All or Nothing?

Total depravity
Unconditional election
Limited atonement
Irresistable Grace
Perseverance of the Saints

although I accept all 5 points of calvinsm.

"Tulip's" definition of Limited atonement doesnt fully allow Gods infinite mercy to be expressed unless....

I believe that Gods selective call of his bride is limited in this age. followed by Another harvest of all Gods creation in following ages to come. thus allowing Gods Infinite mercy to be shown to everyone. his firstfruit, as well as all of his MAIN harvest.

TULIP remains understandable and acceptable even to myself.

someone who accepts the enevitable universal reconciliation of all Gods creatures back to himself. yet what we see today is only Gods selective choices of both vessels of wrath and vessels of mercy being displayed.

I wonder if Calvin would call me a heretic?

Calvinism Comparison Link

 

T=Does not exist
U=Debatable, but highly suspect!
L=NOT BIBLICAL
I=NOT BIBLICAL
P=Do-able

 

Brian!!! so glad to see you here!!!

 

You said what I meant. When I say "accept inconsistencies" I mean the appearance of them. I do not believe there are actual inconsistencies. I mean only that we resign ourselves to incomplete understanding and therefore the appearance of inconsistencies.

My point deals with the ultimate presupposition that God is and that he has spoken. In dealing with his revelation we move to the presupposition that language is used normally. On that basis we come to the text and enter the hermeneutical spiral where our presuppositions determine our view of the text, but then the text adjusts our presuppositions and so on and so on.

Until we enter into "resolutions" that violate biblical revelation. My resolutions are limited by my finitude. I think we should strive for it. I am not sure that striving for consistency leads to all five points, although I accept all of them.

Some say perseverance is merely in believing; other say actions. I lean towards actions/behavior, but I have a very good friend with whom I have worked with in Brazil who believes faith. I am not sure either, to be honest.

[/qb]I must admit I don't totally follow you here. Sorry. However, as I understand it, I would object to the way you set it up. Atonement is used loosely. I believe God provided an atonement sufficient for all the sins of the world. However that atonement is actually applied only to the elect. Most five pointers believe that, and most four pointers believe that. In my experience, they simply talk past each other.

I don't believe Christ actually atoned for the sins of those in hell, for the very reason of God's justice. I believe the atonement had the intent of saving the elect. That does not mean that its merit or value was limited only to the sins of hte elect.

To save the space of repeating your argument, I agree with your next paragraph. I agree with the position you reference as Owen's though I did not know that was his position. I haven't read Owen on this (one of those I haven't gotten around to yet). However, I don't see the necessity of your conclusion that Nevertheless, to assert universal atonement is to deny unconditional election. Universal atonement in terms of what? Sufficiency/merit/value or efficiency? To say that God provided an atonement for the sins of the whole world without exception is not the same as God applies that atonement to the whole world without distinction.

I always put it this way: If God had decreed to save all men without exception, he would have required no more than what Christ did. If God had decided to save only one person, he would have required no less.

I will have to think on your logical construct here.

However, I think we have to admit that Scripture does teach unlimited sufficiency with limited efficiency. Would you disagree with that?

 

Can one be a Calvinist who believes in or agrees with only one of the five points?

How about only two of them?

Maybe three?

 

Does not sound too consistent. Usually the issue is Limited Atonement. Amyraultism (4.5 point Calvinists) redefine Limited Atonement too mean Christ died for every individual BUT the Atonement is efficient for only the elect. The Puritan pastor Richard Baxter is the most famous Amyrault "Calvinist". I still think that it is inconsistent though some argue that Amyrault "Calvinists" and 5 point Calvinists are saying the same thing but in differant ways.

I think that most Calvinist confessions are not very good in explaining limited atonement and this is why there is confusin over it. I think the Canons of Dort that help systemize TULIP give the best and most Evangelical balanced explanation. To quote part of Dort's explanation of Limited Atonement,

 

Brian, I forgot to add one small detail:

John Owen = Ken

 

Can you limit the value of the atonement? If God had decreed to save everyone who ever lived, would more have been required?

 

Yelsew said:

In the scheme of God’s creation, there is no time when man is left to himself!

So when men sin, it's because of God? Are you going to argue that God is the author of sin, now?

Well look at Egypt and the Children of Israel. . . . Egypt resisted the Grace of God and made the children slaves.

You certainly don't see THIS in Exodus. Anyone fo r eisegesis?

 

I don’t think “extra biblical” means “unbiblical.” We presuppose that we can understand the meaning of the text. That is not a biblical presupposition, but it is certainly not unbiblical. It is a fact of communication.

My point though is that our presuppositions must constantly be being refined by the text. My “bias,” if such it may be called, is a commitment to the normal use of language, without which communication would be impossible. I would argue that if we did not approach communication as a dispensationalist approaches Scripture, communication would be virtually impossible for we would never actually know what the author words really mean. However, we are off topic on that issue and we should probably return to the topic at hand.

Presuppositions can get in the way, but not if they are being properly refined by the text of Scripture. For instance, the presupposition that God has spoken is refined for us in Scripture by the text that he has spoken in his Son and in his Word. Therefore, we revise our presupposition to limit it to God has spoken through his Word for this present time. So I agree that presuppositions exist, but I would argue that they must be constantly refined in light of exegesis.

I agree, but I don’t think this answers the question. To say that God completes the work is good. But what is the “work”? Does “persevere” simply mean to not stop believing? Does it mean a certain style of behavior? I think this is the issue …

How so?? I would argue the opposite. To say that the atonement is not sufficient of the sins of the world is to say that Christ’s atonement was not infinite. It is to say that Christ could not provide atonement for all the world, but could only provide it for the elect.

I agree, and almost all 4 pointers would. But that is not what is at issue for a four-pointer. I was persuaded to believe in LA by virtue of that fact that atonement is actual satisfaction, not potential. Christ did not pile up a satisfaction that we could freely take from to present to God. Christ eliminated the middle man (us) and took it straight to God and satisfied our sin debt.

I think there are some very difficult passages for the five pointer. And you are right on the questions about them.

Again, I agree but would argue that a four pointer means something different by “universal atonement” than you would picture him meaning … at least the four pointers I know.

Not necessarily. All could be unconditionally elected. Now of course we know that all or not, but my point is that this is not a necessary conclusion.

I would also argue that the benefits of common grace accrue from the atonement and therefore the non-elect, even the creation, do benefit from the death of Christ.

All in all, you and I are not disagreeing about the atonement. My only caveat would be to make sure that we do not limit the sufficiency of the atonement.

I have enjoyed the interchange and I appreciate the kind PM from this morning. I return the same thanks to you.

[ February 04, 2004, 01:30 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

He may call himself a Calvinist, but he does not understand the consequences of even the one point he embraces.</font>[/QUOTE]Interesting, I do not agree with everything my government does, nor do I understand each jot and tittle of the law, but that does not change the fact that I am an American, which has nothing to do with "being born that way". Yet, to be a Calvinist, one must not only agree with all five points but understand all the ramifications of each as well.

So, if I believe in or agree with only one of the five points, I am only 20% Calvinist.

I'm Glad that philosophy doesn't apply to Christianity, if it did, the Christian churches would be only 20% full.

 

Exodus is in truth where it is revealed, but you've got to have your eyes open to see it.

As for sin, I'd have to say yes, God is the author of sin! He made lucifer Who rose up to usurp God's throne, was put down and sent to the earth. God placed man on the earth. The serpent in the Garden had to come from somewhere, just who do you think created that serpent? God created man to be able to sin. So Yes, God is the author of Sin!
What do you say?

 

Brian said,

Brian, If there had been no atonement for the sins of the World, there could be no salvation! The penalty for sin is death. All men sin, thus without atonement, all men die. Atonement is one man dying for all other men. As you know there is only one who could do that, and that is Jesus.

It is because the Atonement removed the penalty for sin from mankind, that mankind can, through faith, have everlasting life, John 3:16-18. Without the atonement, everlasting life is not possible for man because of the penalty for sin.

 

1Co 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

the only way for all men to acknowledge spiritual transgression is to be first introduced to Gods law.

mankind must arrive at perfect spiritual comprehension (knowledge) and agreement for the need of justice to occur and agree with Gods law that transgressions have occurred against an authority higher than mankind itself. and that their end result is that they themselves be placed in spiritual death.

(or does injustice of God towards mankind occur when man is not perfectly aware of Gods law?)
(Do we not read in Romans 11 that even the jews who had received the law havent been spiritually judged yet, and will have future opportunity to be judged, or have they not recognized their own need of spiritual death? and they are physically dead)

limited atonement can only be viewed in light of God choosing and judging the body of Christ today. for the body of Christ are the only spirits judged and actually placed in spiritual death.

all others that are under the current conviction of Gods law do not agree with his justice. and cannot be placed in spiritual death until they accept perfect knowledge that justice must be served.

Does the church today accept the truth that billion of people are not acknowledging even the existence of such a set of Laws?
or receiving convictions that they themselves deserve spiritual death?

can even members of calvinism agree that all men have acknowledged the law of God and agreed with God that they themselves deserve spiritual death?

today in the "age of the gentiles", the only way to be introduced to the law is for God to place his "seed" into mankind and be perfectly taught of the holy Spirit. each and every individual.

Can calvinism accept that all men have receive Gods seed and determined within themselves that spiritual death is warranted?

I dont think So.

Me2

 

Let me just answer quickly.

I am not fighting that at all. I agree with it totally. My point is that the noetic effects of sin are countered by exegesis in the hermeneutical spiral. The more we learn from the text, the more our presuppositions are refined to biblical presuppositions.

In short sum, they treat the words as they stand in the text, as intended by the original author, as would have been understood by the original reader. They understand that words only have one meaning in context and that it is improper to reassign meaning to fit an predetermined outcome. A dispensationalist treats language as it is normally treated, as you and I treat each other’s words—with a single meaning, determined by authorial intent.

Once you admit that a word may have multiple meanings, you have destroyed the basis for rational communication. If you are sitting here saying “When Larry says ‘meanings’? I think he means ‘car.’ He is talking about a family with more than one car because they have multiple cars.” You don’t treat my language like that. You assume that I have one meaning and that my meaning can be determined from the words that I use. There may be misunderstanding. The fact that there may be misunderstanding proves that words only have one meaning. The covenantalist takes words in Scripture and assigns them a meaning that is not what the author intended and not what the original reader would have understood.

I agree, but I think we need to be more specific. Does perseverance demand that I change my behavior? Does perseverance only mean that I continue to believe? I think the former … But what level of change is necessary? The Christian walk has a lot of variables. I know that I have not perservered to the extent that people in persecuted nations have. I am not sure how I would respond. I would like to think the best, but sometimes I am sure that I know better. All told, I am not sure the Scripture gives a specific answer to this. For my point, I have never taken Romans 8 as a strong passage on this. I will have to consider it. I think there are some very clear passages elsewhere however.

I would say that he did not die to save every single human being. He did, in a sense, die for the sins of the world. It was impossible for him not to.

I have never taken issue with this. In fact, this is a major point of the problem with arminianism. I totally agree with this statement. My point is that when a 4 pointer argues against limited atonement, he is not arguing that Christ actually paid for the sins of all men. He is simply arguing that the atonement is limitless in its value. That is why I said earlier, I think much of the discussion is semantic.

However, there are some five pointers who deny that the death of Christ did anything at all for the non-elect. I must disagree with that since I think the benefits of common grace stem from the atonement.

I still can’t see this point. Perhaps I am obtuse I am a five pointer. I just don’t see that they are inseparable.

Why cannot all men be unconditionally elected? (They are not, I understand.) But what prevents God from unconditionally choosing all men? My answer is “Nothing but himself.” And what means God has to unconditionally choose anyone? Nothing. He could very well have chosen no one.

I think in the end, the discussion between you and I is probably largely semantic on the issue of the five points. We might disagree on the finer points. Now other issues, we might have a bigger discussion … I have always said that the same hermeneutic that made me a Calvinist also made me a dispensationalists. We got to be Calvinists by the plain, single meaning of Scripture. That is all we need to be a dispensationalist

 

According to John 3;18, the Believer (many of those in the body of Christ, but not all are believers) Is not judged. So how is it that "the body of Christ are the only spirits judged, and placed in spiritual death"? Don't tell me you have never read John 3:18, it is part of the famous discourse between Jesus and a leader of the Jews named Nicodemus.

Jesus is the one known as "the Christ", and the Body of Christ is the collective of persons who "continue the work of the Christ in the world". Not all of that collective are believers, just as not all twelve of those chosen by Jesus to be his disciples were believers...one was a betrayer.

So once again you are quite simply WRONG! Me2

 

Yelsew said:

As for sin, I'd have to say yes, God is the author of sin! He made lucifer Who rose up to usurp God's throne, was put down and sent to the earth. God placed man on the earth. The serpent in the Garden had to come from somewhere, just who do you think created that serpent? God created man to be able to sin. So Yes, God is the author of Sin!
What do you say?

It is ironic that one of the missiles most frequently lobbed by Arminians against Calvinists is that they allegedly make God the author of sin. So you can imagine my surprise to see an Arminian admit he believes God is the author of sin as though it is an argument against Calvinism!

No one, whether Calvinist or Arminian, believes that God created sin. Perhaps you should take some time out and think through your own theological views; where I'm sitting, you have just admitted to being incoherent.