More from Robert Dabney

Jesus Christ died for his people and only for HIs people, and His blood was meant for His people only, and efficacious only for His people, for whom it was shed, in the same way that His call to Lazarus to come forth was made only to Lazarus because it was only Lazarus that He was bringing out of the grave, and therefore, His voice and call was meant for Lazarus only.

 

Nobobdy is part of the elect until they "believe".

So everyone fits into the category of non-elect until they are born again.

 

Did you notice how you showed yourself, unwittingly to be sure, to be dishonest? You say you haven't gotten a Calvinist to explain something, and then you reference their explanations and say that you find it unconvincing. How can you find an explanation that hasn't been given to "hold no water"? That doesn't make sense ... But it reveals what I have said before. You are not debating in an ethical manner. When you say you have yet to get a Calvinist to explain something, you are not tellign the truth. And you admit it in your very next sentence by saying that you think their explanations "hold no water."

The truth is you have been told how the death of Christ benefits all, and the truth is that you disagree. That is fine. But do not tell us that you have seen no explanation for it. You have; and you rejected it.

The truth is that the only way in which God can show grace to sinful people is through the death of Christ. Even the grace of daily breath is because the death of Christ satisfies God's wrath for a time.

What you cite Dabney as saying is what Calvinism believes. Of course, you have been told that before, so I don't know why you are surprised, and why you think there is some contradiction. The fact that you do shows us that you do not know what you are talking about. I hate to keep repeating that, but I think it necessary to keep pointing out that you are saying nothing that you haven't already talked about and had it explained to you where we are coming from. But you keep going back as if this is totally new stuff. IT isn't.

 

Really?? So the Bible was wrong when it says that God elected people from the foundation of the world? Or are you really a hyper Calvinist who believes that people are born again even before they exist?

This is completely unsupportable statement. Eph 1:4 and 2 Thess 2:13 clearly place election at the beginning, when no one was born again. But 2 Tim 2:10 makes it explicit yet again. Notice what Paul says:

2 Timothy 2:10 For this reason I endure all things for the sake of those who are chosen, so that they also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus and with it eternal glory.

This verse clearly declares that there are "chosen ones" (the elect) who still need to "obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus."

This answers several often repeated objections.

Why do we need to preach? Because that is the means by which God saves his elect. Without preaching and the persecution that goes along with it, the elect will not be saved.

Are people elect before they are saved? Without a doubt.

Was Paul a "calvinist" before Calvinism? Without a doubt. He believed that individuals had been chosen by God to be saved, and his mission was to preach the gospel to them so that they could obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus and with it eternal glory.

 

Eph. 1:3-6, "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved."

This is just a thought I would like to throw out. So many times I have seen people write about in response to those verses as being a position in time. I would question that and be more likely to place it within the idea of how God much God loves and has blessed people. The idea that he counts them as being more important than the foundation of the world.

 

You know that not's true. We have provided plenty of support, both theological and biblical. But the bigger problem is that you were dishonest and said we didn't provide any explanation for it. You seem to have a fundamental problem with honesty. I don't mind that you disagree with me. I really don't. I do mind when you are dishonest, and continually so. That is something you need to deal with.

Yes ... So why bring that up? As I have said many times, and as you have cited Dabney, we agree with you on that. But you act like we disagree. Why?

In giving them life and breath and all things, in causing the rain to fall on the just and unjust alike, etc. These are benefits of God's grace that can come on sinners only through the atonement of Christ.

Deal with teh actual facts and theology.

 

It is a temporal statement. It is about time. And clearly, they were elect before they believed.

 

The reason I would question that is because the passage sits within the context of a prayer. Plus when one looks at what Jesus said in Matthew 22:2-14, "The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who gave a wedding feast for his son. "And he sent out his slaves to call those who had been invited to the wedding feast, and they were unwilling to come. "Again he sent out other slaves saying, `Tell those who have been invited, "Behold, I have prepared my dinner; my oxen and my fattened livestock are all butchered and everything is ready; come to the wedding feast." ' "But they paid no attention and went their way, one to his own farm, another to his business, and the rest seized his slaves and mistreated them and killed them. "But the king was enraged, and he sent his armies and destroyed those murderers and set their city on fire. "Then he said to his slaves, `The wedding is ready, but those who were invited were not worthy. `Go therefore to the main highways, and as many as you find there], invite to the wedding feast.' "Those slaves went out into the streets and gathered together all they found, both evil and good; and the wedding hall was filled with dinner guests. "But when the king came in to look over the dinner guests, he saw a man there who was not dressed in wedding clothes, and he said to him, `Friend, how did you come in here without wedding clothes?' And the man was speechless. "Then the king said to the servants, `Bind him hand and foot, and throw him into the outer darkness; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.' "For many are called, but few are chosen."

Seems to me from what I read from Jesus’ words that there is an invitation. There would not seem to be any need for an invitation if they are already chosen before being called. According to Matthew 22:2-14 it seems to me that Jesus speaks of a calling first then those who come are chosen.

Also when one think about the idea of the foundation of the world there was no time as we know it. It preceded the beginning. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Before the foundation of the world there was no world and therefore no people, just God. People were not created before the foundation of the world.

 

It's nice to see Dabney brought up. Calvinists debate among themselves regarding the extent of the atonement and I think Dabney does a good job of recovering the Calvin, Shedd, and Ryle (among many others) doctrine. There are three major views:

Jesus died equally for all (hypothetical universalism)

Jesus died equally for some (limited atonement)

Jesus died unequally for all (dualist or "sufficient/efficient" atonement)

I hold the latter view and have enjoyed Dabney's teachings as well as Curt David among modern people and Calvin, Shedd, Ryle, and many others in the Calvinistic camp.

blessings,
BJ

 

What is there to explain? If the elect do not respond to the gospel they will not be saved. No Calvinist denies that. That is the plain teaching of Scripture. The plain teaching of Scripture is also that God will bring of his elect to faith.

So you think Paul, in 2 Thess 2:13, gave "illogical nonsense"? He said God chose them to salvation. Why would you question that? "Election" means that God chose unsaved to be saved.

Your conclusions are a denial of Scripture, which you profess to follow and desire in these conversations. 2 Thess 2:13, yet again, talks about they being chosen to salvation through faith. Therefore, their faith is a part of their salvation that they were chosen to.

The elect will be saved because they believe. Where God ordains the ends, he ordains the means.

 

Okay Ichthus, I'm sure you're familiar with all the verses Arminians use for Christ's death being sufficient for all. I'm sure you're familiar with all the verses limited-atonement Calvinists use for Christ dying to save and keep saved His sheep. Put them together and they do not contradict and I affirm both sets.

regards,
BJ

 

Calling biblical teaching "nonsense" is not particularly helpful, nor is suggesting that a poster is on medication. That is completely unacceptable. Talk about issues.

Yes. The atonement is the basis on which common grace can operate. That is the only way that God can deal with sinful man.

That is the clear theological conclusions. The Bible says the wages of sin is death. On what basis can God forestall the payment of those wages unles there is an atonement of Christ that enables it? God's justice demands that sin be dealt with, and Christ's atonement (anticipated in the OT) is the only way by which the immediate affects of sin can be forestalled.

Because you were.

First, that's not what you said. You said I am yet to get a Calvinist to exaplain, in what "sense" did Jesus die for the whole world. That was dishonest. You did not say anything about "biblical support." Second, even now, asking for biblical support, you have gotten many Calvinists to explain it biblically. You have rejected it. That's fine ... but you it is dishonest to say that you didn't get the explanation.

You need to realize that you have to be more careful with your words. You have unfortunately made a habit out of accusations about beliefs that are simply untrue. You have been told the truth, and then repeated the false statements, knowing they are false. That is intentional dishonesty and has no place in civil conversation. I have begged you to be careful with your words, to characterize your opponents' arguments properly. I have begged you not to set up straw men. Yet you continue to do it. Do you really think you cannot defeat what we actually believe? Do you really think that if you addressed our actual beliefs that you have no answer for it? I can't imagine any other reason for you to continue in your present mode of reasoning.

Regardless of why you do it, you need to stop.

 

Not sure how that has any relevance. But it is actually praying based on what God has already done ... chosen us in him.

Why? The chosen still have to come. The invitation goes out to all, but not all respond. But the elect, even though they are chosen, still have to respond.

Which is exactly why election is unconditional. It was a choice of people who did not yet exist and therefore could not be based on any conditions in them.