Amyraldism is a better version of Calvinism. Nothing says the atonement gives faith, so that in itself wouldn't benefit the sheep.
Calvinists have a consistency problem, part two.
- Thread starter squirrelyguy
- Start date
Amyraldism is a better version of Calvinism. Nothing says the atonement gives faith, so that in itself wouldn't benefit the sheep.
David1701
Well-known member
I think you mean "Amyraldianism", which could be termed "inconsistent Monergism".
It would be unjust of God to punish people whose sins and punishments Jesus bore, on the Cross. Those for whom Jesus died will be saved, in due time, by grace, through faith in Jesus Christ.
I assume God will be displeased with Amyraldians for teaching universal atonement?
David1701
Well-known member
God looks at the heart, but I don't know the hearts of those who teach it.
Then if their heart for believing Amyraldian universal atonement, even in a heated debate is good, they are acceptable to God with no problem?
David1701
Well-known member
Acceptance with God is through faith in Jesus Christ. If they have genuine faith in Him, then they are accepted by God.
Even for an Arminian/Libertarian/Provisionist that has genuine faith in Christ, then God accepts them heartily?
squirrelyguy
Well-known member
Who are you, O man, to answer back to God?
It would be more biblical
Jesus died for all
John 3:14–18 (KJV 1900) — 14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: 15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. 16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. 18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
that those who believe would be saved not all
David1701
Well-known member
If they have genuine faith in Christ (and that's a big "if", since some very important teachings of theirs are contrary to the Bible), then, yes, God accepts them heartily.
David1701
Well-known member
Exactly! You do know the context of that, don't you?
Rom. 9:14-24 (MKJV)
14 What shall we say then? Is there not unrighteousness with God? Let it not be!
15 For He said to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion."
16 So then it is not of the one willing, nor of the onerunning, but of God, the One showing mercy.
17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "Even for this same purpose I have raised you up, that I might show My power in you, and that My name might be declared throughout all the earth."
18 Therefore He has mercy on whom He will have mercy, and whom He will, He hardens.
19 You will then say to me, Why does He yet find fault? For who has resisted His will?
20 No, but, O man, who are you who replies against God? Shall the thing formed say to Him who formed it, Why have you made me this way?
21 Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel to honor and another to dishonor?
22 What if God, willing to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much long-suffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction;
23 and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy which He had before prepared to glory;
24 whom He also called, not only us, of Jews, but also of the nations?
squirrelyguy
Well-known member
Of course I know that context. Do you know the context of the metaphor that Paul is using? It's Jeremiah 18:1-11.
But the reason I quoted Romans 9:20 to you is because you claimed that God would be unjust if He did not do things in your prescribed manner. If Romans 9:20 serves as a clobber verse against all criticism of Calvinism, why wouldn't it also serve as a clobber verse against all objections to Christ paying the sins of people who will end up in hell?
David1701
Well-known member
Jer. 18:1-11 is absolutely NOT the context of Rom. 9:14-24! Jer. 18:1-11 is about Israel, under law. Law is all about "Do this and I will bless you, do that and I will curse you.", which is the antithesis of what Rom. 9:14-24 is all about (God's sovereign choice to create some for honourable purposes and some for dishonourable).
God is just, that's why! Since Jesus bore the sins and punishments of his people, when he shed his blood and died on the Cross, there is no just reason for God to punish anyone for whom Christ died.
Another reason is that Paul is answering the very objection that freewill heretics often bring up! That God would, allegedly, be unjust to punish someone whom he had chosen to harden. In other words, Monergists agree with Paul, but freewillers contradict him.
squirrelyguy
Well-known member
Where do you get this standard of justice? I would argue that the Calvinist application of Romans 9:20 is an entirely misappropriated application from the get-go; and part of the reason I argue this is because Calvinists themselves don't even believe that anything which God does is just merely because God does it! But that's how your use of Romans 9:20 assumes justice is defined. If God would be unjust to punish sins for which Christ has already paid the penalty, then where does this standard of justice come from? It must exist independently of God, right?
It seems to me that if you were consistent in your application of that verse that you would have to concede that God did not even need to ordain the fall in order to damn most of humanity to eternal punishment; He could have simply damned people arbitrarily who had never fallen into sin to begin with, and still be a just God. Since everything God does is just merely by virtue of being done by God, why wouldn't this follow?
David1701
Well-known member
You have contradicted yourself, and committed other logical errors here.
In the past, I would have spent time going through your post, pointing out the errors; but, I've come to realise that most freewillers are not interested in the truth; in fact, that is why they are freewillers in the first place. Your reply, above, makes me think that any attempt to explain would fall on deaf ears.
That is really funny as day after day scripture is posted Calvinists fail to deal with
Manfred
Well-known member
Not a false believer, but a "mock" believer. At that time I was certain that Muslims who prayed more frequently than me were actually better people for it and would probably be saved.
When I asked myself id I would be let into heaven I would never have said certainly.
I was dependent on self.
Nope. I was not saved.
That was never the case with me. I did however "backslide" like the prodigal.
Not the case with me at all. Before my salvation, I would not have understood the difference between justification and sanctification except on a level that my fallen flesh/mind could understand.
I think you need to rethink this sentence.
We cannot ever get God to forgive our sin. But I do get the gist of what you tried to convey.
Manfred
Well-known member
Honestly Tom. You are only fooling yourself.
When you quote scripture at people without exegesis and out of context of the whole of scripture, implying it agrees with your false premise to start with, you make these bold claims as above.
You are sinning by bearing false witness, and you stand condemned already.
Simpletruther
Well-known member
I would explain this by God's absolute intention in the atonement.
It would lead inevitably to salvation.
Sorry you are in denial
if i quoted something out of context why is it no calvinist can demonstrate it
current examples
Christ shed his blood even for judas
Luke 22:14–23 (KJV 1900) — 14 And when the hour was come, he sat down, and the twelve apostles with him. 15 And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer: 16 For I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God. 17 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves: 18 For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come. 19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. 20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you. 21 But, behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table. 22 And truly the Son of man goeth, as it was determined: but woe unto that man by whom he is betrayed! 23 And they began to inquire among themselves, which of them it was that should do this thing.
any unbeliever is one for whom Christ came to save
John 12:47 (KJV 1900) — 47 And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.
John 3:17–18 (KJV 1900) — 17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. 18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
You make claims you cannot support