Featured Did Christ Provide Sinners Only a "Chance"?

A shollow understanding of Christ paying for the sins of only His sheep.
Romans 6:23. Romans 14:9, Philippians 2:10-11, ". . . That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. . . ."

 

I don't believe that Christ died to give all a "chance" to be saved. What I think is difficult is that when you combine a particular redemption with a very high view of determinism. Because then you can make a case that God himself, by his own decree, begins as a starting point with it being His primary will that most men will go to Hell. And the primary and sovereign reason is that Jesus did not die for their sins. Whereas men like Edwards seemed to view this more as follows: Men are natural enemies of God because of their deliberate rebellion and sin. They have no tendency to change this and no desire to stop this animosity towards God. Therefore, if God sovereignly chooses to pick out some of these to save, based on His choice alone, and let the others go in their chosen path then he has done no one any wrong. The atonement is limited and particular, but the primary reason emphasized for this is that God is doing a great kindness to those saved. When determinism is emphasized so much that you make the PRIMARY reason someone doesn't get saved the fact that Christ did not die for them you cannot help in the back of your mind at least thinking it's unfair.

 

This is true but I don't want to ever misrepresent God's motives to other fellow humans. I'm just saying that to present the truths of God's salvation plan in a way that makes it seem like the PRIMARY motivation of God was to damn a bunch of people before time began risks misrepresenting God. If he did that it is of course alright because he is God but there are a lot of scriptures showing God's unbelievable patience and love to sinners. I say like Edwards that what should be emphasized is that you have a bunch of rebellious sinners who usually develop open animosity toward God. Some others keep it more internal and secret but the monergistic choosing by God for salvation is from those groups of underserving people. If that is true why is it not better to explain it that way than to just say that God probably determined beforehand to damn you.

 

Ken. Thanks for the link. I read it fast because I have to go somewhere but it's bookmarked. It explains a lot. I believe in a true offer of salvation, would be infralapsarian, believe in duty faith, believe that good works and progressive sanctification are means of assurance, and that the Law is a rule of life. I became a Calvinist due to reading lots of Puritans and would be one except I still think it's OK to have fun. But that's a good link.

 

If you hold to the determinism as found in your LBCF or the DoG then it will lead to a version of God that has decreed the sin that man commits and then judges them for it.
You refer to man going by his own path but under calvinism that is not possible. But then again I guess it all depends on what version of calvinism one holds to.

 

It does, as the link to the article Ken gives above.

 

That is why it is so hard to deal with a calvinist, your never sure what they actually believe and how much of the bible they actually trust.

 

2nd London Baptist Confession of Faith 1689, Article IX.


1. God has indued the will of man, by nature, with liberty and the power to choose and to act upon his choice. This free will is neither forced nor destined by any necessity of nature to do good or evil. [Matthew 17:12; James 1:14; DEuteronomy 30:19].


2. Man in his state of innocence, had freedom and power to will and to do that which was pleasing to God [Ecclesiastes 7:29], but he was unstable so that he might fall from this condition [Genesis 3:6]..


3. Man, by his fall into a state of sin, has completely lost all ability of will to perform any of the good which accompanies salvation [Romans 5:6; 8:7]. As a natural man, he is altogether opposed to spiritual good and dead in sin [Ephesians 2:1-5].He is not able by His own strength to convert himself or to prepare himself for conversion [Titus 3:3-5; John 6:44].


4. When God converts a sinner and translates him into a state of grace, He frees him from his natural bondage to sin [Colossians 1:13; John 8:36] and by grace alone, He enables him freely to will and to do that which is spiritually good [Philippians 2::13]. But because of his remaining corruptions, he does not only 9or perfectly will that which is good, but also wills that which is evil [Romans 7:15-23].


5. The will of man will only be made perfectly and immutably free to will good alone in the state of glory [Ephesians 4:13]..

 

That shouldn't be the case any more. The link from Ken's post above gives you a clear picture of Calvinism at it's more deterministic side and the confession above posted by Alan, which is almost word for word the same as the WCF, gives you the view of the Puritan's, early Calvinistic English Baptists, and Presbyterians.

The same range occurs with free will folks. Some are like the moderate Calvinists in that the work of the Spirit is essential for conversion with the difference being that grace can be resisted. Others believe that everyone has enough "light" that they can on their own hear the gospel and believe. Others believe that there is power in the word itself.

Also, notice that in the above post from Alan there are scripture references for each point. You may not agree with them or the Calvinist conclusions but it is not fair to say they don't trust the Bible.