Monergists who are not Calvinists II

[Reformed]

The reason it is different is that I no longer view Christ's death as a payment for the sin debt of the elect but instead view Christ as dying both for the human family and also for the elect corporately (the Church).

How do you evaluate my definition of definite atonement?

Jon, the view you articulated in the first paragraph is more in keeping with conditional election, i.e. Arminianism. If Christ died for the human family (all of humanity) there must, by necessity, be the ability for all to believe the gospel. If not, then His death on the part of all of humanity is futile and against His nature.

I know it is a short definition and I could have expounded, but do you believe my understanding of definite atonement incorrect?

I have difficulty dissecting how you view definite atonement and what you actually believe. Your post seems to be conflating the terms. The only part I understand clearly is when you wrote, "I no longer view Christ's death as a payment for the sin debt of the elect but instead view Christ as dying both for the human family and also for the elect corporately " This is a statement of what you believe. So, it seems you know what definite atonement is, you just do not believe in it. When it comes to Election, the Calvinist position is Unconditional Election; Unconditional Election being, "A view associated with Augustine and Calvin that God elects to save some solely on the basis of God's freedom and love and not on the basis of any merit or efforts on the part of humans." (McKim)

 

[Yeshua1]

What I mean is Calvinism centers election on the will of the Father while Arminianism centers election on Christ.

Calvinism views election as unconditional. Arminianism views election as conditioned on Christ.

Actually, conditioned upon our freewill response to the applied Grace of God towards us...

 

[Iconoclast]

JonC,

What I believe or do not believe determines whether your claim that I do not understand Calvinism is accurate or is a false assertion.

That was not the basis for my comments in post#5

The fact you make claims about my understanding while stating you are not concerned with what I actually believe is troubling.

Not at all. I have come to see how you do what you do, that is all. This thread has a direction to it, it is not about you.

What I post as my beliefs are accurate. When I ask people about their views you are wrong to imply something about my view. I will tell you what I believe. Just be grown up enough to ask.

Your posts are quite vague. It is not worth the time to hunt them down, they lead to nothing of substance.

This is your opportunity to show the board you have a legitimate concern[/QUOTE]

My posts stand out in the open. I do not need an opportunity to add to them. I prefer to deal with people who post what they mean and stand by it.
if I want to know what your current views are I will ask...but I do not...thanks.
I am on a short break now, will post later,

 

[Yeshua1]

@JonC , in the previous thread you said, "Calvinistic salvation itself is centered on the Father while Arminians center salvation on Christ." What do you mean by that?

The Father is the One who gives the Elect to the Son, as revealed in John 6:37. "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out." However, salvation is centered on Christ. The 1689 Second London Baptist Confession of Faith states:

10.1 Those whom God hath predestinated unto life, he is pleased in his appointed, and accepted time, effectually to call, by his Word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ; enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God; taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them a heart of flesh; renewing their wills, and by his almighty power determining them to that which is good, and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ; yet so as they come most freely, being made willing by his grace.
( Romans 8:30; Romans 11:7; Ephesians 1:10, 11; 2 Thessalonians 2:13, 14; Ephesians 2:1-6; Acts 26:18; Ephesians 1:17, 18; Ezekiel 36:26; Deuteronomy 30:6; Ezekiel 36:27; Ephesians 1:19; Psalm 110:3; Song of Solomon 1:4 )

So, help me understand your statement. Thank you.

They really had a way to write back then what scriptures teach in regards to this issue, eh?

 

[Yeshua1]

Gotcha. I agree. Election is based on the will of the Father. That is what I believe.

Scriptures teach that also!

 

[Yeshua1]

So you cannot point to any specific Calvinistic doctrine that I do not understand but instead make accusations based on an overall feeling you developed based on past arguments. That does not work. I often argue one way (sometimes against my own view) in looking at arguments themselves.

Let's make it easy. Name one Calvinistic doctrine that I rejected out of a misunderstanding.

I do not know what doctrine you are speaking of but am open to the idea I could have not understood adequately. We are only human, after all.

Your rejection of penal substitution seems not to be due to misunderstanding what calvinists say that it is, but what the scriptures state regarding it!

 

[Yeshua1]

I define definite atonement as the idea that Christ died to save the Church. God intended that Christ’s death would actually save people – the elect.

Supporting passages include John 10:11: The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep”; John 11:52 that Jesus died “to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad”; and Ephesians 5:25: “Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her”.

I do believe that Christ died to save the Church and that those who are saved are predestined to be saved (those who are lost are predestined to be lost). But I think it would be incorrect to say that I believe Definite atonement on Calvinistic grounds (as I did in the past). The reason is that definite atonement is a logical conclusion of Penal Substitution Theory (the Theory makes definite atonement necessary). Jesus substituted himself as the penalty for our sins necessitates a definite group for which Christ died (not just a potential group of individuals). Without accepting the Calvinistic understanding of the reasons behind redemptive history and how salvation was accomplished I think my current view departs from Calvinism (on the surface we would agree, but just below the surface it would be found we agreed only in the conclusion and not the process).

Jesus died in the pace, in stead of his own people, as He is the High priest over each one of us, not the Church itself, and is not the Church really individual saved persons?

 

[Yeshua1]

The reason it is different is that I no longer view Christ's death as a payment for the sin debt of the elect but instead view Christ as dying both for the human family and also for the elect corporately (the Church). When I was a Calvinist I viewed Christ as literally dying for individual elect persons to effect salvation by paying their "sin debt".

So while we both believe Christ died to save the Church we consider that death to have accomplished this goal in very different ways. The conclusion is that those who believe are saved. We all agree on this. You and I agree that Christ died to save the Church (with the Church in mind). But we believe this death itself to have accomplished very different things.

The question is really not where my current position stands but if accurately understood Calvinism. How do you evaluate my definition of definite atonement? I know it is a short definition and I could have expounded, but do you believe my understanding of definite atonement incorrect?

The question is more as to what scriptures teach regarding atonement, and it still seems to place major emphasis on the view that you rejected!

 

[JonC]

JonC,




I did give just a few indications so far in post 5;
Notice Reformed, Here we have two posters who tell us they are
"Ex -Calvinists". Both take seven cracks at it, and I see 7 misses.
Any biblical Calvinist upon reflection of the comments will see several things;
1] Neither person seems to have any indication of the true biblical Doctrine of Election.

2] neither gives any indication of the Covenant nature of election.

3] neither indicates an understanding of the relationship of Our Great High Priest and His work

4] neither shows any knowledge of Jesus as surety.

5]neither indicates a proper understanding of saving Union with Christ.

There have been three persons that I know of on BB who claimed to have been "a Calvinist".
Despite the claims, I see no evidence of it. The credibility is missing just as an indication of these basic elements has not been seen anywhere....I have never seen one post from any of the three that gave an indication of it.
Anyone can claim anything, it is a free country. They might have even looked at these things to some extent. Not everyone who looks at something..." gets it".
I see no evidence of a basic correct understanding of Calvinism,
the core teachings as outlined by
John Murray, in Redemption,Accomplished and Applied.
Or Sinclair Fergusons know your Christian life.

No one says they have to be Calvinists, but they suggest this is so....their posts do not support the claim.
I saw Mickey mantle Hit two home runs in my first live game at the stadium. One left-handed over the old black wall beyond the 461 sign, then right-handed a check-swing into the right-field bleachers.
I can tell what pitchers I saw and what team was the opponent.
Now if I make the claim that I played in the game, and you did not see my name in the box score, you would have every right to question my claim.
It is like that.



Not accusations, but rather observations. You have posted that you were a Calvinist while on here at BB.
I would quote it for you but when I go look for it here is what I see;
Baptist Christian Forums - Error

This member limits who may view their full profile.

Now I hate to burst your bubble but I do not find your posts that compelling or edifying to follow what you post in general. It says you joined BB in 2001. I do not recall any non cals tangling with your posts over the issue. In fact when asked you refused to produce anything to substantiate your claims.

So your proof to back up your claim that I do not understand Calvinism are comments I made concerning specific aspects Reformation Arminianism?

I said that Calvinism holds the Father elected people to salvation based solely on the will of the Father (not the saved's future state in Christ). The Father elects and gives these sheep to Christ.

How is this different from "real Calvinism"?

I said that Calvinism holds via Christ's death God effected salvation (not merely making it a potential). How do you arrive at the false conclusion this is a rejection of Christ as surety?

You seem to be picking out bits and pieces of one conversation, noting I did not say other stuff, and inventing a belief you desperately want me to hold.

Are you able to show even one misunderstanding I have regarding Calvinism?

 

[Yeshua1]

So your proof to back up your claim that I do not understand Calvinism are comments I made concerning specific aspects Reformation Arminianism?

I said that Calvinism holds the Father elected people to salvation based solely on the will of the Father (not the saved's future state in Christ). The Father elects and gives these sheep to Christ.

How is this different from "real Calvinism"?

I said that Calvinism holds via Christ's death God effected salvation (not merely making it a potential). How do you arrive at the false conclusion this is a rejection of Christ as surety?

You seem to be picking out bits and pieces of one conversation, noting I did not say other stuff, and inventing a belief you desperately want me to hold.

Are you able to show even one misunderstanding I have regarding Calvinism?

Are those in that future state ion chjrist though already elected by God before they became part of the Church then?

 

[Reformed]

They really had a way to write back then what scriptures teach in regards to this issue, eh?

Just because something is old does not necessarily means it is better, although as we get older we tend to appreciate the things from our youth. In regards to theology, our Particular Baptist forefathers from the 17th-century did not have the amount of distractions we have today. There was no Baptist Board, no Internet. The world was much larger and it took nearly eight weeks for letters to cross the Atlantic. Now all we have to do is click our mouse and we have sent a tome of information to people we have never met that are halfway around the world. Much of what we collectively have to save is not worth the words we type. So, yes. They had a way to write back then that had more substance than what we typically read today.

 

[37818]

As I understand Ephesians 2:8, "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: . . ," "For by grace are ye saved through faith; . . . it is the gift of God: . . ," is monergistic and ". . . that not of yourselves: . . ." totally excudes synergism.

 

[Yeshua1]

As I understand Ephesians 2:8, "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: . . ," "For by grace are ye saved through faith; . . . it is the gift of God: . . ," is monergistic and ". . . that not of yourselves: . . ." totally excudes synergism.

Yes, as the entire salvation package, as outlined in Romans 8, is all from and of God.

 

[MartyF]

Baptist Christian Forums - Error

This member limits who may view their full profile.

Now I hate to burst your bubble but I do not find your posts that compelling or edifying to follow what you post in general. It says you joined BB in 2001. I do not recall any non cals tangling with your posts over the issue. In fact when asked you refused to produce anything to substantiate your claims.

Not everyone here lives alone wandering Central America or travels alone across the U.S. constantly changing address. I was stupid and at first thought that this forum wouldn’t have as many nuts traveling to this forum. As a result I gave more personal information than I really should have. I keep my profile private for this reason. I keep my profile private, primarily, to protect myself and others.

As I believe you have actually doxxed people on this forum you disagree with, you are a prime example of why someone should keep their profile private.

 

[Iconoclast]

Not everyone here lives alone wandering Central America or travels alone across the U.S. constantly changing address. I was stupid and at first thought that this forum wouldn’t have as many nuts traveling to this forum. As a result I gave more personal information than I really should have. I keep my profile private for this reason. I keep my profile private, primarily, to protect myself and others.

As I believe you have actually doxxed people on this forum you disagree with, you are a prime example of why someone should keep their profile private.

do you have an example of what you claim?

 

[MartyF]

do you have an example of what you claim?

Which claim are you talking about?

 

[Iconoclast]

Which claim are you talking about?

Your last paragraph on post 34.

 

[JonC]

Your rejection of penal substitution seems not to be due to misunderstanding what calvinists say that it is, but what the scriptures state regarding it!

That - (on the surface) seems to be a very foolish claim.

My claim is that Calvinists believe Christ was punished in our stead (drank the cup of God's wrath so we would not).

You know that old phrase "put up or shut up" (or "gird your loins like a man"? It applies.

What statesment that I made is a misunderstanding of Calvinism?

(Or are you carrying on a tradition of falsely accusing people with whom you disagree?).

 

[Yeshua1]

That - (on the surface) seems to be a very foolish claim.

My claim is that Calvinists believe Christ was punished in our stead (drank the cup of God's wrath so we would not).

You know that old phrase "put up or shut up" (or "gird your loins like a man"? It applies.

What statesment that I made is a misunderstanding of Calvinism?

(Or are you carrying on a tradition of falsely accusing people with whom you disagree?).

I was just saying that while you do understand what we as Calvinists hold to in regards to the Pst, your reason to reject that view would be due to some misunderstanding in what the scriptures were teaching us.

 

[JonC]

I was just saying that while you do understand what we as Calvinists hold to in regards to the Pst, your reason to reject that view would be due to some misunderstanding in what the scriptures were teaching us.

I know what I said. I said do not make accusations you cannot prove.

Members have been corrected for such nonsense and you are better than that.

I do not reject Scripture. And I understand Calvinism (I was a Calvinist). I disagree with Calvinism.

Do you not agree it would be very foolish to claim someone does not understand Calvinism without being able to point to a misunderstanding? That would be idiotic.