Why?

[Benedicta00]

Why does one reject and one accept? If we are all made in His likeness and we compare two who have not yet made a decision either for or against the Lord, what makes one person accept and another reject?

Thanks,
God bless

Free will: The power to chose between the two opposites.

 

[Reformationist]

I would have to cut and paste half of the New Testament alone to show you that. In a nutshell it has to do with repenting, abiding and remaining. I believe these warnings are issued by God in a very urgent manner, and in the present tense. Giving that --it would be my opinion that they pertain to salvation. If they didn't, why the urgency? Why the warnings about being cut off and thrown into the fire or devoured by wolves? Why wouldn't He have been a bit more lax in His wording?

Sin is offensive to God and harmful to us. I see the sense of urgency clearly because it is something we should urgently address in our lives. However, I don't see it being an issue of salvation and I think the prosaic way these issues are addressed in the Gospel often leads people to form unbiblical opinions about the result of falling into sin. For that matter, if it's an issue of wording, why would the Gospel just not come out and say, "If you don't keep my commandments then you will lose the gift that you never earned?" This, to me, is something that many seem to skip right over. They'll readily acknowledge they could do nothing to merit getting saved but then adamantly defend the belief that they must do something to keep it. The concept of unmerited gain can potentially beget merited loss makes no sense to me.

What I believe is happening here is that God is giving these vessels of wrath being fitted for destruction over to their sin. He is stepping back and having nothing to do with it.

I am a big proponant of the belief of the passive action of God in giving men over to their natural sinful inclinations. Tell me, if God "steps back and has nothing to do with it" are those people still as morally free to repent and obey God?

I would agree with you when he talks about vessels of mercy. But the vessels of wrath I think the verb is passive there, I do not think that God is doing the acting there. I think the action lies in the heart of the vessel being fitted for destruction.

A couple of things here. First, are you saying that you believe God does predestine vessels of mercy but not wrath? Also, what does that preparation by God entail? As for God "doing the acting" let me clarify that I am, in NO way, saying that God is forcing them to sin. What I'm saying is that God, in passively withdrawing His restraining hand, is, in essence, turning men over to deal with things from a carnal mind, which will ALWAYS sin. Once again, God is not inserting sinful thoughts into their minds. Rather, He is merely removing His hand of restraint that kept them from sinning to the level that they had under His active restraint, much like the way He dealt with Pharaoh.

I think that whole chapter speaks of God's sovereinity, but also of His mercy.

Um...okay. I agree. Would you mind addressing this portion though?:

"Don't you think that makes God's creating them an exercise in futility, not to mention contrary to His sovereign power of creation? I'm not sure why you think the rest of us were created but my belief is that we were created to worship Him. If God, knowing they would not worship Him, created them for that reason then it seems a bit pointless, and I can't personally imagine God doing something pointless. Additionally, God is the Creator of all things created. If God created them to worship Him then why wouldn't they have turned out as He planned? Is God impotent to create something and it turn out the way He intended? That would make God weak and unworthy of praise. Additionally, Scripture makes it clear that God creates, FROM THE SAME LUMP OF CLAY, some for honor and some for dishonor. This clearly shows that God is in control of determining the purpose for which a person is created, and it is not the same for everyone. Are you willing to believe that God could create someone for honor and despite His intention they turn out as vessels of dishonor? I could not even fathom such a thing.[/quote]

As for why, if all humanity was created to worship God, why do they not? This is the crux of our disagreement. I believe He desires all men to do that but not all men will. I don't think this diminishes God's power in any way, as you think that it would, but that He loves us enough to let us choose Him.


Michelle

Michelle, if God created someone to worship Him and He's the One doing the creating don't you think that He has the power ensure they turn out the way He intended? Or do you think God arbitrarily desires something while knowing that He is powerless to ensure that it works out the way He wants it to? That makes God sound as impotent as man in my opinion. Why would God desire something that He eternally knew would never be? It just makes no sense whatsoever, especially sense it is God determining exactly what it is He is creating.

Lastly, and I've mentioned this before, why would you say that God loves us enough to let us choose? Didn't God realize that many of those He loved were going to burn in hell and suffer a lot of torment? How is that loving? Are you saying that God loves us all and desires that we all be with Him but He has a greater desire that we be the ones to choose Him? Doesn't the Word tell us that we weren't the ones that chose Him but rather He was the one who chose us? What do you think His choosing of us accomplished? Did His choice of us facilitate or ensure that anything would happen? Also, if God loves every single person, even though the Bible says that He hates workers of iniquity, does that mean that God started out being eternally disappointed in the way His own plan turned out?

God bless,
Don

 

[Reformationist]

Free will: The power to chose between the two opposites.

That's how you define "free will," the "power" to choose between the two opposites? So all people ever created are morally free to obey God or disobey God? Is that what you're saying?

That still doesn't answer my question though. Using your definition, what causes one person to exercise "the power to choose between the two opposites" and submit to God and another to exercise ""the power to choose between the two opposites" and choose not to submit to God?

Thanks,
God bless

 

[JesusServant]

Hi Ref!

I read through some of the thread, but not all of it as I am pressed for time. However, I just had to say this...

I have often asked this question as well Ref of Satan. God had to know how Satan would turn on Him, so why go through with it? Why not save everyone the frustration and skip that? I have to assume there has to be a balance for our universe/dimension to exist. Without evil, good has no meaning or existance, it is just the norm and uncomprehensible as good or anything at all. Then we get into all kinds of deep discussions that none of us are equipt to answer, only hypothesize.

Anyway, the way I see it, either one believes in free-will or they believe in predestination. You cannot believe in both as you end up in a quandry of sorts and you end up tossing and turning in bed at night trying to understand it. However, Don, you seem to believe in both from posts I've read. How to you reckon the two?

 

[JesusServant]

BTW, Ref, I have a very hard time with some of your questions as well.

I've always know the two of us are similar. We have to understand, mull over, disect and recontruct everything we're taught or believe in. I guess that's why so many stand firm that it all comes down to faith in the end.

I'm so confused on the simplest of matters right now, I'm frustrated.

GOd bless

 

[Benedicta00]

Don,

First, I would like to add as Philo pointed out that this does not compromise divine justice because Christ died.

It is not a matter of God is gloried if the atonement is applied directly to a soul but rather, all the trillions of sins that are committed every second of the day only took the one perfect act of obedience from Christ who was the only worthy one to stand in our place created man’s place) to satisfy justice. Meaning God is more pleased with that one perfect act of love and obedience from Christ- because he is worthy- than he is with all the sins of the world, all combined through out existence.

God does not leave those who have not yet responded to His call abandoned. The elect have the power of the cross to bring others to Christ and we do that by bringing them evangelical, supernatural love.

This is the power I speak of that is with in us, it is the power of Jesus’ blood that atoned for the world’s sins. He atoned for them and we accept that atonement and are forgiven our sins and then we have that power of the atonement in us as His disciples to evangelize that atonement to others and they accept forgiveness and then they bring that love to others. This is the image of God in us; it is the image of the Holy Trinity that we reflect as born again Christians. God is a community and so are we because we are like Him. The Father loves the Son and the Son loves that Father and from that love flows the Holy Spirit.

I hope this helps and it didn’t come off as a bunch of ramblings.

That's how you define "free will," the "power" to choose between the two opposites? So all people ever created are morally free to obey God or disobey God? Is that what you're saying?

Yes. Why does that seem wrong to you? God wants it to be our choice because love is not love if you do not give it from yourself willfully, denying yourself.

That still doesn't answer my question though. Using your definition, what causes one person to exercise "the power to choose between the two opposites" and submit to God and another to exercise ""the power to choose between the two opposites" and choose not to submit to God?

Thanks,
God bless

Power, abilty to be able to make that choice is how they do it. God still in in contol though, He is the one once they chose for erterntiy who allows the choice to stand and therefore they are made vessels of wrath fit for destruction. .

He is the one in control though, he is the one who gives them the chance to reject. They make that choice because God allows them the opportunity to make that choice. He is always the one in control, He chose us, not us Him.

He allows the choice and He allowed us the power to be able to make the choice. Nothing is done outside of His control. He is sovereign.

 

[Reformationist]

Hi Ref!

I read through some of the thread, but not all of it as I am pressed for time. However, I just had to say this...

I have often asked this question as well Ref of Satan. God had to know how Satan would turn on Him, so why go through with it? Why not save everyone the frustration and skip that? I have to assume there has to be a balance for our universe/dimension to exist. Without evil, good has no meaning or existance, it is just the norm and uncomprehensible as good or anything at all.

Well God existed prior to creating anything and He was certainly good, right?

Anyway, the way I see it, either one believes in free-will or they believe in predestination. You cannot believe in both as you end up in a quandry of sorts and you end up tossing and turning in bed at night trying to understand it. However, Don, you seem to believe in both from posts I've read. How to you reckon the two?

I believe in man's ability to make decisions. If that's how you define "free will" then I believe in both. However, I temper my acknowledgement of man's ability to make decisions with the understanding that man is, in NO way, free. He is bound to decide based on the predominant desires of his heart. If that heart is unregenerate then he will always desire what the carnal mind, or flesh, desires.

God bless

 

[Reformationist]

BTW, Ref, I have a very hard time with some of your questions as well.

I've always know the two of us are similar. We have to understand, mull over, disect and recontruct everything we're taught or believe in. I guess that's why so many stand firm that it all comes down to faith in the end.

I'm so confused on the simplest of matters right now, I'm frustrated.

GOd bless

Well, at least we can be frustrated together.

God bless,
Don

 

[Benedicta00]

I believe in man's ability to make decisions. If that's how you define "free will" then I believe in both. However, I temper my acknowledgement of man's ability to make decisions with the understanding that man is, in NO way, free. He is bound to decide based on the predominant desires of his heart. If that heart is unregenerate then he will always desire what the carnal mind, or flesh, desires.

Man's desire stems from his free will. After the fall man's desire is to freely serve himself. God is with him however and he gives man a choice, He chose us, not us Him. By virtue of Him creating us, allowing us existence, He chose us. God made man for Himself but God desires us to be free. We know this is true because he made us like Him and he chose us. God is free to chose whom he wants to be born into existence. God gives man the choice between evil and good and he also gives him power to choose and like you said what man's desire is- is what his choice will be.

 

[Reformationist]

Don,

First, I would like to add as Philo pointed out that this does not compromise divine justice because Christ died.

It is not a matter of God is gloried if the atonement is applied directly to a soul but rather, all the trillions of sins that are committed every second of the day only took the one perfect act of obedience from Christ who was the only worthy one to stand in our place created man’s place) to satisfy justice. Meaning God is more pleased with that one perfect act of love and obedience from Christ- because he is worthy- than he is with all the sins of the world, all combined through out existence.

But Michelle, justice has not been served against all the sins of humanity. Those who go to hell go to hell because they must account for their sins and are found lacking.

God does not leave those who have not yet responded to His call abandoned. The elect have the power of the cross to bring others to Christ and we do that by bringing them evangelical, supernatural love.

"Bringing someone to the Cross" was never your commission. You, and I, were commissioned with bringing the Cross to them.

This is the power I speak of that is with in us, it is the power of Jesus’ blood that atoned for the world’s sins. He atoned for them and we accept that atonement and are forgiven our sins and then we have that power of the atonement in us as His disciples to evangelize that atonement to others and they accept forgiveness and then they bring that love to others.

I am seriously trying to avoid a brain aneurysm. Let me get this straight. You're saying that Christ has already atoned for every sin ever committed but that atonement doesn't actually get applied to us until we "accept it?" Am I understanding that?

Yes. Why does that seem wrong to you? God wants it to be our choice because love is not love if you do not give it from yourself willfully, denying yourself.

It seems wrong to me because Scripture refutes it:

Romans 8:7
Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be.

That's Scripture telling you that the carnal mind is UNABLE to submit to God. That's a direct contradiction to what you are saying.

Power, abilty to be able to make that choice is how they do it.

You're not making any sense. You're saying that their ability to choose one way or the other is why they choose one way or the other. I'm not asking you if they're able. I agree they're able to make a choice. I'm asking you WHY they choose one way or the other.

God still in in contol though, He is the one once they chose for erterntiy who allows the choice to stand and therefore they are made vessels of wrath fit for destruction.

As I told Miss Shelby, katartizo {kat-ar-tid'-zo} is not a reactionary word. It is a causal word. The whole idea that someone is made a certain way based on a future event, which is a direct result of the way they were made, is nonsensical. Once again, Michelle, it's PREpared. That means that it's done BEFORE. If it's done based on something that happens at a later time then it's not done before. It's done after. Look at these words and you may see a trend:

Preapprove - BEFORE the request is even made
Pretrial - BEFORE it is determined if there will be a trial
Predawn - BEFORE the dawn

"PRE" is not based on what comes later.

He is the one in control though, he is the one who gives them the chance to reject.

So why do some avail themselves of that chance to reject and some don't?

They make that choice because God allows them the opportunity to make that choice.

So your contention is that we make the choice for no other reason than there's a choice to be made?

God bless

 

[Reformationist]

Man's desire stems from his free will.

No. Man's desires stem from His nature. If our nature is corrupted our desires are corrupted.

After the fall man's desire is to freely serve himself.

Okay. I agree. What changes this? Don't say God because then you make God's role mean nothing unless you acknowledge that God only changes it for some. In your theology there is a different result, i.e., believers and non believers, from the same favor of God, i.e., He loves us all.

God is with him however and he gives man a choice, He chose us, not us Him. By virtue of Him creating us, allowing us existence, He chose us.

What verse do you interpret to mean that God choosing us, not us choosing Him means that His creating of us means that He chose us?

God made man for Himself but God desires us to be free.

You always say this and I've never seen this. Is this from the books you recognize that I don't? Where does the Bible say that God wants us to be free, and what is it that He wants us to be free to do?

God is free to chose whom he wants to be born into existence.

Michelle, this is so weak. He doesn't "choose whom He wants to be born into existance." He creates them. I know that you know that but you paint God as some passive onlooker.

God gives man the choice between evil and good and he also gives him power to choose and like you said what man's desire is- is what his choice will be.

So if fallen man's desire is to freely serve himself and whatever his desire is is what his choice will be then what causes him to all of a sudden choose to submit to God?

Thanks,
God bless

 

[Miss Shelby]

test

 

[Miss Shelby]

I'll be back when I can figure out how to adjust my font to a decent size and color

 

[Miss Shelby]

For that matter, if it's an issue of wording, why would the Gospel just not come out and say, "If you don't keep my commandments then you will lose the gift that you never earned?"

Repent or perish. That seems pretty clear to me.

I am a big proponant of the belief of the passive action of God in giving men over to their natural sinful inclinations. Tell me, if God "steps back and has nothing to do with it" are those people still as morally free to repent and obey God?

I believe that God gives grace that we can either appreciate and gaurd or that we can reject. I think that when rejection becomes clear, he will give that person over to their desires, He will not force anyone to stay. If the fig tree is dead, He will cut it off at the root.

A couple of things here. First, are you saying that you believe God does predestine vessels of mercy but not wrath?

Yes. That is exactly what I believe. He speaks of the elect and I believe he will bring each and every one to full glory. What I do not think he speaks of are the nonelect, and therefore I cannot make any assumptions as to what his motive is there.

Lastly, and I've mentioned this before, why would you say that God loves us enough to let us choose?

Because if didn't love him out of our own choice it wouldn't be real love.

Didn't God realize that many of those He loved were going to burn in hell and suffer a lot of torment? How is that loving? Are you saying that God loves us all and desires that we all be with Him but He has a greater desire that we be the ones to choose Him? Doesn't the Word tell us that we weren't the ones that chose Him but rather He was the one who chose us? What do you think His choosing of us accomplished? Did His choice of us facilitate or ensure that anything would happen? Also, if God loves every single person, even though the Bible says that He hates workers of iniquity, does that mean that God started out being eternally disappointed in the way His own plan turned out?

You're asking too many questions in one stint. And they're questions that I do not claim to know the answer to.

I can't answer whether or not God has been eternally disappointed. But by your reasoning He intended to disappoint himself from the start because the two he created for his own pleasure disobeyed Him. That makes about as much sense. And another thing that I believe, and this IS NOT Catholic teaching this is my own opinion. I think that the people who are in the greatest danger of hellfire are the ones who knew the truth and forsook it for a lie. I don't think that hell will be as heavily populated as most Christians. think it will. I think it will primarly (though not entirely) be made up of former Christians. And I do not think that I can presume that I am one of the elect, because I will only find that out when I meet my eternal reward and IF I continue in his kindess the outcome will be good.


God bless,
Don

 

[Reformationist]

Repent or perish. That seems pretty clear to me.

Can I get that reference in context?

I believe that God gives grace that we can either appreciate and gaurd or that we can reject. I think that when rejection becomes clear, he will give that person over to their desires, He will not force anyone to stay. If the fig tree is dead, He will cut it off at the root.

You say that He will not force anyone to stay but that implies that they are His to begin with. How can a fig tree be dead if it is indwelt with the life of God through the Holy Spirit? Also, at what point in the mind of an immutable, omniscient Creator does soemthing "become clear?"

Yes. That is exactly what I believe. He speaks of the elect and I believe he will bring each and every one to full glory. What I do not think he speaks of are the nonelect, and therefore I cannot make any assumptions as to what his motive is there.

Do you believe that it is God's sovereign action of bringing each and every one to full glory that causes them to be brought to full glory?

Because if didn't love him out of our own choice it wouldn't be real love.

Who said that God's elect don't make the choice to love Him? I believe they do. However, Scripture relates that the reason they do is because God loved them first.

You're asking too many questions in one stint.

Sorry about that. Just take them one at a time if you feel inclined.

I can't answer whether or not God has been eternally disappointed. But by your reasoning He intended to disappoint himself from the start because the two he created for his own pleasure disobeyed Him.

I don't think God is "disappointed" because a vessel He created for wrath disobeys Him. On the contrary, that brings Him glory because it shows His sovereign control in creation. IOW, His creation came out exactly as He had intended.

And I do not think that I can presume that I am one of the elect, because I will only find that out when I meet my eternal reward and IF I continue in his kindess the outcome will be good.

Well, I'm sorry to hear that. I think it would be very difficult living my life striving to obey God thinking that I'll never know if I'm His until I'm in Heaven.

God bless,
Don

Hey, that's wierd. My name is Don too.

God bless,
Don

 

[Miss Shelby]

LOL! I'm not going to edit that out. That's pretty funny. I'll be back later.

 

[Benedicta00]

Don,

If I am understanding you crux it is A) the sacrifice of Christ must complete what it sets out to do and if it sets out to atoned all sins then all sins are atoned therefore all men would be saved. And B) what makes one man choose the atonement that saves an one reject it.

Well here I go but I am letting JP2 do the talking this time. He is much smarter than I am anyway.

First we know what Christ said, that he was dyeing for the sins of many. You see that as he is speaking specifically but he is speaking not about who is going to respond to the Blood and be saved, but rather He is speaking of the power of the Blood to make a perfect and pure satisfaction to God the Father for all the sins of the world.

Adam’s act of rebelling against God’s will displeased God and sin entered into the world and God being displeased allowed sin as a punishment to come to all men.

Jesus’ act of perfect obedience to God’s will pleased God mare than Adam’s sin displeased Him and more than any sin you or I can think of displeases Him. That is the power of Christ’s atonement that I speak of.

Please read JP2:

Sin, Righteousness and Judgment http://www.vatican.va/edocs/ENG0142/__P9.HTM

27. When Jesus during the discourse in the Upper Room foretells the coming of the Holy Spirit "at the price of" his own departure, and promises "I will send him to you," in the very same context he adds: "And when he comes, he will convince the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment." The same Counselor and Spirit of truth who has been promised as the one who "will teach" and "bring to remembrance, " who "will bear witness," and "guide into all the truth," in the words just quoted is foretold as the one who "will convince the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgement."

The context too seems significant. Jesus links this foretelling of the Holy Spirit to the words indicating his "departure" through the Cross, and indeed emphasizes the need for this departure: "It is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Counselor will not come to you."

But what counts more is the explanation that Jesus himself adds to these three words: sin, righteousness, judgment. For he says this: "He Will convince the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment: concerning sin, because they do not believe in me; concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father, and you will see me no more; concerning judgment, because the ruler of the world is judged."

In the mind of Jesus, sin, righteousness and judgment have a very precise meaning, different from the meaning that one might be inclined to attribute to these words independently of the speaker's explanation. This explanation also indicates how one is to understand the "convincing the world" which is proper to the action of the Holy Spirit. Both the meaning of the individual words and the fact that Jesus linked them together in the same phrase are important here.

"Sin," in this passage, means the incredulity that Jesus encountered among "his own," beginning with the people of his own town of Nazareth. Sin means the rejection of his mission, a rejection that will cause people to condemn him to death. When he speaks next of "righteousness," Jesus seems to have in mind that definitive justice, which the Father will restore to him when he grants him the glory of the Resurrection and Ascension into heaven: "I go to the Father." In its turn, and in the context of "sin" and "righteousness" thus understood, "judgment" means that the Spirit of truth will show the guilt cf the "world" in condemning Jesus to death on the Cross. Nevertheless, Christ did not come into the world only to judge it and condemn it: he came to save it. Convincing about sin and righteousness has as its purpose the salvation of the world, the salvation of men. Precisely this truth seems to be emphasized by the assertion that "judgment" concerns only the prince of this world," Satan, the one who from the beginning has been exploiting the work of creation against salvation, against the covenant and the union of man with God: he is "already judged" from the start. If the Spirit-Counselor is to convince the world precisely concerning judgment, it is in order to continue in the world the salvific work of Christ. …

When on the eve of the Passover Jesus speaks of the Holy Spirit as the one who "will convince the world concerning sin," on the one hand this statement must be given the widest possible meaning, insofar as it includes all the sin in the history of humanity. But on the other hand, when Jesus explains that this sin consists in the fact that "they do not believe in him," this meaning seems to apply only to those who rejected the messianic mission of the Son of Man and condemned him to death on the Cross. But one can hardly fail to notice that this more "limited" and historically specified meaning of sin expands, until it assumes a universal dimension by reason of the universality of the Redemption, accomplished through the Cross. The revelation of the mystery of the Redemption opens the way to an understanding in which every sin wherever and whenever committed has a reference to the Cross of Christ-and therefore indirectly also to the sin of those who "have not believed in him," and who condemned Jesus Christ to death on the Cross.
From this point of view we must return to the event of Pentecost.

6. The Sin Against the Holy Spirit
According to such an exegesis, "blasphemy" does not properly consist in offending against the Holy Spirit in words; it consists rather in the refusal to accept the salvation which God offers to man through the Holy Spirit, working through the power of the Cross. If man rejects the "convincing concerning sin" which comes from the Holy Spirit and which has the power to save, he also rejects the "coming" of the Counselor-that "coming" which was accomplished in the Paschal Mystery, in union with the redemptive power of Christ's Blood: the Blood which "purifies the conscience from dead works."

We know that the result of such a purification is the forgiveness of sins. Therefore, whoever rejects the Spirit and the Blood remains in "dead works," in sin. And the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit consists precisely in the radical refusal to accept this forgiveness, of which he is the intimate giver and which presupposes the genuine conversion which he brings about in the conscience. If Jesus says that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit cannot be forgiven either in this life or in the next, it is because this "non-forgiveness" is linked, as to its cause, to "non-repentance," in other words to the radical refusal to be converted. This means the refusal to come to the sources of Redemption, which nevertheless remain "always" open in the economy of salvation in which the mission of the Holy Spirit is accomplished. The Spirit has infinite power to draw from these sources: "he will take what is mine," Jesus said. In this way he brings to completion in human souls the work of the Redemption accomplished by Christ, and distributes its fruits. Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, then, is the sin committed by the person who claims to have a "right" to persist in evil-in any sin at all-and who thus rejects Redemption. One closes oneself up in sin, thus making impossible one's conversion, and consequently the remission of sins, which one considers not essential or not important for one's life. This is a state of spiritual ruin, because blasphemy against the Holy Spirit does not allow one to escape from one's self-imposed imprisonment and open oneself to the divine sources of the purification of consciences and of the remission of sins.
http://www.vatican.va/edocs/ENG0142/__PE.HTM

This should answer you questions but if you want to get the full benefit of the answer please read the whole document section, which is section 2 of what I quote from here and to read the whole document, DOMINUM ET VIVIFICANTEM
On the Holy Spirit in the Life of the Church
and the World

Here is the site: http://www.vatican.va/edocs/ENG0142/_INDEX.HTM

 

[Reformationist]

If I am understanding you crux it is A) the sacrifice of Christ must complete what it sets out to do and if it sets out to atoned all sins then all sins are atoned therefore all men would be saved.

That's my belief because that's what "atonement" means. If there is any sin that must still be accounted for then it wasn't atoned for. To "atone" means "to supply satisfaction for." If someone must account for it then satisfaction was NOT supplied for that sin. IOW, it wasn't atoned for.

And B) what makes one man choose the atonement that saves an one reject it.

That is part of my question. The other part is that it presupposes the need to avail oneself of an act that, BY ITSELF, supplied the satisfaction for the transgression. You see Michelle, what makes no sense to me is that if sins are ACTUALLY atoned for ONLY when one chooses to accept the sacrifice then the sacrifice, BY ITSELF, actually did nothing. This is clearly seen in the lives of those who aren't saved. What your church professes is that Christ supplied the satisfaction for sins that God is, in the end, NOT satisfied for. Only when the person accepts the atonement as valid is it actually valid. So, with that in mind, the most that your church could profess is that Christ's death AND YOUR ACCEPTANCE are the atonement for your sins. Do you see where I'm coming from?

First we know what Christ said, that he was dyeing for the sins of many. You see that as he is speaking specifically but he is speaking not about who is going to respond to the Blood and be saved, but rather He is speaking of the power of the Blood to make a perfect and pure satisfaction to God the Father for all the sins of the world.

Let me assure you that reformed Christians don't limit the VALUE of Christ's sacrifice, only the purpose. We know, as do all Christians, that had Christ's intent been to ACTUALLY appease the Father regarding every sin ever committed that it would have been more than sufficient. We run into a problem, however, because we know that not every sin has been accounted for, rather, only the sins of those who ACTUALLY go to Heaven. If Christ had ACTUALLY atoned for every sin of every person then everyone would go to Heaven because that which would keep them from Heaven has already been atoned for, their sins. So, we are left with a choice. Either we acknowledge that Christ's sacrifice was intended to ACTUALLY atone for every single sin and Christ's sacrifice didn't ACTUALLY accomplish what it set out to accomplish, or, we acknowledge that Christ always accomplishes everything He sets out to do and understand that every sin that He ACTUALLY atoned for no longer needs to be accounted for on Judgment Day and all whose sins fall into that catagory are saved by virtue of His sacrifice.

Nevertheless, Christ did not come into the world only to judge it and condemn it: he came to save it. Convincing about sin and righteousness has as its purpose the salvation of the world, the salvation of men.

This seems to be the thrust of the passage so I will only address this portion. Before I do let me thank you for the time you've taken. I still completely disagree with your church's views but your godliness has been a light to this MB. The above quote says that Christ and the Holy Spirit's purpose in coming is to convince the world about sin and righteousness for the purpose of saving all men. That was Their goal, right, the salvation of all men? If yes, consider your own goals that you may have set in your life. When you set them and when you pursue them is your purpose in doing so to ACTUALLY achieve them or is it just to set them and assume you'll NOT accomplish them? I know that when I set goals I plan on achieving them and I do everything in my power to ensure they are achieved, and I'm a mere human. I can't imagine an omniscient, almighty God having a goal, the salvation of all men, and then not ensuring that it will come to fruition. His goal, according to you and your church, was not the salvation of all those who would be saved. It was the salvation of ALL mankind. Did that goal ACTUALLY get achieved? We both know that it didn't. That means that you worship a God that cannot achieve the purpose He sets for Himself. I've heard it told from a Catholic member of this MB that Christ's sacrifice was not intended to COMPLETELY reconcile all people to God but rather just to atone for original sin, thereby avoiding the nasty pitfall of incumbent failure. This, to me, seems an effort to sidestep the ACTUAL atoning sacrifice of the Lord which brings us to our knees and raises our eyes Heavenward with a desire to see our ACTUAL Savior.

Thank you again for your time,
God bless

 

[Benedicta00]

That was Their goal, right, the salvation of all men? If yes, consider your own goals that you may have set in your life

The purpose is the salvation that is why the goal is to atone for the sin, original sin, that brings the evil to the soul and Christ did that so now the Father is satisfied, satisfaction has been made for the sin that brought all of our personal sins into this world.

Since divine justice is satisfied, the Holy Spirit is sent and… (as aside, looking into this who issue, I found the meaning to the “Come Holy Spirit” prayer that Catholics often pray so it has been worth it to me).

The prayer says; Come Holy Spirit fill the hearts of your faithful, send fourth your spirit and they shall be created and you will renew the face of the earth.”

Now I know what that means, the Holy Spirit is sent, he has “come” and he renews the face of the earth by convicting souls of their sin and just as I can speak words to you hoping to reach your heart, you must be open to receiving my words.

What makes one person receive the word and another reject it. I will re quote JP because I believe he says it perfectly. One closes oneself up in sin, thus making impossible one's conversion, and consequently the remission of sins, which one considers not essential or not important for one's life.

Their spiritually dead he is saying which is them not existing because they closed themselves off to the conviction of the Holy Spirit and God hardends their hearts against Him by allowing their blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.

JP says it right here: This is a state of spiritual ruin, because blasphemy against the Holy Spirit does not allow one to escape from one's self-imposed imprisonment and open oneself to the divine sources of the purification of consciences and of the remission of sins.

Fits right in with Christ saying that "He who sins against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven."

 

[Reformationist]

The purpose is the salvation that is why the goal is to atone for the sin, original sin, that brings the evil to the soul and Christ did that so now the Father is satisfied, satisfaction has been made for the sin that brought all of our personal sins into this world.

Since divine justice is satisfied, the Holy Spirit is sent and? (as aside, looking into this who issue, I found the meaning to the ?Come Holy Spirit? prayer that Catholics often pray so it has been worth it to me).

The prayer says; Come Holy Spirit fill the hearts of your faithful, send fourth your spirit and they shall be created and you will renew the face of the earth.?

Now I know what that means, the Holy Spirit is sent, he has ?come? and he renews the face of the earth by convicting souls of their sin and just as I can speak words to you hoping to reach your heart, you must be open to receiving my words.

What makes one person receive the word and another reject it. I will re quote JP because I believe he says it perfectly. One closes oneself up in sin, thus making impossible one's conversion, and consequently the remission of sins, which one considers not essential or not important for one's life.

Their spiritually dead he is saying which is them not existing because they closed themselves off to the conviction of the Holy Spirit and God hardends their hearts against Him by allowing their blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.

JP says it right here: This is a state of spiritual ruin, because blasphemy against the Holy Spirit does not allow one to escape from one's self-imposed imprisonment and open oneself to the divine sources of the purification of consciences and of the remission of sins.

Fits right in with Christ saying that "He who sins against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven."

Okay. Thanks again for your time Michelle.

God bless