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]

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]

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."

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

 

[Machaira]

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]

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]

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?

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]

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]

"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]

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]

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

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.

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]

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.

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.