Armi-Calvinist?

[johnp.]

I don't know if I'm off course or not JackRUS, I haven't had time to absorb your reply in full. I have skimmed it a bit but will read it properly tomorrow. Until then:

But I am wondering about the limited list of folks that can do the same. That is what Limited Atonement supports is it not?

What concern is it of ours what God does with those He owns? Is this what you mean, that you have a concern about the way God treats His property? 1 Sam 3:18 So Samuel told him everything, hiding nothing from him. Then Eli said, "He is the LORD; let him do what is good in his eyes."

And I don't how your post lends any credence to your view of Limited Atonement.

Well there must be some credence to this as God swore an oath that no atonement was to be given for Eli's house. If you want to hold to that then what? To say there is no merit in what I say, `The guilt of Eli's house will never be atoned for by sacrifice or offering.' ", then you are not dealing with me as you should. The guilt of Eli's house will never be atoned for means the guilt of Eli's house will not be, not, it might have been atoned for before He said it wasn't to be atoned for. How does God's judgement about their not being covered by sacrifice preclude the possibility that they were not covered by sacrifices earlier in their life? (JackRUS).

And as for 1 Sam. 3:14, don't you know that these men were judged by an oath given by God after having countless opportunities to get saved earlier in life?

Can you see what you are doing? You are saying God speaks idle words to avoid the conclusion that the atonement was not given for the house of Eli when in fact it wasn't. To be saved and then to be told no sacrifice would ever be given for you is a strange thing to me. To be saved is to have the Intercessor intercede on ones behalf to God the Father.

...His sons, however, did not listen to their father's rebuke, for it was the LORD's will to put them to death.?

(see 1 Sam 2:30ff.)

Why? Why didn't the writer start at: 1 Sam 2:25 ...His sons, however, did not listen to their father's rebuke, for it was the LORD's will to put them to death.? That would be a strange way of loving the sheep I think.

"And He is the propitiation for our sins: and not for our’s only, but also for the sins of the whole world." 1 John 2:2

But not if He didn't atone for Eli's house, a thing He swore not to do. Your understanding of 1 John 2:2 is wrong.

Is that not plain enough for you?

It is a plain mistake as Eli's house is not included is it?

Of course this verse is not an argument for universalism. But rather that Christ's atoning blood is available to all by faith. Rom. 3:25.

But it wasn't for Eli's household was it? There is only one atonement that is worth anything. The blood of bulls and goats don't cut the mustard.

Before the Lord interposed in judgment...

So God judges a man before he dies? Judges and condemns him before he dies? Could you explain this for me? If God judged Eli's house before they died then why did Jesus die for them? If free will is such a thing as is believed what right did He have in destroying Sodom? Did they have no right to chose what they wanted to do? They were only doing their thing. Seems to me as if free will can lose it's flavour if it is used.

Don't you know John that in Scripture the emphatic always overrules the implied when passages of Scripture seen to contradict one another? That is a hard and fast rule of Biblical interpretation.

Is it? How much more emphatic can, `The guilt of Eli's house will never be atoned for by sacrifice or offering.' " Be to make it emphatic enough? Eli's household was told that it would never receive an atonement, they were not told 'never again'.

How'd I do?

john.

 

[MRCoon]

Wow! This thread got away quick

I'll have to not go way for a few days after I start a thread. This was not intended to talk about differences but commonalities. I wanted to discuss the cross-populating of Arminianism & Calvinism theologies in many modern Baptists.

 

[ituttut]

Originally posted by MRCoon:
Wow! This thread got away quick

I'll have to not go way for a few days after I start a thread. This was not intended to talk about differences but commonalities. I wanted to discuss the cross-populating of Arminianism & Calvinism theologies in many modern Baptists.

See mine on page 5

 

[JackRUS]

Originally posted by Calvibaptist:
The problem is that free-willers want to have men's sins atoned for by Jesus Christ on the cross, but not have those men forgiven. By changing the meaning of the word "atonement" to mean "possible atonement if they will just have faith" they change the nature of the atonement such that it is not really atonement. In the free will view, all Christ's death did was make men saveable. It did not save anyone.

Actually we aren't changing anything. We are just reading 1 John 2:2 and John 3:16 and believing what they say. It's the Calvinists that are changing things.

If the atonement was limited to say, Jews only and the Scripture said so, then I would argue that point.

 

[MRCoon]

Originally posted by ituttut:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by MRCoon:
Wow! This thread got away quick

I'll have to not go way for a few days after I start a thread. This was not intended to talk about differences but commonalities. I wanted to discuss the cross-populating of Arminianism & Calvinism theologies in many modern Baptists.

See mine on page 5 </font>[/QUOTE]Thank You I saw that response and appreciate it!

Semper Fi

 

[JackRUS]

Calvibaptist wrote:

You are right that it is a lame illustration. There is one major fallacy to your illustration. What free-willers want to happen is that the person whose food was paid for not only decides he doesn't want it, but that he also has to pay for it again even though it has already been paid for.

If you are suggesting that this illustration is what Calvinists believe that you are completely misinformed. Calvinists would hardly make the payment of food an illustration of Christ's atonement, for food is something desireable.

You have real annoying way of totally misrepresenting what free-willers believe and then with the same breath accusing us of the same.

The only free-willers that fit into your straw-man argument are Catholics.

And I am wondering why you think that an unsaved person would not find eternal life to be desirable?

 

[JackRUS]

Johnp.
I read you post and I think that you don't understand what the OT Jewish atonement was. It atoned for sins in the manner of 1 John 1:9. It did not offer eternal life.

If it did then it would only have to of been done once. No wonder there is some confusion. We are arguing two different things.

For there was a tabernacle made; the first, wherein was the candlestick, and the table, and the shewbread; which is called the sanctuary.
And after the second veil, the tabernacle which is called the Holiest of all;
Which had the golden censer, and the ark of the covenant overlaid round about with gold, wherein was the golden pot that had manna, and Aaron’s rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant;
And over it the cherubims of glory shadowing the mercyseat; of which we cannot now speak particularly.
Now when these things were thus ordained, the priests went always into the first tabernacle, accomplishing the service of God.
But into the second went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, (Eli and his sons too) and for the errors of the people:
The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing:
Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience; Heb. 9:2-9

I would recommend that you do two things. Read the rest of Hebrews 9 and 10 for a full understanding, and don't use that proof-text again for support of Limited Atonement. It is poor exegesis.

 

[whatever]

Originally posted by JackRUS:
And I am wondering why you think that an unsaved person would not find eternal life to be desirable?

Why don't you tell us? Your theology says that any unsaved person can have eternal life if he desires it. Why are there still unsaved people then?

 

[MRCoon]

Same way there are fat people in the world...most (note I said most) are people that know they should eat right, know they should exercise, and plan to do it someday!! Yet they get fatter and fatter...why? Is it the foods fault? Is it the doctor's fault? No it is mostly their fault! It is the same with salvation. We supposedly live in a more 'Christian" society but also have much more sinfulness...why?

 

[EdSutton]

Originally posted by saturneptune:
How about being called a Christian and believing what the Bible says?

What a strange idea!

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

Originally posted by Marcia:
But I've heard that with the perseverance of the saints, a true Calvinist cannot know he is saved because if he is not persevering, he may not be saved. I don't think perseverance of the saints from the Calvinist pov is the same as OSAS.

Bingo!

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

Originally posted by JackRUS:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by doulous:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by JackRUS:
Doulous.
Sorry, but that is not how Paul explained it in Romans 4 or Galatians 3. (see also James 2)

The act of trust performed by Abraham initiated the conversion. It is true that God gave him light in doses, but He did this knowing that Abraham would do what he did. But it was still an acts of Abraham's will, just like when he was about to sacrifice Issac.

What you say directly contradicts James 2:21-24. Sorry.

Jack,

We certainly are justified by our works, but not unto salvation. I'm sure you will agree with that. We are not saved by our works. But justification is not the same as sanctification. Justification is a salvific term. Our works are evidence of our justification (salvation). Christians will perform good works. In fact, we were intended for good works:

Ephesians 2:10 10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

So not only did God call Abraham, He also "prepared beforehand" that he would perform good works.

As far as your contention that, "He did this knowing that Abraham would do what he did" we're back to the foreknowledge view, a conclusion that I just cannot see in the text. </font>[/QUOTE]How is conversion different than salvation? Don't they occur at the same time and mean the same thing? </font>[/QUOTE]In a word, no. Peter was saved, but was told "And when you are converted, strengthen the brethren."

Ed

 

[Jarthur001]

Originally posted by JackRUS:


And I am wondering why you think that an unsaved person would not find eternal life to be desirable?

Aww yes. This is the the very thing we must look at.

Ask someone if they want to go to hell..they will tell you no. Who really does? Yeah some punk artist may claim to, but they really do not believe in the hell of the Bible. But we and not saved from hell. Yes in the end we are no longer damned to go there. But we are saved from our sins and sin nature. Our sins/sin nature is what places us there.

Now ask the same people.."Do you want to be saved from your sins?" Men say no to this. They love sin to much and will go to hell loving sin. Now even after we are saved we sin, yet we have Holy Spirit to walk with us, and keep us from it. At times we will live in the flesh..and sin. But all in all, those that are saved you should see a NEW LIFE and Christ living in them.

In Christ..James

 

[Calvibaptist]

Originally posted by JackRUS:
Calvibaptist wrote: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />You are right that it is a lame illustration. There is one major fallacy to your illustration. What free-willers want to happen is that the person whose food was paid for not only decides he doesn't want it, but that he also has to pay for it again even though it has already been paid for.

If you are suggesting that this illustration is what Calvinists believe that you are completely misinformed. Calvinists would hardly make the payment of food an illustration of Christ's atonement, for food is something desireable.

You have real annoying way of totally misrepresenting what free-willers believe and then with the same breath accusing us of the same.

The only free-willers that fit into your straw-man argument are Catholics.

And I am wondering why you think that an unsaved person would not find eternal life to be desirable? </font>[/QUOTE]No, every free-willer fits into this statement if they believe in universal atonement. You want to say that Jesus atoned for the sins of every single person who ever lived without exception, but some of those same people end up in hell because they blew it by not exercising faith. In effect, sinners who die without Christ are eternally paying for sins that Christ supposedly already paid for.

I know this is what normal free-willers believe because, up until a few years ago, I was one. I went to 4 different Baptist churches over 26 years that taught that way. Dallas Seminary, Word of Life Bible College, Liberty University, Bob Jones University, etc. teach that way. Jerry Falwell, Rick Warren, Jack Graham (former SBC president), Adrian Rodgers (former SBC president), Norm Geisler, etc. all teach this way.

An unsaved person (who is not regenerated by the HS) finds eternal life undesireable not because of the eternal life, but because of the way he has to get it. We are all idolators by nature. We want God on our terms. We want eternal life on our terms. This is why man-made religion is so popular. People want the gifts that God has to offer, but they don't want them His way and they don't want Him.

 

[Calvibaptist]

Originally posted by JackRUS:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Calvibaptist:
The problem is that free-willers want to have men's sins atoned for by Jesus Christ on the cross, but not have those men forgiven. By changing the meaning of the word "atonement" to mean "possible atonement if they will just have faith" they change the nature of the atonement such that it is not really atonement. In the free will view, all Christ's death did was make men saveable. It did not save anyone.

Actually we aren't changing anything. We are just reading 1 John 2:2 and John 3:16 and believing what they say. It's the Calvinists that are changing things.

If the atonement was limited to say, Jews only and the Scripture said so, then I would argue that point. </font>[/QUOTE]You are changing the meaning of the word "atonement," which is a technical theological term. Rather than meaning atonement, it means possible atonement. I would much rather understand the words "whole world" to mean something other than every single person than change the meaning of the word atonement.

I understand "whole world" to mean the addition of Gentiles as well as Jews (people from every nation under heaven without distinction). This matches what you see in the book of revelation, fits well with the two passages you guys love, and also fits well with the passages Calvinists love.

Your view elevates John 3:16 and 1 John 2:2 (with your required definition of atonement and world) to the forefront and obliterates any meaning of God's predestination and election. You make God's sovereignty bow before man's free-will.

 

[johnp.]

If the atonement was limited to say, Jews only and the Scripture said so, then I would argue that point.

Good, nice to have you on our side JackRUS. Lev 16:21 He is to lay both hands on the head of the live goat and confess over it all the wickedness and rebellion of the Israelites--all their sins--and put them on the goat's head. PS 147:19 He has revealed his word to Jacob, his laws and decrees to Israel. 20 He has done this for no other nation; they do not know his laws. Praise the LORD.

I would recommend that you do two things. Read the rest of Hebrews 9 and 10 for a full understanding, and don't use that proof-text again for support of Limited Atonement. It is poor exegesis.

Cool, so then you say that all men have been atoned for and that the curse of God concerning Eli's house is what? 'The guilt of Eli's house will never be atoned for by sacrifice or offering.' That's all there is to it really. The atonement was given only to Israel by the way. The world rotted during this period, RO 2:12 All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law...

And as for 1 Sam. 3:14, don't you know that these men were judged by an oath given by God after having countless opportunities to get saved earlier in life?

That is not the point JackRUS, the point is that no atonement was given on their behalf.
1 Sam 2:25 If a man sins against another man, God may mediate for him; but if a man sins against the LORD, who will intercede for him?" His sons, however, did not listen to their father's rebuke, for it was the LORD's will to put them to death.

john.

 

[EdSutton]

Calvi sez:

No, every free-willer fits into this statement if they believe in universal atonement. You want to say that Jesus atoned for the sins of every single person who ever lived without exception, but some of those same people end up in hell because they blew it by not exercising faith.

I'd suggest that this is what John 3:16-18 says.

To my knowledge, there is not a single verse that 'says', to use some good religiosity, that anyone-

"...goes to hell to pay for his or her sins..."

But I hear this "canonized rhetoric" spoken from the pulpit in many sermons. Wonder why??

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

BTW, I love Calminian. Isn't that the stuff I buy to put on Poison Ivy?

Ed

 

[Calvibaptist]

Originally posted by EdSutton:
Calvi sez:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> No, every free-willer fits into this statement if they believe in universal atonement. You want to say that Jesus atoned for the sins of every single person who ever lived without exception, but some of those same people end up in hell because they blew it by not exercising faith.

I'd suggest that this is what John 3:16-18 says.</font>[/QUOTE]John 3:16-18 says that all the believing ones receive eternal life and all those who don't believe receive condemnation. This says nothing about whether those who did not believe had their sins atoned for. From other Scriptures (1 Cor. 1:21, 24 and Eph. 1:4-5) we know that those who believe are the ones who were elect and called.

To my knowledge, there is not a single verse that 'says', to use some good religiosity, that anyone-
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> "...goes to hell to pay for his or her sins..."

But I hear this "canonized rhetoric" spoken from the pulpit in many sermons. Wonder why??</font>[/QUOTE]Gee, I don't know. I guess the whole concept of redemption, ransom, and atonement has to do with payment, doesn't it? Whether you can find a proof-text that says, "Sinners pay for their sins in hell" or not really is inconsequential when the entire Old Testament and New Testament talk about redemption (purchasing) and atonement (payment/covering for sins).

 

[J.D.]

Jack:

John 3:16 and 1 John 2:2

If it were not for the elect, the remnant, God would simply destroy the whole creation (world) because of its corruption.

But God chose not to destroy the whole world (the creation), because he so loved it.

But in order for God to remain just, in order to judge sin, and to save the world, he sent his
Son into the world to make atonement for sin. God's wrath was satisfied (propitiated) not only for us, the elect, but also for the whole world (the creation), esle God would destroy it.

The world which will pass away is the present evil world system, which will be replaced by the new heaven and new earth - our eternal abode. But the world (the creation) will not be destroyed, but will be regenerated in the final eschaton.

In order to make the world redeemable, God's plan required the personal redemption of that remnant, known as the elect.

That remnant, which is made up of whosoever believes, whether Jew, Greek, male, female, etc.; makes the world redeemable through the faith given them by God.

So God Himself saves the world by injecting into it a faithful remnant, and that faithful remnant shall inherit the world (the renewed creation), which will be purified, and which God has saved for them.

You see how many ways "world" is to be understood? If you try to make "world" to mean "each and every person", you're always going to get yourself into a theological corner, and the answer to your delimmas will always be a "mystery".