1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

"For God SO LOVES the HUMAN RACE..."

Discussion in 'Calvinism & Arminianism Debate' started by Acts2.21, Jun 17, 2019.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. JonC

    JonC Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    20,208
    Likes Received:
    2,272
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Not the doctrines of grace (the "scope" of the Atonement was not even an issue). Calvin assumed Christ to be the Propitiation for all men without exception.
     
  2. 37818

    37818 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2018
    Messages:
    5,652
    Likes Received:
    486
    Faith:
    Baptist
    John Qwen sarcasticly wrote To The Reader, "To what purpose serves the general ransom, but only to assert that Almighty God would have the precious blood of his dear Son poured out for innumerable souls whom he will not have to share in any drop thereof, and so, in respect of them, to be spilt in vain, or else to be shed for them only that they might be the deeper damned?"

    Which is the case, BTW. Romans 8:34. Romans 14:9-11.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  3. Reformed1689

    Reformed1689 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2019
    Messages:
    5,386
    Likes Received:
    1,175
    Faith:
    Baptist
    You can trace that at least as far back as Augustine.
     
  4. JonC

    JonC Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    20,208
    Likes Received:
    2,272
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Augustine taught that Christ suffered in humanity's place.

    I do not know we can make the leap to say he affirmed the "Doctrines of Grace" (it would be problematic to even say Calvin affirmed the Doctrines of Grace).

    That's the thing with theology - it seeks to answer the questions being asked.
     
  5. Reformed1689

    Reformed1689 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2019
    Messages:
    5,386
    Likes Received:
    1,175
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I was referring particularly to limited atonement. Or should I say "particular redemption."
     
  6. Mr. Davis

    Mr. Davis Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2017
    Messages:
    363
    Likes Received:
    55
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Not all are called. Those that are not will not be saved.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  7. Iconoclast

    Iconoclast Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    18,400
    Likes Received:
    1,869
    Faith:
    Baptist
    "Van,

    Nope..it is not a multiple choice test. He is not the "means " of salvation for all men. He is salvation for His covenant children.
    He is the actual propitiation for anyone worldwide whos sins are propitiated...



    Yes a great text showing direct substitution, particular redemption.

    The result is the accomplishment of redemption for the elect sheep.
    11 But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;

    12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

    13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:

    14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

     
  8. Iconoclast

    Iconoclast Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    18,400
    Likes Received:
    1,869
    Faith:
    Baptist
    No...He did not. This is to deny the substitutionary nature of the atonement once again.
    Unsaved men die in their sins as Jesus taught in John 8. Surely a "Calvinist" such as yourself would not make such an error:Cautious:Cautious:Cautious.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  9. Iconoclast

    Iconoclast Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    18,400
    Likes Received:
    1,869
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The teaching is all through scripture itself. Who wrote about it, more, or less is a secondary issue exploited by some who cannot deal with the full range of scripture and seek a way to dismiss it without full consideration.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  10. MB

    MB Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2006
    Messages:
    5,775
    Likes Received:
    232
    Faith:
    Baptist
    It's plainly obvious that you don't know what the Greek grammar was 2000 years ago. Just curious do you always talk like you know it all? Must bve a complex of some kind.:rolleyes:
    MB
     
  11. JonC

    JonC Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    20,208
    Likes Received:
    2,272
    Faith:
    Baptist
    That's just plain stupid (the statement, not you) - no one is denying the substutionary nature of the Atonement. No one is denying the unsaved will die in their sins.

    You can't (shouldn't) just make up these straw men so you can knock 'em down. That may impress children but not us grown ups.

    If the Reformers were correct and Christ is the propitiation for the sins of all without exception and Augustine was correct that Christ died for the sins of the human race where does this idea that they have to affirm universal salvation originate????

    (Doctrinally it is within Beza's Calvinizm after he systematized Calvin's work and placed sovereignty within soteriology, something Calvin hadn't done but probably should have).

    But here it is assumed because he has proved unable/ unwilling to "connect the dots". He says "if-then" as if we are to blindly follow and that is where he rests his case.
     
  12. JonC

    JonC Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    20,208
    Likes Received:
    2,272
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Do you believe Calvin could not deal with the full range of Scripture? What about Jonathan Edwards who held a view of predestination very much intertwined with omniscience (some Calvinists call him "moderate" while others [the hypocrites] deny his doctrine as even being Calvinism....except when it suits them). Could he "not deal with the full range of Scripture"? What of Luther? Arminius? Augustine? Aquinas?

    Are we to believe you or your choices of teachers and what you select of their teachings incorporate this "full range of Scripture" where all others have failed?

    I apologize on advance (but am not sorry for saying it) this is the kind of arrogance in doctrine that typifies the cage staged.

    That type have hijacked Calvinism for its own agenda and it is troubling. Your misplacement of the Decrees is not Calvinism. It is neo-orthodox, a corruption of the genuine article, and puts the rest of Calvinism in a bad light.
     
  13. Iconoclast

    Iconoclast Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    18,400
    Likes Received:
    1,869
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Well, JonC my friend,

    I do not pay much attention to self-proclaimed "calvinists", who "like" or post" winner" to every non cal post ....attacking the position..

    You seek to redefine doctrine and church history in a way most mainstream, real Calvinists do not do.

    Of course, you are quite welcomed to post your ideas as you want to..
    We are also quite welcome and free not to follow your rabbit trails, and looking to remark on inconsistencies from church history.

    You like others now look to use the term cage stage to define mainstream Calvinism, which no one has ever seen you define, or defend at any time in recent memory., if ever.
    Your excessive hubris causes you to try and turn from doctrinal truth, to again make a personal comment about those who post on here.

    Stick to doctirine, not people,like here ;
    offer your opinion on the doctrine, not on me, or what you think about me. I am not the topic of the OP. I do not think you understand my posts. Perhaps you should avoid commenting on them if you cannot help but call me unkind names,and go all over the place....
     
  14. Iconoclast

    Iconoclast Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    18,400
    Likes Received:
    1,869
    Faith:
    Baptist
    We are not looking to this man or that man, but scripture itself.
    Do not put us into these positions some offered years ago.
    No one quoted these men, but rather Jesus and the Apostles.
     
  15. JonC

    JonC Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    20,208
    Likes Received:
    2,272
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Stick to the doctrines, @Iconoclast . We are not friends and we do not need to pretend otherwise. I have not, and will not, insult you. Don't patronize me and we can get along discussing doctrine.

    What we can discuss is OBJECTIVE doctrine (not opinion). Neither of us know if Calvin would have affirmed limited atonement should that have been an issue of his day. I think we both suspect he may have, but that is hypothetical.

    We both know Jonathan Edwards affirmed predestination (you mentioned studying the man's doctrine), but not in a way that many "stronger" Calvinists would accept.

    The issue is that Calvinists have not historically denied that Christ is a propitiation for the sins of manking, without exception (to borrow from Calvin). Some have adopted that view but others never did.

    The reasoning is we cannot simply state "if Christ is the propitiation for the sin of man without exception/ for the entire human race (Calvin/ Augustine) then all are saved or Christ died for mo ones sins.

    If you want to make that claim then you need to defend it instead of just stating it as fact.

    Christ is the propitiation for all man's sins without exception (Calvin). Christ died for the sin of the human race (Augustine). Yet only those who believe are saved.
     
  16. JonC

    JonC Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    20,208
    Likes Received:
    2,272
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I am referencing these men and their theologies. Scripture does not settle the matter as philosophical leanings color interpretation.

    You may not find value in the works of Calvin, Edwards, and Augustine (which may explain why you found their view on this topic so inept). But they were scholars and have offered much on tbe topic.

    Scripture states that Christ is the propitiation for all man's sins, and the language (as Calvin noted) demands this to be without exception.

    Yet Scripture also clearly presents the unsaved as dying in their sin.

    That should settle it, and traditionally it did for most (to include many Calvinists).

    But as Calvinistic Baptists became more and more like Presbyterians that baptize a neo-orthodox "Calvinism" emerged which does not really belong to Baptists because of their Presbyterian leanings and never belonged to the Reformed churches (proper) because of their Baptist distinctive.

    I suspect this plays a lot in the "cage stage-ness" many experience. They are neo-orthodox and do not really fit in with any camp so they force their own.
     
  17. JonC

    JonC Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    20,208
    Likes Received:
    2,272
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Apologies...I should have clarified that it was not Calvin, Edwards, or Augustine who said that Christ is the propitiation for all man's sin. That was actually Sripture. I offered Calvin's affirmation that this means all men without exception snd Augustine's view that Christ died for the sins of the human race.

    I should have provided a verse....but you know the saying - give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.

    Christ said to repent and believe and spoke of many who would die in their sins. Again, sorry but I am not going to spoon-feed anyone. It would be a disservice anyway because you'd never learn to discern Scripture from men's words.
     
  18. Iconoclast

    Iconoclast Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    18,400
    Likes Received:
    1,869
    Faith:
    Baptist
    "JonC,


    :Redface:Sick
    .
    :Cautious:oops::rolleyes:

    I have been telling you, that is not going to happen...I will show you why in this post.
    It does not look like that is going to happen.

    I did not bring up, Calvin, or anything hypothetical.

    Here is another example. I mentioned have studied Jonathan Edwards, yes, in other threads. That does not mean I agree or disagree with him and his view. I do not look at things the way you do, but when you state something it is as if you presume everyone is buying what you are selling, the way you pronounce it. That is not the case at all..
    I can read his work, and see what he offers on it. I can take what I see as biblical and leave the rest.


    I am not talking about what Calvinists have historically held, or the "early church fathers"
    I was speaking of what Jesus said. you are the one who attempts to steer the discussion where you want it to go
    You can do what you want, but I for one will not be following your explanation.



    The difference is we, the regular Calvinists, [the rank and file] do not agree with your assessment. We believe in an actual propitiation and a penal substitutionary atonement, [on behalf of the elect only]which you have opposed over and over again with Biblicist and Martin M.


    the other Cals on here all agree for the most part. They know exactly what I mean, and I know exactly what they mean.
    If anyone's sins are the subject of the actual propitiation, the wrath of God is turned away from that believer. Actual believers are scattered worldwide, so anyone who believes anywhere in the world has the same blood and cross work turning away God's wrath.

    Those who remain in Adam in unbelief NEVER have any propitiation for their sins.

    .
    Wonderful, except Augustine was not an Apostle, so I will go with the writer of Hebrews
    16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.....not the seed of Adam.
     
  19. JonC

    JonC Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    20,208
    Likes Received:
    2,272
    Faith:
    Baptist
    @Iconoclast ,

    As I've stated I have not insulted you but I no desire to be on friendly terms (I do not desire you and I to be more familiar than is warranted to discuss issues). If you think you see an insult between the lines then you have my sincere apology and I invite you to reexamine the post (they were worded very carfully and very intentionally).

    Scripture states that Jesus is the propitiation for the sins of all men. This is a verse (it is not one of the scholars you want banned from the conversation). The "all men" is clarified in the verse (as Calvin rightely identified as "without exception" and Augustine alluded to with his conviction that Christ died for the sin of the human race as a whole).

    The problem with excluding the commentaries of other men is that when you come up with an idea that is unsubstianted by other Christians then you are without a doubt wrong. Men disagree and you may find yourself agreeing with one who holds the same phiosophy as you, but if you stand alone (or in a very small sect) then you are on very dangerous grounds. This is even more highlighted when you are dismissing scholars who dedicadted their entire lives to God's Word simply because you don't want to consider the "words of men".

    God gave these men to the faith. We do not blindly follow them, and even they disagreed with each other. But we should not dismiss their contributions so lightly.

    Anyway, to restate - it was John (the Apostle, not Calvin) who wrote that Christ is the propitiation for the sins of the world. I referenced Calvin to show my insistance this is "the sins of all men without exception" is within orthodox Calvinism (since you phrased your reply that my "Calvinism"is somehow not Calvinism).

    In other words, that was Scripture (you were thinking the wrong "John").
     
  20. Iconoclast

    Iconoclast Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    18,400
    Likes Received:
    1,869
    Faith:
    Baptist
    JonC,

    I do not agree. Scripture does settle the matter

    JonC, I do not need you to be my spokesman. I might indeed find some value in some of what they taught. I do not need you suggesting what i might, or might not believe.
    Let me post what i post, and you post what you want.
    On this thread, did I offer a quote from any of these persons? NO...I did not
    .

    (which may explain why you found their view on this topic so inept).

    Where did I say they were "inept"? I do not need a spokesman


    nevertheless, I did not quote any of them on this thread did I?

    Guess what, I disagree. In what way was Jesus the propitiation for the Egyptian soldiers who drowned in the Exodus?

    I do not care what Calvin thought on this. many times people take his quotes out of context and offer an alternate meaning to his thoughts. The scripture does not teach this.
    This I can agree with as I quoted Jesus teaching this fact.
    Calvinists do believe in Jesus teaching.
    This is your opinion, not necessarily the facts

    You can suspect what you want. I suspect certain things about your view also. I have no need to share them in this format. I would recommend you do not need to offer your ideas, on my posts. I do not think you can see the difference between what Calvinists see, and what you imagine they see
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...