# Most difficult of the 5 points?



## ColdSilverMoon (Mar 27, 2008)

When talking with non-Calvinists (Arminians, or whatever you prefer to call them), what do you find is the most difficult of the 5 points for them to accept? I find most solid Baptists and Methodists agree with total depravity and to a certain extent perseverance of the saints. But the other 3 points tend to be much harder. The one that seems to turn off most non-Calvinists is limited atonement. Most people like to believe God died for "everyone" rather than the elect. 

I'm interested to hear what others of you have found to be the biggest stumbling block to other people accepting the 5 points...


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Mar 27, 2008)

No question in my mind the most difficult is Limited Atonement, then irresistible Grace . 

On the other hand the easiest would be Total Depravity I would think.


----------



## jaybird0827 (Mar 27, 2008)

Particular atonement was the one I had most difficulty with. G .I . Williamson in the Confession of Faith Study Guide helped me the most at the time I needed work through it.

Surprisingly I had no problem with any of the other four.


----------



## Iconoclast (Mar 27, 2008)

ColdSilverMoon said:


> When talking with non-Calvinists (Arminians, or whatever you prefer to call them), what do you find is the most difficult of the 5 points for them to accept? I find most solid Baptists and Methodists agree with total depravity and to a certain extent perseverance of the saints. But the other 3 points tend to be much harder. The one that seems to turn off most non-Calvinists is limited atonement. Most people like to believe God died for "everyone" rather than the elect.
> 
> I'm interested to hear what others of you have found to be the biggest stumbling block to other people accepting the 5 points...



Hi CSM,
L - is the point least accepted. The main reason it is not understood is that in reality the person who resists does not really understand the T- total depravity.
If you question them you find that they do not believe Adam died in the fall.They think he was slightly wounded, believing the lie of Satan, thou shall not die. God said dying thou shall surely die.
Natural men cannot understand divine truth savingly 1Cor2.
Proud spirited religious men, or immature believer's who will not come humbly to the word of God will not see the necessity of a definate atonement as they will trumpet the full ability of Adam to save himself by his own ability.


----------



## A5pointer (Mar 27, 2008)

They seem to and should reject the first four equally as they are neccessarily logically wound together. I find those who mostly agree to the doctrines struggle with atonement in favor of an Amyraldian slant. And of course almost no one has a problem with having the will that was free not being free anymore and bound to Christ in perseverance.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Mar 27, 2008)

How many words are their for Limited Atonement? 

C'mon Tupip and Tudip do not make any sense!!!


----------



## Seb (Mar 27, 2008)

Limited Atonement was the hardest one for me too.

I come from a Baptist background and I'd agree; T. and P. were the easiest, since I already believed them.


----------



## Grymir (Mar 27, 2008)

joshua said:


> ColdSilverMoon said:
> 
> 
> > I'm interested to hear what others of you have found to be the biggest stumbling block to other people accepting the 5 points...
> ...


----------



## Herald (Mar 27, 2008)

I have a different take on this. Limited atonement is _supposedly_ the most difficult of the five points to accept. Actually it is the entire five points itself! None of the five points exists independently. They are symbiotic. Reject one and by default you are rejecting the others.


----------



## Timothy William (Mar 27, 2008)

I accepted the last 3 points (having previously accepted the first two, and part of the fourth) about 5 years ago. Actually it was Perseverance of the Saints that I had real difficulty with. I had previously been a strong denier of Once Saved Always Saved, yet I had had problems with agreeing to Universal Atonement, and while I didn't derive Limited Atonement for myself, as soon as I heard the concept I accepted it fairly quickly.


----------



## Justified! (Mar 27, 2008)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> No question in my mind the most difficult is Limited Atonement, then irresistible Grace .
> 
> On the other hand the easiest would be Total Depravity I would think.



Agreed, at least that is what I have found.


----------



## KMK (Mar 27, 2008)

Interesting...

I have found the most difficult is irresistible Grace. It seems to be so ingrained in the mind of the modern church that Jesus is some wimp in the distance, calling people with a still small voice. They believe that Jesus is a disappointed God because the wills of His created people are to strong for Him to overcome.

"Softly and tenderly Jesus is calling..." but most believe that their is only one call, the gospel call. They could never conceive of a call with power!


----------



## danmpem (Mar 27, 2008)

North Jersey Baptist said:


> I have a different take on this. Limited atonement is _supposedly_ the most difficult of the five points to accept. Actually it is the entire five points itself! None of the five points exists independently. They are symbiotic. Reject one and by default you are rejecting the others.



While I agree with you for the most part, I also think about people like Bunyan and Ryle who did not affirm L.M., but were highly God-centered in their theology. The question of L.M. is a fairly new one, compared to the other four points anyway. From what I understand of it, there is evidence that Calvin would have defended L.M. if asked about it, but he never explicitly wrote on the topic.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon (Mar 27, 2008)

North Jersey Baptist said:


> I have a different take on this. Limited atonement is _supposedly_ the most difficult of the five points to accept. Actually it is the entire five points itself! None of the five points exists independently. They are symbiotic. Reject one and by default you are rejecting the others.



You make a really good point. And I agree with Iconoclast as well: if you really believe the doctrine of total depravity, the rest naturally follow philosophically. If we are truly DEAD in our sins, then only irresistible grace will save us, and He only gives that grace to the elect, etc.


----------



## toddpedlar (Mar 27, 2008)

North Jersey Baptist said:


> I have a different take on this. Limited atonement is _supposedly_ the most difficult of the five points to accept. Actually it is the entire five points itself! None of the five points exists independently. They are symbiotic. Reject one and by default you are rejecting the others.



I agree with you 100%, Bill. Generally speaking the claim is that L is the hardest, but then when you look at it carefully, if L is rejected, it's usually because they don't really believe T, and if they don't really believe T, then they don't really believe U or I, and we all know they really don't believe P either (in part because of their rejection of I).


----------



## dwayne (Mar 27, 2008)

North Jersey Baptist said:


> I have a different take on this. Limited atonement is _supposedly_ the most difficult of the five points to accept. Actually it is the entire five points itself! None of the five points exists independently. They are symbiotic. Reject one and by default you are rejecting the others.



I agree if you want have one of them really you want have none of them.


----------



## Sonoftheday (Mar 27, 2008)

(EDIT: Actually My post isnt really worth reading I just said the same thing as Todd only in alot more words.)



> I have a different take on this. Limited atonement is supposedly the most difficult of the five points to accept. Actually it is the entire five points itself! None of the five points exists independently. They are symbiotic. Reject one and by default you are rejecting the others.


 There is no such thing as someone who believes in 4 of the doctrines of Grace, because without all five it is no longer grace alone. To deny L is to change the very nature of the atonement. The sacrifice is most often then made into a potential sacrifice that is "only accepted by the elect" and that acceptance makes it actual. If this were the case then we are (in some way) the cause of our own salvation, because as I was pridefully raised my whole life, we accepted. "God gives us a gift, but you must open it." Ohh the pride of the one who opens the gift, they say thier is no pride in opening a gift "after all who is prideful on xmas day whenever they open thier gifts?" I'll tell you who's prideful on xmas when they open thier gifts, the one who looks around the room and sees many many people who have not opened thier gifts and thier burning in hell for it. 

Everyone I have ever talked to that denies L does so because they believe Christ is somehow obligated by his character to give every sinner an equal chance at salvation. This is a denial of T (as Iconoclast pointed out) and also a denial of UIP. (T)If they understood the depth of our depravity then they would see there is no good in us that makes us deserve a chance. (U)They do not truly believe then that God chose a group based on his choice alone. (I)They do not believe that it is only the by regeneration that we recieve faith. (P) Thier perseverance is not based on the atonement in that Christ literally accepted the wrath for thier sins on the cross, because this would mean Christ did not accept the sins of others on the cross, thus meaning Christ did not give everyone "an equal chance".

Sorry to rant a bit but Calvinism is something I have been forced to defend among family and friends of recent days. It started as showing the ignorance of the age old "calvinist dont witness" argument, but turned into a point by point teaching of how it is the only biblical and Logical doctrine of sotierology, and how if "God gives everyone an equal chance" is true then we are, at least in part, responsible for our own salvation, and should be the most prideful of all beings.


----------



## BertMulder (Mar 27, 2008)

Just like a table with a leg missing, missing any one of the 5 points makes for wobbly theology at best.

From what I hear out there though, the one they least like is election and reprobation. The one they believe least is limited atonement, coupled with irrisistable grace.


----------



## DMcFadden (Mar 27, 2008)

Given the logical interrelatedness of the five, you might as well separate a cake into flour, milk, eggs, sugar, and butter as try to claim one without the other. However, L is the one most people fixate on as the toughest. After all, Moïse Amyraut didn't make it into the history books for believing in ULIP, TLIP, TULI, or TULP. The L has gone down in the annals of historical theology as the staw the breakes the Arminian camel's back.

Or, if you are Ergun Caner, believing such a doctrine will do nothing except "kill your churches with sermons expounding the Westminster Confession . . . "justify your laziness" . . . as you adopt "semi-Presbyterianism" . . . and run the church like an "oligarchy." As Caner says, "You do the math. And just because you cannot answer the questions concerning your views of predetermined fatalism does not make his arguments 'straw men.'"


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 27, 2008)

Perseverance (Preservation) of the saints is hardest for me. 

When talking with others it is the system itself. Most very quickly see that Calvinism is a system--but systems have this stigma, whether rightly or wrongly, of being cold and austere. Men do not commit to systems. I can very quickly get people to see that Calvinism is utterly logical. But that is often the stumbling block. Cold logic turns into existential despair. 

That is what I noticed in college.


----------



## danmpem (Mar 27, 2008)

DMcFadden said:


> Given the logical interrelatedness of the five, you might as well separate a cake into flour, milk, eggs, sugar, and butter as try to claim one without the other. However, L is the one most people fixate on as the toughest. After all, Moïse Amyraut didn't make it into the history books for believing in ULIP, TLIP, TULI, or TULP. The L has gone down in the annals of historical theology as the staw the breakes the Arminian camel's back.
> 
> Or, if you are Ergun Caner, believing such a doctrine will do nothing except "kill your churches with sermons expounding the Westminster Confession? . . . "justify your laziness" . . . as you adopt "semi-Presbyterianism" . . . and run the church like an "oligarchy." As Caner says, "You do the math. And just because you cannot answer the questions concerning your views of predetermined fatalism does not make his arguments 'straw men.'"



One of my closest friends is a devout Arminian/open-theist/inclusivist/non-theologian, but he believes in "L". He denies T, P, especially I, and most of U, but this guy loves his Limited Atonement (He's also been seen around town with A, E, I, O, U, and sometimes Y ). 

But seriously, Somehow I get the feeling that this represents the theology of a lot of Christians today (ones raised in churches without expository preaching; churches run by soccer mom's and fans of Rick Warren); they believe that everyone has to "make a decision for God" and they are completely free to do whatever they want, but once they are a Christian, they are secured by Christ because of His sacrifice. As much as I want my brothers and sister to cling to the cross in their sanctification, they can't have their cake and eat it too.


----------



## Vonnie Dee (Mar 27, 2008)

You might think that most people agree with total depravity. However, what many believe is 95 to 99 percent depravity. If you push they will often state that you are not dead dead in your sins. You are very, very gravely ill. If you were dead dead then you would not have the spark or means to reach out to grab the lifeline of salvation. I'm new to this board and I don't want to threaten with the Choice song, but dead men don't make choices.


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon (Mar 27, 2008)

Too many times we focus on the individual points. As it has been said, already, they are interconnected such that to doubt one is to deny them all. 

It seems to me that what people have the most difficulty with is accepting the underlying truth of God's Sovereignty.

The depraved human heart will accept a god after their own design and choosing, but by nature we are at emnity with the Sovereign God of Scripture.

So, to me it is not so much the particular points that are hard for people to accept, but it is the Sovereign God that people by nature refuse to bow down to.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Mar 27, 2008)

A lot of great answers in this thread. Especially the "might as well separate a cake into parts" . Great Stuff.


----------



## Iconoclast (Mar 27, 2008)

Although each of the 5 pt's are resisted the reason some who we believe are christians stumble with the L is to understand it correctly you must have a good grasp on the High priestly work. Both the Ot type and the Nt reality.
Without a substantial grasp on who the High Priest was interceding for, the intent ,and application of the redemptive work, a person is not equipped to have real meaningful instruction benefit them. They are more like those who were dull of hearing in Hebrews 5.


----------



## Barnpreacher (Mar 28, 2008)

I agree with those that put the emphasis on total depravity. Don't let non-Calvinists fool you into believing that they are serious when they say they believe in total depravity. If they *REALLY* believe in the *TOTAL* depravity of man then the rest of the points will naturally follow.


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Mar 28, 2008)

Such a good thread. Hope you don't mind, I'm linking here from the board I'm an admin at.....


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (Mar 28, 2008)

I agree that the five points are interconnected. But to answer the OP, I would say most difficult (in my experience with non-Calvinists) is unconditional election. Actually the difficulty seems to be the _distinguishing nature_ of God's sovereign grace.

What seems to be the real stumbling block is our contention that God does not provide equal grace to all alike.


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Mar 28, 2008)

I can explain to a grown person that they are a sinner who deserves the just wrath of God and to be "fair" God would punish them on the cross for their sin. They can generally understand that. But mention Psalm 51 and infants and they quickly become Pelagian with their claims that man is born neutral. So in this case Total Depravity is very difficult to accept for many.

Personally TD and LA were easier for me to accept than the other three points.


----------



## christianyouth (Mar 28, 2008)

In my experience the hardest point for Arminians to accept is Total Depravity. They think if man doesn't have a free will to accept or reject the Gospel, then God is not just in damning him. Also, they think that the Gospel call would then become mechanical if only the elect had the ability to respond to the Gospel invitation.


I find the best way to get over this boundary with Arminians is to explain to them the doctrine of Original Sin. Once they see that we are all justly condemned because of Adam their objections to Total Depravity fall apart.

Since the 5 points are all dependent on each other, you would think that they would have problems with each of the five points. Actually, if each of the 5 points are explained properly, I bet that Arminians would have problems with them all since each point in some way insults their libertarian concept of free will.


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Mar 29, 2008)

A few of you may want to read over here and see where a few non-Calvinists and some 'almost-Calvinists' are right now:

Discussion Thread for Non-Calvinists

Not saying all of their 'beefs' are valid, but take notes and let them affect the way in which you approach the topic from now on in convos with folks.


----------



## GoYouBlues (Mar 29, 2008)

Timothy William, have you checked out the Reformed Church in Rivett? I am a Presbyterian at heart but attended the Reformed church for seven years when I lived in Canberra (the PCA was very liberal). The Reformed Church congregation is very conservative and its current Session is solidly reformed. My main criticism was that they were/are amillennial (in my view defeatists) which did not suit my postmillenial position. I had to put up with that. Overall though, a good bunch of believers.


----------



## GoYouBlues (Mar 29, 2008)

Vonnie Dee said:


> I'm new to this board and I don't want to threaten with the Choice song, but dead men don't make choices.



Men who are spiritually dead can't choose life - it is only when the Spirit of God who breathes life into the dead spirit that a man is able to respond.


----------



## toddpedlar (Mar 29, 2008)

GoYouBlues said:


> Vonnie Dee said:
> 
> 
> > I'm new to this board and I don't want to threaten with the Choice song, but dead men don't make choices.
> ...



I don't think Evon was promoting the error of non-total depravity, but stating what most people believe.

If I am wrong, Evon, correct me please... but if so, we've got a lot of talking to do.


----------



## Vonnie Dee (Mar 30, 2008)

*You are correct. Dead men can't make choices.*

I am indeed stating what Armenians mean when they say they agree with total depravity. They don't really mean men are totally depraved. They mean men are mostly depraved. I, however, know that men are totally depraved. I hope that clears things up.


----------



## Greg (Mar 30, 2008)

North Jersey Baptist said:


> I have a different take on this. Limited atonement is _supposedly_ the most difficult of the five points to accept. Actually it is the entire five points itself! None of the five points exists independently. They are symbiotic. Reject one and by default you are rejecting the others.



I agree. I believe Anthony hit the main point as well. If one properly understands Total Depravity, and the implication of that doctrine on man's will, then the rest naturally falls into place, both biblically and logically speaking. Most of the time when I speak with someone who claims to hold to all points except Limited Atonement, I'll notice that their actual understanding of TD is lacking. They're still allowing for sinful man's spiritual ability to some degree...and I believe that it's to the degree that they do this, that they reject the doctrine of LA, or any other point for that matter.

I believe that TD is actually the hardest to accept rightly understood, as it is taught in Scripture.


----------



## danmpem (Mar 30, 2008)

Greg said:


> North Jersey Baptist said:
> 
> 
> > I have a different take on this. Limited atonement is _supposedly_ the most difficult of the five points to accept. Actually it is the entire five points itself! None of the five points exists independently. They are symbiotic. Reject one and by default you are rejecting the others.
> ...



 That is why when I lead small group, I approach Total Depravity from more than just one side. Instead of saying "look at how dead man is", I also take the approach of saying "look at what it takes for God to regenerate a fallen person, because the point isn't getting you to God when you die, the hard part is getting God in you."


----------



## onewayout (Apr 3, 2008)

*Limited Atonement.*

Lots of discussion here about Limited atonement. I'm still working through alot of this.. How do you interpret.


¶ My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: 


1Jo 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for [the sins of] the whole world. 

Thanks in advance.


----------



## KMK (Apr 3, 2008)

onewayout said:


> Lots of discussion here about Limited atonement. I'm still working through alot of this.. How do you interpret.
> 
> 
> ¶ My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:
> ...



Well, for one, what is the definition of the words 'the whole world'? The 'whole world' cannot mean every single person who has ever lived throughout time because that would mean everyone's sins have been atoned for and everyone is therefore saved.


----------



## Greg (Apr 3, 2008)

onewayout said:


> Lots of discussion here about Limited atonement. I'm still working through alot of this.. How do you interpret.
> 
> 
> ¶ My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:
> ...



Here's a helpful explanation of that passage.


----------



## Iconoclast (Apr 3, 2008)

onewayout said:


> Lots of discussion here about Limited atonement. I'm still working through alot of this.. How do you interpret.
> 
> 
> ¶ My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:
> ...



John said this in his gospel JN11;


> 49And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all,
> 
> 50Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.
> 
> ...


----------



## onewayout (Apr 3, 2008)

*Be patient..*

Okay. Greg gave me the link to the article that John was speaking to the Jews.. 1st John has no salutation, greeting or farewell addressed to any particular group or person. Therefore, isn't it a general Epistle to the "Church"? I can't find any indication in First John that he's adressing Jews only. The Bible is silent.. so that would be left to "personal interpretation." 
Iconoclast, states that Caiaphas spoke of the jewish nation. Showing the difference between Jews and the rest of the world. But God had not yet turned to the Gentiles. As far as they were concerned, the Gentiles were no where in God's mind or plans.................. Oh I see, he's (Iconoclast)showing how John writes it almost the same way as he does in 1st John.
I'm not trying to be argumenative. I believe that God doesn't need anything from you and I. I do believe that we are DEAD in our sin. And whosoever will, *will not* unless God the Spirit draws and enlightens them. And I'm certainly not Armenian. There's no God "spark" in any of us. I"m trying to approach The "L" with an open mind. Like I try to do God's word.


----------



## Greg (Apr 3, 2008)

onewayout said:


> Okay. Greg gave me the link to the article that John was speaking to the Jews.. 1st John has no salutation, greeting or farewell addressed to any particular group or person. Therefore, isn't it a general Epistle to the "Church"? I can't find any indication in First John that he's adressing Jews only. The Bible is silent.. so that would be left to "personal interpretation."



Certainly this is an authoritative epistle to the Church as a whole, but who was John's immediate hearers? Who was his specific audience _at that time_? (Context)

"James and Cephas (Peter) and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me (Paul) and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, so that we might go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised (Jews)." -Galatians 2:9



onewayout said:


> But God had not yet turned to the Gentiles. As far as they were concerned, the Gentiles were no where in God's mind or plans



Exactly! That is precisely why John wrote what he did! Even after Christ's ascension, the issue of the Gentiles' inclusion in the promises of God was still being debated by the Jewish believers at the time.


----------



## onewayout (Apr 4, 2008)

*I'll show myself to the door.*

Okay. Well it's time for this babe to stop choking on all this "strong meat" and go get some milk. I do appreciate your answers and taking the time to reply. I guess I'll show myself out of this discussion.


----------



## timmopussycat (Apr 4, 2008)

*How I deal with L and U*

Why I am a Calvinist

Some years ago now, two friends of mine got married and I was invited to help in the wedding.
Although I do not play professionally, my first degree is a BMus in trombone performance. At the time, I had two trombones in my cupboard. One trombone is made of silver and had a smaller diameter bore than the other, which is made of rose brass. The differences make for significant differences in the way the instruments sound. The smaller, silver trombone has a hard, bright, and clear sound, a soloist’s sound - the ideal of the jazz world. The bigger rose brass trombone has a softer, darker, and heavier sound which classical composers and orchestra conductors tend to prefer. 

So when I was asked to play at the wedding I had to decide which of the two horns I would use. Upon seeing the proposed music, I realized that the sound of the bigger horn would be a more fitting accompaniment to the chosen hymns. And so, it was the bigger trombone that I took to the church. 

This decision involved a choice between instruments and the choice was determined because I had a particular end in mind; a more fitting sound to glorify God, and to better help my friends and their guests worship him. Although I foreknew the sound I wanted, I had to decide between alternatives to get the desired result. 

In 1 Cor. 1: 26-30 we read this: 

"For consider your calling, brethren, that there were not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble; but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong, and the base things of the world and the despised. God has chosen the things that are not, that he might nullify the things that are, that no man should boast before God. But by his doing you are in Christ Jesus…"

God had desired results in view when he chose who would receive “the calling”. He wanted to shame the wise, the strong, and the things that are. And all these goals were themselves means to an ultimate goal; which was that no man should boast before God. 

Now if God has only foreknown who will come to faith, Paul could not have written that “God has chosen…to shame…” or “God has chosen…to nullify…” or “…that no man should boast before God...” because such foreknowledge can never be in a cause and effect relationship with particular goals. Instead mere foreknowledge must accept whatever comes to pass. But God chooses “the called” order to achieve particular ends. Thus, this passage makes it impossible to translate the word “chosen” merely as “foreknew” as Arminianism requires.

And that is one reason why I am a Calvinist.


----------



## Iconoclast (Apr 4, 2008)

onewayout said:


> Okay. Well it's time for this babe to stop choking on all this "strong meat" and go get some milk. I do appreciate your answers and taking the time to reply. I guess I'll show myself out of this discussion.



Clayton, 
We are all learning about our Lord and if you are patient and work through alot of these issues you will be able to help others also.
The atonement is strong meat but if even the angels desire to look into it we should also.
Clayton - it is also a good idea to work through the confessions of faith, to see what other believer's in other times have seen as truth in the bible.Just getting used to the various terms and verses used to help us come to truth.
In here many portions of scripture are discussed and debated. Just seeing what issues come up can be instructive. Then if you read some of the puritans you will soon see that they examined every aspect of life ,according to the plumline of scripture.
Take some time and read through some of these threads as you will not find this forum in many other online discussions.


----------



## Red Beetle (Apr 5, 2008)

*It is interesting to see the different opinions on the 5-points.
Gordon H. Clark had this advice to new converts:*

*"Accordingly, if this Christian is a very recent convert, raised in complete ignorance of the Scripture, as some of my students have been, one might advise him to begin study on the Atonement. But if he has some vague knowledge on assorted doctrines, the answer could be: Start on the subject that interests you most. This would not be a systematic and logical procedure, but it would capitalize on his present interest."
(Lord God Of Truth, page 43)*


----------



## john (Apr 6, 2008)

I'd go for unconditional election. God is fair and gives everyone a chance.  This means they do not believe Christ death is effectual so they do not believe in Christ, they believe in their decision.

God swore an oath that Eli's house would have no atonement, limited atonement is proved beyond doubt by 1 Sam 3:14.



> 1Jo 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for [the sins of] the whole world.



onewayout, if the 'whole world' means everyone that ever lived then the scriptures contradict. 1 Sam 3:14 Therefore, I swore to the house of Eli, `The guilt of Eli's house will never be atoned for by sacrifice or offering.' "


john.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Apr 6, 2008)

Hello Clayton,

If you're still looking in, that's a good question: how does one interpret 1 John 2:2?

And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for [the sins of] the whole world.​
I believe John wrote this later in his life, perhaps around the year 90 A.D., when he was reportedly living in Asia Minor/Ephesus, and there were Gentiles in the area as well as Jews. We know he surely had the Jews in mind writing this epistle, as well as Gentiles, and with the former it is well known they were long indoctrinated that only they would be saved when Messiah came — and the Gentiles condemned. The Jews reading or hearing this epistle would know very well what John meant: that *not only they but Gentiles in the world outside Israel* were to be included in the propitiation the Redeemer offered unto God.

In like manner John the Baptizer knew exactly what he was saying when he cried out, "Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world." (Jn 1:29) Likewise the Lord Jesus, when He said, "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son..." (Jn 3:16) To the Jewish mind this _expanded vision_ (albeit foretold by the prophets; Cf. Isa 42:6; 49:6; Ps 22:27; Mal 1:11, etc) of God's plan of salvation was not readily accepted by the Jews. To wit: When Paul in Acts 22:21 told the assembled Jewish crowd that the Messiah had said to him. "Depart: for I will send thee far hence unto the Gentiles," their reaction was, "Away with such a fellow from the earth: for it is not fit that he should live." It was an unspeakable travesty of the ways of God (to them) that such a thing should be.

Little wonder John — who had an apostolic commission to the Jews (even while he spoke to and lived among the Gentiles) — continually reiterated this point to them: not only for you, but for the elect in the whole world beyond Israel, has the Propitiation been made.


----------



## danmpem (Apr 6, 2008)

Greg said:


> Here's a helpful explanation of that passage.



Although I affirm the L in TULIP, I guess I need someone to explain the chart to me (in the link you gave). I am having some trouble seeing the parallels between the two passages.


----------



## Greg (Apr 6, 2008)

It appears the parallel he's making there is this:

"Jesus would die for the nation" (John 11) with "He Himself is the propitiation for our sins" (1 John 2).

As well as "and not for the nation only, but also that He would gather together in one the children of God scattered abroad" (John 11) with "and not for ours only, but also for the whole world" (1 John 2).


----------



## javacodeman (Apr 26, 2008)

L was the last one for me, but I would say that I "struggled" with it. I simply said "I don't know" until I searched the scriptures. Once I read what others were saying and backed it up in the Bible, it came naturally. And as a lot of you have stated, it's hard to have some of the points with out all of the points. 

Anyways, here's what I wrote about L in an editorial response to an article.



> I will not “thunder” or speak boldly in this area because scripture does not speak clearly in this area. This doctrine is a derivative of known truths combined with human reasoning, which is known to fail. In any case, here are the truths. First, God is eternal, and outside of the bounds of time (1Ti 1:17 and Rom 1:20) and immutable (Jas 1:17 and Mal 3:6). Second, God is omniscient (Dan 2:22, Isa 46:9-10); whether or not this knowledge is causative or determinative is moot here. Third, Christ’s sacrifice is perfect (Heb 10:11-18). Christ’s sacrifice is a “propitiation (literally, the satisfaction or payment for … sins).” Christ’s sacrifice, once applied cannot be removed as its application separates us from our sins as far as the east is from the west (Psa 103:12). Now appears the reasoning portion. If all of these are true, how can Christ’s sacrifice be unapplied from the non-believing? It should not be a picture of God ladling out payment for sins as each believer comes to Christ. Rather, the picture should be Christ taking on all of the sins of believers (because God perfectly knows who they are) and making a perfect payment once for all. What we find troubling about this picture is the seeming inability to affect the outcome of our loved ones. If everything is decided with no room for change, why pray or witness? First we are commanded to. Second, we are told that prayer is effectual (Jas 5:16). Is this a lie? Does God tell us to pray and then turn to laugh because it does nothing? No and no. The same God that is eternal and omniscient to the point of fore-knowing believers is eternal and omniscient to the point of fore-knowing our prayers. He hears our prayers in eternity past! He moves His hand according to His will, but His will is often bent around our supplications! What a merciful and mighty God we serve!


----------



## Steve Dixon (Apr 27, 2008)

It has been helpful for me in this discussion of the word "world" to point out that 1 John 5:19 has some rather profound implications.

"19We know that we are children of God, and that the whole world is under the control of the evil one."

The text points out that there are two distinct classes set apart. 1. "we", who are children of God and 2. "whole world", those under control of the evil one. "We" are not part of the "whole world" therefore "whole world" cannot mean _everyone_ without distinction. "Whole world" is therefore limited to those whose controller is the "evil one".


----------

