Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
He died for all. He died for the world. That means everyone. See #197 for full explanation, again.
Because it effectively takes all of our rich language of soteriology, all of redemptive history, and the cross itself, and reduces them to a backdrop for the main show of salvation, namely, man making the decision.I have considered that view and reject it. Let's consider what Scripture says.
God reconciled the world to Himself in Christ. 2 Cor 5:19 says so. And the immediate context is v.14 and 15, which says in each verse that Christ died for all. It's obvious to me that Christ died for everyone. His death efficaciously purchased the gift of eternal life for everyone.
But, since Scripture does not teach universalism, how is it possible that His death, which purchased eternal life for everyone doesn't result in everyone having eternal life (salvation)? Because the free gift is received when one believes in Christ. Both John 1:12 and Gal 3:24 says so.
How is this explanation not biblical?
Why does the idea of God's plan include man "making the decision" offend? There are no verses that teach that God chooses who will believe, but that is the logical conclusion of the Calvinist understanding of election. There is no support for such an idea in Scripture.Because it effectively takes all of our rich language of soteriology, all of redemptive history, and the cross itself, and reduces them to a backdrop for the main show of salvation, namely, man making the decision.
The point is that God determined His own plan. And what God promises, which is salvation, actually obligates Himself. iow, when God promises something, He MUST follow through because He cannot renege on a promise. That's what fallen man does. But not perfect God.The conversion experience is indeed important, and it is phenomenally when we experience our salvation, but it does not follow that God was bound to save us at that point.
Sorry, I do not follow any of this. God is "constrained" by what He promises. And there are no verses that teach that God chooses who will believe, but many verses that God will save those who do believe. Big difference.Salvation is, after all, ultimately a matter of the disposition between God and a man, and God would hardly be constrained by time such that he can only be disposed favorably towards a man at the same point in time wherein the man experiences God's favorable disposition.
Not sure I follow this either. What, specifically, kinds of "salvific things" have happened at a time other than when man experiences them? I have no idea what any of that is about.Therefore, if the scripture states that salvific things happened at a time other than when the man experiences them, it's hardly valid to object that these references to salvation can't really be actual salvation, because the man hasn't been actually saved yet, as if that would be a defeater for the Almighty.
I agree. Christ IS our Savior, and John the baptist referred to Him as the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. And John was no Calvinist.And the scripture abundantly does use its rich soteriological vocabulary to describe Christ as being our salvation, not faith being our salvation.
He redeemed the world. Everyone. 2 Cor 5:19. And the context for that verse is v.14 and 15 which both say that He died for all.Christ redeemed us. He did not make it possible for us to be redeemed, but he redeemed us.
No. A redemption is an exchange. The payment of the sin penalty by Christ was exchanged for the gift of eternal life. iow, Christ actually holds a gift for everyone. That gift is received when one believes in Him. John 1:12 and Gal 3:24 say so.What is "redemption?" Out of many examples in historical redemption, you could start by looking at Ruth. Boaz, the redeemer, marries Ruth, the widowed, which is an obvious prefigurement of Christ's wedding to the Church, which is a true salvation, not a mere enablement of salvation.
Isaiah also was not a Calvinist. So when he wrote "us" he was limiting Christ's death for Jews ONLY, or he was speaking as a human being. And many OT passages note that even Gentiles would be blessed.Christ was most definitely, on the Cross, punished by God, stricken by him, and afflicted. He was pierced for our transgressions, and crushed for our iniquities.
The peace and healing here are a reference to the removal of the sin barrier and enmity between God and man. The removal of the sin barrier frees the justice of God to act in grace towards mankind.This punishment, says Isaiah, brought us peace and healed us. Are peace and healing themselves now merely references to the possibility of being saved when we believe? Do you see why I say that with you, words do not mean themselves?
I'm not interested in what fathers think. Only what Scripture teaches. And since we know that eternal life is obtained by faith in Christ, what you have posted is exactly the truth. People are damned for NOT receivng eternal life.Near as I can figure, your theology would have the sinner say, "Christ has purchased my ransom, I am redeemed by his blood, he has reconciled me to the Father, my sins are paid for, Christ has brought me peace, but I refuse to believe therefore I am still damned." Can you find even one noteworthy Christian father who has ever said that?
I never was and never will be.I used to be an Arminian.
my theology is purely Biblical. Christ died on the cross to pay for all sins. Thereby purchasing the gift of eternal life for everyone, and gives it freely to all who believe in Him for it.I had a problem with Limited Atonement for a lot longer than I had a problem with any of the rest of the points. I was finally broken when Arminians started asking me to use clearly soteriological language so flippantly uneffecaciously. The scripture preaches a Christocentric, Cross-centric salvation, not a faithocentric salvation with the Cross reduced to a footbridge across the great divide.
Now, can any of this be unpacked and shown to be in error from Scripture?
How would your hermeneutic unpack what I posted? I didn't ask to use mine.Using your hermeneutic, I suppose it cannot.
This is nonsense. By dying for the whole world, Jesus really is the Savior of the world. But one must believe in Him in order to receive the gift of eternal life, which is clear from Scripture.You have demolished the basis for communication, namely, a common understanding of what words mean. If "redemption," "ransom," "savior," "healer," "redeemer," or "bringer of peace," to name just a few, can be made to mean "oh, but that doesn't mean you're not going to hell," then nothing means anything.
Somewhere down the centuries, certain Christians got the idea that atonement is this quantity of abstract stuff that can be doled out from heaven upon people once they believe.
That's not my view. Not even close.
He actually holds a free gift for all of humanity. But this gift is only received when one believes in Christ.
I reject this nonsense.Any scripture which I quote will be immediately reinterpreted through your redefinition of words, as evidenced by the fact that this has happened with every verse so far quoted.
Since you've ignored the WHOLE POINT of my view, I guess there isn't anything else to say. But Jesus IS the Savior of everyone, because He purchased eternal life for everyone. But only those who receive the gift through faith are saved.This isn't an exegetical debate anymore; this is a problem with your treatment of English. If "redemption," "ransom," "savior," "healer," "redeemer," or "bringer of peace," to name just a few, can be made to mean "oh, but that doesn't mean you're not going to hell," then nothing means anything.
OK. Justification, salvation, forgiveness of sins, has eternal life, regeneration/born again/new birth/new creation, imputed righteousness.If you want to actually move this debate forward, you're going to need to give us at least a half dozen biblical words you regard as synonyms for: "is actually saved," and, after having such an assurance that I will not have the football pulled away, we can examine scripture's treatment of those terms.
Well, that's what actually happened.But I'm not going to go to the work of expositing more scripture to which you'll immediately respond, "of course Christ performed [salvific language X] on the cross, and he did it for the the entire world, but [salvific language X] doesn't mean you're actually saved."
Apparently you're not seeing the mistake being made by yourself, not me. Your initial post "then" mentioned a "quantity of abstract stuff" that is "doled out". Pretty poor choice of words aside, the gift of eternal life can hardly be described as a "quantity of abstract stuff". I think that's just awful.Then:
Originally Posted by Epiphoskei
Somewhere down the centuries, certain Christians got the idea that atonement is this quantity of abstract stuff that can be doled out from heaven upon people once they believe.
Originally Posted by FreeGrace2
That's not my view. Not even close.
Now:
Originally Posted by FreeGrace2
He actually holds a free gift for all of humanity. But this gift is only received when one believes in Christ.
You get too altogether much milage out of the "receive a gift" language. The point of that language in scripture is that grace is a gift as opposed to being the wages of work, not that grace is a rejectable gift instead of being something which one must receive.It seems to me that your view is that Christ is only the Savior of those He saves. But He did purchase the gift of eternal life for everyone, and actually gives this gift to all who believe in Him for it. So whether He saves one or not, is not because He didn't die for them. It's because they never received the gift.
If you will explain the last three words. I do not reject vague statements of the hypothetical universality of salvation and therefore do not object to the statement "Christ is the savior of everyone" in contexts. But unqualified use of that expression is problematic. Verbal nouns, like savior, when used as the predicate of a stative verb, are just one periphrastic way of expressing the standard transitive, with a little stative aspect for flavor. In other words, "A is the Xer of B" is only true when A Xes B. Examples:1 Tim 4:10 - For it is for this we labor and strive, because we have fixed our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of believers.
Please explain the bolded phrase.
OK. Justification, salvation, forgiveness of sins, has eternal life, regeneration/born again/new birth/new creation, imputed righteousness.
That's 6. Or a half dozen, depending on how one counts.
"Abstract stuff" is perfectly appropriate. Salvation is a verbal noun. You can't typically acquire verbal nouns it like you can have bushels of corn or gallons of water stowed away. It is neither material or concrete, hence it's abstract. But in non-particular theories of atonement, Christ acquired a quantity of it sufficient for every human and has it stored away awaiting mankind's receipt of it, like a warehouse keeper might store a sundry or foodstuff.Apparently you're not seeing the mistake being made by yourself, not me. Your initial post "then" mentioned a "quantity of abstract stuff" that is "doled out". Pretty poor choice of words aside, the gift of eternal life can hardly be described as a "quantity of abstract stuff". I think that's just awful.
If it's handed out to people when they ask for it, it's being doled out.And this precious gift certainly is not "doled out". Again, very poor choice of words to describe my view, which I think was quite intentional. When one views the position of others in such a negative light, one expects the description to be as poorly described as possible.
Except for errors that were living during the days of inspiration, verses don't refute incorrect doctrine. They merely fail to support it. You have spent a great deal of this thread using scripture to biblically support undisputed language like:So, I've provided my view with Biblical terms. Jesus Christ purchased the gift of eternal life for everyone. What verse(s) refutes that?
Unfortunately you thereupon find in the pneumbra of the text supposed implications, flavors, and shadows of your theology. Thereafter we get into extensive debates wherein you quote verses in defense of doctrines I wholly agree in, but you inflect the verse with meanings that the verse simply doesn't have in view.Those who believe in Christ receive this gift of eternal life.
Kinda sad that Scriptural language would be offensive or put-offish to a believer.You get too altogether much milage out of the "receive a gift" language.
Actually, grace isn't a gift. The Bible never defines grace as a gift. What IS described as a gift is eternal life in Rom 6:23, justification in Rom 5:16,17 and salvation (not grace) in Eph 2:8.The point of that language in scripture is that grace is a gift as opposed to being the wages of work, not that grace is a rejectable gift instead of being something which one must receive.
This very limited example doesn't align with Scripture. First, the gift was the actual liquid, which is comparable to eternal life, or salvation. But then, your example deals with someone who is unconscious and therefore doesn't even know what's going on. That is totally unlike Scripture, where the gospel is given so the unsaved person can first understand it and then believe it.Imagine I have a cordial of liquid that cures any wound. I come across a wounded and unconscious man in battle and use my cordial expecting nothing in return. That is a gift, but it is not rejectable. You will thus need more explicit language than "gift" to establish your point.
This seems to be a cop out, for that is what I was hoping you'd do. The verse tells us quite directly that Jesus Christ is the Savior of everyone (all men). Then, Paul adds "especially of believers". There is an obvious distinction between "all men" and "believers". If by "all men" Paul only meant the elect, and we know that believers are called the elect, then Paul would have been saying that Jesus is the Savior of the elect, especially the elect.If you will explain the last three words.
But by Christ's death on the cross and payment for sin for everyone, He actually purchased salvation/eternal life for everyone.I do not reject vague statements of the hypothetical universality of salvation and therefore do not object to the statement "Christ is the savior of everyone" in contexts. But unqualified use of that expression is problematic. Verbal nouns, like savior, when used as the predicate of a stative verb, are just one periphrastic way of expressing the standard transitive, with a little stative aspect for flavor. In other words, "A is the Xer of B" is only true when A Xes B. Examples:
1) I am the ruler of Europe means I rule Europe, and is not true if I do not rule Europe
2)I am the eater of this pie means I eat the pie, and is not true if I do not eat the pie.
3) I am a lover of wine means I love wine, and is not true if I do not love wine.
I don't agree. He HAS died for everyone, as Scripture plainly says. And by that death, He purchased eternal life for everyone. That alone qualifies Him to be called the Savior of the world. He is still Savior to those who reject the gift that He purchased for them.This is why Paul, sensing how dangerously close he's getting to implying that every human in the world is saved, pulls back and says, "especially of believers." This addendum demands that we believe that Christ is not the unqualified savior of the believer and the unbeliever alike.
I don't understand the phrase "does not require anyone to accept it for Him still to be his savior". For a person to be saved, they MUST accept the gift. Those who aren't saved have no excuse, because the gift was readily available.This poses a problem for you, since you espouse Christ being the savior of all men equally by virtue of securing them a salvation that does not require anyone to accept it for Him still to be his savior.
Nonsense. My view of Christ's work on the cross is WAY MORE effective than your view because in my view Christ actually purchased salvation for everyone, unlike your view.Paul clearly views saviorhood as being more effective than you do, since he won't drop the period after "world" for fear of what he understands that would imply.
Referring to an elipsis, I assume.It's a curious verse, but it's curious for both sides. It's not a fluid statement. In a few places in the epistles the Apostles seem to stop a sentence mid-statement. These statements thereby are not exactly complete thoughts.
1 Tim 4:10 isn't an elipsis. Paul clearly distinguishes between "all men" and "believers", and calls Christ Savior of both.As such, no one should really be relying on them as prooftexts, since we have to (to a degree) reconstruct what the Apostle was saying from other context.
However, Acts 10:43 is clear enough: we are forgiven on the basis of faith, not the atonement.If you want to see forgiveness of sins being the substance of atonement, read Leviticus. The Bible's dissertation on atonement states again and again and again, "The priest shall make atonement for your sins, and they shall be forgiven." And we have such a great High Priest who once for all made an atonement for us. The entire system of atoning sacrifices was designed to prefigure Christ. And we know that the blood of bulls and goats cannot take away sins. If no Levitical sin offering has ever forgiven one sin, how is it not a tremendous lie to say "The priest shall make atonement and sins shall be forgiven?" Clearly, it is because what the spirit had in mind when inspiring the Law was for these passages to prefigure the passion, the only true sacrifice of substitution performed by the only true priest of God, who truly accomplished what the Law only dimly reflected.
He paid for every last sin of every last person. Clear enough?And again, in Leviticus 16:22, the scapegoat shall bear the sins of the people to a solitary land. Does Christ the great scapegoat bear away all the sins of all the people to a solitary land? Or does He only make an end of his people's iniquities?
Your opinon only."Abstract stuff" is perfectly appropriate.
Regardless of what one considers "typical", salvation is a noun and is as concrete as it comes. Just as eternal life is real life, not some "abstract stuff" nonsense.Salvation is a verbal noun. You can't typically acquire verbal nouns it like you can have bushels of corn or gallons of water stowed away.
Again, nonsense. It is defined as a gift in the Bible.It is neither material or concrete, hence it's abstract.
More nonsense.But in non-particular theories of atonement, Christ acquired a quantity of it sufficient for every human and has it stored away awaiting mankind's receipt of it, like a warehouse keeper might store a sundry or foodstuff.
A very intentional lousy choice of poor wording for what the Bible describes.If it's handed out to people when they ask for it, it's being doled out.
Actually Bible verses DO refute incorrect doctrine. For example, the Bible plainly states that Christ died for all in 2 Cor 5:14,15 and Heb 2:9, yet Calvinism claims that Christ died ONLY for the elect, despite NO verses ever saying anything close to that.Except for errors that were living during the days of inspiration, verses don't refute incorrect doctrine.
Except there is nothing sudden about it. That's what it has always mean, except to the particular ones who read the Bible in very faulty ways.So, again, I find it problematic to discuss anything with you because you insist that words mean things they don't or don't mean things they do. "Whoever believe will be saved" suddenly means "Anyone can believe,"
What is wrong is ignoring 1 Tim 2:4, which I provided. God wants all men to be saved. Which is why Christ died for all. Not just for some.
The entire tulip is incorrect, as there are no verses that say what is claimed.
It's Calvinistic logic.
Once again, Christ died for all so that whosoever believes will be saved.
Christ died for all so that anyone who believes will be saved.
Christ died for all so that everyone who believes will be saved.
Please try to refute each of these 3 statements, if you disagree with any of them.
Or, you may agree with me regarding them.
If you want to actually move this debate forward, you're going to need to give us at least a half dozen biblical words you regard as synonyms for: "is actually saved," and, after having such an assurance that I will not have the football pulled away, we can examine scripture's treatment of those terms. But I'm not going to go to the work of expositing more scripture to which you'll immediately respond, "of course Christ performed [salvific language X] on the cross, and he did it for the the entire world, but [salvific language X] doesn't mean you're actually saved."
OK. Justification, salvation, forgiveness of sins, has eternal life, regeneration/born again/new birth/new creation, imputed righteousness.
That's 6. Or a half dozen, depending on how one counts.
Why does Calvinism think that peope go to hell for their sins when Rev 20:11-15 is clear enough that those cast into the lake of fire are cast there for NOT having eternal life. iow, they never received the gift that was theirs for the taking.
This isn't about sin because Christ paid for all sins. It's about having or not having eternal life.
This is pure nonsense. Totally.Sir, you are the most dishonest person I have ever interacted with on these forums.
You side step questions.
You don't give straight answers.
You keep moving goalposts.
Hm, one right, out of 5 comments.But by golly, you're a Christian.
I gave a very straight answer to how I understand the verse. If there was something that I wrote that was not understood, just ask and I will clarify. But your claim is bogus to the hilt.You have neatly sidestepped and have left unanswered the thrust of what I wrote, choosing to nitpick ancillary matters of phrasing instead of interacting with my rejoinder to your arguments.
Wrong. It can have no meaning within the reformed view. The bolded phrase would then read, as I already noted, "Christ is the Savior of the elect, especially of the elect". How else CAN a Calvinist read it? At least those of the 5 point variety.Since I asked you to tell me what points you would like me to interact with, and I obliged, this can't be allowed to stand. So, to recapitulate,
1) You asked me to interact with I Timothy, and I did, but I observed that the terminal phrase, "especially of believers," can have no meaning within your view.
Sure it is. Paul indicate that Christ died for everyone.This is not the Pauline version of I Jn 2:2, wherein Paul signifies that Christ is the savior of everyone, full stop.
I see no subordination at all. Where did you find it?Christ's saviorhood of the world is clearly subordinated to Christ's special saviorhood of the believer.
I never ever said anything about 'potential' salvation. By purchasing the ACTUAL gift of eternal life, He HAS eternal life for everyone. What IS potential is whether one will receive the gift or not.That is an afterthought that Paul would not feel the need to addend if "savior" means only that Christ acquired the potential for anyone in the world to be saved.
Please offer a clear explanation of what "goalpost" I have moved, since I DID provide 6 words that are interchangeable with salvation, JUST AS REQUESTED.This is unacceptable. You were asked to go on record with what language you thought was interchangeable with salvation so that I could interact with you without having you move the goalposts. You did, and now you're still moving goalposts.
Nonsense. Communication is impossible when one side continues to post nonsense.Words do not mean themselves when you use them, and all communication is impossible.
And you would need likewise to read it as "Christ is the savior of the world, especially of the world." It's a curious text indeed, but it's neither side's prooftext, and you've done enough ignoring of those last three words, which I have asked you three times now to explain, that I feel there's no longer a dispute on this subject. Feel free to address them if you wish to move the discussion forward.Wrong. It can have no meaning within the reformed view. The bolded phrase would then read, as I already noted, "Christ is the Savior of the elect, especially of the elect". How else CAN a Calvinist read it? At least those of the 5 point variety.
It's what "especially" means. As in, this is more special. The other is "less special." The other is "inferior to." The existence of Christ's superior saviorhood of the Church is something you have yet to interact with at all.I see no subordination at all. Where did you find it?
I said this:
"OK. Justification, salvation, forgiveness of sins, has eternal life, regeneration/born again/new birth/new creation, imputed righteousness.
That's 6. Or a half dozen, depending on how one counts."
Please offer a clear explanation of what "goalpost" I have moved, since I DID provide 6 words that are interchangeable with salvation, JUST AS REQUESTED.
Why does Calvinism think that peope go to hell for their sins when Rev 20:11-15 is clear enough that those cast into the lake of fire are cast there for NOT having eternal life. iow, they never received the gift that was theirs for the taking.
This isn't about sin because Christ paid for all sins. It's about having or not having eternal life.
Sure it is. Paul indicate that Christ died for everyone.
How silly. I read is EXACTLY as written: Christ is the Savior of the world, especially of believers. I have already noted that Paul made a distinction between "all men" and "believers". And I accept that distinction.And you would need likewise to read it as "Christ is the savior of the world, especially of the world."
Your continued false charges aside, I have NOT ignored those last 3 words: especially of believers. He purchased the gift of eternal life for all men, and believers have actually received the gift. So, ESPECIALLY of believers makes perfect sense. I've ignored nothing. Your charges are worse than silly.It's a curious text indeed, but it's neither side's prooftext, and you've done enough ignoring of those last three words, which I have asked you three times now to explain, that I feel there's no longer a dispute on this subject. Feel free to address them if you wish to move the discussion forward.
The "all men" didn't receive the free gift.It's what "especially" means. As in, this is more special. The other is "less special." The other is "inferior to."
Wrong again. Believers have received the gift. The "all men" didn't. So, ESPECIALLY of believers makes perfect sense.The existence of Christ's superior saviorhood of the Church is something you have yet to interact with at all.
I looked back at my post, and I see no contradiction. Your charges are phony.Sometimes I wonder about the extent to which you believe that your writing has the ability to shape outward reality. You were caught in a flat contradiction, and instead of addressing it, you repeated your version of the interchange we just had, editing out the specific passage where you contradicted yourself, then threw up your hands and protested "Please offer a clear explanation of what goalpost I moved."
No, words actually mean what they mean. Your sentence is silly.Words mean what they don't mean.
Apparently we're just not going to have any kind of actual dialogue, with these kind of nutty statements.Words don't mean what they do mean.
Please explain how this is even possible??????? Again, your statements are making no sense whatsoever.You did say what you didn't say.
I believe your statement here is delusional.And you didn't say what you did say. The meaning of anything - the Bible, the English language, what I wrote, what you wrote - twists and bends to mean exactly what you need so that you can be right in that instant.
Pure nonsense. I'm getting tired of it.Once we leave that instant, words take upon a new sense so that you can be right in the new instant. Never mind the fact that you're contradicting yourself on a matter of public record - you get to have it both ways, because you are the arbiter of meaning.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?