I'm sorry. I didn't see a post directed to me that required a response, but I've been coming and going and simply following the conversation between you and other posters (commenting when I felt I was being addressed).
I agree. I believe that some emphasize Divine Sovereignty beyond biblical warrant by placing it as the lens through which the gospel is viewed, but it is certainly a doctrine that, if ignored, has disastrous consequences.
Calvinist/Non-Calvinist - Where exactly am I?
Discussion in 'Calvinism & Arminianism Debate' started by JonC, Nov 11, 2013.
Page 6 of 7
-
can a sinner have faith unless God Himself grants it?
if God has to give it to us to receive jesus, Does He give that gift to all, knowing only some will use it, or is it given to just those He who can and must use it? -
When I say that Christ’s work on the cross has potential, what I mean is that it provides opportunity which is rejected by all men – all are commanded to believe. But this work also has effectual redemption for those who by grace believe.
As an illustration: Spurgeon speaks of a general call and a specific call. I simply believe that the general call is more than a farce – it is a call to genuine salvation but one which none respond out of their own will. The elect respond to the special call as this is God’s drawing the elect to Himself. -
-
-
JonC said: ↑It would be a contradiction if I did not believe that Christ is central to the doctrine of man – both elect and non-elect. But I believe that those who reject Christ and do not believe (the non-elect) are accountable for their rejection. I also believe that the world will be judged in relation to Christ – not merely their deeds. These views hinge on a universal aspect of Christ’s work on the Cross – not merely for the redemption of those who believe, but also in condemnation for disbelief.
When I say that Christ’s work on the cross has potential, what I mean is that it provides opportunity which is rejected by all men – all are commanded to believe. But this work also has effectual redemption for those who by grace believe.
As an illustration: Spurgeon speaks of a general call and a specific call. I simply believe that the general call is more than a farce – it is a call to genuine salvation but one which none respond out of their own will. The elect respond to the special call as this is God’s drawing the elect to Himself.Click to expand...
Potential without ability is really not potential. Potential is defined as having or showing the capacity to become or develop into something in the future. The reprobate do not possess this ability. The Atonement has this ability in the abstract and only for the elect.
The general call should not be confused with the effectual call. All are called to repent (Acts 17:30), although not all can -- or will. The general call lacks potential because it is never intended for the reprobate, although the reprobate are condemned by it. In a sense it confirms their sinfulness; their reprobation. -
Reformed said: ↑Jon,
The Atonement has this ability in the abstract and only for the elect.Click to expand...
Thanks. -
The Biblicist Well-Known MemberSite SupporterJonC said: ↑It would be a contradiction if I did not believe that Christ is central to the doctrine of man – both elect and non-elect. But I believe that those who reject Christ and do not believe (the non-elect) are accountable for their rejection. I also believe that the world will be judged in relation to Christ – not merely their deeds. These views hinge on a universal aspect of Christ’s work on the Cross – not merely for the redemption of those who believe, but also in condemnation for disbelief.
When I say that Christ’s work on the cross has potential, what I mean is that it provides opportunity which is rejected by all men – all are commanded to believe. But this work also has effectual redemption for those who by grace believe.
As an illustration: Spurgeon speaks of a general call and a specific call. I simply believe that the general call is more than a farce – it is a call to genuine salvation but one which none respond out of their own will. The elect respond to the special call as this is God’s drawing the elect to Himself.Click to expand...
Now the question before us is in regard to preaching the gospel to sinners whom we have no knowledge are or are not the elect. We preach the gospel universally proclaiming its suffciency to redeem "whosover will" not whomsoever won't. We preach it to all classes, races, genders without distinction. That is not false representation because WE do not know who is and who is not the elect except by response to the gospel, and neither has God told us who are the elect. Hence, we have no business limiting the preaching the gospel but must preach it to all within the perview of our ministry calling "whosover will" may come.
The atonement does have UNIVERSAL consequences because the elect come into this world through non-elect. Hence, the atonement secures the salvation of the elect in their connection with the non-elect securing all the connected consequences unto a predestinated conclusion.
The atonement does have UNIVERSAL application to the WHOLE WORLD in the sense of removing the final penalization due to "one man's sin". No man is judged by the INDIVIDUAL act of Adam but "according to their own works" and so no man is sent to hell on the basis of any other individual's actions but due to their own INDIVIDUAL merits performed in their own individual body. -
JonC said: ↑Would you please expand "in the abstract"?
Thanks.Click to expand...
For the sake of clarification -- I am not suggesting that the Atonement is not capable of satisfying the sins of all men. It is not a lack of power. It is about intent. The Atonement is meant to satisfy the sins of the elect and only the elect; a group that is known only to God. That is why we preach the Gospel to all men without qualification. -
JonC said: ↑Thanks EW&F. It has been pointed out to me that the BB is not really the best place to explore or refine one’s views – kyredneck and p4t only verify that point. There are some here who cannot understand how someone can see a valid point in an opposing position, or how someone could entertain the notion a personally held understanding may be incomplete or even incorrect if held as an absolute. ...
But I have been reading this and BobRyan’s follow up thread which had been interesting. My intent was to learn how others would critique and classify my understanding so that I could more objectively evaluate my position. While firm in my belief on this topic, I do believe there is a benefit to re-examining one’s understanding against opposing views. There will always be kyrednecks and p4t’s – especially in antiquated debates such as this, but I think that all in all I have gained much to think about.Click to expand...
I agree that we should be able to find something in the views of those outside of our own "home group" that is helpful and inspiring.
A number of people here know that I have reference the "Baptist Confession of Faith" the "Westminster Confession of Faith" and D.L. Moody's sermon on the TEN Commandments (available on the internet in typed form) numerous times in responding to various points.
And of course I have dealt with my share of responses directed towards me having a certain level of ad hominem, vitriol, acrimony etc. I assumed this was some part of Baptist Culture in carrying on discussion at least "for some".
In any case I do learn from the experience and find that my views become more refined.
in Christ,
Bob -
kyredneck said: ↑Forget 5 points and focus on one point:
Synergism: the doctrine that the human will cooperates with the Holy Ghost in the work of regeneration.
Monergism: the doctrine that the Holy Ghost acts independently of the human will in the work of regeneration.Click to expand...
Do you define that to be synergism or Monergism?
Looks like Arminianism to me.
in Christ,
Bob -
Reformed said: ↑Jon, out of curiosity. Do you disagree with limited or definite atonement?Click to expand...
If you mean the once for all "Atoning Sacrifice" at the cross. Then it is nondiscriminating unlimtted - "Not for OUR sins but for the sins of the WHOLE WORLD" --
If you mean "the full scope of Day of Atonement" as GOD presents it in Lev 16 - then it must of necessity go beyond Lev 16:15 "Sin offering slain" and encompass ALL of the work of Christ as both sacrifice AND currently as our High Priest in Heaven (Heb 8:1-6) -- a person-by-person individual work according to Heb 9 "cleansing the conscience from dead works".
That work is only for "Whosoever will" that comes to Christ in faith and cooperates with His Word, mission, ministry in repentance, confession, acceptance of the blood of Christ and the full 1John 2 through 1John 3 scope of that work in the born-again believer's life.
in Christ,
Bob -
Van said: ↑If God chose the individuals He would save before creation, then why would Christ die to become the propitiation for the whole world? Calvinists sometimes make the double payment argument. Why would Christ die for the non-elect if they are going to be punished for their sins in the afterlife?
Now if we turn it around, it makes far better sense. If Christ died for the whole world, then the opportunity for salvation for the whole world has been provided. Thus anyone chosen by God and placed spiritually in Christ undergoes the circumcision of Christ, the sin burden is removed and the sinner is born anew, and rises in Christ a new creation, made alive together with Christ.Click to expand...
And the Bible itself expresses the plan of Salvation -- "Gospel" in God's terms of "Atonement" - and as we see in 1John 2:2 "Atoning Sacrifice".
So once you state the Gospel in the terms of Atonement (which always starts with the sin offering - the cross - the once-for-all sacrifice of Christ for all sins for all time) then ... how did you "define Atonement" and that will determine whether you believe it is "limited or not" and it will define what is meant by that term.
If certain University offers "under grad education for free to all" on a certain set of degrees for their entire state of Rhode Island - will "all be educated"??
If the question is whether the University's facilities and distance-learning program can accommodate the entire state - that can be measured to discover that "all really means all".
But if you mean "Will all be educated - will all get 4 year degrees" in the state of Rhode Island - that answer will be different.
So is it "limited education" or not? Depends on how you define your terms.
Calvinists often know this and so they insist Arminians use the Calvinist's definition. That does not always work out.
in Christ,
Bob -
The Biblicist Well-Known MemberSite SupporterBobRyan said: ↑That is true - but the C/A discussion asks about things like "limited atonement" and "is it true or not".
And the Bible itself expresses the plan of Salvation -- "Gospel" in God's terms of "Atonement" - and as we see in 1John 2:2 "Atoning Sacrifice".
So once you state the Gospel in the terms of Atonement (which always starts with the sin offering - the cross - the once-for-all sacrifice of Christ for all sins for all time) then ... how did you "define Atonement" and that will determine whether you believe it is "limited or not" and it will define what is meant by that term.
If certain University offers "under grad education for free to all" on a certain set of degrees for their entire state of Rhode Island - will "all be educated"??
If the question is whether the University's facilities and distance-learning program can accommodate the entire state - that can be measured to discover that "all really means all".
But if you mean "Will all be educated - will all get 4 year degrees" in the state of Rhode Island - that answer will be different.
So is it "limited education" or not? Depends on how you define your terms.
Calvinists often know this and so they insist Arminians use the Calvinist's definition. That does not always work out.
in Christ,
BobClick to expand...
Christ reconciled the whole world and took away the singular "sin" of the whole world (Jn. 1:29) in that he paid the eternal penalty for the RACE SIN (but not the temporal and immediate consequences of individualized physical sickness and physical death). Dying infants are saved in Christ exactly as they were condemned in Adam. Where sin abounded grace did much more abound. Because Christ removed the eternal penalty by his own death for the RACE SIN, thus all who stand before the Great White judgment seat are condemned only for their own individual choices exercised within their own individual body "according to" their own works. Hence, since dying infants never exercise any such choice or any such works in their own body they do not stand before God to be judged according to THEIR OWN works done in THIER OWN body. -
Earth Wind and Fire Well-Known MemberSite SupporterThe Biblicist said: ↑Jon, how are you doing man? I hope well. Look, most reformed people argue that sufficiency equals efficiency. That is a matter of logic. However, it is true that the atonement of Christ cannot be valued by any amount of fallen creatures as HIs blood is infinite in value. He would have had to shed the same blood to die for one sinner or for quadrillions and thus his worth is infinite and finite creatures no matter how many could not equal the value of His blood. Hence, it is not because His blood was not sufficient to redeem all human beings and demons but it comes down to application.
Now the question before us is in regard to preaching the gospel to sinners whom we have no knowledge are or are not the elect. We preach the gospel universally proclaiming its suffciency to redeem "whosover will" not whomsoever won't. We preach it to all classes, races, genders without distinction. That is not false representation because WE do not know who is and who is not the elect except by response to the gospel, and neither has God told us who are the elect. Hence, we have no business limiting the preaching the gospel but must preach it to all within the perview of our ministry calling "whosover will" may come.
The atonement does have UNIVERSAL consequences because the elect come into this world through non-elect. Hence, the atonement secures the salvation of the elect in their connection with the non-elect securing all the connected consequences unto a predestinated conclusion.
The atonement does have UNIVERSAL application to the WHOLE WORLD in the sense of removing the final penalization due to "one man's sin". No man is judged by the INDIVIDUAL act of Adam but "according to their own works" and so no man is sent to hell on the basis of any other individual's actions but due to their own INDIVIDUAL merits performed in their own individual body.Click to expand... -
The Biblicist Well-Known MemberSite SupporterEarth said: ↑So then tell me Mark if you know why Samuel Rutherford would make the claim that the reprobate has the same warrent to believe on Jesus Christ as does the elect. That has frankly confused me....like what am I missing?Click to expand...
Both act freely in their choice of rejection and reception according to their moral nature. God simply provides a new righteous moral nature for the elect in spite of being equally justly condemned along with the non-elect. There is no just cause that can be found in the elect over the non-elect that makes them deserving of salvation. The cause is found only in the good pleasure of God to be glorfied in the elect by His grace and to be glorified in the non-elect by their just condemnation as both are equally condemned according to their own merits. I am what I am by the grace of God and there go I but by His grace. -
BobRyan said: ↑"I STAND at the door and knock - if ANYONE hear my voice AND OPENS the door I WILL come in". Rev 3.
Do you define that to be synergism or Monergism?
Looks like Arminianism to me.....Click to expand... -
kyredneck said: ↑Lol! No doubt it does, to an Arminian.Click to expand...
-
preacher4truth said: ↑....this false idea, free will (God helpless unless we allow Him access) to an extreme.Click to expand...
-
Limited Atonement
BobRyan said: ↑That is true - but the C/A discussion asks about things like "limited atonement" and "is it true or not".
And the Bible itself expresses the plan of Salvation -- "Gospel" in God's terms of "Atonement" - and as we see in 1John 2:2 "Atoning Sacrifice".
So once you state the Gospel in the terms of Atonement (which always starts with the sin offering - the cross - the once-for-all sacrifice of Christ for all sins for all time) then ... how did you "define Atonement" and that will determine whether you believe it is "limited or not" and it will define what is meant by that term.
If certain University offers "under grad education for free to all" on a certain set of degrees for their entire state of Rhode Island - will "all be educated"??
If the question is whether the University's facilities and distance-learning program can accommodate the entire state - that can be measured to discover that "all really means all".
But if you mean "Will all be educated - will all get 4 year degrees" in the state of Rhode Island - that answer will be different.
So is it "limited education" or not? Depends on how you define your terms.
Calvinists often know this and so they insist Arminians use the Calvinist's definition. That does not always work out.
in Christ,
BobClick to expand...
No, the Bible does not express itself in terms of the Atonement, 1 John 2:2 reads "Propitiation" which can be defined as "means of salvation." The Christ became as the once for all sin offering the means of salvation for the whole world.
But this provision, available to all, must be individually applied to us. We must "receive" the reconciliation. And we receive the reconciliation when God credits our faith as righteousness and spiritually places us in Christ.
Page 6 of 7