More from Robert Dabney

The teaching of the verse doesn't really hinge on that, as you probably know in spite your comments here. There are reasons why either reading would be right.

How is that a contradiction? I see none. The first is a condition: If ... The second is a statement: will ... Therefore, the condition of the first (if) is answered by the promise of the second (will). If I say, "If I do not go to sleep tonight, I will be very tired tomorrow," that is a true statement. If I say, "I will go to bed tonight and get some sleep," that answers the condition of the first. Therefore, there is no contradiction.

Where did I say that some "may not believe"? I don't recall ever saying that. Please point it out to me.

I think you don't read very closely. So far, in this post alone, you failed to understand the truth of a conditional statement. You failed to recognize that a promise means the conditional will never come to pass. And you attributed to me words that I never said (to my knowledge). I don't think I am the one confused here.

You don't ... as you have demonstrated repeatedly.

Actually, it is quite sad. This conversation with you, the longer is goes, gets more and more sad. We have taken time to answer every single one of your objections, yet you repeatedly make false statements about what we believe. That is unacceptable. You should not continue down that path. You don't have to agree with us ... but at least be honest about what we say and what we believe.

 

Yes

By not having their lives snatched from them at the moment of their sin, as they deserve.

I know there are some Calvinists who differ with me on that, and that is fine. It isn't a big deal. No one is living or dying over this.

Yes, you said that correctly. And you can see from your previous statement, that you originally said it incorrectly. You said that I said they "may not believe." I never said that the elect "may not believe." I believe the elect certainly will believe.

I said, If the elect do not beleive, they will perish because all who do not believe perish. But will the elect fail to believe? No.

It isn't.

Not sure that makes sense. Here is what we believe:

1) All men are born sinners, estranged and hostile towards God, not seeking God or redemption.
2) The Holy Spirit works in the elect unbeliever so that his will is changed to bring him to willing repentance and faith. He is not forced nor coerced. He freely comes to Christ.

I have no idea what that means.

 

You affirm "unequally for all" here with your own words:

"However, how does teach that Christ's death was "unequal"? I believe that Christ died for everyone without exception, but, unless the sinner appropiates this, then he cannot be saved. "repent, and believe the Gospel" as Jesus puts it"

You believe that His death was unequally for all because it is not "appropriated" for all. Some have appropriated it while others have not. That is rather unequal don't you think?

regards,
BJ

 

The work of the Spirit changes the will, so that the will freely responds. It is God who works in us both to will and to do his good pleasure (Phi 2:13).

The work is commonly called regeneration. I believe it should be more accurately called the effectual call, but that is a little intramural debate.

The Holy Spirit needs to do this work because men are sinners. If he does not do this work, they will continue in sin. It is not coercion in any sense. Again, don't argue theological terms from non-theological sources. Remember, God is contrained so that he cannot do everything. But do we not claim that God has no free will. He does. God is the most free of all that is in existence. Man's will is free to do whatever is in accordance with his nature, just as God's will is free. But when the HOly Spirit does his work, man sees the beauty of Christ and the ugliness of his sin and responds.

 

Well the unequal part is that His death was efficient for some and not others. Yes, that is contingent on one's acceptance of the gospel but it still means that Christ did more than to make all men "savable," but that for those who accept His good news--they are saved.

If no one accepted the gospel, could Christ still have said that "I lay down my life for my sheep?"

Surely He knew at least one person would appropriate His death, and if that is the case, then His death is unequal for that one person as opposed to everyone else.

regards,
BJ

 

I was just thinking the same thing. You are arguing that the purpose is equal and willing (wisely) to say that the effect is unequal.

However, your last sentence does not express a dualistic view. Christ tasted death for every man. All men face the same curse under the law and Christ paid the curse for every man. This is why in a dualistic view He does not die "less for some, than He does for others."

However, why I reject hypothetical universalism is that I just don't see Christ's claims in Scripture (the ones the limited atonement people focus on) squaring with such a view.

So I suppose now it is a purpose vs. result equality in Christ's sacrifice. You say the purpose was equal but the result was unequal. I say the purpose and the result was unequal.

As to who is right, well we have many threads that deal with Arminianism vs. Calvinism on this board and I suppose this side of eternity we will never know for sure.

BJ

 

Yes, the opening of hte heart/regeneration/effectual call (whatever term one uses) is always done in conjunction with the word, never apart from it.

That is, incidentally, one of hte reasons why primitive Baptists do noc claim to be Calvinists. They, for the most part, reject this idea of duty faith, and that the word is a necessary part of regeneration.

 

Not sure how that has any relevance. But it is actually praying based on what God has already done ... chosen us in him.
</font>[/QUOTE]The context is a prayer and therefore must be interpreted as a prayer. It is not a teaching about the doctrine of election. I believe it is a prayer encouraging the saints. The saints are the elect.

For example in Phil 1:6 it is within the context of a prayer. It has often been interpreted wrongly as a promise when it is not but a prayer. The same is often done with Prov. 22:6. Proverbs are principles and not promises. So the proverbs must be interpreted as such.

Too often much is read into scripture when it simply is not there. We cannot interpret in light of our context but their context. Ephesians follows the standard form of a letter of the day. To lift Ephesians 1:3-14 out of that context is to say that the OT folks are the elect. I see no biblical evidence of that in the OT.

Later you say, “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.” Then you write, “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.” Aren’t those contradictory statements?

If election is predetermined by God then that would make is unconditional. But you say the elect must believe. It is the non-elect who must believe. For you to make a statement like you did is to say that the elect are also the elect before they believe. Where in scripture is there ever a refernce to the elect as being non-believers? So if that is the case then when the scriptures that talk about the saints and the elect that is also written to non-believers too?

If election is a point in time (before the foundation of the world) then there is no need for Christ, his death, his resurrection and no need for the atonement. There is also no need for preaching of the gospel. To say that would that also mean that the elect are also in the heavenlies before they were born and before time. Seems to me only one person qualifies for that–-Jesus.
The Bible does say nobody will be saved without the preaching of the gospel. The gospel is not preached until the NT. So do the elect not show up until the NT?

 

THe prayer part of your argument is not convincing. Many prayers in the Bible (such as the psalms, the Lord's Prayer, Acts 4 prayer, etc.) are didactic in nature, teaching something about the nature of God and his works. They are different than Proverbs to be sure.

With respect to your last part, you drew a completely unfounded conclusion. The fact that God has elected people to salvation does not render the death of Christ, belief, resurrection, etc unnecessary. Election is what renders it necessary. Were it not for election, there owuld be no need for Christ to come and die because no one would respond anyway. Election is what ensures that the death of Christ was not wasted or unnecessary.

The Bible does not say that no one will be saved without the preaching the gospel, per se. Men in the OT were saved by responding in faith to the revelation of God (i.e., Abraham, Adam, etc). However, Paul says that Abraham preached the gospel beforehand.

 

I agree with you in the part of a prayer possibly being didactic. However the prayer in Ephesians 1:3-14 is not about election. It is a celebration of God's grace and love for mankind. It is a prayer of thanksgiving to God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. The praise to the Father, in verses 3-6, simply affirms God's love and actions to express that love that reaches back before creation. The comparative clause, verses 4-6, introduced by kathos, affirms this divine love in His choosing, His deciding to make us sons through adoption etc. This forms the parameter of divine actions that stand as the definer of the blessing declared in the participial phrase in 3b.