Posted on 01/20/2002 5:02:48 PM PST by CCWoody
Welcome over....
Since you posted, I thought I'd give you something to think about. Since all must be all, that is to say each and every single man without exception, then please explain how a person comes to grab hold of Christ in a saving way:
Romans 3:10-12 As it is written: "There is none righteous, no, not one; there is none that understandeth; there is none that seeketh after God. They have all gone from the way; they have together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one."There is the plain scripture for you to consider.For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God,...
Isaiah 64:7 And there is none that calleth upon Thy name, that stirreth up himself to take hold of Thee; for Thou hast hid Thy face from us, and hast consumed us because of our iniquities.
< Since a Holy, Sovereign God has the right to condemn us all, we would normally be introuble. BUT, the God of the Bible says He loved us so much that He sent His son to die for us on the cross, and that this Son died for the sins of the Whole world. So, Christ's sacrifice is sufficient for the world, the penalty has been paid.
< NOW, WHO gets this from God? Only those that have put their trust in Christ as Saviour.
So, the word game begins here: Is Christ's blood effective for the world or only those who believe!!
I dont want to get into the word game. God offered salvation TO THE WORLD, not for only a select few, so, Christ's shed blood on the cross is for whosoever will come. I suppose that only those who come, it is them only who it is effective for, but still, that blood shed was for the entire world, not just a few chosen.
How is that dishonest? If I go and buy a Birthday cake for my family and only 1/2 of them eat it does that mean I never bought it?
No. Of course not.
However, if there were 8 people in your family, and you only bought enough cake for 5 of them, knowing that 3 wouldn't eat any......it would still be dishonest for you to claim you bought enough cake for all of them and claim to be offering it to all of them.
That was my point.
Actually, I'm of the opinion that almost no one has bothered to read the sermon. Rather, they are keying solely on the title: For Whom did Christ Die? - Calvinism
If they would read the sermon, they would see that Christ died for the ungodly, no more and no less. Simple!
The key is that there must be a response to Christ's action in order for it to apply to the responder. Christ's work on the cross was sufficient to save every person who has ever lived, is living, or will live. However, each individual must receive it as personally applicable and produce fruit in keeping with that acceptance for it to be effective for them.
That is the fine balance between free will and predestination. From God's side, He foreknew those whom He had chosen. From our side, we freely choose or reject, as we will. The only problem I see with the Calvinist view is that it stresses God's point of view about the subject to the exclusion of the balancing aspect of free will. Stressing Predestination reduces man to little more than a mindless automaton. Stressing free will reduces God to a reactive, pleading wimp. Neither view is accurate. God desires interaction with us, on His terms to be sure, but not to the exclusion of our own individuality and uniqueness. We have all like sheep gone astray, but those of us who have believed have returned to the shepherd of our souls. To refer to some as "elect" even though a biblical term, can engender a form of pride and an attitude of being "better" than those poor souls who haven't believed. I don't think that's what God had in mind.
In the same respect, in order to show His love to the Angels, men were created. Hell was created for Angels who rebelled, right? So, if God is all knowing, he also knew which Angels would rebel beforehand, too. It seems the just way, is what we believe now anyways:
That those who choose to believe God in what God said, will receive the promise of fellowship with Him. Angels came first, so they had to be taught a lesson using fragile things like us people. All the more just, too, in that all we had to do was believe and people choose to NOT believe, whereas the Angels had to OBEY in God's sight, and they had tremendous power, unlike us.
Could create a circular arguement, i'll agree, but I find it almost impssible to believe that God created people solely for the reason of rejecting them. If God is love, and I believe He is, then He had to provide a way to save them from their own folly. To be just, He has to reject those who refuse to believe, also!
He didn't have to save one. No, not one.
And ... I totally agree with your post! My favorite statement is: "whosoever WILL, MAY come". I always wonder how many of those God "chose" actually chose Him?
Everybody gets a chance to answer: 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
I resemble those remarks quite well, but now, by the Grace of God, I have been washed in the blood of Jesus, for I have not rejected my savior! And my life is much better today than when I was lost in the disease of sin.Grassontop
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.