Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
However, not everyone is a sinner, as you understand it. Therefore, the atonement of Jesus Christ is meaningless for these individuals. Faith is also irrelevant for these individuals, primarily for the obvious reason that they are quite incapable of exercising it.
I wouldn't say meaningless. They still need to be resurrected, purified from their sinful nature and be risen glorified. That wouldn't be possible without Jesus' death and resurrection. No one enters heaven without Christ atonement. He is the door to heaven, even for infants.
If, in fact, all those identified by yourself as entering heaven upon death because they are not sinners, what purpose does the atonement of Jesus Christ serve for them? Do you believe that they actually have a sinful nature (because you just mentioned that they need to be "purified from their sinful nature")?
I never said anyone enters heaven because they are not sinners. They enter heaven because Jesus resurrects them, purifies and glorifies them.
Do you believe Christ has atoned for all infants or some selected infants?
I do not have any basis from scripture to draw any firm conclusions regarding the eternal fate of infants. Thus, I withhold judgement, leaving it to God alone. As you know, there are a wide variety of views on this subject and I won't bother reiterating them for you.
So if I understand you correctly, your position is that you do not know whether all infants who die are among those whom Christ atoned. That means a grieving mother who loses an infant cannot have certainty from Scripture, that there is atonement made for her child. Do you think that uncertainty is consistent with the comfort Scripture intends to give believers regarding Christ's saving work?
The same comfort offered to believers is not available to unbelievers, is it? In any event, I have answered your question to the best of my ability. What is your next question?
No more question right now. I do have to go back and answer your other post and a few others.
The 15 verses in John with Nicodemus do not say they need first to be regenerated or reborn to respond to the gospel. That's a theological position. While it's true only God can make someone born again, my position is we need to repent first to be reborn. So this doesn't conflict with John 3:16: God loved the world, and whoever believes will be saved. "Whoever/everyone who believes" is a genuine, universal invitation, it applies to every single person. If you believe, you will be saved.
You say you think "the world" means the whole of creation. If that's your view, then it seems to include all people, including the reprobate. If so, could you explain in what sense God loved the reprobate by sending His Son?
The reason everyone is not saved is that they don't repent and believe. No Jesus was not lying or unable to keep His word... His intent was not to save a predetermined group of individuals, but whoever believes. However, His intent was to atone for everyone's sins so everyone might be saved, if they believe. I see no contradiction with this understanding.
I disagree. Can the unregenerated be born again on their own?
How does a natural person repent on their own when no one seeks God (Rom. 3:11)?
John 3:16 clearly states that only those who believe in the Son will be saved and have eternal life. In order to have faith God must bestow His free gift of grace and since this is a gift of God no one can get grace on their own. So then the ones that believe in John 3:16 are those that God has given His free grace in order for them to have faith.
His conclusion will lead to universalism if you follow his interpretation of the Greek. Unless you believe that all will be saved then the world becomes all people but since the verse itself gives you the limiting condition “of only those who believe” will be saved then the world are those that believe. God loves absolutely everyone but not everyone is saved. He has known this since before the foundation of the world.
That being the case, either Jesus simply foreknew who would believe and did not necessarily provide atonement for those who would not believe, or Jesus predestined those who would believe to be save and, again had no motivation to provide atonement for those who would not believe.
In the same way as he loves his creation. I described that in a very short version. Apparently there is something real to the restoring of creation to himself. It is within his glorifying himself, as described in Romans 9:22, 23. You want him to equally intend mercy toward all. But it doesn't say that.
Two things, here: 1) If it is his saving love toward all sinners, (which it doesn't say specifically—2) thus, you too are going beyond what it does say to claim it is referring to his saving love toward all sinners. That's nice, but it is not what it says. It is derived OF your theology instead of it driving your theology.) 1) (cont'd): If, I say, it is his saving love toward all sinners, then you need to explain how, if [spontaneous] freewill reigns, [uncaused to choose one way or the other], some choose Christ and some don't; some believe and some don't. You can't get something from nothing. The whole semantic range of reasons is missing. Granted, though, I still don't know if you only mean "real" instead of quite, "free".
I'm not speaking of a general sense in the way you seem to take me, as I thought I made clear before. God is a very specific God. He does not intend the salvation toward all, as you yourself show with verse 14. Yet, you depart from that particularity into a general meaning for "world".
Nope. But nice catch, there.
Not quite. You judge "most natural" according to your worldview and assumptions (as, granted, do we all). But 'most natural' is not a good hermeneutic, but only one element within a good hermeneutic. Second, "much more complex", is a view from our present circumstances. To the eternal view, in which what God has completed, Heaven, and "restored creation", as the completion of the course of all created fact, it is not at all complicated.
