Greg Koukl - The Five Points of Calvinism Are One (1 of 2)

[bygracethrufaith119]

Wonderful. Saw Mr. Koukl speak, and he was very clear about the sovereignty of God. Election and the limited atonement is very clear biblically, but he also makes the logical connection between remission of sins and what we are or are not actually held to pay for. Those who are in Christ are no longer going to have to pay for their sins by suffering for eternity in hell.

[evewale]

yes but it's not limited in the since that Calvinist make it out to be as in that it is not OFFERED to ALL

[Jpiaathio]

Gods word vs mans thoughts and ideas and Gods word wins every time. John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Nowhere in the bible are the words limited atonement together in any one vs. I recommend reading Romans 5 than listen to this guy.

[SeraphsWitness]

@Jpiaathio Well that argument is a foolish one... do you believe in the trinity? The word appears nowhere in scripture.

It's logical and intelligent to infer doctrine from scripture and assign it nomenclature, regardless of whether that particular nomenclature appears in scripture.

I recommend reading Romans 9 instead of you.

[Jpiaathio]

@SeraphsWitness Yes I do believe in the Trinity. Read GENISES 1:2, 1:26, JOHN 10:30 1 JOHN 5:7, just a few verse that prove the trinity, without using the word "trinity". I still dont buy into this unconditional election after reading ROMANS 9. ROMANS 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the first-born among many brethren. The bible teaches that God FOREKNEW ALL.

[Jpiaathio]

@SeraphsWitness About ROMANS 9 Look at PROVERBS 28:13 He that covereth his sins shall not prosper: but whoso confesseth and forsaketh them shall have mercy. And ISAIAH 55:7 Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts:and let him return unto the LORD, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon. Gods hand of mercy is on all of us right now and he gives grace to whoever asks for it through Jesus Christ John 3:16

[metanoeo1]

@Jpiaathio Just a few verses you might want to check out regarding God's election of believers: 1 Thess. 1:4; Titus 1:1; John 13:18; John 15:16; Eph. 1:4; John 6:44; Acts 22:14; 2 John 13; Rom. 9:11; Eph. 1:11; Rom. 8:29; 1 Pet. 1:2; Rom. 9:15-16; 1 Cor. 1:27; Rom. 11:5; Luke 10:20; Eph. 1:6; 2 Thess. 2:13; Eph. 1:5; Eph. 2:10; 2 Tim. 2:4; Rom. 9:23; Rom. 8:30; John 17:6; Acts 13:48; Rom. 11:7; Mark 13:20; Luke 18:7; Ps. 33:12; Ps. 65:4; Is. 65:9; 1 Pet. 1:4-5; Col. 3:12; 2 Pet. 1:10.

[Trustandobey1]

@metanoeo1 Gods elect is Jesus Christ. Now try reading some of those verses you suggested that I should look at. Only this time, read them with the thought of Jesus Christ being the elect. I hope this will help you understand Gods word more clear. Salvation is for anyone who will receive Jesus Christ. Romans 5:18 says so. Here is a rule of thumb. Never try to over ride an easly understood vs. with a hard to understand vs. 

[metanoeo1]

@Trustandobey1 How in the world do you figure that the elect of God is Christ Jesus? Talk about eisegesis. Jesus Christ is God, how then could He be "God's elect" as you state? Doesn't make the least bit of sense. I get your angle and where you come from on this, but seriously, no way is that what the word of God teaches.

[Trustandobey1]

@metanoeo1 I figure Jesus Christ is the elect because the bible says so. Isiah 42:1 Behold my servant, whom I uphold;mine ELECT, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgement to the Gentiles. 1 Peter 2:6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Zion a chief conerstone, ELECT, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.

[metanoeo1]

@Trustandobey1 Your capitalized word "elect" is more commonly translated as "chosen" on both accounts, as the 1 Peter reference is a quotation of Isaiah. But seeing as you're quoting so strongly from the KJV, I understand why you might not be aware of more accurate translation, but that's another conversation. Nice try, though.

[metanoeo1]

@Jpiaathio Here are a few examples of election in Scripture: Isaac - Gen. 21:12; Abraham - Neh. 9:7; Zerubbabel - Hag. 2:23; The Apostles - John 13:18 & 15:19; Jacob - Rom. 9:12-13; Rufus - Rom. 16:13; Paul - Gal. 1:15.

These are just a few examples of God choosing some to Himself, while not choosing others.

[MODERATECALVINISM]

Isaiah 26:12

LORD, you establish peace for us; all that we have accomplished you have done for us.

[ryanpott]

How can you Limit the atonement AND be evangelistic?

Koukl is smart. But does God fit into your system of theology, or is He too big to be systemized?

[stegokitty]

Every Christian "limits" the atonement:

Arminians and Semi-Pelagians limit the POWER of the atonement -- that Christ's death accomplished nothing, but only made salvation possible (to no one in particular).

Calvinists (& the Bible) limit the SCOPE of the atonement to those for whom Christ actually died -- the elect, those given to the Son by the Father before the foundation of the world.

Christ's death accomplished redemption, salvation. The Holy Spirit applies it to them in time.

[sketchbook1]

It is exactly the L in TULIP that is ultimately the least supported by scriptures, and the one for which the most eisegesis has to happen to support.

And if it be shown to be false, the whole edifice of TULIP comes crashing down.

[stegokitty]

There's no lack of support for Particular Redemption at all (Limited Atonement). Christ said he laid down his life for the SHEEP, not the goats. His sheep hear his voice and follow him -- every time!

The TULIP is indestructible for the simple reason that it's the teaching of the Scriptures.

[sketchbook1]

On the "payment" view of Atonement-- if you buy into that, of course you'll have to believe that all who were atoned were therefore by necessity saved...

And his argument about the credit card is fun but paints a false picture of how the payment gets applied to the debtor.

It's more like a check that has to be cashed.

So now which example is correct? My check analogy is just as fun as his credit card analogy, so which one proves the point about atonement? (tongue in cheek)

[truevoiceofsanity]

was calvin evil?

he killed somebody for disagreeing with him. Michael Servetus was killed on calvin's command. none of the apostle's condoned this.

;).

Did God elect calvin to go to hell. ;).

[stegokitty]

Actually Calvin killed no one. The government executed Servetus from unrepentant crimes. Calvin tried to get him to repent (his heresies had nothing to do with Predestination, but rather were for denying the Trinity, denying the deity of Christ), but to no avail. Calvin also tried to get the government to behead him instead of burning him, so that it would be quick and painless, but he was turned down.

Falsely accusing someone is breaking the 9th commandment. You need to repent.

[truevoiceofsanity]

Calvin was o.k. with him being beheaded!!!

Losing your head is still execution.

He killed Seretus both by reporting him as a heretic and by not advocating the Servetus's life be saved.

Convincing him to change his views is another matter than doing it at the point of a sword.

[stegokitty]

Try not to twist my words. Calvin asked for beheading as a favour to Servetus. I'd personally rather beheaded, rather than burn at the stake - wouldn't you?

Reporting him as a heretic was the law. And it's too bad that it's not still the law.

Calvin didn't have Servetus at the point of the sword. The government had him that way. Servetus KNEW of the trouble and went around with his heresies anyhow. He was warned several times. All he had to do was to stop teaching against the Trinity.

[truevoiceofsanity]

Threat of being reported as a heretic is metaphorically putting somebody on the sword.

Servatus was arguing according to his understanding of scripture.

Calvin responding by having him reported as being a heretic. Calvin was involved in denouncing him this way and thus almost directly, Calvin, unable to argue using logic, murdered his opponent.

Quite different than the aposles?

I'd rather not be killed. I'd lie quite happily to save my life.

[stegokitty]

Servetus was a heretic who denied the necessary doctrine of the Trinity.

Your statements concerning Calvin's "lack of logic" only serves to prove you know nothing of Calvin.

Try reading a real historical account of the matter before shooting off at the mouth (as you're presently doing).

So are you also an anti-trinitarian?

[NB3K]

@truevoiceofsanity NO NO NO

Calvin tried to get Servetus to recant his statements. Calvin then plead for a mercy death by beheading by the sword than burning at the stake. Servetus was a marked man in every state in Europe. He just happened to get caught in Geneva

[truevoiceofsanity]

From wiki, 'When Servetus mentioned that he would come to Geneva if Calvin agreed, Calvin wrote a letter to Farel on 13 February 1547 noting that if Servetus were to come, he would not assure him safe conduct: "for if he came, as far as my authority goes, I would not let him leave alive"'.

Apparently Calvin, lost patience with him. He was a murderer, short, plain and simple. It doesn't matter whether he lit the match or not.

[stegokitty]

Actually Calvin was obeying the law of the land. Your accusation is the same as that of accusing one who turns in a wanted criminal of murder, if said criminal is executed.

This is also the same sort of thing that modern people make concerning slavery "Oh! I'd never own a slave" -- all the while, the truth being, that if they lived at that time, and were wealthy, they not only would own slaves, but they'd find nothing wrong with it.

Interpreting the past via a modern lens is foolish.

[truevoiceofsanity]

I was viewing from an ancient lens and that lens was the christianity of the apostles. Slavery is a completely different issue. It can be argued that the apostles considered slavery status quo.

It can`t be argued that they were o.k. with killing heritics or turning them into the authorites.

I agree that in the context of the time, said behaviour was the norm

[zudabeck]

Jesus died to atone for all the world's sin. That is, His death on the cross was sufficient to atone for everyone's sin past, present and future. The difference here is not that those who do not accept salvation did not have their sin atoned for, but rather that they choose by free will to REJECT the propitiation for their sins which was made available to them through repentance and faith.

[ChristLovesEvenMe]

i like this guy!! what station does he speak on

[iint3grity]

Is it unfair for God to predestinate for some a conformity to Christ which others have no desire for anyways? (Rom 8:29; 3:11)

How do texts about God's universal love for all mankind nullify texts about His electing grace for all kinds of men? (John 3:16; 1Tim 2:4; Rev 5:9; Acts 13:48)

Does God require unsaved people to pay for sin in hell that Jesus already paid for on the cross?

Did Jesus atone for the sins of those who died and went to hell before He came into the world?

[TheNixaConservator]

read the first chapter of ephesians...

[rbfaulkner]

Greg, am I understanding you incorrectly? Let us go from the wordsmithing to the effect. My freedom is to go to hell or to go to hell unless God picks me for some unknowable reason? And the only "will" involved is God's election? If this is true I do not understand what purpose you serve on the radio? God will choose whom He chooses and it is irresistible. God needs no reason or reasoning to convince anyone where there is absolute irresistibility. - I respected you! Now I am just sad.

[dubvishun]

calvinist are wrong ..and no-such thing as limited atonement --its basic..atonement is for those who choose the atonement and become a new creature striving a sinless life goin thru a season of sorrow first..no thinkin..just plain as day. how the heak this stuff is believed ..freekie. payment for sin is not treated as a sigificant gift from God and reacted by biblical commands & refused to get the obvious then ears will be turned to deaf...ultimately becomin reprobate.

[mikevoter]

Calvinism actually teaches that people go to Heaven or Hell based solely on God's decree. That is first cause in their thinking. Thus the power of the Gospel is ignored or nulified.

[Prohoridzo]

mike, The power of the Gospel IS God's decree.

[mikevoter]

Whatever that means ... why then does it take five points for you guys to explain it? Deny it would be more precise.

[Prohoridzo]

Five points to explain/deny what?

[mikevoter]

John 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father that sent me draw him: and I will raise him up in the last day. This is the primary text of Calvinism on this subject. It is NEVER good to build a major doctrine on such a narrow base! Christ explained "drawing" in the next verse; it's the teaching of the scriptures . If these Jews had believed their own Prophets, they would have come to Christ. No one can be drawn to Christ apart from the Scriptures instruction. John 6:45

[Prohoridzo]

mikevoter: You have failed to substantiate why you think this it the 'primary text of Calvinism'. Please explain, otherwise your just blowing wind and obviously setting up a straw man.

[Oct31st1517]

Amen. Scriptual. concise.

[theenot]

christ died for the world so everyones' sin is paid but only to those who desire & ask etc.. no problem - theres never a limit of holiness,grace,atonment,love,h­atred of God..no repentance & turning = goin thru "that season of Godly sorrow" then hell awaits. Intellectualizing the scripture fooling the simple minded by rationalizing this doctrine is legit/old/orininal framing an unholy thought process perverting the easy truth of salvation & the strict guidlines yielding the narrow path is damning