John Calvin and Calvinism.

[Bible Highlighter]

Question
Doesn't 1 John 2:2 disprove limited atonement?

Answer
Thanks for our question. Since, I briefly discuss the definition of the biblical doctrine of limited atonement under "Calvinism and 1 Timothy 2:4, 6?" and "Calvinism and Titus 2:11?" (see below), I'm not going to repeat it again here. I will simply defer to John Owen's brief argument in, For Who Did Christ Die?:



The Father imposed His wrath due unto, and the Son underwent punishment for, either:

• 1. All the sins of all men.
  
• 2. All the sins of some men, or
  
• 3. Some of the sins of all men.

In which case it may be said:

• 1. That if the last be true, all men have some sins to answer for, and so, none are saved.
  
• 2. That if the second be true, then Christ, in their stead suffered for all the sins of all the elect in the whole world, and this is the truth.
  
• 3. But if the first be the case, why are not all men free from the punishment due unto their sins?

You answer, "Because of unbelief."

"I ask, Is this unbelief a sin, or is it not? If it be, then Christ suffered the punishment due unto it, or He did not. If He did, why must that hinder them more than their other sins for which He died? If He did not, He did not die for all their sins!"



Of course unbelief is a sin for which Christ died! If he didn't, none could be saved. Limited atonement is a biblical doctrine.

The text is question is:



1 John 2:1-2 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.




Seeing that limited atonement is a biblical doctrine what is John actually saying? After all, the Bible does not contradict itself. All Scripture is God breathed (2 Tim. 3:16), so what remains is for us to "rightly divide" it (2 Tim. 2:15). As we know, in rightly dividing any text, we need to look at not only at the immediate and the book's overall context, but the author, audience, word meanings, historical setting, grammar, syntax, textual issues, the type of literature, the author's and the over all biblical context. When this is not properly done we may end up with error, division, and even different denominations, etc.

So, what is John talking about? John is the author. He was a Jew, a Hebrew. "Jews" (Ioudaioi) is used 71 times in his Gospel, as compared to Matthew, Mark, and Luke, which only mention the word 16 times. So, comparably where was John's emphasis? Who was his primary audience? The Jews, or the Hebrews.

So, John is simply saying in 1 John 2:2, that Jesus Christ is the "the propitiation for our [the Hebrews] sins; and not for ours [the Hebrews] only, but also for the whole world [the Gentiles]. This is consistent with what John wrote in his gospel in John 11:51-52. Let's briefly compare them:





1 John 2:1-2 John 11:51-52
these things write I unto you he prophesied
Jesus Christ the righteous Jesus
he is the propitiation for would die for
our sins the nation
and not for ours only and not for the nation only
but also but also
for the whole world the children of God who are scattered abroad




It is clear that John is speaking of the same idea in each set of verses. "The whole world" (1 John 2:2) refers to only the children of God scattered throughout the whole world (John 11:52; 17:6, 9, 19; Rev. 5:9; 7:9), the "many" of Hebrews 9:28, but not each person in the human race (John 5:29). Logic also must dictate here. If God desires all men to be saved without exception, then why are any lost? Was Judas lost? Yes, he was (John 17:12; cf. Matt 26:24). It is impossible to give the words ransom, substitute, reconcile, and propitiate their biblical meaning and still hold to universal atonement without also accepting universal salvation. If these terms hold to their rightful meanings, then Christ died only for the elect.

As George Smeaton in his book, The Apostles' Doctrine of the Atonement (Banner of Truth, 1991) so eloquently put it:




The words plainly allude to the atonement as offered and applied - that is, to the actual expiation, which does not go beyond the number of believing recipients. It is a perversion of the language when this is made to teach the dogma of universal propitiation; or that atonement was equally offered for all, whether they receive it or not, whether they acknowledge its adaptation to their case or not. The passage does not teach that Christ's propitiation has removed the divine anger in such a sense from all and every man. Nothing betokens that the apostle had others in his eye than believers out of every tribe and nation.




So, 1 John 2:2 does not disprove limited atonement, rather it affirms it.

So if world means Gentiles, then we can read John 3:16 as referring to only the Gentiles then, too.

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” (John 3:16).

Lets see how that reads.

For God so loved the world [the Gentiles] that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever [any Gentile who] believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. (John 3:16 False Calvinistic Commentary Translation).

So if this is how we are to read the word “world” it makes a mess of the Bible.
For surely God loved the Jews, too (as a part of the world).
But in this case in John 3:16, the Calvinist will say that the world is in reference to the Elect. So they are playing hopscotch with the word to fit their own ends.

Also, the Bible does not say anywhere that the word “world” is in reference to only the Elect, either. That's simply a Calvinistic twist or spin on that word.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Guess you just affirmed Divine election...


pas
- Definition:
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.
Get a GRAMCORD...

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 ...

but also for the sins of the whole world; the Syriac version renders it, "not for us only, but also for the whole world"; that is, not for the Jews only, for John was a Jew, and so were those he wrote unto, but for the Gentiles also. Nothing is more common in Jewish writings than to call the Gentiles עלמא, "the world"; and כל העולם, "the whole world"; and אומות העולם, "the nations of the world" (l); See Gill on John 12:19; and the word "world" is so used in Scripture; see Joh_3:16; and stands opposed to a notion the Jews have of the Gentiles, that אין להן כפרה, "there is no propitiation for them" (m): and it is easy to observe, that when this phrase is not used of the Gentiles, it is to be understood in a limited and restrained sense; as when they say (n),
"it happened to a certain high priest, that when he went out of the sanctuary, כולי עלמא, "the whole world" went after him;''
which could only design the people in the temple. And elsewhere (o) it is said,
"amle ylwk, "the "whole world" has left the Misna, and gone after the "Gemara";''
which at most can only intend the Jews; and indeed only a majority of their doctors, who were conversant with these writings: and in another place (p),
"amle ylwk, "the whole world" fell on their faces, but Raf did not fall on his face;''
where it means no more than the congregation. Once more, it is said (q), when
"R. Simeon ben Gamaliel entered (the synagogue), כולי עלמא, "the whole world" stood up before him;''
that is, the people in the synagogue: to which may be added (r),
"when a great man makes a mourning, כולי עלמא, "the whole world" come to honour him;''
i.e. a great number of persons attend the funeral pomp: and so these phrases, כולי עלמא לא פליגי, "the whole world" is not divided, or does not dissent (s); כולי עלמא סברי, "the whole world" are of opinion (t), are frequently met with in the Talmud, by which, an agreement among the Rabbins, in certain points, is designed; yea, sometimes the phrase, "all the men of the world" (u), only intend the inhabitants of a city where a synagogue was, and, at most, only the Jews: and so this phrase, "all the world", or "the whole world", in Scripture, unless when it signifies the whole universe, or the habitable earth, is always used in a limited sense, either for the Roman empire, or the churches of Christ in the world, or believers, or the present inhabitants of the world, or a part of them only, Luk_2:1; and so it is in this epistle, 1Jn_5:19; where the whole world lying in wickedness is manifestly distinguished from the saints, who are of God, and belong not to the world; and therefore cannot be understood of all the individuals in the world; and the like distinction is in this text itself, for "the sins of the whole world" are opposed to "our sins", the sins of the apostle and others to whom he joins himself; who therefore belonged not to, nor were a part of the whole world, for whose sins Christ is a propitiation as for theirs: so that this passage cannot furnish out any argument for universal redemption; for besides these things, it may be further observed, that for whose sins Christ is a propitiation, their sins are atoned for and pardoned, and their persons justified from all sin, and so shall certainly be glorified, which is not true of the whole world, and every man and woman in it; moreover, Christ is a propitiation through faith in his blood, the benefit of his propitiatory sacrifice is only received and enjoyed through faith; so that in the event it appears that Christ is a propitiation only for believers, a character which does not agree with all mankind; add to this, that for whom Christ is a propitiation he is also an advocate, 1Jn_2:1; but he is not an advocate for every individual person in the world; yea, there is a world he will not pray for Joh_17:9, and consequently is not a propitiation for them. Once more, the design of the apostle in these words is to comfort his "little children" with the advocacy and propitiatory sacrifice of Christ, who might fall into sin through weakness and inadvertency; but what comfort would it yield to a distressed mind, to be told that Christ was a propitiation not only for the sins of the apostles and other saints, but for the sins of every individual in the world, even of these that are in hell? Would it not be natural for persons in such circumstances to argue rather against, than for themselves, and conclude that seeing persons might be damned notwithstanding the propitiatory sacrifice of Christ, that this might, and would be their case. In what sense Christ is a propitiation; The Jews have no notion of the Messiah as a propitiation or atonement; sometimes they say (w) repentance atones for all sin; sometimes the death of the righteous (x); sometimes incense (y); sometimes the priests' garments (z); sometimes it is the day of atonement (a); and indeed they are in the utmost puzzle about atonement; and they even confess in their prayers (b), that they have now neither altar nor priest to atone for them;
Blessings
J.

Your issue revolves around your nonsensical use of "kind". All of humanity is "one kind"..... There is no such thing as one kind of "elect" and one "kind" of the damned.

Act 17:26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth,

 

[praise_yeshua]

So if world means Gentiles, then we can read John 3:16 as referring to only the Gentiles then, too.

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” (John 3:16).

Lets see how that reads.

For God so loved the world [the Gentiles] that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever [any Gentile who] believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. (John 3:16 False Calvinistic Commentary Translation).

So if this is how we are to read the word “world” it makes a mess of the Bible.
For surely God loved the Jews, too (as a part of the world).
But in this case in John 3:16, the Calvinist will say that the world is in reference to the Elect. So they are playing hopscotch with the word to fit their own ends.

Also, the Bible does not say anywhere that the word “world” is in reference to only the Elect, either. That's simply a Calvinistic twist or spin on that word.

Exactly.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

John 3:16 says, whosoever believeth in him. But the Calvinist says that whosoever is in reference to the Elect. That is not what John 3:16 says. Whosoever is referring to anyone. Just look up the definition for whosoever.

Source:
King James Bible Dictionary - Reference List - Whosoever

We see that the English word whosoever is translated from the Greek word - pas and also it means all men or everyone.

Source:
G3956 - pas - Strong's Greek Lexicon (kjv)

 

[Johann]

Your issue revolves around your nonsensical use of "kind". All of humanity is "one kind"..... There is no such thing as one kind of "elect" and one "kind" of the damned.

Act 17:26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth,

Don't get hot under the collar, yet....

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Guess you just affirmed Divine election...


pas
- Definition:
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.
Get a GRAMCORD...

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 ...

but also for the sins of the whole world; the Syriac version renders it, "not for us only, but also for the whole world"; that is, not for the Jews only, for John was a Jew, and so were those he wrote unto, but for the Gentiles also. Nothing is more common in Jewish writings than to call the Gentiles עלמא, "the world"; and כל העולם, "the whole world"; and אומות העולם, "the nations of the world" (l); See Gill on John 12:19; and the word "world" is so used in Scripture; see Joh_3:16; and stands opposed to a notion the Jews have of the Gentiles, that אין להן כפרה, "there is no propitiation for them" (m): and it is easy to observe, that when this phrase is not used of the Gentiles, it is to be understood in a limited and restrained sense; as when they say (n),
"it happened to a certain high priest, that when he went out of the sanctuary, כולי עלמא, "the whole world" went after him;''
which could only design the people in the temple. And elsewhere (o) it is said,
"amle ylwk, "the "whole world" has left the Misna, and gone after the "Gemara";''
which at most can only intend the Jews; and indeed only a majority of their doctors, who were conversant with these writings: and in another place (p),
"amle ylwk, "the whole world" fell on their faces, but Raf did not fall on his face;''
where it means no more than the congregation. Once more, it is said (q), when
"R. Simeon ben Gamaliel entered (the synagogue), כולי עלמא, "the whole world" stood up before him;''
that is, the people in the synagogue: to which may be added (r),
"when a great man makes a mourning, כולי עלמא, "the whole world" come to honour him;''
i.e. a great number of persons attend the funeral pomp: and so these phrases, כולי עלמא לא פליגי, "the whole world" is not divided, or does not dissent (s); כולי עלמא סברי, "the whole world" are of opinion (t), are frequently met with in the Talmud, by which, an agreement among the Rabbins, in certain points, is designed; yea, sometimes the phrase, "all the men of the world" (u), only intend the inhabitants of a city where a synagogue was, and, at most, only the Jews: and so this phrase, "all the world", or "the whole world", in Scripture, unless when it signifies the whole universe, or the habitable earth, is always used in a limited sense, either for the Roman empire, or the churches of Christ in the world, or believers, or the present inhabitants of the world, or a part of them only, Luk_2:1; and so it is in this epistle, 1Jn_5:19; where the whole world lying in wickedness is manifestly distinguished from the saints, who are of God, and belong not to the world; and therefore cannot be understood of all the individuals in the world; and the like distinction is in this text itself, for "the sins of the whole world" are opposed to "our sins", the sins of the apostle and others to whom he joins himself; who therefore belonged not to, nor were a part of the whole world, for whose sins Christ is a propitiation as for theirs: so that this passage cannot furnish out any argument for universal redemption; for besides these things, it may be further observed, that for whose sins Christ is a propitiation, their sins are atoned for and pardoned, and their persons justified from all sin, and so shall certainly be glorified, which is not true of the whole world, and every man and woman in it; moreover, Christ is a propitiation through faith in his blood, the benefit of his propitiatory sacrifice is only received and enjoyed through faith; so that in the event it appears that Christ is a propitiation only for believers, a character which does not agree with all mankind; add to this, that for whom Christ is a propitiation he is also an advocate, 1Jn_2:1; but he is not an advocate for every individual person in the world; yea, there is a world he will not pray for Joh_17:9, and consequently is not a propitiation for them. Once more, the design of the apostle in these words is to comfort his "little children" with the advocacy and propitiatory sacrifice of Christ, who might fall into sin through weakness and inadvertency; but what comfort would it yield to a distressed mind, to be told that Christ was a propitiation not only for the sins of the apostles and other saints, but for the sins of every individual in the world, even of these that are in hell? Would it not be natural for persons in such circumstances to argue rather against, than for themselves, and conclude that seeing persons might be damned notwithstanding the propitiatory sacrifice of Christ, that this might, and would be their case. In what sense Christ is a propitiation; The Jews have no notion of the Messiah as a propitiation or atonement; sometimes they say (w) repentance atones for all sin; sometimes the death of the righteous (x); sometimes incense (y); sometimes the priests' garments (z); sometimes it is the day of atonement (a); and indeed they are in the utmost puzzle about atonement; and they even confess in their prayers (b), that they have now neither altar nor priest to atone for them;
Blessings
J.

The word “all” in the Bible can sometimes not refer to everyone but we know this because we can see that by the context. But the Calvinist is not using the context to determine the meaning of the word “world” to refer only to the Elect. There is no context that supports the word “world” as being in reference to only the Elect in any actual real Bible verse. Calvinists are employing eisegesis by inserting that idea into the text where it does not belong.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Don't get hot under the collar, yet....

It's simply intellectual dishonesty, friend. If 1 John 2:2 refers to the word world as Gentiles, then we should be able to refer to the word world in John 3:16 as in reference to the Gentiles, too. But that rendering would suggest that God did not love the Jews whereby they could be saved, too. So it's rubbish.

If you want 1 John 2:2 to refer to the words whole world as all of the Elect, then John would be excluding himself and those he was talking with as being a part of the Elect. Again, the word whole world is not even in context to it being the Elect. If such were the case, then John would have made that fact clear. He would have said at another point how the whole world was all of the Elect of God but he didn't.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Don't get hot under the collar, yet....

Let's face it. You like the idea of Calvinism, and so you are trying to fit a square peg into a round hole involving the Bible, my friend. But the Bible should change us and we should not change what the Bible says.

If the greater witness of the whole of the Bible speaks against Calvinism, then it surely is rubbish. Taking one chapter out of the Bible (like Romans 9 - that is the only chapter the sounds like Calvinism) is not a good way to build one's theology. There are so many other verses that support free will in our choice involving God. One has to turn a blind eye to all of these verses all because one wants Calvinism to be true. But things are not as we wish them to be.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

One major appeal I can see why a person may believe in Calvinism is that it caters to a person not having any responsibility. Do you have a strong desire to be free of responsibility? Some Calvinists (and not all) believe they can sin and still be saved. This to me is showing a lack of responsibility involving one's Sanctification.

Then there are Calvinists who believe you must live holy or you are not Elect. However, this is another downside of Calvinism. We can see the despair expressed by a poster in this thread because they may think they are not Elect in the fact that they are not living holy like they should be. They are not the first Calvinist to think this way. This is the problem with Calvinism. It sets up one to be hopeless or to be without any kind of hope. That is what Calvinism spreads. Hopelessness and despair. If you are not living that life, you are not one of the Elect or Chosen and too bad for you. God does not love you enough to choose you. Does not sound like the God of the Bible to me. But if one likes dark and twisted things, or if one is viewed by others as being cold hearted, then this could explain why Calvinism appeals to such individuals. For me: Calvinism is pure evil. No offense if you believe in it. That's just the way I see it because it paints an evil picture of God and sets Him to be blamed for not saving others (When He could save them). It would be like a firefighter who let people die (When he could have easily save them). That's what people are not getting. They are turning off their moral compass and saying this is what the Bible says (When it really does not say that).

 

[praise_yeshua]

Don't get hot under the collar, yet....

I'm not. No need to deflect from your difficult position.

 

[praise_yeshua]

The word “all” in the Bible can sometimes not refer to everyone but we know this because we can see that by the context. But the Calvinist is not using the context to determine the meaning of the word “world” to refer only to the Elect. There is no context that supports the word “world” as being in reference to only the Elect in any actual real Bible verse. Calvinists are employing eisegesis by inserting that idea into the text where it does not belong.

God's Elect is Jesus Christ. Calvinism perverts God's choice in His Son to be a choice in sinful man.

Isa 42:1 Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him:

 

[praise_yeshua]

One major appeal I can see why a person may believe in Calvinism is that it caters to a person not having any responsibility. Do you have a strong desire to be free of responsibility? Some Calvinists (and not all) believe they can sin and still be saved. This to me is showing a lack of responsibility involving one's Sanctification.

Another downside of Calvinism is that some may think they are not Elect because they are not living holy like they should. We have seen this expressed already in this thread, and they are not the first Calvinist to think this way. This is the problem with Calvinism. It sets up one to be hopeless or to be without any kind of hope. That is what Calvinism spreads. Hopelessness and despair. If you are not living that life, you are not one of the Elect or Chosen and too bad for you. God does not love you enough to choose you. Does not sound like the God of the Bible to me. But if one likes dark and twisted things, or if one is viewed by others as being cold hearted, then this could explain why Calvinism appeals to such individuals. For me: Calvinism is pure evil. No offense if you believe in it. That's just the way I see it because it paints an evil picture of God and sets Him to be blamed for not saving others (When He could save them). It would be like a firefighter who let people die (When he could have easily save them). That's what people are not getting. They are turning off their moral compass and saying this is what the Bible says (When it really does not say that).

Calvinism feeds the carnal nature of men. It is in the nature of men to hate their fellowman. There brothers in Adam. Just like Cain, they've replaced God's choice with themselves.

 

[reformed1689]

The verses speak for themselves and do not allow for Calvinism to exist.
2 Thessalonians 2:10 says that the reason why those who perish are perishing is because THEY RECEIVED NOT THE LOVE OF THE TRUTH THAT THEY MIGHT BE SAVED. There is no MIGHT be saved in Calvinism. They are also perishing because THEY received not the love of the truth and not because God did not elect them.

Jonah 3:10 talks about how God changed His mind in not bringing judgment on the Ninevites because they forsaken their evil ways. This is not possible in Calvinism. In the upside down world of Calvinism: They were either Elect or Non-Elect. No decision on the part of the Ninevites would have changed the god of Calvinism's prearranged plan to destroy them. But we read in the story about how what they did (by forsaking sin) led God to turn back or relent in destroying them.



This is merely ignoring the moral issues I presented. Again, I highly doubt it that you and your son would rejoice if a coast guard drove off in not saving you guys (While he saved others). You would not say to your son, “Hey son, isn't that coast guard great? He reminds me of the god of Calvinism that we serve.”

While people who do deserve hell for sinning against God, we know by 2 Peter 3:9 that God is not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance. Calvinism does not allow you to believe this verse as it is plainly stated.



YouTube is a great educational tool. If you want to fix something in the house or learn a skill, YouTube is great for that. If you want to learn what others believe you can do so at YouTube. I am sure you can even find great Calvinism videos. Granted, I am glad you don't watch them because they are so obviously false.



This sounds like a Calvinistic invention to the tale. John Calvin had others killed besides servetus.
Puritans (Calvinists) killed witches. So this seems to be a bad pattern going on here.



No. They don't. They were invented by Calvin and they were not a part of debate by other believers.
Well, Calvin took Augustine's view on Double Predestination and ran with it more to give the 5 points of Calvinism (Which is false).



The point here is that Calvin and his followers teach something that is not in the Bible.

How stupid is this post? VERY.

The word might, you are really focusing on one English word? Really? That doesn't even deserve a response.
And no, Jonah doesn't help your position at all.

Who said anything about rejoicing because of those who are not elect? Who has argued that? Nobody that I know of.

No, they were not invented by Calvin. Read Pillars of Grace. It goes all the way back to the Apostles and the Apostolic Fathers. And no, they are PLAINLY in Scripture. Name one part of the five points that are not found in Scripture. Good luck.

 

[praise_yeshua]

How stupid is this post? VERY.

The word might, you are really focusing on one English word? Really? That doesn't even deserve a response.
And no, Jonah doesn't help your position at all.

Who said anything about rejoicing because of those who are not elect? Who has argued that? Nobody that I know of.

I've debated many Calvinists in my life. They ultimately rejoice in the "Good Pleasure" of God to damn the vast majority of humanity to hell without remedy. I call this "rejoicing" in the fact they attribute this to "God's Good Pleasure".....

No, they were not invented by Calvin. Read Pillars of Grace. It goes all the way back to the Apostles and the Apostolic Fathers. And no, they are PLAINLY in Scripture. Name one part of the five points that are not found in Scripture. Good luck.

I don't remember any apostle mentioning Calvin. Do you have a reference?

Calvin used the good name of the apostles and Jesus Christ to sell a theology that replaced Jesus Christ with themselves. That isn't "Grace". That is "covetousness".

Mar 12:7 But those husbandmen said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and the inheritance shall be ours.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

How stupid is this post? VERY.

The word might, you are really focusing on one English word? Really? That doesn't even deserve a response.
And no, Jonah doesn't help your position at all.

This is the tactics of many Calvinists I have run into.
They really do not address the verses in a way that demolishes their theology.
So your response is one that is not really backed up in defending your belief.
So you are claiming you are right without any actual biblical support.

Who said anything about rejoicing because of those who are not elect? Who has argued that? Nobody that I know of.

Must have missed where I said that. Please quote me the exact words of where you think I said that and I will respond.

No, they were not invented by Calvin. Read Pillars of Grace. It goes all the way back to the Apostles and the Apostolic Fathers. And no, they are PLAINLY in Scripture. Name one part of the five points that are not found in Scripture. Good luck.

Why would I read false Calvinist propaganda when I think Calvinism is pure evil?
For example: If a firefighter let you and your family die when he could have easily saved you it would be immoral of him to do what he did. But you want to put God as being like this firefighter. This is an attack upon the very good and moral character of GOD Himself.

 

[JesusFan1]

Okay, well we disagree on the will. The crux of the matter at any point in time is the state of the heart, and how we are thus fully inclined to use that free will. And that's really what you're saying here, I think. Think about it.

Grace and peace to you.

We do not have the real free will remaining that Adam was created as having before he fell

 

[praise_yeshua]

We do not have the real free will remaining that Adam was created as having before he fell

Adam exercised his free will to sin against God. Man does the same thing continually.

There is no difference. Can you explain how they are different?

 

[reformed1689]

I've debated many Calvinists in my life. They ultimately rejoice in the "Good Pleasure" of God to damn the vast majority of humanity to hell without remedy. I call this "rejoicing" in the fact they attribute this to "God's Good Pleasure".....



I don't remember any apostle mentioning Calvin. Do you have a reference?

Calvin used the good name of the apostles and Jesus Christ to sell a theology that replaced Jesus Christ with themselves. That isn't "Grace". That is "covetousness".

Mar 12:7 But those husbandmen said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and the inheritance shall be ours.

I don't know of ANY person who rejoices in the damnation of others. This is a strawman argument.

As far as Calvin? What is your point here. The doctrine comes from Scripture, not Calvin. And used a theology that replaces Christ with themselves? What on earth are you talking about? That is nonsense.

 

[reformed1689]

This is the tactics of many Calvinists I have run into.
They really do not address the verses in a way that demolishes their theology.
So your response is one that is not really backed up in defending your belief.
So you are claiming you are right without any actual biblical support.



Must have missed where I said that. Please quote me the exact words of where you think I said that and I will respond.



Why would I read false Calvinist propaganda when I think Calvinism is pure evil?
For example: If a firefighter let you and your family die when he could have easily saved you it would be immoral of him to do what he did. But you want to put God as being like this firefighter. This is an attack upon the very good and moral character of GOD Himself.

You haven't demolished anything sir. Do you even know what Pillars of Grace is? No, obviously not. The firefighter is not an equivalent analogy. You seem to think everyone DESERVES to be saved. Is that your belief? Is it your belief all humans DESERVE to be saved?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

You haven't demolished anything sir. Do you even know what Pillars of Grace is? No, obviously not. The firefighter is not an equivalent analogy. You seem to think everyone DESERVES to be saved. Is that your belief? Is it your belief all humans DESERVE to be saved?

God feels that they are deserving or worthy to be saved. 2 Peter 3:9 says God is not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance. If God felt they were not deserving of being saved, then He would have let them perish.

Why would I care what Pillars of Grace is if it is in the upside down world of Calvinism?
Do you know everything about false religions? Why would we need to know all the details about them?