Does Calvinism mean I am unsaveable?

[Clare73]

Just reading your edit now, if you read #57 you’ll notice that you’re confusing my point which is to do with the extent of the atoning work with whether or not believers know they’re ultimately under the application of Christ’s saving sacrifice.

That’s not me trying to disavow anybody’s salvation,
I’m only explaining that 5 point Calvinists (because of their philosophical commitments) can’t say Jesus died for them while being consistent with the L of the tulip.

The author of "Calvinism" reveals that they can:

Rom 8:16: "The Spirit himself testifies (bears witness) with our spirit that we are God's children (i.e., born again, are of God's seed--1Jn 3:9-10).

The intent, extent and application are 3 different (although interrelated) subjects.

Freewill theists can say “Jesus died for my sins” because they believe in a universal extent.

5 point Calvinists can’t say “Jesus died for my sins” because they have no idea who the sacrificial offering has been extended to.

It’s not about ultimately destiny, rather it’s about for whom Jesus died, if you say “He died for everyone without exception” then you believe in a universal extent to the atonement and can say Jesus died for you.

But if you reply “We only know he died for the elect, and we don’t know who the elect are,” then you believe in a limited atonement and can’t say if you’re a recipient of that great sacrifice.

That’s not me trying to disavow anybody’s salvation, I’m only explaining that 5 point Calvinists (because of their philosophical commitments) can’t say Jesus died for them while being consistent with the L of the tulip.

 

[Albion]

They know Christ’s blood is intended for their remission of sins, but whether or not the blood has been applied to their doorpost, that’s another story.

Yes, so the difference is nothing, practically speaking.

Nevertheless, the intent is for everyone to partake of the saving sacrifice, and because the intent is universal, so too is the sacrifice and the gift universally offered.

5 point Calvinists don’t know if the extent is over their lives and their sins...They can’t believe in the extent since Jesus may not have died for them.

I don't think that's the case, but we might as well let it go as a friendly disagreement.

 

[Cormack]

The author of "Calvinism" reveals that they can:

Rom 8:16: "The Spirit himself testifies (bears witness) with our spirit that we are God's children (i.e., born again, are of God's seed--1Jn 3:9-10).

John Calvin certainly believed in the Spirits witness, but that doesn’t mean he could confidently affirm his salvation or that God wanted him to be saved. Calvin believed in “the dreaded false hope,” a condition of divine origin that deluded and misled believers into thinking they’re saved, when in reality they’re lost.

So there’s no assurance of salvation if you follow John Calvin religiously, since you could easily be the victim of a false witness as many were before you. If you’d like the quotation from Calvin himself I’d be happy to provide that in a follow up response.

 

[Cormack]

Yes, so the difference is nothing, practically speaking.

The difference is that one group (freewill theists) know that if they reach for God they’ll find a saviour who’s willing to rescue, God’s loved them with a selecting and electing love. They can confidently reply “Jesus died for my sins,” and they’re perfectly capable of exercising faith and being saved.

That’s a big deal imo, practically different. It’s also related to the OP, emphasising and explaining where the two views diverge.

While Calvinists don’t know if God was willing in their case or in the case of anybody in their immediate life. They may reach to God and find no sacrifice made upon their behalf and no willingness of God to save them from their fallen state.

God may not love them with a selecting and electing love, and as a result they can’t confidently respond “Jesus died for my sins.” They’re not perfectly capable of exercising faith and being saved according to 5 point Calvinism, they’re incapable of freely exercising saving faith and they might be without an atoning sacrifice for their sins.

For the lost according to freewill theism, they have shut the door on a loving God, but on Calvinism, a “loving God” shut the door on them long before they were created. I believe those distinct views of God cause practical differences.

I don't think that's the case, but we might as well let it go as a friendly disagreement.

Ordinarily your replies are very issue oriented, so that’s not really a worry of mine. If you believe the replies are going to turn less friendly in the near future, then I appreciate your foresight in concluding our conversation.

Hope it’s been helpful.

 

[Cormack]

Unsaveable -- I don't think so but,
I'm not God.

mmhmm, but I’m asking about your theology. You don’t have to be God to know your own theology.

According to your theology, if Christ doesn’t die for a particular sinner, is that particular sinner capable of being saved?

He’s not going to be saved by works, he’s not covered by the blood of a perfect sacrifice, so is he capable of being saved?

So far your answer is “I don’t think he’s unable to be saved but I dunno because I’m not God.” It’s like a soft yes, yes you imagine he can be saved.

 

[Hmm]

5 point Calvinists can’t say “Jesus died for my sins” because they have no idea who the sacrificial offering has been extended to.

It’s not about ultimately destiny, rather it’s about for whom Jesus died, if you say “He died for everyone without exception” then you believe in a universal extent to the atonement and can say Jesus died for you.

But if you reply “We only know he died for the elect, and we don’t know who the elect are,” then you believe in a limited atonement and can’t say if you’re a recipient of that great sacrifice.

I agree, I can't see any other way of reading. it. And if you can't say that Jesus died for you I also can't see how you can say these bolded parts of the Nicene creed which say exactly that:

For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven,
was incarnate from the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary
and was made man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;

I'd be happy to be proven wrong but it would need a direct response rather than the evasive answers we have seen so far.

 

[Cormack]

And if you can't say that Jesus died for you I also can't see how you can say these bolded parts of the Nicene creed which say exactly that:

For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven,
was incarnate from the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary
and was made man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;

That helps with the OP too.

I agree, in fact, if we doggedly hold to the L of limited atonement, there’s no room for us to agree with 1 Corinthians 15:3 either:

For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
​

If I invited any 5 point Calvinist on CF into a year long Bible study, they couldn’t show me where the scriptures teach Christ died for our sins.

We could be extra generous and allow using both the OT and the New Testament but they’d never be able to show Jesus having died for our sins.

Because of their philosophical commitment to the L of tulip they’d have to interpret every verse about atonement in a limited sense, limiting the recipients of Christ’s sacrifice in the categories of Gods (1) intent, the works (2) extent and the bloods (3) application. That could exclude either themselves or myself from the extent of that sacrifice.

As a consequence of those philosophic views Calvinists can’t find “our sins” being paid for in the scripture, the most honest reply they can give is that “Christ died for sinners.” Which sinners? They have no idea.

Now, freewill theists read many verses to do with the extent of Christ’s sacrifice as being universal, and because of that we are able to read scripture and see your sins are there, @Hmm, @Albion’s sins are there, @Andrew98 and mine too. They’re accounted for and Christ has died for every single one of those sins, He’s won and done that great work whether we accept the gift or not.

Because the extent of the atonement is universal everybody’s included, Christ “died for our sins according to the scripture.” Unlike the Calvinist, freewill theists can agree with 1 Corinthians 15:3 and your bold portions of the Nicene creed.

Accepting freewill theism means there’s always hope for the lost sinner, @Andrew98. He’s not rejected by God or incapable of claiming the free gift of life by faith in Christ’s sacrifice (a sacrifice most definitely made on their behalf.)

 

[Hmm]

That helps with the OP too.

I agree, in fact, if we doggedly hold to the L of limited atonement, there’s no room for us to agree with 1 Corinthians 15:3 either:

For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
​

If I invited any 5 point Calvinist on CF into a year long Bible study, they couldn’t show me where the scriptures teach Christ died for our sins.

We could be extra generous and allow using both the OT and the New Testament but they’d never be able to show Jesus having died for our sins.

Because of their philosophical commitment to the L of tulip they’d have to interpret every verse about atonement in a limited sense, limiting the recipients of Christ’s sacrifice in the categories of Gods (1) intent, the works (2) extent and the bloods (3) application. That could exclude either themselves or myself from the extent of that sacrifice.

As a consequence of those philosophic views Calvinists can’t find “our sins” being paid for in the scripture, the most honest reply they can give is that “Christ died for sinners.” Which sinners? They have no idea.

Now, freewill theists read many verses to do with the extent of Christ’s sacrifice as being universal, and because of that we are able to read scripture and see your sins are there, @Hmm, @Albion’s sins are there, @Andrew98 and mine too. They’re accounted for and Christ has died for every single one of those sins, He’s won and done that great work whether we accept the gift or not.

Because the extent of the atonement is universal everybody’s included, Christ “died for our sins according to the scripture.” Unlike the Calvinist, freewill theists can agree with 1 Corinthians 15:3 and your bold portions of the Nicene creed.

Accepting freewill theism means there’s always hope for the lost sinner, @Andrew98. He’s not rejected by God or incapable of claiming the free gift of life by faith in Christ’s sacrifice (a sacrifice most definitely made on their behalf.)

I agree with that. It's logical, coherent and scriptural. In contrast, I find the idea of limited atonement deeply immoral and unscriptural.

 

[St. Helens]

ADMIN HAT ON

This thread has derailed into a debate. That isn't the purpose of this forum.
ADMIN HAT OFF​