TC,
"Equal ultimacy" – that is a new one for me. As said on another post, I am a student, not a scholar, but what does it mean?
AmyG,
Why doesn’t God pull everyone out of the "damned-bin"? I think that a better question is, "Why does God pull any of us out the "damned-bin"? He is not obligated in any way to pull anyone out of the "damned-bin". He would be just if He let us all stay there and be eternally lost. (NOTE: Later saw that Rippon made this point. I am responding as I catch up with this thread, otherwise my thoughts are like Nebuchadnezzar’s dream, "gone from me".)
But, I do believe the answer to your question is that it does not fit His eternal purpose to save everyone. Could God choose to save everyone? Of course, He could. Those of us who are saved are not saved because we are more righteous, more intelligent, or more pre-disposed to choose life – we are saved according to His grace, mercy, and sovereign purpose. We are not saved on the basis of our own works, but on the basis on His grace and mercy. We do not come to Him to receive life because of something special in ourselves, rather we are drawn by His grace in a way that brings us to salvation.
NOT ALL ARE DRAWN THE SAME WAY OR TO THE SAME DEGREE, BUT ALL ARE DRAWN TO A SUFFICIENT DEGREE THAT NONE WILL BE ABLE TO SAY IN HIS PRESENCE, "I WAS LOST BECAUSE YOU DECREED MY DAMNATION".
No one will be saved who will be able to say, "I was saved by my own choice to come to the light, irrespective of the grace of God in drawing me to Himself". No one will be lost who will be able to say, "I was lost because God never gave me an opportunity to come to the light". Men are saved by His grace and lost by their rejection of what light they have received.
TC, RefB, NPet,
Classic Calvinism, LBCF Calvinism, historic Calvinism...
I am obviously not the church historian or doctrinal historian that I should be, but rather than defending a position or a man, why not deal with the issues in terms of what the Scriptures say and on the basis of the word meanings and comparisons that deal with the issues and the labels. Part of the problem in this and many discussions/debates (this is the "Baptist Debate" area, isn’t it?) is that we all, or at least some us, have less than perfect understanding of what others may mean when they define themselves according to the terms "Calvinist", "reformed", etc.
Personally, I do not fit into all of the little cubbyholes of ANY of the labels, BAPTIST included. We have elders in our church, for many Baptists, that tends to make me a Presbyterian. We do not pass the collection plate except on rare occasions, for MOST Baptists, that makes me an apostate who has denied "the faith" and is worse than an infidel! Whenever we use labels, we may be identifying with some idea or at least a perception that is not actually what we believe. I find it better to define what I believe in terms of definitive statements rather than a label which may or may not represent what I believe.
I do use labels to identify where I stand on issues. But I always do so with the knowledge that I may well be misunderstood. I have called myself "reformed" with the caveat that I am not reformed as far as my eschatology, ecclesiology, or Israelology. I have called myself a Calvinist with the caveat that I am still trying to find the balance on the "limited" aspects of the atonement. I call myself a Baptist because that is the closest label that defines where I stand, but I understand that there are many who wear that label and who speak and write under that umbrella who say or write things with which I would violently disagree. So, are labels helpful? Yes. Are label harmful? Yes. Use them with these thoughts in mind, IMO.
Rip,
Double predestination? I would like to specifically address this in another thread! Only been back awhile, is there a thread like that anywhere in recent history here? Will wait a while before I start one.
OK, just saw where RefB made that point. OK, back to my suggestion that we really gain very little by arguing over the labels since we sometimes mean different things by the labels.
Let’s debate the concept or the statement on the basis of its Biblical foundation, or lack thereof, rather than argue over what the label really means.
"Equal ultimacy" – that is a new one for me. As said on another post, I am a student, not a scholar, but what does it mean?
AmyG,
Why doesn’t God pull everyone out of the "damned-bin"? I think that a better question is, "Why does God pull any of us out the "damned-bin"? He is not obligated in any way to pull anyone out of the "damned-bin". He would be just if He let us all stay there and be eternally lost. (NOTE: Later saw that Rippon made this point. I am responding as I catch up with this thread, otherwise my thoughts are like Nebuchadnezzar’s dream, "gone from me".)
But, I do believe the answer to your question is that it does not fit His eternal purpose to save everyone. Could God choose to save everyone? Of course, He could. Those of us who are saved are not saved because we are more righteous, more intelligent, or more pre-disposed to choose life – we are saved according to His grace, mercy, and sovereign purpose. We are not saved on the basis of our own works, but on the basis on His grace and mercy. We do not come to Him to receive life because of something special in ourselves, rather we are drawn by His grace in a way that brings us to salvation.
NOT ALL ARE DRAWN THE SAME WAY OR TO THE SAME DEGREE, BUT ALL ARE DRAWN TO A SUFFICIENT DEGREE THAT NONE WILL BE ABLE TO SAY IN HIS PRESENCE, "I WAS LOST BECAUSE YOU DECREED MY DAMNATION".
No one will be saved who will be able to say, "I was saved by my own choice to come to the light, irrespective of the grace of God in drawing me to Himself". No one will be lost who will be able to say, "I was lost because God never gave me an opportunity to come to the light". Men are saved by His grace and lost by their rejection of what light they have received.
TC, RefB, NPet,
Classic Calvinism, LBCF Calvinism, historic Calvinism...
I am obviously not the church historian or doctrinal historian that I should be, but rather than defending a position or a man, why not deal with the issues in terms of what the Scriptures say and on the basis of the word meanings and comparisons that deal with the issues and the labels. Part of the problem in this and many discussions/debates (this is the "Baptist Debate" area, isn’t it?) is that we all, or at least some us, have less than perfect understanding of what others may mean when they define themselves according to the terms "Calvinist", "reformed", etc.
Personally, I do not fit into all of the little cubbyholes of ANY of the labels, BAPTIST included. We have elders in our church, for many Baptists, that tends to make me a Presbyterian. We do not pass the collection plate except on rare occasions, for MOST Baptists, that makes me an apostate who has denied "the faith" and is worse than an infidel! Whenever we use labels, we may be identifying with some idea or at least a perception that is not actually what we believe. I find it better to define what I believe in terms of definitive statements rather than a label which may or may not represent what I believe.
I do use labels to identify where I stand on issues. But I always do so with the knowledge that I may well be misunderstood. I have called myself "reformed" with the caveat that I am not reformed as far as my eschatology, ecclesiology, or Israelology. I have called myself a Calvinist with the caveat that I am still trying to find the balance on the "limited" aspects of the atonement. I call myself a Baptist because that is the closest label that defines where I stand, but I understand that there are many who wear that label and who speak and write under that umbrella who say or write things with which I would violently disagree. So, are labels helpful? Yes. Are label harmful? Yes. Use them with these thoughts in mind, IMO.
Rip,
Double predestination? I would like to specifically address this in another thread! Only been back awhile, is there a thread like that anywhere in recent history here? Will wait a while before I start one.
AND ALL NON-CALVINISTS DO?Linda64 said:
OK, just saw where RefB made that point. OK, back to my suggestion that we really gain very little by arguing over the labels since we sometimes mean different things by the labels.
Let’s debate the concept or the statement on the basis of its Biblical foundation, or lack thereof, rather than argue over what the label really means.