Man’s Duty vs. God’s Elective Purpose Explained

I have read fellow Calvinists argue among themselves that Calvin taught either limited atonement or not!

 

Think that since even Apostle Paul had a struggle fully understanding the grace of God, we should all be mindful that we all see thru a glass dimly at times!

 

Well, regarding limited atonement, what if I said it this way:
"Did the Father in sending Christ, and did Christ in coming into the world, to make atonement for sin, do this with the design or for the purpose of saving only the elect or all men?" I prefer that to Limited atonement and I'll tip everyone off this time that is Louis Berkhof, who had it seems a basic understanding of Reformed theology. And yes, it is difficult for several reasons. It seems to have developed fully after Armenian and Lutheran theologians started attacking Reformed theology. It seems to be squeezed into a rebuttal of the Armenian five points. Also, there is the fact that when you read Owen's "The Death of Death in the Death of Christ" you have to keep in mind the charged political atmosphere at the time and how closely Calvinists, Armenians and Catholics were tied into government and the warfare that was coming. I think that affected Owen greatly in his work and in the way he treated opposing views. Bottom line is that a real Christian has a perfect right to not believe in a limited atonement at all or at least to dislike the "L" terminology and not have their basic Christianity challenged.

 

Dave,
The confessions are carefully worded documents.
When you tamper with the wording it changes the intent.
You raise the issue that some truths are hard to be understood;
14 Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless.

15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;

16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

17 Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.

That is why I asked what church you were in for 10yrs, or however long you said.They should have had studies available to work through the issues you speak of slowly and carefully.
here for you;
www.sermonaudio.com

 

"The Calvinists whom I admire do not claim to have simple easy solutions to complex biblical tensions. When their writings are difficult it's because the scriptures are difficult (as the apostle Peter admitted that in part, they are)" John Piper, "Are There Two Wills in God", from the book "Still Sovereign" by Tom Schreiner and Bruce Ware.
I don't always agree with Piper (sometimes I disagree a lot), but he's a pretty smart guy and he helped encourage me to start reading Edwards. That book came from a study at my church and if I remember correctly Bruce Ware did the study. You cannot possible study reformed theology and not realize how difficult it is. My church, and I will not give the name because I have seen no one on here give out a specific church name, with all it's flaws at least realizes this. No one "tampered with any wording". Once again we talk past each other.

 

Just compare the theology of as Calvin or a Gill to what is called such today!

 

Ships in the night.

 

Beside the point.

 

You were almost there bud, the only one that at least takes time to read and understand the point.
But then you couldn't stare down the barrel.
Given what you just rightly conceded, the excuse that "the reason men cannot believe is Adam's sin and therefore not God's fault" is unusable since it's God himself that so constituted Adam's fallen nature as to be unable to believe.
I'm not discussing any other point, and all discussions beside that point are beside the point.

 

Hello George,

I am not certain that it is beside the point.
God is sovereign, Man is responsible for his sin and rebellion.
Any attempt to violate God's Holy attributes, wisdom, knowledge, is a theological third rail.

All the proper confessions of faith start with the Premise of God being perfect in all His Holy attributes.
George, all discussion starts right here with this stark contrast;
3 Because I will publish the name of the Lord: ascribe ye greatness unto our God.

4 He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.

5 They have corrupted themselves, their spot is not the spot of his children:
they are a perverse and crooked generation.

God is perfect ,sinful man is not, yet fully responsible to God.

 

When one has no answer, one resorts to generalities.

 

Could you clarify for me? I would like to attempt to be very specific, but I am not sure I understand your objection, in a way that does not do violence to God's attributes...You are trying to say something that you feel is crucial and not being addressed, but i cannot understand what? I know you are sincere, so i would like to try and interact as clearly as I can.

 

Turn your rudder around, George.

 

George, spiritual and physical death are God's righteous judgments for man's sin. I realize you do not like this judgment and prefer one which is less severe. But God's judgments are always right, just and perfect, whether we feeble, finite, fallen creatures think so or not. There is no unrighteousness in Him (Ps. 82:15). With that I must end our conversation and trust the Lord to continue His work of grace in your life.

 

Again, not the point. You're ignoring or simply not reading what I'm writing. Please stop avoiding the point. See below.

 

Where have I objected to anything? Someone said that man's inability to believe is due to man himself because he sinned and became unable to believe. My point is that that particular argument doesn't work because it's God that programmed the effects of the fall so it's God that made man unable to believe (he could have not programmed that particular parameter of the fall and left man's will intact to believe).
Someone out there please tell me you understand this most basic, simple argument. You don't have to agree, just understand.
I think you Calvinist brethren have not fully analyzed the implications of your system which is why such a basic point seems impalpable to you. Instead, all I get is sermons about God's sovereignty...which for the umptieth time, is not the point of contention here.
My point is exactly that God IS sovereign, so the effects of the fall were not random, but his own programming. So God made Adam unable to respond then blames him for not responding.
Please guys turn off the automatic default answer setting and think about your interlocutor's actual point.

 

The answer is very simple.
God meant exactly what He said.
Dying,thou shalt surely die.
He did not say, dying you will be slightly wounded,or slightly confused in need of a touch of rehab.God meant what He said.

I do not question God's perfect wisdom at all.
Sounds as if you doubt God is perfect and Holy in His wisdom, His omniscience.
You want to suggest your idea of what took place at the fall would be superior to what God did?
I cannot understand why a person could entertain any such possibility.prov3:5

 

Not for you

 

Yes it could be. Much of Gods Truth must be spiritually discerned, its not black and white all the time, that's why the natural man cant discern it.

 

Its scripture principle, Paul is writing to believers, they are the elect. Christ died for believers, not unbelievers who remain permanently unbelievers.