one of the many questions that can't be answered from the calvinist perspective, hence the reason I ran from the doctrine when it all started to come together apart from the pat answers
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Do we all really believe in a 'limited atonement?'
- Thread starter Skandelon
- Start date
- Status
one of the many questions that can't be answered from the calvinist perspective, hence the reason I ran from the doctrine when it all started to come together apart from the pat answers
Hello ACF,
There is no free will...at all. There is self will. Adam as untested made a choice. Free moral agency ....making choices...is not free will.
In heaven we will not be able to sin. God is not free to lie,or change.
His Holy nature does not allow for any imperfection.
Whatever was the condition of Adams will before the fall[during his probation]....is never coming back...since the fall...
Spurgeons quote on reconciling friends was not in reference to this matter.
Spurgeon did not teach that free will existed.....read here.
here is the whole sermon;
http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0052.htm
I wonder if you have ever heard of a Calvinistic Methodist Church? They were all over the map in Spurgeons time & even quite prevelant up to around the 50's & 60's in the United States. Ever heard of George Whitefield or Perhaps Martyn Lloyd Jones..... both Calvinistic Methodists as where my Grandparents & Great Grandparents.
Here is some more (CHS) commentary for your edification:
Regarding Unconditional Election:
I do not hesitate to say, that next to the doctrine of the crucifixion and the resurrection of our blessed Lord--no doctrine had such prominence in the early Christian Church as the doctrine of the election of grace.9 And when confronted with the discomfort this doctrine would bring, he responded with little sympathy: "'I do not like it [divine election],' saith one. Well, I thought you would not; whoever dreamed you would?"10
Regarding Particular Atonement:
f it was Christ's intention to save all men, how deplorably has he been disappointed, for we have His own testimony that there is a lake which burneth with fire and brimstone, and into that pit of woe have been cast some of the very persons who, according to the theory of universal redemption, were bought with His blood.11
He has punished Christ, why should He punish twice for one offence? Christ has died for all His people's sins, and if thou art in the covenant, thou art one of Christ's people. Damned thou canst not be. Suffer for thy sins thou canst not. Until God can be unjust, and demand two payments for one debt, He cannot destroy the soul for whom Jesus died.12
The selections above indicate that C. H. Spurgeon was without a doubt an affirmed, self-professing Calvinist who made his ministry's success dependent upon truth, unwilling to consider the "Five Points of Calvinism" as separate, sterile categories to be memorized and believed in isolation from each other or Scripture.
quantumfaith
Active Member
one of the many questions that can't be answered from the calvinist perspective, hence the reason I ran from the doctrine when it all started to come together apart from the pat answers
So you run to a theology that is not exclusively God Centered, to something that is distorted in the direction of the self?!? Well of course you would.... that is what the spirit of the age demands. In this postmodern & increasingly post-Christian times, people are clamoring for attention. They are looking for spiritual experiences that are secularized, humanized, and relativized.
What you've run to supplies exactly what todays religion demands: a gospel that preserves a determinative role for personal choice. By contrast, Doctrines of Grace theology insists that salvation is by grace from beginning to end. Salvation is a gift, in every sense of the word---God's gift for undeserving sinners who cannot be redeemed apart from God's saving grace. The gift is given to those to whom God chooses to give it; and although it is offered to everyone, it is not given to everyone. When God does choose to grant this gift, however, He effectively places it in the hands of His child; and once it is received, it can never be lost, taken from or damaged. Truly, it is the gift that keeps on giving! :thumbs:
preacher4truth
Active Member
Some good words brother.
D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones is on of my favorite authors/commentators. When I began to read some of his works years ago, I never knew what Calvinism was, nor did I know that he was one.
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
Why would you think I could find a scripture which says God determined to make all men totally depraved from birth when I'm not the one who believe that claim is true? Think about it.
And where did those terms/consequences say that all people would be born unable to respond to God's powerful appeal to be reconciled through faith in Christ? See, you are the one making claims unsupported by the text, not me.
I agree. But I'm curious as to what you believed caused Adam to choose the way he did?
And according to your system he ordains whatsoever comes to pass in such a manner that it could not have been otherwise, thus at some point God (either knowing or casually determining Adam's sin) determined that the result would be the totally depravity of all mankind. How is that no accurate? How can a system which teaches that God really controls all things believe that God didn't control the decision to relegate all mankind to totally depravity?
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
Icon, I'd like to know what you believe the difference is in "self-will" and "free-will," as I use the term 'self-will' or 'self-determination' too. Sometimes 'free' gives the impression that there are NO restrictions or limitations, which N
NE believes in regard to mankind. (no one I know of)
NE believes in regard to mankind. (no one I know of)
So you run to a theology that is not exclusively God Centered, to something that is distorted in the direction of the self?!? Well of course you would.... that is what the spirit of the age demands. In this postmodern & increasingly post-Christian times, people are clamoring for attention. They are looking for spiritual experiences that are secularized, humanized, and relativized.
By contrast, Doctrines of Grace theology insists that salvation is by grace from beginning to end. Salvation is a gift, in every sense of the word---God's gift for undeserving sinners who cannot be redeemed apart from God's saving grace. The gift is given to those to whom God chooses to give it; and although it is offered to everyone, it is not given to everyone. When God does choose to grant this gift, however, He effectively places it in the hands of His child; and once it is received, it can never be lost, taken from or damaged. Truly, it is the gift that keeps on giving! :thumbs:
Keep building with straw, drinking the kool-aid, and when you figure out the logistics of both the atonement and the roles of gift giver, receiver and the entire process... we'll talk then.
quantumfaith
Active Member
Icon, I'd like to know what you believe the difference is in "self-will" and "free-will," as I use the term 'self-will' or 'self-determination' too. Sometimes 'free' gives the impression that there are NO restrictions or limitations, which N
:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:
I'm sorry to burst your bebble Webdog, but my response will never be in favor of your muddled self-centered humanistic theology, rather from the work of God. And this I hope is most clearly understood by you & your ilk; that since my regeneration, it has been & always will be when the presentation of the gospel is grounded in the doctrines of grace.
Last edited by a moderator:
No bubble to burst, your rant just further cements your ignorance in both calvinism, arminianism and everything in between. I do find it ironic how offended you have become lately at just about anything questioning you or your doctrine, but have no problem dishing it out at will. Put your big boy pants back on.
News flash: calvinism does not hold the corner on the doctrine of grace, sovereignty and God centered theology. This is now the second time in recent days you have essentially questioned our salvation. You must be proud.
Now back to your regularly scheduled passive-aggressive posting style of trying to play peacemaker and instigator with those in both camps...
News flash: calvinism does not hold the corner on the doctrine of grace, sovereignty and God centered theology. This is now the second time in recent days you have essentially questioned our salvation. You must be proud.
Now back to your regularly scheduled passive-aggressive posting style of trying to play peacemaker and instigator with those in both camps...
Last edited by a moderator:
psalms109:31
Active Member
Icon, I'd like to know what you believe the difference is in "self-will" and "free-will," as I use the term 'self-will' or 'self-determination' too. Sometimes 'free' gives the impression that there are NO restrictions or limitations, which N
"The will is well known by all to be directed by the understanding, to be moved by motives, to be guided by other parts of the soul."
C.H. Spurgeon
The will does what it is taught or motivated to do, it doesn't choose.
Jesus said this,
So since we can't come on our will Jesus gives us one to trust in Him and be saved or not and continue to condemnation.
So when we come to Jesus we come on His will for us.
It also say's this'
So through His will He teaches our will
Then praise God
Last edited by a moderator:
Iconolast,
I will only touch on a couple of minor points where I feel you are mistaken about Spurgeon, and attempt to address a larger mistake where I fear you have perhaps been misled to believe a false doctrine.
I do not really view Calvinism a topic worth much debate, as I think it matters very little what anyone believes about it.
But your rebuttal of what I said about one of Spurgeon’s sermons simply does not hold up in the wash.
Spurgeon made his well known comments, to which I had refered, about the two doctrines being old friends in a sermon delivered one January morning in 1859.
The below is taken from Spurgeon’s sermon number 239 (or 241 as it is sometimes indexed).
Differing numbers aside, the sermon has a basis in Romans chapter 9, and concerns the fact that God loved Jacob, but hated Esau.
Spurgeon’s sermon is to address the very controversy you are so enthralled with, so it should be of enough interest to you to merit a full study.
I recommend you read the entire sermon, and if you still think I am wrong about what he said, please do provide some explanation as to why you think so.
I say Spurgeon used clear, plain, and easy to understand English in this sermon, and said exactly what he meant to say, and it is plain enough to not need interpretation by someone else.
The sermon is a lengthy one, as are most of his, but the below snippet from that sermon contains enough of what he said about the doctrines both being in God’s word to make this of interest to many participating on this board.
“Now, have I not answered these two questions honestly? I have endeavoured to give a scriptural reason for the dealings of God with man. He saves man by grace, and if men perish they perish justly by their own fault. "How," says someone, "do you reconcile these two doctrines?" My dear brethren, I never reconcile two friends, never. These two doctrines are friends with one another; for they are both in God's Word, and I shall not attempt to reconcile them.”
--- Second topic
One can “prove” just about anything with the Bible, so long as one only uses the parts that fit what one wants to “prove”.
We agreed that Adam chose to sin, and it was entirely his responsibility.
We agreed on both of these points.
If he was able to choose to disobey, it only makes sense he could have chosen to obey.
Otherwise it was not a choice at all, and therein lies the place where this very old controversy starts to unravel from both ends, no matter which side or which label you have chosen.
The ability to choose doesn’t always fit very well within an extreme view of “predestination”, so you just label it “Self Will”, as if that somehow differs from “Free Will”.
Can’t have it both ways, or can’t understand it being both ways?
You attempt to justify this by saying Adam was “on probation”, “untested”, and “under a works based covenant”.
I have a fine old Bible, and know why you did not provide a scriptural reference on this.
Then there is the line of your previous response that describes how you think God was dealing with Adam through a “works based covenant”, to which you do provide a scriptural reference, just to a passage that supports nothing of the kind.
Here is where I think you are presenting a false doctrine.
You said;
“God had been dealing with Adam in what is often described as a covenant of works...or a covenant of life....Hosea 6:7
Now in my old worn out KJV I can easily find Hosea 6:7 - “But they like men have transgressed the covenant: there have they dealt treacherously against me.”
I also can then read the rest of the chapter, but even then I don’t see what you are getting at, unless it is that the inhabitants of Gilead were workers of iniquity, as is clear in the next verse.
Hosea 6:8 Gilead is a city of them that work iniquity, and is polluted with blood.
It is entirely possible I misunderstood your point, but I don’t know you and can only go by the words you typed out in plain English, so please don’t think my intent is to “attack” you in any way, as it is not my intent to do so.
I say that any doctrine of a “Works Based Salvation” is a false doctrine, just a product of Man’s religion, and a false interpretation of scripture.
Salvation is by Grace, not by works. That is the TRUTH of God’s Holy word.
Pardon if I raise my voice, but beginning in Genesis, and straight through to the very last page of Revelation, SALVATION IS BY GOD’S GRACE, and NEVER BY ANY ACTION OF MAN.
The undeniable, unchangeable, Word of Almighty God, clearly states this TRUTH applied to Abraham, applied to Paul, and it applies to us.
Yet you say Adam was under a “works based covenant”?
It seems you have waded into water much too deep, and in a sincere desire to “prove” something you have decided in your mind is true, you are confused into believing a very common, but dangerously false, doctrine.
If I have not misunderstood you, then what is even worse is you are now trying to teach this falsehood to others, via the very wide venue of the Internet.
Such a thing, is a product of man’s “Religion”, and this is one false doctrine which cannot withstand any honest study of the Holy Word of God.
There is no such thing as a “works based covenant”, and there NEVER has been.
I will only touch on a couple of minor points where I feel you are mistaken about Spurgeon, and attempt to address a larger mistake where I fear you have perhaps been misled to believe a false doctrine.
I do not really view Calvinism a topic worth much debate, as I think it matters very little what anyone believes about it.
But your rebuttal of what I said about one of Spurgeon’s sermons simply does not hold up in the wash.
Spurgeon made his well known comments, to which I had refered, about the two doctrines being old friends in a sermon delivered one January morning in 1859.
The below is taken from Spurgeon’s sermon number 239 (or 241 as it is sometimes indexed).
Differing numbers aside, the sermon has a basis in Romans chapter 9, and concerns the fact that God loved Jacob, but hated Esau.
Spurgeon’s sermon is to address the very controversy you are so enthralled with, so it should be of enough interest to you to merit a full study.
I recommend you read the entire sermon, and if you still think I am wrong about what he said, please do provide some explanation as to why you think so.
I say Spurgeon used clear, plain, and easy to understand English in this sermon, and said exactly what he meant to say, and it is plain enough to not need interpretation by someone else.
The sermon is a lengthy one, as are most of his, but the below snippet from that sermon contains enough of what he said about the doctrines both being in God’s word to make this of interest to many participating on this board.
“Now, have I not answered these two questions honestly? I have endeavoured to give a scriptural reason for the dealings of God with man. He saves man by grace, and if men perish they perish justly by their own fault. "How," says someone, "do you reconcile these two doctrines?" My dear brethren, I never reconcile two friends, never. These two doctrines are friends with one another; for they are both in God's Word, and I shall not attempt to reconcile them.”
--- Second topic
One can “prove” just about anything with the Bible, so long as one only uses the parts that fit what one wants to “prove”.
We agreed that Adam chose to sin, and it was entirely his responsibility.
We agreed on both of these points.
If he was able to choose to disobey, it only makes sense he could have chosen to obey.
Otherwise it was not a choice at all, and therein lies the place where this very old controversy starts to unravel from both ends, no matter which side or which label you have chosen.
The ability to choose doesn’t always fit very well within an extreme view of “predestination”, so you just label it “Self Will”, as if that somehow differs from “Free Will”.
Can’t have it both ways, or can’t understand it being both ways?
You attempt to justify this by saying Adam was “on probation”, “untested”, and “under a works based covenant”.
I have a fine old Bible, and know why you did not provide a scriptural reference on this.
Then there is the line of your previous response that describes how you think God was dealing with Adam through a “works based covenant”, to which you do provide a scriptural reference, just to a passage that supports nothing of the kind.
Here is where I think you are presenting a false doctrine.
You said;
“God had been dealing with Adam in what is often described as a covenant of works...or a covenant of life....Hosea 6:7
Now in my old worn out KJV I can easily find Hosea 6:7 - “But they like men have transgressed the covenant: there have they dealt treacherously against me.”
I also can then read the rest of the chapter, but even then I don’t see what you are getting at, unless it is that the inhabitants of Gilead were workers of iniquity, as is clear in the next verse.
Hosea 6:8 Gilead is a city of them that work iniquity, and is polluted with blood.
It is entirely possible I misunderstood your point, but I don’t know you and can only go by the words you typed out in plain English, so please don’t think my intent is to “attack” you in any way, as it is not my intent to do so.
I say that any doctrine of a “Works Based Salvation” is a false doctrine, just a product of Man’s religion, and a false interpretation of scripture.
Salvation is by Grace, not by works. That is the TRUTH of God’s Holy word.
Pardon if I raise my voice, but beginning in Genesis, and straight through to the very last page of Revelation, SALVATION IS BY GOD’S GRACE, and NEVER BY ANY ACTION OF MAN.
The undeniable, unchangeable, Word of Almighty God, clearly states this TRUTH applied to Abraham, applied to Paul, and it applies to us.
Yet you say Adam was under a “works based covenant”?
It seems you have waded into water much too deep, and in a sincere desire to “prove” something you have decided in your mind is true, you are confused into believing a very common, but dangerously false, doctrine.
If I have not misunderstood you, then what is even worse is you are now trying to teach this falsehood to others, via the very wide venue of the Internet.
Such a thing, is a product of man’s “Religion”, and this is one false doctrine which cannot withstand any honest study of the Holy Word of God.
There is no such thing as a “works based covenant”, and there NEVER has been.
Quantumfaith,
"General Baptists" and "Particular Baptists" are the labels once used to describe the two sides of this very old controversy.
I too have grown up in a SBC church, and a very large one at that. I have been attending SBC churches for almost sixty years, and was Batpized fifty years ago.
The old labels above were used by Baptists churches in the early history of American Christianity, and a study of how they finally resolved their differences, and allowed these differences on obscure points of doctrine to exist in harmony within the same church is very relevant to the SBC ever coming into existence in the first place.
Evidence of the concepts that allowed this unity, and made it possible to discuss these things rationally, was clealy present in the BMOF up until the revisions of 2000 concerning authority for interpretation of scripture.
I am confident you are well aware of what I speak of, and of the fierce controrvesy that has raged over the BMOF of 2000.
Please do not expect me to enter into a debate on that, as I will not I will not argue the point.
I will say that I am indwelled by the Holy Spirit, and the Lord Jesus Christ will remain my ultimate authority in these matters. The indwelling of the Holy Spirit provides the tools to discern TRUTH.
How well I can do so depends upon how far along I am in my walk, and that is between me and God.
"General Baptists" and "Particular Baptists" are the labels once used to describe the two sides of this very old controversy.
I too have grown up in a SBC church, and a very large one at that. I have been attending SBC churches for almost sixty years, and was Batpized fifty years ago.
The old labels above were used by Baptists churches in the early history of American Christianity, and a study of how they finally resolved their differences, and allowed these differences on obscure points of doctrine to exist in harmony within the same church is very relevant to the SBC ever coming into existence in the first place.
Evidence of the concepts that allowed this unity, and made it possible to discuss these things rationally, was clealy present in the BMOF up until the revisions of 2000 concerning authority for interpretation of scripture.
I am confident you are well aware of what I speak of, and of the fierce controrvesy that has raged over the BMOF of 2000.
Please do not expect me to enter into a debate on that, as I will not I will not argue the point.
I will say that I am indwelled by the Holy Spirit, and the Lord Jesus Christ will remain my ultimate authority in these matters. The indwelling of the Holy Spirit provides the tools to discern TRUTH.
How well I can do so depends upon how far along I am in my walk, and that is between me and God.
Completely funny.......you are too darn much :laugh:
ACF.
sorry to see you completely misunderstand what i have posted,and worse than that...you might have a defective view of the basis of the gospel itself.
I am still working till later on tonight...there is so much error and false accusations in your post...it will take awhile to respond......but I will:wavey:
- Status