Five Point or Four Point

[xapis]

Why hold to the theoretical? What verses do you rely upon?

Why do I feel like you're trying to paint me into a corner? ...I can't give you particular verses. If you read carefully what I wrote in my other response to you, you'll see that my view on this point is a generalization based upon an entirely biblical view of Christ, His deity, and His omnipotence.

God is perfect and so his plan is perfect and he planned that the death of Christ would save his people from their sins. That is perfection. To say that Christ hypothetically died for all denies this perfection of God's plan and we must remember that what matters is what God did, has done, will do and not what God hypothetically did, has done and will do. Christ died 2000 years ago upon a cross. His death was real and not hypothetical and so when approaching this issue we must ask "what did Christ do?"

I agree but I really think you're misconstruing what I've said. I don't believe Christ hypothetically died for all. I'm not an Amyraldist. I believe His work on the cross could have been efficacious for all. He is sufficient for all but the atonement only applies to the elect.

I hope my point is clear

Crystal. Thanks bro.

 

[Iosias]

Why do I feel like you're trying to paint me into a corner?

Am I really that obvious

I can't give you particular verses. If you read carefully what I wrote in my other response to you, you'll see that my view on this point is a generalization based upon an entirely biblical view of Christ, His deity, and His omnipotence.

I am actually glad you said this because the reason most hold to Amyraldianism is because of the 'world' texts which when understood correctly really do nothing for them.

I believe His work on the cross could have been efficacious for all.

If God's perfect plan was not perfect.

He is sufficient for all but the atonement only applies to the elect.

Christ's death is sufficient for all IF God wanted to save them all BUT God does not want so THEREFORE Christ's death is not sufficient for all.

 

[erin74]

I've been trying to work this out for over a year.

Sometimes I can't see any difference with what I believe from what I think Limited Atonement is about.

Other times I think maybe I don't understand it properly.

I listened to the RC Sproul talks and the LA one was the only one I didn't really get. I just didn't understand how what he said about the passage he was speaking on (2Pet something) taught LA.

So confused.

Our diocese college is generally described as 4.5, but I don't really get the distinction. People keep just giving me links, but I learn better from people explaining things than huge links I think.

 

[erin74]

I'd really like it explained using the bible too - I am not sure why this one always gets explained without using the bible...

I know my theology from my understanding of the bible, so I am not so good at the theoretical discussions.

 

[drstevej]

I can think of two very prominent/famous four point Calvinists or Amyraldites, They are Rev. Richard Baxter of (Reformed Pastor fame) and SR's own Dr. Steve.

I guess you can be a Four-pointer. I think it is inconsistent, but lots of folks brighter than I am have disagreed with me on that point.

In Christ,
Kenith

I would plead guilty to being inconsistent logically. I have no problems with Limited Atonement logically. I remain an Amyraldian because of biblical texts (2 Peter 2:1; 1 Timothy 4:10).

I am fully aware of the Reformed understanding of those passages (did a PhD at Westminster Seminary, Philly with a dissertation in the area of soteriology) but am not conviced that the exegesis supports those interpretations.

And while this point is significant logically, as a pastor of 35 years I have not found that issue effects my ministry or preaching in any practical way.

Because I strongly hold the other four points (and I know some who say they are four point Calvinists yet redefine the terms to include synergism at some level) I unhesitatingly consider myself a Calvinist although I do catch some flak from all sides.

drstevej
the infamous Christmas Calvinist™
(no-"L")

 

[erin74]

Hi Steve - I'd love to hear more on this from you. I just don't know what to think, and would like to hear from someone else who holds strongly to the other 4 points. I just don't fully get L.

Any chance that you could give an explanation of your difficulties with these passages. And perhaps what you think the bible is saying on atonement.

And could someone else give a potted summary on the L view of the same passages, and of the pertinent passages that actually do make the L point - rather than just the explanation of why the above verses are not a barrier.

 

[kimlva]

Hi. I'm not as learned as most of you smart people here, but here is my favorite L verse.

Revelation 5:9 (NASB)
9And they sang a new song, saying, "Worthy are You to take the book and to break its seals; for You were slain, and purchased for God with Your blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation.

Notice, it says, Jesus actually purchased, or bought, men FROM every tribe and tongue, etc. Not that He paid for all men, but only some came.
Hope that makes sense.

 

[Iosias]

I'd really like it explained using the bible too - I am not sure why this one always gets explained without using the bible...

I know my theology from my understanding of the bible, so I am not so good at the theoretical discussions.

Try http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=29036368&postcount=1

 

[Iosias]

Hope that makes sense.

Perfect sense and Dr. John Gill D.D. makes the same point

 

[erin74]

Yeah it makes sense, but do you think this is the point this passage was trying to make??? Or is that just proof texting? And it certainly isn't saying that Christ's death isn't sufficient for all of mankind anyway... sorry - not trying to nitpick, just thinking out loud to get my head around it.

I mean I have no problem with election. And I have no problem with saying that it is probably the case that not all are chosen. But I do have difficulties understanding why it is so important to be able to say that Christ only came for the elect??? Like what is the point of the point?

As for the passage:
I would have thought this passage was about affirming that the promises to Abraham in Gen 12 were fulfilled, and that the gospel was truly for all mankind (ie not just the jews). But that is without having a big look - it's been a while since I studied Genesis.


eta this was in response to kimlva - the other posts appeared while I was typing. Sorry for any confusion.

 

[Iosias]

But I do have difficulties understanding why it is so important to be able to say that Christ only came for the elect??? Like what is the point of the point?

The reason it is important is that any other position will undermine the death of Christ. If Christ died for all and not all are saved then Christ's death was not efficacious i.e. it did not do anything. But Matthew 1:21 teaches otherwise.

I think it is important to note that you either take TULIP or you do not...L is not an optional extra.

 

[Iosias]

You could try http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/topic/bad_theology.html#fourpoint

 

[erin74]

I dunno - again I am not sure I see the importance of this doctrine. I don't get why it is so important to say that Christ came only for the elect. It just seems to me a distinction that not a lot hangs off, and that the bible doesn't seem to be clearly making.

I will have to read your extent section again tomorrow - some of the passages I just don't agree are clearly saying what you are trying to point out. Others I just haven't studied the books recently enough to say either way without further study. Thanks for the link though - I will revisit it.

 

[erin74]

But I am not saying that Christ's death was efficient for all. There are more distinctions that just that. I certainly don't believe that all will be saved simply because Christ died. Only those who God chooses will be saved.

But I am not sure it is so important to be able to say that Christ came only for the elect.

eta - sorry for not quoting - I could have sworn I pressed the quick quote button a few times....

 

[Iosias]

But I am not saying that Christ's death was efficient for all.

Could you describe (using biblical lreference) what Christ's death did?

But I am not sure it is so important to be able to say that Christ came only for the elect.

Who else would he have come for?

 

[McWilliams]

Consider what took place on the cross!!

Did Christ come to earth and die to establish the possibility of salvation?

Did Christ come to earth to die on the cross for His choses ones, to redeem them from a world of sin and to give them the gift of eternal life?

If He died only to make salvation possible for all who would choose Him then He would not be the omnipotent, omniscient holy God that I serve and know!

Truth is clear in scripture that He knows them that are His! Those are the ones He came to earth, died, rose again and ascended to heaven and will return to take Home with Himself!

His very plan and decree establishes that if one part of 'TULIP' is true, then all are true! The plan is mutually supportive and complete within itself!

Problem is with man trying to use his own reason, rather than trusting God and His holy word for all truth!

 

[mlqurgw]

I dunno - again I am not sure I see the importance of this doctrine. I don't get why it is so important to say that Christ came only for the elect. It just seems to me a distinction that not a lot hangs off, and that the bible doesn't seem to be clearly making.

I will have to read your extent section again tomorrow - some of the passages I just don't agree are clearly saying what you are trying to point out. Others I just haven't studied the books recently enough to say either way without further study. Thanks for the link though - I will revisit it.

Though I am not an educated man I would do my best to speak to this issue. I believe it is important because it is Scriptural, because it glorifies the Person and work of Christ, and because it is what assurance hangs on. I will write a much longer explanation dealing with all these things as I am able. I will be pretty busy for the next few days and may not get it done till next week. Until then I will be meditating and praying for guidance in my response. If you could, would you give me your questions concerning it so that I might address them?
Hoping to be your servant in Christ, Ron.

 

[ReformedUK]

Consider what took place on the cross!!

Indeed!

Toplady:

From whence this fear and unbelief?
Hath not the Father put to grief
His spotless Son for me?
And will the righteous Judge of men,
Condemn me for that debt of sin,
Which, Lord, was charged on Thee?

Complete atonement Thou hast made,
And to the utmost farthing paid
Whate'er Thy people owed:
Nor can His wrath on me take place,
If sheltered in Thy righteousness,
And sprinkled with Thy blood.​

If Thou hast my discharge procured,
And freely in my room endured
The whole of wrath divine:
Payment God cannot twice demand,
First at my wounded Surety's hand,
And then again at mine.​

Turn then, My soul, unto thy rest;
The merits of thy great High Priest
Have bought thy liberty:
Trust in His effective blood,
Nor fear thy banishment from God,
Since Jesus died for thee.​

 

[McWilliams]

Yes, I've always loved the 'Christ our surety'!
Think of it as though I'd failed royally and He stepped up to pay my debt and cover my sin with HIs righteousness as my surety! What great mercy and grace He shows!!

For everyone? NO, for the 'whosoever will' that come to Him when their heart is overflowing with thirst and hunger for HIm! When the 'whosoever' will come to Him they do so because He has already done a work in their heart causing them to do so! He is above and beyond all that occurs! Sovereign, providential, holy, His thoughts being far, far, beyond our thoughts!

 

[cygnusx1]

I would plead guilty to being inconsistent logically. I have no problems with Limited Atonement logically. I remain an Amyraldian because of biblical texts (2 Peter 2:1; 1 Timothy 4:10).

I am fully aware of the Reformed understanding of those passages (did a PhD at Westminster Seminary, Philly with a dissertation in the area of soteriology) but am not conviced that the exegesis supports those interpretations.

And while this point is significant logically, as a pastor of 35 years I have not found that issue effects my ministry or preaching in any practical way.

Because I strongly hold the other four points (and I know some who say they are four point Calvinists yet redefine the terms to include synergism at some level) I unhesitatingly consider myself a Calvinist although I do catch some flak from all sides.

drstevej
the infamous Christmas Calvinist™
(no-"L")

Ho bro , it is interesting reading your post , I struggled with this issue for about three years so I am certainly not going to be pushy

Just a thought though , you say " I remain an Amyraldian because of biblical texts (2 Peter 2:1; 1 Timothy 4:10)." , yet is it not true that many Christians can also say that they remain Arminian (4-5 point Arminian ) because of John 3:16 and 1 Tim 4 .. etc .