All means all

[Josheb]

How is what I have written not Calvinism?

Just answered that question. I explicitly directed you to Calvin's commentary on the scripture you chose. Calvin's own words refute what was claimed in this opening post. I referred you to the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF). If the WCFhas been read then you know Article 3 plainly states God isn't the author of sin, God does NOT do violence to the human will, and God created creation full of secondary causes.

Tell me specifically what I stated incorrectly.

Calvin said the hope of the gospel was available to all men AND he considered it an insult to say only some select group was being referenced.

You said Calvin said otherwise. You said,

"A Calvinist will say that God chooses some for damnation and others for salvation. Meaning God was unwilling to save the damned that He desired their destruction. That He only had a willingness to save the elect."​

Calvin did not say that. A Calvinist correctly informed regarding what Calvin taught would not say that. The authroitative documents of Calvinism do not say that.



Now, you either posted that error because you did not know what he'd written, or the op was posted knowing what Calvin taught, knowing he taught the gospel was available to all, knowing the op was knowingly misrepresenting Calvin. So, which is it: did you post this op knowing what Calvin said about 1 Tim. 2:3-6 or not?

More importantly, do you have any interest in what Calvinism actually teaches. Do you want to learn Calvinism correctly?

 

[atpollard]

More importantly, do you have any interest in what Calvinism actually teaches. Do you want to learn Calvinism correctly?

It is picking a nit, but a pet peeve of mine ... John Calvin is NOT THE FOUNDER of Calvinism! His writings are important, but not authoritative or the yardstick for measuring "Calvinism" [which is not even a thing, but a broad term for a variety of Monergistic Theologies, like Reformed, TULIP, Doctrines of Grace, Particular Baptist, and more.]

The Synod of Dort would be more AUTHORITATIVE as would the Westminster Confession or 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith.

(You are still correct that @FutureAndAHope has conflated Reformed/Monergistic 'Positive-Negative' Predestination with a Hyper-Calvinist 'Positive-Positive' Double Predestination that very few people or confessions claim).

 

[Josheb]

But does Calvin really believe what he wrote?

Yes, and it is not up to you to judge the man. It is especially not up to you to judge the man if you've never read what he actually wrote. It is most definitely not up to you to judge the man if what he wrote has been read and willfully misrepresented. The latter would be what scripture calls bearing false witness.

His doctrine does not give "all" hope of salvation, only the elect.

His commentary on 1 Timothy explicitly states otherwise.

And if the best argument you can muster is "No, it doesn't" then you do not have any argument at all. The PROOF was shown to you. Why are second- or third-party sources trusted over the original source? In all likelihood the sources from which this op was written were themselves learning from other second- or third-party sources. If that's true, then this op is nothing more than erroneous hearsay.

He also believed some were chosen, and elected to damnation.

That is not true. Calvin did believe some were chosen. Jesus plainly, explicitly stated, "Many are called, but few are chosen."

Matthew 22:1-14
Jesus spoke to them again in parables, saying, "The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who gave a wedding feast for his son. "And he sent out his slaves to call those who had been invited to the wedding feast, and they were unwilling to come. "Again he sent out other slaves saying, 'Tell those who have been invited, "Behold, I have prepared my dinner; my oxen and my fattened livestock are all butchered and everything is ready; come to the wedding feast."' "But they paid no attention and went their way, one to his own farm, another to his business, and the rest seized his slaves and mistreated them and killed them. "But the king was enraged, and he sent his armies and destroyed those murderers and set their city on fire. "Then he *said to his slaves, 'The wedding is ready, but those who were invited were not worthy. ~'Go therefore to the main highways, and as many as you find there, invite to the wedding feast.' "Those slaves went out into the streets and gathered together all they found, both evil and good; and the wedding hall was filled with dinner guests. "But when the king came in to look over the dinner guests, he saw a man there who was not dressed in wedding clothes, and he *said to him, 'Friend, how did you come in here without wedding clothes?' And the man was speechless. "Then the king said to the servants, 'Bind him hand and foot, and throw him into the outer darkness; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.' For many are called, but few are chosen."

Calvin did NOT teach some were elected to damnation. Sin condemned all humanity to damnation, not God.

That is not giving all hope.

That would be correct were it not for your view of Calvinism not being Calvinism.

And you are drifting oof-topic in your own op. This topic is "all" means all and the scripture YOU selected was 1 Timothy 2:3-6. You cannot start a conversation with one verse and then when someone proves your view incorrect just change the topic because you do not want to deal with the mistake you made.


Calvin's commentary on 1 Timothy 2:3-6 plainly states the hope of the gospel is available to all and Calvin personally considered it an insult to think that passage was applicable to only some. You need to acknowledge the evidence. You do not get to ask, "Yeah, but did he mean it?" when the response should have been, "Yes, I see Calvin did teach the "all" of 1 Timothy 2"3-6 did mean all."

That is what you should have posted.


Then we can move on to the next passage YOU cited and see what Calvin actually taught about that text in comparison to what this op claims he taught. If the op is correct, then I will confirm it. If the op is not correct, then I expect you to correct what was posted.

Fair?

 

[atpollard]

This post is a counter to the idea that God preselected a group of people for salvation before creation, and also at that time choose others for damnation, what is known as Calvinism. It is a fatalistic idea that man does not choose to follow God of free will, but rather God elects some to salvation, and elects others to damnation, and the people have no choice in the matter.

I will leave it to you and others to quest for TRUTH in scripture. I will simply correct a minor misconception by offering an excerpt from the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith to present what Particular Baptists (what you would call 'Calvinist' Baptists) believe:

Chapter 3 – God’s Decree​

1. From all eternity God decreed everything that occurs, without reference to anything outside himself.1 He did this by the perfectly wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably. Yet God did this in such a way that he is neither the author of sin nor has fellowship with any in their sin.2 This decree does not violate the will of the creature or take away the free working or contingency of second causes. On the contrary, these are established by God’s decree.3 In this decree God’s wisdom is displayed in directing all things, and his power and faithfulness are demonstrated in accomplishing his decree.4
1Isaiah 46:10; Ephesians 1:11; Hebrews 6:17; Romans 9:15, 18. 2James 1:13; 1 John 1:5. 3Acts 4:27, 28; John 19:11. 4Numbers 23:19; Ephesians 1:3–5.

2. God knows everything that could happen under any given conditions.5 However, his decree of anything is not based on foreseeing it in the future or foreseeing that it would occur under such conditions.6
5Acts 15:18. 6Romans 9:11, 13, 16, 18.

3. By God’s decree, and for the demonstration of his glory, some human beings and angels are predestined (or foreordained) to eternal life through Jesus Christ,7 to the praise of his glorious grace.8 Others are left to live in their sin, leading to their just condemnation, to the praise of his glorious justice.9
71 Timothy 5:21; Matthew 25:34. 8Ephesians 1:5, 6. 9Romans 9:22, 23; Jude 4.

4. These predestined and foreordained angels and people are individually and unchangeably designated, and their number is so certain and definite that it cannot be either increased or decreased.10
102 Timothy 2:19; John 13:18.

5. Those people who are predestined to life were chosen by God before the foundation of the world, according to his eternal and unchangeable purpose and the secret counsel and good pleasure of his will. He chose them in Christ for eternal glory, purely as a result of his free grace and love,11 without anything else about them serving as a condition or cause moving him to do so.12
11Ephesians 1:4, 9, 11; Romans 8:30; 2 Timothy 1:9; 1 Thessalonians 5:9. 12Romans 9:13, 16; Ephesians 2:5, 12.

6. Just as God has appointed the elect to glory, so he has by the eternal and completely free purpose of his will foreordained all the means.13 Therefore, those who are elected, being fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ14 and effectually called to faith in Christ by his Spirit working at the appropriate time. They are justified, adopted, sanctified,15 and kept by his power through faith to salvation.16 No one but the elect are redeemed by Christ, or effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved.17
131 Peter 1:2; 2 Thessalonians 2:13. 141 Thessalonians 5:9, 10. 15Romans 8:30; 2 Thessalonians 2:13. 161 Peter 1:5. 17John 10:26; 17:9; 6:64.

7. The doctrine of the high mystery of predestination is to be handled with special prudence and care so that those heeding the will of God revealed in his Word and obeying him may be assured of their eternal election by the certainty of their effectual calling.18 In this way this doctrine will give reasons for praise,19 reverence, and admiration of God, as well as humility,20 diligence and rich comfort to all who sincerely obey the gospel.21
181 Thessalonians 1:4, 5; 2 Peter 1:10. 19Ephesians 1:6; Romans 11:33. 20Romans 11:5, 6, 20. 21Luke 10:20.

 

[Josheb]

Forget Calvin.

No, the op explicitly cites Calvin, the op explicitly misrepresents Calvin, the op mentions no other community, the op specifies no other "community," and the op occurs in the Arminianism and Calvinism board. We do not "forget" Calvinism in the Arminianism and Calvinism board.

The point is that there is a large part of the Christian community...

Not, that is not the point.

...today that teaches what is presented in the opening post.

No, there isn't. What exists is another wave of people who've never read Calvin themselves and learned strawmen from false teachers, and they wrongly imagine they can come into an internet forum and get away posting errors without correction.


We do not forget Calvinism in the Arminianism and Calvinism board.

 

[makesends]

You think this physical universe is to be the dwelling place of God? What utter nonsense.

Where did I say that? You are scorning a strawman.

You actually think that God created most of humanity to be condemned to everlasting torment in order to demonstrate His mercy and glorty to the objects of his mercy? And that is what you get from Romans 9? That is really sad.

Yes, it is sad, and it is severe, and it is Biblical, and it is Glorious. And your comment presents not even one lousy argument against it.

Nah, nothing like that at all.

What you fail to understand is that God does actually desire that all sinners be saved (1 Timothy 2:4; 2 Peter 3:9; Ezekiel 18:23; Matthew 23:37). If what you believe is true, then all such statements are lies. The doctrine that you profess has a god that imputes the sin of one man onto all mankind and then corrects the result of that imputation for only some. The only conclusion to such a teaching is that some if not all of those lost are the direct result of God's actions and thus God's fault. Such is what you teach.

Such is what you teach is the logical result of what you think I teach. See how complicated things get when you ignore Scripture? I agree 100% with (1 Timothy 2:4; 2 Peter 3:9; Ezekiel 18:23; Matthew 23:37). I just don't think they mean what you think they mean, or, more to the point, I don't think they imply what you take them to imply. If, just for example, God does actually desire (according to even your definition of "desire") that all sinners be saved, do you think then it must mean that he can't help it if they are not saved? Do you think I should logically accuse you of worshiping a weak god?

 

[makesends]

LOL ... I like that ... dead on.

Nice pun!

 

[makesends]

It matters not how I reconcile Romans 8 and 9. I only have to read in God's word that He tells us that He wants none to perish. (I listed some of the verses that tells us that.) If your view of Romans 8 and 9 can be reconciled with the view that God does actually want some to perish, then perhaps it is how you have reconciled them wrongly.

Do you consider God's "emotions" to be definable by what we mean by ours?

Which came first—God or man? Whose desire is more extreme? Whose —God's or man's— "emotion" never operates separate from all the other emotions? How can anyone pretend to know the power and severity and purity of God's "emotions" (—we call them, as if that is a suitable word.) God "wants" —do you really know what you are talking about to draw your notions of God's works off of it? I don't claim that.

 

[JIM]

Do you consider God's "emotions" to be definable by what we mean by ours?

Which came first—God or man? Whose desire is more extreme? Whose —God's or man's— "emotion" never operates separate from all the other emotions? How can anyone pretend to know the power and severity and purity of God's "emotions" (—we call them, as if that is a suitable word.) God "wants" —do you really know what you are talking about to draw your notions of God's works off of it? I don't claim that.

I am not sure what you are trying to say. When you read that God "desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth" (1 Tim2:4), you think that means something different from what it actually says?

 

[JIM]

Where did I say that? You are scorning a strawman.

Yes, it is sad, and it is severe, and it is Biblical, and it is Glorious. And your comment presents not even one lousy argument against it.

Such is what you teach is the logical result of what you think I teach. See how complicated things get when you ignore Scripture? I agree 100% with (1 Timothy 2:4; 2 Peter 3:9; Ezekiel 18:23; Matthew 23:37). I just don't think they mean what you think they mean, or, more to the point, I don't think they imply what you take them to imply. If, just for example, God does actually desire (according to even your definition of "desire") that all sinners be saved, do you think then it must mean that he can't help it if they are not saved? Do you think I should logically accuse you of worshiping a weak god?

The holiness of God demands that He punish sin. That He must punish sin does not mean that He desires to punish sin. His desire that all be saved and yet punishes sin is not contradictory.

 

[Josheb]

I am not sure what you are trying to say. When you read that God "desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth" (1 Tim2:4), you think that means something different from what it actually says?

If I may,

I think what makesends is asking is a question that has two parts. The first being is, "Does God experience emotions the same way fallen humans do?" and the second is, "Should, or is, scripture be read to anthropomorphize God's emotions?"

In the case of God desiring all men be saved, His desires occur as holy, righteous, never-adulterated desires and, more importantly, they never occur from a position of want or lack. God lacks nothing. He wants or longs for nothing, not even the salvation of a single sinner. Furthermore, God has many desires, and they never conflict with one another. His desire that all men be saved exists at the very same time He desires to destroy sin and sinners. The two desires do not ever conflict with one another. That would be a conflicted god, a double-minded god, a god at war within himself.

That god is not God.

This is true of all God's emotions. When God feels regret it is not because He's done something wrong or made any kind of mistake. Such a premise would be antithetical to His being both ontologically perfect and perfect in all His ways. All His emotions occur in the context of His imperviousness to temptation and sin. That is never true of humans (collectively or individually). All His emotions occur within the context of His being The Creator, His having a purpose creating creation and His omni-attributed sovereign power to always accomplish His purpose and desires and never not do so.

So when scripture says God desires all men be saved that should be read and understood that not only does He desire it but it will happen. God does not have fruitless desires. But it can't be read to support universalism, either, because God also desire the sinful receive the just recompense for their sin.

The ideas that either God has one chief desire that over-rules all others (the desire to save), or that God experiences that desire in conflict with Himself, or that any alternative is a compromise on His part, or that sinful humans have any ability to circumvent God and His purpose and desires runs into direct contradiction to the fact the exact same cross that saves also condemns.

From the very beginning of creation God had at least two preparations, plans, purposes, and outcomes for Calvary: salvation and judgment. It's not salvation or judgment. It's both simultaneously existing. The exact same Son of God who came like a silent lamb to the slaughter will return in with a sword in his mouth for violent judgement.

@makesends can correct me where I strayed from the intent of his inquiry.

Lastly,

I am not sure what you are trying to say.

It is, imo, important that you don't know what he's trying to say because what he asked is a very valid question, and one that is fundamental and foundational to a correct reading of the verse in question (and any verse reporting on God's affect). If my clarification is correct, then perhaps now what he asked is better understood.

It is not okay to select one verse and make an entire doctrine from it. That is called proof-texting and proof-texting is rarely sound exegesis and almost always leads to bad doctrine. 1 Timothy 2:4 is not the one single, solitary verse that defines all that God feels or desires about sin, sinners, redemption, and the redeemed.

 

[atpollard]

In the case of God desiring all men be saved, His desires occur as holy, righteous, never-adulterated desires and, more importantly, they never occur from a position of want or lack. God lacks nothing. He wants or longs for nothing, not even the salvation of a single sinner. Furthermore, God has many desires, and they never conflict with one another. His desire that all men be saved exists at the very same time He desires to destroy sin and sinners. The two desires do not ever conflict with one another. That would be a conflicted god, a double-minded god, a god at war within himself.

That god is not God.

This is true of all God's emotions. When God feels regret it is not because He's done something wrong or made any kind of mistake. Such a premise would be antithetical to His being both ontologically perfect and perfect in all His ways. All His emotions occur in the context of His imperviousness to temptation and sin. That is never true of humans (collectively or individually). All His emotions occur within the context of His being The Creator, His having a purpose creating creation and His omni-attributed sovereign power to always accomplish His purpose and desires and never not do so.

So when scripture says God desires all men be saved that should be read and understood that not only does He desire it but it will happen. God does not have fruitless desires. But it can't be read to support universalism, either, because God also desire the sinful receive the just recompense for their sin.

The ideas that either God has one chief desire that over-rules all others (the desire to save), or that God experiences that desire in conflict with Himself, or that any alternative is a compromise on His part, or that sinful humans have any ability to circumvent God and His purpose and desires runs into direct contradiction to the fact the exact same cross that saves also condemns.

From the very beginning of creation God had at least two preparations, plans, purposes, and outcomes for Calvary: salvation and judgment. It's not salvation or judgment. It's both simultaneously existing. The exact same Son of God who came like a silent lamb to the slaughter will return in with a sword in his mouth for violent judgement.

WOW!

 

[JIM]

So when scripture says God desires all men be saved that should be read and understood that not only does He desire it but it will happen.

That changes, entirely, the meaning of the word "desires". Such an understanding is not consistent with either the meaning in English or Greek. Thus, it comes not from what the Bible says there, but what you have read into it from your own thinking. Desire does not mean decree.

It is not okay to select one verse and make an entire doctrine from it. That is called proof-texting and proof-texting is rarely sound exegesis and almost always leads to bad doctrine. 1 Timothy 2:4 is not the one single, solitary verse that defines all that God feels or desires about sin, sinners, redemption, and the redeemed.

Nor is okay to change the meaning from what it actually says. That is never sound exegesis and always leads to bad doctrine.

 

[Carbon]

I am not sure what you are trying to say. When you read that God "desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth" (1 Tim2:4), you think that means something different from what it actually says?

It means exactly what it says. All men, not just the Jews.

 

[JIM]

It means exactly what it says. All men, not just the Jews.

Yes, of course. But it doesn't mean, as I suspect that you believe, that there are some people that He does not desire to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth.

 

[Carbon]

Yes, of course. But it doesn't mean, as I suspect that you believe, that there are some people that He does not desire to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth.

There are those prepared for destruction Jim. Vessels of wrath. For His glory.

What do you do with these passages?

 

[Dave_Regenerated]

There are those prepared for destruction Jim. Vessels of wrath. For His glory.

What do you do with these passag

Why did God prepare to create people destined for eternal hell? I know you said it is for His glory, and I know you say everybody deserves hell from conception, but why should any of that be the case? How does God get glory from reprobating people to hell for a reason nobody can understand save for "mystery"?

 

[JIM]

There are those prepared for destruction Jim. Vessels of wrath. For His glory.

What do you do with these passages?

You, I think, are referencing Romans 9. Most of that passage is not speaking about choosing anyone for salvation; rather it speaks of God's choosing people for service. The mention of Pharoah, or Jacob or Esau really has nothing to do with whether they are saved or lost. Instead it speaks of God's using them for His purpose.

Paul is addressing the common fallacy of the Jews that since they were members of God's chosen people, then they must be chosen for salvation as well. Paul says that is not so. His point in Romans 9 is that God is free to use anyone He wants for His own purpose without any requirement to save them. Therefore just because they, Paul's kinsmen according to the flesh, were used by God to bring Christ into the world that does not mean that God must save them. That is what verse 21 about the clay, about honorable and dishonorable use is all about. It is not about any "clay" being saved or lose. It is about using the clay however and for whatever He wants in this world and that has no connection whatsoever with whether or not He saves the clay.

Consider for a moment verse 22. How can God's punishment of the wicked in the hereafter show His wrath and make known His power in the world today? It can't. His wrath was shown and His power was made known when He used Pharoah as He did to set His people free. And that having nothing to do with where Pharoah ends up in the hereafter.

I know that none of that is the Calvinist's understanding of Romans Chapter 9, but I think it is the correct understanding.

 

[Dave_Regenerated]

You, I think, are referencing Romans 9. Most of that passage is not speaking about choosing anyone for salvation; rather it speaks of God's choosing people for service. The mention of Pharoah, or Jacob or Esau really has nothing to do with whether they are saved or lost. Instead it speaks of God's using them for His purpose.

Paul is addressing the common fallacy of the Jews that since they were members of God's chosen people, then they must be chosen for salvation as well. Paul says that is not so. His point in Romans 9 is that God is free to use anyone He wants for His own purpose without any requirement to save them.

You said that.

Therefore just because they, Paul's kinsmen according to the flesh, were used by God to bring Christ into the world that does not mean that God must save them. That is what verse 21 about the clay, about honorable and dishonorable use is all about. It is not about any "clay" being saved or lose. It is about using the clay however and for whatever He wants in this world and that has no connection whatsoever with whether or not He saves the clay.

And then you said that.

 

[atpollard]

deleted.