Do Matt 23:37 and 2Pet 3:9 Void Calvinism? (James White)

[searchthescriptures7]

The Pharisees keeping people from going to heaven and sending them to hell:How does this make sense in Calvinism?I thought that Calvinists teach that only God keeps people from going to heaven and sends them to hell arbitrarily.So according to Calvinism, Jesus is condemning the Pharisees for doing something that He predestined them to do! Furthermore, Jesus is addressing all Jerusalem in a lament,not just the Pharisees.And the verse is still clear that God's will did not override theirs.

[searchthescriptures7]

The Pharisees keeping people from going to heaven and sending them to hell: How does this make sense in Calvinism? I thought that Calvinists teach that only God keeps people from going to heaven and sends them to hell arbitrarily. So according to Calvinism, Jesus is condemning the Pharisees for doing something that He predestined them to do! Furthermore, Jesus is addressing Jerusalem as a whole in a lament, in which "your children" obviously means its citizens.

[helpyouseeit]

Dear friends. I think the bottom line is that there is no part of Sacred Scripture that directly defends sola scriptura or sola fide. Parts you may quote are open to multiple interpretations, and hence require an infallible authority to interpret them. Otherwise, we're left in the mud of relativism and/or speculation. Christ gave full authority to St. Peter for such a task. This full authority includes the power to hand on his authority. This authority is the Catholic Church.

[Romans9Apologetics]

@helpyouseeit

Dear Friend,

Can you please quote from scripture where Christ made Peter an infallible authority, or authority that he did not give to the other Apostles?

In Christ,

Joseph :)

[faithandpractice]

@Romans9Apologetics Hmmmm, I just read this comment that was written a month ago and see that he has yet to answer you.

[Romans9Apologetics]

@faithandpractice

Yeah I wouldn't be suprised if there isn't one. I don't beleive someone can be honest and defend this position. The simple fact is that the early Church got by fine with no Pope in Rome giving infallible creeds, or inventing new Marian dogmas.

I'm not sure how this individual can't seem to find Sole Fide and Sola Scriptura in scripture. 

[daveme7]

No 2nd Peter 3 does not oinvazlidate Calvinism. Context is everything there. We shoiuld look at the central theme of that chapter. Did God intend to give us a passage in order to invalidate Calvinism or an answer on why Christ has not come back at this time? Though I disagree on Psalms 12 as I do think it is the surety of words by his actions-God did not give this passage in order to defend the KJV but rather to contrast the words of man to the words of God. In fact-go there for Calvinism!

[yarrw]

What about 2Peter 3:10-13 Should we be waiting for a New Earth according to His promise and not heaven as is the general Christian doctrine.

[polopowers1]

Gathering together here is not about salvation but the gathering of Jews to one place with the King at its head. What Christ is suggesting is the Jews were not willing to be gathered because leadership was more about power than the promised Messiah and saving Israel as a nation. Christ is not talking Armenism but would not desire of Jerusalem leaders to free Jerusalem, from their rule hence, they were not willing.However when Christ gathers Jerusalem they will come to set up His kingdom.

[SERVANTofYHVH]

Wait, how are the Pharisees keep people out of heaven by binding burdens upon them and things that have nothing to do to trully follow God. If God has already preordained those men to Hell.

If God has Elected some to Heaven then nothing can stop them from going to Heaven, so how are the Pharisees keeping people out of heaven?

[bmd200]

Matt23 makes so much more sense now. Before it seemed as if Jesus is this weak  Savior that wanted to save but He just had to do a detour. Something never seemed right with the way I always heard the passage preached.

[denverwani]

Excellent, thanks

[thegdoat]

What is reformed theology?

[Nakdimon316]

Well, I like dr White, but I think his defence of this passage is just off. He tries to defend it by saying that the translation "gather YOU together" is wrong and it should be "gather YOUR CHILDREN" as if that makes a difference. It doesn't, the outcome is still the same. God wanted to gather people to Him but the leaders thwarted it. He said it himself, but I dont think he even realizes it. So there goes Irresistable Grace. So is his defence of 2Peter 2:1. Hebr 10:30 should also be considered.

[LaneCh]

So if the IRS called you and said they are going to give your income tax return to your neighbor and not you, does that not make a difference?

[Nakdimon316]

That is a strawman argument, Lane. A better analogy is saying that no one can stop you from entering a house and save children from the fire since YOU WANT to save them, but the neighbour keeps you from getting into the house. This is exactly what Calvinism teaches. We have no choice, period, since God's grace is irresistable and His election is unconditional. I believe that God can overthrow man's will and does so at times, but not in every single case. What's your take on Hebrews 10:29?

[LaneCh]

How is it a straw man? You said that it doesn't make a difference who Christ is talking to in that scenario. I am asking if you apply the same logic in other areas in your life that may hit closer to home. To call that a straw man is really sidestepping the issue. Please address if you're consistent with both examples. Also, please just define what you hold "irresistible grace" is because by your comment, I don't think you can accurately present our side even if you don't agree with it.

[Nakdimon316]

Becuz the analogy is totally misapplied. Indeed, it doesnt matter who Messiah referring to in Matthew, the outcome is still the same. Irresistable grace says if God wants to save people, they will be saved no matter what. The choice isnt theirs, its entirely His and no one can thwart it. Yet, Matt 23 debunks that. Not that God CANNOT save irresistably, but He simply doesnt in all instances. Matthew 23 clearly shows that there is a choice to be made by man to some extend.

[patrox247]

The theology of the historic protestant church

[thegdoat]

I don't really see how Matt 23 would void anything, but what about John 3:16? Such a basic scripture. "Whosoever", what does that word mean? What about when the gaurd asked Paul, "what must I do to be saved?", why didn't he say, "nothing, just hope the Lord chooses you". And what about when Jesus said that hell was prepared for the devil and his angels, if some people were born destined to go to hell, then it was prepared for them too, because hey, they were going there from the beginning.

[Nakdimon316]

Oh I do see Matt 23:37 void at least a few points of Calvinism: the T, the U and the I of TULIP. If God wants to save, that grace is supposedly Irresistable, and man cant respond because he is Totally depraved, and those who God wants to save are Unconditionally elected. Matt 23 takes all those out. It shows that God wants to save (I + U) but because "Jerusalem" doesnt CHOOSE to (T), He doesn't. Which means that man can CHOOSE which takes out the T of TULIP.

[CBALLEN]

The word whosoever is translated from greek ,the more percise traslation would be all who believe.The Bible teaches that no man seeks God since they are dead in trespasses and sin and will not search for God of their own freewill,if someone is concerned about salvation it is only because God is changing their heart proving that they are chosen.We are first born again,then we accept Jesus.

[renovatio1988]

fardawg i agree with you and your brother about studying the Bible from the Refromed point! its true for me too!

[Texas75023]

I really respect Dr. White's thorough study of the ancient texts.

But... when Jesus says 'Jesusalem, Jesusalem', it is an assumptive interpretation to claim He is specifically referring to All the Jewish leaders, and Only the Jewish leaders, and is segregating them for destruction and Hell by their LACK of specific mention.

Is not asserting an absolute, and therefore exclusive interpretation, in an attempt to rationalize Calvanism, being just as blinded by tradition of Calvanist thought?

[edwards417]

Have you ever read Matthew chapter 23? Jesus very clearly states that he is talking about the Jewish leaders. He says "Woe to you scribes and pharisees, hypocrites," seven times in that chapter. The chapter begins with, "Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples. Saying, 'The scribes and the pharisees sit in Moses' seat'".(Matt 23:1-2) Jesus rails against the leaders of Jerusalem through the entire chapter.

[fardawg]

My brother recently said that it wasn't until he understood Reformed theology that the Bible made sense to him and he could really study it without having to read into the text someone else's explanation to make it work. This is also my experience.

[Sumpfdotter22]

@fardawg this is so much my experience.

[fardawg]

Continued 2

They pretty much branded me a heretic and they got so upset that they walked away and refused to discuss the texts I gave them. It was that night that I became convinced of Reformed Theology, even though I didn't do a great job of presenting it, and understood man's refusal to give up his "will" to God's Grace.

A good thing that came out of that night, my brother began to listen to the DL and study more and he is now Reformed and more knowledgeable about the subject than myself.

[LaneCh]

Praise to Jesus! That's great!

[hasani42]

What would you say is a good book to giveto someone who doesnt know anything about reformed theology, and is a good representation of thedoctrine. I read Mouw's book Calvinism in the Las Vegas airport but it didnt really gonto any great detail scripturally why the doctrine is biblical. I did find a good site, google Roger Smalling and let me know what you think of his teaching materials, Im trying to find something to send to my Arminian friend, who ironically went to Moody.

[LaneCh]

For a good, short primer, I'd recommend Christopher Ness's An Antidote to Arminianism and James White's two books The Sovereign Grace of God and Drawn by the Father. These are short books, but will each give great overviews. The Sovereignty of God by Pink never hurt, either.

[hasani42]

Thanks, Pink's book the attributes of God was actually my introduction to reformed theology, although i had already been leaning towards and affirming predestination and election before I even knew what Calvinism was. Thats why I chuckled when Dave Hunt said no person would ever come to the conclusions Calvin did reading the Bible, even though i did on my own, well by God's Spirit without realizing it. Thanks again, your videos are really helping me grow more in my faith. Godbless.

[fardawg]

Continued...

The people who I was talking to, which included my brother, were horrified by the idea of God choosing who He was going to save and predestining them. They even denied that "predestined" in Romans meant "predestined".

Someone brought up Matt. 23:37 and skipped the ever so important "your children" and I had to point it out and show them the preceding verses in context.

TBC...

[fardawg]

I remember the first time I defended Calvinism. I was only studying it, due to my listening of the DL (Thank you Dr. White) and hadn't really made up my mind yet. It was during a Youth Group event at my Church and someone mentioned Calvinists in passing, saying that "those are the ones who believe in 'once saved always saved'". I said it wasn't that simple and began to explain, rather poorly on reflection, what Calvinism was. The more I explained the more I believed.

To be continued

[dlt1580]

John Calvin had 57 men murdered. He has never in all of his writings ever proclaimed Christ as his Lord. He believed Infant Baptism actually saved people. His teachings are a cancer and they are unGodly.

[LaneCh]

"John Calvin had 57 men murdered."

Do you care to document that with primary source material?

(cont...)

[LaneCh]

"He has never in all of his writings ever proclaimed Christ as his Lord."

Grant, Almighty God, that as we now carry about us this mortal body, yea, and nourish through sin a thousand deaths within us; O grant that we may ever by faith direct our eyes toward heaven, and to that incomprehensible power, which is to be manifested at the last day by Jesus Christ our Lord, so that in the midst of death we may hope that thou wilt be our Redeemer, (cont...)

[LaneCh]

and enjoy that redemption which he completed when he rose from the dead, and not doubt that the fruit which he then brought forth by his Spirit will come also to us when Christ himself shall come to judge the world; and may we thus alk in the fear of thy name, that we may be really gathered among his members, to be mane partakers of that glory which by his death he has procured for us. Amen

- John Calvin from Prayers and Devotions collected from his commentaries on the Minor Prophets (cont...)

[LaneCh]

"He believed Infant Baptism actually saved people."

This, moreover, plainly explodes the fiction of those who consign all the unbaptised to eternal death. Let us suppose, then, that as they insist, baptism is administered to adults only. What will they make of a youth who, after being imbued duly and properly with the rudiments of piety, while waiting for the day of baptism, is unexpectedly carried off by sudden death?

(cont...)

[LaneCh]

The promise of our Lord is clear, "He that hearth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, has everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, but is passed from death unto life," (John 5: 24.) We nowhere read of his having condemned him who was not yet baptised. I would not be understood as insinuating that baptism may be condemned with impunity. So far from excusing this contempt, I hold that it violates the covenant of the Lord.

(cont...)

[LaneCh]

The passage only serves to show, that we must not deem baptism so necessary as to suppose that every one who has lost the opportunity of obtaining it has forthwith perished. By assenting to their fiction, we should condemn all, without exception, whom any accident may have prevented from procuring baptism, how much soever they may have been endued with the faith by which Christ himself is possessed.

(cont...)

[LaneCh]

Moreover, baptism being, as they hold, necessary to salvation, they, in denying it to infants, consign them all to eternal death. Let them now consider what kind of agreement they have with the words of Christ, who says that "of such is the kingdom of heaven," (Matth. 19: 14.)

(cont...)

[LaneCh]

And though we were to concede every thing to them, in regard to the meaning of this passage, they will extract nothing from it, until they have previously overthrown the doctrine which we have already established concerning the regeneration of infants.

- John Calvin from his Christian Institutes Book 4 Pt. 16 Section 26.

(cont...)

[LaneCh]

"His teachings are a cancer and they are unGodly."

I think it's obvious to anyone reading your comments and the rebuttals from Calvin's own writings who really is presenting teaching that is a cancer, and, if you hold that libel is ungodly, I'm sure that you'd agree that what you've taken part in is ungodly this afternoon. You should repent from spreading falsehoods about the brethren.

[dlt1580]

No, predestination is an eletist bunch of crap that poorly portrays the Lord. Sadly for Clavin, he will have his reward for misleading so many people.

[LaneCh]

Here, folks, we have the response of someone who has been proven wrong according to primary source material and still refuses to repent of his lies. In fact, he has decided who goes to hell and who doesn't. The only reason I let this through is so people can see the danger that's involved in holding to one's tradition (or lies) INSTEAD of the truth. I will pray for your soul, dlt.

[dlt1580]

Raelly sad, calvinists defend their Lord John Calvin and christians share christ

[LaneCh]

Do you know what's really ironic? The same basic argument structure that's used by many of those who are against the Reformed faith is the same argument structure that's used by professing atheists in contempt of Christianity. Does anyone else find that the least bit ironic?

[fardawg]

dlt1580

I defend the right of my Lord Jesus Christ to do as He pleases with His vessels. "Calvinism" would still exist if John Calvin hadn't lived.

[LaneCh]

Amen.

[milkman589]

what slanderous lies get told by the opponents of sovereign grace. so sad cause they never repent for their lies, just hit our side with the same repetitive 4 passages of scripture and flying, lying mud balls. Then we defend ourselves with scripture they never listen as they are too busy reloading with more of the same ammo. I only pray the gospel is not hid to them for a reason.

[fralo70]

I saw a program on TV many years ago in which an excellent quote was made on Matt. 23:37. It was one of the crosstv videos narrated by Mark Keilar. I think it was dealing with election. Lane, if you know of which video I am speaking and have it in your collection, could you tell me the name of it please? I would really like to watch it again. Thanks. And thanks for posting these wonderful videos.

[LaneCh]

I may have it, but I'm not sure. I'm almost positive that it's the Sovereignty of God series, but I could be wrong about that.

[JesusMostHigh]

I would call myself a Molinist; the soteriology that William Lane Craig espouses, but I love the Reformed teachings.

Indeed, we do know that God elects, but we don't understand why or how. It is His sovereign right, yet He chooses not to disclose the reason why He chooses one and not the other...or on what basis does He choose one and reject another. It is not a random choice as if God closes His eyes and points a finger.

Romans 11:33

God bless.

[Joshpb80]

"It is His desire that none should perish, but that all come to repentance" A friend of mine tried to tell me 2 pet 3:9 doesn't rebunk Calvinism. But clearly it has to because a Christian cannot die a spiritual death that this scripture speaks of unless one can loose their salvation, but that too would contradict Calvinist theology.

[LaneCh]

I'm sorry, but WHAT?

I followed your argument until you got to "...Calvinism. But..." You lost me there.  Would you explain that further?

Also, 2Pet 3:9 doesn't debunk Calvinism. Watch this video, too:

watch?v=_A5A8XBRVbw

[sheriffquick]

What is your thought on the Jewish people,being that they are the choosen people,yet so few of them will see the Kingdom, according to the Bible?

[petemillner]

Surely Calvinism and Arminianism are missing the point? As far as I can tell, Arminians just seem to focus on the human part of the relationship, and Calvinists just seem to focus on what God does... while neglecting the other.

[LaneCh]

Well, the "Calvinism" you're speaking of sounds a lot more like Hyper-Calvinism (a heresy). There's a book called "Spurgeon vs. Hyper-Calvinism" that I think you would enjoy because it sheds a lot of light on this subject. Spurgeon, a Calvinist, fought vehemently against Hyper-Calvinism which denies human responsibility.

[petemillner]

sounds good, i will check it out.

[jsktheflash]

He is speaking to the saved or if I may, to the elect of God (the same ones given by the Father to the Son in John 6:37 & 39 and the same people who are foreknew, predestined, called [effectual], justified and glorified in Romans 8:29-30).

[jsktheflash]

2 Peter 3:9 (KEYWORD) - That key word is "...but the Lord is patient towards YOU..." Who are the "you" that Peter is addressing in his letter? The "you" that Peter is referring to is "those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours..."(see 2 Peter 1:1).

[apathyHurtsMore]

Great explanation of finding Mat 23:37 context right in the verse itself!

[reformedman]

I remember following along with this broadcast with both books about 7 yrs ago.

Thanks Lane, I am currently listening to it againn, definitely worth it.