D. James Kennedy: Solving Bible Mysteries

D. James Kennedy was not your average Calvinist. In his book, “Solving Bible Mysteries,” in the chapter on, “Whis is True--Predestination or Free Will?”, He made some statements that Arminians can point to in agreement. For instance, he flatly denied Double Predestination. He believed in some kind of Free Will, though he also believed in Total Depravity, clarifying the difference between freedom to do what we “want” vs. freedom to do what we “ought.” But surprisingly, he also believed in an Unlimited Atonement. Kennedy believed that Jesus died for all men:

D. James Kennedy writes: “So God makes His sovereign selection from among the human race, a race of sinful and corrupt people, all of whom deserve condemnation. But God extends mercy to a vast multitude. He must be just, but He doesn't have to extend mercy to any. Those whom He selects are saved---a great number out of every tribe and tongue and nation. He sends His Spirit to them to draw them to Himself. But what about the rest? Note carefully: God invites them all to come. With a sincere invitation, He offers them a free salvation, paid for at the cost of His own dear Son.” (Solving Bible Mysteries, p.30)

Did you catch that? Who did Kennedy say that Jesus died for? He’s referring to “the rest,” that is, those whom he believes were excluded from the “sovereign selection.” Clearly, he's indicating a universal provision, though one must believe in Christ in order to receive the blessings of Christ, which Arminians fully agree.

Kennedy adds: “The Bible never says that anyone is predestined to Hell.” (Solving Bible Mysteries, p.29)

D. James Kennedy writes: “Again and again we see that people are predestined (elected) to salvation--but nowhere do we see that anyone is ever predestined to condemnation of Hell. When we thing of God as unfairly, arbitrarily electing people to Heaven or Hell, it is as if we have a mental picture of a row of people sitting on a fence, and God passes down the line and points at each one, ‘It’s Hell for you, Heaven for you, Hell, Hell, Hell, Heaven, Hell...’ Now, that would be unfair--and absolutely capricious! But that's not the kind of God we love and serve.” (p.29)

Kennedy writes: “God has graciously created human beings with a free will.” (Solving Bible Mysteries, p.29)

He goes on to describe the bondage of the will, in agreement with the doctrine of Total Depravity, but the point is clear: Kennedy rejects Hard Determinism. At the very least, this makes him a Compatibilist (Soft Determinism).

Kennedy adds: “God does not cast anyone out. He does not bar the door. Those who are outside are outside by their own choice, because they keep God away.” (Solving Bible Mysteries, p.31)

However, if it’s their “own” choice via Hard Determinism, then it’s frankly not their “own” choice, but someone else’s choice. As most Compatibilists recognize, that’s part of the complexity that they must attempt to resolve, without simply deferring to paradox.

What did Kennedy teach about predestination and foreknowledge?

Kennedy writes: “For that is what predestination is--a decision that our sovereign, gracious, loving Almighty God made from all eternity when He looked ahead to a world of lost and rebellious sinners. It’s a decision He made to save a vast multitude of them through His Son, Jesus.” (Solving Bible Mysteries, p.31)

“Looked ahead”? As an Arminian, I believe that God, being eternal and dwelling independent of all time and space, can look back upon our future as if it was the past. So I don't necessarily think that God needs to “look ahead,” since God is not trapped by time as mankind is.

In any case, these were some of the interesting quotes that I found from this particular book by Kennedy, who was widely admired and appreciated by those on both sides of the denominational isle of Calvinism and Armininianism.

The Total Inability of God???

This may seem like a silly post, but allow me to explain. Many Calvinists have explained to me that "since man is totally depraved, God must..." and then it follows that God must regenerate him (i.e. preemptively make Born Again), if anyone is to be saved. Now my reservation to this is that it takes the perdicament of man, and forces something upon God. Why? Why is God's hand being forced by the depravity of man?

Think of it this way. There are several things that God cannot do. God cannot make a square circle. God cannot learn anything. God cannot sin. These represent various types of inabilities. For instance, the first is a logical contradiction by definition, rather than true inability, just as God cannot learn anything because He is all-knowing by nature. So that's not really true "inability." Additionally, God cannot sin, not because Jesus lacked the physical parts to sin. He was fully man, just as we are, but yet He never sinned, and wouldn't ever have sinned, indicative of His nature as God, which had a preference not to sin. However, if you were to say that God is trying to reach as many people as He can, but is struggling along, doing the best that He can, then that reflects a serious matter of genuine inability, and though some non-Calvinists prescribe to such a belief, such as Geisler and Hunt, I do not. I believe that God could persuade any unregenerate person to repent, but has a preference to only impart a certain measure of Prevenient Grace, which can increased by the intercessory prayers of Christians, and which is also encouraged by Christ. (Luke 10:2) In fact, consider the most fallen and depraved person that you know. Have you thought of them? Ok, now what if Jesus stepped out of heaven and appeared to them, just like He did with Paul? What would happen? Alright, consider another example: The rich man of Luke 16:19-31. Here was a man that was in torment in Hell, and what did he want to do? He wanted Abraham to let him go back so that He could warn his brothers. Imagine that! A resident of Hell wanted to be an evangelist (of sorts). I believe that if God applied enough pressure (which He could do), everyone would crack and submit.

Having said all of this, here is my point. If Calvinists had said that God "can" reach the unregenerate, without having to resort to preemptive regeneration, then they could appeal to God's "preference" as a basis for why He chooses a different alternative. However, often Calvinists instead maintain, "...man is so depraved that God must....", which just makes me cringle, due to the way that it seemingly limits God, and seemingly pushes the Almighty into a corner, where has no other option left to Him, but to utilize Preemptive Regeneration.

So my one point in all of this is this: Why don't Calvinists instead say, "man is so depraved, but that is no obstacle to God, who could reach them in their unregenerate state anyway, but due to His preference, He chooses Preemptive Regeneration instead"? So there it is. Why can't Calvinists defer to God's preference? Seriously. Why should the big bad finger of Total Depravity push an almighty God into a corner?

P.S. Often I'm told that I'm simply down-playing the depravity of man, and yet I'm not at all. I'm simply lifting up God's ability to overcome it, by virtue of His own intervention. Now if the discourse should enter into the realm of "well, why then doesn't everyone positively respond to His grace" gets to the nature of free will itself, but is also the starting point of another line of dialogue.)

The incompatibility of Compatibilism

There are two kinds of Determinism: Hard Determinism and Soft Determinism, otherwise known as “Compatibilism.” Wikipedia defines Compatibilism as “the belief that free will and determinism are compatible ideas, and that it is possible to believe both without being logically inconsistent ... compatibilists hold that free will and determinism are not mutually exclusive....”

First of all, Arminians reject Determinism. So the Arminian has no interest in trying to reconcile the two. The Arminian has a completely different view of predestination, which is one that involves God’s foreknowledge, as Acts 2:23 states: “...by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God....” However, the Arminian is interested in seeing how Compatibilists try to make Determinism work with Free Will, especially since both are polar opposites, where it often appears that Determinism only ends up in completely engulfing Free Will. In other words, if God “ordained whatsoever comes to pass” (Determinism) via a predetermined Script, penned before the foundation of the world, whereby all events in history unfold according to this alleged Script, how can there be any sense of Free Will? Wouldn’t it merely be an illusion of Determinism? Therefore, consider the following exchange in the book, Debating Calvinism, by Calvinist James White and non-Calvinist, Dave Hunt:

Calvinist, James White, explains: “The belief that God’s sovereign decree and man’s creaturely will coexist (compatibilism) and that since God judges on the basis of the intentions of the heart, there is in fact a ground for morality and justice.” (Debating Calvinism, p.320)

Dave Hunt responds: “Yes, God judges ‘the intentions of the heart,’ but Calvinism falsely says that He causes the intentions He judges. ... Compatibilism is double-talk.” (Debating Calvinism, 327)

White responds: “He has the temerity to say it is ‘double-talk.’ I might assign some weight to his assertion if I could bring myself to believe that he understood what it is.” (Debating Calvinism, p.331)

Hunt explains: “...God turned into good what Joseph’s brothers intended for evil. But if God caused the brothers to do evil, compatibilism is double-talk.” (Debating Calvinism, p.333)

So is that what Compatibilists believe? Do Compatibilists believe that God causes the sin that He judges? You should know that Hard Determinists reject Soft Determinism, and they simply reject Free Will altogether, and therefore make no attempt to reconcile the two. Some Hard Determinists candidly admit that they believe that God is the author of sin. They say that it is God’s sovereign right, for His own glory. Whether that makes them hyper-Calvinists is another matter.

So that brings us back to square one. How is it that Calvinistic Determinism and Free Will are not mutually exclusive, as alleged? Recently on CARM.org, I was told that it cannot be understood, but only accepted on faith, because it’s a paradox. However, if Compatibilists wish to make the assertion that Calvinistic Determinism and Free Will are compatible, don’t they have a duty to explain how they are compatible, without resorting to, “Well the Bible teaches both, so I don’t need to explain it!” It seems to me that they would have a duty to give a better answer than that. What say you?

R.C. Sproul & Middle Knowledge

In the following quote, Calvinist R.C. Sproul, in his book, What is Reformed Theology?, seems to indicate that Reformed Theology professes belief in "Middle Knowledge," and uses the illustration of a "Chess Master." However, it appears that Sproul makes this acknowledgement with the caveat that perhaps God decrees all contingenies, which I find a bit odd, and so I would like to get your take on the matter.

R.C. Sproul writes: "God's omniscience refers to God's total knowledge of all things actual and potential. God knows not only all that is, but everything that possibly could be. The expert chess player exemplifies a kind of omniscience, though it is limited to the options of chess play. He knows that his opponent can make move A, B, C, or D, and so forth. Each possible move opens up certain counter-moves. The more moves ahead the expert can consider, the more he can control his chess-game destiny. The more options and counter-options one considers, the more complex and difficult the reasoning. In reality no chess player is omniscient. God knows not only all available options, but also which option will be exercised. He knows the end from the beginning. God's omniscience excludes both ignorance and learning. If there is ignorance in the mind of God, then divine omniscience is a hollow, indeed fraudulent, phrase. Learning always presupposes a certain level of ignorance. One simply cannot learn what one already knows. There is no learning curve for God. Since no gaps exist in his knowledge, there is nothing for him to learn. For us to know what will happen tomorrow, we must guess concerning things that are contingent. If I say to a friend, 'What are you going to do tomorrow?' he might reply, 'That depends.' Those two words acknowledge that there are contingencies ahead and that what happens to us depends on these contingencies. It is said that God knows all contingencies, but none of them contingently. God never says to himself, 'That depends.' Nothing is contingent to him. He knows all things that will happen because he ordains everything that does happen. This is crucial to our understanding of God's omniscience. He does not know what will happen by virtue of exceedingly good guesswork about future events. He knows it with certainty because he has decreed it." (What is Reformed Theology?, pp.171-172)

So are we to conclude from R.C. Sproul that God knows all contingencies because He has decreed all contingencies? How would that make sense? Apply that logic to Matthew 11:20-24, and should we conclude that God decreed that if Tyre and Sidon had seen the Lord's miracles, that they would have believed? Unfortunately, Sproul does not come right out and say that God decreed all contingencies, or how God would decree undetermined events.

(Next week, we'll examine the quote by R.C. Sproul that states that there is essentially no difference between a non-Calvinist and a Pelagian. He calls it "a difference without a difference." The following week, I want to examine "Compatibilism." Currently, I have a post on CARM regarding an excerpt from "Debating Calvinist" that I will repost here for follow-up discussion. http://www.christiandiscussionforums.org/v/showthread.php?t=116338)

The miracles in David Tyree's grasp

As a diehard New York Giants fan, having grown up in central New Jersey, I have remained loyal to my childhood team ever since, and this past Superbowl, was a very special time indeed. But I'd like to share an article about one the Giants most least likely Super Bowl heroes, David Tyree, who carriers a bold testimony for Christ and is a tremendous role model for other young Giants players. David Tyree's miraculous catch is surpassed by an even greater miracle, the story of his conversion to Christ:

http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/viewtopic.php?t=425557

Debating Calvinism: Hunt vs. White

I would like to commit to one new Blog post every Wednesday, and in it, I would like to focus on exploring key excerpts from books pertaining to Calvinism & Arminianism. I pledge, Lord willing, to do my best to remain available for questions and feedback during that day, starting with today.

To start off, I'd like to say that I'm a huge fan of the book, Debating Calvinism, between James White and Dave Hunt, primarily due to its format and liveliness, and in it, I came across an interesting exchange concerning Lazarus, whom Jesus raised from the dead. So consider the following exchange, and I will pose my question:

James White: "Just as Christ had the power and authority to raise Lazarus to life without obtaining his 'permission' to do so, He is able to raise His elect to spiritual life with just as certain a result." (p.197) Turning to the conversion of Paul, White adds: "Paul could no more stop this divine resurrection than Lazarus could have stopped the Messiah from commanding Him to come forth." (p.206)

Dave Hunt: "He continues to mistakenly equate spiritual death with physical death and reasons that because Lazarus didn't give 'permission' to Jesus to raise him from the dead, sinners don't have to believe the gospel to be sovereignly regenerated. ... White must rely on this false and unbiblical comparison...." (p.210)

White does not respond specifically to Hunt's objection concerning Lazarus, but instead appeals to the example of Lydia, as per Acts 16:14. (p.218)

So my question is this: Why is the raising of Lazarus so universally invoked by major Calvinist authors as a means to illustrate spiritual regeneration? To respond with "well, prove that it's not indicative of spiritual regeneration," really isn't a strong answer, because it is the Calvinist who is making the positive affirmation. So shouldn't there be something in the text, in order to warrant such universal application? (Additionally, why is it that Lazarus is cited by Calvinists, instead of some other person that Jesus raised from the dead?)

To put it another way, Arminians nearly universally insist that Calvary is analogous to the Serpent on a Standard, as per Numbers 21:6-9, on the grounds that this was Jesus' own analogy. Now, while the issue of which elements of that event have a correlation to Calvary, may be debated, it cannot be disputed that this event does have an overall basis for asserting a comparison to Calvary. So the point is, then, whether citing the raising of Lazarus for spiritual regeneration, shares any similarity of strength for reference purposes.

7 Reasons NOT to ask Jesus into your heart???

Dennis M. Rokser is the pastor of Duluth Bible Church in Duluth, Minnesota, and has authored a publication entitled: “Seven Reasons NOT to ask Jesus into your heart.” Here is a link to his article, and I will provide a response:

http://duluthbible.org/widgets/download.aspx?file=%2ffiles%2fResources%2fPublications%2fBooklet_PDF_Files%2fSeven_Reason_3rdEdition.pdf

To begin, the author cites the personal accounts of Erwin Lutzer and Hank Lindstrom. The solution to Lutzer’s frustration is simply by believing what Jesus promised at Revelation 3:20, and Linstrom’s prayer is odd, given that if you feel that Jesus has left you, then it wasn't God that has moved, but you.

Nevertheless, let’s address each of the 7 points.

1) “Don’t ask Jesus into your heart because…it is never found in the Bible.”

Well why not at least cite the verse that people use to argue that it IS in the Bible, namely, Revelation 3:20? (He waits until point #6 to do this.)

2) “Don’t ask Jesus into your heart because…it is not how someone is saved.”

But if Jesus dwells in your heart, so does the Father (John 14:23), and how is that not salvation?

The author states that one “doesn’t have to pray to be saved,” and yet Romans 10:13 states that “whoever will call upon the name of the Lord will be saved.”

Additionally, the author states: “…sinners are not saved by their good/religious works, including asking Jesus into their heart…” Unfortunately, we are left with nothing more than simply to take his word for it.

3) “Don’t ask Jesus into your heart because…it requires no understanding of the Gospel of Grace to do it.”

A sincere prayer to invite Jesus into one’s heart accompanies an understanding that Jesus is both needed and that He can meet that need.

The author states: “Frankly, any five year old can ask Jesus into her heart without any true understanding of the person, work, and accomplishment of the Lord Jesus Christ….” Actually, make that any “four” year old, and frankly, Jesus said, “Permit the children to come to Me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.” (Luke 18:16)

The author asks: “Are you trusting in a prayer that you prayed to be saved?” Why not instead ask, “Are you trusting in the One to whom you prayed?”

4) “Don’t ask Jesus into your heart because…it confuses the means of salvation with the results of salvation.”

In other words, praying to ask Jesus to come into your heart “puts the cart before the horse” because you are in essence praying to receive the end result of salvation, that is, the indwelling of the Spirit of Christ, instead of praying for the start of salvation. The New Birth is also the end result of salvation, so should no one pray to be made Born Again either?

Calvinist, D. James Kennedy, states: “Our faith and our repentance are the work of God’s grace in our hearts. Our contribution is simply the sin for which Jesus Christ suffered and died. Would you be born anew? There has never been a person who sought for that who did not find it. Even the seeking is created by the Spirit of God. Would you know that new life? Are you tired of the emptiness and purposelessness of your life? Are you tired of the filthy rags of your own righteousness? Would you trust in someone else other than yourself? Then look to the cross of Christ. Place your trust in him. Ask him to come in and be born in you today. For Jesus came into the world from glory to give us second birth because we must--we MUST--be born again.” (Why I Believe, p.140)

5) “Don’t ask Jesus into your heart because…it either results in no assurance of salvation or brings a false assurance to people.”

The question is this: Are you trusting in a prayer that you prayed, or are you trusting in the person to whom you prayed? If you are trusting in the person to whom you prayed, namely Jesus, then the focus is not on you, but on God.

In terms of “assurance,” rest assured that on the basis of the biblically settled fact that God is both omnipresent and omniscient, that He hears you, at least for no other reason than because you can’t hide from Him. You will have to answer to Him for everything single thing that you will ever say and do. David said: “You scrutinize my path and my lying down, and are intimately acquainted with all my ways. Even before there is a word on my tongue, behold, O LORD, You know it all. You have enclosed me behind and before, and laid Your hand upon me. Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is too high, I cannot attain to it. Where can I go from Your Spirit? Or where can I flee from Your presence? If I ascend to heaven, You are there; if I make my bed in Sheol, behold, You are there.” (Psalm 139:3-8)

The author explains: “Now this is not to say that those who have asked Jesus into their heart are not saved. They may be genuine believers in Christ. But if they are saved, they have been reconciled to God through placing their faith in Christ, not by asking Jesus into their heart.”

However, asking Jesus into your heart is a matter of placing your faith in the One to whom you are praying, or else why are you praying to Him at all? If you do not believe that He exists, or that He answers, then why are you praying to Him?

The author explains: “While asking Jesus into your heart may be an expression of positive volition towards God, or may accompany faith in Christ, it certainly is not synonymous with faith in Christ alone.”

Why not? Doesn’t this sound like Special Pleading? After all, are you not trusting in the One to whom you are praying? Are you not positively answering the One who stands at the door of your heart, knocking? So how is that “not synonymous with faith in Christ alone” when it is entirely a matter of faith? Now if praying to Christ is nothing more than a ritual of repetitious prayer, then that’s one thing, but if praying to Christ is a matter of communication with God, then the author’s entire argument falls apart, as it has established a means of salvation, as per Romans 10:13.

6) “Don’t ask Jesus into your heart because…Revelation 3:20 does not teach it.”

Concerning the Church of Laodicea, the author asks, “Is it the unsaved or the redeemed?” So does the author really want to say that those whom the Lord described as being “wretched and miserable and poor and blind and naked” were actually taking up their cross daily and following Him? (I find it fascinating how some who profess a “Lordship Doctrine” simultaneously believe that Revelation 3:20 addresses believers???)

The author then states that the “door” of Revelation 3:20 means the door to a “meeting place,” and then has the audacity to say that those who believe that it is a door to a person’s “heart” is “totally foreign to this passage.” The fact is that Jesus used the symbol of a “door” before, and no, it wasn’t the door to a “meeting place.” Jesus states: “I am the door; if anyone enters through Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture.” (John 10:9) Next.

7) “Don’t ask Jesus into your heart because…it does not clarify the condition of salvation, it confuses it--especially with children.”

The author explains that children are “prone to imagine Christ in bodily form somehow living in the organ that pumps our blood.” However, I find it odd that the author opted not to perform a research study in order to bolster his hypothesis.

Article posted on CARM.org:

http://www.christiandiscussionforums.org/v/showthread.php?t=113841

R.C. Sproul and the "Demons of Fatalism"

Calvinist, R.C. Sproul, writes: “Predestination seems to cast a shadow on the very heart of human freedom. If God has decided our destinies from all eternity, that strongly suggests that our free choices are but charades, empty exercises in predetermined playacting. It is as though God wrote the script for us in concrete and we are merely carrying out his scenario.” (Chosen by God, p.51)

Sproul adds: “If He decides to allow something, then in a sense he is foreordaining it. ... If there is one single molecule in this universe running around loose, totally free of God sovereignty, then we have no guarantee that a single promise of God will ever be fulfilled. Perhaps that one maverick molecule will lay waste all the ground and glorious plans that God has made and promised to us. ... If we reject divine sovereignty then we must embrace atheism.” (Chosen by God, pp.26-27)

Sproul went on to state that in his conversion to Calvinism, he “no longer feared the demons of fatalism or the ugly thought that I was being reduced to a puppet....” (Chosen by God, p.13) The idea that God was more in control than he had previously imagined, allegedly helped Sproul to overcome his preconceived notions about Calvinism. Whether these notions were mere straw-man arguments or legitimate characterizations, seems to have been resolved in Sproul's mind by his insistence that all things must be scripted by God, even down to the last “molecule,” or else there is no assurance that God is really in control at all. Therefore, in wrestling with these difficult philosophical matters, Sproul surrendered to what he felt had made God, in his mind, more “sovereign.”

However, it seems like Calvinists have portrayed a type of God that is difficult to identify with. Imagine if you had a neighbor that said that they intend to have four babies, but that they intend to keep only the second one, and abort the first, third and fourth. Who could identify with such a couple, and how is that any different from the Calvinist doctrine of Unconditional Reprobation? Most Calvinists will respond that God’s ways are not our ways, and who are you O Man to question the Potter. However, God also says, “Come now, and let us reason together.” (Isaiah 1:18) Calvinists have portrayed a type of God who predestines the very things that He hates, and shows anger towards. There is an expression where it is said that we “make the weather, and then complain when it rains,” which is meant to convey the idea that when we create our own problems, we have no one else to blame but ourselves. So if God predestined the rebellion of Jerusalem and the rejection of its Messiah, how would the tears make any sense? How would the anger have any justification? Calvinists seem to parade the idea of God being unfair (i.e. Scandalous Grace), while insisting that He is nevertheless just, and then examples like Luke 12:48 are raised, where God says that with greater responsibility comes greater accountability, such that a person who did not know his master’s will and did deeds worthy of a flogging, will receive but a few, while the person who knew his master’s will and did not do it, will receive greater condemnation, on account that such knowledge made him more accountable, but yet if the person had total inability to do his master’s will, then how would greater knowledge make his increased judgment, in any way fair and just? So there are a lot of issues that a person must be willing to swallow in order to embrace Calvinism, namely, the “demons of fatalism,” the ugly thought of being “reduced to a puppet,” unconditional Theistic abortion, puzzling emotions and a contradictory sense of justice.

What did they see?

The Old Testament records that sometimes God gave people a glimpse into the unseen world. My question is this: Can you even begin to imagine what they must have seen? As examples, the following are four OT and two NT instances which come to mind:

1) Elijah asks Elisha for any last requests: "When they had crossed over, Elijah said to Elisha, 'Ask what I shall do for you before I am taken from you.' And Elisha said, 'Please, let a double portion of your spirit be upon me.' He said, 'You have asked a hard thing. Nevertheless, if you see me when I am taken from you, it shall be so for you; but if not, it shall not be so.' As they were going along and talking, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire and horses of fire which separated the two of them. And Elijah went up by a whirlwind to heaven. Elisha saw it and cried out, 'My father, my father, the chariots of Israel and its horsemen!' And he saw Elijah no more. Then he took hold of his own clothes and tore them in two pieces. He also took up the mantle of Elijah that fell from him and returned and stood by the bank of the Jordan. He took the mantle of Elijah that fell from him and struck the waters and said, 'Where is the LORD, the God of Elijah?' And when he also had struck the waters, they were divided here and there; and Elisha crossed over. Now when the sons of the prophets who were at Jericho opposite him saw him, they said, 'The spirit of Elijah rests on Elisha.' And they came to meet him and bowed themselves to the ground before him." (2nd Kings 2:9-15)

2) Elisah asks the Lord to open the eyes of his servant, Gehazi: "Now the heart of the king of Aram was enraged over this thing; and he called his servants and said to them, 'Will you tell me which of us is for the king of Israel?' One of his servants said, 'No, my lord, O king; but Elisha, the prophet who is in Israel, tells the king of Israel the words that you speak in your bedroom.' So he said, 'Go and see where he is, that I may send and take him.' And it was told him, saying, 'Behold, he is in Dothan.' He sent horses and chariots and a great army there, and they came by night and surrounded the city. Now when the attendant of the man of God had risen early and gone out, behold, an army with horses and chariots was circling the city. And his servant said to him, 'Alas, my master! What shall we do?' So he answered, 'Do not fear, for those who are with us are more than those who are with them.' Then Elisha prayed and said, 'O LORD, I pray, open his eyes that he may see.' And the LORD opened the servant's eyes and he saw; and behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire all around Elisha." (2nd Kings 6:11-17)

3) Moses sees a portion of God's glory: "Then Moses said, 'I pray You, show me Your glory!' And He said, 'I Myself will make all My goodness pass before you, and will proclaim the name of the LORD before you; and I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show compassion on whom I will show compassion.' But He said, 'You cannot see My face, for no man can see Me and live!' Then the LORD said, 'Behold, there is a place by Me, and you shall stand there on the rock; and it will come about, while My glory is passing by, that I will put you in the cleft of the rock and cover you with My hand until I have passed by. Then I will take My hand away and you shall see My back, but My face shall not be seen.'" (Exodus 33:18-23)

4) God confronts Job: "Then the LORD said to Job, 'Will the faultfinder contend with the Almighty? Let him who reproves God answer it.' Then Job answered the LORD and said, 'Behold, I am insignificant; what can I reply to You? I lay my hand on my mouth. Once I have spoken, and I will not answer; Even twice, and I will add nothing more.' Then the LORD answered Job out of the storm and said, 'Now gird up your loins like a man; I will ask you, and you instruct Me. Will you really annul My judgment? Will you condemn Me that you may be justified?'" (Job 40:1-8)

5) Paul sees Heaven: "Boasting is necessary, though it is not profitable; but I will go on to visions and revelations of the Lord. I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago--whether in the body I do not know, or out of the body I do not know, God knows--such a man was caught up to the third heaven. And I know how such a man--whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, God knows-- was caught up into Paradise and heard inexpressible words, which a man is not permitted to speak. On behalf of such a man I will boast; but on my own behalf I will not boast, except in regard to my weaknesses. For if I do wish to boast I will not be foolish, for I will be speaking the truth; but I refrain from this, so that no one will credit me with more than he sees in me or hears from me. Because of the surpassing greatness of the revelations, for this reason, to keep me from exalting myself, there was given me a thorn in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to torment me--to keep me from exalting myself! Concerning this I implored the Lord three times that it might leave me. And He has said to me, 'My grace is sufficient for you, for power is perfected in weakness.'" (2nd Corinthians 12:1-9)

6) John sees Jesus: "When I saw Him, I fell at His feet like a dead man. And He placed His right hand on me, saying, 'Do not be afraid; I am the first and the last, and the living One; and I was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of death and of Hades.'" (Revelation 1:17-18)

Can you imagine what these men must have seen?

Thoughts concerning the Cross

John the Baptist testified “Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!” (John 1:29)

What are we to make of this?

Adrian Rogers explained: “Can you imagine John the Baptist standing there on the banks of Jordan saying ‘Behold, the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the elect’? No, the sins of the world. ... He was talking about you there. We are in this world. Our redemption is prophesied.” (Jesus - Our Redemption Provided)

In terms of Jesus taking upon Himself the sins of the world, 4-Point Calvinist, William MacDonald, explains: “...by His death on the cross, the Lord bought the world and all who are in it. But He did not redeem the whole world. While His work was sufficient for the redemption of all mankind, it is only effective for those who repent, believe, and accept Him.” (Believer’s Bible Commentary, p.2295)

MacDonald adds: “The NT distinguishes between purchase and redemption. All are purchased but not all are redeemed. Redemption applies only to those who receive Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, availing themselves of the value of His shed blood (1 Pet. 18, 19).” (Believer’s Bible Commentary, p.2295)

Additionally, 5-Point Calvinist, R.C. Sproul, sums up the atonement views of his theological rival: “Historic Arminianism embraces particularism: not all people are saved, only a particular number of them. That particular group of people who are saved are those who respond to the offer of the gospel with faith. Only those who believe appropriate the benefits of the saving atonement in Christ.” (What is Reformed Theology, p.165)

To me, this seems right in line with Jesus' own analogy of Calvary, as told to Nicodemus at John 3:14-15, as it pertains to Numbers 21:6-9.

However, Sproul also warns: “What would have happened to the work of Christ if nobody believed in it? That had to be a theoretical possibility. In this case Christ would have died in vain.” (What is Reformed Theology, p.167)

How could that be a "theoretical possiblity," when yet at the very moment that Jesus was on the Cross of Calvary, Abraham's Bosom (as per Luke 16:19-31) was already full of the OT Saints? And what of all those who were alive and believed in Jesus during His earthly ministry? Did Sproul simply slip up in his logic?

http://www.examiningcalvinism.com/files/Gospels/John1_29.html