No problem, Marcia. I understood your point as well, just wanted to explain how I thought nick may have meant it, but I may be wrong even there.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
A strict 5-point Calvinist God is not worthy of worship...
- Thread starter Matt Black
- Start date
Ray Berrian
New Member
pinobaptist,
I used to think the way you just mentioned. The problem you create is that there are three slices, if you will, of God. You compartmentalize the Godhead. God is One Divine Being.
Example, when Jesus died on the Cross the Father and the precious Holy Spirit were not only up in Heaven. Jesus has said, 'He who has seen Me, has seen the Father.'
At Jesus' baptism the three Persons of the Godhead were present.
I used to think the way you just mentioned. The problem you create is that there are three slices, if you will, of God. You compartmentalize the Godhead. God is One Divine Being.
Example, when Jesus died on the Cross the Father and the precious Holy Spirit were not only up in Heaven. Jesus has said, 'He who has seen Me, has seen the Father.'
At Jesus' baptism the three Persons of the Godhead were present.
This immediately negates the idea of Christians, or even the church having anything to do with the dispensation of eternal life.
Even if we impose on this a universal structure of atonement this passage is limited to the voice of the Son of God.
First, it is He that stood as the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world.
Second, it is He that stood as the Lamb slain in time, thus having fulfilled His statement here in John 12.32 [note vs. 33: 'This he said, signifying what death he should die.']
But look back to vs. 31: Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out.
Then...vs. 12: And I, if I be lifted up from the earth will draw all men unto me.
We immediately note men is in italics. This is provided in the English to provide for clarity. But is not needed to make the statement clear. There is nothing here making the atonement general nor universal.
lifted up from the earth is a direct reference to the brazen serpent [John 3:14; 8:28]
This is from Strong's #5312--hupsoo
Tense - Aorist
Voice - Passive
Mood - Subjunctive
BLB Tense for the phrase lifted up from the earth
The phrase is in the aorist tense, a tense not having an English equivalent, but indicating no regard for either past, present or future occurrence.
The phrase is passive showing action operated upon the subject I Jesus-the Lamb Slain before the foundation of the world
The phrase is subjunctive, a mood of possibility or potentiality. If I be lifted up
Why is this without regard to past, present, or future?
Who operated the action upon Christ?
What condition is placed upon this? Who places this condition? Is this condition met? Who met this condition?
If this conditional statement is used as many use it today, then this means that man has operated this action upon Christ. This means that man placed this condition upon Christ; this means that man is now meeting this condition; and this means that man meets this condition each time Christ is preached or believed upon among men.
Now, look a little further:
vs. 31 is directing the attention of the hearers to the present.
vs. 32 directs the attention to the future sense-indicates certain occurrence of an event that has not yet happened, active voice-the subject performs the action, indicative mood--a statement of fact, if an event has or will happen.
And I,... will draw
There is a direct correlation to John 6:44.
This leaves man out of the drawing of all men and places the action upon Christ.
The condition has been met--If I be lifted up;
The work is certain to be completed; 'will draw all men unto me.
And John 6:44: No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
The only action considered by man is in the negative; the action of Christ--I will raise him up at the last day; the action of coming to the Father is limited to those drawn.
Now, to make this [John 12.32] to teach a general atonement requires us to follow to the end that all men will certainly be drawn by Christ; that these same all men must be included [and not excluded] by John 6:44; and thus being drawn to Christ (No man can come to me) except and I will raise him up at the last day. So, by making the atonement of Christ [being lifted up] a general atonement, we force upon it the logical end that it must be a universal atonement.
John 6:44 says nothing about man accepting Christ, believing in Christ, however John 6:29 makes even this to be the work of God.
Bro. Dallas
Has anybody read "The End for Which God Created the Word" by Jonathon Edwards? ..
or "Religious Affections" by JE ?
AND acouple of pages back someone stated that Jesus said "My sheep hear my voice and follow me" .. He qualified that by also saying "John 10:26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep" He didn't say you are not my sheep becasue you don't believe me.
or "Religious Affections" by JE ?
AND acouple of pages back someone stated that Jesus said "My sheep hear my voice and follow me" .. He qualified that by also saying "John 10:26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep" He didn't say you are not my sheep becasue you don't believe me.
So, you're saying that when Jesus was up on that cross and laden with all the sins of His people, the Father and the Holy Spirit were also stained with all these sins up in heaven ?
I never spoke of there being Three Gods.
Only that the Three who are One each had a part in the salvation of God's people.
Or are you advocating Oneness.
The drawing of Christ took place in the mind of God before he actually created anything. So Jesus as God the Son already knows who is sheep are and can easily say, "But you believe not, because you are not my sheep." But why are they not his sheep? Because they would not let him draw them to himself!
Matthew 23:37 reveals the heart of Jesus towards the lost. He longed to gather them to himself as a "hen gathers her chicks under her wings," but they "were not willing."
The drawing of Christ is universal, both before time and in time. The resisting of this drawing is also known by God both before time and in time.
All men are lost and deserve to be lost. God desires that none perish, but he passes over those who resist the drawing of Christ.
The elect truly are chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world through no merit of their own on the basis of foreknowledge (1 Peter 1:2).
A universal drawing of Christ does not require universalism. As Calvin points out, Jesus Christ died for everyone, but he only makes intercession before the Father for the elect.
Matthew 23:37 reveals the heart of Jesus towards the lost. He longed to gather them to himself as a "hen gathers her chicks under her wings," but they "were not willing."
The drawing of Christ is universal, both before time and in time. The resisting of this drawing is also known by God both before time and in time.
All men are lost and deserve to be lost. God desires that none perish, but he passes over those who resist the drawing of Christ.
The elect truly are chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world through no merit of their own on the basis of foreknowledge (1 Peter 1:2).
A universal drawing of Christ does not require universalism. As Calvin points out, Jesus Christ died for everyone, but he only makes intercession before the Father for the elect.
The arguement that I think accounts for the most Scripture with the least twisting or forcing is Sublapsarianism.
Sublapsarianism goes like this:
1. The decree to create human beings.
2. The decree to permit the fall.
3. The decree to provide salvation sufficient for all.
4. The decree to save some and reprobate others.
Some Calvinists, whether Supralapsarian or Infralapsarian, like to say that God elects some and reprobates others according to "his good pleasure." They call this a mystery.
But the Scriptures are clear. God takes no pleasure in the destruction of the wicked. If by good pleasure, they mean his will or purpose or plan, what was God's plan? To create creatures with a free will and provide salvation for them when they fell.
Sublapsarianism accounts for this as well as accounting for God's loving character.
God decides to create human beings with free will. God allows his human beings to fall. God provides salvations sufficient for all because he is a loving God. God, by his foreknowledge elects those who do not resist the drawing of Christ.
Before God creates the universe in time he knows everything that will take place if he creates a universe where man has a free will. Those whom God knows are his in Christ he elects and predestines. The rest are passed over.
This arguement reveals God to be gracious, loving, kind, merciful, fair, just and holy. Man cannot save himself, so Christ is lifted up to draw all men to himself. Those who do not resist are in Christ. Not resisting is not a work. To not resist is to do nothing. God receives all of the glory and praise. Man was helpless to save himself. Those who resist are passed over and remain in their sins. They are fully responsible for remaining in their lost condition.
Now when God actually creates, all that he foreknows is rendered certain. Whatever God foreknows must come to pass by virtue of his omniscience. The fact that everything is rendered certain, however, does not deprive any of us in time of our free will and free choices. Nor does it excuse us from full responsibility for our choices. God is sovereign, yet man is responsible for his decisions.
Matt, does this answer your question?
A supralapsarian God would be cruel and wicked.
An infralapsarian God would be partial and uncaring to some.
But a sublapsarian God is loving and holy, gracious and just.
Sublapsarianism accounts for all of the texts of Scripture.
Sublapsarianism goes like this:
1. The decree to create human beings.
2. The decree to permit the fall.
3. The decree to provide salvation sufficient for all.
4. The decree to save some and reprobate others.
Some Calvinists, whether Supralapsarian or Infralapsarian, like to say that God elects some and reprobates others according to "his good pleasure." They call this a mystery.
But the Scriptures are clear. God takes no pleasure in the destruction of the wicked. If by good pleasure, they mean his will or purpose or plan, what was God's plan? To create creatures with a free will and provide salvation for them when they fell.
Sublapsarianism accounts for this as well as accounting for God's loving character.
God decides to create human beings with free will. God allows his human beings to fall. God provides salvations sufficient for all because he is a loving God. God, by his foreknowledge elects those who do not resist the drawing of Christ.
Before God creates the universe in time he knows everything that will take place if he creates a universe where man has a free will. Those whom God knows are his in Christ he elects and predestines. The rest are passed over.
This arguement reveals God to be gracious, loving, kind, merciful, fair, just and holy. Man cannot save himself, so Christ is lifted up to draw all men to himself. Those who do not resist are in Christ. Not resisting is not a work. To not resist is to do nothing. God receives all of the glory and praise. Man was helpless to save himself. Those who resist are passed over and remain in their sins. They are fully responsible for remaining in their lost condition.
Now when God actually creates, all that he foreknows is rendered certain. Whatever God foreknows must come to pass by virtue of his omniscience. The fact that everything is rendered certain, however, does not deprive any of us in time of our free will and free choices. Nor does it excuse us from full responsibility for our choices. God is sovereign, yet man is responsible for his decisions.
Matt, does this answer your question?
A supralapsarian God would be cruel and wicked.
An infralapsarian God would be partial and uncaring to some.
But a sublapsarian God is loving and holy, gracious and just.
Sublapsarianism accounts for all of the texts of Scripture.
Ray Berrian
New Member
John 6:44 does not explicitly say the elect. And while it does suggest an elect body of people, the saints, Jesus is emphasizing that no human being can come to know God apart from the ministry of the Spirit on the life of the sinner. Almighty God is not even inferring that He selects certain sinners for everlasting life; this is introduced by John Calvin.
Ray Berrian
New Member
pinobaptist,
I am suggesting the doctrine of the Trinity.
I am suggesting the doctrine of the Trinity.
Ray,
Cavlvin actually had very little to do with "Calvinism"... Augustine a thousand years earlier was making these points to agrue against the "humanist philosopher" and heretic Pelagius.
And the points I am making were the standard in ALL of the church history till Arminius. Please read church history.. The thought that man had something to do with his salvation was "heresey" till recent evangelical history.. (or what I call the rise of liberal teaching)
Cavlvin actually had very little to do with "Calvinism"... Augustine a thousand years earlier was making these points to agrue against the "humanist philosopher" and heretic Pelagius.
And the points I am making were the standard in ALL of the church history till Arminius. Please read church history.. The thought that man had something to do with his salvation was "heresey" till recent evangelical history.. (or what I call the rise of liberal teaching)
I can't actually answer that question with any authority, because the Bible doesn't say that. This is my opinion, not a Biblical statement. I'll try to be a bit more clear and specific. In my opinion, God does not manifest Himself as the trinity for no reason. There may be other reasons why God may manifest Himself as the Holy Spirit, but I see no reason for God to be manifest as the Son of MAN, Jesus, except that to do so is necessary for our redemption. If God had never created Adam or mankind, then to manifest Himself as Jesus makes very little sense to me. Perhaps there's some other reason, but I don't know of one, and the Bible provides no other answer.
But since Jesus PRE-EXISTED mankind, and Jesus is fully man as well as fully God, then it seems to me that Jesus IS because God had intended to create man, who would fall, and then redeem man.
To put it another way, if God had intended to redeem fallen angels the same way He redeemed fallen man, then that would necessitate a fully-angel fully-God redeemer, wouldn't it? Yet no such being exists, and (by no coincidence, I believe) there is no redemption for fallen angels.
Is that because God is incapable of manifesting Himself as fully-God fully angel? I can't answer that from a position of authority, either, but I find it difficult to believe God is limited in that way.
So in a real sense, yes, I am suggesting that it is at least POSSIBLE that God manifested Himself as Jesus before creating mankind in order to redeem mankind after the fall, because everything was part of a fully developed plan.
If I am wrong about this, then I apologize to both you and God, but that's what makes sense to me. But keep in mind this is just my speculation only, not a scriptural doctrine.
Ray Berrian
New Member
rc,
If we don't blame John Calvin for his "Institutes" who shall we blame. His mental gymnastics taken from Augustinian Romanism continue to speak against the Biblical writings of the apostles and Christ's great love toward all of His lost creation.
Most of us, by now, know of Augustine and his fatalism as the the elect and non-elect; this is old news and theological history.
If we don't blame John Calvin for his "Institutes" who shall we blame. His mental gymnastics taken from Augustinian Romanism continue to speak against the Biblical writings of the apostles and Christ's great love toward all of His lost creation.
Ray,
R.T. Kendall has shown that Calvin in his commentaries did believe that Christ died for the sins of the world.
But you make a great point. The Scriptures are our final authority and they most certainly speak of Christ's great love toward all of his lost creation. Trying to force these Scriptures to fit Supralapsarian or Infralapsarian arguements is putting the cart before the horse.
We ought to let Scripture speak for itself. Not try to force them into man-made "logical" systems. Who in his right mind can think that God decided to save some and send others to hell before he even thought of creating man?
R.T. Kendall has shown that Calvin in his commentaries did believe that Christ died for the sins of the world.
But you make a great point. The Scriptures are our final authority and they most certainly speak of Christ's great love toward all of his lost creation. Trying to force these Scriptures to fit Supralapsarian or Infralapsarian arguements is putting the cart before the horse.
We ought to let Scripture speak for itself. Not try to force them into man-made "logical" systems. Who in his right mind can think that God decided to save some and send others to hell before he even thought of creating man?
Marcia
Active Member
I'm sorry, but this is bothering me. Maybe it's a semantic thing. What do you mean by "manifesting Jesus?" What you say makes it sound like God existed before Jesus. There was always the Trinity, so I don't get what you mean by God manifesting himself as Jesus before creating mankind.
Don, thanks. Yes, that's basically my point. The problem with superlapsarianism is that, as I think either Nick or PB pointed out, it produces a God who authors sin and is therefore self-contradictory; therefore superlapsarianism CANNOT be true.
The only quibble I would see with sublapsarianism is your use of the word 'decree' for #4; again this produces a god who destines people to Hell arbitrarily. I would prefer 'knowledge' or 'foreknowledge'
Yours in Christ
Matt
The only quibble I would see with sublapsarianism is your use of the word 'decree' for #4; again this produces a god who destines people to Hell arbitrarily. I would prefer 'knowledge' or 'foreknowledge'
Yours in Christ
Matt
Back to Augustine. I don't see why I or any other Baptist should be in hock to this man who
(a) was Roman Catholic
(b) was pretty much responsible for the establishment of the RCC as the only permissibe form of Christianity in the West and
(c) only a man, so his writings aren't Scripture
Yours in Christ
Matt
(a) was Roman Catholic
(b) was pretty much responsible for the establishment of the RCC as the only permissibe form of Christianity in the West and
(c) only a man, so his writings aren't Scripture
Yours in Christ
Matt
Augustine and his theological successors, Luther, Calvin and Beza were in any event reacting (overreacting?) to Pelagius rather than formulating doctrine purely ex Scriptura,which is another reason for me regarding them with grave suspicion. This was not an issue for the church prior to Augustine and Pelagius having their little spat and I'm not sure we should be wasting our breath to this extent on it today
Yours in Christ
Matt
Yours in Christ
Matt
Where does the Bible say there was always the trinity? We know that Jesus existed before mankind or creation. We know that Jesus is the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world. But as far as I know, pre-existing creation is all we know. God is eternal, but am I forgetting a verse somewhere that says the trinity is eternal?
I'm not being sarcastic - I just don't recall any such verse, so if there is one, I don't remember it.
Er...God is Trinity. Anything less is heretical Arianism -and we know what happened to Arius. Not nice...
Yours in Christ
Matt
Yours in Christ
Matt