Featured Calvinist/Non-Calvinist - Where exactly am I?

Forget 5 points and focus on one point:

Synergism: the doctrine that the human will cooperates with the Holy Ghost in the work of regeneration.

Monergism: the doctrine that the Holy Ghost acts independently of the human will in the work of regeneration.

Can you decide whether you are a Monergist or a Synergist?

Or would it be a Non-Monergist or a Non-Synergist?

 

I have done some rudimentry studies of the "Marrow of Modern Divinity" on line..... from WIKI as a explaination.....The Marrow Controversy was a Scottish ecclesiastical dispute occasioned by the republication in 1718 of The Marrow of Modern Divinity (originally published in two parts in London in 1645 and 1649 by "E. F.", generally believed to be a pseudonym for Edward Fisher, an English Calvinist lay theologian of the seventeenth century, belonging to the guild of barber surgeon; not to be confused with Edward Fisher, Esq.). The work consists of religious dialogues which discuss the doctrine of the atonement and aim to guide the reader safely between Antinomianism and Neonomianism.

However there is a book--see attached (some commentary by Sinclair Ferguson) that I fully intent to read (after Ive digested Martyn Lloyd Jones book on the Sermon on the Mount). You may want to explore this book for some answers.

http://www.amazon.com/dp/1845504798/?tag=baptis04-20

 

Here is some commentary sermons by Ferguson you may want to check out.

http://www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?speakerWithinSource=&subsetCat=&subsetItem=&mediatype=&includekeywords=&keyword=Dr.^Sinclair^B.^Ferguson&keyworddesc=Dr.+Sinclair+B.+Ferguson&currsection=sermonsspeaker&AudioOnly=false&SpeakerOnly=true&keywordwithin=marrow+controversy&x=0&y=0

 

Jon, out of curiosity. Do you disagree with limited or definite atonement?

 

You're sure?

Is this what you're trying to say?:

3.unaided by the Holy Spirit, no person is able to respond to God’s will

If so, that makes you a two point Arminian, or would it be a three point Calvinist? Ah heck, doesn't matter anyway, you can't even keep from mug wumping on only a single point, much less five.

Unequivocally Monergist.

 

'Iron sharpens iron'. Aggressive debate is effective to 'refine' the views of a bona fide student of the Word.

 

If God chose the individuals He would save before creation, then why would Christ die to become the propitiation for the whole world? Calvinists sometimes make the double payment argument. Why would Christ die for the non-elect if they are going to be punished for their sins in the afterlife?

Now if we turn it around, it makes far better sense. If Christ died for the whole world, then the opportunity for salvation for the whole world has been provided. Thus anyone chosen by God and placed spiritually in Christ undergoes the circumcision of Christ, the sin burden is removed and the sinner is born anew, and rises in Christ a new creation, made alive together with Christ.

Thus when 2 Thessalonians 2:13 says God chose you for salvation through the sanctification by the Holy Spirit, this refers to God setting you apart (sanctification) in Christ. But also through faith in the truth. We could not have faith in the truth before creation. Paul says we were saved by grace through faith, indicating our faith existed before we were saved. And if we are saved when God puts us in Christ, then we are individually chosen and saved when God puts us in Christ.

 

Jon, have you ever studied the Philadelphia Confession of faith and/or the 1689 Confessions?

 

Yes there was a time.....our ancestors Adam & Eve, they were in the Light till they rejected God! Now all mankind is under that sin where we are condemned till we believe. But we differ in the method of that awaking belief.

Jon, If Christ died for all, dont you think all would be saved? What I hear you saying is that Jesus' death was not an actual atonement but only something that makes atonement possible. The atonement becomes actual when the sinner repents of their sin & believes on Jesus. Does that sum up your beliefs or is there something I am missing?

But I do believe that the value of Christs death is adequate to save all men and women in all ages of this world. However in my view, Christ did not die for all, but all for whom he died will be saved. Therefore it is my belief that His death was an actual atonement for the sins of those elect persons whom the Father previously has determined to give them.

 

I also for awhile was in the A camp in regards to calvinism, but after reading all of the postings here, reading over theologies by different authors, and the bible, have come to see that if it was not a definite atonement provided for sinners by death of Jesus, its either a potential only, or Universalism logically left to camp in!

 

Would you see it as being that the death of Christ was sufficient to save all sinners, but that God;s actual intent was to save by/thru it just His elect?

I keep coming bac to the intent issue, for IF God really desired all to get saved by the death of christ, and its His Will to have such happen, why can't it happen?

 

Jon,

These two sentences are in contradiction to each other. If Christ's work on the cross has potential then its outcome has not been determined. That is the Amyraldian position. In the vernacular this would be described as 4 point Calvinism. Amyraldianism modified Calvinism's teachings on God's decree of universal redemption with no decree for reprobation (McKim).

 

didn't Calvin himself thouigh seem to go back and forth between those 2 positions?

I was firmly in the potential provided for all to get saved, but still stuck with problem of what couldn't God actually save all those sinners if Jesus actually had died to satisfy to the Father all their sins?

 

Jonc,

You are avoiding. You've specifically avoided me and that is well noted, as I have called you on things upfront, and as kyredneck has noted this calling out is both Scriptural and profitable. Tucking tail as you have here is unfortunate behavior, and is frankly timidity on your part. This isn't being spiritual, it is being a party spirit.

But you're still in hiding and won't respond. I find that behavior shameful on your part and less than what should be expected by men of God. Please don't excuse this behavior as 'being busy', or as avoiding division, as this is not the case, and, as you've attended to other posts since the former.

Others including myself have called you on your theological contradictions. I see you as one who is politicking, ESPECIALLY to the camp outside of Calvinism while POSING as a Calvinist yourself. I don't see you as even close to being a Monergist as your position is shaky and plays both sides, never settling opon truth.

It is noted that you are incapable of taking rebuke, reproof, and instruction, and are seemingly incapable of responding to being called on your contradictory theological position.

 

i was where he seems to be at right now though, as had gone from being an evangelical arminian, to 4 pointer, to ow holding to all 5 points of the DoG, so lets just keep the discourse civil, and see if we can persuade form the scriptures our brother!