Misunderstanding Unlimited Atonement.

[glad4mercy]

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

No, for the tenth time "not doing something" is not an action.

And SURPRISE, SURPRISE, SURPRISE, Not performing a specific action is not the same as not doing anything at all. I knew this as a child, why havent you figured it out yet? I could be "not building a house" yet be "cooking a pot roast". So in salvation, there may be an action on my part involved, BUT IT IS NOT A SYNERGISTIC ACTION, because it is not cooperating with God in order to make the effect of regeneration greater than His work in regeneration (which is all of it) and mine (which is none) combined.

Adding zero (the work I put in to regenerating myself) to something (God's work in regeneration) does not yield an increase. Maybe you need a refresher in math

Your argumentation is BAD. How did this website end up with a troll as an administrator. Please stop trolling and hijacking threads

Your argumentation is not even relevant to the topic. My argument this whole time is that NOT RESISTING IS NOT A SYNERGISTIC WORK. Have you been reading? Or did you forget?

This whole discussion started because you accused me of being a synergist. So when you can show me that my not resisting adds something to God's work of regeneration that makes the effects of regeneration greater, let me know

 

[glad4mercy]

And what part of the negator did you not understand?

And what part of NOT doing a specific action is not an action This is like stuff you don't even have to go to school to know. It's just common sense. You have abandoned reason entirely in your argumentation.

And what part of me adding my EFFECTUAL WORK to regeneration, (which is NILL) to God's effectual working of regeneration does not produce an increase in effect DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND

adding zero (my effectual power in being regeneration) to somethng God's effectual power does not produce an increase. SIMPLE MATH

So the label of synergism does not apply to me, because I have already stated that I added NO EFFECTUAL WORK OR POWER TO MY REGENERATION. You on the other hand believe that we need to add our faith to make our salvation permament, so your position is not even consistent

 

[Van]

Wrong again.

Calvinists deny their doctrine and falsely claim the published definitions are wrong. If their doctrine was not wrong, they would not need to use obfuscation.

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

Is that in dispute? Nope. The fact that Christ only died for the supposedly predestined elect is in dispute. On and on they dance, never owning up to their obviously unbiblical doctrine.

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.

Smoke and smear as if they were not denying the published definitions of Limited Atonement.

[quo9te]The Canons of the Synod of Dort, Second Head of Doctrine, Article 3:[/quote] Non-germane as the document supports that your claims are bogus.

"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."

non-germane obfuscation, the issue is Christ laid down His life as a ransom for all and not only for the elect. They just shuck and jive endlessly, attempting to hide that their doctrine is unbiblical.

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.

Yet another denial of the published definitions. On and on they go.

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."

They interpret these verses to refer to all elect men. This effort is Clintonesk, they allow the reader to infer that are saying every person, when they are saying every elect person.

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.

Here presented in a vague and arcane manner is the fact the Calvinists do not believe Christ died for all mankind.

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."

Note the effort to change the subject. I believe Christ died for all mankind, Calvinists deny this fundamental truth, so they generate smoke and smears.

 

[glad4mercy]

Calvinists deny their doctrine and falsely claim the published definitions are wrong. If their doctrine was not wrong, they would not need to use obfuscation.

Is that in dispute? Nope. The fact that Christ only died for the supposedly predestined elect is in dispute. On and on they dance, never owning up to their obviously unbiblical doctrine.

Smoke and smear as if they were not denying the published definitions of Limited Atonement.

[quo9te]The Canons of the Synod of Dort, Second Head of Doctrine, Article 3:

Yes, some are very active in producing non-sequiturs
They say...

a. Christ died for the sheep, therefore He did not die for all. (non sequitur)

b. Man must be granted faith to believe, therefore grace is irresistable. (non sequitur)

c. Salvation is by grace alone, not by any work, therefore to put faith before salvation is synergism, because faith is a work. (non sequitur: faith is not a work, it is a response, and believing does not produce the efficient power of regeneration, therefore it is not synergistic.

d. God elected believers, therefore election is unconditional (non sequitur)

e. Man is totally depraved, therefore he must be regenerated before He can believe. (non sequitur- This means only non believers can be receive God's Spirit; Think about it. Were the disciples unbelievers when they received the Spirit? And was Paul converted on the Damascus road or on the street called Straight? Someone answer this, because I have a follow up question either way )

 

[Martin Marprelate]

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

He died for all His sheep, every last one of them. But the very statement, "I lay down My life for the sheep" is utterly meaningless if it means that He lays down His life for everybody else as well.

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

It means that the kingdom of heaven is worth giving everything to enter. Why do you ask? Is it because you are confusing Calvinism with Hyper-Calvinism?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

a. All things are certain in God's perfect foreknowledge 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.

What are you trying to say, and how is it relevant?

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

Well you are claiming to have a perfect knowledge of what monergism is so by your own definition you know nothing about it.

No, that is not what monergism means.

I think you'll find it is.

Monos means one and ergos 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

It appears that you are yourself using imprecise language or you are misunderstanding what I am saying. God the Father elected the Philippian jailor in eternity and gave Him to the Son to redeem which He did at measureless cost. The Holy Spirit drew him irresistibly to Christ. That is monergism- the work of the triune God alone. If the jailor's salvation was contingent in any way upon him not resisting the work of God, then that is God and the jailor working together for his salvation and that is synergism.

 

[glad4mercy]

What are you trying to say, and how is it relevant?

Well you are claiming to have a perfect knowledge of what monergism is so by your own definition you know nothing about it.

I think you'll find it is.

It appears that you are yourself using imprecise language or you are misunderstanding what I am saying. God the Father elected the Philippian jailor in eternity and gave Him to the Son to redeem which He did at measureless cost. The Holy Spirit drew him irresistibly to Christ. That is monergism- the work of the triune God alone. If the jailor's salvation was contingent in any way upon him not resisting the work of God, then that is God and the jailor working together for his salvation and that is synergism.

In my position also, the work of salvation is God's alone. I do not see faith and repentance as synergistic works. Therefore, I am a monergist. Sorry to break it to you.

 

[glad4mercy]

He died for all His sheep, every last one of them. But the very statement, "I lay down My life for the sheep" is utterly meaningless if it means that He lays down His life for everybody else as well.

It means that the kingdom of heaven is worth giving everything to enter. Why do you ask? Is it because you are confusing Calvinism with Hyper-Calvinism?

Utterly meaningless? Are you saying that he died for all, that his death for the sheep would be meaningless or that it would mean He didn't die for the sheep?

And no, my question about the parable of the field is not because I confuse Calvinism with hyper Calvinism. I fully know the difference, have for years. Yet the thing about your interpretation of it is, I NEITHER FOUND THE KINGDOM, NOR DID I BUY IT. I was found and I was bought.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

In my position also, the work of salvation is God's alone. I do not see faith and repentance as synergistic works. Therefore, I am a monergist. Sorry to break it to you.

Well I do see repentance and faith as synergistic works if they are subject to the will of the one believing (ie. resistible). Sorry to break that to you. Perhaps if I repeat part of my last post you will kindly interact with it.

If the jailor's salvation was contingent in any way upon him not resisting the work of God, then that is God and the jailor working together for his salvation and that is synergism.

Just to make absolutely sure that I'm understanding your position, am I correct in thinking that while you believe in Prevenient Grace, you do not believe in Irresistible Grace as in the "I" of TULIP?

Utterly meaningless? Are you saying that he died for all, that his death for the sheep would be meaningless or that it would mean He didn't die for the sheep?

No. I'm saying that it would be meaningless for the Lord Jesus to say that He lays down His life for the sheep if in fact He lays down His life for the goats as well. Moreover, He tells the Pharisees, "You are not of My sheep" (John 10:26). Implication: "I did not lay down My life for you".

So who are the Lord's sheep? Well, they are a special breed, distinguished by their ears and their feet.

"My sheep hear My voice and they follow Me" (John 10:27). Those for whom He died are the ones who come to hear His voice and follow Him. They are (v.28) the ones who have eternal life, who shall never perish, who will never be snatched out of the Lord's hands. Again, the verse is meaningless if the goats hear His voice and follow Him as well.

And no, my question about the parable of the field is not because I confuse Calvinism with hyper Calvinism. I fully know the difference, have for years. Yet the thing about your interpretation of it is, I NEITHER FOUND THE KINGDOM, NOR DID I BUY IT. I was found and I was bought.

I am quite happy with what I wrote. Read Deuteronomy 4:29; Isaiah 55:1.

I sought the Lord, and afterwards I knew,
He moved my soul to seek Him seeking me.
It was not that I found, O Saviour true;
For I was found by Thee.

Thou didst reach forth Thy hand and mine enfold;
I walked, and sank not, on the storm-vexed sea.
'Twas not so much that I on Thee took hold,
As Thou, dear Lord, on me.

I find, I walk, I love, but Oh, the whole
Of love is but my answer, Lord, to Thee!
For long beforehand Thou didst bless my soul;
And ever hast loved me.

 

[glad4mercy]

Well I do see repentance and faith as synergistic works if they are subject to the will of the one believing (ie. resistible). Sorry to break that to you. Perhaps if I repeat part of my last post you will kindly interact with it.

Just to make absolutely sure that I'm understanding your position, am I correct in thinking that while you believe in Prevenient Grace, you do not believe in Irresistible Grace as in the "I" of TULIP?

No. I'm saying that it would be meaningless for the Lord Jesus to say that He lays down His life for the sheep if in fact He lays down His life for the goats as well. Moreover, He tells the Pharisees, "You are not of My sheep" (John 10:26). Implication: "I did not lay down My life for you".

So who are the Lord's sheep? Well, they are a special breed, distinguished by their ears and their feet.

"My sheep hear My voice and they follow Me" (John 10:27). Those for whom He died are the ones who come to hear His voice and follow Him. They are (v.28) the ones who have eternal life, who shall never perish, who will never be snatched out of the Lord's hands. Again, the verse is meaningless if the goats hear His voice and follow Him as well.

I am quite happy with what I wrote. Read Deuteronomy 4:29; Isaiah 55:1.

I sought the Lord, and afterwards I knew,
He moved my soul to seek Him seeking me.
It was not that I found, O Saviour true;
For I was found by Thee.

Thou didst reach forth Thy hand and mine enfold;
I walked, and sank not, on the storm-vexed sea.
'Twas not so much that I on Thee took hold,
As Thou, dear Lord, on me.

I find, I walk, I love, but Oh, the whole
Of love is but my answer, Lord, to Thee!
For long beforehand Thou didst bless my soul;
And ever hast loved me.

Since you, like others, still don't know what the proper definition of synergism is...let me enlighten you.

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.

So for me to believe in synergism in regeneration, that would mean that I believe the combined effects of God's regenerating me and my submission to His work of regeneration creates a greater effect than the sum of those seperate effects.

Now since I have already stated that regeneration is a work that is WHOLLY PERFORMED BY GOD, let's see if your charge of synergism is valid. SInce the effect of regeneration is an effect performed solely by God we arrive at the following formulas.

sum of seperate effects, mine and God's.
a. The effect I put into rmy regeneration- zero
b. God's effect in regenerating me- All of it.

combined effects
a. The effect I put into my regeneration - zero
b. God's effect in regenerating me- all of it.

Conclusion

a. SO the ammount of effect I put into my own regeneration is zero

b. my zero effect towards my own regeneration does not increase the effect of God's effect in regenerating me.

c. Therefore, it is not synergism

muwahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

SO synergism in regeneration is a MEANINGLESS TERM made up by people to falsely accuse Arminians of some non existent heresy.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

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.

That is quite correct. It's good to know that you have a dictionary at home.
Now will you please answer the question that I asked?
Is it correct that you believe in Prevenient Grace but not in Irresistible Grace?

 

[glad4mercy]

That is quite correct. It's good to know that you have a dictionary at home.
Now will you please answer the question that I asked?
Is it correct that you believe in Prevenient Grace but not in Irresistible Grace?

I do not believe in Prevenient Grace in the way it is sometimes defined. My view of Prevenient or preceding grace is much stronger than some other forms. I do not believe in Irresistable grace. Havent you been reading my posts? I clearly stated what I believe more than a dozen times.

The combined sum of the effects of prevenient grace AS I HAVE DEFINED IT plus my receivng that Grace without resistance is not greater than the sum seperate effects. Because I add nothing to what God does IN REGENERATION. Regeneration is an effect wrought by GOD ALONE SO synergism does not apply here

Now go ahead and try to show me how what I believe is actually combining with what God DOES, to make the effects of regeneration greater.

I have explained this at least five or six times. It's quite simple. Synergism is a poor piece of terminology used to falsely label people. Or if you prefer, a strawman.

 

[glad4mercy]

That is quite correct. It's good to know that you have a dictionary at home.
Now will you please answer the question that I asked?
Is it correct that you believe in Prevenient Grace but not in Irresistible Grace?

Now here's my response to the rest of your post. Jesus did say that the pharisees were not His sheep but He did not say that He would not die for them. In fact, God so loved the world. The Pharisees were part of the world. and the adverb means God loved the world THUSLY or IN THIS MANNER, meaning that the demonstration of His love was in giving His Son to die (lifted up as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness). And this manner of love was demonstrated to the world, not just the sheep.

Just like the serpent on the rod was put up for the whole nation, but only those who looked in faith werre healed by it.

SO simple a child can understand. Calvinistic presuppositions unnecessarily complcates thngs with their traditions.

 

[utilyan]

James 5

19My brethren, if any among you strays from the truth and one turns him back, 20let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.

Obviously God is incapable lacking the omnipotence of providing anyone with the ability of saving souls.

I could be wrong.


I don't even recall providing myself with he ability to do evil, creating myself, my heart beats.....I haven't a clue how to do that, that's all God.


If the nature of man has a sin nature, we have a dilemma because for Jesus to be 100% man he has to have our 100% sin nature. else you have to concede the standard of man has no sin nature, after all sin is UNnatural. Or else Jesus was complete human and sinned.

 

[glad4mercy]

James 5

19My brethren, if any among you strays from the truth and one turns him back, 20let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.

Obviously God is incapable lacking the omnipotence of providing anyone with the ability of saving souls.

I could be wrong.


I don't even recall providing myself with he ability to do evil, creating myself, my heart beats.....I haven't a clue how to do that, that's all God.


If the nature of man has a sin nature, we have a dilemma because for Jesus to be 100% man he has to have our 100% sin nature. else you have to concede the standard of man has no sin nature, after all sin is UNnatural. Or else Jesus was complete human and sinned.

Jesus had a full human nature, but it was a perfect human nature. Adam was not created with a sin nature, so sin nature IS INDEED unnatural. Yet it is shared through inheritance by every human, except Christ who was the spotless Lamb. If Jesus had been sinful, He could only die for His own sins, and could not redeem us. He was sinless, so He is the perfect propitiation for sin.

Jesus is the Second Adam. In the first Adam, we died. In the Second Adam we live.

We cannot save a soul. What James meant is that we point them to the truth. Only God can save souls, because only God can forgive (justify), cleanse, regenerate, sanctify, preserve, and glorify those that believe. Our part is merely to point them to the truth and to Jesus who is able to save all who come to Him to the uttermost.

 

[utilyan]

Jesus had a full human nature, but it was a perfect human nature. Adam was not created with a sin nature, so sin nature IS INDEED unnatural. Yet it is shared through inheritance by every human, except Christ who was the spotless Lamb. If Jesus had been sinful, He could only die for His own sins, and could not redeem us. He was sinless, so He is the perfect propitiation for sin.

Jesus is the Second Adam. In the first Adam, we died. In the Second Adam we live.

We cannot save a soul. What James meant is that we point them to the truth. Only God can save souls, because only God can forgive (justify), cleanse, regenerate, sanctify, preserve, and glorify those that believe. Our part is merely to point them to the truth and to Jesus who is able to save all who come to Him to the uttermost.

Well lets crank it up a notch.

Given that sin is unnatural, then identify what is human nature since it is not evil.

If the intrinsic substance or capability of man is a nature with an absence of evil, then what are his capabilities when they are not evil.

Matthew 16
24Then Jesus said to His disciples, “If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me. 25“For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it; but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it. 26“For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul? 27“For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and WILL THEN REPAY EVERY MAN ACCORDING TO HIS DEEDS.


Anyone who wants to be saved, a sentiment incapable of the totally depraved, is going to lose their life.

Do you have any responsibility on your own soul?

I see its very hard to split the hair difference if any between accountability and responsibility.

If anything goes wrong its all your fault, if anything goes right its not because you didn't do anything wrong.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I do not believe in Irresistible grace.

Well that is what I wanted to be completely sure of. Resistible grace is the essence of synergism. God will do His bit, but unless Man does his, be it never so passively, there's no salvation. Man and God have got to work together.
End of story.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Now here's my response to the rest of your post. Jesus did say that the pharisees were not His sheep but He did not say that He would not die for them.

I think you'll find He did. Try a syllogism:
1. The Lord Jesus lays down His life for the sheep.
2. The Pharisees are not His sheep.
3. The Lord Jesus does not lay down His life for the Pharisees.
If Christ lays down His life for every single person, there is simply no purpose in His saying that He lays down His life for the sheep.

In fact, God so loved the world. The Pharisees were part of the world. and the adverb means God loved the world THUSLY or IN THIS MANNER, meaning that the demonstration of His love was in giving His Son to die (lifted up as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness). And this manner of love was demonstrated to the world, not just the sheep.

This is how God loved the world; that He gave His Son for the whosoevers.

Just like the serpent on the rod was put up for the whole nation, but only those who looked in faith were healed by it.

Well exactly so. The Gospel is preached to everyone. Whoever believes in Christ will be saved, just as whoever looked at the brass serpent would be healed. That is pure Calvinism. There is no possibility of someone trusting in Christ for salvation being rejected because he's not one of the 'elect.' However, the sad fact is that men and women are dead in trespasses and sin so that they will not come to Christ unless God draws them (Jeremiah 31:3; John 6:44)

SO simple a child can understand. Calvinistic presuppositions unnecessarily complicate things with their traditions.

Not at all. Free Grace doctrines are very simple; it's just that you don't appear to understand them

 

[Yeshua1]

Calvinists deny their doctrine and falsely claim the published definitions are wrong. If their doctrine was not wrong, they would not need to use obfuscation.

Is that in dispute? Nope. The fact that Christ only died for the supposedly predestined elect is in dispute. On and on they dance, never owning up to their obviously unbiblical doctrine.

Smoke and smear as if they were not denying the published definitions of Limited Atonement.

[quo9te]The Canons of the Synod of Dort, Second Head of Doctrine, Article 3:

Non-germane as the document supports that your claims are bogus.

non-germane obfuscation, the issue is Christ laid down His life as a ransom for all and not only for the elect. They just shuck and jive endlessly, attempting to hide that their doctrine is unbiblical.

Yet another denial of the published definitions. On and on they go.

They interpret these verses to refer to all elect men. This effort is Clintonesk, they allow the reader to infer that are saying every person, when they are saying every elect person.

Here presented in a vague and arcane manner is the fact the Calvinists do not believe Christ died for all mankind.

Note the effort to change the subject. I believe Christ died for all mankind, Calvinists deny this fundamental truth, so they generate smoke and smears.[/QUOTE]

Again and again in the Bible, God proclaims to us that he has chosen out for Himself a peculair people, his own chosen remnant, first in Israel, and now in the Church..

Jesus said that he came for Hos own, and that he would be the great shpard over His own, and those outside of Him would not hear His voice...

How much clearer can this be?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Given that sin is unnatural, then identify what is human nature since it is not evil.

Human nature is evil. "If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts.....etc." (Matthew 7:11; Luke 11:13).

Then you might glance at Romans 3:9-20.