Did Christ die for everyone or just for the elect?

[Hardsheller]

Originally posted by Faith alone:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Hardsheller:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Faith alone:
Hardsheller,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />1. No one can label anyone as being Regenerate before the evidence of Conversion - because they are inseparably linked and the latter is proof of the former. Cornelius was under the influence of the Holy Spirit at the Beginning of Acts 10. I unlike Calvin prefer not to call that "regeneration" but rather the "drawing of the Spirit".

That is a big change from Reformed theology. Personally, I agree, but just wanted to comment that this is a big change from standard Calvinist ordo salutis.

Of course, I differ with the 1st part, about notbeing able to label anyone as regenerate until evidence of conversion is present... can you give your scripture on that?

Thx,

FA </font>[/QUOTE]Perhaps we should agree on terminology before we begin to try to lay out our positions. How do you define regenerate? </font>[/QUOTE]Well, off the top of my head, regenerate is one who has been born spiritually - "born again", though that is probably more accurately translated as "born from above." It refers to one who has had his sins justified ("declared to berighteous and genuinely viewed as such.") through faith in Christ. (You probably won't agree with the latter.)

IMO no one can respond in faith to the gospel unless He is drawn by the Father - unless God illumines him. But that is not regeneration - he then will eventually respond in faith... if he continues to pursue the truth.

FA </font>[/QUOTE]I agree with you. A regenerate person is one who has been Born Again or Born from above. Regeneration then is the God driven process by which that occurs. It starts with a Divine Initiative and is characterized by a Faith Response on the part of the person so drawn.

 

[Faith alone]

Originally posted by Hardsheller:
I agree with you. A regenerate person is one who has been Born Again or Born from above. Regeneration then is the God driven process by which that occurs. It starts with a Divine Initiative and is characterized by a Faith Response on the part of the person so drawn.

OK. But IMO the actual regeneration is when the person, having trusted in Christ's death, is made a new creature (2 Corin. 5:17) - born from above - a spiritual birth.

Of course, we probably disagree re. when that faith occurs.

Since I see many appeals to believe and be saved in scripture, faith must precede (be the catalyst of) regeneration.

Do many of your Reformed friends disagree or are they puzzled by this explanation?

Thx Hardsheller,

FA

 

[Hardsheller]

Originally posted by Faith alone:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Hardsheller:
I agree with you. A regenerate person is one who has been Born Again or Born from above. Regeneration then is the God driven process by which that occurs. It starts with a Divine Initiative and is characterized by a Faith Response on the part of the person so drawn.

OK. But IMO the actual regeneration is when the person, having trusted in Christ's death, is made a new creature (2 Corin. 5:17) - born from above - a spiritual birth.

Of course, we probably disagree re. when that faith occurs.

Since I see many appeals to believe and be saved in scripture, faith must precede (be the catalyst of) regeneration.

Do many of your Reformed friends disagree or are they puzzled by this explanation?

Thx Hardsheller,

FA </font>[/QUOTE]I prefer to use regeneration as an umbrella term that covers the whole salvation event. I understand that causes problems for some who are locked into definitions and tradition.

If you are saying that regeneration follows faith and is caused by the faith of the believer then of course I wouldn't subscribe to that explanation of the ordus salutis. In my opinion that would make God subservant to the human will.

Most SBC Calvinists I know believe that God "quickens" the person, ie. changes his heart direction before the person exercises faith.

Eph 2:4 But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,
Eph 2:5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved

 

[webdog]

Most SBC Calvinists I know believe that God "quickens" the person, ie. changes his heart direction before the person exercises faith

Then this "faith" would not be genuine...but forced.

 

[Hardsheller]

So Webdog, you weren't influenced directly by the Holy Spirit before you trusted Jesus?

 

[webdog]

"Drawn" and "given faith" are two separate things. I was drawn by the Holy Spirit (John 12:32)

 

[Hardsheller]

Webdog, Did the Holy Spirit speak to your heart in such a way that you didn't refuse Jesus any longer?

 

[webdog]

Depends what you mean by "didn't refues Jesus any longer".

 

[Hardsheller]

Webdog, I'm assuming that your conversion was like that of mine and all Christians.

The Holy Spirit made Jesus so real to us and our sins so bad to us that we repented and received his forgiveness.

 

[webdog]

That is correct. My understanding of what the Bible says resulting in my faith was "hearing" the Word, resulting in having faith in Christ, not "given" that faith in Christ. This is not some kind of "special faith" given only to a select, nebulous group, as all men are created with the ability to have faith (every person exercises faith ever day of their life).

 

[Hardsheller]

Webdog, I was asking you about your personal salvation experience not asking you about your understanding of what the Bible says or does not say.

But since you wish to debate rather than share your Christian Experience then let's do it.

When you became a Saved Person - Did you become a part of the Elect according to the Scriptures?

 

[webdog]

You never asked for my salvation experience.

When you became a Saved Person - Did you become a part of the Elect according to the Scriptures?

Yes, I was elect in Christ, with "become" being the key word.

 

[Hardsheller]

Webdog,

It seems to me that our biggest disagreement is over words and what they mean.

Our salvation experiences are very similar.

You choose to describe it one way and I choose (yes I still have a will that I can exercise) to describe it another.

Is the disagreement among us so strong that we cannot admit that the other is a Brother in Christ? I personally don't think so.

Is the disagreement among us so strong that we cannot work together in the cause of spreading the Gospel around the world? I personally don't think so.

What say ye?

 

[webdog]

Originally posted by Hardsheller:
Webdog,

It seems to me that our biggest disagreement is over words and what they mean.

Our salvation experiences are very similar.

You choose to describe it one way and I choose (yes I still have a will that I can exercise) to describe it another.

Is the disagreement among us so strong that we cannot admit that the other is a Brother in Christ? I personally don't think so.

Is the disagreement among us so strong that we cannot work together in the cause of spreading the Gospel around the world? I personally don't think so.

What say ye?

I agree wholeheartedly. I would never question a calvinist's salvation...matter of fact, I would find it hard for a calvinist NOT to be a Christian, as this theology is based on intense study. A non believer would not be interested in studying the doctrines of God's sovereignty and election. Like you said, the differences come in how words are defined, and following the teaching of men (including arminianism) and also not comparing Scripture with Scripture correctly.

 

[John I Morris]

Well, being new to the forum, forgive me if I am repeating another post.

Christ died for the sins of the world as the Scripture says. It does not say "the sins of the elect." If you take Scripture at face value, end of discussion, if not...

Now it is true that only those who trust Him as Savior will avail themselves of that payment. But He paid the price for everyone. So, however you split it He died for the world. Yes, only those who choose to be saved will be and therefore the blood will not be applied to the unbeliever's debt. So, is it wasted atonement? I think not, it is just unused on their part.

Back to Scripture, Jesus died for the sin of the world. That shoudl answer the question at hand.

 

[Scott J]

John, You have interpretted John 3:16 (if that is in fact the text you have in mind) in a way that leaves you without a legitimate means of interpretation for Ephesians 1:4-9 or Romans 8.

I believe basically in the 5-points of calvinism because they seem to reconcile scriptures like this the best. Further, non-calvinists consistently leave God's sovereignty as a second thought, IMHO. But since God's sovereigty, glory, and purpose are central and not secondary to creation, I cannot imagine that they would not be primary in the salvation of individuals.

I believe John 3:16 is qualified by John 3:3-9. Christ's sacrifice is efficient for only those who are borned again... and like physical birth, the prime cause for spiritual rebirth isn't the choice of the man.

I do however believe that both general and special grace were secured on the cross. Had Christ come down, God would have executed wrath at that moment. In that He didn't, God still sends the rain on the just and unjust.

 

[Heavy Metal Calvinist]

Baptist Theologian Dr. Roger Nicole:

"Some will be lost.... (Atonement) is either universal or effectual. If it is universal, it is not effectual, because not all will be saved. If it is effectual it is not universal because it permeates on those who will be saved. You cannot have it both ways."

"If ever there should come a wretched day when all our pulpits be full of modern thought, and the old doctrine of substitutionary sacrifice shall be exploded, then there will remain no word of comfort for the guilty or hope for the despairing." C.H. Spurgeon

To paraphrase Mike Horton of the White Horse Inn-election is not opposed to us coming, it is the very thing that makes our coming possible....

 

[StraightAndNarrow]

My belief after a lot of study is that the Bible supports BOTH election and salvation by a free-will decision. How can this be? It's a mystery to me but both views can be supported by scripture.

What do we do about this? Our actions are no different than if all salvation were by free will. We accept the Lord Jesus Christ as our personal Savior and we carry that message to the lost world.

 

[Brutus]

Two questions: for any and all to answer
1. Do you believe that the Holy Spirit plays any role in the sinner coming to faith in Christ?

2. Do you believe that, apart from any supernatural work of the Holy Spirit, the sinner, by nature, has the will, ability, affection, and desire to come to Christ?

 

[Faith alone]

Brutus,

Just FYI, I am not Reformed, though some of my answers may sound like it.

Originally posted by Brutus:
Two questions: for any and all to answer
1. Do you believe that the Holy Spirit plays any role in the sinner coming to faith in Christ?

Yes - John 16:8-11. In fact, without the Holy Spirit convicting people of sin and illuminating them, no one would trust in Christ.

Originally posted by Brutus:
2. Do you believe that, apart from any supernatural work of the Holy Spirit, the sinner, by nature, has the will, ability, affection, and desire to come to Christ?

No. Not by nature. And Romans 3 is quoted countless times in that regard, as is John 6:44. But IMO vs. 45 tells us how the Holy Spirit draws us to the Son... through the Word.

But people DO have a desire to know the truth. IMO it always originates with God. God will give someone a bit of truth to consider. If they respond like the Pharisees and Saducees, then more illumination will not be given. But if they respond showing a genuine desire to know the truth, then more truth is given.

Eventually, they may come to believe. But we cannot separate the work of God in their coming to Christ, nor can we ignore the ability of people to respond to the Spirit before they are regenerated. (That would be a key area of departure from Calvinistic soteriology... I do not accept total depravity as defined by Reformed.)

FA