The Limitations of Holding Limited Atonement View

I can't find agreement with your view of regeneration.

Your view is based on the fact that man isn't as bad as the Bible says he is. Plain and simple. In your view, man still has an island of righteousness whereby he can pull himself up by his bootstraps and answer the call of God. That call is effectual, i.e., more than just a prodding. It is effectual because it is a change.

"So I subscribe to a slightly nuanced Reformed order of salvation in which sinners who convert are regenerated."

You subscribe to a variation of semi-pelagianism. Man ain't that bad in your view.

"The action of the divine Holy Spirit is as dramatic as a new birth (Jn. 3:3-8), a new creation (Eph. 2:10; 2 Cor. 4:6; 5:17), or a resurrection from the dead (Eph. 2:1; Col. 2:13)."

- "is as dramatic as" - not quite. It is the same thing. Regeneration is new birth, is new creation, is resurrection from the dead.

Do you believe man is dead in sin? If so, HOW dead?

I agree with a lot of what you said. Particularly about faith being more than mental assent or belief. It is "fiducia" as well. The volitional embrace of a thing (or person as the case may be).

Conversion is when a person believes, repents, etc. That happens at the time of his rebirth and justification (regeneration and then conversion[faith, repentence, obedience, etc.])

No man can convert before he is able to convert. No man is able to convert until he has spiritual life--ears to hear--eyes to see. Dead men don't respond. An living man will respond with joy in obedience and submission and love to Christ, because they know they were dead, but are now alive (just like Lazarus).

Why are you so reluctant to give God the first work...the initiating work? Why does it have to be man doing the work of conversion? Why do you insist on saying that we work with God in our conversion?

Why do you insist on protecting man's ability to do good stuff?

 

"Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God." (John 3:3)

Men cannot even see the things of God until they have been regenerated.

It is passages like these that tell me that when it says things like: "that whoever believes in Him will not perish...", that there is more to the story. Because how can one believe if they cannot see or hear that which they ought to believe? Its impossible. There is something more that happens beyond our believing, and even before our believing.

You read every verse that says "believe and be saved" and you say "see! it is up to man!" But there is more to the story. Its pretty obvious why God doesn't tell people, "wait until you are regenerated, then you'll know you are a child of Mine." That is so ambiguous. God was kinder. He told us what our first response to his gift of new life is. That is, belief and faith and embracing Him. In your reading of these verses, you don't see the behind the scenes stuff, God doesn't need to tell us about it, and we don't need to tell people about it (all of this when evangelizing that is). You preach for people to believe on Christ, because that is the first work that a regenerated person can do.

"The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit." (John 3:8)

We don't know how it works and we cannot see it - but we see its results. The faith and repentence that we display (which are by definition works) are the results of the Spirit's regenerating work.

I can't really disprove any of the Scriptures you use here. I see the same thing in those passages. We are commanded to repent and believe and embrace. But God is working behind the scenes. Not just "wooing", but effectually calling. When men are "called up" in the military, they don't have a choice. They go where their commanding officer tells them to go. I say that simply to point out that there is more than one use of the word "call". I call out to my sister to bring me a cup of coffee. She NEVER hears me...lol Its not that kind of call that God issues in the elect persons heart. It is a call that is a summons.

The reason I point out that you said "is as dramatic as" is that it sounds as though you don't think those really are regeneration. As if they're hyperbole to get a point across. I say that because you don't seem to believe that man is really spiritually dead. It seems that you believe man has some ability to do good...because he can convert himself before God gives him this new life, new birth.

 

If man's salvation is dependent at any point on his own work, then it is a works salvation. By definition. Synergism is works salvation, Monergism is not.

 

On the contrary in my view (IMV) it shows the power of God in the manner in which it applies to every individual. It is "satisfaction" for the sin of the entire world and each and every individual.

NKJV John 1:29 The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, "Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!

As I said before IMV this "satisfaction-hilasmos" does not equate to justification, sanctification or glorification of each and every individual but is apart from them and allows for the possibility of each of these aspects of salvation, but especially provided for the elect of the household of God.

Well, "amiss" perhaps in our minds but who are we to question God and His manner of thinking and His way of doing things.

Isaiah 55:8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.

Romans 9
18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?

Psalm 115:3 But our God is in the heavens: he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

HankD

 

"Your entire hermeneutical approach starts with a bias, which is that man can do nothing good in and of himself."

Is that wrong? Please explain Romans 3 for me in light of man being able to do good stuff in and of himself. If that is not ignoring the plain reading of the text, I'm not sure what is.

If a passage seems to imply that Christ is not God, are we to leave out of our hermeneutical strategy the preconceived truth that Christ really is God? That's absurd, IMO, and that's what you are suggesting I do.

My understanding of faith is quite simple - its the same as yours. I believe that faith is something man does - a righteous act, and it is at the point where man places his faith in Christ that he is justified. Christ's righteousness is applied to that believer.

Our difference is in our doctrine of man's depravity and spiritual death. How spiritually dead is man? You say he's not so dead that he can't do good stuff....I say man is so dead that he can't do good stuff. You believe man is not "so dead" (as Geisler likes to say) that he cannot do the most noble good act - placing his faith in Christ. I believe man is so dead that he is unable.

You refer to 'effectual calling.' What is that exactly in your theology? Geisler believes just as you do, but he shudders at the idea of irresistible grace. I suspect you don't think effectual calling = irresistible grace.

"It is really rather silly when you think about it that you and your TR buddies relentlessly claim that faith is meritorious if viewed as synergistic. Let me give you another example of what faith is like in order that you may cease from such otter nonsense. I was caught in a raging river, ie sin, and someone stood on the bank, Jesus, and held out his hand for me to grasp, atonement. Now let's just say that I were to take hold of his hand. Who is the hero in this story?"

I'm glad you told that story. Its common, and it shows that you are squarely in the Arminian camp on this matter.

Two things wrong with your analogy. The analogy implies that you are owed to be saved. That if Christ hadn't offered you His hand, you would have been dealt an injustice. The second problem is that the Bible doesn't say you are simply 'caught' in a river of sin, but that you are also dead and unable to even see the Hand being extended - or know that it is there. Because of that, Christ has to dive into the raging river of sin and pull you to the shore and breathe life back into you.

And, btw, I hope you mean "Totally Reformed" and not anything having to do with onlyism by your "TR buddies" comment. lol

"4:1What then shall we say was gained by Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh? 2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.” 4 Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. 5 And to the one who does not work but trusts him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness."

These and other passages are used to say that faith is not a work. That's a farce. Even if the word faith COULD be used as something other than an action, verb, work, the Bible is still clear that our minds are blinded to the things of God in our natural state.

The point that is really to be drawn from these passages only bolsters my view. That no one is saved by the work of the flesh - a work done in the flesh and of the flesh's power. Faith is not that. Genuine faith is the result of grace (a gift) and is a work done in the Spirit, not in the flesh.

"I hope that you will take into account what the Word of God has to say and reconsider your position in this matter."

Likewise.

You called into question my understand of one of the most basic and foundational doctrines of our faith, but you offered nothing on the subject. Instead, you questioned my understanding of a doctrine (faith) that can only be understood once the more foundational doctrines are known.

You understand faith correctly, but your misunderstanding of the foundational doctrine (man's badness) has precluded you from correctly applying the doctrine of faith - forcing you to say that a verb is really not a verb...a work really not a work...an action really not an action. Believing is by definition an action and a work. That is not even the issue. The issue is if the work is done in the flesh or the Spirit. One must be in the Spirit before one can work in the Spirit.

You're not far from our Arminian brothers. Because, by definition, you hold that men work according to the flesh and achieve their salvation. Work done prior to Spiritual life is done in the flesh. I can only repeat 1+1=2 so many times. Apply the law of non-contradiction to your thinking about the word "faith", and you will do well.

Faith cannot be and not be a work at the same time in the same manner. You refuse to see different 'manners' of work - in the flesh and in the Spirit. That is why you are forced to say that Faith is and is not a work. (denying the very essence of the word)

 

I tried to explain this, I must not have done a very good job. Faith is a work, because, by definition, it is a work. It involves an action. It is a work.

There's a distinction which you seem to be looking over. There are works of the flesh, and works of the Spirit. A work done in the flesh is a work that we do by our own power, and in accordance with our fleshly desires. A work done in the Spirit is STILL a work that we do. It is simply done in accordance with Spirit's will, and by the Spirit's power. Nonetheless, we do the work. You would have to ignore the laws of language and grammar in order to assert that faith is not a work generally.

Walking is a work, jumping is a work, working at your job is work - they all involve action on our part. They are works. Beleiving is a work, because it too involves an action, whether you look only at its mental aspect or also at its resultant actions in one's life. Faith is a work. Is true faith a work of the flesh, or a work of the Spirit?

Obviously, true faith is a Spiritual work. When one believes and trusts in Christ, they are doing so by the power of the Spirit.

"I concluded that your bias [which is that man cannot reason morally] leads you to conclude that faith is a good work, which it is not."

My "bias" is given to me by Scripture:

Romans 3:10-12:

"There is none righteous, no, not one; There is none who UNDERSTANDS; There is none who seeks after God, ....There is none who does good, no, not one."

Apparently, no man understands the way of righteousness. Apparently, no one seeks after God. I guess too, that no one does good.

1 Cor. 3:14; "But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the "normal reading" of this passage would indicate that man does not have the ability to discern spiritual things correctly.

I agree with you that man has some capacity to understand right and wrong. But he does not have the ability to rightly appraise them. That would involve him seeing the value of Christ and truth, which he cannot do. He values everything other than truth. Even when he seems to be full of civil virtue - he's doing those good deeds only for self-centered reasons. That's all he can do.

Ephesians 2:8-9

"Now if we understand Ephesians 2:8-9 to suggest that salvation is by grace and not of works, then faith cannot be a work. Whatever faith may be it certainly is not a work."

That's just it, and this is the meaning of 'sola fide'. Faith is not a meritorious work. Why? Your answer is to change the definition and nature of the word. Luther's answer was to say that faith is itself a gift of grace.

THAT is why boasting is excluded. The work we do, we are able to do ONLY because He has enabled us to do it. Where does that praise and glory belong? Exactly. That is how the reformers understood 'sola fide'. Your understanding of it isn't the same, and it is misleading when you claim 'sola fide' as your banner.

"You keep referring to faith as a work, and yet according to the Bible faith is not meritorious. The imparted righteousness is outside of or alien to the recipient. If faith were a work it would not be alien righteousness but self-righteousness. That is one of the major flaws with your system of beliefs. On the one hand you want to guard against a works based salvation, but on the other hand you want to suggest faith is in fact a work. Which is it are you saved by faith a non-work as I believe or are you saved by faith a work as you believe?"

I'm in Rush Limbaugh's camp in believing that "words mean things." I can't say it enough that by definition and nature, faith is a work. The glory and praise for that work goes solely to God because without His work in us, we would not be able to do our work in him.

Would you say that love is a good work? Or joy? Peace? Longsuffering? Faithfulness? Those are all works that we do. They are not works whereby we garner praise, however. Why? They are works done in Him.

Faith without works is dead. Why? Because by definition, faith is the first work we do in Him, followed by more works - necessarily. If there are no works that accompany one's faith - if there is no fruit, then the faith itself was counterfeit and not a fruit of re-birth.

My bias comes from Scripture. That bias helps me to interpret other Scriptures. Your bias comes from a desire to protect man's autonomy, sefl-power, self-ability. Freewillism. Because of that, you have to ignore the essence of words.

"So which is it are you saved by faith a non-work as I believe or are you saved by faith a work as you believe?"

Neither of those quite get to the real issue. We are saved through faith, which is a work leading to plethora resultant works, and is itself the result of the grace gift of re-birth.

"Jesse, if you are honest the simple truth is that faith precedes conversion and regeneration, which is the salvation experience. The plain reading of these two passages is undeniable when it comes to the matter at hand. Your faith enables you to receive benefit of the atonement. Ironically that is what you are suggesting in your last reply."

Prior to that statement, you quote Romans 10. That passage proves nothing that you claim it proves. It fits just as perfectly with my view of salvation as it does with yours. The reason is that your 'bias' informs your reading of the passage, as does mine (and its the same with all similar passages). You read into that verse that man has a free will and is able to believe on Christ while he is still spiritually dead. I read the passage in light of every man being dead in sin. But the passage proves neither!

It does prove some things:

1. all believers will be saved.

2. all who desire to be saved MUST believe.

3. there are certain things to be believed.

4. justification comes as a result of belief.

This passage says nothing of regeneration! I don't know if you do this, but I know Norm Geisler does frequently - to equate salvation with justification with regeneration. He claims that since regeneration and justification are identical, that regneration HAS to come after faith. Do you believe similarly?

"But if you are open to the fact that you may have more difficulty than you had first imagined then you will be on the road to finding a balance that one must live with, a tension if you will, between the two camps. I find that I am not well received in either and both want to lump me with the other. I am caught in the crossfire so to speak. Yet I am at peace with knowing that I am being faithful to Scripture. Salvation ultimately is a mystery of God and no one can truly understand the depth of salvation. However, that which we can know, we should hold fast to in order that our faith may remain pure and our hope may be placed fully on the object of our faith, Jesus Christ."

I agree. I am open to the possibility that I am wrong. You just haven't come up with anything compelling. I've been talking with a seminary prof. here in Iowa about this stuff. he believes that effectual calling is different from regeneration as you do, but he agrees fully with my definition of faith, and that faith is a gift. He must be somewhere between Amyraldism and Calvinism I'm still considering what he has to say. If I do change what I believe, it will be to what he believes. His biases are the same as mine, he has no bent to prove and protect man's sovereignty. I say all of that just to let you know that I don't think I've arrived, there's still a lot to be learned and considered.

 

A spiritual work is not of our doing, by definition. "It" = salvation, grace, faith, and how they all relate to eachother. Salvation is not a result of works, it is the result God's grace giving us the ability to believe. If there is something I'm missing in the greek, I'd enjoying knowing!

Thanks for well wishing! I'm excited to get into it and created a bunch of little calvinists..lol...only kidding. We can be done if you want