How?
I'm not a Calvinist but I could define myself as a 4 pointer.
How are they another Gospel anathema? They are misguided on limited atonement but I think I understand why they conclude this. It's because they can't get around the divine sovereignty of God, specifically that man can exercise free will and God can still remain sovereign above man's choices. But that's a misunderstanding in my book not another gospel.
Besides there is no such thing as total free will anyway.
Just for curiosity, why do you think we're misguided on limited atonement?
You really need to come up with a working definition of "free will." If you mean that man does make real choices, and is really responsible for those choices, I'd agree (I am a 5-pointer, for the record). But I wouldn't really call that "free will."
My problem with the unlimited atonement position is that it logically leads to every single person being saved, or leads to an atonement that is not completely effective to save.
I know there are scriptures that say Christ died for "All men" or "the whole world" but that doesn't necessarily mean every single person. Let me show you two passages that make it clear that this presumption is not essential:
Luke 2:1 says that Caesar "Decreed that the whole world should be taxed." Does that mean every single person? of course not! It didn't apply to China, India, the Native Americans, etc. It applied to the people under Caesar's authority.
1 Corinthians 15:22 say that all men die in Adam, and all men are made alive in Christ. I presume I don't have to show you a list of scriptures that discredit universalism. Yet it says "All." This once again shows that the word "all" does not always mean "Every single person." This passage is simply saying that Christ is the only way that men are saved, nobody is justified by anyone other than Christ (Which, once again, shows Enyart is making God in his own image in the OP, as I'll explain where I quoted you asking when I get there.)
Now, I suspect this post wouldn't really be complete without defending limited atonement, so here goes.
John 10:15 says Christ lays down his life for HIS SHEEP. He later says he will not lose any of his sheep. This, to me, says that all for whom he shed his blood are saved. Thus, he did not shed his blood for the non-elect.
Romans 8:32-33 is another important passage in this regard:
32 He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things? 33 Who shall bring any charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies.
Now, you have another reference to "All." But right after, he says he will graciously give those who he died all things. He then says that it is God, not man, who justifies. Justification is clearly linked with the atonement here, as well as graciously giving "All other things." Do you think God would promise to "give all other things" to people who a reprobate? (That is, a person who was "created for wrath" as per Romans 9:22?)
The Armenian position is closer to another gospel than Calvinism.
I presume you mean "Arminian" not "Armenian." Presuming that is the case, I wholeheartedly agree with you.
I do think there are some saved Arminians (And Amyraldans
) who inconsistently proclaim the true gospel of Christ. They do not condition their salvation on their own works, but they don't understand how a synergistic view of salvation is logically works oriented. I have a hard time, however, believing that those who have deeply studied the issue far more than I have that still take a free will position are saved. I will not judge them to be unsaved on this alone, but I do believe that those people create a God in their own image. Dave Hunt and Michael Brown even claim that God cannot save those who are not saved, and that if he could, to not do so would be unloving! I would not call them my Christian brothers because ultimately they are not inconsistent, they take their false theology to its logical conclusion, creating a God in their own image and rejecting clear scriptural teaching regarding election and omnipotence.
In Christ,
Christian Liberty
1 Timothy 2
3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
Everything you say is wrong.
"all" does not mean "every single person." See above.
That said, I wouldn't deny that there is some sense in which God wants to save even the unsaved. I would separate God's will for human beings, which is for all of them to repent believe the gospel, as he commands them to do, and his will for himself, which is to save some and leave others behind. So I wouldn't completely deny that there is a sense in which Christ wants the non-elect to be saved. He does want them to come to him. But he doesn't want to regenerate them so they will.
Luke 13:34, for instance, does show Jesus in some sense wanting to save those who would not be, but this is limited to what Christ wants THEM to do. He does not wish to take supernatural action in order to save them. (Otherwise, obviously, he would do so.)
Help me out, what's Bob's problem? I really prolly will never tune in on my own, if rather hear the doctrine and deal with that.
Thx and aloha
*id
I didn't listen either. Jefferson quotes it in the OP. Bob creates a God in his own image, one that is easier to digest, rather than the Biblical God who says that all who he saves will believe in Christ and Christ alone for salvation.
