Posted on 05/07/2002 10:20:28 AM PDT by CCWoody
The Father imposed His wrath due unto, and the Son underwent punishment for, either:
In which case it may be said:
You answer, "Because of unbelief."
I ask, Is this unbelief a sin, or is it not? If it be, then Christ suffered the punishment due unto it, or He did not. If He did, why must that hinder them more than their other sins for which He died? If He did not, He did not die for all their sins!"
Could you explain why God failed?
No actually it is 39. Through him everyone who believes is justified from everything you could not be justified from by the law of Moses.
BUT not everyone believes...so that can not mean the WHOLE world Elsie Only those that believe.."all of a kind":>))))
Read Finney on justification where he clearly distances himself from the central doctrinal understanding of the Reformation (i.e. forensic justification).
The following article gives background on the ancestry of the governmental theory.
====
hope the links are coded correctly.
Christs Blood is sufficent for all Elsie but only effective for those that come!
Slow down while reading, and you'll see that 'BELIEF' is REQUIRED.
The thrust of the original question (as I understand it) was
'What is the RANGE (or percentage) of people who are Qualified to receive 'salvation'?
The actual receivers are those that really believe they will.
No, again it is a limited all Elsie..self limited right in the text you quote...It is effective only for those that come...not the whole world..a limited all Elsie...
All does mean all here, it's the MIGHT that does the qualifying.
I said:
You would be suggesting that the Lord promised to pay for all the sins in the whole world! Scripture source please....to which you responded: Gladly!
And then proceeded to misuse scripture to support the premise that Jesus promised to pay for all the sins in the whole world. Well, He did nothing of the sort. However, given your assumption that He did, please explain:
I agree with you! We are saying the same thing! #43 #46
All the sins of all men.
All the sins of some men, or
Some of the sins of all men.
Well, He did nothing of the sort.May I ask you, then, to back THIS up with Scripture?
The difference between Calvinism and Wesleyan Theology is the HOW do they come:>)))But for sure neithor of us believe in Universal salvation.
I think God is the one that frees the will to repent and be saved..whereas typical Arminian thought would be man still has enough life left to come without any special grace
But sin is an evil, and punishment is an evil (else why would anyone want to avoid it?). So this idea essentially says the evil of punishment cancels the evil of sin. Or, in common terms, two wrongs make a right.
This is both absurd and dishonoring to God. The atonement was not some kind of payment in suffering for sin, as thought suffering were some coin which someone was willing to accept to forgive sin. Does God cherish suffering?
The atonement was pictured by the Old Testament sacrifices. Is there anywhere in the Old Testament that the idea of the animals being "punished" is taught. Always, the shed blood of the animals is described as a "covering" (which, by the way is the exact meaning of the atonement.)
The atonement was not a transaction that bought the forgiveness of an exact number of sins, but a contract between the Father and Son, which purchased universal reconciliation for all those who would throw down the arms of rebellion and accept the pardon offered in the precious Blood of Christ.
A limited atonement is the product of human invention and belongs properly to a limited God with limited Sovereignty. The atonement the Bible talks about is infinite in scope, and efficacious for all who will accept it.
Hank
Elsie, that isn't an accurate reflection of Wesleyan theology at all. The truth is that Wesley spoke of "prevenient grace" as being necessary for humans to respond to God. If anyone says that Wesley did NOT teach PREVENIENT GRACE, then they are not being honest. It is provable in so many ways that it defies me how anyone could claim that he did not teach prevenient grace.
Prevenient grace is the the grace that God gives to sinners PRIOR to their repenting/believing, that enables them to see their sorry condition, enables them to experience guilt, and enables them to step in the direction of God.
Nothing is done by the human except as a result of God's provision of prevenient grace. Therefore, all is from God.
5But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. 6All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and Jehovah hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. 7He was oppressed, yet when he was afflicted he opened not his mouth; as a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and as a sheep that before its shearers is dumb, so he opened not his mouth. 8By oppression and judgment he was taken away; and as for his generation, who among them considered that he was cut off out of the land of the living for the transgression of my people to whom the stroke was due? 9And they made his grave with the wicked, and with a rich man in his death; although he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth. 10Yet it pleased Jehovah to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of Jehovah shall prosper in his hand. 11He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by the knowledge of himself shall my righteous servant justify many; and he shall bear their iniquities.
====
Clearly this passage looks forward to the death of Jesus Christ. Christ's sacrifice is the fulfilment of all that was prefigured in the Levitical sacrifices. This text overturns Finneyism and responds to your post.
Translation:
Having lost the debate on logical, and factual grounds, and further, having exhausted your cogitative resources, You are Bailing Out!!
Your analogy is better than you think:
God's word says that only the Elect get invited (read John 6)
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.