Some Things That “Limited Atonement” Does Not Mean:

Ken Hamilton,

Some of you brethren still don't get it. God is not in the 'business' --'ministry' of forcing people into His provided salvation. A God who manipulates can then, hardly, call on the same forced adherents to render worship back to Him.

 

Ray,

After one is regenerated, one then worships God in spirit and in truth. Before then, one cannot even hear the Word spiritually.

(John 8:43 NKJV) "Why do you not understand My speech? Because you are not able to listen to My word.

(1 Cor 2:14 NKJV) But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Ken
A Spurgeonite

 

Bob and Ray have once again stooped to misrepresentation. Had I gotten here before Ken responded, both posts would have been gone. You guys need to learn not to mispresent it. Calvinism does not believe that God is forcing or manipulating. We do believe that God loved the world. I know that disappoints you because it takes away one of your arguments. Guys, it simply isn't true so move on.

 

Pastor Larry,

You can always let them hang themselves with their own rope.

Ken
A Spurgeonite

 

I have already responded to this false representation of the Arminian view - showing that in fact BOTH Cavlinism and Arminianism accept that the John 12:32 supernatural "Drawing" of Christ IS sufficient to MORE than compensate for the "lost condition" such that man is enabled to respond to the Gospel - in fact in the Cavlinist model Man is not seeking forgiveness at all - he merely "discovers" himself to be forgiven and born-again.

Rather than respond to that John 12:32 point - both you and Pastor Larry seem to have withdrawn from the discussion regarding the power of God to DRAW the lost effectively - And have contended yourselves with false representations of the Arminian point of view.

Curious.

In Christ,

Bob

 

It is very difficult to tell if you are simply shutting down discussion without any interest in allowing a POV that differs with Calvinism on this one point - or if you have a genuine interest on some part of it and would tolerate discussion.

God's Word claims that "God so Loved the World that He Gave His only Son" - and that He is in fact "The Savior of the World" - "The Atoning sacrifice for Our sins and not for Our sins only but for those of the Whole World".

You claim that Calvinism accepts the SAME "whole World" concept of the Arminian point of view that accepts it without modification. You claim that it is awful that any Arminian would think that Calvinism's God is NOT so loving that Same WHole World that the Arminians see scripture claim He "So Loves". You claim that These texts all apply for Calvinists in just the same way as they do for Arminians who find them to teach that God so Loved the World, is the atoning Sacrifice for that WHole World that He loved - the Same world that fell into sin and the Same ALL that he Draws unto Him - ALL the WHOLE world.

So if it really IS the same- then you are right to say that Arminians should stop saying "there is a Difference".

And I would be happy if you could prove it - because I would love to discover that to be "Common ground". (Odd that it did not come up as common ground on the "common ground" thread on this subject area).

But if there IS a difference - why not allow the discussion?

Arminians refer to that (God so loved the World that He GAVE) idea as unlimited atonement. Is it really your position that the Calvinist view is the "same" only uising the word "Limited Atonement"?

Or do you argue that God loves the World but then dies as the atoning sacrifice for the much smaller "WHole World" while still loving the real and much larger "World"?

Are you really going to argue that God DOES care about and Love and die for and Draw "ALL men" - the Whole World - so that Arminians and Cavlinists are saying the SAME thing - only using different "Limited/unlimited" terms?

I would not think so - yet you keep objecting to the idea that there IS in fact a difference. UNless you are claiming that He loves the real World so that in fact He dies for them - an Atoning sacrifice for their sins just as for ours - please state it.

In your view - IF God "Loves the Whole World" did Christ DIE as an Atoning Sacrifice for trhe "Whole World"?

IN your view - IF God "Loves the Whole World" does He Draw "ALL men"? Are ou arguing that this is the SAME for Calvinist and Arminian views and object to anyone saying that the two groups view this differently?

Feel free to define what it is you object to - using specific details regarding the topic.

I have stated what I believe Calvinism to teach - in all sincerety - that God DID NOT die for ALL - for the WHole World because in fact He only makes an "effort" to save those He cares about.

The fact is - HE knows full well what is "required" to save a lost human - who is totally depraved. ONCE He chooses to Love them He expends effort and DIEs for them -
and provides ALL that is needed to REALLY reach the depraved lost soul. And He claims that in fact He loves the WORLD and is the atoning sacrifice for the Whole World - do you really deny that, or do you accept that this is in fact - the Whole World?

IF so - then I understand why you might complain that anyone would think otherwise.

In Christ,

Bob

[ October 09, 2002, 10:13 PM: Message edited by: BobRyan ]

 

Bob, You know better. John 12:32 is an effective drawing. We believe that; you apparently do not. John 12:32 is not our problem; putting it together with John 6 is your problem. We have put it together in a way that does justice to both texts. You have ignored John 6. You say, both you and Pastor Larry seem to have withdrawn from the discussion regarding the power of God to DRAW the lost effectively . Yet it is we who are insisting that God draws the lost effectively. It is you who is disagreeing with that.

 

It should be hard to tell Bob. If you read what I have written – and what I have allowed to stay posted – you will see that I am not trying to shut down a discussion or a point of view. That is plain for all to see. What I have done is refuse to allow you to misrepresent and make false statements about what we believe after you have been corrected. We have answered the points you raise, so it is time to move on.

You miss the point of “the whole world.” It is clear from Scripture that “whole world” does not always men all men without exception. It frequently means all men without distinction. That is a vital distinction that you are overlooking. When the Bible says that God loves the world, I have no problem saying that it is the world without exception. When the Bible says that Christ propitiate the sins of the whole world, I have a problem saying that it is the world without exception because the sins of the whole world without exception have not been propitiated. People still go to hell; therefore, their sins were not propitiated.

I have not said that we believe the same thing. I would never say that because we don’t. The limited/unlimited discussion deals with sufficiency and efficiency, or more directly, Did the death of Christ accomplish anything. It does not deal with love.

[quyote]I have stated what I believe Calvinism to teach - in all sincerety - that God DID NOT die for ALL - for the WHole World because in fact He only makes an "effort" to save those He cares about. [/quote]And you have been corrected by those who know what Calvinism teaches. We have told you that you are wrong about it and have asked you to reform your belief system to reflect reality. You do not have to agree with us. But you should be willing to be corrected when you are wrong.

Your last paragraph shows an inherent inconsistency in your view. You talk like a Calvinist but surely not on purpose. You say, The fact is - HE knows full well what is "required" to save a lost human - who is totally depraved. ONCE He chooses to Love them He expends effort and DIEs for them - and provides ALL that is needed to REALLY reach the depraved lost soul. . Yet you do not believe that “all” have been provided. You believe that man must come along and provide something else … namely a unilateral choice from himself to choose to believe. Only a person who believe in limited atonement can say what you have said here.

The bottom line is that you are welcome to participate but do not beat the same dead horse after you have been corrected about what we believe. Find something else.

 

Hi Chappie.

Sorry to be so long getting back to you. I've been down with a frightening flu. Temp of 104. This is the first day I am out of bed.

You asked for an evaluation of this comnet from Pastor Larry:

"If you believe that all men are given opportunity, then you must of necessity believe that all come and therefore you are a univeralist. Yet I don?t think you believe that. If you believe in the final resurrection, then you must tie it to the drawing of the Father which certainly ends in the resurrection of the one drawn. Yet you would have some drawn who are not raised, a direct contradiction of v. 44. It simply will not work."

That's apretty standard 5 pt argument. Behind it is the asumption that all those whom Christ intended to save with the Atonement do in fact get saved (the elect). So if Christ died to save someone, they are saved. If Christ died to save all people, then all people are saved.

As a 4 pter I don't buy the assumption. It is not required exegetically or logically. So if you don't buy that assmption then you can avoid the problem.

You also asked about John 6: 65 concluding after a comparison of translations: "Only the NIV, translates in a way that is favorable to your cause."

I disagree. The NIV is certainly clearer, but the idea of God making possible something that was nt previuously is present in the others as well. The idea that one has been "granted" to come to Jesus speaks clearly of that idea, as does atracting.

 

Respectfully Pastor.
It may not be your intention to shut down a discussion, but that does not change the fact that you are doing so. You refuse to allow to stand what you consider to be misrepresentations and false statements. Under those circumstances, if I were a moderator here, I would have to delete every post you ever posted. I knew that under the rules that personal attacks are not permitted. Yet I was unaware that deeming every opinion that is contrary to yours to be a falsehood and a misrepresentation, and therefore fair game to be deleted; I must have missed that part.

You say; “We have answered your points, it’s time to move on”. Perhaps there are other Calvinist on the board that would like to carry on the conversation. But alas, they are not moderators. Your job is a precious one, and I know that it is not an easy one. You just might want to take out your frustrations in another manner.

Anyway, may God bless and keep you.

 

In fact in that "effective drawing" Cavlinist can not help but admit that it MORE than compensates for the "problem" of depravity that PREVENTS the lost from turning to God.

In that "part" - BOTH the Calvinist and Arminian argument AGREES.

It is silly therefore to argue that Arminians are in error because man is PREVENTED by the total depravity problem from turning to God - since Arminians APPLY that John 12:32 to the "ALL MEN" it identifies. In that context the problem (for the Cavlinist viewing the Arminian position) should Not be that Arminians consider the Drawing to be SUFFICIENT for the problem of "depravity".

I am making an obvious point, noting the part where the Common ground - eliminates ONE part of the Calvinist complaint. And by your own response you have AGREED with your "effective drawing" argument.

So in view of the "depravity" problem - the conclusion in Calvinism's complaint CAN NOT be that "Arminianism does not allow for ANYONE to be saved - due to Depravity" - as has been asserted here.

BOTH groups agree that the John 12:32 solution is "sufficient" for that problem with "depravity".

The point was simple and direct - your response seems to want to side-step it while trying to get at the "next point".

-----------------------------------

 

The only discussion I am shutting down is one where you say something that has been repeatedly corrected by us. If you continue to say that we believe God forces his grace on people, then you will continue to be reprimanded and possibily begin to be edited. Once you say we believe that, you are entering into willful mispresentation of the truth because we do not.

You may phrase it a differen way, such as, "How do you avoid the seeming conclusion that you believe in 'forced grace'?" But even that has been answered numerous times. "Forced grace" should be off the table. I do not deem every contrary opinion to be a falsehood. I deem those continued statements of repeated correctly misrepresentations to be out of line in this discussion.

Feel free to point out places where I have misrepresented what you believe. I have tried not to do that very thing. I have tried to approach it with questions rather than statements. I am sure I have not always been successful. But it is my effort.

 

Bob, It is we who believe in effective drawing, not you. YOu believe the drawing is not necessarily effective but only possibly effective. That is a major different.

Again, a misrepresentation of the verse. What "all men" does it identify? That is the question we must address. I say it addresses all men without distinction. YOu say it addresses all men without exception. The problem you have is if the drawing is effective as you say above, why don't all men without exception respond? The truth is that they don't all respond.

But only one group agress that it is effective for salvation. I haven't argued that arminianism doesn't allow for anyone to be saved, as you seem to think. I would only argue that they are inconsistent in their explanation of how men are saved and why some get saved and others do not.

I haven't sidestepped anything to my knowledge. What else was there to say?

-----------------------------------

Very much so as I demonstrated on numerous occasions dating to long before his post. His "exegesis" started with his conclusion and worked back to the text. The question I still have is why you interpret John 6 (a very lengthy and clear passage) in light of John 12:32 (a very short passage with a better explanation in light of the ethnic context)?

But that is exactly what it says in v. 44: No one can come unless drawn and I will raise him up at the last day. You should not so easily dispense with the teaching of this verse. "I will raise him up" is the guarantee of salvation for those who are drawn.

Assuming I have understood the last part of your question, the drawing is sufficient to open the eyes of man so that he will certainly respond and belief in Christ. What else does it need to be sufficient for? Perhaps I have misunderstood you.

[ October 13, 2002, 09:06 AM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

#1. There is in fact no conflict between the two so no need to re-work chapter 6.

#2. I have not found a good way to take an either-or approach to the text. We need the valued input of both.

John 12:32 makes it clear that God is drawing all men. Just as chpater 3:16 makes it clear that love for the World - resulted in the Atoning Sacrifice of Christ - given for the object loved. The emphasis is not just in 12:32.

John 6 does not try to "limit those drawn" - rather it emphasizes the fact that it is only the Drawing action of God that opens the way to salvation. "No one CAN COME to Me unless the Father DRAWS" - the emphasis is on the avenue - the means - not on a number drawn NOR on a number "not drawn".

And I will raise "Him" - is not a focus on "I will raise ALL drawn" the global terms world/all etc that Calvinists so love to "reduce" are not even found here, though Calvinism appears to need them. This is a case where the Calvinist argument is "World is not World, and ALL is not ALL, but HIM is ALL".

It provides the promise for those drawn but does not predict that ALL those drawn will perservere and choose to receive that promise.

The argument from Calvinism is that the drawing of John 12:32 is sufficient to cause every one drawn (the arbitrarily elect FEW of Matt 7) to discover themselves to be "born again" and already forgiven (before confessing sin or asking for forgiveness as in 1John 1:9).

The argument from Arminianism is that the drawing of John 12:32 is sufficient to overcome the problems of "Depravity" that prevents anyone from choosing Christ, such that ALL are drawn and ALL are supernaturally "enabled" to hear and respond positively ot the Gospel call "COMe unto ME all that are weary and heavy ladened" - so that ALL may "HEAr my voice as I stand outside the door and knock" - ALL may choose to 'OPEN the door' so that Christ may "Come in" by invitation - not by force.

But the part that BOTH agree on is the fact that the John 12:32 drawing AND the John 6 drawing is not halted by the "Depravity of man" AND in fact it is sufficient to overcome the problem of depravity that PREVENTS choice from being made.

The difference is Not in the aspect of depravity - as some have charged here - the difference is the limit two which the drawing crosses the boundary of "enabling" and goes on to become 'force without choice'. We can certainly debate that - since it IS a "real" difference.

But going back to the "depravity" issue as IF the Arminian OR the Calvinist version denies that the drawing is insufficient to solve the innability to respond caused by depravity - is just going in circles, neither side believes it.

In Christ,

Bob

[ October 14, 2002, 10:45 AM: Message edited by: BobRyan ]

 

Pastor Larry
I do not know what you or any other Calvinist believes. With that said, I now say this:

Anytime you have a persuasion that must first overpower a person's will IN ORDER TO BECOME EFFECTIVE: It is by nature, persuasion by force. If a person is totally depraved and will not respond to common grace which is within his power to resist, according to election; is not a grace that is greater than his will to resist applied. How is that person made subjective to efficacious grace. Is it not by the power of God?

If in effect, God has to first force a change in a persons nature before that person will accept him, then it is persusaion by force. If you believe this is what happens, why would one feel the need to pretty it up so it sounds better. What’s the problem if this is God's way of accomplishing his will?

Is it not the power of God v. the will of man that are the opposing forces here? Are not your elect originally as depraved and resistant to God as the non elect. Are they born willing, or do they not have to be changed first. (Regeneration)Does not God’s power always win? Does he not get his elect? Does he not have the sovereign right to impose his will? So if this is how he accomplishes his kingdom, is that not as pretty as it gets:?

So why all the denial concerning efficacious grace being overpowering grace? Just because the results turn out to be desirable, does not change the fact that they were acquired by force/power.

I understand that you do not consider it to be forced grace. I accept this as your truth. Yet the facts are on the table, and they are there for everyone to see. The elect did not come running, asking; what must I so to be saved.

They would not even agree to be changed unless they had been changed already. Is it not already your claim that in our unregenerate state, all men hate God.

Do you not place regeneration first? Did any of the elect from a state of total depravity, ask to be regenerated. I am not trying to tell you what you believe. Just asking you to look at the truths that make efficacious grace, efficacious. (Force/Power)

What you believe efficacious grace to be is not the issue, the mechanisms that make it effective are. And that is power/force.

[ October 14, 2002, 04:38 PM: Message edited by: Chappie ]

 

No, it's persuasion by influence--it is brought about by intangible means, but it does change things.

 

Are you suggesting that a totally depraved nature is an intangable.

Influence by it's very nature can be accepted or rejected. That's why it is called influence and leaves us accountable. Influence is not efficacous nor irresistible.

Does not your theology teach that before a person will give in to this type of "influence", a person must be regenerated first. That is my understanding, correct me if i'm wrong...

Does he come running, asking; what must i do to be regenerated. Does he first resist regeneration, or is that efficacious?

[ October 14, 2002, 04:27 PM: Message edited by: Chappie ]

 

It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me. (Jn. 6:45)

I don't see what it so hard to understand about that. I love to see the Arminians get on here and use the big and theological words to add "flavor" to their otherwise unscriptural posts.

 

For the love of God, I cannot understand why not either. Does not the bible teach us that faith cometh by hearing,(Not election/not regeneration...) and hearing by the word of God.

You should also love to listen and learn. But alas, i can see that you were laughing during bible study also....

 

Here's Websters definition:

To alter by indirect or intangible means: SWAY; to have an effect on the condition or development of: MODIFY.

Influence changes the outcome of things without force, but if it doesn't change anything, then it ain't influence. Influence is subtle. You may not realize you are being changed by it, but you are. There is really no accepting or rejecting influence, simply because it is intangible and so you are unaware of it.

God by the intangible drawing of the Holy Spirit upon the heart, changes the heart from its inclination away from God to an inclination toward God.