Calvinist/Non-Calvinist - Where exactly am I?

[JonC]

The Day of Atonement in Lev 16 begins with what 1John 2:2 "The Atoning Sacrifice" -- the cross. There is no way to have the Atonement teaching of Lev 16 as a non-Cross subject.

But the Atonement includes more than the work of Christ on the Cross (as if He had not done anything gospel-significant since) rather it points to the work of Christ as High Priest - equally essential in the entire subject. And all of it as God's plan of salvation.

Arminianism would be universalism if we could ignore all the details after the cross (after the atoning sacrifice Lev 16:15) because Christ died for our sins and for the sins of the Whole World.

But in "atonement" the entire program is encompassed not only the sacrifice but also the individual case-by-case application of that atoning sacrifice - as Paul points out in Heb 9 regrading the work of Christ for each individual cleansing the conscience from sin.

However once that entire - larger scope of atonement is over - nothing is left - you are at Rev 22:10-11 "let him who is filthy be filthy still.... let him who is holy be holy still". And so the sanctuary in heaven shuts down as we see in Rev 15:8 and then comes the 7 last plagues (Rev 16) and 2nd coming. Because there is no more "crossing over" from lost to saved or from saved to lost.

All issues resolved, all cases settled.

(I am going to start a thread with this as the subject - because it is key to the Arminian position).

in Christ,

B ob

Thank you, your comments helped me to understand your initial post. It is difficult at times because so many hold different definitions (in addition to different theories) of the atonement.

 

[Iconoclast]

Icon, you know what this sounds like you're saying?

I know you gospel means folks are convinced Christ's blood does not atone for unbelief, but lollygagging and not studying also? Give me a break.

Hello KYRED,
No desire to study the word of God speaks of someone who is not in the way of holiness...
And an highway shall be there, and a way, and it shall be called The way of holiness; the unclean shall not pass over it; but it shall be for those: the wayfaring men, though fools, shall not err therein.

9 No lion shall be there, nor any ravenous beast shall go up thereon, it shall not be found there; but the redeemed shall walk there:

10 And the ransomed of the Lord shall return, and come to Zion with songs and everlasting joy upon their heads: they shall obtain joy and gladness, and sorrow and sighing shall flee away.


0 Therefore I endure all things for the elect's sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.

11 It is a faithful saying: For if we be dead with him, we shall also live with him:

12 If we suffer, we shall also reign with him: if we deny him, he also will deny us:

13 If we believe not, yet he abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself.

14 Of these things put them in remembrance, charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers.

15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

16 But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.

17 And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus;

18 Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.

19 Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

EWF,please deal with what I have posted here. Answer fully. Don't take any side-trails. I really want to know what you think. Start another thread on Sam R. and Sinclair F. if you wish. Just face up to what I have said above. And where can legalism be found in my statements?

Oh yea it did but you just don't see it ....it is only a matter of perception my friend & that is what leads some people to see only black or white while others see a spectrum of color.

 

[Rippon]

Oh yea it did but you just don't see it ....it is only a matter of perception my friend & that is what leads some people to see only black or white while others see a spectrum of color.

Oh, you want to take the Deepak Chopra route of "Embrace ambiguity" I see. Well, the Bible speaks in antithetical ways which are clear-cut such as Heaven/Hell,wise/foolish,sinner/saint and so many more. For you to have grays in your theology is problematic.

I brought up specific things in my post #23 and you have shied away from addressing them. You don't like to deal with stark backdrops. You want more elbow room to move the ancient stones so that they might fit with your more expansive theology vs. my black and white biblical categories.

I was wondering what kind of new theology you had mentioned a month or so was all about. You are giving evidence of straying from biblical moorings EW&F.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Oh, you want to take the Deepak Chopra laugh route of "Embrace ambiguity" I see. (DO YOU!) Well, the Bible speaks in antithetical ways which are clear-cut such as Heaven/Hell,wise/foolish,sinner/saint and so many more. For you to have grays in your theology is problematic.

I brought up specific things in my post #23 and you have shied away from addressing them. You don't like to deal with stark backdrops. You want more elbow room to move the ancient stones so that they might fit with your more expansive theology vs. my black and white biblical categories.

I was wondering what kind of new theology you had mentioned a month or so was all about. You are giving evidence of straying from biblical moorings EW&F.

You are intentionally attempting to discredit me by some phony reference I see & then suggesting that my moorings are not sound....really?!? Is that how you deal with people..... thats kinda funny if not a sad commentary on your inability to see beyond black & white. I would further suggest my friend that others have voiced similar to you in the past but you continue to proceed without caution. A fault you need to correct because it places you..... ahhh, never mind..... you know where it places you.... I dont want to be your critic.

Now go ahead, pull my commentary apart, correct the spelling & grammatical errors, throw up some more innuendo & do the things that you are noted for. Doesn't bother me at all, but you need to recognize your own weaknesses as well as do we all. Have a good day brother & remember we are all flawed because of sin.... thankfully God has given us His grace that we will be perfected 'ONE DAY' ....LOL :godisgood:

 

[kyredneck]

Hello KYRED,
No desire to study the word of God speaks of someone who is not in the way of holiness...

Hello Icon,
Not going to make a big deal of this, we have too much in common, but, I would modify the above to say 'No desire to hear or partake of' the word of God, at the very least denotes a carnal Christian, OR, very possibly a sheep that has never been exposed to the 'healthful teaching', and has only had ’trodden pasture and fouled water’ [Ezek 34] for food and drink and has never tasted the joy of sound doctrine, in which case it is THE SHEPHERDS that stand condemned.

But I agree, there are those who “will not endure the sound doctrine; but, having itching ears, will heap to themselves teachers after their own lusts”.

15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

For as the rain cometh down and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, and giveth seed to the sower and bread to the eater; so shall my word be….. Isa 55:10,11

In fairness to the context, the passage applies to workmen (preachers and teachers, sowers) such as was Timothy, not to the flock in general. Most are eaters, not sowers. It’s the way God designed it to be :

… it did please God through the foolishness of the preaching to save [deliver] those believing 1 Cor 1:21 YLT

 

[Iconoclast]

Hello Icon,
Not going to make a big deal of this, we have too much in common, but, I would modify the above to say 'No desire to hear or partake of' the word of God, at the very least denotes a carnal Christian, OR, very possibly a sheep that has never been exposed to the 'healthful teaching', and has only had ’trodden pasture and fouled water’ [Ezek 34] for food and drink and has never tasted the joy of sound doctrine, in which case it is THE SHEPHERDS that stand condemned.

But I agree, there are those who “will not endure the sound doctrine; but, having itching ears, will heap to themselves teachers after their own lusts”.



For as the rain cometh down and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, and giveth seed to the sower and bread to the eater; so shall my word be….. Isa 55:10,11

In fairness to the context, the passage applies to workmen (preachers and teachers, sowers) such as was Timothy, not to the flock in general. Most are eaters, not sowers. It’s the way God designed it to be :

… it did please God through the foolishness of the preaching to save [deliver] those believing 1 Cor 1:21 YLT

Fair enough Brother....I think we are on the same page.You have correctly picked up on the fact that my comments were more loosely based on general principle and not as much a direct application of a specific text.

The means of grace in the life of a healthy christian of necessity includes study;

9 This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptation.

10 For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

11 These things command and teach.

12 Let no man despise thy youth; but be thou an example of the believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity.

13 Till I come, give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine.

14 Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.

15 Meditate upon these things; give thyself wholly to them; that thy profiting may appear to all.

16 Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.

Paul in offering instruction to those who teach indicates that the goal of studying and teaching faithfully results in salvation for all those in the way of holiness.....the teacher and those believers who hear the teacher as in verse 16......the teacher does the heavy lifting part of the study...but the hearers are also to benefit by partaking of it also.

The isa 55 passage is most excellent in this regard:flower::thumbs:

 

[Van]

Classification Attempt

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.”

My classification effort will rely on what you say you believe, not on how view it.

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.

This view is consistent with the "T" of the Calvinistic TULIP. Men are unable in their fallen state to seek God and trust in Christ.

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.

This is consistent with Unconditional Election (the U of the TULIP) with God not choosing for salvation through faith in the truth, 2 Thessalonians 2:13.

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.

This is consistent with the "L" of the TULIP, Limited Atonement, Christ died for those who would believe, and not to be the propitiation for the whole world.

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.

This is consistent with Irresistible Grace, fallen men must be altered such that they willingly and irresistibly come to faith.

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.

This is consistent with Perseverance of the Saints, the "P" of the TULIP, making JonC a 5 point Calvinist according to my classification effort as a Non-Calvinist.

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?

Not stated, or I missed it, is whether God chose individuals before the foundation of the world, or during their lifetime. Calvinists and Arminians (some of them anyway) believe God made the individual choice before creation. Choosing a person before creation through his or her faith in the truth suggests an difficulty usually deflected with an appeal to mystery.

 

[JonC]

This is consistent with the "L" of the TULIP, Limited Atonement, Christ died for those who would believe, and not to be the propitiation for the whole world.


Not stated, or I missed it, is whether God chose individuals before the foundation of the world, or during their lifetime. Calvinists and Arminians (some of them anyway) believe God made the individual choice before creation. Choosing a person before creation through his or her faith in the truth suggests an difficulty usually deflected with an appeal to mystery.

Thank you for your reply.

One issue - I believe that Christ is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world (literally - all human sin). It is in this manner that I understand the command to believe and the sin of disbelief. This is foundational to my understanding of the Christ-centeredness of Scripture not only in the redemption of the saved but also in the judgment and condemnation of the lost.

Through this thread I actually appreciate and understand more of opposing views (both Calvinistic and non-Calvinistic) regarding the atonement actually paying the price for the sins of those saved. Looking at the death of Christ - apart from the Resurrection and apart from faith - there is no actual salvation. But in regards to propitiation - I view defining “whole world” to indicate the elect in 1 Jn 2:2 as a needless misinterpretation based on Calvinistic presuppositions (which I may actually share).

You are correct in your last paragraph, and to clarify - I believe that we were chosen before the foundation of the earth and God knew us before we were even born. Likewise, I believe that God knew and ordained the betrayal and crucifixion of Jesus before the foundations of the earth - and that this was God’s plan from eternity past.

 

[Van]

If Christ is the propitiation for the whole world, then He died for the whole world. But your view is he died only for the elect, because, again in your view, only the elect after being altered by irresistible grace come to believe.

My view is simple, Christ's death provides the propitiation or means of salvation for all mankind, but only those that "receive" the reconciliation are saved. Thus Christ's death provides the opportunity for salvation for all mankind, and provides salvation for those who are chosen through faith, not chosen and given faith.

 

[JonC]

If Christ is the propitiation for the whole world, then He died for the whole world. But your view is he died only for the elect, because, again in your view, only the elect after being altered by irresistible grace come to believe.

My view is simple, Christ's death provides the propitiation or means of salvation for all mankind, but only those that "receive" the reconciliation are saved. Thus Christ's death provides the opportunity for salvation for all mankind, and provides salvation for those who are chosen through faith, not chosen and given faith.

The summary that I hold Christ died only for the elect is incorrect.

I believe that Christ died to save those who would believe. So yes, I do believe that Christ died and was resurrected to redeem only the elect. Those who will not believe are not numbered among the redeemed - they are not those who have the right to be called children of God.

But, I do believe in a general atonement. Christ death on the cross was not a value equal to the sins of the elect (I actually believe the “ledger” system to be a limited illustration). Instead, I believe that Christ is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world. The rejection of Christ results in condemnation - this is a universal condemnation as we all live in rejection of Christ until we are saved by grace through faith.

Our views of the atonement do not seem, to me, very different. Perhaps this is the only similarity in our views.

 

[kyredneck]

The summary that I hold Christ died only for the elect is incorrect....I do believe that Christ died and was resurrected to redeem only the elect......

I think you don't know what you believe.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I think you don't know what you believe.

And you have never been there...never wrestled with issues of doctrine and Gods plan is? PLEASE!!! The important thing though is that Christ promices to save any & all that believe in Him...so brother Jon, welcome to the wonderful world of Christianity...let the HS guide you & grow in the scriptures.

 

[preacher4truth]

I think you don't know what you believe.

This is what happens when one is politicking and to both sides -- their theology becomes a gobbledegook and abracadabra of both sides and is then by necessity filled with contradiction and error.

 

[The Biblicist]

Sadly for your view here - Lev 16 does not make any reference at all to "seated at the right hand of power when all is finished" - no reference to "posture" is emphasized in Lev 16 as having anything at all to do with "when the events of the Day of Atonement" are ended.

Bob, it is "sadly for YOUR view" not mine that "seated" cannot be found in Leviticus 16! Furthermore, "seated" has nothing to do merely to "posture" but indicates the highly preistly work described in Leviticus 16 has been completley and eternally FINISHED by Christ when He ascended into heaven. He is now "SEATED" because ALL THE WORK described in Leviticus 16 performed by the High Priest has been COMPLETED.

Now in heaven He merely administers the FINISHED work to those elect who are born into this world. The SDA "investigative judgment" doctrine is false and has no Biblical basis at all. Indeed, it is a complete denial of the finished work of Christ.

In Leviticus the work of the High Priest was finished when he changed his garment and came out and blessed the people. Jesus changed his garment in the resurrection and he came out to bless His people. When he entered into heaven he sat down ON THE THRONE and is ruling from heaven and will come again as King of kings and Lord of lords for his elect.

In fact quite to the contrary - in the Bible the Priest-King is "SEATED" while doing His ministry.

You may be surprised to learn that the High Priest had ministries other than what is described in Leviticus 16! What happened in Leviticus 16 ocurred but ONCE a year while he ministered 364 other days of the year and the ministry 364 days of the year was not the ministry of Leviticus 16. Leviticus 16 ministry has been FINISHED "ONCE AND FOR ALL" (Heb. 10:9-14) and that is the point of the writers of Hebrews. What he is now doing "seated" is not the Leviticus 16 ministry but the 364 days of the year ministry which is merely applying the FINISHED WORK to His people as they are born into this world.

 

[JonC]

I think you don't know what you believe.

I do know what I believe. I believe that Christ came to redeem the elect but that his death had implications (not just side effects) for the non-elect as well. The non-elect are not just “passed over” in God’s choosing, but are also actual and intentional consequences for those who do not believe.

Here I will have to say that you make an extraordinary foolish remark - I do know what I believe. Perhaps you mean that you do not find my understanding to be consistent or that I misunderstand atonement?

 

[BobRyan]

You may be surprised to learn that the High Priest had ministries other than what is described in Leviticus 16! What happened in Leviticus 16 ocurred but ONCE a year while he ministered 364 other days of the year and the ministry 364 days of the year was not the ministry of Leviticus 16. Leviticus 16 ministry has been FINISHED "ONCE AND FOR ALL" (Heb. 10:9-14) and that is the point of the writers of Hebrews. What he is now doing "seated" is not the Leviticus 16 ministry but the 364 days of the year ministry which is merely applying the FINISHED WORK to His people as they are born into this world.

I have responded to that on a thread dedicated to this topic rather than the more general subject "what exactly am I".

It ends with this comment.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=2050994&postcount=13

Backwards my friend. In God's model the Day of Atonement service is not first and then comes the daily... rather the daily is first and then comes the Day of Atonement.

Details matter.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

The summary that I hold Christ died only for the elect is incorrect.

I believe that Christ died to save those who would believe. So yes, I do believe that Christ died and was resurrected to redeem only the elect. Those who will not believe are not numbered among the redeemed - they are not those who have the right to be called children of God.

But, I do believe in a general atonement. Christ death on the cross was not a value equal to the sins of the elect (I actually believe the “ledger” system to be a limited illustration). Instead, I believe that Christ is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world. The rejection of Christ results in condemnation - this is a universal condemnation as we all live in rejection of Christ until we are saved by grace through faith.

Our views of the atonement do not seem, to me, very different. Perhaps this is the only similarity in our views.

Jon....unless the atonement is particular and effective, then we have really destroyed the unity and harmony of the Trinity. Is that what your attempting to do?

 

[BobRyan]

The summary that I hold Christ died only for the elect is incorrect.

I believe that Christ died to save those who would believe. So yes, I do believe that Christ died and was resurrected to redeem only the elect. Those who will not believe are not numbered among the redeemed - they are not those who have the right to be called children of God.

But, I do believe in a general atonement. Christ death on the cross was not a value equal to the sins of the elect (I actually believe the “ledger” system to be a limited illustration). Instead, I believe that Christ is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world.

The thread on Lev 16 "Day of Atonement" and how it solves the problem of "universalism" explains how it is that the "Atoning Sacrifice" is unlimited and nondiscriminating "the atoning sacrifice (NIV) for our sins and NOT for OUR sins only but for the sins of the Whole World" 1John 2:2 - and yet the broad concept of Atonement as taught in scripture "Day of Atonement" Lev 16 - is discriminating and particular so that universalism is not the result of accepting 1John 2:2 without first downsizing or editing it.


in Christ,

Bob

 

[kyredneck]

Ah, foolish me, I suppose the thread title itself might have led me to presuppose contradictions on your part.

Using the term 'Calvinist' in a generic sense, if you hold to a 'general atonement' in lieu of a 'limited atonement' then that makes you at the very least a 'four point Calvinist'. Or would it be a 'one point Arminian'? Hmm, I guess I don't know what you are either.

[add]

2.the Atonement, while qualitatively adequate for all men, is efficacious only for the man of faith