Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
However,this is the 4th paragraph of ch 11 of the WCF:Some of us who believe in many of the concepts expressed in Calvinism reject the "limited atonement" view as usually expressed in the expounding of the meaning of the T.U.L.I.P. acronym.
We would point out that the acronym itself can only be traced to the early 1900's and no further back than that. The "limited atonement" concept as usually presented by full 5 point Calvinists is not the position held by the Cannons of Dort in article 8 ( The Canons of Dordt, Second Head of Doctrine ) or the Westminster Confession of Faith in paragraph 4 of chapter 11 Westminster Confession of Faith ).
Good question. We need to subscribe to what we can find in Scripture that is clearly stated. When one starts with this, there is less tendency to get into error.Do we have to subscribe partly or entirely to one system or the other when it comes to theology? Is it not more important to be Biblical? Then use true insights from each theology?
Very clearly the WCF says that He died for the sins of the elect. It doesn’t say that He didn’t die for the sins of those who are not the elect. It is no different than what you believe. You (and I) believe that He died for the sins of those who will believe and also for the sins of those who would not believe.However,this is the 4th paragraph of ch 11 of the WCF:
"IV. God did, from all eternity, decree to justify all the elect,[11] and Christ did, in the fullness of time, die for their sins, and rise again for their justification"
This is clear: God did decree to "die for their (the elect) sins". How is that not limited atonement? Basically, the 5 pointers believe and that Christ died ONLY for the elect, or words to that effect. I don't see anything different from the WCF, in ch 11.
What you ask is almost exactly what anyone in your position should ask about God’s work as you view it.However, how does a 4 pointer get away with unlimited atonement, or Christ dying for the sins of everyone if they agree with the first 2 points of TULIP?
For example, total depravity generally means that unregenerate man cannot believe the gospel. So, God elects certain persons, which is unconditional election. And the ultimate conclusion of reformed election is that God chooses who will believe.
So, if these points are what your view is, why would Christ die for everyone, if God only chooses some to believe, and elects only them?
iow, what would be the point?
I agree!We need to subscribe to what we can find in Scripture that is clearly stated. When one starts with this, there is less tendency to get into error. This works well for the atonement, free will, and eternal security.
But that is the clear insinuation. Just like a 5 pointer saying that He died for the church. The meaning is that He didn't die for those not of the church.Very clearly the WCF says that He died for the sins of the elect. It doesnt say that He didnt die for the sins of those who are not the elect.
I believe any statement about the scope of Christ's death should state the full scope; He died for all.It is no different than what you believe. You (and I) believe that He died for the sins of those who will believe and also for the sins of those who would not believe.
Amen.Granted, there is a difference between decreeing and knowing something. But we all agree that at the very least He knew that some would not be saved. Never the less He was crucified for the sins of all and was raised for the justification of all.
I agree He died for the church. But I'd never just state that. I don't like the insinuation.My position (and that of the WCF as far as the wording goes) is exactly the same as yours, for instance.
From my time on forums over the years, it seems that 5-pointers think that it is Christ's death that saves the elect; not their faith.What you ask is almost exactly what anyone in your position should ask about Gods work as you view it.
Namely:
Why would Christ die for everyone (those who would believe and those who would not believe) - if God knew He would choose to save only those who would believe?. What would be the point?
I agree. I also believe that it was to show that anyone who believes will be saved. iow, there isn't anyone who can't be saved.I suppose that we would both answer something to the effect that He did so to be able to show clearly His righteous judgment against those who would not believe.
We agree on almost everything in this.But that is the clear insinuation. Just like a 5 pointer saying that He died for the church. The meaning is that He didn't die for those not of the church.
I believe any statement about the scope of Christ's death should state the full scope; He died for all.
Amen.
I agree He died for the church. But I'd never just state that. I don't like the insinuation.
From my time on forums over the years, it seems that 5-pointers think that it is Christ's death that saves the elect; not their faith.
This is supported by the fact that most 5 pointers will charge "universalist" to those who claim unlimited atonement. It seems they don't understand that one is saved through faith rather than through Christ's death.
I agree. I also believe that it was to show that anyone who believes will be saved. iow, there isn't anyone who can't be saved.
We agree on almost everything in this.
It's my understanding that Calvin actually wavered on this subject. Some writings seem to support limited atonement, while others seem to support unlimited. They may represent different times in his life.But TULIP came on the scene long after the WCF for printed. I have no reason to believe that the framers of the WCF meant the more strict sense for limited atonement. In fact - as I understand Calvin's belief on this - neither did he. I must admit though that Calvin struggled with this concept himself at times in his writings.
I know they always do acknowledge faith, but by their "universalist" reaction to unlimited atonement, that sure seems to me that they base salvation on who Christ died for. iow, they are saved by His death. I recall they say that because they were chosen, God grants them "faith to believe", effectively meaning that God chooses who will believe. To which I disagree.Many limited atonement people would tell us that it only means that it was His intent to save only the elect (or as you would have it - those who believe). If everyone thought of limited atonement in those terms there would be no problems between them and me. For that matter there would likely be no problems between them and you - at least on this particular issue.
My view of election is completely different than theirs. Election has a purpose, but not for salvation. The purpose of God's election is for privilege and service.Now they do believe that election assures that one will be saved through faith eventually. That is different.
Obviously you disagree with even that position.
He was a lot like most of us in this. His theology evolved somewhat over time. Mine too.It's my understanding that Calvin actually wavered on this subject. Some writings seem to support limited atonement, while others seem to support unlimited. They may represent different times in his life.
Yes.I know they always do acknowledge faith, but by their "universalist" reaction to unlimited atonement, that sure seems to me that they base salvation on who Christ died for. iow, they are saved by His death. I recall they say that because they were chosen, God grants them "faith to believe", effectively meaning that God chooses who will believe. To which I disagree.
Yes. But they think that faith is part of the "chosen package". That those God chose, will be saved, will believe, etc.
I've noticed.My view of election is completely different than theirs.
I believe that election for privilege and service requires election to either belief or unbelief as appropriate to what that service might be.Election has a purpose, but not for salvation. The purpose of God's election is for privilege and service.
So, even Judas, the traitor, could be said to be chosen by Jesus (Jn 6:70), even though he was never saved. He did serve a purpose. And he was privileged to be in the presence of the Messiah, though he never appreciated that.
I see "faith" as a noun, for which it is, and yes, God does grant what it is that we are believing. But I believe that the action of believing is from our own hearts, which is what Rom 10:10 says.I do believe that God grants faith to believe. He "authors" faith in us and not in all of us.
I don't agree with the first sentence, but I agree that He certainly knows who will believe. If God chooses who will believe, then there really isn't any need to evangelize. Because if He chooses who will believe, we can be assured that all of them will believe. Thus, no actual need for evangelization.I believe that God chose who would believe and granted them faith.
His choosing who would believe is closely tied to His Omniscience of what would happen in history (including individual belief).
Then your view must be that Judas was saved and went to heaven.I believe that election for privilege and service requires election to either belief or unbelief as appropriate to what that service might be.
It should be obvious that God wouldn't choose any unbeliever to preach the Word.I don't believe that one can be elected to preach the Word for instance if he has not been elected to be saved.
The problem is that there are no verses about anyone being "elected to be among the reprobate". In fact, Jn 3:16 communicates that anyone who believes will be saved. So, in essence, anyone CAN believe. That would remove any idea of the so-called non-elect, or those who CAN'T believe.I don't believe that one can be elected to betray Christ for instance if he has not been elected to be among the reprobate.
Yes!! And the Bible does support my view. Glad you noticed!If the Bible was talking about election by God after the fact of belief - that would support your view.
Yes. And God choses believers, which is what the "us" refers to.But it is clear that the electing was done before the belief - even before a person's existence in fact.
According to the ISBE, that's what election means: elected to special privilege and service. And given the 6 categories of election that I have found in Scripture, none of the categories were said to be elected FOR salvation.One could say that God simply foresaw the belief and elected them to service based on that. That would be like the "Arminian" system with the added twist of making sure that you said election only meant election to service.
I agree.But we've been through most of this before. The topic of the thread is the statement that some form of a 4-point system is closer to the truth of scripture than a strict 5-point system.
Yes, sir!That is to say that Christ's sacrifice was directed toward unbelievers as well as believers. What it would finally end up accomplishing for unbelievers in eternity - not so much.
I think we can at least agree on the premise of the OP.
I do as well. I think that all Reformed types would say that. Do you know of any who would say it is not from our heart?I see "faith" as a noun, for which it is, and yes, God does grant what it is that we are believing. But I believe that the action of believing is from our own hearts, which is what Rom 10:10 says.
There isn't any "need" to evangelize at all. God could save without it if He had so ordained that salvation happen that way. There is the question as to whether or not we choose to participate in the activities that He ordained to bring people into the Kingdom. That's your choice just as it is for me.I don't agree with the first sentence, but I agree that He certainly knows who will believe. If God chooses who will believe, then there really isn't any need to evangelize. Because if He chooses who will believe, we can be assured that all of them will believe. Thus, no actual need for evangelization.
That's a bogus charge concerning what I obviously meant.Then your view must be that Judas was saved and went to heaven.
I don't disagree that everyone who believes can and will be saved.The problem is that there are no verses about anyone being "elected to be among the reprobate". In fact, Jn 3:16 communicates that anyone who believes will be saved. So, in essence, anyone CAN believe. That would remove any idea of the so-called non-elect, or those who CAN'T believe.
Obviously the Ephesian letter is being addressed to believers. Of course Paul is talking about believers.Eph 1:4 - just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love
The word "us" is clearly defined in v.19 as "believers". So Eph 1:4 is actually saying that God chose believers to be holy and blameless.
Yes. And God choses believers, which is what the "us" refers to.
Again - If God says in eternity past that when Marvin lives he will do this or that in the service of God - He is saying that Marvin will be saved first.According to the ISBE, that's what election means: elected to special privilege and service. And given the 6 categories of election that I have found in Scripture, none of the categories were said to be elected FOR salvation.
For example, Christ, the nation Israel, angels, NT believers, the 12 apostles, and Paul's ministry to the Gentiles are all said to be elections. Yet, none of them were FOR salvation.
The 5 pointers believe that all belief comes from God, the "gift of faith". iow, if God doesn't give it, man cannot believe.I do as well. I think that all Reformed types would say that. Do you know of any who would say it is not from our heart?
I don't believe that He has "ordained" anyone into the kingdom. Certainly He knows who will believe or not, but He doesn't choose who will believe.There isn't any "need" to evangelize at all. God could save without it if He had so ordained that salvation happen that way. There is the question as to whether or not we choose to participate in the activities that He ordained to bring people into the Kingdom. That's your choice just as it is for me.
My point is that everyone who believes IS saved. Jn 5:24I don't disagree that everyone who believes can and will be saved.
I haven't found any verse or passage to support this. And, there is nothing in Scripture to suggest that it takes "power" to believe the gospel. There is a verse about the "power of the gospel to save". Rom 1:16I do disagree that the scriptures indicate that everyone "can" believe and be saved. The scripture indicates that many men left to their own power can not believe.
Sure. It's about God's omniscience; that He always knew everything. And His knowledge of everything doesn't mean He causes everything.But when God predestined there were no believers. It is that time (for want of a better term) before their existence that he is talking about and not after.
First, Eph 1:4 isn't about ordaining. It's about being chosen. And it isn't about how people who are chosen will end up, but WHAT they were chosen for.If God meant to say that He ordained that everyone who believes will end up such and such a way - He would have said it that way.
I believe this is a bit of a word game that you play and it gets a little old.
No, He is noting what saved Marvin will do.Again - If God says in eternity past that when Marvin lives he will do this or that in the service of God - He is saying that Marvin will be saved first.
I haven't found any verse to support this. God knows what and how each of us will live. He doesn't assign destinies. He knows it. For those who believe, He does assign service, as to our "call", and what spiritual gifts will will get.As you rightly pointed out before - one can't serve God if he is not saved. If, before my existence, God assigned my destiny to be in the service of God - He also made the decision that I would be saved to do it.
I don't think that God needs to "think on that fact". He already knows everything.Obviously you feel that He knows who will be saved and after thinking on that fact He decides that that person will be a good candidate to elect for a certain task or predestine for a certain thing.
There is no word game here. As there wasn't with the word "us" and "believers" in Eph 1:4. It's all very crystal clear and plain.This kind of thing is just twisting and turning the meaning and is just plain word games. It is akin to what you do with the "us" and "believers" stuff. I must admit that it gets new people flustered just as it did me at first. But after a little while it gets old.
No, I strongly disagree with the Arminians on this. God doesn't have to "foresee". That insinuates that He learns by "looking ahead" or something like that. Because He is omniscient, He doesn't have to "foresee" anything. He already knows intrinsically.Your position and that of the Arminians is that God foresees what will happen and then decrees and ordains.
I never use the word "foresee", but rather, "knows". This is a definition from the internet:My position is that God foresees what could happen from an infinite number of choices He can make. After deciding if a particular scenario fits His purpose - He then decrees and ordains so as to bring that scenario to past.
OKWe have two diametrically opposed concepts of how God works.
I do, only to clarify my view.We are off topic. You can have the last word along these lines if you wish.
However, that's not what John 3:16 says.The problem is that there are no verses about anyone being "elected to be among the reprobate". In fact, Jn 3:16 communicates that anyone who believes will be saved. So, in essence, anyone CAN believe. That would remove any idea of the so-called non-elect, or those who CAN'T believe.
According to the ISBE, that's what election means: elected to special privilege and service. And given the 6 categories of election that I have found in Scripture, none of the categories were said to be elected FOR salvation.
...............I never use the word "foresee", but rather, "knows". This is a definition from the internet:
tr.v.
1. To imagine or know as a probable occurrence; anticipate or predict.
God never has to "imagine" anything because He already knows.
And God never "knows as a probable occurrence" because there aren't any "probables" in His knowledge. He doesn't know probables, and He knows the actuals..........
My understanding of "whosoever believes" means that anyone can believe, contrary to the 5 point reformed. They don't believe that anyone can.However, that's not what John 3:16 says.
It teaches us that "whosoever believes "will be saved, but it doesn't give us any indication of who it is who will believe and who will not...or why those who do believe do so.
"and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand."There are too many verses that speak of election as relating to salvation for me to agree to that. For instance John 10:28. That's a direct refutation of your thinking about election being only a selection for service.
I do understand how these things "go".There are so many things in your post that I am tempted to respond to. But I know from experience with you how these things go. I just don't want to go there.
OK, so it would seem that God make a mistake here. Is that your take on this passage? It sure isn't my take at all.Obviously there are many areas where I believe you are wrong. But I'm going to assume in this one instance that you at least want to correct your thinking when you quite obviously are not in line with what the Bible says.
I could talk at length on this and provide many scripture "proofs" against what you have said. But one scripture should show you the gap that exists in your knowledge of God in at least this one area.
I'm assuming that you are honest and will revise your thinking rather than just argue. I hope that my assumption is correct.
"Then David said, O Lord God of Israel, Your servant has heard for certain that Saul is seeking to come to Keilah to destroy the city on my account. Will the men of Keilah surrender me into his hand? Will Saul come down just as Your servant has heard? O Lord God of Israel, I pray, tell Your servant. And the Lord said, He will come down. Then David said, Will the men of Keilah surrender me and my men into the hand of Saul? And the Lord said, They will surrender you. Then David and his men, about six hundred, arose and departed from Keilah, and they went wherever they could go. When it was told Saul that David had escaped from Keilah, he gave up the pursuit." 1 Samuel 23:10-13 (NASB)
That's what I understood you to mean. However, the words in that verse don't actually say that, if you read carefully.My understanding of "whosoever believes" means that anyone can believe, contrary to the 5 point reformed. They don't believe that anyone can.
Very well. That passage does refer more to another of the points -- Perseverance in Grace (Eternal Security). But if you read the whole of the passage, beginning at verse 26, for example, it does have Jesus saying that these people were given to him by the Father, which seems incompatible with the "come one, come all" understanding of things."and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand."
I don't see any mention of election here. The verse is a promise of eternal security to those who believe in Him. There is nothing about election.
I'm sure all the translators did read carefully before they submitted their translation. And they still translated it as "whosoever believes". That's how they understood John's sentence.That's what I understood you to mean. However, the words in that verse don't actually say that, if you read carefully.
I have more faith in translators than trying to decipher the actual Greek. And when it's nearly unanimous, why argue with translators?The verse merely says that those who do believe--whoever they are (because this is known only to God)--will be saved. That's entirely compatible with a belief in Election.
I sure don't believe that anyone will be saved "in some way or other", whatever that means. btw, man does believe on his own. Rom 10:10 says man believes from his heart. That's where the belief comes from. It does not come from God. How do I know that? There is no verse that says it comes from God.It does not say what many people think it says, that anyone who decides on his own to accept Christ in some way or other, will be saved as a result.
I don't think so. The question is: just who does the Father "give" to the Son? The answer should be clear: believers. That's who He gives to His Son.Very well. That passage does refer more to another of the points -- Perseverance in Grace (Eternal Security). But if you read the whole of the passage, beginning at verse 26, for example, it does have Jesus saying that these people were given to him by the Father, which seems incompatible with the "come one, come all" understanding of things.
I'm not contesting "whosoever believes." I'm questioning your understanding of the meaning of those words in English. "Whosoever" means all those who do. It does not say anything directly about free will or, OTOH, election.I'm sure all the translators did read carefully before they submitted their translation. And they still translated it as "whosoever believes". That's how they understood John's sentence.
I'm not. And I think that should be pretty clear by now since I made my point on the basis of that very translation.I have more faith in translators than trying to decipher the actual Greek. And when it's nearly unanimous, why argue with translators?
You asked for some verses. I gave you three. Did you read them?Rom 10:10 says man believes from his heart. That's where the belief comes from. It does not come from God. How do I know that? There is no verse that says it comes from God.
No, it isn't. The point is that the Father gives them to the Son; they are not "up for grabs." Their acceptance of Christ--or, OTOH, refusal of him--is not in doubt. They are his and it's because of a decision on the part of the Father.I don't think so. The question is: just who does the Father "give" to the Son?
Why God speaks the way He does in this and other passages is something I want to understand better and will probably some day. This isn't the only place where He calls things that are not as though they were. I believe that He likely wants us to struggle a bit with the Word in some cases to glean what we can from His statements.OK, so it would seem that God make a mistake here. Is that your take on this passage? It sure isn't my take at all.
Either God makes mistakes, and doesn't completely know the future, or we must understand this passage differently than that. I choose to understand it so that God hasn't made any mistake.
And that's rather easy to do. What David asks can easily be seen as asking about one's motivation. iow, it was Saul's motivation to go to Keilah in pursuit of David. And it was the citizen's motivation to turn David over to Saul.
I think v.13 is instructive. It begins with David leaving Keilah and then Saul deciding not to go there. Saul was motivated only if David was there. But since David had left, there was no more reason to go there.
So, we have a choice. Either God isn't omniscient or the passage is more about motivation and desire, rather than God not knowing the future clearly.
If I didn't understand the character and attributes of God, like unbelievers, I would easily conclude that God isn't all that. That He doesn't know everything.
But I know better, because I know that He is omniscient.
The words mean "anyone who". It clearly insinuates that anyone can.I'm not contesting "whosoever believes." I'm questioning your understanding of the meaning of those words in English. "Whosoever" means all those who do. It does not say anything directly about free will or, OTOH, election.
In post # 136 I found Eph 1:4-5 and Rom 8:29-33. A few posts before that I found John 10:28, which I pointed out didn't say anything about election to salvation.You asked for some verses. I gave you three. Did you read them?
Yes, the question is about who the Father gives to His Son. And it's believers.No, it isn't.
The point is that the Father gives them to the Son; they are not "up for grabs."
Of course it's the Father's decision to give believers to His Son.Their acceptance of Christ--or, OTOH, refusal of him--is not in doubt. They are his and it's because of a decision on the part of the Father.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?