Calvinists: Best Argument?

None of your choices are Biblical.
John wrote;
1Jn 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
Yet all are not saved. The explanation of the reason, isn't just sin, but what sin is. Sin for all intents and purposes, is a product of rebellion. Of course there is no forgiveness of sin with out repentance. There is no repentance unless we become aware of our sin and, are convicted and convinced, of the truth of the gospel. There can be no regeneration for the man who doesn't repent and believe. We cannot put on the new man until we believe and repent because the new man is the righteousness of Christ that covers our sin.
MB

 

Atonement: Atonement means just what is sounds like: "to make at one" those who formerly were at odds. Atonements has much the same meaning as reconciliation. But teh unique flavor of atonement is its overtone of sacrifice, for it is said over and over again in the Bible, beginning with the sacrificial religion of Israel, that sacrifices make atonement for sin. The author of Hebrews wrote of Jesus the "He to be made like his brother in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people" (Heb 2:17). This verse is particularly telling, for teh chief point of Hebrews is that Jesus really accomplished by his death what the Old Testament sacrifices merely prefigured. They pointed forward to Christ's work. But when Jesus died, atonement actually was made, with the result that it never need to be repeated.

When you put the terms of Propitiation, Reconciliation, and Atonement together, looking at their precise meaning, we see that Jesus did not come merely to make salvation possible, but actually to save His people. He did not come to make redemption possible; He died to redeem His People. He did come to make propitiation possible; He turned aside God's wrath for each of his elect people forever. He did not come to make reconciliation between God and man possible; He actually reconciled to God those whom the Father had given Him. He did not come merely to make atonement for sins possible, but actually to atone for sinners.

Christ work on the Cross ws not a hypothetical salvation for hypothetical believers, but a real and definite salvation for God's own chosen people. A redemption that does not redeem, a propitiation that not propitiate, a reconciliation that does not reconcile, and a atonement that does not aton connot help anybody. But a redemption that redeems, a propitiation that propitiates, a reconciliation that reconciles, and an atonement that atones reveal a most amazing grace on God's part and fraw us to rest in Him and in His completed work, rather than our own.

 

Were those in the OT saved by animal sacrifice (atonement)? Atonement is legal payment for sin...it's not salvation, else faith is unnecessary.

 

Webdog,

I know I'm jumping in...I think you are much more biblically-savvy than your above statement shows. Please allow me to explain:

1. OT persons were not saved by animal sacrifice. Hebrews: 10:1-4 For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same sacrifices that are continually offered every year, make perfect those who draw near. 2 Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, since the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have any consciousness of sins? 3 But in these sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year. 4 For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.
2. OT persons were saved by faith. Romans 4:1-3 What then shall we say was gained by Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh? 2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.”

So, it was not the sacrificial system that saved. Many Israelites did not offer sacrifices by faith and they were not forgiven for merely doing the dictates of the sacrificial system. (See the entire corpus of the Prophets)

In some way, the sacrifices did something, but only in pre-light of the cross. Had the cross never been a consideration, the OT sacrificial system would have done nothing.

So, even in the OT it is a matter of faith, not what was done only. The sacrificial obligations had to be done by faith in order for the sacrifice to have any atoning meaning--a meaning which would only prefigure the cross.

Also, there are two aspects to salvation--Justification (the legal term) and our righteous standing. Justification refers to Jesus' atoning payment on the cross on our behalf. When we accept Christ, we are justified (no sin on our account is counted against us because Christ has paid it, as our substitute, in our place).

But, that only gives us a "neutral" standing at best. Which is why we must have Christ's righteousness imputed to us. Because we have His righteousness, we can be in righteous standing before God, not by anything we've done, but because of Christ's perfect life--imputed to us.

I hope this helps to clarify, I don't mean to be adversarial.

Many Blessings,

The Archangel

 

I never said they OT saints were saved by the sacrifice of the animals.

Just to let all know the arguments presented in my post are found the book "The Doctrins of Grace" by James Montgomery Boice. A very blessed man of the Lord. RIP.

I have yet to quote Warfield, S. Augustine, Martin Luther, Ulrich Zwingli, Tyndale, John Knox, Thomas Cartwright, Richard Sibbes, John Owen, John Bunyan, Matthew Henry, Thomas Boson, Jonathan Edwards, Cotton Mather, and George Whitefield, all of whom were Calvinists.

No I have not forgoten one of the greatest Baptist Preachers ever, C.H. Spurgen.

All of whom have said the very same things that I have posted here. The three choices, and all. Un-Biblicle? I think not.

 

I figured that was coming. I was thinking about posting it myself when I got the time. Does it have a name, like Owen's Razor or something? If not, we need to give it a name.

Edit: Come to think of it, didn't Owens call it the "Arminian's Delimma"?

 

If they are biblical, (meaning in the Bible), then you should be able to show us in scripture.
Spurgeon wasn't great. God is great, and I give no honor to anyone but the only one who deserves it,,,,,, God.
MB

 

My question was rhetorical in nature...but thanks

 

I'm not real interested what others have written pertaining the atonement, but rather your previous post which reads "atonement = salvation", and that is why Christ's atonement was only for the elect. Atonement is the legal payment to satisfy God for our sin. It is not salvation.

 

Wow your not real interested in what other have written. These are pastors and great evangilist of our time, and Gods word says they are worth double honor.

I will drop out of this debate for a while in the interest of keeping peacfull with my brother.

 

Hi friends,
I really love this discussion. It opens things up and forces me to examine scripture. Not to mention, it causes me to pray for guidance.
I am a supporter of total depravity, but I still feel that it comes later, not at birth.
I have a few interesting questions:
When does God write the law in their heart?
Does the Bible specify?
Are we sure it is when we are born?
Could it not be when God speaks to us the first time?

Sometimes, we may be guilty of assumeing too much.

As for Romans 7:9, When the commandment came, sin revived. This means sin recovered. If we are born spiritually dead, what did sin have to recover from? The wages of sin is death, if sin revived or recovered, doesn't that mean it brings forth death? Until then, it (sin) is unable to bring forth anything.

Also, think of this. If we are born spiritually dead, why would Christ say this:
Mat 18:3 Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

I love it that He said "little children". This is not specifying any one child, it covers them all. If the guilt of sin reigned in their hearts, if they were spiritually dead, then Jesus is telling them that they must convert their dead spirit to the dead spirit of little children in order to enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Another passage to consider, Col 1:20: And, having made peace through the blood of His cross, by Him to reconcile all things unto Himself; by Him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.

Christ did it all. We messed it up. Like I said earlier, I am a firm believer of total depravity, I just disagree with the Calvin theology of when it begins.

BTW, LORDs_strateuo wrote:

A BIG AMEN!! I didn't know John Piper said it, but I have stolen his thought many times. I can truly rejoice in what you have shared.

 

What is realy interesting all the other points of Calvinism is built upon total depravity. If you accept total depravity its a natural leading course to agree with the other four.

C.H. Spergeon once said " I have my own private opinion that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified unless we preach what is nowadays called Calvinism. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the Gospel and nothing else. I do not believe we can preach the Gospel...unless we preach teh sovereignty of God in His dispensation of grace; nor unless we exalt the electing, unchangeable, eternal, immutalbe, conquering love of Jehovah; nor do I think we can preach the Gospel unless we base it upon the special and particular redemption of his elect and chosen people which Christ wrought out upon the cross; nor can I comprehend the Gospel which allows saints to fall away after they are called.

 

This is so true. Also, if you do not accept total depravity, it can lead you to the other 4 points of the arminian view.
Total depravity is scripture. Calvin was right on this point. He just missed when it starts.

 

That's the heart of the matter: Is Total Inability to come to God on man's own scriptural?

 

Hi TCGreek,

The matter is the heart and the heart is the matter.
It is scriptural that man, on his own, will not seek God.

 

Outsider,

I love your play on words in stating the heart of the matter. :thumbs:

 

TC,
A good brother told me that one time and it stuck :laugh:

 

Well that's a good to let stick. :thumbs:

 

Webdog,

Sorry about jumping in on your rhetorical question. Your above statement has peaked my interest.

You say that Atonement does not equal salvation. So, then, how would you define each (well, you've said atonement is the legal payment...I get that)--how would you define salvation?

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

Historical Arminianism holds to Total depravity, Outsider. It is prevenient grace that bridges the gap.
Also Historical Arminianism is a modified view of Calvinism since Justis Arminius was a Calvinist BEFORE he modified his personal view and teachings after a close study of Romans as well as other books of the bible. It was his followers that took it further than the original or historical view.