3 Tactics Calvinists Use Against Non-Calvinists

Thank you.

Thank you.

I think you could read the three paragraphs (or even just two... or even just maybe 3-4 sentences where he addresses your particular point above ^ ) in order to get a better grasp of what he's actually saying. Under the subject of "propitiation," he phrases his explanation differently from how you have stated-->"applies to all mankind" [--UWC's wording].

Not asking you to read and embrace the entire article... I only quoted 3 paragraphs


[I do believe this RELATES to : "Romans 1:1 thru 5:11 = 'sinS' ; whereas, Romans 5:12 thru Romans chpt-8-end = 'Sin' "]

And concerning THIS ^ , consider the following verse...

(note that the word "sin [singular]" ^ [and in the section I pointed out in the quote above (Rom5:12-chpt 8 end)] is in this verse 3x, and note the word "condemned" [not the word "forgiven"]):

https://biblehub.com/romans/8-3.htm


____________

As to your other point, I would just say that "understanding" a point, often times requires "READING" the point

I've mentioned several times, during my time here at CC, that I am neither Calvinist nor Arminianist. (Perhaps *I* "criticize" both, too )

And I believe it is a mistake to say that these [2] are the only two options in explaining what Scripture itself presents (as in [saying], 'if you are not one of these, you MUST be the OTHER!'... I say, to this, NOT SO )

You could stretch that far enough to fit your reasoning, but it would be a really far stretch. Hosea 4:6, My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge.

Yes, as their history shows. And yet, we are told Israel shall come to the Lord before it is too late.

Same here!!!

Biblical truth supersedes both... soon as you adopt a schema then you see the schema in the scripture.

I realize there are more choices, but obviously when I have compared synergism with monergism, it is easier to refer to Arminian vs. Calvinist. However, I have been using the phrase "free-willer" for comparison, too.

I do that mostly because Arminians actually share the position of total depravity, and I don't think that is synergism.

By the way, I don't particularly care for individuals calling me a Calvinist because there's plenty John Calvin believed that I don't, including paedobaptism. Additionally, I never even heard John Calvin's name until my pastor told me what I believed was Calvinism.

Not saying you do that, but sometimes folks act as though Reformed people worship John Calvin. I haven't even read Institutes. I'd actually prefer the term monergist, but even that is misleading because there is a continuum between monergism and synergism.

In general, though, my position is more like John Calvin than Jacobus Arminius.

I don't know if this is true, but I think many times you delve into the Scriptural support for what you believe, without telling me what you believe, in a summary manner, first.

I deal with explaining my main point first, then presenting Scriptural support. If I have made inferences within the explanation of concepts, sometimes I don't provide Scriptures because if the person is fairly articulate, I figure he knows where I'm drawing my synthesis from.

But, I could be totally wrong on your approach.

I generally want to hear the person's overall summary first, and then see the Scriptural support.

Like, regarding your distinction between "sins" and "sin", if you would tell me why you think the distinction is important first, to the point we are discussing, then I would know the direction you are headed. Otherwise, I don't have the patience to follow the argument. I need to know the direction you're headed first, especially if you are going to present a lot of details.

Not that it's important to accomodate me, as there are many others involved in the discussion. So, you don't have to if you don't want to, obviously. I sense you are a good-natured person so I'm not saying anything about motives. I just don't have the patience to spend a lot of time parsing out the person's reasoning.

I also think that you may have presuppositions that I don't share, and it is really hard to relate to a person's explanation if you don't share their presuppositions. That is why it is easier for me to communicate with a Reformed person, rather than a non-Reformed person. We share the same presuppositions so our communicate is a lot more efficient.

Like I said, though, you don't have to accomodate me but please don't expect me to follow and remember your previous posts. So many different ideas here, and it is hard to keep everyone else's views sorted in my mind.

[/QUOTE]
That's what limited atonement is. It is limiting the atonement to those it is "applied" to.

In your example you wouldn't say everyone is vaccinated but the application of that vaccination is only good for those who take it.
You would say that the vaccine is limited to those who it is applied to.

Those who the vaccine is not applied to are NOT Vaccinated. That's just simple truth.


This isn't saying that the vaccine couldn't cure all the disease. Of course it could. Some just choose not to take it.


Now, who to blame. Who do you blame for Jacob being loved and Esau being hated?

Do you blame Esau? Do you blame God?

Is this assignment of blame the reason you must invent the philosophy that Esau could have just chose himself to be elect but he didn't believe hard enough or well enough?

God is good. All that He does is good.

If something God does causes your sense of "fairness" to be insulted whose fault is that? And what good does it do to assign this blame? Will it change anything?

Let's look at what the founder had to say

“Predestination we call the decree of God, by which He has determined in Himself, what He would have to become of every individual of mankind. For they are not all created with a similar destiny: but eternal life is foreordained for some, and eternal damnation for others” (Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book III, chap. 21).

Sovereign election is accompanied by the twin doctrine of sovereign reprobation of the non-elect. Calvin emphasized this as follows. “[God] devotes to destruction whom he pleases … they are predestinated to eternal death without any demerit of their own, merely by his sovereign will. … he orders all things by his counsel and decree in such a manner, that some men are born devoted from the womb to certain death, that his name by glorified in their destruction. ... God chooses whom he will as his children … while he rejects and reprobates others” (Institutes of Christian Religion, Book III, chap. 23).

Romans 9:13-18
13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.

15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.

16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.

18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.


Isn't that what the scriptures say?

That is incorrect. The Calvinistic idea of Limited Atonement is that Christ died EXCLUSIVELY for the elect (which is contrary to Scripture).

THE WESTMINSTER CONFESSION OF FAITH
CHAPTER VIII
V. The Lord Jesus, by His perfect obedience, and sacrifice of Himself, which He through the eternal Spirit, once offered up unto God, has fully satisfied the justice of His Father; and purchased, not only reconciliation, but an everlasting inheritance in the kingdom of heaven, for those whom the Father has given unto Him.

Its not contrary to scripture.

Its exactly what you said, just stated more logically. More biblically.

Limited Atonement means that the Atonement is only applied to believers. Which are the elect.

Those whom the Father has given unto Him are the elect.

Those that are saved are the elect.


This should be a pretty easy concept to understand. I don't understand how you could POSSIBLY say its not scriptural.

YOU are trying to make Salvation and Election about those who work to obey their understanding of what the Gospel is. Salvation is now become what you have earned through your understanding of scripture. You have made yourself elect through your own work and understanding.

That is WAY more unscriptural than saying God is Sovereign and God Chooses His Elect.

John 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

Grandpa, I wonder what your thoughts might be, on a post I just made over in a different thread (copied from a post I made a long while back)... where I am covering some thoughts regarding John 6:44 (among others):

https://christianchat.com/threads/is-unconditional-election-biblical.187730/post-4045273

… if you care to read it (if not, it's fine. In that case, plz disregard.)


[oh, and that ^ is aside from the posts I've made covering the phrase "at the last day," which I believe to be pertinent to the point, as well... but perhaps more suited for a different time/thread/convo ]

That is completely false and misrepresents the non-Reformed position.

1. No one can earn salvation.
2. No one can elect themselves.
3. Everyone can hear (or read) the Gospel.
4. Everyone can obey the Gospel.
5. Everyone can repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.
6. Everyone can be saved.
7. Not all will obey the Gospel.

ROMANS 10: Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.
5 For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them.
6 But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above)
7 Or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.)
8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;
9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.
13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!
16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?
17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
18 But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.
19 But I say, Did not Israel know? First Moses saith, I will provoke you to jealousy by them that are no people, and by a foolish nation I will anger you.
20 But Esaias is very bold, and saith, I was found of them that sought me not; I was made manifest unto them that asked not after me.
21 But to Israel he saith, All day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people.

I read your post over 2x but I'm not sure the point you are trying to make with it.

I do think some of the scripture that you posted related to the subject. I couldn't tell if all of them do. I think I kind of lost the trail...

I know this is the proof text.. context ... if every scripture has universal application then I think we have a real mess.

But carry on... all I can state is there is only liberty and it is found in truth, everything else is bondage..... I could never go back to.... yes a very.... "cerebral doctrine" however ultimately at its core, lacks Life and Grace.

You say it misrepresents the non-reformed position.

From my viewpoint it sums it up perfectly.


You see these things as checkpoints in salvation. First hear (or read). Then believe. Then obey. Things people have to do in order to be saved.

But from my viewpoint belief is a fruit of Salvation. Obedience is a fruit of Salvation. Not something someone has to do in order to gain Salvation. Something someone is given because they are Saved.


I find myself agreeing with you in most of your theology. It is only in these certain points that regard Salvation and Sovereignty and Election that I disagree with your position.