Alright, I am a little slow today, I think I spent a little too much time in the sun....I don't get it...don't most four-pointers throw out limited atonement? I could be wrong about that. I am quite sure that TULIP wasn't meant to be a cafeteria program.
The way I see it, Calvinists are five pointers, they see how the five points are interdependent. It would seem to me that if you reject any of the five points you cease to make any sense of the other four points, and you also cease to be a Calvinist. Thus, you are deceiving yourself to use modified, and Calvinist in the same sentence.
I also found it curious that it was efficacious grace and not particular redemption that koreahog2005 rejects. I don't see how anyone who claims to believe in particular redemption can deny efficacious grace.
I would call koreahog2005 a three point Calvinist. I guess that makes him a two-point Arminian?
True godliness is a sincere feeling which loves God as Father as much as it fears and reverences Him as Lord, embraces His righteousness, and dreads offending Him worse than death~ Calvin
To be honest, I anticipated that you would flee to that passage in 2Samuel. It's a favorite verse which is used by many who are advocates of this unbiblical view. One must "presume" that David is speaking of the after-life in that passage. Yes, it is possible, but it is also possible and no less feasible that David is simply saying that he will join his dead son in the grave.
But regardless of which view one takes, even if one opts for the first and believes that David is presuming that he will see deceased son in "heaven", the text cannot be taken as teaching a universal salvation of all dead children. Secondly, it says nothing of "unborn infants dying in infancy". So again, I challenge you to produce even ONE SINGLE text that teaches that God has elected to save all infants who die in infancy.
Now.... I suggested to you previously, that if you were wanting to continue in any other topic to please start a new thread. But you chose to ignore my request and went ahead and continued with an off-topic issue. So, I'll ask you but one more time. According to our stated Forum Guidelines, which you had to indicate that you read them when you registered, off-topic posts are subject to deletion. Thus, if you continue to post messages which are off-topic, they will be deleted without further notice.
However, I will offer but a simple reply to this comment you made which again I would ask you to start a new thread if you would like to continue with a discussion on this particular topic:
God knows everything about everything, including non-actual, imagined circumstances. God has always known that non-elect people would refuse to surrender to Him in repentance and faith under any circumstances in any imagined world.
God knows because He has foreordained all that will happen. His omniscience flows from His omnipotence and infinite will. There are no "contingencies" with God. Your understanding of the statement in the WCF is in error and twisted to fit with your "Modified Openness" theology.
SemperReformanda said: So you don't believe in efficacious grace, then. Why don't you believe this, and, could you give us an idea of what "definition" of efficacious grace you are rejecting?
PLEASE..... take this to a new thread. The topic here is "Chosen and Children"..... not any of the 5-Points of Calvinism. This thread has gone waaaaaaaaaaaaay off topic. And I'll take part of the blame for not putting my foot down earlier. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rolleyes2.gif" alt="" />
Pilgrim, I’m surprised that you would identify me with open theology. Surely you know that open theologians believe that God is not omniscient. They believe that God does not know every detail of the future. In contrast, I have clearly stated that I believe that God “knows everything about everything.” I believe that He knows every detail about the future. Shame on you.
God does not prevent a non-elect person from surrendering to Jesus in repentance and faith.
Exo 4:21 And the LORD said unto Moses, When thou goest to return into Egypt, see that thou do all those wonders before Pharaoh, which I have put in thine hand: but I will harden his heart, that he shall not let the people go.
Rom 9:8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed. Rom 9:9 For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sara shall have a son. Rom 9:10 And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac; Rom 9:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)
Jesus blood is potentially available to cover that non-elect person’s sins.
I'm gonna have to ask that you show the universalness of Christs atonement from scripture.
God knows, however, that the non-elect person would never surrender to Jesus under any circumstances, actual or non-actual. Thus, God only provided enough blood to cover the sins of the elect.
Then, since the blood only covers the elect, there is no potential, but actual atonement.
As far as I can tell, you aren't a calvinist, but possibly a modified wesleyan.
That's wesleyanism.......a modern version of semi-pelagianism. It's also the lead-in to open theism, a heresy. I suggest we start a new thread......or use this one What did Christ's death accomplish?. However, I notice a propensity to quote scholars significantly more than scripture. While I appreciate scholarship, Holy Writ, the Bible, is my ultimate source.
Averagefellar (William), I think you are misunderstanding Wesleyan Arminianism and Open Theism. There is a distinction between them and the modified Calvinism I have been describing. The Evangelical Theological Society has dealt with open theism:
“At the 2002 Annual Meeting, charges against Drs. Pinnock and Sanders were brought by Dr. Roger Nicole, and, by a majority vote, the Society referred these to the Executive Committee, initiating an investigation into the specific positions taken by these members.” http://www.etsjets.org
Millard Erickson served as president of ETS in 2002. The executive committee, which included Millard Erickson, in 2003 unanimously agreed on the following about Dr. Sanders, a proponent of open theology:
“Sanders does not understand passages such as Micah 5:2 (see Matt 2:6) or Psalm 22:18 (see John 19:24) to be affirmations of what would actually happen during the life of Christ. Although this view is not affirmed by Dr. Sanders for every prophetic text (such as texts tied to incarnation or judgment), such readings apply to enough texts that the product of Scripture is not inerrant in the commonly understood sense, nor is the Bible true in terms of what the original text affirms. So one is left with a Bible that one cannot affirm teaches anything about the future except for stating probabilities. This approach yields a Bible whose truth affirmations are very different from the one described in the Doctrinal Basis of the ETS as commonly understood by the framers and by a broad array of ETS members. Dr. Sanders does not think that the Bible contains any unconditional prophecies of the future activity of free moral agents (except perhaps for unusual times when God overrides the free will of those agents). He also does not think, within his system of open theism, that it is possible for God to give any unconditional prophecies of the future activity of free moral agents that will certainly (not just probably) come to pass. This means that his understanding of the truthfulness of the prophecies of Scripture is incompatible with inerrancy as understood by the framers or broadly understood by members of the ETS. In addition, Sanders affirmed that when Scripture says what God is going to do in the future, and when there is no explicit or implicit condition attached to that statement in its context, there are still times at which God can change his mind and not do what Scripture said he would do. This seemed to us to be inconsistent with biblical inerrancy. Such a position would mean that we could not affirm that many biblical statements about the future are true (in the ordinary sense of "true," meaning that the events will certainly happen). Therefore, the Executive Committee unanimously affirms that Dr. Sanders' understanding of the Bible's inerrancy is not what the framers meant nor what a broad array of ETS members means.” http://www.etsjets.org/members/challenge/execcomm/A-Sanders-ExecComm-10-23-03.html
Obviously, Millard Erickson is not a proponent of open theism, and neither am I. He is also not a Wesleyan Arminian, and neither am I. Erickson explained his position and mine:
“It might seem that the divine choice we have argued for is in part the same as the Arminian idea of foreknowledge. There is a significant difference, however. In the Arminian understanding, there is a foreknowledge of actual existing entitities. God simply chooses to confirm, as it were, what he foresees real individuals will decide and do. In our scheme, however, God has a foreknowledge of possibilities. God foresees what possible beings will do if placed in a particular situation with all the influences that will be present at that point in time and space. On this basis he chooses which of the possible individuals will become actualities and which circumstances and influences will be present. He foreknows what these individuals will freely do, for he in effect made that decision by choosing them in particular to bring into existence.”
(Millard Erickson, Christian Theology, page 387)
Again, open theologians do not believe that God knows every detail about the future. Erickson and I believe that God does indeed know every detail about the future. I think Erickson would agree with me that the Bible is our ultimate source.