The 4-point Calvinist's position - Nearer truth than full Calvinism or Arminianism?

[Epiphoskei]

The words mean "anyone who". It clearly insinuates that anyone can.

Anyone who is a woman may use the ladies' room.
Anyone who is a man may use the men's room.

FG2, we've had this debate before, repeatedly. You are entitled to your opinions, and you are entitled to maintain them in the face of opposing argument, but it is not valid to continue using the same argument word for word after someone has provided a defeater for it in that form.

You do not (last I checked) read Greek, your argument demonstrates no particular familiarity with the technical grammar upon which it supposedly relies, and any multitude of "anyone who" statements can be composed which falsify your thesis. I am stupefied that you are still using the same argument verbatim. It isn't valid. Either modify it to stand up to criticism better or retire it.

For the record, "God loved the world thus: He gave His only son so that all believers will not perish but will inherit eternal life." This is not only an accurate translation of the Greek but it entirely encapsulates the sense of the English translations as they already presently stand. Any sense you find in the verse other than the above is a mirage caused by a measure of grammatical rot that's developed in colloquial English.

 

[Epiphoskei]

Yes, the question is about who the Father gives to His Son. And it's believers.

I'm turning up a wry smile upon finding this statement in a thread putatively about particular redemption.

You defend an Arminianesque sense of election by positing that the definite body of people whom God has chosen are those who believe. Thereby, you make election unobjectionable to the Arminianesque.

But never do I see anyone take the next logical step and state that God furthermore efficaciously redeemed these people upon the Cross, while not effecting salvation for those who do not believe.

You make election palatable to the non-reformed by espousing that if the unelect had believed, they would have counterfactually been the elect.

But for some reason, it's intolerable (even to some of the otherwise Reformed!) that the Reformed believe:
1) The death of Christ is the actual salvation of the Church.
2) Christ didn't make salvation "possible" for anyone. He saved some.
3) Those who will be found outside of Christ in their ultimate state are outside of his atonement.
4) If that group had believed, they would have counterfactually been found inside Christ's atonement.
5) The accomplishment of the counter-factual in (4) would not have required any modification to the atonement.

...despite the fact that the above definition of "Limited Atonement" is exactly as limited as your definition of election.

 

[dms1972]

Confused? - Forget Tulip, read the Bible.

Starting points - begin at chapter one, verse one

Logical steps - read a verse - read the next verse

 

[FreeGrace2]

Anyone who is a woman may use the ladies' room.
Anyone who is a man may use the men's room.

If John 3:16 said "whosoever is one of the elect that believes will not perish but have eternal life", then your point would be valid.

But since you added a specific identifier in your example, it is not relevant to my comment about the phrase "whoever" in John 3:16, where there is not specific identifier.

FG2, we've had this debate before, repeatedly. You are entitled to your opinions, and you are entitled to maintain them in the face of opposing argument, but it is not valid to continue using the same argument word for word after someone has provided a defeater for it in that form.

Since no one (not any one) has provided a "defeater" for my claims, I'll continuing to remind any one of that.

You do not (last I checked) read Greek, your argument demonstrates no particular familiarity with the technical grammar upon which it supposedly relies, and any multitude of "anyone who" statements can be composed which falsify your thesis.

I read the original language of the NT to find out how to find the Greek words in my lexicon. iow, I lean on the experts.

I am stupefied that you are still using the same argument verbatim. It isn't valid. Either modify it to stand up to criticism better or retire it.

Since it hasn't been proven to be invalid, there is no reason to.

For the record, "God loved the world thus: He gave His only son so that all believers will not perish but will inherit eternal life." This is not only an accurate translation of the Greek but it entirely encapsulates the sense of the English translations as they already presently stand. Any sense you find in the verse other than the above is a mirage caused by a measure of grammatical rot that's developed in colloquial English.

This is a laugh. I know well how the Greek reads. Yet most of the translations seem to understand better than either of us what the Greek MEANT.

To listen to your rendition suggests the translators failed to get it right while your rendition is right. What are your credentials in Greek?

 

[hedrick]

Looking at the citation in the OP, Dordt never says Christ died only for the elect. Instead it says two things that are agreed on by all Reforned:

* His death was sufficient for all
* His death benefits only the elect

Westminster, however says “God did, from all eternity, decree to justify all the elect, and Christ did, in the fullness of time, die for their sins”

It seems to me that “their” refers to the elect, and thus that this teaches limited atonement.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I'm turning up a wry smile upon finding this statement in a thread putatively about particular redemption.

And I turn a wry smile when anyone (whosoever) brings up particular redemption. Because the Bible is clear about who Christ redeemed. It is the world. 2 Cor 5:19. And if one backs up to v.14 and 15, one reads the clear words of Paul: Christ died for all.

You defend an Arminianesque sense of election by positing that the definite body of people whom God has chosen are those who believe. Thereby, you make election unobjectionable to the Arminianesque.

Actually, I couldn't care less what the Arminians believe. My only care is what Scripture actually SAYS. And election isn't about being chosen for salvation. We learn from Paul the purpose of election; believers are chosen to be holy and blameless. Eph 1:4

But never do I see anyone take the next logical step and state that God furthermore efficaciously redeemed these people upon the Cross, while not effecting salvation for those who do not believe.

That has been my position the entire time I've been on this forum. I guess you missed it. When Christ paid the sin penalty, there was a redemption, per 2 Cor 5:19. So, what was exchanged (redeemed)? Christ's death paid for a free gift for all; eternal life (Rom 6:23). He actually purchased this free gift for all. But only believers receive the gift. All the other gifts go unclaimed. Why is that difficult to understand?

You make election palatable to the non-reformed by espousing that if the unelect had believed, they would have counterfactually been the elect.

Nope. Paul made election understandable in Eph 1:4. It SAYS: God chose us. So, who are the "us"? Paul defines the "us" in Eph 1:19; "us who believe". So 1:4 actually SAYS that God chose believers. It does NOT say that God chose who would believe, as the reformed position must take.

But for some reason, it's intolerable (even to some of the otherwise Reformed!) that the Reformed believe:
1) The death of Christ is the actual salvation of the Church.
2) Christ didn't make salvation "possible" for anyone. He saved some.
3) Those who will be found outside of Christ in their ultimate state are outside of his atonement.
4) If that group had believed, they would have counterfactually been found inside Christ's atonement.
5) The accomplishment of the counter-factual in (4) would not have required any modification to the atonement.

All of these are easily refuted.
#1 Christ's death is NEVER said to save anyone in Scripture. Scripture SAYS that one is saved by grace through faith. iow, God saves those who believe.
#2 Christ purchased the gift of eternal life for everyone by paying the penalty of sin for everyone. 1 Jn 2:2
#3 Those who will be cast into the lake of fire never received the free gift of eternal life. Rev 20:15
#4 Whosoever believes will be saved. John 3:16

...despite the fact that the above definition of "Limited Atonement" is exactly as limited as your definition of election.

What's the point here? Even the reformed's view of election is limited.

The simple fact is that Christ died for everyone so that anyone can receive the gift of eternal life.

Those who receive the gift through faith are saved. The rest will be thrown into the lake of fire.

Can these statements be refuted by clear Scripture?

 

[FreeGrace2]

Looking at the citation in the OP, Dordt never says Christ died only for the elect. Instead it says two things that are agreed on by all Reforned:

* His death was sufficient for all
* His death benefits only the elect

Westminster, however says “God did, from all eternity, decree to justify all the elect, and Christ did, in the fullness of time, die for their sins”

It seems to me that “their” refers to the elect, and thus that this teaches limited atonement.

I accept what Scripture says, not necessarily what man has written about what he thinks Scripture says, such as the WCF.

Christ's death redeemed all men, per 2 Cor 5:19. That does NOT mean or logically conclude that all will be saved. A redemption means an exchange. What was exchanged for Christ's payment of the penalty of sin? The free gift of etertnal life.

iow, by His death for everyone, He purchased a gift for everyone. But only those who believe in Him receive this gift. Jn 1:12, 1 Tim 1:16.

 

[hedrick]

That's a good question. Does anyone know? I'm assuming that we're not speaking of one that merely tolerates members who believe in only 4 but makes this its official stance.

As to denominations, I believe the Presbyterian Church from 1903 has taught 4 points.

In 1903 the following was added to Westminster:

“First, with reference to Chapter 3 of the Confession of Faith: that concerning those who are saved in Christ, the doctrine of God's eternal decree is held in harmony with the doctrine of his love to all mankind, his gift of his Son to be the propitiation for the sins of the whole world, and his readiness to bestow his saving grace on all who seek it; that concerning those who perish, the doctrine of God's eternal decree is held in harmony with the doctrine that God desires not the death of any sinner, but has provided in Christ a salvation sufficient for all, adapted to all, and freely offered in the gospel to all; that men are fully responsible for their treatment of God's gracious offer; that his decree hinders no man from accepting that offer; and that no man is condemned except on the ground of his sin.”

While this is somewhat ambiguous, I think this pushes in the direction of sufficient for all but efficient only for the elect, which is the 4-point understanding.

Of course the PCUSA at this point permits a variety of views. The Confession of 1967 says:

“The risen Christ is the savior for all men. Those joined to him by faith are set right with God and commissioned to serve as his reconciling community. Christ is head of this community, the church, which began with the apostles and continues through all generations.”

This seems to reject limited atonement unambiguously. It makes no statement about whether the gift of faith is from election or not. However some level of election is implied by the Brief Statement:

“Yet God acts with justice and mercy to redeem creation.
In everlasting love,
the God of Abraham and Sarah chose a covenant people
to bless all families of the earth.
Hearing their cry,
God delivered the children of israel
from the house of bondage.
Loving us still,
God makes us heirs with Christ of the covenant.
Like a mother who will not forsake her nursing child,
like a father who runs to welcome the prodigal home,
God is faithful still.”

The catechism says:

“That God does not will to be God without us, but instead grants to us creatures — fallen and mortal as we are — eternal life. Communion with Jesus Christ is eternal life itself. In him we were chosen before the foundation of the world. By him the eternal covenant with Israel was taken up, embodied, and fulfilled. To him we are joined by the Holy Spirit through faith, and adopted as children, the sons and daughters of God. Through him we are raised from death to new life. For him we shall live to all eternity.”

However the phrase chosen in Christ can imply the Barthian or even Arminian view of election. I think it is fair to say that the PCUSA currently teaches election, but permits several different views of how it works.

 

[Skala]

Confused? - Forget Tulip, read the Bible.

Starting points - begin at verse one

Logical steps - read that verse? - read the next verse

I read the Bible and that's how I became convinced that the Bible teaches TULIP.

Thus, you can't "forget TULIP" because that is the same as "forget stuff the Bible teaches"

 

[Skala]

If John 3:16 said "whosoever is one of the elect that believes will not perish but have eternal life", then your point would be valid.

False.

His point is still valid even if John 3:16 isn't written the way you have written it.

Whoever believes is a complete phrase.

The verse does not say "God gave his only son, so that whoever will not perish, but have eternal life"

Instead, it says "God gave his only son, so that whoever believes will not perish, but have eternal life"

You seem to be trying to split up "whoever" and "believes", when they go together.

The phrase "whoever believes" means "the believing ones".

No matter how desperate you are to make John 3:16 fit your agenda, the fact remains that the verse teaches that God sent Christ to save less-than-everyone. Ie, only beleivers.

It does not say "God sent His son to save everyone", instead, it says "God sent his son to save everyone who believes"

John 3:16 does not teach that God sent Jesus to save everyone. It teaches that God sent Jesus to save believers only.

 

[EmSw]

False.

His point is still valid even if John 3:16 isn't written the way you have written it.

Whoever believes is a complete phrase.

The verse does not say "God gave his only son, so that whoever will not perish, but have eternal life"

Instead, it says "God gave his only son, so that whoever believes will not perish, but have eternal life"

You seem to be trying to split up "whoever" and "believes", when they go together.

The phrase "whoever believes" means "the believing ones".

No matter how desperate you are to make John 3:16 fit your agenda, the fact remains that the verse teaches that God sent Christ to save less-than-everyone. Ie, only beleivers.

It does not say "God sent His son to save everyone", instead, it says "God sent his son to save everyone who believes"

John 3:16 does not teach that God sent Jesus to save everyone. It teaches that God sent Jesus to save believers only.

Actually, God gave His son because He loved the world. Then a condition follows - believe in Him and not perish.

 

[Brother Chris]

I use to believe that Jesus died for every single person who has lived, is alive and will ever live. But that didn't make much sense, because if the wrath of God is poured out on Christ for the sins of everyone, there is no more wrath left, everyone eventually will be saved. It doesn't make sense that Christ take the punishment of someone who will never be saved, and then that punishment is poured out again, in Hell.

 

[Brother Chris]

Actually, God gave His son because He loved the world. Then a condition follows - believe in Him and not perish.

Yes, and only the elect will meet that condition.

 

[EmSw]

Yes, and only the elect will meet that condition.

Hardly, you will have a hard time pulling that out of your magic hat.

Besides, now you make eternal life conditional.

 

[Brother Chris]

Hardly, you will have a hard time pulling that out of your magic hat.

Besides, now you make eternal life conditional.

Yes, it is conditional: repent of your sins and believe the Gospel. If a sinner rejects that, no eternal life, just hell.

And who is it that believes and will never perish:

When the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed. - Acts 13:48

 

[Skala]

Actually, God gave His son because He loved the world. Then a condition follows - believe in Him and not perish.

Actually, it says He sent His Son to save the believing ones. No more, and no less. (pas ho pisteuwn)

In other words, it doesn't say that God gave His son to save everyone. Instead, He gave his son to only save some people. Believers is less than everyone. And that's who God had in mind when He sent Jesus.

Tell me, no matter one's soteriological view (calvinism/arminianism/synergism/monergism), the fact remains that God knew who the believers were in advance, right?

Thus, it follows that God had specific people in mind by sending Christ to save them.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I read the Bible and that's how I became convinced that the Bible teaches TULIP.

Thus, you can't "forget TULIP" because that is the same as "forget stuff the Bible teaches"

Funny, but there are no verses that support any of the 5 points. Maybe not so funny.

Anyway, where are the verses that indicate that unregenerate man is unable to believe, that God elects people to salvation unconditionally (which isn't what election is about anyway), that Christ died ONLY for a subgroup of the human race, that God's grace is irresistible (God is no bully), or that all believers will persevere in the faith?

The entire thrust of the Bible is:

1. for unregenerate man to believe God's promise of salvation through His Son.
2. that God only chooses to save those who believe, which is a condition.
3. that Christ died for everyone.
4. that God isn't a bully and forces people's volition, except on rare occasions.
5. that believers are commanded to "continue in the faith".

 

[FreeGrace2]

False.

Opinion.

His point is still valid even if John 3:16 isn't written the way you have written it.

I never wrote it. I have only quoted what Greek experts who translated the verse. Your problem is with them, not me.

Whoever believes is a complete phrase.

Nice.

The verse does not say "God gave his only son, so that whoever will not perish, but have eternal life"

I agree. It does not say that. It says alot more than that.

Instead, it says "God gave his only son, so that whoever believes will not perish, but have eternal life"

OK so far.

You seem to be trying to split up "whoever" and "believes", when they go together.

Huh? No, I haven't done that. My point had to do with what 'whoever' means. It means "anyone who". So let's add the next word, which is 'believes'. And we get "anyone who believes". That's what the Greek language experts understood the verse to mean.

As we all know, word for word translations of the Greek can be quite awkward in the English, so the Greek language experts smoothed it out for us. But the reformed don't like how they understood it, so they just want to stick with the participlial phrase "the believing ones". But since they are the experts, and we're not, your argument is with them, not me.

The phrase "whoever believes" means "the believing ones".

The English doesn't use participial phrases nearly as much as the NT Greek does. And the real experts in Greek who translated Jn 3:16 translated in the way that THEY understood what the participial phrase MEANT.

No matter how desperate you are to make John 3:16 fit your agenda, the fact remains that the verse teaches that God sent Christ to save less-than-everyone. Ie, only beleivers.

The point of John 3:16 is that His Son died for the world, so that anyone who believes would be saved. That's exactly how the real Greek experts understood the verse to mean.

My only agenda is to understand Scripture. I accept how the real Greek experts translated the verse, unlike yourself, who doesn't accept their work.

It does not say "God sent His son to save everyone", instead, it says "God sent his son to save everyone who believes"

Right. And I never said the verse says that. It says He sent His Son to save anyone (whosoever) who believes.

John 3:16 does not teach that God sent Jesus to save everyone. It teaches that God sent Jesus to save believers only.

I fully agree with this.

Just remember that the real Greek experts understood John's verse to mean that anyone who believes will be saved. Because that's how they translated it.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I use to believe that Jesus died for every single person who has lived, is alive and will ever live. But that didn't make much sense, because if the wrath of God is poured out on Christ for the sins of everyone, there is no more wrath left, everyone eventually will be saved. It doesn't make sense that Christ take the punishment of someone who will never be saved, and then that punishment is poured out again, in Hell.

The mistake is assuming that people are being punished for their sins, which Christ did pay for.

Heb 9:15 says, "For this reason He is the mediator of a new covenant, so that, since a death has taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were committed under the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance."

A redemption is an exchange. What was exchanged? Christ's death FOR eternal life of those He died for, which is everyone. That means that He literally purchased the gift of eternal life (Rom 6:23) for everyone. And that free gift is received on the basis of faith in Him. Jn 1:12, 1 Tim 1:16.

 

[Brother Chris]

The mistake is assuming that people are being punished for their sins, which Christ did pay for.

Heb 9:15 says, "For this reason He is the mediator of a new covenant, so that, since a death has taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were committed under the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance."

A redemption is an exchange. What was exchanged? Christ's death FOR eternal life of those He died for, which is everyone. That means that He literally purchased the gift of eternal life (Rom 6:23) for everyone. And that free gift is received on the basis of faith in Him. Jn 1:12, 1 Tim 1:16.

Read the part in red. The redemption of the transgressions is only for those who are called by God, not every single person.