To get someone started...
2.CONDITIONAL ELECTION
"Arminius believed that election was based on the foreknowledge of God as to who would believe. Man's "act of faith" was seen as the "condition" or his being elected to eternal life, since God foresaw him exercising his "free will" in response to Jesus Christ."
There is a very cogent response to this that I have never had even the ablest Arminian answer convincingly - viz. that for the elect, Christ paid the debt for all their sin, including the sin of unbelief, which alone sends men to hell. Is the atonement considered universally applicable to all men, efficacious to overcome unbelief in some, yet not in others? One must limit the atonement either in its quality, or in its quantity...which would you choose??!!
Verne
Verne,
Here is a place where Calvinists have some uphill work to do, and don't do it very well.
Scripture abounds with verses that teach unlimited atonement. John 3:16. I John 2:2. I Peter 3:18. Romans 5:6. Romans 11:15. 2 Cor. 5:19.
The standard Calvinist answer is to go to work to show that "all" means "some", "the world" means "part of the world" and so forth.
Actually, this problem should act as a red flag that Calvinism, being a system of theology invented by men, has not yet acheived its goal of explaining all revelation.
You have proposed a false dilemma. It is not either quantity or quality alone....you forgot applicability.
Thomas Maddux V. D. with silver oak leaf cluster.
Interesting observation Tom. If I could show one verse in the Bible where an apparent universal descriptor does not warrant a literal interpretation, would you accept that the exception proves the rule?
I think this is one of those cases where the admonition line upon line, precept upon precept weighs very heavily. We are cautioned to not let any Scripture be of isolated interpretation and that we should compare Scripture with Scripture.
This is starting to bring us to the heart of this debate I think and that is whether or not the Sovereign will of God can
ultimately be thwarted....
You must be prepared ultimately to argue that if it is God's sovereign will that literally
all men be saved, the divine
purpose in the sacrifce of His son on the cross will ultimtely be eternally thwarted. I would threfore ask you and all who espouse that the Word of God teaches an unlimited attonement - do you believe that ultimatley any single
purpose of the Creator can be thwarted? ...we now really starting to get serious....
Scripture abounds with verses that teach unlimited atonement. John 3:16. I John 2:2. I Peter 3:18. Romans 5:6. Romans 11:15. 2 Cor. 5:19.
The standard Calvinist answer is to go to work to show that "all" means "some", "the world" means "part of the world" and so forth.
This, in my view, is the fundamental and in my view irreconcilable difference bwtween both camps-
Does God, or does God not always accomplish His purpose??!!!.
If your interpretation of these verses is that it was God's
purpose that the death of Christ provide atonement for the sin of every person who ever lived, then you are arguing that ultimately God's pupose in the death of Christ will ever be, for time and eternity frustrated. You may indeed make that argument, but we do need, I think, to be clear about where the argument leads, namely, to a denial of the
omnipotence of Jehovah...
You have proposed a false dilemma. It is not either quantity or quality alone....you forgot applicability.
The dilemma is in no way false if you subscribe to the teaching that salvation is by grace through faith
alone!.
Are you prepared to argue that there are some the Father draws who
do not come to Christ?
Can anyone come to Christ who has
not been drawn by the Father?
If you respod to either query in the affirmative, that calls for separate treatment.
If you respond to both quries in the negative, then it is evident that those that do not come to Christ have not indeed been drawn by the Father.
If they have not been drawn by the Father, then why not? Did not God shed the precious blood of His only begotten Son on their behalf (according to Universalism) and would threfore be quite remiss in not drawing them, knowing full well they will not come to Christ otherwise?
You are unquestionably shut up to limiting quality or quantity. What you refer to as applicability is nothing more than a possible subset of those two broad categories in my humble opinion.
Verne
