Unlimited Atonement

[Skandelon]

But, "because you didn't elect me" isn't a reason a person goes to hell. Election is elected for salvation. The rest are left just as they are.

The strongest points of one's argument are not typically reflected in the portion that his opponents address, but in the portions ignored, thus I encourage all readers to look at the rest of my post and not just this response...

The fact that I don't pay your electric bill isn't why you have to pay your electric bill every month. Hell is a place of punishment for our sin. We all deserve to go there. Anybody that goes to hell does so because of their sin....There are primary and secondary reasons for things. The primary reason for hell is because of sin. The primary reason of your electric bill is because your received electricity. A secondary reason for going to hell is rejection of Jesus Christ. A secondary reason for you paying your bill is because somebody else didn't pay for it.

And you are condemned because you are a sinner. Those that don't believe are condemned already (because they sinned.) The wages of sin is death. Eternal death in hell. That's why we needed a Savior. Jesus dying on the cross was to pay the penalty of all those that believe in him. Jesus dying on the cross was to save sinners from paying the penalty of their sin. Without Jesus, we all would have to pay the penalty of sin.

If you find the ULTIMATE cause then you must go back to the original choice made which caused all others actions. If the only reason the heathen is in hell is because of his sin then all men would be there because all have sinned. When you simply ask the question, "What is the ultimate difference between those who are heaven bound and those who are not?" In Calvinism, both are sinners, but only some have been elected and that is why they believe and why they go to heaven. On that final day if someone who is non-elect is asked, "Why didn't you believe?" then the only real answer is, "Because you didn't make me able to be willing to believe" or put shortly, "you didn't elect me."

A better illustration would be the army instituting the draft. If a young man who didn't get drafted is asked, "Why didn't you go to war?" Would not the correct answer be, "I wasn't drafted?" Regardless of the unknown reasons the Army may have for not drafting this individual, the ultimate reason the man didn't go to war was because he wasn't drafted, period. If the draft is mandatory and unavoidable (as is the Irresistible Grace of Calvinism), and the reasons for choosing one individual over another unknown (as is the Unconditional Election of Calvinism), then how could you possibly suggest this analogy doesn't better represent your view?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Yes, this is my biggest objection to Reformed belief. It makes the work of Christ on the cross secondary to election. Yes, you need Christ's sacrifice to pay for your sins, but unless you are first elected it is meaningless.

In the non-Cal view election follows Christ's sacrifice, as we are not elect until we believe on Jesus. Yes, we were elected before the foundation of the world, but this is according to God's foreknowledge who could see who would believe on Christ's sacrifice.

Reformed theology has election "outside of Christ". You are chosen and then given to Christ. In non-Reformed theology we are elected "in Christ". Huge difference.

Yes, if nobody came to him after crucification, it would have been for nothing.

 

[mets65]

God is all knowing, he knew people would come to him.

 

[jbh28]

If you find the ULTIMATE cause then you must go back to the original choice made which caused all others actions. If the only reason the heathen is in hell is because of his sin then all men would be there because all have sinned.

If it wasn't for Jesus Christ, then yes all men would be there

When you simply ask the question, "What is the ultimate difference between those who are heaven bound and those who are not?" In Calvinism, both are sinners, but only some have been elected and that is why they believe and why they go to heaven.

Yes, Jesus is the ultimate cause for us going to heaven

On that final day if someone who is non-elect is asked, "Why didn't you believe?" then the only real answer is, "Because you didn't make me able to be willing to believe" or put shortly, "you didn't elect me."

No. Only if it was neutral. All are sinners. It's not, all are neutral. Sinners go to hell because of their sin. All deserve hell because of sin. None want to come to Christ. God has elected that he will save some. He saves them. The remainder are still in their original state.

A better illustration would be the army instituting the draft. If a young man who didn't get drafted is asked, "Why didn't you go to war?" Would not the correct answer be, "I wasn't drafted?" Regardless of the unknown reasons the Army may have for not drafting this individual, the ultimate reason the man didn't go to war was because he wasn't drafted, period. If the draft is mandatory and unavoidable (as is the Irresistible Grace of Calvinism), and the reasons for choosing one individual over another unknown (as is the Unconditional Election of Calvinism), then how could you possibly suggest this analogy doesn't better represent your view?

This could only be remotely true is if all that are drafted want to be in the army and no one that isn't drafted want's to be in the army. The problem is hell is a place of punishment for our sin.

The biggest difference is that of perspective. See, I look at all men without exception are sinners and deserve hell. This is the natural state. Without Salvation, without election all would be in hell. So election cannot be the cause of someone going to hell. There were already headed there.

Now, there are some that look at election(sometimes coined as double predestination, but I would say more of double election) as God electing people to heaven and hell. This is sometimes looked at as supralapsarianism. As I understand supralapsarianism, the order of evens is:
Elect some, reprobate rest
Create
Permit Fall
Provide salvation for elect
Call elect to salvation
- http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/sup_infr.htm

I put the election after the permitting of the fall. There is no need to elect or provide salvation if there is no sin.

 

[Winman]

Could you share with me a MacArthur quote that says we are elected outside of Christ?

That is a good idea to read from people that believe it than that don't.

The quote is above. He doesn't say "outside Christ", but that is what he is teaching. He is saying you are chosen outside of Christ and then given to Jesus as a gift.

Now, there is no such thing as an unbeliever being "in Christ", but that is exactly what is being taught here. James White says a similar thing:

“When the time comes in God’s sovereign providence to bring to spiritual life each of those for whom Christ died, the Spirit of God will not only effectively accomplish that work of regeneration but that new creature in Christ will, unfailingly, believe in Jesus Christ (‘all that the Father gives Me will come to Me’). Hence, we are not saved ‘without’ faith, but at the same time, Christ’s atonement is not rendered useless and vain without the addition of libertarian free will.”

As you see, James White has a person placed "in Christ" before they believe. In fact, he teaches you must be "in Christ" to believe. This contradicts scripture.

But no one is "in Christ" till they believe.

Rom 3:24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:

Justification is by faith.

Rom 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

There is no such thing as an unbeliever who walks after the Spirit.

So, you cannot be "in Christ" until you believe.

 

[jbh28]

Now, there is no such thing as an unbeliever being "in Christ", but that is exactly what is being taught here.

I agree, No unbeliever is" in christ." No believer is outside of Christ.

As you see, James White has a person placed "in Christ" before they believe. In fact, he teaches you must be "in Christ" to believe. This contradicts scripture.

Can you be outside of Christ and a believer? I would agree that you must be in Christ to believe. Otherwise, you would have people outside of Christ being a believer.

But no one is "in Christ" till they believe.

Agree

Rom 3:24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:

Justification is by faith.

Rom 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

There is no such thing as an unbeliever who walks after the Spirit.

So, you cannot be "in Christ" until you believe.[/QUOTE]

Let me ask you this. When were you elected? Were you "in Christ" when you were elected? If it was before the foundation of the world as you stated earlier, were you in Christ then? If not, then you were elected before you were in Christ.

 

[Winman]

I agree, No unbeliever is" in christ." No believer is outside of Christ.

Well, read what James White said

but that new creature in Christ will, unfailingly, believe in Jesus Christ

James White is saying because you are in Christ you will believe. He is saying the exact opposite of what the scriptures teach. The scriptures teach because you believe you are in Christ.

This is a subtle, but Major difference between Reformed and non-Reformed Theology. Reformed Theology teaches you must be "in Christ" to have the ability to believe, non-Reformed Theology teaches you must believe to have the ability to be "in Christ".

Reformed

In Christ ----> Faith

non-Reformed

Faith ----> In Christ

Reformed Theology absolutely denies that God could elect a person for forseen faith. They teach you are chosen without faith in Jesus and then placed "in Christ" in order to have the ability to believe. Therefore a man must be chosen for some merit in himself.

Non-Reformed Theology sees God as electing those who he sees believes. He elects them because he sees them "in Christ". Their merit is "in Christ". God does not see my merit when he looks on me, he sees Jesus's merit, I am simply part of his body.

Huge and important difference.

 

[Skandelon]

This could only be remotely true is if all that are drafted want to be in the army and no one that isn't drafted want's to be in the army. The problem is hell is a place of punishment for our sin.

Actually, to be accurate and consistent with Calvinistic dogma, the draft would make those who are unwilling to become willing while those undrafted would remain unwilling, so still the REASON they didn't go to war was because "they weren't drafted."

You could say the reason they didn't go to war was because they didn't want to, but then simply ask, "Why didn't they want to?" and you get to the ULTIMATE cause for their not going to war, "They didn't want to because they weren't drafted."

The biggest difference is that of perspective. See, I look at all men without exception are sinners and deserve hell. This is the natural state

So do we; and the fact that you seem to think we don't makes me wonder if you really understand our perspective at all.

without election all would be in hell

Thank you...that was my point. Discussion over.

So election cannot be the cause of someone going to hell

I never said election was the cause of someone going to hell, I said it was "not being elected," but nice try.

There were already headed there.

That seems to presume their "heading there" was prior to God's election. I thought election was done before time began? So, since election precedes their "heading to hell" wouldn't it be save to say that their heading to hell is a result of God's election, and not the other way around?

Now, there are some that look at election(sometimes coined as double predestination, but I would say more of double election) as God electing people to heaven and hell. This is sometimes looked at as supralapsarianism. As I understand supralapsarianism, the order of evens is:
Elect some, reprobate rest
Create
Permit Fall
Provide salvation for elect
Call elect to salvation
- http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/sup_infr.htm

I put the election after the permitting of the fall. There is no need to elect or provide salvation if there is no sin.

How does that work in a system where the election of the sinners is accomplished prior to the actual choice to sin?

 

[Winman]

Can you be outside of Christ and a believer? I would agree that you must be in Christ to believe. Otherwise, you would have people outside of Christ being a believer.

Then you would be regenerated before the foundation of the world. You would be saved before you are even born. And some teach this falsehood, because it is the logical conclusion of this error.

And why would God have to give someone already in Christ to Christ as a gift? They are already in Him.

 

[jbh28]

Well, read what James White said



James White is saying because you are in Christ you will believe. He is saying the exact opposite of what the scriptures teach. The scriptures teach because you believe you are in Christ.

This is a subtle, but Major difference between Reformed and non-Reformed Theology. Reformed Theology teaches you must be "in Christ" to have the ability to believe, non-Reformed Theology teaches you must believe to have the ability to be "in Christ".

Reformed

In Christ ----> Faith

non-Reformed

Faith ----> In Christ


Reformed Theology absolutely denies that God could elect a person for forseen faith.

It's not that God "couldn't" but that he "didn't." Very important difference in wording there.

They teach you are chosen without faith in Jesus and then placed "in Christ" in order to have the ability to believe. Therefore a man must be chosen for some merit in himself.

I don't believe you are "in Christ" and then later believe. I believe that this all happens at the same time. What is being spoken of is the logical order, not the chronological order.

Non-Reformed Theology sees God as electing those who he sees believes. He elects them because he sees them "in Christ". Their merit is "in Christ". God does not see my merit when he looks on me, he sees Jesus's merit, I am simply part of his body.

Huge and important difference.

I understand the difference between conditional an unconditional election. I don't see Scripture teaching that God elects because he sees who choses him.

But I don't think you answered my question. Were you "in christ" when God elected you?

 

[jbh28]

Actually, to be accurate and consistent with Calvinistic dogma, the draft would make those who are unwilling to become willing while those undrafted would remain unwilling, so still the REASON they didn't go to war was because "they weren't drafted."

No, you cannot exchange the secondary cause for the primary cause. Yes, I go to heaven because of god. Unbelievers go to hell because of themselves.

You could say the reason they didn't go to war was because they didn't want to, but then simply ask, "Why didn't they want to?" and you get to the ULTIMATE cause for their not going to war, "They didn't want to because they weren't drafted."

That's why your analogy isn't accurate.

So do we; and the fact that you seem to think we don't makes me wonder if you really understand our perspective at all.

No, I think you understand that. It's that we deserve hell because of our sin. Some don't believe that. They believe that we deserve hell because we reject Christ. They deserved hell way before they rejected Christ

Thank you...that was my point. Discussion over.

Ok

I never said election was the cause of someone going to hell, I said it was "not being elected," but nice try.

I wasn't referring to you at this point of the post. I was showing the difference between my view and other reformed views.

That seems to presume their "heading there" was prior to God's election. I thought election was done before time began? So, since election precedes their "heading to hell" wouldn't it be save to say that their heading to hell is a result of God's election, and not the other way around?

Logical, not chronological order. (I don't deny the word foreknowledge ) God knew that all would sin and reject him.

How does that work in a system where the election of the sinners is accomplished prior to the actual choice to sin?

Foreknowledge. God elected because he knew we would sin and would reject Christ. It's a logical order not a chronological order. Obviously, election was before the foundation of the world.

 

[Winman]

Well, no matter how much evidence I present, you simply explain it away. But here is a statement from a Reformed site you know.

Before the creation of the universe God thought of me. He fixed his gaze on me and chose me for himself. He did not choose me because I was already in Christ of my own doing, but that I might be in Christ. He did not choose me because he saw me as a believer, but so that I might become a believer. He did not choose me because I chose him, but so that I might choose him. He did not choose me because I was holy or good but so that I might become holy and good.

You see there, this writer clearly says God did not chose him because he was a believer, but so that I might "become" a believer. Well, if he chose you when you are an unbeliever, then you were chosen OUTSIDE Christ.

Source

http://www.desiringgod.org/resource...-us-in-him-before-the-foundation-of-the-earth

Oh, you will ignore what I have shown, you will say I misrepresent your doctrine, you will find some way to twist the words and explain this away, but I have shown you proof of what I am saying from your own Reformed writers.

 

[jbh28]

Then you would be regenerated before the foundation of the world. You would be saved before you are even born. And some teach this falsehood, because it is the logical conclusion of this error.

not the logical conclusion at all. It's false teaching for sure that we are regenerate before we are born.

And why would God have to give someone already in Christ to Christ as a gift? They are already in Him.

We are not born saved.

When were you elected?

 

[jbh28]

Well, no matter how much evidence I present, you simply explain it away. But here is a statement from a Reformed site you know.



You see there, this writer clearly says God did not chose him because he was a believer, but so that I might "become" a believer. Well, if he chose you when you are an unbeliever, then you were chosen OUTSIDE Christ.

Source

http://www.desiringgod.org/resource...-us-in-him-before-the-foundation-of-the-earth

Oh, you will ignore what I have shown, you will say I misrepresent your doctrine, you will find some way to twist the words and explain this away, but I have shown you proof of what I am saying from your own Reformed writers.

when were you chosen? Were you chosen before the foundation of the world?

Yes, we were elected before the foundation of the world, but this is according to God's foreknowledge who could see who would believe on Christ's sacrifice.

 

[Amy.G]

when were you chosen? Were you chosen before the foundation of the world?

Actually Christ was chosen and we are chosen "in Him". God made this plan before the foundation of the world.

 

[jbh28]

Actually Christ was chosen and we are chosen "in Him". God made this plan before the foundation of the world.

Yes, he was chosen too

 

[Winman]

Actually Christ was chosen and we are chosen "in Him". God made this plan before the foundation of the world.

Yes, but that is not what John Piper teaches, look at the rest of his personal statement of faith.

Everything I am and all I hope to be is rooted in God's freely choosing me. My faith, my hope, my work are not the ground of electing grace but only its effect. And so there is no ground for boasting except in God. And in the face of fear and loss of assurance and all my own defect, I speak this word of trust: "Who shall bring any charge against the Lord's elect!" (Romans 8:33).

You see, God chose him. It has nothing to do with his faith in Christ, it has nothing to do with Christ at all, those are simply the effects of being chosen, but simply that God chose him, John Piper.

Now, he says there is no boasting, it is all of God, but I tell ya, I would have to feel pretty good about myself if I believed God chose me and did not choose others. Oh, they won't admit that this implies God liked them better than others, but that's exactly what it implies.

 

[Amy.G]

Oh, they won't admit that this implies God liked them better than others, but that's exactly what it implies.

Yet they use the verse that says God loved Jacob and hated Esau as one of their proof texts for election. So apparently, they do believe God loves them and hates others, which makes them better than others.

 

[Skandelon]

Yet they use the verse that says God loved Jacob and hated Esau as one of their proof texts for election. So apparently, they do believe God loves them and hates others, which makes them better than others.

Calvinist are quick to say that they aren't chosen BECAUSE they are better (unconditional election), but you are right in that being elected would "make them better," so either way you look at it, Calvinist have to believe "we are better" if they are consistent with their views.

 

[Winman]

Yet they use the verse that says God loved Jacob and hated Esau as one of their proof texts for election. So apparently, they do believe God loves them and hates others, which makes them better than others.

Oh yeah, but now they will come back and say I misrepresented Piper's own words. Or they will say I am not smart enough or spiritual enough to understand what he was saying, or that in the Greek he really said... :laugh:

It is easy to see why this doctrine is becoming popular again. Who wouldn't like to think that God prefers him over others?