Limited Atonement... Unanswerable question.

[KenH]

Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
Thankfully, my assumptions upon which God transcends the time/choice issue allow me to solve the problem. You just don't understand it well enough.

You're right, Scott. None of us understand the assumptions, presuppositions, life experiences, academic learning that others bring to this forum. If we did, then perhaps there would be less acrimony and more respect shown for each other's positions on both sides of the "free will" scrimmage line.

Ken

 

[Ray Berrian]

pinobaptist,

My point is that God because of His perfection of His nature in all of His attributes, cannot favor to elect some and not other; this would be a violation of His nature. It is impossible for Him to love His elect and to be prejudiced against the non-elect. This could never happen; and that is why much of Augustinian/Calvinism is incorrect.

 

[russell55]

and to be prejudiced against the non-elect

Who says He is prejudiced against the non-elect? Is it even possible for God to be prejudiced against anyone, since we are all born with just grounds for condemning us?

And exactly which attribute does giving grace to some that you do not give to others go against?

[ September 12, 2002, 10:23 PM: Message edited by: russell55 ]

 

[Primitive Baptist]

I don't understand how Arminians can charge God with unfairness in electing some and not others saying we are all unworthy of even an ounce of His mercy. I don't get it, but I guess I never will. God owes no man. God is not indebted to us; we are indebted to Him.

 

[BobRyan]

PRimitive Baptist
This covenant was "ordered in all things, and sure." This describes all but the Arminian theory of the atonement that is powerless to save anyone without their "free will."

It is the distinctive mark of Calvinism that it takes those points held in common and claims them as "proof" of it's own distinctive assumptions.

Both Arminian and Calvinist models allow for absolute foreknowledge of God. That did not stop Lucifer, Adam or Christ from exercising "Free will". Foreknowledge - even absolute foreknowledge does not void free will in these cases - thus it voids the assumption to the contrary made in Calvinism for the saints.

And as for Esau and Jacob - the text of Romans 9 is Not a reference to Genesis but to Malachi. It speaks of events LONG AFTER both Esau and Jacob died. God tells Rachael that the older will serve the younger but does not say that He does not love Esau. God did not go to Rachael and say "Jacob have I loved and Esau have I hated". RATHER in Malachi - God references the rebellion of Edom to show how events have unfolded over time. Contrasting rebellion with the people of God.

And how often do our Calvinist bretheren bring out these basic and obvious points when covering the text? Ever?

In Christ,

Bob

[ September 13, 2002, 11:37 PM: Message edited by: BobRyan ]

 

[BobRyan]

It is a mark of Arminianism that it constantly seeks to remind us that "God so Loved the World" -

It is the mark of Calvinism that it must continually refute that and argue in effect "Oh no He did not - rather He so loved the arbitrarily selected few of Matt 7 and CALLED that The World".

But why then (if God EVER used the term World for the arbitrarily selected FEW of Matt 7) does God not say "The WORLD is SAVED. the WORLD has accepted Salvation. The Whole World will go to Heaven." - since ALL that is true when we redefine the term as Calvinism "needs it".

In Christ,

Bob

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
God tells Rachael that the older will serve the younger

Brother Bob,

I think you mean Rebekah, not Rachael.

Ken

 

[Ray Berrian]

A part of the answer to Romans chapter nine is answered in Malachi chapter one. God chose Jacob over Esau and portrayed this fact by giving Esau the less favorable place to live and to bring forth his lineage in developing his nation. Notice Esau was not numbered among the twelve tribes of Israel. This was God's sovereign plan and choice and had nothing at all to do with saving and damning human beings, autocratically.

Jacob's lineage brought forth the purity of the Israelite people, the greatest who was, of course, our Savior Jesus Christ.

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
1) God chose Jacob over Esau and portrayed this fact by giving Esau the less favorable place to live and to bring forth his lineage in developing his nation.

2) Notice Esau was not numbered among the twelve tribes of Israel.

1) Absolutely, Brother Ray. But Esau still did pretty well by material standards of the time.

2) True. The twelve tribes came from the 12 sons of Jacob. Esau, being Jacob's brother and not one of his 12 sons, would not be among the 12 tribes of Israel.

Ken

 

[Ray Berrian]

Ken Hamilton,

Yes, you are correct. God blessed even Esau because he was included as a son of the covenant, through circumcision though not included as one of the twelve tribes of Israel, as we both have noted.

The land, however was a mountain and plateau area between the Dead Sea and the Gulf of Aqabah about one hundred miles long and forty miles wide. I have never been there but it looks like only isolated areas for farming and perhaps a little better for grazing sheep in Biblical times. Personally, I don't think it was the upper class neighborhood of that time.