Can God Recall Without Denying Himself?

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Link: The Bible does not teach that when we put our faith in Christ, God forgives our future sins. Some preachers preach that.

HP: That is a foundational teaching of any and all that hold to a literal payment theory. Believing that all sins have been literally paid for on the cross for the elect, all that is left for us to do is to accept the fact that such is the case. Salvation for one holding to the literal payment theory is the time that they come to the realization of what has really been the case all along, they just now are fully cognizant of it. They finally realize that Christ has already forgiven all their past present and future sin on the cross two thousand years ago, but today, i.e.the day they ‘receive salvation,’ they come to recognize and believe it is true an applies to them personally.

I believe you would be shocked as to how many Calvinistic and Baptist teachers and preachers accept that to be the case. If by chance there is one on the list that does not believe in the literal payment theory, I would certainly like to hear from them. Would there be one out there that could prove me wrong?

 

[BobRyan]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavenly Pilgrim
What a Calvinist calls belief is nothing more than a necessitated impulse from God

that is true for 4 and 5 point Calvinists -- not 3 point calvinists.

But going along with what you are saying - they teach in fact "arbitrary selection" for God picking-and-choosing such that the FEW of Matt 7 are the only ones he actually saves.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

My view on "literal payment".

Each sin has a specific defined amount of payment - torment such that those guilty of great sin owe MUCH in the torments and fires of the second death and those who commit less sin owe LESS.

(Luke 12:45-49) Some owe MANY lashes some FEW.

45 ""But if that slave says in his heart, "My master will be a long time in coming,' and begins to beat the slaves, both men and women, and to eat and drink and get drunk;
46 the master of that slave will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he does not know, and will cut him in pieces, and assign him a place with the unbelievers.

47 ""And that slave who knew his master's will and did not get ready or act in accord with his will, will receive many lashes,
48 but the one who did not know it, and committed deeds worthy of a flogging, will receive but few[/b]. From everyone who has been given much, much will be required; and to whom they entrusted much, of him they will ask all the more.
49 ""I have come to cast fire upon the earth; and how I wish it were already kindled!


Christ took the exact TOTAL amount OWED for ALL sins of ALL mankind for ALL of time. And His sufferings and toremnts on the cross (supernatural in fact) were sufficient to cover ALL that was owed.

That is the "Atoning Sacrifice" 1John 2:2 John speaks of.

That is the sacrifice "ONCE for ALL" spoken of in Heb 10 and Titus 3.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavenly Pilgrim
What a Calvinist calls belief is nothing more than a necessitated impulse from God

BR: that is true for 4 and 5 point Calvinists -- not 3 point calvinists.

But going along with what you are saying - they teach in fact "arbitrary selection" for God picking-and-choosing such that the FEW of Matt 7 are the only ones he actually saves.

HP: Why is it not true for what you call three point Calvinists? Does a three pointer believe in original sin? If so, they are dead, i.e., completely unable to resond in and of themselves, and MUST be granted a necessitated impulse of regeneration to do anything. Deep down even Arminians would more than likely beleive very close to this. They might term it different, but hold to basically th esame idea. They call it 'prevenient' (sp) grace, do they not?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

BR: Each sin has a specific defined amount of payment - torment such that those guilty of great sin owe MUCH in the torments and fires of the second death and those who commit less sin owe LESS.

(Luke 12:51-58) Some owe MANY lashes some FEW.

Christ took the exact TOTAL amount OWED for ALL sins of ALL mankind for ALL of time. And His sufferings and toremnts on the cross (supernatural in fact) were sufficient to cover ALL that was owed.

HP: I see that as utterly impossible as unscriptural. His sufferings and death was a substitutionary sacrifice, not a literal payment. Christ, by His vicarious sacrifice, stands between God and the law, and satisfies the demands of the law on behalf of sinful man.

I believe you change the Scriptural penalty for sin to something other than what Scripture states it is, i.e., eternal separation from God.

BR: That is the "Atoning Sacrifice" 1John 2:2 John speaks of.

1Jo 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

HP: This verse does not lend itself in the least to any literal payment of the sin debt in the sense that you are trying to make it. This verse implies nothing as to the litral payment of suffering or punishment due. It speaks to the atonement of Christ being sufficient and standing able to satisfy the debt of any and all sinners who will fulfill the conditions God has mandated. If it was a literal payment as you indicate, God would be punishing the wicked in the end for sins that already had been paid for. That is simply not the case. God does not practice double jeopardy. Besides being wrong, it would be a wasteful economy.

 

[BobRyan]

1 John 2:2 "He is the Atoning SACRIFICE for our SINS and not for our sins only but for THE SINS of the whole world".

the sense of the text leads directly to "Sacrifice FOR sins".

In the scripture used by the NT saints - they would be taught that sins incur debt and that the debt is paid via sacrifice.

I know we may differ here - but that looks like a pretty direct statement from scripture to me.

The substitutionary atoning death of Christ IN OUR PLACE taking the "stripes DUE to us" (Is 53) is payment for the debt WE owe. Substitutionary (instead of us paying it.)

Col 2 tells us that the law creates a "certificate of debt" (a speeding ticket with penalty owed if you will) and that this exact debt of payment - this "decree" stating our exact sins and the exact debt owed - is what was paid by Christ at the cross. "our certificate of debt" was nailed to the Cross.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavenly Pilgrim
What a Calvinist calls belief is nothing more than a necessitated impulse from God



HP: Why is it not true for what you call three point Calvinists? Does a three pointer believe in original sin? If so, they are dead, i.e., completely unable to resond in and of themselves, and MUST be granted a necessitated impulse of regeneration to do anything. Deep down even Arminians would more than likely beleive very close to this. They might term it different, but hold to basically th esame idea. They call it 'prevenient' (sp) grace, do they not?

Three point Calvinists argue that God loves ALL, died for ALL and tries to reach ALL but that some CHOOSE not to accept the Gospel. They do not believe in irresistible grace that forces an arbitrarily select FEW among the lost to accept salvation.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

BR: Three point Calvinists argue that God loves ALL, died for ALL and tries to reach ALL but that some CHOOSE not to accept the Gospel. They do not believe in irresistible grace that forces an arbitrarily select FEW among the lost to accept salvation.

HP: I can certainly appreciate any and all that would deny irresistible grace, arbitrary selection, double predestination, and a gospel NOT offered to whosoever will. Salute! :thumbs:

What I cannot understand, is how, holding to the Augustinian/Calvinistic doctrine of original sin, they cannot see that although they are right on one hand holding truth which is at antipodes with the Calvinistic system, while at the same time they remain holding firmly in their other hand the very foundational principle from which that they desire to distance themselves receives its very impetus of existence. Again it is none other than the Augustinian/Calvinistic dogma of original sin.

They falsely place the root of sin in the constitution of the flesh as opposed to the will, and make men possess an evil, sinful, and immoral state and that from birth. In doing so they have logically affirmed the notions of arbitrary selection, irresistible grace at least to a degree, double predestination, and a gospel intended only for a select few.

I can hear you now saying, I hold to original sin yet do not believe the things that you are suggesting logic necessitates. Oh, but you have manufactured an unscriptural notion that all have, and must receive, an equal opportunity of hearing the salvation message. That is flatly a manufactured an unscriptural notion, one that not only manufactures ideas out of thin air, but ignores the clear Biblical account of God’s choice of those to whom the salvation message was centered and granted all but exclusively to for at least four thousand years, and that just for starters.

There is one reason and one reason only I can see for the manufacturing of such a notion, and that is to somehow make it appear that God is Just in His condemnation of the ungodly that are said to have been born in sin. God truth, and justice, needs no such help. What God does need is that the truth of the state we are born into consistently upheld, and the truth concerning sin and its heinousness proclaimed even as Scripture and reason clearly testifies to. God does need us to admit and proclaim that we are indeed willing rebels and not simply the victims of our circumstances.

If sin is brought upon us as if it was a natural contagion as Augustine foisted upon the Church, no sinner could possibly be blamed for his or her condition, and would we humans would be a race to be pitied not blamed ad punished. Scripture clearly informs us otherwise.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

BR: Three point Calvinists argue that God loves ALL, died for ALL and tries to reach ALL but that some CHOOSE not to accept the Gospel. They do not believe in irresistible grace that forces an arbitrarily select FEW among the lost to accept salvation.

HP: Is there any on the list that consider themselves as a three pointer that would be willing to lay out your views for the list?

If not, can anyone give me an idea as to where these three pointers might be found? Is there a denomination or group that claims to hold to just these thee points and no more?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Again, we have those evidently called 'three point Calvinists' that do not believe in irresistible grace. This again to me is simply amazing, in that every Calvinist or Baptist I have met or read, has stated or implied they believe in the literal payment theory. Prove me wrong. Is there one solitary Baptist or Calvinist that does not hold to the literal payment theory?

How can one state that they believe that Christ made a literal payment for their sins two thousand years ago and deny irresistible grace? Are they going to tell me that some of the sins Christ paid for the elect are somehow not going to be atoned for or that the atonement was less than able to accomplish its intended ends due to man saying, “I don’t want the forgiveness you paid for me on the cross” two thousand years after it was sign sealled and delivered that their sins were no more???

Either the literal payment theory is clearly in error, or they are completely inconsistent in trying to inject free will into a system that cannot allow such to exist. Which is it? Me thinks there is a fly in the soup of this ‘three point’ business.

 

[Link]

What does a one point Calvinist believe?

Btw, if you only hold to three points, why call yourself a Calvinist? Why call yourself a Calvinist anyway?

Btw, has anyone here ever had a Calvation experience when they converted to Calvinism?

 

[Martin]

What makes you believe that Calvinists believe that all may come?

==All may come, but only the elect will come (Jn 6:37,44).

Possibly you need to ask a real Calvinist what the implications of being one of the elect and not being one of the elect really means.

==Not being one of the elect means you remain in your sin and in your unbelief and, finally, it means that you are judged for your sins. Being one of the elect means you recieve the gift of grace that you don't deserve (Eph 2:8-9).

How long has it been since you read the confessions you say you believe in? Do you need one to explain to yu the implications of this statement?

==I have a whole book/collection of major baptist confessions which, it may interest you, has confessions from both general and particular baptists. I know what the Second London Confession says and what the Southern Baptist Abstract of Principles says. I believe both are Scriptural.

No whosoever will in that confession statement.

==The gospel message goes out to the whole world and anyone who will respond will be saved, yet only the elect respond. The non-elect will not respond to the gospel message.

No salvation for all there. No possibility of salvation for any other than a select few according to this quote.

==First, as I already pointed out from Scripture, it is clear that only a few will be saved. Second, the non-elect do not come to Christ and do not desire to come to Christ. They will not believe. So whether you believe in Calvinism or not, there is no salvation offer for such people (Heb 10:26-31). All unsaved people, even the elect before salvation, are dead in their sins, spiritually dead, and dead things don't desire. Their mind is set on the things of the flesh, on the things of the world, they are enemies of God and do not desire His Truth, Salvation, or Fellowship. Lost people are children of the devil and do the things that come from that, they are naturally children of wrath (Eph 2:1-3, 1Jn 3:9-10, Rom 1:18-32, 3:9-20, 8:5-8). God is not required to have mercy on one sinner. He has mercy on those He chooses to have mercy and He draws them to Himself as an act of grace (Jn 6:37, 17:2, Rom 9:15-18). Jesus' death made this act of grace a reality for those who are God's elect(Jn 10:11,17, Heb 9:11-14). Jesus died for His sheep, He did not die for goats.

Where was the ‘whosoever’ you speak of mentioned? Again, whosoever is obviously a code word for a select few to the Calvinist.

==Whosoever wants to come to Christ can. Why? Because nobody seeks the true God on their own (Rom 3:10-12) nobody can come to Christ apart from the Father drawing them (Jn 6:44). The elect, those the Father has given to the Son, are drawn to the Son, come to the Son, and given eternal life (Jn 6:37, 17:2). The non-elect refuse to do so (Jn 10:26).

Justice never condemns men for an unavoidable fate, a fate designed by God Himself

==Are you denying that people are born in sin? That men are naturally children of wrath?

Where do any of these verses state that men are born sinners?

==Well I did not mention it in that particular list but Eph 2:3 says that people are "by nature children of wrath". People are are born in a sinful state. That is why they are "children of wrath". Unsaved people, those who are not "born again", are "of the devil" (1Jn 3:4-10), their minds are set "on the things of the flesh" (Rom 8:5-8) and therefore they can do nothing to please God (Rom 8:8). That is the natural state of man until he/she is born of God and God's Spirit indwells the person (Rom 8:9-10).

So we are talking about the natural state of man before salvation. Where did that natural state come from? Do people just wake up one day and, boom!, they are in that natural state? If so, when? Scripture? Or are people born in that natural state? That seems to be the teaching of Scripture. We are born in sin (Ps 51:5, Ps 58:3, Job 15:14).

You have the condition and results exactly backwards. Man is a sinner because he sins just as Scripture clearly states, “For all have sinned.”

==No sir, you have it backwards. Sin is not outside in, it is inside out. Sin starts in the heart and not in the actions (Matt 15:15-20). People sin because of their nature (1Jn 3:8,10). Why have all sinned? Because all are born in the natural (sinful) state that resulted from the fall (Rom 5:12-17).

That is exactly what Calvinism implies. There is no place in Scripture that supports such a notion.

==How does Calvinism imply that people are not responsible for their actions? I know of no Calvinist, or Calvinist confession, that states or implies such a thing.

Where do you get the notion that if it is impossible to do anything other than sin, man is blameworthy?

==Scripture states clearly that God will judge people for their sin. Scripture NEVER excuses people from judgment simply because they are acting according to their sinful nature.

Where do you get that Scripture blames man for failure to believe when th fact is according to the Calvinist, only a select few are granted the ability to believe? Some justice that represents.

==Where do you get the idea that more than a few will be saved?

Show me where I am wrong.

==I have done so, but I will not continue to do so. I don't like going in circles and I am a busy person. Notice that every major point I make is backed up with Scripture. I don't see that in your posts. All I see in your posts/replies are questions, assumptions, and humanism mixed with some form of pelagianism.

I noticed in your profile that you are attending a Southern Baptist Church. Are you aware of the fact that Southern Baptists believe in original sin, a doctrine you seem to be denying?

From the Southern Baptist Statement of Faith: Section III, Man:

"In the beginning man was innocent of sin and was endowed by his Creator with freedom of choice. By his free choice man sinned against God and brought sin into the human race. Through the temptation of Satan man transgressed the command of God, and fell from his original innocence whereby his posterity inherit a nature and an environment inclined toward sin. Therefore, as soon as they are capable of moral action, they become transgressors and are under condemnation. Only the grace of God can bring man into His holy fellowship and enable man to fulfill the creative purpose of God."

It also states:

"Election is the gracious purpose of God, according to which He regenerates, justifies, sanctifies, and glorifies sinners. It is consistent with the free agency of man, and comprehends all the means in connection with the end. It is the glorious display of God's sovereign goodness, and is infinitely wise, holy, and unchangeable. It excludes boasting and promotes humility."

While not very strong, it is clearly not in agreement with your position. Neither statements are. So, may I ask you a question? Why are you attending a church that you clearly disagree with on so many points?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Martin: All may come, but only the elect will come (Jn 6:37,44).

HP: Stated in typical Calvinistic jargon, intended to confuse the listener as to what he really believes.

Let me as you Martin, how can one come who has been denied the abilities to come and who is not one of the elect? Your “All may come” is as hollow as a ham hanging from the ceiling having been ate by rats. Why hide your true sentiments behind such deceptive statements?

Martin: Not being one of the elect means you remain in your sin and in your unbelief and, finally, it means that you are judged for your sins. Being one of the elect means you recieve the gift of grace that you don't deserve (Eph 2:8-9).

HP That is once again Calvinistic confusion as to what you really believe. What do you mean being left in or being judged for ‘your sins?’ How can being born a sinner be any more ‘your sins’ or fault? Those sins were someone else’s that you claim are transplanted to the other by physical generation. Why don’t you say you are being judged for Adams sin. That is precisely what you believe, is it not? Would you believe that man should be judged for the color of ones hair or skin? It makes as much sense as to be judged a sinner due to Adam’s sin. It is not only wrong but it is in direct contradiction to the Word of God. Eze 18:20 “The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.”

Martin: The gospel message goes out to the whole world and anyone who will respond will be saved, yet only the elect respond. The non-elect will not respond to the gospel message.

HP: Away with the pretense. God has withheld the needed abilities to respond according to you. The non-elect never had a chance in the world to be something they were not predestined to be, again according to what you really believe. Who do you think cannot see through the facade of language you use to conceal your true sentiments?

 

[BobRyan]

They falsely place the root of sin in the constitution of the flesh as opposed to the will, and make men possess an evil, sinful, and immoral state and that from birth.

You yourself do almost the same thing when you talk about "evil propensities to sin" as being the sinful nature. When you state that Adam and Chist were not created/born with those evil propensities toward sin and yet we all ARE born with them - what is the difference?

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

BR: You yourself do almost the same thing when you talk about "evil propensities to sin" as being the sinful nature. When you state that Adam and Chist were not created/born with those evil propensities toward sin and yet we all ARE born with them - what is the difference?

HP: The same difference that exists between any simple temptation and the actual transgression. Here is James explaining it. Jas 1:13 ¶ Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:
14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.
16 Do not err, my beloved brethren.

PS: I never have stated that Christ was born without any natural propensities to sin. Where did you get that?

 

[BobRyan]

I do not challenge your claim that we are born with inward sinful tendancies to evil. My question is - how does that differ with what you charge Calvinists with on the issue of depravity of the sinful nature.

 

[Martin]

Those sins were someone else’s that you claim are transplanted to the other by physical generation. Why don’t you say you are being judged for Adams sin.

==Nobody goes to hell because of Adam's sin. People are born with sinful natures since Adam is their father (Rom 5:12-21). I explained the basic idea of how that relates to behavior in my last reply.

Away with the pretense. God has withheld the needed abilities to respond according to you. The non-elect never had a chance in the world to be something they were not predestined to be, again according to what you really believe. Who do you think cannot see through the facade of language you use to conceal your true sentiments?

==Pretense? I have drawn each of my major arguments from Scripture. Examine my last reply to you here:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1098863&postcount=32

Then look at your reply. I am allowing Scripture to speak for itself, you are just giving me your opinions. Why don't you deal with this issue via Scripture?

Btw, I am still awaiting your answer about the Southern Baptist issue I raised at the end of my last reply.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

BR: I do not challenge your claim that we are born with inward sinful tendancies to evil. My question is - how does that differ with what you charge Calvinists with on the issue of depravity of the sinful nature.

HP: The Calvinist, and many others, including the Arminians, believe that we are born morally depraved, sinful from birth, born in sin. Although the Arminians try to soften this by stating that the guilt of Adams sin is not actually what God charges against us, they still feel that we could not have any possibility of being anything other than a sinner. In this they eliminate free will, although they try hard to uphold free will.

I do not believe the will can be born ‘morally depraved,’ for if it was, all morality would be a mere chimera, for morality involves choice. No choice, no morality. It is absurd to me to predicate morality, which of necessity involves choice and the formation of intents, to a state of birth that of necessity lies antecedent to any and all choices or formed intents. I believe that sin is the willful transgression of a known commandment of God, and is not nor can it be a state we are born into to. Sin is heinous, sin is rebellion, sin is blameworthy. It is absurd to blame one for being born into a state that they had no choice in. Sin and actual blame must occur subsequent to a choice of selfishness not before.

Man certainly is born with tendencies to sin or proclivities to sin, but these are mere influences to sin NOT sin itself. I would disagree with anyone that predicates sin or morality to any sentient being prior to the possibility of the formation of a selfish intent, and that subsequent to an age of accountability. No formed intent? No sin. No formed intent? No morality can be predicated. Proclivities may exist. Tendencies may exist, influences both to righteousness as well as evil may exist prior to sin or righteousness, but no morality can be predicated of the individual until the age of accountability and the knowledge that something in and of itself, apart from rewards or punishments, is intrinsically good or evil and a choice in either direction is made by the will in the formation of an intent.