Featured Atonement

Hi Yeshua1, please re-read my post and address what I actually said. And please stop claiming to be like Jesus able to read the minds of those He encountered.

The question we need to ask ourselves is this, according to Romans 8:33 no charge can be brought against God's elect. So when we were by nature children of wrath, how could we be individually elect?

 

The scripture does not say we were the children of Gods wrath but it says WE WERE BY NATURE children of wrath. Verse one, two and three is describing what the nature of the Christian was before conversion. He was dead and in his sins, he walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince and power of the air, his conversation was in the lust of the flesh and he fulfilled the desires of the flesh, and mind. The wrath that is spoken of is wrath against God, this was his nature. Titus 3:3 For we ourselves also were sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one another.

 

It all goes back to Foreknowledge, for the bible would say God foreknew due to him dtermining/tredestinating those who were to get saved by hs own Will, but van would have God doing that after he saw us choosing for jesus by our own free wills...

 

I don't think this word foreknew can be used as foreseen. It is the same word that was used in scripture as when Adam knew his wife Eve and she conceived. Adam and Eve had a intimate relationship and God used the words, knew his wife. In Rom 11:2 God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Rom 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate. This is a spiritual intimate relationship between God and his elect.

 

1) Not sure of your first point, since I did indeed say by nature children of wrath.

2) You listed several charges against God's elect according to Calvinism. Thus you ignore that no charge can be brought against God's elect.

3) The verse is not speaking of the fallen's wrath against God, but of God's wrath against our fallen nature.

4) Titus 3:3 makes several charges against the fallen, and so again the case is made that before conversion we could not be "elect."

 

Next we have the usual denial of Calvinism's doctrines voiced by Calvinists.

Rippon says Calvinism does not teach God chose foreseen individuals before creation. But that is hogwash. Calvinism also teaches the unconditional election was not based on "foreseen" faith.

Propitiation does provide the means of salvation. Simply saying "taint so" does not nullify truth.

 

Is my first sequence Arminianism? Nope!

The Arminian Sequence is:
1) God chose foreseen individuals based on foreseen faith before creation.
2) Christ died for all mankind.
3) Individuals receive the reconciliation provided by Christ's death on the cross when they believe.

Calvinism does indeed claim the reconciliation of each and every elect person occurred 1900 years ago when Christ died. Here for the second time is the quote:

 

That dies not happen in real time and space to us though until that person chosen by God to be one of the redeemed will be enabled to place faith injesus in order to get saved...

There still must be an effectual application of those assured things of salvation in this life !

 

You seem to be saying that Hyper cal is what calvinists here believe in though!

 

My Calvinism sequence is Mainstream, not hyper.

Mainstream Calvinism has it in this order:
1) God chose foreseen individuals before creation.
2) Christ died for the sins, past, present and future, of those previously chosen individuals.
3) Thus, even if one of those individuals has not yet been born, he or she was fully reconciled when Christ died.

In summary, His death reconciled all the elect, and thus was an atonement.

Mainstream Calvinists believe Christ's death was sufficient to save all men, but efficacious only for the elect.

 

I can't make heads or tails out of what you are saying. The second chapter of Ephesians verses one through three is explaining what the Christian was before he was saved in this present world, so how can these be charges according to Calvinism. Titus 3:3 same thing. The elect and the children of disobedience, verse two and called in verse three as others, meaning the non-elect were all of the same nature, and we all acted alike. The difference in Gods sight is the fact the elect in verse five had in times past been quickened together with Christ even when we were considered dead in our sins, why ? because of Gods great love toward us, verse four. Not only that but when Christ arose from the grave we were raised with him and we are now sitting together in heaven in Christ, verse six.

 

I did not claim my mainstream Calvinism sequence was Arminian, you did.

If God chose individuals before creation, they were foreseen individuals. That is not a foreign concept, it is mainstream. There is nothing divisive about speaking with clarity. If the individuals were not foreseen, what were they? Existing before God created them? I doubt any published Calvinist source holds that view.

Number 3 is mainstream Calvinism, and is not "highly questionable." I quoted my source. Have you provided a Calvinist quote that says Christ's death on the cross only provided the opportunity for salvation, and did not justify the elect? Nope

So lets agree, Limited Atonement as defined by Calvinism is "highly questionable."

 

It is simple, Salzer Mtn, if a person was elect before creation, and no charge can be brought against God's elect, then we could not have been by nature, children of wrath. And Titus 3:3 could not be applied to us.

 

The change in us though HAD to come by the rebirth in Jesus, as until God saved us in rwl time here, we were still children of disobedience and wrath!

His death provided the basis to reconcile us back, but that happens when we get saved here and now, not eternally saved!