Home
« Home | Next: Is Sanctification the Consequence of Righteous Liv... »
| Next: How much? »
| Next: Double, Double, Toil and Trouble »
| Next: Is it you? »
| Next: Who am I? »
| Next: Why do you believe...? »
| Next: Prayer Request »
| Next: Why do you believe...? »
| Next: Are you an Evangelical? »
| Next: A Forced Observation »

Thoughts

Topics

Archives


Subscribe

Feed Link

Study Help

Real Help

    Needed Prayers


Links

About

About Kc


Awards

Quotes

    "You are really cool you are married to an European!! How cooler can you be??"
    Fisherman Pecheur

    "Smarty Pants"
    Mad Matt

    "Oh, you did not ask for Bonhoeffer's opinion did you? You wanted mine..."
    the SOFYST

    "You are like the master at this "feelings" stuff!
    Kind Kristi

    "I enjoy your comments, but they are always delightfully enigmatic"
    Dyspraxic Fundamentalist


Tuesday, June 19, 2007

A 5 Point Universalist?

What are you when you hold all 5 points of Calvinism but only limit the atonement to mankind?

Labels: ,

18 Comments:

Blogger Kc said...

It seems there really is a choice for those with no choice!

6/19/2007 06:11:00 AM  
Blogger Rose~ said...

Wow, Kc ... I read through that thing. How fascinating! I am not sure of his conclusion, but he has obviously been thinking about it for a long time and analyzing this situation with dilligence.

I wasn't going to read the whole thing, but it drew me in because it was stating things in such an out-of-the-ordinary way. It was really different, it's focus. Definately not the run-of-the-mill argument for or against Arminianism or Calvinism. I will be thinking about that for a while and will probably read it again!

Thanks!

6/19/2007 09:29:00 AM  
Blogger Kc said...

Rose I suppose this is a logical option for Determinist.

6/19/2007 01:15:00 PM  
Blogger RF2R2 said...

Not a calvinst.

6/19/2007 03:52:00 PM  
Anonymous rrbj said...

KC there you go making me hunt the dictionary? I don't think I qualify to be a Calvinist? I tend to lean to being a Tradionalist and I don't think of Me as a universalist if that is being a Calvinist ? I honestly don't like discussing other peoples belief because myself I believe in the true word of God! The Bible! I will say I don't understand why someone would rewrite The Bible?

Blessings.
Ron.

6/20/2007 09:29:00 AM  
Blogger pecheur said...

That's good. Thanks for the historical article nobody mentioned it over at my place.

Thinking about talking about it anyway.

6/21/2007 03:13:00 AM  
Blogger Kc said...

Brandon I suppose it depends on how you define "Calvinist". This gentleman places great import on Calvin’s doctrine though I would be hard pressed to believe that Calvin would agree with him. I say this based solely on the historical record of Calvin and not on his doctrine. This fellow makes a good case logically from Calvin's works.

Grandpa I suspect your pastor would want a word with you if you found you were Calvinist or a Universalist. ;-)

For the most part I’m not sure that others are trying to rewrite the Bible. I think they just hold to a traditionally different interpretation. I encourage everyone to be convinced in their own heart and mind concerning the scripture. ;-)

Pech after reading your article I decided to do a little research so I thought I’d post some of my findings. I would love to read your commentary on the article linked above!

6/21/2007 05:31:00 AM  
Blogger sofyst said...

Kc, help me to see if I understand this guy's position or not.

The typical understanding of non-Universalist is that all persons will be damned, except those that the Bible explicitely says will not be (the elect - whether corporate or individual, it matters not right now).

But this man's (was it a man?) position is that the Bible teaches that all persons will be saved, except those that the Bible explicitely says will not be (namely, those that reject the good news).

Is this what he is claiming? If so, then I can only quote his own word's: 'There are those who say it is six of one or a half a dozen of the other.'

I do not understand the implications of claiming one way over the other. He seems to suggest that by claiming his way, we would echo the words of the early apostles, as they would have claimed the gospel message, rather than stating it another way (as founded by Augustine/Pelagius.

But claiming that we should say 'six' rather than 'half a dozen' for the only reason of it being the historical prefence of great men is quite a silly claim...

That is my initial response. I may be highly mistaken. Which is where you come in. Correct my error, my dear friend.

6/21/2007 10:25:00 AM  
Blogger Kc said...

Adam I understand him/them to believe that all men are elect and will be saved unless they prevent it. I think he stated that the 6 vs. ½ dozen argument is invalid given his/their perspective.

I think what he/they find unique is his/their perspective of election. You and I would agree that the elect are so by the determinite will of God.

We only disagree on when and why He makes that determination. ;-)

6/21/2007 02:26:00 PM  
Blogger Kc said...

Oh, and who can be elected (grin)

6/21/2007 02:26:00 PM  
Blogger Kris said...

KC,
I see merit to this line of thought "Evangelical Inclusivism". I don't think I have ever had any difficulty believing in unlimited atonement and still believing people will be cast into the lake of fire.

To me it boils down to "limited" or "unlimited" atonement and their logical endings using scripture. Romans 5:18 states that "....through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men". Notice it does not say all men are justified, it just says that Christ one act of righteousness resulted in "justification of life" to all men.

Like I have said before, I believe scripture teaches that Christ has atoned for all sin except blasphemy of the Holy Spirit(Mark 3:29), this is the only eternal sin mentioned in scripture. The only sin not atoned for is the sin of unbelief in Jesus. John 16:8,9 clearly says what Holy Spirit convicts the world of. If a person refuses to believe and therefore blasphemes God's testimony concerning His Son he will "die in his sins" instead of "in Christ"(John 8:24).

And in the final judgment(Rev.20:11-15), if read carefully, no one goes to the lake of fire for their deeds, they are only "judged according to their deeds" and then if anyones name was not found written in the book of life he was thrown into the lake of fire.

God did truly "lay in Zion a stumbling stone, a rock of offense". Anyone who pursues a righteousness not based on faith alone are stumbling over this stone just like the unbelieving Jews(Romans 10:3,4).


Like Rose, it caught my attention and I read a good amount on the site. I would be interested in more thoughts by your readers on "Evangelical Inclusivism". Although anything that has an "ism" on the end throws up a flag for me right off the start.

Except "Dorseism"!

6/21/2007 09:03:00 PM  
Blogger RF2R2 said...

kc said,

And in the final judgment(Rev.20:11-15), if read carefully, no one goes to the lake of fire for their deeds, they are only "judged according to their deeds" and then if anyones name was not found written in the book of life he was thrown into the lake of fire.

kc,

Kris and I dialogued pretty thoroughly about this very scripture a little while back at the Pub - you can find that discussion here (it starts at about comment #45). The gist of my argument was two-fold:

First, the greek word used for "judged" in this passage implies sentencing or damning and not just a weighing of evidence. A conclusion is reached concerning the judged persons and their doom is decreed.

Second, and more logically important in the broader scope of your position, Jesus throws 'unbelief' in as an equal partner in a litany of qualities of those who are cast into the Lake of Fire. There is no preeminence given to the sin of unbelief in Rev. 22:8. If unbelief is just one of many qualities which our Lord uses to characterize the damned, then it is inexplicable why we should assign to it so definitive a character as you often do. Jesus didn't elevate its importance as a factor in damnation, therefore neither should we.

Grace to you and peace from God,
Brandon

6/22/2007 08:06:00 PM  
Blogger Kris said...

Brandon, our "dialogue" was never completed. I waited for your response but you were to busy. If you consider that topic of conversation ended between us thats fine, but using the dialogue as the final conclusion on the topic is not sufficient. :)

To all, my computer has crashed, I am on my wife's computer and I don't know when my computer will be fixed. If I do not repsond...you now know why.

Please pray that I will be able to retrive all the info on my hard drive at least. Everything I have for work to tons of personal info are on it. It will be devastating if it is all lost.

6/23/2007 05:21:00 PM  
Blogger Kc said...

Kris you and I have a similar understanding though I consider the doctrine of election is where EI/BU falls apart. I’m persuaded that election is by the determinate will of God and not by His permissive will. The BU adherents consider election by His permissive will, i.e. all elect unless you just don’t want it. I too lean toward unlimited atonement. I find no reason to believe that Christ atonement did not provide justification of life for all men.

Please give our best to all. I pray you’re all doing well and that you’ll soon recover from the crash.

Brandon it was Kris you quoted but I appreciate your thoughts. That’s an excellent discussion you and Kris have going and I hope you can both continue. You have a great gift in discerning scripture and I know God is blessing you and others with it. For now you know I lean heavily toward an unlimited atonement but I’ll be watching your arguments closely and praying for us all an open heart and mind and God’s blessing.

I pray God continues to bless you and your wonderful family.

6/24/2007 11:33:00 AM  
Blogger RF2R2 said...

Kris said...

Brandon, our "dialogue" was never completed. I waited for your response but you were to busy. If you consider that topic of conversation ended between us thats fine, but using the dialogue as the final conclusion on the topic is not sufficient. :)

(emphasis mine)

I said or implied no such thing. I only referenced our dialogue because I thought it could contribute something to this discussion. I in no way suggested that our dialougue was concluded(though, honestly, I had forgotten about it). If you are reffering to this line,

A conclusion is reached concerning the judged persons and their doom is decreed.

then allow me to clarify that this was a summation of my own position and not a statement on how our dialogue was concluded.

kc said,

Brandon it was Kris you quoted but I appreciate your thoughts.

kc and kris,

I apologize! This is like the second time I've seen a 'k' and misattributed a quote from one of you, lol. I will show greater quotational diligence in the future ;)

6/24/2007 12:25:00 PM  
Blogger Pia said...

just thought of sneaking in here and leaving you a messaage... thanks papu... belated happy daddy's day. (((HUGS)))
now i'm outta here. =D

6/24/2007 10:54:00 PM  
Blogger Kc said...

Brandon I'm honored to be confused with Kris! ;-)

Pia you know your sneaky messages are always welcome! ;-)
We love you little sister.

6/26/2007 04:41:00 AM  
Blogger sofyst said...

Kc, you said,

Adam I understand him/them to believe that all men are elect and will be saved unless they prevent it. I think he stated that the 6 vs. ½ dozen argument is invalid given his/their perspective.

If this is their position, then I would disagree whole heartedly. The first reason, of course, would be that it goes against entirely my view of individual election.

However, even if one didn't accept the clearly biblical view of election that I hold to, one should still see this as a frightening view.

With corporate election, God's elective abilities are still held in place. He elects a group of people whose members are yet to be determined. While I do not agree with this, it is still somewhat cogent.

However, if we hold to this man's position, we have God electing individual people, and yet them thwarting God's election by them rejecting it. Where I would think this line of thinking is more severe than most Arminian ideas is that it makes God out to be a bafoon. His election is somewhat useless... He elects Boyd to salvation, but His election means absolutely nothing. What on earth good is there in saying 'God elected Boyd', if Boyd dies and goes to Hell???

6/26/2007 05:38:00 AM  

Post a Comment