Atonement

[Van]

Hi Yeshua1, please re-read my post and address what I actually said. And please stop claiming to be like Jesus able to read the minds of those He encountered.

The question we need to ask ourselves is this, according to Romans 8:33 no charge can be brought against God's elect. So when we were by nature children of wrath, how could we be individually elect?

 

[salzer mtn]

Hi Yeshua1, please re-read my post and address what I actually said. And please stop claiming to be like Jesus able to read the minds of those He encountered.

The question we need to ask ourselves is this, according to Romans 8:33 no charge can be brought against God's elect. So when we were by nature children of wrath, how could we be individually elect?

The scripture does not say we were the children of Gods wrath but it says WE WERE BY NATURE children of wrath. Verse one, two and three is describing what the nature of the Christian was before conversion. He was dead and in his sins, he walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince and power of the air, his conversation was in the lust of the flesh and he fulfilled the desires of the flesh, and mind. The wrath that is spoken of is wrath against God, this was his nature. Titus 3:3 For we ourselves also were sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one another.

 

[Rippon]

Calvinism :

God chose foreseen individuals before creation.

That particular expression, as you have phrased it, is foreign to Calvinism.
________________________________________________________

Christ died for all mankind, becoming the propitiation or means of salvation not only for us, but also for the whole world.

Propitiation does not mean means of salvation. But I will expand on that at a later time.

individual election for salvation occurs during our lifetime,

Nope, election is before the foundation of the world as Ephesians 1:4, 2 Thess. 2:13 and 2 Tim. 1:9 affirm.

 

[JonC]

That particular expression, as you have phrased it, is foreign to Calvinism.
Propitiation does not mean means of salvation. But I will expand on that at a later time.

:thumbs::thumbs: I didn’t look closely at Van’s post before…but you are right.
His first “sequence” of Calvinism is actually Arminianism. Calvinism itself does not present reconciliation based on the occurrence of Christ’s death, and “propitiation” cannot be defined as a “means of salvation.”

 

[Yeshua1]

:thumbs::thumbs: I didn’t look closely at Van’s post before…but you are right.
His first “sequence” of Calvinism is actually Arminianism. Calvinism itself does not present reconciliation based on the occurrence of Christ’s death, and “propitiation” cannot be defined as a “means of salvation.”

It all goes back to Foreknowledge, for the bible would say God foreknew due to him dtermining/tredestinating those who were to get saved by hs own Will, but van would have God doing that after he saw us choosing for jesus by our own free wills...

 

[salzer mtn]

I don't think this word foreknew can be used as foreseen. It is the same word that was used in scripture as when Adam knew his wife Eve and she conceived. Adam and Eve had a intimate relationship and God used the words, knew his wife. In Rom 11:2 God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Rom 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate. This is a spiritual intimate relationship between God and his elect.

 

[Van]

The scripture does not say we were the children of Gods wrath but it says WE WERE BY NATURE children of wrath. Verse one, two and three is describing what the nature of the Christian was before conversion. He was dead and in his sins, he walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince and power of the air, his conversation was in the lust of the flesh and he fulfilled the desires of the flesh, and mind. The wrath that is spoken of is wrath against God, this was his nature. Titus 3:3 For we ourselves also were sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one another.

1) Not sure of your first point, since I did indeed say by nature children of wrath.

2) You listed several charges against God's elect according to Calvinism. Thus you ignore that no charge can be brought against God's elect.

3) The verse is not speaking of the fallen's wrath against God, but of God's wrath against our fallen nature.

4) Titus 3:3 makes several charges against the fallen, and so again the case is made that before conversion we could not be "elect."

 

[Van]

Next we have the usual denial of Calvinism's doctrines voiced by Calvinists.

Rippon says Calvinism does not teach God chose foreseen individuals before creation. But that is hogwash. Calvinism also teaches the unconditional election was not based on "foreseen" faith.

Propitiation does provide the means of salvation. Simply saying "taint so" does not nullify truth.

 

[Van]

:thumbs::thumbs: I didn’t look closely at Van’s post before…but you are right.
His first “sequence” of Calvinism is actually Arminianism. Calvinism itself does not present reconciliation based on the occurrence of Christ’s death, and “propitiation” cannot be defined as a “means of salvation.”

Is my first sequence Arminianism? Nope!

Calvinism has it in this order:

1) God chose foreseen individuals before creation.
2) Christ died for the sins, past, present and future, of those previously chosen individuals.
3) Thus, even if one of those individuals has not yet been born, he or she was fully reconciled when Christ died.

In summary, His death reconciled all the elect, and thus was an atonement.

The Arminian Sequence is:
1) God chose foreseen individuals based on foreseen faith before creation.
2) Christ died for all mankind.
3) Individuals receive the reconciliation provided by Christ's death on the cross when they believe.

Calvinism does indeed claim the reconciliation of each and every elect person occurred 1900 years ago when Christ died. Here for the second time is the quote:

But Christ died and atoned for all who were in Him, - nineteen hundred years ago, when He died. It accomplished something for all of them. Their guilt is forever gone. Righteousness and eternal life can never be denied them. Their right to all the blessings of salvation was forever established there, at the cross.

 

[Yeshua1]

Is my first sequence Arminianism? Nope!

​

The Arminian Sequence is:
1) God chose foreseen individuals based on foreseen faith before creation.
2) Christ died for all mankind.
3) Individuals receive the reconciliation provided by Christ's death on the cross when they believe.

Calvinism does indeed claim the reconciliation of each and every elect person occurred 1900 years ago when Christ died. Here for the second time is the quote:

That dies not happen in real time and space to us though until that person chosen by God to be one of the redeemed will be enabled to place faith injesus in order to get saved...

There still must be an effectual application of those assured things of salvation in this life !

 

[Yeshua1]

Is my first sequence Arminianism? Nope!

​

The Arminian Sequence is:
1) God chose foreseen individuals based on foreseen faith before creation.
2) Christ died for all mankind.
3) Individuals receive the reconciliation provided by Christ's death on the cross when they believe.

Calvinism does indeed claim the reconciliation of each and every elect person occurred 1900 years ago when Christ died. Here for the second time is the quote:

You seem to be saying that Hyper cal is what calvinists here believe in though!

 

[Van]

My Calvinism sequence is Mainstream, not hyper.

Mainstream Calvinism has it in this order:
1) God chose foreseen individuals before creation.
2) Christ died for the sins, past, present and future, of those previously chosen individuals.
3) Thus, even if one of those individuals has not yet been born, he or she was fully reconciled when Christ died.

In summary, His death reconciled all the elect, and thus was an atonement.

Mainstream Calvinists believe Christ's death was sufficient to save all men, but efficacious only for the elect.

 

[Rippon]

My Calvinism sequence is Mainstream, not hyper.

Mainstream Calvinism has it in this order:
1) God chose foreseen individuals before creation.

Once again, that is your invention --no Calvinist believes that which you have made up. You are not able to cite a single source for that which you have created from whole cloth.

3) Thus, even if one of those individuals has not yet been born, he or she was fully reconciled when Christ died.

No Calvinist believes that anyone is fully reconciled with Christ before they are born. Reconciliation occurs in their lifetime. They have no peace with God through Christ until they are brought into a saving knowledge of Him and union of Him.

Van, you don't have the right to make up things about us. We don't believe what you say we do. When we deny that we hold to the things you connect us with you dismiss it. Your arrogance knows no bounds.

You can ascribe all sorts of things to us --but that is called lying. What you need to do is tell the truth. You sorely need to cite sources instead of making your usual bald misrepresentations.

 

[JonC]

My Calvinism sequence is Mainstream, not hyper.

#2 is anyway. But #3 is highly questionable (but sometimes I wonder if some do hold that belief). #1 is foreign to Calvinistic doctrine (I am not sure if you are trying to be divisive or if you simply don't understand why it is foreign to Calvinism).

 

[Rippon]

Propitiation

John Owen wrote the famous book :The Death of Death in the Death of Christ in which he convincingly argued against the claims of Arminianism.

I will quote just a few snips of his treatment on propitiation.
_______________________________________________________

"The word will bear both, the meaning being, to appease, or pacify, or satisfy God for sin, that it might not be imputed to them towards whom he was so appeased." (p.222)

"From that which hath been said, the sense of the place is evident to be, that Christ hath so expiated sin, and reconciled to God, that the sinner is pardoned and received to mercy for his sake, and that the law shall never be produced or brought forth for his condemnation. Now, whether this can be tolerably applied to the whole world (taking it for all and every man in the world), let all the men in the world that are able judge. Are the sins of every one expiated? Is God reconciled to every one? Is every sinner pardoned? Shall no one have the transgression of the law charged on him? Why, then, is not every one saved? Doubtless, all these are true of every believer, and of no one else in the whole world. For them the apostle affirmed that Christ is a propitiation; that he might show from whence ariseth, and wherein chiefly, if not only, that advocation for them, which he promiseth as the fountain of their consolation, did consist, -- even in a presentation of the atonement made by his blood. He is also a propitation only by faith, Rom. 3:25; and surely none have faith but believers: and : therefore, certainly it is they only throughout the world for whom alone Christ is a propitiation. Unto them alone God says, ' will be propitious,' -- the great word of the new covenant, Heb. 8:12, they alone being covenanters." (pages 222,223)

 

[salzer mtn]

1) Not sure of your first point, since I did indeed say by nature children of wrath.

2) You listed several charges against God's elect according to Calvinism. Thus you ignore that no charge can be brought against God's elect.

3) The verse is not speaking of the fallen's wrath against God, but of God's wrath against our fallen nature.

4) Titus 3:3 makes several charges against the fallen, and so again the case is made that before conversion we could not be "elect."

I can't make heads or tails out of what you are saying. The second chapter of Ephesians verses one through three is explaining what the Christian was before he was saved in this present world, so how can these be charges according to Calvinism. Titus 3:3 same thing. The elect and the children of disobedience, verse two and called in verse three as others, meaning the non-elect were all of the same nature, and we all acted alike. The difference in Gods sight is the fact the elect in verse five had in times past been quickened together with Christ even when we were considered dead in our sins, why ? because of Gods great love toward us, verse four. Not only that but when Christ arose from the grave we were raised with him and we are now sitting together in heaven in Christ, verse six.

 

[Van]

#2 is anyway. But #3 is highly questionable (but sometimes I wonder if some do hold that belief). #1 is foreign to Calvinistic doctrine (I am not sure if you are trying to be divisive or if you simply don't understand why it is foreign to Calvinism).

I did not claim my mainstream Calvinism sequence was Arminian, you did.

If God chose individuals before creation, they were foreseen individuals. That is not a foreign concept, it is mainstream. There is nothing divisive about speaking with clarity. If the individuals were not foreseen, what were they? Existing before God created them? I doubt any published Calvinist source holds that view.

Number 3 is mainstream Calvinism, and is not "highly questionable." I quoted my source. Have you provided a Calvinist quote that says Christ's death on the cross only provided the opportunity for salvation, and did not justify the elect? Nope

So lets agree, Limited Atonement as defined by Calvinism is "highly questionable."

 

[Van]

It is simple, Salzer Mtn, if a person was elect before creation, and no charge can be brought against God's elect, then we could not have been by nature, children of wrath. And Titus 3:3 could not be applied to us.

 

[JonC]

I did not claim my mainstream Calvinism sequence was Arminian, you did.

:laugh: You must be a Monty Python fan...

Arminianism bases God’s individual election on his foresight (God foresees who will believe). Calvinism bases God’s foreknowledge (not foreseeing or even pre-knowledge…although I understand your confusion).

Have you provided a Calvinist quote that says Christ's death on the cross only provided the opportunity for salvation, and did not justify the elect?

You mean like this?:

“The atonement is sufficient in value to expiate the sin of all men indiscriminately; and this fact should be stated because it is a fact. There are no claims of justice not yet satisfied; there is no sin of man for which an infinite atonement has not been provided. All things are now ready. Therefore the call to ‘come’ is universal. It is plain, that the offer of the atonement should be regulated by its intrinsic nature and sufficiency, not by the obstacles that prevent its efficacy.” (Shedd, Dogmatic Theology)

So lets agree, Limited Atonement as defined by Calvinism is "highly questionable."

We do agree here. But for my part it is because I believe “Limited Atonement” as defined by some not only incorrect but also illogical (it makes sense in the summary “TULIP,” but TULIP is only a poor summary of five points which were a response to error in one aspect of soteriology). Perhaps you are right in broad brushing Limited Atonement to mainstream Calvinism…I’m not really sure who is “mainstream” anymore.

 

[Yeshua1]

It is simple, Salzer Mtn, if a person was elect before creation, and no charge can be brought against God's elect, then we could not have been by nature, children of wrath. And Titus 3:3 could not be applied to us.

The change in us though HAD to come by the rebirth in Jesus, as until God saved us in rwl time here, we were still children of disobedience and wrath!

His death provided the basis to reconcile us back, but that happens when we get saved here and now, not eternally saved!