Are the five points Biblical or man made?

[Tom Butler]

Let us just state that my view is much the same as yours with the exception that I hold God reaches out to all men and only then can man believe or not believe those things which God has revealed to him.


With respect to my personal view - No, I do not agree with the foreseen faith aspect but will agree that this is the common view of many non-cals and is the view of Arminians.

I should have remembered that you are not a typical non-Cal. That's why I asked for correction to any mis-statement of your views.

Actaully I agree with your statement on the first, but also contend that what you give with respect to your view does not contradict mine in the least. Which is why many 'so-called' Cals (or 4 pointers) see both views as true.
Would not His shed blood be 'sufficient' for all men? And would not that blood be efficient for any or all who believe?

That's what I perceive is the typical non-Cal view--sufficient for all, efficient for the elect.

[Quick synopsis of my view - It is based upon the Sacrifice of Atonement that had to satisfy the Law which God laid down. That sacrifice was made on behalf of ALL of Israel, even though not every person who was a Jew believed. That sacrifice made was not applied to all for whom it was made but only those who through faith received it. (Rom 3:25)

I understand the analogy. I'm curious, though, as to whether the Sacrifice of Atonement was made for Gentiles as well as Jews.

No, grace does not come through faith. (actually I haven't ever heard anyone put it quite like that either). Grace brings forth faith. If God had not first loved me and gave himself for me, I could have never, in faith, believe on Him.

Our divergence here is mainly that only the elect are given 'grace' and also 'faith'.

I should proofread myself more. You are correct. Grace does not come through faith. Salvation comes through faith, by grace. I, of course, hold that faith is a gift.

]Perseverence/Preservation. We both agree, period.


You rarely misrepresent my position though you might get my views mixed up alot of times with other non-cals who might differ with me on certain things :thumbs:

Yep, that's what I did.

 

[RAdam]

The sacrifice on the day of atonement was made for all Israel, I agree. But, we must set a few things in light here.

First, that this is a picture of the atonement of Christ I think we would all agree. As such, notice a few things. For one, this didn't put away sins but rather is meant to point to Christ and picture the work He would one day accomplish. For another, the effects of this atonement weren't offered to any but were made for Israel by the high priest (picturing Christ) and thus was totally effective for all in the sense in which it was intended. Lastly, who does Israel picture here? To answer this question one must ask who Israel was. Well, they were God's chosen people at the time. Thus you can see that Israel pictures God's eternally chosen people, the elect.

Secondly, if you'll read the book of Hebrews you'll notice that the author talks about Christ putting away sin by the sacrifice of Himself in definite terms. If the sacrifice of Christ was made for every single person in existence, then going by the author's language it's effective for every single person in existence.

Lastly, I think the biggest problem with general atonement is this: Christ didn't just put away sin at Calvary. He also made rendered you able to obey. Notice what Paul tells Titus concerning Jesus Christ: "Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works." Christ didn't merely atone for our sins, He also secured our desire to want to serve Him, and He gave us His righteousness. The effectiveness of what Christ did on Calvary is absolute. If you proof of that read what Paul wrote in the second half of Romans 5. There, Paul says that Christ's representation is "much more" than Adam's. Yet, people advocate that the effectiveness is far less than Adam's. It just doesn't add up.

 

[Me4Him]

Why would God give man the law, explaining what is sin,

Then, through "Sovereign will"...."predestine" man to do the things he said not to do,

or not do the things he said to do,

and then "Justify/Condemn" man because man "Complied" with God's "predestine Sovereign will"????




This being the case, you would have to believe God created an "INFERIOR RACE" of people (Unchosen) for "no other reason" than to demonstrate his power/mercy to the "CHOSEN". (Ro 9)



It was/is along this line of thinking that led to the holocaust, and people killing these "INFIDELS" thinking they are doing "God's service".

The ones who consider themselves the "Wises" are the "easiest" for Satan to "deceive".

Ro 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

 

[RAdam]

You have a distorted view of predestination as taught in the bible. The bible nowhere says that God predestinated men to hell, or caused men to sin. The only times the bible speaks of predestination is is with respect to people going to heaven.

"Inferior race"? What? Paul says that before regeneration we were "the children of wrath, even as others." It's not the idea of a superior race. I, in my natural state, was just the same as anybody else. Even now, I'm not to have a highminded view since I have nothing to glory in save the cross of Christ. Never mind the fact that I don't have magical sheep-view glasses allowing me to differentiate between who are His and who aren't. On top of that, to allege that the idea of election led to the holocaust is just so wrong that I loath even having to reply to it. Darwinian evolution and socialism is what leads to a holocaust, not a biblically sound doctrine.

By the way, Romans 1:22, you might need to check context. Paul is talking about unrighteous men, not godly men.

 

[webdog]

I should have remembered that you are not a typical non-Cal. That's why I asked for correction to any mis-statement of your views.

I would like to clarify that there are many non cal's that don't agree with the forseen faith view. Arminians hold to this, but they don't constitute all non cal's

 

[webdog]

Its all built around giving some type of power to man.

...and God giving faith to man doesn't constitute this? Has your view of God now gone down (as you are so quick to accuse non cal's of)? If I give you something to use and you use it, who is actually using it...the giver? This is part of the nonsense that turned me off to this theology.

 

[webdog]

Lastly, I think the biggest problem with general atonement is this: Christ didn't just put away sin at Calvary. He also made rendered you able to obey.

How was Abraham able to obey (and countless others in the OT) if Christ needed to die first?

 

[RAdam]

How was Abraham saved eternally if Christ needed to die first?

 

[webdog]

How was Abraham saved eternally if Christ needed to die first?

You stated Christ's death was necessary in order to first obey. That would seem anyone before Christ's death was unable to obey.

 

[RAdam]

And the view you are apparently presenting would say that Christ must have first died for Abraham to be saved eternally. How then was Abraham saved?

 

[Tom Butler]

I would like to clarify that there are many non cal's that don't agree with the foreseen faith view. Arminians hold to this, but they don't constitute all non cal's

Well, I'm learning something. I've always thought that we all hold to election of some kind, since it's in the Bible; and that the disagreement is over how it works. The only two views I've ever heard of were the Calvinist view and the foreseen faith view. Now you and Allan both reject foreseen faith. So will you flesh out your view of election some more. If not Calvinist, if not foreseen faith, then what?

 

[Me4Him]

You have a distorted view of predestination as taught in the bible. The bible nowhere says that God predestinated men to hell, or caused men to sin. The only times the bible speaks of predestination is is with respect to people going to heaven.

You know that and I know that, but Calvin's doctrine proves a lot of others don't.

"Inferior race"? What? Paul says that before regeneration we were "the children of wrath, even as others." It's not the idea of a superior race. I, in my natural state, was just the same as anybody else. Even now, I'm not to have a highminded view since I have nothing to glory in save the cross of Christ.

On top of that, to allege that the idea of election led to the holocaust is just so wrong that I loath even having to reply to it. Darwinian evolution and socialism is what leads to a holocaust, not a biblically sound doctrine.

Hilter tried to use Science/Medicine to prove the Jews were an inferior race, it helped to justify the holocaust.

Islam does believe in "free will", they won't kill you "IF" you'll convert, otherwise, you're an inferior infidel worthy of death.

By the way, Romans 1:22, you might need to check context. Paul is talking about unrighteous men, not godly men.

Christians can consider themselves a little too "Wise" as well, and be "deceived" by Satan,

Satan/Sin are never finished until the "last breath".

 

[swaimj]

The only two views I've ever heard of were the Calvinist view and the foreseen faith view. Now you and Allan both reject foreseen faith. So will you flesh out your view of election some more. If not Calvinist, if not foreseen faith, then what?

The biblical phrase that is pertinent here is "elect according to foreknowledge", found in I Peter, if I recall correctly.

I disagree with the calvinists view of this verse (as I understand their understanding) for two reasons. First, if election is "according to" anything, then it is not unconditional. Second, I think calvinists do violence to the meaning of the word "foreknowledge" by defining it in such a way that is not supported by any greek lexicon that I have ever looked at and by defining it in such a way that it is virtually indistinguishable in its meaning from election. So calvinists (as I understand their understanding) have the verse saying "elect according to election" and thereby defend their stance that election is unconditional.

However, some non-calvinists take this verse to mean "elect according to foreseen faith". "God looked down the corridors of time and saw how men would respond to the gospel, and based upon their response; their foreseen faith, he chose them to salvation".

Here is my take on it. God is sovereign. He knows the end from the beginning. He knows everything that will occur, everything that could occur but will not, and everything that would occur if the things that will not occur did occur. His knowledge is comprehensive, complete, and infallible. Not only does he know it all, but he planned it all; the big things (like the sacrifice of His Son which was planned before the foundations of the world) and the little things that are seemingly insignificant (like how many hairs are on a person's head and when the sparrow falls to the ground). On this basis; his knowledge of the future, he elected. And yet, his creatures act freely.

How can this last statement be reconciled with the preceding paragraph? I do not know. Such knowledge is too lofty for me, I cannot obtain it. So, election is based upon foreknowledge. This is a mystery.

 

[RAdam]

To say election is unconditional is to say it is unconditional on our part. Obviously it cannot be unconditional on God's part since He is the electing. So, to say "according to the foreknowledge of God the Father" means election can't be unconditional really doesn't work. Had Peter said, "elect according to my faith" or "elect according to my works" or anything like that, then yes we would say that election is conditional. But the text doesn't say that.

The key passage here is Romans 8:29-30. Those God foreknew He predestinated to be conformed to the image of His Son. Ok, then those He predestinated, He called, justified, and glorified. Those whom God foreknew were called by Him, justified by Him, and shall be glorified by Him in the resurrection.

Another key passage is Ephesians 1:3-4. Paul states there that God "hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: according as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world." All spiritual blessings you've received have come from God in accord with His election of you before the world began. That means the faith you have whereby you believe in Jesus Christ is given to you according to Him choosing you. The knowledge you have of God is given to you according to election.

 

[Tom Butler]

I disagree with the calvinists view of this verse (as I understand their understanding) for two reasons. First, if election is "according to" anything, then it is not unconditional. Second, I think calvinists do violence to the meaning of the word "foreknowledge" by defining it in such a way that is not supported by any greek lexicon that I have ever looked at and by defining it in such a way that it is virtually indistinguishable in its meaning from election. So calvinists (as I understand their understanding) have the verse saying "elect according to election" and thereby defend their stance that election is unconditional.

It would be helpful to the discussion if you'd explain what your understanding is of the Calvinist definition of foreknowledge., and how they do violence to the meaning.

How one defines foreknowledge is critical to his view. So please define the view you're attacking.

 

[webdog]

Well, I'm learning something. I've always thought that we all hold to election of some kind, since it's in the Bible; and that the disagreement is over how it works. The only two views I've ever heard of were the Calvinist view and the foreseen faith view. Now you and Allan both reject foreseen faith. So will you flesh out your view of election some more. If not Calvinist, if not foreseen faith, then what?

With an ominpresent God (one who exists in the past, present and future...all at the same time) there is no looking into the future for God...He exists in all points of time at the same time.

 

[webdog]

And the view you are apparently presenting would say that Christ must have first died for Abraham to be saved eternally. How then was Abraham saved?

I didn't present any view...I commented on a phrase you gave. The Bible says Abraham was saved by faith.

 

[Allan]

I understand the analogy. I'm curious, though, as to whether the Sacrifice of Atonement was made for Gentiles as well as Jews

The Jews were Gods people as a Nation and ALL Gentiles could come into that nation if they so choose to. Thus God did not need to do two seperate sacrifices because one was suffient since all may enter in. The Gentiles were not excluded from entering and becoming one with the Jewish nation. (we see at the leaving of Egypt many of those gentiles left with them) We must also understand that God did His work through that Nation of Israel and thus all that was typified and fore-shadowing Christ was seen and done through this people but was also open to all people. They were the window so to speak for the world to see the grace, mercy, and judgment of God.

Christ was the sacrifice (which we know) but his sacrifice differed from the OT sacrifice in that it extend not to the Jews (nation) only but to the whole world. The shadow was no longer needed and the real extensive sacrifice was to be made for all. The OT sacrifice was made for all those in the Nation and thuse encompassed and was made on behalf of those who did not believe (or even into idolatry). Remember that anyone could be apart of that nation and also not all those in the Nation of Israel were believers. Thus the atonement was a picture pf the encompassing nature of the atoement for of all men, but to be viewed in miniture (so to speak) as seen through Israel that all may see and identify Him as the one true God. Thus all that transpired must be related and equated to, from, and through the God of Israel.

 

[Allan]

It would be helpful to the discussion if you'd explain what your understanding is of the Calvinist definition of foreknowledge., and how they do violence to the meaning.

How one defines foreknowledge is critical to his view. So please define the view you're attacking.

Tom, look at any and all Lexical aides you can get your hands on and look up the word 'foreknowledge' or 'foreknew'. You will find it is never once defined in manner which Calvinism/doctrines of grace (re-)defines it.

I think that is what he means by 'doing violence' in that the meaning is completely redefined and not just slightly modified to over emphasize a particular aspect.

 

[Tom Butler]

With an ominpresent God (one who exists in the past, present and future...all at the same time) there is no looking into the future for God...He exists in all points of time at the same time.

Okay, gotcha. I agree. But the question remains. If you agree that the Bible teaches election of some kind, what is the ground of that election? Or can we know?