blt to go

If you could flesh out this argument a bit more, I would appreciate it. My knowledge of Koine Greek is (pathetically) limited to Strong's dictionary. Strong's does seem to agree with your claim that Pas should be more readily translated as "some" not all.

If this is true, then, of course, I am doubly screwed. If God doesn't desire me to be saved, what chance do I have? Zip, Zero and none.

Ahhh. Limited Atonement. This is a bit of a 20-20 hindsight, right? The only people that get the atonement are the ones that ask for it. The only ones that ask for it are the ones God elects.

The problem the Calvinist faces is that by General Atonement, that means that Christ's death paid for all the sins, and there would be no need for repentance.

Therefore, since repentance is necessary by the other tenents of Calvinism, we logically derive the fact that Christ's payment must be ONLY for some, i.e. the Elect, i.e. the true Christians.

I find this amusing. Calvinist use logic to derive this concept (which is not stated in the Bible), but refuse to apply the exact same logic to double predestination. Logic is convenient when you want it, and ignored when you don't.

Oh, by the by, what about this sticky wicket? This sure implies that it was "for all."

But who predestines the desire to be saved? GOD! This is a circular response to a non-strawman.

If (assuming your interpretation of 1 Tim is correct) God only desires some, the rest are out in the cold. Now of the others, if they don't desire God, then they are out in the cold. Only those that desire God AND God desires them have a shot at heaven. But for a person to desire God, God has to predestine that desire! Hence, this claim of first desire does not further your argument any. It moves the goalpost back a little, but that is it.

Please note, as brettc stated WHEN this predestination occured. God chose us LONG before we were born. It is NOT a situation where we desired God first and THEN he chose us. So this desire has to be predestined in us.

Or are you saying that free will is involved in the desire for god?

As to your statement about the atheists on this board having no desire to be saved, I would recommend you spend some time here You have alot of reading ahead of you, but you would learn the depth and breadth of the desire of many atheists to be saved and find God. Lack of Desire is not a problem. Lack of Locating is.



OntheThirdRail, I was a Calvinist for 33 years. I know the forumla. Repeating it to me just raises a chuckle. I note both you and jdlongmire are reluctant to address head-on and in short statements the concept of double-premeditation.

Yes or no. If God choses person A (and ONLY person A) to go to heaven, does that not mean, no matter what person B does, no matter how hard they try, no matter the depth of their desire, person B is destined for hell, AND GOD KNOWS IT?

Isn't double predestination the logical result of single predestination?

blt to go

TULIP
brettc, the only points we are discussing is the "U" or unconditional election, commonly referred to as "predestination." However, it is important to understand the OTHER points, to get the basis of the "U".

post tenebras lux

Can I repost a question I asked in Post 2 (and make it more obviously a question, or questions)?

Is partial predestination now the viewpoint of 'mainstream' Calvinists, or do several important parts of Calvinism still stick with double predestination? If the latter, does anyone know which parts of Calvinism go with which viewpoint?

If partial predestination is now the accepted interpretation, and given that Calvin himself seemed to go for double predestination along with the rest of the movement in the early days (reference to blt_to_go's linky in the OP), at what point did partial predestination surplant double predestination in 'mainstream' Calvinism?

Was it a specific date/conference, or was it a gradual shift and, if so, over which decades did this shift occur?

Luxie

OnTheThirdRail

Come... come Gawen are you saying everything you believe has evidence to back it up?

Does the Bible not count as evidence?

OnTheThirdRail

He has not chosen to reveal that to us... His reasons are His own. But He does give us a hint:

1 Corinthians 1

17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect. 18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, And bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent." 20 Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? 21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. 22 For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom; 23 but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness, 24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. 26 For you see your calling, brethren, that not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called. 27 But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty; 28 and the base things of the world and the things which are despised God has chosen, and the things which are not, to bring to nothing the things that are, 29 that no flesh should glory in His presence. 30 But of Him you are in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from God--and righteousness and sanctification and redemption-- 31 that, as it is written, "He who glories, let him glory in the Lord."

So wait, help me understand what you are saying... you are saying you will humble yourself, acknowledge His existence etc... but at the same time you believe He is non-existent? Huh? The point is - if you are reprobate then you would never truly humble yourself before God.

No where in the Bible does it say brettc is a reprobate. The Bible is pretty clear that those who die in rebellion to the Gospel of Christ are reprobate as far as we can tell. This is born out of the continual proclamations in the Bible that God is not content to leave the Elect in their state of utter depravity.

BadBadBad

This is what the Bible says:

9:21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

"and whom he will he hardeneth."

They left that part out, from Romans 9:18.

OnTheThirdRail

It is explained in much more depth here!

Nowhere in the Bible does it specifically spell out exactly who are the elect and who are the reprobate...

The underlying presupposition in your comments is a Libertarian definition of Free-will. This is a philosophical presupposition not supported by scripture. The definition of "free-will" in the Bible (called Free Agency by reformed folks to help avoid confusion) matches more closely to the compatabilistic definition of free-will. So just because a person may be predestined to hell doesn't mean that they had no choice.

General Atonement in no problem for the Calvinist because he doesn't believe in General Atonement (hence the L for Limited Atonement in TULIP). Again you are assuming that Christ's death paid for all sins... I have already disagreed with that in an earlier post. Christ's death not only secured forgiveness of sins for His elect but also all of the other aspects that are needed... the Holy Spirit's ability to apply salvation to the elect through regeneration... and thus faith and repentence.

Well, I think we derive it from the Bible... logic backs up what the Bible already states.

I disagree... it is stated in the Bible. Logic also backs it up (Because I presupposed the Bible is logical)... Yes, if God predestines some to election He also necessarily preestinates the rest to reprobation.

Again, I believe that Christ did not die effectually for all. Though Christ's death allows the proclamation of the Gospel to go to all men.

God of course... in our natural estate (post-fall) we are in emnity with God. In order for a person to believe he must first be regenerated (which is completely and entirely a work of God alone - i.e. monergism)

For a Biblical/logical defense of monergistic regeneration go here!

To say that man has the ability to desire God pre-regeneration is unbiblical and illogical.

This is the pretended neutrality fallacy.... if the atheist pressuposes the starting point (man is ultimate) and his method of gaining knowledge (autonomous reason) then he can no longer claim neutrality. He presupposes that which is the main contention between the Christian and the atheist.

Given your responses within these posts I find that hard to believe. Just because someone labels themself a calvinist doesn't make one a calvinist. It is pretty clear given your presupposition - namely your unspoken affirmation of the libertarian definition of free-will. If you were just using it for pedagogical reasons then I apologize.

Which denomination(s) did you belong to as a calvinist?

Again, straw-man... the Bible states that the reprobate have no true desire to believe on Jesus, to humble themselves before God. Though I do agree that double predestination is the logical result of single predestination.

Some other comments I want to make.

What Sproul is getting at is that man is not inherently good (or even neutral for that matter) in and of themselves and that He causes some to be elect. But others, who are good, he causes to be reprobate and thus institutes depravity on them. That is against their desires He forces them to be reprobate. So in the fall of Adam (the human race's covenant head or representative) all men fell into a state of depravity. God has no need to de-generate (basically some people's conception of God's "hardening" a person) anyone.

As far as hardening goes... first you must understand the notion of Total Depravity. Why is it if all men are totally depraved they don't walk around killing people left and right and committing the most vilest of crimes... it is because of common grace. God restrains the reprobate from being as bad as their nature would let them. God's hardening is the removal of this restraint.

post tenebras lux

Hi OnTheThirdRail,
is it Common Grace that stops the wolf from attacking the other members of its wolf pack? And is it also responsible for stopping my dog from jumping over the garden fence and trying to eat the next door neighbour's children?

But I guess that Common Grace provides a good explanation of when people suddenly go 'Postal' and proceed to shoot half their colleagues. :wave:

Luxie

BadBadBad

It's a contradiction TR. God mysteriously resolves the contradiction heh? If God desires that all men be saved without distinction, then he can't choose based upon any distinction. In other words, if he wants all, he chooses all. In other words all means all. In other words, God is omnibenevolent and all loving without distinction. Except, he's only going to buy some of his kids ice cream.

No, I'm saying that God made his existence, power, and glory obvious and undeniable, just like he could to everyone. Pharoah acknowledged God and humbled himself. He repented and begged forgiveness. Yet that didn't stop God in his purpose to show his power and glory for all the world to see. It didn't make any difference.

OnTheThirdRail

No contradiction...without distinction means - of all types. That is not limited to Jews only not limited to greeks only... not limited to only the poor or the downtrodden. Now the reason he picks that particular jew or that paricular greek in known only to God.

Wait are you claiming that if a miracle happened in front of you that you would then believe?

Pharoah acknowledged God and humbled himself so much that he wouldn't freely let the Israelites leave... I would call that false acknowlegement and false humility.