Featured Question About Cals/Non Cals

I would have to say that Spurgeon was a true 5-point Calvinist and that he well understood what he was saying. He was involved with the downgrade controversy and represented the Doctrines of Grace well in that issue.

What throws most people off on this issue is that they have heard the strawman stereotype of Calvinism so often that they now hold that as the truth of the position -- which may indeed be the desire of those who, even after hearing a correction 100 times still go to the stereotype -- but the stereotype is not the TRUTH of the position. It CAN and it DOES incorporate ALL of the Scriptures, including those that mention free human moral agency, choice (more rare than those in favor of the position might think) and both the universal nature of the atonement, but the limited and sufficent application therof. When the Scriptures say that Christ died for the world, the potential exists for the world. But the same Scriptures also say that Christ died for the elect, and when we compare Scripture to Scripture and use Scripture to explain Scripture we must then understand that "the world" means in fact an effecatious realization for the elect.

 

JON C

The verse does not say he is sufficient......it says he is the propitiation......

So in what sense does Jesus actually turn away the wrath from the unsaved in the world???

Calvinists focus on the elect who are scattered worldwide because it is an actual propitiation that is made...not potential...or sufficent.

Everything Jesus does is perfect,and more than sufficient.That is not the issue. The issue is who is it applied to.....Israel only...or all who are saved worldwide.

 

JonC, we have to remember that all the TERMS of the TULIP are translated from another language and stylized. Like the KJV not all the words have the identical useage TODAY that they did when first translated.

That is part of the confusion and yes, we SHOULD clarify the terms in today's language. But like all words used in theology, once implimented they tend to stick in a technical sense whereby those who use them often "get it" and the rest of the world looks on and wonders how they can support such nonesense. Pure word usage issue!

Total Depravity, for instance, does NOT mean that we are as bad or as sinful as we could be, nor even as often as we might. In fact, it really has nothing at all to do with when or how we sin, but rather, that THERE IS NOTHING AT ALL WE CAN DO TO GAIN ACCEPTANCE WITH GOD TOWARD SALVATION. In other words, no work of man will earn us any points in God's eyes.

Limited Atonement, for instance, doesn't mean that the effects of the cross are limited and not available to whomever comes to recieve them. That would be, in effect, numbering the elect. Rather, we rightly understand that whomever DOES come forward to recieve Him based on the effectual call, IS of the elect for there is no other way they can come and the atonement is for those who DO come. It might better be called "effecatious atonement" for all whom Christ died CAN be atoned for and God is sufficient in and of Himself with no syncretistic assistance to complete that act which He began in Christ on our behalf.

So on for the other points.

 

And Jon may remember, when he was asking of the Calvinist view of the Atonement, I cited neither Augustine nor Calvin, but directed him to the law of the offerings.

Calvinism is the Gospel. It is the truth about Jesus Christ. And as Spurgeon stated, unless one preaches what has been nicknamed Calvinism, he is not preaching the Gospel.

I for one am privileged to be known as a Calvinist. I accept the label gladly, and consider myself unworthy of it. To be called a Calvinist is to be called a Christian.

 

Changing your mind was never my objective. My objective was and is to present the truth of Christ in a straightforward and unambiguous manner, and to remove any occasion that one might have to legitimize any thought contrary to the acknowledgement of the sovereignty of God in salvation.

 

I've been told I do that well.

 

To be called an arminian is to be called a Christian.

Or, if not, please tell us what it should be called.

 

As I have said before in several instances, I would greatly prefer to utterly disavow the use of the terminologies currently in use, for they are no longer of value other than for the sake of discussion.

I am solidly "Calvinistic" in that my doctrine of soteriology matches the tenets of Calvinism, including the TULIP (and of course more, for that is only a snapshot of a larger picture). BUT a couple words that NEVER come out of my mouth while preaching are Calvinism and Arminianism. Simply no place for them in the preaching of the WORD.

In a teaching session that is not a sermon, the terms come up and we examine them for what they are -- a set of doctrines that lie along a continuum of possible theological perspectives, each with their own distinctives as to the ordo salutis. I OFTEN find that people diasvow what they are ignorant of because "they once heard..." or "it sounds evil..." or "a loving God could not..." or some other such emotional appeal. Yet, when I lay out the actual tenets of the doctrines and explain that they are all respective of the actual component parts of soteriology, "salvation" not being AN event, but the culmination of multiple events all with a "logical" order of fulfillment (not temporal nor physical) the people often have the light come on and begin to realize that a simple catch phrase cannot adequately describe ALL of the actions of God in the salvific process, nor can a "fight" between "whosoever wills" or "God elects" solve any of the issues, for BOTH are true.

 

The very basis of just WHY gets saved by God!

We are either spiritually deadin sins and our own natures, and cannot come to God and place faith inJesus, just NOT is us to do such!
OR

WE were spiritually damaged by fall, and still have enough faith abiding in us to chose/reject jesus in order to get saved!

 

A humanist? :smilewinkgrin:

How do you deal with this Scripture?

Hbr 2:6-13 (ESV) It has been testified somewhere, "What is man, that you are mindful of him, or the son of man, that you care for him? 7 You made him [Jesus] for a little while lower than the angels; you have crowned him with glory and honor, 8 putting everything in subjection under his feet." Now in putting everything in subjection to him, he left nothing outside his control. At present, we do not yet see everything in subjection to him. 9 But we see him who for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone. 10 For it was fitting that he, for whom and by whom all things exist, in bringing many sons to glory, should make the founder of their salvation perfect through suffering. 11 For he who sanctifies and those who are sanctified all have one source. That is why he is not ashamed to call them brothers, 12 saying, "I will tell of your name to my brothers; in the midst of the congregation I will sing your praise." 13 And again, "I will put my trust in him." And again, "Behold, I and the children God has given me."

Seems to fly in the face of all things other than the Calvinist interpretation...

 

How about a Christian who has a hard time with sovereignty of God ?

 

Yes. That seems to be the issue. I know it was for me.