4 point.

i have come to the realisation that you can't be a 4 point Calvinest, i think that you could be a 1 point Calvinest but then i wouldn't really call you a Calvinest.

Does anyone else agree ??

Antman_05 said:

i have come to the realisation that you can't be a 4 point Calvinest, i think that you could be a 1 point Calvinest but then i wouldn't really call you a Calvinest.

Does anyone else agree ??

Click to expand...

Many people disagree. I used to think precisely as you do, but the more I read John Calvin, the more I realize that what we call Calvinism today, isn't really what he taught at all. I wish we could stop using the term altogether. It's actually inappropriate.

Calvin was actually more of a "moderate" Calvinist, as we know it today. In fact, there is substantial proof that he was a 4-pointer, the missing point being, of course, Limited Atonement. Check out Norman Geisler's Chosen But Free if you want to understand the moderate Calvinist position. Just be ready for doctrinal errors, starting on page 22.

Shoot, I'll mail you the book if you really want it.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

Could someone explain this whole "point" system?...I've been reading some of the stuff here for about a week now...and I've seen everything from 5 point to zero point (although I think that one was to force debate)...any help would be appreciated...

RedneckLutheran said:

Could someone explain this whole "point" system?...I've been reading some of the stuff here for about a week now...and I've seen everything from 5 point to zero point (although I think that one was to force debate)...any help would be appreciated...

Click to expand...

Check out my signature for the actual five points. Check this link: http://www.prca.org/fivepoints/ for a summary of them.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

I had a Bible instructor actually tell the class that the points referred to how hyper a calvisnist one was. I tried to explain to him what they meant, but... well... I don't think he got the point!

Hey Jono_ the book offer i'm up for it but somthing tells me it might take a lil while to get to me.

Antman_05 said:

Hey Jono_ the book offer i'm up for it but somthing tells me it might take a lil while to get to me.

Click to expand...

What makes you say that? Not much trust in USPS Media Mail, eh?

Just PM me your address.

I'll send it off this week.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

Antman_05 said:

i think that you could be a 1 point Calvinest but then i wouldn't really call you a Calvinest.

Click to expand...

I think that would be a four-point Arminian.

Bulldog said:

I think that would be a four-point Arminian.

Click to expand...

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

Even though that L is in the middle, I'm sure that's the 5th "point" of Calvinism that most reject.

I'm just not sure how it can be rejected. It seems like such a logical conclusion to me. Even arminians limit the atonement to a certain extent. Only Universalists actually adhere truly to an unlimited atonement!

Would denying Limited Atonement not be denying justice?

Those whom Christ atoned for have no fear of condemnation because the damnation meant for them was placed on Christ.

I see only three options:

1. Limited or Particular Atonement

2. Universalism

3. Redefine "atonement" so that it no longer means atonement. Claim that Christ suffered not the Father's wrath. Finally state that man is the author of faith and repentence, and that it is these apart from Christ that grant salvation.

I ask you, would any other conclusion not seem against reason or logic?

Nevertheless, I am still a learner and ever shall be; any correction would be most welcome.

As for the "Chosen but Free" book, I would suggest torching it.

puriteen18 said:

Would denying Limited Atonement not be denying justice?
I see only three options:

1. Limited or Particular Atonement

2. Universalism

3. Redefine "atonement" so that it no longer means atonement. Claim that Christ suffered not the Father's wrath. Finally state that man is the author of faith and repentence, and that it is these apart from Christ that grant salvation.

I ask you, would any other conclusion not seem against reason or logic?

Click to expand...

This sounds about right to me.

puriteen18 said:

Nevertheless, I am still a learner and ever shall be; any correction would be most welcome.

Click to expand...

You and me both. Humility and patience are so very important.

puriteen18 said:

As for the "Chosen but Free" book, I would suggest torching it.

Click to expand...

Studying the flaws of your oppositions' arguments helps you to refine your arguments against those weaknesses. Know your "enemy."

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

Imblessed said:

Even though that L is in the middle, I'm sure that's the 5th "point" of Calvinism that most reject.

I'm just not sure how it can be rejected. It seems like such a logical conclusion to me. Even arminians limit the atonement to a certain extent. Only Universalists actually adhere truly to an unlimited atonement!

Click to expand...

As one who is good friends with an Amyraldian (four-pointer), I believe I can explain. The difference lies mainly in the intent of the atonement. Like you said, even Arminians limit the atonement in a certain manner.

It has mainly to do with the logical order of God's decrees in eternity. Your standard infralapsarian Calvinist believes the decrees are as follows (all occuring before Creation actually happened in real time):

1. Create
2. Permit Fall
3. Elect some, pass over the rest
4. Provide salvation for elect
5. Call elect to salvation

The Amyraldian order on the other hand is:

1. Create
2. Permit Fall
3. Provide salvation sufficient for all
4. Elect some, pass over rest
5. Call elect to salvation

The essential difference is that after ordaining the fall, God first decrees the means by which salvation will be accomplished and then decrees who will be saved, whereas the infralapsarian (Covenant Theology) understanding is that God first decrees who will be saved and then decrees how that salvation will be accomplished.

frumanchu said:

As one who is good friends with an Amyraldian (four-pointer), I believe I can explain. The difference lies mainly in the intent of the atonement. Like you said, even Arminians limit the atonement in a certain manner.

It has mainly to do with the logical order of God's decrees in eternity. Your standard infralapsarian Calvinist believes the decrees are as follows (all occuring before Creation actually happened in real time):

1. Create
2. Permit Fall
3. Elect some, pass over the rest
4. Provide salvation for elect
5. Call elect to salvation

The Amyraldian order on the other hand is:

1. Create
2. Permit Fall
3. Provide salvation sufficient for all
4. Elect some, pass over rest
5. Call elect to salvation

The essential difference is that after ordaining the fall, God first decrees the means by which salvation will be accomplished and then decrees who will be saved, whereas the infralapsarian (Covenant Theology) understanding is that God first decrees who will be saved and then decrees how that salvation will be accomplished.

Click to expand...

Thanks fru!


I see where they are coming from, and I can't say I disagree. I think either option could be right. Since both occur before time it's really a matter of interpretation isn't it?


I learn something new every day!

Imblessed said:

Thanks fru!


I see where they are coming from, and I can't say I disagree. I think either option could be right. Since both occur before time it's really a matter of interpretation isn't it?


I learn something new every day!

Click to expand...

The four-pointers make a classic error of causation in their interpretation, viz., if God provides atonement for all, and atonement is given to all that are saved, but not all are saved, then no atonement was provided for those who were not saved. There is no cause-and-effect relationship.

Without a relationship to identify and thereby affirm their argument, four-pointers really have no basis for denying particular atonement. Since limited atonement can be proved by virtue of causation, it disproves the unlimited atonement camp, which is not substaniated by causation. Their arguments qualify for the logical fallacy of slothful induction, which is the denial of a strong inductive argument (limited atonement) despite a lack of evidence against it.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

Jon_ said:

The four-pointers make a classic error of causation in their interpretation, viz., if God provides atonement for all, and atonement is given to all that are saved, but not all are saved, then no atonement was provided for those who were not saved. There is no cause-and-effect relationship.

Click to expand...

Actually, if I understand my Amyraldian friend correctly, when it comes to the actual atonement in time, only the sins of the elect are actually atoned for. God, in contemplating a means of reconciliation given the fall of man, decided in a general sense to provide atonement through the Incarnation and sacrifice of Christ. Once decided, He then chose specific individuals to be the recipients of the benefits of that atonement. So the decree of the atonement was in the context of all of fallen humanity, but the enactment and application of that atonement was particular to the elect.

I will see if I can get clarification from drstevej (the friend of which I speak).

Without a relationship to identify and thereby affirm their argument, four-pointers really have no basis for denying particular atonement. Since limited atonement can be proved by virtue of causation, it disproves the unlimited atonement camp, which is not substaniated by causation. Their arguments qualify for the logical fallacy of slothful induction, which is the denial of a strong inductive argument (limited atonement) despite a lack of evidence against it.

Click to expand...

Think of it in a covenant sense, Jon. God in viewing all humanity as falling is really looking at the covenantal representative of all humanity, Adam. Adam represents all mankind in the covenant of works instituted in the Garden. The question simply becomes "then what?" Does God first decide a means of reconciling covenant breakers to Himself and then choose which of the individual covenant breakers He will graciously institute a new covenant with (the benefits of which are expiation of the curses due for the transgression of the original covenant)? OR, does God first decide which of the individual covenant breakers to institute a new covenant with (the benefits of which are expiation of the curses due for the transgression of the original covenant)and then ordain the means by which He will accomplish that reconciliation?

Both views are valid. The question becomes which is correct in light of Scripture. I happen to think it's the latter, but I can see a case made for the former.

Again though, I could be incorrect in my representation of the Amyraldian view with respect to the atonement.

My Amyraldian position is not based upon the decrees, my 4 point (T-U-_-I-P) position is based upon passages that I find difficult to hamonize with a 5 point position. I have no problem with the logic of limited atonement.

I do hold to limited attainment.

I wrote this parable to illustrate my position (it doesn't prove it, but it is an illustration)...

The Parable of the Amyraldian

Unlimited Atonement yet Limited Attainment

A wealthy man buys ten tickets to Hawaii and has his Son pay cash for them. He sends a letter to ten people with a ticket purchased for them and invites them to join him in Hawaii.

He also sends a Special Courier to deliver three of the tickets to a select group of the ten and has the Courier earnestly persuade them to go {His persuasion is irresistible!} The Courier then escorts them onto the plane insuring they get to Hawaii.

The other seven get the letter and the ticket that has been purchased for them, but because they hate the wealthy man [he makes them feel guilty] they refuse to use the ticket. They each think. If I ever go to Hawaii, I'm going MY way. No one is paying my way, especially not That Guy!

The wealthy man, his son and the courier rejoice with the three in Hawaii. The other seven never make it and their tickets, while paid in full, are never used. While the three are in the beauty of Hawaii with the wealthy man a plague strikes the home towns of the seven and they perish.

NOTE: This is an artificially constructed parable to show how the price can be paid in full for those who refuse to receive the gift. The Father's election and the Spirit's persuasion are limited to the elect, yet a ticket purchased by the Son is legitimately extended to all.

Unlimited Atonement yet Limited Attainment



​

Click to expand...

~ NEHI (Favorite Carol.... The First No-L)

frumanchu said:

Both views are valid. The question becomes which is correct in light of Scripture. I happen to think it's the latter, but I can see a case made for the former.

Click to expand...

I do not think it is accurate to regard both as valid. They are mutually exclusive. Either one is wrong or they are both wrong. I will try to show you inductively that it is the unlimited atonement view that is wrong.

The unlimited atonement view holds that Jesus provided atonement for the sins of the whole world, but that only the elect will be elected, thereby effecting atonement for the elect only. The limited atonement view holds that Jesus provided sufficient sacrifice for the sins of the whole world, but that only the elect will be elected, thereby effecting atonement for the elect only. These two views are clearly at odds. One says that Jesus atoned for the whole world, but that the atonement is effective for only the elect. The other view says that Jesus atoned only for only the elect, and that this atonement is effective only for the elect. Which is accurate, then?

What is required to effect atonement? Quite simply, grace. The Father must first graciously draw us. The Son accepts us. The Father accepts the Son's sarifice as atonement for sin. If the Father does not draw us, we will not be atoned.

To atone is to make amends or reparations, to reconcile. Apart from election, we are not reconciled to God in anyway, which creates problems for the unlimited atonement view. If only the elect are truly atoned, what atonement is there for the reprobate? Now, I realize that the Amyraldian view agrees that only the elect are atoned as well, but that is precisely my point.

To argue that God created a plan for the atonement of the entire world, but only effected it for the elect is to say that God only partially completed his plan. If God's intent was for the whole world to be atoned, then his sovereignty would have effected it. If God wills something, it happens. God's plan for atonement was an act of his active will. It was not something done passively. God actively calls his elect, but he passively desires that everyone be saved. He is compelled to by his loving nature, but he is not compelled to show grace to everyone. Atonement is an effect of his call to the elect. This simple fact contradicts any view that holds atonement is initiated separate from grace.

I am going to use the same argument that I have been using in my "logic of salvation" and "logic of choice" threads.

If I choose to do something, but do not do it, have I really made a choice? If I choose to jump into the air, but do not, did I really choose to jump into the air? No, of course not. I chose not to jump into the air. This is evident because I did not. Similarly, because my nature is unrighteous, I am incapable of choosing God. I am incapable of doing anything righteous, so naturally this includes salvific faith.

God is totally omnipotent, though. Anything that he wills will be done. He is completely and totally free. If he willed that the whole world be atoned, then it would be. If he ordained that atonement would be applicable to all, then all would be saved. If his plan was to provide atonement for all, then all would receive atonement. If this were not true, God would not be omnipotent.

The fact that God elects only a limited number of souls necessitates the limited nature of atonement. The sins of the reprobate cannot be expiated apart from faith in Christ. To say that God's plan for atonement is frustrated by the will of man is just as wrong as saying that God's plan for salvation is frustrated by the will of man. There is no difference. Unlimited atonement conflicts with unconditional election.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

Nehi said:

The Parable of the Amyraldian

Unlimited Atonement yet Limited Attainment

A wealthy man buys ten tickets to Hawaii and has his Son pay cash for them. He sends a letter to ten people with a ticket purchased for them and invites them to join him in Hawaii.

He also sends a Special Courier to deliver three of the tickets to a select group of the ten and has the Courier earnestly persuade them to go {His persuasion is irresistible!} The Courier then escorts them onto the plane insuring they get to Hawaii.

The other seven get the letter and the ticket that has been purchased for them, but because they hate the wealthy man [he makes them feel guilty] they refuse to use the ticket. They each think. If I ever go to Hawaii, I'm going MY way. No one is paying my way, especially not That Guy!

The wealthy man, his son and the courier rejoice with the three in Hawaii. The other seven never make it and their tickets, while paid in full, are never used. While the three are in the beauty of Hawaii with the wealthy man a plague strikes the home towns of the seven and they perish.

NOTE: This is an artificially constructed parable to show how the price can be paid in full for those who refuse to receive the gift. The Father's election and the Spirit's persuasion are limited to the elect, yet a ticket purchased by the Son is legitimately extended to all.​

Click to expand...

This is a nice parable, but it contradicts every other point of the acrostic. This view of atonement makes election synergistic. The seven people who rejected the ticket rejected it of their own free will. This disputes irresistable grace, which compels men to repent and receive atonement. It also rejects perseverance of the saints, which maintains that God preserves his elect faithfully, according to his will. And most of all, it rejects total depravity because it asserts the three people who accepted did so of their own choice.

Rejecting any one part of the TULIP doctrine amounts to a categorical rejection of each and every one of them. This is why "moderate Calvinism" is incompatible with "five-point" Calvinism. In many cases, it is accurate to call it "Calvinistic," but the interrelation of the five-points is indisputable. You either accept TULIP, or you do not. It is not a buffet from which we may pick and choose.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

Jon_ said:

I do not think it is accurate to regard both as valid. They are mutually exclusive. Either one is wrong or they are both wrong. I will try to show you inductively that it is the unlimited atonement view that is wrong.

Click to expand...

Please note, Jon, that I said both are valid but only one is correct. Scripture is what determines which is correct. Logically they are both feasible and reasonable.

The fact that God elects only a limited number of souls necessitates the limited nature of atonement. The sins of the reprobate cannot be expiated apart from faith in Christ. To say that God's plan for atonement is frustrated by the will of man is just as wrong as saying that God's plan for salvation is frustrated by the will of man. There is no difference. Unlimited atonement conflicts with unconditional election.

Click to expand...

Jon, I don't think you fully understood what it was I was saying. My understanding of Amyraldianism (assuming it is correct) does not have Christ atoning for the sins of the reprobate. When Christ dies on the cross, it is the sins of the elect (and them only) that are atoned for. The "unlimited" aspect of the atonement is purely in the generic sense prior to the election of men to be individual and particular recipients of that atonement. This is determined in eternity past before the Incarnation and crucifixion take place, so that when they do actually happen in time it is in th context of election and therefore only the sins of the elect are atoned for.

Again, mind you, I do not agree that this is the case in light of Scripture, but I do see it as valid. If I am incorrect and the Amyraldian view is that Christ atoned for all sins on the cross and that the benefits are only applied to the elect, then I do not agree with it. I'm hoping that other Amyraldians can clarify.