tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8934298301663499561.post3981414842555284164..comments2023-05-07T09:56:23.909-04:00Comments on The Christian Curmudgeon: Don't Tase Me, BroAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07146011447109951026noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8934298301663499561.post-67642397869383985642012-03-03T14:14:49.153-05:002012-03-03T14:14:49.153-05:00Asking the "are you born again" question...Asking the "are you born again" question can become a false gospel which attempts to discover regeneration and ability before one is warranted to believe the gospel. <br /><br />The basic problem is more about WHAT IS THE GOSPEL.<br /><br />Of course nobody has the duty to believe that Christ died for him or her, or that Christ died for everybody. Christ did not die for everybody. And we can and should say that in the gospel.<br /><br />But without turning the gospel into a law, we can tell everybody the good news that Christ died for the elect alone.<br /><br />Christ’s death for the elect alone is good news. It’s gospel to say that all for whom Christ died will be saved. It’s not gospel to tell people falsely that Christ died for them. <br /><br />Matthew McMahon writes: “What the Hyper-Calvinist is really saying is this: Hyper-Calvinism believes that knowledge of the extent of the atonement is a prerequisite for faith in the work of Christ. The sinner must obtain and understand his subjective experience of the work of Christ for him personally. If he does not have this, then he is commanded to believe something that may not be true at all. The Hyper-Calvinist cannot stomach this.”<br /><br />Let the “ he is really saying” pass. Let the label “hyper” pass. The problem with the McMahon quotation is that he is lumping together two things and confusing them. One thing is knowledge of the extent of the atonement. Another thing is knowledge (because of some experience) that a person has that he is already born again and thus knows he is elect. These are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.<br /><br />It is one thing in the proclamation of the gospel to say that you need to know the extent to know the nature and intent of the atonement. I think this is true. I know many say that most of the Bible doesn’t talk about the extent, and then they go to Acts or to the Old Testament to argue from the “silence about election” they perceive there to argue for a gospel which must necessarily leave out election.<br /><br />I won’t do that debate here, except to say a. that the argument often becomes an exercise in simply saying that the Bibe doesn’t talk about election. Period. And b. It becomes an argument that it honors Christ to talk about His Atonement before we ever talk about Election (or whose sins were imputed to Christ).<br /><br />Premature talk about "new birth" confuses two ideas--the extent of the atonement and the idea that “the sinner must obtain and understand his subjective experience of the work of Christ for him personally. “<br /><br />Most of the people I know who believe that the gospel talks about the extent of the atonement don’t believe that second thing. We know you can’t have an experience of knowing you are elect before you believe the gospel. So we don’t believe that second thing.<br /><br />The assumption is that if you talk about extent in the gospel, then you will be one of those persons trying to find out if you are elect in some experience before you think you can believe the gospel.<br /><br />By the way, while I don’t oppose the language of “duty” and “command”, that language is not necessarily how the Bible talks about the gospel. And more importantly, if you are elect being effectually called, and you understand your problem, and you begin to understand the gospel (election is good news, not bad news!), then “duty” is not really the most apt word–rather, you WANT to believe the gospel. The indicative of what Christ has done becomes your delight, your only hope. mark mcculleyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8934298301663499561.post-33035417378228599472012-03-02T15:03:21.635-05:002012-03-02T15:03:21.635-05:00Mike, don't tase me, bro'.Mike, don't tase me, bro'.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07146011447109951026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8934298301663499561.post-43581771700142374002012-03-02T15:02:58.311-05:002012-03-02T15:02:58.311-05:00Yes, thanks, Mike. I meant to use indicative, impe...Yes, thanks, Mike. I meant to use indicative, imperative, and interrogative.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07146011447109951026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8934298301663499561.post-35868532356985392372012-03-02T14:58:18.321-05:002012-03-02T14:58:18.321-05:00Good word; thanks! I think you meant "imperat...Good word; thanks! I think you meant "imperative" instead of "indicative" under #4 at the end, though. Not sure I understand the distinction between "delarative" and "indicative". :-)<br /><br />Mike Biggsbiggsenatorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13407439446935793534noreply@blogger.com