The Significance of Limited Atonement

Scott:

I quoted Scripture which you conveniently read but refuse to comprehend and then you make it look like I speak in my own authority.
Classic.
The scriptures clearly state that man is dead in sin and trespasses and in his natural state which is dead he does not have a mind for the things of God. Therefore, he is without strength.
Yet your theology says man is able to come to God on his own, able to repent on his own, and once he does so, then God works His will on him.
Therefore, the salvation you espouse is not entirely dependent on God from zero to end, which means that in your view man has strength, contrary to what scripture says that man is without strength, and because he has strength and ability to see his sin and repent with Godly sorrow then he is able to dominate his natural tendency to not want those which in God's eyes are good.

 

You misstate me. I never said that man justifies himself. God does all of that. Man just chooses to allow God to do that. Man is too sinful to sanctify or justify himself.

 

And I answered your Scripture, showing how my theology fits into the text.

Let us examine again what I wrote.

"God is the only one who can change a man from a sinner to a holy saint. Man just has to ask him to do it. He's NOT changing himself - he's relying upon God to do it."

and before that

"Simply because man can choose God by the Holy Spirit does not mean that his will is sufficient enough NOT to need sanctification."

How do you see that man is repenting and coming to God on his own? I make it clear that the Holy Spirit is what allows man to choose - he's not coming to God on his own by his own will.

My theology in no way states that "man is able to come to God on his own, able to repent on his own, and once he does so, then God works His will on him."

Such is a nice attempt at logic, but it ultimately fails. Salvation is dependent on God to enlighten a man's heart. Without that enlightenment, man is indeed without strength. He died for us while we were in that state, and while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Man in no way "dominates" his nature, and in no way do the Scriptures you provided say anything about dominating the old nature, as you accuse me of doing. Those Scriptures fall right in line with my theology that states that God died for us while we were sinners, and without the ability of the Holy Spirit to enlighten a man, we would all be without strength to follow.

 

So, Scott Emerson:
Let's say, for the sake of discussion, that I was mistaken in my interpretation of what you were saying, am I to take it that you are saying that
God selects any man at random, works on that man, and that man now suddenly sees himself as he is, repents and converts ?
I say that because I know that you are Arminian and hate the doctrine of election (judging from your posts and exchanges with Bro. Ken), therefore, you will not agree that God chose specific individuals and worked on the will of those individuals in His own time, way, and age.
Am I right ?

 

Okay, I accept the apology. (and you can just call me Scott)

God doesn't select men at random - he selects all men. The Holy Spirit enlightens all mankind. The man is given the choice to repent and convert. I don't buy irresistible grace because the Bible is filled with instances where people rejected the grace of God.

I don't hate the doctrine of election. I disagree with the Calvinist enterpretation of election. I see the election in the NT as the election in the OT - God chose a people, not God chose people. God chose the church just as he chose the spiritual Israel (Romans 9-11). Even the individual of Jacob and Esau mentioned in Romans 9 refers to Malachi 1:2 - speaking of Edom and Israel.

 

Scott,

"You misstate me. I never said that man justifies himself. God does all of that. Man just chooses to allow God to do that. Man is too sinful to sanctify or justify himself."

Ho can man choose God to justify him without a change and yet require a change to allow God to sanctify him? How can sin be such a problem after justifucatiob without being an impediment before justification?

You had originally said: "After accepting Christ, one's will is transformed by the power of Christ. Therefore, man will never WANT to not believe. That's why it works.

The implication of this is clear. Man requires transformation in order to avoid unbelief after salvation. But you seem to think that he does not require transformation to get out of unbelief in the first place. He just works up the faith, and is justified, because he chose God. But that implies that faith as some intrinsic worth that God MUST honour it with jsutification. That is salvation by works, manjustifying Himself.

I don't think I have misstated you. I think you have not thought through the implications of what you said.

 

Because the change comes from without, not within. There's a big difference there. Sin is an impediment until the Holy Spirit enlightens a man.

Not at all! This is one of the most common straw men arguments against Arminianism - the idea that man choosing God is somehow a work. It has been discredited many times in this forum. You can search and find such times if you'd like. The choice of salvation is not a work in the Calvinist system - likewise, the choice of salvation is not a work in the Arminian system. Where we differ is what KIND of choice it is.

Or rather, you assume logical jumps and are interpreting what I write through Calvinist glasses.

 

Scott,

"Because the change comes from without, not within. There's a big difference there. Sin is an impediment until the Holy Spirit enlightens a man."

But sin is for you not an impediment to being justified, only to being sanctified. You still have not explained how one can change his own mind without a change of heart to choose God, but cannot complete that process without a change.

Your assertion that faith is nt a work is just that. The fact is that in your beleif Man MUST respond to human faith. That denies God's freedom in election. It also makes God man's debtor, and means that there is something about faith that is somehow onherently meritorious.

Simply claiming it is a straw man does not make it so. Nor does claiming I have interpreted you through Calvanist glasses make it so. I have asked questions and drawn out implications of what youy have said, and shown the logical progression fo them. You in turn have offered assertions without support.