saying Christ died for the world. It simply says that God loved the world. To be more specific Christs death is effectual to 'whoever believes'. Whoever believes is obviously not the world because the world does not believe.

It was not my intention to make this a comprehensive thread. There is simply not enough room to discuss the whole of TULIP and Arminianism in one thread. I suggest this: pick any topic in TULIP to discuss and we can share verses and disuss them. What say you good sir?
joneszj
Posts: 1,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2012 2:16:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/27/2012 12:59:41 PM, InquireTruth wrote:
You forgot a very important one:

1 John 2:2
He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.


It is even clearer in the Greek, as it conjoins Kosmos [world] with Olos [whole or all]. So while the author of 1 John makes it clear to decipher between believing Christians when he says "our sins" (the introduction is clearly to Christians) he also conjoins "not just our sins" to make a distinction that Christ died for the sins of all of the world.

(1) The interpretation of whole world is incompatible with other verses.
(2) Hermenuetics. John is indicating that Christ died not just for the Jews but for the Gentiles.
Please examine: http://www.reformationtheology.com...

I know its not mouch at all but I have not time. :( my apologies.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2012 2:17:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/27/2012 1:53:38 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
What's TULIP?

It is the five points of Calvinism.
http://www.debate.org...

Here is a great debate to explain the general distinctions on both sides.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2012 2:31:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/27/2012 2:16:01 PM, joneszj wrote:
At 1/27/2012 12:59:41 PM, InquireTruth wrote:
You forgot a very important one:

1 John 2:2
He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.


It is even clearer in the Greek, as it conjoins Kosmos [world] with Olos [whole or all]. So while the author of 1 John makes it clear to decipher between believing Christians when he says "our sins" (the introduction is clearly to Christians) he also conjoins "not just our sins" to make a distinction that Christ died for the sins of all of the world.

(1) The interpretation of whole world is incompatible with other verses.
(2) Hermenuetics. John is indicating that Christ died not just for the Jews but for the Gentiles.
Please examine: http://www.reformationtheology.com...

I know its not mouch at all but I have not time. :( my apologies.

This is why the reformed theology mars practical and natural reading of the key text.
It is a framework theology.

It takes key out of context verses and then constructs a framework around all other verses.
Any verse that seems to contradict the framework is 'reinterpreted', usually in a very precarious contortionist scenario, to mean something a natural reader would never conclude.

Basically restated every interpretation presupposes a Calvinist view. So the Calvinist works to reinterpret scriptures in light of the presupposition. This is contradictory with the more valid practice of interpretation, which is reading for the author's intent within context and natural flow.

Harold Camping (the may 21st guy) did this same practice. He took key verses to mean something no one else believed they meant. Created an interpretive framework to filter all other verses through. Then like Tulip he created a Numerological bent and wound up declaring the end of the world several times in the last 20 years.

A framework theology is complex to understand but once you work back to the presuppositions it can be shown to be an errant method of presuppositional interpretation.
joneszj
Posts: 1,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2012 2:47:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/27/2012 2:31:43 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/27/2012 2:16:01 PM, joneszj wrote:
At 1/27/2012 12:59:41 PM, InquireTruth wrote:
You forgot a very important one:

1 John 2:2
He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.


It is even clearer in the Greek, as it conjoins Kosmos [world] with Olos [whole or all]. So while the author of 1 John makes it clear to decipher between believing Christians when he says "our sins" (the introduction is clearly to Christians) he also conjoins "not just our sins" to make a distinction that Christ died for the sins of all of the world.

(1) The interpretation of whole world is incompatible with other verses.
(2) Hermenuetics. John is indicating that Christ died not just for the Jews but for the Gentiles.
Please examine: http://www.reformationtheology.com...

I know its not mouch at all but I have not time. :( my apologies.

This is why the reformed theology mars practical and natural reading of the key text.
It is a framework theology.

It takes key out of context verses and then constructs a framework around all other verses.
Any verse that seems to contradict the framework is 'reinterpreted', usually in a very precarious contortionist scenario, to mean something a natural reader would never conclude.

All theology must 'reinterpret' verses that if read 'naturally' would conflict with itself. This is necessary as many verses seem to contradict. Arminianism does the same.

Basically restated every interpretation presupposes a Calvinist view. So the Calvinist works to reinterpret scriptures in light of the presupposition. This is contradictory with the more valid practice of interpretation, which is reading for the author's intent within context and natural flow.

I would contend that every interpretation is meant to fit other verses that can only be interpreted one way. I would say Arminianism tries to do the same.

Harold Camping (the may 21st guy) did this same practice. He took key verses to mean something no one else believed they meant. Created an interpretive framework to filter all other verses through. Then like Tulip he created a Numerological bent and wound up declaring the end of the world several times in the last 20 years.

Calvinism =/= Harold Camping :( Calvinisms interpretation of scripture works as a means to justify scripture with scripture. NOT presupposition with scripture.

A framework theology is complex to understand but once you work back to the presuppositions it can be shown to be an errant method of presuppositional interpretation.

Prevenient Grace is not a presupposition? Certain things must logically be true if a certain belief is to be held. What presuppositions do Calvinists have? That God is sovereign? That man is morally dead in nature? That Christ died for a certain fixed number of people throughout the world? That the call of God is irresistable? That Salvation cannot be lost once granted from God?
joneszj
Posts: 1,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2012 3:31:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/27/2012 2:47:14 PM, joneszj wrote:
At 1/27/2012 2:31:43 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/27/2012 2:16:01 PM, joneszj wrote:
At 1/27/2012 12:59:41 PM, InquireTruth wrote:
You forgot a very important one:

1 John 2:2
He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.


It is even clearer in the Greek, as it conjoins Kosmos [world] with Olos [whole or all]. So while the author of 1 John makes it clear to decipher between believing Christians when he says "our sins" (the introduction is clearly to Christians) he also conjoins "not just our sins" to make a distinction that Christ died for the sins of all of the world.

(1) The interpretation of whole world is incompatible with other verses.
(2) Hermenuetics. John is indicating that Christ died not just for the Jews but for the Gentiles.
Please examine: http://www.reformationtheology.com...

I know its not mouch at all but I have not time. :( my apologies.

This is why the reformed theology mars practical and natural reading of the key text.
It is a framework theology.

It takes key out of context verses and then constructs a framework around all other verses.
Any verse that seems to contradict the framework is 'reinterpreted', usually in a very precarious contortionist scenario, to mean something a natural reader would never conclude.

All theology must 'reinterpret' verses that if read 'naturally' would conflict with itself. This is necessary as many verses seem to contradict. Arminianism does the same.

Basically restated every interpretation presupposes a Calvinist view. So the Calvinist works to reinterpret scriptures in light of the presupposition. This is contradictory with the more valid practice of interpretation, which is reading for the author's intent within context and natural flow.

I would contend that every interpretation is meant to fit other verses that can only be interpreted one way. I would say Arminianism tries to do the same.

Harold Camping (the may 21st guy) did this same practice. He took key verses to mean something no one else believed they meant. Created an interpretive framework to filter all other verses through. Then like Tulip he created a Numerological bent and wound up declaring the end of the world several times in the last 20 years.

Calvinism =/= Harold Camping :( Calvinisms interpretation of scripture works as a means to justify scripture with scripture. NOT presupposition with scripture.

A framework theology is complex to understand but once you work back to the presuppositions it can be shown to be an errant method of presuppositional interpretation.

Prevenient Grace is not a presupposition? Certain things must logically be true if a certain belief is to be held. What presuppositions do Calvinists have? That God is sovereign? That man is morally dead in nature? That Christ died for a certain fixed number of people throughout the world? That the call of God is irresistable? That Salvation cannot be lost once granted from God?

Presupossition's of Arminianism:
-That the sovereignty of God is limited to human freedom
-That salvific faith is worked by man and not a gift from God
-That Christ's death was effectual for all mankind but limited so enabeling human freedom as opposed to granting salvation
-that man can loose their salvation
-man has a will that is free from the effects of the fall

None of these presumptions have been substantiated by scripture (to my knowledge) and have always been defended with philosophical arguments instead of scripture in my experience.

Point being that theology attempts to make sense of the Bible as a whole by the Bible. The interpretation of one verse must be consistent with its application to the rest of the Bible. Calvinism does not fail in this respect. Saying so is to defame the majority of church history and great theologians such as Augistine, and Luther.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2012 3:57:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/27/2012 2:47:14 PM, joneszj wrote:
At 1/27/2012 2:31:43 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/27/2012 2:16:01 PM, joneszj wrote:
At 1/27/2012 12:59:41 PM, InquireTruth wrote:
You forgot a very important one:

1 John 2:2
He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.


It is even clearer in the Greek, as it conjoins Kosmos [world] with Olos [whole or all]. So while the author of 1 John makes it clear to decipher between believing Christians when he says "our sins" (the introduction is clearly to Christians) he also conjoins "not just our sins" to make a distinction that Christ died for the sins of all of the world.

(1) The interpretation of whole world is incompatible with other verses.
(2) Hermenuetics. John is indicating that Christ died not just for the Jews but for the Gentiles.
Please examine: http://www.reformationtheology.com...

I know its not mouch at all but I have not time. :( my apologies.

This is why the reformed theology mars practical and natural reading of the key text.
It is a framework theology.

It takes key out of context verses and then constructs a framework around all other verses.
Any verse that seems to contradict the framework is 'reinterpreted', usually in a very precarious contortionist scenario, to mean something a natural reader would never conclude.

All theology must 'reinterpret' verses that if read 'naturally' would conflict with itself. This is necessary as many verses seem to contradict. Arminianism does the same.

A natural interpretion does not reinterpret verses. It works to understand context and Isagogics and then read what the author intended within the complexity of reality.

I do not know that Arminianism reinterprets anything, but harkens back to a traditional interpretation.
As Wesleyan methodology uses Scripture, Logic, tradition and experience to understand the fullness of the reality. This is an interpretive process not a reinterpretive process.


Basically restated every interpretation presupposes a Calvinist view. So the Calvinist works to reinterpret scriptures in light of the presupposition. This is contradictory with the more valid practice of interpretation, which is reading for the author's intent within context and natural flow.

I would contend that every interpretation is meant to fit other verses that can only be interpreted one way. I would say Arminianism tries to do the same.

A natural theological reading works to reflect the reality of the author's intent. It does not seek a one way interpretation but allows a theological development that is revealed from the reality of the Biblical author's thoughts as they are conveyed.


Harold Camping (the may 21st guy) did this same practice. He took key verses to mean something no one else believed they meant. Created an interpretive framework to filter all other verses through. Then like Tulip he created a Numerological bent and wound up declaring the end of the world several times in the last 20 years.

Calvinism =/= Harold Camping :( Calvinisms interpretation of scripture works as a means to justify scripture with scripture. NOT presupposition with scripture.

I did not state Harold Camping = Calvinism. Please allow me to be more clear.
Calvinism = Presupposition Framework Theology
Harold Camping = Presupposition Framework Theology.

Calvinism indeed uses presuppositions and "reads into" scriptures. Very few scriptures could be said that they 'might' affirm a calvinistic reading.

Once isagogics and context are understood they are heavily unlikely to affirm a calvinistic view.
However, all the natural readings that teach against calvinism are sent through a 'framework' process of filtration to 'no longer' teach against calvinism.


A framework theology is complex to understand but once you work back to the presuppositions it can be shown to be an errant method of presuppositional interpretation.

Prevenient Grace is not a presupposition? Certain things must logically be true if a certain belief is to be held. What presuppositions do Calvinists have? That God is sovereign? That man is morally dead in nature? That Christ died for a certain fixed number of people throughout the world? That the call of God is irresistable? That Salvation cannot be lost once granted from God?

Exampe of presuppositions of Calvinism:
Presup 1) God's soverignty is predominant attribute and unrestricted by circumstances and his other attributes. A declaritive statement interpreted to mean something it does not is presumed to be a filter for all other verses.

Presup 2) God's sense of Justice would not be understood by 'man'. Again a declaritive statement is interpreted to represent this supposition and all other verses filter through the presupposition.

Response) A Natural theology allows the scriptures to reveal the complex reality of how God's attributes function. The 3,500 years of scripture, Isagogics, Author's understood intent, Logic, tradition, and personal experience supercede any limited presuppositional view.

For example #2:
- Logic would dictate God would make us to be able to understand Justice, within the designed capacity.
- A comprehensive and cumulative understanding of scripture reveals progressivley how his attributes are to be understood.
- We see a natural law at work in us that echo's God's nature
- We personally experience the reality of Justice and Injustice
- We see that scholars throughout history have affirmed the reality of a natural interpretation.

This is a generic overview. If you cite a single scripture that is a keystone of Calvinism you find to be particularly potent I will show you how a natural theology interprets it and we can compare the interpretive process of Calvinism vs. Natural theologies.
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2012 9:30:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/27/2012 1:46:11 PM, joneszj wrote:
At 1/27/2012 12:28:03 PM, jharry wrote:
At 1/26/2012 11:12:28 AM, joneszj wrote:

Many does not mean few, yet it does not mean the world. It does however mean a limited number (which is what TULIP teaches).

Now one is saying the entire world will be saved. Those that believe. Calvinism adds in it requires God's direct will for any individual to be able to believe. Calvinism adds to Scripture.

This verse is best viewed in complete context. He was speaking to His disciples in the chapter before 17. He was giving a prayer for His disciples. If we try to force TULIP into this verse then it looks like on the disciples were to be saved.

In context the scope is all life that He has given eternal life to not just the desciples. Look at John 17:2- he says that those the Father have given him are those who recieve eternal life the scope being all flesh. Over all flesh Christ gives eternal life to those the Father gave him. All flesh is not limited to the desciples. Explain how 'all' in v10 is limited to the desciples only. Also v20 Jesus specifies that the prayer was not 'just' for the desciples but for all those who believe. TULIP demonstartes that only those the Father gave Christ are saved.

And He was talking about the disciples directly. Jesus didn't sit in the woods waiting for the disciples to come to Him. He went out and found everyone of them. Has it ever dawned on you that each disciple was chosen before time because they would be the ones to follow His way?

-Eph. 5:25-27: "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her."

This verse describes His Love for the Church, it does not imply that only certain people will be this Church.

It implys that Christ died for his church, not the world. I think you are targeting a different aspect then what Calvinists pull from the verse.

No, the Church came from the world. Jesus died for the world so that those that believe (any of them) can come to Him. Calvinism places those doctrines in between what is written, it does not interpret what is written.

" When God wants all men to be saved, they are. God predestines."

It seems TULIP rests solely on this statement. But this statement has not been shown to be true in light of Scriptures.

Re-read some of the verses above. This thread was not meant to be comprehensive by any means. We would need to have many different threads to really discuss this.

I did, I didn't see anything that remotely states only those that are chosen will be saved.

Every letter of scripture has to be viewed in full context. But several verses you have offered have to be viewed narrowly to give even a hint of supporting TULIP.

Humbly I submit to you that in context the TULIP fits more appropriatly then Arminianism. Demonstrating so in a single thread is not plausible.

The problem is Calvinism gathers various verses, takes them out of context and then puts them in an imaginary line to try and say something that was never intended.

This is where Free will comes in. I can desire my children to do as I want, but because I can't change their free will I am limited. BUT, I'm only limited by my love for them. It is not that I can not force them to do as I wish. I could lock them in their rooms and provide only what the law requires. But I love them so I will not. And I am wise enough to understand that this will be detrimental in the future. Now, if I could remove their will then I would no longer have children. I would have robots and I don't want robots for children.

Using verses substantiate free will as you are using it.

16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God's one and only Son. 19 This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20 Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed. 21 But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done in the sight of God.

This entire section demonstrates why people hate the light. It is not because they rebel because that is all they know. It is because they wish to hide their sins from God. Hiding something shows that people have a will and chose to hide it.

Please post some verses that back up your interpretation of what Jesus died for, posting a link isn't really the best way to do this.

One intentionally noncomprehen thread is not the best way to do this.

It's all we have. Like I said, pick the best verses you have.

I'm not going to go through this link and comment on every verse it gives. Please pick a few that you feel are solid and post them, thanks.

4. A close examination of John 3:16
In John 3:16 God is not saying Christ died for the world. It simply says that God loved the world. To be more specific Christs death is effectual to 'whoever believes'. Whoever believes is obviously not the world because the world does not believe.

God loves the world. SO why not save it? To show His glory? How can it be glorious to punish those you love for something they have no control of? I love my children, I will not allow one to do wrong so that another will do as I say just so I can be shown as powerful. That is why free will is the only logical answer.

It was not my intention to make this a comprehensive thread. There is simply not enough room to discuss the whole of TULIP and Arminianism in one thread. I suggest this: pick any topic in TULIP to discuss and we can share verses and disuss them. What say you good sir?

John 3:16.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
joneszj
Posts: 1,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2012 10:16:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Ugh I am engaged in a two front battle. Exciting.

This is why the reformed theology mars practical and natural reading of the key text.
It is a framework theology.

It takes key out of context verses and then constructs a framework around all other verses.
Any verse that seems to contradict the framework is 'reinterpreted', usually in a very precarious contortionist scenario, to mean something a natural reader would never conclude.

All theology must 'reinterpret' verses that if read 'naturally' would conflict with itself. This is necessary as many verses seem to contradict. Arminianism does the same.

A natural interpretion does not reinterpret verses. It works to understand context and Isagogics and then read what the author intended within the complexity of reality.

Your really not making sense here. A natural interpretation will result in many different outcomes based on the person interpreting. By definition Isagogics is assuming a certain theology. Hermenuetics is the study of interpretation. Hermenuetics (not isagogics) seeks to understand what the author meant without the baggage of theology. Isagogics cannot do this as it already assumes a certain theology.

I do not know that Arminianism reinterprets anything, but harkens back to a traditional interpretation.
As Wesleyan methodology uses Scripture, Logic, tradition and experience to understand the fullness of the reality. This is an interpretive process not a reinterpretive process.

So not scripture alone? Instead its scripture+logic+tradition+experience to understand scripture! Sorry Gil but the Reformers used scripture alone and did not let tradition or experience tamper with how scripture originally in its context meant.

Basically restated every interpretation presupposes a Calvinist view. So the Calvinist works to reinterpret scriptures in light of the presupposition. This is contradictory with the more valid practice of interpretation, which is reading for the author's intent within context and natural flow.

I would contend that every interpretation is meant to fit other verses that can only be interpreted one way. I would say Arminianism tries to do the same.

A natural theological reading works to reflect the reality of the author's intent. It does not seek a one way interpretation but allows a theological development that is revealed from the reality of the Biblical author's thoughts as they are conveyed.

How can you have a 'natural' interpretation when you inject tradition and experience in the equation and still expect to see what the author originally intended?!? You can't! That is a 'biased' approach and ultimately will skew what scripture intended. Reformed theology (as any other theology) takes a verse and compares it to others. Assuming scripture is consistent with itself a theology is formed. Calvin did not start trying to make a theology.

Harold Camping (the may 21st guy) did this same practice. He took key verses to mean something no one else believed they meant. Created an interpretive framework to filter all other verses through. Then like Tulip he created a Numerological bent and wound up declaring the end of the world several times in the last 20 years.

Calvinism =/= Harold Camping :( Calvinisms interpretation of scripture works as a means to justify scripture with scripture. NOT presupposition with scripture.

I did not state Harold Camping = Calvinism. Please allow me to be more clear.
Calvinism = Presupposition Framework Theology
Harold Camping = Presupposition Framework Theology.

Arminianism = Presupposition Framework Theology

Theology by nature presupposes things to be true.

Calvinism indeed uses presuppositions and "reads into" scriptures. Very few scriptures could be said that they 'might' affirm a calvinistic reading.

Caugh caugh isagogics? How can you write that Calvinism 'reads into' verses in a defaming sense and yet hold to a theology that does exactly the same? I listed a few of the presuppositions Arminianism holds and you simply stated the presuppositions Calvinism holds. Yet you have not provided ANY scriptural evidence to assume your presuppositions are true. I have.

Once isagogics and context are understood they are heavily unlikely to affirm a calvinistic view.

Isagogics already presumes a certain theology so depending on the course it may or may not. I suggest hermenuetics as it does not come with the bias isagogics would.

However, all the natural readings that teach against calvinism are sent through a 'framework' process of filtration to 'no longer' teach against calvinism.


A framework theology is complex to understand but once you work back to the presuppositions it can be shown to be an errant method of presuppositional interpretation.

Prevenient Grace is not a presupposition? Certain things must logically be true if a certain belief is to be held. What presuppositions do Calvinists have? That God is sovereign? That man is morally dead in nature? That Christ died for a certain fixed number of people throughout the world? That the call of God is irresistable? That Salvation cannot be lost once granted from God?

Exampe of presuppositions of Calvinism:
Presup 1) God's soverignty is predominant attribute and unrestricted by circumstances and his other attributes. A declaritive statement interpreted to mean something it does not is presumed to be a filter for all other verses.

Unrestricted is certainly not the term any Calvinist would use. We would say Gods sovereignty is guided by His other attributes. Arminians presume that sovereignty can be thwarted by human will. Provide me a verse that supports that claim. I will show you that your theology also 'reads into' scripture.

Presup 2) God's sense of Justice would not be understood by 'man'. Again a declaritive statement is interpreted to represent this supposition and all other verses filter through the presupposition.

Who says man can't understand Gods justice? Gods justice makes sense to me. I am not saying all of His ways do but justice is pretty clear. I don't know anyone who holds the assumption you say Calvinists do.

Response) A Natural theology allows the scriptures to reveal the complex reality of how God's attributes function. The 3,500 years of scripture, Isagogics, Author's understood intent, Logic, tradition, and personal experience supercede any limited presuppositional view.

What you call "Natural Theology" IS a presuppositional view! By injecting experience and tradition necessarily makes this fact.

For example #2:
- Logic would dictate God would make us to be able to understand Justice, within the designed capacity.

Calvinism does not presuppose the opposite as you claim.

- A comprehensive and cumulative understanding of scripture reveals progressivley how his attributes are to be understood.

Yes it does. God can do anything He decides to do; likewise God can refrain from doing anything He decides not to do. God can choose to control a thing, refrain from controlling a thing, indirectly control a thing, and not control a thing that stays within limits that He controls. God has no external limits to His power; the only limit on God's will is God's will itself.

- We see a natural law at work in us that echo's God's nature
- We personally experience the reality of Justice and Injustice
- We see that scholars throughout history have affirmed the reality of a natural interpretation.

Really? Because Augustine most defiantly taught a Calvinistic soteriology. As did Luther. As did Spurgeon, etc.

This is a generic overview. If you cite a single scripture that is a keystone of Calvinism you find to be particularly potent I will show you how a natural theology interprets it and we ca
joneszj
Posts: 1,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2012 10:36:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/27/2012 9:30:17 PM, jharry wrote:
At 1/27/2012 1:46:11 PM, joneszj wrote:
At 1/27/2012 12:28:03 PM, jharry wrote:
At 1/26/2012 11:12:28 AM, joneszj wrote:

Many does not mean few, yet it does not mean the world. It does however mean a limited number (which is what TULIP teaches).

Now one is saying the entire world will be saved. Those that believe. Calvinism adds in it requires God's direct will for any individual to be able to believe. Calvinism adds to Scripture.

So when God says He has mercy on who He has mercy in reference to the vessels of mercy prepared before hand (predestined) that is adding to scripture? Calvinism takes passages as such and applies them to verses like the one we are talking about.

This verse is best viewed in complete context. He was speaking to His disciples in the chapter before 17. He was giving a prayer for His disciples. If we try to force TULIP into this verse then it looks like on the disciples were to be saved.

In context the scope is all life that He has given eternal life to not just the desciples. Look at John 17:2- he says that those the Father have given him are those who recieve eternal life the scope being all flesh. Over all flesh Christ gives eternal life to those the Father gave him. All flesh is not limited to the desciples. Explain how 'all' in v10 is limited to the desciples only. Also v20 Jesus specifies that the prayer was not 'just' for the desciples but for all those who believe. TULIP demonstartes that only those the Father gave Christ are saved.

And He was talking about the disciples directly. Jesus didn't sit in the woods waiting for the disciples to come to Him. He went out and found everyone of them. Has it ever dawned on you that each disciple was chosen before time because they would be the ones to follow His way?

So only the disciples were chosen before time? God is a respecter of the Disciples but not the rest of His church? Jesus very clearly says that his prayer was not just for the desciples but for all of those that believe. Who are those that believe? Who else, the ones the Father gives Jesus. Please, use "scripture" to prove this otherwise. Your presupposition is meaningless to me.

-Eph. 5:25-27: "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her."

This verse describes His Love for the Church, it does not imply that only certain people will be this Church.

It implys that Christ died for his church, not the world. I think you are targeting a different aspect then what Calvinists pull from the verse.

No, the Church came from the world. Jesus died for the world so that those that believe (any of them) can come to Him. Calvinism places those doctrines in between what is written, it does not interpret what is written.

Who can come to Jesus? Only those the Father draws to him John 6:44. Who can resist His will? Romans 9, John 6:47, Acts 13:48. These verses are very clear and 'naturally read' say exactly what they say: noone comes toJesus unless the Father draws him and that the election of God is irresistible. This is not a reading into scripture but can be read plainly.

" When God wants all men to be saved, they are. God predestines."

It seems TULIP rests solely on this statement. But this statement has not been shown to be true in light of Scriptures.

Re-read some of the verses above. This thread was not meant to be comprehensive by any means. We would need to have many different threads to really discuss this.

I did, I didn't see anything that remotely states only those that are chosen will be saved.

We were not arguing over that. Those verses simply show that atonement was not universal, but limited not by its effect but by its scope.

Every letter of scripture has to be viewed in full context. But several verses you have offered have to be viewed narrowly to give even a hint of supporting TULIP.

Humbly I submit to you that in context the TULIP fits more appropriatly then Arminianism. Demonstrating so in a single thread is not plausible.

The problem is Calvinism gathers various verses, takes them out of context and then puts them in an imaginary line to try and say something that was never intended.

Yet Free Will is found in the Bible? What verse? Its presupposed into the scripture. Instead the Bible is really clear on the nature of human will: Man's heart is "deceitful and desperately wicked" (Jeremiah 17:9), and the thoughts of his heart are "continually evil" (Genesis 6:5). The Bible also teaches us that man is born dead in transgression and sin (Psalm 51:5, Psalm 58:3, Ephesians 2:1-5). The Bible teaches that because unregenerate man is "dead in transgressions" (Ephesians 2:5), he is held captive by a love for sin (John 3:19; John 8:34) so that he will not seek God (Romans 3:10-11) because he loves the darkness (John 3:19) and does not understand the things of God (1 Corinthians 2:14). Therefore, men suppress the truth of God in unrighteousness (Romans 1:18) and continue to willfully live in sin. Because they are totally depraved, this sinful lifestyle seems right to men (Proverbs 14:12) so they reject the gospel of Christ as foolishness (1 Corinthians 1:18) and their mind is "hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is unable to do so" (Romans 8:7). http://www.gotquestions.org...

(continued)
joneszj
Posts: 1,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2012 11:00:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
This is where Free will comes in. I can desire my children to do as I want, but because I can't change their free will I am limited. BUT, I'm only limited by my love for them. It is not that I can not force them to do as I wish. I could lock them in their rooms and provide only what the law requires. But I love them so I will not. And I am wise enough to understand that this will be detrimental in the future. Now, if I could remove their will then I would no longer have children. I would have robots and I don't want robots for children.

Using verses substantiate free will as you are using it.

Correction: use verses to substantiate free will as you are using it.

16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God's one and only Son. 19 This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20 Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed. 21 But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done in the sight of God.

This entire section demonstrates why people hate the light. It is not because they rebel because that is all they know. It is because they wish to hide their sins from God. Hiding something shows that people have a will and chose to hide it.

YUP! Calvinism does NOT teach that man has NO will! It teaches that it is so depraved that it is unwilling to come to the truth! Your statements prove that you do not understand Calvinism. Sorry but its frustrating. I really suggest we approach this in a systematical way instead of 50 different questions/responses a post.

Please post some verses that back up your interpretation of what Jesus died for, posting a link isn't really the best way to do this.

One intentionally noncomprehen thread is not the best way to do this.

It's all we have. Like I said, pick the best verses you have.

Its not all we have. We can easily have a thread for each point discussing the verses that support it.

I'm not going to go through this link and comment on every verse it gives. Please pick a few that you feel are solid and post them, thanks.

4. A close examination of John 3:16
In John 3:16 God is not saying Christ died for the world. It simply says that God loved the world. To be more specific Christs death is effectual to 'whoever believes'. Whoever believes is obviously not the world because the world does not believe.

God loves the world. SO why not save it? To show His glory? How can it be glorious to punish those you love for something they have no control of? I love my children, I will not allow one to do wrong so that another will do as I say just so I can be shown as powerful. That is why free will is the only logical answer.

How do you interpret Psalm 5:5? Romans 9? You are imposing YOUR understanding of 'fair' into the text.

It was not my intention to make this a comprehensive thread. There is simply not enough room to discuss the whole of TULIP and Arminianism in one thread. I suggest this: pick any topic in TULIP to discuss and we can share verses and disuss them. What say you good sir?

John 3:16.

You parade Calvinism as being wrong almost to being an 'evil' theology yet do not support your own views with scripture. If we are serious about this lets go through each point of the theology and lets dissect it! I was Arminian before I was Calvinist. I was swayed by the scriptures that Calvinism is built on to hold it true- not presupppositions. Yet I am willing to renounce it if you can prove that 1) it is not compatible with scripture, and 2) Arminianism is a more accurate soteriology using scripture as out main source of insight. I will make a new thread called Total Depravity listing the verses supporting it and we can start there.
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2012 1:44:39 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/27/2012 10:36:54 PM, joneszj wrote:

So when God says He has mercy on who He has mercy in reference to the vessels of mercy prepared before hand (predestined) that is adding to scripture? Calvinism takes passages as such and applies them to verses like the one we are talking about.
God has Mercy on who He has Mercy. But God so loved the world. You agree that God loves the world, you believe he will not show Mercy for those He loves? You must reconcile both verses without causing either of them to be false. God is also just, is it just to punish a person for something they did not do? A man can not chose evil if he knows nothing else,if he is incapable to chose otherwise.

So only the disciples were chosen before time? God is a respecter of the Disciples but not the rest of His church? Jesus very clearly says that his prayer was not just for the desciples but for all of those that believe. Who are those that believe? Who else, the ones the Father gives Jesus. Please, use "scripture" to prove this otherwise. Your presupposition is meaningless to me.
The verse you were describing was about the disciples. Later He prays for the rest.

Then He prayers for us.

20 "My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21 that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22 I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one— 23 I in them and you in me—so that they may be brought to complete unity. Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.

He makes no mention of Our Father giving them to Him. He only makes that reference when talking about the disciples. The disciples were given to Jesus, Our Father led Jesus to each one of them. Our Father knew what each of them would do with this gift. Yes, even Judas.

Who can come to Jesus? Only those the Father draws to him John 6:44. Who can resist His will? Romans 9, John 6:47, Acts 13:48. These verses are very clear and 'naturally read' say exactly what they say: noone comes toJesus unless the Father draws him and that the election of God is irresistible. This is not a reading into scripture but can be read plainly.

God wills ALL men to salvation. He has said it many times. It is written in our hearts and in everything we know. That is the truth, ALL men are drawn to Him. Some will eject and rebel if the decide any costs they believe exist will take something away from them. God wants all to be saved, that is why He is so patient with us, He wants men to be saved but Free Will allows a man to rebel.

" When God wants all men to be saved, they are. God predestines."

It seems TULIP rests solely on this statement. But this statement has not been shown to be true in light of Scriptures.

Re-read some of the verses above. This thread was not meant to be comprehensive by any means. We would need to have many different threads to really discuss this.

I did, I didn't see anything that remotely states only those that are chosen will be saved.

We were not arguing over that. Those verses simply show that atonement was not universal, but limited not by its effect but by its scope.

If claim God wants all men to be saved, but add in that He only picks certain ones then you have made God a liar. Would you hold back Mercy from the ones you love if they had no way to do anything else but sin? John 3:16. He loves the world, but He holds back the one thing that would allow them to Love Him? Seriously?

Every letter of scripture has to be viewed in full context. But several verses you have offered have to be viewed narrowly to give even a hint of supporting TULIP.

Humbly I submit to you that in context the TULIP fits more appropriatly then Arminianism. Demonstrating so in a single thread is not plausible.

The problem is Calvinism gathers various verses, takes them out of context and then puts them in an imaginary line to try and say something that was never intended.

Yet Free Will is found in the Bible? What verse? Its presupposed into the scripture. Instead the Bible is really clear on the nature of human will: Man's heart is "deceitful and desperately wicked" (Jeremiah 17:9), and the thoughts of his heart are "continually evil" (Genesis 6:5). The Bible also teaches us that man is born dead in transgression and sin (Psalm 51:5, Psalm 58:3, Ephesians 2:1-5). The Bible teaches that because unregenerate man is "dead in transgressions" (Ephesians 2:5), he is held captive by a love for sin (John 3:19; John 8:34) so that he will not seek God (Romans 3:10-11) because he loves the darkness (John 3:19) and does not understand the things of God (1 Corinthians 2:14). Therefore, men suppress the truth of God in unrighteousness (Romans 1:18) and continue to willfully live in sin. Because they are totally depraved, this sinful lifestyle seems right to men (Proverbs 14:12) so they reject the gospel of Christ as foolishness (1 Corinthians 1:18) and their mind is "hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is unable to do so" (Romans 8:7). http://www.gotquestions.org...

You do it right there. You seem convincing until you actually read the verses in context.
1 As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, 2 in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. 3 All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our flesh[a] and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature deserving of wrath. 4 But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, 5 made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved.

In these verses Paul was explaining that now the Gentiles could be saved. Before this they could not. St. Paul ends this scripture with encouraging the Gentile believers that

(continued)

Regardless of Scriptures the mere concept of a God that Loves the world enough to Give up His son but will withhold this gift just because is ridicules. John Calvin seems to justify his split with the Church, just as the rest did. He had to develop something that was different the Traditional teachings but at the same time make the Doctrines of the Church in error.

Calvinism doesn't mesh with logic. A God that loves the world but damns it only because He wants to is not a God of Love.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2012 11:29:51 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/26/2012 11:12:28 AM, joneszj wrote:
@jharry

You asked how can/does John 3:16 fit in TULIP. "World does not mean elect". Also, It is inevitable to end up discussing multiple points of TULIP as they all intertwine.

1. Verses of universal / limited interpretation
In the Bbile we have many verses like John 3:16 that say God died for all or desires to save all. There are also many verses that say God died for a 'specific' and 'limited' amount of people. I will list some of both at the end of this point (see 1a). The verses that speak of God saving a 'specific' and 'limited' amount of people can only be interpreted one way. The verses that mention God saving the 'world' can be interpreted in atleast two ways (see 1b). It would follow that to be consistent the verses that may be interpreted in many ways must follow in consistency the verses that can only be interpreted one way. The problem is that if they are interpreted as the whole world then those verses are in direct confliction with the verses that are specific and limited to who God is saving.

1a: Universal/Limited verses list
Verses of universal
-John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life."
-John 12:32: "But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself."
-1 Timothy 2:4-6: "who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for all..."
Verses of limited
-Matt. 26:28: "for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins."
-John 10:11: "I am the good shepherd; the good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep."
-John 17:9: "I ask on their behalf; I do not ask on behalf of the world, but of those whom Thou hast given Me; for they are Thine."
-Eph. 5:25-27: "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her."

"When we examine the scriptures, we see that "all" when used in the context of salvation can be interpreted in at least two ways: 1) It can only mean the elect, 2) it can mean everyone. As I mentioned above, when two sets of related scriptures have various interpretations and there are a few that can only be interpreted one way, then it seems best to interpret all the scriptures in such a way so that they agree.
When God wants all men to be saved, they are. God predestines. He died for those He predestined. And He has been working from all eternity to atone for, sanctify, and glorify His elect. It will occur because God has ordained it so. " http://www.mslick.com...

For a more complete list with explinations: http://www.mslick.com...

1b: Universal terms are not absolutely objective universal terms, 'all' the time. It depends on the context of who is being spoken to.

2. Can God fail to do anything?
If God did died for everyone and not everyone is saved then either 1) God failed to save everyone, or 2) those he died for are being punished for something that was already paid for in full. Either way makes no sense. Calvinists do not see salvation as a 'possibility' but instead something that was determined and effectual.

3. Limted/universal atonement
"The term "limited atonement" addresses the question, "For whom did Christ die?" But behind the question of the extent of the atonement lies the equally important question about the nature of the atonement. What did Christ actually achieve on the cross for those for whom he died?" I do not have the time I need to go over this but the link does a good job at explaining how Limited Atonement is biblically consistent and it it universal atonement that actually is limited in its effect. http://www.monergism.com...

The question rather is what is the purpose of Christ's death, and what He accomplished in it. Did Christ intend to make salvation no more than possible? Or did He actually save those for whom He died? Reformed theology stresses that Jesus actually atoned for the sins of those the Father had chosen. He actually propitiated the wrath of God toward His people by taking their judgment upon Himself, actually redeemed them, and actually reconciled those specific persons to God. A better name for "limited" atonement would be "particular" or "specific" redemption.
http://www.reformedreader.org...

4. A close examination of John 3:16
In John 3:16 God is not saying Christ died for the world. It simply says that God loved the world. To be more specific Christs death is effectual to 'whoever believes'. Whoever believes is obviously not the world because the world does not believe.

I apologize, this is rushed as I am at work and pressed on time. The links below are some of what I used and go into greater detail of what I discussed above. I hope to some degree I was able to show that they are at the least not incompatible :-) If time permits at work I will make another thread addressing the POE & Calvinism, or it will have to wait until I get home. Grace & peace!

Links:
http://www.mslick.com...
http://www.monergism.com...
http://www.reformedreader.org...

God called His Son to save the elect and the Son called the elect to save everyone else..
The Cross.. the Cross.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2012 12:42:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
@Jones,
Hopefully our discussion can be narrowed a bit more to keep some of the stress load down.

Lets do this. I think we can recognize that Calvinism has an extreme burden of proof due to:
-It is the minority view
-Necessary consequences of eternal damnation if Calvinism bears out as false.
-The majority consensus of historical scholars teaches a natural theology.

Most of your response was a claim "that is not what Calvinists believe". Rather than wrestle that concept, why do you not cite the single strongest argument for Calvinism.

I will work back from that and show you how a natural theology works vs. Calvinism.

We can then try to determine a superior view.

How does that sound?
joneszj
Posts: 1,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2012 12:42:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/28/2012 12:42:31 PM, Gileandos wrote:
@Jones,
Hopefully our discussion can be narrowed a bit more to keep some of the stress load down.

Lets do this. I think we can recognize that Calvinism has an extreme burden of proof due to:
-It is the minority view

Depends on what part of Calvinism, as Arminiansm agrees with some parts. I would say the U L and I are a minority view.

-Necessary consequences of eternal damnation if Calvinism bears out as false.

? Are you saying that Calvinists are damned for their theology? How?

-The majority consensus of historical scholars teaches a natural theology.

Natural theology is a branch of theology based on reason and ordinary experience. Thus it is distinguished from revealed theology (or revealed religion) which is based on scripture and religious experiences of various kinds; and also from transcendental theology, theology from a priori reasoning. (http://en.wikipedia.org...)

Minority does not determine burden of proof. The very definition of natural theology makes it biased (framework) because of its emphasis on "ordinary experience". Calvinism is based on revealed theology. Revealed theology is also biased but not to the extent Natural theology is. Revealed theology is willing to put aside notions of ordinary experience for Biblical revelation. BoP is usually determined by those making a claim.

Most of your response was a claim "that is not what Calvinists believe". Rather than wrestle that concept, why do you not cite the single strongest argument for Calvinism.

Because this thread was made to see that John 3:16 is not incompatible with Calvinism, not to make a comprehensive defense for it. I would prefer for anyone to at least understand Calvinism. The thread was not made to persuade anyone to Calvinism as truth but simply that it is not incompatible with scripture. Arminians and Calvinists agree with just about everything else in scripture, particularly the parts on how salvation occurs (grace through faith alone). So persuading anyone to Calvinism is certainly not the main goal.

I will work back from that and show you how a natural theology works vs. Calvinism.

That is not a proper comparison. Natural theology is an umbrella term. You could say that you would show the differences between Natural Theology vs. Revealed Theology. Or you could say you would show the differences between Arminiansm (a natural theology) and Calvinism (a revealed theology).

We can then try to determine a superior view.

Natural theology is the branch of philosophy and theology which attempts to either prove God's existence, define God's attributes, or derive correct doctrine based solely from human reason and/or observations of the natural world. (http://www.theopedia.com...)

Others throughout church history have rejected natural theology. Most in the Calvinist and Reformed tradition reject natural theology as having no foundational validity because the doctrine of Sola Scriptura leaves no source apart from Scripture from which to derive an accurate understanding of God, man, morality, justice, etc. Furthermore, it is rejected on the basis that mankind is so bound by sin that they can "know" nothing of God except that which is revealed to them. Neo-orthodox theologian Karl Barth, one of the most influential Protestant theologians of the 20th century, sought to demonstrate that God can only be known through special revelation. Both he and Paul Tillich debated over this issue, Tillich arguing that revelation never runs counter to reason.

Supporters of natural theology, such as Paul Tillich and Aquinas (among others), have argued that the existence of God can be known through reason. Many "proofs" for the existence of God have been created, however, theologians have often rejected these proofs on the basis that they do not end up with the Christian God of the Bible. (http://www.theopedia.com...)

It would be quite arrogant to assert that we can settle in a 8k limit thread what others much more intelligent then ourselves have debated for centuries.

How does that sound?

Sounds problematic. Calvinism covers a wide range of topics. I suggest we go over each point in TULIP and start from there.