A proposition (Calvinistic or no?)

[Arial]

Propitiation is a provision that not all to whom it is done for take advantage of and appropriate.

I have mentioned this before; so in repeating this argument, are you not being a troll according to your own definition?

You do not get to deine the word to make it fit what you want it to.

Easton's Bible Dictionary - Propitiation​

Propitiation [N] https://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionaries/bakers-evangelical-dictionary/propitiation.html
that by which God is rendered propitious, i.e., by which it becomes consistent with his character and government to pardon and bless the sinner. The propitiation does not procure his love or make him loving; it only renders it consistent for him to exercise his love towards sinners.

King James Dictionary - Propitiation​

Propitiation


2. Theological Implication:

The basal idea in Hebrew terms is that of covering what is offensive, so restoring friendship, or causing to be kindly disposed


2434 hilasmós – properly, propitiation; an offering to appease (satisfy) an angry, offended party. 2434 (hilasmós) is only used twice (1 Jn 2:2, 4:10) – both times of Christ's atoning blood that appeases God's wrath, on all confessed sin. By the sacrifice of Himself, Jesus Christ provided the ultimate 2434 /hilasmós ("propitiation"). (Strong's)

So propitiation would be something actually accomplished on the cross. If it were for every person in the world, all people in the world would be reconciled to God, and either all would believe, or no faith was necessary.

Did Jesus actually shed His blood on the cross and die? Why did He do that? What was that doing?

 

[justbyfaith]

Monergism is the belief God is the sole causal agent in salvation. There's an entire website filled with monergists asserting monergism disproving another false and baseless claim about Calvinists.

Clearly, Calvinism teaches monergism.

But, I wouldn't be surprised if someone came along and said that it is not the actual teaching of Calvinism.

It probably will happen, as soon as the doctrine is found to be "stinky".

 

[Josheb]

My point in this is that I agree with John 6:44 that no one can come to Jesus unless they are drawn.

My contention has always been that if someone is drawn to Christ, they are not necessarily given to Christ.

The contention is wrong, and it is wrong for multiple reasons, some of which were posted in Post 205.

Because if that were the case, Universalism would be the teaching.

Hogwash.

John 6:44 has a specified context. Other verses asserting God work drawing a person to His Son have other specified contexts. One has to ignore the text and the context to conclude universalism. God draws all humans to His Son but He does not draw them all to His Son for the same purpose or outcome. Everyone stands before him in judgment but not everyone stands before him in salvation. Jesus is King, Judge, Priest, and Savior. King and Judge of all. Priest and Savior of some.

Universalism is unnecessary and irrational other than to show one more way in a growing list of ways YOU have not thought things through and grossly misrepresent Calvinism.

Since all are at some point in their lives drawn to Christ (John 12:32).

Yep.

Of course I study the Bible.

The evidence proving that claim is lacking.

And if the Bible agreed with Calvinism, I would also agree with Calvinism.

The evidence proving that claim is lacking.

I have picked a few points and have referenced scripture for you as concerning those points.

All the scriptures have been proof-texted. It is a deplorable practice. I specifically and explicitly stipulated well-rendered scripture. Proof-texting is never scripture well-rendered. It shows a lack of study.

 

[justbyfaith]

You do not get to deine the word to make it fit what you want it to.

Did Jesus actually shed His blood on the cross and die? Why did He do that? What was that doing?

He was making provision for them to be saved who would believe in Him.

 

[justbyfaith]

Hogwash.

John 6:44 has a specified context. Other verses asserting God work drawing a person to His Son have other specified contexts. One has to ignore the text and the context to conclude universalism. God draws all humans to His Son but He does not draw them all to His Son for the same purpose or outcome. Everyone stands before him in judgment but not everyone stands before him in salvation.

Therefore, not all who are drawn are necessarily given. Because all who are given will be saved according to scripture.

 

[Josheb]

Jesus said to me that if I followed Him, I would be hated of all men for His name's sake. I can just feel the love oozing from your pores, friend.

I bear you no ill will. I post in hopes of our mutual edification. I want you to show up with truth and not falsehood attacking others. Your appeal to your own authority is a genetic fallacy that again shows an abuse of scripture not well studied.

The op is adversarial.

Now your defensive.

Neither will get you where you want to be so drop BOTH and back up. Pick a point and walk through WHOLE scripture with me to better understand it. Pick one.

 

[justbyfaith]

The evidence proving that claim is lacking.

I love you, too.

The evidence proving that claim is lacking.

There is plenty of evidence to prove that claim; which is strewn throughout this and other threads.

All the scriptures have been proof-texted. It is a deplorable practice. I specifically and explicitly stipulated well-rendered scripture. Proof-texting is never scripture well-rendered. It shows a lack of study.

When I give a verse it is because I have read it many times in its context. So, if you think I am taking it out of its context, read the context.

I would contend that it is a first rule of hermeneutics that the context of a verse will never nullify the plain meaning of the verse (because the Bible does not contradict itself).

 

[justbyfaith]

Your appeal to your own authority is a genetic fallacy that again shows an abuse of scripture not well studied.

I know that I have studied the scriptures well.

You are nobody to say anything different.

 

[Josheb]

I suppose that I can't prove it...

Then do not post that rubbish.

.....because you will say that what is spoken by certain Calvinists is not the actual teaching of Calvinism.

Speak for yourself and let me speak for me. I'm quite good at speaking for myself and articulating the case for what I believe using whole scripture well-exegeted and you do the same then we'll both be edified.


No one is edified by false witness and fallacy.

But one Calvinist, even in this thread, said that God, in Calvinism, is the First Cause of everything.

Already addressed that premise: take it up with that poster and do not wrongly imagine s/he speaks for all others (especially not when I can show Calvin teaching otherwise, and you could do the same if you bothered to examine original sources).

If that is the case, then He is entirely responsible for murder, rape, and incest.

I have already addressed that and here you are ignoring what I posted. I showed you Calvin's teaching in Calvin's own words and the response is argumentum ad nauseam.

You are trolling.

Stop it.

Address what Calvin wrote and stop accusing me of hating you.

 

[justbyfaith]

I want you to show up with truth and not falsehood attacking others.

I am certainly speaking the truth and am not attacking anyone else.

Seems to me like you were attacking me, though, in implying that I am some sort of hypocrite.

Jesus didn't do that to the scribes and Pharisees until His third year of ministry...you managed to do it to me in the first few days of knowing me.

Normally, the sin we see in others is what is most prevalent in our own lives (Matthew 7:1-5, Luke 6:41-42).

 

[Arial]

It does.

It doesn't.

As a matter of fact, if being drawn guarantees being given, then the teaching is Universalism (heresy).

Because all are drawn at some point in their lives (John 12:32).

Being drawn enables a person to make a decision to either receive or reject Christ; that is all.

You simply use John 12:32 to contradict what Jesus said in John 6. When what you need to do is properly understand John 12 so there is no contradiction. If all people are drawn to Christ on the cross it means it is a universal event not all without exception.

 

[justbyfaith]

Then do not post that rubbish.

Of course I can prove it if you will stand with other Calvinists in unity.

Speak for yourself and let me speak for me. I'm quite good at speaking for myself and articulating the case for what I believe using whole scripture well-exegeted and you do the same then we'll both be edified.

As I said, if Calvinists do not believe in Calvinism, how shall Calvinism stand?

No one is edified by false witness and fallacy.

There is no false witness here; but I find that I am dealing with many Calvinists who believe differently from each other. That is a recipe for confusion.

Already addressed that premise: take it up with that poster and do not wrongly imagine s/he speaks for all others (especially not when I can show Calvin teaching otherwise, and you could do the same if you bothered to examine original sources).

I am taking it up with that poster. And if he does not speak for you, you may have to repeat yourself a few times because I get you people confused because I am dealing with many of you all at once; and the fact that you all don't believe the same means that I am going to have trouble pinpointing the beliefs of one over another so that I can address the belief in question.

I have already addressed that and here you are ignoring what I posted. I showed you Calvin's teaching in Calvin's own words and the response is argumentum ad nauseam.

And I addressed what you said.

You are trolling.

Nope. But you have three fingers pointing back at you (Matthew 7:1-5, Luke 6:41-42).

Stop it.

Address what Calvin wrote and stop accusing me of hating you.

I have said my piece on the matter. But if you deny what I have said, the conversation might continue.

 

[Arial]

I want to make it clear that I believe that the doctrines in Calvinism are self-contradictory.

I have concluded this because certain Calvinists say one thing and then another Calvinist arises and says "that is not the teaching of Calvinism."

That is because you not only misstate Calvinism but you misstate what Calvinist say and then accuse them of being contradictory.

 

[justbyfaith]

It doesn't.

Nope.

You simply use John 12:32 to contradict what Jesus said in John 6. When what you need to do is properly understand John 12 so there is no contradiction. If all people are drawn to Christ on the cross it means it is a universal event not all without exception.

No, John 12:32 doesn't contradict John 6:44.

John 6:44 says that we cannot come to Christ apart from being enabled by God to come to Christ, that is all.

It does not teach that being drawn to Christ guarantees salvation.

I know you would like to believe that; but it ain't the truth.

 

[Josheb]

Here, we find that Calvin agrees that satan's choice to defect from God is the first cause of everything sinful in the Universe. This was made possible because satan was made in the image of God and therefore had free will from the beginning. Free will being something that is very good; but which satan used to make a choice against God.

Which would contradict your false witness claim Calvinists believe God caused evil.

If you read Calvin then YOU will be better able to discriminate correct Calvinism from incorrect Calvinists. I, and ardent monergist, recently had a discussion in this forum over the post-conversion synergism of sanctification with one of the forum's prominent Cals and it turned judgmental but to that Cal's credit he went and read the leading Cals who came before he and me and subsequently posted a correction to his previously held views.

I have a lot of respect for both the practice and that poster.

You should try it.

Because of the diversity within Calvinism (or monergism) it will be impossible for you to do so if you do not go to original sources and authoritative sources to correctly understand the ~ism.

You just corrected yourself. But you did not say, "Yes, Josh, I now see that Calvin did NOT teach God was the cause of evil. I now see that Calvin did subscribe to the creature's volitional agency and causal agency. I was wrong to post the prior content. Thank you for the information."

Try it. See if poster do not respond better to you for the honesty and humility.

Why on earth would you think Chuck Smith has anything of merit to say on the matter? and how on earth would you imagine Calvinists would be impressed and think you know what you're talking about? Who cares? Calvin has been posted. He was posted for your edification, not just to correct you. NOW you know something of what Calvin taught AND you know where to find more of the same.

Post accordingly.

If you post another falsehood everyone now reads it knowing you know how to verify your claims before you post them. Future false claims prove you're not interested in truth, not interested in learning, not interested in study, not interested in discussing anything posted in this opening post and I, for one, am tired of trolls ragging on Calvinism in ignorant flesh. Show me you can do better.

I dare you .

 

[justbyfaith]

That is because you not only misstate Calvinism but you misstate what Calvinist say and then accuse them of being contradictory.

I have not misstated what is said by certain Calvinists.

Again, satan is the accuser (Revelation 12:9-11).

Don't take on his nature and employment by doing what he does.

 

[Arial]

In the verse, "propitiation" is applied to "the sins of the whole world".

The world---not all people in the world without exception.

In the OT, "the son of god" is clearly Israel.

I would say that Matthew, under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, took Hosea 11:1 out of context in order to make his point.

That isn't even worth a response.

 

[Josheb]

Of course Calvin dost protest too much; as some of his other doctrines give credence to this very thing.

Prove it.

The fact in evidence is that Calvin was shown to teach something other than what YOU claimed Calvinism teaches and instead of saying, "Thanks for the information. I can see from his commentary that my prior post was incorrect, and I appreciate you providing that information." Instead, we get empty rhetoric and baseless claims.

You are trolling.

 

[justbyfaith]

Which would contradict your false witness claim Calvinists believe God caused evil.

If you read Calvin then YOU will be better able to discriminate correct Calvinism from incorrect Calvinists. I, and ardent monergist, recently had a discussion in this forum over the post-conversion synergism of sanctification with one of the forum's prominent Cals and it turned judgmental but to that Cal's credit he went and read the leading Cals who came before he and me and subsequently posted a correction to his previously held views.

I have a lot of respect for both the practice and that poster.

You should try it.

Because of the diversity within Calvinism (or monergism) it will be impossible for you to do so if you do not go to original sources and authoritative sources to correctly understand the ~ism.

You just corrected yourself. But you did not say, "Yes, Josh, I now see that Calvin did NOT teach God was the cause of evil. I now see that Calvin did subscribe to the creature's volitional agency and causal agency. I was wrong to post the prior content. Thank you for the information."

Try it. See if poster do not respond better to you for the honesty and humility.

Why on earth would you think Chuck Smith has anything of merit to say on the matter? and how on earth would you imagine Calvinists would be impressed and think you know what you're talking about? Who cares? Calvin has been posted. He was posted for your edification, not just to correct you. NOW you know something of what Calvin taught AND you know where to find more of the same.

Post accordingly.

If you post another falsehood everyone now reads it knowing you know how to verify your claims before you post them. Future false claims prove you're not interested in truth, not interested in learning, not interested in study, not interested in discussing anything posted in this opening post and I, for one, am tired of trolls ragging on Calvinism in ignorant flesh. Show me you can do better.

I dare you .

I am always ready to admit that I am wrong, if I am proven to be wrong.

But I will say that it seems to me that many Calvinists do not espouse what was written by Calvin in certain places.

Might that be, because in other places, Calvin writes what might bring people to the opposite conclusions?

 

[Josheb]

And of course, again, Calvin dost protest too much, as his doctrines often deny man the capacity of free will.

Prove it.

The fact in evidence is that Calvin was shown to teach something other than what YOU claimed Calvinism teaches and instead of saying, "Thanks for the information. I can see from his commentary that my prior post was incorrect, and I appreciate you providing that information." Instead, we get empty rhetoric and baseless claims.

You are trolling.