The Limitations of Holding Limited Atonement View

"In the OT, when the priest sacrificed the animal, was the animal an atoning sacrifice? Yes.

But when were the sins of the people actually forgiven? When the priest entered the Holy of Holies." - Paul33

But the application of the atoning sacrifice comes when Christ intercedes. Unless Christ intercedes all of us are hopelessly lost. The blood must be applied and that happens at the Father's right hand." - Paul33

So much to respond to! I'll begin here. Heb. 10:12,13, "But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; from henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool."

It seems that the application of the sacrifice has already been made, because Christ has taken his seat at the right hand of the Father. And that intercession/application was apparently done before He took His seat.

Also - was the sacrifice every severed from forgiveness (intercession)? Sacrifice and intercession work hand in hand. I'd like to see one reference where the atonement is separated from the intercession and forgiveness.

Arminians have borrowed Calvinistic terminology by using the term "substitutionary atonement." Christ was a substitute, taking on the punishment that was due us. In being that substitute, Christ satisfied God's wrath and purchased our redemption. For Christ's death to not ensure anything whatsoever, only rendering man "savable", then Christ's substitution was to no avail and wasn't a substitute everyone He intended to take the place of.

It was said by someone else: Arminians limit the effectiveness and usefulness of the atonement, while Calvinists limit those to whom it is applied. I'm glad God didn't simply give me salvation potential, but that He actually secured something for me.

Hank -

1 John 5:19; "the whole world" most obviously is not every person in the world, because there is an exclusion in the text itself: "we" who "are of God".

1 John 2:2; the word "propitiation" precludes "the whole world" from literally meaning 'every person on the face of the earth.' You have to seriously dilute its meaning. Does not the satisfaction of God's wrath include a person not being punished for their sins...isn't that what it means??? Something's amiss if God's wrath towards a sinner is satisfied and God STILL sends them to hell. (and you think calvinists are mean people ) lol

The argument from absence doesn't hold much water at all: "John knew the word 'gentile'". Its a stretch to say the least.

There are several issues woven throughout this thread. They basically come down to Paul33 and the Pastor/Theologian trying to separate Christ's work of salvation into a mere potentiality (first part), with the second part being conditional on the act of belief by the individual. Arminians ultimately leave the decisive act - the "executive decision" in the hands of the unregenerate sinner. Grasshopper, Daniel, and myself would disagree. We would say that salvation is "potential" only in that it is offered to all. But the actual work of salvation is done by God Himself and is as certain as He is certain.

 

I should not be but I am always amazed why it is that on a supposed Christian forum those who express their opinion are so frequently verbally abused. If you disagree with a dispensationalist you may be called anything from being stupid, an unbeliever, or a heretic, even in the extreme to being an instrument of Satan. If you support the Sovereign Purpose of God in the Salvation of His Elect you may be called all the above plus a heartless person who worships an evil God. Now because I choose to respond to you primarily on the basis of Scripture you accuse me of being anti-intellectual. And you purport to be a pastor? Do you comfort your flock or confront your flock?

Now as for the remainder of your remarks. [You apparently use your pastoral privileges to insert figments of your imagination into what took place on Mars' Hill.!] However, I would call your attention to to the Scripture and being anti-intellectual I will use the KJV, 1769 version.

Acts 17:16-34
16 Now while Paul waited for them at Athens, his spirit was stirred in him, when he saw the city wholly given to idolatry.
17 Therefore disputed he in the synagogue with the Jews, and with the devout persons, and in the market daily with them that met with him.
18 Then certain philosophers of the Epicureans, and of the Stoicks, encountered him. And some said, What will this babbler say? other some, He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods: because he preached unto them Jesus, and the resurrection.
19 And they took him, and brought him unto Areopagus, saying, May we know what this new doctrine, whereof thou speakest, is?
20 For thou bringest certain strange things to our ears: we would know therefore what these things mean.
21 (For all the Athenians and strangers which were there spent their time in nothing else, but either to tell, or to hear some new thing.)
22 Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars’ hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious.
23 For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.
24 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;
25 Neither is worshipped with men’s hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;
26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;
27 That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:
28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.
29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device.
30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:
31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.
32 And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked: and others said, We will hear thee again of this matter.
33 So Paul departed from among them.
34 Howbeit certain men clave unto him, and believed: among the which was Dionysius the Areopagite, and a woman named Damaris, and others with them.

Please note how this discussion starts. Verses 16 and 17 tell us that the Apostle Paul was preaching to certain Jews and Gentiles in a synagogue. Now I assume on the basis of the remarks that follow that he was preaching the Gospel since we read in verse 18:

18 Then certain philosophers of the Epicureans, and of the Stoicks, encountered him. And some said, What will this babbler say? other some, He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods: because he preached unto them Jesus, and the resurrection.

We notice immediately in this passage that the Apostle Paul is accused of preaching to them Jesus, and the resurrection. I believe that could be called the Gospel.

Now lets see how the philosophical part of the discussion between the Apostle Paul and the Greek philosophers started. Looking again at verse 18: Then certain philosophers of the Epicureans, and of the Stoicks, encountered him. And some said, What will this babbler say? It is important here to understand what the Greeks meant when they called Paul a babbler. It has nothing to do with Paul’s speech, in fact it is even, more insulting than would appear since the Greek for babbler means: seed picker, an idler who makes a living picking up scraps; in modern jargon, a BUM.

Now what did these esteemed Greek philosophers do: they spent their time in nothing else, but either to tell, or to hear some new thing. Is that philosophy? some would call it gossip!

If we read the remaining Scripture we see that philosopher Paul chided these esteemed philosophers for ignorantly worshiping a false God. The Apostle Paul then begins to preach the Gospel. Call it philosophy if you choose but it was the Gospel, pure, and to those of us who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.

 

It does not say how he encountered them. More than likely he would have done so in the workplace. While they were giving him their particular take on life, ie philosophy, Paul was replying by preaching the Gospel. Intrigued by his style and message, whether to display him for refutation or in order to give him a bigger audience he was invited to the Areopagus, which he took the opportunity to preach the Gospel. I never said Paul did not preach the Gospel, my only point was that Paul was not violently opposed to philosophy as you seem to be. He lovingly befriended the Philosophers of his day, so much so that they gave him an opportunity to put Christianity on full display for the elite Philosophers of his day. It would be the moral equalence of impressing the Havard elite, and receiving an invitation to speak to the School of Philosophy.

So what is the big difference between what you are saying and what I am saying? The only reason we are talking about philosophy is because I quoted the law of non-contradiction, which you seem to be morally opposed.

One other thing, you stated,

Please! I did not refer to you as anti-intellectual because you quote Scripture. I refer to you as anti-intellectual because you rail against any use of extra biblical reasoning that could inform the context of a passage, because you are so opposed to philosophy of any kind, when the Bible is clearly opposed to vain philosophy, and because you do not seem to grasp the depth of the issue at hand. I do not think you are stupid, I just think you are overall close-minded/indoctrinated. There is nothing wrong with quoting Scripture, be it KJV or otherwise, but to simply quote Scripture with no explanation does not make a point, it simply opens for discussion the framework by which we have a discussion. Something which you sorely lack the ability to have amecabily....

My advice to you, 1) get over yourself, 2) quit hammering points in threads that are not related to the original post, 3) do not attack so vehemently those who profess to you be your brother in Christ, it lacks the charity to which we are called as fellow bond-servants of Christ. For the record, I never attacked your character as you so grossly did mine...

OldRegular, is this type of remark necessary?

What is the point of your participation? Better yet what is your point in all that you have said? So far you seem to be against the law of non-contradiction, in favor of election, and have not said one thing to further your claim to limited atonement. So far as I can tell you are here to cause trouble. Pity.

Shalom,

Pastor Bill </font>[/QUOTE]Pastor Bill, you still are behaving like an attack dog, what more can be said?

I remind you of the Scripture from an earlier post:

1 Corinthians 1:23-27
23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:
27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

I suspect that if Paul added anything to the record of the events on Mars Hill it was similar to the above. He only knew of one Gospel and it was not that of philosophy.

 

Just because I stated: Isn't applying the human logic of the law of noncontridiction to the Sovereign Grace of God in His Purpose to bring His Elect to Salvation a little foolish in light of Scripture. does not mean that I am morally opposed to the law of noncontradiction.

Could you please quote where I "railed" against any use of extra biblical reasoning.

You have made accusations about me that are incorrect. I have given two examples. It is for this reason that I asked if you comforted your flock or confronted your flock.

 

OK, let's talk about 2 Peter 2:1. What does it mean to be bought by the blood of Christ? What good does that do?

Can you prove that?

 

To whom it may concern,

A little advice from the Apostle Paul concerning philosophy:

Colossians 2:8 [KJV, 1769] Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

Perhaps you have not come across this verse in your study Baptist_Pastor/Theologian, but there it is from the Inerrant Word of God.

 

Do you not sense the vitriolic tone of your comments?

I cannot believe that you would actually ask me to sight your ranting about extra biblical reasoning! The gist of all your posts are in that genre... Do you recall the whole law of non-contradiction thing??? Hello... can you say tone deaf?

Shalom,

Pastor Bill </font>[/QUOTE]Pastor Bill,
I was mistaken, I thought you had said all that could be said. By the way, you don't have to cite all my rantings about extra biblical reasoning, one will be sufficient so everyone on this thread can see it! In fact I would really like to know what it was.

Vitriolic, lets see, that means severely caustic, scathing! I am , is that saying something like "Hello... can you say tone deaf"?, or “Your overall attitude smacks of anti-intellectualism. , or “You act as if the Christian faith is not logical.”.

You need to take a deep breath and relax. And, just to keep things in perspective, be sure to read Colossians 2:8.

 

First of all, I'm curious how old people are on this board? I'm not quite 21. It just gives me a better sense of who I'm speaking if I know they are in 6th grade or are in their 60's!

I'd like to get a couple of things out of the way to begin with. I know there are uncountable shades of positions to this issue. Universalists are further off than arminians. Pelagians are further off than arminians (or semi-pelagians). And there are positions in between arminianism and calvinism. And calvinism rests in between Arminianism and lazy, sinful calvinism (no need to evangelize!). Labels truly do fail much of the time. 4.5 point calvinists aren't Calvinists. They are half a point shy of it. lol. I said in another thread that I've been discussing these things with a seminary professor, and he seems to be a 4.9999 point calvinist. I don't really like the labels, and I would prefer to deal in terms of doctrines and Scripture passages. But for sake of ease in communication, we need to simply use the terms "calvinism" or "arminianism" or "pelagianism" or "universalism" - as those are the benchmarks in the spectrum.

When building a theology, you begin with passages and truths that are most evident, and from there go into things which seem a bit more clouded. So it is with "calvinism" - the doctrines of grace. The places one starts has to be in the doctrines of man's radical corruption, God's predestination, and the work of Christ's Atonement. If one properly understands the basics, then they cannot help but believe in Limited atonement. Because of this, to call yourself a "4 point calvinist", you must be misunderstanding one of the points, because they all fit together, and without one, they are all undermined. If inconsistency is okay in your book, so be it. I'd rather stuff made sense! That brings us to this point...

You say, "If God did not mean what he said, why did God not say what he meant?" This is rather simplistic and misleading. I think you know that. We are to compare Scripture with Scripture, going from obvious to obscure. If you try and interpret the obscure by itself, you run into problems and inconsistencies.

For example: Hebrews 6. This passage says essentially the same thing that 2Peter 2:1 says, only it goes a step further in not only making ME uncomfortable, but it makes YOU uncomfortable too. It not only says that those for whom Christ died can turn away, but that those who have actually been regenerated can turn away from the faith!!!

vv. 4-6, "For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, if they fall away, to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put Him to open shame."

You probably know the issues that go into this passage, so I'll be brief. How do we make sense of this passage?? It clearly goes against the testimony of so much plain Scripture elsewhere. Well, we have to have a proper understanding of it. The true Arminian would say "no! its fine just as it stands! Quit distorting the passage!" That is similar to what you would say to the other passage...but here we go...

The best interpretation I've found is that these are truly saved individuals that the author is speaking of. The author is simply saying IF that were true then such and such would happen, so we know that it could never happen. What is it called? Reductio ad absurdum? Something like that. So for you to give a calvinist guff about "working over" the passage, or straining it, is the same charge a real arminian would bring against you. You can heartily defend yourself because there are so many passages that teach eternal security. In the same way, we (calvinists) seek to understand scriptures that seem to contradict obvious doctrines, in a way that squares with truth.

The reason limited atonement is so deplorable to you is that it would seem that the offer of salvation is a sham. The reason you think that, is that you believe in the man's free will - his ability to choose to accept Christ without some "coercian" by God. Hence, abhorrence of limited atonement is because of a denial of the "T" and the "I". Indeed, you deny the true meaning of atonement - which is a purchase - includes propitiation and expiation. You have to deny Substitutional Atonement as it is properly understood. That Christ ACTUALLY paid for something. You reduce Christ's death to something LESS than an actual atonement, because atonement involves the sacrifice and the intercession and God's acceptance thereof.

You didn't answer the question I posed - in the OT, is atonement ever only the death of an animal? NO. It always includes the offering of that sacrifice in the holy of holies, and God's acceptance of it.

Here is the point about propitiation and substitutionary atonement: If Christ is the substitute for someone on the cross, then He paid their sins, and they no longer owe God the debt the previously owed. You deny substitutionary atonement and the very meaning of the word "propitiation" in order to say that Christ died for all men (cosmos is often used to refer to specific people groups btw). Our concern IS the justice of God, because you are saying that Christ's death was NOT enough. That man can still be bad enough, even though their sins were paid for, that they still have to go to hell. What is it that those who go to hell did to deserve damnation more than the elect? They chose not to believe. Its in their hands (as the elects' salvation is in theirs).

Christ death was enough for all the sins in the world, except for the sin of unbelief.

The justice of God is at stake here. Either you say that God requires DOUBLE payment for a debt (unjust). OR your other option is that Christ's death doesn't pay for every sin (the sin of unbelief). Both are wicked ideas. You don't believe in Substitutionary Atonement if you believe Christ paid the debt of all mankind, but some men still aren't saved. Either you become a Universalist, or you say God is unjust, or that Christ's death wasn't good enough to cover all sins.

You bring up the law of non-contradiction a lot. It is upon that law which all of these things I say stand. Either God was satisfied (propitiated) with Christ's sacrifice, or He wasn't. God can't be both satisfied and unsatisfied at the same time. Satisfied = salvation and glorification and all the rest. Unsatisfied = damnation and all the rest.

I will admit that I don't have a great reply for 2 Peter 2:1. I know of some who have explained it, and I want to get their books so I can see if its plausible. But let me say this again, I would rather be uneasy about one passage of scripture than to reject all the passages that are abundantly clear. Understand the unclear by the clear, not the other way around.

It has nothing to do with taking a position or system, and then warping texts to fit it. It has everything to do with understanding CLEAR texts which are many and then understanding unclear texts which are few in light of the others.

One last point - you say: "But my last question for you is this: How can salvation be offered to all if it is not available? If it is a genuine offer then it must be available through the atonement."

You assume with Finney that "ought implies can." Nothing could be further from the truth. God commanded the Mosaic Law, did He not? Did anyone (excluding Deity) have the ability to obey that law perfectly? Absolutely not. Only Wesleyans and Methodists would say, "yes." In fact, the exact opposite is true. The law was given to show how imperfect we really are - it was a tutor to bring us to the point where we realize we need Christ. Ought most certainly does not imply can. An invitation to obey (command) does not imply the ability to respond to that invitation. You think ought implies can because you don't really believe man is radically corrupt and in bondage to sin, not having the ability in his spiritual death to respond positively and in faith to the outward gospel call.

 

Pastor Bill,

Great thougts.

I was wondering if you have read R.T. Kendall's book "Calvinism and English Calvinism to 1649"?

An interesting discussion would be his claim that Calvin understood the atonement like I think you and I do; that is, atoning sacrifice on the cross to pay the penalty for all sin, intercession only for the elect at the Father's right hand.

Later Calvinists deny this two-fold nature of the atonement and claim that Calvin did too.

I am 42 and have a M.Div degree from TEDS, M.A from Liberty, and D.Min. candidate from Gordon-Conwell. I'm also a pastor.

 

Pastor/Theologian -

I am quite familiar with Amyraldism. That is what most of the people in my church and association are. Much of what I read contains the same statement of "Sufficient for all men, efficient for the elect." The notes in my Believer's Study Bible (now the Baptist SB), my Defender's study bible, Bible Knowledge Commentary, Thiessen's Lectures, Ryrie's Basic Theology and Chafer's Systematic all agree with you. And it is readily accepted by the layity in our circles because its quick and easy to remember, and it seems to find be anti-limited atonement while not being universalist. I was even taught this statement when I was about 11 years old by my father when I asked him about Calvinism. He left the CRC and some lazy Calvinism and joined a conservative Baptist church.

I have to tell you two things. One, I am not as hardline on Limited Atonement as Covenant/Amillenial theologians would be. The reason being, I disagree with how they insert their misunderstanding of OT prophecy concerning the New Covenant, and even their insertion of the "Covenant Family" ideas. The other thing I must say is that I was only able to attend Bible College for 3 semesters, and then I went deaf. I was unable to take any Greek. So my exegetical tools are absolutely not where I want them to be and where they will be. None of my calvinism came from my 3 semesters at college, as they were Amyraldians!! lol

I still think that Limited Atonement is, just like the maxim, "regeneration precedes faith," are simply the conlusions of obvious and plain doctrines taught in the Bible. Some of those would be: Total inability/depravity, Predestination/Election, Substitutionary Atonement, Irresistible Grace. With my understanding of those (which I, obviously, believe to be the proper understanding), I am precluded from believing several things; Freewillism, Regeneration resulting from our exercise of faith, and the Amyraldian view of the "atonement". I put that in quotes, because I think your understanding of the atonement (separating it from its intercessory and propitiating conclusion) is no real atonement - by definition of the word.

This is why, when I come across passages that seem, at first glance, to teach that Christ bought all men, I have to reconcile them with the clear doctrines and passages. There seems to be a lot of 'universal' passages. But in my studying, there are only a few that aren't rather easy to explain. One of those is 2 Peter 2:1. If you take it in the same sense as other passages that sound similar (regenerate falling away, etc.) then it makes sense. The problem though, is that there's nothing in the text to signal a special sense like in the other passages. But I would still take it in the "all kinds of men" sense, and here is why:

As for the Titus 2 passage (and the majority of "all men" passages)...

There are many other times where the term "all" is used, but is clearly NOT meant to be "every individual man", but simply "from every class of men" or "without distinction of class or status."

Titus 3:2, "to mailign no one, to be peaceable, gentle, showing every consideration for all men."

It is impossible for anyone to do these things to "every individual man." Clearly, this is "all kinds of men" and "regardless of class."

Acts 22:15, "For you will be a witness for Him to all men of what you have seen and heard."

This is Paul's commission. If we take "all men" as you insist it should be taken every time, then Paul was a miserale failure! While Paul talked to a lot of people, I'm pretty confident he didn't talk to "every single individual" living during his time. Clearly, it was his commission to go to the gentiles, as stated elsewhere.

A major theme in the New Testament is that God was broadening His direct dealings with men beyond just the Jews. This was a major issue for the jewish Christians, so it is no surprise at all that the apostles would emphasize that Christ didn't die JUST for the Jews, but also for members of the Gentiles.

Colossians 3:11, "A renewal in which there is no distrinction between Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave and freeman, but Christ is all, and in all."

So, would you really believe that Christ dwells, "is in", all men - even the unregenerate, unsaved unbelievers? If you are consistent you have to say that. OR you could allow for a more generic meaning of "all men."

It is clear that Paul uses the term "all" to mean "all kinds of men" ---and NOT "every single individual." When you see this, it makes perfect sense when it is said that Christ died for "all men." At face value, it goes against revealed doctrine (substitutionary atonement). But we seek to reconcile cloudy Scripture with clear, and we do just that by understanding "all men" to mean "all kinds of men" as opposed to "every individual man."

You would have problems with Christ being "in all", if that meant "every individual." You seek to reconcile the perceived meaning with clear doctrine. You are just as guilty as I am of this---and I don't think that's a bad thing!

You see, what it comes down to is that you do not understand the "clear doctrines" in the same way that I do, so you find no disagreement between your established doctrine and the perceived gist of these "all men" passages dealing with the atonement.

Real Arminians are consistent in their view of the atonement. They reject a substitutionary atonement because they see the relationship between a substitution and forgiveness. If you are substituted for, you do not have to do what was done for you. Its pretty basic. Amyraldism is inconsistent because it claims to hold to substitutionary atonement, but it has to redefine the terms. By the very definition of the term "sustitution", "propitiation", and "expiation", everyone for whom Christ died in the place of took upon Himself their guilt and punishment so that God's justice would be satisfied, and so that our sins would be removed from us. But you have to change the definitions. For you, Christ was not really a substitution for each individual (i.e., a substitution for no one), God's justice is NOT really satisfied by Christ's sacrifice for "all men" because God still executes judgement on some of those men for whome He died. And, obviously, you can't believe that a man suffering for his sin in Hell had his sins expiated at any time. Because you don't hold a real view of Substitutionary Atonement, you have no problem saying that Christ died for "every single individual."

"Most [calvinists] try very hard to keep logical coherency out of the equation altogether, as if it were not patently obvious that the system is based on a very definite set of logical presumptions that must work in succession or not at all."

You are right in pointing out that most try to avoid it, because they think it is a problem. I do not. The reason I don't think its a problem is because the second part of your statement is simply untrue. You say: "logical presumptions". That is wrong. Limited atonement, regeneration preceding faith, my understanding of freewill are ALL logical CONCLUSIONS of very clear doctrines. Presumption is beforehand and the word is used to connote extra biblical basis. But that implication is simply not true. You believe in dispensationalism, why? Because the doctrine is clearly stated in Scripture? Hardly. Because a proper reading of Scripture logically and necessarily leads to this view. In the same way, a proper reading of Scripture (and proper understanding of the aforementioned doctrines) logically and necessarily leads to a particular redemption and so forth. You are as guilty of this "logical presumptions" as I am, because they are not logical presumptions, but are logical conclusions based evident Scriptural truth. The same could be said of smoking being an evil, steroid use, etc. They aren't explicit, but implicit. I think you get my point.

I can't accept your "simple solution" either. The only reason you have to find a solution is because you don't believe in a real substitutionary atonement. There is no problem, Scripturally with particular redemption (atonement=redemption). Those passages that are alleged problem passages are easily understood. If I were to come to understand the atonement as something that doesn't really do anything for any individual person like you believe, then I would seek for solutions in an interesting understanding of Faith. Your turn.

 

Pastor Bill,

Thanks for your response. The reason I bring up Substitutionary Atonement is that your view is different from mine, and not just in how predestination is done.

As to predestination, I don't believe in double predestination as you have described. I believe in predestination though, and you do too. If you're familiar with James White, John Piper, or RC Sproul, they will say the same thing. To acknowledge that God predestines some to be saved necessarily means He is predestining other to NOT be saved. If I choose to put just one shoe on, it involved a decision to not put on the other one. You can't have it any other way. So, I think you and I both believe in double predestination. I do believe that all men are lost, and out of that pool God chose some. I'm not a supralapsarian (I think that's the correct term). And neither are you. We agree on that point.

It is my understanding of total depravity, the working of God, and the definition of the word "believe" that cause me to think that regeneration precedes faith.

Man's unable to do anything righteous. What is more righteous than believing and embraces the gospel and the Savior? Exactly. To say, "Faith is not a work" is just silly. Believing, by definition is an action, a work. What kind of work? A good one. No man is able to do a good work apart from being made alive.

From my understanding, and those I respect (are you familiar with Dr. Myron Houghton of Faith Baptist Seminary in Ankeny, IA?) who don't believe that regeneration precedes faith tell me, that in Eph. 2:8 the whole first phrase is called the gift of God. Why do you separate "Grace" and "salvation" from the word "faith" in that verse? I don't see any reason to make that division.

Like I've said before, my understanding of some more basic and foundational doctrines make me conclude what I do about regeneration and limited atonement. That said, if Scripture somewhere is clearly against it, then I will rethink things. I haven't found any Scripture against Limited Atonement. But there are some passages that would seem to say that regeneration/rebirth comes after faith, but that faith is still a gift from God. From what I can tell, that is the view of Dr. Myron and many at Faith. That would work with obvious truth about total depravity....I'm still thinking that one through.

As to your question specifically, regeneration and rebirth are identical. Being re-made (regeneration) and being re-born (born again) seem to be synonymous. I don't think regeneration and Spirit Baptism are identical. In this dispensation, they happen in the same instant, but in spirit baptism is somethin peculiar to this dispensation. I really need to look into more. Understand that, as I've said, I'm yet young and haven't been able to go into all facets of theology at this point. I also know that no doctrine is an isolated matter, and they all influence eachother.

I think you misunderstand Sole Fide. My understanding is that, as Luther and Calvin both taught it, there were several parts to saving faith and that it was indeed a gift of God. I should clarify, faith isn't exactly the gift, the gift is the ability to have faith. Without being made new, we are incapable of having faith. So, the regeneration is the gift, and faith/belief/repentance and the fruits of the Spirit that grow throughout one's life after conversion are ALL the results of that new life God gave us.

I don't emphasize the faith being a gift in that verse...You de-emphasize it so I have to emphasize it...Just like when pelagius denied the sin nature, Augustine had to emphasize it

lol...since you sign your posts with "shalom" I was going to sign this one "selah" but I figured you or some other posters might not see the humor and think I was rather full of myself. lol so I won't!

I was curious where you are from? I'm from southeastern/central Iowa. I'm a member of a GARBC church (the conservative variety).

Selah - err....In Christ,

Jesse

Ah, MAN! I forgot to get a knife.....(chicken breast for dinner) *sigh*

 

I forgot to mention...

My deafness was caused by an autoimmune disorder (just like what Rush Limbaugh had). I had both ears implanted with the Cochlear Implant device, and now I hear wonderfully! Music is still a work in progress...check out the music forum on this site for more info on that...

You said: "I also understand your theological dilemma, and now know that you have adopted your view based on a thorough going examination of Scripture. You even seem to have a thorough grasp of the issues. So my task will be difficult but I will not give up on you just yet and we can always agree to disagree."

Lol...I just wanted to say that yes, it is more difficult to work someone over when they know what's coming and even have a Scriptural base to stand on ONLY kidding, of course. Just had to through that in...