Initial comments and a biblical versed considered
Here is the second part of the comments given by these people (Pastor chuck and 2 others) which we must examine to get the reality of these people view of the subject. We might want to recall that this was a response to a Lady who called in to get some advice on how to approach the topic with a friend of hers who had at this point (in 2008) became a Calvinist. And here we have had the response that is very instructive for several reasons:You know I would not recommend that you argue with such a person (Calvinist). I would sort of encourage you to back off a little bit because these guys are like cultists; they get hand full of verses an argue around them and it can be very discouraging to say the least but one of the points of Calvinism, the 3rd point is 'limited atonement' and this.. all of them are problematic, but this one is very problematic and it contradicts clear statements in the scriptures.One scripture I would like to throw out is 2nd peter 2 where Peter refers to "false teachers" "false prophets," they bring in destructive heresies, and then he says this, "and they even deny the lord that bought them." Now that would seem to say Jesus purchased them with his blood. It is clear they are perishing. So the idea that a limited atonement, it is an atonement only for the elect and the none elect were not atoned for. It contradicts this statement here. Now when I've said it to Calvinists; they tend to say 'That a hard verse, we don't really know what it means, lets not talk about." Of course, its a hard verse cause it contradicts all their theories. But I like to stick with the bible and not the theories of these guys.
First, One of the men says this interesting statement "You know I would not recommend that you argue with such a person (Calvinist). I would sort of encourage you to back off a little bit because these guys are like cultists;" here we have the one right thing said, it is a command or instruction as to not get involved in this issue. But our Question is: "why do these three men proceed to contradict one another?" If your first words are to not get involved to this dear lady; and yet right away you go and do what you claim should not be done and try to provide an answer for her by dealing with (in a very shallow fashion) the subject. Does not this prove an inconsistency in this approach? Interesting thing.
Second, to claim that "Calvinists... are like cultists; they get hand full of verses an argue around them." Such a bold claim from these men. But how accurate is this statement? Well, the reality is that it is a false statement. For what Calvinists do is we take scripture by scripture; chapter by chapter, book by book from the beginning to end. We deal with the text by allowing the whole context speak for itself by exegesis of the text. But now note what is said "getting a hand full of texts and arguing around them" this is important for this precisely what these men do by going to a select number of out of context verses (Matthew 23: 37; John 5:40; 7:17; 1 Timothy 2:4; and 2 Peter 3:9 as we will deal with in the next sections).
Third, they then take a pot shot at the 3rd doctrine of the "TULIP" that of Limited Atonement which deals with two aspects of the atoning work: (a) the scope. and (b) the intent. But none of these things will get a fair treatment from these men as they care not about honest and accuracy. For us to begin with the latter point defines the former point; it is the intention of the atonement which was that it actually saves those it was intended for that define who will be saved. Romans 8:28-34, Hebrews 7-10 all give us the basis of the intention of the Atonement and as we have already seen these men couldn't even begin walk though even Romans 8.
Fourth, they raise up one passage here that they believe to be a problem for Calvinists, the verse comes from 2 Peter 2 and they assume thing about the passage that are not even key to the verses in question. They assume that (1) "Now that would seem to say Jesus purchased them with his blood" without even the first bit evidence that this is in fact the subject of this passage. It is just assumed and asserted as full gone conclusion. And not proven. (2) "So the idea that a limited atonement, ... It contradicts this statement here. " This is pure nonsense. Just saying a doctrine contradicts your understanding of some verses- does not in reality prove a contradiction between the bible and the doctrine. It only proves that you are contradicting the bible with your false traditions. Now that is important to take on board.
Fifth, they state this, "Now when I've said it to Calvinists; they tend to say 'That a hard verse, we don't really know what it means, lets not talk about." This is a really important thing to consider: it is saying that Calvinists are dumb and not really good with knowing the text of scripture. Which is a false claim. (1) How many Calvinists have these men talked with, have they interacted with one who know what the bible teaches and have debated the issues. (2) have they read the following books James whites Potter's freedom which provides a 4 page exegesis. Or John Owens the death of death in the death of Christ, page 250-256.
Three Key Texts Considered
Now we move onto the next stage of this argument,
Now we come to the big three verses that the arminians love to chuck out against the Calvinist position on the atonement of Christ being universal in its application; they assume that every one can or will be saved based on these passages (and others like it); but our focus will be on these three key texts to see if they are strong enough to make any kind of dent in our position. Now let me consider this very closely:If you need another verse, Kelly. 1 Timothy 2:4 is one I like, speaking of Jesus "Who desires all to be saved and come to a Knowledge of truth." Well, if the Lord wants every one saved, then how comes all aren't saved? Somethings keeping them from being saved and it ain't the Lord's will - so some body else has to get in the way. "God is not willing that any should perish but all should came to repentance." If God is sovereign, you know! His will is going to be done, then why did Jesus have to die? Exactly! His not willing any perish but apparently there are people perishing, so.And again we have to mention one more, Matthew 23 "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem how I would have gathered you as a hen gathers her chicks under her wing. But you would not." Yea! you would not. Not you could not; they could not believe. It assumes they had a choice! So if Jesus thought they had a choice, we'll stick with Jesus. We believe they a real legitimate choice.
First, we will do well to bare in mind the statement regarding Calvinists being "like cultists" which they say do the following "get hand full of verses an argue around them." While this is an evident reality of all cults that they have the same set of key verses to prove this, and disprove that. This is a really interesting point as it will be a self defeating argument against their rant; for they take Matthew 23:37; 1 Timothy 2:4; and 2 Peter 3:9 devoid of any context and any understanding of their contextual meanings.
Second, the first passage used is "1 Timothy 2:4 is one I like, speaking of Jesus "Who desires all to be saved and come to a Knowledge of truth." Notice the claim being made in this statement, they boldly state that it is Jesus who says "Who desires...." However, the context does not support this conclusion as it reads:
The context makes it all clear that Paul is not speaking of Jesus in these four verses, but the God the Father who has this "desire" to have people saved. But the question one must consider in this is: who are the people that Paul is addressing by the "all people"? Clearly from the context it is defined as "Kings and those in authority" showing this is very limited in its application. For not every single person in history is a "king" or even in "authority."First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Saviour, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
Next we must treat the verse that states "who wants everyone to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth." What is being spoken of in these words? Well, the problem being with the idea of the universalist understanding of this text. For the context will not give itself to such a conclusion; it must be understand that the "all people" in verse 4 refers to the fact that even kings and people in authority can and will be in the Saved people. And when it state "come to the knowledge of the truth."
Now what we need to consider in this matter is this: (a) does having knowledge of the truth mean that you are saved? No! (b) even more so, what is the truth that Paul is referring too? the answer is found in verse 5- which states "Foe there is one God, and mediator between God and men, the man Jesus Christ." These are the truths Paul has in mind.
Third, they then continue to make the case by throwing out another verse that is out of context, that being 2 Peter 3:9 and they state "God is not willing that any should perish but all should came to repentance." Only quoting a single verse, and at this a partial verse and read far too much in a passing reference can be a dangerous thing. Indeed. Let us read a bit of the prior section of this passage:
This is now the second letter that I am writing to you, beloved. In both of them I am stirring up your sincere mind by way of reminder, that you should remember the predictions of the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior through your apostles, knowing this first of all, that scoffers will come in the last days with scoffing, following their own sinful desires. They will say, “Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation.” For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God, and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished. But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly.In these words, we are given a very detail description of God's very judgement on the sinful humanity in his world. And it is a just judgement that is expiated and dispensed upon all such rebellious and evil hearted people. They are deserving of the full weight of God wrath and judgement as he sees fit to give it.
To make the point that the all in verse 9 can not mean every person universally look at these words "and destruction of the ungodly." The term ungodly is not some non personal entity; it is in fact, a description and defining point of a people. And it is they who are being revealed as the one who have this end.
We now can consider the what the writer of the proverbs says in the 16th chapter has to say "The Lord has made everything for its own purpose, Even the wicked for the day of evil." Is not clear that God has assigned judgement for those who are rebellious. What about John 3:17-18 testimony to this fact.
So what about verse 9 then? Well, lets look at it closely:
But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance. (Verse 8-9)Who is in view in these words? To answer this question, Peter gives us a clear word back in verse 1 when he says "This is the second letter I am writing to you beloved." In this we learn the following reality in this regard, the Apostle Peter is addressing the elect believers in Christ, the beloved of Christ, those he actually died to secure salvation for. Not some mere possibility as many seem to think such as Chuck and the other 2 people in this matter.
So who are the "all" that are being addressed? They are the"you" to whom we have already established are the elect of God; those who are united in Christ. There is no universalism in this passage much as there is none in the whole New Testament; we only have a specific people in view when it deals with Salvation: the Elect.
Fourth, next they go to Matthew 23:37 which they state: " "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem how I would have gathered you as a hen gathers her chicks under her wing. But you would not." Yea! you would not. Not you could not; they could not believe." Well, there you have it a full gone conclusion that Jesus wants to save everyone but he is just to powerless against the might powers of Man's choice. But is this conclusion correct? Let us now consider this:
Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling. Behold, your house is being left to you desolate! For I say to you, from now on you will not see Me until you say, ‘Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!’”Now here we have the content of these two verses to consider as we deal with this objection. There are two things to bear in mind: (1) these who context starting at verse 13 and going down to verse 39 is about Judgement, not salvation. (2) Even more importantly, it is a judgement against the leaders for their false teachings regarding Christ.
Now lets get down to the passage at hand and this abuse of it. We need to note that there are 2 problems being presented to us almost immediately. First, they spend to much time on the last words of 37 and misunderstand the Calvinist position in light of this. We do not say there is no will, but that it is corrupt and enslaved to sin. Second, right in their repeating the same lines as other arminians do; they do the same misrepresentation of the the passages purpose in the Judgement of God by assuming that it is speaking of "free will."
But now we deal with an error so egregious that it fundamental destroys the passage; these men omitted two vital words from the context as we see above "your children" when it read in context, in its fullest manner we see that Jesus is making a distinction in his intention (which is vacant when the two words are omitted); the judgement is being placed on the leaders of Israel because they are prohibiting their disciples "your children" from hearing Gods truth which is what Christ is and taught every day.
The final point is this there is another verse which is virtually identical which they can not manipulate to teach what they believe as it re-enforces the point of the passage clearly. In verse 13 we read: "But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you shut off the kingdom of heaven from people; for you do not enter in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in."
The straw man "no will" argument consideredNow we come to the final argument to be dealt with,
Here is the final section to this objection to the Reformed position and what we see is yet another misrepresentation of the facts on the matters at hand. And these kinds of objections are the usual foolery that come from the non-reformed position. Let us now consider it very closely to get a grasp on the matters at hand:And you know the Calvinist position man does not have a will, there is one will and that is Gods, there is no free will --- how does that sit with the words of the lord Jesus in 5 :40 "you are not willing to come to me" Jesus seems to indicate did have a will but they not exercising it properly -- and they were not going to be saved.
John 7:17 If any one wills to do his will, he will know whether the teaching is from God." Jesus said it right there. You know I have often said about Calvinism, Guys. Calvinism is Christianity with out Jesus because they leave Jesus out of the equation. They just take certain statements of Paul, of course, and read their own theology into it.
First, we need to can this misinformed assertion that "And you know the Calvinist position man does not have a will, there is one will and that is Gods, there is no free will." Now the question is not that man does not have a will; but that there is nothing in scripture saying that it a "free-will" as these men are so trying to state here. There is of course, in every man has a will, it is the truth that every human will has been destroyed and marred by the fall, and its full result is one being enslaved by Sin as John 8:31-40, and Romans 6:16-20.
We will now consider what John Calvin has to say on this matter as this was an attack on his theological position:
Having seen that the dominion of sin, ever since the first man was brought under it, not only extends to the whole race, but has complete possession of every soul, it now remains to consider more closely, whether from the period of being thus enslaved, we have been deprived of all liberty; and if any portion still remains, how far its power extends. In order to facilitate the answer to this questions it may be proper in passing to point out the course which our inquiry ought to take. The best method of avoiding error is to consider the dangers which beset us on either side. (1) Man being devoid of all uprightness, immediately takes occasion from the fact to indulge in sloth, and having no ability in himself for the study of righteousness, treats the whole subject as if he had no concern in it. (2) On the other hand, man cannot arrogate any thing, however minute, to himself, without robbing God of his honour, and through rash confidence subjecting himself to a fall.It is important to recognise that those who make the claim that "Calvinist believe or teach man has no will" are speaking Ignorantly of thing they have no clue about. And this above statement is a clear example why some people should not even be teachers (James 3:1-12). These claims are easy to make; but far harder to substantiate.
Second, once agin, we are met with these verses Isolated from their immediate and full context and are then presented as if they refute the core truths of Calvinism. When in fact, they are perfectly in line with them. It has to be stated that Calvinism is nothing but the pure Gospel proclaimed as it must be. In a fair and balanced fashion through exegesis of the text itself. Here is what the baptist confession of the faith has to say on matter of interpretation:
The infallible rule for the interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself, and therefore whenever there is a question about the true and full sense of any scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched by other passages which speak more clearly.Clearly the greatest point in this is how we are to understand any given text of scripture aright; and when we consider how these men are handling these above mentioned text from John alone (but also from other places in scripture), one is brought to grave concern in this regard as it tells us that they are truly incompetent in this respect.
Third, they next go to John 5:40 and state "how does that sit with the words of the lord Jesus in 5 :40 "you are not willing to come to me" Jesus seems to indicate did have a will but they not exercising it properly -- and they were not going to be saved." Of course, here again we get that ridiculous claim which is not founded, but possibly a repeated assertion borrowed from Norman Geisler. Now how we are to understand the scripture in question:
You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me; and you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life. I do not receive glory from men; but I know you, that you do not have the love of God in yourselves. I have come in My Father’s name, and you do not receive Me; if another comes in his own name, you will receive him. How can you believe, when you receive glory from one another and you do not seek the glory that is from the one and only God? Do not think that I will accuse you before the Father; the one who accuses you is Moses, in whom you have set your hope. For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me, for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?”(John 5: 39-47)Before getting into this all important section, it is worthy to make a brief note on the flow of this chapter in this regard. From verse 33-38 we have had 3 prior witness of the four: (1) John the baptist. (2) The supernatural works of Christ (deeds). (3) The witness of the Father. All of these are proof enough to establish his authenticity as the Messiah, and the unique Son of the Father in heaven, but for some this is not enough. These men had an impossible standard that even they could not in reality fulfil.
So now Jesus points to a forth witness of his truthfulness: the divine writ. The scriptures themselves. They scriptures from Genesis- Malachi (and now by extension the N.T) all sufficiently demonstrate Christ's truthfulness with such precision and clarity. It is undeniable. Now we come to the important verse in question:
There we read the following:
"You search the scriptures because you believe that in them you have eternal life; yet it is they that bear witness to me. Yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life." (vs 39-40)It certainly does say that these men "refused" or were "unwilling" and that is just a statement of fact. However what we do not have here is the explanation of why this was in fact a reality. To be sure, they had the scriptures that testified to who Jesus was; yet at the same point they reject its clear attestation. Their refusal although its their own act; it nonetheless, is a Divine act of God just as we read in the next Chapter. God himself is the one who opens up the hearts of men to receive Christ from the scriptures, in just as much he is the one who also keeps others in the dark. It is his own purpose that is being pulled in both points.
Fourth, they next come to a single verse in John 7, that being verse 17 and they state, "John 7:17 If any one wills to do his will, he will know whether the teaching is from God." Jesus said it right there. " Their point here being the issue of the "will" which they are committed to trumping as if the bible actually supports there particular view of the will; when in fact, it does not. But we should note what they miss in this verse: "the doctrine" it is this very thing that Christ is emphasising not the will. Let us look at the section:
About the middle of the feast Jesus went up into the temple and began teaching. The Jews therefore marveled, saying, “How is it that this man has learning, when he has never studied?” So Jesus answered them, “My teaching is not mine, but his who sent me. If anyone's will is to do God's will, he will know whether the teaching is from God or whether I am speaking on my own authority. The one who speaks on his own authority seeks his own glory; but the one who seeks the glory of him who sent him is true, and in him there is no falsehood. Has not Moses given you the law? Yet none of you keeps the law. Why do you seek to kill me?” The crowd answered, “You have a demon! Who is seeking to kill you?” Jesus answered them, “I did one work, and you all marvel at it. Moses gave you circumcision (not that it is from Moses, but from the fathers), and you circumcise a man on the Sabbath. If on the Sabbath a man receives circumcision, so that the law of Moses may not be broken, are you angry with me because on the Sabbath I made a man's whole body well? Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment.” (John 7:14-24)Here is the verse in question given in its full context, the point clearly even when considering the single verse is not about "free will" as they want us to believe. But rather, it is about Christ's doctrine being the same as the Fathers, it is in fact, God the Fathers and The Lord Jesus Christ doctrine - they are in union on this front.
The question one must ask is: what is the doctrine that is both the Father and the Sons? When we just consider John's gospel we get a few ideas of this: First, Salvation is a gift from on high, that being God chooses who he will give to Christ (John 6: 37) God via the Holy Spirit regenerates the believer, and grants faith (John 3:1-21, John 6:44-45) in accords to scriptures. Second, God is the Sole creator (John 4). And Christ is one in the same being as The father, along with the Spirit but are distinct persons. (John 5:17-30). Do these men actually believe in what Jesus has previously made clear concerning doctrine from John 3-6? It is obvious that they do not.
The next question to ask is: how does one who is unable to do God's will according to John 6:44 do his will? This point of course, we are given a more in depth understanding of this point in John 8: 31-39. That being Man is holistically enslaved to his sinful passions and nature. The bible is very clear on these things, it is only traditions of man that keep man from the truth of what scriptures. That much is true in this case.
Conclusion
In a way of bring this refutation to a close I want to consider some words from James, the brother of our Lord in the third chapter of his Epistle, he states:
Here is the importance of this section scripture in regards to the current issue at hand. The Pastor and leader of the Jerusalem Church, the brother of our Lord and Saviour speaking from his own position, gives us some vital instruction concerning the church in this letter; and in particular, the position of being a teacher: he states that "a stricter judgement falls on those ... who are prone to err" and hence, they should "not teach" at all. And as I have above documented these men made error upon error in a short clip of almost 5 minute (this is not the only incident); but it is enough to give some one pause in regards to the well being of the system of churches that the main one founded (The Calvary Chapel churches).Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness. For we all stumble in many ways. And if anyone does not stumble in what he says, he is a perfect man, able also to bridle his whole body. If we put bits into the mouths of horses so that they obey us, we guide their whole bodies as well. Look at the ships also: though they are so large and are driven by strong winds, they are guided by a very small rudder wherever the will of the pilot directs. So also the tongue is a small member, yet it boasts of great things. How great a forest is set ablaze by such a small fire! And the tongue is a fire, a world of unrighteousness. The tongue is set among our members, staining the whole body, setting on fire the entire course of life, and set on fire by hell. For every kind of beast and bird, of reptile and sea creature, can be tamed and has been tamed by mankind, but no human being can tame the tongue. It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison. With it we bless our Lord and Father, and with it we curse people who are made in the likeness of God. From the same mouth come blessing and cursing. My brothers, these things ought not to be so. Does a spring pour forth from the same opening both fresh and salt water? Can a fig tree, my brothers, bear olives, or a grapevine produce figs? Neither can a salt pond yield fresh water. (Verses 1-12)
