Defending God's Honor
- Thread starter Jefferson
- Start date
Christian Liberty
Well-known member
I didn't criticize your spelling
But I don't want to walk down the limited atonement path because it can go on and on and I cannot receive that teaching (my conscience won't allow it).
Here's how I balance God's sovereignty with man's will.
God self limited His sovereignty by providing divine enablement in us (elect). That enabling gives us the desire to seek, call and believe on Him. Now that we are enabled we can exercise our will that without enablement has no ability to desire, call and believe God. So god still makes the first move in salvation (he elects based on His choice and not based on pre knowing who'd believe) and the elect exercise their will and are saved by grace thru faith in Christ alone.
That's the best I can do.
Here's how I balance God's sovereignty with man's will.
God self limited His sovereignty by providing divine enablement in us (elect). That enabling gives us the desire to seek, call and believe on Him. Now that we are enabled we can exercise our will that without enablement has no ability to desire, call and believe God. So god still makes the first move in salvation (he elects based on His choice and not based on pre knowing who'd believe) and the elect exercise their will and are saved by grace thru faith in Christ alone.
That's the best I can do.
Christian Liberty
Well-known member
We shouldn't refrain from discussing Scripture just because we may not like the conclusions
How does limited atonement "go on and on"?
OK, so you seem like you would agree with Total Depravity (Man's nature is so sinful that he cannot seek Christ on his own), Unconditional Election (Being elect is not conditional on any act of man), Irresistible Grace (An elect, once regenerated, will not resist God's grace) and Perseverance of the Saints (Those who are chosen will persevere.)
What exactly is your problem with Limited Atonement?
Your current position is illogical because it suggests that Christ failed to save all who he died for. You are claiming that, while God monergistically saves sinners, he also died for the non-elect, in other words, his blood is not completely effecacious to save.
Christian Liberty
Well-known member
That contradicts what you just said.
Are you a 4-point Calvinist or an Arminian? Not to pigeonhole, but the differences between the two are pretty abrupt. Arminians generally will admit that God takes the first step to make men savable, but they deny that he completes the process.
Well, I do think double jeopardy would be unjust, and I do think it slanders Christ (Although perhaps unintentionally) to say that his death was in vain for most. But that's not my only argument.
I don't see it a problem for all men to be savable but some are passed over. That could include infant mortality. It definitely includes those who've never heard the gospel. That's not fair?
Christian Liberty
Well-known member
I don't actually understand your position at all. At first I thought you were an Amyraldian, but now you're jumping back and forth.
Explain to me what you believe, and then I'll address it.
See above
Christian Liberty
Well-known member
Based on the bolded comment above, I'd say you're a 4-pointer (A 5-pointer could also make a statement like you made, but I know for certain you reject limited atonement since you have said so), but you also said you believe God "made all men savable." Which contradicts what you say here.
Are you referrng to Amyraldian hypothetical universalism?
(Logging off, get back to this tomorrow.)