Do we all really believe in a 'limited atonement?'

Excuse me but were you not a Calvinist; isn't that one of your famous claims? So.....why don't you answer your own question?

 

Exactly.

We have yet another "gotcha" moment that isn't.

God chooses who will be saved. Sounds to me like it's not only monergistic, but Sovereignty in action. Some people have a serious problem with this. Jacobus Arminius was one of them. :thumbs:

 

Lest we forget EWF,Skan was a proponent of Calvinism for several years. My guess is he was a "good calvinist".

 

another declaration of what simply is? Some people have a serious problem with what? "them" huh?

 

And yet Jacob was able to convince more than half of the Calvinist in the theological school in Geneva. Amazing how the truth can convert Calvinist.
MB

 

Well, God choosing to use a preacher to preach His everlasting Gospel to the lost, seems synergistic to me. God saving someone w/o a preacher, but revealing Himself to that lost individual(a la PB's), is monergistic, or so it would seem to me.


God chose the foolishness of preaching to save them which believe. God is using a "middleman"/preacher, to reach the lost. God using man to reveal Himself to the lost........sure looks like God's using man to serve His purpose. Isn't that the ideal definition of synergism?


The PB's are the only ones who truly advocate monergism.

 

Brother winman, I am not entirely set on this as of yet. This is something that I have just thought about, and I tend to lean this way. But I need to study this out more. I may, or may not, see it this way after more intensive study.

 

I'd have to disagree with you about the PB's, it's just simply not true brother. :love2:

Don't we just choose by freewill to preach/pastor, or, do we allow God to do that part Sovereignly, while we choose (we think amiss that we've chosen) the biggest thing ever; to be saved, but we leave other details up to Him to choose? It looks to me that Paul thought both salvation and calling to ministry were all the Sovereign choice of God, not of mans 'freewill' choosing. Scripturally He chose both; those who would be saved before the foundation of this world, and those whom He calls to minister, (although we should all have our place within the body) and it is He who decided the gifts, didn't He? Paul relates this to the church in his Epistles, and specifically of himself, Galatians 1:15, and also what he 'must' do for God, Acts 9. People think it's that they chose, but it's God that did the choosing.

 

What I was trying to convey Brother, is God has chosen man to accomplish what He wants done. Look @ Moses for instance. God could have easily picked up the entire Jewish populace and placed them in the Promised Land all by Himself. However, He chose to use Moses to accomplish this for Him. Same way with preacher/preaching. If God wanted to, He could save a man w/o the Gospel. However, He chose the foolishness of preaching to save those who believe. Sounds like synergism to me.

 

It's that word 'save' Willis. Most, Cal & non Cal use the word indisriminately to always infer the eternal, and yet they can't prove it to be so from scripture.

Do you actually believe preachers are populating heaven?

The PB's say NO! A thousand times NO!

Again, it's that word save [sozo]. Also that word lost. Cal & non Cal apply the eternal to both indiscriminately, and yet can't justify doing so from scripture.

Considering the passage below, how do you justify the notion that the preacher is participating in the regeneration of others:

For there is one God, one mediator also between God and men, himself man, Christ Jesus, 1 Tim 2:5

The PB's are some of the last remaining that hold to immediate regeneration.

 

So, what would be the more appropriate terms for "save" and "lost"?

 

Yes, and consider Jonah, he refused to obey God and ran away. Couldn't God simply appear to the people of Ninevah the way he appeared to Moses in a burning bush, or appear in the sky as he did with Paul? But no, God sent a great storm out on the sea, knowing the sailors would throw Jonah overboard, then God sent a whale to swallow Jonah to make sure he got the message God meant business. Jonah did, and went and preached as he was told.

So, this "monergism" business is all wet. God has chosen to use men to send the gospel out whether we understand why or not. And God has chosen to give men the choice whether to accept the atonement or not.

 

Nothing wrong with the terms; it's wrong to apply eternity willy nilly to the words.

 

So what is non-eternal salvation?

 

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

Unquestionably God has sovereignly chosen many individuals for specific tasks and roles and no one questions such actions because He is fact God. But the examples of such individuals found on the pages of scripture does not necessarily imply that this is the norm.

 

God using the method "to send the gospel out" does not mean that God "has chosen to give men the choice."

These are two separate issues in Scripture.

One is a charge given to all believers.

The other (if Arminian in thinking) is falsely based upon some man made ability to reach up and get God's attention. And, such ability would imply that man can also reject the attention of God at any time. For example: John Hagee uses Hebrew 6:4 as proof that one may reject salvation once attained.

The extrapolation of the synergistic thinking would support the views that the fall of man is limited to certain areas of life and nature, and that there is some good found in every unregenerate. Therefore, synergistic salvation can also be attained by good intentions, keeping the law, and ultimately rejecting a literal hell and everlasting punishment because it was only intended for the devil and demonic.

 

Here are some reasons why a loss of this ability is indicated.

Immediately when Adam partook of the food, they were ashamed. When God sought them (though being God he knew where they were) the couple hid themselves. They didn't approach God. He sought them.

Remember pre-fall, Adam and God walked together each evening. It was the customary thing that they did. For Adam to hide from God, demonstrates no desire to seek God.

Secondly, the actual conversation between the characters.

Adam and the woman were face to face with God. Unlike any born of the flesh, there was a history of a daily friendly and intimate relationship from which they could all draw. But what is the reaction?
Shame, blame, excuse... Not once was there ever even a hint of reconciliation, apology, acknowledgement of sin in worship from humankind.

If ever there was a chance for repentance it was at that time. So, it is not only a question of ability, but of desire. And both are part of the fall. There is no ability and no desire of the natural man to seek or accept God.

Because all human kind has been imprinted with the basic commandments of God which include the first four, there is also an awareness of a need to worship. However, look at the second to see the level of deceit and corruption that "all cultures, tribes, and peoples" use to exclude the one true God. This is also represented by Cain and Able.

The basic problem with "death and decay" before the fall is that such is a violation of the nature of God.

Some point to the "tree of life" as showing there must have been death and decay in Eden, and that it is also found in the New Heaven as well.

However, careful study of the use of the phrase "tree of life" would show much clearer evidence of what this tree actually represents. For instance: Proverbs uses the phrase "tree of life" four times. Each time, it is a representation of a characteristic in which a believer may have. Certainly, one who possesses life of and in Christ lives with no decay and death, yet the tree is in the New Heaven? Look at the size and position of the tree?

Compare that to the statements that the Lord gave of himself.

Do not think that the tree of life was simply a tree that one would live forever. Just as the tree of the knowledge of good and evil brought far greater results than just knowing what was good and evil, the tree of life has much more emphasis than merely giving everlasting life which is found in Christ.

 

Once again Amy, 1 Cor 5:5.

What did he lose, and what did he retain? (Incidentally, this is one the few times in the scriptures that saved [sozo] is clearly used in the eternal sense.

Can you not see the eternal and temporal aspects of the one salvation in that verse?

What did the man in 1 Cor 5:5 lose, and what did he retain?

1 Tim 4:16. Was Timothy not yet in possession of eternal life? Was he still not yet born again? Or the members of the church he taught?

It is a mistake to apply eternity [the acquisition of eternal life] willy nilly to the word saved.

 

I am not following what you are desiring for us to understand.

One saved has eternal life of glory. One not saved has eternal life of hell.

All humankind have eternal life.

Saved indicates one saved from the eternal life of hell.

Was there something other you are attempting to get us to understand?

 

Cause and effect.

The majority, Cal & non-Cal, hold to gospel means regeneration. One's faith/obedience to the gospel is the cause of eternal life (born again) and good works [effect].
[Faith = born again and good works]


PBs hold that the birth from above is the cause of faith/obedience to the gospel and good works [effect].
[Born again = faith and good works]