seekandlisten said:
mondar said:
And they say Calvinists believe in a limited atonement!
You want to avoid exegesis and repeat the Arminian mantra that Christ died to make salvation a theoretical possibility, but saves no one?
My view of the crosswork of Christ is much higher then yours. I dont see it limited in power to save the way you do. Does not the above statement seem to say that Christs death saved absolutely no one? But is merely theoretical possibility that might happen dependent upon what sovereign of man will do with his sovereign will?
Can I ask what you are proposing here?? From what I am getting you think that humankind doesn't need to accept God's gift?
I perceive that you might not be familiar with historic protestant theology. Do you realize that the Reformers have long ago articulated the protestant position as "sola fide?" Faith alone is the only way to salvation.
Sorry for the long post. I do seem to stir things up.
I suspect the difference in our positions is in how we view man coming to faith. Is it possible that you would see faith as the work of man for God so that God might apply salvation to man? Then your position could be defined as salvation partially by grace, and partially by human effort. Many will agree with you here.
I am one of a small group that would see faith as the work of God in man. So then, I would be on the side of those who say salvation is by grace alone.
So then, we both agree that man must approach the cross work of Christ in faith, but we disagree on the nature of faith. I see faith as human response to Gods grace, you see it as human effort to acquire Gods grace.
We also differ on the nature of man. I see man as totally in rebellion against God and not able to come to God in faith.
As John 6:44 says "no man can come to me."
As Romans 3:11 says "there is none that seek God."
Romans 8:7 says "the sinful mind[a] is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so." (NIV)
1 Cor 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
You would see man as partially in rebellion against God and somewhat sinful, but not so rebellious and sinful that he is incapable of faith.
We could also define our different views in this way. I see the faith of man as the response of the regeneration of the HS. You see man has having faith without the work of God called regeneration.
seekandlisten said:
That it is not our choice? We have the freedom to choose don't we? Can you clarify for me please?
We have the freedom to choose any path of sin we desire. But when we have the old nature, we are enslaved to that old nature. This does not mean we are as sinful as we could be, but merely that the old nature is our master (Romans 6).
seekandlisten said:
I by no means limit the power of what Christ did on the cross. He died for the sins of mankind!! How is that limiting in any way?
You see it as limited in power to save. In your view, Christs death saves no one unless it is appropriated by human free will. Man is then sovereign over the cross work of Christ. In my view, because faith is also the work of God, the cross is all that is necessary to save. Faith is then not a human merit that God recognizes and saves man, but then faith is the work of God in man because of the cross work of Christ.
seekandlisten said:
I understand the 'predestined' argument but I think some take it and skip to 'end' so to speak without first making the journey.
Are you sure you understand the concept of "predestination?" I suspect that we might disagree on what that means. If you are consistent in your arminian theology (although most Arminians do not recognize their own theology as Arminian), you might see predestination in this way------ "predestination is God looking down the corridors of time and seeing faith in man, and then choosing those who first chose him." The sovereign primary chose is then mans and both man and God are glorified together. I would see predestination differently, as an action that God accomplishes without mans assistance. There is no merit in man, God simply chooses based upon his own sovereignty and for the sake of his own glory. Then to God alone will be all glory.
If you understand what I wrote above, you will see why I view you as limiting the power of the cross to save. If you understand what I said above, you will understand why I see you as viewing the cross as merely a theoretical possibility of salvation and not as actually having the power to save in and of itself.
My position takes a much higher view of the power of the cross work of Christ. It is a quirk of history that the words "limited atonement" are used in the acrostic TULIP." Calvinists see the power of the cross to save as unlimited. We see the value of Christs death as worth far far far more then all mankind. If the universe were filled with people from the most distant star to the other end of the universe, it would not reduce the grace of God in the cross one drop. In other words, if God chose to save a few trillion more people, Christ would not have suffered any more then he did at the cross. The value of the cross to save is infinite. But the extent of the forgiveness of sins is upon only those God chose to give faith to. So then, God did not forgive the sins of the world, if he did, then all would go to heaven.
