If you Don’t Agree that Mormons are already Saved
a new Calvinist: But again, people are not consistent. Consider an Amyraldian, someone who believes that people are totally depraved, God elects some before the foundation of the world, God effectually calls those dead in their sins, and God causes those whom he calls to persevere. Oh, and Christ died for all men. Is this consistent? No. Is it compatible with believing in Christ alone for salvation? I’m pretty sure it is.
mark: My point here is not a historical investigation of which old Calvinists said what about 4 pointers. I can find some very tolerant stuff in Machen, Warfield, and Smeaton, but I am not all that interested now (or ever) in figuring out which old Calvinists did “the antithesis” and which ones denied that Amyraldianism was heresy.
My interest in how these Calvinists” can be “pretty sure” that themselves are being consistent when they assure us that people who teach that Christ died for everyone are nevertheless teaching the gospel.
1. if Christ is made sin before our sins are imputed to Him, then with what sin is Christ made sin?
2. if Christ is already made sin before our sins are imputed to him, then what’s the point of God then later imputing to Christ the sins of the elect?
3. Does God ever impute the sins of the elect to Christ?
John Piper (Taste and See) disagrees with Arminians for not teaching that Christ died to purchase faith for the elect. But John Piper does not disagree with Arminians about propitiation and substitution and punishment. “If you believe, the death of Jesus will cover your sins.”
Piper’s gospel does not teach that Christ was already punished because of the imputed sins of the elect alone. It still only has a punishment in general, to be assigned later to those who believe.
Even though Piper does insist that Christ also died for the elect to give them something extra that He will not be giving the non-elect, he fails to ever teach that Christ was punished specifically for the imputed sins of the elect.
When Piper leaves that out (does he ever get to that truth even after with post-conversion folks in conferences they paid to get into?), his gospel will be heard as saying that there was enough punishment done to Christ to save even people who will nevertheless end up with the second death.
The Amyrauldian message makes the important taking away of sins to be something other than the punishment of Christ. It insists that Christ was punished for everybody. The Amyrauldian message makes the real reconciliation to be the Spirit Christ purchased giving people a new nature and then faith to believe, even if they then happen to believe a message that says Christ died for every sinner.
If we jump ahead to that Christ has bought for “believers” (Mormon believers, Roman Catholic believers, unitarian believers, Muslim believers, what degree of heresy leaves you less than pretty sure?), even including their believing, without telling it straight about the punishment of Christ specifically for the sins of the elect, then we can easily tolerate a “gospel” which has no election .
“Inbetween Calvinists” relegate the idea of election to a family secret which only explains how you believed (not what you believed).
Since I became a Mormon, I stopped doing drugs and that proves that I really believe it, and now I am finding out that God elected me to believe it and the Holy Spirit effectually called me by the somewhat inconsistent truths found in Mormonism. And the Holy Spirit will keep me persevering in Mormonism. Perhaps in time I will become a less consistent Mormon, but I would go very very slow on telling me anything about election or the imputation of the sins of the elect to Christ, because that kind of talk might just make me a more consistent Mormon. And I can tell you right now that if you don’t agree with me that I am already a Christian, your talk about election is not going to be viewed by me as being gracious or about grace.
But we were not talking about Mormonism but about Amyrauldianism. If the death of Christ is not a result of God’s imputation of specific sins, then it is not the death of Christ which saves sinners. If the atonement is Christ purchasing faith to give elect sinners so that a general punishment will then be effective for them, then the punishment of Christ is not ultimately what takes sins away.
Does God save sinners apart from the gospel?
Which part of Arminianism is the gospel?
If you are four parts correct, and simply also deny that Christ’s death is what actually saves any sinner, is that the gospel?
What “degree of inconsistency” can you find in the middle between “Christ died for everyone but not everyone is saved” and the truth that “all for whom Christ died will be saved by Christ”? What’s in-between the two alternatives?