How About An Agreement ...

[JonC]

All who are really redeemed are all those, and those only that He intended to redeem.

Christ was the Substitute for certain ones and not all. How can one be a substitute if He doesn't act in the place of a particular person or group? I have never heard of a "potential" substitute before.

Christ is the Savior of those He saves. He doesn't save everyone --therefore He is not the Savior of their souls. Those He doesn't save did not have their sins paid for --they will pay for their own sins in everlasting Perdition. Can anyone in Hell possibly address Christ as Savior? Of course not. He is Master ...Lord of all, but not savior of every human head-for-head.

I agree, Rippon. God’s plan had in mind the specific redemption of the elect. I also have not heard of a “potential” substitute before. But Christ’s death did secure and make certain those who will believe, the elect, who God “elected” before the foundation of the world. We do not disagree on this point.

Where we do, perhaps, disagree is in the use of the “divine ledger” applied at the point of Christ’s death. If you are inclined to help me understand: I view the position that our sins were “paid for” and that we were effectively saved and rendered “guiltless” at Christ’s death – apart from faith, as problematic. It seems to undermine God’s redemptive plan IF one believes that faith is necessary for salvation (which I believe). What you are left with is the elect being born under condemnation for a debt that was already paid or the elect having never been considered guilty. I cannot reconcile this with Scripture. When I think of God effecting salvation, I think of salvation by grace through faith.

I know that we probably will never agree on this point, but I hope that I can help you to understand my view. Likewise, I would like to understand how you grasp our “sin debt” paid apart from grace through faith (I never really understood the argument…except for those who believe faith is a product of salvation – and if that is the case then I do understand where you are coming from).

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

"I once was lost; but now I'm found, was blind but now I see..."

What did Jesus tell a Master of Religion in John 3? "Ye must be born again--from above".

We seem to be mired in "Kosher BACON".

What was the acronym before Chauvin?

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

You are babbling. Look me in the eye & tell me directly whats on your mind.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

EW&F,

I can understand how you would view it as a “middle ground” and perhaps a compromise between the two positions. I tend to think that this is how some arrive at their conclusions…their doctrine is reactionary, guarding against a view, rather than derivative of Scripture (and indeed, as we know TULIP, it was reactionary).

I beg to differ with you. I have come to my conclusions via hard & deliberate study of the scriptures.

 

[JonC]

I beg to differ with you. I have come to my conclusions via hard & deliberate study of the scriptures.

As I have mine. If your avatar is correct, then you don’t necessarily look for the easy way out. I was not speaking of you, EW&F (or anyone here in particular for that matter).

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

As I have mine. If your avatar is correct, then you don’t necessarily look for the easy way out. I was not speaking of you, EW&F (or anyone here in particular for that matter).

Test yourself every day Jon & what doesnt kill makes ya.....:thumbsup:

 

[Reformed]

Scripture denies any ability or willingness in man to move towards God.

Agreed (Rom. 8:7; 1 Cor. 2:14).

Arminianism, on the other hand, places the crux of individual salvation on man rather than God.

To be precise, Arminianism begins with God first calling, but not violating, the will of the creature. Arminianism denies effectual grace. Salvation becomes synergistic instead of monergistic.

Narrowing it down to the Atonement, this system of thought holds that Christ died to secure the salvation of all men or that He provided every man with sufficient grace to cooperate with God. I reject this position as I cannot reconcile it with Scripture.

But I also reject the notion that the Cross was only to secure the salvation of the elect. Instead, I do believe that Christ’s death made salvation possible to all men but also that His death secured and made certain the salvation of the elect. Scripture is clear that faith is essential to salvation.

Your view of the Atonement is classic Amyraldianism. You contradict yourself when you say that "Christ's death made salvation possible to all men but also that His death secured and made certain the salvation of the elect". Somehow you think that your following statement, "Scripture is clear that faith is essential to salvation" supports your view of the Atonement. Instead you are stating something that is not disputed by Arminians or Calvinists.

Jesus provided His own best commentary on the scope and intent of the Atonement:

John 10:14-17 14 "I am the good shepherd, and I know My own and My own know Me, 15 even as the Father knows Me and I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep. 16 "I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will hear My voice; and they will become one flock with one shepherd. 17 "For this reason the Father loves Me, because I lay down My life so that I may take it again."

John 10:26-29 26 "But you do not believe because you are not of My sheep. 27 "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; 28 and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand. 29 "My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand."

Jesus said, "I lay my life down for the sheep". Jesus did not lay His life down for all men everywhere. If He did then all men have the real possibility of being saved; and if that is true then Unconditional Election is not true and Arminianism (or worse) are valid theologies.

If we are born “spiritually dead,” then there is a provisional element to the salvation secured at the cross…but God Himself meets that provision.

If you mean that the Atonement had to take place, by Christ laying His life down for His sheep as the propitiation for their sins, I concur.

Consider also John Calvin's insistence that the "whosoever" of John 3:16 is an invitation to "all indiscriminately to partake of life, and to cut off excuse from unbelievers." I do believe that the world is under condemnation for rejecting the Light...that the unregenerate are actually sinning by rejecting Christ - which implies possibility. I think that we are all under that condemnation, but that God draws the elect to Himself.

I think you are taking too much license with Calvin. There is a sense in which the entirety of the Gospel will be admissible in God justly condemning the reprobate. Indeed, Scripture says:

Acts 17:30-31 30 "Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent, 31 because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead."

The question is whether all people everywhere can repent. If they can then, as I said previously, Unconditional Election is not true. This is why there are systemic disagreements over John 3:16. Does "the world" mean all people everywhere on an equal basis, and that "whosoever" of all people everywhere may be saved? If this question is posed looking for a theological answer the response is "no". Jesus laid His life down for His sheep, those whom the Father gave Him. If this question is asked from a pastoral perspective my answer may be better received by Amyraldian. Let me explain.

When I preach the Gospel, I do so knowing that all who call upon the name of the Lord will be saved. Theologically I know that only the Elect are able to give a positive response to the Gospel (i.e. saving faith). But I lack perfect knowledge. God has not granted to me the ability to discern who is elect and who is not. So, I preach the Gospel as if I was an Arminian. I plead with men to be reconciled to God. I say this, not just to you, but to all my Arminian brethren; accept for the lack of an altar call and "every head bowed and every eye closed", you would be hard pressed to disagree with my presentation of the Gospel. I believe that all who call upon the name of the Lord will be saved. Amen! Do I also believe that the "all who call upon the name of the Lord" are a God determined number that make up the Elect? Yes. But I also believe that God ordained the means of calling His Elect, which is the Gospel.

But in short, the difference is why Christ died. Some groups in both camps tend to oversimplify the Atonement and come up with a singular reason. For the elect, yes, Christ died to secure salvation. But for all men the Cross made salvation a possibility...a legitimate result of faith...if they would believe. But both the elect and reprobate refuse to believe in and of themselves. This faith is of God. While we may continue to disagree, I do hope that you understand how I differ in terms of Arminianism.

Again, if the Cross made salvation possible for all men, then there is no such thing as Unconditional Election. And yes, we do disagree. And yes, your belief is de facto Arminianism.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Maybe if Jon was raised up as a practicing Catholic as I was for 34 years -- knowing in your heart that it was false, knowing that you are being manipulated into accepting some man made system of humanistic falicy and having everything and everyone aroung you reinforce it.......then maybe Jon would know just how much he is tipping his hat to that terrible system....which to me is enslavement. I can go on and on with it....but the smell of Arminism...of Synergistic human based (let me give my self up as a gift to God) er stuff reeks of Catholism. And that's what led me to question my faith and eventually led me to atheism. And I gotta tell you that there are a lot of atheists walking around here in the north...just like I was. Had it not been for the power of the Holy Spirit, id still be an atheist.

 

[Rippon]

There are no true atheists. Everyone knows there's a God and that there is a future judgment by the same One. Everyone knows. Yes, only "the fools say in their heart"... but they still know... and they have no excuse.

 

[JonC]

Your view of the Atonement is classic Amyraldianism. You contradict yourself when you say that "Christ's death made salvation possible to all men but also that His death secured and made certain the salvation of the elect". Somehow you think that your following statement, "Scripture is clear that faith is essential to salvation" supports your view of the Atonement. Instead you are stating something that is not disputed by Arminians or Calvinists.

Perhaps my view is “classic Amyraldianism.” I will have to grant you that possibility as I have not studied enough of classic Amyraldianism to confidently state their position along with the reasoning behind their view. The comment I made regarding faith being essential to salvation is more to determine whether or not we are concurring on that point…it seems that we are. But upon reflection, the issue was whether or not faith precedes regeneration…with the Calvinistic argument (see Pink, for example) presenting the order of regeneration resulting in faith. I may be making the connection between regeneration and salvation that is not warranted within this “Calvinistic” understanding.

Jesus said, "I lay my life down for the sheep". Jesus did not lay His life down for all men everywhere. If He did then all men have the real possibility of being saved; and if that is true then Unconditional Election is not true and Arminianism (or worse) are valid theologies.

The context is the redemption of His sheep. But I also understand Scripture to indicate that the bases upon which men will be eternally condemned is because of their rejection of God’s only Son (John 3). A system which does not permit the Atonement to form this basis also does not permit condemnation for rejecting Christ as salvation was never a provision. (The passage, in my view, is speaking within a redemptive context – Christ lay down His life for His sheep….not a denial that those who do not believe are condemned for their unbelief).

I think you are taking too much license with Calvin. There is a sense in which the entirety of the Gospel will be admissible in God justly condemning the reprobate.

“And he has employed the universal term whosoever, both to invite all indiscriminately to partake of life, and to cut off every excuse from unbelievers. Such is also the impact of the term world, which he formerly used; for though nothing will be found in the world that is worthy of the favor of God, yet he shows himself to be reconciled to the whole world, when he invites all men without exception to the faith of Christ, which is nothing else than an entrance into life.”

I may misunderstand Calvin here…but I do not think so. It does point out another, perhaps, dividing point in our views. I do believe that there is a link between the Atonement and this reconciliation of all things to Christ. But perhaps that’s another topic.

Again, if the Cross made salvation possible for all men, then there is no such thing as Unconditional Election. And yes, we do disagree. And yes, your belief is de facto Arminianism.

The view that Christ’s death forms a basis of salvation to all mankind while securing and making certain salvation only to God’s elect is not de facto Arminianism. But you are free to call it what you will…I suppose…regardless of correctness. I will note that you call my view two things…”classic Amytaldiansim” and “Arminianism.” Perhaps this reflects a misunderstanding of the two?

 

[JonC]

Maybe if Jon was raised up as a practicing Catholic as I was for 34 years -- knowing in your heart that it was false, knowing that you are being manipulated into accepting some man made system of humanistic falicy and having everything and everyone aroung you reinforce it.......then maybe Jon would know just how much he is tipping his hat to that terrible system....which to me is enslavement. I can go on and on with it....but the smell of Arminism...of Synergistic human based (let me give my self up as a gift to God) er stuff reeks of Catholism. And that's what led me to question my faith and eventually led me to atheism. And I gotta tell you that there are a lot of atheists walking around here in the north...just like I was. Had it not been for the power of the Holy Spirit, id still be an atheist.

Yes, our raising does color our perspectives. This is what I was speaking of when I mentioned reactionary belief. You are making a connection that does not exist in reaction to where you believe my understanding may lead. I do not believe that men contribute to their salvation, nor does my belief in any way lead towards that position. It is, in fact, quite the opposite. It leads to a belief that the non-elect are justly condemned for rejecting the Light and the elect (all of those God elected before the foundation of the earth, and for whom Christ died in order to secure their salvation) are saved by grace.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Forget it.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

There are no true atheists. Everyone knows there's a God and that there is a future judgment by the same One. Everyone knows. Yes, only "the fools say in their heart"... but they still know... and they have no excuse.

OK how does everyone know....at this point, this "Everyone Knows" is a suggestion & not a concrete.

 

[JonC]

Forget it.

I do see what you mean to an extent (you may have perspectives and insights regarding implications of my view I have not considered), but also I think you are connecting dots that do not necessarily have to be connected. I have been around this board for some time now, and if you look my earlier posts (2001-2002) you will probably detect changes in my views. I am not confined to any theological system...but I am confined to Scripture. I realize that there exists limitations and flaws in human reasoning, and am open to suggestion and correction in my understanding...that was initially why I joined this forum and it remains true today.

From my perspective both you and Reformed have assumed implications that are not present in my view of the Atonement. Whether this was due to inadequate explanation on my part, unasked calls for clarification, or misunderstanding I do not know. While I would have preferred to have concluded with a better understanding of our positions, I am also comfortable with just "forgetting it."

 

[Rippon]

OK how does everyone know....at this point, this "Everyone Knows" is a suggestion & not a concrete.

Try Romans 1:18--21 on for size.

 

[salzer mtn]

I will stick with TULIP I like the fragrance of it. Every thing else smells like.

 

[JonC]

I will stick with TULIP I like the fragrance of it. Every thing else smells like.

If I were God I think I'd have gone with the free-will scheme...so I know the free-will thing is wrong :smilewinkgrin:.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Try Romans 1:18--21 on for size.

I will use NIV just because you are such a promoter of it (personally I could not care less, but...)

Romans 1:18-21New International Version (NIV)
God’s Wrath Against Sinful Humanity

18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.

So here is the question, how can you glorify that which you are an enemy with? We are born with the sin of Adam so are you not born with that corruption ingrained in you already?

 

[Yeshua1]

Perhaps my view is “classic Amyraldianism.” I will have to grant you that possibility as I have not studied enough of classic Amyraldianism to confidently state their position along with the reasoning behind their view. The comment I made regarding faith being essential to salvation is more to determine whether or not we are concurring on that point…it seems that we are. But upon reflection, the issue was whether or not faith precedes regeneration…with the Calvinistic argument (see Pink, for example) presenting the order of regeneration resulting in faith. I may be making the connection between regeneration and salvation that is not warranted within this “Calvinistic” understanding.



The context is the redemption of His sheep. But I also understand Scripture to indicate that the bases upon which men will be eternally condemned is because of their rejection of God’s only Son (John 3). A system which does not permit the Atonement to form this basis also does not permit condemnation for rejecting Christ as salvation was never a provision. (The passage, in my view, is speaking within a redemptive context – Christ lay down His life for His sheep….not a denial that those who do not believe are condemned for their unbelief).



“And he has employed the universal term whosoever, both to invite all indiscriminately to partake of life, and to cut off every excuse from unbelievers. Such is also the impact of the term world, which he formerly used; for though nothing will be found in the world that is worthy of the favor of God, yet he shows himself to be reconciled to the whole world, when he invites all men without exception to the faith of Christ, which is nothing else than an entrance into life.”

I may misunderstand Calvin here…but I do not think so. It does point out another, perhaps, dividing point in our views. I do believe that there is a link between the Atonement and this reconciliation of all things to Christ. But perhaps that’s another topic.



The view that Christ’s death forms a basis of salvation to all mankind while securing and making certain salvation only to God’s elect is not de facto Arminianism. But you are free to call it what you will…I suppose…regardless of correctness. I will note that you call my view two things…”classic Amytaldiansim” and “Arminianism.” Perhaps this reflects a misunderstanding of the two?

You hold that God had the death of jesus as an atonement for all sinners, but that only those sinners to whom God applies that Grace to are actually saved by the Cross correct?

So unlike Arminians, you would not hold that there was a real potentaial that all could be saved, nor do you agree with them that we still freely decide to accept/reject Jesus, as you would hold to the grace of God still being the factor to enable those to be saved by the cross will really all get saved?

 

[Yeshua1]

I do see what you mean to an extent (you may have perspectives and insights regarding implications of my view I have not considered), but also I think you are connecting dots that do not necessarily have to be connected. I have been around this board for some time now, and if you look my earlier posts (2001-2002) you will probably detect changes in my views. I am not confined to any theological system...but I am confined to Scripture. I realize that there exists limitations and flaws in human reasoning, and am open to suggestion and correction in my understanding...that was initially why I joined this forum and it remains true today.

From my perspective both you and Reformed have assumed implications that are not present in my view of the Atonement. Whether this was due to inadequate explanation on my part, unasked calls for clarification, or misunderstanding I do not know. While I would have preferred to have concluded with a better understanding of our positions, I am also comfortable with just "forgetting it."

That also begs the question, " if we can hold to an Atonement view different from penal substitionary view, will we really still be saved?"

 

[JonC]

You hold that God had the death of jesus as an atonement for all sinners, but that only those sinners to whom God applies that Grace to are actually saved by the Cross correct?

So unlike Arminians, you would not hold that there was a real potentaial that all could be saved, nor do you agree with them that we still freely decide to accept/reject Jesus, as you would hold to the grace of God still being the factor to enable those to be saved by the cross will really all get saved?

I would hold that with Christ's death there was a basis of salvation for all of mankind (and of course to redeem the elect in particular). But that no one is saved on that basis because we all reject Christ on our own accord. Christ died to secure salvation for all who believe (the elect). God draws the elect to Himself. Due to the depravity of man and the sovereignty of God in election, I do not see it possible that we will freely choose to accept Christ (although I do think we freely choose to reject Him, such is our natural will).