Okay, exactly how many of us have gone over to the dark side?

[Melissa in CA]

I don't know a single non-Calvinist who thinks that way. Seriously. That is a gross misrepresentation of how people (who believe in free will) view their actions. You don't have to believe in election to appreciate and be humbled by God's grace...

 

Robin, I was not implying that non-Calvinists go around boasting in their choice. :001_huh: I was just stating that if the choice is indeed left up to us...we, in essence, do have something in our salvation in which to boast about.

 

For example before becoming a "Calvinist" I did not have patience with the unbeliever. I wanted nothing to do with them really. I did not understand why they refused to bow the knee to Christ and become a Christian like me. I was a bit arrogant to say the least and boastful in my choice.

 

After becoming a Calvinist, seeing that I am who I am ONLY by the grace of God, and that I too would not be a believer without Him gifting me with that belief. I no longer view unbelievers with derision. I love them and feel mercy towards them and realize that without Gods intervention, I would live a life just as ungodly as theirs; probably WORSE. I now embrace unbelievers with love and respect, and have many non-Christian friends.

 

All that to say: I no longer pass judgments on people like I used too. Right Doctrine encourages right thinking. ;) The Doctrines of Grace bring a humility to the heart that is life-changing. [and no, I am not now boasting in my humility :lol:]

 

Oh, and for the record, it's not like I went around verbally passing judgment on people, I wasn't THAT ugly, but in my heart I did; I felt I was better than them...it was not pretty. :tongue_smilie:

[Rosy]

I guess I just meant that God would desire for all to choose salvation, but knows that all won't, but He sovereignly gives over that choice to humans, to come to Him or not. Not that it strips Him of His power; He is sovereignly and willingly choosing not to overpower and make the choice for us.

 

Like I said, until today, I didn't realize how thoroughly I've been brainwashed with this free will idea, and I'm very interested that there is another valid and very alluring viewpoint.

 

It is extremely pervasive--and very common in the modern church!

 

I don't believe that God "sovereignly gives us the choice" to be saved. I think He knows that we are incapable of making that choice, just like a baby can't choose to be born.

[HappyGrace]

I'm so very proud of the way this thread is being handled by everyone-there is no derision or hostility here at all, in spite of the very different viewpoints being represented. It makes for a nice, thought-provoking discussion! Thank you to everyone for this! I have to go away from the computer for a couple hours for an appointment, but I will check back in when we get home.

 

I'd also like to add that I'm so interested in this thread that my Levenger package with my punch in it has been sitting out there on the porch untouched for over two hours while I've read all this and pondered! :eek:

[Robin in Tx]

For example before becoming a "Calvinist" I did not have patience with the unbeliever. I wanted nothing to do with them really. I did not understand why they refused to bow the knee to Christ and become a Christian like me. I was a bit arrogant to say the least and boastful in my choice.

 

That's funny because my experience has been the exact opposite. As long as I believed that a person still had the opportunity to accept christ, I continued to pray for their conversion. When I went through a period of thinking that maybe that person wasn't in the right spot in line when God went "eenie meenie minie moe", then I found myself thinking, "no reason to waste anymore on them... the gospel has been presented... if they are elect they will convert."

 

 

The point is that both of us experienced "wrong thinking" when on the other side of the fence... pride can be ugly and tends to raise its head no matter what theology you subscribe to.

[CAMom]

I'd also like to add that I'm so interested in this thread that my Levenger package with my punch in it has been sitting out there on the porch untouched for over two hours while I've read all this and pondered! :eek:

 

That's dedication!;)

 

:grouphug:

[angela in ohio]

I don't know a single non-calvinist who thinks that way. Seriously. That is a gross misrepresentation of how people (who believe in free will) view their actions. You don't have to believe in election to appreciate and be humbled by God's grace...

 

You are fortunate then, because I know dozens. It grieves my heart, because it seriously hinders their witness.

 

ETA: I agree with a PP who said they know Calvinists who are like this, too. I know a handful, and it really makes no sense to me. Pride on either side is wrong...

[Guest]

I guess I just meant that God would desire for all to choose salvation, but knows that all won't, but He sovereignly gives over that choice to humans, to come to Him or not. Not that it strips Him of His power; He is sovereignly and willingly choosing not to overpower and make the choice for us.

 

 

VS.

 

It is extremely pervasive--and very common in the modern church!

I don't believe that God "sovereignly gives us the choice" to be saved. I think He knows that we are incapable of making that choice, just like a baby can't choose to be born.

 

If I am understanding this thread correctly, isn't this exactly one of the main arguments of are you/aren't you?

 

Even if we presuppose that your above statement is correct, how do we get over the fact that those who are spiritually dead cannot choose spiritual life?

 

Therefore, I am not sure that you could take both of the above statements and agree on them. I think this, again, boils down to your interpretation of scripture, no?

 

I have been searching a lot lately as to what exactly this all means, and while I stand firm to what I believe, this has been enlightening, to say the least. I appreciate the tone that has been maintained, as well.

[Melissa in CA]

I'd also like to add that I'm so interested in this thread that my Levenger package with my punch in it has been sitting out there on the porch untouched for over two hours while I've read all this and pondered! :eek:

 

:lol:

[Melissa in CA]

The point is that both of us experienced "wrong thinking" when on the other side of the fence... pride can be ugly and tends to raise its head no matter what theology you subscribe to.

 

:iagree: That is very, very true. We are all sinners...despite our doctrine. ;)

[Melissa in CA]

Even if we presuppose that your above statement is correct, how do we get over the fact that those who are spiritually dead cannot choose spiritual life?

 

We make them spiritually sick instead. ;)

[Staci in MO]

I'm on the way out the door for a long weekend, so I don't have the time for a protracted discussion on this.

 

Calvinism really is more complex than most think, which is why Calvinist's usually KNOW what they believe and WHY they believe it.

 

And those who have heard of Calvinism have usually not studied it for themselves and therefore follow the basic mis-assumptions regarding it...such as Calvinists don't believe in evangelism which is very, very untrue. TRUE Calvinists take the bible and sin very seriously. A "Calvinist" who is living like a heathen thinking he can do whatever pleases him...should really rethink his salvation.

 

I realize that the five points stand together logically, and I've read and listened to Sproul, MacArthur, Piper, Packer, etc., expound on this, so it's not like I haven't studied this out. They make a great case, but there's a bit too much explaining away of words like "world" and "all" in Scripture for me to be completely comfortable with it.

 

I'm intrigued by Mark Driscoll's opinion the entire world has benefited from Christ's death and resurrection, but that benefit will only apply to non-Christians in this life, but I'm not quite ready to jump on that bandwagon, either.

 

Total depravity, predestination, irresistible grace, and perseverance of the saints are clear in Scripture. And while you can find Scriptural support for limited atonement, verses like 1 John 2:2 seem to indicate that Christ died for the sins of the whole world.

 

I have no idea how that fits together. So that is where I am just thankful that God chose to save me in spite of my inability to understand.

 

So it's me, my husband, my church, and apparently Mark Driscoll in this camp. Shun me if you must. :tongue_smilie:

[Carol in Cal.]

...there are many saving faiths.

 

(Old fashioned, conservative Lutherans say, "There are many saving faiths, but only one true faith." At the moment, I am choosing to focus on that first clause.)

 

I am glad that I have so many Christian, at-least-thinking-about-being-semi-classical, homeschooling imaginary friends on this board. Even though y'all are not Lutheran, we still have a common Faith to unite us in many ways. One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism, One God and Father of us all. One God that we all pray to and glorify and rely on. One infinite God that we struggle to understand with our puny, finite minds and hearts, illumined by His Spirit. "Now, we see as in a glass, darkly, but then we shall know in full."

[Sunny]

It happened maybe 9 years ago?

And, I agree, it is wonderfully LIGHT here, not dark or shadowed. And, I should have been caged the first year.:lol:

[Kathleen in VA]

I tried to answer Staci on this but I am not able to do the subject justice. Here is a website that explains this idea further:

 

http://www.gospeloutreach.net/limited_atonement.html

[Alenee]

Okay, I've read through all the posts with exception of the links provided. I have a question. One poster broke down John 3:16 and went to ..."whosoever..." saying that the "whosover" are the one's Jesus talks about the Father having given Him. But then what about the "believeth" part of that verse? Doesn't "belief" mean making a choice? Deciding whether or not *to* believe? Which would then be before or at the point of salvation, not after. How is this explained from the Calvinist pov?

[VaKim]

Okay, I've read through all the posts with exception of the links provided. I have a question. One poster broke down John 3:16 and went to ..."whosoever..." saying that the "whosover" are the one's Jesus talks about the Father having given Him. But then what about the "believeth" part of that verse? Doesn't "belief" mean making a choice? Deciding whether or not *to* believe? Which would then be before or at the point of salvation, not after. How is this explained from the Calvinist pov?

 

Well, nobody can decide to believe anything. Either you do believe it or you don't. You can try to convince yourself that something is true that you don't really believe, but down deep, you do not really believe it.

 

For example, do you believe that the sky is made of chocolate? (Despite what you might wish, lol.) If not, then can you choose to believe it? You can choose to "say" you believe it, but you cannot truly make yourself believe what you "know" is not true. Make any sense?

 

Everyone who believes will be saved. But no one is capable of believing unless God has chosen them and called them and given them a new birth. Just as we do not choose whether to be born naturally, neither can we choose to be born spiritually. This is why the Bible says all men are slaves to sin, until they are regenerated by the Lord.

[Melissa in CA]

Total depravity, predestination, irresistible grace, and perseverance of the saints are clear in Scripture. And while you can find Scriptural support for limited atonement, verses like 1 John 2:2 seem to indicate that Christ died for the sins of the whole world.

 

If Christ did indeed die for the sins of the WHOLE WORLD, then God is in fact extracting double payment for those sins. He first punished Christ on the cross for them on our behalf, and will next, with Hell, punish the unbeliever for the same sins Christ died for.

 

If one really believes Christ died for the sins of the entire human race, then one really should espouse Universalism as that would make Christ's sacrifice effectual. He died for all so all will be saved.

 

But the bible clearly speaks of hell and punishment for the unbeliever, so Universalism really should not be espoused.

 

However...if Christ came and died for the Elect alone [those chosen] then his death is indeed effectual and no double payment of sin is extracted.

 

I hope that doesn't muddy the waters...

[Robin in Tx]

Carli, something that might help (and I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm wrong... at least I hope so!)... is understanding that from the Calvinist point of view, any action on your part (belief, choice, etc.) is a "work". One of the protestant issues with catholicism was the idea of salvation by grace vs. works, and the protestant view was that you were saved ONLY by grace, and not by works. The Calvinist will define works to include a person's "act" of "accepting christ". If you are saved 100% by grace, then that work can not play a role in your salvation. To follow this, one must accept the idea that a person's response to the gospel is a human effort/work.

 

When I realized this, a lot of the confusion I had about reformed theology became clearer to me. Don't know if it will help you or not, but it helped me.

[Colleen]

agreeing to the TULIP is not a salvation issue, you know? I personally believe that in the end we'll all find out that there were things that we "got" and things that we didn't "get" but that as long as the Gospel wasn't compromised, it's all fine. We'll understand it by and by.

 

Spot on. That is all.

[mommaduck]

Okay, I've read through all the posts with exception of the links provided. I have a question. One poster broke down John 3:16 and went to ..."whosoever..." saying that the "whosover" are the one's Jesus talks about the Father having given Him. But then what about the "believeth" part of that verse? Doesn't "belief" mean making a choice? Deciding whether or not *to* believe? Which would then be before or at the point of salvation, not after. How is this explained from the Calvinist pov?

 

What caused the person to believe? They didn't choose to believe...as a pp stated, you can't just one day say, "I choose to believe"...you either do or don't. What caused them to believe is that they were given a changed heart. God had to give them that Faith as they did not have it themselves nor in themselves to come up with it.

[CAMom]

 

Spot on. That is all.

 

Although TULIP discusses a systematic theology with respect to salvation, I certainly don't consider the understanding, or lack thereof, as a salvation issue.

 

I would *never* say that one of my Arminian friends is not saved because they don't understand or don't subscribe to the 5 points. But, that doesn't change the fact that I do believe that the 5 points are an accurate Scriptural portrayl of salvation nor does that make it an unimportant subject to discuss.

 

The whole point of the Christian life is to become conformed further into His image and the way to do that is to know who He is and to seek to see Him as He has revealed Himself. I would never break fellowship over this issue but will still continue to study it until the day I die.

 

:)

[Melissa in CA]

If you are saved 100% by grace, then that work can not play a role in your salvation. To follow this, one must accept the idea that a person's response to the gospel is a human effort/work.

 

 

I think on our part we experience making a choice. You see, when each of us have come to Christ [chose Him], our experience has been that we have chosen to believe the gospel. We have made a choice. That is our human experience on the matter.

 

What Calvinists say is that yes, you indeed made a choice, but you couldn't have made that choice without God first choosing you and giving you the faith, belief, what have you, to make the choice; to choose Him.

 

Unless He regenerate your heart from spiritually dead to spiritually alive you do not have within yourself the ability to choose Him. Therefore, though our experience is one of making a choice, in reality God did the choosing of us...and God gets all the glory.

 

Does that make sense? I fear my brain is getting tired. :D

[Alenee]

I sent this to one of the posters through pm but since the last few replies came in I'll post it here.

 

****I don't know if my words are going to be clear...please bear with me. Why would Jesus say "whosoever believeth...." if there was no decision necessary? I wouldn't call a decision for Christ a "work" as defined by earning salvation. I can definitely get behind most of Calvin's interpretation but I think I've been taught that there has to be a choice made by a person. As in, *God opened our eyes* to see the truth but we have a decision there to make. Do we follow or do we stray....*****

 

Does this jive with the Calvinist pov?

[Colleen]

This issue of election. (Just "election" ~ as opposed to "the election";).) I confess when Calvinists, Reformed folk, et al discuss it, I can't nod in wholehearted agreement, although I do at heart agree with many of opinions expressed. Free will on the one hand and predestination on the other ~ they are seemingly in opposition from our limited perspective, yet interwoven and compatible. These age-old discussions make for interesting, challenging discussion but among my ueber Reformed friends, anyway, the tone sometimes has a tendency to become strident and self-righteous. Not intentionally, I know, but when one proclaims among the masses, "Some are chosen and some are not. I don't claim to know who is and who isn't...but I know I'm in." When one makes that proclamation, I fully understand the negative reaction that elicits among many listeners.

[JudoMom]

Ha! Rabid reformed :lol:.

 

Yes, I should've been locked in a cage. My Grandma has been concerned for my salvation for the past 12 years now. She used to send me tracts from televangelists with parts highlighted after I became reformed. The funny part is that I became a Christian and Reformed all in the same breath (I had been raised in a Christian home, but wasn't a believer until I met dh when I was 20), but she didn't worry about me until I became a Calvinist.

 

Dh's (older by 18 years) sister thinks her baby brother is in some sort of phase (he's been reformed since 92 or so I think).

 

I'm not rabid anymore, though. Although I do sometimes get a bit foamy at the mouth, if I'm gonna be honest. But I've learned to keep my foamy mouth shut.

[CAMom]

I sent this to one of the posters through pm but since the last few replies came in I'll post it here.

 

****I don't know if my words are going to be clear...please bear with me. Why would Jesus say "whosoever believeth...." if there was no decision necessary? I wouldn't call a decision for Christ a "work" as defined by earning salvation. I can definitely get behind most of Calvin's interpretation but I think I've been taught that there has to be a choice made by a person. As in, *God opened our eyes* to see the truth but we have a decision there to make. Do we follow or do we stray....*****

 

Does this jive with the Calvinist pov?

 

No, I don't think it does. In the scenario you describe, what separates the believer from the unbeliever? Simply that the believer made the right choice. That would mean that we are responsible for our own salvation and have reason to boast.

 

Ephesians 2 tells us that our faith is not of ourselves; it is a gift of God.

[Melissa in CA]

Although TULIP discusses a systematic theology with respect to salvation, I certainly don't consider the understanding, or lack thereof, as a salvation issue.

 

I would *never* say that one of my Arminian friends is not saved because they don't understand or don't subscribe to the 5 points. But, that doesn't change the fact that I do believe that the 5 points are an accurate Scriptural portrayl of salvation nor does that make it an unimportant subject to discuss.

 

The whole point of the Christian life is to become conformed further into His image and the way to do that is to know who He is and to seek to see Him as He has revealed Himself. I would never break fellowship over this issue but will still continue to study it until the day I die.

 

:)

 

:iagree: wholeheartedly! Well said CAMom!

 

It's not about saved or unsaved. I believe that my Arminian-ish friends are saved, and quite frankly, some are much better Christians than I! The issue is how one becomes saved, and who does the work in salvation...and who then gets the glory.

 

I am ALL for God gettin' ALL the glory. :D

[mommaduck]

Ha! Rabid reformed :lol:.

 

Yes, I should've been locked in a cage. My Grandma has been concerned for my salvation for the past 12 years now. She used to send me tracts from televangelists with parts highlighted.

 

Dh's (older by 18 years) sister thinks her baby brother is in some sort of phase (he's been reformed since 92 or so I think).

 

I'm not rabid anymore, though. Although I do sometimes get a bit foamy at the mouth, if I'm gonna be honest. But I've learned to keep my foamy mouth shut.

 

*Mommaduck runs to the mirror to check that no foaming is viewable...get a towel and dabs at the corners...okay, back to discussion...

 

:tongue_smilie:

[Merry]

"Personally, I don't like either system. Another acrostic I find more Biblical is PROPER which stands for P=Preeminent Grace God makes HImself known and the HOly Spirit works to reveal Christ R= responsible agency God holds man responsible for his moral decisions O=ontological freedom Man has free will--He can and does make choices for and against God's will P= passive faith Faith has no merit. It is simply believing God (I really don't like this term passive, but they are trying to make sure that faith isn't seen as a work). E= eternal security Every person who has believed in the Lord Jesus as Savior possesses eternal life forever. R= rewards for obedience. Rewards are distinct from eternal salvation. God will reward His children who have served with Him with proper motives of love and obedience. "

[VaKim]

I sent this to one of the posters through pm but since the last few replies came in I'll post it here.

 

****I don't know if my words are going to be clear...please bear with me. Why would Jesus say "whosoever believeth...." if there was no decision necessary? I wouldn't call a decision for Christ a "work" as defined by earning salvation. I can definitely get behind most of Calvin's interpretation but I think I've been taught that there has to be a choice made by a person. As in, *God opened our eyes* to see the truth but we have a decision there to make. Do we follow or do we stray....*****

 

Does this jive with the Calvinist pov?

 

Not exactly. We believe that God actually causes us to believe. Then He also keeps us from falling away until the end.

 

Something that used to confuse me in the Baptist church I used to go to, is that they taught that God gave all men free will to choose Him or not, supposedly because "God is a gentleman" and won't "force Himself" on anybody. However, they also taught that once you made the choice to believe, you were saved and could never lose your salvation, no matter what. You couldn't even give it up yourself. So with that logic, you have free will until you are saved, at which point your free will is taken away from you so that you cannot be lost.

 

Also, when we get to heaven, do we still have that "free will?" Can we decide to leave there if we want? Most would say that we would not ever want to leave there. The same thing applies here on earth. Once God gives you a new heart and causes you to believe, you never want to "give up" your salvation. He changes your "want to." :)

[Colleen]

The issue is how one becomes saved

 

Why?

 

and who does the work in salvation...and who then gets the glory.

I am ALL for God gettin' ALL the glory.

 

So in your analysis, those who don't view salvation through a Calvinist lens are not giving all due glory to God?

[Alenee]

No, I don't think it does. In the scenario you describe, what separates the believer from the unbeliever? Simply that the believer made the right choice. That would mean that we are responsible for our own salvation and have reason to boast.

 

Ephesians 2 tells us that our faith is not of ourselves; it is a gift of God.

 

Yes, got that. So then where does "the other side" get their pov about free will? Is the free will after one is saved? You get saved, then you have free will to decide how much you will dedicate of yourself to the Lord?

 

Please do take these questions seriously...I am not in any way trying to be snarky or rude. Trying to sift through this is all.

 

eta: oops, this came in after a reply that would answer most of this. But the bigger question would be, "Where then do they get the idea of free will in scripture?" Is it a misinterpretation of the word "

believe"?

[Robin in Tx]

I would *never* say that one of my Arminian friends is not saved

I believe that my Arminian-ish friends are saved

 

Hey, don't forget about your un-arminian-ish friends, too!!

 

:D

[CAMom]

This issue of election. (Just "election" ~ as opposed to "the election";).) I confess when Calvinists, Reformed folk, et al discuss it, I can't nod in wholehearted agreement, although I do at heart agree with many of opinions expressed. Free will on the one hand and predestination on the other ~ they are seemingly in opposition from our limited perspective, yet interwoven and compatible. These age-old discussions make for interesting, challenging discussion but among my ueber Reformed friends, anyway, the tone sometimes has a tendency to become strident and self-righteous. Not intentionally, I know, but when one proclaims among the masses, "Some are chosen and some are not. I don't claim to know who is and who isn't...but I know I'm in." When one makes that proclamation, I fully understand the negative reaction that elicits among many listeners.

 

And this is why I said in my first post in this thread why I feel like I have to hide my Reformed self from my nonReformed friends.;)

 

I don't know if you were inferring, Colleen, that anyone in this thread had a tone of being strident or self-righteous but I certainly have not seen that at all. In fact, the Reformed should be among the most humble because we realize how pathetic we are; how we have not one ounce of anything to contribute to our salvation but that it is all of God.

 

"Some are chosen and some are not?" Well, that comes right out of Romans 9. There's no way around it. Is it that we should avoid talking about any "controversial" parts of the Word so that we don't offend the non-believers or the non-Reformed believers? I don't know.:confused:

 

This happens far to often to me...my non-Reformed friends are allowed to talk to me about any non-Reformed position they hold because they think it's mainstream and all Christians believe that way. The minute I take on a Reformed flavor, they shut the conversation down.

 

Shrugs shoulders in confusion at the double standard.

[*anj*]

I have no idea how that fits together. So that is where I am just thankful that God chose to save me in spite of my inability to understand.

 

I doubt you'll even see this til after you get home, but we do have a name for people like you: Four Point Calvinist. See, no biggie, no shunning. I know several people who get stuck on one or more of the points. :001_smile:

[VaKim]

Yes, got that. So then where does "the other side" get their pov about free will? Is the free will after one is saved? You get saved, then you have free will to decide how much you will dedicate of yourself to the Lord?

 

Please do take these questions seriously...I am not in any way trying to be snarky or rude. Trying to sift through this is all.

 

eta: oops, this came in after a reply that would answer most of this. But the bigger question would be, "Where then do they get the idea of free will in scripture?" Is it a misinterpretation of the word "

believe"?

I think most people who believe in free will get the idea because of the assumption that if God commands us to do something (believe), then we must have the capability of doing it. This is not so, however. Just read through the OT at all the 400+ laws that He gave, that had to be obeyed perfectly. He knew when He gave those laws that nobody could keep them. That was the whole point. That is why the sacrificial system was instituted, as a symbol (right word?) of what Christ would do later. God wanted people to realize that they COULD NOT do what He required of them, and that they therefore needed something (Someone) to save them.

[6packofun]

I'm probably a reformed, 4.5 Calvinist as some here have stated--but I'll never refer to myself as anything but a follower of Christ. God and me are workin' things out and everyone else can just talk amongst themselves. LOL! :)

[VaKim]

"Some are chosen and some are not?" Well, that comes right out of Romans 9. There's no way around it. Is it that we should avoid talking about any "controversial" parts of the Word so that we don't offend the non-believers or the non-Reformed believers? I don't know.:confused:

 

This happens far to often to me...my non-Reformed friends are allowed to talk to me about any non-Reformed position they hold because they think it's mainstream and all Christians believe that way. The minute I take on a Reformed flavor, they shut the conversation down.

 

Shrugs shoulders in confusion at the double standard.

:iagree:

[Staci in MO]

Again, I don't have any quibbles with the logic behind the argument, but if Christ didn't die for the whole world, why does it say that in the Bible?

 

I look at it this way. Let's take one of the stock answers against predestination. If God only saves those He chooses, why does He still punish those that are unsaved. Why are we still responsible?

 

You and I are will probably answer that the same way, and probably base our answers on Romans 9:19-24: Who can know the mind of God? You can't put God in a box. If we could understand the mind of God, He would be too small.

 

You mentioned the misconception that Calvinists are against evangelism. Why are we to evangelize if only the elect are saved? God chose to do it this way, that's why. In "Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God" J.I. Packer refers to it as an antinomy. It appears to be a contradiction, but it's not.

 

And that's where I am on limited atonement. I can't make all the Scripture fit into some neat little box. I can't fully embrace the argument that though I John 2:2 says that Christ died for the sins of the whole world, it doesn't really mean world in that context. And I don't think there's anything wrong with admitting that this, too, is an antinomy. It seems to be a contradiction, but God's mind is bigger than ours.

 

Again, logic is definitely on your side. But another point that Packer makes in Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God is that no matter where you are on Limited atonement, we can still have fellowship and work together for the glory of God's kingdom.

 

I've really got to go pack, so I doubt I'll be back on until Sunday.

[Melissa in CA]

Yes, got that. So then where does "the other side" get their pov about free will? Is the free will after one is saved? You get saved, then you have free will to decide how much you will dedicate of yourself to the Lord?

 

Please do take these questions seriously...I am not in any way trying to be snarky or rude. Trying to sift through this is all.

 

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but no where in the bible will you find the words "free will."

 

I personally, and some may disagree, feel that we do have freedom. I have the freedom to go into the kitchen and pull out the ice cream for lunch. :drool5:

I also have the freedom to commit a sin today, like stealing the money my husband thinks he has hidden in his dresser drawer. ;) :lol:

 

I just don't think that our freedom extends to a sovereign free will where our will can override God's. Take Jonah for example. God told Jonah to preach to the Ninevites. Jonah said, uh, no thanks and proceeded to defy God. But how does the story end? God's will is done. Period.

[Jugglin'5]

If you are interested in a short defense of limited atonement form a different angle, here:

 

http://dougwils.com/index.asp?Action=Anchor&CategoryID=1&BlogID=841

[mommaduck]

Staci, I hit on the "world" bit back around page 18 ;)

[VaKim]

I have seen a quote somewhere to this effect: Everybody limits the atonement in some way. Calvinists limit it in how many and who it applies to. Non-calvinists limit it in how much it actually accomplished. Did Jesus actually accomplish salvation on the cross? Was it, as He said, actually finished? Or did He simply make it "possible" for people to be saved, in which case it was not finished at all?

 

I much prefer "particular redemption" to "limited atonement."

[Colleen]

You'd think from reading some of these replies that one is either a Calvinist or an Arminian, and that's that.

[VaKim]

You'd think from reading some of these replies that one is either a Calvinist or an Arminian, and that's that.

 

I use Calvinist and non-calvinist, because you either are, or you aren't. :)

[Melissa in CA]

So in your analysis, those who don't view salvation through a Calvinist lens are not giving all due glory to God?

 

Quite honestly? Yes.

 

I truly believe the doctrines of grace put God where He belongs and see Him on a more "God is Holy" level...fully sovereign, fully God, fully in charge of all He has created...and us where we rightfully belong; created beings.

 

Am I saying that non-Calvinists don't give God glory...no, not at all. But when I view say, the Arminian doctrine vs the Calvinist doctrine, I see the Calvinists God as being a MUCH bigger God with ALL the power, while Arminian Doctrine gives man far too much power and seems to make God subjected to the whims and decisions of man.

[Sahamamama]

and I am going to lock you ALL up! :lol:

[Bess]

One thing that helped me understand more about election... God's chosen nation is Israel. People were born a jew or they were not. It was not their choice, they were chosen by God alone. God's bride is His church...those that have been redeemed...the saved. We are called His "lost sheep". We were happily lost, and our gracious Lord and Savior, our Shepherd, found us.

 

Why is it easy for man to accept that to be part of God's chosen nation, one had to be born into it, yet they can not accept that He has also chosen His church? I might not understand why He has chosen us (and don't!), but this comparison to the jews has helped me understand election better.

 

Hope that made sense.

[Carol in Cal.]

You'd think from reading some of these replies that one is either a Calvinist or an Arminian, and that's that.

 

...Given the original topic, I imagine that Lutherans, Episcopaleans, Catholics, or Orthodox believers might feel that they would be intruding if they came in here and starting stating their beliefs. Tempting though it might be at times. To me, even. But I've been stopping myself.

[VaKim]

One thing that helped me understand more about election... God's chosen nation is Israel. People were born a jew or they were not. It was not their choice, they were chosen by God alone. God's bride is His church...those that have been redeemed...the saved. We are called His "lost sheep". We were happily lost, and our gracious Lord and Savior, our Shepherd, found us.

 

Why is it easy for man to accept that to be part of God's chosen nation, one had to be born into it, yet they can not accept that He has also chosen His church? I might not understand why He has chosen us (and don't!), but this comparison to the jews has helped me understand election better.

 

Hope that made sense.

Very good!