Preach The Gospel To Every Creature

[Maurice Edwards]

What do you say when someone asks are they one of God's elect?

[Maurice Edwards]

Mark 16:16, John 3:16, and. 1 John 2:2 are enough to refute Calvinism in my heart and conviction. God elected Israel and made a covenant with them that they continuously broke. Likewise Jesus died for the sins of the world yet many in the world will not believe. While we were yet sinners Christ died for the ungodly. So no, we can't boast because nothing we did moved God to give his Son for the world's sins. But we receive this free gift through our faith. So Christ accomplished his work not it's up to man to believe it and be saved.

Marv said:

"Limited atonement" or "Particular redemption" is the one doctrine of the five which is more work-instensive to demonstrate from Scripture, or else it wouldn't be the most controversial one, the one "dropped" by so-called "Four point Calvinists."

 

For what it's worth, I did a little post on it a few years back (here). I do think it is what the Bible teaches, but similar-sounding misstatements of it are not what the Bible teaches. And there are many relevant Scripture passages which, admittedly, are not obviously supportive of it. All these considered carefully, however, I think we are left with no one Jesus tried to save, but failed. We are left with no one whose sins were taken away but who still went to hell anyway. We have no one who can boast that they were saved by being a teensy weensy smarter or better than their neighbor who wasn't, God having given precisely the same grace to each, but you and I tossing in the decisive bit of good stuff that got us over the line and into heaven.

Maurice Edwards said:

Marv, in short, I certain doctrines in Calvinism are supported in Scripture and some aren't. In the TULIP I don't see Scripture supporting limited atonement at all. Amongst other things it teaches.

Marv said:

Then let's try this.

Ray Nearhood said:

Your link is broke, Marv.

Marv said:

Here, btw, is an excellent post from a Calvinist perspective. It's the statement by the Arminian that turns out to be "disturbing," I think.

[Marv]

Lovely.

Except Mark 16:16 is perfectly in agreement with Calvinism. How does it conflict, much less "refute"???

I still don't understand how John 3:16 is supposed to be contrary to Calvinism either. Perhaps you could explain.

I understand why on the basis of 1 John 2:2 you don't hold to particular redemption. What I don't understand is why you are not a universalist, seeing as Jesus is the propitiation for the whole world.

Maurice Edwards said:

Mark 16:16, John 3:16, and. 1 John 2:2 are enough to refute Calvinism in my heart and conviction. God elected Israel and made a covenant with them that they continuously broke. Likewise Jesus died for the sins of the world yet many in the world will not believe. While we were yet sinners Christ died for the ungodly. So no, we can't boast because nothing we did moved God to give his Son for the world's sins. But we receive this free gift through our faith. So Christ accomplished his work not it's up to man to believe it and be saved.

Marv said:

"Limited atonement" or "Particular redemption" is the one doctrine of the five which is more work-instensive to demonstrate from Scripture, or else it wouldn't be the most controversial one, the one "dropped" by so-called "Four point Calvinists."

 

For what it's worth, I did a little post on it a few years back (here). I do think it is what the Bible teaches, but similar-sounding misstatements of it are not what the Bible teaches. And there are many relevant Scripture passages which, admittedly, are not obviously supportive of it. All these considered carefully, however, I think we are left with no one Jesus tried to save, but failed. We are left with no one whose sins were taken away but who still went to hell anyway. We have no one who can boast that they were saved by being a teensy weensy smarter or better than their neighbor who wasn't, God having given precisely the same grace to each, but you and I tossing in the decisive bit of good stuff that got us over the line and into heaven.

Maurice Edwards said:

Marv, in short, I certain doctrines in Calvinism are supported in Scripture and some aren't. In the TULIP I don't see Scripture supporting limited atonement at all. Amongst other things it teaches.

Marv said:

Then let's try this.

Ray Nearhood said:

Your link is broke, Marv.

Marv said:

Here, btw, is an excellent post from a Calvinist perspective. It's the statement by the Arminian that turns out to be "disturbing," I think.

[Marv]

Do I understand in the below you mean "now" instead of "not"?

 

So God through Christ gives exactly the same provision for Maurice and Morris. Morris doesn't believe, however. Maurice does. Christ did the lion's share of the work. Only it wasn't enough to bring Morris to salvation. Not enough to bring Maurice to salvation either, because He then left it up to Maurice to make the final decision. Fortunately Maurice has enough of what it takes to finish off what Jesus didn't do for him. He believed, but evidently it wasn't due to any grace that Morris hadn't also received. What is the secret to your success?

Maurice Edwards said:

 So Christ accomplished his work not it's up to man to believe it and be saved.

[David Armstrong]

Election simply refers to those who are God's people on earth. The very word election implies that this separation is for a purpose, like to an office--in other words, we are elected or counted as part of the people of God to carry out a specific duty on the earth.

Mostly when people ask, "Am I/Are you one of God's elect?" the question is in reference to the afterlife--in other words, "Am I one of the ones who can expect to experience God's favor when I die? Am I one of the ones He chose to spend eternity with Him?" This is a faulty understanding of election. Biblical election refers to the status of being a part of God's people on earth and participating in the mandate to be the revelation of God on earth. In the Old Covenant, election was restricted to Israelites and converts to Judaism--God desired, through Israel, to govern the nations with love and to bear witness to the way He originally imagined human beings living and conducting themselves on the planet. God still desires to do that with Israel, but in this present age has given rise to the ekklessia, the church, offers the hope of election to those who are not Jewish and redefines what it means to be elected to necessitate that Jewish people also become a part of the church community to be active, elected participants.

Election is deeply connected to God's Kingdom. God has always desired to leave His Kingdom in the hands of a man. Adam, the first candidate, failed to properly handle the authority he was given. Abraham, and Abraham's family, were invited to be a part of God's redemptive plan for humanity and the Earth. Jesus fulfills this calling of Abraham's family, and thus by trusting in Jesus, Gentiles are invited to be a part of the election of Abraham and Abraham's family to be the spearhead of creation's redemption.

So, bearing all that in mind, let's address your question, "What do you say when someone asks are they one of God's elect?" Knowing now that Election refers to participating in Abraham's calling by trusting in Jesus, we should know that the answer to this question is itself a question--"Has Jesus begun to save you?" (I do not say, "have you been saved?" which implies that salvation is a one time event rather than an ongoing process in our lives--Philippians 2:12). Jesus' saving work in our lives is the primary, most important evidence of our election--it isn't something we can attribute to an outward ceremony or ritual. Just to be clear about this, let's turn to the circumcision controversy in the early church. In Galatians 2-4, Paul essentially makes it clear that outward, physical rituals like circumcision did not affect one's salvation, because the circumcision of the inward man that occurs when the King begins the work of saving someone is the superior reality to which physical circumcision was a pointer.

In regards to whether or not baptism is a necessary element for salvation and thus to election, I have this to say. Christian Baptism comes from Jewish ritual bathing in a mikveh. For early Jews, washing themselves in a mikveh, a ritual bath, was a highly symbolic ritual that represented cleanliness. To this day, it is still used by Jewish women to purify themselves post-childbirth and menstruation, by Jewish men to purify themselves according to the Law, and for conversion to Judaism (interestingly enough, Christians aren't the only ones who ask that their converts be baptized.) John the Baptizer revolutionized this ritual by pointing to the spiritual reality it represented--namely, forgiveness of sins and death to the old nature. John, however, understood that even his ministry was simply a signpost to Jesus, who would actually initiate that reality. For the early church, baptism was understood more as a public demonstration of a spiritual reality that had taken place inwardly than it was a necessity for salvation. The ritual itself can change, and the meaning remain the same; for example, if, rather than water baptism, someone were to find some other way to publicly announce their death and resurrection in Jesus, nothing would be lost to us. Certainly, though, baptism is not a requirement for salvation or election.

Just my thoughts.

--David

[Maurice Edwards]

I really appreciate this post because I thought I was the only one that saw choosing and election this way. In Romans 11 Paul talks about the election obtaining what it sought after but the rest were hardened or blinded. But verse 4 says this election or remnant were those who hadn't bowed their knee to Baal. When you follow the scriptures from Genesis 1:1 going forward, God never hardened or blinded those who didn't first sin. In Romans 1:28 did God give them over to a reprobate mind out of the blue? No! Romans one is clear that men sinned and caused this reprobation.

David Armstrong said:

Election simply refers to those who are God's people on earth. The very word election implies that this separation is for a purpose, like to an office--in other words, we are elected or counted as part of the people of God to carry out a specific duty on the earth.

Mostly when people ask, "Am I/Are you one of God's elect?" the question is in reference to the afterlife--in other words, "Am I one of the ones who can expect to experience God's favor when I die? Am I one of the ones He chose to spend eternity with Him?" This is a faulty understanding of election. Biblical election refers to the status of being a part of God's people on earth and participating in the mandate to be the revelation of God on earth. In the Old Covenant, election was restricted to Israelites and converts to Judaism--God desired, through Israel, to govern the nations with love and to bear witness to the way He originally imagined human beings living and conducting themselves on the planet. God still desires to do that with Israel, but in this present age has given rise to the ekklessia, the church, offers the hope of election to those who are not Jewish and redefines what it means to be elected to necessitate that Jewish people also become a part of the church community to be active, elected participants.

Election is deeply connected to God's Kingdom. God has always desired to leave His Kingdom in the hands of a man. Adam, the first candidate, failed to properly handle the authority he was given. Abraham, and Abraham's family, were invited to be a part of God's redemptive plan for humanity and the Earth. Jesus fulfills this calling of Abraham's family, and thus by trusting in Jesus, Gentiles are invited to be a part of the election of Abraham and Abraham's family to be the spearhead of creation's redemption.

So, bearing all that in mind, let's address your question, "What do you say when someone asks are they one of God's elect?" Knowing now that Election refers to participating in Abraham's calling by trusting in Jesus, we should know that the answer to this question is itself a question--"Has Jesus begun to save you?" (I do not say, "have you been saved?" which implies that salvation is a one time event rather than an ongoing process in our lives--Philippians 2:12). Jesus' saving work in our lives is the primary, most important evidence of our election--it isn't something we can attribute to an outward ceremony or ritual. Just to be clear about this, let's turn to the circumcision controversy in the early church. In Galatians 2-4, Paul essentially makes it clear that outward, physical rituals like circumcision did not affect one's salvation, because the circumcision of the inward man that occurs when the King begins the work of saving someone is the superior reality to which physical circumcision was a pointer.

In regards to whether or not baptism is a necessary element for salvation and thus to election, I have this to say. Christian Baptism comes from Jewish ritual bathing in a mikveh. For early Jews, washing themselves in a mikveh, a ritual bath, was a highly symbolic ritual that represented cleanliness. To this day, it is still used by Jewish women to purify themselves post-childbirth and menstruation, by Jewish men to purify themselves according to the Law, and for conversion to Judaism (interestingly enough, Christians aren't the only ones who ask that their converts be baptized.) John the Baptizer revolutionized this ritual by pointing to the spiritual reality it represented--namely, forgiveness of sins and death to the old nature. John, however, understood that even his ministry was simply a signpost to Jesus, who would actually initiate that reality. For the early church, baptism was understood more as a public demonstration of a spiritual reality that had taken place inwardly than it was a necessity for salvation. The ritual itself can change, and the meaning remain the same; for example, if, rather than water baptism, someone were to find some other way to publicly announce their death and resurrection in Jesus, nothing would be lost to us. Certainly, though, baptism is not a requirement for salvation or election.

Just my thoughts.

--David

[Maurice Edwards]

Well Marv, let's start with Mark 16:16 and John 3:16. The Calvinists that I know will say the "whosoever" and "world" means the "elect". And according to 1 John 2:2, if you want to label me to be a universalist, than that's what i am if that's means I believe Jesus' atonement and God's free gift of grace (Romans 5:15,18) was abounded and came upon "all" men. What I want to know is the scriptures that reveal God only desires to save an elect (special) people and pass over others. And throw in the one where Jesus' atonement only covered an elect (special) people. I wouldn't belive in or serve a God and savior that would allow one man to curse "all" of humanity but his plan of redemption is only offered to a select few. That would make this look real weak. 

 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. 

If "many" be dead means "all" be dead, than what does "many" mean in the "B Clause" grammatically?

Does "many" now change to being grace abounded to only the elect?

Marv said:

Lovely.

Except Mark 16:16 is perfectly in agreement with Calvinism. How does it conflict, much less "refute"???

I still don't understand how John 3:16 is supposed to be contrary to Calvinism either. Perhaps you could explain.

I understand why on the basis of 1 John 2:2 you don't hold to particular redemption. What I don't understand is why you are not a universalist, seeing as Jesus is the propitiation for the whole world.

Maurice Edwards said:

Mark 16:16, John 3:16, and. 1 John 2:2 are enough to refute Calvinism in my heart and conviction. God elected Israel and made a covenant with them that they continuously broke. Likewise Jesus died for the sins of the world yet many in the world will not believe. While we were yet sinners Christ died for the ungodly. So no, we can't boast because nothing we did moved God to give his Son for the world's sins. But we receive this free gift through our faith. So Christ accomplished his work not it's up to man to believe it and be saved.

Marv said:

"Limited atonement" or "Particular redemption" is the one doctrine of the five which is more work-instensive to demonstrate from Scripture, or else it wouldn't be the most controversial one, the one "dropped" by so-called "Four point Calvinists."

 

For what it's worth, I did a little post on it a few years back (here). I do think it is what the Bible teaches, but similar-sounding misstatements of it are not what the Bible teaches. And there are many relevant Scripture passages which, admittedly, are not obviously supportive of it. All these considered carefully, however, I think we are left with no one Jesus tried to save, but failed. We are left with no one whose sins were taken away but who still went to hell anyway. We have no one who can boast that they were saved by being a teensy weensy smarter or better than their neighbor who wasn't, God having given precisely the same grace to each, but you and I tossing in the decisive bit of good stuff that got us over the line and into heaven.

Maurice Edwards said:

Marv, in short, I certain doctrines in Calvinism are supported in Scripture and some aren't. In the TULIP I don't see Scripture supporting limited atonement at all. Amongst other things it teaches.

Marv said:

Then let's try this.

Ray Nearhood said:

Your link is broke, Marv.

Marv said:

Here, btw, is an excellent post from a Calvinist perspective. It's the statement by the Arminian that turns out to be "disturbing," I think.

[Marv]

Thanks for answering, Maurice, but I was hoping you'd show me how John 3:16 clashed with Calvinism, and especially Particular Redemption. You basically just repeated yourself and made a comment about what "Calvinists that I know will say." Sorry, I have no way of knowing what these individuals have said or will say, but let's look at the verse, to start with.

John 3:16 says God loves the world and that some people--not all--are saved and others perish. Is that what you understand? That is what Calvinists understand too.

The verse says everyone who comes to faith in Christ receives eternal life. Is that what you understand? That's what Calvinists understand too. Or did you think they thought only SOME people who believe receive eternal life? Nope. Just as the verse says, everyone who believes on Christ--whoever believes on Christ has eternal life. I think you believe that. We Calvinists believe that too.

It says God loves the world--but he saves whoever believes in Jesus. Do you think that "whoever believes" is the same group of people indicated by "the world"? Does everyone in the world believe? Does everyone in the world receive eternal life? Or do some in fact perish? I think you believe that some people perish and that those who receive eternal life is not the same group as "the world."

I don't know about all Calvinists, but I think" the world is one thing, the total set of "all who believe" or "whoever believes" is another. So I think I have somewhat the same opinion as you.

So with this all in mind, please do tell me how John 3:16 in any way contradicts or is incompatible with Calvinism. Thanks, Maurice, and have a nice day.

Maurice Edwards said:

Well Marv, let's start with Mark 16:16 and John 3:16. The Calvinists that I know will say the "whosoever" and "world" means the "elect". And according to 1 John 2:2, if you want to label me to be a universalist, than that's what i am if that's means I believe Jesus' atonement and God's free gift of grace (Romans 5:15,18) was abounded and came upon "all" men. What I want to know is the scriptures that reveal God only desires to save an elect (special) people and pass over others. And throw in the one where Jesus' atonement only covered an elect (special) people. I wouldn't belive in or serve a God and savior that would allow one man to curse "all" of humanity but his plan of redemption is only offered to a select few. That would make this look real weak. 

 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. 

If "many" be dead means "all" be dead, than what does "many" mean in the "B Clause" grammatically?

Does "many" now change to being grace abounded to only the elect?

Marv said:

Lovely.

Except Mark 16:16 is perfectly in agreement with Calvinism. How does it conflict, much less "refute"???

I still don't understand how John 3:16 is supposed to be contrary to Calvinism either. Perhaps you could explain.

I understand why on the basis of 1 John 2:2 you don't hold to particular redemption. What I don't understand is why you are not a universalist, seeing as Jesus is the propitiation for the whole world.

[Marv]

Now, in re: Mark 16:16. Of course, you'll know that this section of Mark is widely held not to be genuinely part of the gospel. Be that as it may, we will proceed with it as such.

The verse says that all people who believe and are baptized are saved.

And it says all who do not believe are condemned.

Definitely two groups--no "whole world" here. And for the moment let's set to the side the baptism part--I don't think that is what is exercising you here. Anyway, it say those who don't believe are condemned, not those who believe but are not baptized. So then I suppose it's the believing part that is the functional distinction. You agree?

So again, everyone who believes--i.e. has faith in Jesus--is saved, is justified,  receives eternal life, etc. Is that what you understand it to say? That's what Calvinists understand it to say too. Again, did you think that Calvinists teach that only SOME who believe are saved? Nope. All. Just like you do.

And everyone who doesn't believe--is condemned, perishes, dies in their sins, etc. Is that what you believe? That's what we believe too.

You can see, I'm really having a hard time understanding how either John 3:16 or Mark 16:16 flies in the face of Calvinism.

And besides, neither verse said the anything about whether God forgives the sins of those who don't believe before condemning them. Doesn't say one way or the other, but it does seem a bit odd for God to send people to hell when Christ has fully expiated their sins in God's sight and fully propitiated the Father through paying the penalty for their sins. Maybe He does this, but these verse don't say so.

Maurice Edwards said:

Well Marv, let's start with Mark 16:16 and John 3:16. The Calvinists that I know will say the "whosoever" and "world" means the "elect". And according to 1 John 2:2, if you want to label me to be a universalist, than that's what i am if that's means I believe Jesus' atonement and God's free gift of grace (Romans 5:15,18) was abounded and came upon "all" men. What I want to know is the scriptures that reveal God only desires to save an elect (special) people and pass over others. And throw in the one where Jesus' atonement only covered an elect (special) people. I wouldn't belive in or serve a God and savior that would allow one man to curse "all" of humanity but his plan of redemption is only offered to a select few. That would make this look real weak. 

 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. 

If "many" be dead means "all" be dead, than what does "many" mean in the "B Clause" grammatically?

Does "many" now change to being grace abounded to only the elect?

Marv said:

Lovely.

Except Mark 16:16 is perfectly in agreement with Calvinism. How does it conflict, much less "refute"???

I still don't understand how John 3:16 is supposed to be contrary to Calvinism either. Perhaps you could explain.

I understand why on the basis of 1 John 2:2 you don't hold to particular redemption. What I don't understand is why you are not a universalist, seeing as Jesus is the propitiation for the whole world.

Maurice Edwards said:

Mark 16:16, John 3:16, and. 1 John 2:2 are enough to refute Calvinism in my heart and conviction. God elected Israel and made a covenant with them that they continuously broke. Likewise Jesus died for the sins of the world yet many in the world will not believe. While we were yet sinners Christ died for the ungodly. So no, we can't boast because nothing we did moved God to give his Son for the world's sins. But we receive this free gift through our faith. So Christ accomplished his work not it's up to man to believe it and be saved.

[Maurice Edwards]

I'm not going to spend alot of time on this because I see you're dancing around my point. Last time! Whosoever (KJV) I believe means "anyone" can believe. Most Calvinists say only God's "elect" will and can believe. In other word, you can't believe unless God has elected you to believe or predestined you to. And God gave his Son for these same elect. Which is limited atonement. Show me this in scripture.< br/>
Marv said:

Now, in re: Mark 16:16. Of course, you'll know that this section of Mark is widely held not to be genuinely part of the gospel. Be that as it may, we will proceed with it as such.

The verse says that all people who believe and are baptized are saved.

And it says all who do not believe are condemned.

Definitely two groups--no "whole world" here. And for the moment let's set to the side the baptism part--I don't think that is what is exercising you here. Anyway, it say those who don't believe are condemned, not those who believe but are not baptized. So then I suppose it's the believing part that is the functional distinction. You agree?

So again, everyone who believes--i.e. has faith in Jesus--is saved, is justified,  receives eternal life, etc. Is that what you understand it to say? That's what Calvinists understand it to say too. Again, did you think that Calvinists teach that only SOME who believe are saved? Nope. All. Just like you do.

And everyone who doesn't believe--is condemned, perishes, dies in their sins, etc. Is that what you believe? That's what we believe too.

You can see, I'm really having a hard time understanding how either John 3:16 or Mark 16:16 flies in the face of Calvinism.

And besides, neither verse said the anything about whether God forgives the sins of those who don't believe before condemning them. Doesn't say one way or the other, but it does seem a bit odd for God to send people to hell when Christ has fully expiated their sins in God's sight and fully propitiated the Father through paying the penalty for their sins. Maybe He does this, but these verse don't say so.

Maurice Edwards said:

Well Marv, let's start with Mark 16:16 and John 3:16. The Calvinists that I know will say the "whosoever" and "world" means the "elect". And according to 1 John 2:2, if you want to label me to be a universalist, than that's what i am if that's means I believe Jesus' atonement and God's free gift of grace (Romans 5:15,18) was abounded and came upon "all" men. What I want to know is the scriptures that reveal God only desires to save an elect (special) people and pass over others. And throw in the one where Jesus' atonement only covered an elect (special) people. I wouldn't belive in or serve a God and savior that would allow one man to curse "all" of humanity but his plan of redemption is only offered to a select few. That would make this look real weak. 

 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. 

If "many" be dead means "all" be dead, than what does "many" mean in the "B Clause" grammatically?

Does "many" now change to being grace abounded to only the elect?

Marv said:

Lovely.

Except Mark 16:16 is perfectly in agreement with Calvinism. How does it conflict, much less "refute"???

I still don't understand how John 3:16 is supposed to be contrary to Calvinism either. Perhaps you could explain.

I understand why on the basis of 1 John 2:2 you don't hold to particular redemption. What I don't understand is why you are not a universalist, seeing as Jesus is the propitiation for the whole world.

Maurice Edwards said:

Mark 16:16, John 3:16, and. 1 John 2:2 are enough to refute Calvinism in my heart and conviction. God elected Israel and made a covenant with them that they continuously broke. Likewise Jesus died for the sins of the world yet many in the world will not believe. While we were yet sinners Christ died for the ungodly. So no, we can't boast because nothing we did moved God to give his Son for the world's sins. But we receive this free gift through our faith. So Christ accomplished his work not it's up to man to believe it and be saved.

[Marv]

Maurice, I certainly am not dancing around "your point."

I am talking to you in a straightforward way about the Bible and what it says.

Now you are telling me something new. Now you are taking John 3:16 not as saying whoever believes will live forever, but that everyone in the world has the ability to believe. This is manifestly NOT what the verse says.

I've been talking with my son about his getting a driver's license, so let's use that as an example.

If I say whoever passes the exam receives a license that's one thing.

If I say whoever takes the exam passes, that's another. It's two different things.

And yes, with "believing" and "eternal life" there is far more to it, agreed. But let's read the verses for what they say, not what they don't say. I can well understand your not taking more time at this, and not because anyone is playing games or "dancing" but try as you might, you won't be able to make the Bible say other than what it actually does say.

Maurice Edwards said:

I'm not going to spend alot of time on this because I see you're dancing around my point. Last time! Whosoever (KJV) I believe means "anyone" can believe. Most Calvinists say only God's "elect" will and can believe. In other word, you can't believe unless God has elected you to believe or predestined you to. And God gave his Son for these same elect. Which is limited atonement. Show me this in scripture.< br/>
Marv said:

Now, in re: Mark 16:16. Of course, you'll know that this section of Mark is widely held not to be genuinely part of the gospel. Be that as it may, we will proceed with it as such.

The verse says that all people who believe and are baptized are saved.

And it says all who do not believe are condemned.

Definitely two groups--no "whole world" here. And for the moment let's set to the side the baptism part--I don't think that is what is exercising you here. Anyway, it say those who don't believe are condemned, not those who believe but are not baptized. So then I suppose it's the believing part that is the functional distinction. You agree?

So again, everyone who believes--i.e. has faith in Jesus--is saved, is justified,  receives eternal life, etc. Is that what you understand it to say? That's what Calvinists understand it to say too. Again, did you think that Calvinists teach that only SOME who believe are saved? Nope. All. Just like you do.

And everyone who doesn't believe--is condemned, perishes, dies in their sins, etc. Is that what you believe? That's what we believe too.

You can see, I'm really having a hard time understanding how either John 3:16 or Mark 16:16 flies in the face of Calvinism.

And besides, neither verse said the anything about whether God forgives the sins of those who don't believe before condemning them. Doesn't say one way or the other, but it does seem a bit odd for God to send people to hell when Christ has fully expiated their sins in God's sight and fully propitiated the Father through paying the penalty for their sins. Maybe He does this, but these verse don't say so.

Maurice Edwards said:

Well Marv, let's start with Mark 16:16 and John 3:16. The Calvinists that I know will say the "whosoever" and "world" means the "elect". And according to 1 John 2:2, if you want to label me to be a universalist, than that's what i am if that's means I believe Jesus' atonement and God's free gift of grace (Romans 5:15,18) was abounded and came upon "all" men. What I want to know is the scriptures that reveal God only desires to save an elect (special) people and pass over others. And throw in the one where Jesus' atonement only covered an elect (special) people. I wouldn't belive in or serve a God and savior that would allow one man to curse "all" of humanity but his plan of redemption is only offered to a select few. That would make this look real weak. 

 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. 

If "many" be dead means "all" be dead, than what does "many" mean in the "B Clause" grammatically?

Does "many" now change to being grace abounded to only the elect?

Marv said:

Lovely.

Except Mark 16:16 is perfectly in agreement with Calvinism. How does it conflict, much less "refute"???

I still don't understand how John 3:16 is supposed to be contrary to Calvinism either. Perhaps you could explain.

I understand why on the basis of 1 John 2:2 you don't hold to particular redemption. What I don't understand is why you are not a universalist, seeing as Jesus is the propitiation for the whole world.

Maurice Edwards said:

Mark 16:16, John 3:16, and. 1 John 2:2 are enough to refute Calvinism in my heart and conviction. God elected Israel and made a covenant with them that they continuously broke. Likewise Jesus died for the sins of the world yet many in the world will not believe. While we were yet sinners Christ died for the ungodly. So no, we can't boast because nothing we did moved God to give his Son for the world's sins. But we receive this free gift through our faith. So Christ accomplished his work not it's up to man to believe it and be saved.

[Marv]

You end with "show me that in Scripture." Okay. First, you can't believe unless god has elected you to believe or predestined you to.

I think we've been over this before, but...

First let's establish what "comes me me" means, it is used here for believing:

Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.(John 6:35 ESV)

You see this is quite parallel to John 3:15, "whoever." So far we have this: 100% of whoever comes to Christ receives the eternal life He offers (i.e doesn't hunger or thirst). A little later he says:

All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.
(John 6:37 ESV)

So we learn this, that 100% of those people the Father gives to Jesus believe in Jesus. So believing in Jesus is preceded by the Father giving the person to Jesus. It's something the Father's action effects. Okay all of those, but are there others? No, because we have this:

No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.
(John 6:44 ESV)

So now we see 0% of those whom the Father does not draw, does not bring to Jesus, does in fact come to Him, or believe in him. 100% of those the Father gives Jesus believe, 0% of anyone else.

In case we've missed his point, He says the same thing again:

It is written in the Prophets, ‘And they will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me—   (John 6:45 ESV)

100% of those who are so taught, hears and learns from the Father, comes to Jesus, believes in Him. And only those. 0% of anyone else. Now what is Jesus here to accomplish, what did the Father send Him to do, what is the will of the Father in sending Jesus into the world?

And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. (John 6:39 ESV)

The Father's will in sending the Son is that He save those given to Jesus, drawn by the Father, taught by God to believe in Jesus. Those the Father gives Jesus exactly equals those He draws to Jesus, and that exactly equals those who come to Jesus, which equals those who believe in Jesus, which equals those who are saved, receive eternal life, and that equals those Jesus raises on the last day. And this includes NO ONE unless the Father specifically draws Him. And the Father doesn't draw everyone. Or else everyone would believe in Jesus and everyone would be saved. And in the adjacent verse Jesus says:

For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.” (John 6:40 ESV)

...which frankly, sound a lot like John 3:16. It is even the same grammatical structure: pas ho... pisteuon. "All the believing..." So here we have it all that the Father gives to Jesus believes in Jesus, and all who believe in Jesus receive eternal life, and the Father sent Jesus so that all those He gives Jesus would rise to eternal life on the last day. The Father's will is to save THOSE people through Christ, not just random people.

And this is what Jesus means by giving life to "the world."

For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.” (John 6:33 ESV)

I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.” (John 6:51 ESV)

He brings life to the world, but the Father's will is not that everyone in the world will rise to eternal life, nor that it would be random people, but that it would be those the Father specifically gives to Jesus. And to put icing on the cake, let's skip over to chapter 10:

I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. (John 10:11 ESV)

I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me, just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep. (John 10:14-15 ESV)

Jesus specifically says he lays down his life for this group of people and not just everyone. Those who are "His" sheep know him and He knows them. Is everyone one of His sheep? No.

but you do not believe because you are not among my sheep. (John 10:26 ESV)

So those who are among his sheep are those who believe. From chapter six we know this is those the Father draws, whom the Father gives to Jesus. All they come to Jesus and believe, because they are His sheep. NOT BECAUSE THEY BELIEVE--that comes after, but because they are given to Jesus, as a flock, by the Father. They don't believe because they believe. They believe because the Father chooses to give them to Jesus.

And last:

My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand.
(John 10:27-29 ESV)

Here's all the John 3:16 language again. Eternal life, not perish. But this is not here said to be "whoever believes" but all who are Jesus' sheep, whom are given to Jesus by the Father. THEN they hear His voice and follow. ALL of them whom He calls and NONE he doesn't. All the Father gives are Jesus' sheep, all who are Jesus sheep Jesus calls to, all He calls to follow him, come to him, believe in him. And it is for this flock that He says He lays down His life, for this group the Father has sent Him so that He will raise them to eternal life on the last day.

This is Calvinism, or should we say Jesusism, because it all comes from Jesus.

 

Maurice Edwards said:

I'm not going to spend alot of time on this because I see you're dancing around my point. Last time! Whosoever (KJV) I believe means "anyone" can believe. Most Calvinists say only God's "elect" will and can believe. In other word, you can't believe unless God has elected you to believe or predestined you to. And God gave his Son for these same elect. Which is limited atonement. Show me this in scripture.< br/>
Marv said:

Now, in re: Mark 16:16. Of course, you'll know that this section of Mark is widely held not to be genuinely part of the gospel. Be that as it may, we will proceed with it as such.

The verse says that all people who believe and are baptized are saved.

And it says all who do not believe are condemned.

Definitely two groups--no "whole world" here. And for the moment let's set to the side the baptism part--I don't think that is what is exercising you here. Anyway, it say those who don't believe are condemned, not those who believe but are not baptized. So then I suppose it's the believing part that is the functional distinction. You agree?

So again, everyone who believes--i.e. has faith in Jesus--is saved, is justified,  receives eternal life, etc. Is that what you understand it to say? That's what Calvinists understand it to say too. Again, did you think that Calvinists teach that only SOME who believe are saved? Nope. All. Just like you do.

And everyone who doesn't believe--is condemned, perishes, dies in their sins, etc. Is that what you believe? That's what we believe too.

You can see, I'm really having a hard time understanding how either John 3:16 or Mark 16:16 flies in the face of Calvinism.

And besides, neither verse said the anything about whether God forgives the sins of those who don't believe before condemning them. Doesn't say one way or the other, but it does seem a bit odd for God to send people to hell when Christ has fully expiated their sins in God's sight and fully propitiated the Father through paying the penalty for their sins. Maybe He does this, but these verse don't say so.

Maurice Edwards said:

Well Marv, let's start with Mark 16:16 and John 3:16. The Calvinists that I know will say the "whosoever" and "world" means the "elect". And according to 1 John 2:2, if you want to label me to be a universalist, than that's what i am if that's means I believe Jesus' atonement and God's free gift of grace (Romans 5:15,18) was abounded and came upon "all" men. What I want to know is the scriptures that reveal God only desires to save an elect (special) people and pass over others. And throw in the one where Jesus' atonement only covered an elect (special) people. I wouldn't belive in or serve a God and savior that would allow one man to curse "all" of humanity but his plan of redemption is only offered to a select few. That would make this look real weak. 

 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. 

If "many" be dead means "all" be dead, than what does "many" mean in the "B Clause" grammatically?

Does "many" now change to being grace abounded to only the elect?

Marv said:

Lovely.

Except Mark 16:16 is perfectly in agreement with Calvinism. How does it conflict, much less "refute"???

I still don't understand how John 3:16 is supposed to be contrary to Calvinism either. Perhaps you could explain.

I understand why on the basis of 1 John 2:2 you don't hold to particular redemption. What I don't understand is why you are not a universalist, seeing as Jesus is the propitiation for the whole world.

Maurice Edwards said:

Mark 16:16, John 3:16, and. 1 John 2:2 are enough to refute Calvinism in my heart and conviction. God elected Israel and made a covenant with them that they continuously broke. Likewise Jesus died for the sins of the world yet many in the world will not believe. While we were yet sinners Christ died for the ungodly. So no, we can't boast because nothing we did moved God to give his Son for the world's sins. But we receive this free gift through our faith. So Christ accomplished his work not it's up to man to believe it and be saved.

[Maurice Edwards]

Marv, I'm very passionate about God's grace to the human race. So you'll have to excuse me. I've never agreed with Calvinism and probably never will. Humbly, and vigorously, I'm still struggling with John 6, and John 10. I agree that because of the fall man is totally depraved, and God must draw them by his grace and spirit. Paul says in Romans 1:16 that the gospel is the power of God unto salvation, to the Jew first and to the Gentile. And we know that we were called by and through the gospel. 2 Thessalonians 2:14. I believe no man can come to Christ unless they are drawn then. And how are they drawn? By the gospel! I believe Romans 10:13-17 proves this. Through the gospel God mysteriously  and secretly does something to man's heart (mind). Some say he gives man the ability to believe and come to Christ, but some will still reject this call. This all is still a mystery to me to be honest. So I stand on Romans 5:15, 18 and 1 John 2:2. I think these passages are very clear. And in John 10 Jesus says he has sheep that are not of the fold he was talking to who were Jews. Some say he was talking about the Gentiles. Some say he was talking about the "elect" within the Gentiles. Those details aren't there. I believe those who are given to Christ are those who believe and are then placed in Christ and in the family of God. (Adoption) I don't believe that those who are given to Christ are hand picked individuals that he gives to Christ and leaves the rest behind. I find that hard to believe looking at Romans 5:18. This is what I believe, stand on, and preach. Thanks for the dialog.

Marv said:

You end with "show me that in Scripture." Okay. First, you can't believe unless god has elected you to believe or predestined you to.

I think we've been over this before, but...

First let's establish what "comes me me" means, it is used here for believing:

Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.(John 6:35 ESV)

You see this is quite parallel to John 3:15, "whoever." So far we have this: 100% of whoever comes to Christ receives the eternal life He offers (i.e doesn't hunger or thirst). A little later he says:

All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.
(John 6:37 ESV)

So we learn this, that 100% of those people the Father gives to Jesus believe in Jesus. So believing in Jesus is preceded by the Father giving the person to Jesus. It's something the Father's action effects. Okay all of those, but are there others? No, because we have this:

No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.
(John 6:44 ESV)

So now we see 0% of those whom the Father does not draw, does not bring to Jesus, does in fact come to Him, or believe in him. 100% of those the Father gives Jesus believe, 0% of anyone else.

In case we've missed his point, He says the same thing again:

It is written in the Prophets, ‘And they will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me—   (John 6:45 ESV)

100% of those who are so taught, hears and learns from the Father, comes to Jesus, believes in Him. And only those. 0% of anyone else. Now what is Jesus here to accomplish, what did the Father send Him to do, what is the will of the Father in sending Jesus into the world?

And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. (John 6:39 ESV)

The Father's will in sending the Son is that He save those given to Jesus, drawn by the Father, taught by God to believe in Jesus. Those the Father gives Jesus exactly equals those He draws to Jesus, and that exactly equals those who come to Jesus, which equals those who believe in Jesus, which equals those who are saved, receive eternal life, and that equals those Jesus raises on the last day. And this includes NO ONE unless the Father specifically draws Him. And the Father doesn't draw everyone. Or else everyone would believe in Jesus and everyone would be saved. And in the adjacent verse Jesus says:

For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.” (John 6:40 ESV)

...which frankly, sound a lot like John 3:16. It is even the same grammatical structure: pas ho... pisteuon. "All the believing..." So here we have it all that the Father gives to Jesus believes in Jesus, and all who believe in Jesus receive eternal life, and the Father sent Jesus so that all those He gives Jesus would rise to eternal life on the last day. The Father's will is to save THOSE people through Christ, not just random people.

And this is what Jesus means by giving life to "the world."

For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.” (John 6:33 ESV)

I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.” (John 6:51 ESV)

He brings life to the world, but the Father's will is not that everyone in the world will rise to eternal life, nor that it would be random people, but that it would be those the Father specifically gives to Jesus. And to put icing on the cake, let's skip over to chapter 10:

I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. (John 10:11 ESV)

I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me, just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep. (John 10:14-15 ESV)

Jesus specifically says he lays down his life for this group of people and not just everyone. Those who are "His" sheep know him and He knows them. Is everyone one of His sheep? No.

but you do not believe because you are not among my sheep. (John 10:26 ESV)

So those who are among his sheep are those who believe. From chapter six we know this is those the Father draws, whom the Father gives to Jesus. All they come to Jesus and believe, because they are His sheep. NOT BECAUSE THEY BELIEVE--that comes after, but because they are given to Jesus, as a flock, by the Father. They don't believe because they believe. They believe because the Father chooses to give them to Jesus.

And last:

My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand.
(John 10:27-29 ESV)

Here's all the John 3:16 language again. Eternal life, not perish. But this is not here said to be "whoever believes" but all who are Jesus' sheep, whom are given to Jesus by the Father. THEN they hear His voice and follow. ALL of them whom He calls and NONE he doesn't. All the Father gives are Jesus' sheep, all who are Jesus sheep Jesus calls to, all He calls to follow him, come to him, believe in him. And it is for this flock that He says He lays down His life, for this group the Father has sent Him so that He will raise them to eternal life on the last day.

This is Calvinism, or should we say Jesusism, because it all comes from Jesus.

 

Maurice Edwards said:

I'm not going to spend alot of time on this because I see you're dancing around my point. Last time! Whosoever (KJV) I believe means "anyone" can believe. Most Calvinists say only God's "elect" will and can believe. In other word, you can't believe unless God has elected you to believe or predestined you to. And God gave his Son for these same elect. Which is limited atonement. Show me this in scripture.< br/>
Marv said:

Now, in re: Mark 16:16. Of course, you'll know that this section of Mark is widely held not to be genuinely part of the gospel. Be that as it may, we will proceed with it as such.

The verse says that all people who believe and are baptized are saved.

And it says all who do not believe are condemned.

Definitely two groups--no "whole world" here. And for the moment let's set to the side the baptism part--I don't think that is what is exercising you here. Anyway, it say those who don't believe are condemned, not those who believe but are not baptized. So then I suppose it's the believing part that is the functional distinction. You agree?

So again, everyone who believes--i.e. has faith in Jesus--is saved, is justified,  receives eternal life, etc. Is that what you understand it to say? That's what Calvinists understand it to say too. Again, did you think that Calvinists teach that only SOME who believe are saved? Nope. All. Just like you do.

And everyone who doesn't believe--is condemned, perishes, dies in their sins, etc. Is that what you believe? That's what we believe too.

You can see, I'm really having a hard time understanding how either John 3:16 or Mark 16:16 flies in the face of Calvinism.

And besides, neither verse said the anything about whether God forgives the sins of those who don't believe before condemning them. Doesn't say one way or the other, but it does seem a bit odd for God to send people to hell when Christ has fully expiated their sins in God's sight and fully propitiated the Father through paying the penalty for their sins. Maybe He does this, but these verse don't say so.

Maurice Edwards said:

Well Marv, let's start with Mark 16:16 and John 3:16. The Calvinists that I know will say the "whosoever" and "world" means the "elect". And according to 1 John 2:2, if you want to label me to be a universalist, than that's what i am if that's means I believe Jesus' atonement and God's free gift of grace (Romans 5:15,18) was abounded and came upon "all" men. What I want to know is the scriptures that reveal God only desires to save an elect (special) people and pass over others. And throw in the one where Jesus' atonement only covered an elect (special) people. I wouldn't belive in or serve a God and savior that would allow one man to curse "all" of humanity but his plan of redemption is only offered to a select few. That would make this look real weak. 

 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. 

If "many" be dead means "all" be dead, than what does "many" mean in the "B Clause" grammatically?

Does "many" now change to being grace abounded to only the elect?

Marv said:

Lovely.

Except Mark 16:16 is perfectly in agreement with Calvinism. How does it conflict, much less "refute"???

I still don't understand how John 3:16 is supposed to be contrary to Calvinism either. Perhaps you could explain.

I understand why on the basis of 1 John 2:2 you don't hold to particular redemption. What I don't understand is why you are not a universalist, seeing as Jesus is the propitiation for the whole world.

Maurice Edwards said:

Mark 16:16, John 3:16, and. 1 John 2:2 are enough to refute Calvinism in my heart and conviction. God elected Israel and made a covenant with them that they continuously broke. Likewise Jesus died for the sins of the world yet many in the world will not believe. While we were yet sinners Christ died for the ungodly. So no, we can't boast because nothing we did moved God to give his Son for the world's sins. But we receive this free gift through our faith. So Christ accomplished his work not it's up to man to believe it and be saved.