Did Christ die for everyone or just for the elect?

Gotcha. Sorry for the selective confusion

 

Hardsheller,

If by "complete" you mean unregenerate man became utterly incapable of hearing or responding to God (total inability,) no.

As the much maligned Norm Geisler says, the image of God in man effaced by the fall, but was not erased.

As he points out, even after the fall, Adam could hear the voice of God and respond to Him. (Unless Adam was regenerated between when he ate the fruit and when God came looking for him.)

Romans 1 also clearly states that fallen man is able to know the truth, but suppresses it willfully out of sin.

However, that being said, it should always be clear that unregenerate man never takes the initiative in seeking God (Adam hid.) God always takes the initiative (God called out to Adam.) And we can respond to His initiative.

 

Many people put the cart before the horse.

Christ calls those who believe in him the elect.
This does not mean He elects them to belief.
It means that those who believe BECOME the elect.

My employer has determined that everyone who meets the requirements of graduation from this insititution of higher education have been "elected" to the status of Alumni.

You cannot become "elected" that position without meeting the requirements.

The requirement of Christ to be part of the special "elected group" is believe in Christ.

"My sheep know my voice."
If a sheep responds to a voice, the sheep is assumed to belong to the shephard.
If you are a child of Christ, you responded to Christ.
He did not FORCE you to respond, and He does not claim those who do not respond.

Again, there are many, many, many verses that state Christ came to save the world, and that belief is a requirement of salvation.

There are only a few verses that are ever offered up as support of the idea that God unjustly pre-selects some to condemn to hell. Those verses that are offerd up that way are always taken out of context, always ignore their relationship to other verses and easily fit into explanations that state that to become the elect you must first accept Christ. The reverse is NOT true. Those who encounter the many verses supporting belief flat out ignore most of them or twist it to "well, all didn't mean all," and "world didn't mean world."

All means all when all have sinned, but all does not mean all when salvation is offered? What biblical support do you have for that double-standard?

 

I wonder how many Calvinists it will take to straighten God out on the subject of election?

 

No Calvinist that I know denies that a person makes a choice for Christ. What we are also saying is that God makes a choice for us as well.

The Southern Baptist Theologian W.T. Conner said it this way, "Election does not mean that God instituted a general plan of salvation and decreed that whosoever would should be saved and, therefore, the man who wills to be saved is elected in that he brings himself within the scope of God's plan. It is true that God has decreed that whosoever will shall be saved; but election is something more specific and personal than that. It means that God has decreed to bring some, upon whom his heart has been eternally set, who are the objects of his eternal love, to faith in Jesus as Saviour."

 

Hardsheller,

But even your quote from Conner indicates that God chooses to send the vast majority of the earth to hell, not because they are any more evil/sinful/wrong than the rest of us, but just because He wants to see them in hell.

That isn't what Christ taught.
Christ and the bible, teach that God desires that all men be saved, and that He offers the message of grace to all.
He teaches that Satan snatches the words of grace from men. He teaches that some men are condemned "because they believed not the truth."

NOT because God just didn't like them to begin with.

 

Can Non-Calvinists and Calvinists agree that both are Christians?

1. We worship the Same God.
2. We have been saved by the same Savior.
3. We are empowered by the same Spirit.
4. We are enroute to the same Heaven.

I don't know about the rest of you but when Jesus came into my heart I was Born Again(period!)

That I chose for a part of my life as a Christian to describe it one way (Arminian) and now for over the last decade to describe it another way (Calvinism) does not detract from the reality of my Conversion Experience in the least.

I have plenty of Arminian Friends and plenty of Christian Friends and we all get along and have great fellowship with each other.

Some things are worth dying for and some are not.
Calvinism and Arminianism don't either one fit that category.

Salamander, as far as how many Calvinists it will take to straighten God out - I would imagine there will be so much awe and amazement on the part of Arminians and Calvinists that none of us will be able to do much of anything except worship our Sovereign God.

 

Texas Sky,

Someone has given you some wrong information. God cannot be blamed for people going to Hell. People are in Hell and go to Hell for one reason and one reason alone. They do not believe indeed refuse to believe the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Everyone in Hell gets exactly what they deserve. No more, no less, and it's all their fault - not God's.

I don't know where this idea comes from that it's God's Fault people go to hell?????? That's certainly not in my Bible.

 

Hardsheller,

I for one certainly believe that Calvinists & Arminians can both be Christian.

I am curious though -
Given your comments, about man having a choice and such,it sounds like you are a "soft" Calvinist at best.

Why did you choice the "handle" Hardsheller? I always associated that term with "hyper-Calvinistic" Baptists? You don't come across like a hard Calvinist.

 

John B,

I'm a Calvinist who believes a man makes a choice to follow Christ. I just also happen to believe that God is the "cause" behind that choice.

I chose the name "Hardsheller" out of respect of my batchelor uncle who when witnessed to one day by Mormon Missionaries claimed he was a "Hardshell Baptist".

I did not know when I first heard that story that he had attended a Primitive Baptist Church within walking distance of his house when he was a small boy and may have been drawing on the impressions made upon him as a child. I had the privilege of seeing him Baptized as an adult after years of being a drunk. Once he was saved and baptized into a Southern Baptist Church, he never drank again.

 

The he didn't really believe John 3:16 and tries to call God a lair.

 

Salamander,

Well, you can certainly ask him when you get to heaven. He taught for years at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary and I'm sure he'll have a little time for you to straighten him out in heaven.

 

God doesn't allow His Sovereignty to go against His desire that He would have all men everywhere to be saved, but His Sovereignty is that He saves all men who are willing to come to Him in Biblical repentence, and that Sovereignty doesn't allow anyone to tell Him different.

 

For all you Southern Baptists on this thread who enjoy slamming Calvinists.

Here's a link to a sermon by a Southern Baptist Giant which will stun you.

W.A. Criswell Web Site

 

Won't have time to, and don't need to. John 3:16 already does, and I am sure God took His Bible and showed him exactly what "God so loved the world" means.

 

It is not a "slam" to point some one to the truth, but exhortation, mind you.

I am not SBC, either, I am IFB, and that is why I am not exactlty a "fan" of Criswell, though he was SBC, Criswell isn't too accepted by the SBC of today as he ought to be.

 

Won't have time to, and don't need to. John 3:16 already does, and I am sure God took His Bible and showed him exactly what "God so loved the world" means. </font>[/QUOTE]Well, maybe you can spend that time explaining your church's doctinal statement for there sure seems to be a big discrepancy Between the two statements "The Total Depravity of Man" and "The Freeness of Salvation".

In the first you have man totally depraved and unable to do anything to aid his own salvation and in the second you seem to believe he has that ability.

 

No offense Hardsheller, but we can all be Calvinists if we get to choose our own definitions of all the points.

Criswell, like Spurgeon, called himself a Calvinist. But he would not have agreed with the Calvinism of Calvin, Sproul, Piper, AW Pink or many other more serious Calvinists.

Criswell, like Spurgeon, was actually a Cal-minian, a mixed breed. Spurgeon used to cry "Lord, bring in the elect, then elect some more." Spurgeon also denied the Calvinistic tenet "Regeneration precedes faith." As would Criswell.

Criswell, in his sermon on Predestination he said: "The decree of God, the elective purpose of God, the predestinated announcement of God always carries with it the effort of man—they go together—God's decree and purpose, and man's volition and choice. The Lord's elective predestinary announcement and our volitional decision to follow after the will of God, both of them go together."

http://www.wacriswell.com/index.cfm/FuseAction/Search.Transcripts/sermon/700.cfm

This is Calminianism at it's best!

 

John B,

You seem like a reasonable Southern Baptist.

Do you believe there is room in the SBC for 5 Point Calvinists?

 

Hardsheller said:

"You seem like a reasonable Southern Baptist.
Do you believe there is room in the SBC for 5 Point Calvinists? "

SBC churches are autonomous. If a congregation wants to be 5PC, that's ok with me. I wouldn't go to such a church, but they exist. They are part of the "Founders" movement.