U/C Unconditional election vs. Conditional election

[Reformationist]

Originally posted by ScottEmerson
As for kosmos and use of the world - using only the believers is a HUGE error and is a presupposition.

According to Thayer's Greek Lexicon:

kosmos, kosmou, ho; (NT:2889)

1. an apt and harmonious arrangement or constitution, order
2. ornament, decoration, adornment: 1 Peter 3:3
3. the world, i. e. the universe Acts 17:24; Rom 4:13
4. the circle of the earth, the earth Mark 16:15
5. the inhabitants of the world: 1 Cor 4:9
6. the ungodly multitude; the whole mass of men alienated from God, and therefore hostile to the cause of Christ John 7:7
7. worldly affairs; the aggregate of things earthly; 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: Gal 6:14
8. any aggregate or general collection of particulars of any sort James 3:6

2889 kosmos {kos'-mos}
probably from the base of 2865 ; n m
See: TDNT - 3:868,459

AV - world 186, adorning 1; 187

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
3) the world, the universe
4) the circle of the earth, the earth
5) the inhabitants of the earth, men, the human race
6) the ungodly multitude; the whole mass of men alienated from God, and therefore hostile to the cause of Christ
7) world affairs, the aggregate of things earthly
7a) 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
8) any aggregate or general collection of particulars of any sort
8a) the Gentiles as contrasted to the Jews (Rom. 11:12 etc)
8a) of believers only, John 1:29; 3:16; 3:17; 6:33; 12:47; 1 Cor. 4:9; 2 Cor. 5:19

Note: Neither my list nor yours is listed in order of acceptance. If that were the case than John 3:16 would actually say "For God so loved the harmonious arrangement or constitution, order, government that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."

From Rick Young:

Uhh... Who is Rick Young?

"and [Christ] Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world." (1 John 2:2)

Well ScottEmerson, let's see what the word "propitiation" means:

A propitiation is "an atoning sacrifice." So, according to you, Christ was the "atoning sacrifice" not only for John and those in the immediate community he was preaching to, but also to the entire world. Right? Let me see if I understand this. You say that Christ "paid the price" for the sins of the whole world. So everybody's sins have been paid for, right? That makes me wonder who you think is actually going to hell. I mean, according to you, all the sins ever committed were paid for by Christ's "atoning sacrifice." Hmmm...sounds like, if your, or should I say Rick Young's, interpretation of the word is correct, everyone has been made righteous. Hooray!!

I don't think that's what he means.

Even if you don't believe that it is God who decides who is a believer surely you don't think Christ's sacrifice so ambiguous that it paid the price for the sins of those that don't, and won't, believe in Him. Even if you don't believe in predestination, you too are put in a position where you limit the scope of Christ's sacrifice. Otherwise, you are saying that Christ died for some people whose lives were not even affected by His supreme sacrifice. Surely you believe that Christ's sacrifice did more than just provide an opportunity. Surely you acknowledge God is omnipotent and, as such, is effectual in everything He does. If not, ask yourself exactly how ineffective you really think God is that He would send Himself in human form that it would have no more affect in the lives of some then to provide with them something to "not believe in."

God bless.

 

[HITR]

Hey, everyone. I'm just kinda getting back into the swing of things after a lengthy break away from virtually all theology boards, so I figured this would be a great place to start back up again. Seems that everywhere I'm turning, I keep running right into this topic. **shrug** So before I go too far, I'd like to just pose a couple of questions.

Originally posted by Reformationist
I turn to Romans for my answer...

Romans 8:28-30
And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called ACCORDING TO HIS PURPOSE.

I stopped right here, Reformationist, just to ask you this (since you accentuated this portion of the verse). You notated those who have been called ACCORDING TO HIS PURPOSE, and I'll agree that God calls men and does so for the explicit means of fulfilling His purpose - to His glory. But how does this reconcile with the scripture which states that many are called, few are chosen? Just for clarity, do you submit that God calls those that are not chosen? And if you do, does He call all, regardless of election? If not, what of those that are called, yet not chosen?

Hence, unconditional election unto salvation. It wasn't about us. It was about God's glory.

Are you grouping unconditional election and salvation together here, by necessity? You say this isn't about man (which incidentally, I agree), and you state this is about God's glory (again, agreed). But what of God's glory? Is that claim due to unconditional election, salvation or both - in your opinion?

Originally posted by Blackhawk
Okay this is the hard one for me. I believe in Unconditional election. i do not think god has to look and see what I will do in the future to know if i am going to be in the elect or not. Why? Because if He does wouldn't that mean that God has to learn?

The first question I would ask is why one would have to believe that God must actually have to look to see in order to have that knowledge (sometimes I think when we talk about the things of God, we can unwittingly 'humanize' things, with logic and rationale, simply because we can't really grasp all the things of God). I would ask this - when God created men, He already knew that men would fall and that Christ would come, that we might be saved by God's grace. Did God have to look to see that, or did He know that even before creation ever took place? Couldn't God just know, based simply on the fact that He is omniscient? Did God see the cross even before the fall of men, not by looking but simply by the knowledge that He held? It would seem to me that an omnipotent God would, by necessity, be omniscient and would not need to actually look to have this information. He would simply just know, solely because He is God.

So I think that God has to somehow know what we will choose without having to see what we will choose although He does see it. I would really like to hear everyone's thoughts on this one especially.

I agree that God has to somehow know what we will choose wihtout having to see it. I also believe He does see it, only instead of a sort of 'tunnel vision' (e.g. He sees down this type of 'time tunnel' to discover what will occur) I believe that God is so big that He simply sees all things at the same time. He's not limited by time or space, and I believe that He can see without having to look, He can foreknow without having events displayed before Him and He can elect without learning or being a respector of persons. But that's jmho.

Okay, that's all for now. I'll be back again later. These are not in any way meant to be confrontational. I don't really know a great deal about Calvinism or Arminianism, just the very basic tenants. I really don't subscribe to either of them in their entirity, so I haven't really paid an immense amount of attention to what the teachings put forth.

Btw...just a little warning, my posts can tend to be a bit lengthy. So I do apologize if I end up setting you all to nappin'! **nods/grin**

Blessings in Christ our Lord, HITR

 

[Reformationist]

Originally posted by HITR
Hey, everyone. I'm just kinda getting back into the swing of things after a lengthy break away from virtually all theology boards, so I figured this would be a great place to start back up again.

Welcome back.

But how does this reconcile with the scripture which states that many are called, few are chosen?

The calling in this verse is a general, external invitation which can fail to be answered. It is defferent than the call that results in Christian conversion, which involves illumination, regeneration, and the transformation of the will. This latter call is a sovereign work of God, effectively performed by the power of the Holy Spirit (John 10:3,4).

Just for clarity, do you submit that God calls those that are not chosen? And if you do, does He call all, regardless of election? If not, what of those that are called, yet not chosen?

The general invitation, or outward call of God to faith in Christ is communicated everywhere through reading, preaching, and explaining the gospel. In the inner, effectual call the Holy Spirit enlightens the mind and renews the heart of those God has chosen so that the gospel is accepted as the truth of God, and God in Christ becomes the object of love and affection. When once regenerated and having the will set free to choose God and the good, a sinner turns away from the former pattern of living and receives Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, to start a new life with Him.

Are you grouping unconditional election and salvation together here, by necessity? You say this isn't about man (which incidentally, I agree), and you state this is about God's glory (again, agreed). But what of God's glory? Is that claim due to unconditional election, salvation or both - in your opinion?

In the sense that God's plan is complete and His design is that we, too, be made "complete and lacking nothing" (James 1:4). As I said, God is effectual in everything He does. He does not elect someone unto salvation that they fall away. Rather, He regenerates them, giving them a new nature that seeks after His Will and places Christ as the focus of their love.

God bless and, again, welcome back.

 

[Blackhawk]

Reformationist,

I accept your apologies and i believe that you did not mean it in a malicous way. It did come out that way when I read it but I understand how words on a page can get misinterpreted. I am going to leave this discussion though. Right now I am waying heavily on Calvinism vs. Arminisinsm or whatever else. R.C. Sproul has given me some really good arguments for 5 point calvinism's view of predestination in the book "Chosen by God." I relaly like and respect him (not saying I don't you) I read another one of his books not too long ago about the historic discussion about freewill and I have to say that he is very fair. Even to ones who do not believe as he does like Arminius.

Right now I think I am getting more things confused by writing about it. I need to study and read up and I think I need to find a good pastor to talk to about it. Right now my church is in between pastors but i might speak to our interim. I just feel lke I need ot take a step back from it and look at what I have. Things are just kind of confusing right now. i definitely believe many things that the reformed tradition believes but some things I just do not believe right now. But again RC Sproul has made some good Biblical arguments for them. And I do not want to just believe what i want to be true but what is the Truth.

Again I do forgive you and ask that you forgive me for bowing out.

Blackhawk

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Reformationist

8a) of believers only, John 1:29; 3:16; 3:17; 6:33; 12:47; 1 Cor. 4:9; 2 Cor. 5:19

Let's examine John 3:17 and read it the way you say: "For God did not send the Son into believers only to judge believers only, but that believers only might be saved through Him.

Hmmm.. That doesn't make too much sense. John uses the word kosmos 79 times. Are we saying that we should translate this as such every single time?

"I do not pray for believers only but for those who follow me..."

You see, by saying "believers only" you presuppose your own meaning into the text. If you examine other contemporary uses of world in other places, including philosophical works that predate John, you'll find the same thing.

This is done commonly with Calvinists in the use of the word, "ALL."

Well ScottEmerson, let's see what the word "propitiation" means:

A propitiation is "an atoning sacrifice." So, according to you, Christ was the "atoning sacrifice" not only for John and those in the immediate community he was preaching to, but also to the entire world. Right?

That's correct - where you fall into a logical problem is the idea that according to Calvin, if Christ were to be a sacrifice for all, then all must be saved (the whole limited atonement idea.) HOWEVER, if Christ died for people and they have to CHOOSE to follow (which the Bible clearly says that God's followers do), then the people have a choice as to whether to accept that sacrifice. You're using circular reasoning, which is one reason Calvinism by itself falls.

Let me see if I understand this. You say that Christ "paid the price" for the sins of the whole world. So everybody's sins have been paid for, right?

Nope. Only the ones who accept the gift. "Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If any man hears My voice and OPENS THE DOOR, I will come in."

That makes me wonder who you think is actually going to hell.

Those who reject Christ, silly.

I mean, according to you, all the sins ever committed were paid for by Christ's "atoning sacrifice."

Never said that, and I think you know it.

snipped sarcasm...

Even if you don't believe that it is God who decides who is a believer surely you don't think Christ's sacrifice so ambiguous that it paid the price for the sins of those that don't, and won't, believe in Him. Even if you don't believe in predestination, you too are put in a position where you limit the scope of Christ's sacrifice. Otherwise, you are saying that Christ died for some people whose lives were not even affected by His supreme sacrifice. Surely you believe that Christ's sacrifice did more than just provide an opportunity. Surely you acknowledge God is omnipotent and, as such, is effectual in everything He does. If not, ask yourself exactly how ineffective you really think God is that He would send Himself in human form that it would have no more affect in the lives of some then to provide with them something to "not believe in."

Let's break this huge logical fallacy down, shall we?

Do I believe that God decides who is a believer? No - it is up to us to choose. Did Christ pay the price for those who won't believe in him? Christ died for all, so I guess I do. It is you who put a limit on his sacrifice by saying that Christ didn't die for those who wouldn't serve him.

Let's place it this way - in Old Testament times, a family would offer up a lamb to be sacrificed. The lamb was killed for all four members, lets say. However, two of the people did it because it was a ritual and did not earnestly seek forgiveness. Was the lamb's blood shed in vain? Of course not!

Do I believe that Christ's death provided opportunity? Absolutely. It gave ALL men the opportunity to choose to open that door.

Is God omnipotent? I believe that God can choose to do anything He wants. I also believe that God is so powerful that He can give man the capacity for free will. Thus, He isn't as effectual as you say He is - if this were true than he is the author and creator of all sin, evil, and wickedness.

Let's put it this way - If God is all-powerful, why could He NOT have died for everyone and allowed people to choose. What if he sacrificed Himself, showing perfect love, to ALL regardless of whether they would accept Him or not. Titus 2:11; 1 Timothy 2:3-4; 2 Peter 3:9. You see Christ's sacrifice for all as being ineffective and limiting the power of God.

What requires more power - more omnipotence - and more love... to have Christ die for all men giving up His right to choose for them, or having Christ pick and choose and forcing His will upon them?

 

[Caedmon]

Originally posted by ScottEmerson
Nope. Only the ones who accept the gift. "Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If any man hears My voice and OPENS THE DOOR, I will come in."

They only open the door if they recognize the voice.

Never said that, and I think you know it.

Actually... *scrolls back*... you did.

Do I believe that God decides who is a believer? No - it is up to us to choose. Did Christ pay the price for those who won't believe in him? Christ died for all, so I guess I do. It is you who put a limit on his sacrifice by saying that Christ didn't die for those who wouldn't serve him.

My question is: WHY would He die for those that would never follow Him?

Let's place it this way - in Old Testament times, a family would offer up a lamb to be sacrificed. The lamb was killed for all four members, lets say. However, two of the people did it because it was a ritual and did not earnestly seek forgiveness. Was the lamb's blood shed in vain? Of course not!

That's right. Christ is the propitiation for sin, not a lamb. Christ died for the sins of only those in that family that were Elect.

Let's put it this way - If God is all-powerful, why could He NOT have died for everyone and allowed people to choose.

Why WOULD He die for those that would never follow Him?

What if he sacrificed Himself, showing perfect love, to ALL regardless of whether they would accept Him or not.

*see above*

You see Christ's sacrifice for all as being ineffective and limiting the power of God.

Oh no... Christ's sacrifice is quite effective for those that are saved. Otherwise, they would still have unforgiven sins, and no one would ever get to Heaven, which is definitely unscriptural.

What requires more power - more omnipotence - and more love... to have Christ die for all men giving up His right to choose for them, or having Christ pick and choose and forcing His will upon them?

He doesn't need to force His will on them. By the new nature given to them by God, they willingly acknowledge Christ's sacrifice for them. Let me ask you a question: Which of those situations requires more sovereignty? Which is it? Is God more sovereign, or less sovereign?

 

[Ben johnson]

We are "unconditionally elected by God's sovereignty". Says so in John15:16: "You did NOT choose Me but I chose YOU, and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit..."

And in Eph1:4-6: "He chose us in Him before the foundation of the World, that we should be holy and blameless before Him. In love He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved. In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace, which He lavished upon us. In all wisdom and insight He made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His kind intention which He purposed in Him..."

Then there's, "So it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy!" Rm9:16

How could it be a question then? PREDESTINATION! Some created for Heaven, some for Hell!

....but, then, some other questions begin to occur...

Like, if it is GOD who ELECTS, then why did Jesus die on the Cross? And then I heard once, that God really WANTS everyone to be saved. Are there any verses that say He wants ALL? Well, how about "The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance". ALL? Some have said this is "only all His ELECT". He WISHES for His ELECT to repent? Is He sovereign in this or not?

How about, "First of all, I urge that entreaties and prayers be made for all men, kings and all in authority, that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity. This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires ALL MEN to be saved and to come to the recognition (knowledge) of the truth."

WOW---it really does seem to say "all men". Here's another one: "So then as through one transgression (Adam's sin in the Garden) there resulted in condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men..." Rm5:18 I dunno how you can accept that Adam distributed CONDEMNATION to EVERYONE, and not then understand the 2nd &#189 to ALSO mean "EVERYONE". IE, Jesus died for EVERYONE.

But how can that be??? Isn't there now a CONTRADICTION? How can we be "not-choosing-HIM-but-HE-chose-US", and yet He wants EVERYONE? Can some of them THWART HIS WILL? WHy is this so CONFUSING?

Maybe if we read a little further in Scripture some sort of sense can be made. In Matt22 is the parable of the "wedding feast". Ends up, EVERYONE in-the-end got invited. But only SOME accepted. And of THOSE, one got BOUNCED, because he refused to chothe himself in clean robes. Which is an allegory to his-refusing-to-be-forgiven-and-become-righteous. The last verse (14) is the key: "For MANY are CALLED, but FEW are CHOSEN".

CHOSEN? But it was THEM who ACCEPTED! Which is it?!?! Are they INVITED, or are they CHOSEN? Well, how about BOTH? THey are CHOSEN, if they ACCEPT!

Does the CONTEXT of those "CHOSEN" passages, also allow for the idea of ACCEPTANCE? Consider: "Abide in Me, and I in you. Anyone who does NOT abide in Me is cut off ...as a dried branch, and cast into the fire." That's in the SAME CHAPTER as the "You did not choose Me but I chose YOU!" And the verse in Ephesians, verse 13: "In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation, having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy SPirit of promise who is given as a pledge of our inheritence, with view to the redemption of God's own possession, to the praise of His glory."

Having believed? Seems that I read something like this elsewhere---oh yeah, Romans 10. "Now faith comes from hearing, and hearing from the word of God. If you confess Jesus as Lord, and believe God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart man believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation. For all who call on the name of the Lord will be saved." Faith/belief comes from HEARING---exactly as Eph1 says (after LISTENING, having then BELIEVED...)

So which is it? Does God INSTALL salvation, or do we receive Jesus (and hence become saved through Him)?

"But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born not of blood nor of the will of the flesh but of the will of God". OH my, now THAT'S confusing! Received HIM? That's obviously "free will". Fits with "He desires ALL to be saved". But not of the will of flesh but of God? THAT'S OBVIOUSLY PREDESTINATION! WHICH IS IT!!!

What if, just hypothetically, the WILL of God, is JESUS-on-the-CROSS-for-ALL! What if the PREDESTINATION was simply that Jesus would DIE, providing salvation for all who RECEIVE HIM? Let's look at Eph1 again. "He made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His kind intention which He purposed in HIM..." JESUS? Jesus is the mystery! Jesus is "what is purposed"! Jesus has been predestined! His will that is predestined, is "adoption as sons for ALL WHO RECEIVE JESUS!"

"I have struggled, that your hearts be encouraged, having been knit together in love, attaining to all the wealth coming from full assurance of understanding which brings true knoweldge of God's Mystery, which is CHRIST HIMSELF! ...As therefore you have RECEIVED HIM so walk in Him!" Col 2

THIS is the mystery! THIS is what is predestined! "He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, in that anyone who RECEIVES Him becomes His chosen---HE did the work of our salvation complete and sufficient, HE was purposed to die on the Cross from the beginning"! And we are "chosen in Him" IF we receive Him!

This doesn't even contradict the Rom9 verse. Salvation does NOT depend on US, but on HIM. If God's will is cast that "salvation is for all who believe, all who receive Him", then us-coming-to-HIM is NOT "what we have done", it is recieving HIS will, (which from the start was JESUS-ON-THE-CROSS), we did NOT deserve it so it DEPENDS ENTIRELY ON GOD WHO HAS MERCY!

One other aspect of the "predestined-election" argument, is that if we ARE "predestined", then there is absolutely NO WAY that we could ever become UNELECTED. But the Bible is FILLED with warnings about "falling-from-salvation", that "predestination" simply cannot stand. But since this thread is only about "conditional/unconditional election", that for another discussion...

 

[Andrew]

Ben,
-------
One other aspect of the "predestined-election" argument, is that if we ARE "predestined", then there is absolutely NO WAY that we could ever become UNELECTED.
----------

you are just being consistent with your theology. But u see, predestination IS a Biblical doctrine and its covered by Paul in Romans. Few Christians deny predestination.

-------------
But the Bible is FILLED with warnings about "falling-from-salvation", that "predestination" simply cannot stand.
-------------
that's just it u see, there's no such doctrine. so if the 2 directly oppose each other, u must decide which is Biblical.

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by humblejoe


They only open the door if they recognize the voice.

HUGE PRESUPPOSITION! The passage says NOTHING about that!

Actually... *scrolls back*... you did.

Nope. You think I did, because in your own view, if Christ died for every man then every man logically MUST be saved. Circular reasoning at it's most absurd.

My question is: WHY would He die for those that would never follow Him?

PRESUPPOSITION! You presuppose that Christ somehow wasted his blood if he died for all. Part of this presupposition comes in your reading and presupposition of the word kosmos. This is a direct condtradiction of II Corinthians 5:15, "And he died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again." The answer to your question isn't 'why' but 'According to the Bible, did he?'

That's right. Christ is the propitiation for sin, not a lamb. Christ died for the sins of only those in that family that were Elect.

LOGICAL FALLACY! Circular reasoning right there! No other proof given! Again, you're presupposing that Christ COULD NOT have died for those who wouldn't choose to follow him.

Why WOULD He die for those that would never follow Him?

Why wouldn't he? Both questions are valid. Can you provide Scripture to show that he wouldn't? II Corinthians is a good starting point that said he DID die for all men.

Oh no... Christ's sacrifice is quite effective for those that are saved. Otherwise, they would still have unforgiven sins, and no one would ever get to Heaven, which is definitely unscriptural.

You missed the point.

He doesn't need to force His will on them. By the new nature given to them by God, they willingly acknowledge Christ's sacrifice for them.

re: By the new nature FORCED upon them by God...

Let me ask you a question: Which of those situations requires more sovereignty? Which is it? Is God more sovereign, or less sovereign?

Again, a God who gives another being free will is MORE sovreign and wields MORE power than a God who forces His will upon a creation, saving some and damning others simply for kicks.

Interestingly enough, in Ezekial 18, it says that "The Sovereign LORD wishes NO MAN to die! Repent and LIVE!" How can we interpret that if God knows that a good percentage of the world was created to be destroyed? And, HEY! He says he's sovereign here, too!

Want to answer any of the passages where God changes his mind of acquieces for the sake of a HUMAN?

 

[Reformationist]

Originally posted by Blackhawk
R.C. Sproul has given me some really good arguments for 5 point calvinism's view of predestination in the book "Chosen by God." I relaly like and respect him (not saying I don't you) I read another one of his books not too long ago about the historic discussion about freewill and I have to say that he is very fair. Even to ones who do not believe as he does like Arminius.

R.C. Sproul is an amazing Christian whom, I believe, truly understands God's message. Please share any insights you learn during your hiatus.

I need to study and read up and I think I need to find a good pastor to talk to about it. Right now my church is in between pastors but i might speak to our interim. I just feel lke I need ot take a step back from it and look at what I have. Things are just kind of confusing right now. i definitely believe many things that the reformed tradition believes but some things I just do not believe right now. But again RC Sproul has made some good Biblical arguments for them. And I do not want to just believe what i want to be true but what is the Truth.

Blackhawk, this is what sets you apart from the pack. Your desire to study different viewpoints in your quest for the truth is truly exemplary and I hope that the rest of us, myself included, can follow your example.

Again I do forgive you and ask that you forgive me for bowing out.

Thank you and I don't actually see what you're doing as "bowing out." Hopefully you can come back and share with us any new insight you have gained.

God bless and good studying.

 

[Reformationist]

Originally posted by ScottEmerson
Let's examine John 3:17 and read it the way you say: "For God did not send the Son into believers only to judge believers only, but that believers only might be saved through Him.

Okay. Let's do it your way, and I will be adult enough to use the most logical word replacements that support your belief:

For God did not send His Son into the the circle of the earth to condemn the the inhabitants of the world, but that the the ungodly multitude; the whole mass of men alienated from God through Him might be saved.

Now grammatically, at least, this makes sense. But this is not what really happens and therefore cannot be what the scripture means, or scripture has erred. Is "the ungodly multitude; the whole mass of men alienated from God" saved by Christ's sacrifice? Of course not. The only way this is not what your definition means is if you put waaaaay too much emphasis on the words "might be saved." Now, from the rest of your post I can see that you think the Creator of all things created, yourself included, is so powerless that His very death saved no one, rather it merely gave everyone the opportunity to be saved. Conceivably, everyone could have decided, "Naaah. I'll pass." God was just sitting around saying, "Come on. Please pick me. Please, oh please, oh please."

You see, the inconsistancy here is that even those that don't believe God predestines some for destruction still acknowledge Christ's sacrifice as more than just a ineffective call to faith. Here's the view: So, God knows who will voluntarily pick Him of their "free will" and those are the ones that God sent Christ to die for. Either way, Christ did not die for everyone.

Hmmm.. That doesn't make too much sense. John uses the word kosmos 79 times. Are we saying that we should translate this as such every single time?

I never said the word "kosmos" is used the same way every time. Even in your position the word "kosmos" can't be said to mean the same thing every single time.

"I do not pray for believers only but for those who follow me..."

Just for the record, this verse you listed is John 17:9. As you'll note, it's not one that is listed on the translation for the interpretation of "kosmos" as it relates to "believers only." I never said the word "kosmos" is used the same way in every instance. Respond to what I say. Try not to twist it.

Now, this verse is much better understood using your definition of the word.

I am not praying for the the inhabitants of the world, but for those you have given me, for they are yours.

Now that makes sense.

Let's look at the use of the word in John 17:14

I have given them your word and the world has hated them, for they are not of the world any more than I am of the world.

In this case "kosmos" cannot mean "the planet earth."

And then again in v. 18

As you sent me into the world, I have sent them into the world.

Now obviously the apostles were already in the planet earth but Jesus was saying He sent them in to the "ungodly multitude."

You see, by saying "believers only" you presuppose your own meaning into the text. If you examine other contemporary uses of world in other places, including philosophical works that predate John, you'll find the same thing.

As you can see, no matter what position you take on this it requires some contextual discernment, not presupposition. The word is used differently in different places. All I said was that in John 3:16 the word "kosmos" doesn't mean everyone.

This is done commonly with Calvinists in the use of the word, "ALL."

I tell ya, if people spent as much time studying as they do attacking "the heretical Calvinist" they might understand the Word a bit better.

HOWEVER, if Christ died for people and they have to CHOOSE to follow (which the Bible clearly says that God's followers do), then the people have a choice as to whether to accept that sacrifice.

You're confusing Christ's attoning (and effectual) sacrifice with obedience by Christians. Christians, being regenerate, have the ability to glorify God with their obedience but are even being conformed in the midst of their disobedience.

Nope. Only the ones who accept the gift.

Come on man! I told you what propitiation means. It isn't an uneffective act. A propitiation accomplishes something. Christ wasn't the propitiation for us "not having the opportunity." He was the payment for sins. He obviously wasn't the payment for everyone's sins because some still go to hell. Their sins aren't paid for or they would not go to hell.

Never said that, and I think you know it.

What?! The entire basis for your position has been that Christ's sacrifice is for everyone who ever lived, "not just believers."

Originally posted by ScottEmerson
Did Christ pay the price for those who won't believe in him? CHRIST DIED FOR ALL, so I guess I do.

Those are your words.

It is you who put a limit on his sacrifice by saying that Christ didn't die for those who wouldn't serve him.

You put a limit on God's sovereignty by saying that Christ is so powerless that His death would have no effect on some people.

Is God omnipotent? I believe that God can choose to do anything He wants.

Except of course that you believe He really wants everyone to be saved but yet, that just doesn't happen. Hmmm...is it God you're thinking of or Cleo from the "psychic friends network."

You see Christ's sacrifice for all as being ineffective and limiting the power of God.

So you see Christ's sacrifice as effective in everyone? Or do you only see it as effective in the lives of those who believe in Him. It's one or the other Scott. It can't be both. And for the record, I said effective, as in it accomplishes what it was meant to. If you say it's effective for everyone then it wasn't meant to have an effect in some people's lives, which is ironically, what I have been saying.

What requires more power - more omnipotence - and more love... to have Christ die for all men giving up His right to choose for them, or having Christ pick and choose and forcing His will upon them?

Well, without a doubt, that Christ pick. You see, Scott, what you fail to realize is that the Gospel isn't about you. It's about Jesus. It's not for your glory. It's for His. Your pride blinds you to the fact that if not for Christ's sacrifice that effectually reconciles some, but not all, to the Father you would never have, of your own "free will," chosen to be His follower. You have, as has everyone, inherited a fallen, spiritually dead nature. Your very nature hated the One that you now say you love. Christ changed that. He gave you the ability to change your life. The reason some don't is simple. He never gave them a new nature. Now, if the fallen could have lived a righteous life without His sacrifice they would be justified. They cannot. The Bible says that if you break one law, you've broken them all:

James 2:10
For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it.

God bless.

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Reformationist
For God did not send His Son into the the circle of the earth to condemn the the inhabitants of the world, but that the the ungodly multitude; the whole mass of men alienated from God through Him might be saved.

Actually, I like this one - God did not send his Son to the earth to condemn everyone, but that everyone through him might be saved.

Now grammatically, at least, this makes sense. But this is not what really happens and therefore cannot be what the scripture means, or scripture has erred.

Because it disagrees with your presuppositions?

Is "the ungodly multitude; the whole mass of men alienated from God" saved by Christ's sacrifice? Of course not.

Again, never said it was - you keep trying to peg me as a universalist.

The only way this is not what your definition means is if you put waaaaay too much emphasis on the words "might be saved."

It's only waaaay too much if it disagrees with what you said. Check out the Greek tense - you'll see that saved really IS in the might be/might be not manner!

Now, from the rest of your post I can see that you think the Creator of all things created, yourself included, is so powerless that His very death saved no one, rather it merely gave everyone the opportunity to be saved.

Interesting way to put it. I'd say that the Creator is SO powerful that he gave man a choice whther to choose Him or not. The sacrifice of Christ is sufficent to save all who come to Him. Again, don't put words in my mouth!

Conceivably, everyone could have decided, "Naaah. I'll pass." God was just sitting around saying, "Come on. Please pick me. Please, oh please, oh please."

Yep. Everyone COULD have said no. That's what makes it a choice. Everyone also could have said yes.

You see, the inconsistancy here is that even those that don't believe God predestines some for destruction still acknowledge Christ's sacrifice as more than just a ineffective call to faith. Here's the view: So, God knows who will voluntarily pick Him of their "free will" and those are the ones that God sent Christ to die for. Either way, Christ did not die for everyone.

Wrong again - there's a third view, which I think is more popular than those two. God died for all men, as it says in Scripture. God wants us to know Him so he calls all men. Those who choose to Follow Him, just as the disciples did become saved of their sins. Christ DID die for everyone.

I never said the word "kosmos" is used the same way every time. Even in your position the word "kosmos" can't be said to mean the same thing every single time.

I'm just asking for a consistent reading of the word. using "only believers" when there is NOT A SINGLE instance of any use of the word kosmos (which was an extraordinarily common word in the Greek times) translated this way in any other body of work should tell you something.

"I do not pray for believers only but for those who follow me..."

Just for the record, this verse you listed is John 17:9. As you'll note, it's not one that is listed on the translation for the interpretation of "kosmos" as it relates to "believers only." I never said the word "kosmos" is used the same way in every instance. Respond to what I say. Try not to twist it.

Again, just trying to understand why those specific passages you translate as believers only. Is there a method, or do you just translate the ones you want?

Now, this verse is much better understood using your definition of the word.

Not mine, but the common translations of the Greek times.

As you can see, no matter what position you take on this it requires some contextual discernment, not presupposition. The word is used differently in different places. All I said was that in John 3:16 the word "kosmos" doesn't mean everyone.

Contextual discernment is much different than placing a context within the framework of a theology. Considering the following verse of 3:17, world means all people.

I tell ya, if people spent as much time studying as they do attacking "the heretical Calvinist" they might understand the Word a bit better.

Is it heretical? I never said that. I think it's misguided and logically fallacious. That's all. And you didn't answer the word "all." Christ died for all men. How hard is that?

You're confusing Christ's attoning (and effectual) sacrifice with obedience by Christians. Christians, being regenerate, have the ability to glorify God with their obedience but are even being conformed in the midst of their disobedience.

Nope - It's only confusing to your worldview. To become a Christian requires obedience.

Come on man! I told you what propitiation means. It isn't an uneffective act. A propitiation accomplishes something. Christ wasn't the propitiation for us "not having the opportunity." He was the payment for sins. He obviously wasn't the payment for everyone's sins because some still go to hell. Their sins aren't paid for or they would not go to hell.

It's only a payment if it's accepted. Somehow I think I've said that before.

What?! The entire basis for your position has been that Christ's sacrifice is for everyone who ever lived, "not just believers."

You think I did, because in your own view, if Christ died for every man then every man logically MUST be saved. Circular reasoning at it's most absurd.

You put a limit on God's sovereignty by saying that Christ is so powerless that His death would have no effect on some people.

This is true. His death didn't have an effect on several people in the Bible. Read Acts. There were plenty of people who chose not to accept Christ.

Except of course that you believe He really wants everyone to be saved but yet, that just doesn't happen. Hmmm...is it God you're thinking of or Cleo from the "psychic friends network."

You're still interpreting things through your own worldview window! God's desire is for all men to be saved. That's Scriptural, word-for-word. I'm trying to understand what is so hard to understand about that. God died for all. He wants all men to be saved. Not all men are saved. How can we answer this? Do we try to explain away those by changing the meaning of words like world and all? Or do we examine the rest of the Bible and realize that man continues to have a choice as to whether to follow God or not? I choose the latter.

So you see Christ's sacrifice as effective in everyone? Or do you only see it as effective in the lives of those who believe in Him. It's one or the other Scott. It can't be both. And for the record, I said effective, as in it accomplishes what it was meant to. If you say it's effective for everyone then it wasn't meant to have an effect in some people's lives, which is ironically, what I have been saying.

Christ's sacrifice is effective enough to save the whole world an infinite times over. When he died, he died for the sins of all. However, to accept that gift, we must confess with our mouth and believe in our heart that Christ raised from the dead and make him Lord of our life. It is only then that we become children of GOd - that we become redeemed. (Notice that all of that was Biblical...)

Well, without a doubt, that Christ pick. You see, Scott, what you fail to realize is that the Gospel isn't about you. It's about Jesus. It's not for your glory. It's for His.

I realize that the Gospel is about God becoming man and loving ALL his people enough to die on the cross for them. It's about God reaching down and saving us, even though we deserve Hell and destruction - for His glory.

Your pride blinds you to the fact that if not for Christ's sacrifice that effectually reconciles some, but not all, to the Father you would never have, of your own "free will," chosen to be His follower.

This sounds an awful lot like ad hominem, and you're doing what I've seen so many Calvinists do before - move on to the "pride" thing. Sigh. This sentence doesn't even follow - you say that if Christ did die for all, I wouldn't have free will. Please explain!

Just because someone doesn't follow your credo DOESN'T make them prideful. That statement in and of itself places the pride on your shoulders, not mine. Interesting how that works, huh?

You have, as has everyone, inherited a fallen, spiritually dead nature. Your very nature hated the One that you now say you love. Christ changed that. He gave you the ability to change your life. The reason some don't is simple. He never gave them a new nature. Now, if the fallen could have lived a righteous life without His sacrifice they would be justified. They cannot. The Bible says that if you break one law, you've broken them all:

James 2:10
For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it.

I was dead in my sins until the Holy Spirit came and convicted me. Took him a long time to do it, too, since I didn't listen for the first 19 years of my life. It wasn't until I accepted Christ that I received a new nature - "If any man be IN CHRIST, then he is a new creation" - you see how that logicall follows - it's not, "if any man is a new creation, he becomes in Christ." There's a reason for that!

I'd ask that you escape your Calvinist worldview before responding to my next post. Argue based upon what the Bible says - not what the Institutes say. That'd be great!

 

[Reformationist]

Originally posted by ScottEmerson
Actually, I like this one - God did not send his Son to the earth to condemn everyone, but that everyone through him might be saved.

Ooops! Everyone wasn't saved by Christ's sacrifice. Oh no! What should we do? Hey I know. We could understand that because not everyone is, or will be, saved then that wasn't His goal. Unless, of course, you think that it was His goal and He just couldn't quite accomplish it.

Because it disagrees with your presuppositions?

No Scott because not everyone will be saved. So, as I said, either God intended for everyone to be saved and didn't have the authority to make it happen, OR, just maybe, saving everyone wasn't His goal.

Again, never said it was - you keep trying to peg me as a universalist.

Okay, I guess you missed this exact quote of YOUR WORDS from YOUR POST so I'll post it again:

Originally posted by ScottEmerson
Did Christ pay the price for those who won't believe in him? CHRIST DIED FOR ALL, so I guess I do.

Check out the Greek tense - you'll see that saved really IS in the might be/might be not manner!

No it doesn't. The Greek word is "sozo {sode'-zo}." Let me post the real meaning for you:

from a primary sos (contraction for obsolete saoz, "safe") ; v
See: TDNT - 7:965,1132

AV - save 93, make whole 9, heal 3, be whole 2, misc 3; 110

1) to save, keep safe and sound, to rescue from danger or destruction
1a) one (from injury or peril)
1a1) to save a suffering one (from perishing), i.e. one suffering from disease, to make well, heal, restore to health
1b1) to preserve one who is in danger of destruction, to save or rescue
1b) to save in the technical biblical sense
1b1) negatively
1b1a) to deliver from the penalties of the Messianic judgment
1b1b) to save from the evils which obstruct the reception of the Messianic deliverance

Hmmm...it seems "sozo {sode'-zo}" is a verb. That's strange. Nowhere does it say "might save" or "might deliver" or "might preseve." Don't think so bud.

The sacrifice of Christ is sufficent to save all who come to Him.

Now wait a sec Here you said:

Originally posted by ScottEmerson
Did Christ pay the price for those who won't believe in him? CHRIST DIED FOR ALL, so I guess I do.

and now your saying Christ's sacrifice "is sufficent to save ALL WHO COME TO HIM." Now, that's obviously not everyone, so which is it? Everyone, or "all who come to Him."

Yep. Everyone COULD have said no. That's what makes it a choice. Everyone also could have said yes.

Yeah. And it's all just coincidental how it turned out, right? (This is getting boring)

I'm just asking for a consistent reading of the word. using "only believers" when there is NOT A SINGLE instance of any use of the word kosmos (which was an extraordinarily common word in the Greek times) translated this way in any other body of work should tell you something.

Translated by who? You're right Scott, C.S. Lewis, R.C. Sproul, John Calvin, Charles Spurgeon, A.W. Pink all had it wrong. These learned men spent their lives pouring over the scriptures and the best they could come up with is a big lie that relies on nothing more than circular reasoning. A lie that "ScottEmerson" can so clearly see.

Again, just trying to understand why those specific passages you translate as believers only. Is there a method, or do you just translate the ones you want?

It's called context Scott. Why? Do you translate the word to mean the same thing every time? And if you do, why did you post a list of eight different accepted translations?

Not mine, but the common translations of the Greek times.

Oh, I see. So because a word is used in a certain way more commonly than in other ways that must have been the way it was used in John 3:16. And you think I'm the one that uses circular reasoning?

Contextual discernment is much different than placing a context within the framework of a theology.

I guess you don't do this?

That's all. And you didn't answer the word "all."

Seeing as how it wasn't a question:

Originally posted by ScottEmerson
This is done commonly with Calvinists in the use of the word, "ALL."

I didn't know you wanted an "answer." Regardless, you would give no creedance to my rebuttal.

Christ died for all men. How hard is that?

Not hard at all. Actually, it sounds wonderful. Except for one small thing, I don't think it's the truth.

To become a Christian requires obedience.

Is this a refutation? If it is, I have to ask, "to what?" I never said anything contrary to this. Except maybe, I would word it "living a Christian life requires obedience."

It's only a payment if it's accepted.

Do you understand that the payment was accepted? You just weren't the recipient of the payment. You were the recipient of the mercy, which you also didn't have a choice in receiving, which was the result of that "payment."

This is true. His death didn't have an effect on several people in the Bible. Read Acts. There were plenty of people who chose not to accept Christ.

Uhh yeah. And, that's because the purpose of His death wasn't to procure their salvation, or even "give them the opportunity."

You know, I read the rest of your post, and it's obvious you operate under the principle of telling anyone who doesn't agree with you that they are "interpreting things through their own worldview window" while, ironically, that's exactly what you do. Interesting how that works, huh?

Later.

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Reformationist


Ooops! Everyone wasn't saved by Christ's sacrifice. Oh no! What should we do? Hey I know. We could understand that because not everyone is, or will be, saved then that wasn't His goal. Unless, of course, you think that it was His goal and He just couldn't quite accomplish it.

Here's where your circular reasoning comes in... You keep repeating this idea that if Christ died for all, then all people must be saved. Since I don't agree with that assertion, your statements are invalid. Period. You're interpreting my statements through Calvinist glasses.

No Scott because not everyone will be saved. So, as I said, either God intended for everyone to be saved and didn't have the authority to make it happen, OR, just maybe, saving everyone wasn't His goal.

OR he had the authority to give man the power to choose. I just love how you say it MUST be only this and this and nothing else.

Okay, I guess you missed this exact quote of YOUR WORDS from YOUR POST so I'll post it again:

Exactly. I said, "Did Christ pay the price for those who won't believe in him? CHRIST DIED FOR ALL, so I guess I do." Just because he paid the price doesn't mean all are saved. You're jumping to the conclusion based upon your idea that all who Christ died for are inevitably saved.

No it doesn't. The Greek word is "sozo {sode'-zo}." Let me post the real meaning for you:

from a primary sos (contraction for obsolete saoz, "safe&quot ; v
See: TDNT - 7:965,1132

AV - save 93, make whole 9, heal 3, be whole 2, misc 3; 110

1) to save, keep safe and sound, to rescue from danger or destruction
1a) one (from injury or peril)
1a1) to save a suffering one (from perishing), i.e. one suffering from disease, to make well, heal, restore to health
1b1) to preserve one who is in danger of destruction, to save or rescue
1b) to save in the technical biblical sense
1b1) negatively
1b1a) to deliver from the penalties of the Messianic judgment
1b1b) to save from the evils which obstruct the reception of the Messianic deliverance

Hmmm...it seems "sozo {sode'-zo}" is a verb. That's strange. Nowhere does it say "might save" or "might deliver" or "might preseve." Don't think so bud.

And now I've got you! The word found in the Greek is Sothe (Pronounced so-thay). Sozo in the greek means "I save." Sothay is in the subjunctive case, which means "he/she/it might save." In the same way that the word "run" is different from the phrase, "she might run." And that's your problem right there. You're operating under false assumptions!

Now wait a sec Here you said:

and now your saying Christ's sacrifice "is sufficent to save ALL WHO COME TO HIM." Now, that's obviously not everyone, so which is it? Everyone, or "all who come to Him."

Exactly. Christ's sacrifice is sufficient to save all men. Just because it's sufficient doesn't inevitably mean that all are saved...unless you can find some Scriptures to support that view.

Translated by who? You're right Scott, C.S. Lewis, R.C. Sproul, John Calvin, Charles Spurgeon, A.W. Pink all had it wrong. These learned men spent their lives pouring over the scriptures and the best they could come up with is a big lie that relies on nothing more than circular reasoning. A lie that "ScottEmerson" can so clearly see.

And Calvin and Lewis may not have had the scholarship that is available now as far as reading other Greek works that we have now. They may have an excuse. As to Calvin, if you'd like, we can examine his life and biography and see how he came to his conclusions in the Bible if you want. Are you saying that Arminius was lying with what he said? Are you saying that early church fathers such as St. Clement, the Shepherd of Hermes, and Tertillian who lived within the 300 years after CHrist lived were lying if they believe man has a choice? Did they not spend their lives pouring through Scriptures? There are people who spend their lives scouring the Koran mean they are correct in what they say? This is an argument from authority and is logically incorrect.

It's called context Scott. Why? Do you translate the word to mean the same thing every time? And if you do, why did you post a list of eight different accepted translations?

Then show me how you know that believers only is the proper context without resorting to circular reasoning!

Oh, I see. So because a word is used in a certain way more commonly than in other ways that must have been the way it was used in John 3:16. And you think I'm the one that uses circular reasoning?

No - that's not circular reasoning. Ever heard of Occum's Razor? Look into it. Fascinating stuff, really.

Seeing as how it wasn't a question:

Then I'll make it a question in a new post then.

I didn't know you wanted an "answer." Regardless, you would give no creedance to my rebuttal.

What rebuttal? It may knock my socks off!

Not hard at all. Actually, it sounds wonderful. Except for one small thing, I don't think it's the truth.

But it's the Bible.

Is this a refutation? If it is, I have to ask, "to what?" I never said anything contrary to this. Except maybe, I would word it "living a Christian life requires obedience."

Agreed. However, how can Christians NOT obey in your worldview?

Do you understand that the payment was accepted? You just weren't the recipient of the payment. You were the recipient of the mercy, which you also didn't have a choice in receiving, which was the result of that "payment."

I was the recipient because I chose it. UNless you have Scripture to show otherwise.

Uhh yeah. And, that's because the purpose of His death wasn't to procure their salvation, or even "give them the opportunity."

Scripture?

You know, I read the rest of your post, and it's obvious you operate under the principle of telling anyone who doesn't agree with you that they are "interpreting things through their own worldview window" while, ironically, that's exactly what you do. Interesting how that works, huh?

I'm just surprised at how LITTLE of the Bible you use in refuting things. It seems that you rely on the Institutes instead of the Bible, and THAT is academically and theologically disingenious.

 

[Reformationist]

Originally posted by ScottEmerson
Are you saying that Arminius was lying with what he said? Are you saying that early church fathers such as St. Clement, the Shepherd of Hermes, and Tertillian who lived within the 300 years after CHrist lived were lying if they believe man has a choice? Did they not spend their lives pouring through Scriptures?

I'm gonna bail out here Scott. I would ask that you take a look at what Arminius thought of Calvin and the ability of the man to interpret scripture.

God bless.

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Reformationist


I'm gonna bail out here Scott.

Why?

 

[Lion Heart]

To those that subscribe to the Arminian point of view;

"The doctrine of eternal security is inherent in the doctrine of eternal life."

"Eternal security is a present possession of Eternal Life."

Both of these statements are true.

As I understand it; both , Conditional and Undonditional Election, don't deny the gift of "Eternal Life", and this free gift should produce "Eternal Security" in every beleiver who has received this free and precious gift by grace thru faith in our Lord and Saviour.
The issue seems to lie around the misunderstanding of GRACE and the significance of the shed BLOOD of our redeemer, and its FINALITY, in viewing the effects of sin upon a child of the living GOD.

Other factors seem to be at work here which reject not only this doctrine but other teachings of Scriptural doctrines. Most people that reject Eternal Security do so out of simple bias; simply being a christian is no guarantee that one will have correct beliefs on everything, especially if one never personally studies biblical or controversial issues in a systematic manner.

If people don't like what the Scriptures teach, the issue is not what the scripture says but, what they wish to believe. No amount of Scripture, logic, or common sense will convince such people against their will.

Today many professing christians, reject the plain teaching, and abandon, the Word of God for tradition, or some other external added revelations, by popes, prophets, or other religious leaders perceived by them as having a devine intercessory pipline to God.

Invariabily, when christians discuss this subject; it is steered into a discussion of whether an individual can lose his salvation and, then regain it again, and again, and again, and on and on. The reason this is so, is because the Conditional Election position emphasices that FAITH, is somehow produced by the individual and not a FREE GIFT, thereby, denying that salvation is entirely by GRACE, although those are not the exact words which are used by this side to explain the acquiring of salvation , this belief plainly is viewed as "BOASTING" by the other side, which contradicts the Scriptural teaching, that boasting is excluded not by observing the law, but by faith.

Of all issues, the matter of Eternal Security should be most important in the christians life, rather than whether or not a true believer can lose his salvation, given the scope of eternity, one would think this single topic should be of paramount importance to every Christian.

Since the doctrine of election is really the subject of interpretation, it is important to deal with the main issue that separates Conditional from Unconditional Election.

The biblical doctrine of salvation is one of the truly special aspects of our faith, and it serves to illustrate the uniqueness of our Christian faith, when compared to all other religions.

Eternal Security is one of the great proofs that the Bible alone is a divine revelation. If it wasn't it would teach the same approach to salvation found in every man made religion inspired by demonic spirits. The idea that I have believed, and this is the part I played in my salvation, is a rejection of the gift of GRACE. Because it makes the atonement of Christ merely a means for all to potentially save themselves, such as is taught, that you must observe this or that sacrament or observance taught by that church.

This then is an additional element added to GRACE which will now determine whether or not salvation occurs; this is called "Individual Performance"

Eternal Security then is the irrevocable and unfailing condition of Eternal Life guaranteed the true believer in Christ for both time and eternity.

I would encourage all those that have never, considered the positions espoused by both sides herein to really study Gods Word, not commentaries on the subject, and let the Spirit of the Lord who is able to lead the honest seeker of the truth; to rightly divide the Word of truth, with regard to this doctrine.

Jesus, plainly warned his disciples, Take heed, and let no man deceive you.

His WORD is the final authority on the subject.



May God bless you in the study of HIS own WORD.

Richard

 

[Lion Heart]

By the way, I beleive that man has free will, but not in deciding whether he wants to be saved.

The scriptures plainly teach man is dead in sin and trespass.

Imagine a dead corpse; it hears nothing, it is unable to communicate, it can't even scratch an itch, let alone feel one, how can IT answer the call of God; UNLESS GOD CALLs HIM OUT BY NAME. (Eph 2:1)

This is what the Scriptures plainly teach, God is doing, while men are still in the flesh.

The call goes out few are chosen, there appears to be a difference between being called and being chosen.

We humans, act as if we know the deep mistries of God, and just because we see ourselves as being saved, we can ascertain with certainty who, how, and when God saves those that perish, this is nonsense, it is enough that he has shown us, how sinnful we are, and how necessary it is to come by faith, to a merciful God.

We contend that God in his infinite wisdon, calls all men to repent all the days of their lives while they live on the earth, and "has shown it to them" , for Peter said; "And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;
And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith." (Act 15:8-9)

It is only after we are saved, that we wonder about these things, and we because of pride, would even deny the Blood that bought us by HIS GRACE, by claiming we somehow did something to cinch the deal.

So why brawl, our calling is to "preach the unsearchable riches in Christ" to a dieing world..



God Bless,



Richard

 

[Lion Heart]

Final thought;

The doctrine of "Eternal Security", glories GOD.

We have been called to glorify GOD.

The doctrine, that teaches somehow you can lose your salvation, by commiting sin and then be saved again at will.

Goes against sound doctrine.


Heb10
29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?



Sobering Words...

Richard

 

[Lion Heart]

Originally posted by ScottEmerson

Let's examine John 3:17 and read it the way you say: "For God did not send the Son into believers only to judge believers only, but that believers only might be saved through Him.

Scott,


I am not going to spend much time here, but notice the KJV of John3:17

"For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved."


The world here, is not a believing world; thats why the KJV says, "to condemn the world", somehow your version doesn't sound the same.




I looked at other verses that you have quoted herein, and I can see where the reader of your version may not be able to clearly see the Words being read in other versions and may cause some disagreement.

Do you own a concordance?? and if you do, Do they match the words up to the original language?

If not I'd consider getting both, that match up, with each other.






Blessings


Richard