Tozer- Calvinism tends to be more stable than Arminianism

I do not know about the others mentioned in the OP, but as for the FWBs, I tend to agree with all the "emotionalism" they exhibit. I love them to pieces, and have even preached at one of their churches, but they tend to go off the deep end on occasion. They have "revivals" at the drop of a hat, and they preach that Jesus is an anchor of the soul, both sure and stedfast. Then in the same sermon, preach that you can just walk away from God, and make shipwreck your faith. This kind of preaching has always puzzled me.

Now, as for the ORBs, yes, we do not require, nor do we evn try to persuade our preachers, to go to a bible college/seminary. Does that make us "emotional"? Well, if you call hearing the Sisters{and Brothers for that matter} shouting, raising their hands, praising our King with the old hymns of Zion, hearing us shout as someone comes to the stand to tell us what God did for them when He saved their soul, then I guess we are pretty emotional. If I read the Word, and never got emotional sometimes, I'd really be worried about myself. I know we aren't saved by our emotions, but when I read of what Jesus did for me, how can I not cry?? He paid a debt He did not owe, because I owed a debt I could not pay. If He had not died for me, I would have been destined to hell, with no chance whatsoever. Now, that is something to get emotional about!! :thumbs::thumbs::thumbs::thumbsup:

i am I AM's!!

Willis

 

You actually employ both fallacies. You call out Arminians for being emotional and unintelligent (ad homenim) and thereby imply that the Arminian view is incorrect. AND you tip your hat to the Calvinist view because holders of that view are smart (appeal to authority). Doubly-fallacious you are (read this sentence with your best Yoda voice).

There are better and worse ways to argue from authority; yours is the latter (sweeping, condescending and based completely on anecdotal, subjective evidence). There is no reason to think that historic Aminianism is in anyway connected with general ignorance or uneducated, emotional clergy or anything of the sort. And I say that as a convinced Calvinist.

Of course, Clark Pinnock ended up as an Open Theist, and theologically he was a moving target all of his career. But he was brilliant, and that was my point. And besides, by now I am sure he has moved from his hyper-aminian viewpoint.

 

Actually, I'll quote you from a previous post what I "know."

"Isaiah 53:4-5, "Surely our griefs He Himself bore, and our sorrows He carried; yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. 5 But He was pierced through for our transgressions. He was crushed for our iniquities. The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him and by His scourging we are healed."

We see in the above verses in Isaiah that Jesus was prophesied to bear our sorrows, to be smitten of God (which is what is due us, the sinners), and that our chastening fell upon him. Can it be any clearer? What was due to us, because of our sinfulness, is what fell upon Christ. He was our substitution.

2 Cor. 5:21, "He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him."
Rom. 4:25, "He who was delivered up because of our transgressions, and was raised because of our justification."

Clearly, Jesus was a substitution in that he was made sin on our behalf. This is why the Bible says he became sin on our behalf, that he was delivered because of our transgressions, that he bore our griefs, carried our sorrows, was pierced for our transgressions, and was crushed for our iniquities.

Jesus did what we could not. He took our place and bore our sins in his body on the cross (1 Pet. 2:24) and made propitiation for our sins.

Rom. 3:25, "whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed."

1 John 2:2, "and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world."

1 John 4:10, "In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins."
The word propitiation "properly signifies the removal of wrath by the offering of a gift."

Propitiation properly deals with the wrath of God. The wrath of God is due to the legal requirements of punishing the sinner. Remember, the sinner is someone who has broken the law of God; hence, the legality of punishment, and since Jesus is our propitiation and turns away the lawful wrath of God, we have further evidence that Christ's sacrifice was to avert God's righteous wrath against us, the sinners. Since the law of God must be met and cannot be ignored, it is proper that the law be fulfilled. Jesus is the one who fulfilled the law and never sinned (1 Pet. 2:22). But, he bore our sins in his body on the cross (1 Pet. 2:24) and became sin on our behalf (2 Cor. 5:21) thereby suffering the penalty of sin, which is death."

"I will affirm that atonement is provisional “in Christ”. In other words, Christ’s death made provision for all sin, yet only those who come to be in union with Christ partake of that provision. I believe this view is supported by numerous Scriptures. Below are a few of them:

“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us [believers] with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ.” Eph. 1:3

All spiritual blessings are found in Christ. I think this must include (if not be founded on) the benefits of the atonement. We find further evidence of this in Ephesians 1:7:

“In Him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace…”

I think this passage confirms that the benefits of the atonement are provisional “in Christ”.

Look at Colossians 1:13 and 14:

“For He rescued us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.”

Again we see that the benefits of the atonement are provisional in the “beloved Son”.

So how does one come to be in union with Christ and therefore benefit from the redemption and forgiveness provided in Him?

“In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation- having believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise.” Eph. 1:13

We come to be in union with Christ through faith."

 

We have Cals/Arms/others here

And I am the resident Amyraldist on BB!

 

Did you read my post, Luke? I quote, "I will affirm that atonement is provisional “in Christ”. In other words, Christ’s death made provision for all sin, yet only those who come to be in union with Christ partake of that provision. I believe this view is supported by numerous Scriptures." (those were quoted in that post)

 

Because they aren't suffering for the sins (breaking of the law). They are suffering for their rejection of the truth (unbelief.)

John 3:18 says "Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.

Heb 3:19:"So we see that they were not able to enter, because of their unbelief!"

2 Thess 2:10: "and in every sort of evil that deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved."

ILLUSTRATION: You and I commit a crime and we both owe a fine we cannot afford to pay, so the judge is rightly going to send us to prison. The judge's son gracious pays our fines in full. The judge makes a provision: Luke and Skand, my son has paid your fine in full, so if you admit your crime and thank my son you may go. You choose to do so but in stubborn rebellion I refuse. You go free and I go to prison. Did I go to prison because of the crime and my fine? Not really. Of course I wouldn't have been there in the first place if not for my crime, but the ultimate reason I go to prison and you don't is because I refused to meet the provision of the judge by admitting my crime and thanking his son. Do you understand? I'm not asking if you agree. I just want you to affirm that you really understand the concept of substitutionary and provisional atonement.

Luke, it's the same answer as the other questions you have asked. Yes, God has PERMITTED for a PURPOSE the unbelief of those He has PERMITTED for a PURPOSE to go to hell, though he doesn't take PLEASURE in it. Make sense?

 

Allow me to quote again from the article that we discussed earlier:

"Unbelief is atoned for, but only “in Christ”. When we are placed in union with Christ by the Holy Spirit, through faith, our former “unbelief” is atoned for just as our other sins are atoned for. If we continue in unbelief, we cannot benefit from the forgiveness that is in Christ alone, and will therefore suffer condemnation. In other words, the moment we believe, our prior unbelief is forgiven, and not before. Since the atonement is provisional in Christ we can both affirm that He died for all and that only believers will benefit from this atonement. 1 Tim. 4:10 states this truth very well:

“For it is for this we labor and strive, because we have fixed our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all men [provisional], especially of believers [conditional application].”

My illustration about our fine being paid clearly lays this out. Did you understand the illustration?

VAGUE? You are the one using undefined and nonspecific terms. I have provided words that clearly show the distinction between the differing aspects of God's will. Do you agree with Piper regarding the "two wills of God?" If so, why wouldn't you use terms that clearly distinguish between those?

Then its up to you to define what you mean by it, because if its not what I have stated then you are teaching something contrary to Edwards and the Arminian divines with whom he agrees.

Why would I agree with a statement that hasn't been defined or explained? If it means differently than what I've stated, then I probably don't agree with it.

Can you point me to Edwards or another scholar who explains this concept so I can study it and try to understand what you are talking about?

 

Well, as resident Amyraldist on BB..

Think God has in jesus death indeed atoned/paid for sins of All, but that in order to meet His requirement to appropiate it by personal faith and have it effectually applied...

man cannot come to God being depraived and spirtually died in sin nature

So God has chosen to elect whom he wills to be enabled to be able to receive Jesus by faith!

 

Hi Luke, you are right, a label like non-Calvinist does not say what a person believers, only what they do not fully support which is Calvinism. Perhaps we could agree that Tozer was a non Calvinist, non Arminian Christian. To claim there are only two choices, Cal or Arm is to deny that both views hold some valid positions and some invalid positions. But that is the reality in my opinion.

You claim my views are not systematic, but you do not define your meaning. Again I use words as defined in the dictionary. So a Bible based theology that addresses the same doctrines as Calvinism, that has a unifying principle would be a "systematic theology." Lets call mine the "Christian Minimalist Theology" where I affirm all scripture but avoid adding to it the speculations of past theologians such as Calvin.

Calvinism fails the text of integrity, because it embraces paradoxes such as God predestines everything but is not the author of sin. So it is Calvinism and not CMT that is not systematic as defined in the dictionary.

 

Now if I were to tell you that you are all twisted in your understanding of predestination & that it doesnt predestine everything ....what would you say?