Sufficient vs Necessary

[cygnusx1]

#1 yes, they all do
#2 yes, they all do
#3 no, no one is "destined" to argue error. In fact, no one has an excuse for arguing error.

However, to get back on track, the ONLY reason for anyone to ask "everyone of which group?" regarding Heb 2:9 is because that person already doesn't believe that Christ died for everyone. The ONLY reason.

At least the question recognizes that the writer did mean "everyone".

Is there a verse that actually tells us that Christ didn't die for everyone, or ONLY for some/etc?

If not, why would anyone believe that?

And why do you suppose anyone would come to the conclusion that Christ died only for the bride of Christ , only for the children of God scattered across the world , only for those elected in Christ , only for those He predestined to be conformed to His image , if scripture "clearly" teaches even reprobates are atoned for ? In other words why would anyone come to a conclusion in stark contrast to the "obvious" meaning of "clear" words in scripture ? Setting aside the predjudice far too prevalent today that Calvinists are just being stubborn , obtuse or blind , could you possibly ever conceive that they have good reason , at least in their own minds , why Christ obviously atoned for those who will be saved by His work and obviously did not atone for those dying in sin ?

 

[guuila]

And why do you suppose anyone would come to the conclusion that Christ died only for the bride of Christ , only for the children of God scattered across the world , only for those elected in Christ , only for those He predestined to be conformed to His image , if scripture "clearly" teaches even reprobates are atoned for ? In other words why would anyone come to a conclusion in stark contrast to the "obvious" meaning of "clear" words in scripture ? Setting aside the predjudice far too prevalent today that Calvinists are just being stubborn , obtuse or blind , could you possibly ever conceive that they have good reason , at least in their own minds , why Christ obviously atoned for those who will be saved by His work and obviously did not atone for those dying in sin ?

Why anyone would actually prefer to believe that Christ atoned for and is interceding for those damned in hell for all eternity is beyond me.

 

[cygnusx1]

Why anyone would actually prefer to believe that Christ atoned for and is interceding for those damned in hell for all eternity is beyond me.

From an old thread ,

Ephesians 5:25 “Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;”

"All of the elect God gave to Christ and for each and every one did he lay down his life, and for them alone. They were in Christ at the cross some nineteen hundred years ago. Hence we read in Isaiah 53 that “when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed” – his Church, his elect, those for whom he was dying. But more, Christ shall see the travail of his soul and be satisfied knowing that in bearing their iniquity he shall justify them. Yet if Christ died for all and not all are saved, Christ can hardly be said to see the travail of his soul and be satisfied as was promised for what possible satisfaction can he have when he sees his labour, with respect to the reprobate, all wasted labour? " (J. Gill)

 

[Skala]

25 pages later, and nobody is denied or refuted the fact that only monergism makes Christ/Grace/God sufficient for salvation.

In all forms of synergism, Christ/Grace/God is only necessary, but not sufficient.

Now you know why the early Christians found monergism so important, and why the reformation wanted to recapture the important belief that the church had lost.

Well, that was fun.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Maybe you're right. Maybe I don't understand you.

That seems to be the reality.

So let me ask, do you believe eternal life and regeneration are synonymous, or does the new birth lead to eternal life?

I think they are at least closely related. Since regeneration is also termed "new birth", "new life", etc, seems to me they may be one and the same.

We probably view regeneration totally differently. What do you think is actually RE-generated, in your view? Or do you take the word only in a figurative way?

 

[Hammster]

That seems to be the reality.


I think they are at least closely related. Since regeneration is also termed "new birth", "new life", etc, seems to me they may be one and the same.

So unless you accept the gift (your terminology), you don't have eternal life, thus you are not saved. Correct?

 

[FreeGrace2]

Grace - sovereign grace - it's all the same.

As I noted.

"Code?" - are Calvinists some kind of secret society or something?

You mean you weren't told? Actually, typically that phrase is only used of Calvinists.

Give me a break. Read Romans 9:22-23. It says what we believe - God makes some for wrath and others for mercy. Your issue is with Paul. Not Calvinists.

I recommend the use of a lexicon. It certainly DOESN'T say what you are claiming here. No one was "made" for wrath. That's totally fallacious! The Greek word is "katartizo".
katartizō

1) to render, i.e. to fit, sound, complete
1a) to mend (what has been broken or rent), to repair
1a1) to complete
1b) to fit out, equip, put in order, arrange, adjust
1b1) to fit or frame for one’s self, prepare
1c) ethically: to strengthen, perfect, complete, make one what he ought to be

Nothing there about "make".

Too late - you already said its not the point - you can't back peddle now....

Hardly. The point is that RT gives hell dwellers an excuse for being there: they weren't chosen for heaven. Or were they but they refused? Or something else. Since you don't agree with my view, WHY not?

We all know that there are sinners in heaven and hell. What's the difference if not who was chosen by God for heaven? And if you say "grace", then you'll only be agreeing with my view, because such grace chooses who will go to heaven, and we all know that RT teaches that God chooses who will believe, etc. So, RT does give hell dwellers an excuse.

This is just a misunderstanding of what the reformed believe. You have come to a conclusion that I have heard no other Arminian or synergist ever reach. If someone else has documented it please let me know - otherwise you might want to reconsider your conclusion as being inconsistent.

Given what I said:
I find it fascinating that the reformed seem completely unaware that their doctrine of election GIVES the hell dwellers an excuse, not that it is legitimate or real. But the theology does do that.
why did you not address it? Just claiming that I misunderstand doesn't do justice to anything. Why not explain WHY I am misunderstanding.

The fact is that Calvinists cannot explain (seems they don't really see the excuse they create) why their view gives an excuse to those in hell.

The whole point is that the Calvinist doctrine of election does do that. It gives those in hell an excuse BECAUSE THEY WEREN'T CHOSEN.

#1 RT believes that all whom God chose for salvation will go to heaven. Right?
#2 RT believes that those not chosen all go to hell. Right?

So why does RT deny that the only difference is who is chosen or unchosen, which has been my point?

Now, if these 2 statements do not represent RT, please correct my errors. Thanks.

 

[Skala]

The whole point is that the Calvinist doctrine of election does do that. It gives those in hell an excuse BECAUSE THEY WEREN'T CHOSEN.

The reason they go to hell is not for lack of being chosen, but because they are guilty for their sins.

Election puts nobody in hell, in merely rescues from hell people that would go there otherwise. Election is all about putting people in heaven, not putting people in hell.

Sin puts people in hell.

Election has nothing to do with why people go to hell, but everything to do with why people DON'T go to hell.

 

[guuila]

The whole point is that the Calvinist doctrine of election does do that. It gives those in hell an excuse BECAUSE THEY WEREN'T CHOSEN.

Is it a valid excuse?

 

[FreeGrace2]

And why do you suppose anyone would come to the conclusion that Christ died only for the bride of Christ , only for the children of God scattered across the world , only for those elected in Christ , only for those He predestined to be conformed to His image , if scripture "clearly" teaches even reprobates are atoned for ?

Apparently you're not going to take on the 45 translations by real actual Greek language experts.

But, to answer your question, no one should come to the conclusion that Christ died only for the elect. Because Scripture plainly STATES that he died for all. Not some. Not the "elect". Not any other phraseology that you would just love to see in Scripture to support the RT claim that He didn't die for everyone.

In fact 1 Jn 2:2 DOES teach that "reprobates" have been atoned for, in the term "whole world".

In other words why would anyone come to a conclusion in stark contrast to the "obvious" meaning of "clear" words in scripture ?

That's been my question and curiosity since I've been on forums. Why in the world do people deny that Christ died for all when the Bible actually SAYS that.

Setting aside the predjudice far too prevalent today that Calvinists are just being stubborn , obtuse or blind , could you possibly ever conceive that they have good reason , at least in their own minds , why Christ obviously atoned for those who will be saved by His work and obviously did not atone for those dying in sin ?

Good question. I've never charged Calvinists with any of the adjectives you've provided here. The ONLY reason that Calvinists believe in their own minds that Christ didn't die for everyone is because the first 2 points of TULIP demand a limited atonement, to be logically consistent. In spite of clear Scripture that teaches to the contrary.

I'm aware of 4 point Calvinists. But they are just being inconsistent.

But being consistent (5 point) doesn't mean correct. One can be consistently wrong.

RT misunderstands both "total depravity" and "unconditional election". Because of that, RT comes to the wrong conclusion that Christ died only for the elect, which isn't ever taught in Scripture.

RT is internally consistent, but completely wrong in TULIP. When one starts out wrong, all the following points are wrong, in spite of being internally consistent.

One needs to get the foundation level before they build. The Bible does not teach that RT teaches about total depravity.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Why anyone would actually prefer to believe that Christ atoned for and is interceding for those damned in hell for all eternity is beyond me.

Regarding "intereceding for", me too. I can't imagine anyone thinking that Christ was interceding for those in hell. That would remove His omniscience.

But, interceding for and atoning for are not the same.

By dying for all sins, Christ propitiated the Father regarding the sins of mankind. That frees the justice of God to extend grace to mankind. Does this make sense, and if not, please ask for clarification. Seems to me that RT does not grasp this point.

The Bible teaches that Christ intercedes for believers, not all those He died for.

When Christ atoned for sin, who was propitiated?

 

[FreeGrace2]

25 pages later, and nobody is denied or refuted the fact that only monergism makes Christ/Grace/God sufficient for salvation.

In all forms of synergism, Christ/Grace/God is only necessary, but not sufficient.[/QOUTE]
Ignoring my comments doesn't violate any rules here, but it sure isn't very honorable or honest either.

But in order to defend RT, Calvinists must demand that receiving the gift is tantamount to meaning that grace isn't sufficient. But all that is just a bogus claim.

Receiving the gift doesn't add anything to the gift. It is complete; sufficient to save. But it must be received, which doesn't render the gift "insufficient", which is only a Calvinist claim that isn't true.

But, Calvinism claims many things that aren't true.

 

[FreeGrace2]

So unless you accept the gift (your terminology), you don't have eternal life, thus you are not saved. Correct?

That's my view. Is that your view or not?

 

[FreeGrace2]

The reason they go to hell is not for lack of being chosen, but because they are guilty for their sins.

The elect are also sinners, but God chose them for heaven, right? So you haven't faced the reality yet.

Election puts nobody in hell, in merely rescues from hell people that would go there otherwise.

That's just a slick way to avoid having to admit that RT election gives people in hell an excuse for being there. I'm rather surprised by that, since RT seems to have no problem at all in saying that God hates. Why not just admit that God hates those He either chose for hell or passed over for heaven? Wouldn't that be a lot easier?

[QJUOTE] Election is all about putting people in heaven, not putting people in hell.[/QUOTE]
See above.

Sin puts people in hell.

Yet, sinners will be in heaven. Your point is not taken.

Election has nothing to do with why people go to hell, but everything to do with why people DON'T go to hell.

Great spin on the FACT that RT believes that the ONLY reason people are in heaven is because they were chosen. Which gives hell dwellers an excuse; because they were not chosen.

A question that may be rather uncomfortable to answer:
Does anyone NOT chosen get to heaven?

 

[FreeGrace2]

Is it a valid excuse?

If Calvinism were true, it would be. I thank God it isn't true.

 

[guuila]

Christ propitiated the Father regarding the sins of mankind.

Wrong.

Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him. (John 3:36 ESV)

 

[guuila]

If Calvinism were true, it would be. I thank God it isn't true.

So if Calvinism is true, and God elects sinners unto eternal life unconditionally, you think that means the ones not elected don't deserve hell?

 

[Hammster]

That's my view. Is that your view or not?

So eternal life is grace-given. But one isn't regenerate unless one accepts that gift. So, grace is necessary, but not sufficient. Man must accept the gift to be saved.

Thanks.

 

[guuila]

So eternal life is grace-given. But one isn't regenerate unless one accepts that gift. So, grace is necessary, but not sufficient. Man must accept the gift to be saved.

Thanks.

In synergism (and the like), grace is powerless to do anything unless man does his part. Then and only then is grace sufficient to save. But as you rightly pointed out, "accepting the gift" is done in an unregenerate "non-grace" state. Therefore, grace is not sufficient in synergism and Free Grace theology. Grace depends on an external source, namely, the supposed libertarian free will of man.

 

[Skala]

But in order to defend RT, Calvinists must demand that receiving the gift is tantamount to meaning that grace isn't sufficient. But all that is just a bogus claim.

it's not a bogus claim, because some people believe that grace results in the person receiving the gift, and other people don't believe that grace results in that.

Thus, in the former, grace is sufficient for the person's salvation, in the latter, it's necessary, but not sufficient.

This is pretty basic stuff.

But, Calvinism claims many things that aren't true.

False. Calvinists believe 100% of the truth. Please see this giant collection of verses that prove it:

Verses showing God's Sovereignty, salvific work, and man's nature

The Illusion of a Gentleman Godby Robert Bernecker

Verses showing God's Sovereignty, salvific work, and man's nature

Large List of Scripture Verses Establishing God's Absolute Sovereignty & Control Over All Things

Does God Control Human Decisions and Actions? — DashHouse.com

Westminster Confession of Faith

What Does the Bible Say About God Is In Control?

DOCTRINES OF GRACE – CATEGORIZED SCRIPTURE LIST

TULIP with Scriptures