SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : Articles and Sermons : The Five Points of Calvinism Considered By David Servant

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 Next Page )
PosterThread
roaringlamb
Member



Joined: 2003/6/11
Posts: 1519
Santa Cruz California

 Re:

Quote:
so esau did not serve jacob in his physical life



But once the birthright was given to Jacob, Esau became his head. That is why I placed the verse I did, because even Isaac is confirming what had happened when Esau gave his privilege to Jacob.

Quote:
didn't calvin teach that God was responsible for bringing sin into the world



I do not know, but I would say that from a Biblical basis, we can conclude that while God did not author, or have sin come from Him, He did know that sin would exist, and created the one to bring it into mankind. Of course this was all in light of the fact that there would be a Redeemer of God's people too.

I think we could break down this discussion into two points that would be very helpful for each to understand the other.

1)Jay and I, as Calvinists believe that redemption is particular, in that not all men will be saved, and that while Christ's death was and is of tremendous value, it is only redemptive to those whom God foreknew, and ordained unto eternal life.

It would be our view that God has limited the number to be saved.

2)The Arminian, semi-Pelagian view would be that the death of Christ was for all men equally, and that man limits the number to be saved by his choice.

So here you have man limiting the number by his free choice.

The problem as I see it though, is that man does not have a free choice, and cannot choose because his desire is only for sin. This can be easily observed in our own hearts prior to conversion.

But what happened? How is it that we came to Christ? Who opened our once blinded eyes?

All of us would say, "Christ." Yet the difference would perhaps be in the point of the new birth that produced the open eyes. I would say that the new birth must precede faith as it is impossible for natural man to understand spiritual things, and even Christ brings up this point in His conversation with Nicodemas, "that which is born of the flesh is flesh." Or, flesh will beget flesh, and it will continue this way until there is a change.

Thus our Lord says, "that which is born of the Spirit is spirit."

From just these words alone, we can see that in order to understand the Gospel(which is spiritual), we need to be spiritual. That is why Paul says that the preaching of the cross is foolishness to them that are perishing, but to us that are saved it is the power of God.

Now for the Romans 9 discussion, I wanted to bring these verses up -
Rom 9:22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
Rom 9:23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on [b]the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,[/b]
Rom 9:24 [b]Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?[/b]

It seems that Paul is concluding the argument here, and says that the vessels of mercy were a)prepared before unto glory, b)were "us"(Christians in Rome) c)were of the Jews and the Gentiles.

My point is that even if this were about nations, why would Paul belabor the point at the end of the discussion about the vessels being Christians from the Jews and Gentiles?


_________________
patrick heaviside

 2007/7/30 12:33Profile
JaySaved
Member



Joined: 2005/7/11
Posts: 1131
Kentucky

 Re:

Roaringlamb, that was very succinct.

 2007/7/30 13:43Profile
theopenlife
Member



Joined: 2007/1/30
Posts: 926


 Re:

[b]Mr. Lamb and Mr. Saved[/b], at this point I have a question for either of you. You have been kind in dealing with others, and I am seeking similar help. My question comes from Hebrews, but has it's roots in the Old Testament.

You are familiar with the passage (Psalm 51:7) wherein David writes, "Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean: wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow."

Correct me if I am wrong, but in the ceremonial law hyssop - a small shrub - would be dipped in the blood of the sacrifice and used to sprinkle blood upon whatever was to be absolved or set apart for holiness.

David asked the Lord to "purge" him with hyssop. This "purging" would not remove the actuality of his past sins but he believed it would change his legal standing before God, hence he said in faith "I shall be clean." Again, this "purging" was not the literal cessation of present sins, nor the removal of past sins from existence, but was the changing of standing before God.

Please follow me, I am often unclear.

Now consider this passage, Psalm 118:18-29. David saw a need to be "purged with hyssop", and here gives prophetic insight into what sacrifice was needed for his purging...
[b]
"The LORD hath chastened me sore: but he hath not given me over unto death.
19 Open to me the gates of righteousness: I will go into them, and I will praise the LORD:
20 This gate of the LORD, into which the righteous shall enter.
21 I will praise thee: for thou hast heard me, and art become my salvation."
[/b]

So far, David sees his utter guilt, yet maintains faith that he is not cast off from the mercy of God. He inquires by what gate he may enter. He then thanks God that the Lord Himself shall become the gate of salvation. If there are any doubts about this, the verses which immediately follow confirm this:

[b]22 The stone which the builders refused is become the head stone of the corner.
23 This is the LORD’S doing; it is marvellous in our eyes.
24 This is the day which the LORD hath made; we will rejoice and be glad in it.
25 Save now, I beseech thee, O LORD: O LORD, I beseech thee, send now prosperity.
26 Blessed be he that cometh in the name of the LORD: we have blessed you out of the house of the LORD.
27 God is the LORD, which hath showed us light: bind the sacrifice with cords, even unto the horns of the altar.
28 Thou art my God, and I will praise thee: thou art my God, I will exalt thee.
29 O give thanks unto the LORD; for he is good: for his mercy endureth for ever.
[/b]

Reading our Old Testament with the veil removed, it is apparent that David had a prophetic understanding that the Lord Jesus would come bringing light (v27), be rejected (v22), would be
sacrificed for sin (v27), and that this Sacrifice would be his God (v28) and the source of enduring mercy (v29).

Now, here is where Hebrews comes in, and my question about what has been called "Calvinist theology."

Read the opening lines of Hebrews 1:

[b]"1God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
3Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, [i]when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand[/i] of the Majesty on high..."[/b]

Now, did lights turn on for you, as they did for me? The passage says in clear terms that:
*The "purging" of our sins took place before He sat down at the right hand of the Father.
*He sat down at the right hand of the Father before Paul, and we ourselves, had come to repentance.

I know that men must be born again or else they will be damned. Being born again takes place sometime between conception and death, for those who will be saved. Yet the impression of the passage is that the "purging" - the "changing of our standing" - took place at the resurrection and ascension. It appears that while the sacrifice was sufficient enough for all people, yet He was raised as Priest to sprinkle His own blood "with hyssop" upon those whom the Father had given Him.

Unless I am mistaken, He sits now at the right hand of the Father interceding for those who will come to Him, and those who come to Him do so because He "changed their standing" at His resurrection and ascension, for it says "[i]when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand[/i]"

This purging could not have been the cessation of our sins, or else we never would have sinned at all, but seems to be the moment in time where He actually wrought the vessels of mercy who had been ordained.

Anyways, I have no idea whether or not this was clear, but I am basically asking is this one such passage that shows why the atonement is limited... because, though there was plenty of blood, yet it was applied to the purging of only the elect?

There's no way someone can argue (as I see it) that this purging could be applied to the lost, because that would be a use of the word found no where in scripture!

Imagine the lost souls in hell before Christ, in what way were their sins purged? And yet the text says "[i]when he had by himself purged our sins, (he) sat down on the right hand[/i]".

Please be easy on me... I'd like to understand this passage.

 2007/7/30 16:25Profile
roaringlamb
Member



Joined: 2003/6/11
Posts: 1519
Santa Cruz California

 Re:

Brother,
I agree that this is a passage that speaks of the limiting aspect of redemption.

Many of the passages that speak of payment for sins in the NT are in fact addressed to the Church. The epistles which speak of these things generally use terms like "us", "we", "our" These in view of context deal with the Church.

It is similar to in the OT and how only Israel had a sacrificial system to have peace with God. Though foreigners could come, they still had to take part in the sacrificial system to partake of those blessings.

What you must wrestle with, or maybe you have wrestled through this is-
Who limits the redemption? God or man?

Blessings brother, and may God's providence be with you in your new surroundings(read your blog).


_________________
patrick heaviside

 2007/7/30 16:37Profile
theopenlife
Member



Joined: 2007/1/30
Posts: 926


 Re:

Thank you, Mr. Lamb.

Yes, I have wrestled with the question of who does the limiting in the atonement.

I might say it this way, Man in Adam forfeited salvation entirely for all of the race. Yet this was the eternal wisdom of God, to allow it.

Furthermore, all men would have limited the atonement to no men, if it were left to the fallen will, that is, the will in bondage to sin. The atonement cleanses sin and the fallen man will not be parted from his sin. He hates the atonement until he is changed. Thank God, man cannot limit an atonement that he is not mediating! Man is neither priest, nor lamb for himself.

Thank God that arm of the Lord was long and that the branch was full of blood, thank Him that He was willing to make His mercy known to a people chosen according to the good pleasure of His will, so that none may boast. His blood fell on my wicked brow and I became whiter than snow.

I deserved to be damned, and I never would have been saved had not He moved upon me to become willing. Grace! Regeneration!

Amen.

How is it that I was brought for years to the day when I was born again? I can only look back to the purging of Hebrews 1, that He determined to bring me in.

 2007/7/30 16:51Profile
ANewInHim
Member



Joined: 2005/12/16
Posts: 54


 Re:

Quote:
Furthermore, all men would have limited the atonement to no men, if it were left to the fallen will, that is, the will in bondage to sin. The atonement cleanses sin and the fallen man will not be parted from his sin. He hates the atonement until he is changed. Thank God, man cannot limit an atonement that he is not mediating!



God, can not look at sin, he turns his face from it. However he does look at the sinner with much love and hope of Salvation, even so that he himself came in the form of man to save a world that was not worthy of it. May we All rise up to the responsibility that has been placed upon us because we bear that Name

 2007/7/30 16:57Profile
roaringlamb
Member



Joined: 2003/6/11
Posts: 1519
Santa Cruz California

 Re:

Brother openlife,
One of the hardest points to grasp is that all men are sinners and haters of God. That man is not neutral in his disposition to God at all, and does not deserve salvation at all.

If men do not view fallen man properly, then they will get into humanistic, semi-Pelagian views of man's goodness, and ability.


_________________
patrick heaviside

 2007/7/30 17:31Profile
LoveHim
Member



Joined: 2007/6/14
Posts: 562
Indiana, US

 Re:

dear brothers (roaringlamb, jeremy, and michael),

i am curious as to how you interpret these verses. i know what i think, but i would appreciate to hear your side. thanks.

2 peter 2:1 "but there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them and bring on themselves swift destruction".

peter is saying here that the Lord even bought these false prophets and false teachers. yet we know that they were not part of the elect and so they will be in hell. what do you guys think this means??

also this verse. 1 timothy 4:10 "for to this end we labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe". now the context in this verse shows us that all men mean all men. paul here is contrasting the difference between the all men (world) that Jesus is the Savior of and especially those who believe (elect) that Jesus is really the Savior of. what do you guys think about this verse??

my personal opinion is that with His sacrifice on the cross, He was the Savior of all men. yet His sacrifice is only effective to the elect, thus He really is their Savior. like i told jeremy in an earlier post, i couls see how Christ made salvation possible to all men, but only obtained redemption for the elect. maybe i'm off, that's just my opinion. please write back when you get a chance and let me know what you believe those verses mean.. thanks guys.

 2007/7/30 17:35Profile
hulsey
Moderator



Joined: 2006/7/5
Posts: 640
Missouri

 Re:

Quote:
dear brothers (roaringlamb, jeremy, and michael),



Well, if I'm the jeremy you're asking it's pretty easy. I'm definitely reformed in my theology, but just like all squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares, the same is true that all Calvinists are reformed, while not all reformed brothers and sisters are Calvinist.

I fall into the second category mainly on this point. I believe that Jesus died for all men.

I Timothy 4:10 is one scripture that I have never heard an adequate rebuttal by my Calvinist brothers.

Blessings,
Jeremy Hulsey


_________________
SI Moderator - Jeremy Hulsey

 2007/7/30 18:36Profile
roaringlamb
Member



Joined: 2003/6/11
Posts: 1519
Santa Cruz California

 Re:

Quote:
i am curious as to how you interpret these verses. i know what i think, but i would appreciate to hear your side. thanks.

2 peter 2:1 "but there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them and bring on themselves swift destruction".

peter is saying here that the Lord even bought these false prophets and false teachers. yet we know that they were not part of the elect and so they will be in hell. what do you guys think this means??



Brother, I will try to help, but this is a tricky passage.

First, let's look at a couple of verses that seem to contradict this thought-
John 6:39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of [b]all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.[/b]

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

John 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
John 10:28 And [b]I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.[/b]
John 10:29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and [b]no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.[/b]

John 17:9 I pray for them: [b]I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.[/b]
John 17:10 And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them.

Rom 8:30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

I have included these verse so that we may build a common foundation to start upon. If we say that the verse in 2 Peter is speaking about those who were indeed bought by Christ, then His words and many others seem to contradict each other. We know that the Bible does not contradict itself, not does God seek to have us unstable and in between two conflicting views. So now we must move to step #2 which is to exegete this passage.

The first thing we must do is look at the word "Lord". in this passage it is the word "despotes" and not "kurios". This is important as "kurios" is always used to denote the salvation aspect of Christ.

"Despotes" is from where we get the word "despot" or sovereign ruler, like a dictator.

Now the next word we must look at is "bought", which is the word "agorazo". This of course means to buy. This word is used 31 times in the NT. Of these 31 times, only 5 of them refer to redemption, or salvation.

Here they are-
1Co 6:20 For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.

1Co 7:23 [b]Ye are bought with a price;[/b] be not ye the servants of men.

Revelation 5:9 And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, [b]and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood[/b] out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;

Revelation 14:3 And they sung as it were a new song before the throne, and before the four beasts, and the elders: and no man could learn that song but the hundred and forty and four thousand, [b]which were redeemed from the earth.[/b]
Revelation 14:4 These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whither soever he goeth. [b]These were redeemed from among men, being the first fruits unto God and to the Lamb.[/b]

Now notice that in these, the means by which the purchase has been made is mentioned, and in the other sense the word is "redeemed" which indicates a paid debt of course.

The use in 2 Peter I would say is much more in the sense of Christ's purchase of the entire world, and as such He is the Sovereign ruler of all men.

The danger we face is if we read into this, as with any passage, what is not there. For example many read this and say, "Christ purchased these men with His blood, and now they are fallen away from the faith." But where does it say that?

Now consider also these words which are very similar-
Jud 1:4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, [b]who were before of old ordained to this condemnation,[/b] ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

Here, the first "Lord" is "despotes", and the second is "kurios", here you can see the differing meanings. These are denying the Lord God who is the sovereign Maker, and Owner of all men, and the Saviour Christ.

Lastly notice that these were ordained to this condemnation from of old. Similar in part to that of Pharaoh.

Hope this helps.


_________________
patrick heaviside

 2007/7/30 19:09Profile





©2002-2020 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Affiliate Disclosure | Privacy Policy