Calvinists have a consistency problem, part two.

[squirrelyguy]

Here's the question: Were you saved before you even heard the gospel? Were you saved when you heard but before you believed? Or were you saved once you heard AND believed?

If you answer option #3, then on what principled basis can you claim that Arminians are universalists if they believe that Christ's atonement took away the sins of the world without exception? If the atonement didn't cause you to be saved before you even heard the gospel, then it looks like you have the same problem explaining the atonement that we do, do you not?

 

[Manfred]

Here's the question: Were you saved before you even heard the gospel? Were you saved when you heard but before you believed? Or were you saved once you heard AND believed?

If you answer option #3, then on what principled basis can you claim that Arminians are universalists if they believe that Christ's atonement took away the sins of the world without exception? If the atonement didn't cause you to be saved before you even heard the gospel, then it looks like you have the same problem explaining the atonement that we do, do you not?

Many hear and believe yet they never understood. The parable of the seed and the Sower makes that clear.

I heard the gospel message many times growing up and I went to church, sang hymns prayed and owned a Bible. I always ticked the Christian box under "Religion" on all forms I filled in. On Sundays I recited the Apostles Creed and new it by heart by the time I was 16. During this time of my life, I confessed Jesus as Lord and Savior, and would have said to anyone who asked, that I had heard and therefore believed. Yet, I was dead in sin and trespass. I had not been born again, and was nothing more than an unsaved sinner caught up in a religious environment.

That changed in my early twenties when one day an ex druggie shared his testimony with me, and God revealed the truth of Jesus Christ to me as my Lord and Savior. God caused me to be born again that very day by opening my heart and mind to a spiritual understanding of the Gospel message. I was not "looking" nor "searching" for Him, but I was irresistibly drawn by Him. I became instantly aware of my sin and my need for salvation, and repentance poured from my lips.

I have seen friends pass away since then who have never been born again, who remained in church who recited the Apostles Creed and made a statement of faith, yet alas they were tares sown in among the wheat. They all chose to believe what they said they believed. Some even said that they chose to stop believing.

If you claim the atonement is universally effective in it's purpose, even for the tares who die apart from Christ then you are a universalist at heart.
The atonement is limited in its effect to those to whom God chooses to reveal Himself - His sheep.

 

[squirrelyguy]

I have seen friends pass away since then who have never been born again, who remained in church who recited the Apostles Creed and made a statement of faith, yet alas they were tares sown in among the wheat. They all chose to believe what they said they believed. Some even said that they chose to stop believing.

I have to wonder how you think you know that these friends were tares sown among the wheat? If someone says they no longer believe, then you at least have evidence from their own lips; but if they confess the Lord Jesus and never retract that confession, then how can any of us know with such certainty whether they were genuinely converted?

If you claim the atonement is universally effective in it's purpose, even for the tares who die apart from Christ then you are a universalist at heart.
The atonement is limited in its effect to those to whom God chooses to reveal Himself - His sheep.

As my OP states; unless you believe you were saved before you even heard the gospel, then you have the same problem explaining the effect of the atonement that any Arminian does. But effective is a funny word. I don't know that the Bible ever uses it in reference to the atonement to begin with, and we probably shouldn't use it due to this sort of confusion.

 

[Kampioen]

If you claim the atonement is universally effective in it's purpose, even for the tares who die apart from Christ then you are a universalist at heart.
The atonement is limited in its effect to those to whom God chooses to reveal Himself - His sheep.

The atonement doesn't give faith. People do. So there is no universalism.

 

[Manfred]

I have to wonder how you think you know that these friends were tares sown among the wheat?

Mat 7:16 You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?
Mat 7:17 So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit.
Mat 7:18 A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit.
Mat 7:19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
Mat 7:20 Thus you will recognize them by their fruits.

If a life displays no change and no repentance, it is clear as daylight.

If someone says they no longer believe, then you at least have evidence from their own lips; but if they confess the Lord Jesus and never retract that confession, then how can any of us know with such certainty whether they were genuinely converted?

No one can be genuinely converted, and then change their mind. It is a contradiction in terms.
You cannot say, I have full conviction that Jesus is my Lord and savior, and an absolute assurance that He died for sin and redeemed me, and then later turn around and say I now have full conviction that Jesus is not my Lord and Savior and an absolute assurance that he did not die for my sin and he did not redeem me.

That would be the sign of someone who is psychologically unstable and self contradicting, or they were wrong in the first instance.

As my OP states; unless you believe you were saved before you even heard the gospel, then you have the same problem explaining the effect of the atonement that any Arminian does.

That is merely your assumption. A sheep is a sheep prior to his/her conversion.
You want to have goats turn to sheep and sheep turn back into goats it seems.

But effective is a funny word. I don't know that the Bible ever uses it in reference to the atonement to begin with, and we probably shouldn't use it due to this sort of confusion.

You don't believe that the atonement is effective in its purpose.
You make light of the atonement and the sacrifice of Christ. You are turning it into a semi worthless act that is ineffective in its purpose.

The disdain Arminians have for the work of Christ becomes evident again in favor of promoting SELF and the very important role self plays in benefiting from the atonement.

 

[Manfred]

The atonement doesn't give faith. People do. So there is no universalism.

People give faith?
where is your scripture for such a statement!
1Co 2:5 so that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.

My faith does not lie in my wisdom, or my will to believe or in that of any other man. My faith rests in the power of God alone.

No one claimed that the atonement gives faith. The atonement takes away the sin of the one who is being atoned for, it lasts for ever and is not temporal.

Tell us, does your faith rest in your wisdom? does it rest in your free choices or LFW if you whish? It rests in the power of your free will correct!

My discernment here is that the object of affection that most Arminians have is the free will. It is impossible for them to place Jesus Christ before the freedom of their will. They adore it to much.

 

[squirrelyguy]

Mat 7:16 You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?
Mat 7:17 So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit.
Mat 7:18 A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit.
Mat 7:19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
Mat 7:20 Thus you will recognize them by their fruits.

If a life displays no change and no repentance, it is clear as daylight.

I see your reference to Matthew 7, but those verses have to be qualified somehow in light of the fact that the the Lord of the harvest (in the parable you cited) does not even trust the reapers (the angels) to know with certainty who the tares and wheat are. After all, they ask the Lord if they should remove the tares that were sown and He says no, since they might uproot wheat instead. Personally I think those verses in Matthew 7 don't do nearly the work that they are made to do in supporting this idea. My interpretation (which is based on what Jesus says in context) is that He is specifically talking about how to identify false prophets; He is not making a general statement about how to identify true and false Christians.

No one can be genuinely converted, and then change their mind. It is a contradiction in terms.

I understand that you believe that, but if you can believe that Peter was regenerate when he denied Christ three times and emphasized it with cursing, then you aren't too far from accepting the possibility of a genuine believer having a change of mind about Christ.

That is merely your assumption. A sheep is a sheep prior to his/her conversion.
You want to have goats turn to sheep and sheep turn back into goats it seems.

I didn't use the word "sheep." I used the word "saved." It's easy for you to claim you were a sheep before you heard the gospel because that aligns with your assumptions about election. But were you saved before you even heard the gospel?

I suspect that the switch-a-roo suggests the following: "sheep" has relevance for the doctrine of election, whereas "salvation" has reference to the doctrine of the atonement. Election and atonement are not the same thing, and this OP is about how/when the atonement is applied, and the Bible clearly speaks of salvation as something that happens when we believe the gospel, not before.

You make light of the atonement and the sacrifice of Christ. You are turning it into a semi worthless act that is ineffective in its purpose.

The disdain Arminians have for the work of Christ becomes evident again in favor of promoting SELF and the very important role self plays in benefiting from the atonement.

I don't think you're acknowledging the fact that we both have the exact same problem in explaining how the atonement becomes effective.

 

[Manfred]

I see your reference to Matthew 7, but those verses have to be qualified somehow in light of the fact that the the Lord of the harvest (in the parable you cited) does not even trust the reapers (the angels) to know with certainty who the tares and wheat are. After all, they ask the Lord if they should remove the tares that were sown and He says no, since they might uproot wheat instead. Personally I think those verses in Matthew 7 don't do nearly the work that they are made to do in supporting this idea. My interpretation (which is based on what Jesus says in context) is that He is specifically talking about how to identify false prophets; He is not making a general statement about how to identify true and false Christians.

Fair enough.
Do you think you have a gift of discernment? Can you see someone who claims to be Christian, and does not show any evidence of sanctification as being true in their claim.

I understand that you believe that, but if you can believe that Peter was regenerate when he denied Christ three times and emphasized it with cursing, then you aren't too far from accepting the possibility of a genuine believer having a change of mind about Christ.

So you believe Peter was regenerate before the death and resurrection of Christ, that He lost that regeneration for a short period of time and had to be born again, again.
Peter was powerless at that point:
Luk 22:31 “Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat,
Luk 22:32 but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned again, strengthen your brothers.”

I didn't use the word "sheep." I used the word "saved." It's easy for you to claim you were a sheep before you heard the gospel because that aligns with your assumptions about election. But were you saved before you even heard the gospel?

Why won't you accept what I say. I believe I have always been one of His sheep.
You think you can go between being born again and not being born again freely based on your choices.
That would be just more self-glorification.

I suspect that the switch-a-roo suggests the following: "sheep" has relevance for the doctrine of election, whereas "salvation" has reference to the doctrine of the atonement.

Not what was inferred at all. This is you making up stuff. to fit with what you want to force onto others.
I believe that from my birth to to the day when God revealed the truth of Jesus Christ to me that I was not regenerate. I was however a sheep that heard His voice, and follow Him.

Election and atonement are not the same thing, and this OP is about how/when the atonement is applied, and the Bible clearly speaks of salvation as something that happens when we believe the gospel, not before.

election and atonement is obviously not the same thing, and no one applied such apart from you.
When is the atonement applied? What a curious way of stating something.
When Jesus dies on the cross, He atoned for the sin of those who will be saved and those saints like Abraham etc.
He did not atone for those who die apart from Christ.

I don't think you're acknowledging the fact that we both have the exact same problem in explaining how the atonement becomes effective.

I don't have a problem with that. I know exactly how and when the atonement became effective for me. I shared my testimony and made it clear.

Perhaps you are confused because you believe you can walk in and out of salvation as you choose.

 

[squirrelyguy]

Fair enough.
Do you think you have a gift of discernment? Can you see someone who claims to be Christian, and does not show any evidence of sanctification as being true in their claim.

I honestly don't know if I have a gift of discernment; but it's simple enough to notice when someone claims to be a Christian and is acting in a contrary way.

So you believe Peter was regenerate before the death and resurrection of Christ, that He lost that regeneration for a short period of time and had to be born again, again.

I don't use the terms "regenerate" and "born again" in that way to begin with; but I believe Peter was saved and never lost his salvation.

Peter was powerless at that point:
Luk 22:31 “Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat,
Luk 22:32 but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned again, strengthen your brothers.”

I don't believe he was powerless, and I also don't think those two verses do you any favors. Did Jesus get what He prayed for?

Why won't you accept what I say. I believe I have always been one of His sheep.
...
I believe that from my birth to to the day when God revealed the truth of Jesus Christ to me that I was not regenerate. I was however a sheep that heard His voice, and follow Him.

If you have always been one of His sheep, then how is it that, by your own admission, you were once a false believer? Jesus says of the sheep "[they] follow him, for they know his voice. Yet they will by no means follow a stranger, but will flee from him, for they do not know the voice of strangers." (John 10:4-5) You once did not know His voice, and you did follow strangers. Jesus says that sheep will by no means do this. Do you see how you're pressing the sheep metaphor into service for Calvinism in a way that the text does not justify?

Perhaps you are confused because you believe you can walk in and out of salvation as you choose.

I don't actually believe one can walk in and out as they choose. Even if one walks out, there is no guarantee that the Lord will cast them away.

 

[squirrelyguy]

Fair enough.
Do you think you have a gift of discernment? Can you see someone who claims to be Christian, and does not show any evidence of sanctification as being true in their claim.

In reading your testimony, I also don't think it likely that you were a false believer to begin with, even though you consider yourself to have been one. I suspect you are mistaking the evidence of sanctification with the evidence for initial salvation. When I was in my early 20s I got caught up for a couple years in the Lordship salvation controversy and I thought that I too had been a false Christian when I was younger; I was even rebaptized. But later I came to realize that I was just spiritually immature and didn't understand the difference between justification and sanctification. It is so easy to get God to forgive us for our sins that we tend to doubt that it could ever be true.

 

[Howie]

Here's the question: Were you saved before you even heard the gospel? Were you saved when you heard but before you believed? Or were you saved once you heard AND believed?

Scripture answers that for you. Read it.

If you answer option #3, then on what principled basis can you claim that Arminians are universalists if they believe that Christ's atonement took away the sins of the world without exception? If the atonement didn't cause you to be saved before you even heard the gospel, then it looks like you have the same problem explaining the atonement that we do, do you not?

What?!?!?!???

 

[fltom]

Many hear and believe yet they never understood. The parable of the seed and the Sower makes that clear.

I heard the gospel message many times growing up and I went to church, sang hymns prayed and owned a Bible. I always ticked the Christian box under "Religion" on all forms I filled in. On Sundays I recited the Apostles Creed and new it by heart by the time I was 16. During this time of my life, I confessed Jesus as Lord and Savior, and would have said to anyone who asked, that I had heard and therefore believed. Yet, I was dead in sin and trespass. I had not been born again, and was nothing more than an unsaved sinner caught up in a religious environment.

That changed in my early twenties when one day an ex druggie shared his testimony with me, and God revealed the truth of Jesus Christ to me as my Lord and Savior. God caused me to be born again that very day by opening my heart and mind to a spiritual understanding of the Gospel message. I was not "looking" nor "searching" for Him, but I was irresistibly drawn by Him. I became instantly aware of my sin and my need for salvation, and repentance poured from my lips.

I have seen friends pass away since then who have never been born again, who remained in church who recited the Apostles Creed and made a statement of faith, yet alas they were tares sown in among the wheat. They all chose to believe what they said they believed. Some even said that they chose to stop believing.

If you claim the atonement is universally effective in it's purpose, even for the tares who die apart from Christ then you are a universalist at heart.
The atonement is limited in its effect to those to whom God chooses to reveal Himself - His sheep.

Those that follow him are his sheep

Those who had never followed him previously are not his sheep

 

[Theo1689]

Those that follow him are his sheep

Those who had never followed him previously are not his sheep

Wrong again.
Scripture refutes you:

John 10:26 but you do not believe because you are not among my sheep.

Cause: Not being a sheep
Effect: not believing

You would turn Scripture on its head and have it instead read:

John 10:26 but you are not among my sheep because you do not believe.

Acts 13:48 ... and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.

Cause: appointed to eternal life
Effect: believed.

You would turn Scripture on its head and have it instead read:

Acts 13:48 ... and as many as beileved were appointed to eternal life.

 

[David1701]

Here's the question: Were you saved before you even heard the gospel? Were you saved when you heard but before you believed? Or were you saved once you heard AND believed?

If you answer option #3, then on what principled basis can you claim that Arminians are universalists if they believe that Christ's atonement took away the sins of the world without exception? If the atonement didn't cause you to be saved before you even heard the gospel, then it looks like you have the same problem explaining the atonement that we do, do you not?

God not only chose whom to save, then atoned for them, in Christ, on the cross; but, he also chose the time in which he would apply the benefits of that atonement to them, through hearing the gospel, being born again, repenting of sin and believing in Jesus Christ. In other words, God not only determines what will be, but also how it will come about.

 

[fltom]

Wrong again.
Scripture refutes you:

John 10:26 but you do not believe because you are not among my sheep.

Cause: Not being a sheep
Effect: not believing

You would turn Scripture on its head and have it instead read:

John 10:26 but you are not among my sheep because you do not believe.

Acts 13:48 ... and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.

Cause: appointed to eternal life
Effect: believed.

You would turn Scripture on its head and have it instead read:

Acts 13:48 ... and as many as beileved were appointed to eternal life.

sorry not one of those verse say anything at all about those who were never followers of God/christ being his sheep

That is simply eisegesis

Those who were God's sheep were given to Christ

The idea some are born his sheep is simply contrary to scripture

 

[Kampioen]

God not only chose whom to save, then atoned for them, in Christ, on the cross; but, he also chose the time in which he would apply the benefits of that atonement to them, through hearing the gospel, being born again, repenting of sin and believing in Jesus Christ. In other words, God not only determines what will be, but also how it will come about.

The cross only involves the forgiveness of sin. It does not give when, faith, where and how one is saved since those things are not sin.

 

[David1701]

The cross only involves the forgiveness of sin. It does not give when, faith, where and how one is saved since those things are not sin.

What does any of that have to do with my post?

 

[fltom]

God not only chose whom to save, then atoned for them, in Christ, on the cross; but, he also chose the time in which he would apply the benefits of that atonement to them, through hearing the gospel, being born again, repenting of sin and believing in Jesus Christ. In other words, God not only determines what will be, but also how it will come about.

He saves those that believe

and to them only he applies the benefits of the cross.

The cross does not apply its own benefits

 

[Kampioen]

What does any of that have to do with my post?

Scripture doesn't state that the cross gives faith and when and where someone gets saved.

 

[David1701]

Scripture doesn't state that the cross gives faith and when and where someone gets saved.

It's God who gives faith and works all things according to the counsel of his own will (even the fall of sparrow!). God gives his elect faith in Jesus Christ; and the basis upon which the Lord can justly save us, is because Jesus died for us, on the cross. Jesus laid down his life for the sheep (from Jews and Gentiles).