A Highly Interesting Article

Hello Allan,

It seems your argument is along these lines...

Premise 1: The offer of God is salvation.
Premise 2: The offer of God is made to the non-elect.
Conclusion: Provision has been made in the atonement for the non-elect.

The argument as it stands is invalid - the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises. Not withstanding that, I suspect a Calvinist would take issue with your premise 1. They might argue that the offer is not simply salvation, but rather salvation upon a condition - that condition being that one believes. They would agree that for God to be able to make this conditional offer in any real sense, then it must be the case that all who believe will be saved. Now, in terms of the atonement this presents at least two possibilities:

(A) Christ dies for every individual so that if they believe they will be saved.
(B) Christ dies for the elect only so that when they believe they will be saved, and no one else will believe.

Both A and B provide the sufficient conditions for the conditional promise of salvation to be legitimate. You will notice that A is the typical Arminian position whereas B is the typical Calvinist position. As such, I do not think the debate is going to be settled in terms of an argument regarding the conditional offer of salvation.

Sincerely,

Brian


.

 

I have never said that the Gospel message is meant for the elect alone. The Lord intends that a lot of reprobates who are not among the elect will indeed hear the Gospel. Their hearts will harden against it -- just as the Lord intended. It adds to their condemnation.

You will not be able to produce one Calvinist who believes that the Gospel message is to be proclaimed to only the elect. But Hyper-Calvinists such as the Gospel Standard folks believe that the Gospel is to be declared only to the elect.

You are confused in part. You're right that a number of Calvinists object to the term "offer". John H. of Monergism and Tom Nettles are some of the more famous ones. The modern connotation is foreign to the way Calvin, Dort and the WCoF used it. Offer meant a proclamtion, declaration, presentation or setting forth.

I don't hold to the Gospel being an offer to the elect. The Gospel is to being freely proclaimed to all -- indiscriminately. It consists of warnings, commands, entreaties etc.

Not necessarily. I have the conviction that God has no love for the non-elect. But others who object to the free-offer terminology and agree with me on some other items think that God has a lesser form of love for the non-elect.

You're entitled to be wrong. and on this you certainly are. The Lord has seen fit to have the Gospel presented to many who He has not elected before the foundation of the world. He has His reasons for doing so. Your logic is found to be lacking.

God is not in the generic atonement business. The Lord is into particularism. Christ died for His sheep. His own are also known as the Church, the beloved, the Bride, the elect and on and on. He did not die for those who He will address as those He has never known. Christ died for only those whose names were inscribed in the Lamb's Book of Life from eternity past.

As a matter of fact -- no. I have had too many run-ins with you to give you credit in that department.

 

...yet I thought a corpse cannot do anything? What reason is there to harden a dead heart?

 

You are applying 21st century definition of slavery to first century definition of slavery. I would suggest a study of slavery in biblical times. It is not what we went through as a nation years ago. One CHOSE to become a slave in Jesus' day...and THAT is what Jesus was getting at in the text read in context.

 

Here's what the "LAW" says;

1. Ro 6:23 For the wages of sin is death;

2. but the gift of God is eternal life through (Faith in) Jesus Christ our Lord.

3. 1Jo 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

4. Joh 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

5. Joh 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life:

6. and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life;

According to "Law" the Judge (God) can not arbitrarily pick/chose whom he want to "BE" guilty/Innocent.

The "judge" can only issue the verdict of guilt/innocent according to the person's having made themselves guilty or innocent according to the law,

Jesus, making it possible (might be saved) for us to be innocent by Faith in him,

and "Guilty" because of our "Unbelief".


If God "Arbitrarily" picks/chose whom he want to be saved/lost, he will have to "NULLIFY THE LAW",

and nullify not only the law that condemns us, but also the law that required Jesus to die for our sins.

I think most of us know what a "Kangroo Court" is, where the Judge ignores the law and rules however he feels that day or making one pay their speeding ticket but "fixing the ticket" for another because of being "friends" with that defendants.

That pretty much describes the "Court of predestination", the law doesn't matter, Jesus's death for all sins, doesn't matter, belief/unbelief, doesn't matter, guilt/innocent, doesn't matter,

And since all Judgement is committed to Jesus, not one will be able to say to him,

"You never offer me a pardon from sin as you did these others".

I'd suggest you learn a little about law, if you want to understand the scriptures.

1Ti 1:7 Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm.

 

The real answer is that both Calvinism and Arminianism are supported in the Bible. I believe that both are correct but I don't understand how that can be.

 

Calvinism and Arminianism are antithetical. Have you ever heard of the law of contradiction?

How do you resolve the contrast between Christ dying for everyone who has and shall live vs. dying for the elect alone?

There are many other clear-cut gaps between the two contrasting theologies -- just tackle that one first.

 

To save hours and hours of fruitless debate remember this.

#1.God knew before He created this planet and the fall of Adam and Eve who would accept and who would reject Christ.

#2.Since God knew this do you not believe they would be predestinated to heaven or hell before the foundations of the World?

#3.Since they go to Hell then there is no covering of their sins by the blood of Christ.

#4.Universalism gets the idea since Christ died and His blood was shed for everyone then no-one will go to hell.

 

Quote: How do you resolve the contrast between Christ dying for everyone who has and shall live vs. dying for the elect alone?
---------------------------------------

Often quoted by truly reformed theologians, including myself: "Jesus died for all, but instead of some."

And, "The cross was sufficient for all, but efficient for some, the elect."

Cheers,

Jim

 

True, God "Foreknew".

False, God didn't "Predestine".

The different being that "predestine" "IS God's will".

"Foreknowledge", "ISN'T God's will".

2Pe 3:9 The Lord is........not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

Sin occurs in the world, against God's will, and people perish, against God's will.

Everything that does occur in the world has not been "predestine",

However, God "Foreknew" everything that would occur.

This is why God told Israel, and us, I set before you a blessing and a curse,

A Blessing "IF" you will obey,
A Curse "IF" you will not.

The "outcome" depends on the person/nation, neither the blessing or curse has been "predestine",

Did God "Foreknow" the outcome, Certainly.

 

You will take notice that "have been given" in v.12 is negated, and thus rightly interpreted, "we have not been given a spirit of th world...."

And, you will take notice that phrase "freely given" is a passive participle.

Therefore, what God has freely given us, (we are passive) by His "revealing through the Spirit" (v.10) (God is active) those things that cannot be understood by those who do not have the Spirit.

I understand your argument, but disagree.

The purpose of the gospel is not just to bring the elect to salvation, but also to condemn those who reject.

God intentionally purposed a plan of salvation that would shame the wisdom of the world. That God, Himself, would die a humilating death on a cross so that those who put their faith in that very same God would be saved, is foolishness to the gentiles and a stumbling block to the Jews.

Such a gospel can only be understood and accepted when God, Holy Spirit enables an unbeliever to accept it.

Scripture tells us this gospel of Christ and Him crucified is a fragrant aroma. To some, it is an aroma of life to life. To others, it is an aroma of death to death.

Therefore, the gospel serves a two-fold purpose of bringing some to salvation and adding to the condemnation of those who reject.


Edit to add that I see that Rippon has already made the argument.

peace to youraying:

 

That is not true. The Romans conquered people and made them slaves. The slave market at Cyprus sold hundreds of thousands. Many worked in back-breaking farm labor, just like the U.S.

That some slaves held positions of authority within a household doesn't negate the fact they served the will of their master. That slaves were often given small allowances that they could use to purchase their freedom after many years does not negate the fact they served the will of their master.

The point Christ was making is that a person's will is controlled by the person who owns them. The slave does the will of his master, not his own will.

It is Christ who sets you free. Jesus didn't say, "If you choose to be free, I will support your decision".... He said, "If the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed".

He wasn't asking for permission.

peace to youraying:

 

So after salvation, your will is controlled by Christ since now He owns you? You do not have a will of your own? You must be perfect then, if Christ controls your will.

And if Christ "controls" you, you do not have freedom.

 

I don't believe scripture supports the idea that God looked into the future to see who would accept Jesus by faith and then predistine them to salvation.

That has God responding to a man's actions and then granting "election" and salvation based on those actions. That means the man has merited his own salvation, and grace (unmerited favor) is not really grace.

Scripture teaches that before the very foundation of the world, God, according to the kind intention of His will and for His own purposes, predistined some to salvation.

peace to youraying:

 

The Apostle Paul identified himself on more than one occasion as a "slave of Christ Jesus".

Jesus offered a "yoke" to those who would follow Him. He said His yoke was easy and His load was light. He was offering a yoke of slavery.

We should all consider ourselves slaves of Christ Jesus.

Unfortunately, I still have a will of my own.

Actually, my wife seems to have more control over my will, at times, than I do. :laugh:

I have often prayed for Holy Spirit to guide me in such a way that I always do the will of the Father, and live my life for the cause of Christ, and always do what is pleasing in His sight.

I must admit, however, He has not yet granted my prayer and I remain far from perfect.

And one more thing. You said, "if Christ controls you, you do not have freedom".

It is one of my greatest desires to have Christ "control me", and would gladly surrender my "freedom", which I see only as an illusion anyway.

peace to youraying:

 

The "some" that He predestines to salvation are those who are "in Christ".

Eph 1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

Those who are in Christ are in union with Him through faith. Without this union there would be no election period. Paul is taking us back to the plan that God made before "the foundation of the world" which is that whosoever would believe in Christ, would thereby be in union (in Christ) with Him and would be the ones who would be elected to salvation.

This passage does not say that He has chosen some before the foundation of the world. It says that the elect are those who are "in Christ" or are in union with Him.

 

The passage says He chose "us". That is specific people. That is consistent with Jesus saying He calls His sheep by name and they follow Him. It is not a "general call" to all sheep and those who follow become His. He knows His sheep by name before He calls them.

The passage does not say, "He chose those whom He foresaw would believe the gosple to be in Him."

Again, such belief gives people merit before God. You believe they are saved based on what God saw them do. That is not Grace.

peace to youraying:

 

And my desire too, but the truth is that He does not control us. He created us with a will of our own. That is why we still continue to sin even though we are not "slaves of sin" anymore. In order to love God, we must have the freedom or free will to do so. We must have an alternative or there is no love.

 

"IF", I understand you correctly, it's "God's fault" for not "enabling" those who "reject it"????

Where does this leave the "Belief of man" in the plan of salvation??

I agree many are called, few chosen, but I don't think it's due to a failure on God's part.

 

I do NOT!!!!!!! (got that???):laugh: believe that God foresaw what people would do. God knows ALL all at once.

But you keep leaving out those 2 little words, "in Him". He didn't just choose us, He chose us IN HIM. When you leave those words out, then you have Calvinism.

Paul tells us the plan of God was that whoever believes in Christ will be elected to salvation.