Closed Debate: Who then can be saved?

[jonas3]

This reply begs the question. Since the defintion of "true gospel" is what is at issue, you argue in a circle when you say that the true gospel is what regenerate Christians believe and that to be a regenerate Christian, one must believe the true gospel. Moreover, you commit a logical fallacy if you try to infer the doctrine of particular redemption into this argument. Since it does not appear as a premise, it cannot appear in the conclusion.

Regenerate individuals believe the gospel. That is a sure and certain fact.

"16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." - Mark 16:16

"He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." - Jn 3:18

"For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek." - Ro 1:16

"3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: 4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them." - 2Cor 4:3-4

"In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:" - 2Th 1:8

"For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?" - 1Pet 4:17

“Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.” – 2Jn 1:9

The verses that you provided most certainly do speak of God being the True God and of Jesus being the True God, and even of the believer being given knowledge of the True God at conversion, but it is invalid to infer that particular redemption is a necessary component of that conversion from the premises you have given. You must first demonstrate that this doctrine is given immediately upon conversion.

This is precisely the reason that I did not get into essential gospel doctrine with you in more detail; namely, because you do not believe that the atonement is apart of the gospel. You believe that the work of Jesus Christ on the cross is not apart of the gospel, and you believe that to know the true God, Jesus Christ, does not mean that one understands what Christ did for His people on the cross. Since you do not agree that the work of Jesus Christ on the cross is apart of the gospel, then how should I expect you to agree that any other doctrine is apart of the gospel?

The work of Jesus Christ on the cross is definitely apart of the gospel. All regenerate people believe this. You continue to ask me to demonstrate how the atonement is apart of the gospel; and therefore, apart of the knowledge that all regenerate people are given upon regeneration, but I have already explained this several times. At this point, perhaps you could show some Scripture that infers your stance that the atonement is not a necessary component of the gospel?

Here are some Scripture references to keep in mind.

"I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep." - Jn 10:11.

"As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep." - Jn 10:15.

"27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: 28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand." - Jn 10:27-28.


"16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. 17 For therein [i.e. in the gospel] is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith." - Ro 1:16-17.


"2 For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge. 3 For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God." – Ro 10:2-3.


“For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.” – Ro 10:4.

“For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.” – 1Cor 1:17

“For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.” – 1Cor 2:2.

“For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;” – 1Cor 15:3

“For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.” – 2Cor 5:21

"25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; 26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, 27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish." - Eph 5:25-27.


“For we are the circumcision [i.e. the regenerate], which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh [i.e. do not condition their salvation on themselves].” – Php 3:3.

"14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? 15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance." - Heb 9:14-15

True, but it is invalid to infer that particular redemption is necessarily a part of this understanding, at least from these premises. Your argument does not follow. Most of your post seems to follow this line of reasoning, so I will forego pointing out the other places in which you use this argument.

You fail to understand my line of reasoning because you do not believe that to KNOW Jesus Christ, who is the righteousness of God, is to KNOW the person and work of Jesus Christ, as is evident from your following statement,

jonas3: "They understand the person and work of Jesus Christ."

This is so ambiguous that I cannot even begin to formulate a response.

However, the PERSON and WORK of Jesus Christ is not ambiguous to a regenerate person. The PERSON of Jesus Christ is that He is the God-man mediator, the WORK of Jesus Christ is that He has secured salvation for His people through His atoning blood and His imputed righteousness alone.

Jon, do you think that to know that name “Jesus Christ” is evidence that someone knows the true God of the Bible? If I said to you that Michael Jordan is one of the best scuba-divers in history would I be talking about the same Michael Jordan you know? Therefore, when someone says that Jesus Christ died for everyone without exception they are not talking about the same person I know because the person they are describing did an entirely different work. They are speaking of, “another Jesus” – 2Cor 11:4.

This is epistemologically impossible. In order to know something, three conditions must be met:

1) Truth (something must be true to be known)
2) Belief (i.e. agreeing that it is true and assenting to it)
3) Justification (there must be a sound basis for belief)
...

I think you missed my point. A regenerate person does not have to know the words, “perseverance of the saints”, to believe the doctrine. A person does not have to understand the concept behind a doctrinal label. That was my only point. However, because of regeneration, they believe that their salvation is not conditioned on themselves or maintained by themselves in anyway; therefore, if you were to ask a newly regenerate Christian:

Do you believe that you can lose your salvation?
They will answer no; my salvation is not conditioned on myself.

You make the argue that regenerate persons believe the doctrine of particular redemption because it is revealed to them by the Holy Spirit. This contradicts the Scripture, however (Rm. 10:17). Special revelation by the word of God (the Scriptures) is the media by which we learn doctrine.

Let’s look at the verse in question.

“So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” – Ro 10:17

When the true gospel is preached and heard, God may use this preaching to give a person faith (i.e. regenerate them), as it is written,

“For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.” – 1Cor 1:21

God uses true gospel preaching to regenerate people and given them faith.

“And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.” – Acts 13:48

To learn and understand the doctrines of God we must study the Scriptures (Ps. 119:130).

“The entrance of thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding unto the simple.” – Ps 119:130.

I agree.

Therefore, it is impossible for someone to know a doctrine if he has never read or heard it. If I witness to a person that Jesus Christ came to save what was lost and that all men are sinners and if they will acknowledge their sins and believe that Christ died for them they will be saved, and if someone believes this, they will still know nothing of particular redemption. In fact, they will likely invalidly infer that this promise is extended to everyone. (It is actually invalid to infer either limited or universal atonement from the proposition that I gave.) That is why doctrine is so important. That is why Paul exorted Timothy to continue walking in the light of the Scriptures.

If that was your witness, then you witnessed a false gospel, and God would by knows means use it to regenerate someone; therefore, I would agree with you that this person, in your situation, would know nothing about particular redemption, because you never told them the gospel.

Again, this does not follow. The account in Luke says nothing about the thief's understanding regarding the doctrine of particular redemption. It is invalid to infer that the thief understood it. Your argument is once again circular.

I noticed that the Trinity is conspicuously absent from your required understanding for salvation. Does this mean that one can repudiate the Trinity and still be saved?

No, they would be unregenerate. Let’s see if you agree.

1. Do you believe that a regenerate person can believe that God the Father is NOT God?
2. Do you believe that a regenerate person can believe that Jesus is NOT God?
3. Do you believe that a regenerate person can believe that the Holy Spirit is NOT God?
4. Do you believe that a regenerate person can believe that there is more than one God?
5. Do you believe that a regenerate person can believe that God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit did NOT eternally exist?

A regenerate person does not have to know the word “Trinity” to believe it. This all goes back to understanding the definition of a doctrinal label verses believing in a doctrine.

Ultimately, our debate has come down to whether or not the atonement is essential gospel doctrine. Because you believe that Arminians are your brothers in Christ you, out of necessity, must say that the atonement is not apart of the gospel because you recognize that their view of universal atonement is “wrong”; therefore, the only way for you to reconcile your own position is to say that the atonement doesn't really matter (i.e. is not apart of the gospel). My position is that the atonement is apart of the gospel and since Arminians believe in universal atonement, which is heretical, they do not believe the gospel and are unregenerate.

If you would, and if you desire to continue discussing the issue, then would you please provide your Biblical argument for the atonement not being apart of the gospel?

-jonas

 

[Jon_]

Regenerate individuals believe the gospel. That is a sure and certain fact.

Ignoratio elenchi. This conclusion is irrelevant. I asked you how you know that knowledge of particular redemption is a necessary component of the gospel that must believe in order to be saved. You have provided no evidence of this whatsoever.

. . . namely, because you do not believe that the atonement is apart of the gospel. . . .

This is flat out wrong. I never said the atonement was not a part of the gospel. I only asked you to provide evidence that the understanding of the particular or limited nature of the atonement was required for salvation. You have not provided that, instead only refuting a strawman. Quit equivocating on atonement and provide evidence that the doctrine of limited atonement is a part of the gospel.

You should be well aware that the term "atone" or "atonement" as used in the Bible simply means that Christ paid for our sins. My argument is that one must believe that Christ paid the price for his sins. How he views the atonement as pertains to the rest of humanity is inconsequential.

All regenerate people believe this.

Where is it written that all regenerate people believe Christ died only for the elect? You still have not shown this, so I will not bother responding to the rest of what you wrote.

Here are some Scripture references to keep in mind.

You seem to like to "spoof-text" a lot. (Spoof-texting is the practice of quoting a bunch of Scripture at once hoping that the simple weight of a lot of quotations will overcome faulty reasoning.) People do this frequently when they cannot point out specific verses that support their point. That is precisely what you are doing. There is no scriptural evidence for your assertion that all regenerate people believe in the doctrine of particular redemption, so you spoof-text a bunch of Scriptures hoping to distract the focus away from the main point. I won't play that game.

You fail to understand my line of reasoning because you do not believe that to KNOW Jesus Christ, who is the righteousness of God, is to KNOW the person and work of Jesus Christ, as is evident from your following statement,

Now you fail to understand my remark. Your statement was utterly ambiguous because "work" and "person" could refer to an infinite number of things. By person do you mean the spatio-temporal manifestation of the Son, his physical body, the image of his physical body, his divine nature, his human nature? What do you mean by this? What do you mean by work? Do you mean his miracles? Do you mean his teachings? Which ones? Do you mean his baptism? You are being far too imprecise for this discussion, but this does not surprise me at all. Your arguments are based on ambiguity and theological double-speak.

I think you missed my point. . . .

No, I didn't miss your point at all. You missed mine. I wasn't talking about doctrinal "labels" either. I was talking about substance--the whole collection of propositions that are contained within the doctrinal label.

A person does not have to understand the concept behind a doctrinal label. That was my only point.

Of course they do. This is just nonsense. To say that you believe in a limited atonement but have absolutely no idea of what that entails is to say nothing meaningful at all. If I say I believe in JD98h2ASDF*#;'"A02u93, what have I said except a bunch of nonsense?

Do you believe that you can lose your salvation?

They will answer no; my salvation is not conditioned on myself.

This is nothing more than an unsubstantiated, baseless assertion.

God uses true gospel preaching to regenerate people and given them faith.

More useless assertions. We are talking about what the "true gospel" is! You're saying nothing meaningful at all because you have not given the propositions that are contained within the label "true gospel." Simply saying it over and over doesn't make it anymore relevant than JD98h2ASDF*#;'"A02u93. What is the true gospel? How do you know that? If it comes from the Scriptures, then show it!

No, they would be unregenerate. Let’s see if you agree.

The answer to these questions is obvious.

A regenerate person does not have to know the word “Trinity” to believe it. This all goes back to understanding the definition of a doctrinal label verses believing in a doctrine.

You've completely missed the point. I don't care about the word "Trinity." I am concerned with the applicable propositions. I want to know what propositions are contained within your use of the term "gospel." I also want to know your scriptural basis for these asssertions.

Ultimately, our debate has come down to whether or not the atonement is essential gospel doctrine.

Again you equivocate. The term "atonement" has two meanings within the scope of this debate: universal and limited; it also has a third meaning, which is the meaning that the Bible uses (propitation). Correcting your imprecise use of language is beginning to frustrate me. I don't expect to have to give my opponents English lessons during the debate.

What our debate has come down to is whether or not belief in the doctrine of limited atonement is necessary for salvation. That is where we are at. You have not established that the doctrine of limited atonement is contained within the biblical use of the term "gospel," therefore, you have no basis for making this claim.

If you would, and if you desire to continue discussing the issue, then would you please provide your Biblical argument for the atonement not being apart of the gospel?

This is a strawman argument coupled with an equivocation on "atonement," for which I have no reply. You are completely missing the main thrust of my argument.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[jonas3]

What our debate has come down to is whether or not belief in the doctrine of limited atonement is necessary for salvation. That is where we are at. You have not established that the doctrine of limited atonement is contained within the biblical use of the term "gospel," therefore, you have no basis for making this claim.

First, I would like to make this brief comment. You argue that it is not so much the “atonement” that is not a part of the gospel, but whether or not the limited or particular nature of the atonement is a part of the gospel. You assert that I must prove to you that the doctrine of limited or particular atonement is a part of the gospel; however, the Bible does not make a distinction between “limited atonement” and the “atonement”. The doctrinal label “limited atonement” exists to counter the heresy known as “universal atonement”. The Bible does not make a distinction between “limited atonement” and the “atonement” because they are one in the same. My point is this, if a verse in the Bible shows that the atonement is contained within the term “gospel”, then the “particular” nature of the atonement is implied. You attempt to separate the atonement from its purpose, which has no basis in Scripture.

With that having been said, I will now prove from Scripture that “particular atonement”, which is the only atonement spoken of in the Bible, is indeed a necessary gospel doctrine. Those who do not believe in the true atonement of the Bible, which is Christ atoning for the sins of His people alone, do not believe the gospel. Now, your argument is as follows,

My argument is that one must believe that Christ paid the price for his sins. How he views the atonement as pertains to the rest of humanity is inconsequential.

Is this view Scriptural? If a person just believes that Christ paid the price for his sins, does it become true for him? Should we just immediately call this person a brother in Christ? Please consider the following Scripture, it is written,

“1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; 2 By which also ye are saved [i.e. regenerate], if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. 3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTURES” – 1Cor 15:1-3

I hope it is clear that this passage connects the “gospel” with the “atonement”. This I hope is evident to all. The apostle Paul preached the gospel, and when he did this he proclaimed how Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures (i.e. the atonement). When the apostle Paul preached the gospel, he was sure to preach about the cross of Christ, as the apostle Paul said earlier in this epistle,

“For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.” – 1Cor 1:17

Again, to “preach the gospel”, is to preach about the “cross of Christ”. The gospel and the atonement are inseparably connected.

Let’s examine more closely the above passage. In 1Cor 15:1 we read,

“Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand” – 1Cor 15:1

The apostle Paul is declaring that he had preached the gospel unto these Corinthians and that they had received it by faith through regeneration, as is evident from his following comments in the next verse,

“By which also [i.e. the gospel] ye are saved…” – 1Cor 15:2

God used the true gospel preaching of the apostle Paul to save (i.e. regenerate) those who were ordained to eternal life. Thus far, it is also evident from this passage that those who are saved (i.e. regenerate) believe the gospel. I have maintained throughout this debate that every regenerate person believes the gospel, and that those who do not believe the gospel are lost (2Cor 4:3).

Moving on, in the second half of verse 2 we read,

“By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.” – 1Cor 15:2

Those who do not keep in memory the truth of the gospel would be the ones considered to have believed in vain. Those who know the gospel (i.e. who keep it in memory), do not believe in vain, but believe to the saving of the soul (Heb 10:39). Those who keep the gospel in memory are those in whom the seed fell upon good ground (i.e. they were regenerated) (Mat 13:23), and they brought forth fruit. The others, who believed in vain, are the unregenerate, who are likened unto the ones that the apostle John writes of,

“They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.” – 1Jn 2:19

Lastly, we read about what the apostle Paul preached when he declared the gospel unto them,

“For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTURES” – 1Cor 15:1-3

The apostle Paul had delivered unto them something that he had also received through regeneration; namely, the knowledge of how Christ died for our sins “according to the Scriptures”. We see that the apostle Paul preached to them the gospel, by which they were saved (i.e. regenerated), and that something he specifically preached was the atonement “according to the Scriptures”. Do the Scriptures teach universal atonement? The correct answer is no. Now, from which Scriptures did the apostle Paul preach the true gospel atonement? Namely, from the Old Testament, as the apostle Paul made evident in the book of Romans,

“But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?” – Ro 10:16

The apostle Paul is saying that the prophet Isaiah preached the gospel and not all believed it. Where did Isaiah say, “Lord, who hath believed our report?” He said this in Isaiah 53:1. Let’s look at the gospel atonement according to the Scriptures in Isaiah chapter 53. I encourage the reader to read the entire chapter, but here are some specific verses I want to make evident,

“5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. 6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.” – Isa 53:5-6

“He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of MY PEOPLE was he stricken.” – Isa 53:8

“10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. 11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.” – Isa 53:10-11

What gospel atonement did the apostle Paul preach when he read Isaiah 53? There can only be one answer.

Lastly, one might wrongly object and say, “But where does it say that all regenerate people believe in particular atonement?” Again, it all goes back to the gospel and the truth of the atonement being inseparably connected. I will summarize it like this,

1. All regenerate individuals believe the gospel.
2. Particular atonement is a part of the gospel.
3. All regenerate individuals believe particular atonement.

Finally, one might wrongly object again and say, “But upon what basis is premise #1 assumed to be true?”

For that, I can only use the truth of Scripture. Either Scripture asserts it to be true, or it does not. Either the sheep hear His voice, or they follow a stranger? My position is that Scripture proclaims it to be the absolute truth. Please see the first set of Scripture references stated in my previous post (#21) that affirm premise #1.

In Isaiah chapter 53 the prophet Isaiah, through the Holy Spirit, declares the one and only atonement declared in the one and only gospel! Amen. Those who do not believe this gospel are lost (2Cor 4:3-4).

-jonas

 

[Jon_]

First, I would like to make this brief comment. You argue that it is not so much the “atonement” that is not a part of the gospel, but whether or not the limited or particular nature of the atonement is a part of the gospel. . . .

What I want you to establish is that the understanding, that is, knowledge, of the doctrine of the limited nature of the atonement is necessary to believe the Gospel. I should make my positive argument more clear, so I will do so now.

First, I will give the three terms frequently used in the New Testament to refer to Jesus' blessed act of purchasing our redemption with his blood.

The first is katallage, which is translated reconciliation (2 Co. 5:18, 19), atonement (Rm. 5:11), and reconciling (Rm. 11:15) in the Authorized Version of the Holy Bible. I will now give Strong's and Thayer's definitions.

G2643

καταλλαγή

katallagē

kat-al-lag-ay'

From G2644; exchange (figuratively adjustment), that is, restoration to (the divine) favor: - atonement, reconciliation (-ing).

G2643

καταλλαγή

katallagē

Thayer Definition:

1) exchange

1a) of the business of money changers, exchanging equivalent values

2) adjustment of a difference, reconciliation, restoration to favour

2a) in the NT of the restoration of the favour of God to sinners that repent and put their trust in the expiatory death of Christ

Part of Speech: noun feminine

A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: from G2644

Citing in TDNT: 1:258, 40

The clear meaning of katallage is the restoration to divine favor. This is what is meant in Rm. 5:11 when Paul says that we have received the atonement in Christ. It means that Christ has restored us to favor with God.

The second term is hilasmos, which is propitiation (1 Jn. 2:2; 4:10 AV).

G2434

ἱλασμός

hilasmos

hil-as-mos'

atonement, that is, (concretely) an expiator: - propitiation.

G2434

ἱλασμός

hilasmos

Thayer Definition:

1) an appeasing, propitiating

2) the means of appeasing, a propitiation

Part of Speech: noun masculine

A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: a root word

Citing in TDNT: 3:301, 362

This word clearly means that Christ has appeased the wrath of God through his sacrifice. That is, he has expiated for our sins.

The third term is hilasteron. This term is translated mercyseat (Heb. 9:5 AV) and propitiation (Rm. 3:25).

G2435

ἱλαστήριον

hilastērion

hil-as-tay'-ree-on

Neuter of a derivative of G2433; an expiatory (place or thing), that is, (concretely) an atoning victim, or (specifically) the lid of the Ark (in the Temple): - mercyseat, propitiation.

G2435

ἱλαστήριον

hilastērion

Thayer Definition:

1) relating to an appeasing or expiating, having placating or expiating force, expiatory; a means of appeasing or expiating, a propitiation

1a) used of the cover of the ark of the covenant in the Holy of Holies, which was sprinkled with the blood of the expiatory victim on the annual day of atonement (this rite signifying that the life of the people, the loss of which they had merited by their sins, was offered to God in the blood as the life of the victim, and that God by this ceremony was appeased and their sins expiated); hence the lid of expiation, the propitiatory

1b) an expiatory sacrifice

1c) a expiatory victim

Part of Speech: noun neuter

A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: from a derivative of G2433

Citing in TDNT: 3:318, 362

This word means essentially the same thing as hilasmos, but refers to the object which obtains expiation. Where hilasmos means the act of expiating, hilasteron mean the thing which obtains expiation, which of course, is Christ.

Now, keeping this in mind, let us turn to my primary proof text: 1 Co. 15:2, 3. I find it interesting that you cite this same exact passage, but I am not surprised, as your faulty interpretation of Scripture has obviously caused you misunderstand nearly every instance of Christ's work of redemption in relation to believers.

Now, you have emphasized "according to the scriptures" in capitals, but I don't think you really know what that clause means. You have cited Isaiah 53. Good! But you have failed to establish that believing only that the elect are saved is a necessary understanding to believe the Gospel. All Arminians believe that Jesus died for their sins. They also believe that Jesus died for the sins of all men.

The message that Paul is communicating is that in order to be saved, one must believe on Christ as his Savior. No one can be saved that does not think that Christ has atoned for his sins. Your fault is that you are reading doctrine into this message that is not present in the original. The scriptural message of the atonement is that Jesus has expiated for the sins of those who believe in him. Those who have faith believe that Christ has atoned for their sins. They must believe this because they must believe that they cannot merit their own salvation. They must believe that Christ's work is necessary for their salvation. This is what the biblical doctrine of the atonement is. The doctrine of limited atonement is a deduction of the doctrine of the atonement and the doctrine of election.

Now, since you have asserted that the atonement is the Gospel, you have no basis for making the argument that the particular nature of Christ's redemptive work is inherent in that, for you have excluded by inference the doctrine of election. It is impossible to infer that the atonement is limited without the doctrine of election because election is the sole basis for the argument that God has only chosen some for salvation.

If you revise your argument to include election, then you are faced with the entirely new problem of making the Bible say that election is the Gospel. No one will fall for this eisegetical inconsistency, though.

No, your argument has an even bigger problem: the Old Testament saints. Since the redemptive work of Christ was unknown to the Old Testament saints, it follows that none of them could be saved according to your interpretation of the Gospel. Since you have based your criteria for faith on knowing the redemptive work of Christ for the elect, you must maintain that none of the Old Testament saints were truly saved, for they knew nothing of the Person or work of Christ (which you have maintained are necessary, even verbatum). Thus, your argument proves much more than you would ever be willing to admit.

1. All regenerate individuals believe the gospel.
2. Particular atonement is a part of the gospel.
3. All regenerate individuals believe particular atonement.

Your minor term is precisely what is at issue, therefore, this argument begs the question.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[jonas3]

“Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand.” – Dan 12:10.

See post #23.

What I want you to establish is that the understanding, that is, knowledge, of the doctrine of the limited nature of the atonement is necessary to believe the Gospel.

“Have all the workers of iniquity no knowledge? who eat up my people as they eat bread, and call not upon the LORD.” – Ps 14:4

"22 How long, ye simple ones, will ye love simplicity? and the scorners delight in their scorning, and fools hate knowledge? 23 Turn you at my reproof: behold, I will pour out my spirit unto you, I will make known my words unto you." - Pro 1:22-23

“The lips of the righteous feed many: but fools die for want of wisdom.” – Pro 10:21

“Assemble yourselves and come; draw near together, ye that are escaped of the nations: they have no knowledge that set up the wood of their graven image, and pray unto a god that cannot save.” – Isa 45:20

“For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.” – Hos 6:6

“2 For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge. 3 For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God. 4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth” – Ro 10:2-4

“For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.” – 1Cor 1:18

“For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.” – 2Cor 4:6

“That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him:” – Eph 1:17

“10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: 12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. 13 But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth: 14 Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ." - 2Th 2:10-14

No, your argument has an even bigger problem: the Old Testament saints. Since the redemptive work of Christ was unknown to the Old Testament saints, it follows that none of them could be saved according to your interpretation of the Gospel. Since you have based your criteria for faith on knowing the redemptive work of Christ for the elect, you must maintain that none of the Old Testament saints were truly saved, for they knew nothing of the Person or work of Christ (which you have maintained are necessary, even verbatum). Thus, your argument proves much more than you would ever be willing to admit.

"Answer not a fool according to his folly..." - Pro 26:4

"And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." - Gen 3:15

"I [God] will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him." - Deut 18:18

“For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.” – Isa 9:6

“But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes WE are healed.” – Isa 53:5

“24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy. 25 Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.” – Dan 9:24-25

“67 And his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Ghost, and prophesied, saying, 68 Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed his people, 69 And hath raised up an horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David; 70 As he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the world began: 71 That we should be saved from our enemies, and from the hand of all that hate us; 72 To perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant; 73 The oath which he sware to our father Abraham, 74 That he would grant unto us, that we being delivered out of the hand of our enemies might serve him without fear, 75 In holiness and righteousness before him, all the days of our life. 76 And thou, child, shalt be called the prophet of the Highest: for thou shalt go before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways; 77 To give knowledge of salvation unto his people by the remission of their sins, 78 Through the tender mercy of our God; whereby the dayspring from on high hath visited us, 79 To give light to them that sit in darkness and in the shadow of death, to guide our feet into the way of peace. 80 And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, and was in the deserts till the day of his shewing unto Israel.” – Lk 1:67-80

“10 Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you: 11 Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.” – 1Pet 1:10-11

Amen. Those who do not believe the gospel are lost (2Cor 4:3-4).

-jonas

 

[JesusZone]

Wow. I have read the debate between your views Jon and jonas3. I have to give you both credits for doing research and defend on your believes. It's amazing that we educated ourselves and use that knowledge to go out and battle with our own brothers and sisters in Christ. So what the bigger deal if whose views are more precised. If we truely brothers and sisters in our LORD Jesus Christ, we have a job to do in this broken world. Our job is to spread the Good News of the Lord Jesus Christ. He is our role model. At the end when we die standing face to face with our Lord Jesus Christ, he will be our only judge. Jesus will ask us questions and we better be ready to answer him. What have you done in your life that I have invested in you? We are soul winner for Christ. We are his ambassadors and have a purpose in his kingdom. Our job is learn the Words, accepted, and spread it. That is it. So, I applaud for your knowledge of the Words brother Jon, and bring up this debate. You do make us think in our believe and test our faith. But, its that our main purpose in this world? You should use your knowledge to defend God as warrior for Christ and convert those unbeliever sceptics out there. We all have a purpose in this world. You notice that I don't have any qoutes of the scriptures or ancient text to back anything up. You know why? because I don't need to. I am a VERY simple man. All I need to know is the basics and I am saved, and no powers of this world can change the way I believe. Its funny that God got into the habbit of using a simple man. You don't have to reply my inquiry. You even find a few grammar errors here or there. So brother, I pray that you stay safe and be strong in the Lord.

In Christ,

JesusZone

 

[Jon_]

Since my opponent seems to have nothing more to offer than more spoof-texting, I will make my closing arguments, for I consider the issue closed.

While Arminians surely suffer under an unbiblical theology, which truly robs them of a full understanding of God's sovereign grace, nevertheless, they can yet be regenerate and properly called sons of God, for salvation is of the Lord and no other; and nothing, including bad theology, can separate Jesus Christ from his flock.

You will recall that my primary argument was simply the biblical definition of saving faith. This definition, as given by the divines of the Westminster Assembly, acknowledges the faith and fruits of the Arminian despite his misunderstandings of God's word. In the second article of the 14th chapter of the Confession, the divines comment, "By this faith, a Christian believeth to be true whatsoever is revealed in the Word, for the authority of God Himself speaking therein." Yet, this faith is imperfect in all men, and there are many points on which it may be in error concerning the Scriptures. And so, howbeit the manifestation of faith is known in the regenerate? To this the divines reply, "[The believer] acteth differently upon that which each particular passage thereof containeth; yielding obedience to the commands, trembling at the threatenings, and embracing the promises of God for this life, and that which is to come." Now, among the most pious and godly men and women I know are a number of Arminians. Their dedication to the works of the law of God is exemplary and their adherence to God's precepts is clear evidence of the sanctifying work of the Spirit in their lives. And truly do they tremble at the threatening of the words of God, even unto the place where they lack full assurance; but truly do they embrace the hope of promises to come to those justified in Christ. And most surely do they believe in salvation through Christ alone. The second article is concluded with these words, "But the principal acts of saving faith are accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life, by virtue of the covenant of grace." Every regenerate Christian believes this whole-heartedly, and in that statement I include any Arminian whosoever does as well. Those that are in Christ know their salvation is of Christ.

But what can be said of the erroneous theology to which Arminians ascribe? What can be said of their soteriology, so frail and weak in its grasp of the truth of the word, so lacking in its biblical support, so insulting to the sovereignty of God? Well, nothing more than human error arising from a sinful mind. Does the Arminian indeed base his arguments on any source but the word of God? No Arminian that I know does. No, they maintain their position is superior to that of the Calvinist, for, they argue, it more fully maintains the love of God and the responsibility of men. For these motivations, what fault may be found? But as well-intentioned as they are, they are quite wrong in their exegesis. However, does this amount to apostasy?

The divines expand on the nature of the faith of the regenerate in the third article of the 14th chapter, beginning with, "This faith is different in degrees, weak or strong." Now, we shall tread ever lightly hear, for the judgment of another man's faith is none our business; however, it suffices to say that faith in Christ Jesus is rooted in our knowledge and understanding of him. Without the knowledge of his Person, his works of redemption, his propitiation, mediatorial work, and an host of others, our faith would surely be ravaged by the world and the evil one, which constantly tempt us to depart from it. As the Apostle wrote to his beloved Timothy, it is the Scriptures that we read that the man of God may be perfected. Nevertheless, this perfecting of faith is in nowise for this world, and it is a blessing that we shall not attain on earth. Thus, the weakness of faith comes in varying degrees, even according to the sovereign plan of God, his children knowing less or more concerning his Son, even as he had predestined before the foundations of the earth were laid. But this is not to say that they are in anywise more or less saved than another, for the purposes and the calling of God to his children are irresistable according to his grace as administered by the Holy Spirit. Thus, this faith "may be often and many ways assailed, and weakened, but gets the victory; growing up in many to the attainment of a full assurance through Christ, who is both the author and finisher of our faith" (14:3).

Thus, the secondary form of my argument rests in this: Arminians are gloriously inconsistent in their theology, not knowing that their soteriology indeed concludes in a gospel of works, not knowing that they deny the depravity of man, not knowing that they teach a grace of God unknown to the Bible, not knowing that the sovereignty of God is omnipotent and immutable. Despite the fact that their soteriology cannot maintain it, they nevertheless sound that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. This they believe with their whole heart, indeed they can do no other, for their faith comes with regeneration, a gift of God and his sovereign work; he is not willing that they should believe in any other way. But their minds are still in part captive to sin and shackled to the wisdom of the world. They see a need to maintain the responsibility of man through such faulty doctrines as "free will." They maintain an anthropocentric view of God's sovereignty, one that is limited--thought limited by God's own will, they argue--in its efficacy. They cannot reasonable understand how a completely sovereign God can rightly stand as Judge over his creatures unless they were free to do otherwise. In this sense, their worldly knowledge is made known, but in the sense that they acknowledge Christ as Savior, their heavenly knowldge is made known. This we maintain, that Arminians are inconsistent in their theology, neither accepting the consequences of their arguments, nor denying the contradictory, i.e. that salvation is by the sovereign grace of God.

What then of this opposing view, this so-called, "Neo-Gnostic Calvinism"? Jonas himself has said that he does not call himself a Calvinist. Indeed, John Calvin maintained that those who err in soteriology can yet be regenerate. In this, at least Jonas is consistent with his own theology. He readily decries anyone that maintains Arminians can be saved as unregenerate heathen, myself included. I only caution him that his judgments will be cause for his own judgment.

Jonas's argument hinges on the informal fallacy of begging the question. The sum of his position that Arminians are unregenerate is based on the distortion of the biblical term, "Gospel." Jonas engages in revisionism as he attempts to incorporate the doctrine of limited atonement--which we heartily agree is biblical and correct--into the instances of "gospel" in the Scriptures. Moreover, he asserted, but did not show, that every instance of atonement, propitiation, or other such terms, necessarily imply that belief in their limited nature was necessary for salvation. We maintain that he has failed to substantiate this. Instead, his entire argument has been circular, with his notion of the doctrine of particular redemption--necessary in the conclusion--being fallaciously smuggled into his premises. He has maintained that the Bible teaches one must believe that Christ died only for the elect, but the biblical position is not this. We have shown that belief unto salvation must acknowledge the propitiation of the Father's wrath by the blood of the Son, but we repudiate the notion that the _extent_ of this gracious blessing must be comprehended in order for it to be individually applicable. We regard this as nonsense and a distortion of the Gospel.

What is more crippling to Jonas's argument, and that which I believe really closes the issue, is that his argument, if valid, proves that the Old Testament saints cannot have been saved. Neither the Person nor the work of Christ (this is the same phraseology used by my opponent) was known to those prior to him. If knowledge of this is necessary, then who before Christ can be saved? Jonas correctly repudiates the notion that the law can save. Indeed, Paul destroys this imagination in the third chapter of his epistle to the church in Rome. The law entered that the sin might abound, not that it might save. Christ alone is the Savior of his people. But the Old Testament saints knew nothing of Christ or of the Gospel. If they did not know that Christ died for the elect, then how could they be saved? If salvation comes by knowledge of the Gospel and the knowledge of the Gospel comes by knowing that Christ died only for the sins of the elect, then how can any Old Testament saint be saved? For they neither knew of Christ, nor of his atonement.

Therefore, we maintain that the error of Jonas's position is indeed great, and we exhort him to repentence and conversion from his false doctrine. This teaching is false and must be ceased immediately. This we affirm in the strong name of Christ, that he is the good shepherd and knows those that are his.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[jonas3]

I will now follow with my closing thoughts. My position is simply this; namely, that all regenerate individuals believe the gospel. The gospel, as stated in my first post, is God’s promise to save His people (Mat 1:21) conditioned on the atoning blood (Heb 9:12-14) and imputed righteousness of Christ alone (Rom 4:6-8). Those who do not believe the gospel are lost (i.e. unregenerate) according to 2Cor 4:3-4.

Christians judge by the gospel standard. If any man abides not in the doctrine of Christ, then a Christian will judge that person to not have God (1Jn 1:9).

“Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.” – Jn 7:24

Now, my opponent’s arguments flow only from the flesh because he does not judge righteous judgment (Jn 7:24), but rather according to appearance. He judges Arminians to be brothers in Christ because of their “good works” (i.e. their appearance). He judges them to be godly men and women because of their dedication to the works of the law of God. He justifies the wicked according to their “good works”, and it is written,

“He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are abomination to the LORD.” – Pro 17:15

My opponent justifies the wicked according to their form of godliness; therefore, he is an abomination to the Lord. He desires to speak peace to Arminians because he too conditions his salvation upon himself, which cannot be of grace, as it is written,

“And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.” – Ro 11:6

He argues that the Arminian gospel of works and unbiblical teachings on grace do NOT nullify their belief in salvation by grace, which is a total contradictory statement and a flat out lie; therefore, he is of his father the Devil. My hope and prayer for him in all sincerity is that he would be saved and become a brother, for I have nothing to lose by gaining more brothers.

Jon’s argument, which contradicts itself, is that despite the Arminian gospel of works their profession of salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone overrides their false gospel. In summary, their soteriology, which conditions salvation on the sinner, does not, in his view, contradict salvation conditioned on God’s grace. This is a blatant contradiction.

What is so interesting about his position is that this issue is one of the most condemned in the entire Bible. The Bible repeatedly declares that salvation conditioned upon works cannot be reconciled with salvation conditioned upon grace. It is written,

"4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. 5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. 6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, 7 Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. 8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin." - Ro 4:4-8

To the one who works for grace, it is no more of grace, but to the one who works not, but believes in the true Jesus Christ of the Bible, then blessed is this man to whom God imputes the righteousness of Christ without works. If a man conditions his salvation in anyway upon himself, then it is no more of grace, and if it ceases to be of grace, then it ceases to be salvation. This is one of the most plain and obvious facts declared throughout the entire Bible, which is salvation by grace totally apart from works.

Furthermore, he has asked me to prove that the limited or particular nature of the atonement is a part of the atonement; and thus, a part of the gospel. This I proved most definitely in post #23, and I encourage the reader to read the post.

Lastly, and more recently, I have been charged with the heresy of implying that none of the Old Testament saints were saved. My position is that only an unregenerate God-hater would make such a claim, and only an unregenerate God-hater would say that Old Testaments saints were saved by something other than the blood of Christ, such has through the works of the law. Let me now show the hypocrisy of my opponent. My opponent asserts that the Old Testament saints knew nothing of Christ (i.e. the Messiah) or of the gospel (i.e. God’s promise to save His people conditioned on the work of the Messiah), and then he proceeds to charge me with the heresy that I must believe that none of the Old Testament saints were saved since I maintain that all regenerate individuals believe the gospel. However, HE IS THE ONE that believes that the Old Testament saints knew nothing of Christ or of the gospel; and thus, HE IS THE ONE that believes that they were saved by something OTHER than the work of the Messiah. He is the one that denies that the saints believed the gospel in the Old Testament and had faith in Christ, since he states that none of them knew of the gospel or of Christ. God’s people in the Old Testament looked forward to the cross, and God’s people today look back to the cross; however, the work was finished from the foundation of the world, for Jesus Christ is, “…the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.” – Rev 13:8.

All of the Old Testament saints believed the same gospel that the New Testament saints believe. It is written,

“2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. 3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness." - Ro 4:2-3

What did Abraham believe?

“2 And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing: 3 And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed. All nations shall be blessed.” – Gen 12:2-3

“17 And the LORD said, Shall I hide from Abraham that thing which I do; 18 Seeing that Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him?” – Gen 18:17-18

Abraham believed God. God promised to bless (i.e. save) His people through the seed of Abraham, which is Christ.

“Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.” – Gal 3:16

So the GOSPEL, which is God’s promise to save His people conditioned on the atoning blood and imputed righteousness of the Christ alone, was preached unto Abraham. God promised to redeem His people through the seed of Abraham, and that in him would all nations (i.e. gentiles) be blessed through the righteousness of the Messiah, who was the seed of Abraham. Abraham had faith that God would save His people through the atoning blood and imputed righteousness of Christ (i.e. the Messiah), and those who have the SAME FAITH AS ABRAHAM are heirs according to the promise. It is written,

“7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. 8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen [i.e. gentiles] through faith, preached before the GOSPEL UNTO ABRAHAM, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. 9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.” – Gal 3:8-9

“And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise [i.e. good news].” – Gal 3:29

Amen.

-jonas

More spoof-texts:

“56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad. 57 Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? 58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.” – Jn 8:56-58

“13 For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, BUT through the righteousness of faith. 14 For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect: 15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression. 16 Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is OF THE FAITH OF ABRAHAM; who is the father of us all, 17 (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.” – Ro 4:13-17.

 

[Jon_]

He judges Arminians to be brothers in Christ because of their “good works” (i.e. their appearance).

(Mt. 7:18, 20 AV) A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. 20) Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
​

He argues that the Arminian gospel of works and unbiblical teachings on grace do NOT nullify their belief in salvation by grace. . . .

This is only part of my argument. The whole is that they are deceived and inconsistent in their teachings, for they acknowledge salvation by grace, but do not realize that "free will" contradicts this.

Jon’s argument, which contradicts itself . . .

I wish you would take a course on logic or critical thinking in addition to English. My argument isn't contradictory. It is that Arminians are contradictory, and that is their saving grace. They do not accept that salvation by grace and free will are incompatible.

. . . is that despite the Arminian gospel of works their profession of salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone overrides their false gospel.

I never said that their teaching was not sinful. I said that many have salvific faith despite their sinfulness.

In summary, their soteriology, which conditions salvation on the sinner, does not, in his view, contradict salvation conditioned on God’s grace. This is a blatant contradiction.

Yes, Arminian soteriology is contradictory. But nevertheless, they believe in salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone, and that is what is required to be redeemed. It is not required that one have no contradictions in their understanding of the word. If I were to interrogate you long enough, I could easily find at least a handful of positions in which you contradict yourself or the Bible. In fact, I have pointed out at least one (Old Testament saints).

Furthermore, he has asked me to prove that the limited or particular nature of the atonement is a part of the atonement; and thus, a part of the gospel. This I proved most definitely in post #23, and I encourage the reader to read the post.

No, I asked you to prove that knowledge of the limited or particular nature of the atonement is necessary to have a salvific understanding of the atonement. I have shown that it is not.

Lastly, and more recently, I have been charged with the heresy of implying that none of the Old Testament saints were saved. My position is that only an unregenerate God-hater would make such a claim, and only an unregenerate God-hater would say that Old Testaments saints were saved by something other than the blood of Christ, such has through the works of the law.

Now we see the irrationalism inherent in Jonas's position start to come out. He's against the ropes and reeling, so he starts spewing his venomous charges that I am an unregenerate God-hater. Clearly a violation of the forum rules, but what do I care? Jonas is a fool and I do not answer a fool according to his folly.

HE IS THE ONE that believes that they were saved by something OTHER than the work of the Messiah.

This is egregious and utterly false. Jonas is building a strawman here. I never said that the Old Testament saints were saved by something other than the work of the Messiah.

God’s people in the Old Testament looked forward to the cross, and God’s people today look back to the cross; however, the work was finished from the foundation of the world, for Jesus Christ is, “…the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.” – Rev 13:8.

This is, of course, impossible. The Old Testament saints could not have known anything of Christ's sacrifice because Jesus had not yet fulfilled the law and the prophets. Jonas commits yet another epistemological blunder. He asserts that it is possible to know that Christ died for one's sins before he did. He claims that the Old Testament saints knew Christ died on the cross for their sins, even though this is impossible. In the first place, the Old Testament did not provide sufficient revelation to know the Person and redemptive work of Christ, so they could not have known of this. In the second place, he begs the question by maintaining that one must know that Christ died only for the elect to be saved, so therefore, the Old Testament saints must have known this. But he has not established this. He merely asserts it and deigns to prove it.

Nevertheless, the saints in the Old Testament had salvific faith in Christ as their Redeemer. Their knowledge was incomplete, but their election was sure. They had faith in God as their Savior (Ps. 6:7), and acknowledged their sinfulness (Ps. 51:3), but they did not know Christ. Their faith was typological. They did not believe that works saved (Ps. 40:6), but that repentance was the work of the righteous (Ps. 51:17). And all this is the product of faith (Hab. 2:4). Their faith was a product of their regeneration, and Christ's sacrifice was the fulfillment of God's promise that their sins would be atoned for because they were unable to do so themselves.

All of the Old Testament saints believed the same gospel that the New Testament saints believe.

This is both impossible and inconsistent with the Scriptures. The Old Testament saints did not have identical knowledge and understanding of the work of Christ that we do.

Abraham believed God. God promised to bless (i.e. save) His people through the seed of Abraham, which is Christ.

So the GOSPEL, which is God’s promise to save His people conditioned on the atoning blood and imputed righteousness of the Christ alone, was preached unto Abraham.

Jonas begs the question yet again. He assumes that every instance of the term "gospel" necessarily means what he thinks it means, but he hasn't established this. Moreover, simply because Abraham knew this, it does not follow that everyone in the Old Testament did. This argument does not follow as he attempts to argue from a particular to a general.

God promised to redeem His people through the seed of Abraham, and that in him would all nations (i.e. gentiles) be blessed through the righteousness of the Messiah, who was the seed of Abraham. Abraham had faith that God would save His people through the atoning blood and imputed righteousness of Christ (i.e. the Messiah), and those who have the SAME FAITH AS ABRAHAM are heirs according to the promise.

It is written,

“7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. 8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen [i.e. gentiles] through faith, preached before the GOSPEL UNTO ABRAHAM, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. 9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.” – Gal 3:8-9

“And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise [i.e. good news].” – Gal 3:29

Jonas fallaciously affirms the consequent and begs the question yet again. He says that in order to be saved one must believe the gospel, which means that one must know Christ died only for the elect, and since Abraham was saved, he must have believed the gospel. This is a non sequitur fallacy. We also see him use his fallacious definition of the gospel again to prove it. His argument is nothing more than dirty rags.

What is not in question is whether Abraham had salvific faith. What is in question is the content of his faith. Did he have a full understanding of the Person and work of Jesus Christ? Indeed, he did not. In fact, we see precisely when Jesus Christ was identified as the Messiah in John's gospel (cf. 1:31-34, 36, 41, etc.).

Of course Galatians speaks of Abraham's faith and the promise made to him that he would be the father of many nations and that they all should be blessed through him. That is not at all what is in focus here. Instead, Jonas has made the untenable assertion that knowledge of Jesus Chirst and knowledge that Jesus Christ died only for the elect are necessary to be saved. According to these criteria, no Old Testament saint can be saved because none of them knew Jesus Christ.

But according to the biblical definition of faith, the Old Testament saints were surely saved.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[michaelmonfre]

I Want To Say That Believing In Limited Atonement Or Unlimimited Atonement Is Not A Test Of Orthodoxy To Be A Christian. The Calvinist Believes Christ Died For His Sheep Whereas The Arminian Believes Christ Died For The Whole World. Of Course Not All Are Saved And Of Course Universalism Is False. I Love The Logic Of The Calvinist System With The Tulip But I Feel It's Cold And Uncaring.

 

[Lawless]

hello

 

[Lawless]

hello

 

[oworm]

hello

 

[jlujan69]

What jonas seems to forget is that most who do repent and believe Christ died for them don't know anything else of doctrine. All they know is that they're sinners in need of forgiveness and are desirous of God's forgiveness and to receive Christ. Period. If full doctrinal knowledge (even of the fundamentals) is necessary for salvation, then it becomes works oriented. That is how Muslims hope to be saved---by advancing in personal knowledge of Islam. I dare say Christians are not Muslims. How many previously unregenerate people knew the doctrine of the Trinity before being saved and actually reading the Word? How many of these folks even heard of John Calvin and Jakob Arminius, let alone their teachings, before being saved? How many knew the difference between limited and unlimited atonement or TULIP before being saved? Does God dump a bunch of doctrine on the unbeliever and then expect that person to pick out the truth and be correct on all points before He'll save that person? Thanks be to God that He doesn't do that or else we'd all be in trouble. Jonas is expecting the potential believer to know the particulars of atonement before being saved. Even God doesn't expect that. If you're saved, you're saved. Knowledge will come gradually, and sadly, some of this will be wrong, and all of it imcomplete. Jonas is putting the cart before the horse in saying the "potential' believer automatically knows the correct form of atonement right off the bat.

 

[jonas3]

What jonas seems to forget...etc, etc

Please read,

The Christian Confession of Faith: http://www.outsidethecamp.org/ccfindex.htm

Gospel Atonement: http://www.outsidethecamp.org/gospatone.htm

Doctrinal Regeneration: http://www.outsidethecamp.org/doctregen.htm

Essential Gospel Doctrine: http://www.outsidethecamp.org/egd.htm

The Irrelevant Gospel: http://www.outsidethecamp.org/review52.htm

 

[jlujan69]

The "mark" of the true believer is one who desires to see souls saved (fulfill the Great Commission), not one-up another Christian in some theological argument or "win" debates with Atheists and Muslims or try to prove that someone with a differing theological stance is not really a believer. When I stand before God to have my works tested, and if He should ask me what I did for the Kingdom, I'd hate to have say, "Well Lord, I outscored my theological opponents in debates and questioned (and even "proved") that they're not really saved.....wait, isn't that one of my aforementioned theological opponents? What's he doing here, huh, Lord? No. I'd much rather answer, "Lord, You said to go into the world and spread the Good News, and while I didn't fulfill it as well as I could have, with the Helper with me, I told some about it and led a few in a prayer of repentence. That's what we're called to do, my friend.