Security of the Believer Beliefs

I find that the term 3,4,5 point calvinist has specific meaning as it is applied to the classic TULIP. Holding to those same ideas but not wanting to be called a 3 point Calvinist (for example) serves no purpose.

Call yourself "reformed" or "covenant reformed" or whatever - but if in the end you still come down on the same points of the TULIP as a 5 pointer or as a 3 pointer - I prefer the reference to the "points" since that spells it out in terms of those specific doctrines.

As I said - even many Arminians could be considered as TWO point Calvinists when it comes to Total Depravity and to Perseverance of the saints.

Having said that - I certainly argee tha I find Arminians here who would not hold to those two points either.

In my case I claim to be Arminian as does the entire denomination to which I belong - but I have no trouble identifying "to some degree" with the T, and P of the TULIP. I am not wary of being "pinned down" on those points.

In Christ,

Bob

 

And of course if the truth were to be told I hold to Limited Atonement in the pure 1 John 2:2 and Lev 16 technical sense but not in the popular sense in which it is used by Calvinists.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Correction - I ALWAYS use them IN proper context!

#1. CHrist on the OUTSIDE - lost humanity alone on the INSIDE.
#2. Christ is not opening the door - He is only knocking and waiting. (Drawing ALL mankind unto Him)
#3. The invitation is in the form of a knock - NOT in the form of OPENING the door and coming in but WAITING and knocking!

The gating action is very simple. Having STARTED with Christ taking the inititiative and knocking - the NEXT gate is "IF ANY of mankind" alone and on the inside WITHOUT Chirst -- chooses to hear AND to OPEN the door THEN the desired union will take place!

The next action is Christ’s - HE WILL come in -- and UNION With Christ Takes place. Note the details IN the text where Union WITH Christ is the focus!

Those who deny this goal - the objective of Christ in Knocking -- the goal of UNION WITH Christ -- deny the entire Gospel invitation of Rev 3:22!
Why deny the Gospel "just for Calvinism"? Why not embrace the truth instead?

See friends -- Be willing to quote the text and show how EACH salient point IN the illustration is showing the Gospel truth!!


Salvation is “individual” the remedy is “individual” the people IN the church of Laodicea are in fact “individuals” with the spiritual condition described, and in need of taking the “action” described – individually – to obtain the “individual solution” described IN the text in “individual” terms.

Note – the “individual terms” continue –

It is NOT just the Laodiceans that will enjoy God's company and sit with Christ - but ALL who open the door.

At times – the Calvinist approach is to imagine “the door of the CHURCH” is closed to Christ and all on the inside of the church are “without Christ” – all on the inside are “spiritually blind, wretched, poor, miserable and spiritually naked” without the robe of Christ. Then in that view – one of the members is asked to “let Christ into the church” since He is outside the door of the church knocking. But in that case the “result” would be that only to that One – is fellowship restored – the REST would remain – spewed out – miserable and lost since the language of the solution shows that “I with HIM and HE with ME” is the nature of this 1-to-1 solution.

Calvinism’s attempted rework of the text is not possible.

 

Matthew Henry
http://www.godrules.net/library/henry/henryrev3.htm


14-22 Laodicea was the last and worst of the seven churches of Asia. Here our Lord Jesus styles himself, "The Amen;" one steady and unchangeable in all his purposes and promises. If religion is worth anything, it is worth every thing. Christ expects men should be in earnest. How many professors of gospel doctrine are neither hot nor cold; except as they are indifferent in needful matters, and hot and fiery in disputes about things of lesser moment! A severe punishment is threatened…They must receive from Christ the white raiment he purchased and provided for them; his own imputed righteousness for justification, and the garments of holiness and sanctification. Let them give themselves up to his word and Spirit, and their eyes shall be opened to see their way and their end. Let us examine ourselves by the rule of his word, and pray earnestly for the teaching of his Holy Spirit, to take away our pride, prejudices, and worldly lusts. Sinners ought to take the rebukes of God's word and rod, as tokens of his love to their souls. Christ stood without; knocking, by the dealings of his providence, the warnings and teaching of his word, and the influences of his Spirit. Christ still graciously, by his word and Spirit, comes to the door of the hearts of sinners.
http://www.godrules.net/library/henry/henryrev3.htm


Those who open to him shall enjoy his presence. If what he finds would make but a poor feast, what he brings will supply a rich one. He will give fresh supplies of graces and comforts. In the conclusion is a promise to the overcoming believer. Christ himself had temptations and conflicts; he overcame them all, and was more than a conqueror. Those made like to Christ in his trials, shall be made like to him in glory. All is closed with the general demand of attention. And these counsels, while suited to the churches to which they were addressed, are deeply interesting to all men.
http://www.godrules.net/library/henry/henryrev3.htm

 

BR:

"Having said that - I certainly argee tha I find Arminians here who would not hold to those two points either."

GE:

According to a publication of the denomination you belong to, 'Questions on Doctrine', it is claimed SDAs neither are Calvinist nor Arminian, but 'somehow in-between' --- which is questionable enough to be understood at all!

 

To say it my way, SDAs are Arminian to the ultimate but unfailing consequence, of their doctrine of an 'investigative judgement'.
'Arminianism' and 'investigative judgment' are inseparable; one cannot accept the one but deny the other. I give Seventh Day Adventism the credit for their consistency and honest consequentiallity in this matter. It should be an embarrassment for the rest of Christianity that rejects the SDA logical insight.

 

In the thread regarding Charles Stanley - it "may" be that he is not Calvinist but is some flavor of Arminian - but when you DO find someone that does hold to either the 3-point calvinist view or the 4-point position OR the 5 point position -- it is helpful shorthand to simply state it.

Far be it from me to "speak for all Arminians". I differ with most Arminians on this board in that I find no way to reconcile OSAS with the FREE WILL baseline position in the Arminian camp. The same goes for Perseverance. I find no way to reject the Bible teaching on Perseverance AND still be logically and consistently Arminian.

I get a lot of that on this board but in most cases it seems to boild down to "A distinction without a difference". It does no good to HOLD to 3 Point Calvinist positions but refuse to be called a 3-pointer only to have to later admit to all 3 points as positions you do hold (for example)!

see my point?

in Christ,

Bob

 

Well as usual with you GE - I need an actual quote. When "you quote you" it always raises a red flag for me.

Having said that - SDAs are united in believing that ALL must CHOOSE to accept the Gospel - no brains get "zapped" into it - no arbitrary selection, no "God so Loved the FEW that He gave". SDAs reject OSAS so they fully embrace Perseverance of the saints. They reject "limited Atoning Sacrifice" but rather insist on an UNLIMITED atoning Sacrifice in 1John 2:2.

The only reason someone might not call that 100% PURE ARMINIANISM is that SDAs accept the Bible doctrine on the sinful nature and the depravity of man and the fact that the supernatural DRAWING OF ALL by God is what ENABLES sinful mankind to accept the Gospel. However most non-SDA Arminians I have met ALSO agree with that position.

in Christ,

Bob

 

HP: I would like to ask you a question or two about what you see as the “Eternal Security view.” Which specific points are you claiming this view does not hold to in TULIP? Secondly, what do you mean by “will not reject grace?” Are they able to reject grace but just will not, or it is impossible for them to reject grace? Are you saying that it is possible for them to deny grace and be lost or not? Does man have anything to do with his salvation, or is God sovereign in choosing who will receive grace and who will not?

 

HP has argued repeatedly that the only logical - consistent argument available for OSAS is that "man has nothing to do with salvation therefore man also have nothing to do with falling from grace -- losing salvation".

In that model - he has a point. And it would also hold that limited atonement - unconditional election etc must also be needed since the argument that "man has nothing to do with this" is the only real basis for arguing that salvation CAN NOT be given up the SAME way Adam gave up Eden.

In Christ,

bob

 

HP: So I take it this view also believes that salvation has conditions and that man, by his own actions, determines who will be saved and that man can reject the grace God bestows upon him? If the atonement is not limited, are you saying this view denies a literal payment for sins was made? If a literal payment for sins was made, either this view would logically be forced to believe in universalism or the payment made was indeed limited to the sins of the elect, or the atonement was not able to really atone for certain sins. So what exactly does this eternal security belief really believe?

HP: If one cannot reject grace, it of necessity is simply irresistable. If one says that one ‘will not’ reject grace, they have really not defined what they believe. They could either believe the possibility to reject grace is possible, or not.

HP: There is absolutely no distinction between the two views that I can see UNLESS those that claim “can but will not” believe that God is not the sole cause of salvation and the atonement was not a literal payment. If both sides say that God is the sole cause of salvation and there was a literal payment for sins, the distinction between the Calvinist perspective and the ‘Eternal Security’ is a chimera, a mere sophistic distinction without any real merit.

HP: From what I have seen so far, cannot and will not, due to like held beliefs in the atonement being a literal payment and God as the sole cause of salvation, are again in logical reality, harmonious views.

HP: Again, you will have to show me that you reject a literal payment, and that you do not believe that God is the sole cause of salvation in order to convince me of any real difference.

Let me explain once more. If one holds to a literal payment, either you are a universalist or you believe in a limited atonement. Why? Because if Christ literally bought the sins of the entire world, they would of necessity have to be atoned for resulting in universalism. If not, you are forced to believe that the atonement was indeed limited to the sins of the elect.

If one says that God is the sole cause of salvation, and man plays no part in it, you again are logically forced to conclude that salvation is indeed limited to those whom God atoned for, obviously a limited amount or again all would be saved.

The questions are simple. 1. Does the eternal security view hold to a literal payment? 2. Does the eternal security view hold that God is the sole cause of salvation?

If you answer in the affirmative to these two questions, any denial of limited atonement and unconditional election are meaningless. One that answers these two questions in the affirmative has logically affirmed the same ends of the standard Calvinistic position.

 

There is a difference.

The loyal angels "Will not rebel" - but it is incorrect to say that God created angels such that they "could not rebel".

3 and 5 point Calivnists hold to Perseverance. 4 Point Calvinists do not.

I agree that God warns us in places like Matt 18 about "forgiveness revoked" when it comes to failing to persevere.

But failure to perseveren CAN NOT mean you had nothing to persevere IN to start with - because THEN it would be a circular argument.

In Christ,

Bob

 

I believe in literal payment - but no Calvinism and not OSAS

There is another option.

#1. Christ did not "buy sins" because nobody was "selling sins".
#2. Christ became the Lev 16 "Atoning Sacrifice" for our sins - but atonement's process does not end BEFORE the high priests work begins according to Lev 16.


Christ's suffering and death met the demands of HIS OWN Law - but HE determines the conditions upon which the sinner benefits from that.

That is a word-trick. "Sole cause" and "sole actor" are two different things entirely. I may be the sole cause of enabling my family vacation but I am not the sole ACTOR in it. If the children refuse to go - we have a wrecked vacation. IF they get in the care cheerfully they can not then claim credit for taking the family to Europe! (Though some Calvinists like to think of it that way - I admit). But you are right that OSAS depends on God being both sole CAUSE AND sole ACTOR! When the puppeteer stages a battle between "good puppet" and "bad puppet" the puppeteer is STILL sole cause AND sole Actor in the play.

In Christ,

Bob

 

HP: What sins were 'literally' paid for? How did Christ literally pay for one solitary sin, with the penalty for one sin being nothing other than eternal separation from God? Is Christ, or has Christ ever been 'eternally' separated from God?

 

Literal payment as in literal sacrifice that met the demands of His OWN literal Law.

But there is no "bank" and there is no "seller of sins" and there is no "Christ paying the Father for sin". I.e. No "grocery store for sins"

There is only Christ providing the substitutionary "Atoning Sacrifice" to meet the demands of the Law.

That is the DIFFERENCE between the "Atonement" model for Salvation that God HIMSELF defines for us in Lev 16 -- and a grocery store model where you come to the cashier and pay for groceries.

In Christ,

Bob