Help on Limited Atonement

[Thomas2003]

But since God's design is that his creatures are independent of him- ergo we are not part of a Buddhist "God is one with everything" world, it simply is not wrong to conclude that He gives us a free choice.

He gave Adam free choice, not us. We were conceived in sin and appointed unto death. Our choices are ethically limited.

Argue if you will that I am dead, dead, dead, without Christ.

Well, I don't know you and would never argue that. The biblical concept that one is "dead in trespasses and sins" is an ethical standing, if that is what you are talking about. You can't change the judgment of God upon your sin. It is not an optional status, the gavel has been layed down.

At some point along the path from death to life, I must logically become aware of my responsibility to the creator and choose to obey or disobey.

Yes, but that is not salvific. For example, you've heard the argument concerning Jacob and Esau, I'm sure, but Esau later attempted to repent and no place was made for it.

"For ye know how that afterward, when he would have inherited the blessing, he was rejected: for he found no place of repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears." Hebrews 12:17

That’s why even though Calvinists hammer with all their might against my taking literally the unctionary and imperative passages of scripture, I see no contradiction

I don't know what you are talking about, I haven't used a hammer on anything.

This is also where the Thomas Oden book I've repeatedly referred to comes in handy, You would do well to take a look at it.

Thanks.

[Thomas2003]

I've explained this in detail, God elects in eternity and creates in time - it's not a problem. How is it that Christ was incarnated in time yet He has always been incarnate? Solving these apparent paradoxes are not the pre-requisite, believing in the Creator God is.

Yes, it is a problem. If you were elected in eternity and all your sins were payed for - then why were you still under the eternal God's wrath. What sins was He hold against you.

Well, Seer, I've posted numerous things with substantive elements and I've explained myself a couple of times on this. Insistence does not make something true either way, but you haven't dealt with any of the substantive things I've posted, just kept insisting that this eschatological premise is a soteriological one.

I haven't been resurrected yet either, I'm still under wrath even after coming to knowledge of faith and I expect to die in my body. My soteriology is an eschatological hope in the resurrection. What you are arguing is that your eschatology is a soteriological problem, that you must have a logical chronology. I suspect you haven't been resurrected yet either and are still under wrath even though you were saved by "free will."

Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:45-47 addresses this philosophical premise of a logical chronology as it pertains an eschatological premise concering regeneration or "quickening". Maybe you would find profit in that.

I guess I would conclude with Pauls words, "As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly. Now this I say, brethern, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, neither doth corruption inherit incorruption."

From my point of view, I understand your problem in that light, that regeneration is somehow a completion of the inheritance when it's not.

So, I don't mean to be rude, but your presuppositional thinking is very Greek to me, so I don't know if much profit can be gathered by continuing this. 1 Corinthians 1:23

Cordially,

Thomas

[Kevin Wayne]

Hi everyone,


But being born again is conversion! Once a person is born again, they are "in Christ, a new creation," it's all over and done with. People do tend to look at conversion as a marriage, but it's not, it's a birth, which is entirely passive, as is a resurrection (Col. 2:13), as is creation (2 Cor. 4:6; 5:17), these are the primary analogies of salvation, and all of them are completely passive on the part of the person.


Yes, exactly, "We love because he first loved us" (1 Jn. 4:19), the cause of our love is the love of God, for "love comes from God" (1 Jn. 4:7).


Certainly not! But that's at the end of the process, not at the beginning, the church is not even the Bride of Christ now (songs do say that, but it's not true). The church is now the fiancée of Christ, but that doesn't fit so well in lyrics. And let us remember that engagements in those days were typically arranged by the parents. Again, this is passive...

Blessings,
Lee

What you are saying is that salvation is a once and for all event. I think its an event, but it's also a process. and it doens't necessarily end with "conversion".

[Kevin Wayne]

He gave Adam free choice, not us. We were conceived in sin and appointed unto death. Our choices are ethically limited.

To serve or not serve the Lord God is and always was the choice.

Well, I don't know you and would never argue that. The biblical concept that one is "dead in trespasses and sins" is an ethical standing, if that is what you are talking about. You can't change the judgment of God upon your sin. It is not an optional status, the gavel has been layed down.

Agreed. But then are you arguing that it's not a matter of inward deprivation? If so you really don't have as big of a kick against Arminians as you think. ("I" was used rhetorically, just as an fyi.)


In fact, the more I read your stuff, you sound a lot Roman Catholic on these things.

Yes, but that is not salvific. For example, you've heard the argument concerning Jacob and Esau, I'm sure, but Esau later attempted to repent and no place was made for it.

"For ye know how that afterward, when he would have inherited the blessing, he was rejected: for he found no place of repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears." Hebrews 12:17

He could not repent because the transfer of what was rightfuly his was already made to someone else. I'm sure that spiritual state is replayed out many times in our choices to continue or not continue with God.

I don't know what you are talking about, I haven't used a hammer on anything.

Simply making a generalization.

Thanks.

You're welcome. Again thats Oden, "Transforming Power of Grace". Good reading on the development of the early Church/Historical church on these issues.

[Kevin Wayne]

Well, Seer, I've posted numerous things with substantive elements and I've explained myself a couple of times on this. Insistence does not make something true either way, but you haven't dealt with any of the substantive things I've posted, just kept insisting that this eschatological premise is a soteriological one.

I haven't been resurrected yet either, I'm still under wrath even after coming to knowledge of faith and I expect to die in my body. My soteriology is an eschatological hope in the resurrection. What you are arguing is that your eschatology is a soteriological problem, that you must have a logical chronology. I suspect you haven't been resurrected yet either and are still under wrath even though you were saved by "free will."

Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:45-47 addresses this philosophical premise of a logical chronology as it pertains an eschatological premise concering regeneration or "quickening". Maybe you would find profit in that.

I guess I would conclude with Pauls words, "As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly. Now this I say, brethern, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, neither doth corruption inherit incorruption."

From my point of view, I understand your problem in that light, that regeneration is somehow a completion of the inheritance when it's not.

So, I don't mean to be rude, but your presuppositional thinking is very Greek to me, so I don't know if much profit can be gathered by continuing this. 1 Corinthians 1:23

Cordially,

Thomas

I think there is a place for understanding the escatological in the salvation process, but we'd be drifiting way off topic here.

[Colossians]

seer,

Scripture says nothing about Temporally or Causally. Whatever that is supposed to mean. You were under God's wrath period. Christ's work on the cross was of no saving benefit to you until you believed.
The mark of bias, is the one who dismisses an argument after it has refuted his.
Of course scripture talks about causal and temporal. Christ was slain before the foundation of the world. Causal.
Christ was crucified in time. Temporal.

Christ's death was substitionary punishment for us.

[seer]

seer,

Scripture says nothing about Temporally or Causally. Whatever that is supposed to mean. You were under God's wrath period. Christ's work on the cross was of no saving benefit to you until you believed.
The mark of bias, is the one who dismisses an argument after it has refuted his.
Of course scripture talks about causal and temporal. Christ was slain before the foundation of the world. Causal.
Christ was crucified in time. Temporal.

Christ's death was substitionary punishment for us.

No Colossians, this is about you actually being under God's wrath. Period. Now if your sin was already payed for what sin(s) was God holding against you?

[Thomas2003]

To serve or not serve the Lord God is and always was the choice.

That is the humanist position, it's just not a biblical one.

Agreed. But then are you arguing that it's not a matter of inward deprivation? If so you really don't have as big of a kick against Arminians as you think. ("I" was used rhetorically, just as an fyi.)

Total depravity is intended to be comprehended consistent with the ethical standing of a sinner, not in contrast to it. However, the very first thing that Arminianism denies is the doctrine of sin, so it's really apples and oranges.

In fact, the more I read your stuff, you sound a lot Roman Catholic on these things.

You've already made this charge in another thread - when in fact it is Arminianism that is drawn from the well of sacerdotalism. Arminianism simply claims that sacerdotalism (e.g., demonstrative atonement) is administered through the individual priesthood of the believer by "free will." Arminianism is exactly identical to the Roman doctrine of salvation other than administration.

Calvinism is anti-Roman Catholic, but it is catholic, that is to say it claims to be the only Biblical representation of a Scriptural soteriology.

He could not repent because the transfer of what was rightfuly his was already made to someone else. I'm sure that spiritual state is replayed out many times in our choices to continue or not continue with God.

The product of God's election in Jacob.

[Kevin Wayne]

That is the humanist position, it's just not a biblical one.

In your view perhaps, but that doesn’t make it so.

Total depravity is intended to be comprehended consistent with the ethical standing of a sinner, not in contrast to it. However, the very first thing that Arminianism denies is the doctrine of sin, so it's really apples and oranges.

According to you. In fact, the strongest views of our depravity aren't necessarily Calvinist. Thomas Finger, Christian Theology Vol 2. Ch 6 & 8 will help you in that regard.

You've already made this charge in another thread - when in fact it is Arminianism that is drawn from the well of sacerdotalism. Arminianism simply claims that sacerdotalism (e.g., demonstrative atonement) is administered through the individual priesthood of the believer by "free will." Arminianism is exactly identical to the Roman doctrine of salvation other than administration.

No one I know believes we atone for our own sins.

Calvinism is anti-Roman Catholic, but it is catholic, that is to say it claims to be the only Biblical representation of a Scriptural soteriology.

Actually, in Harry McSorley's critique of Luther's Bondage, he pointed out that what was being done was actusly a recovery of the Catholic/Augustinian doctrine of sin/depravity. McSorely says the Catholic church agrees with the Biblical aspect of Luther's treatise, not the philosophical. There's broad agreement now that Calvinism isn't as rooted in the Augustinian paradigm as once was thought. Check out McSorely, Thomas Oden, Thomas Finger, in that regard.

The product of God's election in Jacob.

Which is conditional.

[Thomas2003]

In your view perhaps, but that doesn’t make it so.

When you assert that men are the arbiter of these things, it is not merely "my view," but your assertion. It is humanism.

According to you. In fact, the strongest views of our depravity aren't necessarily Calvinist. Thomas Finger, Christian Theology Vol 2. Ch 6 & 8 will help you in that regard.

The question is the meaning of sin and God's judgment upon it. In Calvinism man is dead in trespasses and sins, as Scripture teaches, in Arminianism he is sick. Certainly, one could view that your sickness is greater than deadness, but the point is that the greater the sickness claimed only serves to support a greater claim to save yourself.

No one I know believes we atone for our own sins.

Arminianism is explicit, it denies the fullness of the incarnation, and plea's "free will, free will, free will" as the presupposition of its denial.

Christ as rex et sacerdos is divinely King and only humanly a Priest. Arminianism is premised upon this claim and simply cannot accept Christ as God manifested in the flesh. While it's denial of Christ is sophisticated, it's still a denial. It denies Chalcedonian Christology and asserts a Greek dialetical Christology.

Christianity, however, is not dialetical, it's Trinitarian. Calvinism and Arminianism are two different Gospels.

[Kevin Wayne]

When you assert that men are the arbiter of these things, it is not merely "my view," but your assertion. It is humanism.

Which I've never asserted, you asserted that I did.

The question is the meaning of sin and God's judgment upon it. In Calvinism man is dead in trespasses and sins, as Scripture teaches, in Arminianism he is sick. Certainly, one could view that your sickness is greater than deadness, but the point is that the greater the sickness claimed only serves to support a greater claim to save yourself.

Which has nothing to do with myself or what Finger is stating, merely your assumption from over wall.

Arminianism is explicit, it denies the fullness of the incarnation, and plea's "free will, free will, free will" as the presupposition of its denial.

From the beginning, with Arminius, "free will" was never claimed in terms of a Pelagian sense. And please, include Lutheranism in your broad brush there, since the Lutherans admitted they sympathized with the Arminians following Dordt.

Christ as rex et sacerdos is divinely King and only humanly a Priest. Arminianism is premised upon this claim and simply cannot accept Christ as God manifested in the flesh. While it's denial of Christ is sophisticated, it's still a denial. It denies Chalcedonian Christology and asserts a Greek dialetical Christology.

Christianity, however, is not dialetical, it's Trinitarian. Calvinism and Arminianism are two different Gospels.

Which is simply all your assertions and there's no basis to any of it in fact. Can you support any of your claims by a doctrinal statement- such as say, by Arminius that man is his own priest? Or that they deny the incarnation? Really then all you have are logical reasonings: "if this and this is true, then this and this must follow." It's also obvious that you are so convinced of your rightness on these issues that you won't really bother dealing with any of the resources I've given, and that's no surprise. Most Calvinists like yourself revel in thier own self-assured rightness.


Oden's a pretty sharp cookie- he's appeared in Modern Reformation magazine and co-written a book with J.I. Packer. That's how much those that are Reformed respect him. You would do well to give him consideration.


Until then I pretty much can see you as esconsed in your veil of rightness and unwilling to truly challenge your preconceptions. But it may not be forever. You probalby will wind up Roman Catholic or EO at some point, given your high view of the Creeds.

[lee_merrill]

Hi everyone,

Kevin: What you are saying is that salvation is a once and for all event. I think its an event, but it's also a process. and it doesn't necessarily end with "conversion".

Certainly, I agree, only the point being focused on in the verse in question is after conversion, however long that may take.

Kevin: To serve or not serve the Lord God is and always was the choice.

Well, let us notice that "choose this day whom you will serve" (Josh. 24:15) was presenting a choice between various idols! Not between idols and the Lord. And when they said "no, we will serve the Lord," Joshua said "you are not able to serve the Lord." And they weren't! As in the book of Judges, one failure after another, and "everyone did what was right in their own eyes."

Blessings,
Lee

[Kevin Wayne]

Certainly, I agree, only the point being focused on in the verse in question is after conversion, however long that may take.

Which I see as part & parcel to our perseverance.

Well, let us notice that "choose this day whom you will serve" (Josh. 24:15) was presenting a choice between various idols! Not between idols and the Lord. And when they said "no, we will serve the Lord," Joshua said "you are not able to serve the Lord." And they weren't! As in the book of Judges, one failure after another, and "everyone did what was right in their own eyes."

Certainly. It's Biblical that progressive disobedience brings about more disobedience. Got no probs with that. ;-)