Calvinist/Non-Calvinist - Where exactly am I?

[JonC]

Well, not much going on today so I thought I’d finally ask. Would the people here consider me a Calvinist. At the start, I’ll state what I’ve stated before. I do not consider myself a “Calvinist” as the DoG do not form the substance of my faith and is not central to my faith - it is through Christ rather than Divine Sovereignty that I view the Gospel. But I have conceded to summarizing my views (depending on the situation) on salvation as “Calvinistic.”

I believe that men are totally depraved and unrighteous. Like Sprugeon, I believe the assertion that “they could if they would” is irrelevant because the ultimate state is that they will not. It is not a matter of whether or not one COULD do the will of God but rather a matter that men will not - not in the action but in the motivation behind the action. Mormons have a godly set of family values - but in living out these values they are living out their own righteousness rather than the will of God (the outward acts may be the same, but the fruit is of another spirit).

I believe that God chose the elect out of His own will - not because of some righteousness or potential righteousness found within men (I do believe in individual election). I do not think that this is arbitrary, but instead is the act of the Creator creating as He wills for His glory.

I believe that Christ died to save those who would believe. I do not think it appropriate to venture beyond Scripture in breaking down the Atonement and reasoning out God’s intent towards the elect - but instead accept that Christ is the only way for all men (elect and non-elect alike) and there is no other name by which men are saved. But only those whom God draws in effectual grace (the elect) will be saved.

I actually do not see irresistible grace as a primary doctrine - only because it seems somewhat vague. I do not believe that God saves men while men are yet unwilling to be saved - and there is a time when we all resist the grace of God (we are born into this resistance). But God works in the will of men so that men are willingly saved (Spurgeon uses the illustration that God touches the mainspring of man’s heart so that it runs in an opposite direction). In a sense, it is irresistible as that initial resistance is conquered - but men are not saved while they are still in a state of rejection.

I believe that once a child of God, always a child of God. Perseverance is attributed to God and not man (e.g., 2 Tim 4). Christians may fail but not fall - they will not forfeit their salvation - it is a rebirth.

BUT….

I do not think that Divine Sovereignty is central to the Gospel - instead I view the center to be Christ. Here I may empathize with Calvin’s struggle in placing Divine Sovereignty more than Beza’s theology. Beza viewed the gospel through the lens of Divine Sovereignty where I do not think Calvin indicates such a predisposition (although this is my own interpretation of what I have read of Calvin).

I do not believe that Christ died specifically as an atonement for the sins of the elect alone, but rather that Christ is the atoning sacrifice for the sins of the world (literally). He died to redeem only the elect, but His work on the cross has implications for all men.

Rather than an emphasis on the Atonement, I believe that Scripture emphasizes the Resurrection as defining our faith. So here I believe that Calvinists have taken a detour - one that is understandable regarding the Synod of Dort (as a rebuttal to the Arminian articles), but one that is a detour nonetheless which has become a distraction in modern theology.

I am dispensational and tend to reject covenant theology as a whole.
I am pre-trib and pre-mil. I know many Calvinists are as well - just thought I’d throw that in there.

I don’t consider (or call, anyway) myself a Calvinist simply because the DoG do not form the central core of my faith or my view of the Gospel. While I am by no means barthian in my theology, I do believe that the gospel is Christocentric and this is the only way for us to know God (I do not mean a kerygmatic view, as I do believe the gospel is more objective and absolute than perhaps this view would permit - but a view that centers on Christ).

I am just curious, would the Calvinists here consider me a Calvinist? Would the non-Calvinists?

 

[Inspector Javert]

As a non-Cal....(and I read your post very carefully twice)...you are pretty much safely and decidedly in the "Calvinist" camp.

Here's the thing that gives it away irretrievably:

I believe that Christ died to save those who would believe. I do not think it appropriate to venture beyond Scripture in breaking down the Atonement and reasoning out God’s intent towards the elect - but instead accept that Christ is the only way for all men (elect and non-elect alike) and there is no other name by which men are saved. But only those whom God draws in effectual grace (the elect) will be saved.

Yup...you are a Calvinist. Only a "Calvinist" would even use a term like "effectual grace". That's incurably Calvinist.
Similarly, only a Calvinist would say Christ died to save "those who would believe". That's "Limited Atonement".........there's no version of Soteriology on earth which affirms that except full-bore Calvinism.

If I may...(and this is not an attempt at insult)...but, this statement seems like sheer nonsense to me. Perhaps you merely worded it poorly?

I do not believe that Christ died specifically as an atonement for the sins of the elect alone, but rather that Christ is the atoning sacrifice for the sins of the world (literally). He died to redeem only the elect, but His work on the cross has implications for all men.

Given your above quote anyway....this seems like sheer contradiction.

Can you clarify? (I do not mean to insult you....) This just seems like a contradiction. Either you truly affirm "Limited Atonement" or you don't.....if you DON'T, then praise God....you are B.B's only resident "AMYRALDIAN"!!!! how kewl would that be! I've never even KNOWN an actual Amyraldian. That would be kewl to have one........sorry (day-dreaming) can you clarify what you mean?

Did Christ "die" for everyone or "the elect" alone?........If you deny "Limited Atonement"...then you are our only resident Amyraldian (that I know of)..........how cool is That!!!

You make mention of your "non-Covenant" Theology, and your Eschatological pre-millennial pre-tribulational rapturism: I wouldn't sweat that, as those views are perfectly consistent with a SOTERIOLOGY of "Calvinism". One is "Eschatology" the other "Soteriology".

They are not contradictory. Granted....MOST hard-core "Calvies" are indeed non-dispy, and their "Covenant Theology" gives them sort of more pro-Calvinist argumentation than you might have.
Put differently, a "Covenant Theology" Calvinist has almost "MORE" reasons to believe in his Soteriology than a Dispensational one would have....
He has deeper pockets as it were.

"Covenant" Theology lends itself to "Calvinism" a little better than a Dispensational view does, but one can quite consistently be BOTH without problem.

That's my (non-Cal) two-cents........
but, yes....you appear to be----- no doubt---- a "Calvinist".

Embrace labels....I like labels. Be proud to be a Calvinist.:thumbs:

 

[JonC]

If I may...(and this is not an attempt at insult)...but, this statement seems like sheer nonsense to me. Perhaps you merely worded it poorly?
Given your above quote anyway....this seems like sheer contradiction.
Can you clarify? (I do not mean to insult you....) This just seems like a contradiction. Either you truly affirm "Limited Atonement" or you don't.....if you DON'T, then praise God....you are B.B's only resident "AMYRALDIAN"!!!! how kewl would that be! I've never even KNOWN an actual Amyraldian. That would be kewl to have one........sorry (day-dreaming) can you clarify what you mean?

I don’t take it as an insult in the least. I do not always (perhaps I rarely) articulate my thoughts well.

This is what I mean:

Christ died as an atonement for the sin of men - all sin, not just the elect. He is the propitiation for the sins of the world, which means all men, not just the elect. But this is speaking of Christ as the atonement, and his atoning work - not the redeemed. Here I’d fall into the general atonement camp. Christ is an atonement for the sins of men, period.

But I do believe that Christ came to redeem only the elect. Men are not redeemed by Christ dying for them, they are redeemed by grace through faith. So here I’d hold to a particular redemption (although many Calvinists don’t see the difference between limited atonement and particular redemption as they view atonement strictly as a legal transaction - credit/debit columns on a ledger). Christ came to redeem only those who would believe - the elect.

What I mean by Christ’s work on the cross as carrying implications for all men (elect and non-elect) is that all men have the opportunity to be saved. But not all men will be saved. The non-elect are under condemnation for rejecting the Light. Opportunity was there but they would not. The elect would be in the same situation, and for a time was in that situation, but for the special grace of God that worked a saving faith in their lives.

I hope that this clarifies what I mean by the Atonement having implications for both the elect and non-elect, as well as my understanding of the difference between atonement and redemption. At any time please let me know where I fail to make sense or more importantly where my understanding is not supported by Scripture. I do not hold dogmatically to my understanding, but strive to conform my understanding to Scripture.

 

[Reformed]

Christ died as an atonement for the sin of men - all sin, not just the elect. He is the propitiation for the sins of the world, which means all men, not just the elect. But this is speaking of Christ as the atonement, and his atoning work - not the redeemed. Here I’d fall into the general atonement camp. Christ is an atonement for the sins of men, period.

But I do believe that Christ came to redeem only the elect. Men are not redeemed by Christ dying for them, they are redeemed by grace through faith. So here I’d hold to a particular redemption (although many Calvinists don’t see the difference between limited atonement and particular redemption as they view atonement strictly as a legal transaction - credit/debit columns on a ledger). Christ came to redeem only those who would believe - the elect.

Considering that all of creation has been affected by the Fall, Christ's atonement, followed by His resurrection, redeemed creation. The benefits of which will not become evident until the eternal state.

In regards to the sins of men, I disagree with your statement "Christ is the atonement for the sins of men, period." The Atonement is effectual. It certainly has the power to satisfy the sins of all men, if that is God's desire, but it is not. You agree that only the elect will be redeemed. Ergo, since redemption relies on the Atonement, the Atonement is effectual for the elect. The Atonement is not a static event that only the elect profit from. The Atonement was intended only for the elect. The genesis of the Atonement is God's will of decree.

 

[JonC]

Considering that all of creation has been affected by the Fall, Christ's atonement, followed by His resurrection, redeemed creation. The benefits of which will not become evident until the eternal state.

In regards to the sins of men, I disagree with your statement "Christ is the atonement for the sins of men, period." The Atonement is effectual. It certainly has the power to satisfy the sins of all men, if that is God's desire, but it is not. You agree that only the elect will be redeemed. Ergo, since redemption relies on the Atonement, the Atonement is effectual for the elect. The Atonement is not a static event that only the elect profit from. The Atonement was intended only for the elect. The genesis of the Atonement is God's will of decree.

If I understand correctly, in your view that there is not much difference between Atonement and Redemption (Atonement being effectual, I’d assume that the effect would be redemption). Of pastors long gone, I appreciate the sermons of Spurgeon the most. I notice that he uses “atonement” and “redemption” interchangeably.

But this is where we will disagree. I don’t see the genesis of the Atonement as being God’s will of decree, but instead of God’s love for man. This is demonstrated not only by His mercy but also by His wrath towards the non-elect. The ultimate goal of salvation is not the salvation of the elect but the glorification of God. There is effectual atonement, which is redemption; but I also believe Atonement in a general sense - which provides opportunity resulting in condemnation for those not redeemed. So I do view Atonement as reaching farther than many Calvinists would allow - although I view redemption and the plan of redemption as narrow and effectual solely to the elect.

In your opinion, then, would I depart from Calvinistic doctrine to such an extent that my views are distinctly non-Calvinistic?

 

[Reformed]

It depends how you define "Calvinism". Spurgeon used it to describe the Doctrines of Grace. According to that narrow definition, yes, you are a Calvinist. In that you are not a paedobaptist or agree with Calvin's ecclesiology then no, you are not a Calvinist. Neither am I if the broad definition is used. I am content with the narrow definition.

 

[Reformed]

There is a marked difference between a Calvinistic Baptist and a confessional-covenantal (Reformed) Baptist. I would fit into that definition.

 

[Inspector Javert]

I don’t take it as an insult in the least. I do not always (perhaps I rarely) articulate my thoughts well.

This is what I mean:

Christ died as an atonement for the sin of men - all sin, not just the elect. He is the propitiation for the sins of the world, which means all men, not just the elect. But this is speaking of Christ as the atonement, and his atoning work - not the redeemed. Here I’d fall into the general atonement camp. Christ is an atonement for the sins of men, period.

But I do believe that Christ came to redeem only the elect. Men are not redeemed by Christ dying for them, they are redeemed by grace through faith. So here I’d hold to a particular redemption (although many Calvinists don’t see the difference between limited atonement and particular redemption as they view atonement strictly as a legal transaction - credit/debit columns on a ledger). Christ came to redeem only those who would believe - the elect.

What I mean by Christ’s work on the cross as carrying implications for all men (elect and non-elect) is that all men have the opportunity to be saved. But not all men will be saved. The non-elect are under condemnation for rejecting the Light. Opportunity was there but they would not. The elect would be in the same situation, and for a time was in that situation, but for the special grace of God that worked a saving faith in their lives.

I hope that this clarifies what I mean by the Atonement having implications for both the elect and non-elect, as well as my understanding of the difference between atonement and redemption. At any time please let me know where I fail to make sense or more importantly where my understanding is not supported by Scripture. I do not hold dogmatically to my understanding, but strive to conform my understanding to Scripture.

WOW!!!!....you've certainly thought a LOT about this....and against my previous post you are indeed not (yet) a full-bore "Calvinist".

I might almost suggest another forum for this discussion as you will probably be accosted more by people seeking to convert you to their way of thinking rather than discussing the issue with you objectively....I'll add what little I can. I'll try a line by line response:

I don’t take it as an insult in the least. I do not always (perhaps I rarely) articulate my thoughts well.

Actually...I would say you convey your thought VERY well! :thumbs: The moment I asked for clarification...you expressed your meaning QUITE articulately....

Christ died as an atonement for the sin of men - all sin, not just the elect. He is the propitiation for the sins of the world, which means all men, not just the elect. But this is speaking of Christ as the atonement, and his atoning work - not the redeemed. Here I’d fall into the general atonement camp. Christ is an atonement for the sins of men, period.

This statement puts you SQUARELY in the "Arminian/non-Cal" camp....I'll provide my two-cents on the difference (as I see it) and perhaps you agree:

Calvinism has a tendency to perceive the "legal transaction" of the Atonement as simply a matter of "sum-total-paid":...It's a CALCULABLE legal transaction wherein there is almost simply a mathematical "value" assessment to what was "owed" to God (the Father)...and Jesus actually "paid"...precisely that amount.

An alternative view of atonement theory, might be that the "price" of all sin was simply "DEATH"....and that when Christ took that upon himself...by default, all sins were "paid for". If Christ paid the ultimate price of "death"...then all sin is paid for.

This gets into various theories about the nature of the "Atonement" itself...
As far as I can tell, Calvinists tend to think of Atonement as a calculable sum-total (so that you can "pay" for the sins of some and not others)...whereas other theories of the Atonement think of it in terms of an "All or nothing"...

If Christ doesn't DIE......NO-ONES sins are "paid for"...if he dies....The price for sin is paid in full.
I think it significant to understand that Calvin himself was formally trained as a Lawyer (not Theologian as such) so...it would follow that his perception of Atonement would take on a "legal aspect". (perhaps too much so IMO...)


Best I can suggest is to possibly learn about the "Substitutionary Atonement" Theory (basically Calvinist) and the "Governmental Theory" (nominally Arminian)....MY view is a sort of mix between the two.
Mind you, I'm giving MY understanding of Calvinism as I see it, and I am not one (but I think I treat it fairly).

As far as the terms "Limited Atonement" or "Particular Redemption"....they are NOT appreciably different (that much I'll say with confidence). Some "Calvinists" may nuance it such that they describe them differently, but the end result is the same. The fact really is: (and I'll say this confidently) the only difference is that "Limited Atonement" sounds nastier and "Particular Redemption" sounds more friendly....the difference is nothing more than if one were to describe their position on Abortion as either "Pro-life" or "Pro-Choice"...
Both sides are insisting on a terminology which "sounds" more palatable. There's no difference.

What I mean by Christ’s work on the cross as carrying implications for all men (elect and non-elect) is that all men have the opportunity to be saved. But not all men will be saved. The non-elect are under condemnation for rejecting the Light. Opportunity was there but they would not. The elect would be in the same situation, and for a time was in that situation, but for the special grace of God that worked a saving faith in their lives.

This sounds squarely "Arminian"....perhaps you are not so "Calvinist" as I had suggested in my first post.

You say this:

What I mean by Christ’s work on the cross as carrying implications for all men (elect and non-elect) is that all men have the opportunity to be saved. But not all men will be saved.

Given Calvinism...."opportunity" is described in terms of:
"God has commanded you to repent and believe, and all those who do not are condemned already"
(They're correct IMO)
However....the other side of that is critical, and it's this:
NO man is CAPABLE of repenting or believing except God regenerate him FIRST!
A non-Calvinist would say that men are CAPABLE of repenting and believing (usually assuming the Spirit 'draws' them)...and they then can freely CHOOSE either to accept or reject the gospel.

For a Calvinist: God's act of empowering a person to believe is essentially synonymous with determining it.

For a non-Calvinist: God must empower you to believe and repent...but your acceptance of that is not guaranteed.

I hope that this clarifies what I mean by the Atonement having implications for both the elect and non-elect, as well as my understanding of the difference between atonement and redemption

You have GREATLY CLARIFIED!!! And your initial assessment was clearly FALSE! You are VERY ARTICULATE with what you believe.....VERY.:thumbs:

So...(my opinion only of course).....you're in a quandary indeed!....you are about 75% Calvinist...with a persistent 25% "Arminianism".... You're in limbo dude! :wavey: Frankly, I admire that. Stay in limbo...don't try to have it all figured out.
I am one of those fools who thinks I've got it all settled in a card-board box somewhere: Ditto my neighborhood friendly Calvinist I bicker with all the time. Truth is...we probably ALL sound like arrogant squibs....
Don't fear the mystery. Don't insist on understanding it COMPLETELY.....It's only arrogant prigs like myself and the people I bicker with who are stupid enough to think we actually "get" it all.

At any time please let me know where I fail to make sense or more importantly where my understanding is not supported by Scripture.
I hope I'm helping somewhat

.
Don't say that....That gets translated as:
"Hey...I'm fresh meat for you Calvinists and Arminians to openly fight for my soul as though it were a piece of meat."..
Just be you.

"He hath shown thee oh, man what is good; and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to live justly, love mercy and walk humbly with thy God."

God bless you richly Jon.



As a disclaimer: I am not a Calvinist and I disagree with it as a Soteriology, but, I merely attempt to explain it as fairly as I can.

 

[JonC]

There is a marked difference between a Calvinistic Baptist and a confessional-covenantal (Reformed) Baptist. I would fit into that definition.

Sorry, which definition would you fit into?

I take it that Calvinistic Baptist would relate primarily or solely to DoG while Reformed Baptist would typically include covenantal theology (or at least the covenantal aspect would exist as primary local church doctrine).

 

[Reformed]

Sorry, which definition would you fit into?

I take it that Calvinistic Baptist would relate primarily or solely to DoG while Reformed Baptist would typically include covenantal theology (or at least the covenantal aspect would exist as primary local church doctrine).

Jon, I am sorry for the lack of clarity. I was typing on my mobile device earlier.

I am a confessional-covenantal (Reformed) Baptist. Now, before some on this board accuse me of trumping God's word with a man-made confession, let me say there is no truth to that accusation. The confession I subscribe to (the 1689 Second London Baptist Confession of Faith) is a commentary on the Bible and orthodoxy. My theological convictions are in line with the conclusions of the framers of the 1689 LBCF. To the extent that the confession accurately interprets the Bible, I am in agreement with it. The covenantal part is easy enough to explain. I am a covenant theologian, not a dispensationalist.

 

[JonC]

Calvinism has a tendency to perceive the "legal transaction" of the Atonement as simply a matter of "sum-total-paid":...It's a CALCULABLE legal transaction wherein there is almost simply a mathematical "value" assessment to what was "owed" to God (the Father)...and Jesus actually.

I don’t believe that any one theory of atonement is sufficient as alone each is a bit one dimensional and a product, at least to some extent, of our own reasoning. Like you, I think that the true picture is a mix of various positions as each emphasizes an element of the atonement. I have to say that we rely much on our own reasoning when we break it down beyond what is actually present in Scripture - and I find it difficult to be dogmatic when we get to that level. But I do lean towards the substitutionary atonement view - although I think the use of God holding a ledger is an illustration that some take to encompass far more than is warranted.

It is interesting because in many ways I agree more with Calvin on this issue than some Calvinists. Calvin viewed Christ as the propitiation for the whole world (literally) - but to be fair the actual “scope of the atonement” debate was a post-Calvin issue.

So...(my opinion only of course).....you're in a quandary indeed!....you are about 75% Calvinist...with a persistent 25% "Arminianism".... You're in limbo dude! :wavey: Frankly, I admire that. Stay in limbo...don't try to have it all figured out.

Soooo…I’m a mutt, huh? :wavey:

 

[Reformed]

I take it that Calvinistic Baptist would relate primarily or solely to DoG while Reformed Baptist would typically include covenantal theology (or at least the covenantal aspect would exist as primary local church doctrine).

Correct.

There is no one definition of "Reformed Baptist". But typically, Reformed Baptists are confessional and covenantal.

 

[JonC]

I am a confessional-covenantal (Reformed) Baptist. Now, before some on this board accuse me of trumping God's word with a man-made confession, let me say there is no truth to that accusation. The confession I subscribe to (the 1689 Second London Baptist Confession of Faith) is a commentary on the Bible and orthodoxy. My theological convictions are in line with the conclusions of the framers of the 1689 LBCF. To the extent that the confession accurately interprets the Bible, I am in agreement with it. The covenantal part is easy enough to explain. I am a covenant theologian, not a dispensationalist.

I am not confessional, but I do see its advantage as a summary of orthodoxy and a vehicle to instill doctrine that seems to be increasing lost in the evangelical community. I have absolutely no issue with confessions (and to an extent, whether expressed or not, most churches are somewhat confessional - even if they don’t admit it).

We would most likely differ the most regarding covenantal theology. I am a dispensationalist but plan on revisiting covenantal theology in the future (just to review the theology). It is difficult when you carry into a study presuppositions of a lifetime of understanding and I am not certain that I appreciated covenant theology to the extent warranted. Too often one tends to view opposing theologies within the context of their own view - which is unfair to the opposing position - and I think that this is most likely what I have done in the past with covenant theology. I have an incomplete appreciation for your view on this issue.

 

[Reformed]

We would most likely differ the most regarding covenantal theology. I am a dispensationalist but plan on revisiting covenantal theology in the future (just to review the theology). It is difficult when you carry into a study presuppositions of a lifetime of understanding and I am not certain that I appreciated covenant theology to the extent warranted. Too often one tends to view opposing theologies within the context of their own view - which is unfair to the opposing position - and I think that this is most likely what I have done in the past with covenant theology. I have an incomplete appreciation for your view on this issue.

I was a dispensationalist for about twenty years. I attended a Bible college that is a stalwart in advancing dispensational thought. To even consider Covenant Theology was a non-starter for many years. I became a Calvinist five years before I became a Covenant Theologian. John Owen's writings had a lot to do with my conversion to Covenant Theology.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Jon, Why paint yourself into a corner by identifying yourself with any camp. I dont, rather I self identify myself as a Christian Radical. A radical is one who moves beyond the boundaries of Arminian, Non Calvinist, Calvinist, Liberal & Conservative, Catholic, Protestant, Baptist, whatever & goes back to a fundamental questioning. The dictionary says that a radical is one 'who goes back to the root, the source, the fundamentals.'

Maybe you want to go to words like "Primitive or Orthodox" but note that is really not the primary concern with the "Radical"

What is it that concerns the radical....why it is Christs truth & what did He truly teach & how is God working in your life. Those are the constant questions Jon that I ask of both my brethren & myself.

You will notice that Im constantly infuriating people on here..... good, because if they are falling prey to bad doctrine & dogma then they are not growing.....and I have been just as guilty of it many times. Therefore, dont concern yourself with labels, dont put yourself into a box. Seek Christ in the least of your brethren, reach out & touch the flesh of Christ & his wounds (John 20:27) because thats where you will find Him.... on this side of death, where you stand right now.

 

[JonC]

I don’t mean to paint myself into a corner, I was just wondering how people viewed by position. I don’t define my belief by my soteriological understanding (which would be the extent of my “calvinistic” leanings). In fact, my understanding may change but it would not effect a change in my faith.

 

[BobRyan]

I believe that men are totally depraved and unrighteous. Like Sprugeon, I believe the assertion that “they could if they would” is irrelevant because the ultimate state is that they will not. It is not a matter of whether or not one COULD do the will of God but rather a matter that men will not - not in the action but in the motivation behind the action

If you had defined depravity as simply "not able to follow through on your own inner will to do right" - then that is a view that I do not share as an Arminian.

I believe that Romans 3 points to a "Sinful nature" that is not simply "unable to make good on its good intentions" but rather "has bad intentions".

However the "Supernatural enmity" that God put in all mankind in Genesis 3 is not at all being described in Romans 3 as the sinful nature. It is an "unnatural element" that God places in his to be at war with the kingdom of darkness.

There is the "Drawing of ALL unto Me" that is more than the "ability to choose" but also the inclination to choose. Thus it is not a question of "programming" as if the saints were all "pre-programmed for heaven" and the lost "pre-programmed for hell".

It is fully enabled "Free will" where the power of God is stated to be present to fully enable the desire and the ability to choose eternal life, but not the "force of the will" that is so necessary in pure robot-Calvinism.

I believe that Christ died to save those who would believe. I do not think it appropriate to venture beyond Scripture in breaking down the Atonement and reasoning out God’s intent towards the elect...
I do not believe that Christ died specifically as an atonement for the sins of the elect alone, but rather that Christ is the atoning sacrifice for the sins of the world (literally). He died to redeem only the elect, but His work on the cross has implications for all men.

Rather than an emphasis on the Atonement, I believe that Scripture emphasizes the Resurrection as defining our faith. [/quote][/quote]

"He is the Atoning Sacrifice for OUR sins and NOT for OUR sins only but for the sins of the WHOLE World" 1John 2:2 means that "God so Loved the WORLD" John 16 and that "God was in Christ reconciling the WORLD to Himself" 2Cor 5 and that "God is not willing for ANYONE to perish but for ALL to come to repentance" 2Peter 3.

and yet --

"He came to HIS OWN and His OWN received Him not" John 1

But only those whom God draws in effectual grace (the elect) will be saved.

It is easy then to know "who to blame" in that model - - God.

But in the Bible "He came to HIS OWN and HIS OWN received Him not" John 1.

Luke 7 states clearly that they chose not to "fulfill God's purpose for them".

I will give Calvinists this degree of credit - they are right about at least one point in the doctrine of the Atonement. Once atonement is completed - nothing else remains - but the 2nd coming. All lines are drawn, all issues settled, all cases decided.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Iconoclast]

JonC

Well, not much going on today so I thought I’d finally ask. Would the people here consider me a Calvinist.

Hello Jonc.....first you are a sinner saved by grace,covered by Jesus blood.

At the start, I’ll state what I’ve stated before. I do not consider myself a “Calvinist” as the DoG do not form the substance of my faith and is not central to my faith - it is through Christ rather than Divine Sovereignty that I view the Gospel.

some of us do not divide Christ/Divine Sovereignty.....it is in discussing the [person and work of Christ...the leads exactly to this doctrine.

But I have conceded to summarizing my views (depending on the situation) on salvation as “Calvinistic.”

Jon...there is much to study...we are all a work in progress.each at different stages of growth.....calvinistic.....good label....I believe in time most calvinistic...become calvinists.

I believe that men are totally depraved and unrighteous. Like Sprugeon, I believe the assertion that “they could if they would” is irrelevant because the ultimate state is that they will not.

correct...the fall has lasting effects.

It is not a matter of whether or not one COULD do the will of God but rather a matter that men will not - not in the action but in the motivation behind the action.

yes

Mormons have a godly set of family values - but in living out these values they are living out their own righteousness rather than the will of God (the outward acts may be the same, but the fruit is of another spirit).

sadly..yes

I believe that God chose the elect out of His own will - not because of some righteousness or potential righteousness found within men (I do believe in individual election). I do not think that this is arbitrary, but instead is the act of the Creator creating as He wills for His glory.

yes..eph3:9-11

I believe that Christ died to save those who would believe

.

The scripture reveals that Jesus died for those given to Him.

I do not think it appropriate to venture beyond Scripture in breaking down the Atonement and reasoning out God’s intent towards the elect

We do not have to venture beyond scripture...just properly understand what is freely revealed to us.

- but instead accept that Christ is the only way for all men (elect and non-elect alike) and there is no other name by which men are saved.

There is only one way...that explains many of the verses that use the term world, or all....the gospel goes worldwide as the elect are found all over the world.

But only those whom God draws in effectual grace (the elect) will be saved.

yes...there is a reason,actually several reasons why it is so.

I actually do not see irresistible grace as a primary doctrine - only because it seems somewhat vague.

some of the theological language is used to explain several ideas all at once.

I do not believe that God saves men while men are yet unwilling to be saved

3 Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power, in the beauties of holiness from the womb of the morning: thou hast the dew of thy youth

- and there is a time when we all resist the grace of God (we are born into this resistance).

yes....eph2:1-3......but God-

But God works in the will of men so that men are willingly saved (Spurgeon uses the illustration that God touches the mainspring of man’s heart so that it runs in an opposite direction). In a sense, it is irresistible as that initial resistance is conquered - but men are not saved while they are still in a state of rejection.

correct

I believe that once a child of God, always a child of God. Perseverance is attributed to God and not man (e.g., 2 Tim 4). Christians may fail but not fall - they will not forfeit their salvation - it is a rebirth.

yes...we perservere because God works in us...phil1:6

BUT….

I do not think that Divine Sovereignty is central to the Gospel - instead I view the center to be Christ.

Why divide what is not to be divided? The scripture says it is central....salvation is all of God.

I do not believe that Christ died specifically as an atonement for the sins of the elect alone, but rather that Christ is the atoning sacrifice for the sins of the world (literally).

A big topic.....non elect.....go into second death to pay for their sins....all of their sins...there are degrees of punishment for individual sins.

the other question is......was the atonement actual, and perfectly effectual.

or...

was it only potential and by itself...ineffectual? when you get this you will quickly come to the truth....

It was a once for all time perfect and completed work, with an ETERNAL High Priest....who ever liveth to make intercession for the elect.:thumbs:
He is the surety:[guarantee]

21 (For those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath by him that said unto him, The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec

22 By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.

23 And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death:

24 But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.

25 Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.

He died to redeem only the elect

,

He bought the rights to all men at the cross....but only intercedes and meditates for the elect...:thumbs:

but His work on the cross has implications for all men.

Yes...the implication is this.....
God hates sin.
All sins will be punished
Sins will be punished in the Divine substitute
or in the sinner himself in the second death.
each and every sin will be punished...not sin in general

Rather than an emphasis on the Atonement, I believe that Scripture emphasizes the Resurrection as defining our faith.

No....Christ our passover is Sacrificed for us.... the Resurrection is proof the Father accepted the blood atonement and sacrifice of the High priest.

So here I believe that Calvinists have taken a detour - one that is understandable regarding the Synod of Dort (as a rebuttal to the Arminian articles), but one that is a detour nonetheless which has become a distraction in modern theology

.

The only distraction in modern theology is because of lazy or mis-taught professed church members entertaining themselves into hell rather than studying themselves into the kingdom.

I am dispensational and tend to reject covenant theology as a whole.I am pre-trib and pre-mil. I know many Calvinists are as well - just thought I’d throw that in there.

Most of us...were...that is the last thing to go:thumbs:

I don’t consider (or call, anyway) myself a Calvinist simply because the DoG do not form the central core of my faith or my view of the Gospel.

Well...actually they do......You start with a simple good news statement...
Jesus died to save sinners...His blood cleanses us from sin....

Then the questions come- why are we sinners? why does sin have to be punished? Who is Jesus? Why is he called the Last Adam? Does God save everyone? Why not? etc...before long..the DoG are unfolded as you answer the questions.

I am just curious, would the Calvinists here consider me a Calvinist? Would the non-Calvinists?

Every real christian is a calvinist, they just do not know it.They might misunderstand some of it, they may not like the terms, labels etc....

The teaching that is known as calvinism is the gospel as taught by Jesus and all the scriptural writers.

But when you see the saints in heaven they all say salvation and true and righteous judgement belong to the Lord alone.

http://www.the-highway.com/atonement_Pink.html Jonc...read this when you can.

 

[Reformed]

We should never consider ourselves as being painted in a corner. When I was an Fundamentalist Baptist I was convinced my doctrine was right. You could have saved your breath because there was no convincing me otherwise. Change occurred as I studied Scripture and began to ask questions. The answers to those questions came slow but sure. By the time I recognized my previous beliefs were in error the change had already taken place.

We should always be willing to change our position if convinced by sacred Scripture and plain reason (Luther). In that way we are never in a corner.

 

[Iconoclast]

http://www.the-highway.com/atonement_Pink.html
1. If ALL the sins of ALL men were laid upon Christ, then the sin of unbelief was too. That unbelief is a sin is clear from the fact that in 1 John 3:23 we read, "And this is His commandment, That we should believe on the name of His Son Jesus Christ." Refusal to believe in Christ is, therefore, an act of flagrant disobedience, rebellion against the Most High. But if all the sins of all men were laid upon Christ (as it is now asserted), then He also endured the penalty for the Christ-rejector's unbelief. If this be so, then Universalism is true. But it is not so. The very advocates of the view we are now refuting would not affirm it. And therein may be seen the inconsistency and untenableness of their teaching. For if unbelief is a sin and Christ did not suffer the penalty of it, then all sin was not laid upon Christ. Thus there are only two alternatives: a strictly limited Atonement, availing only for believers; or an unlimited Atonement which effectually secures the salvation of the entire human race.

2. If ALL the sins of ALL men were laid upon Christ, how could He say, "The blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men"? (Matt. 12:31) Observe that Christ here used the future tense, "shall not be." Note, too, He did not merely say to the blaspheming Jews that He was then addressing, "Shall not be forgiven unto you," but in order to take in all others who should be guilty of this sin, He said, "Shall not be forgiven unto men." It is worse than idle to raise the cavil that the sin here spoken of was peculiar and exceptional, i.e., committed only by the Jews there addressed. The fact that this solemn utterance of Christ's is found not only in Matthew, but in Mark, and also in Luke-the Gentile Gospel-disposes of it.

Without attempting to define here the precise nature of this sin of blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, it is sufficient now to point out that it is a sin quite distinct from unbelief. In Scripture "blasphemy" is always an act of the lips, not merely of the mind or will. For our present purpose, it is enough to call attention to the undeniable fact that none other than the Savior Himself here tells us there is a sin (other than unbelief) which "shall not be forgiven unto men." This being so, then it is obviously a mistake, a serious error, to say that all sin was laid on Christ and atoned for.

3. If ALL the sins of ALL men were laid upon Christ, how could He possibly say to certain ones, "Ye shall seek Me, and shall die in your sins?" (John 8:21) Christ was here addressing the Pharisees. The time was only a short while before His death. He was speaking, therefore, of that which lay on the other side of His crucifixion and resurrection. This is seen from the fact that He first said, "I go My way, and ye shall seek Me." Most evidently was He referring to His return to the Father. And yet He expressly declared that after His departure from this world, these men would "seek" Him (but in vain), and they should die in their sins. Their death would be subsequent to His, and their death should be in sins. The striking thing is, that these awful words were uttered, on this same occasion, no less than three times. For in John 8:24 we read, "I said therefore unto you, That ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am, ye shall die in your sins." Note, carefully "die," not in your sin, but "in your sins." Here, then, is another indubitable proof that Christ did not bear all the sins of all men.

4. If ALL the sins of ALL men were laid upon Christ, why did the apostle Paul (under the Holy Spirit) write, "For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolator, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience." (Eph. 5:5, 6) The "children of disobedience" (cf. Eph. 2:2) is a name for unbelievers. It views them as rebels against God. The passage now before us tells us why "the wrath of God" shall come upon them-"because of these things," looks back to what had been specified in the previous verses. God's wrath would yet descend upon them not only because of their rejection of Christ, but because they had been guilty of sins of immorality and covetousness.

It is remarkable that v. 6 begins with the words, "Let no man deceive you with vain words." It certainly looks as though the Holy Spirit was here anticipating and repudiating this modern perversion of God's truth. Men do now tell us that no wrath from God will ever fall on men because of the sins of immorality and covetousness. Men now tell us that God's wrath for all sins came upon Christ. But when men tell us such things, none other than the Holy Spirit declares that they are "vain (empty) words." They are empty words because there is no truth in them! Then let us not be deceived by them.

5. If ALL the sins of ALL men were laid upon Christ, then Stephen wasted his dying breath when he prayed, "Lay not this sin to their charge." (Acts 7:60) The sin referred to was their stoning of himself, which was murder. But perhaps Stephen was not acquainted with this modern sophistry. Certainly he did not believe it. Had he believed that all sin had been "laid" on Christ, he would not have cried "lay not this sin to their charge," i. e., let not them suffer the penalty of it.

6. If ALL the sins of ALL men were laid upon Christ, what did the apostle mean when he said of the Jews, who forbade him to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, "to fill up their sins alway." (1 Thess. 2:16) If language has any meaning, these words of the apostle signify that the Jews were adding sins to sins, he did not say "to fill up their sin," but, "to fill up their sins." Clearly, there was no place in his theology for this strange invention of the twentieth century.

7. If ALL the sins of ALL men were laid upon Christ, what did the apostle mean when he said, "Some men's sins are open beforehand, going before to judgment"? (1 Tim. 5:24)One thing he meant was that no atonement had been made for them. Mark, again, he is speaking, not of sin, but "sins," and these, he declared, are "going before to judgment." Nothing could be plainer, These "sins" had not been "judged" at the Cross, therefore, they must be judged in the Day of Judgment.

8. If ALL the sins of ALL men were laid upon Christ, then why will a voice from heaven yet say to the godly Jews who shall be found in Babylon at the end-time, "Come out of her, My people, that ye be not partaker of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues. For her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities"? (Rev. 18:4, 5) Here is proof positive that the theory we are new rebutting is not the theology of heaven.

Here is proof positive that the "sins" of Babylon were not laid on Christ. Here is proof positive that Christ was not "bruised" for her "iniquities," for God would not punish twice for the same sins.