Some Things That “Limited Atonement” Does Not Mean:

[russell55]

Does not the bible teach us that faith cometh by hearing,(Not election/not regeneration...) and hearing by the word of God.

Faith comes when the effectual drawing of the Holy Spirit meets the message of the gospel. When the "inner call" meets the "outward call". Both are necessary.

We plant and water--we spread the seed of the gospel; but God gives the increase--God, by the means of the inner call, determines the success of our gospel seeds.

 

[ForumChaplain]

Originally posted by russell55:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Influence by it's very nature can be accepted or rejected.

Here's Websters definition:

To alter by indirect or intangible means: SWAY; to have an effect on the condition or development of: MODIFY.

Influence changes the outcome of things without force, but if it doesn't change anything, then it ain't influence. Influence is subtle. You may not realize you are being changed by it, but you are. There is really no accepting or rejecting influence, simply because it is intangible and so you are unaware of it.

God by the intangible drawing of the Holy Spirit upon the heart, changes the heart from its inclination away from God to an inclination toward God.</font>[/QUOTE]Russell, Russell, Russell. Now that Mr. Webster has helped you out a tad. It's now time for application.

One is subject to influence only when they choose to be. Influence can be rejected. If one rejects influence, the next step in persuasion, if one refuses to be persuaded, the next step is coersion, if one refuses to be coerced, next is force, if one resists force; then comes over whelming force.

All are resistible save overwhelming force. At what point is rejection effective. You do say that all men have rejected God did not you? Well, when rejection is final, force becomes necessary. Can i get an amen on that?? Please remember that these depraved dudes were chosen before the world was created. Hail or highwater, they gonna get saved.

At what stage in this process is one made one of the elect of God. Please remember that these dudes are totally (totally) depraved. They hate God. They love sin and will choose to go to hell in order to keep doing what they are doing.

Your concept of total depravity now presents some problems for your theology that need some resolution would you not say. It is this concept that requires that God change a persons nature before before any will accept him. You call it regeneration before faith, we call it divine brainwashing. After the word of God brings one volitionally to faith, now that's a different story.

How do you change a person that has heard all that you have to say, (the gospel) but still resists tooth and nail? If he is resisting at all he has a will. How do you do something to him that he does not want you to do without overpowering him...

Influence, you know what it mans now. So how do you apply it in keeping with its meaning?

[ October 14, 2002, 08:58 PM: Message edited by: Chappie ]

 

[ForumChaplain]

Originally posted by russell55:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Does not the bible teach us that faith cometh by hearing,(Not election/not regeneration...) and hearing by the word of God.

Faith comes when the effectual drawing of the Holy Spirit meets the message of the gospel. When the "inner call" meets the "outward call". Both are necessary.

We plant and water--we spread the seed of the gospel; but God gives the increase--God, by the means of the inner call, determines the success of our gospel seeds.</font>[/QUOTE]Now Russell, I know that you have a bible: And I know that you know that that passage said nothing like that. tell the truth, you said that didn't you. It's ok tho. Just find me a scripture that even resembles that and we have a starting point.

Oh yea, I have a bible too......

 

[russell55]

Just find me a scripture that even resembles that and we have a starting point.

Well, how about 1 Cor 3?

What then is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants through whom you believed, even as the Lord gave to each one. I planted, Apollos watered, but God was causing the growth. So then neither the one who plants, nor the one who waters is anything, but God who causes the growth. For we are God's fellow-workers, you are God's field, God's building.

We are the servants who spread the gospel seed necessary for faith, but each one only actually believes as the Lord gives them faith. We spread the gospel seed, but God is the one who causes the seed to grow into a harvest. The harvest is caused by the work of God. So the field (or the building) that results is the field or building that God has designed it to be.

[ October 14, 2002, 10:39 PM: Message edited by: russell55 ]

 

[russell55]

If one rejects influence,

If one rejects influence, then it really isn't an influence at all, is it?

 

[ForumChaplain]

Originally posted by russell55:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />If one rejects influence,

If one rejects influence, then it really isn't an influence at all, is it?</font>[/QUOTE]One will only reject influence when he is touched by it. One does not react at all to an absence of influence. Enough of these illogical evasive comments. When you ready to talk turkey, let me know..

 

[ForumChaplain]

Originally posted by russell55:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Just find me a scripture that even resembles that and we have a starting point.

Well, how about 1 Cor 3?

What then is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants through whom you believed, even as the Lord gave to each one. I planted, Apollos watered, but God was causing the growth. So then neither the one who plants, nor the one who waters is anything, but God who causes the growth. For we are God's fellow-workers, you are God's field, God's building.

We are the servants who spread the gospel seed necessary for faith, but each one only actually believes as the Lord gives them faith. We spread the gospel seed, but God is the one who causes the seed to grow into a harvest. The harvest is caused by the work of God. So the field (or the building) that results is the field or building that God has designed it to be.</font>[/QUOTE]Can't find anything about that inner call meeting that outside influence in your scripture. Where did that rascal get an inner call anyway? I thought that he was totally depraved.

One plants, that's the gospel: Another waters, is that the inner call. Because it is God that brings forth the increase. Thought that God had to regenerate them first. You desperately need to reconcile that total depravity stuff with your theology before you post....

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Chappie:
You desperately need to reconcile that total depravity stuff with your theology before you post....

Russell's theology does not need to be reconciled with total depravity. I rather think it is your understanding of total depravity and effectual calling that needs to be increased. This subject has been made a whole lot more difficult that it really is by your refusal to simply accept what we are saying.

The planting and watering are the outward work on the person. But notice where the growth comes from. It is directly said to be "caused by God." That sounds an awful like lot Paul thought God was in charge. In fact, it sounds like what you would call "force." Now if Paul believed it, why don't you?

 

[ForumChaplain]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
Russell's theology does not need to be reconciled with total depravity. I rather think it is your understanding of total depravity and effectual calling that needs to be increased. This subject has been made a whole lot more difficult that it really is by your refusal to simply accept what we are saying.

A little something from another conversation that I am having.

rev,
I would like to attempt to clarify the Calvinist doctrine of total depravity, since it is widely misunderstood.

First of all, it most emphatically does NOT mean that unregenerate human beings are incapable of thinking and doing good things. The "total" is a reference to the totality of the unregenerate person's constitution...in other words, we are depraved in every facet of our being; we fall short in every "department".

The doctrine is important because it absolutely negates any idea that man can justify himself by works before God and thereby gain salvation as by merit. It was Calvin's concern to have this doctrine "nailed down" so that any challenge to the central teachings of the reformation regarding justification before God could be scripturally and logically dismissed.

Once again, to be clear on this...total depravity means that the corruption of sin has extended to all aspects of man's nature and consequently there is nothing that man can do to MERIT saving favor with God.

It may be that you understand all this already, rev, I just thought it would be appropriate to attempt such a clarification.
Signed:
J G Mortimer.

Response:
Mr. Mortimer:
I think that it is an excellent idea to do this. Often this idea is put forth as true Calvinism. Yet I find that many professing Calvinists do not want to be bound by the truth of what Calvin originally espoused.

Your analysis I believe to be what John Calvin intended. I believe that he was dealing specifically with the extent of man’s depravity rather than say, specifically with the severity of man’s depravity. That severity is there, yet I believe that we have to understand its extent based on a preponderance of scripture: Not on just a few passages where God is expressing his anger to a nation or a people that are on a specific occasion are in woeful rebellion.

That no man is seeking God cannot be scripturally construed to mean that no man can or will. That this rebellious state is now so severe that no man can hear the gospel and believe is, I believe, taking the concept of severity past what is revealed in scripture.

This position I believe to be scriptural. My problems begin when this concept is applied to severity and demands that man is so innately evil that instead of just being a sinner, he begins to violently contend with God.

This position is how Satan is described, he is an adversary; contending with God for what belongs to God. This is why I believe that Satan cannot/will not repent and be forgiven. He is more than a sinner, foolishly seeking his own pleasure. He has saving knowledge of God, yet has set himself as an adversary of God. (Saving knowledge does not save, Christ saves.)

Men are not born depraved past the point of being able to respond to the drawing power of the truth of the gospel. Might not take long for us to get there after birth, but God does not bring us into this world eternally dead before we ever have the chance to know right from wrong and capable of embracing either sufficiently to receive and believe the gospel. I have dealt with a very small part of the ramifications of total depravity as presented to me as Calvinism.

As you know, I have much more to say, but I don’t want to hog the conversation. I eagerly await your or anyone else’s response. Think that we might be on to something that we can all share a little on.

[ October 15, 2002, 12:25 PM: Message edited by: Chappie ]

 

[Pastor Larry]

His explanation is what I have said from day one, long before you ever came on this board. But I think your reply shows that you have not properly grasped, from our perspective, the implications of the doctrine that you say you agree with. Total depravity is not a limitation; it is a disablement so that man "cannot please God ... is not even able to do so" (Rom 8) and "cannot come to God" (John 6). He is "dead in trespasses and sins" (Eph 2), not because God brought him into the world that way but because he is born in the likeness of Adam. He is this way because his heart has deceived him more than he can even know (jer 17:9). I could go on and on with Scriptural passages that support the idea that TD is what we say it is rather than what you say it is ... I just think you haven't really reconciled all the biblical passages on this issue.

 

[russell55]

Can't find anything about that inner call meeting that outside influence in your scripture. Where did that rascal get an inner call anyway? I thought that he was totally depraved.

Outercall = Paul and Apollos planting and watering.
("Servants through whom you believed...")

Inner call = God's inner work in those who believed. ("... you believed, even as God gave to each one...God was causing the growth.)

Outer call meets inner call = "I planted, Apollos watered, but God was causing the growth."

Both calls are necessary, but which call is the efficacious one? Which is the one that actually causes the harvest?

So then neither the one who plants, nor the one who waters is anything, but God who causes the growth.

The inner work of God is what overcomes the total depravity. Total depravity is why Paul planting and Apollos watering is not enough to get a harvest. Total depravity is why that harvest only comes as God causes growth, as God gives belief.

[ October 15, 2002, 02:05 PM: Message edited by: russell55 ]

 

[ForumChaplain]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
His explanation is what I have said from day one, long before you ever came on this board. But I think your reply shows that you have not properly grasped, from our perspective, the implications of the doctrine that you say you agree with.

His explanation is what i have advocated as what i believe concerning calvinism since i came on this board. Prayerfully, we can now put away the accusations of; you are misrepresentating us and you do not understand us. This I agree with. Yet, the following is what i have advocated against since i came on this board. I accept the above as scriptural, reject your application as unscriptural.

Total depravity is not a limitation; it is a disablement so that man "cannot please God ... is not even able to do so" (Rom 8) and "cannot come to God" (John 6). He is "dead in trespasses and sins" [/b][/quote]
Where man's disablement has prevent him from coming to God: God's grace has served as an enabler offered to all men. NOT JUST SOME. So we agree, and then we disagree. What was impossible for man, God has made possible.

Dead in sin and trespasses means seperated from God and unable to bridge the gap by ones own will. God has bridged the gap for all men, the wall of seperation has been torn down. Ever heard that before.

(Eph 2), not because God brought him into the world that way but because he is born in the likeness of Adam. He is this way because his heart has deceived him more than he can even know (jer 17:9).

What other likeness chould he have chosen to be born in. You speak as tho we had a choice in the matter. You speak as tho it is our fault. God is in charge....

I could go on and on with Scriptural passages that support the idea that TD is what we say it is rather than what you say it is ... I just think you haven't really reconcilled all the biblical passages on this issue.

Not so Pastor, I have reconciled every one that you have posted and some that you have not posted. Contextually, scripture by scripture, I have reconcilled John 6. It does not say what Calvinism causes it to say. And it does not say what your reconcilliation causes it to say. I have many faults, but I can read, and i do know what i read.... And i know when meaning is being subtracted, and when it is being added. That is why we disagree.

Sometime we have a tendency to start reconcilling before we firmly allow a passage to say what it says. Check and see if you are guilty of this from time to time.

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Chappie:
Yet I find that many professing Calvinists do not want to be bound by the truth of what Calvin originally espoused.

I am not sure who made this statement, but Calvinism is shorthand for basically a soteriological viewpoint which includes other aspects of theology as well. Calling oneself a Calvinist does not mean that one subscribes to everything that John Calvin wrote or said. For example, Calvin was a paedo-Baptist, a position with which I disagree. Therefore, when I call myself a Calvinist I am not saying I am a paedo-Baptist. Nor do I have any interest in defending Calvin's paedo-Baptist position.

That's why I prefer the term, Spurgeonite, as Charles Spurgeon was a teacher of the doctrines of grace and a Baptist.

Ken
A Spurgeonite

 

[ForumChaplain]

John 6:38-40
38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.
39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.
40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

Question.
A) So, whose will did Christ come to fulfill?
Answer:
(V. 38) For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.

Questions:
Whose will is it?
Answer:
And this isthe Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.
Question:
And what is the Fathers will?
Answer:
It is the fathers will that all those that he has given Christ, he should loose none, but should raise them up on the last day. Nothing to indicate previous election, nothing to do with election.

Now, who are those that the father has given his son, here the bible does not say. So it could be the elect according to Calvinist theology, or it could be those that have come to Christ volitionally. So the gate is still wide open for both camps.

Question:
So is that all that the father has given the Son as that which is his will.
Answer:
Nope… (Verse 40) And this is the will of him that sent me.
Question:
What else is the will of the father?
Answer:
That every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life:

So how do we handle the fact that no man hath seen the son since his ascensions? Room for dialog here. “And believeth on him”. Not depending on how we resolve seeth the son, we know that we have to attach and believeth without qualification.

Now to verse 44.
John 6:44
44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. (KJV)
No man can come unless the father draw him. No man can, establishes the truth that it is God that makes salvation possible. Except the father draw him. Does not limit to certain individuals. Nothing yet to make that drawing efficacious. Because the drawing makes coming possible, yet it in no way declares that coming to be a certainty. Just does not say it. Yet it does say, that of those that are drawn, “that do come”, does not say that they all will come. {Show me if you can}Christ will raise them up at the last day. Two things essentially must happen according to 6:44. You must be drawn, and you must come. They are not synonymous. They are two separate events.

Are there any other requirements?

John 6:45
45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me. (KJV)
Yes, they shall be taught of God. Therefore every man that hath heard, and learned, does what? Cometh unto me. Does not say that everyone that is drawn will come. Does not say it. Does not say it.. Election occurred in eternal time, before we were even created. Can you suggest that we heard and learned before we were created. This happens in real time, not eternity past. DOES NOT SAY THAT EVERY MAN CHOSEN BY GOD IN ETERNITY PAST WILL COME. Nothing to indicate individual election before creation. Not there, just not there. I can read…..

John 6:47
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. He that believeth has ever lasting life.

The “He” here could be your elect, or it could be those that have volitionally accepted Christ. Neither camp can claim their position here.

He that believeth, no reference to he that is elected to believe.

My point being: That you cannot get election out of these passages unless you bring it with you…

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Chappie:
Nothing to indicate previous election, nothing to do with election.

I think I may be starting to see why you keep misunderstanding the Scriptures, Chappie. It appears you are trying to isolate verses away from the rest of the Bible and the context of the whole Bible. It appears that unless each verse or passage contains every truth concerning the great salvation that God has provided for His people, you refuse to accept the individual doctrines that are not explicitly stated in that verse or passage. Just take the Bible as a whole, and I think you will make better progress in your understanding of the Bible, if that is your goal.

Ken
A Spurgeonite

 

[ForumChaplain]

Originally posted by Ken Hamilton:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Chappie:
Nothing to indicate previous election, nothing to do with election.

I think I may be starting to see why you keep misunderstanding the Scriptures, Chappie. It appears you are trying to isolate verses away from the rest of the Bible and the context of the whole Bible. It appears that unless each verse or passage contains every truth concerning the great salvation that God has provided for His people, you refuse to accept the individual doctrines that are not explicitly stated in that verse or passage. Just take the Bible as a whole, and I think you will make better progress in your understanding of the Bible, if that is your goal.

Ken
A Spurgeonite</font>[/QUOTE]Not so brother Ken.
just as you cannot get election oput of these passages, you cannot get it out of the bible either. Take me to passages that specifically give birth to election and i will reconsider. Specifically show it to me in any passages and i will reconsider. Show me that the idea originated in the bible rather than in some man's head.

I mean originated in scripture rather than is perpetrated by squeezing scripture....scripture.

Just one that specifically speaks of individual salvific election... Just one.... Just one....

"If that is my goal" Is there some subliminal meaning here. my goal is between me and my god, as long as i speak truth, that should not overly concern you....

[ October 17, 2002, 12:03 AM: Message edited by: Chappie ]

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Chappie:
Just one that specifically speaks of individual salvific election... Just one.... Just one

The teaching of election unto salvation has been proven from the Scriptures over and over again in this forum.

How about this time you do some leg work? Get a concordance or go to a Bible search engine and type in words like "elect", "election", "chose", etc. and read the verses for yourself.

Ken
A Spurgeonite

[ October 17, 2002, 01:34 PM: Message edited by: Ken Hamilton ]

 

[ForumChaplain]

Originally posted by Ken Hamilton:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Chappie:
Just one that specifically speaks of individual salvific election... Just one.... Just one

The teaching of election unto salvation has been proven from the Scriptures over and over again in this forum.

How about this time you do some leg work? Get a concordance or go to a Bible search engine and type in words like "elect", "election", "chose", etc. and read the verses for yourself.

Ken
A Spurgeonite

</font>[/QUOTE]I have brother Ken, I have. probably a hundred times. That's why i am not a calvinist. You claim to have proven your point over and over again. To whoom may I ask. I have not seen one calvinistic conversion. In other words, you have proved nothing.... Live with it....

Yet, why don't you pull them out, that way we can together discuss what they really mean... I know, i know, you have done it so many times, what's the use huh? You are tired of using the same old scriptures trying to prove the same old points.

I've been at this an average of three hours a day, seven days a week for the past 15 years; and I don't feel no ways tired. Break em out, we'll go over them again, and again, and again; and again. Until the good lord calls me home. Man i live for this stuff.....

[ October 17, 2002, 06:25 PM: Message edited by: Chappie ]

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Chappie:
Man i live for this stuff

Believe it or not, some of us have life outside of the BaptistBoard.

For one thing, I need time to read Charles Spurgeon's sermons and writings.

Ken
A Spurgeonite

 

[ForumChaplain]

Originally posted by Ken Hamilton:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Chappie:
Man i live for this stuff

Believe it or not, some of us have life outside of the BaptistBoard.

For one thing, I need time to read Charles Spurgeon's sermons and writings.

Ken
A Spurgeonite</font>[/QUOTE]Well, to each his own. Now me, when I am not trying to bring a little truth into a Calvinists theology, i usually grab myself a bible. Yet this does sheed some light on your state of confusion. You have my prayers, and i will pray for what your hero left behind.

No need to pray for my hero, he is sitting at the right hand of the father. Any scriptures to tell me where your hero is.....