Do You Agree with Calvin or Wright On the Nature of the Atonement?

We agree.

Certainly, God is "willing, wishes, desires..." all to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth. (1 Timothy 2:4)

BUT the point is that desire places NO obligation upon God to change the vessel he forms.

A potter may greatly desire to mold a cup, but if the purpose demands a saucer, then a saucer is what is made. This is classic Romans 9.

It is unfortunate that some read into the word "desire" the thinking that in some manner God is obligated to save everyone, or that man has then been given the ability of their own will to be saved. Neither is actually supportable by the Scriptures.

 

I don' know. Wonder what Calvin would say if he knew the type of hair splitting would occur in his name. I'd be curious how you're defining "fallen people." I would agree with you only the 4 soil is a metaphor for the saved. Most of this stuff is just semantics. There are better things to be dogmatic about.

 

Which was exactly my point. Progress.

 

Van quoted:

(also called radical corruption or pervasive depravity) is a theological doctrine derived from the Augustinian concept of original sin. It is the teaching that, as a consequence of the Fall of Man, every person born into the world is enslaved to the service of sin as a result of their fallen nature and, apart from the efficacious or prevenient grace of God, is utterly unable to choose to follow God, refrain from evil, or accept the gift of salvation as it is offered.
​

Yet, he doesn't state where the error occurs in the quote. Just that he is against it.

So, look at each part (trusting that I divide it appropriately) to see where Van might disagree with the view.

1) It is the teaching that, as a consequence of the Fall of Man,

2) every person born into the world is enslaved to the service of sin as a result of their fallen nature

3) apart from the efficacious or prevenient grace of God, is utterly unable to choose to follow God, refrain from evil, or accept the gift of salvation as it is offered.


My problem is with that part 3.

I do not consider that the Scriptures teach "prevenient grace" but purposed unmerited favor or purposed grace. No one is "lifted into" a state of grace in which of their own freedom of the will able to make a choice to accept or reject God.

Based upon the teaching of the potter found in Romans 9, the God of Heaven has appointed the purpose of every person.

God does not "offer a gift" and allow humankind to accept or reject. Again, basic teaching of Romans 9 gives all authority of both purpose and use depends upon the designated pleasure of the Father.

One does not come to Christ as traveling and accept the gift.

One is bestowed the salvation, in that which is bestowed is the measure of faith in which that person may express (confess) belief.

 

Agreed.

Which is what is part of the opening of Romans 1.

 

Scripture please!!!!!

 

Since scripture does not provide a description of "drawing grace." please describe what you mean. No one comes to Christ unless drawn (attracted) by the Father. In the OT, scripture says God draws with lovingkindness. So if a person is exposed to the gospel, which shows Christ high and lifted up, dying for us, then we are drawn to Christ by God's grace. If you are referring to some sort of supernatural enablement whereby someone who cannot receive the gospel is enabled to receive the gospel, then you need to support that contention from scripture.

 

Your verses support my view and demonstrate your view is bogus.

10 as it is written,
There is none righteous, not even one;

11 There is none who understands,
There is none who seeks for God;

12 All have turned aside, together they have become useless;
There is none who does good,
There is not even one.”​

This passage teaches all have fallen short of the glory of God, we all sin, and when we sin we are not righteous, not understanding, not seeking God, we are sinning which makes us useless, not even one person does good, all our works of righteousness are as filthy rags. However, the passage does not say that some of us, some of the time do not seek God, and trust in Christ. That assertion is a fictional addition to the text.

 

The term is total spiritual inability and that doctrine (your doctrine) is bogus and unbiblical, as I have said again and again. Why do you pretend to be unable to grasp my view. Could it be that the goal is obfuscation?

 

Now this is amusing and amazing.

Here Van posts:

10 as it is written,
There is none righteous, not even one;

11 There is none who understands,
There is none who seeks for God;

12 All have turned aside, together they have become useless;
There is none who does good,
There is not even one.”
(emphasis my addition)
​

Then has the audacity to post:

"However, the passage does not say that some of us, some of the time do not seek God, and trust in Christ."
​

Apparently, along the way, none became some.

Don't know when,
Don't know how,
But according to Van's edition of the Scriptures, none is read some.

 

Sorry, but scripture does not teach universal salvation.