Arminian Vs. Calvinist

VictoryProcured · Feb 14, 2009

Exegetical Considerations

The following passages refer to the universal extent of Christs death:

Isaiah 53:6 - We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way, and the Lord hath laid on Him, the iniquity of us all.

John 1:29 - Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.

John 3:16-17 - For God so loved the world that he gave His one and only Son, that whosoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through Him.

John 6:33 - For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.

2 Corinthians 5:18-19 - All this is from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: that God was reconciling the world to Himself in Christ, not counting mens sins against them. And He has committed to us the message of reconciliation.

I John 2:2 - He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.

I John 4:4 - And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent His Son to be the Savior of the world.

These are just a few selected Scriptural passages that indicate that Christ died for the sins of the world i.e. all. There are three primary renderings of the word world:

Kosmos - order, arrangement, ornament, adornment
- the earth
- the earth in contrast to heaven
- human race, mankind
- Gentiles as distinct from the Jews
- present conditions of human affairs
- the sum of temporal possessions
- metaphorically, of the tongue as a world

Aion - an age, a period of time

Oikoumene - the inhabited earth
- the whole inhabited world
- the Roman world
- the inhabited world in a coming age

In every instance of the above sited passages the word for world is Kosmos which refers to the sphere of the whole world, all of mankind, and the inhabited earth; never is restricted to refer to a certain group, or within a provincial rendering either, that is to say, in a narrowed sense. When Scripture says Christ died for the sins of the world, there is no Scriptural, hermeneutical, exegetical, or logical reason not to take it at face value and interpret as is. Exception being where there is an obvious contextual exception in which the meaning can be derived from such.

The following passages refer to the universal intent of Christs death:

Romans 5:18 - Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.

I Corinthians 15:22 - In Christ all will be made alive.

2 Corinthians 5:14-15 - For Christs love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died.

I Timothy 2:4-6 - who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for all men - the testimony given in its proper time.

I Timothy 4:10 - .that we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe.

Titus 2:11 - For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men.

Hebrews 2:9 - But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.

2 Peter 3:9 - The Lord is not slow in keeping His promise.He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.

Therefore, Christs death on the cross was sufficient for all but is only efficient for the elect. That is to say, the death of Christ was designed to include all humankind but is applied only to those who accept it, believe in Jesus as Lord and Savior. I believe that no verse covers this concept more clearly then I Timothy 4:10, ..who is the Savior of all men (sufficient for all), and especially of those who believe (efficient only for the elect i.e. those who believe).

The Calvinist would say that it must refer to the world of the elect, and not referencing a universal application. For, if it would refer to the world in a universal sense, the Calvinist asserts that no one would go to hell, for all would be saved. This belief stems from the notion and is directly woven together with the I in TULIP i.e. irresistible grace..

Berkhof said the designs of God are always and surely efficacious and cannot be frustrated by the actions of men.

Ergo, if Christ died for the whole world and it was the Lords intent to die for the sins of every man, then every man would be saved, for man cannot frustrate the intent of God.thus, irresistible grace. Therefore, from the Calvinistic view, either Christ died for only the elect or universal salvation is the spiritual motif of Scripture. Of course, neither are truethe only reason why this camp of thought embraces such an theory stems back to Berkhofs statement once again.man cannot frustrate the plan of God.

This would lead into another subject matter which is inextricably woven together with limited atonement and that of course is irresistible grace. We can discuss that one next if you wish, but for now allow me to simply say that I adhere to resistible grace, which makes a profound impact on why I believe in unlimited atonement. But, further on we go:

Luke 19:10: "For the Son of Man came to seek and to save what was lost." (The "lost" seems to refer to the entire world of lost humanity, not just the lost elect.)

John 1:29: "The next day John saw Jesus coming towards him and said, 'Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world.'" I am sure that John is not implying the sin of the world of the elect here!

John 3:16: "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."

The Greek lexicons are unanimous that "world" here denotes humankind, not the "world of the elect."

John 3:16 cannot be divorced from verses 14-15, wherein Christ alludes to Numbers 21 with its discussion of Moses setting up the brazen serpent in the camp of Israel, so that if "any man" looked to it, he experienced physical deliverance. In verse 15 Christ applies the story spiritually when He says that "whosoever" believes on the uplifted Son of Man shall experience spiritual deliverance.

John 4:42: "They said to the woman, 'We no longer believe just because of what you said; now we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this man really is the Savior of the world.'"

It is certain that when the Samaritans called Jesus "the Savior of the world," they were not thinking of the world of the elect.

Likewise, when Jesus said, "I am the Light of the world" (John 8:12), He was not thinking of Himself as the Light of the world of the elect. "The sun in the heavens shines on all men, though some, in their folly, may choose to withdraw into dark caves to evade its illuminating rays."

When Jesus called His disciples "the light of the world" (Matt.. 5:14), He did not mean they were the "light of the elect."

Likewise, the "Savior of the world" in John 4:42 cannot be limited to the elect.

Acts 2:21: "And everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."

Hebrews 2:9: "But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone."
The word "everyone" is better translated "each."

Henry Alford comments: "If it be asked, why pantos (each) rather than panton (all), we may safely say that the singular brings out, far more strongly than the plural word, the applicability of Christ's death to each individual man."

Romans 5:6 says: "At just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly."

It doesn't make much sense to read this as saying that Christ died for the ungodly of the elect. The ramification of this statement is the ungodly must refer to all of mankind and not just the elect. To say that Christ died only for the ungodly (elect), then the non-elect would fall into the category of the godly, which we know that all mankind is ungodly.

Romans 5:18 says: "Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men."

VictoryProcured · Feb 14, 2009

Thus the implication is that through Adam's act of disobedience the entire human race became the recipients of sin. And through one act of obedience the last Adam made provision for the gracious gift of righteousness for the entire human race. The disobedience of the one was co-extensive with the obedience of the other. In other words, if sin and condemnation came to all men then righteousness through Christ comes to all men. All cannot mean the elect here..for if that was the case it would render the statement that only the elect were sinful and condemned and not the non-elect..and righteousness would come to only those who were condemned which would only be the elect.this of course is ludicrous to believe.

1 John 2:2 says: "He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world."

A natural reading of this verse, without imposing theological presuppositions on it, seems to support unlimited atonement.

Isaiah 53:6 says: "We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all"

This verse doesn't make sense unless it is read to say that the same "all" that went astray is the "all" for whom the Lord died.

In the first of these statements, the general apostasy of men is declared; in the second, the particular deviation of each one; in the third, the atoning suffering of the Messiah, which is said to be on behalf of all. As the first 'all' is true of all men (and not just of the elect), we judge that the last 'all' relates to the same company.

Theologian Millard Erickson comments: "This passage is especially powerful from a logical standpoint. It is clear that the extent of sin is universal; it is specified that every one of us has sinned. It should also be noticed that the extent of what will be laid on the suffering servant exactly parallels the extent of sin. It is difficult to read this passage and not conclude that just as everyone sins, everyone is also atoned for."

2 Peter 2:1 - "But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them bringing swift destruction on themselves."

This seems to point out most clearly that people for whom Christ died may be lost, it seems that Christ even paid the price of redemption for false teachers who deny Him....there is a distinction between those for whom Christ died and those who are finally saved."

Proclamation of the Gospel

Matthew 24:14: "And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come."

Matthew 28:19: "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit..."

Acts 1:8: "But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.

Acts 17:30: "In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent."

Titus 2:11: "For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men."

In view of such passages, it is legitimate to ask: "If Christ died only for the elect, how can the offer of salvation be made to all persons without some sort of insincerity, artificiality, or dishonesty being involved? Is it not improper to offer salvation to everyone if in fact Christ did not die to save everyone?"

Those who deny unlimited atonement cannot say to any sinner, "Christ died for you." (After all, he may be one of the non-elect.)

Reformed counselor Jay Adams comments: "As a reformed Christian, the writer believes that counselors must not tell any unsaved counselee that Christ died for him, for they cannot say that. No man knows except Christ himself who are his elect for whom he died."
Thus, belief in limited atonement means that the good news of God's saving grace in Christ cannot be personalized. Those who hold to such a position cannot tell someone to whom they are witnessing that Christ died for him because that one may, in fact, not be one for whom Christ died.

2 Peter 3:9 says: "The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance." How can this be if Christ died only and exclusively for the elect?

Scripture says that Christ died for "sinners" (1 Tim. 1:15; Rom. 5:6-8). The word "sinner" nowhere is limited to the elect or to the church. It is used exclusively in the Bible of lost humanity. Scripture tells us that Christ died for sinners, not penitent sinners, and for the ungodly, not for just some of them.

The problem that both groups face is the need to harmonize passages that refer to limited redemption with passages that refer to unlimited redemption. To the unlimited redemptionist the limited redemption passages present no real difficulty. He believes that they merely emphasize one aspect of a larger truth. Christ did die for the elect, but He also died for the sins of the whole world. However, the limited redemptionist is not able to deal with the unlimited redemption passages as easily.

The two sets of passages noted earlier - one set seemingly in support of limited atonement, the other in support of unlimited atonement - are not irreconcilable. As Elwell puts it, "It is true that the benefits of Christ's death are referred to as belonging to the elect, his sheep, his people, but it would have to be shown that Christ died only for them. No one denies that Christ died for them. It is only denied that Christ died exclusively for them."

Millard Erickson likewise says that "statements about Jesus loving and dying for his church or his sheep need not be understood as confining his special love and salvific death strictly to them....It does not follow from a statement that Christ died for his church, or for his sheep, that he did not die for anyone else, unless, of course, the passage specifically states that it was only for them that he died....Certainly if Christ died for the whole, there is no problem in asserting that he died for a specific part of the whole. To insist that those passages which focus on his dying for his people require the understanding that he died only for them and not for any others contradicts the universal passages. We conclude that the hypothesis of universal atonement is able to account for a larger segment of the biblical witness with less distortion than is the hypothesis of limited atonement."

Thus any Scripture that indicates Jesus died for the elect is true; for his death was for the elect but not restricted to just the elect, for the whole world. Finding a statement of inclusion (the elect) is not the same as finding a statement of exclusion (ungodly). For we know that Christ died for the ungodly, and it is not the elect only that fall into that category, but all of mankind.

Universal terms like "world" should not be restricted in contexts which speak of the atonement.

Robert Lightner comments: "Those who always limit the meaning of those terms in contexts that deal with salvation do so on the basis of theological presuppositions, not on the basis of the texts themselves."

A word study of the word "world" - particularly in the apostle John's writings, where it is used 78 times - indicates that the world is God-hating, Christ-rejecting, and Satan-dominated. Yet this is the world that Christ died for. Particularly in John's writings, interpreting "world" as "world of the elect" seems a great distortion of Scripture.

Among the scholarly lexicons, encyclopedias, and dictionaries that know nothing of the meaning "world of the elect" for the biblical word "world" (kosmos) are:

-Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament.
-Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words.
-Vincent's Word Studies in the New Testament.
-Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament.
-Souter's Pocket Lexicon of the New Testament.
-The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge.
-Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible.
-The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia.
-The New Bible Dictionary.
-Baker's Dictionary of Theology.
-Arndt and Gingrich's A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament.

Walter Martin, founder of the Christian Research Institute, observes: "John the Apostle tells us that Christ gave His life as a propitiation for our sin (i.e., the elect), though not for ours only but for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2)....[People] cannot evade John's usage of 'whole' (Greek: holos). In the same context the apostle quite cogently points out that 'the whole (holos) world lies in wickedness' or, more properly, 'in the lap of the wicked one' (1 John 5:19, literal translation). If we assume that 'whole' applies only to the chosen or elect of God, then the 'whole world does not 'lie in the lap of the wicked one.' This, of course, all reject.."

We must also ask, How can the Holy Spirit have a ministry to the whole world in showing men their need of Jesus Christ (John 14-16) if the death of Christ does not make provision for the whole world? Let us let at the book of John briefly.

John 16:8-11 says: "But I tell you the truth: It is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. When he comes, he will convict the world of guilt in regard to sin and righteousness and judgment: in regard to sin, because men do not believe in me; in regard to righteousness, because I am going to the Father, where you can see me no longer; and in regard to judgment, because the prince of this world now stands condemned."

Notice in this passage that "the world" is clearly distinguished from "you" and "your."

Yet the Holy Spirit is said to bring conviction on the world. And one of the things the Spirit convicts "the world" of is the sin of not believing on Christ (v. 9).

We are not to conclude that "the world" that is convicted of unbelief is the world of the elect, are we? (If so, then Satan, the "prince of this world" [v. 11, same context], must be the "prince of the elect."

Consider Matthew 23:37: "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing."

What Christ desired was not what came about and according to the proponent of limited atonement and Berfhof - man cannot frustrated the will of God.

One further example relates to Jesus, who told some Jews in John 5:34: "I say these things that you may be saved." But "saved" they were not. Why? Because Christ added in verse 40, "You are unwilling to come to Me, that you may have life."

Here is a clear case of "but ye would not," despite the clear offer of salvation.

Finally, throughout the book of John the words all, whosoever, everyone are mentioned a myriad of times and it is hard to believe that every single case refers to the elect.

One of the most mentioned passages from the limited atonement camp is John 6:44, No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him.

The word draw occurs quite frequently in the book of John and cannot refer to only a special drawing

VictoryProcured · Feb 14, 2009

Quotations from the Early Church Fathers

Clement of Alexandria (150-220): "Christ freely brings...salvation to the whole human race."

Eusebius (260-340): "It was needful that the Lamb of God should be offered for the other lambs whose nature He assumed, even for the whole human race."

Athanasius (293-373): "Christ the Son of God, having assumed a body like ours, because we were all exposed to death [which takes in more than the elect], gave Himself up to death for us all as a sacrifice to His Father."

Cyril of Jerusalem (315-386): "Do not wonder if the whole world was ransomed, for He was not a mere man, but the only-begotten Son of God."

Gregory of Nazianzen (324-389): "The sacrifice of Christ is an imperishable expiation of the whole world."

Basil (330-379): "But one thing was found that was equivalent to all men....the holy and precious blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, which He poured out for us all."

Ambrose (340-407): "Christ suffered for all, rose again for all. But if anyone does not believe in Christ, he deprives himself of that general benefit."
He also said, "Christ came for the salvation of all, and undertook the redemption of all, inasmuch as He brought a remedy by which all might escape, although there are many who...are unwilling to be healed."

Augustine (354-430): Though Augustine is often cited as supporting limited atonement, there are also clear statements in Augustine's writings that are supportive of unlimited atonement. For example: "The Redeemer came and gave the price, shed His blood, and bought the world. Do you ask what He bought? See what He gave, and find what He bought. The blood of Christ is the price: what is of so great worth? What, but the whole world? What, but all nations?"
He also stated, "The blood of Christ was shed for the remission of all sins."
Cyril of Alexandria (376-444): "The death of one flesh is sufficient for the ransom of the whole human race, for it belonged to the Logos, begotten of God the Father."

Prosper (a friend and disciple of Augustine who died in 463): "As far as relates to the magnitude and virtue of the price, and to the one cause of the human race, the blood of Christ is the redemption of the whole world: but those who pass through this life without the faith of Christ, and the sacrament of regeneration, do not partake of the redemption."
He also said, "The Savior is most rightly said to have been crucified for the redemption of the whole world." He then said, "Although the blood of Christ be the ransom of the whole world, yet they are excluded from its benefit, who, being delighted with their captivity, are unwilling to be redeemed by it."
Martin Luther (1483-1546): "Christ is not cruel exactor, but a forgiver of the sins of the whole world....He hath given Himself for our sins, and with one oblation hath put away the sins of the whole world....Christ hath taken away the sins, not of certain men only, but also of thee, yea, of the whole world...Not only my sins and thine, but also the sins of the whole world...take hold upon Christ."

A. I believe that I have clearly shown that the words all and world cannot be restricted to mean only the elect. In fact, as I mentioned earlier if you would interject the elect in certain passages of Scripture, it just wouldnt make sense i.e. Romans 5:6; Luke 19:10; Romans 5:18..which would render only the elect as ungodly, condemned, and lost.

B. Exegetically speaking, I believe I have clearly demonstrated specific passages that espouse and strengthen my position of unlimited atonement i.e. I Timothy 4:10; I John 2:2; Romans 5:18; and Isaiah 53:6 which are powerful ammunition for advancing this Biblical doctrine.

C. Just because Christ died for all mankind does not necessitate universal salvation. For Christ does not automatically apply His salvific essence to the sinner, but on the contrary, it is applied when by faith the sinner accepts the death of Christ. The reason why the limited atonement advocate will set forth the notion that if Christ died for all, all would be saved is due to the Calvinistic principle set forth by Berkhof that man cannot frustrate the will of God. John 5:34; Matthew 23:37 and a host of others which I can explicate later if we wish to delve into irresistible grace, say otherwise.

D. To quote one of the most influential advocates of Calvinism Dr. Louis Berkhof, The Bible says Christ died for a specific group of people - "the church," "His people," "His sheep."
"Scripture repeatedly qualifies those for whom Christ laid down His life in such a way as to point to a very definite limitation. Those for whom He suffered and died are variously called 'His sheep,' John 10:11, 15, 'His Church,' Acts 20:28; Eph. 5:25-27, 'His people,' Matt. 1:21, and 'the elect,' Rom. 8:32-35."

As explained above any Scripture that indicates Jesus died for the elect is true; for his death was for the elect but not restricted to just the elect, but for the whole world. Finding a statement of inclusion (the elect) is not the same as finding a statement of exclusion (ungodly). For we know that Christ died for the ungodly, and it is not the elect only that fall into that category, but all of mankind.
No where in Scripture can be find a verse that even hints at nor explicitly proclaims that Christ did not die for the ungodly, or for the non elect.

I have utilized a lot of Scripture to polemically defend the doctrine of unlimited atonement. Alongside of that a myriad of quotes from both sides of the issue to further explain the doctrine to the fullest extent. I learned all this from you my theological master!!

God is good and God is sovereign and on these 2 points hang all of theology!

Only By His Grace,

Roger

LamorakDesGalis · Feb 14, 2009

Rhamiel said:
well I think that is kind of a missrepresentation of the other views, no one says that we choose good on our own, being able to choose God is itself a gift of His grace, I know the Catholic Church teaches this and I think Arminianism teachers this as well

In describing the Calvinist view, its not my intention to imply what noncalvinists hold. Theological systems and traditions within historic Christianity are rarely complete opposites - in fact there is considerable overlap.

Calvinism, Arminianism and the Catholic Church all hold that original sin has adversely affected humanity, that sin separates us from God, and that the atonement of Jesus on the cross addresses the sin issue. Sure, there are different understandings and definitions, even within each tradition, but the major options from each are still within the same ballpark.

What is out of the ballpark is the Pelagian option (especially as Coelestius expressed it). Pelagianism denies original sin, affirms that humanity can choose between good and evil without God, and views "grace" as an external help. Pelagianism renders the cross as unnecessary. Historic Christianity excluded Pelagianism as an option, and Calvinists, Arminians and Catholics all agree with that exclusion.

LDG

Tzaousios · Feb 14, 2009

LamorakDesGalis said:
In John 17 Jesus said the Holy Spirit convicts the world of sin. That is a general work, and the Holy Spirit also indwells those who believe. Those whom the Holy Spirit convicts of sin include people who repent of their sins, but not come to the point where they are saved. See Ahab for example. God was pleased with Ahab's repentance so much that He changed the timing of the judgment. However the Bible is clear that Ahab wasn't saved.

Which verse are you referencing from John 17?

I was not under the impression that Calvinists in general believe in common grace. Limited atonement and irrestistible grace seem to indicate that God's grace is only efficient for the elect. If grace is irresistible, then the reprobate are not given it, for they are to be examples of God's justice.

Do you mean "convicted" in the sense that the reprobate receive condemnation for sin from the Holy Spirit? They cannot be convicted unto repentance because they are natural men and do not hear the call of the Spirit.

Where is there anything stated about Ahab's eternal destination? We are told that Ahab did evil in the sight of the Lord, to be sure (1 Kings 16:30, 33; 18:18; 21:20, 25-26; 2 Kings 8:18, 27; 2 Chronicles 21:6, 22:4). Upon Ahab's repentance, God said to Elijah:

1 Kings 21:28-29

28 And the word of the LORD came to Elijah the Tishbite, saying, 29 See how Ahab has humbled himself before Me? Because he has humbled himself before Me, I will not bring the calamity in his days. In the days of his son I will bring the calamity on his house.

When Ahab was killed in battle, the prophecy concerning the means by which it would happen and the gruesome aftermath came to pass:

1 Kings 22:35-38

35 The battle increased that day; and the king was propped up in his chariot, facing the Syrians, and died at evening. The blood ran out from the wound onto the floor of the chariot. 36 Then, as the sun was going down, a shout went throughout the army, saying, Every man to his city, and every man to his own country!
37 So the king died, and was brought to Samaria. And they buried the king in Samaria. 38 Then someone washed the chariot at a pool in Samaria, and the dogs licked up his blood while the harlots bathed, according to the word of the LORD which He had spoken.

The only other information we are given is:

1 Kings 22:39-40

39 Now the rest of the acts of Ahab, and all that he did, the ivory house which he built and all the cities that he built, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel? 40 So Ahab rested with his fathers. Then Ahaziah his son reigned in his place.

Of course, Ahab was an accomplice to what his wife Jezebel had done. His son Joram was the recipient of God's judgment, along with the remainder of Ahab's house, because of Jezebel's sin and because he gave himself wholeheartedly over to Baal worship. Indeed, there was a dire temporal penalty which was applied to the house of Ahab. I guess we can assume that his repentance did not lead to salvation. Or, should we think that he was not saved because he failed under the Law?

Concerning repentance, Scripture says that repentance is not of men but his granted by God:

Job 36:9-10

9 Then He tells them their work and their transgressions
That they have acted defiantly.
10 He also opens their ear to instruction,
And commands that they turn from iniquity.

Acts 5:30-32

30 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus whom you murdered by hanging on a tree. 31 Him God has exalted to His right hand to be Prince and Savior, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins. 32 And we are His witnesses to these things, and so also is the Holy Spirit whom God has given to those who obey Him.

Acts 11:17-18

17 If therefore God gave them the same gift as He gave us when we believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could withstand God?
18 When they heard these things they became silent; and they glorified God, saying, Then God has also granted to the Gentiles repentance to life.

Romans 2:4

4 Or do you despise the riches of His goodness, forbearance, and longsuffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leads you to repentance?

2 Timothy 2:24-26

24 And a servant of the Lord must not quarrel but be gentle to all, able to teach, patient, 25 in humility correcting those who are in opposition, if God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth, 26 and that they may come to their senses and escape the snare of the devil, having been taken captive by him to do his will.

It seems that God granted Ahab himself repentance, although his house had to suffer the penalty of Jezebel and her sons' sins.

What was the nature of Ahab's repentance if we are told that God grants it to those whom he deems worthy? If they cannot be called "worthy" of repentance, then are only the elect granted repentance? If this is the case, what is Ahab's status?

Was Ahab's repentance godly or something else? See:

2 Corinthians 7:9-10

9 Now I rejoice, not that you were made sorry, but that your sorrow led to repentance. For you were made sorry in a godly manner, that you might suffer loss from us in nothing. 10 For godly sorrow produces repentance leading to salvation, not to be regretted; but the sorrow of the world produces death.

chestertonrules · Feb 14, 2009

VictoryProcured said:
Quotations from the Early Church Fathers

Clement of Alexandria (150-220): "Christ freely brings...salvation to the whole human race."

Eusebius (260-340): "It was needful that the Lamb of God should be offered for the other lambs whose nature He assumed, even for the whole human race."

Athanasius (293-373): "Christ the Son of God, having assumed a body like ours, because we were all exposed to death [which takes in more than the elect], gave Himself up to death for us all as a sacrifice to His Father."

Cyril of Jerusalem (315-386): "Do not wonder if the whole world was ransomed, for He was not a mere man, but the only-begotten Son of God."

Gregory of Nazianzen (324-389): "The sacrifice of Christ is an imperishable expiation of the whole world."

Basil (330-379): "But one thing was found that was equivalent to all men....the holy and precious blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, which He poured out for us all."

Ambrose (340-407): "Christ suffered for all, rose again for all. But if anyone does not believe in Christ, he deprives himself of that general benefit."
He also said, "Christ came for the salvation of all, and undertook the redemption of all, inasmuch as He brought a remedy by which all might escape, although there are many who...are unwilling to be healed."

Augustine (354-430): Though Augustine is often cited as supporting limited atonement, there are also clear statements in Augustine's writings that are supportive of unlimited atonement. For example: "The Redeemer came and gave the price, shed His blood, and bought the world. Do you ask what He bought? See what He gave, and find what He bought. The blood of Christ is the price: what is of so great worth? What, but the whole world? What, but all nations?"
He also stated, "The blood of Christ was shed for the remission of all sins."
Cyril of Alexandria (376-444): "The death of one flesh is sufficient for the ransom of the whole human race, for it belonged to the Logos, begotten of God the Father."

Prosper (a friend and disciple of Augustine who died in 463): "As far as relates to the magnitude and virtue of the price, and to the one cause of the human race, the blood of Christ is the redemption of the whole world: but those who pass through this life without the faith of Christ, and the sacrament of regeneration, do not partake of the redemption."
He also said, "The Savior is most rightly said to have been crucified for the redemption of the whole world." He then said, "Although the blood of Christ be the ransom of the whole world, yet they are excluded from its benefit, who, being delighted with their captivity, are unwilling to be redeemed by it."
Martin Luther (1483-1546): "Christ is not cruel exactor, but a forgiver of the sins of the whole world....He hath given Himself for our sins, and with one oblation hath put away the sins of the whole world....Christ hath taken away the sins, not of certain men only, but also of thee, yea, of the whole world...Not only my sins and thine, but also the sins of the whole world...take hold upon Christ."

A. I believe that I have clearly shown that the words all and world cannot be restricted to mean only the elect. In fact, as I mentioned earlier if you would interject the elect in certain passages of Scripture, it just wouldnt make sense i.e. Romans 5:6; Luke 19:10; Romans 5:18..which would render only the elect as ungodly, condemned, and lost.

B. Exegetically speaking, I believe I have clearly demonstrated specific passages that espouse and strengthen my position of unlimited atonement i.e. I Timothy 4:10; I John 2:2; Romans 5:18; and Isaiah 53:6 which are powerful ammunition for advancing this Biblical doctrine.

C. Just because Christ died for all mankind does not necessitate universal salvation. For Christ does not automatically apply His salvific essence to the sinner, but on the contrary, it is applied when by faith the sinner accepts the death of Christ. The reason why the limited atonement advocate will set forth the notion that if Christ died for all, all would be saved is due to the Calvinistic principle set forth by Berkhof that man cannot frustrate the will of God. John 5:34; Matthew 23:37 and a host of others which I can explicate later if we wish to delve into irresistible grace, say otherwise.

D. To quote one of the most influential advocates of Calvinism Dr. Louis Berkhof, The Bible says Christ died for a specific group of people - "the church," "His people," "His sheep."
"Scripture repeatedly qualifies those for whom Christ laid down His life in such a way as to point to a very definite limitation. Those for whom He suffered and died are variously called 'His sheep,' John 10:11, 15, 'His Church,' Acts 20:28; Eph. 5:25-27, 'His people,' Matt. 1:21, and 'the elect,' Rom. 8:32-35."

As explained above any Scripture that indicates Jesus died for the elect is true; for his death was for the elect but not restricted to just the elect, but for the whole world. Finding a statement of inclusion (the elect) is not the same as finding a statement of exclusion (ungodly). For we know that Christ died for the ungodly, and it is not the elect only that fall into that category, but all of mankind.
No where in Scripture can be find a verse that even hints at nor explicitly proclaims that Christ did not die for the ungodly, or for the non elect.

I have utilized a lot of Scripture to polemically defend the doctrine of unlimited atonement. Alongside of that a myriad of quotes from both sides of the issue to further explain the doctrine to the fullest extent. I learned all this from you my theological master!!

God is good and God is sovereign and on these 2 points hang all of theology!

Only By His Grace,

Roger

Thank you.

LamorakDesGalis · Feb 14, 2009

Tzaousios said:
Which verse are you referencing from John 17?

Sorry, I'm off a chapter: its John 16:8: When he comes, he will convict the world of guilt in regard to sin and righteousness and judgment.

Here is the answer to question 68 in the Westminster Larger Catechism: All the elect, and they only, are effectually called; although others may be, and often are, outwardly called by the ministry of the Word, and have some common operations of the Spirit; who, for their wilful neglect and contempt of the grace offered to them, being justly left in their unbelief, do never truly come to Jesus Christ.

Tzaousios said:
I was not under the impression that Calvinists in general believe in common grace.

Well the vast majority of Calvinists actually do hold to common grace. Only Hypercalvinists deny it. Common grace is expressed in the confessions and the writings of many Calvinists. The following link is Calvin on common (general) grace: http://calvinandcalvinism.wordpress.com/2007/09/16/calvin-on-special-and-common-grace/

Tzaousios said:
Limited atonement and irrestistible grace seem to indicate that God's grace is only efficient for the elect. If grace is irresistible, then the reprobate are not given it, for they are to be examples of God's justice.

That line of thinking may fit within a Hypercalvinist view, or some overzealous polemical Calvinist with Hyper tendencies. But it doesn't represent the majority mainstream Calvinist perspective. In fact most mainstream Calvinists root common grace within the universal aspects of the atonement.

Tzaousios said:
Do you mean "convicted" in the sense that the reprobate receive condemnation for sin from the Holy Spirit? They cannot be convicted unto repentance because they are natural men and do not hear the call of the Spirit.

No, convicted is in the sense that both the Westminster Catechism and Calvin expressed it: an actual conviction of sin, an actual repentance, but not a repentance that results in salvation. For example, an nonbelieving alcoholic can repent of their ways, stop drinking and perform good deeds in society. The repentance results in benefit for others, but it doesn't lead to a saving faith.

Tzaousios said:
Where is there anything stated about Ahab's eternal destination? We are told that Ahab did evil in the sight of the Lord, to be sure (1 Kings 16:30, 33; 18:18; 21:20, 25-26; 2 Kings 8:18, 27; 2 Chronicles 21:6, 22:4).

Its implied throughout all passages on Ahab, especially in the summary that introduces Ahab in 1 Kings 16:29-34. Normally one whose life is lived in continual opposition to God and does great evil is not saved, particularly if the text doesn't say otherwise. Ahab's repentance did not avert the judgment, it resulted in a postponement of judgment.

LDG

SummaScriptura · Feb 14, 2009

simonthezealot said:
<snip>The only people who believe that it is a work of the adversary are the ones whom have not studied it next to scripture.

What if, after studying it next to scripture, one nevertheless concludes the doctrine is not of God but of man? Or, is it the case that once studying it next to scripture one's ascribing to its truth becomes irresistable?

SummaScriptura · Feb 14, 2009

MamaZ said:
I believe in predestination.

Sorry MamaZ, but both sides in this controversy claim to ascribe to predestination. James Arminius was a Calvinst after all, he just controverted some finer points of Calvin's soteriology.

Tzaousios · Feb 15, 2009

LamorakDesGalis said:
Here is the answer to question 68 in the Westminster Larger Catechism: All the elect, and they only, are effectually called; although others may be, and often are, outwardly called by the ministry of the Word, and have some common operations of the Spirit; who, for their wilful neglect and contempt of the grace offered to them, being justly left in their unbelief, do never truly come to Jesus Christ.

I don't know, but the statement from the Catechism seems to be trying to lessen the blow of the reality behind Calvinism's soteriology. More conceptual framework is added in order to cushion the main pillar in its doctrine that it all comes down to God's sovereign election.

Is this saying that some of the reprobate are actually fooling themselves by making some kind of pretense towards faith and living the Christian life? Does the Spirit here lead them just a little bit but then the person drops the ball and falls victim to their true sinful nature? Please help me understand; it just gives the appearance of window-dressing.

LamorakDesGalis said:
Well the vast majority of Calvinists actually do hold to common grace. Only Hypercalvinists deny it. Common grace is expressed in the confessions and the writings of many Calvinists.

LamorakDesGalis said:
That line of thinking may fit within a Hypercalvinist view, or some overzealous polemical Calvinist with Hyper tendencies. But it doesn't represent the majority mainstream Calvinist perspective. In fact most mainstream Calvinists root common grace within the universal aspects of the atonement.

Not that you have any control over it, but there appears to be many more "Hyper-Calvinists" in operation at CF than you indicate, if we take into account your definition. I have been given the impression that to most Calvinists the Limited Atonement means that Christ's blood, although it is theoretically "sufficient" for all mankind, is only "efficient" for the elect.

LamorakDesGalis said:
No, convicted is in the sense that both the Westminster Catechism and Calvin expressed it: an actual conviction of sin, an actual repentance, but not a repentance that results in salvation. For example, an nonbelieving alcoholic can repent of their ways, stop drinking and perform good deeds in society. The repentance results in benefit for others, but it doesn't lead to a saving faith.

Its implied throughout all passages on Ahab, especially in the summary that introduces Ahab in 1 Kings 16:29-34. Normally one whose life is lived in continual opposition to God and does great evil is not saved, particularly if the text doesn't say otherwise. Ahab's repentance did not avert the judgment, it resulted in a postponement of judgment.

Your example of the unbelieving alcoholic suggests a kind of secular repentance in that it is done to change one's ways according to the rules and accepted norms in society.

However, King Ahab received a direct oracle from God himself through Elijah the Tishbite. It does not strike me as just a "common operation" of the Spirit. The deeds about which God demanded repentance were of a grave spiritual nature and not just fleshly indescretions. A sin of this magnitude required God's personal assistance to overcome, in which case He granted spiritual repentance to Ahab:

1 Kings 21:25-29

25 But there was no one like Ahab who sold himself to do wickedness in the sight of the LORD, because Jezebel his wife stirred him up. 26 And he behaved very abominably in following idols, according to all that the Amorites had done, whom the LORD had cast out before the children of Israel.
27 So it was, when Ahab heard those words, that he tore his clothes and put sackcloth on his body, and fasted and lay in sackcloth, and went about mourning.
28 And the word of the LORD came to Elijah the Tishbite, saying, 29 “See how Ahab has humbled himself before Me? Because he has humbled himself before Me, I will not bring the calamity in his days. In the days of his son I will bring the calamity on his house.”

Obviously, there were consequences to Ahab's actions. He lived by the sword and died by the sword as the Lord predicted he would. And, as you pointed out, the judgment still remained on his house. Therefore, I guess we should conclude, according to 2 Corinthians 7:9-10, the verses on repentance, and the Westminister Catechism, that Ahab's repentance was of a worldly kind, was not granted by God (although acknowledged), and only resulted in the deferral of physical punishment?

Christian Sojourner · Feb 15, 2009

I am not on the side of Calvin or Arminius. I am on God's side, and Calvin happened to agree with the Bible.

chestertonrules · Feb 15, 2009

Christian Sojourner said:
I am not on the side of Calvin or Arminius. I am on God's side, and Calvin happened to agree with the Bible.

You have a perfect opportunity to make that case.

Your fellow Calvinists haven't been able to yet, however.

Christian Sojourner · Feb 15, 2009

chestertonrules said:
You have a perfect opportunity to make that case.

Your fellow Calvinists haven't been able to yet, however.

It's amazingly simple to prove election.

Jesus said, in John 6, "ALL the Father has given Me WILL come to Me, and they will never perish."

What about those that WILL NOT come? It's simple, they were not given by the Father, but were justly left under condemnation.

God has set things up so that He is without fault in accordance to law, therefore He can have mercy on whom He will.

If a supreme ruler rules over a land and makes a law that if one kills he will be imprisoned his whole life and one breaks the law and kills, then that one is justly under the condemnation of the law. And the ruler is by no law obligated to free that man at any time, as he is justly paying the penalty of his crime.

Likewise, God is not obligated by any law to free any man rightfully under condemnation, but He can have mercy on whom He wills. He has set it up so that He can allow some to perish and be found without fault, for all have sinned according to their own doing, and they were not forced by anyone to sin.

God is just and cannot be charged with fault in letting man perish, as is fitting for their crime. He is not obligated to save any, but He can have mercy on whom He wills.

chestertonrules · Feb 15, 2009

Christian Sojourner said:
It's amazingly simple to prove election.

Jesus said, in John 6, "ALL the Father has given Me WILL come to Me, and they will never perish."

.

It doesn't say ONLY.

Jesus also says this:

Now is the judgment of this world; now the ruler of this world will be driven out. And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.
John 12:31-32

And Paul says this:

Therefore just as one mans trespass led to condemnation for all, so one mans act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all. Rom. 5:18

For God has imprisoned all in disobedience so that he may be merciful to all.
Rom 11:32

For since death came through a human being, the resurrection of the dead has also come through a human being; for as all die in Adam, so all will be made alive in Christ.
1Cor. 15:21-22

And John said this:

My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and he is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.
1 John 2:1-2

Christian Sojourner · Feb 15, 2009

chestertonrules said:
It doesn't say ONLY.

Jesus also says this:

Now is the judgment of this world; now the ruler of this world will be driven out. And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.
John 12:31-32

And Paul says this:

Therefore just as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all. Rom. 5:18

For God has imprisoned all in disobedience so that he may be merciful to all.
Rom 11:32

For since death came through a human being, the resurrection of the dead has also come through a human being; for as all die in Adam, so all will be made alive in Christ.
1Cor. 15:21-22

And John said this:

My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and he is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.
1 John 2:1-2

I don't disagree with those verses at all.

And in John 12, He says, "I will draw all peoples to myself." Meaning nations and races. Remember, John 12 starts with Greek men seeking Jesus, which troubled Jesus, because He saw His hour had come, as even the Gentiles were now seeking Him.

And the other verses are true. His death was sufficiant to cover all, but we know only His own, who were given by the Father will come. He can be merciful to all, but He is only merciful to those who come. And remember, only those drawn by the Father come, and not all will come.

Again, Jesus said, "ALL the Father has given Me WILL come to Me, and they will never perish." What about those who will not come? It's simple logic. They were never given by the Father. As Jesus said, "You do not believe because you are not My sheep." Again He says, in essence, "If you were My sheep you would hear My words and follow Me." Again Jesus said to them, "Why don't you believe My words? Because you cannot." And why can't they? Because the Father has not given them eyes to see and ears to hear.

Romans 11 - "The elect have obtained but the rest were blinded." Who blinded? As it reads, "God has given them a spirit of slumber. Eyes that should not see and ears that should not hear." They have been left to sleep and perish.

LamorakDesGalis · Feb 15, 2009

Tzaousios said:
I don't know, but the statement from the Catechism seems to be trying to lessen the blow of the reality behind Calvinism's soteriology. More conceptual framework is added in order to cushion the main pillar in its doctrine that it all comes down to God's sovereign election.

Is this saying that some of the reprobate are actually fooling themselves by making some kind of pretense towards faith and living the Christian life? Does the Spirit here lead them just a little bit but then the person drops the ball and falls victim to their true sinful nature? Please help me understand; it just gives the appearance of window-dressing.

Ok, to help you understand, realize that Calvinists hold to both God's sovereignty and man's responsibility. There is a tension between the two that is maintained in Calvinist theology. Hyper-Calvinists have attempted to logically resolve the tension in favor of God's sovereignty. Your speculations in the above paragraphs are along Hyper lines. And Hypers, once they realize what is actually said in historical Calvinist views, reject these along with the creeds and confessions.

Tzaousios said:
Not that you have any control over it, but there appears to be many more "Hyper-Calvinists" in operation at CF than you indicate, if we take into account your definition.

Actual Hyper-Calvinists hold to eternal justification. Some confused high Calvinists with Hyper tendencies might hold to it also. But all other Calvinists do not hold to eternal justification.

Usually those who engage in debate are looking to argue, and so they use polemical arguments that end up polarizing the views. Sometimes there are Calvinists who have more zeal than knowledge. So obtaining information about views through debate is hit and miss, not to mention confusing.

The usual Calvinist-Arminian debate pits aspects of God's sovereignty against aspects of human responsibility. These debates are apples and oranges, and people talk past each other. The classic Calvinist and classic Arminian positions take into account BOTH sovereignty and responsibility. They are both well rounded theologies and not the caricature that some people make them out to be.

Tzaousios said:
I have been given the impression that to most Calvinists the Limited Atonement means that Christ's blood, although it is theoretically "sufficient" for all mankind, is only "efficient" for the elect.

The atonement is a whole nuther can of worms, too long to get into on this post. I'll just say Calvinism historically has had a wide range of views on the various aspects of the atonement, and save the extensive quotes for later.

Tzaousios said:
Your example of the unbelieving alcoholic suggests a kind of secular repentance in that it is done to change one's ways according to the rules and accepted norms in society.

I'm not sure what you are saying or implying here. Calvinists say God works in and through people's choices, including unbelievers, to better society.

Tzaousios said:
However, King Ahab received a direct oracle from God himself through Elijah the Tishbite. It does not strike me as just a "common operation" of the Spirit. The deeds about which God demanded repentance were of a grave spiritual nature and not just fleshly indescretions. A sin of this magnitude required God's personal assistance to overcome, in which case He granted spiritual repentance to Ahab:

I'm not sure what you are attempting to say here. I'm not sure what you mean by "granted spiritual repentance" to Ahab. That certainly sounds Calvinist to me.

Tzaousios said:
Obviously, there were consequences to Ahab's actions. He lived by the sword and died by the sword as the Lord predicted he would. And, as you pointed out, the judgment still remained on his house. Therefore, I guess we should conclude, according to 2 Corinthians 7:9-10, the verses on repentance, and the Westminister Catechism, that Ahab's repentance was of a worldly kind, was not granted by God (although acknowledged), and only resulted in the deferral of physical punishment?

I agree. God was "moved" by Ahab's repentance to grant a delay in judgment. But God did not completely avert the judgment.

LDG

MamaZ · Feb 15, 2009

jckstraw72 said:
but does God force us to choose the Cross, or is that up to us? Christ said that many times He would have taken the Jews under His wing but they were unwilling, and in Acts either Peter or Paul tells the Jews that they resist the Spirit just as their fathers did.

Jesus tells us that those who are His will follow His voice.

chestertonrules · Feb 15, 2009

Christian Sojourner said:
I don't disagree with those verses at all.

And in John 12, He says, "I will draw all peoples to myself." Meaning nations and races. Remember, John 12 starts with Greek men seeking Jesus, which troubled Jesus, because He saw His hour had come, as even the Gentiles were now seeking Him.

Click to expand...

All peoples and All men is not a contradiction. Of course if all men are drawn all peoples will be drawn. Doesn't change a thing.

And the other verses are true. His death was sufficiant to cover all, but we know only His own, who were given by the Father will come. He can be merciful to all, but He is only merciful to those who come. And remember, only those drawn by the Father come, and not all will come.

Click to expand...

We know? You should say my dogma theorizes, not we know. We know no such thing because that's not what the bible says.

MamaZ · Feb 15, 2009

SummaScriptura said:
Sorry MamaZ, but both sides in this controversy claim to ascribe to predestination. James Arminius was a Calvinst after all, he just controverted some finer points of Calvin's soteriology.

What does that have to do with me believing in predestination as written in the scripture? I believe it is God who calls and God who chooses..

MamaZ · Feb 15, 2009

chestertonrules said:
Christian Sojourner said:

All peoples and All men is not a contradiction. Of course if all men are drawn all peoples will be drawn. Doesn't change a thing.

We know? You should say my dogma theorizes, not we know. We know no such thing because that's not what the bible says.

Click to expand...

Scripture tells us that no man can come to Jesus less the Father draws Him. Not all will believe.

Arminian Vs. Calvinist

Junior Member

Junior Member

Junior Member

Well-Known Member

Αυγουστινιανικός Χριστιανός

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Forever Newbie

Forever Newbie

Αυγουστινιανικός Χριστιανός

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

MamaZ

Guest

Well-Known Member

MamaZ

Guest

MamaZ

Guest

Similar threads