From Robert E. Picirilli's book Grace, Faith, Free Will: Contrasting Views of Salvation - Calvinism & Arminianism
If the atonement actually secures saving faith for those covered, and did not secure saving faith for the non-elect, it is not sufficient for the non-elect. (pg.97)
If not all who hear can respond to the gospel, as the Calvinist insists, then only those given repentance and faith can do so. In consequence, no person who hears the gospel can do so with any confidence that he can respond. Conversely, all who hear and are not given the gift may conclude that the offer is not intended for them and therefore not rejected by them. What a person cannot receive, he can not really reject. Nor can he be rightly blamed for rejection (although he might well be blamed for being in the condition that brought on his inability). (pg.118)
6 comments:
This post is ridisculous. That is not how the Greek and Hebrew verb tenses work when put together in all my years of research. Ephesians 2:8 says faith is a gift of God and I cannot save myself.
Anonymous,
Thanks for the straw man. No one has ever claimed we can save ourselves. And only Calvinists and their ilk claim that faith is the gift in that context; Salvation is the gift and it is acquired by faith and grace is the origin.
Everyone has faith; it just depends on what you place your faith in. Everyone has the ability to choose to accept the gift of salvation, contrary to the lies of Calvinism.
See my article here: http://watchmansbagpipes.blogspot.com/2013/02/i-am-not-calvinist.html
Glenn, I'm not looking for an argument (or a fight), just a question. The quote speaks of the atonement securing saving faith. It appears as if the author is saying that the atonement "secures saving faith" for all. I wasn't aware that the atonement secured faith at all; I thought the idea was that faith was something we brought to the table. Did I miss something there? (Again, just trying to clear up my confusion. I don't intend to discuss/debate it. We'll remain friendly.)
Stan,
Sorry for the late response — I was away from home most of the day yesterday!
I may be wrong but I think his meaning is that individual atonement is secured by the faith that saves. I.e., when one puts his faith in the work of Christ and is thereby saved by the atonement.
I used to argue with Calvinists, but the only thing in my arsenal was an automatic kneejerk rejection of their theology because it wasn’t in line with my traditions, or the things that I was taught to believe. But as I got older, I began to refine my arguments.
And then one day a Christian man whom I deeply respected, turned me into a pretzel by challenging my beliefs. He was a Calvinist, and he was extremely patient with me. He defeated my arguments with ease, and this really bothered me. I went home and began doing some research…
In the process of learning whatever I could on the subject, I discovered that a popular Christian author had decided to debunk Calvinism. He had even written a book and he was in the process of defending it in an open letter between himself and a little know Calvinist apologist. I rubbed my hands together in glee. This was exactly the kind of thing that I was looking for. I grabbed something to drink, found a comfortable position in front of my computer, and I dug into the ongoing debate between these two men…
I was horrified by what unfolded before me. My champion was being shredded right before my eyes! While the Calvinist methodically worked his way through only one chapter in the New Testament and delivered the meaning of each verse from the original langue, the popular Christian author only offered blustering objections, while jumping from one disjointed bible verse to another. He was me on steroids.
It became painfully obvious to me that the author didn’t know what he was talking about, and I had no choice but to accept that my understanding of many aspects of the Christian faith was wrong. I had been unwittingly taught to believe the man-centered theology of Jacobus Arminius—a Dutch theologian who lived during the Protestant Reformation. Most Christians don’t know this, but the things they believe are historically known as Arminianism.
To make a long story short, I embraced the doctrines of Grace. Accepting the idea of God’s Sovereignty in the matter of Salvation was like being saved all over again. He became big, and I became small. He was in absolute control, and I was completely and utterly at his mercy.
That was almost 20 years ago, but I’m still not a Calvinist. I went to a few Reformed churches but I just couldn’t take it. Even though I believe Calvinist theology is accurate, I found Calvinism to be a religion that is more devoted to biblical accuracy than it is to Christ. It lends itself to cold-hearted legalism, and to living the Christian life with your head, and not with your heart.
Paul,
First, Dave Hunt was not “shredded” at all by James White. If that’s what you think then you need to re-read his book. Hunt fully knows what he’s talking about.
Neither Hunt nor most other anti-Calvinists are followers of the teachings of Jacob Arminius. Calvinists falsely claim that if your aren’t “reformed” then you are an Arminian. I know of no anti-Calvinists who are Arminian. It’s not “one or the other” as Calvinists claim.
Calvinist’s “Doctrines of Grace” is a fabrication of God’s real grace, as I prove in my article about why I am not a Calvinist.
https://watchmansbagpipes.blogspot.com/2013/02/i-am-not-calvinist.html
Calvinist theology is certainly not “accurate” — not by a long shot.
Post a Comment