How do you differentiate?

[theseed]

John 2:1
My little children, these things I write to you, so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.

This endearment makes it clear that John is speaking to his brethren, his fellow believer

.


Yes, no man comes to the Father but by Christ, he is thier defense, thier Advocate. So Christ is the propition for the whole world he was our propitation before we believed.


1 John 2
2He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for[1] the sins of the whole world.
Footnotes


As we can read, God's sacrifice can atone the sins of God's enemies, and here it can atone the sins of the wholoe world, and turn aside God's wrath (alternate tranlations) the atonement and wrath and enemies are interrelated concepts.

1. 2:2 Or He is the one who turns aside God's wrath, taking away our sins, and not only ours but also

His mission in dying

Christ mision was to obey His Father.

Are you honestly contending that non-believers look at Christ as their "Advocate with the Father?" If so you're deluding yourself.

No, only that it is avaible. Christ is the mediaitor between God and man. (John 14.6)

you know what the word propitiation means? If not you should look it up. The belief that Christ, by His death, has restored the favor and goodwill of God towards all mankind is ludicrous and violates too much Scripture to even be considered.

Yes it means reconciliation. Are you saying that sinners our not? We have read this is Romans 5 that "we" were reconciled while we wre God's enemies

.Main Entry: pro·pi·ti·ate (www.merriam-webster.com)
Pronunciation: prO-'pi-shE-"At
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): -at·ed; -at·ing
Etymology: Latin propitiatus, past participle of propitiare, from propitius propitious
Date: 1583
: to gain or regain the favor or goodwill of : [size=-1]APPEASE[/size], [size=-1]CONCILIATE[/size]
synonym see [size=-1]PACIFY[/size]

1) Christ died for us when we were enemies and recociled us.
2) At some time all people without exception were God's enemies
3) Therefore it may be that Christ died for all enemies so that those enemies that would believe might be saved

This makes no sense. You acknowledge that "men" can have more than one meaning and then you proceed to claim that it means "people in general." Either it can have more than one meaning or it means "people in general." As I said, I would rather limit the intent of God's work and acknowledge that He never fails then universalize His intent and believe that He fails.

No, it is my contention that your taking clearly precise indepenant clause (or a seperate sentence) ("Christ died for the ungodly) and saying that it only has a specific meaning. A say that a general statement must be interpreted generally. This would be a technical interpreation. "the" here can mean a whole group, it is used that way, as it "the elite"

used as a function word before a noun or a substantivized adjective to indicate reference to a group as a whole <the elite>

So if God does to fail to get what he wants? Then why did Jesus tell us to pray that God's will be don on earth as it is in heaven? Why can't we resist the Spirit's attempts to bring us to him? Hence having a human will counter-balance with God's will?

it just possibly mean that Christ is the Savior of all those who will be saved?

In reference to John 4.42, Christ came to save sinners, not the rightous? To believe this then you would have to disagree that John intends the word world to mean those that are blind and sinful.

Oh, I don't know. Maybe, JESUS!!

If your one of God's chosen and regenerated, then why are you being sarcastic when the fruit of the spirit is is patience, gentleness, self-control?

Taken by itself, no, it does not necessarily mean that Christ did not die for all. However, if you acknowledge the possibility that Christ did die for all people then you are forced to water down His mission in dying. You see, I can honestly say that Christ is my Savior. I can honestly say that I was dead in my trespasses and sins, wholly unable to respond to God's call, and only through the efficacious grace of God am I regenerated and conformed to the image of His Son. The best you can say is that God called, you responded, and He rewarded you for your response. I was saved by the unmerited grace of God. You earned your salvation.

Christ mission was to obey his Father.

Never have I said that I earned my salvation. I believe that by God's Spirit that I came to see the truth and placed my faith in Christ. I can not take credit for this even though I did place my faith in Christ. Now I suppose I could have reject the Spirit's revelation? But I did not I was saved by faith, and now grace keeps me there (Ephesians 2.8-10; Romans 5.1). Did not the pharisees deny the work of the Spirit, rejecting the salvation that Christ offered? I work this out, and I don't share your interpreation of scripture. I interpet it based on context, defintion of words such as propitation and "the", but you dismiss the word "the" even though it is used that way everday.

I've read what you posted and the most ecumenical thing I can say is that everything you say must first be filtered through a distorted understanding of the Gospel. My views will stand on their own. When I read "dead in trespasses and sins" I don't change that to mean, "mostly bad" or "have difficulty putting of the sins of the flesh." I know exactly why Paul symbolized our fallen state with a dead person's physical state. When I read that God hates workers of iniquity I don't read that to mean "God hates the sin and loves the sinner." When an Apostle says "we" I take efforts to understand who "we" is. You, obviously, don't and that has worked to your detriment. Your views speak volumes about who you credit with your salvation. You, at best, can only say that Christ assisted you in saving yourself. Sure, you can dress it up differently. Regardless, unless you can say that you are saved by grace, which requires that it not be based on any condition you provide, then you deny the Gospel.

I could say that one has to have a distorted view to have your interpeation, especiall when the way you read "Christ died for the ungodly" I won't make an argument that could not be refuted because its a claim about someon'e subjuctiveness and not on the premises they make themself. I'm sure some would find your interpreaton of "the ungodly" as well as other verses to be distorted. Since you write me off as distorted, then I will say no more. Obviously you have made up your mind, and others will too.

 

[Reformationist]

Yes, no man comes to the Father but by Christ, he is thier defense, thier Advocate. So Christ is the propition for the whole world he was our propitation before we believed.

Okay theseed, let's look at this from a different angle. I say that Christ propitiated the wrath of God against all who are/will be saved, the elect. You say He propitiated the wrath of God against all people.

I'll explain to you why I think that makes no sense and then, if you feel inclined, you can explain to me how I wrong.

Let's start with what "propitiate" means.

Main Entry: pro·pi·ti·ate
Pronunciation: prO-'pi-shE-"At
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): -at·ed; -at·ing
Etymology: Latin propitiatus, past participle of propitiare, from propitius propitious
Date: 1583
: to gain or regain the favor or goodwill of : APPEASE, CONCILIATE
synonym see PACIFY

Okay, so, propitiate means "to gain or regain the favor or goodwill of." What you're telling me is that you believe Christ, by dying, has restored the favor or goodwill of God against all of mankind. I wish that, by itself, would show you how illogical your view is. Unfortunately I doubt it will. So, let's look further at your claims:

1 John 2:2
He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.

As we can read, God's sacrifice can atone the sins of God's enemies, and here it can atone the sins of the wholoe world, and turn aside God's wrath (alternate tranlations) the atonement and wrath and enemies are interrelated concepts.

Here you claim that Christ's sacrifice has atoned for the sins of the whole world. So, let's look at the definition of atonement:

Main Entry: atone·ment
Pronunciation: &-'tOn-m&nt
Function: noun
Date: 1513
1 obsolete : RECONCILIATION
2 : the reconciliation of God and man through the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ
3 : reparation for an offense or injury : SATISFACTION
4 Christian Science : the exemplifying of man's oneness with God

Here we see that atonement refers to the reconciliation of God and man through the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ.

There is an inherent problem with the usage of these terms in conjunction with a universal application. You and I may disagree on many things regarding Scripture but I doubt we would disagree that some people will, in actuality, go to hell. This undeniable fact cannot be congruently coupled with your usage of atonement and propitiation.

You see theseed, if Christ actually atoned for someone's sins then God is satisfied. If Christ actually propitiated God's wrath against someone then that person is now in the favor of God. What you're saying is that this atonement and propitiation was provided to all mankind and yet God is not satisfied with some and His wrath remains against some because some still go to hell. You can't even logically say that Christ actually atoned for something but that atonement doesn't become actual until the person accepts it. If you take that view then Christ ceases to be a propitiation and His death actually atoned for nothing. IOW, your view improperly uses these words by saying that Christ actually accomplishes propitiation and atonement but doesn't actually propitiate or atone for anything in some cases.

No, only that it is avaible. Christ is the mediaitor between God and man. (John 14.6)

But that's not what Scripture says. Scripture says nothing about Christ being the available Advocate for all of mankind. It says He is the Advocate:

1 John 2:1
My little children, these things I write to you, so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.

Do you believe that Christ is a successful Advocate with the Father? If so then that means each person for whom Christ advocates is reconciled to the Father and no longer subject to His wrath, which means they go to Heaven. The only other option available is to say that Christ unsuccessfully advocates for some people.

Yes it means reconciliation. Are you saying that sinners our not? We have read this is Romans 5 that "we" were reconciled while we wre God's enemies

Yes, "WE!!!!" "We" is not universal because those who go to hell have not been reconciled to God. If God is reconciled with someone then that means He is at peace with them. The word "reconcile" means "to restore to friendship or harmony." Are you contending that the relationship of a person who actually goes to hell to God is one of friendship and harmony??!!! If so you seriously need to rethink what friendship and harmony are.

1) Christ died for us when we were enemies and recociled us.

Look, no offense, but you clearly don't know what the word reconciled means. It is completely illogical and incongruous to use the word "reconciled" with regard to the relationship between God and those who go to hell.

2) At some time all people without exception were God's enemies

Yes, that's true.

3) Therefore it may be that Christ died for all enemies so that those enemies that would believe might be saved

It can't mean that for two reasons. First, and foremost, Christ was not sacrificed so that we "might be saved." His death ensured that we would be saved. Do you honestly believe that the Father sent the Son just so we might be saved? Do you believe there's a possibility that everyone could have rejected or that everyone could have accepted? Secondly, the theological leap from "Christ died for the enemies of God" to "We were all enemies of God" to "Christ died for all enemies of God" has no foundation in Scripture. The ONLY way you can make this even begin to make sense is to believe, as the Catholics believe, that Christ died to provide the possibility of salvation but not the actuality. If you take that stance you are, then, in the position where you must explain, WITHOUT BOASTING IN YOUR OWN WORKS, why some are actually saved. If you say that it's because they chose to be saved then you make salvation the wages of their works and it ceases to be grace.

No, it is my contention that your taking clearly precise indepenant clause (or a seperate sentence) ("Christ died for the ungodly) and saying that it only has a specific meaning.

It has to have a specific meaning. If you generalize the meaning to include all of humanity then you must either water down the reason He was sent and say that Christ died to provide the possibility of salvation or acknowledge that Christ came to actually save all of mankind and, in many cases, failed.

So if God does to fail to get what he wants?

Huh? What does this mean. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you mistyped here. Can you reword this?

Then why did Jesus tell us to pray that God's will be don on earth as it is in heaven?

It certainly wasn't so that His will would actually be done. His Will is always, always, always done. Nothing can thwart the will of the Almighty. That's kinda what it means to be Almighty. Praying in this manner shows our unity with the will of God and shows that, come what may, we will have faith that God will use it to conform us to the image of His Son. It shows our trust that even though we may think something is difficult to bear we acknowledge that God knows much better than we what is best for us.

Why can't we resist the Spirit's attempts to bring us to him?

Because those that actually do come to Him don't want to resist Him. When He takes out our heart of stone, which was dead to the things of God, and gives us a heart of flesh, which desired to obey Him, it caused us to desire to do His Will. Resisting His will is not something that we want to do so we strive to obey Him.

Hence having a human will counter-balance with God's will?

Hence having a created being's will counter balance the Creator's will? Our will is NOT a counter balance to His. Why would you even want this? Do you think you EVER know better than God?

In reference to John 4.42, Christ came to save sinners, not the rightous? To believe this then you would have to disagree that John intends the word world to mean those that are blind and sinful.

Of course those who Christ came to save, and did save, were blind and sinful. I'm not disagreeing with their salvitic disposition. I'm disagreeing with your usage of the word "world." If Christ's purpose in coming was to save everyone then He was unsuccessful in doing that. Pure and simple. That is not any kind of God that Scripture portrays.

If your one of God's chosen and regenerated, then why are you being sarcastic when the fruit of the spirit is is patience, gentleness, self-control?

Come on theseed ... Being regenerated by God does not mean that we don't sin. I'm a sinner theseed, as are we all. Part of being spiritually mature, which I am often not, is to recognize the sins of others and use that knowledge to help them overcome their sins and use that knowledge to recognize our own sinfulness. So, if you are a child of God then why don't you recognize that God is exposing you to my sinfulness so that you can work on your own sinfulness and help me, in a godly way, deal with my own? Is it because you, too, are a sinner and don't often choose the best course? Could God possibly be using my sinfulness to teach you "patience, gentleness, and self control" and using it to show you that you, like me, lack in those areas?

Christ mission was to obey his Father.

What did His Father want Him to accomplish?

Never have I said that I earned my salvation. I believe that by God's Spirit that I came to see the truth and placed my faith in Christ. I can not take credit for this even though I did place my faith in Christ.

See, now this, I have no argument with. I believe that those of us who are saved are saved by God's grace and put our faith in God because God's grace is sufficient to give us that desire. I would say that you're on the right track with the above statement except for one thing. You follow it up with the implication that the Holy Spirit came to open your eyes to the Truth and there was a possibility that you could have rejected that and thwarted the mission of the Spirit of God. So, you clearly don't believe that your enlightenment was solely due to the Holy Spirit's coming. You are forced to acknowledge that you believe that the Holy Spirit has the same mission for those who don't embrace the Gospel as for those who do. So, if the Holy Spirit is tring to get all people to see the Truth and place their faith in Christ why is He successful with some and fails with others? Does He give more grace to some than others? Are some people more open to the prompting and "wooing" of the Holy Spirit? Are some people just smarter?

Now I suppose I could have reject the Spirit's revelation? But I did not I was saved by faith, and now grace keeps me there (Ephesians 2.8-10; Romans 5.1).

Why didn't you reject it?

Did not the pharisees deny the work of the Spirit, rejecting the salvation that Christ offered?

No, for two reasons. Christ does not "offer" salvation; He gives it. Secondly, all unregenerate people naturally rebel against God. It is their nature. If that is not changed, and it can only be changed by God, then they will go on rebelling against God and living according to the desires of their flesh. God is under no obligation to change us from our naturally sinful state.

I work this out, and I don't share your interpreation of scripture. I interpet it based on context, defintion of words such as propitation and "the", but you dismiss the word "the" even though it is used that way everday.

theseed, what you do is rip stuff out of context and incorrectly use words like "propitiation."

I could say that one has to have a distorted view to have your interpeation, especiall when the way you read "Christ died for the ungodly" I won't make an argument that could not be refuted because its a claim about someon'e subjuctiveness and not on the premises they make themself.

Many would, and do, say that very thing about my views. Most notably, those who partially credit themselves for their salvation.

I'm sure some would find your interpreaton of "the ungodly" as well as other verses to be distorted.

Many do find my views unbiblical and let me know that. I try not to get offended by it because I know that they are passionate about a God they love and wish to protect Him from what they perceive are depreciating views.

Since you write me off as distorted, then I will say no more. Obviously you have made up your mind, and others will too.

Okay. If you feel that you should leave I applaud you for doing so. Let me just clarify that I did not say you were distorted. I said, "everything you say must first be filtered through a distorted understanding of the Gospel." It was not a remark about your intellect, just your interpretation.

God bless

 

[theseed]

One of many verses of why I think we can resist the Holy Spirit. Apparently becasue God allows it.

Acts 7
51"You stiff-necked people, with uncircumcised hearts and ears! You are just like your fathers: You always resist the Holy Spirit!

Why God wants all men to be saved, and since all are not, God our Savior will does not always happen. God being all powerful can allow this.

1 Timothy 2
3This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.



2 Peter 3:9
The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.

We are justifed by faith because Christ sacrifice appeases God for our sins, hence Christ is atones for everbody, but it is only available through faith (See Romans 4, 5). Propitiation, Reconciliation and Atonment are the same thing. We believe and its credited to us as rightousness. It is not faith that saves us, but God's imputed rightousness which is justfied through Christ. So faith is not a work that saves, but God's vehicle that brings us to grace (Romans 5.2, Ephesians 2.8-19). God gives us the gas to drive it, but we can resist. Apparently, because God allows it.

Romans 5

15But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!

Do I conclude that only many died and not all? No, but all were dead and therefore Christ died for all, so that those who believe will be saved. God's motivation for giving his Son was becasue he loves everone without exception, his purpose was to save those who believe (this is what it means to have faith). (John 3.16). God is justifed is giving rightousness to those who believe in Christ. Hence atonment is offered to everone, but they must accept it to believe.

 

[Reformationist]

One of many verses of why I think we can resist the Holy Spirit. Apparently becasue God allows it.

Acts 7
51"You stiff-necked people, with uncircumcised hearts and ears! You are just like your fathers: You always resist the Holy Spirit!

Of course fallen man resists the Holy Spirit. Look at who this is aimed at:

"You stiff-necked people, with uncircumcised hearts and ears!" This was a body of people, Israel, that had been enjoying the fruits of God's presence for a long time. They had overcome slavery and many other adversities. Yet, in spite of the obvious benefits that are part of the covenant God many of these people are continuing to live in ungodliness. This exhortation was to tell these people to embrace God. Was that their natural inclination? Of course not. What did they do to Stephen when he rebuked them? They responded according to their uncircumcised hearts.

Why God wants all men to be saved, and since all are not, God our Savior will does not always happen.

Wow. If His will is ever not done then how can you be sure His will will ever be done? How can you be sure that He can keep any promise? I can't even imagine how I'd feel if I believed something could stop God's will from being fulfilled. I pray that He never let's me believe such a faithless thing.

God being all powerful can allow this.

Let me get this straight. God is sooooo powerful that He can allow His own will to be thwarted. Ooookay.

We are justifed by faith because Christ sacrifice appeases God for our sins, hence Christ is atones for everbody, but it is only available through faith (See Romans 4, 5).

So why does one person have faith and another does not? Is the difference found in the creation and the free will choice they make? If so, all you are doing is boasting in yourself and the decision you made to have faith. If it's because God gives some people faith and does not give it to others, well, I'd agree.

Propitiation, Reconciliation and Atonment are the same thing.

I agree.

We believe and its credited to us as rightousness. It is not faith that saves us, but God's imputed rightousness which is justfied through Christ.

Uh oh,...for you. You say faith isn't what saves us it's the imputation of Christ's righteousness. I wholly agree. However, some aren't saved. Does that mean that God does not impute Christ's righteousness to some? If so, why not? Why does He impute Christ's righteousness to those whom He does impute it to? Again, where is the difference to be found? Is it found in the creation? If so, once again all you are doing is boasting in yourself.

So faith is not a work that saves, but God's vehicle that brings us to grace (Romans 5.2, Ephesians 2.8-19).

I agree completely. You're beginning to sound like a reformed Christian.

God gives us the gas to drive it, but we can resist. Apparently, because God allows it.

Ahhh...now we come to the "meat" of your beliefs. All God did was give you the "gas" to drive the vehicle. You don't believe you are saved because of He gave you that gas though. You must do something to be saved. You must drive the vehicle or God's "gas" is wasted. You're not saved because God gave you gas; You're saved because you use the gas. I see. Thanks for clearing up that you credit yourself with your salvation. Good analogy.

Do I conclude that only many died and not all?

Bad theseed, bad. Once again you miss the entire point of the missive. Romans 5:12-21 is drawing a parallel. Unfortunately, you focus, once again, on the secondary subject of that passage. That section of Scripture is revealing to us that just as Adam, who is the representative head of all of mankind, has brought condemnation upon those he represented by virtue of his unrighteous work, so too, Christ, who is the representative head of all those who are God's elect, has merited them the blessings due for His righteous work. And further it is saying that the offense, while devestating is not nearly as monumental as the gift of the grace of the Creator of all things created. IOW, the gift of salvation through Jesus Christ is much more significant than the offense. You make the mistake of understanding "how much more" as a reference to the number of people affected.

No, but all were dead and therefore Christ died for all, so that those who believe will be saved.

Why do some believe and some don't? Where do you put the credit for their belief? Do you rightly say that some believe because God has graced them with that belief while not gracing those that don't believe with faith? Or do you anthropocentrically profess that those who believe do so because they were smarter or more holy or more open to the Spirit or wiser? IOW, whom do you credit? In whom do you boast? I have no qualms about telling you my views. I will state them plainly and clearly. I was a wretched, lost, rebellious heathen and then God, through no virtue found in me nor with any assistance from me, brought me back to life and gave me a desire to serve Him. I know that there are many to whom He did not give this great gift and for that I all can say is that whatever God's reasons I'm glad He chose to have mercy on me because there was NOTHING redeeming about me. I didn't ask to be saved. I didn't merit His grace. I was not, and then I was. He did that. I can truly say He's my Savior. He did not throw me a lifeline and tell me to grab on. He lassoed me with a lifeline and pulled me to safety when I was unconscious. All I can do now is thank Him for His mercy.

Can you say the same of your redemption or will you, as I suspect, have to acknowledge that you played a part in your own redemption by grabbing on to the lifeline?

This should tell you quite a bit about whom you credit with your salvation.

God's motivation for giving his Son was becasue he loves everone without exception, his purpose was to save those who believe (this is what it means to have faith).

While I don't agree with this entirely I will say that it is much more God centered than your earlier statements. So, you say, "His purpose was to save those who believe," right? Does that mean that you believe it was not His purpose to save those whom He knew wouldn't believe?

Also, if you believe God loves everyone then do you think He will be disappointed for the rest of eternity that some of those He loved were destroyed? Kind of a bleak picture of God in my opinion.

Just for the record, I would much quicker believe that God "loves everone without exception, and His purpose was to save those who believe" than that God "loves everone without exception, his purpose was to save everyone."

God is justifed is giving rightousness to those who believe in Christ. Hence atonment is offered to everone, but they must accept it to believe.

You say that we must accept the atonement before we can believe. So that means that we must accept the atonement when we are unbelievers. How do you accept something you don't believe in? Please don't condescend by saying "by faith." If you don't believe something it is implausible that you would accept it. Belief must come before acceptance.

God bless

 

[theseed]

Let me get this straight. God is sooooo powerful that He can allow His own will to be thwarted. Ooookay.

You equate all-powerful with all-controling.

Of course fallen man resists the Holy Spirit. Look at who this is aimed at:

We are all fallen before we come to Christ (Romans 5), and this some of what Calvin based his"Total Deprivation" did he not?

So why does one person have faith and another does not? Is the difference found in the creation and the free will choice they make? If so, all you are doing is boasting in yourself and the decision you made to have faith. If it's because God gives some people faith and does not give it to others, well, I'd agree.

We can't boast about our salvation which is by grace and imputed rightousness. Abraham believed and it was imputed on him rightousness. Therefor he is justified by God's given rightousness, and not because he believed. It was possible that God, being all powerful, could have denied him rightousness. So rightousness is give because of faith, but not any faith, for us it faith in Jesus Christ. I could have faith in a potted plant, but God this would not save me, because there is no atonement in a potted plant.

I was a wretched, lost, rebellious heathen and then God, through no virtue found in me nor with any assistance from me, brought me back to life and gave me a desire to serve Him

You were fallen, and fallen men can resist the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit pushes us to chose, but does not make us. It stands to reason, then if a fallen, wretched man can resist the Spirit, then we are not forced but influence.

While I don't agree with this entirely I will say that it is much more God centered than your earlier statements. So, you say, "His purpose was to save those who believe," right? Does that mean that you believe it was not His purpose to save those whom He knew wouldn't believe?

No, it was and is God's will for all to believe and see the Truth. (1 Tim. 3-4)
Also, if you believe God loves everyone then do you think He will be disappointed for the rest of eternity that some of those He loved were destroyed? Kind of a bleak picture of God in my opinion.

To think that God would chose people to hell, by default, is a picture of an unjust God. What glory could God have in automotons that believe and worship him? What pleasure could God take in that he used is sole power to make some worship him? And if he did this, why woud he not do it for everyone? Because God is just, and he loves us, but he does not tolerate sin. The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through our Lord Jesus Christ. So we don't boast if we know our faith did not save us but that we are saved through Christ, in that Christ paid the wages of sin, and God allows us to be rightous in beleiving in him.

Do I think God will be disappointed? I don't know. Part of the problem of understanding God is that we apply human personality traits. I can imagine that God would not be disappointed because he did give us His Son, and we if we refused, then it is was our fault. The bible makes it clear that we are responsible for our own sin (Romans 3.23). How could a just God hold all responsible for thier sin, and yet only allow some to recieve his gift (yet you say they can't do anything to recieve it). Why would God allow elect some to be saved and hold everybody responsible for thier sin?

Just for the record, I would much quicker believe that God "loves everone without exception, and His purpose was to save those who believe" than that God "loves everone without exception, his purpose was to save everyone."

It is and was God's desire for all to be saved, but being just, he must make provisions to atone sin. So He wants more than one thing. But his justice supercedes his desire to see all men saved. So only those who believe in Christ, will satisfy God's demands for justice.You say that we must accept the atonement before we can believe.

So that means that we must accept the atonement when we are unbelievers. How do you accept something you don't believe in? Please don't condescend by saying "by faith." If you don't believe something it is implausible that you would accept it. Belief must come before acceptance.

After much thought, we must believe in the atonement. Faith is the embodiment of hope, and our hope is in Christ. We place our faith in the atonement of Christ. We don't do this completely of ourself, but by the influence of the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless, as I have noted and you, fallen men can resist the Spirit. Christ becomes the source of our hope. So it is Christ that saves and not the embodiment of hope or faith that saves.

 

[Reformationist]

You equate all-powerful with all-controling.

Well, I guess that would depend on what you mean by "all controlling." I do believe that every single thing that comes to pass is under the control of God. I do not, however, believe that God forces people to sin. That is not to say that their sin is caused by God. On the contrary, if God so willed He would just give them grace and they would not sin. The thing that you seem to be overlooking is the lesson that is given in the story of Joseph in Genesis 50:20. Just because we sin does not mean that our actions are outside of the providential orchestration of God. He often uses the natural, carnal inclinations of man to effect His will.

We are all fallen before we come to Christ (Romans 5), and this some of what Calvin based his"Total Deprivation" did he not?

Yes. You make the obvious mistake of theological leaps with no foundation. Your views sound like nothing more than "This dog is brown. All brown things are dogs." All are fallen and depraved. All are unable to incline themselves to God apart from His grace. God, in His divine wisdom, grants grace to some in the form of regeneration. This grace is unmerited. Those who have been regenerated are inclined to God by virtue of that regeneration.

We can't boast about our salvation which is by grace and imputed rightousness. Abraham believed and it was imputed on him rightousness. Therefor he is justified by God's given rightousness, and not because he believed. It was possible that God, being all powerful, could have denied him rightousness. So rightousness is give because of faith, but not any faith, for us it faith in Jesus Christ. I could have faith in a potted plant, but God this would not save me, because there is no atonement in a potted plant.

While I completely agree with what you've said here I must acknowledge that you didn't answer my question, "So why does one person have faith and another does not?" If you claim that we cannot boast in ourselves then the credit is due to something external to us. So, if it's not the creation what is it? Why does one person have faith and another does not?

The Holy Spirit pushes us to chose, but does not make us.

Wrong-O. If you aren't for God then you're against Him. Not choosing to embrace God's Law is choosing against Him.

It stands to reason, then if a fallen, wretched man can resist the Spirit, then we are not forced but influence.

So the Holy Spirit "influences" you? Why, then, does one person choose to obey and another to rebel? You just said we can't boast in ourselves so what is it?

No, it was and is God's will for all to believe and see the Truth. (1 Tim. 3-4)

So God fails in accomplishing His will?

To think that God would chose people to hell, by default, is a picture of an unjust God.

How is that unjust? Everyone deserves to go to hell, right? We are His creation, right? How is it unjust if He creates some people for a purpose other than what you think is just. Your problem is that you think God is unfair if He didn't create every single person to be in Heaven. What do you think the whole point of Romans 9:19-21?

Romans 9:19-21
You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?" But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, "Why have you made me like this?" Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?

Paul is clearly saying that we have no right to question why God makes some for dishonor and others for honor. Paul clearly tells us we are in no position to question God's holiness just because we don't understand why He would make some for honor and some for dishonor. Argue with me if you will but I'm not sure how much clearer those verses can get.

What glory could God have in automotons that believe and worship him?

Why are you asking me? I don't believe that believers are "automotons that believe and worship Him."

What pleasure could God take in that he used is sole power to make some worship him? And if he did this, why woud he not do it for everyone?

Are you asking how it glorifies God to separate a fallen, depraved people unto Himself and regenerate them and give them life and conform them to the image of His righteous Son? Well, can you do that?

As for why He didn't do if for everyone Romans 9 tells us that as well:

Romans 9:22-24
What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

So, God withheld His wrath upon those who were created for destruction and endured their evil deeds so that He could make His power known and make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of His mercy, those He had prepared beforehand for glory.

As I said, very clear.

Because God is just, and he loves us, but he does not tolerate sin.

You keep saying that God is just. Would it be unjust of God to let us all burn in hell? Tell me, who deserves to go to Heaven? Who deserves to go to hell?

The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through our Lord Jesus Christ. So we don't boast if we know our faith did not save us but that we are saved through Christ, in that Christ paid the wages of sin, and God allows us to be rightous in beleiving in him.

I agree. So why does one believe and another doesn't?

Do I think God will be disappointed? I don't know. Part of the problem of understanding God is that we apply human personality traits. I can imagine that God would not be disappointed because he did give us His Son, and we if we refused, then it is was our fault.

I didn't ask you if you thought God would feel responsible. I asked if you thought He would be disappointed because so many of those "whom He loved so much" are going to burn in hell.

The bible makes it clear that we are responsible for our own sin (Romans 3.23). How could a just God hold all responsible for thier sin, and yet only allow some to recieve his gift (yet you say they can't do anything to recieve it).

Because that gift is by His grace. Grace is unmerited. Simply put, those who receive salvation do so because of His mercy. He is not obliged to have mercy on anyone and God's Word makes it clear that it isn't based on something we do:

Romans 9:15,16
For He says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion." So then IT IS NOT OF HIM WHO WILL, NOR OF HIM WHO RUNS BUT OF GOD WHO SHOWS MERCY.

How much clearer does it need to get? God is not merciful to you because you desired it (him who wills), nor due to your works (him who runs).

Why would God allow elect some to be saved and hold everybody responsible for thier sin?

It's called mercy and justice theseed. The elect receive mercy, everyone else receives justice. As to why, I refer you, again, to Romans 9:22-24:

Romans 9:22-24
What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

He saves some and executes His justice against the others to make His power known and make known the riches of His glory to all those on whom He had mercy. Tell me, how do you know the value of mercy someone shows you? You know because you probably understand the terribleness of what could have happened. Why do you appreciate kindness so much? Probably because you know the opposite. Why do you value the love of your family? Probably because you know what it feels like to be hated. Life is about contrasts. We recognize the righteousness of Christ because we see the depravity of the world. We appreciate His mercy because we can see His justice.

It is and was God's desire for all to be saved, but being just, he must make provisions to atone sin. So He wants more than one thing. But his justice supercedes his desire to see all men saved.

Oooooh, I see. Now we're up to the point where we pit one attribute of God against another. "His justice supercedes His desires to see all men saved??!!!" You've got to be kidding me. God's justice isn't like thirty extra pounds tha He'd like to get rid of if He only could. He doesn't look upon His judgment and His wrath as if they're bad things. He doesn't disdain those parts of His holiness. He glories in them. His wrath brings Him glory. It shows His power. His judgment upon unrighteousness glorifies Him because it shows Him to be just. His mercy glorifies Him because it shows His benevolence.

So only those who believe in Christ, will satisfy God's demands for justice.

Get real. Nothing, I reapeat NOTHING, you do satisfied God's demands for justice.

Isaiah 64:6
But we are all like an unclean thing,
And all our righteousnesses are like filthy rags;
We all fade as a leaf,
And our iniquities, like the wind,
Have taken us away.

Your, and my, sacrifices to God are filthy in light of His holiness. You think anything you do satisfies God's justice? No. Jesus satisfied God's justice. That's why He's called the ATONING sacrifice. Christ's death appeased God's wrath.

God bless

 

[theseed]

If you claim that we cannot boast in ourselves then the credit is due to something external to us. So, if it's not the creation what is it? Why does one person have faith and another does not?

Becasue they don't believe. They choose not believe that Christ can atone for thier sins. Christ does not become the embodyment of thier hope, their for thier faith is not in Christ. And because they don't believe. After all if those who believe are saved, then why not the ones who don't ever believe be condemned?

Can not a sinful person resist the holy spirit, a person in a fallen state? (Acts 7.51)

Romans 9:22-24
What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

But in Romans 5, we read that his wrath was against "us" who you say are the elect. Does not God's propitiation turn away his wrath?

Acts 10

34Then Peter began to speak: "I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism

Deuteronomy 10
17 For the LORD your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome, who shows no partiality and accepts no bribes.

If God elects some to be saved and by default others to hell, then how does he avoid showing favoritism?

2 Chronicles 19
7 Now let the fear of the LORD be upon you. Judge carefully, for with the LORD our God there is no injustice or partiality or bribery."

So the Holy Spirit "influences" you? Why, then, does one person choose to obey and another to rebel? You just said we can't boast in ourselves so what is it?

They obey because they see the truth and accept, they disboy when they resist to see the truth and don't believe it.

We can't boast about our rightous works, or about our salvation. Why could not a "chosen person" boast in being chosen?Your, and my, sacrifices to God are filthy in light of His holiness. You think anything you do satisfies God's justice? No. Jesus satisfied God's justice. That's why He's called the ATONING sacrifice. Christ's death appeased God's wrath.

You have just brushed aside all that I said and twist what I just said. I said those "who believe in Christ" are saved. Christ sacrifice saves us, this is what God gave. God gave so those who believe will be saved. It's the giving of atonment that saves. Believing (or having faith) is the vehicle God uses for us to bring us to that salvation.

Romans 9:15,16
For He says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion." So then IT IS NOT OF HIM WHO WILL, NOR OF HIM WHO RUNS BUT OF GOD WHO SHOWS MERCY.

Believers don't derserve Christ (grace) and we deserve to go to hell, yet, those who believe will be saved. This verse does not save I will **** who I will ****. How do you reconcile this with the fact that God wants all men to be saved (1 Tim. 2.3-4) and God not showing favoritism.

How much clearer does it need to get? God is not merciful to you because you desired it (him who wills), nor due to your works (him who runs).

Why can't we resist a desire? Like the resistance of the Holy Spirit, resistance of the truth? God did not desire Adam and Eve to sin, but they did. Why can't God desire (will) for us to beleive and we chose not to?

I don't have time to discuss this perpetually, so I will say this. I reject the notion that only God's elect can be saved and that God desires for some men to perish and others to be saved based on these key verses. Nor do I claim that my arguments are fully correct, I still have musch investigation to do. But because of these verses reject the fact that God choses people to go to hell.

Matthew 7


Ask, Seek, Knock

7"Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. 8For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened.

Luke 11

9"So I say to you: Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. 10For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened.

Timothy 2
3This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.

(Reformationist, you I did not see your refute this or explain it but just asked another question to challenge my view. How do you reconcile "all men" with "election of some"?


2 Peter 3:9
The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some men count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

 

[Reformationist]

Okay theseed. I appreciate your efforts but it's clear this is nothing more than a verbal volley.

I admire your fervor for our God and I pray that He continues to bless you.

God bless,
Don

 

[theseed]

Thank you.

 

[folk_rocker_4jc]

Since the penal subsitutionary view on the Atonement has been brought up in this forum, I thought it might be enlightening to look at a couple of recent works on the salvific work performed by Christ.

Recovering the Scandal of the Cross: Atonement in New Testament & Contemporary Contexts
by Joel B. Green, Mark D. Baker














About the Author
Joel B. Green is dean of the school of theology and professor of New Testament interpretation at Asbury Theological Seminary, Wilmore, Kentucky. Among his several books are The Gospel of Luke, and (with John T. Carroll) The Death of Jesus in Early Christianity.


Mark D. Baker is assistant professor of mission and theology at Mennonite Brethren Biblical Seminary, Fresno, California. He is the author of Religious No More: Building Communities of Grace and Freedom.


Book Description
The cross is the defining symbol of the Christian faith. Yet the Roman cross was first and foremost an instrument of cruel, shameful and violent execution. Early Christians quickly recognized the atoning significance of the cross of Christ, and it resonated deeply with their experience of salvation. But the cross remained a blessing framed by scandal, an epochal and yet mysterious event, irreducible to a single formulation.

As Green and Baker demonstrate, the New Testament displays a rich array of interpretations of the cross. These were shaped by the church in mission as it rooted the saving story of a scandalous cross in the language of everyday realities and relationships. But for many Christians today, not only has the true scandal of the cross been obscured, the variety of its New Testament interpretations have been reduced to subpoints in a single, controlling view of the atonement. Tragically, the way in which the atonement is frequently and popularly expressed now poses a new scandal, one that is foreign to the New Testament and poses needless obstacles to twenty-first century peoples and cultures.

At the heart of this book is a challenge for us to view afresh the variety of contextual understandings of the death of Christ in the New Testament and to reconsider how we can faithfully communicate with fresh models the atoning significance of the cross for specific contexts today. The authors explore how the atonement has been understood within a variety of contemporary contexts--both Western and non-Western--and show how we can enter into the thoroughly Christian mission of restating the saving scandal of the cross in our multicultural world of the twenty-first century.

"A powerful and persuasive case for freeing the gospel of the cross of Jesus Christ from captivity to Western models of the atonement and discovering its relevance for other cultures." Roger Olson, Truett Theological Seminary

"I have read many books about the cross of Christ, but few as thought-provoking as this one." Stephen Travis, St John's College, Nottingham "Here is a fresh look at the cross of Jesus. . . . I highly recommend it to all Christians who . . . seek to understand and articulate with integrity the saving significance of the cross of Jesus in our post-modern world." John Driver, Goshen College

A book that opens a much needed discussion..., November 14, 2000
[font=verdana,arial,helvetica][size=-1]Reviewer: David Eagle from Fresno, CA USA [/size][/font]The book offers a critique of the penal substitution model of atonement. Penal substitution is found through evangelical theology, and enjoys wide popularity today (see for example Christianity Today's "Call for Unity" of June 14th for a list of theologians and authors who consent to this view). The book begins with an examination of the various "models" or "ways of speaking about atonement" present in the New Testament. The authors argue that the New Testament writers did not present only one view of the atoning work of the cross, but instead presented a variety of metaphors and models that were rooted in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus and connected to the specific contexts of the writers.

The book then proceeds to survey some models of atonement from church history, looking at thinkers such as Irenaeus, Anselm, Charles Hodge and others. With respect to Hodge and penal substituion, the authors argue that Hodge's notion of justice is too deeply entrenched in a Western idea of justice, and can lead to a warped view of God. The book concludes with examples of people who are trying to re-articulate the saving significance of the cross today in their own specific contexts.

This book is an important book because it highlights the need for evangelical Christians to think seriously about how to contextualize the message of the atonement. If missionaries in Africa or Japan need to contextualize the gospel, why shouldn't Western Christians do the same? This book is a call for Christians in North America to re-engage their culture with a message of the cross that speaks clearly into their situation.

This book is also important because it offers a balanced, biblical critique of penal substitution. For too long evangelicalism has allowed penal substitution to remain the dominate model, without seriously looking at the implications and consequences of this model. This book opens up the question of atonement in evangelicalism to re-examination, while still trying to be faithful to the biblical text.

Finally, a note to those who might be scared off by all this theological language. Don't be! This book is dense, but also very readable and understandable and would be a valuable resource for anyone interested in recovering the scandal of the cross for their own contexts. Also, for those of you who have read this book, more of Mark's writing can be found [on the internet].



The next 2 works are cited as pointing out that some of the Reformed faith have been enlightened regarding the extent of the atonement, notmean tas an endorsement of their other Calvinist convictions.

The Extent of the Atonement: A Dilemma for Reformed Theology from Calvin to the Consensus (1536-1675)
by Michael G. Thomas



From the Publisher
Traces Reformed theologians of the 16th and 17th centuries as they were led by their doctrine of predestination to ask whether Christ had died only for the 'elect'.

Book Description
Reformed theologians of the 16th and 17th centuries were led by their doctrine of predestination to ask whether Christ had died only for the 'elect'. This book traces the way they tackled the extent of the atonement. Following closely the debates of the time, it provides insights into the development of Reformed theology and argues that the difficulties experienced then point to a need for a new departure by those who stand in the Reformed tradition today.

Continued...

 

[folk_rocker_4jc]

This is also a book from a Reformed believer...who disagrees with limited atonement.

Did Christ Die Only for the Elect? A Treatise on the extent of Christ's Atonement
by Norman F. Douty

A great work against the limited atonement., August 25, 1998
[font=verdana,arial,helvetica][size=-1]Reviewer: A reader from Glendale, CA USA [/size][/font]This is a great book and sorely needed work against the (in my opinion) unbiblical doctrine of the Limited Atonement. The author examines the relevant scriptures, exposes the fallacy that "world" means the elect, and gives numerous refutations of writers such as John Owen and Arthur Pink. Douty also does a historical survey of some 70 theologians and other church leaders from throughout church history. All supported the idea that Christ died for the world. This book is highly recommended.

 

[theseed]

Think about this.

If God loves the world as a parent loves thier child, then he may disire for them to return to them, but only if they do it in a way that follows the rules. Parents don't want to give thier children's gifts while they are rebellious. But if they are like the prodigal son who returns then the Father throws a party and gives his son gifts and has a party. This helps explain why God desires all people to be saved (1 Tim. 2.3-4) and why all people will not be saved.

 

[Reformationist]

Think about this.

If God loves the world as a parent loves thier child, then he may disire for them to return to them, but only if they do it in a way that follows the rules.

God does not love the world. God loves His children.

Parents don't want to give thier children's gifts while they are rebellious. But if they are like the prodigal son who returns then the Father throws a party and gives his son gifts and has a party. This helps explain why God desires all people to be saved (1 Tim. 2.3-4) and why all people will not be saved.

It also paints salvation as a reward for the right behavior rather than a gift of God's grace that we couldn't earn.

God bless

 

[theseed]

nothing

 

[folk_rocker_4jc]

Taking myself off auto email notify.

 

[theseed]

It also paints salvation as a reward for the right behavior rather than a gift of God's grace that we couldn't earn.

I see your point, a gift by definition is free and given unconditionally.

How do you explain the verse in 1 Tim. 2.3-4 that says "God our savior who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth"?

 

[Reformationist]

How do you explain the verse in 1 Tim. 2.3-4 that says "God our savior who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth"?

Well, there are a number of ways we could interpret that.

I would say it depends on how one understands the desires of God.

I feel that it is nonsensical to view the desires of an Almighty Creator in the same way that we view the desires of an impotent creation, as if God, like us, is either powerless to have those desires satisfied or that He is ambivilant as to whether they are actually achieved.

Let me ask you something. Do you think it is important to God that His desires are satisfied?

God bless

 

[theseed]

Ref. I've heard that what God decrees is not the same as what he desires here. In Psalms we read David's exhortation for all to praise God.


I find no problem thinking God wants all to be saved, as long as its through His Son. In a Calvinist theology, this would mean God contradicts himself.I've heard of God's soveriegn will including permissive will (I've heard of God having different kinds of wills, but I can't think of them).

 

[Reformationist]

Ref. I've heard that what God decrees is not the same as what he desires here.

Again, that would depend on how you understand the desires of God. I think this verse speaks more towards the holiness and benevolence of God rather than to His divine desire for the actual salvation of all mankind.

In Psalms we read David's exhortation for all to praise God.

Um...okay. What does that have to do with anything?

I find no problem thinking God wants all to be saved, as long as its through His Son.

So God wants everyone to be saved but sets conditions on the method in which they will be saved? So it is your contention that it is important to God that everyone is saved but it is more important that they follow a certain path, right? If that's so, then you contend that God would rather a person burn in hell than be saved any way other than Jesus, right?

In a Calvinist theology, this would mean God contradicts himself.

No clue what your point is here.

 

[theseed]

So it is your contention that it is important to God that everyone is saved but it is more important that they follow a certain path, right? If that's so, then you contend that God would rather a person burn in hell than be saved any way other than Jesus, right?

Yeah, I think you hit the head on the nail. What else could satisfy the wages of sin? (John 3.16, John 14.6)

On any side of this debate, it always comes down that if a person believes in Christ then they are saved. period.