Limited Atonement or Atonement limited

[Chappie]

Perfect Chappie! Thank you for expressing what we Calvinists would like to point out to you. You have a concept of a God who just jumps on the bandwagon. A God who merely knows about our choice in advance. A God who only ratifies our choice, but NOT a God who chooses for Himself. NOT a choosing God in the meaningful sense. Just one who jumps on the bandwagon of human freewill.

Goba.
If you want to get out of a wet paper bag, move towards the light. Your conclusion would not even get you out of a paper bag...

Deal with the intent of my words and you will find your exegesis to be about as correct as your exegesis of scripture..

You should spend your time seeking how to reasonably, logically, and intelligently apply the definition and subsequent consequences of the word "foreknowledge". Making it up as you go along is not acceptable...

[GoBahnsen]

Goba.
If you want to get out of a wet paper bag, move towards the light. Your conclusion would not even get you out of a paper bag...

Deal with the intent of my words and you will find your exegesis to be about as correct as your exegesis of scripture..

You should spend your time seeking how to reasonably, logically, and intelligently apply the definition and subsequent consequences of the word "foreknowledge". Making it up as you go along is not acceptable...

I was dealing with what I saw was the obvious intent of your words. God does not choose in your view! Men do and God jumps on the bandwagon of THEIR choice, to use your words. That's what you believe, why go into wet paper sack put downs? At least Arminians like seer used to own up to their Arminianism instead of trying to make the other side look stupid with derogatory analogies.

[Ormly]

rhutchin




The verses in Deut clearly establish that God has given people a choice. Calvinists agree to this.

Ormly
Really?? You mean predestination covers all this? Perhaps you can be more clear about how you reconcile it?

Predestination is consequent to God’s foreknowledge. As you have said, God foreknows those who will believe and those who will not believe.[/quote]Yes, I believe that.

Based on that foreknowledge God predestines those whom He will save and those whom He will not save. I am not sure what you think needs to be reconciled.

That's not true. He does not predestine [does not pick and choose] whom He will save. He predestines [picks and chooses] from those He does save, already having foreknowledge of them. He also predestines those that He foreknows will reject Him. He does not pick and choose those for evil and damnation. They are already from evil and damnation. So this is nothing from Himself but from themselves, that damns them. You are screwing up what is being declared from your own mouth.

Romans 8:29 (KJV)
For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

Remember that verse? Which thing comes first as you read it?

Would I wrong If I read it this way: "He foreknew those He predestined" -- both the good and bad?

[Arimathea]

I can see that this thread has wandered (as they do) but since it is initially about Limited Atonement, I'd like to ask a question that I've always wondered about, whom some died in the wool Calvinist may be able to give me the Calvinist answer to. I need the meaning of five words. They are:


"...and not for ours only..."

As found in 1 John 2:2...

"And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world."

Could anyone tell me what those 5 words mean? (not what they don't mean)

Ari

[Chappie]

I was dealing with what I saw was the obvious intent of your words. God does not choose in your view! Men do and God jumps on the bandwagon of THEIR choice, to use your words. That's what you believe, why go into wet paper sack put downs? At least Arminians like seer used to own up to their Arminianism instead of trying to make the other side look stupid with derogatory analogies.

God gets all the control that he desired by controlling options and consequences... Like God does not want men to fly like a bird, so he eliminates it as an option. Does he eliminate choice in the matter, No! Man can still make the choice, but only with devastating consequences. Men can only choose between the options that God willfully places before him. If man were in control, he could choose to fly, and then fly..

So your illogical effort to turn freewill into some man in control/God weak scenario just illuminates an absence of critical thought on the matter.

Why your feelings of a personal put down on my paper bag comments. I did not say that you as a person, the analogy was applied to a critique of your conclusions and the weakness thereof. Now if you want your conclusions to be stronger, fix them.... No personal attack here Goba... Except maybe in your mind...

Words are like using the clouds to paint pictures on a cloudy day. If you stare at the clouds long enough, eventually you will see what you want to see.

God has made all his choices and implemented his plan at creation. All that is left to be done is for us to choose between the options from which he commands us to choose. We either choose to accept, or we choose to reject. Being that we cannot introduce a third option places God firmly in control of his creation. It is his choice that we have to choose. Now if you apply reasonable and logical thought to my words, you will find out that they are not unreasonable nor illogical: But most of all you will find that they are scriptural.

Choose ye this day whom you will serve….. God now places the options on the table. Him, the God of their fathers, or the cod’s of the heathen nations around them. Consequences, one path leads to communion and eternal life. The other if you reject him, he will reject you. So please do no try and feed me any mambo jumbo about God told us to chose, but in eternity past he had already chosen for us. Choose ye this day, it is a command, and he did not say please….

[GoBahnsen]

[QUOTE=Chappie]

God gets all the control that he desired by controlling options and consequences...

The Bible expresses control beyond that. The Bible says God turns the Kings heart or hardens the same. That's beyond mere options and consequences. God creates new hearts and works within men according to His purpose and plan for their lives. That is not say that men do not have wills that they do not use, but it is to say, that the will of man is subject to His Maker.

Anyway Chappie, if you want to discuss this subject, let's not get off topic on Rhur's thread. See me in my Reformed Theology thread. In fact, I haven't checked this morning, but last night you still hadn't answered my last post to you there.

Why your feelings of a personal put down on my paper bag comments. I did not say that you as a person, the analogy was applied to a critique of your conclusions and the weakness thereof. Now if you want your conclusions to be stronger, fix them.... No personal attack here Goba... Except maybe in your mind...

Sometimes I just get tired of the trash talk. I've gotten it in double doses lately from a special someone here, and I try not to use it myself. Though I will speak forcefully at times, I don't like to say things like "you couldn't argue your way out of a wet paper sack." (not your words this last time, but that's the idea).

God has made all his choices and implemented his plan at creation. All that is left to be done is for us to choose between the options from which he commands us to choose. We either choose to accept, or we choose to reject. Being that we cannot introduce a third option places God firmly in control of his creation. It is his choice that we have to choose. Now if you apply reasonable and logical thought to my words, you will find out that they are not unreasonable nor illogical: But most of all you will find that they are scriptural.

Of course we choose. That's never been the debate. Like Muz yesterday, trying to convince us all that we must choose to believe in Christ. As if any of us (Christians) need that pointed out.

Choose ye this day whom you will serve….. God now places the options on the table. Him, the God of their fathers, or the cod’s of the heathen nations around them. Consequences, one path leads to communion and eternal life. The other if you reject him, he will reject you. So please do no try and feed me any mambo jumbo about God told us to chose, but in eternity past he had already chosen for us. Choose ye this day, it is a command, and he did not say please….

It's not mambo jumbo to understand that God has a chosen people.
And yes we do choose and must choose. We do well to understand, that after our choice is made, that it was God who was at work in us both to do and to will according to His good pleasure. We do well to praise Him for bringing us into the right choice, rather than attribute our good choice to our fallen wills. In all this we would do well and God would get the glory. See you in Reformed Theology is Christianity... unless you want to discuss the extent of the atonement here.

[themuzicman]

[/indent]

Romans 8:29 (KJV)
For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

Remember that verse? Which thing comes first as you read it?

Would I wrong If I read it this way: "He foreknew those He predestined" -- both the good and bad?

If you keep reading, you see "He also glorified." Have you always been glorified?

(Note: all four verbs are in the same tense, so you have to treat them the same way. If we have always been foreknown, then we have always been glorified, too.)

Michael

[GoBahnsen]

If you keep reading, you see "He also glorified." Have you always been glorified?

(Note: all four verbs are in the same tense, so you have to treat them the same way. If we have always been foreknown, then we have always been glorified, too.)

Michael

I think it can be argued that all the phases of our journey are as good as done in God's mind. He knows the outcome because He will see to it.


As to Ormly's emphasis on foreknown, I believe that foreknown refers to an intimacy. Knowing a woman speaks of intimacy. God knew us before we were born. That is to say that even before creation, those He was going to save were in His mind in an intimate way. Not the vessels of destruction though. Mystery? A ton.

[Ormly]

I think it can be argued that all the phases of our journey are as good as done in God's mind. He knows the outcome because He will see to it.


As to Ormly's emphasis on foreknown, I believe that foreknown refers to an intimacy. Knowing a woman speaks of intimacy. God knew us before we were born. That is to say that even before creation, those He was going to save were in His mind in an intimate way. Not the vessels of destruction though. Mystery? A ton.

Why don't you at least attempt to get it right and not just read from a commentary, Gobahnson?

those He was going to save were in His mind in an intimate way.

It never says that in scripture. It say's: "Those that would be saved". There's a BIG difference you don't bother to consider in any argument given you. It's part of what changes the reform picture at it's foundation. It's an absolute you choose to ignore.

As to Ormly's emphasis on foreknown, I believe that foreknown refers to an intimacy.

Or rejection. Lets not forget that part of it.

[rhutchin]

rhutchin
Predestination is consequent to God’s foreknowledge. As you have said, God foreknows those who will believe and those who will not believe. Based on that foreknowledge God predestines those whom He will save and those whom He will not save. I am not sure what you think needs to be reconciled.

Chappie
The implications being that if God did not know that it was going to happen, he could not have predestined it. Every thing that we say has implications that must be reconciled with the reality that they create.

Predestination is a consequence, a consequence is the result or by-product of an original event.. God had foreknowledge that it was going to happen, so he pre-determined that it would happen. Sounds like God is just jumping on the bandwagon....

That’s a good point. The question is, What would the foreknowledge of God reveal? According to the Calvinist, that foreknowledge revealed that all would reject Christ because that decision is a reflection of their corrupt nature. Consequent to this, God determines to save some of humanity. If He did not, all would be lost.

The Arminian came along and said that God’s foreknowledge revealed those who would accept Christ. However, classical Arminianism also subscribed to the Total Depravity of man but how does a depraved person accept Christ. The Arminian answer is that God extends grace to fallen man in order to allow man to believe in Christ. God’s grace determines who will be saved. As I explained to Ormly earlier, There is no way to get the result that the Arminians want. To get the result that the Arminians want, one has to first do away with Total Depravity and then give people the ability to accept Christ without interference by God, that is, without the need for grace. The Scriptures clearly do not allow this. If God must take some action in order for people to be saved, then that action, whatever it might be, will make God the determiner of who is saved.

[rhutchin]

rhutchin
Like Ormly, Chappie wants to avoid the obvious. People are different. Chappie seems to be saying that God gives the same measure of grace to each person thus preserving those differences. Knowing those differences, God was able to provide that measure of grace that would induce some to believe on Him while others would not. Assign all the free will you want. It is still true that God foreknew who would believe and who would not, and that foreknowledge reflected the differences among people and the effect of His grace on different people.

Chappie seems unable to face reality here. Of course, a lot of people come to this point and switch to OVT where God has limited foreknowledge and limited ability.

Chappie
That is one conclusion that could be drawn, but it would not be based on a preponderance of scripture. Oh well, might as well tell the truth. It is a conclusion that is not based on any scripture at all....

God did not give sufficient faith to result in salvation. But he did give sufficient faith that when coupled with knowledge of him, that faith was sufficient to place a person at a point where they could believe. Your attempted introduction of foreknowledge is irrelevant. Contextually it simply meant that God knew how they would choose, Still, foreknowledge played no part in the actual choice. Knowledge does not change or effect reality, it simple understands and can apply that reality...

Men chose, those that chose to accept, God called his chosen people. Those that did not accept his plan, he denied them fellowship..

Chappie need not switch to anything. A logical, reasonable and correct application of that which is indigenous to and consequential to foreknowledge eliminates any necessity to switch to anything..

When you use a bad conclusion as a foundation from which to build theology, you will end up with bad theology…

Foreknowledge cannot be used in the manner that you suggest. And the bible gives no reason to deviate from the normally accepted definition and consequences of foreknowledge… You are trying to conclude with sufficient reason or evidence to conclude as you do….

Again, the point here is to determine what foreknowledge would have revealed to God. Chappie says, “But [God] did give sufficient faith that when coupled with knowledge of him, that faith was sufficient to place a person at a point where they could believe.” Then, “…those that chose to accept, God called his chosen people.”

The key question here is, What differentiates those who believe from those who do not believe? Is it the faith that God gives to people. Chappie, I think wants to say, No. Was it the knowledge that was then mixed with faith? If yes, then we could divide humanity into two groups; those who obtain that knowledge can be saved and those who do not cannot be saved. It appears that Chappie wants to say, No, to this also. That leaves the individual differences among people to determine who will accept and who will reject. If faith and knowledge come from God and He knows who will react to this faith and knowledge, then God has again determined who will be saved by structuring the faith He gives to work with the differences among people to achieve the salvation of those who share a particular difference and not others who do not share that difference.

[rhutchin]

rhutchin
Based on that foreknowledge God predestines those whom He will save and those whom He will not save. I am not sure what you think needs to be reconciled.

Ormly
That's not true. He does not predestine [does not pick and choose] whom He will save. He predestines [picks and chooses] from those He does save, already having foreknowledge of them. He also predestines those that He foreknows will reject Him. He does not pick and choose those for evil and damnation. They are already from evil and damnation. So this is nothing from Himself but from themselves, that damns them. You are screwing up what is being declared from your own mouth.

Romans 8:29 (KJV)
For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

Remember that verse? Which thing comes first as you read it?

Would I wrong If I read it this way: "He foreknew those He predestined" -- both the good and bad?

We agree that God predestines those that He foreknows will reject Him. That is the Calvinist system. The only issue here is whether God predestines to do nothing and allow those who reject Him to go to hell or whether God predestines to intervene to save some who reject Him.

The second issue is whether any actually accept Him and how this comes about. Here Ormly says, “He predestines [picks and chooses] from those He does save, already having foreknowledge of them.” What he means by this is a mystery to me.

[rhutchin]

I can see that this thread has wandered (as they do) but since it is initially about Limited Atonement, I'd like to ask a question that I've always wondered about, whom some died in the wool Calvinist may be able to give me the Calvinist answer to. I need the meaning of five words. They are:


"...and not for ours only..."

As found in 1 John 2:2...

"And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world."

Could anyone tell me what those 5 words mean? (not what they don't mean)

Ari

The words "...and not for ours only..." mean that the verse applies to all people. The key word is “but.”

Calvinists distinguish what this verse says and what it does not say.

The verse says--

"And he is the propitiation for our sins:…”

The verse does NOT say--

"And he propitiates our sins:…”

The difference is John's use of “propitiation” as the direct object and not “propitiate” as a verb. It is true that Christ is the propitiation for the sins of the world. It is not true that Christ propitiates the sins of the world.

[themuzicman]

I think it can be argued that all the phases of our journey are as good as done in God's mind. He knows the outcome because He will see to it.

But these others are spoken of as though they are complete, yet glorification is not.

As to Ormly's emphasis on foreknown, I believe that foreknown refers to an intimacy. Knowing a woman speaks of intimacy. God knew us before we were born. That is to say that even before creation, those He was going to save were in His mind in an intimate way. Not the vessels of destruction though. Mystery? A ton.

Well, "knowing" a woman is a euphamism. There is no analogy of closeness, here. Nor is there the implication of foreknowlegde before salvation.

Michael

[GoBahnsen]

But these others are spoken of as though they are complete, yet glorification is not.

We are also told that we are seated with Christ in the heavenly places. It's a position. Though we are not actually glorified yet, we must finish our course, still glorification will be the portion for God's elect. It's past tense in God's mind.

Well, "knowing" a woman is a euphamism. There is no analogy of closeness, here. Nor is there the implication of foreknowlegde before salvation.

Michael

What will you say then? That God foreknew who would choose Him? You can't even go there as an OVT.