Greg Koukl - The Five Points of Calvinism Are One (2 of 2)

Part 2 of 2 - Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason answers discusses how the five points of Calvinism are really one. Recorded at STR's weekly radio broadcast. For more information

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• greg
• koukl
• stand
• reason
• str
• philosophy
• religion
• jesus
• calvanism
• theology
• christianity

[daboomerang319]

@Cherelle978 If you read John 8:35 Jesus said "whoever comes" and "whoever believes" But who are the "whoever"? Jesus says in v 37 "All that the father gives me will come to me". Vers 44 "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him". So the whoever are the ones that the Father gives Jesus because nobody can come to Jesus unless the Father draws them. So whosoever or whoever does not mean ALL but it means whosoever. And they are those the Father draws.

[dfelcman]

The atonement is limited no matter the view one takes; either limited in power (Arminian view) or scope (Calvinist view).

[lokelani525]

@Cherelle978 I think the way to think of it is that when the bible says "whosoever", it is merely defining the characteristics of those who will be saved. The call goes out to everyone and the those who have been regenerated will call on the name of the Lord; those who call on the name of the Lord shall be saved. Just like when Jesus says, "my sheep here my voice". He's not telling us to hear his voice so much as he's telling us that if we're his, we will hear his voice. Hope that helps.

[Cherelle978]

Hey Mr. Koukl, I have your podcasts, facebook and love to hear you teach. However, I am somewhat confused with the "U" Unconditional Election. Romans 9 & 10 say that "...whoever call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved" in the greek whosoever or "ei tis" means just that, "whosoever." So are you saying that the "whosever" ARE the "elect" that He "foreknew? The "predestined?" Please help me clarify. Thanks. -Cherelle

[dbertube]

The cross doesn't save in itself, otherwise Jones would be saved BEFORE coming to Yahshua in faith which is expressly contrary to Scripture (1 John 5:12). So Jones (@ 19) can have his debt paid AND be under the wrath of God, so too can Smith (non-elect) can his debt paid AND be under the wrath of God. The only difference is that Yahshua will never apply His blood to Smith, whereas He will to Jones (His elect).

Dbl Jeopardy is bogus & Unlimited Atonement is not philosophically problemtatic.

[dbertube]

Yahshua died for Jones (elect). Jones comes to faith at age 20. At age 19 was Jones' debt paid for? Yes, 2000 yrs ago at the cross. @ 19 was Jones in need of a Savior? Yes. Was he under the wrath of God? Yes.

Debt payment doesn't = being saved. @ 19 BOTH are true > Jones' debt is paid for already AND he is under the wrath of God. Until the Spirit (by sovereign grace) applies the Atonement @ age 20 Jones is not saved. (1 Jn. 5:12)

Exegesis is primary over philosophical argumentation.

[sketchbook1]

How inefficient of God, to waste Atonement Blood on those for whom He never intended it to be applied.

Why in the world would the scriptures ever say "... for the sins of the whole world" if it didn't really mean it?

Why does it even matter if it is "Sufficient for all" if God never had any intent for it to be efficient for the elect?

[Adonimtg]

Sufficient for all but efficient for the elect.

[Adonimtg]

The Atonement was adequate for all sin but not aplied to all sin. IT is limited not in its potencial rather in its application. "That whoever will believe in Christ will be saved".

[iint3grity]

Does God require unsaved people to pay for sin in hell that Jesus already paid for on the cross?

Did Jesus atone for the sins of those who died and went to hell before He came into the world?

Did Jesus die for the sin of unbelief in which Christians lived before they believed? If so, what about the sin of unbelief of people who never believe?