"The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands." (Psalm 19:1)
https://discussions.godandscience.org/
Here's another take on it: The way I see it this great chasm between the two camps comes down to the difference (if any) between predestination and foreknowledge. The Arminian camp sees no contradiction between foreknowledge and man's ability to freely choose God. The Calvinist camp, on the other hand, asserts that foreknowledge amounts to nothing more than God looking down the corridor of time so-to-speak, then having gained the foreknowledge necessary to formulate his salvation plan, he went ahead and did so, making him a lesser god reacting to the whims of his creation, albeit before it actually happened. IMO both camps have some measure of merit. If God foreknew who will be saved then those who will be saved are already known to God before the start of time. Can it not then be argued that those who will be saved were predestined to be saved? In either camp the number of saved (or elect or whatever) is a finite number and is the same exact number, it does not and will not change (as far as God is concerned, of course). The fundamental flaw in the Calvinist's reasoning is that it attributes a measure of time for God's foreknowledge (the looking down the corridor thing) whereas in fact God's foreknowledge was before time itself. The concept that God had to wait for his creation's decision is inherently self-contradictory and therefore moot. Having said that, however, there is a real consequence beyond the difference between those two ideas, and that is the great commission. The bible is very clear on that and anything that diminishes or undermines it, is again inherently unbiblical.Jac3510 wrote:I'd definitely be in very broad agreement with you here, K. It's a subtle issue, but it is important, what exactly atonement is. Most people see the atonement of sin as the same thing as salvation. They can't fathom atonement without justification. That's why I said it's all tradition. I don't know anywhere in Scripture that equates the two . . .
Just wanting to make sure I'm understanding your comment. A common misconception of Calvinism is that the elect are simply those that God could see would accept Christ. If I am understanding the comment correctly, you are asserting this. Just wanting to clarify...If this is not what you mean, my apologies.byblos wrote:The Calvinist camp, on the other hand, asserts that foreknowledge amounts to nothing more than God looking down the corridor of time so-to-speak, then having gained the foreknowledge necessary to formulate his salvation plan, he went ahead and did so, making him a lesser god reacting to the whims of his creation, albeit before it actually happened. IMO both camps have some measure of merit. If God foreknew who will be saved
Hi Zoegirl,zoegirl wrote:Just wanting to make sure I'm understanding your comment. A common misconception of Calvinism is that the elect are simply those that God could see would accept Christ. If I am understanding the comment correctly, you are asserting this. Just wanting to clarify...If this is not what you mean, my apologies.byblos wrote:The Calvinist camp, on the other hand, asserts that foreknowledge amounts to nothing more than God looking down the corridor of time so-to-speak, then having gained the foreknowledge necessary to formulate his salvation plan, he went ahead and did so, making him a lesser god reacting to the whims of his creation, albeit before it actually happened. IMO both camps have some measure of merit. If God foreknew who will be saved
This from John Piper's webste
"Now notice the implication this has for the meaning of foreknowledge in verse 29. When Paul says in verse 29, "Those whom he foreknew he also predestined," he can't mean (as so many try to make him mean) that God knows in advance who will use their free will to come to faith, so that he can predestine them to sonship because they made that free choice on their own. It can't mean that because we have seen from verse 30 that people do not come to faith on their own. They are called irresistibly.
God does not foreknow the free decisions of people to believe in him because there aren't any such free decisions to know. If anyone comes to faith in Jesus, it is because they were quickened from the dead (Ephesians 2:5) by the creative Spirit of God. That is, they are effectually called from darkness into light.
So the foreknowledge of Romans 8:29 is not the mere awareness of something that will happen in the future apart from God's predetermination. Rather it is the kind of knowledge referred to in Old Testament texts like Genesis 18:19 ("I have chosen [literally:known] Abraham so that he may charge his children...to keep the way of the Lord"), and Jeremiah 1:5 ("Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations") and Amos 3:2 ("You only [Israel] have I known from all the families of the earth").
As C.E.B. Cranfield says, the foreknowledge of Romans 8:29 is "that special taking knowledge of a person which is God's electing grace." Such foreknowledge is virtually the same as election: "Those whom he foreknew (i.e. chose) he predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son."
Therefore what this magnificent text (Romans 8:28-33) teaches is that God really accomplishes the complete redemption of his people from start to finish. He foreknows, i.e. elects a people for himself before the foundation of the world, he predestines this people to be conformed to the image of his Son, he calls them to himself in faith, he justifies them through that faith, and he finally glorifies them—and nothing can separate them from the love of God in Christ for ever and ever (Romans 8:39). To him be all praise and glory! Amen. "
http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibr ... Calvinism/
(Really nice exposition on Reformed theology, well written)
And I absolutely agree about the great commision. Another common misconception is that we should not have to witness if unconditional election is true. But simply because God knows who He will elect does not exclude our role in this process. He wills us to be the ones to plants the seed, waters the seed, or harvests the seed. True, in some, like Paul, God did not use anybody on the road. But far more commonly we see in scripture that God uses people to deliver His word. We cannot see who are amongst those that God elects. We are to deliver God's good message.
Regards
You're right Jac. I wasn't implying that's what Calvinists believed. I was trying to say that's what they accuse Arminianits of believing when free will is factorted into the salvation equation.Jac3510 wrote:Byblos
Maybe my mind is just on retard mode right now and I can't think straight, but Calvinism doesn't teach that God "looked down the corridors of time", saw who would believe and elected them. If anything, that's the view of those who hold to corporate election. Calvinists hold to particular election. They believe that God chose individuals for His own pleasure (which always seemed to me to be a round about way of saying-but-not-saying "arbitrarily"), and those individuals, being elected, would be drawn (irresistably), justified, etc.
I guess we both do then ...Jac3510 wrote:As far as election goes in more general terms, I've talked extensively about my own view on these boards. My view has absolutely zero problem with the God's sovereignty/human responsibility debate. Put simply, for those who don't remember: God chose to save all those who are in Christ. Thus, God--according to foreknowledge (which is NOT thing as "looking down the corridors of time. That's just silly; He is outside of time)--in His ever-present reality, saw two groups of people in front of Him: those in Adam, and those in Christ. He then made a choice. He looked at every individual in Christ, chose to save them by HIS work, and foreknew them (in the Calvinist sense of the word).
How's that for non-Calvinist monergism. I actually DO believe in irresistable grace and particular election.
(scratching head, can't see the difference)Jac3510 wrote:I just reject the Calvinist version of them . . .
Ah, so you're saying that Calvinism sees them as one and the same? If they are different, can you explain how one can atone for their sins and yet not be born again? Wouldn't atoning imply having believed the gospel and accepting Christ?Jac3510 wrote:But I still say this whole problem relates back to the Reformed view that atonement = (or -> ) justification. I believe a person can have their sins atoned for and still be condemned to the Lake of Fire, not because they lost that atonement, but because atonement doesn't open the Pearly Gates. That would be regeneration (being born again).
desiring god wrote:The atonement is the work of God in Christ on the cross whereby he canceled the debt of our sin, appeased his holy wrath against us, and won for us all the benefits of salvation. The death of Christ was necessary because God would not show a just regard for his glory if he swept sins under the rug with no recompense.
Romans 3:25-26 says that God "put Christ forward as a propitiation by his blood...This was to demonstrate God's righteousness because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to prove at the present time that he himself is righteous and that he justifies those who have faith in Jesus."
In other words the death of Christ was necessary to vindicate the righteousness of God in justifying the ungodly by faith. It would be unrighteous to forgive sinners as though their sin were insignificant, when in fact it is an infinite insult against the value of God's glory. Therefore Jesus bears the curse, which was due to our sin, so that we can be justified and the righteousness of God can be vindicated.
The term "limited atonement" addresses the question, "For whom did Christ die?" But behind the question of the extent of the atonement lies the equally important question about the nature of the atonement. What did Christ actually achieve on the cross for those for whom he died?
If you say that he died for every human being in the same way, then you have to define the nature of the atonement very differently than you would if you believed that Christ only died for those who actually believe. In the first case you would believe that the death of Christ did not actually save anybody; it only made all men savable. It did not actually remove God's punitive wrath from anyone, but instead created a place where people could come and find mercy—IF they could accomplish their own new birth and bring themselves to faith without the irresistible grace of God.
For if Christ died for all men in the same way then he did not purchase regenerating grace for those who are saved. They must regenerate themselves and bring themselves to faith. Then and only then do they become partakers of the benefits of the cross.
In other words if you believe that Christ died for all men in the same way, then the benefits of the cross cannot include the mercy by which we are brought to faith, because then all men would be brought to faith, but they aren't. But if the mercy by which we are brought to faith (irresistible grace) is not part of what Christ purchased on the cross, then we are left to save ourselves from the bondage of sin, the hardness of heart, the blindness of corruption, and the wrath of God.
Therefore it becomes evident that it is not the Calvinist who limits the atonement. It is the Arminian, because he denies that the atoning death of Christ accomplishes what we most desperately need—namely, salvation from the condition of deadness and hardness and blindness under the wrath of God. The Arminian limits the nature and value and effectiveness of the atonement so that he can say that it was accomplished even for those who die in unbelief and are condemned. In order to say that Christ died for all men in the same way, the Arminian must limit the atonement to a powerless opportunity for men to save themselves from their terrible plight of depravity.
On the other hand we do not limit the power and effectiveness of the atonement. We simply say that in the cross God had in view the actual redemption of his children. And we affirm that when Christ died for these, he did not just create the opportunity for them to save themselves, but really purchased for them all that was necessary to get them saved, including the grace of regeneration and the gift of faith."
Hope this helpsdesiring god wrote: "This calling in verse 30 is not given to all people. The reason we know it's not is that all those who are called are also justified—but all men are not justified. So this calling in verse 30 is not the general call to repentance that preachers give or that God gives through the glory of nature. Everybody receives that call. The call of verse 30 is given only to those whom God predestined to be conformed to the image of his son (v.29). And it is a call that leads necessarily to justification: "Those whom he called he also justified."
But we know that justification is by faith (Romans 5:1). What then is this call that is given to all those who are predestined and which leads to justification? It must be the call of irresistible grace. It is the call of 1 Corinthians 1:24 which we discussed above on page 6.
Between the act of predestination and justification there is the act of calling. Since justification is only by faith the calling in view must be the act of God whereby he calls faith into being. And since it necessarily results in justification it must be irresistible. There are none called (in this sense! not the sense of Matthew 22:14) who are not justified. All the called are justified. So the calling of verse 30 is the sovereign work of God which brings a person to faith by which he is justified."
Ah, I see. I knew that looked funny :pByblos wrote:You're right Jac. I wasn't implying that's what Calvinists believed. I was trying to say that's what they accuse Arminianits of believing when free will is factorted into the salvation equation.
Haha, ask PL (or zoe, if she's read much of my posting) if my view of election is anything near the Calvinist view. They believe that God chose individuals to be saved, and because of that election, these people will be brought to faith. As I've said before, I heard a Calvinist preacher in my area say recently, "You aren't saved because you believed. You believed because you are saved!"Byblos wrote:(scratching head, can't see the difference)
K explained it very well, I think. He said:Byblos wrote:Ah, so you're saying that Calvinism sees them as one and the same? If they are different, can you explain how one can atone for their sins and yet not be born again? Wouldn't atoning imply having believed the gospel and accepting Christ?
Basically, I see atonement as the covering of sin. It is no more than that. Just because our sins have been covered (and removed at that) thanks to Jesus' work on the cross doesn't guarantee we are born again. That's the entire problem with most of the Christian world today. They look at salvation as the forgiveness of sins. It is no such thing. Salvation (that is, "going to heaven") comes when we receive eternal life. That, in my view, is a very different issue than having our sins atoned for.Kurieuo wrote:I do not claim to know how atonement is often used or intended, however in my own mind I understand atonement to be the act of forgiveness by Christ which removes the barrier of sin between God and humanity. Universal atonement is not equivalent to universal reconciliation. In order to say "Some atonement huh?" in response to a universal atonement failing to save some from hell, both forgiveness and reconciliation must be combined under atonement. Yet as I see it, atonement does not involve reconciliation. To say atonement does involve reconciliation I believe pushes too much into its meaning and clear use. No, atonement simply involves an atoning for our sins - making them no longer an issue between us and God. Reconciliation on the other hand involves the forgiven parties, us humans, accepting and receiving such forgiveness and a desire by both parties to be in relationship. (emphasis mine)