Wednesday, June 20th, 2007
One issue has come up a few times on this blog several times – eternal security. More specifically Calvinism vs. Armenianism. One of the things I notice about the discussion of Calvinism vs. Armenianism is how both sides agree the scriptures used are valid, but they interpret the scriptures differently. The interpretation is determined on the presuppositions brought to the table by each viewpoint. The assumptions about God’s sovereignty and man’s free will seem to me to be the two issues that determine how the scriptures will be read.
- Does man have a choice in salvation?
- Is choice a work (since we can’t be saved by works)?
- If we do have a choice, does that diminish the sovereignty of God?
- If it does diminish the sovereignty of God (thus making choice untenable), does that mean God has to ordain every good an evil work done by man to keep His sovereignty in tact?
These are the points I would like to address to start the discussion on Calvinism vs. Armenianism. To summarize where I am at, I believe the scriptures elude to something in the middle of the two views. I don’t think God makes the choice of salvation for us, but I also don’t think we come seeking God on our own. We must be drug to the cross by God, then we are to make a choice to accept or reject the offering of salvation given to us by our Father in Heaven through His Son. I will post on the total depravity of man and the question if we do have a choice or a say in salvation. Do we have the opportunity to accept or reject the work on the cross.
In the next few days I will research this out more and submit my findings to for all your comments. As I say, I am not a scholar so I expect to be corrected in my views on the subject (through scripture of course). This blog will probably be a place where my lack of spiritual education on this subject will be evident, but hopefully refined.
Tags: Calvinism, Salvation, Sovereignty
Friday, March 23rd, 2007
I have been researching Calvinism and came across one of the main doctrines of T.U.L.I.P. The point of Calvinism I don’t understand is the “L”. The “L” stands for “limited atonement”.
If you are unfamiliar with Limited Atonement read about it here.
Essentially, Limited Atonement (more recently called Particular Atonement) means that Jesus didn’t die on the cross for the whole world, but only for the elect or predestined. The doctrine teaches that Jesus didn’t die for sinners predestined to hell, but only to redeem the elect of God.
In searching scripture, there are several that refute this doctrine when taken at face value.
And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. 1 John 2:2
The Calvinist’s argument to this is that John meant Jesus didn’t only die for the Jewish elect, but all the elect of the world. I don’t think this is good interpretation of the scripture, since John uses the word “world”. In 1 John he used the word 17 times. Every time he is referring to something other than the elect. Below is an example:
And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness. 1 John 5:19
John never uses the word “world” to mean something other than what we should expect him to mean. He used the same Greed word for “world” every time.
Second, we see in Timothy:
Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time. 1 Timothy 2:4-6
Paul says God’s will is to have all men to be saved. I don’t know how to interpret that any other way than God wishes all men to be saved. It also says Jesus gave Himself a ransom to all. It doesn’t say He gave Himself as a ransom for the elect.
Later in 1 Timothy Paul wrote:
For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe. 1 Timothy 4:10
This scripture should end all doubt to what Paul meant before. He contrasts between “all men” and “those that believe”. He says Jesus is the savior for both. If the Atonement was only for the elect, Jesus would not be called the Savior of those who don’t believe.
The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. 2 Peter 3:9
There is no indication that he is just talking about the elect in this passage.
I would like to see the arguments for Limited Atonement in light of these scriptures, so see any other possible interpretations of them. It seems to me these scriptures are clearly pointing to something other than Limited Atonement.
Tags: Calvinism, Election, Salvation
Filed under 