5 Point Calvanism

[rtwo]

From my understanding of the Bible there is no human free will, in the way that some may consider it. There are three kinds of will, all of them God's Will.

Under the umbrella [if you will] of God's complete Sovereignty are these three wills.

God's Decreed Will - That which God decrees

God's Permissive Will - That which God permits

God's Revealed Will - That portion of His will which God reveals to us through His Word.

If one must believe in man's free will then I one must understand that under God's Permissive Will he is completely sovereign to allow certain things for His ultimate glory. If there is a single event in all of the universe that can occour outside of God's sovereign control then we cannot trust him. Because if there is one. . . there will be others.

One theologin wrote: "In creating man with a free will and making him a partner in the rule of the earth, God limited himself. He made Himself dependant on what man would do. Man by His prayer would hold the measure of what God would do in blessing."

God limited himself?

Rather: In His sovereignty, "[God] permits, for reasons known only to himself, people to act contrairy to and in defiance of His revealed will. But He never permits them to act contary to His sovereign will."

This is how "man's free will" and God's sovereign control can, in fact, coinside. And that is why Satan rebelled against God. God permitted it for His ultimate glory. We do not know the bigger picture, God does. We can not in any way understand what His perfect plan is. Aren't you glad He is in control of that?

God will not pursue His own glory at the expense of His people's good.

God will never seek our own good at the expense of His glory.

In Watertown, NY last month, a newborn baby was murdered and left in a dumpster. Was this God's Will? Did this happen because God for-ordained it? I agree with the substance of what you're saying, Biblicist, but not the semantics. In order for "Permissive Will" to work, there must be other wills involved, even by the definition you give it.

The question, then, is not "Does Sovereign Will exist," but "To what extent does God allow us to act on our own?"

I would submit that though the world's final outcome has been decided by God, yours and mine he left up to us to decide. He gave us the option of grace... but by the very definition of "Love" he will not force us to choose it or not. As I said before, sin is proof that man's actions, and his ultimate fate, are determined by free will, not "Sovereign Will" -- but that choice is made possible by God's Will and His grace.

[Guest Biblicist]

In Watertown, NY last month, a newborn baby was murdered and left in a dumpster. Was this God's Will? Did this happen because God for-ordained it? I agree with the substance of what you're saying, Biblicist, but not the semantics. In order for "Permissive Will" to work, there must be other wills involved, even by the definition you give it.

The question, then, is not "Does Sovereign Will exist," but "To what extent does God allow us to act on our own?"

I would submit that though the world's final outcome has been decided by God, yours and mine he left up to us to decide. He gave us the option of grace... but by the very definition of "Love" he will not force us to choose it or not. As I said before, sin is proof that man's actions, and his ultimate fate, are determined by free will, not "Sovereign Will" -- but that choice is made possible by God's Will and His grace.

My friend, God is in complete control all of the time. Everything is governed and determined by his Perfect Sovereign Will.

Do not confuse man's definition if Love with God's.

An exerpt from War of Words, found here.

So, what does the Bible teach about God's sovereign rule?

1. His unchallenged rule of the universe. God is the Lord of Lords and the King of Kings. He has no peer; he not only is Lord over every ruler on earth, but he is also Lord of the heavens.

Daniel 4:34-35 34 At the end of that time, I, Nebuchadnezzar, raised my eyes toward heaven, and my sanity was restored. Then I praised the Most High; I honored and glorified him who lives forever.

His dominion is an eternal dominion;

his kingdom endures from generation to generation.

35 All the peoples of the earth

are regarded as nothing.

He does as he pleases

with the powers of heaven

and the peoples of the earth.

No one can hold back his hand

or say to him: "What have you done?"

2. God rules over all things for the church. He controls the universe so that his redemptive purpose for us and his redemptive promises to us will be fulfilled. God has ruled over all things from eternity past and will continue throughout eternity future.

Ephesians 1:20-22 20 which he exerted in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly realms, 21 far above all rule and authority, power and dominion, and every title that can be given, not only in the present age but also in the one to come. 22 And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church.

3. God rules over the specific details of our lives. God's rule is not just global or uniersal, it is individual.

Acts 17:26 From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live.

4. God rules over aspect of our salvation. This has been the most controversial aspect of God's rule in the church, yet it is clearly proclaimed in Scripture and is the basis for the security of every believer.

Ephesians 2:12 remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world.

Matthew 13:11-17

John 10:25-30

Ephesians 1:4-6 4 For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love 5 he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will

[EricH]

1 Timothy 2:3-4 "3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth."

2 Peter 3:9 "The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.

Does this mean that God can desire and intend for some things to come to pass that never do come to pass? Is God an eternally miserable being who is frustrated because he cannot prevent so many sinners from going to hell? It's hard for me to believe this is an accurate picture of who God is.

In Christ,

Neopatriarch

No. I think it means there are other things that God desires more.

[Guest Jude 1:3]

My husband and I are attending a PCA Church. We like the preaching and our grandchildren attend there and we like going to church with them. We are non-denominational, meaning we don't claim any denomination, not even non-denominational churches. So, we just go where we can serve God and be fed spiritually.

This weekend we attended an Inquirer's Seminar for the purpose of learning what the church believes, practices, etc. We are happy with the teaching that comes from the pulpit and have begun to involve ourselves in the ministries of the church. Nonetheless, we are struggling with the whole 5 point Calvanist thing.

I have the scriptures supporting this theology. What I'm looking for are scriptures that dispute this theology point by point. We believe that we should test everything we hear, and we want to test this against the Word of God. In order to do that, we want to look at both sides to the issue.

If you could help by supplying me with scriptures that contrast or dispute 5 point Calvanism, I would appreciate it.

Please, no arguing. Thanks so much!

Pure Calvinism is 90% Biblical. I take a slightly modified stance on Limited Atonement. I believe Jesus died for the sins of all mankind, but the atonement is applicable strictly to the elect. This is known Amyraldianism and Calvin does appear to teach it sometimes. Also, I do not believe in infant baptism. From my perspective it is a carryover from Catholicism.

[Thaddaeus]

Larryt,

The ALL in the above verses does not have to mean all in the sense of every single human being but in the sense that EVERY ONE OF THE ELECT will come to God.

The "ALL" means exactly what it says, ALL human beings, no exceptions.

Again it is clear that scripture says that God chooses/elects people and does not choose others. Read Rom. 9 several times.

Yes, He does, but it has nothing to do with the salvation of individuals. Romans 9, actually 8-11 is speaking ONLY about the salvation of mankind. Man has no imput, cannot change upon the Work of Christ on the Cross. God chooses individuals for certain roles but not for salvation of the soul. Rom 11:32 is the summation of that whole discourse. God has mercy upon all.

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

Ro 9:14

[Guest Biblicist]

Larryt,

The ALL in the above verses does not have to mean all in the sense of every single human being but in the sense that EVERY ONE OF THE ELECT will come to God.

The "ALL" means exactly what it says, ALL human beings, no exceptions.

Actually Thaddeus, Larryt is correct.

You are getting it confused with the word

kol {kole}

1) all, the whole

a) all, the whole of

b) any, each, every, anything

c) totality, everything

In referance to 1 Timothy 2:3-4 the word all is

pas {pas}

1) individually

a) each, every, any, all, the whole, everyone, all things, everything

2) collectively

a) some of all types

++++

... "the whole world has gone after him" Did all the world go after Christ? "then went all Judea, and were baptized of him in Jordan." Was all Judea, or all Jerusalem, baptized in Jordan? "Ye are of God, little children", and the whole world lieth in the wicked one". Does the whole world there mean everybody? The words "world" and "all" are used in some seven or eight senses in Scripture, and it is very rarely the "all" means all persons, taken individually. The words are generally used to signify that Christ has redeemed some of all sorts -- some Jews, some Gentiles, some rich, some poor, and has not restricted His redemption to either Jew or Gentile ...

C.H. Spurgeon from a sermon on Particular Redemption

In this application, since it is speaking collectively, it means "some of all types".

It is the same word, "pas" that is used in Mark 13:13 And ye shall be hated of all [men] for my name's sake: but he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.

Do all men hate the Lord? No, but some of all types do.

[Thaddaeus]

Biblicist,

Actually Thaddeus, Larryt is correct.

Actually, neither of you are. Everytime all is used there is an antecedent. When Christ]s work is being referenced, when the salvation of man is referenced, the ALL means all without exception. In many of the examples you gave, the all is also exclusive to the antecendent.

There are just way to many texts that do not follow your interpretation. You need it to be more particular when in almost all cases it it exclusive, but the antecedent will determine that use.

But, further, the Bible is quite clear on all the supporting texts that in referencing Christ's work, such as Rom 5: 18-19, Rom 11:32, John 6:39, I Cor 15:20-22, II Cor 5:14-19, Col 1:15-20, Eph 1:10, I Tim 4:10 and several more.

The more weightier is that historically this has been the Gospel as it has been understood. The Incarnation is based on this fact. You deny the Incarnation of Christ, if Christ did not redeem all of mankind. If you want to hold to that view, show just how you can interpret the Incarnation so that Christ can be partial, can be respective in His universal work.

Do all men hate the Lord? No, but some of all types do.

not even some of all types. By definition, all unbelievers are so classified, So the verse is exclusive to believers and inclusive of all others, unbelievers. There are no inferences here of groups, or some of some groups. This is just rationalization to support an erronous view. You supposedly need some corroborating texts and cannot find any, so you create them.

[Guest Biblicist]

Biblicist,

Actually Thaddeus, Larryt is correct.

Actually, neither of you are. Everytime all is used there is an antecedent. When Christ]s work is being referenced, when the salvation of man is referenced, the ALL means all without exception. In many of the examples you gave, the all is also exclusive to the antecendent.

There are just way to many texts that do not follow your interpretation. You need it to be more particular when in almost all cases it it exclusive, but the antecedent will determine that use.

But, further, the Bible is quite clear on all the supporting texts that in referencing Christ's work, such as Rom 5: 18-19, Rom 11:32, John 6:39, I Cor 15:20-22, II Cor 5:14-19, Col 1:15-20, Eph 1:10, I Tim 4:10 and several more.

The more weightier is that historically this has been the Gospel as it has been understood. The Incarnation is based on this fact. You deny the Incarnation of Christ, if Christ did not redeem all of mankind. If you want to hold to that view, show just how you can interpret the Incarnation so that Christ can be partial, can be respective in His universal work.

My friend, it is not MY interpretation. The interpretation comes from Strongs Concordance

But lets talk about the antecedent.

To whom is this Paul speaking in the first place. If we go back to the beginning of the chapter even the beginning of the book we see that Paul is writing to Timothy. Who was the apostle to the Church of Ephasus at the time. Timothy being a Believer.

In Romans 5:18 the term "all men" is "some of all kinds". Therefore as by the offence of one [judgment came] upon all men [pas] to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one [the free gift came] upon all men [pas] unto justification of life.

Just as it is in every one of the verses you gave.

The more weightier is that historically this has been the Gospel as it has been understood.

Acts 17:11 Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.

2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

[Thaddaeus]

Biblicist,

My friend, it is not MY interpretation. The interpretation comes from Strongs Concordance

The problem is not the concordance. He gave all the meanings of the usage. But unfortunately he did not give you the exact, verse by verse use of all. I did it for you to which it is applicable. It has never had any different meaning. The Greek is quite clear. After all, it was written in Greek, interpreted in Greek, taught in Greek, spoken in Greek for for almost 900 years with Latin being spoken in the west after the fall of Rome, even in the higher classes, what was left of them. I think the Greeks understood their own language quite well.

In Romans 5:18 the term "all men" is "some of all kinds".

Quite the contrary. This is one so obvious you couldn't possibly miss it. The only way you could make this a partial, is that Adam did not pass death to all people. It is as in Adam, all death, so in Christ, all life. The equation is given over and over. As I stated before, your changing the meaning of the word all, also denies the Incarnation.

To whom is this Paul speaking in the first place. If we go back to the beginning of the chapter even the beginning of the book we see that Paul is writing to Timothy. Who was the apostle to the Church of Ephasus at the time. Timothy being a Believer.

The subject matter is not believers, but those who were dead in sins and tresspasses. Unless you want to redefine the fall and say that death did not come to all men, same as with the Incarnation, then you can say that all refers to some much smaller group. But, as far as I know, we all will die, we all inherited death through Adam. We all sin because we exist in a dead state, namely we are mortal. You need to change a lot, actually, you need to change the whole Gospel, rewrite the entire message if you want your view to hold. It is directly contrary to scripture.

Acts 17:11 Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.

2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth

It would be a great miracle it you would actually do what the Bereans did. What you are doing is first interpreting and placing your view upon scripture, in the case of the Bereans, the OT, then looking at Pauls statement to see if it aligned with your interpretation. That is totally opposite of what the Bereans were doing.

In order to rightly divide the Truth, one must first know what it actually is. All you are doing is dividing it up into segments to fit your preconcieved notions of what you think it means. All in a vaccum from what was actually given, as it was put into practice, how it was understood.

[Guest Biblicist]

It would be a great miracle it you would actually do what the Bereans did. What you are doing is first interpreting and placing your view upon scripture, in the case of the Bereans, the OT, then looking at Pauls statement to see if it aligned with your interpretation. That is totally opposite of what the Bereans were doing.

In order to rightly divide the Truth, one must first know what it actually is. All you are doing is dividing it up into segments to fit your preconcieved notions of what you think it means. All in a vaccum from what was actually given, as it was put into practice, how it was understood.

Because I do not agree with you, you feel it is necessary and right to be rude to me?

I do not change scripture to align with my view, I change my view so it aligns with scripture. Nor do I divide up the Word into segments to fit my preconcieved notions of what I think, I believe that verses, chapters and books can not be translated without the whole of Scripture as the context.

I can understand why you do not see it at this point, I am sure that God has not chosen to reveal this to you at this time. That's OK. God reveals to those as he sees fit in His time, not ours.

Since you can not have a conversation without resorting to insults, I do not see a need to continue it.