Some Things That “Limited Atonement” Does Not Mean:

[Ray Berrian]

While it is true that human beings are depraved and defiled with an Adamic nature, it is also true that not everyone is about to explode and go do some heinous crime.

God lights each human being with the light of His Being [John 1:9] so that we are not only born in the Image of God, [James 3:9] we have a conscience that knows right from wrong. We are told not to curse another human being because we are of such an intrinsic value that God forbids that we do this.

Notice you never have to prove to a small child that Jesus is their Friend. They intuitively now this. It is only as the years pass that the sinner begins to destroy his or her conscience. This is not the fault of the Lord but of the human being.

So with being enlightened since birth and being in the Image of God, plus the working of the Holy Spirit on the sinner, no one can say that God is not able to touch the life of a sinner
effectually before salvation. When people say this, they are suggesting that God the Spirit is
ineffecutal and does not have the capacity to convict and convince the sinner of impending judgment.[John 16:8] Why would God reprove the sinner of his sin if He had not touched the human heart/life? Why would God remind sinners of a righteous God if they did not clearly understand Him? Why would God point to a future Judgment if the sinner could not fathom the concept. The truth is humankind is enlightened and alerted to their rendevous with the Living God when their lives are over here.

This should be more than enough to persuade someone with Calvinistic leanings that indeed the Lord does touch the human soul, before the sinner says yes to God, and then is regenerated and adopted into the family of God.

Do I hear a witness to the truth?

 

[Bible-belted]

" While it is true that human beings are depraved and defiled with an Adamic nature, it is also true that not everyone is about to explode and go do some heinous crime."

That is very true. Total Depravity as understood by Calvanists affirms that very thing. However it does not imply the converse, as yo seem to think it does. That would be a non sequitur on your part.

"God lights each human being with the light of His Being [John 1:9] so that we are not only born in the Image of God, [James 3:9] we have a conscience that knows right from wrong. We are told not to curse another human being because we are of such an intrinsic value that God forbids that we do this. "

None of which denies tbe trith of the Gospel as understood by Calvanists.

" Notice you never have to prove to a small child that Jesus is their Friend. They intuitively now this. It is only as the years pass that the sinner begins to destroy his or her conscience. This is not the fault of the Lord but of the human being."

You also don't need to teach them about sin. When was th last time you had to teach your kids to be disobedient. As for conscience, you need to see toddlers up close. They can be disobedient without a wiff of conscience.

But people don;t fail to respond to Christ as adults becuase they lose ther conscience, but vecause they are dead in trespasses and sins. They cannot respond to God approriately according to God's satndard of appropriate.
"So with being enlightened since birth and being in the Image of God, plus the working of the Holy Spirit on the sinner, no one can say that God is not able to touch the life of a sinner
effectually before salvation."

No Calvanist does. It's called the efffectual call.

"This should be more than enough to persuade someone with Calvinistic leanings that indeed the Lord does touch the human soul, before the sinner says yes to God, and then is regenerated and adopted into the family of God."

Well it is cetainly enough to persuade me you haven't a clue about Calvanism. You have just summarised Calvanist soterilogy as if it wer not Calvanist. The Lord touches the soul through the efectual call, they believe, are regenerated, and adopted.

You certaily have a witness to the truth. However the truth you have described is Calvanist.

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
no one can say that God is not able to touch the life of a sinner effectually before salvation. When people say this, they are suggesting that God the Spirit is
ineffectual

Effectual would mean bringing to repentance and faith. It is the non-Calvinist who in essence has the God of the universe on His knees begging a rebellious sinner, as we all are before regeneration, to "please, please let Me save you." That is a terrible picture but it is the one that non-Calvinistic soteriology paints by its own misunderstanding of Scripture.

Calvinism teaches that God always succeeds in His goals and never, ever fails to save one He plans to rescue. 100% success 100% of the time. According to some non-Calvinists God only succeeds in saving 2-3% of the time and fails 97-98% of the time.

The non-Calvinist conception of God is much, much too small.

Ken
A Spurgeonite

 

[ForumChaplain]

original post by Pastor Larry.
Actually, this is quite the issue we contend. All men are not savingly drawn as is evidenced by the fact that not all men are raised up at the last day (John 6:44). John 12 is very easily explained by the context.

Pastor Larry.
I have extensively gave my interpretation, in context, of John 6:44. You post scriptures, yet you never take the time to place them in context; nor do you take the time to explain how you feel they support your position. Just once Pastor, I would like to see you do that.

Otherwise I can easily rebut any thing that you say because you post scripture, but you never use scripture. Still waiting for that response to my contextual interpretation that involves John 6:44.

The fact that all are not saved can just as easily, more justly, and more logically be explained by freewill as imposed will that you so lovingly proclaim..

The Greeks have requested to see Jesus but Jesus, for some reason, does not permit them to. He has ministered largely to the Jews exclusively. In John 12:32, he is saying that when he is lifted up he will draw men, not simply the Jews. Hence the context seems to indicate all nations rather than simply Jews.

Pastor, how is it that you heard him say men, but John, who was there, and is further validated by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, all heard him say all men. It saddens me, what you do this passage to make it fit into your theology.

The bible says “all men”, you change it to “men”. Do you feel so secure in your theology that you would:
Rev 22:18-19
18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion as to what you think it means, but you are without authority to change what it says..

I must admit that early on this verse was a real struggle for me and for a while I let the tension stand. However, in further thinking and studying the whole chapter (rather than lifting one verse out of it), I have come to the conclusion that this is indeed the proper interpretation. John 6 is simply too clear.

Your problem is that in order to validate your theology, not only do you have change the meaning of “all men” here. There are more occasions that you have to change what is said. Here are just a few:

Matt 10:22
22 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved. (KJV)

Matt 19:11
11 But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. (KJV)

all + men (KJV)

Matt 26:33
33 Peter answered and said unto him, Though all men shall be offended because of thee, yet will I never be offended. (KJV)

Mark 1:37
37 And when they had found him, they said unto him, All men seek for thee. (KJV)

John 1:7
7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe. (KJV)

John 5:23
23 That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him. (KJV)

John 13:35
35 By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another. (KJV)

Acts 17:30
30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: (KJV)

Rom 5:12
12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (KJV)

Rom 5:18
18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. (KJV)

Rom 12:17
17 Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men. (KJV)

Rom 12:18
18 If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men. (KJV)

1 Cor 7:7
7 For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that. (KJV)

1 Cor 9:19
19 For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more. (KJV)

1 Cor 9:22
22 To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. (KJV)

1 Cor 15:19
19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable. (KJV)

1Thes 5:14
14 Now we exhort you, brethren, warn them that are unruly, comfort the feebleminded, support the weak, be patient toward all men. (KJV)

1 Tim 2:1
1 I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; (KJV)

1 Tim 2:3-4
3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
(KJV)

 

[ForumChaplain]

Originally posted by Ken Hamilton:
Effectual would mean bringing to repentance and faith. It is the non-Calvinist who in essence has the God of the universe on His knees begging a rebellious sinner, as we all are before regeneration, to "please, please let Me save you." That is a terrible picture but it is the one that non-Calvinistic soteriology paints by its own misunderstanding of Scripture.

Not quite accurate, but how does it compare to a God moseing through creation with a match in his hand.....

Calvinism teaches that God always succeeds in His goals and never, ever fails to save one He plans to rescue. 100% success 100% of the time. According to some non-Calvinists God only succeeds in saving 2-3% of the time and fails 97-98% of the time.

The non-Calvinist conception of God is much, much too small.

Have you thought this one through???
His goal is to save every single one that places their faith in him. For we are saved by Grace, through faith. Did God forget to say "by grace, through election?? Only difference is, in reformed theology, he places their faith in him for them... Of those, even without efficacious grace, how many would you say he has lost.

Your conclusions betray a complete lack of understanding of the doctrine of freewill. If you understood, you would not make false accusations that are totally without merit...

Chappie.
A Christian.
No Other Affiliations.....

[ October 06, 2002, 07:52 PM: Message edited by: rlvaughn ]

 

[KenH]

Man's will is limited by his nature. Off of the top of my head, the only folks that don't believe that are Pelagians who believe that everyone is born in the same state of innocence as Adam.

Ken
A Spurgeonite

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Chappie:
how many would you say he has lost.

Praise His name, God loses no one.

(John 6:39 NKJV) "This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day.

Ken
A Spurgeonite

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Chappie:
but how does it compare to a God moseing through creation with a match in his hand

Huh?

Ken
A Spurgeonite

[ October 03, 2002, 07:44 PM: Message edited by: Ken Hamilton ]

 

[ForumChaplain]

Originally posted by Latreia:
" While it is true that human beings are depraved and defiled with an Adamic nature, it is also true that not everyone is about to explode and go do some heinous crime."

Hello Latreia:
If this is true, should we not logically moderate "total depravity" to include, "that not everyone is about to explode and go do some heinous crime." That would result in "almost totally depraved, or totally depraved with one exception.

"God lights each human being with the light of His Being [John 1:9] so that we are not only born in the Image of God, [James 3:9] we have a conscience that knows right from wrong. We are told not to curse another human being because we are of such an intrinsic value that God forbids that we do this.

That's great, first calvinist to admit that all men have some intrinsic value before God. Most calvinist bring up god hated Esau, God hates this, God hates that. I was beginning to think that God did not love anybody.

However that eliminates efficacous grace. Unless you see God professing his love with a match lit behind his back...

" Notice you never have to prove to a small child that Jesus is their Friend. They intuitively now this. It is only as the years pass that the sinner begins to destroy his or her conscience. This is not the fault of the Lord but of the human being."

How so, cradle to the grave, that little raskel is totally depraved...

You also don't need to teach them about sin. When was th last time you had to teach your kids to be disobedient. As for conscience, you need to see toddlers up close. They can be disobedient without a wiff of conscience.

Disobedience is disobedince only when we have an understandable command not to do something.

But people don;t fail to respond to Christ as adults becuase they lose ther conscience, but vecause they are dead in trespasses and sins. They cannot respond to God approriately according to God's satndard of appropriate.
"So with being enlightened since birth and being in the Image of God, plus the working of the Holy Spirit on the sinner, no one can say that God is not able to touch the life of a sinner
effectually before salvation."

Halelujah, there goes total depravity out the window. God can tough a sinner, amen, amen , amen....

Who said that, i'm confused. Say it again..
"So with being enlightened since birth and being in the Image of God, plus the working of the Holy Spirit on the sinner, no one can say that God is not able to touch the life of a sinner
effectually before salvation".....

"This should be more than enough to persuade someone with Calvinistic leanings that indeed the Lord does touch the human soul, before the sinner says yes to God, and then is regenerated and adopted into the family of God."

Well it is cetainly enough to persuade me you haven't a clue about Calvanism. You have just summarised Calvanist soterilogy as if it wer not Calvanist. The Lord touches the soul through the efectual call, they believe, are regenerated, and adopted.

You certaily have a witness to the truth. However the truth you have described is Calvanist.

Now, i am confused. Who'se talking here......

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Chappie:
Disobedience is disobedience only when we have an understandable command not to do something.

Have you thought that idea all the way through? It sounds like you are saying it would be okay then if a 2-year old took a brick and hit his mother in the head with it while she was sleeping.

And, then there is this:

(Romans 5:14 NKJV) Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.

Have you ever wondered what command had been given to those destroyed in the Flood that brought about the judgment they met? We have no recorded commandment that they broke. How about this:

(Romans 2:14-15 NKJV) for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, {15} who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them)

Perhaps that little 2-year old with the brick is breaking a command after all whether it has been verbalized to him or not.

Ken
A Spurgeonite

 

[Bible-belted]

Hey chappie, how's it going?

You said:

"If this is true, should we not logically moderate "total depravity" to include, "that not everyone is about to explode and go do some heinous crime." That would result in "almost totally depraved, or totally depraved with one exception."

No. See, Total Depravityis an extensive, not an intensive statement. That is, sin touches every facet of the human being. That is the extent of sin's impact is total. No part of the human being is unaffected by sin. The question of how sinful a person becomes is a question of the intensity of the imapct of sin on the person. That will vary, though the fact that a person is dad in sins does place a "floor" on that intensity.

So Total deprtavity just means that every part of us is impacted by sin. it does nto mean that we are as sinful as we can be in every way we can be. That is its definition.

"That's great, first calvinist to admit that all men have some intrinsic value before God. Most calvinist bring up god hated Esau, God hates this, God hates that. I was beginning to think that God did not love anybody."

That's probably because a) you misunderstand what hey mean by "hate" (at least I hope so; I'd "hate" to think that they mean hate as in the emotion. I take it to mean "reject".), and b) They repeat it so often without a proper context (they forget to add it becuase they know exactly what they mean and fail to bear in mind that those who don't share their assumptions and convictions woun't know what they mean without the context).

Calvanists do hold that God is love.

I hope you aewilling to admit that God hates sin and divorce...

"However that eliminates efficacous grace. Unless you see God professing his love with a match lit behind his back..."

I don't see how it eliminates the effectual call. God loves us but that in itself does not enable us to respond in faith. We are dead in sin. Corpses don't respond to anything!

"Disobedience is disobedince only when we have an understandable command not to do something."

When I tell my toddler not to touch something, he knows what he's doing, don't kid yourself! The point though is that getting older doesn't make a person less able to respond to God, or les able to be obdient.

"Halelujah, there goes total depravity out the window. God can tough a sinner, amen, amen , amen....

Who said that, i'm confused. Say it again..
"So with being enlightened since birth and being in the Image of God, plus the working of the Holy Spirit on the sinner, no one can say that God is not able to touch the life of a sinner
effectually before salvation"....."

Ok, You don't understand. Nothing I said is opposed to Total Deprtavity. Like I said, the person is dead in sin, and then is touched by the grace of God in the form of the effectual call. Then they are regenerated and adopted. This doesn't deny TD. It accepts it.

"Now, i am confused. Who'se talking here....."

What is in quotes is Ray berrian. He made some comments that he thought were a contradiction of Calvanism. I showed that this is not the case, and did so simply by inserting "common grace" in the paces where he assumes "prevenient grace". Do that and there is no cointradiction between Ray's words and Calvanism.

I guess that leads to the question of which is true: prevenient or commonn grace?



Besides Romans 1

 

[ForumChaplain]

Original post by Latreia That's probably because a) you misunderstand what hey mean by "hate" (at least I hope so; I'd "hate" to think that they mean hate as in the emotion. I take it to mean "reject".), and b) They repeat it so often without a proper context (they forget to add it because they know exactly what they mean and fail to bear in mind that those who don't share their assumptions and convictions won’t know what they mean without the context).

Jacob have I loved (Chosen) Esau have I hated. (Rejected) So, Jacob was chosen as the vehicle through which God would fulfill his promise to Abraham. Esau, was rejected as that vehicle. Am I right about it…..

BTW, that is exactly what it means. Rejected…

BTW, I’m beginning to get suspicious, may I please see you Calvin membership card. I think that you are really an undercover Armenian…..

Ok, how do you intreprit those scriptures about God hardening Pharoah's heart....

[ October 03, 2002, 08:59 PM: Message edited by: Chappie ]

 

[ForumChaplain]

Originally posted by Latreia:
Hey chappie, how's it going?
No. See, Total Depravity is an extensive, not an intensive statement. That is, sin touches every facet of the human being. That is the extent of sin's impact is total. No part of the human being is unaffected by sin. The question of how sinful a person becomes is a question of the intensity of the imapct of sin on the person. That will vary, though the fact that a person is dead in sins does place a "floor" on that intensity.

So Total deprtavity just means that every part of us is impacted by sin. it does nto mean that we are as sinful as we can be in every way we can be. That is its definition.

If you are a calvinist, and you agree with this statement. May i know your handle, followed by the word, "Amen".

I hope you are willing to admit that God hates sin and divorce...

Without a doubt, God does hate things. Sin is a thing, divorce is a thing. Yes, God hates those things.

But i do not believe that God hates beings, he has not even expressed a hatred for Satan. Yet some have him hating people. Don't think so...

I don't see how it eliminates the effectual call. God loves us but that in itself does not enable us to respond in faith. We are dead in sin. Corpses don't respond to anything!

Dead in sin has nothing to do with a corpse. The dead being spoken of here is spiritual death, which means seperated from God by sin. Inability to act is not indicated here. Does not even mean that one is incapable of coming to God. It simply means that we are seperated from God through sin..

What is in quotes is Ray berrian. He made some comments that he thought were a contradiction of Calvanism. I showed that this is not the case, and did so simply by inserting "common grace" in the paces where he assumes "prevenient grace". Do that and there is no contradiction between Ray's words and Calvanism.

Before I can give this "grace" and efficacious grace any credence, I first need a scripture that says grace and efficacious grace. As of this moment, all I see them as, are projections necessary to give Calvinism an air or scripturality. Anything will do, as long as the scripture indicates that God deals with man through two different graces.

I will entertain a scripture that points to such, but we have to stay close to the breast untill such is established.

I guess that leads to the question of which is true: prevenient or commonn grace?

We can hold the question until we can establish their real existence.

[ October 03, 2002, 09:52 PM: Message edited by: Chappie ]

 

[Sovereign Grace]

Chappie, your own defense proves your interpretation of "all men" wrong.

"And ye shall be hated of all [men] for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved." (Mt. 10:22)

The disciples of Jesus Christ are not hated by all men without exception.

"But he said unto them, All [men] cannot receive this saying, save [they] to whom it is given." (Mt. 19:11)

Yes, only those to whom it is given...

I did not receive a reply to my post. Maybe you should "enlighten" me.

[ October 03, 2002, 10:50 PM: Message edited by: Sovereign Grace ]

 

[Bible-belted]

Hi Chappie:

"Jacob have I loved (Chosen) Esau have I hated. (Rejected) So, Jacob was chosen as the vehicle through which God would fulfill his promise to Abraham. Esau, was rejected as that vehicle. Am I right about it?.."

It is more correct to say that Jacob was chosen and Esau was not. I don't like to say "rejected" too much because it can be taken to mean that Esau was cast away, when in fact he was simply allowed to remain as he had been.

"BTW, I?m beginning to get suspicious, may I please see you Calvin membership card. I think that you are really an undercover Armenian?.."

Like I said, I ama 4 pt Calvanist, and that allows me to be "softer" in ways that a 5pter cannot be. Ditching Unlimited Atonement makes a bif difference in Calvanist theology, though not to the point where it is not Calvanist. The belief in Unlimited Atonement can definitely maker a 4pt Calvanist look like an Arminian. I know 5 pters who make that mistake...

From what I can tell you have dealt a lot with either 5 pters or 5 pters who are double predestinarians. Those are the most extremem and hard line of the 5 pters.
"Ok, how do you intreprit those scriptures about God hardening Pharoah's heart...."

Make that a new thread and I'll join.

"If you are a calvinist, and you agree with this statement. May i know your handle, followed by the word, "Amen"."

Oh I agree all right. I can even point you toa book that pretty well says that: Millard Erickson's Systematic Theology.

"But i do not believe that God hates beings, he has not even expressed a hatred for Satan. Yet some have him hating people. Don't think so... "

I can't imagine anyone suggesting that God hates people (his creations) that way. In fact I go so far as to say (and this touches on Pharoah a bit) that God did not necessarily go unaffected by his hardening of people or using wicked people to carry out his jdgments, that sort of thing. He may well ahvee used it to carry out Hiss will, but I would never suggest that God found it easy. He was not, I believe, blase about seeing people die or suffer.

"Dead in sin has nothing to do with a corpse. The dead being spoken of here is spiritual death, which means seperated from God by sin. Inability to act is not indicated here. Does not even mean that one is incapable of coming to God. It simply means that we are seperated from God through sin.."

I know its spiritual death. I was trying to make an analogy. Dead is dead. But dead is not simply separation. Dead people are not simply separated from God, but are unable to respond to Him.

"Before I can give this "grace" and efficacious grace any credence, I first need a scripture that says grace and efficacious grace. As of this moment, all I see them as, are projections necessary to give Calvinism an air or scripturality. Anything will do, as long as the scripture indicates that God deals with man through two different graces.

I will entertain a scripture that points to such, but we have to stay close to the breast untill such is established."

I have not said anything about "efficacious grace". I call it effectual call. And I have on another thread shown you the biblical basis for it, remember?

As fro prevenient vs. common grace, I suspect you'll find Arminians and Calvanists pointing to the same scriptures to prove their point. The question is in how you interpret those scritures, whcih is, IMO, predicatd on presuppositions. If you want I can try to give you a balanced evaluation.

 

[Sovereign Grace]

Arminian Grace
(to the tune of "Amazing Grace")

v1 Arminian "grace!" How strange the sound, Salvation hinged on me.
I once was lost then turned around,
Was blind then chose to see.
v2 What "grace" is it that calls for choice,
Made from some good within?
That part that wills to heed God's voice,
Proved stronger than my sin.
v3 Thru many ardent gospel pleas,
I sat with heart of stone.
But then some hidden good in me,
Propelled me toward my home.
v4 When we've been there ten thousand years, Because of what we've done,
We've no less days to sing our praise,
Than when we first begun.

Dennis Walter Cochran (Dennis the Poet)

 

[ForumChaplain]

Originally posted by Sovereign Grace:
I did not receive a reply to my post. Maybe you should "enlighten" me.

Wow!! Who is this masked man. What post are we talking about. Enlighten me, I'll be glad to respond...

[ October 06, 2002, 07:55 PM: Message edited by: rlvaughn ]

 

[ForumChaplain]

Originally posted by Sovereign Grace:
Arminian Grace
(to the tune of "Amazing Grace")

v1 Arminian "grace!" How strange the sound, Salvation hinged on me.
I once was lost then turned around,
Was blind then chose to see...
Dennis Walter Cochran (Dennis the Poet)

I'm impressed. Here's your report card..

Poetry--------- "A"
Bible study---- "F"

[ October 06, 2002, 08:05 PM: Message edited by: rlvaughn ]

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Sovereign Grace:
Arminian Grace
(to the tune of "Amazing Grace")

Thanks for lightening up the list.

Of course, parody only works if there is some truth in it. And, unfortunately, there's a bunch of it in that one.

Ken
A Spurgeonite

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Ken Hamilton:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Sovereign Grace:
Arminian Grace
(to the tune of "Amazing Grace")

Thanks for lightening up the list.

Of course, parody only works if there is some truth in it. And, unfortunately, there's a bunch of it in that one.

Ken
A Spurgeonite</font>[/QUOTE]Isn't it odd how you get so ticked off when people misrepresent what Calvinism really says, yet you encourage tripe such as this that isn't an accurate portrayal of Arminianism at all?