newtestamentchristianity

                                                                                                                                   1. Introduction:  There has been much debate about whether Christ's death was particular for the church or in general for all of humanity. Those who hold to the belief that Christ died and provided potential salvation for both elect and non-elect hold to what is called ''Unlimited Atonement.'' Those, on the other hand, who endorse the belief that Christ's salvation was only efficacious for the elect hold to what is called ''Limited Atonement.'' In each camp, there are further different of thoughts concerning Christ's atonement which shall not be covered here.  In my two previous posts, I feel that I have made a strong case against both the Calvinist view of Romans 9 and the idea that Ephesians 1 somehow proves Calvinism.  In this post, I wish to provide two solid argument against Calvinism based on my interpretat

 In my last post, I discussed the Calvinist problems with Romans 9. Today, I would like to discuss their interpretation of Ephesians 1 and how a person can hold to unconditional election without holding to Calvinism.  Historically, the doctrine known as ''Unconditional Election'' was endorsed by Augustine of Hippo, Bonaventure, Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther, and John Calvin. It was denied by many of the Greek fathers, many Medieval theologians, and the later Arminians. Unconditional Election asserts that God has predestined men for salvation not based on foreseen merits. Today, it is still a common view among Thomists (Roman Catholics) and Lutherans. Many Amyraldists (4-point Calvinists) also hold to unconditional election.  Unconditional Election teaches that God's choice of your salvation is not based upon your given response. Conditional Election, though, says that God has taken your reaction to His calling into account.  Common passages from Scripture used to ju

Soon, I will be beginning a post on the top of justification according to Early Christianity. For now, however, I wish to explore a related topic: problems with the Calvinist views on Romans 9. Broadly speaking, much could be said about the debate on predestination such as the Thomist and the Molinist interpretations of Ephesians 1. My intention here, though, is simply to prove that the Calvinist reading of Romans 9 is theologically inconsistent with the rest of scripture.  Today, I am starting my first on several posts which take aim at the Calvinist understanding of predestination. In this post, I will be focusing on Romans 9. In the following posts, I hope to cover passages from Ephesians and 1 John concerning both the election and the atonement.  It's very common in American Evangelicalism to read passages of Scripture according to the perspectives of those in the sixteenth century and afterward rather than through the lens that Jewish believers saw the New Testament. If Evange