Why isn't the Limited Atonement Doctrine not taught anymore?

Status
Not open for further replies.

depthdeception

Well-Known Member
Jun 8, 2005
3,863
151
43
✟4,804.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Edial said:
Be picky. :) But I do think that it defines 1 God in 3 distinct Persons, which is a Christian definition of God.
The singular of the word "name" and the follow up of 3 persons captures the precise definition of Trinity.
Unless I am not seeing what you are saying.

I understand what you are saying, but I think it might be a bit anachronistic to read the orthodox definition of the Trinity into this verse.

What I was saying in my last post was that the presence of the singular name in relation to three persons could just as easily be translated at 3 Gods that are equal in power, but not necessarily in substance.

The important statement that you made is that ALL agree on the doctrine of Trinity. And very few agree that Christ died ONLY for the elect.

Thanks,
Ed

Agreed.
 
Upvote 0

Edial

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Nov 3, 2004
31,702
1,425
United States
✟63,157.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
nobdysfool said:
It's not "a" verse. That's where you miss the point. It is a series of verses, and passages that, when taken together, point to the fact that Christ had a specific set of people in mind as He went to the Cross, that He was sent to achieve the redemption of a specific set of people, and that His work on the Cross was not just potential, or a provision, for an as yet un-named and unrealized group or even of all mankind without exception, but specific, particular, and actually accomplished the salvation, in toto, of those whom He died for, and not contingent upon their response, but upon God's unchanging Will and Counsel, whereby He determined to save those whom He chose to save before the foundation of the world, and in Christ, sealed their salvation with His own Blood.
I do see your train of thought. :) And I do realize that it can take a few verses to prove certain things.
But with no amounts of verses one can prove that he died ONLY for the elect.
They (we) indeed are his people, he cares for us, he died for us, he redeemed us.
But in all this, in all this, he also died for the rest and they rejected him. He did not redeem them, but he died for them.

That's what I am saying.

Thanks,
Ed
 
Upvote 0

Edial

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Nov 3, 2004
31,702
1,425
United States
✟63,157.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
MeekOne said:
That is not what you said in your post #104...responding to my post #89. :)
It'd be better if you quote.
In #104 there was just a response to your joke about tiptoeing through this as not to get punched out.

This is #89.
MeekOne said:
Originally Posted by: Edial
quot-by-right.gif
quot-top-right-10.gif

If the Word is quite clear that he died ONLY for all that believe - where? :)
quot-bot-left.gif
quot-bot-right.gif


Right here, Ed:

1 Thessalonians 4:14
For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.

Mark 13:20
And except that the Lord had shortened those days, no flesh should be saved: but for the elect's sake, whom he hath chosen, he hath shortened the days.

Hello, its nice to meet you, BTW. See, it is rather simple. God sent His only Son to die for all, but He already knew who would accept His truth and who would die in unrighteousness.

Stay happy! :wave:



Here we see that God has chosen some people. Agreed. He has chosen them based on his foreknowledge. In Matthew 17 that foreknowledge presents that he foreknew who would receive him or reject him.
This does not mean he did not die for the whole world (as the Bible repeatedly testifies), yet many rejected him.

And you are saying the same thing in your comments.

I think there is a misunderstanding going on on one of our parts. :)

Thanks,
Ed
 
Upvote 0

Imblessed

Reformed Baptist with a Quaker heritage
Aug 8, 2004
2,007
111
51
Ohio
✟10,256.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Edial said:
I do see your train of thought. :) And I do realize that it can take a few verses to prove certain things.
But with no amounts of verses one can prove that he died ONLY for the elect.
They (we) indeed are his people, he cares for us, he died for us, he redeemed us.
But in all this, in all this, he also died for the rest and they rejected him. He did not redeem them, but he died for them.

That's what I am saying.

Thanks,
Ed

Ok, can you explain just why it is so important that Jesus died for the "rest"? Why die for them and not redeem them? Especially if he "knew" they would reject Him? '

I just can't understand why it's so important that Jesus should have died for all the people who reject Him if the death on the cross was to redeem for the sins of those who are His.......
 
Upvote 0

mlqurgw

Well-Known Member
Aug 19, 2005
5,828
540
69
kain tuck ee
✟8,844.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Edial said:
It'd be better if you quote.
In #104 there was just a response to your joke about tiptoeing through this as not to get punched out.

This is #89.




Here we see that God has chosen some people. Agreed. He has chosen them based on his foreknowledge. In Matthew 17 that foreknowledge presents that he foreknew who would receive him or reject him.
This does not mean he did not die for the whole world (as the Bible repeatedly testifies), yet many rejected him.

And you are saying the same thing in your comments.

I think there is a misunderstanding going on on one of our parts. :)

Thanks,
Ed
Foreknowledge and foresight are two different things. Foreknowledge has to do with having an inimate relationship before and foresight is seeing before. Nowhere does the Scripture teach that God elects according to foresight.
 
Upvote 0

kw5kw

Veteran
Apr 13, 2005
1,093
107
71
Ft. Worth, Texas
✟15,384.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
PART 1:

”The old writers, who are by far the most sensible—for you will notice that the books that were written about two hundred years ago, by the old Puritans, have more sense in one line than there is in a page of our new books, and more in a page than there is in a whole volume of our modern divinity—the old writers tell you, that faith is made up of three things: first knowledge, then assent, and then what they call affiance, or the laying hold of the knowledge to which we give assent, and making it our own by trusting in it.”[1]

"It is impossible to forget that we live in the world of the fall. Hence it must needs be that offences come, stumbling at certain facts or doctrines of the word of God. If it were not for this, the business of interpretation would be comparatively easy. The Bible shines by it's own light, and only needs preservation, translation and illustration by human and natural history. ... The reader must not be surprised, therefore, if, in a world of darkness, objections have occurred to other minds which have never struck his own… It follows, from this consideration that the laws of Biblical interpretation, to be of any avail for the conviction of men, must be above question. It is necessary, therefore, to start with some fundamental facts... and rules.

(Remember, these rules were written in 1847.)

Rule I. The usage of common life determines the meaning of a word or phrase; not that of philosophy.

Rule II. The usage of the time and place of the writer determines the meaning; not that of any other time; and most certainly that of modern times.
(Remember, these rules were written in 1847.)


Rule III. If a word or phrase had several meanings, the context determines which it bears in a given passage. The more common meaning of the writer's day is to be preferred, provided it suit the passage; not that which is more common in our day.
(Again remember written in 1847.)

Rule IV. If the author have occasion to employ a new word, or an old word in a new signification, his definition or his usage must determine the meaning; not any other author's usage.

Rule V. The direct or literal sense of a sentence is the meaning of the author, when no other is indicated; not any figurative, allegorical, or mystical meaning.

Rule VI. Passages bearing a direct, literal, or fully ascertained sense go to determine what passages have another sense than the literal, and what that other sense is; not to be our opinion.

Rule VII. A word, phrase, or sentence belonging primarily to the things of man, must be understood, when applied to the things of God, in a sense consistent with his essential nature; not in a sense contradictory of any know attribute of that nature.

Rule VIII. The meaning of a word or phrase in a later book of Scripture is
NOT to be transferred to an earlier book, unless required by the context. (Emphasis mine.)

Rule IX. The form of a doctrine in a subsequent part of the Bible must not be taken to be as fully developed in a preceding part without the warrant of usage and the context.

Rule X. The sense of a sentence, and the relation of one sentence to another, must be determined according to the grammar of the language in which it was
[originally] written.

Rule XI. The meaning of New Testament words and phrases must be determined in harmony with the Old Testament usage; not by Greek against Hebrew usage.

Rule XII. All Scripture is truly historically and metaphysically; not mythical or fallible.

Rule XIII. In verbally discordant passages that sense is to be adopted which will explain or obviate the discrepancy; not a sense that makes a contradiction.

Rule XIV. Scripture explains Scripture.

and finally…


Rule XV. Of rules that cross one another, the higher sets aside or modifies the lower.[2]


These two passages were both written in the mid-19th century and so that would place the author’s reference to the Puritans all the way back into the mid 17th century. How far away are we then, from God’s truth today, when we have to look back to the authors of the mid 19th century to grab our truth’s, when they had to look back two hundred years to arrive at what they considered the real and correct truths of the Bible? My point being: “Men change, However, God and His word does not.” We simply need to get back to some very important basics in the world today –vis. God’s word! Let’s have “a-go-at-it” shall we?


[1] 107 section I.


[2] Barnes Vol. I. p. 12-16
 
Upvote 0

kw5kw

Veteran
Apr 13, 2005
1,093
107
71
Ft. Worth, Texas
✟15,384.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Romans 10:1-4 [/font said:
Romans 10:1-4 [/font said:
Brothers, my heart's desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is that they may be saved. For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge. Since they did not know the righteousness that comes from God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God's righteousness. Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.



God’s plan is centered in and on a ‘universal’ gospel of faith-righteousness (cf. i. 16.; iii. 21.) Gentiles are in the church simply because they have accepted the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the Jews have spurned it. This passage opens with Paul’s plea to his “Brothers” (Gk. ‘adelphos’) – This usage does not mean ‘Christian’ brothers but brothers as in Jewish brothers who are his native countrymen as well and could (or would) have been his ancient friends also. This most definitely does not mean Christian brothers. “my heart's desire”—he is emphasizing his great interest in their spiritual welfare, as “desire” (Gk. ‘eudokia’) means a disposition to do good; an act of kindness – i.e. benevolence. Paul expresses his desire for goodwill towards the Jews so that they could experience full satisfaction with their faith in and with Jesus. The expression “My heart’s desire” means: “My earnest and sincere wish.” This was not a hollow compliment, as some wish ‘through their teeth’, but this was a truthful ‘from the heart’ desire from the apostle Paul. “prayer to God” The soul of prayer comes—is imparted—from the heart, then it truly becomes the ‘heart’s desire’ when you pray an earnest prayer to God. A prayer that is not from the heart, might as well be just simple wishing and hoping, they are all just hollow words that will fall upon the deaf ears of God.

“for the Israelites” just reaffirms my statement about the ‘brother’s” remark at the beginning of this short treatise.

“that they may be saved” Paul, after pouring forth his anguish of his Jewish brothers on the matter of their unbelief, is now referring to the salvation of the sins of the unbelievers. He is referring to the consequences of sin (cf. ix.1-3) and here he begins to express, in the most emphatic terms, his desires for their salvation. He is telling them that there will be not only earthly calamities that will be coming upon them, but heavenly ones as well. But if they place their trust in Christ, then Christ will preserver them eternally, insuring that those calamities will be averted! “To be saved - Eternally.”[1] (cf. xi. 26; 1TI ii. 4.). Saved that is, will be in accordance with God’s divine nature, his feelings, his desires. The word “will” cannot be taken here in the unconditional sense, denoting a pronouncement like that by which he willed the creation of the world, for then it would definitely be done. But the word is often used to signify a desire, wish, or what is in agreement with the nature of anyone. Thus it may be said of God that he “wills” that his creatures may be happy - because it is in harmony with his nature, and because he has made copious provisions for their happiness - though it is not true that he wills it in the sense that he exerts his supreme power to make them happy. God wills that sickness should be relieved, and sorrow mitigated, and that the oppressed should go free, because it is agreeable to his nature; though it is not true that he wills it in the sense that he bring to bear his unlimited power to make it happen. It is as the parent wills the welfare of their child. It is in accord with his nature, his feelings, his desires; and he makes every needful arrangement for it. If the child is not moral and happy, it is his own fault. So God wills that all people should be saved. It would be in harmony with his benevolent nature. He has made ample provision for it. He uses all proper means to secure their salvation. He uses no positive means to prevent it, and if they are not saved it will be their own fault. They will then be called: People of God, saints, Christians. The term is usually given in the Scriptures to the true followers of God, and is a term of affection, denoting his great and special love in choosing them out of a world of sinners, and conferring on them grace, and mercy, and eternal life.

The reason that Paul starts this chapter in such a gentle manner is that; First, he had stated and defended one of the most revolting and insulting doctrines possible to the Jews, and Paul was wanting to show them that it was not from any lack of affection for them that he did so but that he was urged on to present to them by the absolute truth of the matter. Second, we must remember that Paul was regarded by the Jews as an apostate![2] They regarded him as such because he had abandoned them while bearing their commission and was on his way to Damascus to capture and destroy Christians. Now he is preaching to these same Jews about ‘this Christ fellow’—the Messiah – the Saviour. (cf. Acts ix.) Paul was now opposing the Jews everywhere –vis. in their synagogues, in their temples, on the street and in their homes. He was testifying against their pride, their self-righteousness and mostly to their crime of crucifying Jesus. To the Jews, Paul had forsaken all that they had valued. He had even gone into foreign lands to teach this Jesus to other people than Jews – how outrageous it was to the Jews to teach their god to the unclean, impure Gentiles! Paul, to the Jews, was a ‘blasphemer to the max

Now, Paul was aware of the deep and dreadful condemnation that was coming on the Jews. It was because of that condemnation that he expressed deep regard for their spiritual welfare—truly Paul was a very motivated Christian, and it was his most solemn prayer to God for their salvation. Paul was as tender and affectionate as a minister of God as anyone could ever be. He was convincing, not by harsh reproval, but by a calm and cool presentation of the facts.


[1] Wesley on 1Ti. ii.4. With Wesley being the staunch anti-Calvinist that he was, to say this one little statement was like admitting that Calvin was right.


[2] Barnes
 
Upvote 0

kw5kw

Veteran
Apr 13, 2005
1,093
107
71
Ft. Worth, Texas
✟15,384.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
“For I can testify about them”-- to be a witness, and not a false witness. Paul, who used to be one of them in the highest order (cf. Acts xxvi.5; Phil. iii. 5). He was very well aware of all of the extraordinary exertions to which the Jews put forth just to try and keep the commands of their law. “they are zealous for God” Paul here alludes to the well-meaning of the Jewish nation, in spite of their spiritual blindness created by their rejection of Christ and their rage against His saints. (cf. 1TI. i. 13) The Jews were real zealous for God thus “the zeal of thine house hath eaten me up;” (John ii. 17)(cf. Psa lxix.9; Acts xxi. 20) "Zeal" in this place is taken for a wrathful indignation and displeasure of the mind, brought about when someone deals wickedly and evilly towards those whom we love well.[1] We also see that the Jews are full of zeal because Paul described himself in that very way in Acts xxii, 3; “I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day

Zeal for God here is interpreted to mean; “passionate ardour (love)” in all things relating to God, or in all things concerning religion. In this many, if not all, of them were sincere, but sincerity does not of and in itself make total piety. John xvi. 2; “…the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service.” Now this would be a case of extreme zeal, and in this they would be sincere (See the story of Asa in 2Ch xv. especially vv. 12-15), but persecution to (including the death of some (Acts vii. 57-60—the story of the stoning of Stephen) cannot and should not be considered the true religion of our Saviour, Christ Jesus. (cf. Matt xxiii.15; Acts xxvi.9).

So many persons suppose that, provided they are sincere and zealous, that they must be right and therefore accepted by God. But if it were by zeal that we’re accepted by God then we would negate the whole doctrine of Grace (cf. Eph ii.8-9) for zeal constitutes ‘work’ on our part. We must keep our guard up against the same self-righteousness that had developed within the Jewish religion. The self-righteousness that is the fatal disease of which, not only infected Israel but could (and does) infect the Church of Jesus Christ to this very day. “We may remark here, that Paul was not insensible to what the Jews did, and was not unwilling to give them credit for it. A minister of the gospel should not be blind to the amiable qualities of people or to their zeal; and should be willing to speak of it tenderly, even when he is proclaiming the doctrine of depravity, or denouncing the just judgments of God.”[2]

“is not based on knowledge” The Jews had a zeal based on the Mosaic law, but Christ had superceded that law. (v.4) The views of the Jews were originally founded on correct views of God and steeped in deep, deep religious truths, but those laws had been up-ended by the coming of the Messiah. (cf. Heb v. ~ x.; Gal ii.3. ~ v.6.) Now what the Jews had left was a misguided, unenlightened, hollow zeal. Not the zeal that was not founded on the now current and correct views of God that had been revealed by Jesus. Such misguided zeal is backed with much fervor and enthusiasm and can become persecuting. Proper zeal, however, that was backed with pure religious wisdom from God became the foundation upon which the Church was founded. Otherwise, knowledge without this proper background becomes cold, abstract, calculating, formal and may be possessed by devils as well as human beings.

“Since they did not know”” the righteousness that comes from God”“Well now, our first difficulty is with ignorance.[3]” Since they were ignorant of God’s righteousness – Vis. That righteousness which God approves and provides for the justification of the guilty (cf. Rom i.17,18.). The ignorance of the Jews was voluntarily (the Jews never expected justification to come from a ‘mere’ human, one who had grown up with them, one that they knew as a child (cf. Luke iv.20-24,28-30.– therefore criminal. The apostle does not assert that they could never have known what God’s plan was, for he affirms in verses 18-21 of this chapter (Romans x.) that they had the full opportunity of knowing. In fact, the Jews had a better opportunity of knowing who the Messiah was to be better than anyone else on this whole earth! An assiduous, painstaking study of their own Scriptures not only could have, but it would have led them – as it leads us – straight to Jesus and right to his righteousness (cf. John v.39.; Isa. Liii.) yet, the fact that they were ignorant is not just an excuse. It is introduced here, no doubt, as a mild and mitigating circumstance that should take off the malice of what Paul might be appearing outwardly to be saying to them. As Paul described himself in 1Ti. i. 13; “ was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injuriousThen he goes on to say; “but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief.” We have already learned that Jesus, from the cross, had forgiven them when He said: “Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.” (Luke xxiii. 34). Total, involuntary ignorance does excuse from guilt, but ignorance produced by our own sin or languor is no excuse for a crime (cf. Acts vii.60.). “If the gospel had not come to your hearing you could not have been guilty of refusing it[4]


[1] “GN”


[2] “Barnes”


[3] 2214 Section I


[4] 1325 Intro.
 
Upvote 0

kw5kw

Veteran
Apr 13, 2005
1,093
107
71
Ft. Worth, Texas
✟15,384.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
” the righteousness that comes from God” – not of the personal holiness of God, but the righteousness that is God’s plan of justifying man. His plan by which He declares us righteous by our confession of faith in His Son—Jesus. Here we see that God’s plan stands firmly opposed to the efforts of the Jews (and anyone else who tries) to make themselves righteous by their own works (cf. Eph ii. 8-9).

“sought to establish their own” “Proud man wants to save himself, he believes [that] he can do it, and he will not give over the task till he finds out his own helplessness by unhappy failures.”[1] The Jews were endeavoring to substantiate (or make valid) their own righteousness by their own works, as many are still trying to do today. They tried to render it such as to add up to a ground of justification before God or to make good their own claims to eternal life by their own individual merits, unto the law, without accepting Christ as their Saviour. This stands diametrically opposed to the doctrine of justification by His Grace – vis. God’s plan. And they must forever be opposed. This was the constant effort of the Jews; and in this they supposed they had succeeded. (See Paul’s personal experience in Phi. iii.4~6. and Acts xxvi.5.) Instances of their belief on this subject occur in all the gospels, where our Saviour combats their notions of their own righteousness. See particularly their views and evasions exposed in Matt. Xxiii.; cf. Matt. v.:20. and Matt. vi.2~5. It was the Pharisees that mainly opposed the LORD Jesus and his apostles; and was their own confidence in their own righteousness, which still stands in the way of the progress of the gospel among people of all nations to this day.

“they did not submit to God's righteousness” - Confident in their own righteousness, confident that they could, via their own abilities to keep the law, confident that their system of sacrifices would be able to sanctify them, they refused to accept the Messiah. The Jews could not have yielded their hearts to a plan which requires them to come and confess something that they perceived as having no merit. And to be saved by the merit of another—totally unthinkable!! No obstacle to salvation by grace is as great as the self-righteousness of the individual sinner(s). “Do you know what it would take to be saved by your own righteousness? Do you know what kind of righteousness it must be? A. It must be that you have been perfect from the day that you were born. You must never have talked back, never told a lie—a fib. Nay, Not one! You must never have broken not only the 10 Commandments, but countless other rules and regulations that had been written! You must never have wanted anything. Nay—nothing, to do otherwise would have been breaking the 10th commandment. That’s what it would have taken to bring yourself to self-righteousness. The only one to ever do that was Jesus!

“Christ is” - This expression implicitly implies, not only faith in Christ, but fully placing your trust in Him that He will dispense His Grace upon you for your full salvation. This is the design of the discussion, to show that justification cannot be obtained by our own righteousness, but by faith in Christ. As no direct benefit results to people from Christ unless they believe on him, faith in him is implied where the word occurs in this connection.


[1] Ibid.
 
Upvote 0

kw5kw

Veteran
Apr 13, 2005
1,093
107
71
Ft. Worth, Texas
✟15,384.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Now we’re down to the ‘nitty-gritty’

In all of the above arguments, remove the word Jews and replace with (fill in the blank)[1] [2]

For Jesus is …“the end of the law” - The object or aim of the law is to enable Christ to justify and sanctify everyone that believes – i.e. it contains within it’s self all of the demands for the justification of such as who wish to embrace him, whether Jew or Gentile (Gal.iii.24) then bestowing by promising that righteousness and life—the law holds these things forth but the law cannot give. The law hounds a man till he submits himself to Christ, then the law says to him, “You have found an asylum, I will no longer pursue you, you have proven yourself wise, now you are save forever.” The end of the law is to justify those that keep the law.[3]” The word translated “end” means “what completes a thing, or renders it perfect; also the limit, issue, or termination of anything, as the end of life, the result of a prophecy.(cf. John xiii.1.; Luke xxii,37).” It also means the design or object which is had in view the principal purpose for which it was undertaken 1Ti i.5,” The end of the commandment is charity;” the main design or purpose of the command is to produce love; 1Pe. i.9, “The end of your faith, the salvation of your souls;” the main design or purpose of faith is to secure salvation; Rom xiv.9, “To this end Christ both died,” etc. For this, the law’s design or purpose, this is doubtless its meaning here. “The main design or object which the perfect obedience of the Law would accomplish is accomplished by faith in Christ.[4]” All that said, it means: perfect obedience to the Law would accomplish justification before God, secure his favor and eternal life. However, because not one of can keep the law – “No not one of you is righteousness” (Rom iii.10) and in James ii.10 “For whosoever keeps the Law [as a] whole but stumbles and offends in one [single instance] has become guilty of [breaking] all of it.” Therefore, we as human beings we cannot keep the law because each and every one of has either: talked back to their parents, murdered somebody, we wanted something that we didn’t have or we told a lie at sometime in their lives. It doesn’t matter which one you broke, it doesn’t matter what the infraction was, because any one is as bad as the worst. The same end is now accomplished by faith in Christ. But seeing that we do not observe the law through the fault of our flesh, we do not attain this end: but Christ heals this disease, for he fulfils the law for us.[5] The great design of both is the same; and the same great end is finally gained. For the law was designed as a ‘fishing net’ to catch the sinners – to reel them in, to make them aware of what the transgressions are so that they can find out what actually needs changing in their lives. This was the subject of debate between the apostle and the Jews; and this is all that is necessary to understand in the case. The law acted as a jail for us to make us realize what our transgressions were, and what they could do to us. Some have supposed that the word “end” refers to the ceremonial law; that Christ fulfilled it, and brought it to an end. Others, that he perfectly fulfilled the moral law. And others, that the Law in the end leads us to Christ, or that its design is to point us to him. All this is true, but not the truth taught in this passage. That is simple and plain, that by faith in Christ the same end is accomplished in regard to our justification that would be by perfect obedience to the moral law.

Christ is the fulfillment of the law – now there is no law that effective on sinners – only the grace of God. If there is no law, then there is no sin.[6]

No man could ever keep the law, for the law is, and always has been much, much too demanding for mere mortal men (and women, of course) to keep. Don’t look at a woman lustfully (or a man), don’t lie, don’t steal, don’t cheat, don’t worship anything/anyone other than God, keep the Sabbath, don’t talk back to your parents, don’t take the name of the LORD in vain, don’t murder, don’t be envious, don’t give false witness, don’t be proud, don’t devise wicked schemes, don’t be quick to rush into evil, don’t cause dissension among brothers (Pro. vi. 16~19; Matt iv. 10; 1Co. viii.4; Mark xii.29; Matt.xii.8; Matt. xix.18~19; Rom xiii.9; Exo xx.1~17) Only one has ever been able to keep ALL of these rules (and many, many more that I didn’t mention) and that being our Saviour – Jesus.

“so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.”

“For Christ is the end of the law - The scope and aim of it. It is the very design of the law, to bring men to believe in Christ for justification and salvation. And he alone gives that pardon and life which the law shows the want of, but cannot give. To every one - Whether Jew or gentile, treated of, Rom x.11. That believeth - Treated of, Romx.5.[7]”

Let us never forget that Christ’s presence is our main necessity! Let us pray that His divine presence is always present in our lives, attitudes, heart’s—always present in each and everything that we think, do and say. Amen!

I will end as I started, with a quote…

“First, then, CHRIST IN CONNECTION WITH THE LAW. The law is that which, as sinners, we have above all things cause to dread; for the sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the law. Towards us the law darts forth devouring flames, for it condemns us, and in solemn terms appoints us a place among the accursed, as it is written, "Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things that are written in the book of the law to do them." Yet, strange infatuation! like the fascination which attracts the gnat to the candle which burns its wings, men by nature fly to the law for salvation, and cannot be driven from it. The law can do nothing else but reveal sin and pronounce condemnation upon the sinner, and yet we cannot get men away from it.”[8]








Bibliography:

“The Holy Bible” – several different translations, but mainly the KJV and the NIV but also including the AMP and the NASB along with various other translations including the Margin Notes from the 1587 edition of the Geneva Bible which will be known as “GN.”

Barnes, Albert; “Barnes Notes in Fourteen Volumes” c. 1847 Blackie & Son, London. C. 2005 Baker Books. Vol. X “Acts and Romans”, Book “Romans” p. 220-2. – known as “Barnes.”

Bruce, F.F. “New International Bible Commenary”, Zondervan Publishing. C. 1979. ISBN 0-310-22020-3. second printing c. 1986. p. 1335 – known as “NIBC.”

Calvin, John “Commentary on Romans” Chapter 10:1-4 available on the web at: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom38.pdf -- known as “Calvin.”

Calvin, John “Institutes of the Christian Religion” translated by: Henry Beveridge. one volume edition, which retains the original two volume page numbering system. c. 1989 by Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing co. – known as “Institutes.”

Calvin, John “Institutes of the Christian Religion” Vol. XX of “The Library of Christian Classics” Edited by: John T. McNeill c. 1960. Translated by: Ford Lewis Battles. ISBN 0-664-22028-2. Known as “Institues XX”.

Clark, Adam “Adam Clark’s Commentary on the Bible” an electronic edition downloaded free to all via e-sword at www.e-sword.com. This would of course be on Romans x: 1-4. – known as “Clark

Henry, Matthew; “Commentary on the Entire Bible – In one Volume”, edited by Rev. Leslie F. Church, Ph.D., F.R.Hist.S. Zondervan c. 1961. ISBN 0-310-26010-8. p. 1778-9 – known as “Henry.”

Jamison, Fausset and Brown; “A Commentary on the Old and New Testaments” 3 Volume set. Hendrickson Publishers c. 2002 ISBN 1-56563-197-8. Vol. III. Part 2. pp. 254-5. – known as “JFB.”

Spurgeon, Charles H. “Barriers Broken Down” Sermon No. 2214 c. 1891. Avalilable on the web at: http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/2214.htm -- known as “2214.”

Spurgeon, Charles H. “Christ the End of the Law” Sermon No. 1325 c. 1876. Available on the web at: http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/1325.htm. -- known as “1325.”

Spurgeon, Charles H. “Faith” Sermon No. 107 c. 1856. Available on the web at: http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0107.htm. -- known as “107.”

Wesley, John “John Wesley’s Explanatory Notes”, an electronic edition downloaded free to all via e-sword at www.e-sword.com. This would of course be on Romans x: 1-4. – known as “Wesley”




Sidebar:

I will always try to give references, unlike some who talk without knowing what they are talking about.






[1] Any one who still believes that we have to do any kind of work—any kind of work at all—to aid in our salvation.


[2] Institutes XX p. 503-534


[3] GN1 Rom x.4, note c.


[4] Barnes


[5] Op cit. GN1


[6] 1325


[7] Wesley


[8] 1325 section I
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Sentry

Well-Known Member
Nov 14, 2005
505
11
64
✟713.00
Faith
Christian
mlqurgw said:
Foreknowledge and foresight are two different things. Foreknowledge has to do with having an inimate relationship before and foresight is seeing before. Nowhere does the Scripture teach that God elects according to foresight.

Nowhere does Scripture say God elects according to foreknowledge as you define it either.

Not only so, there is foresight contained in your definition. Else you have to claim God had a personal relationship with you before you even existed. Would you like to explore that absurdity?
 
Upvote 0

kw5kw

Veteran
Apr 13, 2005
1,093
107
71
Ft. Worth, Texas
✟15,384.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Sentry said:
Nowhere does Scripture say God elects according to foreknowledge as you define it either.

Not only so, there is foresight contained in your definition. Else you have to claim God had a personal relationship with you before you even existed. Would you like to explore that absurdity?

Jer 1:4 Then the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,

Jer 1:5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.

 
Upvote 0

Sentry

Well-Known Member
Nov 14, 2005
505
11
64
✟713.00
Faith
Christian
kw5kw said:
Jer 1:4 Then the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,

Jer 1:5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.


And you think this means what?

It is God who knits us in our mother's womb. The Creator does know what he is going to create before he does it doesn't he?

Now on that topic, you might also want to think about how it is that God knits together totally depraved people in their mother's wombs.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

depthdeception

Well-Known Member
Jun 8, 2005
3,863
151
43
✟4,804.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
kw5kw said:

[1] Wesley on 1Ti. ii.4. With Wesley being the staunch anti-Calvinist that he was, to say this one little statement was like admitting that Calvin was right.


Obviously, you are not understanding Wesley's meaning of God preserving the believer. If you did, you would not make such horrifically absurd and naive distortions of his theology. Wesley completely affirmed the notion that God preserves those who are united to Christ. Nothing external to them can separate them from God, even as Paul forcefully states in Romans 8. However, this does not mean--in Wesley's view--that the believer is protected from the separating effects of willful sin and unbelief. Wesley believed that God preserves believers--those who maintain relational fidelity to God through obedience. This preservation, however, does not extend to those who reject the free grace of God in Christ, even those who at one time have accepted it. Therefore, your quotation of Wesley is without context and corrupts his original meaning. Rather than "admitting Calvin was right," Wesley is redefining (in his theological programme) what a truly Biblical understanding of the "preservation of the saints" and assurance of salvation actually are.
 
Upvote 0

depthdeception

Well-Known Member
Jun 8, 2005
3,863
151
43
✟4,804.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
kw5kw said:
I will always try to give references, unlike some who talk without knowing what they are talking about.

I guess I do not quite understand how stringing together a bunch of quotes constitutes "knowing what one is talking about."
 
Upvote 0

kw5kw

Veteran
Apr 13, 2005
1,093
107
71
Ft. Worth, Texas
✟15,384.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
depthdeception said:
Obviously, you are not understanding Wesley's meaning of God preserving the believer. If you did, you would not make such horrifically absurd and naive distortions of his theology. Wesley completely affirmed the notion that God preserves those who are united to Christ. Nothing external to them can separate them from God, even as Paul forcefully states in Romans 8. However, this does not mean--in Wesley's view--that the believer is protected from the separating effects of willful sin and unbelief. Wesley believed that God preserves believers--those who maintain relational fidelity to God through obedience. This preservation, however, does not extend to those who reject the free grace of God in Christ, even those who at one time have accepted it. Therefore, your quotation of Wesley is without context and corrupts his original meaning. Rather than "admitting Calvin was right," Wesley is redefining (in his theological programme) what a truly Biblical understanding of the "preservation of the saints" and assurance of salvation actually are. [/font]

I understand better than you think I do, for you see

Wesley was a strong controversialist. The most notable of his controversies was that on Calvinism. John decided for himself while in college, and expressed himself strongly against the doctrines of election and reprobation, the view of the Arminian.

George Whitefield and John Wesley became good friends in college.

Except that George Whitefield leaned towards Calvinism. In his first tour in America, he embraced the views of the New England School of Calvinism; and when Wesley preached a sermon on Free Grace, attacking predestination as blasphemous, representing "God as worse than the devil," Whitefield asked Westley not to repeat or publish the discourse, not wanting a dispute with his good friend. Wesley's sermon was published, however, and among the many replies to it was one by Whitefield. Separation followed in 1741. Wesley wrote that those who held universal redemption did not desire separation, but "those who held particular redemption would not hear of any accommodation."

Whitefield, Harris, Cennick, and others, became the founders of Calvinistic Methodism. Whitefield and Wesley, however, were soon back on friendly terms, and their friendship remained fast until their death. Although they did travel different paths in their sermons. Occasional publications appeared on Calvinistic doctrines, by Wesley and others; but in 1770 the controversy broke out anew with violence and bitterness. Toplady, Berridge, Rowland, Richard Hill and others were engaged on the one side, with Wesley and Fletcher on the other. Toplady was the editor of The Gospel Magazine, which was filled with the controversy. Wesley in 1778 began the publication of The Arminian Magazine, not, he said, to convince Calvinists, but to preserve Methodists and to teach the truth that "God willeth all men to be saved." A "lasting peace" could be secured in no other way.

So, I think I got it right.
 
Upvote 0

HITR

Hand Crafted
Feb 13, 2002
97
3
53
ME
Visit site
✟7,788.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Imblessed said:
Ok, can you explain just why it is so important that Jesus died for the "rest"? Why die for them and not redeem them? Especially if he "knew" they would reject Him? '

This here gets close to the heart of what I was prayerfully pondering yesterday. I was pretty quiet around here yesterday, so that I might take some prayerful time to consider what I should say. Now, hopefully, I can communicate the thoughts I have clearly. :)

Jesus is our personal Lord and Saviour, I'll be one of the very first to advocate that. That being said, however, I believe we tend to over personalize what He did to the fact where we get to, "He died specifically for so-n-so." I don't see that His death was about specific individuals, but moreso that He died to break the curse of sin on behalf of all of mankind. IOW, He didn't do it for us individually (though individually, we are precious to Him!). He did it on our behalf. I believe He did it for the destruction of the power of sin. That makes it all about Him in every way, and not in any way glorying to/about us. He is a propitiation for sin, and when we lose sight of this very important truth in the gospel, we start to get to the place where it becomes all about the individual people (who) and not about the need and reason (what and why).

Now, that's not to nullify our importance to Him, or the the Father. Indeed, were it not for mankind, who is made in the image of our mighty God and whom God loves so very deeply, He never would have come. Yet, I don't believe He came just to save me, and this one, and that one, and the other one...I believe He came for this purpose: And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin. Heb. 10:17, 18 All to break the curse of sin, on our behalf, praise be to God! :bow:

He came to be a propitiation for SIN, not for individual people. This is why 1 John 2:2 can boast: And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. Individual people have committed individual sins, and while the sins I committed may not be the very same sins that all of my fellow brethren have committed (indeed, we all are unique in the sins we've committed), His death was the propitiation for SIN, so that regardless of what sins we may have committed, they are all covered, and none need be left out, feeling as though they have "sinned some sin that is unable to be forgiven."

When we personalize it to the point that it's about this one, that one, and the other one, we begin to nullify the real reason of why He came. We begin to make it more about "who" (US) verses "why" (our need to be saved from the deadly curse of sin). He didn't come just to save certain individuals (though through that, certain individuals will be saved), He came to break the bonds of sin that SIN should not have dominion over us. That is how, again, in 1 John 2:2 can say, not just for our sins, but for those of the whole world.

I just can't understand why it's so important that Jesus should have died for all the people who reject Him if the death on the cross was to redeem for the sins of those who are His.......

That's because we look in terms of His death as being for individual people (whether it be for "some" or "all"), instead of the fact that He came, lived, died and rose again break the curse of SIN, that we might believe by faith and be saved from the curse. And that is not just of eternal purpose, but for our lives here and now!

If Jesus truly came to break the curse of sin on behalf of mankind, then it matters NOT that some will reject Him. For those that are saved fall under sin, just as all those that do not believe fall under sin, and depending on which sin they committed, they will be redeemed by His righteousness, for His death is able to atone for ALL sin.

In this, I see how limited atonement and election reconcile with the sacrifice Christ Jesus made on behalf of all of mankind. Now, you may disagree, and I'm good with that, but does it help you to understand at least my view of what proved to be an excellent question? I hope it helped. :)

Love o' Jesus, HITR
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

kw5kw

Veteran
Apr 13, 2005
1,093
107
71
Ft. Worth, Texas
✟15,384.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
depthdeception said:
I guess I do not quite understand how stringing together a bunch of quotes constitutes "knowing what one is talking about."
So you think when I said that Paul was "blasphemous to the max" that was a quote from the old writers. :D

It was called research and reading, taking notes, pages of them, and I did this over a two-day period. It was writing, reading and re-writing. With a lot of this -> :prayer:

Yea, there might be a lot of all of the sources I quoted, but at least, you know where I'm comming from. I used the sources like this => :groupray: so you got this =>:preach: .

Peace my agape brother,
Russ
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.