Calvinism - TULIP - "L"imited Atonement

[Allan]

You do not rebut the fact, you simply claim I do not understand - the problem is - you don't like what I understand.

There is no "another's view" - I am simply taking your logic to it's end - reductio ad absurdum.

Yes, logic built upon a false premise constructed from your misunderstanding most definately leads one to an absurd conclusion.

You need to study more and actaully listen to what others are telling you and not tell others what they hold. It will benifit your understanding greatly.

 

[Allan]

What?
The mention of Ryrie and the two posts connected with him are the only times in this thread I cited anyone.
[quote ]

You did not cite him as in documented the source, you quoted someone in posts 46 and 47 and only cited him in post 50 after I asked you to identify him.

Actually I was 'citing' him but in my haste to type I left off his name, so technically it was not a 'cite' but the intent was to 'cite' him.

Hmm, the "only times in this thread I cited anyone"?!

For the record :

Vincent #4
Matthew Henry #26
John MacArthur #27,28 and 29
John Gill #29

You're getting a little forgetful in your youth.You have to keep better track of things Allan.

Very true. I assumed this was one of JD's thread I hadn't posted in much but your correction is true and noted. Thank you.

 

[jdlongmire]

Yes, logic built upon a false premise constructed from your misunderstanding most definately leads one to an absurd conclusion.

You need to study more and actaully listen to what others are telling you and not tell others what they hold. It will benifit your understanding greatly.

- if you are a synergist - and you are based on your posts - then what I stated holds for your view.

You believe that some people will "get it" and choose God, then be saved, thus effectively making them more "fit" for salvation in and of themselves - all other things being equal.

Darwinian salvation.

I am sorry if you don't like what I am saying, but that is the net effect of what you believe based on what you have posted.

 

[Allan]

- if you are a synergist - and you are based on your posts - then what I stated holds for your view.

You believe that some people will "get it" and choose God, then be saved, thus effectively making them more "fit" for salvation in and of themselves - all other things being equal.

Darwinian salvation.

I am sorry if you don't like what I am saying, but that is the net effect of what you believe based on what you have posted.

Keep telling yourself that but it wont change to a truth.

So I guess this concludes any debating with you that isn't condesending by nature nor a 'let me tell you what you beleive' childishness. I must say you have a long way to go in understanding the non-cal view and it would benifit you to read it from non-cals so you actaully grasp their understanding of certain issues. I might not agree with Calvinism due to it's some of it's biblical inconsistancies but I at least have respect towards it and those who do as well.

It was fun - for a while.

 

[Rippon]

Allan, you either are a monergist, or a synergist. Which is it? I think you belong to the latter group unless you change your theology.You may want to distance yourself from the Synergistic Camp, but you're still among that number. If I am wrong, then please explain your change of heart.You believe people have to make a choice based on their own volition, right?So, it's up to them, they turn the key. They hold the power of their own regeneration.You don't want God deciding for you because that smacks too much of Him 'forcing' you into His Kingdom.

Okay, I'm waiting for"As a matter of fact..." from you.

 

[jdlongmire]

Keep telling yourself that but it wont change to a truth.

So I guess this concludes any debating with you that isn't condesending by nature nor a 'let me tell you what you beleive' childishness. I must say you have a long way to go in understanding the non-cal view and it would benifit you to read it from non-cals so you actaully grasp their understanding of certain issues. I might not agree with Calvinism due to it's some of it's biblical inconsistancies but I at least have respect towards it and those who do as well.

It was fun - for a while.

Allan, I simply presented the logical conclusion to your doctrinal position. If I am mistaken, take the premise I extracted:

"Some men have the capability in and of themselves to chose salvation and others do not - all other salvific criteria being equal."

...and help me understand how I have misunderstood.

 

[Allan]

Allan, I simply presented the logical conclusion to your doctrinal position. If I am mistaken, take the premise I extracted:

"Some men have the capability in and of themselves to chose salvation and others do not - all other salvific criteria being equal."

...and help me understand how I have misunderstood.

It is a conclusion based upon a false premise and is constructed through a misunderstanding of that position.

First, your conclusion made was in relation to 'logical end' of unlimited atonement being that all men would be saved. False. Your taking your definition and applying to anothers view thus you have a false premise from the beginning. Your misunderstanding constructs a false view to which you accuse others of believing when in fact it is a view of your own making.

Secondly "all men have the 'capability' to choose".

And thirdly,here is your understanding of synergism as related below from another thread:

Allen, RevM - not trying to degrade or misrepresent. Spurgeon's quote is meant to be a gross caricature of the synergist position, because no truly regenerate person would dare express this...except...

Synergism, by it's self definition goes against "salvation belongs to the Lord" - so it is hard for monergists to get around what seems to us a Man-centered or Man-glorifying doctrine.

For my salvation, I boast in Christ alone, by grace alone, through faith alone for the glory of God alone through truth revealed in Scripture alone.

The synergist does not agree with this since they add "along with something of mine"...

Based upon the above I am not a synergist.

 

[Allan]

. They hold the power of their own regeneration.You don't want God deciding for you because that smacks too much of Him 'forcing' you into His Kingdom.

As a matter of fact..

See my previous post.

 

[jdlongmire]

Based upon the above I am not a synergist.

What you are saying and the doctrine you ascribe to are not consistent.

If you believe that all Men have within themselves the ability to chose or not chose God unto salvation, all other salvific elements being equal, then you are a synergist.

If you believe that God owns and directs the salvation process from beginning to end, including enabling His children with the ability to chose Christ unto salvation, then you are a monergist.

There is no middle ground.

I am just trying to understand your consistent position.

 

[webdog]

Allan, you either are a monergist, or a synergist. Which is it? I think you belong to the latter group unless you change your theology.You may want to distance yourself from the Synergistic Camp, but you're still among that number. If I am wrong, then please explain your change of heart.You believe people have to make a choice based on their own volition, right?So, it's up to them, they turn the key. They hold the power of their own regeneration.You don't want God deciding for you because that smacks too much of Him 'forcing' you into His Kingdom.

Okay, I'm waiting for"As a matter of fact..." from you.

Scripture for us needing to be EITHER a monergist or synergist? I'm both to an extent. That is what Scripture teaches...so I'll stick with that.

 

[webdog]

What you are saying and the doctrine you ascribe to are not consistent.

If you believe that all Men have within themselves the ability to chose or not chose God unto salvation, all other salvific elements being equal, then you are a synergist.

If you believe that God owns and directs the salvation process from beginning to end, including enabling His children with the ability to chose Christ unto salvation, then you are a monergist.

There is no middle ground.

I am just trying to understand your consistent position.

For debate purposes, it would help to get your definitioins of monergism and synergism correct before stating there is no middle ground.

 

[Allan]

What you are saying and the doctrine you ascribe to are not consistent.

If you believe that all Men have within themselves the ability to chose or not chose God unto salvation, all other salvific elements being equal, then you are a synergist.

If you believe that God owns and directs the salvation process from beginning to end, including enabling His children with the ability to chose Christ unto salvation, then you are a monergist.

There is no middle ground.

I am just trying to understand your consistent position.

First off, I am consistant just not to a Calvinistic doctrine nor to a Calvinsts defintion of what I believe.

Point of fact: The term synergist or synergism was brought into being by those in Calvinism to try to describe anothers views.

John Hendryx states it it this way (from wiki):

Synergism is "...the doctrine that there are two efficient agents in regeneration, namely the human will and the divine Spirit, which, in the strict sense of the term, cooperate. This theory accordingly holds that the soul has not lost in the fall all inclination toward holiness, nor all power to seek for it under the influence of ordinary motives." [1]

A couple of notes here.
1. His statement actually relates more to the Pelagain view if not to the semi-Pel view as well, of which the majority of Non-Cals do not share. Thus it is apparent it does not apply to the non-Cal position.

2. The non-Cals do not hold that man has any power 'to seek' for regeneration under the influence of 'ordinary motives'. Man can only come to God by God direct intervention and revelation thus he can not seek regeneration of nor by himself. If 'ordinary' is defined by God moving upon him and revealing truth - then we may need to look at this defintion again.

3. I purposely skipped the first part of the sentence to be dealt with here because it is only partially true but partially twisted unlike the other two points.
...3a. Man in the fall 'did loose' all desire toward holiness and in darkness never sought it not knowing what it was or that he needed it. However by moving of God via His Spirit to convict and reveal truth man can see and know that which was afore unknown to him. Not that man seeks after it like knowledge or treasure but that man knows truth because of God.

His understanding of what constitutes synergism is applicable only to the Pel and semi-Pel groups. Non-Cals are niether soterologically.

Another definition from wiki is put this way in more general terms:

Synergism.. may be defined as two or more agents working together to produce a result not obtainable by any of the agents independently.

This definition however places the Calvinist into the synergist position since no man is saved by God unless that man believes. God does not save man independant of man or without mans input. Man must accept/believe in order to be saved. Regardless of the fact that in the Calvinistic understanding God regenerates him first, gives him faith 'to believe with', and even gives him a new nature - God still 'will not' save him until he believes. Calvinist requires the same cooperation that the non-cals state.

However that fact of the matter is that God alone saves man, God alone draws man, God alone regenerates man, and God alone is the means of mans faith unto salvation.

Thus the Non-Cal also states:
"For my salvation, I boast in Christ alone, by grace alone, through faith alone for the glory of God alone through truth revealed in Scripture alone."

 

[jdlongmire]

ok - I am tired of going in circles on this. You clearly aren't sure what you are and are unwilling to take a stand on your doctrinal position (or you don't really understand it).

I am done for now - let's do this another time on an another thread.

Feel free to have the last word. :wavey:

 

[Allan]

ok - I am tired of going in circles on this. You clearly aren't sure what you are and are unwilling to take a stand on your doctrinal position (or you don't really understand it).

I am done for now - let's do this another time on an another thread.

Feel free to have the last word. :wavey:

You clearly don't understand the Doctrinal position of the non-Calvinist.

I know my doctrinal position and have soundly stood it by trying to show you your misunderstandings and false presumptions.

I will not however pretend I am something I am not nor will I acquiesce to being placed into a position that defines Pelagain and Semi-Pelagian views.