Unlimited Atonement

The strongest points of one's argument are not typically reflected in the portion that his opponents address, but in the portions ignored, thus I encourage all readers to look at the rest of my post and not just this response...

If you find the ULTIMATE cause then you must go back to the original choice made which caused all others actions. If the only reason the heathen is in hell is because of his sin then all men would be there because all have sinned. When you simply ask the question, "What is the ultimate difference between those who are heaven bound and those who are not?" In Calvinism, both are sinners, but only some have been elected and that is why they believe and why they go to heaven. On that final day if someone who is non-elect is asked, "Why didn't you believe?" then the only real answer is, "Because you didn't make me able to be willing to believe" or put shortly, "you didn't elect me."

A better illustration would be the army instituting the draft. If a young man who didn't get drafted is asked, "Why didn't you go to war?" Would not the correct answer be, "I wasn't drafted?" Regardless of the unknown reasons the Army may have for not drafting this individual, the ultimate reason the man didn't go to war was because he wasn't drafted, period. If the draft is mandatory and unavoidable (as is the Irresistible Grace of Calvinism), and the reasons for choosing one individual over another unknown (as is the Unconditional Election of Calvinism), then how could you possibly suggest this analogy doesn't better represent your view?

 

Yes, if nobody came to him after crucification, it would have been for nothing.

 

God is all knowing, he knew people would come to him.

 

If it wasn't for Jesus Christ, then yes all men would be there

Yes, Jesus is the ultimate cause for us going to heaven

No. Only if it was neutral. All are sinners. It's not, all are neutral. Sinners go to hell because of their sin. All deserve hell because of sin. None want to come to Christ. God has elected that he will save some. He saves them. The remainder are still in their original state.

This could only be remotely true is if all that are drafted want to be in the army and no one that isn't drafted want's to be in the army. The problem is hell is a place of punishment for our sin.

The biggest difference is that of perspective. See, I look at all men without exception are sinners and deserve hell. This is the natural state. Without Salvation, without election all would be in hell. So election cannot be the cause of someone going to hell. There were already headed there.

Now, there are some that look at election(sometimes coined as double predestination, but I would say more of double election) as God electing people to heaven and hell. This is sometimes looked at as supralapsarianism. As I understand supralapsarianism, the order of evens is:
Elect some, reprobate rest
Create
Permit Fall
Provide salvation for elect
Call elect to salvation
- http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/sup_infr.htm

I put the election after the permitting of the fall. There is no need to elect or provide salvation if there is no sin.

 

The quote is above. He doesn't say "outside Christ", but that is what he is teaching. He is saying you are chosen outside of Christ and then given to Jesus as a gift.

Now, there is no such thing as an unbeliever being "in Christ", but that is exactly what is being taught here. James White says a similar thing:

As you see, James White has a person placed "in Christ" before they believe. In fact, he teaches you must be "in Christ" to believe. This contradicts scripture.

But no one is "in Christ" till they believe.

Rom 3:24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:

Justification is by faith.

Rom 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

There is no such thing as an unbeliever who walks after the Spirit.

So, you cannot be "in Christ" until you believe.

 

I agree, No unbeliever is" in christ." No believer is outside of Christ.

Can you be outside of Christ and a believer? I would agree that you must be in Christ to believe. Otherwise, you would have people outside of Christ being a believer.

Agree

Rom 3:24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:

Justification is by faith.

Rom 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

There is no such thing as an unbeliever who walks after the Spirit.

So, you cannot be "in Christ" until you believe.[/QUOTE]

Let me ask you this. When were you elected? Were you "in Christ" when you were elected? If it was before the foundation of the world as you stated earlier, were you in Christ then? If not, then you were elected before you were in Christ.

 

Well, read what James White said

James White is saying because you are in Christ you will believe. He is saying the exact opposite of what the scriptures teach. The scriptures teach because you believe you are in Christ.

This is a subtle, but Major difference between Reformed and non-Reformed Theology. Reformed Theology teaches you must be "in Christ" to have the ability to believe, non-Reformed Theology teaches you must believe to have the ability to be "in Christ".

Reformed

In Christ ----> Faith

non-Reformed

Faith ----> In Christ

Reformed Theology absolutely denies that God could elect a person for forseen faith. They teach you are chosen without faith in Jesus and then placed "in Christ" in order to have the ability to believe. Therefore a man must be chosen for some merit in himself.

Non-Reformed Theology sees God as electing those who he sees believes. He elects them because he sees them "in Christ". Their merit is "in Christ". God does not see my merit when he looks on me, he sees Jesus's merit, I am simply part of his body.

Huge and important difference.

 

Actually, to be accurate and consistent with Calvinistic dogma, the draft would make those who are unwilling to become willing while those undrafted would remain unwilling, so still the REASON they didn't go to war was because "they weren't drafted."

You could say the reason they didn't go to war was because they didn't want to, but then simply ask, "Why didn't they want to?" and you get to the ULTIMATE cause for their not going to war, "They didn't want to because they weren't drafted."

So do we; and the fact that you seem to think we don't makes me wonder if you really understand our perspective at all.

Thank you...that was my point. Discussion over.

I never said election was the cause of someone going to hell, I said it was "not being elected," but nice try.

That seems to presume their "heading there" was prior to God's election. I thought election was done before time began? So, since election precedes their "heading to hell" wouldn't it be save to say that their heading to hell is a result of God's election, and not the other way around?

How does that work in a system where the election of the sinners is accomplished prior to the actual choice to sin?

 

Then you would be regenerated before the foundation of the world. You would be saved before you are even born. And some teach this falsehood, because it is the logical conclusion of this error.

And why would God have to give someone already in Christ to Christ as a gift? They are already in Him.

 

It's not that God "couldn't" but that he "didn't." Very important difference in wording there.

I don't believe you are "in Christ" and then later believe. I believe that this all happens at the same time. What is being spoken of is the logical order, not the chronological order.

I understand the difference between conditional an unconditional election. I don't see Scripture teaching that God elects because he sees who choses him.

But I don't think you answered my question. Were you "in christ" when God elected you?

 

No, you cannot exchange the secondary cause for the primary cause. Yes, I go to heaven because of god. Unbelievers go to hell because of themselves.

That's why your analogy isn't accurate.

No, I think you understand that. It's that we deserve hell because of our sin. Some don't believe that. They believe that we deserve hell because we reject Christ. They deserved hell way before they rejected Christ

Ok

I wasn't referring to you at this point of the post. I was showing the difference between my view and other reformed views.

Logical, not chronological order. (I don't deny the word foreknowledge ) God knew that all would sin and reject him.

Foreknowledge. God elected because he knew we would sin and would reject Christ. It's a logical order not a chronological order. Obviously, election was before the foundation of the world.

 

Well, no matter how much evidence I present, you simply explain it away. But here is a statement from a Reformed site you know.

You see there, this writer clearly says God did not chose him because he was a believer, but so that I might "become" a believer. Well, if he chose you when you are an unbeliever, then you were chosen OUTSIDE Christ.

Source

http://www.desiringgod.org/resource...-us-in-him-before-the-foundation-of-the-earth

Oh, you will ignore what I have shown, you will say I misrepresent your doctrine, you will find some way to twist the words and explain this away, but I have shown you proof of what I am saying from your own Reformed writers.

 

not the logical conclusion at all. It's false teaching for sure that we are regenerate before we are born.

We are not born saved.

When were you elected?

 

when were you chosen? Were you chosen before the foundation of the world?

 

Actually Christ was chosen and we are chosen "in Him". God made this plan before the foundation of the world.

 

Yes, he was chosen too

 

Yes, but that is not what John Piper teaches, look at the rest of his personal statement of faith.

You see, God chose him. It has nothing to do with his faith in Christ, it has nothing to do with Christ at all, those are simply the effects of being chosen, but simply that God chose him, John Piper.

Now, he says there is no boasting, it is all of God, but I tell ya, I would have to feel pretty good about myself if I believed God chose me and did not choose others. Oh, they won't admit that this implies God liked them better than others, but that's exactly what it implies.

 

Yet they use the verse that says God loved Jacob and hated Esau as one of their proof texts for election. So apparently, they do believe God loves them and hates others, which makes them better than others.

 

Calvinist are quick to say that they aren't chosen BECAUSE they are better (unconditional election), but you are right in that being elected would "make them better," so either way you look at it, Calvinist have to believe "we are better" if they are consistent with their views.

 

Oh yeah, but now they will come back and say I misrepresented Piper's own words. Or they will say I am not smart enough or spiritual enough to understand what he was saying, or that in the Greek he really said... :laugh:

It is easy to see why this doctrine is becoming popular again. Who wouldn't like to think that God prefers him over others?