Question for non-Calvinists

yes you are wrong!

you may have the same titles for the subject but your explanations differ, while Calvin of course taught only one between/among your explanations.

come limited atonement, Calvinist explanations will be divided into two. you say it's the same tenet when in fact it's only the same title with opposing view!

i am sorry if you are blind (or if you choose not to look) to that!

 

This does not change my point... Listen this time.

I said we are calvinist because we hold to those tenets. Not because we hold to every word John Clavin taught. That was the originally the reason I said that right? Whether some say that limited atonement is one thing or another, if they limit atonement they limit atonement.

I am a calvinist because I hold to those tenets. How can you say I am wrong for that.

 

Sturgman,

Rev. H.A. Ironside is considered by most people to be a Calvinist. And yet he said, 'No matter how far they [any sinner] have drifted from God; no matter what their sins may be, they do not have to peer into the book of the divine decrees in order to find out whether or not they are of the chosen or the elect. If they come in all their sin and guilt, confessing their iniquities and trusting in Christ, then they may have the assurance from His Word that they are saved. It has been well said that the "Whosoever will are the elect, and the whosoever won't are the non-elect." H.A. Ironside, Timothy, Titus and Philemon (Loizeaux Brothers, Inc., 1990), p. 55.

It is questionable whether Calvin himself believed in limited atonement. Certainly Spurgeon rejected it as heresy. Some consider it to be "the Achilles Heel of Calvinism." Kenneth G. Talbot and W. Gary Crampton, "Calvinism, Hyper-Calvinism and Arminianism (Still Waters Revival Books, 1990, p. 11.

Rev. Ironside and Rev. Spurgeon, the prince of preachers, rejected "Limited Atonement" being Calvinists. At least these two men saw through the error of this alleged doctrine, and some "moderate Calvinists" in this twenty-first century are now denying the third point of Calvinism.

 

Ray did you not read the spurgeon quote I wrote and you still think Spurgeon was against limited atonement?

Second, everyone (but universalist) limit atonement. Either you limit its power (arminian) or you limit its design (calvinist). Unless you believe that everyoine goes to heaven you limit the atonement, even if it is that you limit it to those who choose.

Lastly, the point I was trying to make you proved. The point was that calvinist are not calvinist because they hold to every single thing that John Calvin taught or held too. Calvinist are calvinist because the hold to a part of it, and usually if not always they are called calvinist because they believe in the five major tenets of calvinism. (TULIP)

What is the problem here?

 

I don't think Pastor Larry agrees with Limited Atonement in the way most Calvinists define it, but he still considers himself a Calvinist.

 

OK, are you all not hearing me? It matters not if all calvinist believe the same way about all the tenets.

1. The point is we are not calvinist because we believe everything John Calvin held too.

2. Calvinist as well as arminians believe in limited atonement. The only ones who do not limit the atonement is universalist.

Why can't people see this?

 

Brutus,

Hi

Don't worry, I wasn't trying to lay anything on you, it was just the way you phrased this part of your opening statement:

I spend most of my time on a board where there is a sizeable number of OVTers, and this reminded me of things they say. It is one of the central planks of their case, that Classical Theism, in Calvinist or Arminian dress, is fundamentally flawed.

Apologies if any offence was given.

Tony

 

You guys are simply amazing. Aki, Ray, INDBap (can't remember your exact handle) all keep saying things that are absolutely untrue and they have been told that. You keep telling us what we believe in spite of the fact that you have been directly told we don't believe that. Why don't you read? Why don't you be honest about it and quit making stuff up??

Scott, I believe what every calvinist believes about limited atonement ... that it was sufficient for the world without exception and that it was efficient for the elect. That is limited atonement. Som people focus on teh former; some on the latter. I do not know any calvinist who thinks differently about the atonement. I have not seen it here to my knowledge.

Aki, we are calvinists because we agree in general about the 5 points. Some define them slightly differently but in the main we agree with those five points. Being a calvinist has nothing to do with whether or not we agree or follow every Calvin said. Calvinism is the name that has been attached to what we believe Scripture clearly teaches. And calling people blind will not help your case. It is you who is wrong on this issue.

INDBAptist, Your "according to Calvinists" addresses a non-issue. The Bible does not tell us about the spiritual state of those children. God does bless people who are not among the elect (He sends rain on teh just and unjust alike). You are chasing a straw man. As for comments about children in hell and laughter, those statements were made by someone who believes what you believe. It is a foolish and dumb statement to make and it has no existence in reality. As for burning at the stake, the comment was made by someoene that calvinists agree with John Calvin and the reply was to show that a wrong statement because we were not burning our disagreers at the stake as Calvin supposedly (but disputably) did. No one here is delighting that sinners are cast into hell. I am much more concerned about the misrepresentation of men (Both dead and alive) that is going on here. It is blatant and ugly.

Ray, Spurgeon clearly believed in limited atonement as I have defined it. To deny that is to blatantly lie in the face of the evidence. If you read Spurgeon's comments, you will find what he believed and you will see that you are incorrect about it. Your reasoning and logic is horrible. It is embarrassing, especially for someone who is supposed to have a ThD. I am not trying to be unnecessarily hard on you but you calim to be very educated as if that means you have a higher qualification. Well, with that qualification comes additional responsbility to research and to know what you are talking about. Even a modicum of teaching shows that even if your position is right, that your statements about what calvinism teaches are dead wrong. I have urged time and time again not to do things such as you are doing. YOu know very well that Calvinists do not redefine world, or whosoever to mean elect. You know very well that being a Calvinist does not make God the author of sin. If you have as much education as you say you do, you should know that. If you read these posts, you should know that even without education. You need to change your approach in order to make a positive contribution to the forum.

 

I urge everyone to read this excerpt from CH Spurgeon's sermon "Particular Redemption" and see who really limits the atonement.


"I have hurried over that, to come to the last point, which is the sweetest of all. Jesus Christ, we are told in our text, came into the world "to give his life a ransom for many." The greatness of Christ's redemption may be measured by the EXTENT OF THE DESIGN OF IT. He gave His life "a ransom for many." I must now return to that controverted point again. We are often told (I mean those of us who are commonly nicknamed by the title of Calvinists—and we are not very much ashamed of that; we think that Calvin, after all, knew more about the Gospel than almost any man who has ever lived, uninspired), we are often told that we limit the atonement of Christ, because we say that Christ has not made a satisfaction for all men, or all men would be saved. Now, our reply to this is, that, on the other hand, our opponents limit it: we do not. The Arminians say, Christ died for all men. Ask them what they mean by it. Did Christ die so as to secure the salvation of all men? They say, "No, certainly not." We ask them the next question—Did Christ die so as to secure the salvation of any man in particular? They answer "No." They are obliged to admit this, if they are consistent. They say, "No; Christ has died that any man may be saved if"—and then follow certain conditions of salvation. We say, then, we will go back to the old statement—Christ did not die so as beyond a doubt to secure the salvation of anybody, did He? You must say "No;" you are obliged to say so, for you believe that even after a man has been pardoned, he may yet fall from grace, and perish. Now, who is it that limits the death of Christ? Why, you. You say that Christ did not die so as to infallibly secure the salvation of anybody. We beg your pardon, when you say we limit Christ's death; we say, "No, my dear sir, it is you that do it." We say Christ so died that He infallibly secured the salvation of a multitude that no man can number, who through Christ's death not only may be saved but are saved, must be saved, and cannot by any possibility run the hazard of being anything but saved. You are welcome to your atonement; you may keep it. We will never renounce ours for the sake of it."

(emphasis mine)

 

Amen. And here's my favorite part.

 

there is one point i want to raise here, Pastor Larry. when we try to disprove the belief of some Calvinists that Christ died only for the elect, the other Calvinists show us misinformed, saying that Christ died for everybody (they rarely, however, refute the other Calvinists). we are not telling you what you believe in spite of the fact that you directly told what you don't believe. it is just that two opposing beliefs of Calvinism are arguing their views. thus, when we argue that Christ died for everybody, one Calvinist would say "no! Christ died only for the elect", and then another Calvinists would say "you actually misunderstood Calvinism". again, it's not just that you told what you believe (or don't believe). rather it's that you have oppoing beliefs, and not simply varying explanations.

i understand, however, that the five points of Calvinism still holds for both side. taken, it is not that you believe what Calvin said, but rather you cling to the five points of Calvinism, though there are oppoing views in at least one particular topic. but this creates confusion. when we argue to one, we are told misinformed by the other.

i'm not sure if this means only what it says, and nothing more, or that i should not be calling people blind. either way, however, there are Calvinists here who use such term to those who oppose them, and in fact even worse, which also do not help in their case.

to be honest, i'd say you have a point with regards to calling yourselves Calvinism, though it's not totally convincing, to which, of course, you might say i'm wrong again.

 

[The position that Christ died for the world does not contradict the position that Christ died for the elect. If a Calvinist says the first, I have no reason to refute him, he is right. If a Calvinist says the second, there is no reason to refute him; he is right. This is where understanding the "sufficient/efficient" distinction is necessary. Additionally, non-saving benefits accrue to the non-elect because the sacrifice of Christ is presently holding back his mercy while he waits for his elect to come in.

If God had decided to save everyone, no more was required. So Christ died for the world. However, his death was an actual atonement, not a possibility for an atonement. So Christ died for the elect.

It means what it says. You told someone that they were blind because they did nto accept your position. I have not seen this from a calvinist. If I do, I will make the same comment to them. Glen and I are trying to maintain some civil discourse here so we try to keep it relatively civil as much as possible.

 

i was told by someone else whose position i do not accept that he will leave me with the arrogance of my foolishness at the first message in the second page of this topic yet no attention was given to it. now this is not to ridicule or find fault, but i saw no comment to that from you. i simply played after that manner. i'm not sure however if that comment to me was just fine, or not.

i acknowledge, though, that such terms i've used is not needed for the purpose of this board. so to you Pastor Larry, i say i'll take heed (or at least i'll do my best) and no more such "adjectives" to you from me sturgman.

 

taken, Christ's death suffice should God have chosen to elect everyone. thus, when taken for sufficiency, Christ's death covers the whole world. but it is no sufficient answer to the question whom did Christ died for. the question who did Christ died for means for whom was Christ's death, and not was it sufficient for whom.

for the issue "who did Christ died for", the context is in "whom did God purpose to save" and not "is Christ's death sufficient for everyone".

if it is the case that Christ purposed to save only for the elect though his death would suffice even if God chose to elect everyone, the answer should be to whom was His death was purposed and that to whom was it sufficient, as that is what the question requires.

herein then lies the difference within Calvinists - whom did God wanted to save? some Calvinist say it's the whole world yet since everyone rejects Christ, God elected some. yet other Calvinists would say God wanted to save only the elect, making the issue of sufficiency/effiency inapplicalabe since both sufficiency and efficiency were given only to the elect.

 

I did not see that post to my knowledge or what was said did not catch my attention. I try to encourage us to be civil. I do not want to be reading all these posts looking for stuff. If I see it, I Say something. Some of them I miss. I can only read so much of this stuff ...

 

I think the issue is better worded, whom did God decree to save. That is really at issue in this discussion. The key issue in your framework is the issue of the meaning of "want." The atonement saves all those whom God decreed to save, no more, no less. It is not efficient for those whom God did not decree to save. All people agree that christ's atonement is infinite and therefore unlimited in its scope of sufficiency. I have seen no CAlvinist deny that. Perhaps you know of one.