Scripture Proofs For Reformed People

[SoccerAaron]

Yeah.
I hate the phrase "Hate the sin, love the sinner".
Someone I know did a whole article on the issue. I might post it sometime.

 

[Reformationist]

Yesterday at 11:00 AM SoccerAaron said this in Post #21

Yeah.
I hate the phrase "Hate the sin, love the sinner".
Someone I know did a whole article on the issue. I might post it sometime.

Psalm 5:5
You hate all workers of iniquity.

I think that's pretty specific.  It doesn't say "You hat all works of iniquity."

God bless

 

[Andrew]

Maybe this will help:

Strong's Entry 2889

When you read this pay special attention to "Outline of Biblical Usage" #8b:Ê of believers only, John 1,29; 3:16; 3:17; 6:33; 12:47; 1 Cor 4:9; 2 Cor 5:19

So, According to Strongs Concordance the accepted use of the word "kosmos" in verses 3:16,17 means this:

John 3:16,17
For God so lovedÊbelievers onlyÊthat He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.Ê For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.

God does not love all people.Ê There are specific passages, not to mention the total illogic of believing that God loves the people in hell who go there because they're His enemy, that speak specifically of God HATING certain people.

God bless

well if that's true then not every human is a sinner.

Yeah.
I hate the phrase "Hate the sin, love the sinner".
Someone I know did a whole article on the issue. I might post it sometime.

So you hate the sinner too? Strange how God wld send his Son to die for sinners when he hates them.

 

[Andrew]

Romans 5:18 Then as one manÕs trespass led to condemnation for ALL men, so one manÕs act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for ALL men.

The 2 "ALL"s here are the same word.

So if limited atonement is true (ie ALL in the 2nd instance does not mean 'all' but 'some'), then limited condemnation must be true also (ie ALL in the 1st instance does not mean 'all' but 'some').

I take it then that hyper calvinists also believe that not all men have sinned.

more on the problems of Hyper Calvinism here:

http://www.biblehelp.org/sumsel.htm

http://www.biblehelp.org/whatsel.htm

 

[Reformationist]

Today at 12:08 AM Andrew said this in Post #23

So you hate the sinner too?

I think he meant that he dislikes the phrase because it inaccurately portrays the nature of God and it implies that God loves all sinners, which he does not.

Strange how God wld send his Son to die for sinners when he hates them.

What's strange about it?

 

[Reformationist]

Today at 12:17 AM Andrew said this in Post #24

Romans 5:18 Then as one manÕs trespass led to condemnation for ALL men, so one manÕs act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for ALL men.

The 2 "ALL"s here are the same word.

So if limited atonement is true (ie ALL in the 2nd instance does not mean 'all' but 'some'), then limited condemnation must be true also (ie ALL in the 1st instance does not mean 'all' but 'some').

Andrew, try using a little bit of discernment.  "Pas" does not just mean "all people."  "Pas" also means "some of all types."  I hope you don't think I'm twisting this to fit my purposes but it is completely logical to interpret that passage as the first "pas," i.e., "condemnation for every person" and the second "pas" as "life for all of His elect."  The point here is that the word "pas" is qualified in that very sentence.  Look at what it says:

Romans 5:18
Therefore, as through one man's offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man's righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life.

Now, from other Scripture we, as far as I know, are all in agreement that due to the sin of Adam man fell from grace and all men were condemned and destined to hell, right?  There is continuity between the judgment of "condemnation" and those who it applied to, "all men."  This is not the case for the second half of that verse.  It says that through the "righteous act" of Christ the free gift of justification life CAME to all men.  "Justification of life" is no small thing.  It doesn't mean God gave everyone the right to live a life.  It means that thanks to the righteous act of Christ man is declared free from guilt and is acceptable to God.  Not all men have been declared free from guilt and acceptable to God.  That means that "pas" in the latter half of that statement cannot mean "every person."  It just can't.  It is logically, grammatically, and biblically impossible.  To believe that "pas" means "every person" is to say that "all fell from grace and were condemned to die" and now "all have been reconciled to God every single person has been declared free from guilt and are acceptable to God."  That is just not true.  "Pas" in the latter half of that statement just cannot mean "every person."  If you still feel it does in light of what I've said here please explain how it can be so.

I take it then that hyper calvinists also believe that not all men have sinned.

I don't know for sure, being that I am not one, but what I have read about that stance is that they believe that all have sinned and additionally God works evil in the lives of those He has chosen for reprobation to keep them from coming to the truth. 

more on the problems of Hyper Calvinism here:

http://www.biblehelp.org/sumsel.htm

http://www.biblehelp.org/whatsel.htm

Why post these?  No one on this MB that I have seen claim to subscribe to the belief commonly called "hyper-Calvinism."

God bless

 

[Reformationist]

Today at 12:17 AM Andrew said this in Post #24

Romans 5:18 Then as one manÕs trespass led to condemnation for ALL men, so one manÕs act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for ALL men.

The 2 "ALL"s here are the same word.

Andrew, it's the same word used in this verse too:

Mark 1:5
The whole Judean countryside and all (pas) the people of Jerusalem went out to him. Confessing their sins, they were baptized by him in the Jordan River.

Do you think that means that all of Judea or all of Jerusalem were baptized by Christ in the Jordan?  If not, and I can't see how you could think it means "every person," how do you make the distinction here?  It's the same word.

Thanks,

God bless

 

[Andrew]

IÊhope you don't think I'mÊtwisting this to fit my purposes but it is completely logical to interpret that passage as the first "pas," i.e., "condemnation for everyÊperson" and the second "pas" as "life for all of His elect."

isnt that twisting scripture? The verse says condemnation FOR ALL MEN and justification FOR ALL MEN.

You then simply interpret "for all men" as "for every person" in the first instance
but then conveniently switch to "for all of His elect" in the second instance of "for all men".

Its the same phrase, same words but you just switch them around to fit your point.

all I'm saying is be consistent in your interpretation of "for all men". If you insist that the 2nd "all" means a special grp, then the 1st all must be a special grp also.

IOW not all men have sinned.

What abt the verse which says Jesus Christ came to save sinners?

1Ti 1:15 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.

Are you also going to interpret "sinners" here as "elect sinners"?

If every human is a sinner, as the majority of Christians believe, it wld mean Jesus came to die for all men. But this goes against your doctrine that Christ died only for the elect. so it wld mean you'd have to twist the meaning of sinners to "elect sinners only".

 

[Reformationist]

Today at 09:20 PM Andrew said this in Post #28 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=707302#post707302)

isnt that twisting scripture? The verse says condemnation FOR ALL MEN and justification FOR ALL MEN.

Andrew, did you even bother to read my last two posts?

Okay, let's try again. You believe that all men were condemned in the Fall, and I agree. You, however, also believe that all men were "justified" by the sacrifice of Christ, right? Okay, what does "justified" mean?

The Greek word is "dikaiosis." That word means, "the act of God declaring men free from guilt and acceptable to Him, abjuring to be right."

Is this honestly how you view all people's (pas anthropos) relationship with God? You believe that all people have been "declared by God to be free from guilt and acceptable to Him?"

You then simply interpret "for all men" as "for every person" in the first instance but then conveniently switch to "for all of His elect" in the second instance of "for all men".

Listen, I understand you disagree but let's forgo the sarcasm. I didn't "conveniently switch" the meaning. I was showing you how "pas" does not always mean all. If "pas" means all people in one instance and obviously not "all people" in another (Mark 1:5) how do you determine when it means "all people" and when it means otherwise? My point is this, if the same word, "pas," is used in both instances then, for us to determine the proper usage of the word, we must utilize the context. All people fell in the Fall, we agree on that. Have "all people" been "declared by God to be free from guilt and acceptable to Him?" The only way that the second "pas" can mean "all people" is if all people have been "declared by God to be free from guilt and acceptable to Him." If that is not the case then the second "pas" cannot be referring to "all people." Additionally, I showed you, from a reputable source not of my own mind, that the word "pas" can also mean "some of all types." So, I ask you, how do you come to the conclusion that "pas," in light of the fact that not all men are justified unto life (salvation), has to mean "all people" in the second instance, or for that matter, in light of the verse I posted that refuted the concept that "pas" always means "all people" (Mark 1:5), how do you come to the conclusion that "pas" has to mean "all people" in both cases?

Its the same phrase, same words but you just switch them around to fit your point.

I find you to be an intelligent and well spoken person. I do not think this type of spiteful remark does you a service.

all I'm saying is be consistent in your interpretation of "for all men". If you insist that the 2nd "all" means a special grp, then the 1st all must be a special grp also.

Hopefully I have addressed this adequately this time.

What abt the verse which says Jesus Christ came to save sinners?

1Ti 1:15 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.

Are you also going to interpret "sinners" here as "elect sinners"?

Well it seems to me that you have interpreted "sinners" to mean "all sinners" so it would appear that you believe Christ Jesus came to accomplish the salvation of "all sinners" and He failed. You see, you cannot have it both ways. If you say that "sinners" is a reference to "all those who have sinned," which is everyone, then you must acknowledge that Christ did not accomplish the divine purpose for which He was sent. I believe that Christ came to save all those He had purposed to save, His elect, and not only does He accomplish their salvation with His blood, He preserves it. Which of those do you think paints a picture that accurately reflects the efficacy of God in His divine purpose. Your assertation makes Him a failure, mine makes Him God.

If every human is a sinner, as the majority of Christians believe, it wld mean Jesus came to die for all men. But this goes against your doctrine that Christ died only for the elect. so it wld mean you'd have to twist the meaning of sinners to "elect sinners only".

Again, if you disagree with me then post your opinion, with support, and we can have a mature conversation where two brothers in Christ seek to glorify Him by increasing our knowledge and understanding of His Word. There is no need to make accusations.

God bless

 

[Andrew]

Okay, let's try again. You believe that all men were condemned in the Fall, and I agree. You, however, also believe that all men were "justified" by the sacrifice of Christ, right?.......
Have "all people" been "declared by God to be free from guilt and acceptable to Him?" The only way that the second "pas" can mean "all people" is if all people have been "declared by God to be free from guilt and acceptable to Him." If that is not the case then the second "pas" cannot be referring to "all people."

Thats where you missed it. The verse is not saying that every human is automatically saved after Christ died for all. Salvation is simply offered to all. One must still believe and receive. that's why its called the free gift.

Well it seems to me that you have interpreted "sinners" to mean "all sinners"

If you believe all men are sinners as the Bible says, then if the Bible says Jesus came to save sinners, then it wld mean that he died for all. It doesnt get any simpler than that and if you cant eve see this, then there is no point going on. And I've already given you clear-cut scriptures.

it would appear that you believe Christ Jesus came to accomplish the salvation of "all sinners" and He failed.

that's the problem with hyper-cal. They somehow have the odd notion that Christ came to force everyone to be saved. that's nonsense. He died for all, that all might be saved. that's why its called a free-gift -- implying that one must still receive it by faith. so we believe that Jesus accomplished what he set out to do ie. die on the cross as perfect man for the sins of the world. and we know he succeeded becos God raised him from the dead.

and here's one more thing you might one to consider:

18 So, then, as through one offence to all men it is to condemnation, so also through one declaration of ÔRighteousÕ it is to all men to justification of life;

the phrase "so also" means "in the same way". So how can the 2nd clause be "in the same way" as the first if one means "all" while the other means "some". Again, it shows the lack of consistency in your interpretation.

this will be my final post here.

 

[Reformationist]

Today at 12:30 AM Andrew said this in Post #30

Salvation is simply offered to all.

I here this, probably, more than any other statement on this MB.  Please share with me where it says that "salvation is simply offered" and please explain how a spiritually dead person, who is unrighteous, can make the most righteous, spiritually significant decision in their life.  Additionally, please explain how "deciding to be saved" doesn't make your salvation come by your works since "deciding to be saved" is a work that you would do.

One must still believe and receive.

So simply "believe and receive" to be saved, huh?  What does that mean, "believe and receive?"

that's why its called the free gift.

You should look up what the word "free" means.  If you have to do something to get the gift, then it's not free.  It's contingent on you doing something.  If you want to find out if something is "free" ask yourself if you would get the gift without doing the action.  If not, then the payment for the gift is your action and therefore the "gift" is not free.

If you believe all men are sinners as the Bible says, then if the Bible says Jesus came to save sinners, then it wld mean that he died for all. It doesnt get any simpler than that and if you cant eve see this, then there is no point going on. And I've already given you clear-cut scriptures.

I see that you skirted my question so I'll ask it again.  If you believe that Scripture says that the purpose for which Christ was sent was to save "sinners" and you interpret this as "all people" then please explain how this doesn't mean Christ did not accomplish the purpose for which He was sent.

that's the problem with hyper-cal.

Please stop referring to me as "hyper-cal."  You show your ignorance of the meaning of the term.

He died for all, that all might be saved.

So you think Jesus' death provided a possible salvation but not actual salvation for any person.  Sounds like you're saying that Jesus is the "potential" Savior of all, but the "actual" Savior of none?

that's why its called a free-gift -- implying that one must still receive it by faith.

Andrew, if you have to do something to receive a gift then it isn't free.  Why do you keep disregarding that fact?

so we believe that Jesus accomplished what he set out to do ie. die on the cross as perfect man for the sins of the world. and we know he succeeded becos God raised him from the dead.

So your specific salvation was not Christ's goal?  Do you understand that means that you're saying God's greatest desire was just for you to have the "opportunity" to be saved but not your actual salvation? 

and here's one more thing you might one to consider:

18 So, then, as through one offence to all men it is to condemnation, so also through one declaration of ÔRighteousÕ it is to all men to justification of life;

the phrase "so also" means "in the same way". So how can the 2nd clause be "in the same way" as the first if one means "all" while the other means "some".

"In the same way" does not mean with the same result.  Deny grammer if you wish Andrew but you cannot deny these simple facts:

Adam's transgression did result in the Fall of all mankind.  Christ's sacrifice did not result in the salvation of all mankind.  If "in the same way" means the same thing then they would have the same result.  "In the same way" means that both the Fall of mankind and the restoration of those who are restored was accomplished in the same manner, i.e., through the disobedience/obedience (works) of one man.

Again, it shows the lack of consistency in your interpretation.

this will be my final post here.

   What this does is show your prideful unwillingness to consider Scripture because you feel you must maintain your interpretation at all costs.  I don't expect you to agree with my beliefs.  But, if you wish to understand Scripture you are going to have to get out of the mode that whatever you believe now has to be the Truth.  I believe what I believe, just like you.  But if I don't take the time to, at least, consider other points of view then all I am doing is placing my faith in my Pastor's, or my own, interpretation of Scripture as the final authority.  Have you ever considered the possibility that you may be wrong?  I know that I have.

I hope that you will reconsider continuing.  I think that we can have a meaningful discussion if we each consider the other's points.

God bless,

Don