IF Once Were Arminist, What verse(s) Forced You To calvinism?

[JesusFan]

Hi Jesusfan,
"where the "light bulb" turned on big time was when read.studied the Systematic Theolgy of Milliard Erickson, and tend to see myself in the same vein as he is,"

I think this book is well written, but still makes the same assertions as most of Calvinist commentary. What passage of scripture did you find in the book where the same old claim was not made?

think that my "eyes being openned" was more to the fact that up until reading thru that book, had read John Calvin Institutes, and other cal books, that seemed to me to be what would now be called a "high cal position" some of them from the commentaries I read seemed to have a double predestination , God actively elects both to heaven/hell people...

Also, he seemed to be one of the few Baptist theologians/reformed theologians that I read that was a 4 point Cal, and he had faith preceding regeneration, most seemed to have it other way around!

Think that Milliard Erickson theology showed me that one COULD find in the bible evidence that God did predestined people to become saved, but did NOT actively condemn those with Christ....

he also seemed to be able to explain that one could be an evangelical Christian, and yet leave more "grey areas" in theology than some I had read, and seemed to be more chairitablre to those outside "cal/baptist" camp!

 

[glfredrick]

think that my "eyes being openned" was more to the fact that up until reading thru that book, had read John Calvin Institutes, and other cal books, that seemed to me to be what would now be called a "high cal position" some of them from the commentaries I read seemed to have a double predestination , God actively elects both to heaven/hell people...

Also, he seemed to be one of the few Baptist theologians/reformed theologians that I read that was a 4 point Cal, and he had faith preceding regeneration, most seemed to have it other way around!

Think that Milliard Erickson theology showed me that one COULD find in the bible evidence that God did predestined people to become saved, but did NOT actively condemn those with Christ....

he also seemed to be able to explain that one could be an evangelical Christian, and yet leave more "grey areas" in theology than some I had read, and seemed to be more chairitablre to those outside "cal/baptist" camp!

If we start from the position that "all are born condemned" then we can understand God saving some without adding double predestination to the equation. I believe that is precisely what Christ is telling us in John 3.

 

[Skandelon]

Whatever the efficacy was, is it already applied to all men with one thing lacking, that of acceptance/faith/decision or whatever condition is required on the part of man, or is the efficacy withheld and all are still under the curse and guilt of their transgressions of the law until such condition is met?

Calvinistic and Non-Calvinistic scholars differ on this point, as I'm sure you know. Personally, I wouldn't say that any thing is "applied" to all men prior to their justification, but instead would simply say that the curse of the law was dissolved (as the passage I just quoted explained). The law was fulfilled once and for ALL. The reason someone doesn't enter into Heaven is due to their unbelief, period.

If not for the cross Abraham's faith in God wouldn't qualify him, due to the curse of the law. But, once the cross dissolved the curse, then his faith was "credited to him as righteousness."

My question is, does God love all men equally

Depends on how you define "love." Now, clearly God doesn't treat everyone equally, so by that standard the answer is "no." But if you understand divine "Agape" love as being truly unconditional then yes, he does love all mankind. Even Calvinistic scholars like John MacArthur affirm this biblical truth.

and give the same opportunity to be saved?

Same, no. No two people have the same salvation experience. But, all are "without excuse" because God has provided all that is needed for men to clearly see and understand that for which they are held to account. Paul makes that abundantly clear in Romans 1.

 

[Skandelon]

If we start from the position that "all are born condemned" then we can understand God saving some without adding double predestination to the equation.

The problem with this view is that it ignores the choice God made to cause all men to be "born condemned" due to Adam's choice. You can't just ignore His active predetermination to condemn all men from birth due to the Fall, can you?

 

[Greektim]

Any particular Bible passages?

Rom 3:10-18

This passage forced me to see man as totally depraved and incapable of believing w/out God's intervention through regeneration.

 

[Skandelon]

Rom 3:10-18

This passage forced me to see man as totally depraved and incapable of believing w/out God's intervention through regeneration.

I think if you read on you will see that God has intervened with a "righteousness apart from the law:"

19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. 20 Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.
Righteousness Through Faith
21 But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22 This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe.

We all agree that according to the Law of righteousness, no one measures up and all fall short, but can you point me to the passage that says no one can be credited as righteous through faith in the one who fulfilled the Law in our stead?

You seem to presume that because all men are guilty under the law, that no man can be declared righteous through faith under grace. Why?

 

[Aaron]

Calvinistic and Non-Calvinistic scholars differ on this point, as I'm sure you know. Personally, I wouldn't say that any thing is "applied" to all men prior to their justification, but instead would simply say that the curse of the law was dissolved (as the passage I just quoted explained). The law was fulfilled once and for ALL. The reason someone doesn't enter into Heaven is due to their unbelief, period.

If not for the cross Abraham's faith in God wouldn't qualify him, due to the curse of the law. But, once the cross dissolved the curse, then his faith was "credited to him as righteousness."

Just to be clear, you're saying that no one on the face of the earth is any longer under the curse, neither Christians nor nonchristians. Is that correct?

Does that mean that one's transgressions of the law are forgiven? All murders and adulteries, idolatries and thefts, whether one is a Christian or a nonchristian? Everyone has a clean slate, so to speak, except for a heart of unbelief?

No two people have the same salvation experience. But, all are "without excuse" because God has provided all that is needed for men to clearly see and understand that for which they are held to account. Paul makes that abundantly clear in Romans 1.

I'm not asking if all salvation experiences are the same, I'm asking if they are they equal. In other words, are some people given a better advantage than others? If so, is that advantage due to the work of God or to time and chance?

 

[Aaron]

And again, the shorter and more concise the answer, the better.

 

[JesusFan]

Just to be clear, you're saying that no one on the face of the earth is any longer under the curse, neither Christians nor nonchristians. Is that correct?

Does that mean that one's transgressions of the law are forgiven? All murders and adulteries, idolatries and thefts, whether one is a Christian or a nonchristian? Everyone has a clean slate, so to speak, except for a heart of unbelief?


I'm not asking if all salvation experiences are the same, I'm asking if they are they equal. In other words, are some people given a better advantage than others? If so, is that advantage due to the work of God or to time and chance?

maybe I am wrong, but doesn't the Apostle paul mean that to those Purchased by the blood of Christ, redeemed, to those now "In Christ" is the curse the Law brought on us now lifted?

that the Curse of law still remains on those who are "in Adam" , so their is still imputed to those w/o Christ the Sin of Adam, that we have original Sin /Sin natures ?

 

[Aaron]

I'm asking Skandelon.

 

[The Archangel]

The problem with this view is that it ignores the choice God made to cause all men to be "born condemned" due to Adam's choice. You can't just ignore His active predetermination to condemn all men from birth due to the Fall, can you?

The problem here is that you assume that God made an active choice to cause all men to be born condemned.

It seems that you are arguing that the curse was something other than the natural consequences of man's sin.

We believe that man's being born condemned is a natural consequence of Adam's sin--not an "unnatural" add-on by God.

Our condemnation, depravity, etc. is a result of being pro-created in the image of Adam. We are this way because he became that way.

The Archangel

 

[Skandelon]

Just to be clear, you're saying that no one on the face of the earth is any longer under the curse, neither Christians nor nonchristians. Is that correct?

I'm not sure why there is confusion, Aaron. Don't we believe the same in regard to the effect that the cross had on those for whom Christ died, whether the elect only, or all mankind? So, allow me to turn the same questions to you.

Are you saying that every elect person on the face of the earth is no longer under the curse, whether believing or yet to become believers?

I believe your answer to this question is the same for me regarding all mankind. Point being, it doesn't matter how you answer because the curse has no power to condemn those who were atoned for on the cross (whether a select few effectually caused to believe or all mankind). That which condemns them is their unbelief, not their breaking of the ten commandments.

Does that mean that one's transgressions of the law are forgiven? All murders and adulteries, idolatries and thefts, whether one is a Christian or a nonchristian? Everyone has a clean slate, so to speak, except for a heart of unbelief?

Again, turn that question around: Are the transgressions of the law for the elect ones prior to their conversion forgiven? Was Saul's sin of murdering Christians atoned for on the cross? If so, in that time before he believed in Christ was Saul forgiven already or not? Was he atoned for already or not?

I suspect your answer to these questions will suffice for both of us.

I'm not asking if all salvation experiences are the same, I'm asking if they are they equal. In other words, are some people given a better advantage than others?

I think some are given more advantage than others and will be held to account accordingly. At least that is what scripture seems to indicate, but we do see through a glass dimly and must trust God's judgement on such matters.

If so, is that advantage due to the work of God or to time and chance?

Scripture indicates that God has given authority and power to dark forces that rule in this world, thus I don't believe injustice can be laid at the feet of God. Whatever injustice there is in this world is due to sin and the behavior of fallen creatures, not God.

 

[Skandelon]

The problem here is that you assume that God made an active choice to cause all men to be born condemned.

If he didn't make that determination, then who did? Who decided that when Adam fell that all his descendants would be born condemned and without ability to willing accept a divine offer of reconciliation?

It seems that you are arguing that the curse was something other than the natural consequences of man's sin.

What do you mean by "natural?" Mother nature made this rule? I'm not being flippant, I honestly just don't understand your perspective. Who determines what is natural?

 

[Aaron]

I'm not sure why there is confusion, Aaron. Don't we believe the same in regard to the effect that the cross had on those for whom Christ died, whether the elect only, or all mankind? So, allow me to turn the same questions to you.

Are you saying that every elect person on the face of the earth is no longer under the curse, whether believing or yet to become believers?

I believe your answer to this question is the same for me regarding all mankind. Point being, it doesn't matter how you answer because the curse has no power to condemn those who were atoned for on the cross (whether a select few effectually caused to believe or all mankind). That which condemns them is their unbelief, not their breaking of the ten commandments.

Again, turn that question around: Are the transgressions of the law for the elect ones prior to their conversion forgiven? Was Saul's sin of murdering Christians atoned for on the cross? If so, in that time before he believe in Christ was Saul forgiven already or not?

I suspect your answer to these questions will suffice for both of us.

I think some are given more advantage than others and will be held to account accordingly. At least that is what scripture seems to indicate, but we do see through a glass dimly and must trust God's judgement on such matters.

Scripture indicates that God has given authority and power to dark forces that rule in this world, thus I don't believe injustice can be laid at the feet of God. Whatever injustice there is in this world is due to sin and the behavior of fallen creatures, not God.

Allright. Then I haven't misrepresented your position at all. You just don't like the logical implications of it, the most egregious of which is that the Cross saved no one. It merely levelled the playing field and provided a situation in which one may save himself by his own righteous act of belief.

 

[Skandelon]

Allright. Then I haven't misrepresented your position at all. You just don't like the logical implications of it, the most egregious of which is that the Cross saved no one.

Still attacking straw men, huh?

The Cross saved no one in our view? Really? What about Abraham? Was his faith that was credited to him as righteousness all that was needed to save him, or do we affirm then need of the cross to atone for his sin? Of course we do, but just go ahead and continue to misrepresent our view and attack all your self imposed straw people. I know that is much easier than engaging me in a real discussion of our actual views.

It merely levelled the playing field and provided a situation in which one may save himself by his own righteous act of belief.

Straw man. Again, simply because we don't affirm the irresistibility of God's divine assistance doesn't mean we believe "one may save himself." We BOTH affirm the need of faith, you simply believe God effectually causes it and I believe God provides what is needed but they may resist his provisions, thus making him "without excuse." Your view, on the other hand, gives men all the excuses they need.

 

[The Archangel]

If he didn't make that determination, then who did? Who decided that when Adam fell that all his descendants would be born condemned and without ability to willing accept a divine offer of reconciliation?

What do you mean by "natural?" Mother nature made this rule? I'm not being flippant, I honestly just don't understand your perspective. Who determines what is natural?

Again...in the Genesis text we see God actively cursing the ground and even certain elements of our lives--like Eve having pain in childbirth.

So, in that sense, God actively cursed the creation (hence all creation is groaning under the curse).

It would seem, though, that the spiritual destruction is a result of Adam's (and Eve's) becoming a rebel rather than remaining obedient. Their default position as rebels was passed on to all their progeny as was their guilt before God as well. This, though, was brought on themselves and is a natural consequence of their rebellion--as opposed to an active cursing that caused these consequences.

The Archangel

 

[Skandelon]

natural consequence

What determines the "natural consequence" is "total depravity" if not the will of God?

 

[Aaron]

Still attacking straw men, huh?

The Cross saved no one in our view? Really?

Exactly. You just affirmed that the Cross is universally efficacious. All men at this moment have the curse lifted, and their transgressions forgiven. Yet some are unsaved.

The Cross saves no one.

What about Abraham? Was his faith that was credited to him as righteousness all that was needed to save him, or do we affirm then need of the cross to atone for his sin?

You affirm the Cross PLUS some act of righteousness on the part of a man.

These aren't straw men. These are your arguments. Anyone at a third grade reading level can see that this is what you're saying.

 

[Skandelon]

The Cross saves no one.

By that logic the snake lifted on the pole in the desert for Israelites bitten by poisonous snakes also saved no one. In fact, by your logic, unless God supernaturally forced the snake bit Jew to manually turn his head and look upon the snake, then that provision saved no one!

You seem to have no concept of provisional atonement...an atonement offered as provision for whosoever fulfills their part of the covenant relationship. Which, by the way, even Calvinists should affirm. The difference is that you believe that God efficaciously causes certain ones to have faith thus fulfilling this condition.

You affirm the Cross PLUS some act of righteousness on the part of a man.

So do you Aaron. You just believe that act is efficaciously produced. So, again, by this reasoning you must believe that man is saved by grace, through a work, that is efficaciously produced by God. Is that what you believe Aaron, that man is saved by grace through an divinely produced work of man?

 

[glfredrick]

The problem with this view is that it ignores the choice God made to cause all men to be "born condemned" due to Adam's choice. You can't just ignore His active predetermination to condemn all men from birth due to the Fall, can you?

No, I guess WE cannot... :smilewinkgrin: