Arminian Aberrations

[glfredrick]

I saw that Aaron quoted this so I wanted to respond....in hopes that he might actually listen this time:

God has moved and is still moving as he 'seeks to save that which is lost.' He moves through HIS appointed means, which according to scripture are:

1. The Son (Word): while on earth

2. The Spirit: indwelling believers who spread the word and convicting the world of sin

3. The Scripture: the inspired written words

4. The Church: His Bride, indwelled and sent by the Spirit as ambassadors making the appeal: Be Reconciled to God

5. Other means used to provoke man's will: Envy (Rm 11:14); Signs and Wonders; Circumstances; Hardships...

I see no evidence of an additional secret inward irresistible work by which God moves apart from these means to "magically" change man's will (thus making these means appear inconsequential). He may work THROUGH those means listed above to affect the heart inwardly, but according to what we see in scripture He doesn't work apart from these appointed means.

Take Thomas for example. Could God have just regenerated his heart to make him believe without questioning and wanting to see for himself? Sure. But HE DIDN'T. He revealed himself to Thomas (means) so that He wouldn't doubt and would believe. Could he have magically changed Jonah's desire so he would want to go to Ninveh? Sure. But HE DIDN'T. He used life circumstances. Could he have magically changed Paul desires? Sure. But HE DIDN'T. He used life circumstances. To suggest those circumstances (means) were inconsequential and that some secret inward working of the spirit actually changed their wills is nice and all, but scripture doesn't teach that. It actually speaks of the means has having the power. I'll stick with scripture.

Okay, so you have modified your own position away from classical Arminianism. That is part of the definition process.

 

[DaChaser1]

Okay, so you have modified your own position away from classical Arminianism. That is part of the definition process.

Is the power of the Gospel to save us as per Skan based upon the power residing in the printed/spoken words, or in the events they described?

is it faith in the text heard by us, or in the events the texts described?

 

[Aaron]

5. Other means used to provoke man's [carnal, godhating, darkness-loving, corrupt and stinking] will:

Part in brackets mine.

I see no evidence of an additional secret inward irresistible work by which God moves apart from these means to "magically" change man's will (thus making these means appear inconsequential). He may work THROUGH those means listed above to affect the [carnal, godhating, darkness-loving, corrupt and stinking] heart inwardly, but according to what we see in scripture He doesn't work apart from these appointed means.

Part in brackets mine.

And we're back to the fact that you reject the Scriptural statements on the condition of man, his will and his heart.

For you the reason one is saved and the other is not, is because responded better to the outward stimuli better than the other. He had better character.

 

[Skandelon]

Have you supplied the page number reference that I asked for earlier?

I'd like to see if Hodge has one of those, "therefore" statements after this part of what he wrote.

HERE is a web page of a hyperist who lists all these Calvinists scholars as heretics along with their quotes because their view of the atonement is not limited enough for him. You can read all the quotes to see for yourself... Make sure you comment on AA Hodge too while you're at it.

 

[Skandelon]

Part in brackets mine.
Part in brackets mine.

I like what you added, which makes the part about his loving us anyway and calling all of us to reconciliation all the more amazing!

And we're back to the fact that you reject the Scriptural statements on the condition of man, his will and his heart.

No, you don't realize it, but actually we are back to the effectuality of the means God uses to overcome that carnal, godhating, darkness-loving, corrupt and stinking will. You just dismiss that point over and over as inconsequential. I understand why...believe me, I do. I wouldn't want to go down that road if I were you either. You might end up converting to the truth like I did. Again, the gift doesn't have to be irresistibly applied for the giver to get all the credit for giving it. And in my system, God gets the credit, no the GLORY, for not only giving his love, mercy and gracious provisions to those of us who do believe, but also to all the world, who He loves and sincerely desires to come to Him. I think unbelievers are much worse than you do because they rebel DESPITE God's gracious enabling provisions and love for them; and I think God is much more loving and glorious than you do because his love and gracious provision is without limit and his appeal to all for reconciliation is undoubtedly sincere.

 

[Skandelon]

Okay, so you have modified your own position away from classical Arminianism. That is part of the definition process.

No, not really. In fact, this view CAN be adopted (in part) even within the Calvinistic system. I think Jbh argues for the fact that God always regenerates THROUGH the gospel, not 'prior' to it because he (like many) understands that the scriptures clearly teaches that the power is with the means. Some Arminians likewise believe the Spirit does some extra (prevenient) working, and like Calvinists there is some differences in how various scholars suspect that happens (wether simultaneously or prior to the means being employed etc). Some scholars, like myself, argue that the means themselves ARE the prevenient and gracious work of God and don't attempt to separate the means from the power. Why? Because the scripture never separates the means from the power. Why should we?

Just as in the Calvinistic/Reformed tradition, there are different variants in the way key principles are taught and described. I affirm the doctrine of 'prevenient grace,' but I (and others) may do it a bit differently than some other 'Arminians.'

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

In addition to the Charles Hodge quote I already provided which proved you wrong already, I thought it necessary to provide a AA Hodge quote just in case:

"There is no debate among Christians as to the sufficiency of that satisfaction to accomplish the salvation of all men, however vast the number. This is absolutely limitless. 2d. Nor as to its applicability to the case of any and every possible human sinner who will ever exist. The relation of all to the demands of the law are identical. What would save one would save another. 3d. Nor to the bona fide character of the offer which God has made to 'whomsoever wills' in the gospel. It is applicable to every one, it will infallibly be applied to every believer. 4th. Nor as to its actual application."

I just love that he used almost every form of the word "applicable" just to be sure no one could misunderstand him. :smilewinkgrin:

Do you google the Hodge Boys? :laugh:

 

[Luke2427]

Ok, for the record then, can you just restate using your own words this part of the quote: "Such being the nature of the judicial satisfaction rendered by Christ to the law, under which all men are placed..."

That way I have it on file for the next time you in anyway imply that our belief that God provided judicial satisfaction for every person must mean we are universalists. Thanks.

That quote from Hodge does not SAY that Jesus made judicial satisfaction for every single person.

His death satisfied the judicial requirements of the law in such a way and to such an extent that it could save everybody on earth and trillion worlds of sinners too.

But that does not mean that this super abundance of judicial satisfaction applies to every single person on earth in any way in which it ACTUALLY ATONES for them.

I have eggs enough to satisfy the appetites of five families. I will apply it's ability to satisfy to only one family- mine.

This is your problem Skandelon- reading comprehension.

 

[Skandelon]

That quote from Hodge does not SAY that Jesus made judicial satisfaction for every single person.

His death satisfied the judicial requirements of the law

You don't see how those two statements contradict each other, do you?

There is not a law that has to be satisfied for me and another one for you, Luke. If he satisfies the demands of the law for one man then he has satisfied the demand for EVERYMAN. Hodge (both of them) explain this VERY clearly. (and it was suspiciously noticeable that you skipped AA Hodge's quote). Here it another quote that says just what I explained:

What was demanded for the salvation of one was demanded for the salvation of all. Every man is required to satisfy the demands of the law. No man is required to do either more or less. If those demands are satisfied by a representative or substitute, his work is equally available for all. ...it is offered to both classes conditionally. That condition is a cordial acceptance of it as the only ground of justification. If any of the elect (being adults) fail thus to accept of it, they perish. If any of the non-elect should believe, they would be saved. ... Christ, therefore, did not die equally for all men. He laid down his life for his sheep; He gave Himself for his Church. But in perfect consistency with this, He did all that was necessary, so far as a satisfaction to justice is concerned, all that is required for the salvation of all men. So that all Augustinians can join with the Synod of Dort in saying, 'No man perishes for want of an atonement.' -C. Hodge

So, tell me if by some miracle a non-elect person did come to saving faith (which I know you believe couldn't happen), but supposing it happen (as Hodge did above) would they be saved? Or would you say the atonement only paid for the sins of the elect ones thus this non-elect believer sin's remain without atonement because Christ didn't die for him?

This is your problem Skandelon- reading comprehension.

Very mature, Luke.

 

[slave 4 Christ]

Here it another quote that says just what I explained:

What was demanded for the salvation of one was demanded for the salvation of all. Every man is required to satisfy the demands of the law. No man is required to do either more or less. If those demands are satisfied by a representative or substitute, his work is equally available for all. ...it is offered to both classes conditionally. That condition is a cordial acceptance of it as the only ground of justification. If any of the elect (being adults) fail thus to accept of it, they perish. If any of the non-elect should believe, they would be saved. ... Christ, therefore, did not die equally for all men. He laid down his life for his sheep; He gave Himself for his Church. But in perfect consistency with this, He did all that was necessary, so far as a satisfaction to justice is concerned, all that is required for the salvation of all men. So that all Augustinians can join with the Synod of Dort in saying, 'No man perishes for want of an atonement.' -C. Hodge

So, tell me if by some miracle a non-elect person did come to saving faith (which I know you believe couldn't happen), but supposing it happen (as Hodge did above) would they be saved? Or would you say the atonement only paid for the sins of the elect ones thus this non-elect believer sin's remain without atonement because Christ didn't die for him?

Here is C. Hodge's quote, in its surrounding context, which is undermining the fallacy that Augustinian/Calvinist teaching does not extend a real offer of the Gospel to all men. Hodge is not arguing for an unlimited actual atonement.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/hodge/theology2.iv.viii.ii.html
Look under, The Church Doctrine embraces all the Facts of the Case.

 

[Skandelon]

slave 4 Christ,

There are differing approaches even within the Reformed tradition regarding the atonement. C. Hodge, AA Hodge, Shedd, Dabney (Princeton guys) and some others have taken an approach which some other Reformed scholars disagree.

Some argue that Christ died only for the elect in that Christ only satisfied the demands of justice needed to save them and them alone, leaving all the non-elect without satisfaction. We all agree that the full benefits are only applicable through faith, but the question is whether or not Christ did all that was necessary for all men to be saved, or if he did just so much for just so many. Make sense?

Some Cals make arguments like, "If Christ atoned for everyone and then someone goes to hell then his sins are being paid for twice and Christ's blood was wasted." C. Hodge and these other Reformed scholars reject that line of reasoning. Ok?

 

[Luke2427]

You don't see how those two statements contradict each other, do you?

There is not a law that has to be satisfied for me and another one for you, Luke. If he satisfies the demands of the law for one man then he has satisfied the demand for EVERYMAN. Hodge (both of them) explain this VERY clearly. (and it was suspiciously noticeable that you skipped AA Hodge's quote). Here it another quote that says just what I explained:

What was demanded for the salvation of one was demanded for the salvation of all. Every man is required to satisfy the demands of the law. No man is required to do either more or less. If those demands are satisfied by a representative or substitute, his work is equally available for all. ...it is offered to both classes conditionally. That condition is a cordial acceptance of it as the only ground of justification. If any of the elect (being adults) fail thus to accept of it, they perish. If any of the non-elect should believe, they would be saved. ... Christ, therefore, did not die equally for all men. He laid down his life for his sheep; He gave Himself for his Church. But in perfect consistency with this, He did all that was necessary, so far as a satisfaction to justice is concerned, all that is required for the salvation of all men. So that all Augustinians can join with the Synod of Dort in saying, 'No man perishes for want of an atonement.' -C. Hodge

So, tell me if by some miracle a non-elect person did come to saving faith (which I know you believe couldn't happen), but supposing it happen (as Hodge did above) would they be saved? Or would you say the atonement only paid for the sins of the elect ones thus this non-elect believer sin's remain without atonement because Christ didn't die for him?

Very mature, Luke.

I agree with every WORD you have thus provided by Charles Hodge.

What he is NOT saying is that this judicial satisfaction equals unlimited atonement.

Here is what he says in the same piece of literature:

These Scriptural facts cannot be admitted without its being also admitted that the death of Christ had a reference to his people, whose salvation it rendered certain, which it had not to others whom, for infinitely wise reasons, God determined to leave to themselves. It follows, therefore, from the nature of the covenant of redemption, as presented in the Bible, that Christ did not die equally for all mankind. but that He gave Himself for his people and for their redemption.

As to your hypothetical question as to whether or not one of the non-elect could be saved by this atonement- the answer is- YES. The atonement is more than sufficient to save the elect and non elect of all the ages in this world and a trillion sinful worlds just like it.

 

[preacher4truth]

I agree with every WORD you have thus provided by Charles Hodge.

What he is NOT saying is that this judicial satisfaction equals unlimited atonement.

Here is what he says in the same piece of literature:



As to your hypothetical question as to whether or not one of the non-elect could be saved by this atonement- the answer is- YES. The atonement is more than sufficient to save the elect and non elect of all the ages in this world and a trillion sinful worlds just like it.

Amazing how context enlightens and at the same time dismantles arminian and non-calvinist "proofs" designed as "gotchas."

 

[Skandelon]

I agree with every WORD you have thus provided by Charles Hodge.

And AA Hodge?

What he is NOT saying is that this judicial satisfaction equals unlimited atonement.

Well, that may be a difference on how one defines atonement. I started a thread just now regarding how some equate atonement with salvation. Some actually believe that judicial satisfaction is 'atonement' but you don't seem to draw that conclusion.

Luke, if Christ atoned for your sin before you were born then do you believe you were born justified? Were you born saved? Were you born atoned?

If not, when did you become justified? saved? atoned?

I think answering those questions will help you see the distinction I'm attempting to draw.

 

[Luke2427]

And AA Hodge?

Well, that may be a difference on how one defines atonement. I started a thread just now regarding how some equate atonement with salvation. Some actually believe that judicial satisfaction is 'atonement' but you don't seem to draw that conclusion.

There is a distinction. It has to do with ACTUAL application.

As I have affirmed repeatedly, I agree with Hodge that the atonement is infinitely sufficient.

Luke, if Christ atoned for your sin before you were born then do you believe you were born justified? Were you born saved? Were you born atoned?

This is off topic, but I will answer it since there is no taint of snottiness in this post for once. I will answer it out of appreciation for this fact.

No. I was not born justified. I realize Gill and other reputable Calvinists follow that line of reasoning, but I do not.

If not, when did you become justified? saved? atoned?

At the moment of faith.

I think answering those questions will help you see the distinction I'm attempting to draw.

I'm afraid it did not, but if we are going to talk about this and abandon the other debate midstream, I recommend starting a new thread.

 

[Skandelon]

No. I was not born justified.
At the moment of faith.

So, if you aren't atoned for until the moment of faith, then you have proven that people can be atoned for and yet not be saved YET, thus proving universalism is not a necessary result of unlimited atonement. Thus atonement can be applied but a person not necessarily be saved....but as stated, I did start a new thread...

 

[Luke2427]

So, if you aren't atoned for until the moment of faith, then you have proven that people can be atoned for and yet not be saved YET, thus proving universalism is not a necessary result of unlimited atonement. Thus atonement can be applied but a person not necessarily be saved....but as stated, I did start a new thread...

Wrong. But it is a VERY good argument. I commend you.

Salvation has different senses.

There is a sense in which one of the elect is not "saved" until he has faith. This means that he abides under the wrath of God.

But since it is not possible that one of the elect should EVER be lost, there is also a sense in which all of the elect were saved before the foundation of the world.

It is a technicality as it pertains to the elect. Those who will be saved will be saved and cannot perish. They will be saved because they have been SPECIFICALLY atoned for.

The non-elect will never be saved so the atonement never ACTUALLY applies to them.

 

[TCassidy]

But since it is not possible that one of the elect should EVER be lost, there is also a sense in which all of the elect were saved before the foundation of the world.

I think the better understanding is to see the word "ever" in the logical rather than temporal sense. We were all lost prior to our salvation but we will never again be lost, no matter what (the logical meaning of "ever").

 

[Skandelon]

Wrong. But it is a VERY good argument. I commend you.

Salvation has different senses.

There is a sense in which one of the elect is not "saved" until he has faith. This means that he abides under the wrath of God.

But since it is not possible that one of the elect should EVER be lost, there is also a sense in which all of the elect were saved before the foundation of the world.

Well in that case its not the atonement that is limiting the number of those who will be saved, but the election of those who will be effectually regenerated to certain faith. That is why some Calvinists change the term from 'limited atonement' to 'particular redemption.' They believe it better communicates this aspect of 'limitation.'

 

[Luke2427]

Well in that case its not the atonement that is limiting the number of those who will be saved, but the election of those who will be effectually regenerated to certain faith. That is why some Calvinists change the term from 'limited atonement' to 'particular redemption.' They believe it better communicates this aspect of 'limitation.'

I also prefer the term "particular redemption."

But the issue here is that the atonement, though sufficient for all, is not literally applied to all.