Does God Need Your Permission in Order to Save You?

[Hammster]

It really gets down to splitting hairs. It's just an argument about the meaning of words, which is not really productive.

It really comes down to the fact that your view is inconsistent. You can’t say that He atoned for everyone’s sins, but still say that He hasn’t. You need to work that out.

 

[Hammster]

Could you identify the post # since I obviously didn't see anything of the sort.

If you are referring to your "explanation" of 1 John 2:2, I already explained why it failed.

Unless you can show in context that "all", "whole world", etc, cannot mean all of humanity, you have no support for your theory at all.

And there's nothing in the context of 1 John 2:2 that forces "whole world" to mean less than all of humanity.

Like I said, I can’t make you believe it.

 

[renniks]

It really comes down to the fact that your view is inconsistent. You can’t say that He atoned for everyone’s sins, but still say that He hasn’t. You need to work that out.

No I don't. I'm perfectly comfortable with leaving some things in the realm of mystery. Just not the nature of God.

 

[Hammster]

No I don't. I'm perfectly comfortable with leaving some things in the realm of mystery. Just not the nature of God.

Since you can’t be sure about the nature of the atonement, you should stop making contradictory claims.

 

[renniks]

Since you can’t be sure about the nature of the atonement, you should stop making contradictory claims.

I am sure. It's for all. That's all that matters.

 

[Hammster]

I am sure. It's for all. That's all that matters.

Well, you mean all except those who have the sin of unbelief. Not those folks, right?

 

[FreeGrace2]

Like I said, I can’t make you believe it.

Like I said, you haven't supported your view.

I only believe claims that can be shown from Scripture.

 

[renniks]

Well, you mean all except those who have the sin of unbelief. Not those folks, right?

It's for all. You don't " have" a sin. You commit a sin. All can choose to believe.

 

[Hammster]

It's for all. You don't " have" a sin. You commit a sin. All can choose to believe.

I’m trying to get specific. This is like nailing jello to a wall.

In Romans and 1 John, Christ is called a propitiation. This means God’s wrath is satisfied against sin. You don’t think this is every single sin, though, correct?

 

[renniks]

I’m trying to get specific. This is like nailing jello to a wall.

In Romans and 1 John, Christ is called a propitiation. This means God’s wrath is satisfied against sin. You don’t think this is every single sin, though, correct?

Yes I do. But God can't let people into glory who still hate him. The sin is atoned for, but the condition for applying that atonement is repentance.

 

[bling]

Biblical faith is a spiritual matter, not a natural matter. Believers in Christ are exercising a spiritual faith from their spirit, which is different than natural faith which anyone can do or not do. James makes that distinction in his epistle. In 1 Cor. 2 Paul makes the distinction between natural understanding and spiritual understanding concerning the gospel. So, if a person is dead spiritually as Paul describes in Eph. 2, such a person could possibly claim to believe in Christ. But since they "have no root in them," their "faith" disappears, and they are "unfruitful." Just because a person parrots the phrase "Jesus is Lord" doesn't automatically mean they have the Holy Spirit indwelling in them. Jesus spoke of those who call Him Lord that He will reject in the end.

I am not talking about “understanding”, but a trusting (faith). James is addressing Christians, while we are talking about non-Christians.

James 2:19 You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.

James goes on to talk about a useless faith being one that does not “do” good deeds, but James did not say they had “no faith”, but the faith they had was worthless, because they did not act on it.

Again, a Spiritual dead person by Christ’s definition of “dead” which Paul’s description does not contradict, can be willing to accept pure Charity for selfish reasons. The prodigal son brought no fruit to the father, like the unbelieving sinner brings no fruit.

Again! I am not talking about Christians (those with the indwelling Holy Spirit), but nonbelieving sinners and what they can do, so he cannot say: “Jesus is Lord”.

The only thing you personally bring to your relationship with God is your faith (belief), which you can say God gave you along with all other mature adults, as a potential saving faith if anyone directs it correctly toward God. John 6: 29 Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.” How is that really work? (by the Biblical definition of “work”)

So then, how can a spiritually dead person and one who doesn't understand the spiritual nature of their relationship with God, direct faith toward Christ? A person has to be first made spiritual and given understanding from above in order to do such a thing.

No, they do not have to be made “spiritual”. Demons can believe. All they have to do is what demons do already (believe there is a benevolent Creator represented by Christ).

The unbelieving sinner can't humble himself before God, because he doesn't know enough to believe in Christ for the free gift of salvation. This is laid out in 1 Cor. 2. If he mimics humility by getting on his knees, he is trying to present his own righteousness to God as an appeasement of God's wrath. So, selfish reasons don't cut the mustard.

“Mimics humility” all people are made humble at some point in their life: Isaiah 2:12 The Lord Almighty has a day in store for all the proud and lofty, for all that is exalted (and they will be humbled),

Matthew 23:12 For those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.

Again, he is not coming expecting or maybe even desiring eternal life, but he has a burden (at least for a while) in his conscience from hurting others in the past. He might have tried to relieve that burden all kinds of ways, but only God can relieve his burden, so he seeks God’s undeserving help.

The prodigal son was motivated by selfish reasoning to turn to his father and that is the reason many turn to God (selfishly wanting undeserving conscience relief from their sins).

You missed the point. The parable is not the spiritual truth, but rather points to it. And besides that, the prodigal's low place did not bring him to his senses, and the text doesn't say that. It says "he came to his senses." It means he had to have some wisdom and hope beyond his low place. Case in point is all the homeless bums drinking themselves to death, it does not bring them to their senses. When a sinner looks up, there is something beyond himself and his circumstances that motivate him to look up. So, does the promise of God by itself motivate a person to hope in Christ? No, because people hear it everywhere and don't turn to Christ. Rather, it takes an act of God to motivate a person to hope in Christ, and that's called regeneration.

Are you saying Christ was miss leading us about the Kingdom?

Every mature adult at sometime in their life gets themselves in trouble, winding up where they do not want to be. They have a personal free will choice to be macho, hang in there, pay the piper, take the punishment they fully deserve or wimp out, give up and surrender, willing to accept pure charity.

Have you not seen tragedies bring people to their senses? God did not send out servants to bring his son to his senses, it was internal.

Your statement is self-contradictory, because for one to "humbly accept God's pure charity," they must first believe in it.

Demons believe. Faith without works is not a saving faith, but it is still faith. Charity=Love, so you do have to believe God can be Loving, but that does not mean you love or even like God.

"Kidnap" is a straw man, because when the Father gives those He has chosen to Christ, He changes their hearts to be willing to come. So, it's not a kidnapping, but a conversion.
TD

God chose everyone at the banquet, but not everyone accepted His invitation (calling) to the banquet, so I agree it is not a kidnapping and the banquet parables do not describe only certain people being selected to go even if they did not want to go (that would be a kidnapping).

 

[Hammster]

Yes I do. But God can't let people into glory who still hate him. The sin is atoned for, but the condition for applying that atonement is repentance.

A sin that NEVER ends CANNOT be atoned for "once for all" since it has no ending point. How could CHRIST make final payment for a sin that doesn't finally end?

Can you see why I’m not able to understand your position? On one hand, it looks like you say all sins are atoned for. Then on the other, there’s one sin that’s not atoned for.

 

[renniks]

Can you see why I’m not able to understand your position? On one hand, it looks like you say all sins are atoned for. Then on the other, there’s one sin that’s not atoned for.

Not as long as it's still being committed. Atonement can't be applied to the person who still doesn't submit. How is that hard to understand?

 

[Hammster]

Not as long as it's still being committed. Atonement can't be applied to the person who still doesn't submit. How is that hard to understand?

It’s not. However, that means not all sin is atoned for. How hard is that to understand?

 

[renniks]

It’s not. However, that means not all sin is atoned for. How hard is that to understand?

No, it is atoned for but not unconditionally.

 

[Hammster]

No, it is atoned for but not unconditionally.

You said it couldn’t be. Now you say it can be.

I give up.

 

[renniks]

You said it couldn’t be. Now you say it can be.

I give up.

I guess you have never heard of conditional Atonement? Perhaps I'm using the wrong words, but the meaning is the same.

"The terms unlimited, universal, and general are somewhat of a misnomer and have been adopted primarily to distinguish this doctrine from a Calvinist understanding of limited atonement. More accurately, the call of the Gospel is universal and there are no limits on who can believe through faith, but the legal payment is still regarded as limited only to those that respond through faith in Jesus. Thus, it is not the same as the doctrine of universal salvation, which holds that all souls will ultimately be reconciled to God, irrespective of faith.

The following statements regarding what it states and what it does not state are subject to close scrutiny of which many distinguished theologians on both sides of this issue disagree.

What it states
The purpose of the atonement was universal—Jesus died on behalf of all people, not just the elect.
The atonement makes a way for all to respond to the Gospel call—Part of the effect of the atonement is the restoration of the ability to respond to God's call of salvation (see Prevenient grace).
Salvation is available for all—The doctrine of unlimited atonement rejects the predeterminism associated with Calvinism and states that every human has the opportunity to accept Jesus through faith.
The atonement legally pays for the sins of those who believe on Jesus—Only those who believe on Jesus are forgiven—only the believers' sins are paid
What it does not state
Jesus paid the penalty for those who deny faith in Him, and His death was a substitutionary atonement for those who deny Him—Though the term unlimited atonement can easily give the incorrect assumption that Jesus' payment encompassed all people, unlimited atonement maintains a limit on the legal effect. Jesus' death was indeed an offer of a substitutionary atonement to all, but this offer was resistible; though salvation is offered to all, not all are saved.

 

[Hammster]

I guess you have never heard of conditional Atonement? Perhaps I'm using the wrong words, but the meaning is the same.

"The terms unlimited, universal, and general are somewhat of a misnomer and have been adopted primarily to distinguish this doctrine from a Calvinist understanding of limited atonement. More accurately, the call of the Gospel is universal and there are no limits on who can believe through faith, but the legal payment is still regarded as limited only to those that respond through faith in Jesus. Thus, it is not the same as the doctrine of universal salvation, which holds that all souls will ultimately be reconciled to God, irrespective of faith.

The following statements regarding what it states and what it does not state are subject to close scrutiny of which many distinguished theologians on both sides of this issue disagree.

What it states
The purpose of the atonement was universal—Jesus died on behalf of all people, not just the elect.
The atonement makes a way for all to respond to the Gospel call—Part of the effect of the atonement is the restoration of the ability to respond to God's call of salvation (see Prevenient grace).
Salvation is available for all—The doctrine of unlimited atonement rejects the predeterminism associated with Calvinism and states that every human has the opportunity to accept Jesus through faith.
The atonement legally pays for the sins of those who believe on Jesus—Only those who believe on Jesus are forgiven—only the believers' sins are paid
What it does not state
Jesus paid the penalty for those who deny faith in Him, and His death was a substitutionary atonement for those who deny Him—Though the term unlimited atonement can easily give the incorrect assumption that Jesus' payment encompassed all people, unlimited atonement maintains a limit on the legal effect. Jesus' death was indeed an offer of a substitutionary atonement to all, but this offer was resistible; though salvation is offered to all, not all are saved.

Thanks for that. In regards to sin, though...what effect does the atonement have on sin? It says Jesus paid the penalty. Does that mean that sin is no longer counted against anyone?

 

[tdidymas]

tdidymas said: ↑
Biblical faith is a spiritual matter, not a natural matter. Believers in Christ are exercising a spiritual faith from their spirit, which is different than natural faith which anyone can do or not do. James makes that distinction in his epistle. In 1 Cor. 2 Paul makes the distinction between natural understanding and spiritual understanding concerning the gospel. So, if a person is dead spiritually as Paul describes in Eph. 2, such a person could possibly claim to believe in Christ. But since they "have no root in them," their "faith" disappears, and they are "unfruitful." Just because a person parrots the phrase "Jesus is Lord" doesn't automatically mean they have the Holy Spirit indwelling in them. Jesus spoke of those who call Him Lord that He will reject in the end.

Bling said:
I am not talking about “understanding”, but a trusting (faith). James is addressing Christians, while we are talking about non-Christians.

James 2:19 You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.

James goes on to talk about a useless faith being one that does not “do” good deeds, but James did not say they had “no faith”, but the faith they had was worthless, because they did not act on it.

Faith requires understanding, unless you're talking about "blind faith" which is nothing more than gullibility. It appears to me that you are confused about the definition of faith, and the distinction that James is teaching between kinds of faith. There are two kinds, the natural and the spiritual. Both require some understanding of what one believes in.

So, "even demons believe, and they tremble" means that demons cannot be saved, therefore they cannot have saving faith. In the same way, one who claims to believe but doesn't obey Christ doesn't have saving faith. But the faith that saves shows spiritual fruit, because the one who has it has been made spiritual by God. Believing in Christ is an act of God, and we should give Him the credit for giving us that free gift.

Bling said:
Again, a Spiritual dead person by Christ’s definition of “dead” which Paul’s description does not contradict, can be willing to accept pure Charity for selfish reasons. The prodigal son brought no fruit to the father, like the unbelieving sinner brings no fruit.

People are naturally willing to accept common grace, since it feels good. But special grace requires spiritual wisdom, because it comes with tribulation, and is why it is necessary that God be working it in us.

Bling said:
Again! I am not talking about Christians (those with the indwelling Holy Spirit), but nonbelieving sinners and what they can do, so he cannot say: “Jesus is Lord”.

They do it all the time, since Jesus said "not everyone who calls Me 'Lord' will enter the kingdom of heaven."

Bling said:
The only thing you personally bring to your relationship with God is your faith (belief), which you can say God gave you along with all other mature adults, as a potential saving faith if anyone directs it correctly toward God. John 6: 29 Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.” How is that really work? (by the Biblical definition of “work”)

It's God's work, and why it's not ours, it's a free gift. But when you examine the process of how a person gets there, it's more work than the average individual is willing to bear. It takes knowledge, experience, wisdom, courage, determination, endurance, sincerity, and probably a number of other virtues that people don't naturally have. When you believe what the scripture says about it, all that development of one's faith is the work of God in individuals, and so when a person comes to believe, it is the free gift of God. It may happen in an instant, or over some time, but it's still "the work of God."

tdidymas said: ↑
So then, how can a spiritually dead person and one who doesn't understand the spiritual nature of their relationship with God, direct faith toward Christ? A person has to be first made spiritual and given understanding from above in order to do such a thing.

Bling said:
No, they do not have to be made “spiritual”. Demons can believe. All they have to do is what demons do already (believe there is a benevolent Creator represented by Christ).

The belief of demons is based on knowledge, not wisdom. The wisdom to trust Christ for deliverance comes from above, not from human reasoning. "Spiritual" in the sense that Paul is using it doesn't mean awareness of the spiritual realm, but means proper relationship with God.

tdidymas said: ↑
The unbelieving sinner can't humble himself before God, because he doesn't know enough to believe in Christ for the free gift of salvation. This is laid out in 1 Cor. 2. If he mimics humility by getting on his knees, he is trying to present his own righteousness to God as an appeasement of God's wrath. So, selfish reasons don't cut the mustard.

Bling said:
“Mimics humility” all people are made humble at some point in their life: Isaiah 2:12 The Lord Almighty has a day in store for all the proud and lofty, for all that is exalted (and they will be humbled),

Matthew 23:12 For those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.

That day is the day of judgment, and that's a future day. "Broad is the road that leads to destruction and many there be that find it."

Bling said:
Again, he is not coming expecting or maybe even desiring eternal life, but he has a burden (at least for a while) in his conscience from hurting others in the past. He might have tried to relieve that burden all kinds of ways, but only God can relieve his burden, so he seeks God’s undeserving help.

The prodigal son was motivated by selfish reasoning to turn to his father and that is the reason many turn to God (selfishly wanting undeserving conscience relief from their sins).

If people have gotten this far, then God has given some wisdom by common grace. But it does not mean that such people are born again. According to the parables of Christ, many will appear to be His disciples, but aren't in the book of life.

tdidymas said: ↑
You missed the point. The parable is not the spiritual truth, but rather points to it. And besides that, the prodigal's low place did not bring him to his senses, and the text doesn't say that. It says "he came to his senses." It means he had to have some wisdom and hope beyond his low place. Case in point is all the homeless bums drinking themselves to death, it does not bring them to their senses. When a sinner looks up, there is something beyond himself and his circumstances that motivate him to look up. So, does the promise of God by itself motivate a person to hope in Christ? No, because people hear it everywhere and don't turn to Christ. Rather, it takes an act of God to motivate a person to hope in Christ, and that's called regeneration.

Bling said:
Are you saying Christ was miss leading us about the Kingdom?

Every mature adult at sometime in their life gets themselves in trouble, winding up where they do not want to be. They have a personal free will choice to be macho, hang in there, pay the piper, take the punishment they fully deserve or wimp out, give up and surrender, willing to accept pure charity.

Have you not seen tragedies bring people to their senses? God did not send out servants to bring his son to his senses, it was internal.

Are you trying to mislead people about what I am saying? Because you don't show any scripture where you are coming from with your question, so apparently you're just coming from speculation.

911 brought a lot of people "to their senses" about the precarious nature of life, but it was not long lasted.

tdidymas said: ↑
Your statement is self-contradictory, because for one to "humbly accept God's pure charity," they must first believe in it.

Bling said:
Demons believe. Faith without works is not a saving faith, but it is still faith. Charity=Love, so you do have to believe God can be Loving, but that does not mean you love or even like God.

Your definition of faith is convoluted. You talk of "faith" and "saving faith," and yet you assume it is the same in the first part of your response. No, there are 2 kinds of faith, the worldly kind and the heavenly kind. It is just like the 2 kinds of wisdom that James talks about. Saving faith is one of the spirit, and since the unbeliever is spiritually dead in sin, he cannot exercise this kind of faith. It takes one spiritually alive to exercise this faith.

Jhn 10:26 "but you do not believe because you are not my sheep." Notice that it does NOT say "you are not my sheep because you don't believe." He says "you do not believe because you are not my sheep." Cause and effect. The cause of believing is to be a sheep of Christ, and this means regeneration comes before faith.

tdidymas said: ↑
"Kidnap" is a straw man, because when the Father gives those He has chosen to Christ, He changes their hearts to be willing to come. So, it's not a kidnapping, but a conversion.

Bling said:
God chose everyone at the banquet, but not everyone accepted His invitation (calling) to the banquet, so I agree it is not a kidnapping and the banquet parables do not describe only certain people being selected to go even if they did not want to go (that would be a kidnapping).

Your language is unclear. The master invited many, but did not choose them all. Only those accepting the invitation were chosen for it. Many are called, but few are chosen. And the point is, that God has to change the disposition of the heart of individuals for them to be willing to come, otherwise they would not come, according to John 6:44.
TD

 

[FreeGrace2]

Thanks for that. In regards to sin, though...what effect does the atonement have on sin? It says Jesus paid the penalty. Does that mean that sin is no longer counted against anyone?

I'm aware that you are ignoring my posts, which I take to mean you don't want to have to answer my questions or defend your own position.

But aside from that, your last sentence, a question is answered with YES!!!

Which goes to the point I challenged you with regarding why people will be cast into hell. You had posted that people go to hell for their sins.

Well, consider what Paul wrote:

2 Cor 5:19 that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting people’s sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation.

So, yep. Sin is no longer counted against anyone. Paul said so. I believe Paul.

Notice also who "God was reconciling to Himself in Christ". The world. So, can you show the thread FROM THE CONTEXT that "the world" ONLY refers to saved people, or as Calvinists would say, "the elect"?