Hey,
"Bob,
The gift is already given to the unbleiver, all they have to do is believe - it is already theirs. For the sins of the whole world did Christ die. Their debt is already paid. What must they do to be saved? They must believe. At least according to the author of Acts."

I still don't know how something can be yours when you need to do something to get it. I know a flurry of analogies akin to just putting out your hand can readily be employed, however, they hardly fit the gravity of eternal life and damnation. The simple point is that YOU DID SOMETHING the unbeliever did NOT DO.

As for emphasising universal atonement I find it rather unsavory and unsatisfying to think that people are going to be damned for sins that Christ was already damned for...I believe that is called double jeopardy. As for those passages that seem to imply a universal atonement (1 John 2:2), I believe the Arminian brings baggage to them and makes them broader than their intention. Under the New Covenenant Gentiles were now just as much Israel as ethnic Jews, for Christ died for the world. In that sense yes universal atonement, but was His blood shed for every single person that ever existed? I don't think so because the Scriptures equally teach a particularness to the atonement (Matt 26:28).


For myself one of the clearest is here in Isaiah 53:
"Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied; by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous, and he shall bear their iniquities."


Those who are made righteous are those for whom Christ died. It seems the sensible manner to reconcile both the universal passages in reference tot he atonement and the particular passages is a view that holds that Christ died for people in every tribe tongue and nation in other words the whole world, yet did not atone for every single individual because not every single individual is made righteous.

And also the author of Acts said in Acts 13:48 that all who were appointed to eternal life believed. This divine appointment led to faith, not the other way around.

And to your response to my comments...I don't know how to respond to that. Either I don't get it. Are you saying my interpretation of Paul was incorrect? If so, how? If not, how is it you can say, "It is proper to say that the interpretation thinks that Scripture introduced the controls"? The system is rooted in exegesis of Scripture. The controls are there because they were found in examining passages in Scripture in a historical-grammatical fashion, not because they system needed some controls. What do you mean by that response?

Bob,

The gift is already given to the unbleiver, all they have to do is believe - it is already theirs. For the sins of the whole world did Christ die. Their debt is already paid. What must they do to be saved? They must believe. At least according to the author of Acts.

Hank,
We are speaking about systems of theology. It is then proper to say that the interpretation thinks that Scripture introduced the controls.

"In reality, there is not ontological difference between myself and an unbeliever. I have accepted a gift that I do not deserve. My acceptance does not make be superior, for I do not deserve it still.

Bob, if you wanna play the “things one can be boastful about” game, a Calvinist can be arrogant because God actively, and some would argue actually, loved her more than the unbeliever. God loves the believer enough to grant that person grace and does not love the unbeliever enough to give that person grace. Although there is something there to boast about, Hank has made a case that the system has introduced controls that hedge against such boasting. As such, I don’t think your argument stands."

I don't know how you could say that first statement, YOU made the choice freely and the unbeliever did not freely. I don't know how you can say that this isn't in anyway leading to a ground for boasting. The simple question of why you believe and Mr.X does not is answered by pointing to something in yourself, as a Reformed Christian I point to God's grace...I am no better or more deserving of this grace then Mr.X there was nothing in me that caused God to say "Oh this fellow is a diamond in the rough...I gotta pick this guy!" no, it was God's free choice to pull me out of the mass of sin, all of the glorying lies in Him.

This simply isn't the case for synergistic theology, all I really see is handwaving as you state that you have no grounds for boasting that you are saved and Mr.X is lost. Yes you are undeserving of eternal life and Christ's righteousness but IT WAS YOUR AFFIRMING CHOICE that caused these benefits to be applied to you and it was Mr.X's DECLINING choice that causes him to not have these blessings. Again, the issue isn't the gift and the benefits but WHY you have it or have chosen to have it and so many others have refused. Just saying that there is no ontological difference (whatever that is supposed to mean) between you and the unbeliever isn't an answer, I say that there is. You need to explain how there is not when you said "Yes" and he said "No" and based on those choices he is lost and you are saved.

"Hank has made a case that the system has introduced controls that hedge against such boasting."

The system of Calvinism didn't introduce the controls, the apostle Paul did in the Scripture.

"God actively, and some would argue actually, loved her more than the unbeliever." Consider this. God loves all men. He sends the rains upon the just and the unjust. He has mercy on all men in that, as you point out, he does not send a person to hell just after that person commits a sin. As Edwards points out in "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God," no one can ever give a reason as to why God allowed them to get out of bed this morning instead of taking them in their sleep and casting them justly into hell. But the church is God's bride. A husband does not love all women like he loves his wife. His wife is special. He loves her in a way that he does not love all other women. That husband took her as his bride and entered into a covenant with her. They physically consummated the relationship (I say this knowing about premarital relationships). He chose her to live with for all of his life, to love unconditionally. He promised to love her and no one else. He has children with that woman. He "knows" her. But this is not true with his coworker or his best friend's wife. Only his wife. God loves the church in the same particular way. He doesn't love those who are not his bride like he does his bride. God does not give hesed to all, but only those who he chooses (cf. Exodus 33:19, Romans 9:15-16). God has chosen for himself a bride that he has foreknown (Romans 8:29; Ephesians 5:25; Acts 20:28; Revelation 5:9, 14:1-5, 19:6-10). God loves the church, those whom he has foreknown, in a particular way, the way in which a husband loves his wife. That is all that Calvinists are saying.

God has extended the offer of Christ to the world and has commanded the world to repent. But that does not mean he has to save all. If two of my friends, Jimmy and Shane, were to get speeding tickets, and I paid for Jimmy's and not Shane's, I am not unfair because it was my decision to make. The same is true for God. He does not have to pardon everyone because the decision of who to pardon is his.

But there is a difference between the regenerate and unregenerate. The unregenerate sees the things of God as foolishness and cannot accept them (1 Corinthians 1:18; 2:14). The unregenerate man cannot submit himself to the law of God (Romans 8:6-8). The unregenerate lacks the ability to come to God (John 6:44-45, 64-65), to hear the word of God (John 8:47, this is an explanation as to why the Jews do not hear what Christ is trying to tell them) and the ability to believe in God (John 10:27, this is an explanation as to why the Jews don't believe Jesus is the Messiah). The unregenerate man doesn't even have the ability to see the kingdom of God, let alone enter into it (John 3:3-6). The difference is not physical or mental or located with in the ability of man. The difference lies in their spiritual condition. The believer is alive (Ephesians 2:4-7) and believes the gospel (1 John 5:1). There is a world of difference between the regenerate and the unregenerate. The difference lies not in them, but in God and who he has mercied.

In reality, there is not ontological difference between myself and an unbeliever. I have accepted a gift that I do not deserve. My acceptance does not make be superior, for I do not deserve it still. If God was merely just, the believer and the unbeliever would go to and deserve Hell. Like Paul says, there is nothing in me that I can boast about. However, God has extended a gift to be and the rest of humanity, after all, God is not a respecter of persons.

Praying "God, thank you for being merciful to me and saving me from you wrath" is absolutely consistent with Arminian theology (at least the Restorationist branch).

Bob, if you wanna play the "things one can be boastful about" game, a Calvinist can be arrogant because God actively, and some would argue actually, loved her more than the unbeliever. God loves the believer enough to grant that person grace and does not love the unbeliever enough to give that person grace. Although there is something there to boast about, Hank has made a case that the system has introduced controls that hedge against such boasting. As such, I don't think your argument stands.

I agree with Hank, Spurgeon's point wasn't that this is how Arminians pray look at how arrogant they are. Rather, he was saying that if Arminians prayed in accordance to their theology it would result in a sort of boasting for the simple reason that in Arminian theology it is the individual believer that causes himself to differ from the non-believer. When the Spirit waes "drawing" the believer is the one who (for some reason that must reside within him) says "Yes" while the unbeliever (for some reason that must reside within him) says "No thanks".

If that is what undergirds your soteriology the "prayer" Spurgeon constructs is what would be consistent, YOU made yourself to differ from the unbeliever, it was YOUR free choice...one that he was too hard hearted, stupid, prideful, self absorbed, self exalting, etc to make. I don't see how you can't reach that conclusion given Arminian (or any synergistic) soteriology.

But his point still stands, no one prays like that. To do so would indicate a point of pride in the person. Is this a good refutation of Arminianism, no. It is a strawman in that sense. He is merely pointing out one flaw in libertarian free will, it doesn't work in prayer. Their theology works in preaching and teaching, but not in prayer (However, this does not refute the various forms of Arminian theology, i.e. Wesleyan and Restorationism). He is stating that all believers pray the same way with the same message, "God, thank you for being merciful to me and saving me from you wrath."

No Arminian I have known would ever dream of praying like that. It would be absurd to pray like that, just as the Pharisee is absurd to pray like he does in Luke 18:11-12. Everyone I know prays like the tax collector who simple begged God to have mercy upon him (Luke 18:13).

On a side question, had Stone's and Alexander's movements really cemented itself to make it all the way to England at that time? I am not certain that Spurgeon would know about Restorationist theology; but I could be wrong about that.