Famous Four-Pointers

Sorry to have to ask this, but what's a four-pointer? Which point do they omit? Perserverence?

 

I believe Richard Baxter, a great Puritan pastor was a 4-pointer. Every 4-pointer I've heard of always eliminates the L.

 

Their called "Christmas Calvinists" you know... NOEL

Perseverance is usually the last to go, those are called Whiskey Calvinists (b/c their only a fifth)

(by the way, neither of those are original with me)

Within SBTS Dr. Rob Plummer is a 4ptr, and someone told me that a couple other profs were but I haven't been able to verify.

Danny Akin is definitely a 4ptr.

 

I guess I used to be a four pointer, myself. But that was just because I hadn't looked into the issue of limited atonement and assumed otherwise. Once I studied it, it seemed pretty obvious that the L stays.

 

*sigh* or one could also come to the conclusion that people with another viewpoint have done some research as well

actually i dont quite fit any of those four here's my twisted view

1. Elect some to salvation
2. Create
3. Permit fall
4. Provide salvation sufficient for all
5. Call all to salvation using the elect as a form of evangelistic skeleton crew

 

I personally know some so-called "calminians" that consider themselves 4-pointers, but alas they to err because they think that claiming 4 points gets you a pass on either side of the argument. When questioned, it becomes obvious that they have no idea what a 4-pointer is and they are far from actually being one.

Now to completely disregard the pleas of the OP, I will delve into the implications of the 4 point position!

The "L" being the missing point, the 4 pointer have the same delimma as the Arminians and calminians - if Chirst actually procured the salvation of all people, and actually paid for all the sins of every person, and satisfied the wrath of God (propitiation) on their account, how then shall they, for whom Chirst died, face condemnation in the Judgement?

And if it can be said that the blood of Christ paid for all the sins of every person, then when shall the persons already in Hell when Jesus died on the cross have opportunity to be saved?

That Christ died to procure and secure the salvation of the elect is the only logical explanation.

However, Christ DID die for the whole world (kosmos), or else the world (kosmos) would be destroyed. But for the elect's sake, God will not destroy it. In that sense, christ did die for the whole world.

 

BTW I can hear some of you thinking "Ah, but God WILL destroy the world!" So to clarify, yes, God will destroy this present evil world, but he will not destroy, as in annihilate, the creation itself. It will be saved, and only for the elect.

 

Great J.D.

In addition, if God specifically chose some to be saved, and He knew who they were from before the foundation of the world, then why would He die for the non-elect? He died specifically for His sheep, those He knew and know Him and follow Him.

 

I like to say Christ's death is affective(sufficient) in its power and design for ALL, but only effective for the elect.

 

J.D., I've heard this thinking before. Is there any Scripture that points to it? Thanks.

 

I have a cloudy memory as to where I came across this teaching, but there were references to the shortening of days in Mat 24 and some other scriptures pointing to destruction of the world being not total - if the whole of creation were destroyed then we, even the elect, would be destroyed also...

As for my statement that Chirst died so that this creation might be saved, maybe I'm confusing something on that - maybe I'm connecting some dots that weren't really there - let me see if I can recapture the info and get back to you later.

 

Also there's something about propitiation - God's wrath satisfied for the creation itself (the physical universe) - the creature groaning together with us...

Sorry for the piecemeal posting. That's the way I post these days. Besides, eschatology is my weakest area.

 

Famous four pointers--

Reggie Miller is one. He had 24 during his career with the Indiana Pacers.

And now, back to our regularly-scheduled C/A thread...

 

I like to say that I won the lottery. But I still don't have the money.

Similarly, I'd LIKE to agree with you because it sounds appealing. But I don't agree with you because it doesn't seem to fit scripture. It also leads to the question, why do something that you know will be ineffective? (It also leads to the usual round of questions pertaining to universalism, etc.)

 

I like to say that I won the lottery. But I still don't have the money.

Similarly, I'd LIKE to agree with you because it sounds appealing. But I don't agree with you because it doesn't seem to fit scripture. It also leads to the question, why do something that you know will be ineffective? (It also leads to the usual round of questions pertaining to universalism, etc.) </font>[/QUOTE]It doesn't lead to universalism at all. Christ's death has to be powerful enough to cover everyone's sins, or else he would not be the final sacrifice... but it is only effective(meaning it only effects the called) for his sheep, the ones the Father has given him. I can buy an entire restaurant full of people food and the food I bought would be sufficient enough to cover everyone in the restaurant, but only the people I give the food to will be effected by the purchase. Only they will be thankful.

 

This is contradicting. You say in one sentence that you can buy food for an entire restaurant full of people...and then only give it to some. If you only give it to some, you did not buy it for the whole restarurant.

BTW, when you "give" those you select the food, do they HAVE to eat it, or can they reject it?

 

This is contradicting. You say in one sentence that you can buy food for an entire restaurant full of people...and then only give it to some. If you only give it to some, you did not buy it for the whole restarurant.

BTW, when you "give" those you select the food, do they HAVE to eat it, or can they reject it? </font>[/QUOTE]If they are shown that they are starving they will eat the food, if they are shown that without my grace(buying their food) they will die they will eat. If I show them that my food is irresistable they will eat.


When you say it contradicts it does not, because my buying enough food to cover all the people in the restaurant is SUFFICIENT mean it is and act that if all the people were to be fed the food bought is sufficient to cover it. My giving it to certain people does not nullify the SUFFIENCEY of the act it does LIMIT the EFFECTIVENESS of the act.