|
Post by tomah on Feb 1, 2006 13:24:47 GMT -5
Hey guys!
How could people go to hell if Jesus died for their sins? Are they punished for the sins they commit AFTER they turn away from the Lord?
I think Steve mentioned about election that you believe in conditional election, yes? I was thinking about this in work today, wondering if it could be possible. But I figured that it is impossible. The very word 'elect' or 'chosen' seems to refute the possiblity that it is conditional. It indicates that someone (God) was deliberate and selected certain people, the same way anything else is 'elected.'
What about the text, "many are called, but few are chosen"? Rom 8:28,29 and 2 Tim 1:9 which says "God hath saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which he hath given us in Christ before the world began." Rom 9:16 "it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but God that sheweth mercy."
EDIT: Just thought of another verse. If man chooses God then why does Eph 2:1 say "and you hath HE (God) quickened who were dead in trespasses and sins." Plus, a dead person can't respond to anything. How do you accept Christ if you are DEAD and you don't believe the Spirit of God drives you to Christ?
|
|
|
Post by Steve Noel on Feb 1, 2006 17:03:24 GMT -5
Armen, The reason I say that election is conditonal is because it is based on God's foreknowledge. 1 Peter 1:1-2"Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To God's elect, strangers in the world, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia, who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and sprinkling by his blood: Grace and peace be yours in abundance." Romans 8:29"For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers." You asked about Matthew 22:14 (Many are called, but few are chosen). I think the answer lies in the context of that verse. The Parable of the Wedding Banquet "1Jesus spoke to them again in parables, saying: 2"The kingdom of heaven is like a king who prepared a wedding banquet for his son. 3He sent his servants to those who had been invited to the banquet to tell them to come, but they refused to come.
4"Then he sent some more servants and said, 'Tell those who have been invited that I have prepared my dinner: My oxen and fattened cattle have been butchered, and everything is ready. Come to the wedding banquet.'
5"But they paid no attention and went off—one to his field, another to his business. 6The rest seized his servants, mistreated them and killed them. 7The king was enraged. He sent his army and destroyed those murderers and burned their city.
8"Then he said to his servants, 'The wedding banquet is ready, but those I invited did not deserve to come. 9Go to the street corners and invite to the banquet anyone you find.' 10So the servants went out into the streets and gathered all the people they could find, both good and bad, and the wedding hall was filled with guests.
11"But when the king came in to see the guests, he noticed a man there who was not wearing wedding clothes. 12'Friend,' he asked, 'how did you get in here without wedding clothes?' The man was speechless.
13"Then the king told the attendants, 'Tie him hand and foot, and throw him outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.'
14"For many are invited, but few are chosen." What determined who was chosen and who was not in this parable? Nothing in this parable can lead an unbiased reader to answer unconditional election. It's not there. How they responded to the call determined their choosing. In other words their choosing was conditional.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Noel on Feb 1, 2006 19:07:34 GMT -5
Armen wrote, "Just thought of another verse. If man chooses God then why does Eph 2:1 say "and you hath HE (God) quickened who were dead in trespasses and sins." Plus, a dead person can't respond to anything. How do you accept Christ if you are DEAD and you don't believe the Spirit of God drives you to Christ?" This misunderstands the traditional Wesleyan / Arminian view of "prevenient" or "free" grace. Here's a definition from "Wesley's Order of Salvation", "Human beings are totally incapable of responding to God without God first empowering them to have faith. This empowerment is known as "Prevenient Grace." Prevenient Grace doesn't save us but, rather, comes before anything that we do, drawing us to God, making us want to come to God, and enabling us to have faith in God. Prevenient Grace is universal, in as much as all humans receive it, regardless of their having heard of Jesus. It is manifested in the deep-seated desire of most humans to know God." A couple of Scriptures will give you a general idea of this view. In John 12:32 Jesus said, "But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself." In John 16:7-8 Jesus said, "But I tell you the truth: It is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. When he comes, he will convict the world of guilt in regard to sin and righteousness and judgment:"[/blockquot
These Scriptures are universal in scope and explain how those who are "dead" can respond to the gospel. It is by free grace. God makes the first move, not man.
Romans 8:32
"He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all—how will he not also, along with him, graciously (KJV "freely") give us all things?"
In John Wesley's sermon "Free Grace" he wrote about this and about the Calvinistic view of election:
"First. It is free in all to whom it is given. It does not depend on any power or merit in man; no, not in any degree, neither in whole, nor in part. It does not in anywise depend either on the good works or righteousness of the receiver; not on anything he has done, or anything he is. It does not depend on his endeavors. It does not depend on his good tempers, or good desires, or good purposes and intentions; for all these flow from the free grace of God; they are the streams only, not the fountain. They are the fruits of free grace, and not the root. They are not the cause, but the effects of it. Whatsoever good is in man, or is done by man, God is the author and doer of it. Thus is his grace free in all; that is, no way depending on any power or merit in man, but on God alone, who freely gave us his own Son, and "with him freely giveth us all things.
But it is free for ALL, as well as IN ALL. To this some have answered, "No: It is free only for those whom God hath ordained to life; and they are but a little flock. The greater part of mankind God hath ordained to death; and it is not free for them. Them God hateth; and, therefore, before they were born, decreed they should die eternally. And this he absolutely decreed; because so was his good pleasure; because it was his sovereign will. Accordingly, they are born for this, -- to be destroyed body and soul in hell. And they grow up under the irrevocable curse of God, without any possibility of redemption; for what grace God gives, he gives only for this, to increase, not prevent, their d**nation."
1. This is that decree of predestination. But methinks I hear one say, "This is not the predestination which I hold: I hold only the election of grace. What I believe is not more than this, -- that God,, before the foundation of the world, did elect a certain number of men to be justified, sanctified, and glorified. Now, all these will be saved, and none else; for the rest of mankind God leaves to themselves: So they follow the imaginations of their own hearts, which are only evil continually, and, waxing worse and worse, are at length justly punished with everlasting destruction."
2. Is this all the predestination which you hold? Consider; perhaps this is not all. Do not you believe God ordained them to this very thing? If so, you believe the whole degree; you hold predestination in the full sense which has been above described. But it may be you think you do not. Do not you then believe, God hardens the hearts of them that perish: Do not you believe, he (literally) hardened Pharaoh's heart; and that for this end he raised him up, or created him? Why, this amounts to just the same thing. If you believe Pharaoh, or any one man upon earth, was created for this end, -- to be d**ned, -- you hold all that has been said of predestination. And there is no need you should add, that God seconds his degree, which is supposed unchangeable and irresistible, by hardening the hearts of those vessels of wrath whom that decree had before fitted for destruction.
3. Well, but it may be you do not believe even this; you do not hold any decree of reprobation; you do not think God decrees any man to be d**ned, not hardens, irresistibly fits him, for d**nation; you only say, "God eternally decreed, that all being dead in sin, he would say to some of the dry bones, Live, and to others he would not; that, consequently, these should be made alive, and those abide in death, -- these should glorify God by their salvation, and those by their destruction."
4. Is not this what you mean by the election of grace? If it be, I would ask one or two questions: Are any who are not thus elected saved? Or were any, from the foundation of the world? Is it possible any man should be saved unless he be thus elected? If you say, "No," you are but where you was; you are not got one hair's breadth farther; you still believe, that, in consequence of an unchangeable, irresistible decree of God, the greater part of mankind abide in death, without any possibility of redemption; inasmuch as none can save them but God, and he will not save them. You believe he hath absolutely decreed not to save them; and what is this but decreeing to d**n them? It is, in effect, neither more nor less; it comes to the same thing; for if you are dead, and altogether unable to make yourself alive, then, if God has absolutely decreed he will make only others alive, and not you, he hath absolutely decreed your everlasting death; you are absolutely consigned to d**nation. So then, though you use softer words than some, you mean the self-same thing; and God's decree concerning the election of grace, according to your account of it, amounts to neither more nor less than what others call God's decree of reprobation.
5. Call it therefore by whatever name you please, election, preterition, predestination, or reprobation, it comes in the end to the same thing. The sense of all is plainly this, -- by virtue of an eternal, unchangeable, irresistible decree of God, one part of mankind are infallibly saved, and the rest infallibly d**ned; it being impossible that any of the former should be d**ned. or that any of the latter should be saved.
6. But if this be so, then is all preaching vain? It is needless to them that are elected; for they, whether with preaching or without, will infallibly be saved. Therefore, the end of preaching -- to save should -- is void with regard to them; and it is useless to them that are not elected, for they cannot possibly be saved: They, whether with preaching or without, will infallibly be d**ned. The end of preaching is therefore void with regard to them likewise; so that in either case our preaching is vain, as you hearing is also vain." Here is a link to an article by Steve Witski called
Free Grace or Forced Grace? wesley.nnu.edu/arminianism/arminian_mag/19_1_01.htm
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Feb 2, 2006 9:20:59 GMT -5
I surely lean more towards Wesley's doctrine than I do Whitefield's (although I am highly respective of both men!). You mentioned the sermon "Free Grace" and I thought I would post a link to a letter Mr. Whitefield wrote in response to that sermon.... Very interesting. www.spurgeon.org/~phil/wesley.htm
|
|
|
Post by tomah on Feb 2, 2006 17:32:56 GMT -5
Well I read both articles. I have to say that Whitefield's writing, being so full of love and power, greatly edifying my soul. Thanks for that brother.
Steve, again at work today I was pondering over these things and thought about two incidents recorded for us. Firstly, if you say that God's act in our salvation is prevenient and there is no such thing as unconditional election then why do the scriptures say that GOD opened the heart of Lydia as she attended to the word of God as preached by Paul?
Secondly, does not the scriptures teach that God said Paul was a CHOSEN vessel? I mean how could Paul seek God? His mind was TOTALLY fixed on persecuting the church, only what we call 'irressistable grace' makes sense in such a conversion.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Noel on Feb 2, 2006 19:53:41 GMT -5
Armen,
Good questions. I would still like to know how you reconcile 2 Peter 2:1 with "limited atonement".
In regards to Lydia I don't see any problem here. It simply says that "The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul's message." How does that disprove free grace? How does that prove unconditional election? I don't see it.
The same applies to Paul. How does his conversion refute free grace? How does it prove irresistible grace?
|
|
|
Post by tomah on Feb 2, 2006 20:25:08 GMT -5
No the problem with Lydia is that YOU would teach that Gods work of prevenient grace is done from birth, so that man from birth has the ability to come to Christ. But Lydia's testimony is different. Her heart was opened BY God AS she listened to the word of God. God wouldn't have to do this if prevenient grace was true.
Paul - Acts 9:15 where God says "he is a CHOSEN vessel unto me, to bear my name before the gentiles." Doesn't this obviously imply that GOD PICKED HIM? Paul didn't chose God, God chose him. Here we have Saul minding his own business, on his way to persecute the church when all of a sudden God CAUSES him to tremble (Acts 9:6) before His presence. If God hasn't an elected people because he is no respecter of persons (as you would say) then why would God make such an effort and do something so unique to this rebel of the church??
This seems to hold weight for 2 Pet 2:1 -
The sovereign creation view
The sovereign creation view interprets II Peter 2:1 non-redemptively as referring to the creation of the false teachers by Christ their sovereign Lord. There are at least four significant points that support this view. First, this interpretation gives proper significance to both the Greek Old and New Testaments’ usage of “Lord” (despotes) and “bought” (agorazõ). Second, this view seeks to interpret this verse in the light of the context, historical background, and purpose of the epistle including Peter’s use of the Old Testament, especially Deuteronomy 32:5-6.
In II Peter 2:1, Peter intentionally alludes to the phrase “thy father that hath bought thee” in Deuteronomy 32:6.13 Immediately following the phrase “thy father that hath bought thee” are the words “hath he not made thee, and established thee?” The three Hebrew words translated “bought,” “made” and “established” are significant in the sovereign creation view for, in the Hebrew, they mean, in context, “to acquire,” “to make” or “to constitute” and “to establish” a nation. The meaning of the Greek Septuagint translation of these three words is “acquire,” “make” and “establish” (“create”14). Although the Greek word translated “bought” or “acquire” in Deuteronomy 32:6 is ktaomai and agorazõ, a word study of these two terms reveals that they are closely related and are used interchangeably in both the Old and New Testaments.15. A strong case can be established, therefore, from a contextual word study, to substantiate that Peter’s allusion to Deuteronomy 32:6 is for the purpose of emphasizing that it is the pre-incarnate Jehovah, the sovereign Lord who owns the covenant nation Israel, because He bought (acquired), made and established them for the purpose of being a covenant and privileged people who were to be unto Him “a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation” (Exod. 19:6). The fact that in Peter’s use of Deuteronomy 32:6 he refers only to “bought,” the first of the three words in the phrase “bought, make and establish,” is explained by the manner in which New Testament writers commonly allude to Old Testament references without directly quoting them. Peter, therefore, only refers to the first word, “bought,” using it as a summary for all three words16 to stress the idea of creating and acquiring Israel as a covenant nation as the context of Deuteronomy 32 teaches. Therefore, the point that Peter seems to be making in referring to Deuteronomy 32:6 in II Peter 2:1 is that “just as God had sovereignly acquired Israel out of Egypt (including ‘his children’ as well as the ‘spot’ among them which was ‘a perverse and crooked generation,’ Deut. 32:5) in order to make her a covenant nation spiritually and nationally because He had created her for this purpose, so Christ, the sovereign Lord, acquired the false teachers (spots and blemishes, II Pet. 2:13) in order to make them a part of the covenant nation of God in the flesh because He had created them, within the mystery of His providence, for the purpose of bringing glory to Himself through their foreordainment unto condemnation (see II Peter 2:12; Jude4).”
Therefore, in reply to the false teachers, Peter might well have repeated the words of the apostle Paul in Romans 9:20-24.
Nay but, O man who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make know the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had before prepared unto glory, Even us, whom he hath called not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles (italics mine)?
Third, the sovereign creation view is supported by the context of II Peter 2 and its parallel in Jude 4-19 (see II Pet. 2:12; Jude 4). A fourth reason to support the sovereign creation view lies in the fact that it is illogical to say Christ died a substitutionary atonement for those who are ordained unto destruction (see II Peter 2:12; Jude 4; Rom. 9:22). Yet, God in His grace is longsuffering to those who are ordained to destruction (e.g., Judas). The definite atonement position alone is consistent with the doctrine of retribution.17 The identity of the elect and non-elect before the salvation of the former is known only to God. And well it should be, otherwise evangelists would not be obedient to God’s ordained method of taking the gospel to every creature (see Matt. 28:19). But the responsibility to preach a universal gospel does not nullify the truth of God’s eternal, immutable, and determinate counsel concerning election and reprobation.
The sovereign creation view thus interprets II Peter 2:1 to mean: “There shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who created18 them and bring upon themselves swift destruction.”
|
|
|
Post by Steve Noel on Feb 3, 2006 16:59:23 GMT -5
Armen,
I think the interpretation offered for 2 Peter 2:1 is a bit of a stretch. Once again I think previous comittements force a novel interpretation here. The writer (Long?) concludes, "The sovereign creation view thus interprets II Peter 2:1 to mean: “There shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in d**nable heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who created18 them and bring upon themselves swift destruction.” The problem here is that the Greek work for "bought" (agorazõ) is NEVER translated anything like "created" in the New Testament. In fact if you look in a concordance you will see that "bought" appears to be the right way to translate it. This is the same word translated bought in 1 Co 6:20 "you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body." and 7:23 "You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men."
With regards to Lydia the verse says that she was already a worshiper of God. This lends credence to the belief in free grace. She had already been responsive to the grace of God much like Corneilius (Acts 10).
As far as Paul I will have to study his conversion a little more to come to a conclusion. I would certainly say that we must be careful if we're going to use Paul's conversion as a typical one. A couple of initial thoughts I have are: 1. The Scriptures (as far as I know) don't say Paul was unconditionally chosen to salvation, but rather that he was chosen to service. Much like Jeremiah. In Jeremiah 1:5 God said of Jeremiah, "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations." Does this mean that Jeremiah will fulfill God's purpose regardless of his choice? NO! For later in Jeremiah 15:19, when Jeremiah complains against the Lord, God says,"Therefore this is what the LORD says: "If you repent, I will restore you that you may serve me; if you utter worthy, not worthless, words, you will be my spokesman. Let this people turn to you, but you must not turn to them." I believe this is similar to Paul's being chosen. 2. If Paul was saved in the Calvinistic sense, then he could not fall away. Yet this contradicts what he says in 1 Co 9:27 "No, I beat my body and make it my slave so that after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified for the prize." These are just some thoughts that I've had. Not real deeply studied. I could be wrong.
For now brother I think I'm getting burnt out theologically. Too much feeding of the intellect and too little of the heart. I appreciate the discussions, but I think I'll back off for a time to get spiritually refreshed.
God bless,
Steve
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Feb 3, 2006 17:00:56 GMT -5
Armen,
According to your theology, God COULD save all people; He's perfectly capable of saving all, and if He decided to save all men then all men would be saved and hell would not have any men in it, but He simply decided not to save everyone??
He could have died for everyone, but He didn't?
He could save everyone, but He doesn't?
|
|
|
Post by tomah on Feb 3, 2006 18:16:16 GMT -5
I agree with you Steve about being burnt out. I've been working 12 hr shifts and then coming home to frazzle my brain through theological discussions.
As you say Jesse, God simply decided not to save everyone. When we say 'Limited' Atonement we only mean Limited to who it was for, not limited in its efficacy. The Atonement WOULD be sufficent for everyone but I believe it was for "as many as the Lord our God shall call."
If God didn't choose a people, then Christ died with the POSSIBILITY that NO ONE would be redeemed.
|
|
|
Post by tomah on Feb 6, 2006 13:34:50 GMT -5
Knowing that that particular interpretation of 2 Peter 2:1 seems a little far-fetched, I have tried to figure out what it really means. I have 2 thoughts. The first came last night and it is that when it says "bought them" the 'them' refers to those they are trying to deceive. The second (which I think to be correct) came just there now and it is that the text is really meaning that the heretics are denying the Lord that THEY THINK bought them.
You may say that I am adding words in that are not there just trying to prove Calvinism. Maybe I am but it is because Calvinism IS the bible. It is what the bible clearly teaches and there are only 1 or 2 portions such as this that SEEM to oppose, but they cannot as the bible does not contradict.
And anyway, some of you try to put words that are not there also because the bible says that Asa's heart was perfect ALL his days and yet he FORGOT the Lord a few years before he died.
God bless
|
|
|
Post by Steve Noel on Feb 6, 2006 16:58:24 GMT -5
Armen wrote, "You may say that I am adding words in that are not there just trying to prove Calvinism. Maybe I am but it is because Calvinism IS the bible. It is what the bible clearly teaches and there are only 1 or 2 portions such as this that SEEM to oppose, but they cannot as the bible does not contradict." (emphasis mine) Just 2 questions: 1. If Calvinism IS the Bible, then why are there many very godly Bible scholars that are not Calvinists? 2. Is it at least possible that 2 Peter 2:1 (at face value) supports universal atonement?
|
|
|
Post by tomah on Feb 6, 2006 19:18:51 GMT -5
1. If Calvinism IS the Bible, then why are there many very godly Bible scholars that are not Calvinists? 2. Is it at least possible that 2 Peter 2:1 (at face value) supports universal atonement? 1) Likewise there are very many godly scholars that are Calvinists. They can't both be correct. We both would agree that sincerety is no basis for truth. I did for some time recently open my mind to the possibility that I may have been wrong, but God has shown me recently that Calvinistic theology is what the Bible teaches. Even tonight at a Bible Study and Prayer Meeting we read Gen 19 about Lot and Sodom and I though about Lot and how he had NO testimony v7 says he called the wicked sodomites "brethren" and v14 talks about how he seemed as one that mocked to his sons-in-law. He was willing to give his own daughters to be molested by the sodomites and MANY other wicked things. You are bound to say that if he had died then and there he would have went to hell, however, v16 says he 'lingered' after being told to flee from Sodom (so obviously he had no care for the preservation of himself or family) and yet it says that the LORD brought them forth by force out of the city. It would seem clear that he was elected. God preserved him because he was His child. Lot's will and desire was to linger in Sodom, but God pulled him out. Rom 9 says I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. 2) No, because it doesn't tie in with other clear passages of the scriptures.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Noel on Feb 6, 2006 19:35:41 GMT -5
Armen, I will agree that there are definitely godly Christian scholars that are Calvinists. My point is that I don't believe the Scriptures are perfectly clear in regards to the issues we've debated. If they were, then we wouldn't have Calvinists and Arminians. Both believe there view is the view of the Scriptures. Both can list Scripture after Scripture to support their view. Both have difficulty dealing with certain Scriptures. Both are convinced that the way they deal with those Scriptures are legitimate interpretations. In the end we will all be held responsibile for what we believed. I would contend that we will all be humbled when we realize how little we understood. John Wesley and George Whitefield separated for a time over these issues. When Whitefield died Wesley preached a sermon entitled: On The Death of the Rev. Mr. George WhitefieldHis text was Num. 23:10 "Let me die the death of the righteous, and let my last end be like his!" Here's the link if you want to read it: wesley.nnu.edu/john_wesley/sermons/053.htmThat is how I feel about godly Calvinists.
|
|
|
Post by tomah on Feb 6, 2006 20:25:09 GMT -5
AMEN! I was aware of that fact on Wesley and Whitefield already brother. At the end of the day, it's the heart God most desires, not the head "my son, give me thine heart."
I have often said that I would LOVE to have the heart for God that Wesley had inspite of how he differs doctrinally.
One time a very staunch Calvinist came up to Surgeon and said "Mr Spurgeon, do you believe that we shall see John Wesley in Heaven?" Spurgeon turned and said "No..." The staunch Calvinist smiled as a sign of his approval. Spurgeon went on "...I would think that John Wesley will be so near the throne of God and we shall be so far back that we will not see him."
Spurgeon was a VERY staunch Calvinist, nevertheless, he was (and I am) wise enough to know that holiness of heart and devoutness to God is much to be prefered.
God bless!
|
|
|
Post by Rick on Feb 8, 2006 2:54:07 GMT -5
Armen, According to your theology, God COULD save all people; He's perfectly capable of saving all, and if He decided to save all men then all men would be saved and hell would not have any men in it, but He simply decided not to save everyone?? He could have died for everyone, but He didn't? He could save everyone, but He doesn't? Actually Jesse, under Armen's view and mine, Jesus died for someone, the elect, under your view Jesus died for no one, just anybody that might decide to choose him, wow that's a weak view of a sovereign God. The Semi-pelagist view that you guys speak of is a humanistic view that places you in control and God in the back seat, everything is about you and so much less about God. Eph 2:1, Eph 2:8-9 John 1:12-13 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. It's all God fella's and not us, and I don't buy prevenient grace, thats still all about man.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Noel on Feb 8, 2006 17:35:53 GMT -5
Rick,
Your caricature is quite humorous. Here's another one I think you'll enjoy.
Calvinists deny the biblical doctrine of justification by faith alone. They believe in justification by unconditional election alone.
|
|
|
Post by ejuliot on Feb 8, 2006 18:08:16 GMT -5
1Jo 2:1-2 "My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world."
I ran into this verse the other day...From what I have read the epistle of 1 John was not addressed to any particular church but was meant to be sent to many churches. So, John could not be saying Christ is the propitiation for this church and the rest of the elect (world) because it is addressed to the church in general. So it seems to be saying Christ is the propitiation for the church and the world (literal world). I am no expert so what do you guys think?
|
|
|
Post by Steve Noel on Feb 8, 2006 18:26:15 GMT -5
Elizabeth, You are definitely correct. Now watch how the Calvinist twists this passage to say something it cannot possibly say. I posted this earlier as a challenge to the Calvinist view of this verse: "How does your interpretation of 1 John 2:2 make any sense if "the whole world means" the elect?
"He [Jesus] is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world."
There is no way around the clear meaning of the verse. It is completely unwarranted to interpret it so as to fit a particular view of election. If that isn't scripture twisting, then I don't know what is. I ask if you are being honest to Scripture to interpret it to mean the elect."
|
|
|
Post by Miles Lewis on Feb 11, 2006 14:29:48 GMT -5
Steve Noel posted:
Bro, I don't know that it could be any clearer.
|
|
|
Post by tomah on Feb 11, 2006 15:18:52 GMT -5
I believe it could also be that these false prophets/deceivers were Judaizers. So, when it says that the Lord "bought them", I think it is talking about back when He delivered them from the slavery in Egypt.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Mar 12, 2006 15:12:19 GMT -5
"But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction." 2 Peter 2:1
Here the Apostle Peter says that these false teachers deny Christ, who bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.
How could those who Christ bought, bring upon themselves swift destruction, if limited atonement is true?
|
|
|
Post by tomah on Mar 12, 2006 16:43:47 GMT -5
Deut:32 v5,6 "They have corrupted themselves, their spot is not the spot of his children: they are a perverse and crooked generation. Do ye thus requite the LORD, O foolish people and unwise? is not he thy father that hath BOUGHT thee? hath he not made thee, and established thee?"
Take the verse in context. Here Peter is showing a link between false teachers in OT times and NT times. These NT false prophets were Judaizers. So when it says that the Lord "bought them", it is talking about back when He delivered them from the slavery in Egypt. In the OT God brought swift destruction upon them, and here Peter warns and encourages the true believers that God will do the same again.
2 Tim 1:9 says "God hath saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which he hath given us in Christ before the world began."
GOD (not because of their own choice, but because of God's choice) called them in Christ before the world began.
|
|
|
Post by evanschaible on Mar 15, 2006 17:06:37 GMT -5
2 Peter 2:1 really doesnt have any relevance to election or whatever it is called when people turn to God by themselves. But ifI had to choose a viewpoint for this scripture to support than I guess it would have to be election, here is why:
"But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in d**nable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction."
Notice this verse says "the Lord that bought them" If I buy something, say a candy bar, I make the decision to take that candybar off the rack, pay for it, and take it home. That candy bar doesnt jump off the rack into my hand and beg to be bought. We are bought at a price. We are not our own. Jesus BOUGHT us with his blood. So, it is ultimately God that does the work. I cant see how this scripture as been so twisted as to call out calvinists, whether four point like myself or staunch calvinists like Armen and many others.
Further, "Denying the Lord that bought them" means also a prevalent and blatent total denial of Jesus. In a way the gnostic heresy of that time denied Christ by saying that he was never in the flesh, "any spirit that says Jesus has come in the flesh is of God, any that deny that Jesus is come in the flesh is not of God" (Paraphrase).
When 'the elect' is mentioned is is always in direct connection with believers. Many of us here I think adhere to much of Ray Comfort's teaching. Why the teaching of true and false conversion if everyone who turn to God is saved? The sinners prayer comes from the altar call, and the formulated prayer of salvation along with the altar call came from hell. Why a revival if all who turn to God are saved? all they have to do is pray the sinners prayer, the seed nevers needs to germinate and take root. God must draw us to his son, and the word is the means he draws us, preached or read. Election is a true deoctrine brothers, whether we understand it or not.
Answer this question for me biblically, Who gives us 'repentance unto life'?
The main reason I think many dont like the doctrine of election is because for one, we cant understand it, and secondly it seemingly erases the need for evangelism. But that is simply because our thoughts are not God's thoughts and his ways not our own. We have no idea who will respond to the gospel or who wont. Is God soverign? Is he omniscient? Does God have every hair on your head numbered?
|
|
|
Post by Rodgers on Mar 15, 2006 20:08:34 GMT -5
Isn't everyone going to be ressurected from the Dead? Righteous and Wicked alike?
|
|
|
Post by Juli on Mar 20, 2006 2:50:22 GMT -5
I bake a cake. I walk into a room full of people and invite everyone to eat some. Some come and eat, others don't. Who did I bake the cake for? Initially, everyone it appeared. Ultimately, those who ate it. (many are called, few are chosen)
Imagine a large cross with a door, with the words written on the outside of the door, for all to read, "Whosoever will, may enter". And then if you were to enter, on the inside of the cross, on the back side of the door, it reads "I have chosen you before the foundations of the world."
We may think initially that we choose God, and that is how for whatever reason, God ordained it. It is clear in scripture we have responsibility and choice (Choose you this day whom you will serve Joshua said). But, once we have "chosen" we realize it was God who chose us first. God who enabled us to come. God who drew us unto him (John 6) NO man can come to the father except through the Son and no one comes to the Son except those whom the Father draws. Do we understand this? Not really. But we need to accept the whole cousel of God.
|
|
|
Post by Kerrigan on Mar 20, 2006 10:31:05 GMT -5
I had a new Christian find my website recently and ask me this question. Here was my response to him:
That's an interesting question brother. I don't call myself a Calvinist or Arminian to tell you the truth. I would probably be called a Calminian. Anyway, I would say that Jesus died for those who he foreknew would repent of their sins and trust Him as their Savior. Only one person can be punished for each persons sins, either that person or Jesus. So, if Jesus took the sins of the whole world upon Himself on the Cross, then no one would be going to Hell because Jesus had already been punished for their sins. Therefore, Jesus could have only died for the elect, that is those whom God foreknew would repent and trust Christ as Savior. Now, this doesn't mean that God has chosen whom He would save and whom He would send to Hell. It just means that He knows all and see all, all at one time. He lives outside of the scope of time. But, in a sense, Jesus did die for all, because ALL have an opportunity to repent and trust Him as their Savior. God just knows who will and who won't ahead of time. And those are the ones whos sins were put upon Jesus at the Cross. So, in the end, Jesus died for ALL, but only took the punishment for those God knew would be Christians. I know this is a paradox, but that's how it is at times when finite humans try to understand an infinite God.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Mar 20, 2006 11:08:06 GMT -5
Mat 25:41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
2Pe 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. If hell wasn't prepared for humans, and God is not willing that any should go there... Why do men go to Hell? Do they go against God's will?
|
|
|
Post by tomah on Mar 20, 2006 13:30:44 GMT -5
Hell was prepared before the fall.
|
|
|
Post by Rodgers on Mar 20, 2006 15:48:37 GMT -5
No one answered my question. I know it seems like a pretty simple answer but I think we can learn something from the obvious. Of course everyone will be resurrected. The righteous and the wicked. Without Christ's resurrection it would be impossible for anyone to ever be resurrected because of the hold the Law of Sin and Death has on the human race. But Christ did come, die and defeat death. Therefore, God can now raise the dead and give us a proper judgment. The death and resurrection of Christ allows God to do this. So Christ did die for the whole world, but only those who believe will be given the power (now) to become sons of God. And when that great glorious day of resurrection of the living and the dead comes the people that believed will enter into the kingdom and those who did not will be thrown into everlasting fire. Jesus will separate the sheep from the goats and it is his victory over death that gives him the power and authority to do this. Without his resurrection no one would be resurrected, righteous or wicked. "We might as well eat, drink and be merry for tommorow we die."
|
|