Particular Atonement: Why the fuss?

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by npetreley, May 14, 2007.

  1. npetreley

    npetreley
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2002
    Messages:
    7,359
    Likes Received:
    0
    Why is there suddenly such a fuss about particular atonement? I think there's a reason why this is the point upon which many Calvinists disagree. There is apparent scriptural support for both sides, and you can rationalize away the scriptures that seem to contradict one side or the other. Just say "many" means those to whom it is applied, and "all" means redemption. Or say "all" means to the elect, and "many" means redemption. So what?

    I happen to believe in particular atonement for both scriptural and logical reasons. But if God contacted me tomorrow and said Jesus really died for all "just because", and we simply don't understand how sins can be atoned for and people still end up in hell, I'd shrug my shoulders and say, "Okay". It seems to me that election vs. free will is a far more important issue. And I think I'm in good company.

    If any man doth ascribe of salvation, even the very least, to the free will of man, he knoweth nothing of grace, and he hath not learnt Jesus Christ aright.

    -Luther


    It may seem a harsh sentiment; but he who in his soul believes that man does of his own free will turn to God, cannot have been taught of God, for that is one of the first principles taught us when God begins with us, that we have neither will nor power, but that he gives both; that he is `Alpha and Omega' in the salvation of men.

    -Spurgeon
     
  2. webdog

    webdog
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    24,691
    Likes Received:
    0
    You like long goodbye's, npet? ;)
     
  3. npetreley

    npetreley
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2002
    Messages:
    7,359
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sorry, I guess I can't resist. Also, Amy graciously apologized, and that makes me more inclined to participate.
     
  4. Allan

    Allan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2006
    Messages:
    6,888
    Likes Received:
    0
    Mine is not about PROVING the unlimited veiw but correcting the error that ALL Reformers held to the limited view, when in fact many did not though many did.

    Luthers on free-will is actaully speaking of Pelegans who hold that man can come to God regardless of if God calls or not. That grace is benificial but not neccesarry and thus you can understand why Luther states the person regarding (peleganistic) free-will does not understand grace.
    You can find his specific equation of free-will and Peleganism over and over in his writings. He does NOT address what is considered the free-will veiw today because the term "free" ment free from God.
     
  5. skypair

    skypair
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2006
    Messages:
    4,657
    Likes Received:
    0
    npeterely,

    "If any man doth ascribe of salvation, even the very least, to the free will of man, he knoweth nothing of grace, and he hath not learnt Jesus Christ aright."

    Luther here is merely substituting "free will of man" for "works" (of man). Doing so is fraud and changes the meaning altogether. Watch.

    "If any man doth ascribe of salvation, even the very least, to the [works], he knoweth nothing of grace, and he hath not learnt Jesus Christ aright."

    Now here's the "real deal:" "If [salvation] be by works, then is it no more grace." Rom 11:6


    Luther was "smooth talkin'" but with "forked tongue," npeterely! :laugh: I'm surprised you would fall for such a simple perversion!

    skypair
     
  6. npetreley

    npetreley
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2002
    Messages:
    7,359
    Likes Received:
    0
    From my perspective and that of Luther, it is not a perversion at all. Free will is works, because it depends on a man's action for salvation. I know you don't believe that, but our differences are a matter of perspective on free will, not one of perversion of the truth.
     
  7. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,403
    Likes Received:
    328
    SP , did you have the will or power ( willpower ) to turn to God ?
     
  8. skypair

    skypair
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2006
    Messages:
    4,657
    Likes Received:
    0
    Free will is not works. It may allow man to do works and, more to the point, to truly BELIEVE on Christ upon being enlightened of the Holy Spirit. The perversion is exactly what you describe -- making free will a "door" to salvation rather than what it is -- the "hinge" on which the "Door" Himself swings open or closed.

    'Course, that's that last thing a Calvinist wants someone to do, isn't it? To choose Christ. The "clubhouse" would be "invaded" by all these people who think they are responsible in some way for choosing Christ and upsetting all those who didn't, right? :laugh:

    Sorry, npeterely -- couldn't resist. Do you even yet acknowledge that YOU chose Christ?

    skypair
     
  9. DQuixote

    DQuixote
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2006
    Messages:
    704
    Likes Received:
    0
    John 3:16-17, Romans 10:8-13

    -God


    From God's perspective we are saved by grace through faith, and that not of ourselves. It is the gift of God, not works. Even the faith to believe comes from Him, enabling us to respond to His gracious offer. There are no works in that. Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God. God speaks to us, and we respond (some decline), not based upon some strange idea that, that is "a work", or that we are in Group A and everyone else is in Group B, God having decided before the foundation of the world that "I will create two groups: Group A I will save and Group B I will ignore."
     
    #9 DQuixote, May 16, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: May 16, 2007
  10. npetreley

    npetreley
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2002
    Messages:
    7,359
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, I didn't "choose" Christ. I fled to Him when He opened my eyes to my own depravity. But I never would have done so if He hadn't "circumcised my heart", or "removed my heart of stone and gave me a heart of flesh", or as Calvinists say, regenerated me. I love Him because He FIRST loved me. If you want to interpret the above as choosing, then I chose Him because He FIRST chose me.
     
  11. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,403
    Likes Received:
    328
    Some Words from Joseph Conder ( 1843 )

    Tis not that I did choose Thee ; That I know could never be ; For this heart would still refuse Thee had Thy grace not chosen me ...


    Anytime anyone comes to a saving knowlege of the Lord it is because Sovereign mercy calls them -- effectually ( Rip )
     
  12. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,403
    Likes Received:
    328
    By An Unknown Author -- Just A Few Lines

    I sought the Lord , and afterward I knew He moved my soul to seek Him , seeking me .

    It was not I that found , O Saviour true . No , I was found of Thee .

    ... For thou wert long beforehand with my soul , Always thou lovedst me .
     

Share This Page

Loading...