Posted on 01/20/2002 5:02:48 PM PST by CCWoody
Your #1800 here: I would only like for you to come to a saving faith in Jesus Christ. ... really experience a union with Christ. ... if you knew the Lord, you would know that. ... that deep and lasting Peace that eludes you.
This has been the problem all along. You decided that because we disagree, therefore one of us is not saved. That was your first mistake, for we are judged according to our works. Then you decided (rather depravedly, I would think), that it is you that is saved and me that is not.
I am a faithful, genuine, regenerate Christian. No spurious conversion here.
That is the way you think of Woody. So treat me as you would Woody!
I know that saving faith, that union, that deep and lasting Peace.
You write: I'm sure that He loves you
Yes, He does, and God loves you too!
You write: Apparently, caring for someone's soul is a big no-no here at FR. It is intriguing to me though that you view every attempt to teach you insight from scripture as an assault on Mormonism.
Of course not. Caring is caring and insights are insights. Assaults are different. They are assaults.
You write: you are the one who needs to worry about killing the prophets.
How so? And who is claiming to be a prophet here? Any predictions we should examine? 8o)
FR has been only too happy to bloody its hands with it and their judgment is coming.
Careful now. What is the crime here? That they zap improper posts and ban bashers? I would think you guys could set up your own website and say what you wished.
Yours in Christ,
WM
The prophets place is in the marketplace, not up on Mount Carmel or in the valley of the Essenes. Hoping to see you in the real world, later, in Christ, TTC
I dated a grand-daughter of some LDS important person in my "thought I was saved but wasn't days." It was my first exposure to this and the idea of proxy marriage.
Actually, in my years of discourse with a few mormons I have coined the phrase peeling the "onion of mormon religion." I have other language, but it seems that it would not be tolerated.
I usually have to start by getting them to concede that they really do worship 3 different gods and do not worship One God like christians. This takes some effort to peel that layer.
Ahhhhhh but they had one counsel...thus a 'trinity'...
You anahs. I respectfully ask WM to give us his testimony of receiving the Lord and let us decide for ourselves.
Let you guys decide! After the way you have been posting? Might as well let Yassir Arafat decide!
God loves you all anyway!
WM
(I am trying to be lighthearted about it, but it is a serious problem, leading to much unacceptable behavior here at FR in the name of "contending for the faith" and "spreading the Gospel of Jesus Christ", as you think you get to decide that people you disagree with are reprobate and that reprobates should be treated a certain way.)
I'm still looking at Calvinism, not sure about Limited Atonement. But if Christ "died for the ungodly" and also "justifies the ungodly", then who are the "ungodly" that Christ died for... the elect? Or else wouldn't all of the ungodly be justified = universalism?
- A former (until recently) unconverted Arminian
1 John 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
If Christ only paid for the sins of the elect..and yet offers salvation to ALL MEN... that would be dishonest...and we know Christ cannot lie.
This is a fairly lengthy excerpt from an article by John Piper, "What We Believe About the Five Points of Calvinism", but the entire reading is necessary to address the point that you raise. The full article can be found at http://www.desiringgod.org/library/topics/doctrines_grace/tulip.html
As I wrote earlier, I am not sold yet on "Five-Point" Calvinism (a few weeks ago, I was an Open-Theist, Free Will Arminian!), but I must admit that Piper does make a compelling case:
Limited Atonement
The atonement is the work of God in Christ on the cross whereby he cancelled the debt of our sin, appeased his holy wrath against us, and won for us all the benefits of salvation. The death of Christ was necessary because God would not show a just regard for his glory if he swept sins under the rug with no recompense.
Romans 3:25-26 says that God "put Christ forward as a propitiation by his blood...This was to demonstrate God's righteousness because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to prove at the present time that he himself is righteous and that he justifies those who have faith in Jesus."
In other words the death of Christ was necessary to vindicate the righteousness of God in justifying the ungodly by faith. It would be unrighteous to forgive sinners as though their sin were insignificant, when in fact it is an infinite insult against the value of God's glory. Therefore Jesus bears the curse, which was due to our sin, so that we can be justified and the righteousness of God can be vindicated.
The term "limited atonement" addresses the question, "For whom did Christ die?" But behind the question of the extent of the atonement lies the equally important question about the nature of the atonement. What did Christ actually achieve on the cross for those for whom he died?
If you say that he died for every human being in the same way, then you have to define the nature of the atonement very differently than you would if you believed that Christ only died for those who actually believe. In the first case you would believe that the death of Christ did not actually save anybody; it only made all men savable. It did not actually remove God's punitive wrath from anyone, but instead created a place where people could come and find mercy -- IF they could accomplish their own new birth and bring themselves to faith without the irresistible grace of God.
For if Christ died for all men in the same way then he did not purchase regenerating grace for those who are saved. They must regenerate themselves and bring themselves to faith. Then and only then do they become partakers of the benefits of the cross.
In other words if you believe that Christ died for all men in the same way, then the benefits of the cross cannot include the mercy by which we are brought to faith, because then all men would be brought to faith, but they aren't. But if the mercy by which we are brought to faith (irresistible grace) is not part of what Christ purchased on the cross, then we are left to save ourselves from the bondage of sin, the hardness of heart, the blindness of corruption, and the wrath of God.
Therefore it becomes evident that it is not the Calvinist who limits the atonement. It is the Arminian, because he denies that the atoning death of Christ accomplishes what we most desperately need -- namely, salvation from the condition of deadness and hardness and blindness under the wrath of God. The Arminian limits the nature and value and effectiveness of the atonement so that he can say that it was accomplished even for those who die in unbelief and are condemned. In order to say that Christ died for all men in the same way, the Arminian must limit the atonement to a powerless opportunity for men to save themselves from their terrible plight of depravity.
On the other hand we do not limit the power and effectiveness of the atonement. We simply say that in the cross God had in view the actual redemption of his children. And we affirm that when Christ died for these, he did not just create the opportunity for them to save themselves, but really purchased for them all that was necessary to get them saved, including the grace of regeneration and the gift of faith.
We do not deny that all men are the intended beneficiaries of the cross in some sense. 1 Timothy 4:10 says that Christ is "the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe." What we deny is that all men are intended as the beneficiaries of the death of Christ in the same way. All of God's mercy toward unbelievers -- from the rising sun (Matthew 5:45) to the worldwide preaching of the gospel (John 3:16) -- is made possible because of the cross.
This is the implication of Romans 3:25 where the cross is presented as the basis of God's righteousness in passing over sins. Every breath that an unbeliever takes is an act of God's mercy withholding judgment (Romans 2:4). Every time the gospel is preached to unbelievers it is the mercy of God that gives this opportunity for salvation.
Whence does this mercy flow to sinners? How is God just to withhold judgment from sinners who deserve to be immediately cast into hell? The answer is that Christ's death so clearly demonstrates God's just abhorrence of sin that he is free to treat the world with mercy without compromising his righteousness. In this sense Christ is the savior of all men.
But he is especially the Savior of those who believe. He did not die for all men in the same sense. The intention of the death of Christ for the children of God was that it purchase far more than the rising sun and the opportunity to be saved. The death of Christ actually saves from ALL evil those for whom Christ died "especially."
There are many Scriptures which say that the death of Christ was designed for the salvation of God's people, not for every individual. For example:
John 10:15, "I lay down my life for the sheep." The sheep of Christ are those whom the Father draws to the Son. "You do not believe, because you do not belong to my sheep." Notice: being a sheep enables you to become a believer, not vice versa. So the sheep for whom Christ dies are the ones chosen by the Father to give to the Son.
In John 17:6,9,19 Jesus prays, "I have manifested thy name to the men whom thou gavest me out of the world; thine they were, and thou gavest them to me...I am praying for them; I am not praying for the world but for those whom thou hast given me, for they are thine...And for their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be consecrated in truth." The consecration in view here is the death of Jesus which he is about to undergo. His death and his intercession us uniquely for his disciples, not for the world in general.
John 11:51-52, "[Caiaphas] being high priest that year prophesied that Jesus should die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad." There are children of God scattered throughout the world. These are the sheep. These are the ones the Father will draw to the Son. Jesus died to gather these people into one. The point is the same as John 10:15-16, "I lay down my life for the sheep. And I have other sheep that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will heed my voice." Christ died for his sheep, that is, for the children of God.
Revelation 5:9, "Worthy art thou to take the scroll and to open its seals, for thou wast slain and by thy blood didst ransom men for God from every tribe and tongue and people and nation." In accordance with John 10:16 John does not say that the death of Christ ransomed all men but that it ransomed men from all the tribes of the world.
This is the way we understand texts like 1 John 2:2 which says, "He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world." This does not mean that Christ died with the intention to appease the wrath of God for every person in the world, but that the "sheep," "the children of God" scattered throughout the whole world, "from every tongue and tribe and people and nation" are intended by the propitiation of Christ. In fact the grammatical parallel between John 11:51-52 and 1 John 2:2 is so close it is difficult to escape the conviction that the same thing is intended by John in both verses.
John 11:51-52, "He prophesied that Jesus should die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad."
1 John 2:2, "He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world."
The "whole world" refers to the children of God scattered throughout the whole world.
If "the whole world" referred to every individual in the world, we would be forced to say that John is teaching that all people will be saved, which he does not believe (Revelation 14:9-11). The reason we would be forced to say this is that the term propitiation refers to a real removal of wrath from sinners. When God's wrath against a sinner is propitiated, it is removed from that sinner. And the result is that all God's power now flows in the service of his mercy, with the result that nothing can stop him from saving that sinner.
Propitiated sins cannot be punished. Otherwise propitiation loses its meaning. Therefore if Christ is the propitiation for all the sins of every individual in the world, they cannot be punished, and must be saved. But John does not believe in such universalism (John 5:29). Therefore it is very unlikely that 1 John 2:2 teaches that Jesus is the propitiation of every person in the world.
Mark 10:45, in accord with Revelation 5:9,does not say that Jesus came to ransom all men. It says, "For the Son of man also came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."
Similarly in Matthew 26:28 Jesus says, "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."
Hebrews 9:28, "So Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him." (See also 13:20; Isaiah 53:11-12.)
One of the clearest passages on the intention of the death of Christ is Ephesians 5:25-27. Here Paul not only says that the intended beneficiary of the death of Christ is the Church, but also that the intended effect of the death of Christ is the sanctification and glorification of the church. This is the truth we want very much to preserve: that the cross was not intended to give all men the opportunity to save themselves, but was intended to actually save the church.
Paul says, "Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that he might present the church to himself in splendor."
Similarly in Titus 2:14 Paul describes the purpose of Christ's death like this: "He gave himself for us to redeem us from all iniquity and to purify for himself a people of his own who are zealous for good deeds." If Paul were an Arminian would he not have said, "He gave himself to redeem all men from iniquity and purify all men for himself"? But Paul says that the design of the atonement is to purify for Christ a people out from the world. This is just what John said in John 10:15; 11:51f; and Revelation 5:9.
One of the most crucial texts on this issue is Romans 8:32. It is one of the most precious promises for God's people in all the Bible. Paul says, "He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, will he not also give us all things with him?"
The crucial thing to see here is how Paul bases the certainty of our inheritance on the death of Christ. He says, "God will most certainly give you all things because he did not spare his own Son but gave him up for you." What becomes of this precious argument if Christ is given for those who do not in fact receive all things but instead are lost? The argument vanishes.
If God gave his own Son for unbelievers who in the end are lost, then he cannot say that the giving of the Son guarantees "all things" for the those for whom he died. But this is what he does say! If God gave his Son for you, then he most certainly will give you all things. The structure of Paul's thought here is simply destroyed by introducing the idea that Christ died for all men in the same way.
We can conclude this section with the following summary argument. Which of these statements is true?
1. Christ died for some of the sins of all men.
2. Christ died for all the sins of some men.
3. Christ died for all the sins of all men.
No one says that the first is true, for then all would be lost because of the sins that Christ did not die for. The only way to be saved from sin is for Christ to cover it with his blood.
The third statement is what the Arminians would say. Christ died for all the sins of all men. But then why are not all saved? They answer, Because some do not believe. But is this unbelief not one of the sins for which Christ died? If they say yes, then why is it not covered by the blood of Jesus and all unbelievers saved? If they say no (unbelief is not a sin that Christ has died for) then they must say that men can be saved without having all their sins atoned for by Jesus, or they must join us in affirming statement number two: Christ died for all the sins of some men. That is, he died for the unbelief of the elect so that God's punitive wrath is appeased toward them and his grace is free to draw them irresistibly out of darkness into his marvelous light.
This was basically the response of the pastor whose church I am now attending. He is very close to being a Calvinist, but he said that he is afraid of going "beyond what is written" in Scripture. He thinks that logically the Calvinist makes a tight case, but he would rather be silent on what he believes Scripture to be silent.
He also thinks he doesn't make the Reformed cut because he doesn't hold to Limited Atonement and "struggles" with aspects of Irresistable Grace. However, he gives no place to Arminianism and teaches Lordship salvation, i.e. perseverance of the saints.
I might finally concede with him on the Limited Atonement bit... after more study and prayer. After being a denyer of God's sovereignty to any extent (former open theist), it does seem rather formulaic to get it down to T-U-L-I-P. Isn't that what I was doing before with my Open Theism, making God and His nature ultimately definable? Isn't there a danger in taking the mystery out of God's sovereignty?
I'm not saying that I have reached a definite conclusion in this area (not by a long shot), just voicing aloud my own struggles to come to grips with this. I appreciate all of the godly input from brothers (and sisters) on these doctrines and questions.
"If you are going to maintain that Christ died for every single man, then you need to show evidence of 'Universal Salvation' in the Bible."
That statement is false on many levels. First and foremost, if you are going to maintain
that Christ didn't die for all, and that that God does
want some to perish, you have to address the verses that
say otherwise, rather than shying away and setting up
your 'Universal Salvation' straw man.
"For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men" (Titus 2:11).
To do so you're coming from yet another assumption plucked from your wilted Tulip that man cannot resist God.
But if you've ever read the Old Testament, you know that
cannot be true. For God's elect, the Jews, frequently abandoned their faith for idol worship.
And we can resist God's grace and mercy.
"You men who are stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears are always resisting the Holy Spirit; you are doing just as your fathers did" (Acts 7:51).
So if God has called all men, and yet all are not saved,
what is the only logical conclusion? That God has enabled
man to freely accept or freely reject Him.
If not so, this should NOT be in the Bible:
"Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you" (Matthew 7:7). Also see Luke 11:9.
"Before God spoke the very first word of creation, did He know all details of His creation from who would be saved and down even to the last detail of every single thought of all His created 'dirt'?"
Yes, of course, but foreknowledge doesn't imply causation.
"For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren" (Romans 8:29). Why bother
about the word 'foreknew' if it hadn't meaning? If predestined savlation required no role on man's part whatsoever, the passage would simply omit that reference to
foreknowledge. But foreknowledge doesn't imply causation.
God knew who would be saved not because He directly caused them to be saved, but He knew who would be saved when He gives them the opportunity.
Also, you're looking at God as if He is also bound by a linear timeline. We exist at the point where the future intersects the past, and once we live through those moments, we no longer have access to those moments. But God isn't bound by linear time; He is atemporal, existing in the past, present, and future (to put it in human terms), and has all eternity and all access to each and every moment that has occurred. See 'Mere Christianity', by C.S. Lewis for more on that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.