Limited Atonement

[skypair]

The call goes to all, but only the elect will believe and only after Holy Spirit has worked on them.

Now you're starting to "get it!" The Holy Spirit didn't really "regenerate" or "rebirth" them before they were saved. He "worked on them." In fact, the call to the gospel is the Spirit "working on" everyone but only the foreknown elect will receive salvation.

You might have a little "free will" in you after all! :laugh:

skypair

 

[skypair]

You seem to always see it from the human side which is based on man. To fight for mans will, brings no glory to God. God is the one that saves. God will save his church/people/elect. God gives faith to these, that they may place their faith in Christ. As has been shown before...

Amy is right, James.

Good verse. Believe and faith have the same meaning as I'm sure you know. Who gives faith? Is it a gift of God?

God OFFERS faith --- just like He OFFERS salvation. He cannot give it to those who won't take hold of it, James.

This is NOT an issue of what omnipotent God COULD do if He wanted to. He wants to save everyone ("...not willing that any should perish but that all should come to salvation."). He doesn't because that would be an abuse of His power over our God-given liberty.

And then guess what? Because God has all power, they did believe.

Suppose they only think they believe, James? Suppose for a minute that the do believe but it is another gospel that they think is God's gospel? And if that be so, do they meet their own understanding for being "elect" but not God's standard for being "saved?"

I just toss this out because when you say that God's power makes believers of them, it sounds to me more like "conformity" than "conversion." And conformity, you realize, is major issue in the Millennial Kingdom where, until Satan is released again, most men will "heel" to the awesome power of Christ's authority.

Lift high the name of God and you will never be wrong.

Lift high the will of man and you will always be wrong

They used to do this in vaudville. When the show was clearly flopping, they had someone march the American flag across the stage to which everyone felt compelled to stand up and applaud! And the more I think about Reform/Calvinist theology, the more I recognize the "praise" element being set to the fore. And, of course, we are called to worship in "spirit." But we are also called to worship in "truth."

skypair

 

[webdog]

Webdog, the challenge has been put forth for you to furnish a list of Reformed scholars who deny that faith is the gift in Ephesians 2:8.Simply saying that a bunch of Reformed scholars deny it is not proof, just an empty assertion.

BTW,my pastor, who certainly doesn't regard himself as a Calvinist, was sounding very Calvinistic today.He was using the KJV which I don't have handy right now. He spoke of faith that is obtained,not self-generated.He developed the doctrine that faith is given to those of God's choosing.He referenced Ephesians 2:8 as demonstrating the same.I commended him for being very biblical ( not that he's unbiblical on other occasions

Since you aren't a Calvinist, when your Calvinistic pastor preaches on passages such as Ephesians 2:8 and 2 Peter 1:1 -- do you get upset with him?

Reposted in case rippon didn's see his "challenge" answered a couple pages back...

Here's Vince Gill and Albert Barnes' take on that passage. Unlike you, I don't have a rolodex of reformed theologians I run to for advice, but this should do. Notice the second sentence I bolded. He does hold to faith as being a gift, just not in this passage as it is used.

For by grace are ye saved - By mere favor. It is not by your Own merit; it is not because you have any claim. This is a favorite doctrine with Paul, as it is with all who love the Lord Jesus in sincerity; compare the notes at Rom_1:7; Rom_3:24, note.
Through faith - Grace bestowed through faith, or in connection with believing; see the notes at Rom_1:17; Rom_4:16, note.
And that not of yourselves - That is, salvation does not proceed from yourselves. The word rendered "that" - τοῦτοtouto - is in the neuter gender, and the word "faith" - πίστιςpistis - is in the feminine. The word "that," therefore, does not refer particularly to faith, as being the gift of God, but to "the salvation by grace" of which he had been speaking. This is the interpretation of the passage which is the most obvious, and which is now generally conceded to be the true one; see Bloomfield. Many critics, however, as Doddridge, Beza, Piscator, and Chrysostom, maintain that the word "that" (τοῦτοtouto) refers to "faith" (πίστιςpistis); and Doddridge maintains that such a use is common in the New Testament. As a matter of grammar this opinion is certainly doubtful, if not untenable; but as a matter of theology it is a question of very little importance.
Whether this passage proves it or not, it is certainly true that faith is the gift of God. It exists in the mind only when the Holy Spirit produces it there, and is, in common with every other Christian excellence, to be traced to his agency on the heart. This opinion, however, does not militate at all with the doctrine that man himself "believes." It is not God that "believes" for him, for that is impossible. It is his own mind that actually believes, or that exercises faith; see the notes at Rom_4:3. In the same manner "repentance" is to be traced to God. It is one of the fruits of the operation of the Holy Spirit on the soul. But the Holy Spirit does not "repent" for us. It is our "own mind" that repents; our own heart that feels; our own eyes that weep - and without this there can he no true repentance. No one can repent for another; and God neither can nor ought to repent; for us. He has done no wrong, and if repentance is ever exercised, therefore, it must be exercised by our own minds. So of faith. God cannot believe for us. "We" must believe, or "we" shall be damned. Still this does not conflict at all with the opinion, that if we exercise faith, the inclination to do it is to be traced to the agency of God on the heart. I would not contend, therefore, about the grammatical construction of this passage, with respect to the point of the theology contained in it; still it accords better with the obvious grammatical construction, and with the design of the passage to understand the word "that" as referring not to "faith" only, but to "salvation by grace." So Calvin understands it, and so it is understood by Storr, Locke, Clarke, Koppe, Grotius, and others.
It is the gift of God - Salvation by grace is his gift. It is not of merit; it is wholly by favor.

through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; salvation is through faith, not as a cause or condition of salvation, or as what adds anything to the blessing itself; but it is the way, or means, or instrument, which God has appointed, for the receiving and enjoying it, that so it might appear to be all of grace; and this faith is not the produce of man's free will and power, but it is the free gift of God; and therefore salvation through it is consistent with salvation by grace; since that itself is of grace, lies entirely in receiving grace and gives all the glory to the grace of God: the sense of this last clause may be, that salvation is not of ourselves; it is not of our desiring nor of our deserving, nor of our performing, but is of the free grace of God: though faith is elsewhere represented as the gift of God, Joh_6:65 and it is called the special gift of faith, in the Apocrypha:

 

[Rippon]

Even most mainline calvinists with knowledge of greek disagree that faith is the gift being mentioned in Ephesians 2.

This is a quote from post #142 of WD's."Most mainline Calvinists" he said. Most people would interpret that as being most mainline contemporary Calvinists. I gave him seven examples of mainline Calvinists of recent vintage.He gives me the quasi-Calvinist Albert Barnes who died 138 years ago. He also gives me "Vince" Gill,( he meant John) who died 237 years ago.

WD,please furnish a list of modern mainline Calvinists who deny that faith is the gift mentioned in Ephesians 2:8. If you can't that means you specialize in empty assertions ( for you have done it often).Also, if you can't please acknowledge that you have been mistaken.

 

[webdog]

This is a quote from post #142 of WD's."Most mainline Calvinists" he said. Most people would interpret that as being most mainline contemporary Calvinists. I gave him seven examples of mainline Calvinists of recent vintage.He gives me the quasi-Calvinist Albert Barnes who died 138 years ago. He also gives me "Vince" Gill,( he meant John) who died 237 years ago.

WD,please furnish a list of modern mainline Calvinists who deny that faith is the gift mentioned in Ephesians 2:8. If you can't that means you specialize in empty assertions ( for you have done it often).Also, if you can't please acknowledge that you have been mistaken.

Just because you don't define them as "mainline" doesn't make it so.

You are the one with the list of reformers...I'm sure you can study up and see that there are those who agree with Gill and Barnes. It is a very calvinistic month...remember?

 

[skypair]

You are the one with the list of reformers...I'm sure you can study up and see that there are those who agree with Gill and Barnes. It is a very calvinistic month...remember?

Yeah, I too am a little queasy about how Calvinists claim the "evolution" of Calvinism to where, "situationally," they can claim them "wise" and "godlly" in one breath and "outdated" in the next! :laugh:

Meanwhile, we've been asserting their theology is outdated all along! Perhaps in the idea of "outdated" we can find some common ground, eh?

skypair

 

[Rippon]

Just because you don't define them as "mainline" doesn't make it so.

Think about the word "mainline" WD. When you hear of folks speaking of "mainline denominations" what comes to mind? Yes, the bulk of denominations which are in the majority.The same applies to "mainline archaelogists", "mainline scientists" etc. IOW, it's a well-established position. A synonym is mainstream, and that means :"The prevailing current or direction of a movement,influence, or authority." ( From the Fourth Edition of The American Heritage Dictionary)

When you claim that most mainline Calvinists deny that faith is the gift referenced in Ephesians 2:8 you don't have a leg to stand on.The majority of contemporary,mainstream Calvinist scholars believe faith is indeed the gift so referenced.

So you are back to square one. Admit you made a mistake. Or, continue making baseless claims which people will suspect are bogus -- established from your bad track record.

 

[webdog]

Think about the word "mainline" WD. When you hear of folks speaking of "mainline denominations" what comes to mind? Yes, the bulk of denominations which are in the majority.The same applies to "mainline archaelogists", "mainline scientists" etc. IOW, it's a well-established position. A synonym is mainstream, and that means :"The prevailing current or direction of a movement,influence, or authority." ( From the Fourth Edition of The American Heritage Dictionary)

When you claim that most mainline Calvinists deny that faith is the gift referenced in Ephesians 2:8 you don't have a leg to stand on.The majority of contemporary,mainstream Calvinist scholars believe faith is indeed the gift so referenced.

So you are back to square one. Admit you made a mistake. Or, continue making baseless claims which people will suspect are bogus -- established from your bad track record.

Since the definition of "mainline" is being in a well established position...and it is well established (even by calvinists) that faith is NOT what "that" or "it" is referring back to in Eph. 2, but the whole of "by grace you are saved through faith"...my comment stands. Deal with it.

I guess that leaves you back to your useless ad hominem's to fall back on. Great Christian spirit.

 

[Rippon]

Since the definition of "mainline" is being in a well established position...and it is well established (even by calvinists) that faith is NOT what "that" or "it" is referring back to in Eph. 2, but the whole of "by grace you are saved through faith"...my comment stands. Deal with it.

You're stuck in the mud of your own stubborness WD.To date, you have furnished no names whatsoever of "most mainstream Calvinists" who think faith was not referenced as the gift in Eph.2:8.Around and around you spin in the muck and mire. To get some traction you need to produce some names of 20th and 21st century Calvinist scholars.That's mainline or mainstream as I pointed out previously -- current Calvinist scholars.Since there are so many it should not be difficult for you.But after a bunch of posts asking you to produce names has turned up nothing -- you're all bark with no bite. No substance.You remind me of a little child when asked the reason for his conduct responds with :"Cuz, just cuz". You have no facts,just a lot of "Cuz I said so."

 

[skypair]

To get some traction you need to produce some names of 20th and 21st century Calvinist scholars. That's mainline or mainstream as I pointed out previously -- current Calvinist scholars.

And doing so would, what, change your mind about whether faith is the gift or not? :laugh: I noticed that someone once told you that you had a problem with closing your quotes and that still hasn't changed. Why should we think you are here for anything more than just to assert your own will on us?

skypair

 

[webdog]

Since the definition of "mainline" is being in a well established position...and it is well established (even by calvinists) that faith is NOT what "that" or "it" is referring back to in Eph. 2, but the whole of "by grace you are saved through faith"...my comment stands. Deal with it.

You're stuck in the mud of your own stubborness WD.To date, you have furnished no names whatsoever of "most mainstream Calvinists" who think faith was not referenced as the gift in Eph.2:8.Around and around you spin in the muck and mire. To get some traction you need to produce some names of 20th and 21st century Calvinist scholars.That's mainline or mainstream as I pointed out previously -- current Calvinist scholars.Since there are so many it should not be difficult for you.But after a bunch of posts asking you to produce names has turned up nothing -- you're all bark with no bite. No substance.You remind me of a little child when asked the reason for his conduct responds with :"Cuz, just cuz". You have no facts,just a lot of "Cuz I said so."

I don't have to produce anything. I will not be bullied by an angry calvinist. If the plain meaning of Scripture won't change your view, why would names of mere mortals? You are enamored with man's theology...find it yourself. I'm sure Gill and Barnes aren't alone in their views.

 

[skypair]

I don't have to produce anything. I will not be bullied by an angry calvinist. If the plain meaning of Scripture won't change your view, why would names of mere mortals? You are enamored with man's theology...find it yourself. I'm sure Gill and Barnes aren't alone in their views.

But hey, that boy's growing up handsomer than his dad!! :laugh: You must be feeding him the "Good Stuff," eh?

skypair

 

[webdog]

Trying to get him to eat anything is like pulling teeth. That's why I debate on here, to get practice for dealing with him

 

[Rippon]

Even most mainline calvinists with knowledge of greek disagree that faith is the gift being mentioned in Ephesians 2.

WD made this empty claim on July 14th. I have asked him repeatedly to back up his assertion. As a matter of fact I asked in my posts numbered ,143,147,183,204,207and 209. I will ask again for the 7th time. Please furnish names of this category of "most mainline Calvinists" who have taken this position.Your silence is deafening. Admit you were wrong and just made that claim up, or produce. Saying false things will not buttress your position.In fact folks will start to doubt any stance you take.Come clean WD.

 

[Rippon]

The truth is even amoungst Calvinists it is a debatable topic. Many believe one can be regenerated for years and even decades before one is saved.

The above is a quote from Allan, post #172. I had asked him to document where any mainsteam Calvinists have ever said such a thing.( I asked him in post #179) So far silence.

I think Allan has gotten an infection from WD in that he will not ( or can't) produce names for a claim that is empty.

I will not let non-Cals get away with lies to perpetuate their "system".

 

[Allan]

The truth is even amoungst Calvinists it is a debatable topic. Many believe one can be regenerated for years and even decades before one is saved.

The above is a quote from Allan, post #172. I had asked him to document where any mainsteam Calvinists have ever said such a thing.( I asked him in post #179) So far silence.

I think Allan has gotten an infection from WD in that he will not ( or can't) produce names for a claim that is empty.

I will not let non-Cals get away with lies to perpetuate their "system".

You "will not let"... :laugh: Seems Rippon has come over to the free-will side after all And let us not forget Rippon's common ad hominem remarks of calling people liars.

As for your comment, I never even noticed your post to me, as I haven't spent much time on here doing posting lately in case you hadn't noticed.

Secondly, did I make any such statement that mainline Calvinism believes ...
OR..
Did I state that many Calvinists believe..

If you would do a little research you'll it was the later one.
So you petty quarrel about 'mainline' view is not even the topic I was discussing.

Thirdly, you said nothing in your post # 179 about documenting anything mainline but asked me to give you "just one name" of a Calvinist who holds this view. Here is what you posted regarding it:

"Many Calvinists"?! Name just one.This view is not mainstream Calvinism."

Here is your "just one" : Gene Bridges of Triablogue. I don't know if he is still with StrangeBaptistfire anymore, and I think he wrote for Founders at one time as well (I may be mistaken here). In a thread there he and I debated back in 2006 or so (I don't remember the thread) at StrangeBaptistFire. He was affectionately called by them "the sharpest knife in the drawer" and yes he made just such a statement. Whether he 'still' holds this view, I'm not sure but I don't think he would have dropped it.

Are you really going to contend that there aren't Calvinists out there who believe that a person can be in a regenerate state for hours, days, weeks, et.. and not yet use their saving faith?? If this is about the term used "many" it was mearly and acknowledgement of them (and I have met quite a few) and not a definer of the mainline Calvinistic view.

Actaully there isn't a whole lot writen on how much time transpires between regeneration and repentence according to Sovereign grace doctrines. Some state split second the majority of writtings don't even address the time issue at all.

 

[webdog]

WD made this empty claim on July 14th. I have asked him repeatedly to back up his assertion. As a matter of fact I asked in my posts numbered ,143,147,183,204,207and 209. I will ask again for the 7th time. Please furnish names of this category of "most mainline Calvinists" who have taken this position.Your silence is deafening. Admit you were wrong and just made that claim up, or produce. Saying false things will not buttress your position.In fact folks will start to doubt any stance you take.Come clean WD.

Rippon, is in fact dishonest. I supplied him with two calvinists. The fact he doesn't like these two calvinist's interpretation of Ephesians leads him to post mistruths. He can't even get the definition of mainline correct. Fact is, he now want's 21 century theologians...as any calvinist or theologian before this time must be flawed.

Drop the anger and hate, rippon.

 

[Rippon]

Rippon, is in fact dishonest. I supplied him with two calvinists. The fact he doesn't like these two calvinist's interpretation of Ephesians leads him to post mistruths. He can't even get the definition of mainline correct. Fact is, he now want's 21 century theologians...as any calvinist or theologian before this time must be flawed.

This is now my 8th post asking WD to furnish any proof whatsoever that "most mainline Calvinists" deny that faith is the gift referenced in Ephesians 2:8.As usual, WD comes up empty.No mistruths on my part. I had to give WD a definition of what mainline meant. I also gave him examples of other usages of the word. The word "most" is simply dead wrong. Most "most mainline denominations","most mainline historians" etc. Yes, mainline means the majority of current thought in this context. In fact most mainline Calvinists do believe that faith is the gift referenced in Eph.2:8. Naming one Calvinists who died 237 years ago does not qualify as being mainline. Neither does a quasi-Calvinist who died 128 or so years ago count. What is expected by someone making such a claim as WD, is to produce names of contemporary names of Calvinistic scholars who hold to his viewpoint on the matter. But WD is not in the habit of backing up what he so confidently asserts.Producing evidence is not in his repertoire.

 

[webdog]

How old are you Rippon?

 

[Rippon]

Thirdly, you said nothing in your post # 179 about documenting anything mainline but asked me to give you "just one name" of a Calvinist who holds this view.

Rip : When I said "name one", I was using a figure of speech. But you were not using a figure of speech when you said "Many believe one can be regenerated for years and even decades before one is saved."

Here is your "just one" : Gene Bridges of Triablogue. I don't know if he is still with StrangeBaptistfire anymore, and I think he wrote for Founders at one time as well (I may be mistaken here). In a thread there he and I debated back in 2006 or so (I don't remember the thread) at StrangeBaptistFire. He was affectionately called by them "the sharpest knife in the drawer" and yes he made just such a statement. Whether he 'still' holds this view, I'm not sure but I don't think he would have dropped it.

Rip : Please document that.. If he said anything remotely like you claim he would not be in the "many believe" category.As I said in my post number 179:"You need to back that assertion up with documentation."

Are you really going to contend that there aren't Calvinists out there who believe that a person can be in a regenerate state for hours, days, weeks, et.. and not yet use their saving faith??

Rip : Yes. I will contend that there is no such animal.Besides,you had said "years and even decades". "Use their saving faith"? Their God-given faith is what saved them in the first place.


If this is about the term used "many" it was mearly and acknowledgement of them (and I have met quite a few) and not a definer of the mainline Calvinistic view.

Rip : I have been a Calvinist much longer than when you first came across the word. I have never met any professing Calvinist say that they were regenerated for years before they were saved. It's so outlandish that that statement by you reminded me of Skypair's utterances.

Actaully there isn't a whole lot writen on how much time transpires between regeneration and repentence according to Sovereign grace doctrines. Some state split second the majority of writtings don't even address the time issue at all.

Concerning the time issue -- most Calvinistic authors regard regeneration as instantaneous.I have never come across the wackiness you profess "many believe".