Calvinists often use arguments such as "if Christ died for all, then all must be saved." This, however, only works if you presuppose an actual atonement, and not a potential atonement.
How would you defend an actual atonement against a "4-point Calvinist" who argues that the atonement is potential and accomplished upon the spirit regenerating the sinner at a later date?
In other words, while the John Murray model is Redemption Accomplished (at the cross) and Applied (at justification), whereas the "4-point Calvinist" sees Redemption made possible at the cross and accomplished at justification.
Not to be simplistic, but allowing the realm of "potential" into the discussion presupposes that God has ordained some element of chance and therefore is not completely sovereign over salvation.
I'd work from that angle first, since I reject "potential" _________________ Blessings,
I am not familiar with this "potential" argument, but it seems to imply that God could potentially save man if (some condition) is met. Who is it met by? If it must be met by man, then it is no longer Calvinism. Man brings nothing to his salvation except the sin he needs to be saved from.
But then I must confess a heavy bias. Calvinism has 5 points. If one does not hold to the 5 points, then one is simply not a Calvinist in my opinion. _________________
For a 4-point Calvinist, are they (an erroneous presupposition) confusing man's perspective on atonement with God's perspective on atonement...such as from God's perspective all things are completed and finished because God sees all of time at once from beginning to end while man only understands time from a chronological order. When we are talking about the 5 points of Calvinism are we not all supposing that this is God's perspective and not man's perspective, so when someone is in disagreement with one or all of the points then aren't they coming from man's perspective on the point(s). When I look at Arminianism, it all seems to be from man's point of view and not God's, while Calvinism is from God's perspective only.
Mark _________________ "As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another."
Not to be simplistic, but allowing the realm of "potential" into the discussion presupposes that God has ordained some element of chance and therefore is not completely sovereign over salvation.
I'd work from that angle first, since I reject "potential"
Actually it doesn't. The "4-point view" is that, essentially, the atonement makes all savable, and that the irresistible calling for the elect only saves them. There is no chance in that model since God has ordained the elect. The difference is not in the "potential," but at what point salvation is actually accomplished.
Think of it this way -- God created sperm to have a potential for life, but not every sperm becomes life, and God has ordained which ones become living. That's what is meant by "potential." It's a state, not something that is chance.
I'm not fully convinced of either 4-point or 5-point, and I've yet to hear a strong biblical argument that fully engages the 4-point view, so I'm looking forward to some good discussion!
I am not familiar with this "potential" argument, but it seems to imply that God could potentially save man if (some condition) is met. Who is it met by? If it must be met by man, then it is no longer Calvinism. Man brings nothing to his salvation except the sin he needs to be saved from.
But then I must confess a heavy bias. Calvinism has 5 points. If one does not hold to the 5 points, then one is simply not a Calvinist in my opinion.
Good observation, Arete. In the "4-point Calvinist" position, there is a condition, but it is met by God in the irresistible calling unto regeneration by God.
Not to be simplistic, but allowing the realm of "potential" into the discussion presupposes that God has ordained some element of chance and therefore is not completely sovereign over salvation.
I'd work from that angle first, since I reject "potential"
Quote:
Actually it doesn't. The "4-point view" is that, essentially, the atonement makes all savable, and that the irresistible calling for the elect only saves them. There is no chance in that model since God has ordained the elect. The difference is not in the "potential," but at what point salvation is actually accomplished.
Think of it this way -- God created sperm to have a potential for life, but not every sperm becomes life, and God has ordained which ones become living. That's what is meant by "potential." It's a state, not something that is chance.
Interesting illustration
I'd say that the ordination removes any "state of potential" - which is consistent with my supralapsarian viewpoint - potential is an illusion or coping mechanism for human autonomy
Quote:
I'm not fully convinced of either 4-point or 5-point, and I've yet to hear a strong biblical argument that fully engages the 4-point view, so I'm looking forward to some good discussion!
I am assuming by 4 point, you mean Amyraldism or rejection of Limited Atonement (or Particular Redemption?
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Interesting RTI Poll
Who is "the seed" of the woman mentioned in Genesis 3:15
