Monergists who are not Calvinists II

[Reformed]

The other thread is over 130 posts, so it will be probably be locked soon. Perhaps you can pick up the discussion here. The thread moved very quickly this afternoon and it has been difficult to catch up on all the posts.

 

[Reformed]

@JonC , in the previous thread you said, "Calvinistic salvation itself is centered on the Father while Arminians center salvation on Christ." What do you mean by that?

The Father is the One who gives the Elect to the Son, as revealed in John 6:37. "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out." However, salvation is centered on Christ. The 1689 Second London Baptist Confession of Faith states:

10.1 Those whom God hath predestinated unto life, he is pleased in his appointed, and accepted time, effectually to call, by his Word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ; enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God; taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them a heart of flesh; renewing their wills, and by his almighty power determining them to that which is good, and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ; yet so as they come most freely, being made willing by his grace.
( Romans 8:30; Romans 11:7; Ephesians 1:10, 11; 2 Thessalonians 2:13, 14; Ephesians 2:1-6; Acts 26:18; Ephesians 1:17, 18; Ezekiel 36:26; Deuteronomy 30:6; Ezekiel 36:27; Ephesians 1:19; Psalm 110:3; Song of Solomon 1:4 )

So, help me understand your statement. Thank you.

 

[JonC]

@JonC , in the previous thread you said, "Calvinistic salvation itself is centered on the Father while Arminians center salvation on Christ." What do you mean by that?

The Father is the One who gives the Elect to the Son, as revealed in John 6:37. "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out." However, salvation is centered on Christ. The 1689 Second London Baptist Confession of Faith states:

10.1 Those whom God hath predestinated unto life, he is pleased in his appointed, and accepted time, effectually to call, by his Word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ; enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God; taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them a heart of flesh; renewing their wills, and by his almighty power determining them to that which is good, and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ; yet so as they come most freely, being made willing by his grace.
( Romans 8:30; Romans 11:7; Ephesians 1:10, 11; 2 Thessalonians 2:13, 14; Ephesians 2:1-6; Acts 26:18; Ephesians 1:17, 18; Ezekiel 36:26; Deuteronomy 30:6; Ezekiel 36:27; Ephesians 1:19; Psalm 110:3; Song of Solomon 1:4 )

So, help me understand your statement. Thank you.

What I mean is Calvinism centers election on the will of the Father while Arminianism centers election on Christ.

Calvinism views election as unconditional. Arminianism views election as conditioned on Christ.

 

[Reformed]

What I mean is Calvinism centers election on the will of the Father while Arminianism centers election on Christ.

Calvinism views election as unconditional. Arminianism views election as conditioned on Christ.

Gotcha. I agree. Election is based on the will of the Father. That is what I believe.

 

[Iconoclast]

In the first thread JonC said this;

1]

I am not arguing either way. I am saying you hit the nail on the head. Calvinistic salvation itself is centered on the Father while Arminians center salvation on Christ.

2]

If you are saying God's election is based on the elected being in Christ then this is Arminianism.

Arminanism bases election on Christ (God, being omniscient, chose Christ and those who are in Christ as His "elect"). Calvinism views divine election as independent on man (God chooses of His own will, not random but not in accordance with anything but God's will).

3]

Calvinism holds that the saved are so by virtue of being chosen by the Father.
Arminianism holds that the saved are so by virtue of Christ (being chosen by the Father on the basis of Christ).

4]

See the point? The foundation of salvation in Calvinism is not Christ but election of the Father.[/QUOTE]

5]

I understand. But then there is the issue of election and not Christ being the criteria for salvation.

If Calvinism is correct then we have to deal with the fact the crux of salvation is not Christ or the Cross but the election of the Father (it is what Barth referred to as "back door" philosophy).

6]

That is what @George Antonios and I have been pointing out. The ultimate basis of salvation for the Calvinist is not Christ but the election of the Father. Christ comes in latter in the process.

7]

Arminianism holds that Christ is the basis for election (God foreknows those who will be in Christ, who will believe).
Calvinism holds that the Father is the basis for election (God elects and gives these to Christ).

I think this is what @George Antonios is pointing out, and for my part I had not considered this until reading his post.

I think George said something similar;
George posted;
1]

. Calvinism is a system that has a man elect of God outside of Jesus Christ.

2]

The point remains. In Calvinism you were first chosen outside of Christ.

3]

Not quite. The parallel here creates a false (unintended) impression.
When we say it's Christ, we don't mean that Christ elected people unto salvation. We mean that we are elected because we placed our faith in Christ.
So to say that in Calvinism the basis is the Father is a little misleading (again, unintended, and I do get the point you were trying to make).
The basis is unknown. No Calvinist knows why the Father elected him. (Maybe because of their great humility).

4]

You make it sound like the difference is merely chronological. It's not. The difference is causal.
Not only were you, as a Calvinist, chosen before Christ came, but were chosen apart from Christ.

5]

Already addressed that. That is logically wrong.
If you were elected TO BE IN Christ it's because at the time of your election you were OUTSIDE of Christ.
Again, if God elected you to put you in a can, it's because you were outside the can when you were chosen.

6]

You're playing semantics now. That breaks down any meaningful conversation.
We're not discussing the end/purpose of the election, but the basis of it, as you know right well.
Why is it that YOU were elected to that end but not ANOTHER?
Calvinists say: it's not because of Christ.

7]

Again, you're confounding the end/purpose of the election with the basis/criterion of the election.

Notice Reformed, Here we have two posters who tell us they are
"Ex -Calvinists". Both take seven cracks at it, and I see 7 misses.
Any biblical Calvinist upon reflection of the comments will see several things;
1] Neither person seems to have any indication of the true biblical Doctrine of Election.

2] neither gives any indication of the Covenant nature of election.

3] neither indicates an understanding of the relationship of Our Great High Priest and His work

4] neither shows any knowledge of Jesus as surety.

5]neither indicates a proper understanding of saving Union with Christ.

There have been three persons that I know of on BB who claimed to have been "a Calvinist".
Despite the claims, I see no evidence of it. The credibility is missing just as any indication of these basic elements has not been seen anywhere....I have never seen one post from any of the three that gave an indication of it.
Anyone can claim anything, it is a free country. They might have even looked at these things to some extent. Not everyone who looks at something..." gets it".
I see no evidence of a basic correct understanding of Calvinism,
the core teachings as outlined by
John Murray, in Redemption ,Accomplished, and Applied.
Or Sinclair Fergusons know your Christian life.

No one says they have to be Calvinists, but they suggest this is so....their posts do not support the claim.
i saw Mickey mantle Hit two home runs in my first live game at the stadium.One left handed over the old black wall beyond the 461 sign, then right handed a check swing in to the right field bleachers.
I can tell what pitchers i saw and what team was the opponent.
Now if i make the claim that i played in the game, and you did not see my name in the box score, you would have every right to question my claim.
It is like that.

 

[JonC]

In the first thread JonC said this;

1]

2]

3]

4]

Your mistake is that you are confusing statements about my held belief with a discussion regarding two types of election. Your assumptions are wrong.

Rather than going through people's posts to develop a narrative of what you want them to believe (in Adam Schiff fashion) it is probably better to just ask.

If you believe I have misunderstood an issue in Calvinism then plainly state your view and ask what I believe.

You have often said I was not a Calvinist but you have never been able to show even one place where I misunderstood Calvinism. You do this to people and it is wrong.

People often get defensive when others try to create a belief for them.

 

[Iconoclast]

Your mistake is that you are confusing statements about my held belief with a discussion regarding two types of election. Your assumptions are wrong.

Rather than going through people's posts to develop a narrative of what you want them to believe (in Adam Schiff fashion) it is probably better to just ask.

If you believe I have misunderstood an issue in Calvinism then plainly state your view and ask what I believe.

You have often said I was not a Calvinist but you have never been able to show even one place where I misunderstood Calvinism. You do this to people and it is wrong.

People often get defensive when others try to create a belief for them.

Your previous posts are not available to me when I go to look at your post it says you can't view them number one number two I have asked you several questions that I don't get an answer on and to be honest you're free to believe whatever you want to believe or disbelieve but I'm reading your post and I'm not seeing anything that convinces me of your claim. Now I have asked you do you have any sermons do you have any sermons online anywhere like David Taylor just recently posted a group of sermon so he's just take a listen let me know what you think give me feedback. Do you have any such a mechanism where we can view your preaching and teaching because we've not seen it on Baptist board and if you did post anything you can't go back and find it because you don't let anyone see what you posted

 

[JonC]

Your previous posts are not available to me when I go to look at your post it says you can't view them number one number two I have asked you several questions that I don't get an answer on and to be honest you're free to believe whatever you want to believe or disbelieve but I'm reading your post and I'm not seeing anything that convinces me of your claim. Now I have asked you do you have any sermons do you have any sermons online anywhere like David Taylor just recently posted a group of sermon so he's just take a listen let me know what you think give me feedback. Do you have any such a mechanism where we can view your preaching and teaching because we've not seen it on Baptist board and if you did post anything you can't go back and find it because you don't let anyone see what you posted

Just point out where you believe I misunderstand Calvinism and ask me to clarify.

You do not need past posts (real or imagined) to "prove" I misunderstand. I am right here - ask me.

You make a lot of claims about people and go about it as if you were some politician trying to trap people in their words. Stop trying to tell people what they believe and just ask.

 

[Iconoclast]

Just point out where you believe I misunderstand Calvinism and ask me to clarify.

You do not need past posts (real or imagined) to "prove" I misunderstand. I am right here - ask me.

You make a lot of claims about people and go about it as if you were some politician trying to trap people in their words. Stop trying to tell people what they believe and just ask.

I quoted your post directly here on this thread Past post show what you believe over time. Why hide them. What do you mean by real or imagined post every post I've spoken of a few was was there whether it's still there or not would you are editing deleting and history is very suspect

 

[Reformed]

I quoted your post directly here on this threat. Pass post show what you believe over time. Why hide them. What do you mean by real or imagined post every post I've spoken of a few was was there whether it's still there or not would you are editing deleting and history is very suspect

Brother, just ask him. We are all reading and participating in this thread. We are all witnesses. Ask Jon a direct question and let us see if he gives a direct answer. I know there is a past here but there is nothing we can do about it. Just ask.

 

[JonC]

I quoted your post directly here on this threat. Pass post show what you believe over time. Why hide them. What do you mean by real or imagined post every post I've spoken of a few was was there whether it's still there or not would you are editing deleting and history is very suspect

So you cannot point to any specific Calvinistic doctrine that I do not understand but instead make accusations based on an overall feeling you developed based on past arguments. That does not work. I often argue one way (sometimes against my own view) in looking at arguments themselves.

Let's make it easy. Name one Calvinistic doctrine that I rejected out of a misunderstanding.

I do not know what doctrine you are speaking of but am open to the idea I could have not understood adequately. We are only human, after all.

 

[Reformed]

@JonC , let me get the ball rolling. How do you define definite atonement and do you hold to it?

 

[JonC]

@JonC , let me get the ball rolling. How do you define definite atonement and do you hold to it?

I define definite atonement as the idea that Christ died to save the Church. God intended that Christ’s death would actually save people – the elect.

Supporting passages include John 10:11: The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep”; John 11:52 that Jesus died “to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad”; and Ephesians 5:25: “Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her”.

I do believe that Christ died to save the Church and that those who are saved are predestined to be saved (those who are lost are predestined to be lost). But I think it would be incorrect to say that I believe Definite atonement on Calvinistic grounds (as I did in the past). The reason is that definite atonement is a logical conclusion of Penal Substitution Theory (the Theory makes definite atonement necessary). Jesus substituted himself as the penalty for our sins necessitates a definite group for which Christ died (not just a potential group of individuals). Without accepting the Calvinistic understanding of the reasons behind redemptive history and how salvation was accomplished I think my current view departs from Calvinism (on the surface we would agree, but just below the surface it would be found we agreed only in the conclusion and not the process).

 

[Iconoclast]

Brother, just ask him. We are all reading and participating in this thread. We are all witnesses. Ask Jon a direct question and let us see if he gives a direct answer. I know there is a past here but there is nothing we can do about it. Just ask.

Hello reformed
what he believes or doesn't believe is not my concern at this point in time
I was addressing the statements that he made about his past , George also
I'm not going to waste time with someone who claims what he post might not be what he believes anyway so I don't do make-believe or hypothetical posts or let me say this but then if you answer me while I didn't really believe that I was just arguing the position he is free to believe whatever he wants to believe or disbelieve whatever he wants to not believe
I am using voice to text right now so some of my grammar and the autocorrect the changing my post

 

[JonC]

Hello reform, what he believes are doesn't believe is not my concern

What I believe or do not believe determines whether your claim that I do not understand Calvinism is accurate or is a false assertion.

The fact you make claims about my understanding while stating you are not concerned with what I actually believe is troubling. What I post as my beliefs are accurate. When I ask people about their views you are wrong to imply something about my view. I will tell you what I believe. Just be grown up enough to ask.

This is your opportunity to show the board you have a legitimate concern - let's talk about how you believe I misunderstood Calvinism. What doctrines do I not grasp?

 

[Reformed]

Hello reform, what he believes are doesn't believe is not my concern at this point in time I was addressing the statements that he made about his past and the other opposed to George awesome. I'm not going to waste time with someone who claims what he post might not be what he believes anyway so I don't do make-believe or hypothetical posts or let me say this but then if you answer me while I didn't really believe that I was just arguing the position he is free to believe whatever he wants to believe or disbelieve whatever he wants to not believe

OK. Well, there is not much I can say to that. I understand how you feel and I know you feel strongly about it. If you are not going to engage with @JonC then all I can say is do not engage. Maybe it is for the best.

 

[Reformed]

I define definite atonement as the idea that Christ died to save the Church. God intended that Christ’s death would actually save people – the elect.

Supporting passages include John 10:11: The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep”; John 11:52 that Jesus died “to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad”; and Ephesians 5:25: “Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her”.

I do believe that Christ died to save the Church and that those who are saved are predestined to be saved (those who are lost are predestined to be lost). But I think it would be incorrect to say that I believe Definite atonement on Calvinistic grounds (as I did in the past). The reason is that definite atonement is a logical conclusion of Penal Substitution Theory (the Theory makes definite atonement necessary). Jesus substituted himself as the penalty for our sins necessitates a definite group for which Christ died (not just a potential group of individuals). Without accepting the Calvinistic understanding of the reasons behind redemptive history and how salvation was accomplished I think my current view departs from Calvinism (on the surface we would agree, but just below the surface it would be found we agreed only in the conclusion and not the process).

Jon, I am not sure how the process is relevant if the conclusion is the same. McKim defines definite atonement as, "A theological concept...[snip] which maintains that Christ died only for the elect, who are the only recipients of salvation." It definitely is part of Calvinist teaching but it also is part of Monergistic teaching apart from Calvinism.

I will be honest, I have a very difficult time understanding you accepting of Christ dying only for the elect but arriving at it from a different direction apart from Calvinism. After reading volumes of your posts I do not understand what it is you believe in regards to the Atonement. This goes back two years ago when we participated in a number of atonement-related threads. It must be me being dense.

 

[JonC]

Jon, I am not sure how the process is relevant if the conclusion is the same. McKim defines definite atonement as, "A theological concept...[snip] which maintains that Christ died only for the elect, who are the only recipients of salvation." It definitely is part of Calvinist teaching but it also is part of Monergistic teaching apart from Calvinism.

I will be honest, I have a very difficult time understanding you accepting of Christ dying only for the elect but arriving at it from a different direction apart from Calvinism. After reading volumes of your posts I do not understand what it is you believe in regards to the Atonement. This goes back two years ago when we participated in a number of atonement-related threads. It must be me being dense.

The reason it is different is that I no longer view Christ's death as a payment for the sin debt of the elect but instead view Christ as dying both for the human family and also for the elect corporately (the Church). When I was a Calvinist I viewed Christ as literally dying for individual elect persons to effect salvation by paying their "sin debt".

So while we both believe Christ died to save the Church we consider that death to have accomplished this goal in very different ways. The conclusion is that those who believe are saved. We all agree on this. You and I agree that Christ died to save the Church (with the Church in mind). But we believe this death itself to have accomplished very different things.

The question is really not where my current position stands but if accurately understood Calvinism. How do you evaluate my definition of definite atonement? I know it is a short definition and I could have expounded, but do you believe my understanding of definite atonement incorrect?

 

[Iconoclast]

JonC,

So you cannot point to any specific Calvinistic doctrine that I do not understand

I did give just a few indications so far in post 5;
Notice Reformed, Here we have two posters who tell us they are
"Ex -Calvinists". Both take seven cracks at it, and I see 7 misses.
Any biblical Calvinist upon reflection of the comments will see several things;
1] Neither person seems to have any indication of the true biblical Doctrine of Election.

2] neither gives any indication of the Covenant nature of election.

3] neither indicates an understanding of the relationship of Our Great High Priest and His work

4] neither shows any knowledge of Jesus as surety.

5]neither indicates a proper understanding of saving Union with Christ.

There have been three persons that I know of on BB who claimed to have been "a Calvinist".
Despite the claims, I see no evidence of it. The credibility is missing just as an indication of these basic elements has not been seen anywhere....I have never seen one post from any of the three that gave an indication of it.
Anyone can claim anything, it is a free country. They might have even looked at these things to some extent. Not everyone who looks at something..." gets it".
I see no evidence of a basic correct understanding of Calvinism,
the core teachings as outlined by
John Murray, in Redemption,Accomplished and Applied.
Or Sinclair Fergusons know your Christian life.

No one says they have to be Calvinists, but they suggest this is so....their posts do not support the claim.
I saw Mickey mantle Hit two home runs in my first live game at the stadium. One left-handed over the old black wall beyond the 461 sign, then right-handed a check-swing into the right-field bleachers.
I can tell what pitchers I saw and what team was the opponent.
Now if I make the claim that I played in the game, and you did not see my name in the box score, you would have every right to question my claim.
It is like that.

but instead make accusations based on an overall feeling you developed based on past arguments.

Not accusations, but rather observations. You have posted that you were a Calvinist while on here at BB.
I would quote it for you but when I go look for it here is what I see;
Baptist Christian Forums - Error

This member limits who may view their full profile.

Now I hate to burst your bubble but I do not find your posts that compelling or edifying to follow what you post in general. It says you joined BB in 2001. I do not recall any non cals tangling with your posts over the issue. In fact when asked you refused to produce anything to substantiate your claims.

That does not work. I often argue one way (sometimes against my own view) in looking at arguments themselves.[/QUOTE]

Well, indeed this does not work for me at all. Why not post what you believe, and if you desire to give some other view , just say that. I think your disclaimer does not lend itself to honest dialogue.
"Disclaimer: Positions I argue may not be my own."

Let's make it easy. Name one Calvinistic doctrine that I rejected out of a misunderstanding

.
I do not care what your ever-changing view is, or is not now. You are welcome to it.I like to try and help people. You have made it clear you are not looking for help.

I do not know what doctrine you are speaking of but am open to the idea I could have not understood adequately. We are only human, after all.

Again, I feel no need to examine your beliefs, because of how you post, it would be fruitless.
I comment when I see something to comment on.

 

[Iconoclast]

OK. Well, there is not much I can say to that. I understand how you feel and I know you feel strongly about it. If you are not going to engage with @JonC then all I can say is do not engage. Maybe it is for the best.

I have no problem to engage as you have seen, Reformed.
My comments were strictly based on past postings.
Why ask questions that can be googled, or are written so vague, that when questioned the person says...Oh that is not what I meant. In the current posts, I see double-speak, tricky wording, and elusive replies that upon cross-examination will not stand. So i ask myself why I should engage in that.I have found that when someone is trying to portray something in a less than clear way, it is because they actually do not know what they are talking about.