Since I have been on this forum (since 2001) there has consistently been the accusation Calvinism denies a universal aspect of the Cross. Specifically this comes up in opposition to the view that the work of the Cross was such that all who believed would be saved. In other words, the opposing position is an argument against what is said through assuming what is not said.
I realize that Calvinism (just like non-Calvinism) comes in many colors. But are there any doctrines of Calvinism that denies a universal aspect of Christ’s work? I ask because it seems that the Canons of Dort affirm that salvation was a sufficient and legitimate offer towards those who won’t believe.
Doctrines of Calvinism denying the offer of salvation to the world
Discussion in 'Calvinism & Arminianism Debate' started by JonC, Jul 10, 2017.
Page 1 of 9
-
Iconoclast Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
The offer is made to all...the results are in God's hands
4 Now thanks be unto God, which always causeth us to triumph in Christ, and maketh manifest the savour of his knowledge by us in every place.
15 For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish:
16 To the one we are the savour of death unto death; and to the other the savour of life unto life. And who is sufficient for these things?
17 For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ. -
liafailrock MemberSite Supporter
There's a lot I could say on this subject, but don't feel like writing a whole book-length in answers. However, I think what is the core of this debate is the Calvinist's view that only those whom God calls is saved, thus predestination and seemingly allowing most to go to hell. Arminians stress God's election contingent on faith (free choice). Seemingly contradictory scriptures such as 'no man comes to me except the Father draw him' vs "God is not willing any should perish" do not help, either. But we have to understand the context. The basic answer is that God is willing everyone to be saved, but only the elect (the church) are chosen to rule and reign with him. The rest of the salvation comes later. If we believe this is all "here and how" and then die and either go to heaven or hell, then indeed this becomes a great contradiction. Salvation does not end there. Everyone has at least one chance to hear the Word of God. But their chance is when they are called, be it now or later. Be it now or the millennium or even afterwards. The church is the firstfruits. This is why it's important to understand the feasts of Leviticus 23 because they are a prophetic layout of God's redemptive plan in which each feast has some facet of salvation. The church does not see past Passover and Pentecost. Don't ask me why and nobody ever mentions Tabernacles. I remember as a kid viewing the hymn board saying this is the 437th Sunday after Pentecost . I'm being facetious of course, but the next "holiday" (and not even a biblical one) was Advent and back to Lent/Easter (Passover). But there's the feast of Trumpets/Atonement/Tabernacles (The Second Coming/reconciliation and millennium) and even the Last Great Day (foreshadowing the Great White Throne Judgement. In all these feasts people were being saved and it crescendos on the Last Day. I personally believe most will ultimately be saved, but only a few are chosen to be the church in this age.
For now, ours is to be called, and we are in training for the future Kingdom, not to die, go to heaven and sing praises in some hedonistic lifestyle of bliss. Not everyone is called now, nor saved (thus what Calvin saw but not beyond that). Later, the rest will be saved (what Arminians see, but mistakenly in this age, not the next). Thus, looking at it from a biblical view like this, I see no problems whatsoever and a thread like this is as useless as the blind men describing the elephant each insisting they are correct. -
-
Revmitchell Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
I see the primary difference in how "election" is defined.
-
liafailrock MemberSite Supporter
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Reformed, in another thread on here said:
"No one can resist what is termed "the effectual call" of God."
He also said
"Man does have a choice, but it is a choice with a will that has been newly freed from the bondage of sin. Martin Luther touched on this in his book Bondage of the Will. This analogy will not do the discussion justice, but imagine you were marooned on a deserted island with hardly enough food to keep you alive. You are eventually rescued, but you are emaciated physically. Your cheeks are sunken in, and you ribs easily show through your body. To celebrate your rescue you are served a bountiful meal. Every delicacy you can imagine is put before you. Could you resist partaking of that feast? I seriously doubt it. Multiply that by tens of thousands and we may have a slight understanding of what it would be like for a person to be illumined to the truth (by the Holy Spirit), who understands their pitiful condition, and still rejects the Gospel. To quote the Princess Bride, "Inconceivable!" Once the will of the individual has been set free, there is no greater desire of the will than to accept the free gift of eternal life.
So, does man choose after being illuminated? Yes. Does he choose freely? Yes. Can he choose to reject Christ? No. He cannot reject because the true need of his liberated will has been filled" -
-
liafailrock MemberSite Supporter
-
https://www.gty.org/library/sermons-library/90-296/the-doctrine-of-gods-effectual-call -
-
Am I wrong in my reading of your first statement in this thread? -
liafailrock MemberSite Supporter
(see my post #3 referencing the feasts) -
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Page 1 of 9