Calvinism Vs Arminian

[Andrew]

Agree? Isn't it my post that stated that "God sent the Lord Jesus Christ to be the expiation for the sins of the whole world. The intention is to save all who are in Christ. All really means all. (1 John 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins. And not only for our sins, but also for those of the whole world.)" and which says "Yes" to your question "Does not God intend to save all believers? "

Nevertheless the holy scriptures do in fact state that [The Lord Jesus Christ] is the propitiation for our sins. And not only for our sins, but also for those of the whole world. which refutes the L of TULIP. God did not set a limit on the expiatory sacrifice of the Lord, Jesus Christ, he intended it to be sufficient for the whole world. That is the opposite of Limited atonement.

I asked "Doesn't God intend to save all believers?" you answered YES. That's exactly my answer as well thus we agree.
Limited atonement = only the believers are atoned for/saved by the blood of Christ and go to heaven... it's not intended to be this big scary monster.

 

[Josiah]

I asked "Doesn't God intend to save all believers?" you answered YES. That's exactly my answer as well thus we agree.
Limited atonement = only the believers are atoned for/saved by the blood of Christ and go to heaven... it's not intended to be this big scary monster.

Correct.


The "L" of TULIP ("Jesus died ONLY, EXCLUSIVELY, SOLELY, JUST for a LIMITED few") flows from the assumption that God desires most people to fry eternally in hell - and thus causes that to happen. This assumption (well, collection of them) is clearly contradictory of Scripture, but it is the assumption these few, radical, latter-day Calvinists made. THUS, the radical Calvinist, believing he should be "logical" rather than biblical, simply asks himself: "Why would Jesus die for one God is causing to go to hell?" And appointing self to answer the question of self says, "He wouldn't ! That would be a waste of blood!" And so declares that Scripture is wrong when it says (many times!) that Jesus died for all.


Andrew, as the creator of this thread, are you seeing the error, the flaw in these very tiny number of radical "TULIP" Calvinists? But remember, they represent a tiny minority of today's Calvinists.




.

 

[Josiah]

atpollard....


"The Calvinist Corner" summerizes the "U" thusly....

Unconditional Election:
God does not base His election on anything He sees in the individual. He chooses the elect according to the kind intention of His will (Eph. 1:4-8; Rom. 9:11) without any consideration of merit within the individual. Nor does God look into the future to see who would pick Him. Also, as some are elected into salvation, others are not (Rom. 9:15, 21).

The dogma invented by these few latter-day radical Calvinists is that God chose, elected, predestined some to eternal life and most to damnation... but ALL are predestined.

Flowing from this is that "obviously" God desires most people to fry eternally in hell ("It gives him glory" as one Calvinists over at CF constantly posted).

That God chooses/elects/predestines ALL - both the few going to heaven and the majority going to hell, BOTH the heaven-bound and the hell-bound, this is commonly known as "DOUBLE predestination."

I realize it is popular these days for Calvinists to wiggle on the "U" and argue that God predestines ALL but He does NOTHING regarded the lost, "predestine" thus having nothing to do with will or desire or anything God may or may do. Pretty illogical to me (odd coming from a whole dogma based entirely on what is claimed to be "logical"). The word must have two completely contradictory meanings OR the dogma is simply contradictory. Saying, "I caused the sun to rise this morning but I didn't desire it or make it happen in any way, I just stood back in total passivity and watched it" well.... These Calvinists would "come home" if they simply embraced that God chooses/elects/predestines the SAVED. Stop.


Traditional, biblical, historic Christianity affirms that God chooses/elects/predestines the SAVED. Jesus is the Savior. The Holy Spirit is the Lord and Giver of life. But stops there. Thus, we don't have the issue of denying what Scripture clearly says: God loves all.... God desires all to be saved.... Jesus died for all. TRUE, God does not give faith to all.... but we aren't told the reason for that and it is left as mystery. "Why some and not others?" Biblical Christianity: We don't know. TULIP: God hates most people, desires most to fry eternally in hell, Jesus never died for most, thus faith is irrelevant for most since there's nothing for it to apprehend even if they have faith." Then Calvinists TRY to say "but God isn't responsible for His desiring most to go to hell, God isn't responsible for causing most to go to hell, God isn't responsible for Jesus not dying for most." This from Christians who created an entire theological system out of "logic." SOME Calvinists today try to wiggle around all this - in vain. Most simply reject most of TULIP (including all the Calvinists personally known to me).


MY EVALUATION:

As I noted, all this flows from something very true: Monergism. Calvinists are as monergistic as Lutherans are (to their credit). But a few latter-day extremists in the late 16th Century severely over-reacted to Arminianism by making the very same mistakes... they abandoned historic, orthodox, biblical Christianity to invent this tight, interconnected, interrelated system of beliefs solely on the basis of their concept of "logic." They simply went WAY too far... running head long into Scripture, contradicting Scripture. The vast majority of Calvinists, it seems to me, long ago realized this... they accept the basis of these teachings but reject the radical extreme extension of them that is TULIP. Luther said, "Humility is the basis of sound theology." John Wesley said, "We are to be bold where Scripture is bold, silent where Scripture is silent, and wise to know the difference." IMO, these latter-day extremists who invented TULIP violated both, placing their claim to "logic" above Scripture.... inventing something that yes counters Arminianism (which seems to have been the sole motive) but is the same unbiblical, radical, "logical" mess.

I reject TULIP for the identical same reasons that I reject Arminianism. I realize that if we approach Scripture with humility.... accepting God's teachings whether they seem "logical" to us or not, whether they "answers" all our questions or not.... if we are bold where Scripture is bold and silent where Scripture is silent being wise to know the difference.... then, yes, we will be left with mystery at times, we may not find the direct answer to all our questions, we may not be able to connect all the dots (indeed, we likely don't even know all the dots that exists). Humility lets God have the last word. These radical, extremist, latter-day Calvinists and Arminianists simply forgot that. To their great credit, most Calvinists have realized this (and it seems to ME, most now agree with Lutheranism here). Sadly, the Arminiainists have not.





.

 

[MennoSota]

The "L" of TULIP ("Jesus died ONLY, EXCLUSIVELY, SOLELY, JUST for a LIMITED few") flows from the assumption that God desires most people to fry eternally in hell - and thus causes that to happen.

No.
That is NOT the assumption of Limited Atonement. That is YOUR narrative as a crutch so you can avoid your own conundrum.
God does not desire people to spend eternity in hell, which was created for Satan and the demons.
God MUST desire justice. Justice is part of God's nature. God cannot act against His nature.
Follow me here because you REALLY struggle with this:
If Jesus atoned for ALL humanities sins, then ALL humanity has had their sins removed by the blood of Christ. All humanity is therefore made ENTIRELY holy and righteous. Because God is a JUST God (justification) He must justly declare all humanity entirely holy and righteous. God would be UNJUST to send anyone to hell because Jesus paid for ALL sin.
So...if Jesus atonement is unlimited, then God's judgment in declaring all humans righteous in Christ is also unlimited and universal. All humanity is holy. God must declare all humanity to be entirely righteous. No buts...

Now...if Jesus atoned only for the elect (those the Father had given him) then ALL the elect have had their sins removed by the blood of Christ. All the elect are therefore made ENTIRELY holy and righteous. Because God is a JUST God (justification) He must justly declare all the elect entirely holy and righteous. God would be UNJUST to send the elect to hell because Jesus paid for ALL the elects sin.
Those for whom Jesus blood was not shed, are not justified. God sees no atoning sacrifice for them that cleanses them of their sins. Because God is...and must be...JUST, God sees their sins and wickedness. He JUSTLY declares "Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels."
God does not "desire to see people fry eternally in hell" when He limits the atonement to those whom He has given to Jesus. God desires JUSTICE. Had God not graciously chosen some to be saved, ALL humanity would have JUSTLY been condemned in their sins.
Josiah, would you DARE to condemn God for being just? That is precisely what the unrepentant thief on the cross did when He mocked Jesus.
God graciously chose some to be saved. It is an action of LOVE that cannot be explained. God chose to justify the elect by atoning for their sins when He was not obligated to do so.
Your view makes God evil because God did not choose to justify ALL even though He atoned for ALL their sins. You declare that God is UNJUST.
Josiah, your statement regarding limited atonement is entirely wrong.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I asked "Doesn't God intend to save all believers?" you answered YES. That's exactly my answer as well thus we agree.
Limited atonement = only the believers are atoned for/saved by the blood of Christ and go to heaven... it's not intended to be this big scary monster.

But you are mistaken because the L of TULIP is intended to be a 'big scary monster'. It's the heart of double predestination which is lovely for those who 'believe' and quite horrible for everyone who does not. I put believe in quotes because as you will discover, if you do not yet know it, that believe in Calvinist theology tends to mean "believe the five points of Calvinism unfailingly upon risk of exclusion from the elect as a 'synergist' if you don't". This thread is proof of that if you follow the exchanges between MennoSota and Josiah. The L is particularly egregious theology but the other letters (T, U, I, and P) also present serious problems to any person who reads holy scripture with care.

 

[Andrew]

But you are mistaken because the L of TULIP is intended to be a 'big scary monster'. It's the heart of double predestination which is lovely for those who 'believe' and quite horrible for everyone who does not. I put believe in quotes because as you will discover, if you do not yet know it, that believe in Calvinist theology tends to mean "believe the five points of Calvinism unfailingly upon risk of exclusion from the elect as a 'synergist' if you don't". This thread is proof of that if you follow the exchanges between MennoSota and Josiah. The L is particularly egregious theology but the other letters (T, U, I, and P) also present serious problems to any person who reads holy scripture with care.

Being a synergist doesn't mean that you are against God in any way, it just means that you desire to help Jesus somehow which is unnecessary because God is superior and knows what he is doing, you should trust in him knowing that he is.. (now take a deep breathe, it's going to be ok) ..Sovereign.
Jesus says "It is finished!"
Can you believe that?
What does it mean to hear from God that "it is finished?" does it mean that you should strain your brain to believe that the work is not quite all finished, that perhaps God should rethink his elect and invite everyone into Heaven? Of course you don't, MC you are a believer first before you are Catholic.
I actually have mad respect now for all churches and denominations because they are made up of believers, I no longer have this brain straining of trying to figure out who is right... all believers are chosen, all believers are saved, all believers are atoned for all around the world both Jew and gentile alike, we are all one flock, we are all Gods people because he chose us.
I can see myself in every sinner, I was the worst atheist, so don't be fooled into thinking that you 'know' who is Gods chosen outside yourself because you don't know! That's why we are commanded to Love everyone and to continue spreading the gospel! let God be sovereign and trust in him alone but know that you are his because he chose you.

 

[MennoSota]

But you are mistaken because the L of TULIP is intended to be a 'big scary monster'.

No, it's not. It expresses God's justice in rightly condemning sinners and God's grace in choosing to make sinners righteous (justified) by the shed blood of Jesus sacrificial atonement.

It's the heart of double predestination which is lovely for those who 'believe' and quite horrible for everyone who does not.

No.
Sinners who are not saved by God's redeeming grace consider the Gospel to be utterly foolish. They rebel entirely against God as the Sovereign ruler and against God's Kingdom.

I put believe in quotes because as you will discover, if you do not yet know it, that believe in Calvinist theology tends to mean "believe the five points of Calvinism unfailingly upon risk of exclusion from the elect as a 'synergist' if you don't".

No it doesn't. You have spoken a bold-faced lie. Believe means to have God-given faith that causes you to be assured of your place as an adopted child of the King of Kings. Knowing by faith that Jesus blood has justified you by the faith that God has given you.

This thread is proof of that if you follow the exchanges between MennoSota and Josiah.

I invite people to follow the exchange. Test the scriptures to see what God tells us about Jesus atoning sacrifice. Read John 6, John 10, John 17, Matthew 1, all of Romans, Ephesians, Colossians and 1&2Peter. Read God's word. God speaks clearly and God tells us that Jesus died for those the Father has given him.

The L is particularly egregious theology but the other letters (T, U, I, and P) also present serious problems to any person who reads holy scripture with care.

The acronym is merely an human attempt to express the great truths of God presented in God's word.
Those who wish to remain independent of God's Sovereign rule will bristle and hate great truths set out in a simple acronym. Those who see themselves as utterly stained and darkened by personal sin will welcome God's complete Sovereign rule over their lives. They will know they deserve nothing and will fall before the King in absolute gratitude, knowing they were hopelessly enslaved in their sin so entirely that the unentanglement could never happen through their own struggle. They were utterly caught in sin and yet, the King, chose to save them anyway. They know how totally hopeless it was, but "GOD made them alive in Christ Jesus."
So, read scripture with care. Otherwise, you will harbor pride in your own self-righteousness.

 

[Andrew]

The last days shall be as in the days of Noah, in those days violence increased and became so great that thus sayith the LORD "My Spirit will not contend with man forever".

We must all agree that the last days began when Christ ascended into Heaven...

So what should we do?

"Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers. And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption. Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil speaking, be put away from you, with all malice: And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you" Ephesians 4:29-32

 

[Andrew]

Andrew, as the creator of this thread, are you seeing the error, the flaw in these very tiny number of radical "TULIP" Calvinists? But remember, they represent a tiny minority of today's Calvinists.

I have no prejudice against any denomination nor against any such 'sub division' inside of Calvinism respectively.
I absolutely did a 180 inside of this thread no doubt but I created this thread not knowing that. I believe that brother Menno here is misunderstood, I have stated in the past that he makes a lot of sense to me but I couldn't understand why he constantly insisted that "Jesus died solely for Gods people".
Jesus did die for Gods people = the "L"
that does not mean that Christ died for the righteous but for those whom God has MADE righteous, this means that ALL BELIEVERS throughout the world are MADE righteous through Christ's Atonement ... We both agree Josiah that denominational parts of the Body of Christ are necessary for edification.
Perhaps you could watch Mennos video from earlier because it is rather good and well put, wouldn't hurt.

 

[atpollard]

And many here have listed MANY, MANY Scriptures that verbatim states He died for all.

This statement is inaccurate hyperbole.

There is only ONE verse that states that “verbatim” ...
[2Co 5:15 NASB] 15 and He died for all, so that they who live might no longer live for themselves, but for Him who died and rose again on their behalf.
... so MANY here cannot have listed MANY, MANY verses that state that “verbatim”.

There are TWO other verses that state that, but not “verbatim” ...

[Rom 6:10 NASB] 10 For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God.
[1Pe 3:18 NASB] 18 For Christ also died for sins once for all, [the] just for [the] unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit;

Any other verses, require the sort of “logical interpretation” that you forbid your opponent to present.

Are 3 verses “Many, Many”?

 

[atpollard]

atpollard....


"The Calvinist Corner" summerizes the "U" thusly....



The dogma invented by these few latter-day radical Calvinists is that God chose, elected, predestined some to eternal life and most to damnation... but ALL are predestined.

Flowing from this is that "obviously" God desires most people to fry eternally in hell ("It gives him glory" as one Calvinists over at CF constantly posted).

That God chooses/elects/predestines ALL - both the few going to heaven and the majority going to hell, BOTH the heaven-bound and the hell-bound, this is commonly known as "DOUBLE predestination."

I realize it is popular these days for Calvinists to wiggle on the "U" and argue that God predestines ALL but He does NOTHING regarded the lost, "predestine" thus having nothing to do with will or desire or anything God may or may do. Pretty illogical to me (odd coming from a whole dogma based entirely on what is claimed to be "logical"). The word must have two completely contradictory meanings OR the dogma is simply contradictory. Saying, "I caused the sun to rise this morning but I didn't desire it or make it happen in any way, I just stood back in total passivity and watched it" well.... These Calvinists would "come home" if they simply embraced that God chooses/elects/predestines the SAVED. Stop.


Traditional, biblical, historic Christianity affirms that God chooses/elects/predestines the SAVED. Jesus is the Savior. The Holy Spirit is the Lord and Giver of life. But stops there. Thus, we don't have the issue of denying what Scripture clearly says: God loves all.... God desires all to be saved.... Jesus died for all. TRUE, God does not give faith to all.... but we aren't told the reason for that and it is left as mystery. "Why some and not others?" Biblical Christianity: We don't know. TULIP: God hates most people, desires most to fry eternally in hell, Jesus never died for most, thus faith is irrelevant for most since there's nothing for it to apprehend even if they have faith." Then Calvinists TRY to say "but God isn't responsible for His desiring most to go to hell, God isn't responsible for causing most to go to hell, God isn't responsible for Jesus not dying for most." This from Christians who created an entire theological system out of "logic." SOME Calvinists today try to wiggle around all this - in vain. Most simply reject most of TULIP (including all the Calvinists personally known to me).


MY EVALUATION:

As I noted, all this flows from something very true: Monergism. Calvinists are as monergistic as Lutherans are (to their credit). But a few latter-day extremists in the late 16th Century severely over-reacted to Arminianism by making the very same mistakes... they abandoned historic, orthodox, biblical Christianity to invent this tight, interconnected, interrelated system of beliefs solely on the basis of their concept of "logic." They simply went WAY too far... running head long into Scripture, contradicting Scripture. The vast majority of Calvinists, it seems to me, long ago realized this... they accept the basis of these teachings but reject the radical extreme extension of them that is TULIP. Luther said, "Humility is the basis of sound theology." John Wesley said, "We are to be bold where Scripture is bold, silent where Scripture is silent, and wise to know the difference." IMO, these latter-day extremists who invented TULIP violated both, placing their claim to "logic" above Scripture.... inventing something that yes counters Arminianism (which seems to have been the sole motive) but is the same unbiblical, radical, "logical" mess.

I reject TULIP for the identical same reasons that I reject Arminianism. I realize that if we approach Scripture with humility.... accepting God's teachings whether they seem "logical" to us or not, whether they "answers" all our questions or not.... if we are bold where Scripture is bold and silent where Scripture is silent being wise to know the difference.... then, yes, we will be left with mystery at times, we may not find the direct answer to all our questions, we may not be able to connect all the dots (indeed, we likely don't even know all the dots that exists). Humility lets God have the last word. These radical, extremist, latter-day Calvinists and Arminianists simply forgot that. To their great credit, most Calvinists have realized this (and it seems to ME, most now agree with Lutheranism here). Sadly, the Arminiainists have not.





.

I believe that you are simply reading things into TULIP that are not there.

Is EVERYONE “Chosen/Elect” as the Scripture defines that Greek term, or are some chosen and some not?
I read that statement and see it saying nothing more or less than Scripture does.
Jacob was Chosen, Esau was not ... according to Romans, while they were in the womb and before either had done anything good or bad ... in order to reveal the sovereignty of God. That is God’s right, as God.

Did God MAKE Esau hold his birthright in contempt, or merely allow it?
That is a question above my pay grade.
Paul says in Romans that God CHOSE Jacob and did not choose Esau (“Esau I hated”).
So apparently it isn’t a question above God’s pay grade.
Therefore, I am content to trust God.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Being a synergist doesn't mean that you are against God in any way

Excellent, then being a synergist is being godly and Christian and having a sound grasp of holy scripture, right? It's following the teaching of the Lord Jesus Christ faithfully, right?

 

[MoreCoffee]

This statement is inaccurate hyperbole.

There is only ONE verse that states that “verbatim” ...
[2Co 5:15 NASB] 15 and He died for all, so that they who live might no longer live for themselves, but for Him who died and rose again on their behalf.
... so MANY here cannot have listed MANY, MANY verses that state that “verbatim”.

There are TWO other verses that state that, but not “verbatim” ...

[Rom 6:10 NASB] 10 For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God.
[1Pe 3:18 NASB] 18 For Christ also died for sins once for all, [the] just for [the] unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit;

Any other verses, require the sort of “logical interpretation” that you forbid your opponent to present.

Are 3 verses “Many, Many”?

Josiah wrote "And many here have listed MANY, MANY Scriptures that verbatim states He died for all."

I will not defend his statement in full but it is worth pointing out that 1John 2:2 explicitly says that Christ's expiatory sacrifice was for the sins of the whole world. That is one more scripture than the one you claim is the sum total of holy scripture references teaching that Christ died for all. You are mistaken. You ought to adjust your argument to take account of at least two passages that say that Christ died for all.

There are other passages too such as:

• Romans 5:18 Then as one man's trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man's act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men.
• 2 Corinthians 5:14-15 For the love of Christ controls us, because we are convinced that one has died for all; therefore all have died. (15) And he died for all, that those who live might live no longer for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised.
• 1 Timothy 2:1-4 First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all men, (2) for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life, godly and respectful in every way. (3) This is good, and it is acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour, (4) who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
• Titus 2:11 For the grace of God has appeared for the salvation of all men,

 

[Andrew]

Excellent, then being a synergist is being godly and Christian and having a sound grasp of holy scripture, right? It's following the teaching of the Lord Jesus Christ faithfully, right?

Quote what follows and there is your answer MC

 

[MoreCoffee]

Quote what follows and there is your answer MC

Are you disagreeing that being a synergist is being godly and Christian and having a sound grasp of holy scripture? and that it's following the teaching of the Lord Jesus Christ faithfully?

 

[Josiah]

Is EVERYONE “Chosen/Elect” as the Scripture defines that Greek term, or are some chosen and some not?

.... some are. The Bible teaches that. So does historic, traditional, orthodox Christianity.

The "debate" is over the "U" of TULIP that insists that God equally predestines ALL to their final destination..... predestine.... to cause, to make happen, to be responsible for.... so that God DESIRES and CAUSES most to fry eternally in hell and some to enjoy the bliss of heaven. BOTH. EQUALLY.

Nearly all Christians (including all Calvinists personally known to me) reject the "U" position. They note it's never taught in Scripture and flows from a wrong assumption (God desires most to eternally fry in hell), one directly contradictory of Scripture.


Now... the "spin" here on the "U" that some Calvinists try to make .... this particular reinvention of it to avoid its teaching..... is one I find absurd. It's much the same as insisting, "I caused the sun to rise this morning but it was not my will and I had absolutely nothing to do with it." Friend, you can't say God predestined ("caused") MOST to fry eternally in hell.... but He neither willed that or caused that and isn't responsible for it This new invention of "passive predestination" is an oxymoron. If God does NOT predestine anyone to hell.... then don't insist that He does, and drop the "U" as indeed it seems to me nearly all Calvinists have.






.

 

[Josiah]

Are you disagreeing that being a synergist is being godly and Christian and having a sound grasp of holy scripture? and that it's following the teaching of the Lord Jesus Christ faithfully?

... your tragic confusion flows from your mixing Law and Gospel, Justification from Sanctification.


YES, those WITH Spiritual life, WITH the Holy Spirit empowering and directing, WITH faith in Christ (e.g. justified) ARE to cooperate and live the life they have been given, striving constantly to be more Christ-like, loving as they have been loved. Yes, sanctification/discipleship IS synergistic. The problem is that most Catholics simply impose what it true in Sanctification to what is not true in Justification... and this ends us endangerous if not destroying the Gospel and the central point of Christianity: Jesus is the Savior.


As a living human, is it important that I breathe? Eat? Yup - and I do those things (by the empowering of God). But did my breathing and eating CAUSE me to become alive? No.





.

 

[atpollard]

Josiah wrote "And many here have listed MANY, MANY Scriptures that verbatim states He died for all."

I will not defend his statement in full but it is worth pointing out that 1John 2:2 explicitly says that Christ's expiatory sacrifice was for the sins of the whole world. That is one more scripture than the one you claim is the sum total of holy scripture references teaching that Christ died for all. You are mistaken. You ought to adjust your argument to take account of at least two passages that say that Christ died for all.

There are other passages too such as:

• Romans 5:18 Then as one man's trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man's act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men.
• 2 Corinthians 5:14-15 For the love of Christ controls us, because we are convinced that one has died for all; therefore all have died. (15) And he died for all, that those who live might live no longer for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised.
• 1 Timothy 2:1-4 First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all men, (2) for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life, godly and respectful in every way. (3) This is good, and it is acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour, (4) who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
• Titus 2:11 For the grace of God has appeared for the salvation of all men,

A lesson in the meaning of words ...

ver·ba·tim
/vərˈbādəm/
adverb & adjective
in exactly the same words as were used originally.

I did a search and found only ONE verse that said, verbatim, “he died for all”.
I stand by the accuracy of my statement.

 

[atpollard]

.... some are. The Bible teaches that. So does historic, traditional, orthodox Christianity.

The "debate" is over the "U" of TULIP that insists that God equally predestines ALL to their final destination..... predestine.... to cause, to make happen, to be responsible for.... so that God DESIRES and CAUSES most to fry eternally in hell and some to enjoy the bliss of heaven. BOTH. EQUALLY.

Nearly all Christians (including all Calvinists personally known to me) reject the "U" position. They note it's never taught in Scripture and flows from a wrong assumption (God desires most to eternally fry in hell), one directly contradictory of Scripture.


Now... the "spin" here on the "U" that some Calvinists try to make .... this particular reinvention of it to avoid its teaching..... is one I find absurd. It's much the same as insisting, "I caused the sun to rise this morning but it was not my will and I had absolutely nothing to do with it." Friend, you can't say God predestined ("caused") MOST to fry eternally in hell.... but He neither willed that or caused that and isn't responsible for it This new invention of "passive predestination" is an oxymoron. If God does NOT predestine anyone to hell.... then don't insist that He does, and drop the "U" as indeed it seems to me nearly all Calvinists have.
.

You quoted the Calvinist Corner as defining the U of TULIP as ...

“Unconditional Election:
God does not base His election on anything He sees in the individual. He chooses the elect according to the kind intention of His will (Eph. 1:4-8; Rom. 9:11) without any consideration of merit within the individual. Nor does God look into the future to see who would pick Him. Also, as some are elected into salvation, others are not (Rom. 9:15, 21).”

Which does not state “that God equally predestines ALL to their final destination..... predestine.... to cause, to make happen, to be responsible for.... so that God DESIRES and CAUSES most to fry eternally in hell and some to enjoy the bliss of heaven. BOTH. EQUALLY.” It simply states what both YOU and the Bible have stated, that SOME are chosen, but all are not chosen. (At least I assume that you believe that, since you have not directly answered the direct question “Are all Chosen?”, but have danced around a simple yes or no.)

YOU are the only one claiming that the U of TULIP teaches what you rail against it teaching. That is the definition of a strawman argument. You are refuting a teaching that Calvinists do not teach, it is only a teaching that YOU CLAIM Calvinists teach.

In any event, PREDESTINATION is only tangentially related to the question of Conditional or Unconditional Election.
Conditional Election argues that God’s choice is because of God’s Omniscience ... God knows who will believe and chooses them.
Unconditional Election argues that God’s choice is because of God’s Sovereignty ... God chooses whomever He pleases and they believe because God chose them.
Calvinists and Lutherans both believe in Unconditional Election.

Calvinists and Lutherans appear to have very different beliefs on Predestination, but Reformed Theology (as in the Westminster Confession of Faith) does not teach the sort of Double Predestination that you are describing.

 

[Josiah]

You quoted the Calvinist Corner as defining the U of TULIP as ...

“Unconditional Election:
God does not base His election on anything He sees in the individual. He chooses the elect according to the kind intention of His will (Eph. 1:4-8; Rom. 9:11) without any consideration of merit within the individual. Nor does God look into the future to see who would pick Him. Also, as some are elected into salvation, others are not (Rom. 9:15, 21).”

Which does not state “that God equally predestines ALL to their final destination..... predestine.... to cause, to make happen, to be responsible for.... so that God DESIRES and CAUSES most to fry eternally in hell and some to enjoy the bliss of heaven. BOTH. EQUALLY.” It simply states what both YOU and the Bible have stated, that SOME are chosen, but all are not chosen. (At least I assume that you believe that, since you have not directly answered the direct question “Are all Chosen?”, but have danced around a simple yes or no.)

YOU are the only one claiming that the U of TULIP teaches what you rail against it teaching. That is the definition of a strawman argument. You are refuting a teaching that Calvinists do not teach, it is only a teaching that YOU CLAIM Calvinists teach.

What is the point of the "....Also, as some are elected into salvation, others are not (followed by two Scriptures that say nothing about the "not")?

Is it not to say there is also a predestination of the damned?

Calvinists and Lutherans both believe in Unconditional Election

They both accept election of the SAVED, but not of the damned. No one agrees with this radical definitive dogma of some Calvinists, except well those Calvinists.




.