Calvinist/Non-Calvinist - Where exactly am I?

[JonC]

Jonc,

You are avoiding. You've specifically avoided me and that is well noted, as I have called you on things upfront, and as kyredneck has noted this calling out is both Scriptural and profitable. Tucking tail as you have here is unfortunate behavior, and is frankly timidity on your part. This isn't being spiritual, it is being a party spirit.

But you're still in hiding and won't respond. I find that behavior shameful on your part and less than what should be expected by men of God. Please don't excuse this behavior as 'being busy', or as avoiding division, as this is not the case, and, as you've attended to other posts since the former.

Others including myself have called you on your theological contradictions. I see you as one who is politicking, ESPECIALLY to the camp outside of Calvinism while POSING as a Calvinist yourself. I don't see you as even close to being a Monergist as your position is shaky and plays both sides, never settling opon truth.

It is noted that you are incapable of taking rebuke, reproof, and instruction, and are seemingly incapable of responding to being called on your contradictory theological position.

I'm sorry. I didn't see a post directed to me that required a response, but I've been coming and going and simply following the conversation between you and other posters (commenting when I felt I was being addressed).

Yes, Christ is central to the Gospel. This however does not minimize Sovereignty's central place in the Gospel, it actually enhances it as Christ is Himself Sovereign. I believe part of the failure in minimizing Sovereignty in the Gospel reflects a misunderstanding of the person of Christ and shows shades of an anemic 'hollywood' pushover type of Christ that the world embraces. They're in for a rude awakening.

I agree. I believe that some emphasize Divine Sovereignty beyond biblical warrant by placing it as the lens through which the gospel is viewed, but it is certainly a doctrine that, if ignored, has disastrous consequences.

 

[Yeshua1]

I think that men, even today, are condemned because they love the darkness rather than the Light. I am not sure that we differ in the method of that awakening belief – I don’t really know your understanding. I believe that God draws men to Himself (here I believe Scripture is speaking of the elect). God works in the will of men so that they come to faith. I do realize that some believe that God regenerates men so that they believe, and if this is your position then we do differ in that I believe regeneration follows faith.






No, I don’t think that all would be saved as I look at Christ as the atoning Sacrifice, and limit the atonement to speak specifically of His death alone (as a propitiation for the sins of man). Christ’s death as a propitiation for the sins of the whole world (literally) does not equate to the conclusion that all will be saved because we are saved by grace through faith. Singling out Christ’s death to such an extent is an exclusion of faith.



We may hold very similar views here – the difference may be that I am assuming a too narrow of an approach to the Atonement by strictly relating it to the work on the Cross rather than including the resurrection, redemption, and faith.






I don’t think that Christ’s death apart from faith constitutes salvation.



Do you see a difference between atonement and redemption (other than, of course, the subject of those terms)?

Does the faith we place in Chrsit save us, or does the death on the Cross?

can a sinner have faith unless God Himself grants it?

if God has to give it to us to receive jesus, Does He give that gift to all, knowing only some will use it, or is it given to just those He who can and must use it?

 

[JonC]

Jon,

These two sentences are in contradiction to each other. If Christ's work on the cross has potential then its outcome has not been determined. That is the Amyraldian position. In the vernacular this would be described as 4 point Calvinism. Amyraldianism modified Calvinism's teachings on God's decree of universal redemption with no decree for reprobation (McKim).

It would be a contradiction if I did not believe that Christ is central to the doctrine of man – both elect and non-elect. But I believe that those who reject Christ and do not believe (the non-elect) are accountable for their rejection. I also believe that the world will be judged in relation to Christ – not merely their deeds. These views hinge on a universal aspect of Christ’s work on the Cross – not merely for the redemption of those who believe, but also in condemnation for disbelief.

When I say that Christ’s work on the cross has potential, what I mean is that it provides opportunity which is rejected by all men – all are commanded to believe. But this work also has effectual redemption for those who by grace believe.

As an illustration: Spurgeon speaks of a general call and a specific call. I simply believe that the general call is more than a farce – it is a call to genuine salvation but one which none respond out of their own will. The elect respond to the special call as this is God’s drawing the elect to Himself.

 

[JonC]

Does the faith we place in Chrsit save us, or does the death on the Cross?

can a sinner have faith unless God Himself grants it?

if God has to give it to us to receive jesus, Does He give that gift to all, knowing only some will use it, or is it given to just those He who can and must use it?

Does the faith we place in Chrsit save us, or does the death on the Cross?

We are saved by grace through faith. Christ died for my sins, but until I believe I am under condemnation.

can a sinner have faith unless God Himself grants it?

No. This faith is a work of God. Man is in a state of rebellion and relies on his own righteousness (his sinful nature) and will not come to God unless God draws Him to Himself.

if God has to give it to us to receive jesus, Does He give that gift to all, knowing only some will use it, or is it given to just those He who can and must use it?

I believe not. In the model you state here, it is man – not God – who ultimately saves himself. God commands all to repent and believe – but all fail through their own initiative. Yet He draws those who will believe out of this condemnation and to faith in Christ.

 

[Inspector Javert]

I don’t believe that any one theory of atonement is sufficient as alone each is a bit one dimensional and a product, at least to some extent, of our own reasoning. Like you, I think that the true picture is a mix of various positions as each emphasizes an element of the atonement. I have to say that we rely much on our own reasoning when we break it down beyond what is actually present in Scripture - and I find it difficult to be dogmatic when we get to that level.

Yes, something like that.
I imagine the "truth" is something like 50% "Penal Substitution Theory"...30% Anselm's simple "Satisfaction Theory"..15% "Government Theory"...and perhaps 5% "Christus Victor" stuff.

Somewhere around all that, we get an accurate picture.

But I do lean towards the substitutionary atonement view - although I think the use of God holding a ledger is an illustration that some take to encompass far more than is warranted.

Yeah...I can work with that. Sounds about right to me.

It is interesting because in many ways I agree more with Calvin on this issue than some Calvinists. Calvin viewed Christ as the propitiation for the whole world (literally) - but to be fair the actual “scope of the atonement” debate was a post-Calvin issue.

I've heard that. I suppose the true "Limited Atonement" thingy was something Calvin was a bit SLOOOW to fully embrace, and it took the full force of Beza to introduce that.....It's one Heck-a-va pill to swallow, no doubt about that!

Soooo…I’m a mutt, huh? :wavey:

Yes............
Most people are "Mutts"...Embrace the mutt-dom.

 

[Reformed]

It would be a contradiction if I did not believe that Christ is central to the doctrine of man – both elect and non-elect. But I believe that those who reject Christ and do not believe (the non-elect) are accountable for their rejection. I also believe that the world will be judged in relation to Christ – not merely their deeds. These views hinge on a universal aspect of Christ’s work on the Cross – not merely for the redemption of those who believe, but also in condemnation for disbelief.

When I say that Christ’s work on the cross has potential, what I mean is that it provides opportunity which is rejected by all men – all are commanded to believe. But this work also has effectual redemption for those who by grace believe.

As an illustration: Spurgeon speaks of a general call and a specific call. I simply believe that the general call is more than a farce – it is a call to genuine salvation but one which none respond out of their own will. The elect respond to the special call as this is God’s drawing the elect to Himself.

Jon,

Potential without ability is really not potential. Potential is defined as having or showing the capacity to become or develop into something in the future. The reprobate do not possess this ability. The Atonement has this ability in the abstract and only for the elect.

The general call should not be confused with the effectual call. All are called to repent (Acts 17:30), although not all can -- or will. The general call lacks potential because it is never intended for the reprobate, although the reprobate are condemned by it. In a sense it confirms their sinfulness; their reprobation.

 

[JonC]

Jon,
The Atonement has this ability in the abstract and only for the elect.

Would you please expand "in the abstract"?

Thanks.

 

[The Biblicist]

It would be a contradiction if I did not believe that Christ is central to the doctrine of man – both elect and non-elect. But I believe that those who reject Christ and do not believe (the non-elect) are accountable for their rejection. I also believe that the world will be judged in relation to Christ – not merely their deeds. These views hinge on a universal aspect of Christ’s work on the Cross – not merely for the redemption of those who believe, but also in condemnation for disbelief.

When I say that Christ’s work on the cross has potential, what I mean is that it provides opportunity which is rejected by all men – all are commanded to believe. But this work also has effectual redemption for those who by grace believe.

As an illustration: Spurgeon speaks of a general call and a specific call. I simply believe that the general call is more than a farce – it is a call to genuine salvation but one which none respond out of their own will. The elect respond to the special call as this is God’s drawing the elect to Himself.

Jon, how are you doing man? I hope well. Look, most reformed people argue that sufficiency equals efficiency. That is a matter of logic. However, it is true that the atonement of Christ cannot be valued by any amount of fallen creatures as HIs blood is infinite in value. He would have had to shed the same blood to die for one sinner or for quadrillions and thus his worth is infinite and finite creatures no matter how many could not equal the value of His blood. Hence, it is not because His blood was not sufficient to redeem all human beings and demons but it comes down to application.

Now the question before us is in regard to preaching the gospel to sinners whom we have no knowledge are or are not the elect. We preach the gospel universally proclaiming its suffciency to redeem "whosover will" not whomsoever won't. We preach it to all classes, races, genders without distinction. That is not false representation because WE do not know who is and who is not the elect except by response to the gospel, and neither has God told us who are the elect. Hence, we have no business limiting the preaching the gospel but must preach it to all within the perview of our ministry calling "whosover will" may come.

The atonement does have UNIVERSAL consequences because the elect come into this world through non-elect. Hence, the atonement secures the salvation of the elect in their connection with the non-elect securing all the connected consequences unto a predestinated conclusion.

The atonement does have UNIVERSAL application to the WHOLE WORLD in the sense of removing the final penalization due to "one man's sin". No man is judged by the INDIVIDUAL act of Adam but "according to their own works" and so no man is sent to hell on the basis of any other individual's actions but due to their own INDIVIDUAL merits performed in their own individual body.

 

[Reformed]

Would you please expand "in the abstract"?

Thanks.

Sure. The Atonement made satisfaction for sin for the elect. The pronouncement of satisfaction is part of the general call, although it is not a concrete or bona fide offer for the reprobate. That is the abstract part.

For the sake of clarification -- I am not suggesting that the Atonement is not capable of satisfying the sins of all men. It is not a lack of power. It is about intent. The Atonement is meant to satisfy the sins of the elect and only the elect; a group that is known only to God. That is why we preach the Gospel to all men without qualification.

 

[BobRyan]

Thanks EW&F. It has been pointed out to me that the BB is not really the best place to explore or refine one’s views – kyredneck and p4t only verify that point. There are some here who cannot understand how someone can see a valid point in an opposing position, or how someone could entertain the notion a personally held understanding may be incomplete or even incorrect if held as an absolute. ...

But I have been reading this and BobRyan’s follow up thread which had been interesting. My intent was to learn how others would critique and classify my understanding so that I could more objectively evaluate my position. While firm in my belief on this topic, I do believe there is a benefit to re-examining one’s understanding against opposing views. There will always be kyrednecks and p4t’s – especially in antiquated debates such as this, but I think that all in all I have gained much to think about.

Well said sir!

I agree that we should be able to find something in the views of those outside of our own "home group" that is helpful and inspiring.

A number of people here know that I have reference the "Baptist Confession of Faith" the "Westminster Confession of Faith" and D.L. Moody's sermon on the TEN Commandments (available on the internet in typed form) numerous times in responding to various points.

And of course I have dealt with my share of responses directed towards me having a certain level of ad hominem, vitriol, acrimony etc. I assumed this was some part of Baptist Culture in carrying on discussion at least "for some".

In any case I do learn from the experience and find that my views become more refined.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Forget 5 points and focus on one point:

Synergism: the doctrine that the human will cooperates with the Holy Ghost in the work of regeneration.

Monergism: the doctrine that the Holy Ghost acts independently of the human will in the work of regeneration.

"I STAND at the door and knock - if ANYONE hear my voice AND OPENS the door I WILL come in". Rev 3.

Do you define that to be synergism or Monergism?

Looks like Arminianism to me.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Jon, out of curiosity. Do you disagree with limited or definite atonement?

Define Atonement.

If you mean the once for all "Atoning Sacrifice" at the cross. Then it is nondiscriminating unlimtted - "Not for OUR sins but for the sins of the WHOLE WORLD" --

If you mean "the full scope of Day of Atonement" as GOD presents it in Lev 16 - then it must of necessity go beyond Lev 16:15 "Sin offering slain" and encompass ALL of the work of Christ as both sacrifice AND currently as our High Priest in Heaven (Heb 8:1-6) -- a person-by-person individual work according to Heb 9 "cleansing the conscience from dead works".

That work is only for "Whosoever will" that comes to Christ in faith and cooperates with His Word, mission, ministry in repentance, confession, acceptance of the blood of Christ and the full 1John 2 through 1John 3 scope of that work in the born-again believer's life.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

If God chose the individuals He would save before creation, then why would Christ die to become the propitiation for the whole world? Calvinists sometimes make the double payment argument. Why would Christ die for the non-elect if they are going to be punished for their sins in the afterlife?

Now if we turn it around, it makes far better sense. If Christ died for the whole world, then the opportunity for salvation for the whole world has been provided. Thus anyone chosen by God and placed spiritually in Christ undergoes the circumcision of Christ, the sin burden is removed and the sinner is born anew, and rises in Christ a new creation, made alive together with Christ.

That is true - but the C/A discussion asks about things like "limited atonement" and "is it true or not".

And the Bible itself expresses the plan of Salvation -- "Gospel" in God's terms of "Atonement" - and as we see in 1John 2:2 "Atoning Sacrifice".

So once you state the Gospel in the terms of Atonement (which always starts with the sin offering - the cross - the once-for-all sacrifice of Christ for all sins for all time) then ... how did you "define Atonement" and that will determine whether you believe it is "limited or not" and it will define what is meant by that term.

If certain University offers "under grad education for free to all" on a certain set of degrees for their entire state of Rhode Island - will "all be educated"??

If the question is whether the University's facilities and distance-learning program can accommodate the entire state - that can be measured to discover that "all really means all".

But if you mean "Will all be educated - will all get 4 year degrees" in the state of Rhode Island - that answer will be different.

So is it "limited education" or not? Depends on how you define your terms.

Calvinists often know this and so they insist Arminians use the Calvinist's definition. That does not always work out.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[The Biblicist]

That is true - but the C/A discussion asks about things like "limited atonement" and "is it true or not".

And the Bible itself expresses the plan of Salvation -- "Gospel" in God's terms of "Atonement" - and as we see in 1John 2:2 "Atoning Sacrifice".

So once you state the Gospel in the terms of Atonement (which always starts with the sin offering - the cross - the once-for-all sacrifice of Christ for all sins for all time) then ... how did you "define Atonement" and that will determine whether you believe it is "limited or not" and it will define what is meant by that term.

If certain University offers "under grad education for free to all" on a certain set of degrees for their entire state of Rhode Island - will "all be educated"??

If the question is whether the University's facilities and distance-learning program can accommodate the entire state - that can be measured to discover that "all really means all".

But if you mean "Will all be educated - will all get 4 year degrees" in the state of Rhode Island - that answer will be different.

So is it "limited education" or not? Depends on how you define your terms.

Calvinists often know this and so they insist Arminians use the Calvinist's definition. That does not always work out.

in Christ,

Bob

The whole world existed and consisted in the human nature bound up in one man - Adam. That human nature acted when Adam acted when tested and that is why the immediate and temporal consequences of that act are seen in a still born infant in the womb. The infant participated in death because it participated in the act as part of the whole of human nature that existed and acted in one man - Adam.

Christ reconciled the whole world and took away the singular "sin" of the whole world (Jn. 1:29) in that he paid the eternal penalty for the RACE SIN (but not the temporal and immediate consequences of individualized physical sickness and physical death). Dying infants are saved in Christ exactly as they were condemned in Adam. Where sin abounded grace did much more abound. Because Christ removed the eternal penalty by his own death for the RACE SIN, thus all who stand before the Great White judgment seat are condemned only for their own individual choices exercised within their own individual body "according to" their own works. Hence, since dying infants never exercise any such choice or any such works in their own body they do not stand before God to be judged according to THEIR OWN works done in THIER OWN body.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Jon, how are you doing man? I hope well. Look, most reformed people argue that sufficiency equals efficiency. That is a matter of logic. However, it is true that the atonement of Christ cannot be valued by any amount of fallen creatures as HIs blood is infinite in value. He would have had to shed the same blood to die for one sinner or for quadrillions and thus his worth is infinite and finite creatures no matter how many could not equal the value of His blood. Hence, it is not because His blood was not sufficient to redeem all human beings and demons but it comes down to application.

Now the question before us is in regard to preaching the gospel to sinners whom we have no knowledge are or are not the elect. We preach the gospel universally proclaiming its suffciency to redeem "whosover will" not whomsoever won't. We preach it to all classes, races, genders without distinction. That is not false representation because WE do not know who is and who is not the elect except by response to the gospel, and neither has God told us who are the elect. Hence, we have no business limiting the preaching the gospel but must preach it to all within the perview of our ministry calling "whosover will" may come.

The atonement does have UNIVERSAL consequences because the elect come into this world through non-elect. Hence, the atonement secures the salvation of the elect in their connection with the non-elect securing all the connected consequences unto a predestinated conclusion.

The atonement does have UNIVERSAL application to the WHOLE WORLD in the sense of removing the final penalization due to "one man's sin". No man is judged by the INDIVIDUAL act of Adam but "according to their own works" and so no man is sent to hell on the basis of any other individual's actions but due to their own INDIVIDUAL merits performed in their own individual body.

So then tell me Mark if you know why Samuel Rutherford would make the claim that the reprobate has the same warrent to believe on Jesus Christ as does the elect. That has frankly confused me....like what am I missing?

 

[The Biblicist]

So then tell me Mark if you know why Samuel Rutherford would make the claim that the reprobate has the same warrent to believe on Jesus Christ as does the elect. That has frankly confused me....like what am I missing?

Nothing prevents the worst sinner from receiving eternal life but their own free choice to reject it and nothing accounts for the salvation of the elect but the mercy and grace of God in spite of their foreseen rejection (Psa. 14:2-3).

Both act freely in their choice of rejection and reception according to their moral nature. God simply provides a new righteous moral nature for the elect in spite of being equally justly condemned along with the non-elect. There is no just cause that can be found in the elect over the non-elect that makes them deserving of salvation. The cause is found only in the good pleasure of God to be glorfied in the elect by His grace and to be glorified in the non-elect by their just condemnation as both are equally condemned according to their own merits. I am what I am by the grace of God and there go I but by His grace.

 

[kyredneck]

"I STAND at the door and knock - if ANYONE hear my voice AND OPENS the door I WILL come in". Rev 3.

Do you define that to be synergism or Monergism?

Looks like Arminianism to me.....

Lol! No doubt it does, to an Arminian.

 

[preacher4truth]

Lol! No doubt it does, to an Arminian.

The context of that passage is to a church. It is misused and abused as a call to salvation and is taken out of context to do so, it is traditionalist and an misinterpretation. The Warner Sallman picture keeps this arminian/pelagian heresy going. Door knob on inside, man is in control, God cannot do this unless man allows it &c. Benny Hinn, Kenneth Copeland and many others have taken this false idea, free will (God helpless unless we allow Him access) to an extreme.

 

[kyredneck]

....this false idea, free will (God helpless unless we allow Him access) to an extreme.

It is false, and it is extreme as you say; He's certainly not helpless.

 

[Van]

Limited Atonement

That is true - but the C/A discussion asks about things like "limited atonement" and "is it true or not".

And the Bible itself expresses the plan of Salvation -- "Gospel" in God's terms of "Atonement" - and as we see in 1John 2:2 "Atoning Sacrifice".

So once you state the Gospel in the terms of Atonement (which always starts with the sin offering - the cross - the once-for-all sacrifice of Christ for all sins for all time) then ... how did you "define Atonement" and that will determine whether you believe it is "limited or not" and it will define what is meant by that term.

If certain University offers "under grad education for free to all" on a certain set of degrees for their entire state of Rhode Island - will "all be educated"??

If the question is whether the University's facilities and distance-learning program can accommodate the entire state - that can be measured to discover that "all really means all".

But if you mean "Will all be educated - will all get 4 year degrees" in the state of Rhode Island - that answer will be different.

So is it "limited education" or not? Depends on how you define your terms.

Calvinists often know this and so they insist Arminians use the Calvinist's definition. That does not always work out.

in Christ,

Bob

Limited Atonement says Christ died for the elect only and did not die for the whole world. It is not true, because Christ did die for the whole world.

No, the Bible does not express itself in terms of the Atonement, 1 John 2:2 reads "Propitiation" which can be defined as "means of salvation." The Christ became as the once for all sin offering the means of salvation for the whole world.

But this provision, available to all, must be individually applied to us. We must "receive" the reconciliation. And we receive the reconciliation when God credits our faith as righteousness and spiritually places us in Christ.