The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum true calvinism.......MJM please read

MJM said here.......https://www.the-highway.com/forum/showthr...amp;o=&vc=1


Two major problems. First, any condition man must fill upon his own dooms him. How does a sinful man overcome his very nature to hate God? Arminians believe Jesus died for ALL but not salvifically. Christs death only brings about an offer and leaves the rest up to mans ability.


Second, that is a false view of calvinism. Man is condemned by his own sin. I would recommend further study.


God bless,

william

William,

You wrote:

> "First, any condition man must fill upon his own dooms him. How does a sinful man overcome his very nature to hate God?"

He cannot overcome his sinful nature. That is why God first seeks us and sheds his grace upon us. Arminians do not deny this. We just believe that God truly loves the whole world.


> "Arminians believe Jesus died for ALL but not salvifically. Christs death only brings about an offer and leaves the rest up to mans ability."

[John Murray:]

Let it not be thought that the Arminian by his doctrine escapes limited atonement. The truth is that he professes a despicable doctrine of limited atonement. He professes an atonement that is tragically limited in its efficacy and power, an atonement that does not secure the salvation of any..."

Like most Calvinists, Murray confuses the accomplishment of the atonement with the application. Ironically, he missed this in "Redemption: Accomplished and Applied":) Christ atoned for the sins of the world (1 Jn. 2:2), he died for all (2 Cor. 5:14), but redemption is always applied through faith (Rom. 3:25).

The atonement is hardly limited in efficacy and power if we believe in General Redemption. Even key early Church Fathers, Reformed Protestants and Calvinists believed that Christ died for all:

Eusebius: "It was needful that the Lamb of God should be offered as a sacrifice for the other lambs whose nature He assumed, even for the whole human race." (Quoted by Norman Douty, "The Death of Christ", p. 95ff)
Ambrose: "Christ suffered for all, rose again for all. But if anyone does not believe in Christ, he deprives himself of that general benefit..." (Ibid)
Martin Luther: "Christ hath taken away the sins not of certain men only, but also of thee, yea, of the whole world". (Ibid)
John Calvin: "For though Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world, and is offered through God's benignity indiscriminately to all, yet all do not receive Him." (Quoted by Samuel Fisk, "Election & Predestination", p. 171)
Henry Bullinger: "The Lord died for all: but all are not partakers of this redemption, through their own fault." (Douty)
Jerome Zanchius: "It is not false that Christ died for all men as it regards His conditional will..." (Ibid)

In what way does a belief in General Redemption limit the power of the atonement? - I know the Calvinian answer, I'm just testing you:)

Michael

Your post, once again, did nothing in actually overcoming the issues I continue to raise with you. However, I do notice a pattern of misrepresentation on your behalf. I believe God loves all men to some degree, just not to salvation. The two are not equal.


It actually saves none. Therefore, none are actually saved.

Now, I took Soteriology at a credo-pelagian college, so let's see if we can go through this step by step.


OK. God calls, though ineffectually, regenerates, but not unto faith, seeks, knowing He won't find most, warms your heart and begs, pleads, makes an offer and then what?


God bless,

william

I guess you either haven't really read Murray's book, Redemption, Accomplished and Applied, or you aren't able to comprehend what he wrote. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/shrug.gif" alt="" /> In the first part of the book, Murray right establishes the judicial aspect of the atonement, i.e., that Christ met ALL the demands required in the law, which thus satisfied the justice of God. In so doing, ALL for whom Christ died are thus released from both the demands of the law and the punishment due them for transgressions of that law. Since Christ's atonement was substitutionary in nature, the sentence passed upon Christ was accepted vicariously and the punishment received in behalf of those whom He died for. So again, that which was held against those for whom Christ died was totally rectified on the cross.

On the other hand, this accomplished redemption needs to be applied to the elect; those whom the Father gave to the Son to redeem. And this Christ does in the sending forth of His Spirit Who supplies the means by which the benefits of the atonement are apprehended. The faith which acts as the means by which that which is accomplished is then applied (justification) is again, one of the manifold benefits merited by Christ in His atonement and which no man has by nature.

Your claim is sheer hyperbole and has no basis in fact. For example, John Calvin held unabashedly to "Definite Atonement" as any honest reading of his writings will show. The overwhelming majority of Reformers, Puritans, etc., held to what is set forth in detail in the Second Head of Doctrine of the Canons of Dordt.

Answering this rhetorical question would serve no purpose since you claim to already know the answer. But obviously, you aren't able to grasp it. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/igiveup.gif" alt="" />

In His Grace,

William,

You shared that man is condemned by his own sin. Let us consider two men born into this world: one is elect and the other reprobate. Both are born into sin, they both have inherited Adam's sinful nature as the Bible tells us that through the offence of one man, death reigned over the whole human race.

Rom 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

Rom 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Both of these men stand condemned because of their sin and deserve punishment in Hell and separation from God. But at this point, the men are not in equal in blessing. Because you will probably say that God will only now work with the man who is elect to irresistibly draw him to accept salvation in Jesus Christ.

Let us consider that neither man has accepted the saving work of Jesus on the cross for their behalf. Of course by your views, the reprobate man might as well eat, drink and be merry, because he is dead as he stands on his feet. His eternal fate is already sealed he is reprobate and apparently darned happy that he is.

Consider that suddenly both men are hit by a metro bus prior to either of them accepting Jesus. What happens now? Or are you going to say that the metro will amazingly swerve and only take out the reprobate. The elect will be spared this tragedy, for after all, he is elect and he will be eventually wooed by the Spirit of God to salvation. The Holy Spirit apparently knows not to woo the reprobate because God knows in advance that they will not be affected by His irresistible grace and drawing.

I read in God's word that Jesus died for sinners:

1 Timothy 1:15 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.

All men are sinners but will you say that only the elect need to be saved? If the reprobate cannot be saved then what purpose does their life serve beyond bringing God glory by accepting their fate as poor doomed from birth creatures that they are. The reprobate might as well commit suicide and await his final judgement so that the books will be empty of the sins that he would have piled on with no hope of ever being reconciled to God.

2 Cor 5

19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.
20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.
21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

Will you say that the world in verse 19 above is only the elect? Then apparently our ministry of reconciliation must also only be to the elect. Surely the call to be reconciled to God, brought back into proper relationship with Him is made to all men. Then if they reject or ignore it, they now must bear their sin and be answerable to God for it and rightly so. But if they are the elect to reprobation and damnation, it is better if they had never lived.

believingThomas

I will let William answer for himself, but the more I read your post the more I was reminded of the rebuke in Romans 9:16-21.

Tom

William,

You answered:

> "It actually saves none. Therefore, none are actually saved."

Correct. This is what I also used to argue. If Jesus died for all men, but all are not saved, then the atonement only makes salvation possible, it doesn't actually save. Also, if Jesus atoned for the sins of every single individual, that means that there are souls in hell whose sins have been atoned for! How can that be? Thus, I agreed with Murray, Owen, et al. that Jesus died only for the elect.

But, after I became an Arminian, I wondered about verses such as 1 John 2:2 where it says that Jesus is "the atoning sacrifice [or propitiation] for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world". How did propitiation take place for the non-elect? And the previous questions came back: Did Jesus' death merely make salvation possible, or did it actually save? Norman F. Douty answered all of these questions for me in his book, "The Death of Christ: Did Christ die only for the elect?" So I will briefly quote from his work:

"[1 John 2:2; 3:5; 4:10] This means that Christ suffered for every sort of sin ever committed by human kind. For example, He suffered for the violation of every one of the Ten Commandments. There is, in fact, no transgression of any of God's laws for which Christ did not suffer. Name it - He bore its punishment.

THIS IS DIFFERENT from saying that Christ suffered so much for this man's sins, and so much for that man's. When He suffered for any particular sin, He suffered for a sin of which millions have been guilty. Since the value of His suffering for that one sin was infinite (because of His own infinity), provision was thereby made for all instances of that sin whenever committed.

From this it is evident that Christ suffered for the sins of both the elect and the non-elect when He bore the punishment of any particular sin, since both groups of persons have been guilty of that sin... He could not suffer for the sins of the elect without suffering for those of the non-elect, because both companies have sinned the same sins... Away then with the foolish talk of wasting Christ's suffering if He suffered for those who are damned; He suffered for all, or He suffered for none." (pp. 29-30)


Therefore, Christ has certainly made atonement for the sins of the world, dying for all men, but propitiation is only applied "through faith in his blood" (Rom. 3:25).

Michael

Indeed and scriptural.


Agreed in principle.


In fact, he may be blind to his position. Others may have some degree of their sinfulness but they willfully choose to deny God.


You missed the point. God saves all the elect, so unless this accident took God by surprise, your illustration becomes meaningless. The rest is basically correct. God controls our lives and will let none of His chosen perish. The Holy Spirit, despite the ramblings of MJM and similar ilk, does not attempt to save those God did not elect.


You have put forth some errors here. All sinners need saved. I have simply never stated otherwise. It's not that the reprobate cannot be saved, the reprobate cannot save himself. God does save people, just not everybody. We are condemned from birth in that we are born wit sinful natures. Killing yourself won't help. Hope? the reprobate don't want salvation. They remain willfully reprobate. Yes, all people are sinners, infants included. Because Jesus died for sinners does not mean ALL sinners. The text doesn't say ALL. If Christ saved two sinners, the passage would remain true.


The word KOSMOS has many meanings in scripture. Our mission is to all, as per Biblical command, the great commission. We don't know who the elect are so we offer the gospel to all. Only the elect will respond unto salvation. People bear their sin despite hearing the word. I agree, it would be better if the reprobate had not been born.


God bless,

william

You deny a vicarious sacrifice. Christs death saves none. What work does man add to become saved? Oh, please interact with my questions or I might think you are merely preaching instead of discussing.


God bless,

william

Tom,

Thanks for your reply. I am familiar with Romans 9:16-21 and I understand that my questions to William place me in a non-favorable analogy to those verses, especially verses 19 and 20. I am teachable and am willing to hear reasonable explainations for those searching questions that I am asking concerning the predestination aspects of Calvinism.

Also, I apologize for using Calvinism as a label. I don't like man-made labels for systems of faith because they are limiting and demeaning, placing people into categories like insect specimens. I would prefer Biblical labels because at least they are foundational and have firm backing in God's word. Let me know if another label is more appropriate to use than Calvinism or Arminianism.

But on the other hand, labels are handy in theological discussions because they help us to concisely transmit our meanings to each other.

I would think that this passage in Romans is a showcase for Calvinistic doctrine. I am surprised that it is not used more often by Calvinists as a defense for that position. I don't think that election is specifically referred to although Paul is discussing it in the chapter immediately preceeding, that is, in regards to predestination and God's calling.

I would assume then, that most on this site would have problems with Billy Graham for instance because he preaches to "all" the lost and pleads for them to accept salvation in Christ Jesus. Problems I say, because his audience would certainly include the reprobate, i.e. other than favored elect. You surely consider evangelicals like Graham in a kind and respectful light although I would suspect that you might consider their preaching to be inefficient since so many of the hearers are not the elect unto salvation.

Consider this verse:

1 Timothy 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

We know that this is NOT saying that all men will be saved but is not Paul telling Timothy that God wants all men to be saved? All my life I have been taught that the LORD would be very pleased if all men would seek His face; was this untruth?

2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

I would desire that Peter would have phrased the above to be: “not willing that any of the elect shall perish, but that all of the elect should come to repentance.” Then we could know of a certainty that God calls unto Himself only a pre-chosen, privileged elect.

Let me state it this way: if 1 Timothy 2:4 only applies to the elect, then why the urgency for their salvation if they are already the elect, chosen of God? Yes, they were born into the sin nature inherited from Adam and there is the issue of imputed guilt for Adam’s sin that pervaded the human race. Salvation effectively deals with this problem.

Finally, with respect to “freewill” and what the Arminianist believes to be man’s part in all this:

Romans 4:3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.

God’s righteousness (of which we are told that no man has or can ever muster in himself, with this I whole-heartedly agree) was imputed to Abraham, “funneled” into his prior empty “righteousness account” because Abraham believed God. Do you agree that this transaction of righteousness would never have occurred if Abraham had not believed?

And does not one “believe” unto salvation?

Acts 16:31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

God’s sovereignty has not been compromised, He does the saving. But in my upbringing, we do the believing to appropriate this miracle on one’s soul. We add nothing to salvation beyond child-like simple, believing faith. None of our works would suffice, they are filthy rags, we possess no inherent righteousness. We start out totally depraved. Even the faith required to believe God is a gift from Him.

You perhaps might say that it was God who woke up this desire to seek Him out and find Him because He does this for the elect.

Could not God in His sovereignty choose to give men free will, even to violate; not His sovereignty; but His will? And violation of His will He can and must punish. The creature has free will to choose, but he suffers the consequences of wrong decisions. His choice to do evil for a season bring about God’s chastening for the believer. During this moment before he repents according to 1 John 1:9, he is violating God’s will by sinning. But the word of God and the Holy Spirit convict him of his sin and he turns and repents. God receives him and the violation of God’s will ends for that particular sin because the man has been brought under the obedience of the gospel. There are conditional things that we must do, very simple acts of faith and then God responds; very much how it is between parents and their children.

If the jailor had not beleved in Acts 16:31 above, then no further response would have occurred at that time from God on behalf of the jailor’s salvation. And, of course the Holy Spirit could continue to convict his heart and draw him from that point on until he chose to finally believe.
I contend that this is not manipulating God. He encourages us to ask, seek, knock and the door of blessing will be opened. And I am not advocating “bless me” dogma. We know that if we ask anything ACCORDING TO HIS WILL, he heareth us, etc. Has not God offered men salvation and as an act of His own sovereign will, chosen to make the efficacy of salvation dependent upon the choice to believe that He will do this upon the believing faith of the one who chose to receive this divine intervention?

I think that Calvinists will fault me in this assertion because they will probably say that He only does this for the elect and that even then, it was not their initiation but God’s that effected salvation’s goal?

Earlier in the chapter it does.......


My problem isn't with preaching to the reprobate. What other method do we use to reach them? My beef with Billy is the message he preaches. It is a sandimanian pelagian heresy. We can't preach only to the elect because we do not know who they are infallibly.


Is God incapable of getting what He wants? No, because He is omnipotent. I think God would be happy if even one sinner turned to Him, but He also knows none will without His grace. Here is a page that covers the text in question, 1Tim 2:4.


Part of the problem is that we tend to interpret these passage as absolutes. ALL simply does not always ALL without exception. Actually, in normal usage it rarely does. Context is everything. The passage is concerning the elect. We know God calls people to Himself. Doesn't the OT show this? IF God wanted all people saved, what holds Him back? Careful.


Then Gods regeneration is either unto a neutral state or toward salvation infallibly. However, you contradicted yourself several times.......let me show you.



This is exactly a false atonement. It actually saved none, only making salvation an option dependant upon (Enter work here) to appropriate it. Your next sentence contradicts that.......



Nothing except.


Nothing except our (enter free-will choice here).




Free-will is unscriptural. Any hypothetical concerning it starts with a false premise.


Saint Paul answered this.......



No.


God bless,

william

I think this all started because I requested prayer for my mother who believes that Gods grace is obtained by faith, which is essentially saying grace comes by something we do or merit.

Titus 2:11,12 teaches that grace does two things.
1 It brings salvation
2 It sanctifies us

In eph 2:8-10 we see that faith is a gift of God or that faith and salvation are gifts of God. God will provide faith for those he will save and will have them "do good works."
To say that MY faith is what caused God to show me grace would definitely be boasting and would be a salvation by works.

MJM said "Arminians believe that we are saved by grace alone, and not by works. The CONDITION is that we accept the offer of salvation by faith."
That is a total contradiction and is a salvation by works-not grace alone.
MJM, you need to realize that faith is a good thing that comes from God and not yourself, for there is no one who does good.Rom 3:12

"God doesnt call the equipped; He equips the called."

MJM,

Just a few quick responses to some statements you made:

(1) The passage does not say that Christ make a propitiatory sacrifice for the non-elect. What it says is: "and <span style="background-color:yellow">[color:"blue"]he is the propitiation[/color]</span> for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the whole world." In other words, Christ's death propitiated God, i.e., (a) appeased God's wrath, and (b) removed that which was offensive. The result of Christ's vicarious substitutionary atonement, in this regard, is that God's wrath toward those for whom Christ died was removed because their sins, which evoked that wrath, was dealt with by Christ receiving the punishment due. What all these abhorrent views have in common is that they either diminish, ignore or deny the judicial basis of the atonement. As John Murray so succinct put it, "the atonement was antecedently absolutely necessary", i.e., there just wasn't any other way that a man could be saved. Justice demands that law-breakers be punished. And the Lord Christ received that punishment. Consequently, the legal requirements in all its aspects was fulfilled. The atonement satisfied the law in a four-fold way: 1) Reconciliation: those who were estranged from God and with whom God was at enmity, were joined together, Christ having made peace between them. (Rom 5:11; 2Cor 5:19; Heb 2:17). 2) Redemption: Christ paid the price which was necessary to effect the release of those who were held captive. Thus it is said that His death was the "ransom". (Matt 20:28; 1Tim 2:6; cf. Rom 3:24; 1Cor 1:30; Eph 1:7; Col 1:14; Heb 9:12, 15). 3) Propitiation: The Lord Christ appeased God's anger through His substitutionary death. All men are born with the imputed guilt of Adam and inherit the corruption of nature which befell Adam in consequence of his transgression, aka: Original Sin. Of necessity, all men are born sinners and are thus under the judicial wrath of God (Eph 2:1-3; Rom 5:12-18). 4) Sacrifice: The Lord Christ offered up Himself as the necessary offering to satisfy the law which had been broken. Thus, He having accomplished all that was required, God was wholly satisfied. And having accepted that atonement, God cannot punish anyone for whom that atonement was made. The LEGAL requirements were met; the debt paid, the anger appeased by the removal of the offence, the bond broken and reconciliation was accomplished. All this was done APART FROM any act or even desire of the recipients. The atonement was the administering of capital punishment by the court of heaven. The benefits of that legal satisfaction are then applied to those for whom it was intended.

2) The context of the 1Joh 2:2 does not allow one to understand the meaning of the word, "world" to be synonymous with "all mankind without exception". For as I have illustrated above, if Christ IS the propitiation, i.e., if Christ succeeded in appeasing the wrath of God by removing the sins which offended Him, then all men of necessity must be saved. For, a) God is no longer angry with those whom Christ was the propitiation, and 2) there is not even one sin that would provoke God's wrath and thus cause Him to find anyone guilty of punishment, He, Christ having been punished in their stead.

BTW.... and I'm sure you have been given the reference previous to this, but nonetheless I shall provide it once more, Dr. Gary Long has given a most thorough and convincing exegesis of 1John 2:2 here: PROPITIATION IN I JOHN 2:2.

In His Grace,

William,

Thank you for your thoroughness with my questions. I agree with you that we cannot infallibly know whether a person is of the elect (chosen of God) or not. I admit that my questions in the post you have kindly answered are hypothetical and even foolish; I should know better than to think that we can have this knowledge that is reserved for God only.

I had no idea what Sandemanian dogma was. So I researched it on the net and I agree that Robert Sandeman's view is a gross error. Sandeman wrongly taught that salvation only required a mental assent. He even wanted emotions and soulish reaction "divorced" from it. He wouldn't make a good charismatic, but that is just some levity to lighten our heavy discussion. And I found Pelagius in the dictionary and discovered that he denied the doctrine of original sin. This too is error and ignores the Biblical truth that Adam acted as our "Federal Head" or I'll say, representative and through his sin, passed the sinful nature and curse of death to all humanity. Remedied, of course, by the "last Adam", Jesus Christ.

I won't speak for Billy Graham, but in my own case, being brought up in the Church of the Brethren, we simply were not taught this truth. It may sound utterly amazing, but it was largely ignored. And not surprising as that denomination moved from conservative, puritan-like views to liberal, ecumenical (as in WCC, World Council of Churches) ones. It could be that Graham's up-bringing in the Baptist tradition was a similar experience as mine, but I think that someone as learned in theology as Bill should know better.

I am concerned when I watch Graham's crusades because I have doubts of the sincerity of the multitudes who come down to that platform, hear Billy pray the sinner's prayer over them (actually, I hope they have them at least recite it). They get their "complimentary Psalms + NT" books and away they rush to their cars in the parking lot. How many of them forget this experience or toss it aside, etc. God only knows. In defense of the crusades, I attended a pre-crusade meeting by some of Graham's "advance guards" sent to a local church. They asked us to be in prayer for the crusade and took down phone numbers, addresses of parishioners willing to share their testimony or follow up if called upon by converts of the crusade. They really stressed follow up. This was saying to me that they expected many to fall away or ignore a decision that is supposed to change our lives inside out.

There have surely been many who can testify that they genuinely received Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior at one of these crusades and I do not want to degrade their experience in any fashion. But many may view these services and think that it looks to be "cheap grace" or a "mob mentality" or peer pressure tactic to add notches to the barrel of Billy's "gospel gun". I sincerely hope that this is not the case. God knows.

I apologize for my lengthy rambling, let me finish on this thought:

It appears to me that the Arminian view of salvation is rejected by the Calvinist because the act of believing faith on the part of an individual is interpreted by the Calvinist as a work. If the efficacy of salvation cannot be realized (according to Arminianists) until Jesus' atonement is received by a soul as belonging to him or her personally, then you must believe that this makes it conditional upon man's "input" (be it ever so small). Hence, the sovereignty of God has been usurped by man in this instance. This, I know, is contradictory because God is sovereign. Unless God, as a sovereign act of His will gave men the freedom to choose if they will answer His call on their lives.

For the Arminianist view to be true, God must place a conditional upon salvation. It cannot be effective for the unregenerate until he places his total trust and faith in Jesus' finished work on the cross. But the moment he receives, he is converted and he becomes a new creature, something that did not exist before. Yes, he needs to grow and be tested with various trials that produce patience. He is sanctified and submits to Jesus' teaching and loves Him above all else. Election for the Arminianist is general or non-specific in that God predestinated only the plan and potential for the Elect to be saved. He would someday call them and the moment they answered the call in sincere, believing faith, He declares them to be the elect, now in a more specific sense. The Arminiast would likely say that "limited Atonement" is such because only those who act in faith to believe will receive the vicarious redemption of our Saviour. The substitutionary aspect of His vicarious death is of no use to me until I answer and receive His call to Salvation. The key word to jump on there is "act" where I am sure you must declare as a work and now it would no longer be of grace.

I don't see the act of believing faith as a work. James in his book rebukes the one who says he has faith without supporting evidence of works and that faith without works is dead. Yes, this answers in your favor, because James declares that the two live under the "same roof".

I know that you will have objections to the above and I am willing to hear them out because the doctrine of Calvinism is very compelling. Don't give up on me too quickly. Likewise, I guess dismiss me somehow, if after many reasonings, I still conclude that my current beliefs are in truth and acceptable to God.

believingThomas,

Sorry for this rushed reply, but I'm out of time right now and this is all the time I can afford.

On Sandemanianism, see here:

"Andrew Fuller and the Sandemanians" by Michael Haykin

Another Gospel by A.W. Pink

Modern Evangelism Unmasked by William F. Bell


On "faith=a work", see here:

By Grace Alone? by yours truly

There are Only Two Religions in the Whole World by John G. Reisinger

Arminian Errors by William MacLean

In His Grace,