Most difficult of the 5 points?

[BlackCalvinist]

A few of you may want to read over here and see where a few non-Calvinists and some 'almost-Calvinists' are right now:

Discussion Thread for Non-Calvinists

Not saying all of their 'beefs' are valid, but take notes and let them affect the way in which you approach the topic from now on in convos with folks.

 

[GoYouBlues]

Timothy William, have you checked out the Reformed Church in Rivett? I am a Presbyterian at heart but attended the Reformed church for seven years when I lived in Canberra (the PCA was very liberal). The Reformed Church congregation is very conservative and its current Session is solidly reformed. My main criticism was that they were/are amillennial (in my view defeatists) which did not suit my postmillenial position. I had to put up with that. Overall though, a good bunch of believers.

 

[GoYouBlues]

I'm new to this board and I don't want to threaten with the Choice song, but dead men don't make choices.

Men who are spiritually dead can't choose life - it is only when the Spirit of God who breathes life into the dead spirit that a man is able to respond.

 

[toddpedlar]

I'm new to this board and I don't want to threaten with the Choice song, but dead men don't make choices.

Men who are spiritually dead can't choose life - it is only when the Spirit of God who breathes life into the dead spirit that a man is able to respond.

I don't think Evon was promoting the error of non-total depravity, but stating what most people believe.

If I am wrong, Evon, correct me please... but if so, we've got a lot of talking to do.

 

[Vonnie Dee]

You are correct. Dead men can't make choices.

I am indeed stating what Armenians mean when they say they agree with total depravity. They don't really mean men are totally depraved. They mean men are mostly depraved. I, however, know that men are totally depraved. I hope that clears things up.

 

[Greg]

I have a different take on this. Limited atonement is supposedly the most difficult of the five points to accept. Actually it is the entire five points itself! None of the five points exists independently. They are symbiotic. Reject one and by default you are rejecting the others.

I agree. I believe Anthony hit the main point as well. If one properly understands Total Depravity, and the implication of that doctrine on man's will, then the rest naturally falls into place, both biblically and logically speaking. Most of the time when I speak with someone who claims to hold to all points except Limited Atonement, I'll notice that their actual understanding of TD is lacking. They're still allowing for sinful man's spiritual ability to some degree...and I believe that it's to the degree that they do this, that they reject the doctrine of LA, or any other point for that matter.

I believe that TD is actually the hardest to accept rightly understood, as it is taught in Scripture.

 

[danmpem]

I have a different take on this. Limited atonement is supposedly the most difficult of the five points to accept. Actually it is the entire five points itself! None of the five points exists independently. They are symbiotic. Reject one and by default you are rejecting the others.

I agree. I believe Anthony hit the main point as well. If one properly understands Total Depravity, and the implication of that doctrine on man's will, then the rest naturally falls into place, both biblically and logically speaking. Most of the time when I speak with someone who claims to hold to all points except Limited Atonement, I'll notice that their actual understanding of TD is lacking. They're still allowing for sinful man's spiritual ability to some degree...and I believe that it's to the degree that they do this, that they reject the doctrine of LA, or any other point for that matter.

I believe that TD is actually the hardest to accept rightly understood, as it is taught in Scripture.

That is why when I lead small group, I approach Total Depravity from more than just one side. Instead of saying "look at how dead man is", I also take the approach of saying "look at what it takes for God to regenerate a fallen person, because the point isn't getting you to God when you die, the hard part is getting God in you."

 

[onewayout]

Limited Atonement.

Lots of discussion here about Limited atonement. I'm still working through alot of this.. How do you interpret.


¶ My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:


1Jo 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for [the sins of] the whole world.

Thanks in advance.

 

[KMK]

Lots of discussion here about Limited atonement. I'm still working through alot of this.. How do you interpret.


¶ My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:


1Jo 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for [the sins of] the whole world.

Thanks in advance.

Well, for one, what is the definition of the words 'the whole world'? The 'whole world' cannot mean every single person who has ever lived throughout time because that would mean everyone's sins have been atoned for and everyone is therefore saved.

 

[Greg]

Lots of discussion here about Limited atonement. I'm still working through alot of this.. How do you interpret.


¶ My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:


1Jo 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for [the sins of] the whole world.

Thanks in advance.

Here's a helpful explanation of that passage.

 

[Iconoclast]

Lots of discussion here about Limited atonement. I'm still working through alot of this.. How do you interpret.


¶ My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:


1Jo 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for [the sins of] the whole world.

Thanks in advance.

John said this in his gospel JN11;

49And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all,

50Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.

51And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation;

52And not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad.

 

[onewayout]

Be patient..

Okay. Greg gave me the link to the article that John was speaking to the Jews.. 1st John has no salutation, greeting or farewell addressed to any particular group or person. Therefore, isn't it a general Epistle to the "Church"? I can't find any indication in First John that he's adressing Jews only. The Bible is silent.. so that would be left to "personal interpretation."
Iconoclast, states that Caiaphas spoke of the jewish nation. Showing the difference between Jews and the rest of the world. But God had not yet turned to the Gentiles. As far as they were concerned, the Gentiles were no where in God's mind or plans.................. Oh I see, he's (Iconoclast)showing how John writes it almost the same way as he does in 1st John.
I'm not trying to be argumenative. I believe that God doesn't need anything from you and I. I do believe that we are DEAD in our sin. And whosoever will, will not unless God the Spirit draws and enlightens them. And I'm certainly not Armenian. There's no God "spark" in any of us. I"m trying to approach The "L" with an open mind. Like I try to do God's word.

 

[Greg]

Okay. Greg gave me the link to the article that John was speaking to the Jews.. 1st John has no salutation, greeting or farewell addressed to any particular group or person. Therefore, isn't it a general Epistle to the "Church"? I can't find any indication in First John that he's adressing Jews only. The Bible is silent.. so that would be left to "personal interpretation."

Certainly this is an authoritative epistle to the Church as a whole, but who was John's immediate hearers? Who was his specific audience at that time? (Context)

"James and Cephas (Peter) and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me (Paul) and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, so that we might go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised (Jews)." -Galatians 2:9

But God had not yet turned to the Gentiles. As far as they were concerned, the Gentiles were no where in God's mind or plans

Exactly! That is precisely why John wrote what he did! Even after Christ's ascension, the issue of the Gentiles' inclusion in the promises of God was still being debated by the Jewish believers at the time.

 

[onewayout]

I'll show myself to the door.

Okay. Well it's time for this babe to stop choking on all this "strong meat" and go get some milk. I do appreciate your answers and taking the time to reply. I guess I'll show myself out of this discussion.

 

[timmopussycat]

How I deal with L and U

Why I am a Calvinist

Some years ago now, two friends of mine got married and I was invited to help in the wedding.
Although I do not play professionally, my first degree is a BMus in trombone performance. At the time, I had two trombones in my cupboard. One trombone is made of silver and had a smaller diameter bore than the other, which is made of rose brass. The differences make for significant differences in the way the instruments sound. The smaller, silver trombone has a hard, bright, and clear sound, a soloist’s sound - the ideal of the jazz world. The bigger rose brass trombone has a softer, darker, and heavier sound which classical composers and orchestra conductors tend to prefer.

So when I was asked to play at the wedding I had to decide which of the two horns I would use. Upon seeing the proposed music, I realized that the sound of the bigger horn would be a more fitting accompaniment to the chosen hymns. And so, it was the bigger trombone that I took to the church.

This decision involved a choice between instruments and the choice was determined because I had a particular end in mind; a more fitting sound to glorify God, and to better help my friends and their guests worship him. Although I foreknew the sound I wanted, I had to decide between alternatives to get the desired result.

In 1 Cor. 1: 26-30 we read this:

"For consider your calling, brethren, that there were not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble; but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong, and the base things of the world and the despised. God has chosen the things that are not, that he might nullify the things that are, that no man should boast before God. But by his doing you are in Christ Jesus…"

God had desired results in view when he chose who would receive “the calling”. He wanted to shame the wise, the strong, and the things that are. And all these goals were themselves means to an ultimate goal; which was that no man should boast before God.

Now if God has only foreknown who will come to faith, Paul could not have written that “God has chosen…to shame…” or “God has chosen…to nullify…” or “…that no man should boast before God...” because such foreknowledge can never be in a cause and effect relationship with particular goals. Instead mere foreknowledge must accept whatever comes to pass. But God chooses “the called” order to achieve particular ends. Thus, this passage makes it impossible to translate the word “chosen” merely as “foreknew” as Arminianism requires.

And that is one reason why I am a Calvinist.

 

[Iconoclast]

Okay. Well it's time for this babe to stop choking on all this "strong meat" and go get some milk. I do appreciate your answers and taking the time to reply. I guess I'll show myself out of this discussion.

Clayton,
We are all learning about our Lord and if you are patient and work through alot of these issues you will be able to help others also.
The atonement is strong meat but if even the angels desire to look into it we should also.
Clayton - it is also a good idea to work through the confessions of faith, to see what other believer's in other times have seen as truth in the bible.Just getting used to the various terms and verses used to help us come to truth.
In here many portions of scripture are discussed and debated. Just seeing what issues come up can be instructive. Then if you read some of the puritans you will soon see that they examined every aspect of life ,according to the plumline of scripture.
Take some time and read through some of these threads as you will not find this forum in many other online discussions.

 

[Red Beetle]

It is interesting to see the different opinions on the 5-points.
Gordon H. Clark had this advice to new converts:

"Accordingly, if this Christian is a very recent convert, raised in complete ignorance of the Scripture, as some of my students have been, one might advise him to begin study on the Atonement. But if he has some vague knowledge on assorted doctrines, the answer could be: Start on the subject that interests you most. This would not be a systematic and logical procedure, but it would capitalize on his present interest."
(Lord God Of Truth, page 43)

 

[john]

I'd go for unconditional election. God is fair and gives everyone a chance. This means they do not believe Christ death is effectual so they do not believe in Christ, they believe in their decision.

God swore an oath that Eli's house would have no atonement, limited atonement is proved beyond doubt by 1 Sam 3:14.

1Jo 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for [the sins of] the whole world.

onewayout, if the 'whole world' means everyone that ever lived then the scriptures contradict. 1 Sam 3:14 Therefore, I swore to the house of Eli, `The guilt of Eli's house will never be atoned for by sacrifice or offering.' "


john.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Hello Clayton,

If you're still looking in, that's a good question: how does one interpret 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.​

I believe John wrote this later in his life, perhaps around the year 90 A.D., when he was reportedly living in Asia Minor/Ephesus, and there were Gentiles in the area as well as Jews. We know he surely had the Jews in mind writing this epistle, as well as Gentiles, and with the former it is well known they were long indoctrinated that only they would be saved when Messiah came — and the Gentiles condemned. The Jews reading or hearing this epistle would know very well what John meant: that not only they but Gentiles in the world outside Israel were to be included in the propitiation the Redeemer offered unto God.

In like manner John the Baptizer knew exactly what he was saying when he cried out, "Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world." (Jn 1:29) Likewise the Lord Jesus, when He said, "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son..." (Jn 3:16) To the Jewish mind this expanded vision (albeit foretold by the prophets; Cf. Isa 42:6; 49:6; Ps 22:27; Mal 1:11, etc) of God's plan of salvation was not readily accepted by the Jews. To wit: When Paul in Acts 22:21 told the assembled Jewish crowd that the Messiah had said to him. "Depart: for I will send thee far hence unto the Gentiles," their reaction was, "Away with such a fellow from the earth: for it is not fit that he should live." It was an unspeakable travesty of the ways of God (to them) that such a thing should be.

Little wonder John — who had an apostolic commission to the Jews (even while he spoke to and lived among the Gentiles) — continually reiterated this point to them: not only for you, but for the elect in the whole world beyond Israel, has the Propitiation been made.

 

[danmpem]

Here's a helpful explanation of that passage.

Although I affirm the L in TULIP, I guess I need someone to explain the chart to me (in the link you gave). I am having some trouble seeing the parallels between the two passages.

 

[Greg]

It appears the parallel he's making there is this:

"Jesus would die for the nation" (John 11) with "He Himself is the propitiation for our sins" (1 John 2).

As well as "and not for the nation only, but also that He would gather together in one the children of God scattered abroad" (John 11) with "and not for ours only, but also for the whole world" (1 John 2).

 

[javacodeman]

L was the last one for me, but I would say that I "struggled" with it. I simply said "I don't know" until I searched the scriptures. Once I read what others were saying and backed it up in the Bible, it came naturally. And as a lot of you have stated, it's hard to have some of the points with out all of the points.

Anyways, here's what I wrote about L in an editorial response to an article.

I will not “thunder” or speak boldly in this area because scripture does not speak clearly in this area. This doctrine is a derivative of known truths combined with human reasoning, which is known to fail. In any case, here are the truths. First, God is eternal, and outside of the bounds of time (1Ti 1:17 and Rom 1:20) and immutable (Jas 1:17 and Mal 3:6). Second, God is omniscient (Dan 2:22, Isa 46:9-10); whether or not this knowledge is causative or determinative is moot here. Third, Christ’s sacrifice is perfect (Heb 10:11-18). Christ’s sacrifice is a “propitiation (literally, the satisfaction or payment for … sins).” Christ’s sacrifice, once applied cannot be removed as its application separates us from our sins as far as the east is from the west (Psa 103:12). Now appears the reasoning portion. If all of these are true, how can Christ’s sacrifice be unapplied from the non-believing? It should not be a picture of God ladling out payment for sins as each believer comes to Christ. Rather, the picture should be Christ taking on all of the sins of believers (because God perfectly knows who they are) and making a perfect payment once for all. What we find troubling about this picture is the seeming inability to affect the outcome of our loved ones. If everything is decided with no room for change, why pray or witness? First we are commanded to. Second, we are told that prayer is effectual (Jas 5:16). Is this a lie? Does God tell us to pray and then turn to laugh because it does nothing? No and no. The same God that is eternal and omniscient to the point of fore-knowing believers is eternal and omniscient to the point of fore-knowing our prayers. He hears our prayers in eternity past! He moves His hand according to His will, but His will is often bent around our supplications! What a merciful and mighty God we serve!

 

[Steve Dixon]

It has been helpful for me in this discussion of the word "world" to point out that 1 John 5:19 has some rather profound implications.

"19We know that we are children of God, and that the whole world is under the control of the evil one."

The text points out that there are two distinct classes set apart. 1. "we", who are children of God and 2. "whole world", those under control of the evil one. "We" are not part of the "whole world" therefore "whole world" cannot mean everyone without distinction. "Whole world" is therefore limited to those whose controller is the "evil one".