Atonement

[Yeshua1]

: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).



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)



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.

The death of Jesus was a definite atonement for all of them God destined to get saved by it, correct?

 

[steaver]

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.

No one is addressing Van's point here. Did God foresee the Elect or did they exist eternally in Christ before the foundation of the world? Calvinist are always dismissing non-Cal's position that God in His foreknowledge has foreseen those who would trust in Christ. Wouldn't Calvinist have to concede that God does indeed foresee individuals who He has not yet created, and also would know exactly the decisions they would make (if allowed to make any whatsoever), whether caused or allowed by God Himself??

 

[Iconoclast]

No one is addressing Van's point here. Did God foresee the Elect or did they exist eternally in Christ before the foundation of the world? Calvinist are always dismissing non-Cal's position that God in His foreknowledge has foreseen those who would trust in Christ. Wouldn't Calvinist have to concede that God does indeed foresee individuals who He has not yet created, and also would know exactly the decisions they would make (if allowed to make any whatsoever), whether caused or allowed by God Himself??

It does NOT say....and who He did forsee he also did predestinate....it says
and who He did FOREKNOW He also did predestinate

 

[JonC]

No one is addressing Van's point here. Did God foresee the Elect or did they exist eternally in Christ before the foundation of the world? Calvinist are always dismissing non-Cal's position that God in His foreknowledge has foreseen those who would trust in Christ. Wouldn't Calvinist have to concede that God does indeed foresee individuals who He has not yet created, and also would know exactly the decisions they would make (if allowed to make any whatsoever), whether caused or allowed by God Himself??

Van’s point is not that God foresaw the elect, etc…his point is the “sequence” that Calvinism presents. God choosing foreseen individuals before creation as the first step (or any step) in the Calvinistic scheme is a severe misunderstanding of Calvinism. Van does not really have a point to argue because his statement starts off with error.

God electing on the basis of foreseeing who would believe is classic Arminianism, and is (IMHO) an interesting discussion in and of itself. Of course the Calvinist would believe that God knew what decisions the elect would make because they view God as influencing these people…it’s called, BTW, “irresistible grace.” My point is that you cannot put Calvinism into an Arminian scheme (and vise-versa) and then continue to argue points.

 

[steaver]

It does NOT say....and who He did forsee he also did predestinate....it says
and who He did FOREKNOW He also did predestinate

Could you define the difference, maybe this would help.

 

[Van]

JonC seems to say Calvinism does not believe God chose individuals before creation. But that is Calvinism. Simply saying "taint so" provides nothing.

And no one is saying God chose based on foreseeing faith. Rather, according to Calvinism, God chose the foreseen individuals without regard for any characteristic they might have, i.e. unconditional election.

The defense of Calvinism here is based on denying Calvinism doctrine.

So rather than endlessly evade the issue, lets return to the basic premise, God chose individuals before creation unconditionally. Thus, before creation, those individuals whether foreseen, foreknown, or existing in some way before God created them were elect and therefore no charge can be brought against them. But Titus 3:3 does just that.

That, folks, is the fly in the buttermilk.

 

[Yeshua1]

JonC seems to say Calvinism does not believe God chose individuals before creation. But that is Calvinism. Simply saying "taint so" provides nothing.

And no one is saying God chose based on foreseeing faith. Rather, according to Calvinism, God chose the foreseen individuals without regard for any characteristic they might have, i.e. unconditional election.

The defense of Calvinism here is based on denying Calvinism doctrine.

So rather than endlessly evade the issue, lets return to the basic premise, God chose individuals before creation unconditionally. Thus, before creation, those individuals whether foreseen, foreknown, or existing in some way before God created them were elect and therefore no charge can be brought against them. But Titus 3:3 does just that.

That, folks, is the fly in the buttermilk.

Until those choen sinners came to faith in jesus though, they were enemies of God, under his wrath, children of disobedience, but God provided the means that they would be reconciled back to himself!

paul" While we were yet sinners, jesus died for us, godly for the ungodly', correct?

 

[Yeshua1]

Could you define the difference, maybe this would help.

Arminians states that God foresaw all who would decide to place faith in jesus and get saved, but was based upon their free will acceptance

calvinism would state that God foreknew those sinners, in the sense was active in determing that they would get saved by him!

 

[prophet]

Arminians states that God foresaw all who would decide to place faith in jesus and get saved, but was based upon their free will acceptance

calvinism would state that God foreknew those sinners, in the sense was active in determing that they would get saved by him!

God is the beginning and the end, and there is nothing He doesn't see.
It isn't foresight, He is everpresent, it is nowsight.

Isa 57:15
15 For thus saith the high and lofty One
that inhabiteth eternity, whose name is Holy;
I dwell in the high and holy place,
with him also that is of a contrite and humble spirit,
to revive the spirit of the humble,
and to revive the heart of the contrite ones.

God dwells in eternity, from which vantage point, all of Time is visible, present, in front of Him

It doesn't say "I was alpha and I will be Omega", does it?

 

[Rippon]

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

You are in the habit of mischaracterizing Calvinists. Wwe know what we believe. You don't believe what we believe. Do not foist strawmen into the mix.

Rippon says Calvinism does not teach God chose foreseen individuals before creation.

No Calvinist words it that way --that's more of an Arminian construction.

 

[Rippon]

Number 3 is mainstream Calvinism, and is not "highly questionable." I quoted my source.

As a matter of fact, you did not. Your original post #57 offered no source at all. It is a wonder that you would make that claim. You need to cite a Calvinistic source to support your claim.

 

[Rippon]

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

You did not claim it was Arminian --yet in fact, it is.

 

[JonC]

JonC seems to say Calvinism does not believe God chose individuals before creation. But that is Calvinism. Simply saying "taint so" provides nothing.

And no one is saying God chose based on foreseeing faith. Rather, according to Calvinism, God chose the foreseen individuals without regard for any characteristic they might have, i.e. unconditional election.

The defense of Calvinism here is based on denying Calvinism doctrine.

So rather than endlessly evade the issue, lets return to the basic premise, God chose individuals before creation unconditionally. Thus, before creation, those individuals whether foreseen, foreknown, or existing in some way before God created them were elect and therefore no charge can be brought against them. But Titus 3:3 does just that.

No, I am not denying that Calvinism…and Arminianism for that matter…views God as choosing individuals before the foundations of the earth. You misunderstood, I was not clear, or both.

I understand your objection to be that if God elected people from the foundation of the earth then there would have been no charge levied against them, yet Scripture presents the elect prior to being saved as under condemnation. Ultimately you charge that the lost status of the human condition is not reconcilable with election before actual faith (whether that election is conditional or unconditional is not relevant).

If this is the case, then your failure is taking Romans 8 out of context: “Who will bring a charge against God’s elect? God is the one who justifies; who is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus is He who died, yes, rather who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us (Rom 8:33-34).”

 

[Van]

No, I am not denying that Calvinism…and Arminianism for that matter…views God as choosing individuals before the foundations of the earth. You misunderstood, I was not clear, or both.

I understand your objection to be that if God elected people from the foundation of the earth then there would have been no charge levied against them, yet Scripture presents the elect prior to being saved as under condemnation. Ultimately you charge that the lost status of the human condition is not reconcilable with election before actual faith (whether that election is conditional or unconditional is not relevant).

If this is the case, then your failure is taking Romans 8 out of context: “Who will bring a charge against God’s elect? God is the one who justifies; who is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus is He who died, yes, rather who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us (Rom 8:33-34).”

Thanks JonC, for actually addressing the issue. I was beginning to lose hope any Calvinist would engage.

1) God, according to Calvinism, elected people as individuals, before and not from, the foundation of the world.

2) If this Calvinism view was correct, then no charge could be brought against the elect. But scripture does bring that charge against individuals before coming to faith. Therefore, either the Calvinism view of Ephesians 1:4 is incorrect (which is my non-cal view) or my understanding of Romans 8:33 is incorrect.

3) Agreed, individual election, conditional or unconditional, would render the person justified before God, and therefore Titus 3:3 precludes individual election before God credits the person's faith as righteousness. We live without mercy, before we receive mercy.

4) JonC, you simply presented the verse but did not say why it does not mean what it says.

Again, Romans 8:33 precludes bringing the Titus 3:3 charges against the elect, therefore we were not elect when we were by nature children of wrath. Thus Calvinism's doctrine of individual election before the foundation of the world is what has been "taken out of context" and misconstrued. What Calvinism does is say they are right about Ephesians 1:4, and all these other scriptures do not mean what they say, including Romans 8:33, 2 Thessalonians 2:13, James 2:5, 1 Corinthians 1:26-30, and so forth and so on.

 

[salzer mtn]

God does not bring any charge again the elect in Titus 3:3 or Eph 2:1:3. These scriptures are just explaining what the elect were by nature. You will have to go to scripture that is dealing with the wicked to find charges made by God.

 

[Van]

Here we have the typical, scripture does not mean what it says, defense. God does not bring any charge against the elect. How about all have fallen short of the glory of God. Just read Ephesians 2:1-3 folks.

Calvinism's view of Ephesians 1:4 requires all these other verses to be nullified.

 

[salzer mtn]

Jer 31:3 The Lord hath appeared of old unto me, saying, Yea, I have loved thee with an everlasting love: therefore in loving kindness have I drawn thee. The Lord is not like man is, loving someone today and hating them tomorrow. If the Lord loves you, he has always loved you, and he always will love you. God cannot change. If God loves you, this love really means something. If he loves you, his Son bore your sins, and if he did bare your sins then He is the sin bearer, not you. Your sins cannot be two places at the same time. They cannot be on Jesus and you. They are either on Jesus or you. If they are on Jesus then there is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, Rom 8:1 Who shall lay anything to the charge of Gods elect ?Rom8:33. God knows all things. God decreed all things. When we were yet unheard of, before time came into existence God saw his Son as a lamb slain from the foundation of the world, Rev 13:8

 

[salzer mtn]

Here we have the typical, scripture does not mean what it says, defense. God does not bring any charge against the elect. How about all have fallen short of the glory of God. Just read Ephesians 2:1-3 folks.

Calvinism's view of Ephesians 1:4 requires all these other verses to be nullified.

I fall short every day Van, what about you ?

 

[JonC]

Thanks JonC, for actually addressing the issue. I was beginning to lose hope any Calvinist would engage.

1) God, according to Calvinism, elected people as individuals, before and not from, the foundation of the world.

2) If this Calvinism view was correct, then no charge could be brought against the elect. But scripture does bring that charge against individuals before coming to faith. Therefore, either the Calvinism view of Ephesians 1:4 is incorrect (which is my non-cal view) or my understanding of Romans 8:33 is incorrect.

3) Agreed, individual election, conditional or unconditional, would render the person justified before God, and therefore Titus 3:3 precludes individual election before God credits the person's faith as righteousness. We live without mercy, before we receive mercy.

4) JonC, you simply presented the verse but did not say why it does not mean what it says.

Again, Romans 8:33 precludes bringing the Titus 3:3 charges against the elect, therefore we were not elect when we were by nature children of wrath. Thus Calvinism's doctrine of individual election before the foundation of the world is what has been "taken out of context" and misconstrued. What Calvinism does is say they are right about Ephesians 1:4, and all these other scriptures do not mean what they say, including Romans 8:33, 2 Thessalonians 2:13, James 2:5, 1 Corinthians 1:26-30, and so forth and so on.

Thanks for the correction in regards to #1. I do not see that it matters in regards to your argument (as long as one is elected prior to coming to a saving faith). I notice that your argument is specifically against Calvinism…although Arminianism would also fall into the category of believing individual election before the foundation of the earth…or prior to actual salvation as this is really the issue.
I cannot speak for “Calvinism” or for any other believer. So take my understanding with a grain of salt (I don’t claim to have all of the answers, nor do I claim that all of my answers are absolutely correct). I will offer these two observations (for you to take or dismiss at your discernment) (1) When Scripture speaks of the elect it speaks of God’s people “in Christ.” Men do not find themselves in this category until they are in this category (“in Christ”). In short, the elect are those being saved. This does not mean that the elect are not chosen prior to the foundation of the earth. (2) When Scripture speaks of bringing a charge against God’s elect, it is speaking of the elect being “in Christ” with Christ justifying and interceding for the elect. Here I also view the elect as being chosen before salvation actually occurs, but the term “elect” applying to the saved.
Perhaps this does not satisfy the demands of your observation as I can still see how you would have an issue with the “non-saved” elect (which both of us see as an oxymoron). My view is that we are speaking of the same people (those whom God chose) but in different states (saved vs. lost). I’m sure this is clear as mud, and for that I apologize.

 

[Yeshua1]

Here we have the typical, scripture does not mean what it says, defense. God does not bring any charge against the elect. How about all have fallen short of the glory of God. Just read Ephesians 2:1-3 folks.

Calvinism's view of Ephesians 1:4 requires all these other verses to be nullified.

Just your understanding of it needs to be nullified!

We hold that we are justified by the death of Jesus as a definite atonement for our sins, and yet we must also have a time in our lives when Jesus was received thru faith to get saved by God...

What can be clearer than that?