Why is did God create us with the capacity to sin?

[Ragman]

4th April 2003 at 10:37 AM CCWoody said this in Post #24



Yeah, we are definitely on the same page.  I even implicitly made the same point that the "world" can't mean that the Lord has set His dying love upon the whole human race, even if I didn't explicitly state it.  The context should obviously lead us to that discovery.  Sadly, many of todays Christians are lazy in this regard.  It should be self-evidently obvious to anyone claiming to be a disciple of Christ.

After all, if the Father has elected the whole Human race for salvation...
And the Son has died for the expressed purpose of redeeming the whole human race....

Then why is the Holy Spirit not pulling out all the stops to get the Word of God to the ends of the earth and to every single last person?  Why does every man not enjoy a "Road to Damascus" experience?  Why does every nation not receive a Johan?


Your friendly neighborhhod Cordial Calvinist
Woody.

The Holy Spirit has pulled out all the stops.  The Word of God has gone to the ends of the earth.  Jesus is the Light of the world.  Jesus is the one who lights every man that comes into the world.  Do you suggest that Jesus is the light of the world apart from the person and work of the Holy Spirit?  Do you think He lights every man apart from the illumination that comes from the Holy Spirit?  Do you suggest that mothers who love their children in places where the gospel has never verbally been preached are loving their children apart from the work of the Spirit?  Do you suggest that the love that fathers exhibit when they work to support their families is love that they generate completely on their own?  Do you mean to say that there is no "revelation" of God's Spirit where there is no verbal preaching? 

The mere fact that someone can lay down and sleep at night signifies that there is a measure of assurance/peace inside of them.  And I say that mere humans are incapable of producing that kind of love and peace on their own.  Are you saying that if there is not a "Road of Damascus" experience that someone's experience with God is invalid?  Sounds like a Calvinist is suggesting that God is mighty dependant on mere humans.

 

[Ragman]

Today at 08:54 AM Reformationist said this in Post #32



Well, that is quite clear.  Look at what the "act of righteousness" resulted in: "resulting in justification of life."  So, we should ask ourselves, "What does it mean to be justified?" and "has what it means to be justified been granted to all men?"  If not, then it can not mean "all" as in "every single person."  So, what does the word "dikaiosis" [justification] mean?  From Strong's Concordance:

dikaiosis - the act of God declaring men free from guilt and acceptable to Him.

So now we must ask ourselves, "have all men been declared free from guilt and acceptable to God?"  I can't see how anyone would make this assumption.  So, if not all men have been declared "free from guilt and acceptable to God" then not all men can have been "justified unto life."  So, by obvious process of deduction, if not all men have been "justified unto life" then it can't be possible that the gift of "justification unto life" was given to all men.

On another note, the word "pas" [all], also means "some of all types."

 


See, this assumption makes some pretty strong grammatical errors.  If I were to say to you, "I accomplished the payment of your mortgage/rent" it really wouldn't matter whether you rejected it or not.  What you are touching on is the issue of whether, by choice, you can lose or give back your salvation.  It has nothing to do with being saved initially.  If Jesus, by His death, accomplished your salvation (notice the tense) then you are saved.  If He did not, then there is no sacrifice that will propitiate the wrath of God for you.  Understand, I am talking about salvation, not regeneration.  There is a significant theological difference.

God bless

Yes all men have been declared righteous. 
 2 Corinthians 5:19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.

 Romans 5:19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

If God does not count men's sins against them, why do men?  If one man's disobedience made the many (all mankind) sinners, then the obedience of One has made the many (all mankind) righteous.  Whatever you think "all" or "many" means (if it means all, or all of some kind or whatever) you can't change the rules in the middle of the verse because it messes up your theology.

God has reconciled the entire cosmos to Himself in His Son.  To assert otherwise is to deny the deity of Jesus Christ.

 

[Ragman]

Today at 02:04 PM rnmomof7 said this in Post #33




Do you believe that all men without exception are going to heaven?

just answer the question instead of asking another one first

 

[rnmomof7]

Yesterday at 08:21 PM Ragman said this in Post #42




Yes all men have been declared righteous. 
 2 Corinthians 5:19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.

 Romans 5:19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

The word does not mean every person without exception..it is an extension to the gentiles..(other flocks) The Jews understood this and what was meant.

Are you telling us that all men are made righteous by Christ?

If that is so all men without exception are going to heaven we may shut down hell

If God does not count men's sins against them, why do men?  If one man's disobedience made the many (all mankind) sinners, then the obedience of One has made the many (all mankind) righteous.  Whatever you think "all" or "many" means (if it means all, or all of some kind or whatever) you can't change the rules in the middle of the verse because it messes up your theology.

God has reconciled the entire cosmos to Himself in His Son.  To assert otherwise is to deny the deity of Jesus Christ.

The greek word is kosmos..and you do need to look it up if you are interested in rightly dividing the word.

 

[rnmomof7]

Yesterday at 07:26 AM bird said this in Post #31



 

again, i ask, why are you so certain they are not? 

 

bird

Because the Bible says so

 

[rnmomof7]

Yesterday at 08:21 PM Ragman said this in Post #42




Yes all men have been declared righteous. 
 2 Corinthians 5:19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.

 Romans 5:19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

The word does not mean every person without exception..it is an extension to the gentiles..(other flocks) The Jews understood this and what was meant.

Are you telling us that all men are made righteous by Christ?

If that is so all men without exception are going to heaven we may shut down hell

If God does not count men's sins against them, why do men?  If one man's disobedience made the many (all mankind) sinners, then the obedience of One has made the many (all mankind) righteous.  Whatever you think "all" or "many" means (if it means all, or all of some kind or whatever) you can't change the rules in the middle of the verse because it messes up your theology.

God has reconciled the entire cosmos to Himself in His Son.  To assert otherwise is to deny the deity of Jesus Christ.

The greek word is kosmos..and you do need to look it up if you are interested in rightly dividing the word.

 

[Ragman]

Yesterday at 11:57 PM rnmomof7 said this in Post #44

The word does not mean every person without exception..it is an extension to the gentiles..(other flocks) The Jews understood this and what was meant.

Are you telling us that all men are made righteous by Christ?

If that is so all men without exception are going to heaven we may shut down hell


The greek word is kosmos..and you do need to look it up if you are interested in rightly dividing the word.

The word does not mean mean just "Gentiles".  The intended audience was not just Jews.  If you look at the names specifically mentioned in the book of Romans you will see that all are not Jews.  For example: Phebe, Epaenetus, Amplias, Urbane, Tryphena, Tryphosa, Rufus, Hermes, etc. These are not Hebrew names, but Greek or Roman names.  As for the 2 Corinthians verse, he is not addressing Jews as his audience, but Greeks in Corinth. 

The same meaning of "many" needs to be applied equally in the same verse.  As for kosmos, it means the entire universe, and is specifically addressing all mankind since it continues in saying that God did not count their sins against them.

Again, yes I am saying that God has made all men righteous.  To say otherwise is a denial of the deity of Christ.

You can shut down hell if you want to, but I presume that God has use for it other than to fry the majority of the human race that has had no opportunity for salvation.

You can't just hide behind sayings like "because the Bible says so" assuming that everyone shares your view of the Bible.  And you are avoiding the question of who you say Jesus is paying off.  God?  The devil?

 

[Reformationist]

Yesterday at 02:20 PM Allen2 said this in Post #35

a. Simply, many reject what God has provided thru Christ.

This idea only works if you totally disregard the fallen nature of mankind that always rejects what God has provided through Christ.  The biggest error that I can see that you are making is you seem to be assuming that fallen man is inherently good and capable of making the "right decision."  It's just not the case.  Simply, all (not many) reject what God provided through Christ:

Romans 3:12
They have all turned aside;
        They have together become unprofitable;
        There is none who does good, no, not one.

It is the work of salvation that is solely accomplished by the Lord that changes that rebelliousness.  If He didn't change it, fallen man wouldn't change.  He would always rebel.  It is the regenerative work of God that causes us to desire to do the Will of God.

b. People will not perish because of any lack in Christ's atonement, or any lack in God's passionate desire to see them saved.

I agree except that I wouldn't say "God's passionate desire to see them saved" because it implies that God does not have a hand in bringing about that which He most wants, or, if He does, He is ineffectual in some cases.  God never fails.  If it is His sovereign will that someone be saved, then they were saved.  It's not a chance possibility.  It's not a "only if they could meet the right Pastor."  Every person who ever died as an unsaved person would never have ever been saved.  It wasn't a case of just not having enough time to "come to the truth."  It wasn't God's will that it happen.

We are freely invited to a relationship with God and the onus is on us. God is drawing all of us (Jn.12:32)--this drawing is NOT irresistible.

So instead of acknowledging that the God of all creation is in control and brings about His Will as He sovereignly decrees you'd rather view the Lord as some ineffectual god who passionately desires to see all people saved and draws every single person unto Himself but has no power to bring His own greatest desire to fruition, right?  Let me ask you something, and I really hope you don't skip right over this question.  If it is God's greatest desire that every single person be saved and God sets out to bring that about for each and every one of us, do you think God fails to bring about His own Will and greatest desire?  And please don't skirt around this by saying something like, "Oh no, God doesn't fail, it is man that fails."  The bottom line is if God sets out to accomplish something, He has a goal, and if, as you contend, that goal is the salvation of the entire world, then God is a failure.

 

c. What troubles Calv. about this position is they understand Divine sovty as primarily power. The great theme in both testaments is that God's rule and pursuit of sinners is the story of LOVE; John does not say, "God is power", but getting to the heart of our Lord's essence says "God is Love"(IJn4:8).

The problem with the theological position, like your own, which doesn't put the supremacy of God first and recognize that the Will and actions of God are about God, not about the created being, is that it starts making assumptions that are contradictory to the entire nature of God.  Yes Allen, God is love.  God is also sovereign.  God is also first causal in all things that He does.  God is also omnipotent.  Many "sovereignty of Man" type Christians love to throw verses around that speak of God's love but you'll rarely hear them address passages that speak of the Lord telling someone to destroy a group of people, or the Lord Himself destroying a group of people, to include the children and animals.  I don't view those actions as unrighteous because, unlike you, I understand that it is the Lord's grace and goodness that brings someone to repentence.  Without it, man will never repent.  You, on the other hand, seem to start off with the premise that man is mostly good, even after the Fall, and it is entirely possible for him to come to a saving knowledge of Christ and cry out to Him and that plea, which was given from a penitant heart, is the catalyst for their salvation.  That's just unbiblical as well as illogical.  Fallen man is dead in his trespasses.  He will never call on the Lord until He is brought back to life.  Fallen man can do nothing to bring himself back to life.  Not baptism.  Not prayer.  All those works, if done by a fallen person, are motivated by sinfulness and are, therefore, sinful.  They must be born from above and then they can see the Kingdom of God.  You seem to contend that they first see the Kingdom of God (this doesn't mean Heaven by the way) and because of the awe that is inspired by that enlightenment they go do something to be saved.

God first, then man.

God bless

 

[rnmomof7]

Today at 06:19 AM Ragman said this in Post #47



The word does not mean mean just "Gentiles".  The intended audience was not just Jews.  If you look at the names specifically mentioned in the book of Romans you will see that all are not Jews.  For example: Phebe, Epaenetus, Amplias, Urbane, Tryphena, Tryphosa, Rufus, Hermes, etc. These are not Hebrew names, but Greek or Roman names.  As for the 2 Corinthians verse, he is not addressing Jews as his audience, but Greeks in Corinth. 

The Jews had believed they had a 'special" relationship with God that they were the "chosen" people..Christ and the disciples made it clear over and over to the Jews that no longer had the position of the "chosen" that It was first to the Jews..but not exclusive to them any longer.

Paul and the others announced the change...and yes that announcement that the God of Israel is also the God of the multi God greeks and that He is the Savior of Greeks as well as Jews had to be announced to all men.

The same meaning of "many" needs to be applied equally in the same verse.  As for kosmos, it means the entire universe, and is specifically addressing all mankind since it continues in saying that God did not count their sins against them.

Many will indeed be lost.
Rom 5:15__ But not as the offence, so also [is] the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, [which is] by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.

and many will be saved..

Rom 5:17__ For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)
Those that receive the gift all foreordained and known by God will be saved....a limited atonement

Again, yes I am saying that God has made all men righteous.  To say otherwise is a denial of the deity of Christ.

Do you believe that this was Pauls understanding?


_ Rom 3:5__ But if our unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God, what shall we say? [Is] God unrighteous who taketh vengeance? (I speak as a man)
__
_ Rom 3:6__ God forbid: for then how shall God judge the world?
__
_ Rom 3:7__ For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?
__
_ Rom 3:8__ And not [rather], (as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say,) Let us do evil, that good may come? whose damnation is just.
__
_ Rom 3:9__ What then? are we better [than they]? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;
__
_ Rom 3:10__ As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

You can shut down hell if you want to, but I presume that God has use for it other than to fry the majority of the human race that has had no opportunity for salvation.

According to you Christ made all men righteous..so you and Hitler and jeff dalmner can be room mates:>)

You can't just hide behind sayings like "because the Bible says so" assuming that everyone shares your view of the Bible.  And you are avoiding the question of who you say Jesus is paying off.  God?  The devil?

I do not assume that every man without exception shares my views..infact only a few..I also do not feel the need to convince anyone that what I believe it true..as I told another I do not hand out tracts or beg folks to do the sinners prayer.
This is discussion not missionary work.


FYI<1,,2889,kosmos>
primarily "order, arrangement, ornament, adornment" (1 Pet. 3:3, see ADORN, B), is used to denote (a) the "earth," e.g., Matt. 13;35; John 21:25; Acts 17:24; Rom. 1:20 (probably here the universe: it had this meaning among the Greeks, owing to the order observable in it); 1 Tim. 6:7; Heb. 4:3; 9:26; (b) the "earth" in contrast with Heaven, 1 John 3:17 (perhaps also Rom. 4:13); (c) by metonymy, the "human race, mankind," e.g., Matt. 5:14; John 1:9 [here "that cometh (RV, 'coming') into the world" is said of Christ, not of "every man;" by His coming into the world He was the light for all men]; 1 John 3:10; 3:16,17 (thrice),19; 4:42, and frequently in Rom. 1 Cor. and 1 John; (d) "Gentiles" as distinguished from Jews, e.g., Rom. 11:12,15, where the meaning is that all who will may be reconciled (cp. 2 Cor. 5:19); (e) the "present condition of human affairs," in alienation from and opposition to God, e.g., John 7:7; 8:23; 14:30; 1 Cor. 2:12; Gal. 4:3; 6:14; Col. 2:8; Jas. 1:27; 1 John 4:5 (thrice); 5:19; (f) the "sum of temporal possessions," Matt. 16:26; 1 Cor. 7:31 (1st part); (g) metaphorically, of the "tongue" as "a world (of iniquity)," Jas. 3:6; expressive of magnitude and variety.

 

[Reformationist]

Yesterday at 02:44 PM Allen2 said this in Post #36 &lt;http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=770004&gt;

Hey Ref; re Rom.5:18b,"So also the result of one act of rtswas just. that brings life for all men", the Adam-Christ contrast is stated very compactly. Adam rebelled and ALL suffer; Christ willingly went to the cross, rt standing with God is available for all.

Great. But that's not what it says. You see, you apply a obvious cause and effect relationship to Adam's works, i.e., Adam rebelled all mankind fell from grace. With Adam you don't ascribe any "possibility for falling from grace." You just make the logical jump that Adam sinned so therefore all fell. We didn't have to make a conscious consent to fall. Adam was a created being and you say what he did affected all mankind, without exception. All men fell. Now, let's move on to Christ, since there is an obvious parallel. Ironically, you don't even give Christ the same acknowledgement. You say by Christ's works man has the possibility to be saved. So, all Christ's death accomplished, in your opinion, is to make salvation "possible." But again, that's not what the verse says. It says, "through one man's offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation" and "through one Man's righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life." The verse does not say that through Christ's righteous act the free gift can come to all men, and can result in justification. In both instances the act efficaciously brings about the result. So I ask you, are all men justified unto life? If you say yes then understand that you are saying that God has declared that all people, every single person, including those that go to hell are "free from guilt and acceptable to Him." Do you believe that to be the case? Does that even make sense to you? If not, then the only possible solution that I can see, which fortunately agrees with every other verse in the Bible, is that man comulatively fell from grace because of the works of their representative head, Adam, and those that God has forordained to be saved by the life and death of His only begotten Son are saved because of the work of their representative head, Christ.

Cf. also Rom.11:32, "God has consigned all men to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all." Does this really mean, in spite of appearances, "God has consigned every last human to disobedience, that he may have mercy on SOME?"

Do you believe that God has mercy on all, even unto salvation?&nbsp; Because, again, it says He has consigned all men to disobedience, that He may have mercy on all.&nbsp; And just so you know, "may" does not refer to possibility.&nbsp; It means He will.&nbsp; So, here again, either you are a universalist and believe that God saves all people or "all" cannot mean "all people."

What could Paul have meant when he proclaimed to the sages in Athens, "God now commands all people everywhere to repent", Acts 17:3O. Is Paul speaking of everyone or some who will without fail be equipped to repent?

Allen, all does not always mean all.&nbsp; Face it.&nbsp; Look at this:

Mark 1:5
Then all the land of Judea, and those from Jerusalem, went out to him and were all baptized by him in the Jordan River, confessing their sins.

Please tell me that you don't interpret this as "every single person in the land of Judea went out and was baptized in the Jordan River."&nbsp; "All" just does not always mean "every single one" of something.

And what is the pt of the warning for those who could never repent even if their [eternal] lives depended on it?

Is God supposed to have a different set of rules for those He gives the grace to repent and those He doesn't?&nbsp; God is&nbsp;just.&nbsp; That is His&nbsp;Law.&nbsp; God is not obligated to&nbsp;give someone the grace to repent just because He commands it.&nbsp; That's why it's called grace.&nbsp; It's unmerited.&nbsp;

You said that if Jesus accomplished your salvation, then you are saved. You can't really mean that, do you?

Of course I mean it.

What about a sinner's situation, PRIOR to their conversion in faith and repentance: were they already saved?

Using phrases like "prior to" is pointless because God does not live in time.&nbsp; So yes, they were saved.

Years before their baptism of repentance and acknowledgment of Christ's Lordship, were they already in rt standing with God?

Allen, your "baptism of repentence" and "acknowledgement of Christ's Lordship" are a RESULT of God bringing you back to life, not the means.&nbsp; You are so bound up in attributing your salvation to your own works that you fail to see that if God had not first saved you then you never would have repented or acknowledged His Lordship.&nbsp; You don't repent because you came to a rational decision and determined that repenting was the thing to do:

Romans 2:4
Or do you despise the riches of His goodness, forbearance, and longsuffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leads you to repentance?

It's God's grace that a person repents.&nbsp; Those works that you mentioned are just the result of being brought back to life and being given a new nature that desires to obey God.

God bless,

Don

 

[Reformationist]

Yesterday at 04:05 PM rnmomof7 said this in Post #40



Everyone that Father intended to save was saved at the cross. Everyone that was saved at the cross will hear the gospel, repent and believe

Amen my sister!

 

[rnmomof7]

Today at 10:41 AM Reformationist said this in Post #48



This idea only works if you totally disregard the fallen nature of mankind that always rejects what God has provided through Christ.&nbsp; The biggest error that I can see that you are making is you seem to be assuming that fallen man is inherently good and capable of making the "right decision."&nbsp; It's just not the case.&nbsp; Simply, all (not many) reject what God provided through Christ:

Romans 3:12
They have all turned aside;
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; They have together become unprofitable;
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; There is none who does good, no, not one.

It is the work of salvation that is solely accomplished by the Lord that changes that rebelliousness.&nbsp; If He didn't change it, fallen man wouldn't change.&nbsp; He would always rebel.&nbsp; It is the regenerative work of God that causes us to desire to do the Will of God.



I agree except that I wouldn't say "God's passionate desire to see them saved" because it implies that God does not have a hand in bringing about that which He most wants, or, if He does, He is ineffectual in some cases.&nbsp; God never fails.&nbsp; If it is His sovereign will that someone be saved, then they were saved.&nbsp; It's not a chance possibility.&nbsp; It's not a "only if they could meet the right Pastor."&nbsp; Every person&nbsp;who ever died as an unsaved person would never have ever been saved.&nbsp; It wasn't a case of just not having enough time to "come to the truth."&nbsp; It wasn't God's will that it happen.



So instead of acknowledging that the God of all creation is in control and brings about His Will as He sovereignly decrees you'd rather view the Lord as some ineffectual god who passionately desires to see all people saved and&nbsp;draws every single person unto Himself but has no power to bring His own greatest desire to fruition, right?&nbsp; Let me ask you something, and I really hope you don't skip right over this question.&nbsp; If it is God's greatest desire that every single person be saved and God sets out to bring that about for each and every one of us, do you think God fails to bring about His own Will and greatest desire?&nbsp; And please don't skirt around this by saying something like, "Oh no, God doesn't fail, it is man that fails."&nbsp; The bottom line is if God sets out to accomplish something, He has a goal, and if, as you contend, that goal is the salvation of the entire world, then God is a failure.

&nbsp;


The problem with&nbsp;the theological position, like your own,&nbsp;which&nbsp;doesn't put the supremacy of God first and recognize that the Will and actions of God are about God, not about the created being, is that it starts making assumptions that are contradictory to the entire nature of God.&nbsp; Yes Allen, God is love.&nbsp; God is also sovereign.&nbsp; God is also first causal in all things that He does.&nbsp; God is also omnipotent.&nbsp; Many "sovereignty of Man" type Christians love to throw verses around that speak of God's love but you'll rarely hear them address passages that speak of the Lord telling someone to destroy a group of people, or the Lord Himself destroying a group of people, to include the children and animals.&nbsp; I don't view those actions as unrighteous because, unlike you, I understand that it is the Lord's grace and goodness that brings someone to repentence.&nbsp; Without it, man will never repent.&nbsp; You, on the other hand, seem to start off with the premise that man is mostly good, even after the Fall, and it is entirely possible for him to come to a saving knowledge of Christ and cry out to Him and that plea, which was given from a penitant heart, is the catalyst for their salvation.&nbsp; That's just unbiblical as well as illogical.&nbsp; Fallen man is dead in his trespasses.&nbsp; He will never call on the Lord until He is brought back to life.&nbsp; Fallen man can do nothing to bring himself back to life.&nbsp; Not baptism.&nbsp; Not prayer.&nbsp; All those works, if done by a fallen person, are motivated by sinfulness and are, therefore, sinful.&nbsp; They must be born from above and then they can see the Kingdom of God.&nbsp; You seem to contend that they first see the Kingdom of God (this doesn't mean Heaven by the way)&nbsp;and because of the awe that is inspired by that enlightenment they go do something to be saved.

God first, then man.

God bless

Excellent , well presented post
Thanks

 

[CCWoody]

Yesterday at 07:12 PM Ragman said this in Post #41




The Holy Spirit has pulled out all the stops.

Then He is a dismal failure according to your standard.&nbsp; It actually took Him 1500 years to finally get missionaries to the New World.&nbsp; He even prevented an apostle from preaching to certain people.&nbsp; I don't remember how long it too Him to get around to going down under.

Imagine all those people for whom the Father wanted to save, the Son actually died to make their salvation possible, yet the Holy Spirit was just too big a failure to get the message out.

Your friendly neighborhood Cordial Calvinist
Woody.

 

[CCWoody]

Yesterday at 07:21 PM Ragman said this in Post #42

God has reconciled the entire cosmos to Himself in His Son.&nbsp; To assert otherwise is to deny the deity of Jesus Christ.

There sure are going to be a lot of perfect and righteous people being tormented in the Lake of Fire.

It is amazing that you preach that the Lord is such a horrible failure.

Your friendly neighborhood Cordial Calvinist
Woody.

 

[CCWoody]

Today at 10:35 AM Reformationist said this in Post #50

You say by Christ's works man has the possibility to be saved. So, all Christ's death accomplished, in your opinion, is to make salvation "possible."

Good post!&nbsp; Here is the intro of an argument that I made within the last 12 months.&nbsp; I just sent you an email.&nbsp; If you will be kind enough to reply, I will send you the entire html article.&nbsp; Eventually, I'll post it here for discussion, but I thought you might like it.

The unAmazing Grace

Prefatory note: Some contend that God has made salvation possible for all men with His grace whereas some contends that God as made salvation certain for a vast multitude with His grace from every nation and tribe and tongue and people group of which God alone knows the number. For the sake of logical charity, we will concede to the "possible salvation" of all men and examine its characteristics. By doing so we will show conclusively by this concession that a mere "possible salvation" cannot be a salvation by grace.

******&nbsp;

The very words "Christ died to save all men" seem to have an air of majesty worthy of God. However, it cannot be said that Christ offered atonement and secured the salvation of all men. This is the heresy of Universalism, vile and disgusting. The entire wording of such a construction then is reduced to this simple contention: God has made a "possible salvation" for all men. Please note though, that the very wording of this construction implies that a "possible salvation" by grace is not in and of itself a salvation by grace, but at best is a salvation in the use of grace by the man.&nbsp;


It must be stated up front that a "possible salvation" by grace is most definitely NOT an actual salvation by grace; the certainty of the salvation of not one human being is provided for. This grace led NONE to salvation. Before a "possible salvation" can become an actual salvation something must be done. Those who defend a mere "possible salvation" must contend then that man must perform that something for a mere "possible salvation" to become an actual salvation. The efficacious act comes from the man who can accept or stifle and kill the grace of God.

• &nbsp;The Reformed theologian maintains that the efficacious and irresistible grace of God saves a sinner through the bestowal of the grace of God. Faith itself is a gift from God and is the result of the bestowal of grace.
  
  --ON THE OTHER HAND--
  
• The Arminian maintains that the inefficacious and resistible grace merely makes salvation possible and the final result of salvation comes NOT from the bestowal of saving grace but from the efficacious act of the natural fallen MAN improving the "possible salvation" to an actual salvation. Faith is generated by man using the grace given to him.

&nbsp;

In order for the Arminian's construct to be proved there then must be some inequality in the mix that will determine the final outcome of either salvation or damnation. If grace is the inequality, then the Reformed theologians position is correct and Arminianism is overthrown by the concession. If it is in the efficacious act of the natural fallen MAN improving the "possible salvation" to an actual salvation through faith that he supplies, then salvation is not by grace. Salvation is ultimately by the efficacious act of the natural fallen MAN.&nbsp;
&nbsp;

Is the inequality:

1. the GRACE of God? &nbsp;
   &nbsp;
2. the efficacious act of the natural fallen MAN?

 

[Ragman]

Today at 06:23 PM CCWoody said this in Post #53



Then He is a dismal failure according to your standard.&nbsp; It actually took Him 1500 years to finally get missionaries to the New World.&nbsp; He even prevented an apostle from preaching to certain people.&nbsp; I don't remember how long it too Him to get around to going down under.

Imagine all those people for whom the Father wanted to save, the Son actually died to make their salvation possible, yet the Holy Spirit was just too big a failure to get the message out.

Your friendly neighborhood Cordial Calvinist
Woody.

Woody:

There is not failure in the Father.&nbsp; There is not failure in creation, nor in redemption....

Would you father children in order to torment them eternally in hell?&nbsp; Would you do it for the purpose that folks would say, "Glory to Woody, he torments his own children, what wonderful justice."?

Are you better than God?

As for you suggesting that the Holy Spirit is not at work you are saying there is no work of the Spirit in mothering, fathering, being a good student or worker or artist or musician, etc..... Do you say that these are mere "human" activities absent of God's Spirit?

Are you saying that all creation was not made by the Son and does not consist in the Son?&nbsp; Is that what you are saying?&nbsp; Or, are you saying that they were made by the Son, consist in the Son, but are unaffected by the Son unless they are what you call "the elect"?&nbsp; You are saying one or the other, which is it?&nbsp; If you are saying either one you are denying the deity of Christ which you profess.

 

[rnmomof7]

Yesterday at 09:17 PM Ragman said this in Post #56



Woody:

There is not failure in the Father.&nbsp; There is not failure in creation, nor in redemption....

Would you father children in order to torment them eternally in hell?&nbsp; Would you do it for the purpose that folks would say, "Glory to Woody, he torments his own children, what wonderful justice."?

Are you better than God?

As for you suggesting that the Holy Spirit is not at work you are saying there is no work of the Spirit in mothering, fathering, being a good student or worker or artist or musician, etc..... Do you say that these are mere "human" activities absent of God's Spirit?

Are you saying that all creation was not made by the Son and does not consist in the Son?&nbsp; Is that what you are saying?&nbsp; Or, are you saying that they were made by the Son, consist in the Son, but are unaffected by the Son unless they are what you call "the elect"?&nbsp; You are saying one or the other, which is it?&nbsp; If you are saying either one you are denying the deity of Christ which you profess.

God is only the father of those adopted IN Christ.

 

[Reformationist]

Arminian view - Christ is the potential Savior of all but the actual Savior of none.

Reformed view - Christ is the actual Savior of all He has chosen and has never lost one or failed in any endeavor.

I'll stick with the reformed view.

God bless

 

[Allen2]

Hi Ref! I am thoroughly enjoying and profiting from our discussions. I can't get out of my mind something you wrote:"Jesus accomplished your salvation, then you are saved." You insisted that even prior to your faith in Christ, say yrs or eternity, you are, in fact, ALREADY SAVED.
How does this square with this story from Paul's ministry in Philipi: the jailer cries out :"Sirs, what must I do[pointing to the future'] to be saved?" [Paul and Silas] replied, "Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you WILL BE SAVED[future]", Acts.16:30-31?

 

[rnmomof7]

Today at 10:31 AM Reformationist said this in Post #58

Arminian view - Christ is the potential Savior of all but the actual Savior of none.

Reformed view - Christ is the actual Savior of all He has chosen and has never lost one or failed in any endeavor.

I'll stick with the reformed view.

God bless

I always use the following

The blood of Christ + a stiring sermon+ " a verse of "Just as I am "+ an altar call+ a sinners prayer=salvation

They do not understand that Arminian theology teaches that Christ saved no one!