Does God Hate the Reprobate?

[Skala]

"For God so loved the world that he GAVE his only son that whosoever believes in him shall not perish but have everlasting life."


It clearly says that whosoever believes will not perish. Obviously the belief here is in Christ so im not sure how you figure this passage has nothing to do with the atonement. In any case as I said before is it unreasonable to say that Christ did die for all but its only applicable if you believe?

I didn't say the verse had nothing to do with the atonement. I said the atonement wasn't mentioned in the verse. No where do the words atonement, cross, dying, death, sacrifice, etc appear in the verse. It only says that God gave his son (in what way, the verse itself doesn't say) with the intention of saving those that believe. With the information given, that is all a reader can conclude.

That being said, to answer your question, let me give you my perspective.

My answer is "yes", it is unreasonable to say that Christ died for all, but it's only applicable if you believe.

Why?

Because the Bible elsewhere teaches that our spiritual gifts (such as regeneration) are predicated on Christ's death and resurrection. It doesn't say that they are predicated on our belief.

Thus, for example, if Christ died for all people, and regeneration is predicated on his death, then that means all people will be regenerated.

Obviously, I believe faith is part of the spiritual realities that Christ secured for us by his death and resurrection. Thus I cannot say that Christ died and raised for all people, or else all people would be believers.

There are many verses I could bring up that demonstrate this, but here's the first one that comes to mind. Please read this passage carefully:

Rom 8:30-33
(30) And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.
(31) What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us?
(32) He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things?
(33) Who shall bring any charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies.

Paul's argument in verse 32 is that if God did not spare His own Son for us, then he would not also withhold all things from us. In other words it would make no sense for God to be willing to give us the thing with the Greatest value (Christ) but then not be willing to give us things with lower values. If He's willing to give Christ to us, he is also willing to give us everything else too.

If you are familiar with Paul's writings you know that Paul believes that faith is a gift from God and a spiritual fruit. If God gave Christ to die for a person, he also gives faith to that person. Therefore he couldn't have given Christ to die for all people, or then God would followup and give all people all things as well, including faith.

Hope that argument makes sense brother! It's hard to explain!

 

[Robs07M6S]

What did Christ's death accomplish?

The forgiveness of sins for those whom believe.

 

[iLogos]

The Greek word "kosmos", which is translated into English as "world", has around 10 definitions:

1 an apt and harmonious arrangement or constitution, order, government
2 ornament, decoration, adornment, i.e. the arrangement of the stars, 'the heavenly hosts', as the ornament of the heavens. 1 Pet. 3:
3 the world, the universe
4 the circle of the earth, the earth
5 the inhabitants of the earth, men, the human family
6 the ungodly multitude; the whole mass of men alienated from God, and 7 therefore hostile to the cause of Christ
8 world affairs, the aggregate of things earthly
9 the whole circle of earthly goods, endowments riches, advantages, pleasures, etc, which although hollow and frail and fleeting, stir desire, seduce from God and are obstacles to the cause of Christ
10 any aggregate or general collection of particulars of any sort
11 the Gentiles as contrasted to the Jews (Rom. 11:12 etc)
12 of believers only, John 1:29; 3:16; 3:17; 6:33; 12:47 1 Cor. 4:9; 2 Cor. 5:19

According to strong's concordance, definition #12 is used in John 3:16. (surely strong's concordance knows Greek better than you and I?)

Byron, can you tell me why you automatically assumed that John intended some other definition to be used? Namely a definition that is "Every single individual in the human race"?

It seems that most Christians don't even know (or care) that "kosmos/world" has so many definitions. They just automatically assume as gospel-truth that "kosmos" in this verse means "Every single individual in the human race"

For the sake of the argument, let's say John did intend to use that definition. It still wouldn't mean that God tries to save everyone. Notice what the verse says:

"For God so loved [every single person in the human race], He sent his Son, so that whoever believes would be saved"

The end result is the same. The intention of God's love, which caused him to send Christ, was to save believers only. Not every single person. He sent his Son to save believers, which is a smaller group removed from the larger group of the world.

That is a reasonable conclusion otherwise we would have universal salvation.

 

[Hammster]

The forgiveness of sins for those whom believe.

So then it is limited, right?

 

[Robs07M6S]

That is a reasonable conclusion otherwise we would have universal salvation.

How does Jesus dying for everyone have anything to do with universal salvation? The condition is that you believe before forgivness personally applies right?

I mean im sure you wouldnt argue that you were once an unbeliever and therefore lost right?

 

[Hammster]

How does Jesus dying for everyone have anything to do with universal salvation? The condition is that you believe before forgivness personally applies right?

I mean im sure you wouldnt argue that you were once an unbeliever and therefore lost right?

It depends on what you think His death accomplished. You might want to take a peek at the Propitiation thread.

 

[wandering misfit]

The blood on the alter sends an awfully strong picture to me. Is this act by our High Priest for those who believe? or for each and every person who's ever lived.

 

[iLogos]

How does Jesus dying for everyone have anything to do with universal salvation? The condition is that you believe before forgivness personally applies right?

I mean im sure you wouldnt argue that you were once an unbeliever and therefore lost right?

Because if he died for every one, he failed. His death was reduced to a wager instead of a sure thing, if by chance man should will to be saved (not all will be saved), instead of a act of Grace and Mercy to definitely be saved. Otherwise we enter a universal salvation argument. If Jesus died for the chosen (elect), He did not fail.

 

[Robs07M6S]

Because if he died for every one, he failed.

How so? so we have no responsibility to respond to the Gospel?

 

[faceofbear]

Does it matter? Does this doctrine teach you to love more or.to grow.in Faith and grace?

 

[iLogos]

How so? so we have no responsibility to respond to the Gospel?

I believe I already covered this.

 

[Hammster]

How so? so we have no responsibility to respond to the Gospel?

Yes, we do. But what does that have to do with the nature of the atonement?

 

[Robs07M6S]

I believe I already covered this.

No, not really.

 

[Robs07M6S]

Yes, we do. But what does that have to do with the nature of the atonement?

Im not sure, thats why im asking the questions that im asking.

 

[iLogos]

Im not sure, thats why im asking the questions that im asking.

Brother at this point I'm not sure what your asking and honestly if you even know what your asking.

 

[Hammster]

Im not sure, thats why im asking the questions that im asking.

The blood of Christ is propitious. In other words, it satisfies God's wrath against sinful man. If Christ died for all, then Christ's blood would have satisfied God's wrath against all men, and there would be no basis to send people to Hell. Even the sin of unbelief would have been atoned for.

Man, though, is still responsible to repent and believe. The reprobate won't. The elect wouldn't, if left on their own. But since God regenerates the elect, then they will repent and believe.

 

[Robs07M6S]

Brother at this point I'm not sure what your asking

Okay thats fine, then perhaps let someone else help.

and honestly if you even know what your asking.

Keep the personal insults to yourself, I know what im asking.

 

[Robs07M6S]

The blood of Christ is propitious. In other words, it satisfies God's wrath against sinful man. If Christ died for all, then Christ's blood would have satisfied God's wrath against all men, and there would be no basis to send people to Hell. Even the sin of unbelief would have been atoned for.

Man, though, is still responsible to repent and believe. The reprobate won't. The elect wouldn't, if left on their own. But since God regenerates the elect, then they will repent and believe.

Thanks, that is the sort of answer I was looking for and it gives me something to think about.

 

[Hupomone10]

Does it matter? Does this doctrine teach you to love more or.to grow.in Faith and grace?

Thank you!

 

[student ad x]

I read this a bit ago, really touched me to the core. Brethren His peace & blessings to y'all..................... & enjoy!

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=79971#post2937984