# Calvinism's Proof Texts Examined



## JM

Has anyone had the chance to read David Cloud's new attack on the doctrines of Grace sent out in his email news letter? 



> Matthew 20:28 -- "Even as the Son of man came not
> to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to
> give his life a ransom for many."
> 
> That Jesus gave His life a ransom for many does
> not mean that He gave His life a ransom only for
> the elect. This would contradict 1 Tim. 2:6 and 1
> John 2:2 and many other Scriptures.
> 
> John 10:11 -- "I am the good shepherd: the good
> shepherd giveth his life for the sheep."
> 
> Again, that Jesus gave His life for the sheep is
> not to say that He did not also give His life to
> make it possible for all men to be saved.
> 
> Acts 20:28 -- "Take heed therefore unto
> yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which
> the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed
> the church of God, which he hath purchased with
> his own blood."
> 
> Again, that God purchased the church with his own
> blood is not to say that the atonement was
> limited to those who would be saved. The
> Calvinist Limited Atonement doctrine must be read
> into these verses.
> 
> John 11:49-52 -- "And one of them, named
> Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year,
> said unto them, Ye know nothing at all, Nor
> consider that it is expedient for us, that one
> man should die for the people, and that the whole
> nation perish not. And this spake he not of
> himself: but being high priest that year, he
> prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation;
> and not for that nation only, but that also he
> should gather together in one the children of God
> that were scattered abroad."
> 
> Arthur Pink says that he would be willing to rest
> his doctrine of Limited Atonement upon this
> passage "more than any other" (The Sovereignty of
> God, p. 66).
> 
> But John 11:49-52 says nothing about the extent
> of Christ's atonement. To say that Jesus died for
> those who will be saved is not to say that He
> died ONLY for those who would be saved.






> Acts 16:14 -- "And a certain woman named Lydia, a
> seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which
> worshipped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord
> opened, that she attended unto the things which
> were spoken of Paul."
> 
> No person can be saved unless the Lord opens his
> or her heart. This is not a Calvinist doctrine
> but a doctrine that all Bible believers
> understand and believe.
> 
> To say that God opened Lydia's heart so that she
> attended unto the things of Christ is not to say
> that God has pre-selected only a certain number
> of sinners to be saved. It is also not to say
> that God does not attempt to save the non-elect.
> It is also not to say that Lydia was Irresistibly
> Called or that she was sovereignly regenerated
> and then given faith. All of this Calvinist
> doctrine must be read into the passage.



So what does the passage say then? Cloud's arguments are so weak I can't believe it. 

j


----------



## Civbert

Amazing. He's argument is 'this doesn't say what it says'.


----------



## Mathetes

I recall reading Wesley's commentary at Acts 13:48 and his comments were along the lines of, "what this means, it's not predestination". This seems to be along the same lines.


----------



## toddpedlar

"The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep" also doesn't deny that Jesus laid down his life in order to instruct me personally that I should lecture in a jock strap and fire helmet today. 

I guess I disobeyed that direct order. Too bad my exegesis isn't as good as Mr. Cloud's.


----------



## reformedman

as AW Pink said that he rested his belief in limited atonement on that particular verse, I personally would rest my belief in the doctrine on one particular verse also: Eph 5 where it says, husband love your wife. I believe this verse is the strongest of all because Christ is very clearly saying that he did NOT die for all people but for the church. The depth of it is so profound to me that I wish I could find a book dedicated to this verse related to the doctrine of limited atonement. Kuyper spoke a little but I don't believe he touched the tip on it. Christ doesn't only say that he died for the church, he much more than that implies, that he definitely didn't ONLY JUST die for the church because he loved it; but rather that he loved the church so much that because of that particular love, he died ONLY for her.

Otherwise, Christ would alternately be saying to men, love your wife and other women also.
Otherwise, the verse is filler saying in essence, Christ died for the church and everyone else which equals, Christ died for everyone.


----------



## Machaira

Civbert said:


> Amazing. He's argument is 'this doesn't say what it says'.



Arminians love to play this game with the text of Scripture. One morning I heard the following on the Voice of Prophesy:

_*"First of all, I believe that the “predestination” flavor of Romans 8:28 is entirely trumped by the clarion gospel statement of II Peter 3:9. When we purchase airtime here at the Voice of Prophecy, I promise you, this is the verse we hold to!"*_

http://www.vop.com/daily_archive.php?date=2007-07-20

Too bad the host ripped 2 Pet 3:9 out of context and failed to consider "audience relevance."


----------



## Calvibaptist

Machaira said:


> Civbert said:
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing. He's argument is 'this doesn't say what it says'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arminians love to play this game with the text of Scripture. One morning I heard the following on the Voice of Prophesy:
> 
> _*"First of all, I believe that the “predestination” flavor of Romans 8:28 is entirely trumped by the clarion gospel statement of II Peter 3:9. When we purchase airtime here at the Voice of Prophecy, I promise you, this is the verse we hold to!"*_
> 
> http://www.vop.com/daily_archive.php?date=2007-07-20
> 
> Too bad the host ripped 2 Pet 3:9 out of context and failed to consider "audience relevance."
Click to expand...


How can any verse "entirely trump" another? This is a ridiculous statement.


----------



## Machaira

Calvibaptist said:


> How can any verse "entirely trump" another? This is a ridiculous statement.



Every arminian I've ever debated plays this game of "my verse cancels out your verse." Maddening, isn't it?


----------



## Mathetes

Calvibaptist said:


> How can any verse "entirely trump" another? This is a ridiculous statement.



No kidding. A statement like that should be translated, "Please don't take me seriously, ever."


----------



## Greg

Machaira said:


> Calvibaptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can any verse "entirely trump" another? This is a ridiculous statement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every arminian I've ever debated plays this game of "my verse cancels out your verse." Maddening, isn't it?
Click to expand...


I guess they don't hold to a very serious view of the inspiration of Scripture to say this sort of thing.


----------



## Mathetes

It reminds me of Dave Hunt's book with James White. "Sure, God is sovereign, *BUT*..."


----------



## Davidius

reformedman said:


> as AW Pink said that he rested his belief in limited atonement on that particular verse, I personally would rest my belief in the doctrine on one particular verse also: Eph 5 where it says, husband love your wife. I believe this verse is the strongest of all because Christ is very clearly saying that he did NOT die for all people but for the church. The depth of it is so profound to me that I wish I could find a book dedicated to this verse related to the doctrine of limited atonement. Kuyper spoke a little but I don't believe he touched the tip on it. Christ doesn't only say that he died for the church, he much more than that implies, that he definitely didn't ONLY JUST die for the church because he loved it; but rather that he loved the church so much that because of that particular love, he died ONLY for her.
> 
> Otherwise, Christ would alternately be saying to men, love your wife and other women also.
> Otherwise, the verse is filler saying in essence, Christ died for the church and everyone else which equals, Christ died for everyone.



That's really interesting! I had never thought about that passage in that way...


----------



## Poimen

toddpedlar said:


> "The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep" also doesn't deny that Jesus laid down his life in order to instruct me personally that I should lecture in a jock strap and fire helmet today.
> 
> I guess I disobeyed that direct order. Too bad my exegesis isn't as good as Mr. Cloud's.


----------



## A5pointer

That stuff is the same old tired argument, not even worth being concerned about. If you want to quiet down Arminians, ask them to exegete Romans 9. You will never hear back from them again on that and if you do it will be comical when they try to explain it away. I sat two feet from Norman Geisler at a seminar he was doing on his book(the only calvinist in the room). He was a gentleman but very wrong. His explanation of Romans 9 broke every interpretive rule and was really laughable.


----------



## Anton Bruckner

I am beginning to think that those persons who after much reproof by the doctrines of grace, when they still continue pouting this democratic arminian garbage are reprobates and enemies of the gospel.


----------



## A5pointer

Slippery said:


> I am beginning to think that those persons who after much reproof by the doctrines of grace, when they still continue pouting this democratic arminian garbage are reprobates and enemies of the gospel.



Yikes, that is a tough one. I do know people who say that they are. I am not willing to say so but I sypathize with the conclusion.


----------



## jbergsing

JM said:


> Has anyone had the chance to read David Cloud's new attack on the doctrines of Grace sent out in his email news letter?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew 20:28 -- "Even as the Son of man came not
> to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to
> give his life a ransom for many."
> 
> That Jesus gave His life a ransom for many does
> not mean that He gave His life a ransom only for
> the elect. This would contradict 1 Tim. 2:6 and 1
> John 2:2 and many other Scriptures.
> 
> John 10:11 -- "I am the good shepherd: the good
> shepherd giveth his life for the sheep."
> 
> Again, that Jesus gave His life for the sheep is
> not to say that He did not also give His life to
> make it possible for all men to be saved.
> 
> Acts 20:28 -- "Take heed therefore unto
> yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which
> the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed
> the church of God, which he hath purchased with
> his own blood."
> 
> Again, that God purchased the church with his own
> blood is not to say that the atonement was
> limited to those who would be saved. The
> Calvinist Limited Atonement doctrine must be read
> into these verses.
> 
> John 11:49-52 -- "And one of them, named
> Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year,
> said unto them, Ye know nothing at all, Nor
> consider that it is expedient for us, that one
> man should die for the people, and that the whole
> nation perish not. And this spake he not of
> himself: but being high priest that year, he
> prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation;
> and not for that nation only, but that also he
> should gather together in one the children of God
> that were scattered abroad."
> 
> Arthur Pink says that he would be willing to rest
> his doctrine of Limited Atonement upon this
> passage "more than any other" (The Sovereignty of
> God, p. 66).
> 
> But John 11:49-52 says nothing about the extent
> of Christ's atonement. To say that Jesus died for
> those who will be saved is not to say that He
> died ONLY for those who would be saved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Acts 16:14 -- "And a certain woman named Lydia, a
> seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which
> worshipped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord
> opened, that she attended unto the things which
> were spoken of Paul."
> 
> No person can be saved unless the Lord opens his
> or her heart. This is not a Calvinist doctrine
> but a doctrine that all Bible believers
> understand and believe.
> 
> To say that God opened Lydia's heart so that she
> attended unto the things of Christ is not to say
> that God has pre-selected only a certain number
> of sinners to be saved. It is also not to say
> that God does not attempt to save the non-elect.
> It is also not to say that Lydia was Irresistibly
> Called or that she was sovereignly regenerated
> and then given faith. All of this Calvinist
> doctrine must be read into the passage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what does the passage say then? Cloud's arguments are so weak I can't believe it.
> 
> j
Click to expand...

But those verses he quoted do say what he says they don't say. (Did I say that right?) His arguments are, as you said, unbelievable. This is typical of someone who isn't interested in the truth but, above all else, in being right.


----------



## Broadus

Cloud reminds me of how _I_ used to argue against the doctrines of grace. My thinking was a bit clouded, too.

Bill


----------



## Gryphonette

*I've never thought of this before! A wonderful reflection.*



reformedman said:


> as AW Pink said that he rested his belief in limited atonement on that particular verse, I personally would rest my belief in the doctrine on one particular verse also: Eph 5 where it says, husband love your wife. I believe this verse is the strongest of all because Christ is very clearly saying that he did NOT die for all people but for the church. The depth of it is so profound to me that I wish I could find a book dedicated to this verse related to the doctrine of limited atonement. Kuyper spoke a little but I don't believe he touched the tip on it. Christ doesn't only say that he died for the church, he much more than that implies, that he definitely didn't ONLY JUST die for the church because he loved it; but rather that he loved the church so much that because of that particular love, he died ONLY for her.
> 
> Otherwise, Christ would alternately be saying to men, love your wife and other women also.
> Otherwise, the verse is filler saying in essence, Christ died for the church and everyone else which equals, Christ died for everyone.


Wow. Now you've pointed it out it just leaps out at me. Thanks so much!


----------



## Anton Bruckner

A5pointer said:


> Slippery said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am beginning to think that those persons who after much reproof by the doctrines of grace, when they still continue pouting this democratic arminian garbage are reprobates and enemies of the gospel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yikes, that is a tough one. I do know people who say that they are. I am not willing to say so but I sypathize with the conclusion.
Click to expand...

I know its tough but I am being forced to that position.

I am not talking about the average run of the mill arminian. I am talking about those who got the doctrines of grace upside, downside, inside and outside their heads. And in addition to this, they ardently read Calvin, Luther, Augustine, Hodge, Spurgeon and Edwards, for the sole purpose of trying to find holes to develop counter arguments. I think a person on this level is a person who sees the gospel in its true light, and reject it, for the figment of their own imaginations. i.e idolatry.


----------

