For several reasons. First, such a view makes God the potential Savior of all without exception and the actual Savior of no one. In your view, Christ didn't save you. You see salvation as that of a man drowning out in the ocean whereupon Christ throws him a life preserver. Christ's act of throwing the life preserver wouldn't save anyone. You believe that the work of Christ is powerless, in and of itself, to save a single person. In your view, it isn't until the drowning man lays hold of the life preserver that Christ's actions are of any benefit. In that case, Christ didn't save you. You saved yourself by laying hold of the life preserver. But you will say, "Wait, I didn't throw the life preserver to myself." Surely not. However, you cannot discount the fact that neither the life preserver, nor Christ's work of throwing it to you, is what saved you. The most you could say is that you and Christ worked together to save you and, therefore, you deserve as much, if not more, credit for your personal salvation than Christ. The glaring hole in this analogy, so often a parallel to modern Pelagianism, i.e,. mainstream evangelical Christianity, is that it attributes to the one being rescued some level of participatory capability. It simply isn't in accord with the Gospel account of redemption. The Bible gives a perfectly good parallel of the process of rebirth. It is the story of Lazarus. Like Lazarus, natural man is incapable of responding to the call to life. Such an invitation simply falls on deaf ears. It is not until Christ gives life that we are able to respond. A better analogy, using the man in the water is as follows: A man has fallen in the water and has drowned. He is dead. Christ throws a life preserver around him and pulls him in. Then, Christ breathes life into the dead man. That is a parallel to the biblical account of rebirth. Secondly, and maybe more importantly, you speak of salvation as if it is the byproduct of an agreement between God and man, God promising everlasting life if man meets the conditions required to acquire said reward. The problem with this is, as I said, that it inserts man into the equation in an unbiblical place. God the Father purposed the salvation of His people. God the Son accomplished the salvation of His people. And, God the Holy Spirit applies the salvation of His people. This was a covenant between the Godhead. Man is the passive recipient of the work of the Godhead. You have man being an equal arbiter of the conditions of salvation when, in fact, salvation is of God alone.
Exactly my point. The gift of God is
eternal life. Nowhere does Scripture reveal that the gift of God is "the possibility of eternal life." You, and others before you, have tried to apply some twisted meaning to this. You say stuff like, "You could buy me a valuable diamond ring; if I say thank you but leave it in its box, it won't be enjoyed by me and seen by others. And have I really received the gift that you chose and bought for me?" Now, if your position were that you could give the gift back, well, that is a different discussion but still acknowledges receipt. This idea that your choice to ignore the gift, somehow, means the gift wasn't received is ludicrous, not to mention unbiblical. Again, God does not "offer" you salvation, nor does Scripture make this claim anywhere. Additionally, the primary reason for your salvation isn't about you, even if you benefit from it. You are saved to bring glory to God.
I know you didn't say what Scripture says. That's what I'm pointing out.
Well, you can keep saying it but it doesn't make it less inaccurate. Please be aware, the idea of a limited atonement is not a reference to it's value. On the contrary, the sacrifice of Christ has inestimable value. Had God purposed it, it would have been sufficient to atone for the sins of all without exception, as the atonement was a work of supererogation. No, it is the intent of the atonement that is being addressed by the limit. The question, as Sproul so eloquently puts it, is "Did God simply send Christ to the cross to make salvation possible, or did God, from all eternity, have a plan of salvation by which, according to the riches of His grace and His eternal election, He designed the atonement to ensure the salvation of His people?" Depending on how we answer that question, we are then forced to address the issue of the efficacy of the atonement. If the former, then the plan and purpose of Christ's redemptive work had in its design the salvation of no one in particular. In essence, the efficacy of such an atonement is determined by the will of the creation, not the plan and purpose of the Creator. This, of course, flies directly in the face of Scripture and sets the will of the creation over the will of the Creator. If, however, we subscribe to the latter proposition, we can find comfort in the sovereignty of God, knowing that, as Scripture tells us, "All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day" (John 6:37-39).
You're right. Scripture never says that. That is just another form of works based salvation, making faith a meritorious work. The problem with your understanding of this stems from your lack of understanding, or acknowledgement, as to the source of faith. You speak of faith in God as if someone just wakes up one day and makes the decision to have faith in God. It doesn't work like that. Faith is not part of natural man's intrinsic nature. He has no faith in God, he desires no faith in God, and he is incapable of generating faith in God. He neither desires to be a child of God (for reasons that are not in the interest of self preservation) nor seeks after God. Faith is something that God adds to our constituent nature. If He doesn't add it, we don't have it. Pure and simple. Speaking of this in a manner where God is looking to see who has faith as the determining reason He saves someone is nonsense. The only people that will have faith are the people to whom God gives it and, if He gives it, He gives it for a purpose. That purpose is, ultimately, that they would be redeemed and spend eternity in His loving embrace.
All for whom Christ died were/are sinners. Not all sinners are those for whom Christ died. Again, you speak of the death of Christ, in whom all things live and move and have their being, as if it is of no consequence. Do you honestly think Christ would bear the burden of a person's sins only to have them go to hell? For that matter, what are they condemned for if Christ paid the price for their sins? Claiming that the choice of the creation to reject the benefit of Christ's atoning sacrifice somehow makes that work of atonement completely ineffective is nonsense, and terribly blasphemous. Not to mention, it presupposes the unbiblical notion that dying for someone's sins is all Christ does to bring their redemption to fruition. Were that the case, no one would be transformed. We would all continue to live as if there were no God. The truth of God's mercy is that He not only justifies us by the work of Christ, He places within us a new nature, a nature that desires to obey Him, a nature that seeks to do His will. In fact, God Himself indwells us and continues to make intercession on our behalf.
And yet, He did die. And according to you, He died on their behalf. Don't you see how unbiblical such a notion is? You are contending that by merely choosing to reject the "gift of salvation," the creation makes the death of Christ of no value. Setting aside that such a notion, as distasteful as it is, stems from the equally unbiblical notion that the catalyst for the appropriation of salvation by all who do end up saved is their work of acceptance, you have literally subjugated the efficacy of the Creator's work of atonement to the whims of man. How you utter such contempt for Christ is beyond me.
Chance. Such a nonsense word in a discussion about God's sovereign government of history. Yes SIH, the person who is dead in his trespasses and sins, the person that sees God as the enemy and His Word as foolishness, the person who Scripture plainly states is in bondage to his carnality and, thus, incapable of submitting to God, has a "
chance to turn to Christ." You're absolutely right. And that "chance" is a 0% chance because doing so is in direct opposition to their nature.
Sure.
No.
It's not about a "chance" SIH. Unless God intervenes,
no one has a "chance." Chance is a non thing. It's a made up thing. It's a mathematical term used to define probability. There's no such thing as chance in a discussion about the redemption of man, unless you're acknowledging that, apart from God, we all have a 0% chance of coming to a saving knowledge of Christ. To understand why this is, you have to start off with a proper understanding of fallen, unregenerate man, i.e., carnal man. Carnal man is at enmity with God. He does not seek God. He does not understand God. He does not love God. He does not desire to serve God. And to make matters worse, he has no desire to change his state of enmity with God. He views God as the enemy. He despises God's Word. It is in this state that man finds himself when God changes man's disposition. His monergistic work of regeneration changes the nature of man such that he, now, willingly embraces God. He seeks after the will of God. He desires to serve God in obedience and supplication. He loves God. When God changes the nature of a person, He changes their entire spiritual polarity. Where they were once aligned against Him, now they embrace Him as their Lord and Savior. It is important to remember that God does not do this because He sees something of intrinsic value in the object of His mercy. On the contrary, He extends to them this great mercy because He loves them and as objects of His love, they are blessed with His grace.
Logically, no. Chronologically, yes. Christ will not die on the Cross again. His work of redemption is complete. The application of its merits, however, are not fulfilled. We live in a linear fashion and some, I imagine, of those for whom Christ died haven't even been born yet.
Simply put, because the method that God has chosen to use is through His creation. Obviously God could gather His sheep without the need to share the Gospel, if that's what He chose. He simply didn't choose to do it that way. As for the reason we preach to all without distinction, though God knows who His elect are, He has chosen not to reveal that to us. Who knows, maybe having information like that would cause us to completely ignore the needs of non-believers. A quote often, and errantly, attributed to Spurgeon is
“If the Lord had put a yellow stripe down the backs of the elect, I’d go up and down the street lifting up shirt tails, finding out who had the yellow stripe, and then I’d give them the gospel. But God didn’t do it that way. He told me to preach the gospel to every creature that ‘whosoever will may come.'” Jesus says, “and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.” Either way, we are commanded to spread the Good News to all without distinction so that is what we should do.
Well, that's not
a problem. That might be a problem for
you. The Bible clearly teaches election. Now, you may disagree with my understanding of biblical election but you can't discount it altogether.
Sorry, but no. The Bible is also explicit on this point. One who is dead in their trespasses and sins is incapable of responding in faith to the Gospel message. Faith in God is not part of their nature and, as such, they cannot respond to God in faith.
You say "refuse to be their Father" as if they're coming to Him in faith and He's saying "Nope." God doesn't refuse anyone. What you seem to be having a problem with is understanding that no one comes to the Father unless the Spirit draws them. If the Spirit draws them, they come. If they come, Christ will raise them up on the last day:
John 6:37-39
All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day.
Okay, follow me here:
- ALL that the Father gives to Him come.
- WHOEVER comes won't be cast out.
- ALL THAT ARE GIVEN be raised up.
See the progression?
