Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

Mongol Servant · Sat Nov 24, 2007 , 05:03 AM

As Bro Jim said earlier, I usually try to stay out of these Calvin/Arminius discussions, due to the fact that they stir up trouble, edify nothing, and leave bad feelings - however, several statements have been made in the thread that I'd like to comment on and be a help, if possible. Bro Jim is 100% correct in that we should be evangelizing a lost world. Bro George is also 100% correct in that we should only be in Jesus's camp, not some man's! I learned from some of John R. Rice's material, that everywhere in the Bible the words "elect or election" are mentioned, the usual reference is either to a Jew or to the nation of Israel - not, to a New Testament Christian. The only thing I am predestinated by God for, is to be conformed to the image of His Son, The Lord Jesus Christ - as is EVERY believer who trusts Christ as Saviour. The very best material I have read on this subject is Dr Laurence Vance's "The Other Side of Calvinism." I might also add, that a God who ordained people to hell, would be no better than the allah of the Quoran. How could a loving, merciful God, deny the blood sacrifice and resurrection for some and give it freely to others? Mr Calvin had people put to death AFTER he, supposedly, received Christ. A "saved" murderer? Bro Tim - stand firm in your Bible convictions, and let that "pastor" know that Bible knowledge trumps the worldly-knowledge of man-produced books, all day everyday! Jesus gave his life for all (Rev.22:17). Stick with that 66 caliber, two-edged KJB!

Laurie · Fri Jan 04, 2008 , 08:22 PM

Helpful book
http://www.thebereancall.org/node/4937

Brother Tim Wrote:I was in a service last night when the pastor referred to several verses which used the phrase "for whom Christ died" as verses which proved limited atonement (LA), which he called particular redemption. I have not spent much time researching this issue. Rather than this, I simply accept the Scripture at face value (whosoever means everyone has an opportunity to believe). What made this pastor's point-of-view interesting to me was that when I asked him about several verses that use "the world" (such as John 3:16, I John 2:2), he stated that "the world" refers to Gentile believers, and not every person. I had never heard this before!

I began to question his interpretations, and became aware right away that he was well-read and prepared to rebutt any of my arguements. As time was limited, I ended the conversation with the promise that I would re-examine the issue.

I cannot and will not step over to the LA camp. I am certain in my heart that the Scriptures clearly speak of the availability of salvation to every one who seeks it. I am, however, weak in my ability to combat this error in doctrine well enough to match this good man's misunderstanding. His conversation shows that he has done a great deal of reading (probably the well-known writers of the past).

Concerning the definition of "world", I did a search of the greek word "kosmos" used in John 3:16, I John 2:2, etc. and his definition makes NO SENSE! I will be seeing him again later this week, and this will be the first thing that I ask him. I would suspect that he already has an answer.

Any help would be appreciated.

***Jim*** · Sat Jan 05, 2008 , 01:32 AM

While I can agree what some of what the Berean call stands for, I am VERY careful of it's criticism of Calvinism.

Let's name some Calvinists:

Charles H. Spurgeon
Jonathan Edwards
Theodore de Beza (check where the KJV comes from, hint: TR)
John Knox
Ian Paisley
George Whitefield
Asahel Nettleton

These men are excellent examples of the preaching of the Sovereignty of God. they were great soul-winners, powerful exhorters, and accurate scripture readers. If we are to condemn Calvinism and it's beliefs, then we are to condemn these men who preached it so efficaciously

Just some thoughts,

Love in Christ,

Jim

Mongol Servant · Sat Jan 05, 2008 , 01:58 AM

Jim Wrote:While I can agree what some of what the Berean call stands for, I am VERY careful of it's criticism of Calvinism.

Let's name some Calvinists:

Charles H. Spurgeon
Jonathan Edwards
Theodore de Beza (check where the KJV comes from, hint: TR)
John Knox
Ian Paisley
George Whitefield
Asahel Nettleton

These men are excellent examples of the preaching of the Sovereignty of God. they were great soul-winners, powerful exhorters, and accurate scripture readers. If we are to condemn Calvinism and it's beliefs, then we are to condemn these men who preached it so efficaciously

Just some thoughts,

Love in Christ,

Jim

Exactly, Bro Jim! I had an older, wiser, country-preacher tell me something one time, that kinda put me on the straight and narrow, regarding this subject, long before I read Bro Vance's book. Here's what he said regarding the errors of the tulip camp: "They have a corrupt bible." I said, "what do you mean?" He said, "their bible says that Jesus came to seek and to save that which was elect"!

Bob Hutton · Sat Jan 05, 2008 , 05:46 AM

There is not one verse in the entire Bible that says that Jesus died for a select group of people. We can point to many verses that teach election, that teach God's work in drawing people and so on, but there are none that specifically say that Jesus only died for the elect.

***Jim*** · Sat Jan 05, 2008 , 08:35 AM

Quote:but there are none that specifically say that Jesus only died for the elect.

Who, besides the elect, are going to get saved?

Bob Hutton · Sun Jan 06, 2008 , 10:22 AM

Jim Wrote:
Quote:but there are none that specifically say that Jesus only died for the elect.

Who, besides the elect, are going to get saved?

The issue at the head of this thread is not calvinism and election per se but Particular Redemption aka Limited Atoment. On that particular point I stand by my assertion that there is not one verse that specifically says that Jesus only died for the elect.

***Jim*** · (This post was last modified: Sun Jan 06, 2008 05:15 PM by Jim.)

I think I see what you mean. I guess I attribute the doctrine of Limited atonement to be connected directly with Calvinism. Either way, I agree with you that Limited atonement is wrong. But, I also believe that limited atonement is right on the money.

Confusing? My statement probably is, but my point for saying it that way is to show my belief that this is the whole reason behind the different camps that either agree with it or reject it.

Can we answer the question of just exactly who the elect is?

I myself find this to be one of the most arguable and confusing subjects I have come across. I believe it all boils down to how one understands it.

The conclusion that Jesus dies only for the elect, can be understood to be those people, in the end of times, that came to Christ. If you look at it in the light of that there is a group of people that only has the chance at salvation, and that it could not come to any other by any way at all, even the Holy Spirit, then I agree with your assertion that Jesus did not only die for the elect. But if the definition of the elect is the finality of those that did in fact accept Christ as their personal Lord and Saviour, then I agree with it. I do want to say that Ido not believ ethat Jesus only died for a certain group of people ultimately. But I do believe you will agree with me that Jesus in the beginning did not come for you an me but for the Jews, but thanks be to God for Israel and the Jews, we found salvation in Jesus Christ because of them and their rejection of the Messaih.

One has to look at the totality of the argument for Liited atonement before they make a decision on whether it is "correct" or not.

The hyper-calvinistic viewpoint of Limited atonement, I believe, is the wrong definition. If the true Calvinistic definition is also the same, then I agree that it is also incorrect. But if the definition declares the final account of saved as being the "elect" as according to the bride of Christ, then I would have to agree with that definition of Limited Atonement.

I hope I did not confuse the matter any.

Love in Christ,

Jim

Is the elect that finality of the people who will be saved according to God's foreknowledge?

Davo · Sun Jan 06, 2008 , 06:57 PM

Hello again Bob

Jim wrote

Quote:But I do believe you will agree with me that Jesus in the beginning did not come for you an me but for the Jews,

Mt 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.

Depends who "his people" are. If it was the Jews, then how can we be saved? Daniels people were those whose "every one that shall be found written in the book" i.e believers. Dan 12:1.

Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; Eph 5:25.

Davo · (This post was last modified: Sun Jan 06, 2008 07:10 PM by Davo.)

Quote:Jim Wrote
Let's name some Calvinists:

Charles H. Spurgeon
Jonathan Edwards
Theodore de Beza (check where the KJV comes from, hint: TR)
John Knox
Ian Paisley
George Whitefield
Asahel Nettleton

A previous reformed pastor of ours who came from Ulster, said that Ian Paisley wasn't a Calvinist, although he was good at souding like one.

I once listened to some Paisley tapes and the thing I most remembered was Ian preaching on Noah and the flood. Imagine this said in that thundering Paisley voice: "Noah went into the ark and GOD shut the door, and one day GOD will shut the door again."

***Jim*** · Wed Jan 09, 2008 , 07:45 PM

Lol, I know what you mean.

In reference to my earlier statement about Jesus not originally coming for us:

Quote:1:16
For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

Quote:Matt 15:24
But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
15:25
Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.
15:26
But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs.
15:27
And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table.
15:28
Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith:...

Quote:John 4:22
Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.

Quote:Matt 10:5
These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:
10:6
But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Quote:Romans 11:30
For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief:
11:31
Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy.

You see, Jesus came to fulfill the prophecy to His people, the seed of Jacob, but the rejected Him, which He knew they would of course, then we obtained the ability to come to Him.

Thank the Lord Jesus we are now one: Ephesians 2:11-18

Love in Christ,

Jim

PeterAV · Thu Jan 17, 2008 , 01:47 PM

Most Calvinists believe that the offer of salvation is to all, yet, efficaciously to those whom he has chosen.
God is true when he moves upon those that he knows will not turn unto him.
The offer is real.
But there are conditions to be met.
Faith in the Gospel.
The Gospel preached.
The Holy Ghost wooing.
These are some of the main conditions.
We all have a free choice at all times, to choose either good or bad.

Jonathan Edwards' work on the freedom of the will, is the pinnacle of the subject.
It takes a bit of work to read because his sentence structure is long.
It easily can go up to two paragraphs before he has put a period in.
It is almost like he covers the subject inside out at each statement.

He really stays on the subject well.

PeterAV
Every word of God is pure:

***Jim*** · Thu Jan 17, 2008 , 08:06 PM

They believe the word "all" only refers to the predestined elect.

Davo · Thu Jan 17, 2008 , 08:33 PM

Jim wrote

Quote:You see, Jesus came to fulfill the prophecy to His people, the seed of Jacob, but the rejected Him, which He knew they would of course, then we obtained the ability to come to Him.

I cannot agree with that, Jim. Jesus came to save His people.

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.

If his people are the Jews, how can we then be saved?

***Jim*** · (This post was last modified: Thu Jan 17, 2008 08:58 PM by Jim.)

Did you not read the verses I just posted above?

I think it is very dangerous to think we are the same as the seed of Jacob.

Where at any time were gentiles referred to "his people" in the Old Testament? We weren't

Do you really think that when the New Testament was ushered in that the Jews (i.e. seed of Jacob) just vanished? That there is no hope for them for any matter whatsoever?

"his people" has always referred to the Jews, period.