Misunderstanding Unlimited Atonement.

[Martin Marprelate]

Plus, T. Cassidy said that grace plus anything equals synergism. And so regeneration is monergistic. But then he said "WE MUST" do something to make salvation PERMAMENT
(T. Cassidy post 61-What must he do to be saved progressively and permanently? Simple. He had to believe He was Who He claimed to be, and believe in what He did. )
This was in response to the Philippian jailer, who asked "what must I do to be saved"

Is this not making regeneration monergistic but salvation itself synergistic? He says I am misrepresenting him, but what else could "doing something to make my salvation permament mean?

Mr Cassidy will answer for himself, I'm sure, but the point is that the very faith with which we believe is the gift of God (Ephesians 2:8). Also you didn't address my post #89 (not that you're obliged to), so I repeat it below in case you missed it.

John 6:37. "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me.' Surely that is clear enough for anybody? The Father has elected before the foundation of the world (Ephesians 1:4) a people whom He has given to the Lord Jesus Christ who has redeemed them from sin at measureless cost. These people will come to Christ; there can be no doubt about it for He repeats the statement in John 6:39; 17:2 etc.

Of course the God who ordained salvation has also ordained the means- faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. That is why we read, 'And as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed' (Acts 13:48). Not one more nor one fewer.

To try and put this even more simply: yes, the Philippian jailor had to believe, but the very faith with which he believed came from God. It is all of Him, every last bit of it. 'To the praise of His glorious grace.'

 

[glad4mercy]

Mr Cassidy will answer for himself, I'm sure, but the point is that the very faith with which we believe is the gift of God (Ephesians 2:8). Also you didn't address my post #89 (not that you're obliged to), so I repeat it below in case you missed it.

John 6:37. "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me.' Surely that is clear enough for anybody? The Father has elected before the foundation of the world (Ephesians 1:4) a people whom He has given to the Lord Jesus Christ who has redeemed them from sin at measureless cost. These people will come to Christ; there can be no doubt about it for He repeats the statement in John 6:39; 17:2 etc.

Of course the God who ordained salvation has also ordained the means- faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. That is why we read, 'And as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed' (Acts 13:48). Not one more nor one fewer.

To try and put this even more simply: yes, the Philippian jailor had to believe, but the very faith with which he believed came from God. It is all of Him, every last bit of it. 'To the praise of His glorious grace.'

Good post and good questions/points

Yes, faith is a gift of God. Completely agree. As I said in numerous posts, faith is NOT a synergistic work. Neither is repentance or calling on the name of the Lord, or receiving the gift of salvation. All of these things FLOW from the grace of God and are mere responses to the work of the Holy Spirit. There is no merit or effectual working power in anything WE DO. All the merit and power of salvation comes from God. SO the charge of synergism is BOGUS.

Yes, all that the Father gives Jesus will come to Him, no doubt. And I do not believe that God learns that we will believe when "He looks down the corridors of time to see who will believe." Why on earth would God have to look down the corridors of time when HE IS ALREADY OMNISCIENT? EQUALLY, God did not at some point in time decide/decree to create a Kosmos, allow the fall, and send a Saviour, as if it was ever a new idea that came into His mind, (it was eternally present to Him) These are silly ideas of man who impotently try to explain things outside of their grasp by using extapolation instead of the scriptures. If God is perfectly OMNISCIENT (which He is), all of these things were known to Him from eternity past. He is immutable. The depths of His knowledge do not diminish or increase. He has perfect knowledge from of all things from eternity past to eternity future. So God knew who were His before they were born, even before the foundation of the KOSMOS. But that does not mean He sat down and said "I save you", "I save you not"...

There is something in election THAT NNE UNDERSTANDS. On this I agree with Calvinists

SO you have the same question and difficulty we do.

That is why I say NEITHER ARMINIANS NOR CALVINISTS hold ELECTION in perfect knowledge. Our knowledge of such things is as "looking through a glass darkly".

I know that God knew His own before they were born, and He gave them to Christ. But I believe that "given to Christ" and "appointed to believe" is according to God's perfect foreknowledge not only of His creatures (which Calvinists emphasize) but also of all events and actions.

SO you say the Phillipian Jailer had to believe. But the belief was a gift of God. Same thing I say. But even though it came from God, he was believing. It does not say that God believed for Him. It is an active imperative to the jailer "you must believe". So according to some people's definition of synergism, this would be synergism.

 

[glad4mercy]

so questions for the Calvinists...

a. Where does it say IN THE BIBLE that Christ died ONLY for the Elect?

 

[Van]

Published definitions of Limited Atonement make clear Calvinists believe Christ died only for the previously chosen elect individuals. TC denies this, but has no answer for the many quotes to the contrary.

The doctrine states that though the death of Jesus Christ is sufficient to atone for the sins of the whole world,[1] it was the intention of God the Father that the atonement of Christ's death would work itself out in the elect only, thereby leading them without fail to salvation.[2]

The footnotes refer to Article 3 and Article 8 of the Canons of Dort.

The doctrine of definite atonement (or more commonly, limited atonement) addresses the purpose of the atoning death of Christ. It maintains that God's design and intent in sending Christ to die on the cross was to pay for the sins and secure the redemption of those whom God has predetermined to save, namely the elect.

Limited Atonement is the teaching held in Reformed (Calvinist) circles of Christianity which states that Jesus bore only the sins of the elect and not that of every individual who ever lived due to the legal nature of the atonement and its necessary cancellation of the debt (Col. 2:14). It sees "the world" as all nations and maintains that the sacrifice was sufficient for all but intended for the elect.

Just google it folks, pay no attention to the ploy of denial to keep the mistaken view under a shroud of uncertainty. Christ died for all mankind and His sacrifice saves any and every individual God puts into Christ.

 

[glad4mercy]

Now you have conflated progressive salvation with perseverance (preservation).

(PS: I might take your postings more seriously if you would proofread before posting. Fairly simple words misspelled don't engender a lot of confidence in your cognition.)

DO you think when the Philippian jailer asked Paul what he must do to be saved (passage in question) he was asking how to be PROGRESSIVELY saved and how to make his salvation permanent? And you think that is how Paul understood his question? And how the Philippian jailer understood Paul's answer?

quote (PS: I might take your postings more seriously if you would proofread before posting. Fairly simple words misspelled don't engender a lot of confidence in your cognition.)

I can speak eloquently with a nice vocabulary with the best of them (but I don't feel the need to try to inpress anyone) and only mispell sometimes because I have a VISION problem.

Maybe you should not use so much insulting language. It's not Christlike

 

[glad4mercy]

In his original post, Glad4mercy asked if "not resisting" is an active or passive verb and you have answered him correctly. The Passive Voice of "Not resisting" is "not being resisted."

However, in post #84, he asked if it was an active or passive act. There is a difference. There is such a thing as passive resistance.

And the question is not is "resist" a verb or if resist is an act, rather the question is if not doing something qualifies as an action.

Is not building a house an action?

 

[Van]

Limited Atonement is just another mistaken doctrine of Calvinism. God desires all men to be saved, not some men. Christ laid down His life as a ransom for all, not just some. Christ became the propitiation (or means of salvation) for the whole world (all mankind) not just for some men.

Christ's death on the cross bought all mankind, those to be saved and those not to be saved. When God credits a person's faith as righteousness and places them into Christ, they are washed with His blood, undergo the circumcision of Christ and arise in Christ a new creation, created for good works.

And how, according to scripture are we chosen for salvation? Through faith in the truth, thus we were not chosen individually before creation.

 

[TCassidy]

NEGATIVE VERB

What is a "negative verb?" Please show me any grammar book that lists a "negative verb" as a part of speech other than using "don't" or "doesn't" - which are the negators in English.

 

[TCassidy]

Limited Atonement is just another mistaken doctrine of Calvinism. God desires all men to be saved, not some men. Christ laid down His life as a ransom for all, not just some. Christ became the propitiation (or means of salvation) for the whole world (all mankind) not just for some men.

Christ's death on the cross bought all mankind, those to be saved and those not to be saved. When God credits a person's faith as righteousness and places them into Christ, they are washed with His blood, undergo the circumcision of Christ and arise in Christ a new creation, created for good works.

And how, according to scripture are we chosen for salvation? Through faith in the truth, thus we were not chosen individually before creation.

Wrong again.

Limited Atonement states that Christ's sacrifice is sufficient for all, but efficient only for those who believe.

If you would bother to find out what you are talking about before you start talking you might be taken more seriously by the other posters.

The Canons of the Synod of Dort, Second Head of Doctrine, Article 3:

"The death of the Son of God is the only and most perfect sacrifice and satisfaction for sin, and is of infinite worth and value, abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world."

And who did Christ die for, according to the bible doctrine of Particular Redemption? Had you bothered to ask, rather than assigned a false belief to us you might have known He died for all.

1 Timothy 4:10 "For therefore we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, specially of those that believe."

2 Corinthians 5:15 "And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again."

Christ is the Savior of all people in a providential way, giving them being and breath, upholding them, preserving their lives, and indulging them with the blessings and mercies of life. In that sense, Christ died for all. Christ is the Savior of all in a general, providential way, but He is Savior in a specific, special way to those who believe.

And, of course, you too limit the Atonement. You, just like Particular Redemptionists, limit it to believers. And not even all believers. You exclude some believers from receiving the redemption inherent in the Atonement. You limit the Atonement in that you don't believe it applies to believing demons. James 2:19b "the devils also believe, and tremble."

 

[TCassidy]

I think it is terribly funny that glad4mercy has now proven, by his own words, that God's regenerating Grace is irresistible. As, according to him, "not resisting" means he is doing absolutely nothing, then God's regenerating Grace flows without impediment and is therefore irresistible.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Good post and good questions/points

You are very kind.

Yes, faith is a gift of God. Completely agree. As I said in numerous posts, faith is NOT a synergistic work. Neither is repentance or calling on the name of the Lord, or receiving the gift of salvation. All of these things FLOW from the grace of God and are mere responses to the work of the Holy Spirit. There is no merit or effectual working power in anything WE DO. All the merit and power of salvation comes from God. SO the charge of synergism is BOGUS.

Yes, all that the Father gives Jesus will come to Him, no doubt. And I do not believe that God learns that we will believe when "He looks down the corridors of time to see who will believe." Why on earth would God have to look down the corridors of time when HE IS ALREADY OMNISCIENT? EQUALLY, God did not at some point in time decide/decree to create a Kosmos, allow the fall, and send a Saviour, as if it was ever a new idea that came into His mind, (it was eternally present to Him) These are silly ideas of man who impotently try to explain things outside of their grasp by using extapolation instead of the scriptures. If God is perfectly OMNISCIENT (which He is), all of these things were known to Him from eternity past. He is immutable. The depths of His knowledge do not diminish or increase. He has perfect knowledge from of all things from eternity past to eternity future. So God knew who were His before they were born, even before the foundation of the KOSMOS. But that does not mean He sat down and said "I save you", "I save you not"...

I'm waiting for you to get to the point.

There is something in election THAT NNE UNDERSTANDS. On this I agree with Calvinists

SO you have the same question and difficulty we do.

No I don't, or at least, you haven't shown that I do. With respect, you have no idea what I understand or otherwise. Why don't you get on with it and interact with my 'good points'?

That is why I say NEITHER ARMINIANS NOR CALVINISTS hold ELECTION in perfect knowledge. Our knowledge of such things is as "looking through a glass darkly".

I think it would be good if you worried about your imperfect knowledge. If you think my knowledge is imperfect, you have to show me how it is so.

I know that God knew His own before they were born, and He gave them to Christ. But I believe that "given to Christ" and "appointed to believe" is according to God's perfect foreknowledge not only of His creatures (which Calvinists emphasize) but also of all events and actions.

SO you say the Phillipian Jailer had to believe. But the belief was a gift of God. Same thing I say. But even though it came from God, he was believing. It does not say that God believed for Him. It is an active imperative to the jailer "you must believe". So according to some people's definition of synergism, this would be synergism.

What I say is this: the jailor had been given to the Lord Jesus Christ in eternity. 'All that the Father gives Me will come to Me' (John 6:37). Therefore there was no possibility of the jailor not coming to Christ. That is Monergism.

 

[glad4mercy]

What is a "negative verb?" Please show me any grammar book that lists a "negative verb" as a part of speech other than using "don't" or "doesn't" - which are the negators in English.

http://www.englishgrammar.org/negative-verb-forms/

 

[glad4mercy]

I think it is terribly funny that glad4mercy has now proven, by his own words, that God's regenerating Grace is irresistible. As, according to him, "not resisting" means he is doing absolutely nothing, then God's regenerating Grace flows without impediment and is therefore irresistible.

I never said "not resisting" is doing nothing. I said a negative verb form does not describe an action. Just like not drinking beer is not an action, not picking my nose is not an action, not misexegeting Acts 16 like T. Cassidy does (see post 95 for my comments) is not an action, and not deliberately misrepresenting people (like T Cassidy does) is not an action.

You defined synergism as two or more agents working together to create a combined effect that is greater tthan the sum of their seperate effects. And you accuse us of believing in synergism in regeneration.

You do not know what synergism is, even though you posted a definition of it. You can not name ONE valid way that Arminians say that we cooperate with God to produce a greater effect than the SUM of His and our seperate effects IN REGENERATION. Seeing I have repeately said that ONLY GOD PRODUCES REGENERATION, you either don't know what synergism means, don't comprehend it's meaning, or you are DELIBERATELY misrepresenting my position.

To say we believe in synergism in regeneration, then BY YOUR DEFINITION we cooperate with God in regeneration to CAUSE A GREATER EFFECT THAN the SUM of the SEPERATE EFFECTS of WHAT GOD WOULD PRODUCE IN OUR REGENERATION and the effect of us regenerating ourselves Who ever said such a thing. So synergism is a nonsensical term used to misrepresent other people's positions

You lose.

Unless you give a rational answer to this (except lame insults and misrepresentations), I will not reply to you again. I will accept your non answer as an admittance that you were wrong when you called us synergists.

 

[JonC]

http://www.englishgrammar.org/negative-verb-forms/

Whether grammatically correct or not (I know English fairly good ), I can see two takes on "not resisting".

I have "not resisted" at the dentist office when given shots in my mouth. This was definitely a work, an intentional state of refraining from resisting the procedure so as to allow the dentist to work.

But I also "not resisted" when I had a bike accident and was semi-conscious. I've "not resisted" because I was incapable of resistance.

I also have to admit that this far into the "not resisting" argument, I can't really keep track of what we are talking about. It seems to me that Scripture teaches men are resistant to God (that we actually have a mindset opposed to God). I don't think that anyone teaches that God does not meet resistance when it comes to grace.Both camps seem to teach that we are depraved at least to the point that God must intervene.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

so questions for the Calvinists...

a. Where does it say IN THE BIBLE that Christ died ONLY for the Elect?

How many would you like?
The most obvious one is John 10:27. "My sheep hear My voice and they follow Me." If you imagine that our Lord added soto voce, "And so do some of the goats" then you make a nonsense of the Scriptures. He told the Jewish leaders, "You do not believe because you are not of My sheep....." They are not of His sheep because they do not believe, they do not believe because they are not part of His flock. The Lord Jesus laid down His life for the sheep (John 10:11). He did not lay down His life for the non-sheep QED. The sheep hear; the non-sheep do not hear. End of story.

 

[glad4mercy]

Whether grammatically correct or not (I know English fairly good ), I can see two takes on "not resisting".

I have "not resisted" at the dentist office when given shots in my mouth. This was definitely a work, an intentional state of refraining from resisting the procedure so as to allow the dentist to work.

But I also "not resisted" when I had a bike accident and was semi-conscious. I've "not resisted" because I was incapable of resistance.

I also have to admit that this far into the "not resisting" argument, I can't really keep track of what we are talking about. It seems to me that Scripture teaches men are resistant to God (that we actually have a mindset opposed to God). I don't think that anyone teaches that God does not meet resistance when it comes to grace.Both camps seem to teach that we are depraved at least to the point that God must intervene.

Agreed that God must intervene.

To simplify things, here is what I am saying. Anyone who accuses Arminians of believing in synergism in regeneration is either ignorant of what the word means, ignorant of what Arminians believe or dishonest. I have clearly stated and clearly demonstrated that I am not a synergist, so that leaves only two options here.

Let me say it clearly.

Definition of synergism-the interaction or cooperation of two or more organizations, substances, or other agents to produce a combined effect greater than the sum of their separate effects.

Synergism would be God and man interacting or cooperating in order to produce a combined effect greater than the sum of their (God's and man's) seperate effects. As far as I know, no-one believes that man adds any effect to regeneration, but that it is a work of God. God's part is to regenerate. Our part is to believe. We don't regenerate ourselves and God does not believe on Himself in our behalf

SO anyone who uses the word synergism in the way that it has been used in theology is using VERY, VERY IMPRECISE LANGUAGE

 

[glad4mercy]

How many would you like?
The most obvious one is John 10:27. "My sheep hear My voice and they follow Me." If you imagine that our Lord added soto voce, "And so do some of the goats" then you make a nonsense of the Scriptures. He told the Jewish leaders, "You do not believe because you are not of My sheep....." They are not of His sheep because they do not believe, they do not believe because they are not part of His flock. The Lord Jesus laid down His life for the sheep (John 10:11). He did not lay down His life for the non-sheep QED. The sheep hear; the non-sheep do not hear. End of story.

We know that Christ died for His sheep. But where does it say that He did not die for all?

Tell me, what is your understanding of Matthew 13:44?

 

[glad4mercy]

You are very kind.

I'm waiting for you to get to the point.

No I don't, or at least, you haven't shown that I do. With respect, you have no idea what I understand or otherwise. Why don't you get on with it and interact with my 'good points'?

I think it would be good if you worried about your imperfect knowledge. If you think my knowledge is imperfect, you have to show me how it is so.

What I say is this: the jailor had been given to the Lord Jesus Christ in eternity. 'All that the Father gives Me will come to Me' (John 6:37). Therefore there was no possibility of the jailor not coming to Christ. That is Monergism.

a. All things are certain in God's perfect foreknowlege but yet they are contingent in time. One phrase refers to eternity and God's infinite foreknowledge and the other phrase refers to time. God is not limited by time or space, so the limitations of contingency do not apply to Him. They apply to us, but not to Him, because He is God and we are not.

b. If you thnk you have perfect knowledge, you don't know anything. And if you don't have perfect knowledge, you have imperfect knowledge by default.

No, that is not what monergism means. Monos means one and egos means work. Meaning ONE DOES THE WORK. To use the word in any other way is to use IMPRECISE LANGUAGE, though many do use imprecise language when using the terms monergism and synergism, to be sure

 

[TCassidy]

I never said "not resisting" is doing nothing.

Ah hah! So you finally admit that "not resisting" is doing something!

 

[TCassidy]

http://www.englishgrammar.org/negative-verb-forms/

And what part of the negator did you not understand?