Amazing claim...help!

This is incorrect. The devils believe in God and tremble, it has nothing to do with salvation at all.

Agreed, and those promises are to all people everywhere.

 

Have a good sleep (or hope you had a good sleep, whichever fits ). And please, if you don't have the time to reply to my ramblings, I won't be offended in any way. I realise we all have other things to do that do not involve the BB. :laugh:

God bless you.

 

I agree that the message here is limited to only the Jews but not that it disqualifies those gentiles around that place. However it is to all of the Jews not just some group amounst them. The gospel plan has not changed.

Also it is true that they stated 'what must we do' because they realized they (as a nation) had killed their messiah who was to save them. Thus the intent of stating "what must we do" correlates to the fact they had condemned themselves and needed saving if it were at all possible. Thus the addition of "to be saved" is a proper addition for clarification.

The gospel is believe/repent that you might be saved. Acts 2:38 is simply and in short version saying the same thing. Therefore in essense, yes, it is the gospel message.

And it is the same message as verse 38 so he is elaborating on the gospel message. However please not all who heard were pricked in their heats but not all believed according to verse 41.

Not true, only some of them. They all asked (according vs 37) being pricked in the heart for there was no qualifier or discriptor which designated a different group within the group. However in verse 41 it gives a qualifier that differentiates one group from the whole - "then they that gladly received his words.." This is not structured the same as verse 37 speaking of them all without distinction but here it refers only to a group from within the whole showing a definate distinction.

 

The plan has not changed. But the gentiles were not included in chapter 2. To say they were is to deny the historical record in Acts. Salvation was not introduced to the gentiles until Peter preached to Cornelius in chapter 10. Thus while the plan has not changed, the scope has.

Okay, we will have to disagree here. If verse 38 encapsulated the gospel plan of salvation, why was it never preached again? Never. The gospel plan of salvation is believe and confess, not repent, be baptized, and receive the Holy Ghost. To say that v 38 is the gospel plan of salvation is saying that baptism is necessary for salvation.
I know you are not saying that having read your posts in the past.

The gospel is that Christ died and resurrected, and His death and resurrection is the power of God for salvation. Not believe/repent. Believing and confessing faith in Christ, his death and resurrection, leads to justification.

Is this scriptural, or your interpretation? I think you are inferring into the Scripture points that are not there. I think, imo, that those who asked "what must we do" in v 37, were the same ones who received the word with gladness and were baptized.

They did not all ask, only those who God mixed the message of Christ with faith. If they all had faith after hearing the gospel, and all asked what must we do, they would all have been saved.

 

Actually, IMO, the context of James 2:17 is concerning salvation. However, the Bible does not say 'the devils believe in the facts of the gospel and tremble.' The point I'm making is that anyone can believe in the historical veracity of the account of Jesus' life (and the devils are aware of the facts as well) without having saving faith in the promises of God.

Amen.

 

Yes, it is speaking to everyone and the verse you quote even says so. It does not state that for whomever repents Christ died for 'your' remission of sin but that he was speaking to them all there and admonishing them all to repent for the promise was to them all.

​

But the text does not state that Christ death was made only for those who will repent but the message was given to them all and to them all he stated that 'to you' meaning all that were there, the promise is given et...

The promise was given to them all that where there and that alone shows it (being the promise) was not limited to only those who will repent but to them all, every one.

I use the term 'for' in the same manner that it is used regarding the atonement. In the OT the Law declared that the Atonement was to be done 'on behalf of' or 'for' all (every person) in or of Israel (both through lineage and those who were so through religious beliefs/adherance - gentiles). Christ fulfilled the Law regarding the atonement and so His death had to be done 'for' or on behalf of all men. However just because the atonement was made in no way automatically set its benifits to anyone unless they believe. The propitiation is imputed only 'by faith' (Rom 3:25) even though it was made 'for' all (1 John 2:2)

The part about Jesus name is used incorrectly by many of the Reformed traditions because they use a spiritual principle to overshadow the contextual reality. Let me explain:

Jesus name whos meaing is "he will save His people from their sins" is a specific reference to 'Isreal' and the prophesy made concerning them. However this phrase can shown 'in principle' to correlate to all of the saved it can not be used properly in its context to mean that it directly means all the saved. It was a prophesy regarding the Nation of Israel to which Christ will fulfill and that is what Paul is refering to in Chapter 11 of Romans verse 26.

 

I didn't make myself very clear, sorry.
I agree that all to whom Peter was speaking were Jews from all over however what "I" was refering to is that not 'all' of those to whom Peter was speaking was going to be saved.

You keep adding something that is a theological presupposition instead of the contextual in the passage referenced. That being the call is only to some and not others. When Peter states 'whom the Lord will call' is not about some select group(as I said this is a theological presuppotion brought in) but the truth is that He is expanding the first part. IOW - the Promise is not just to you, your children and those (other Jews) afar off - but as many [more] He might choose to call. He is stating This message is for everyone whom God will send it to!

He isn't limiting the field as some presuppose but expanding it beyond the Jews.

Incorrect, not all whom the Lord calls will receive however it is also true that only those who have been called can receive.

I know what it says I just disagree with your theological position on it. Peter wasn't limiting but expanding. We know this because of the way the passage was written which was expanding the promise to further than just those who heard.
To you (those there) and to or for your children (going further) and to the afar off (going further abroad), as many as the Lord ... (even further than man can comprehend). He is expanding not limiting.

 

I was not saying he was preaching specifically to the Gentiles but the fact he was not preaching directly to them did not preclude them either. Just as Jesus stated He was sent to the Jews when a gentile asked for help did not preclude the fact that He would bless them as well who come by faith.

The scope of salvation however, has never changed for it has always been to all who will believe. What has changed is not the scope of salvation but to whom it would be sent through. In the OT is was through the Jews and any gentile could be come a Jew by religious observance. In the NT the people as the means have changed from Israel to those of the Church made up of all men everywhere.

Actaully repentance is part of the plan of salvation. Jesus Himself stated "unless you repent you shall all likewise perish". However repentance is part of and parcel to belief/faith because in order for the truth to be real to you you must have a changed mind about that which it speaks. However what Peter is saying isn't this is the method whereby you are saved but that if you will be saved these things will follow.

So let me get this straight.. You hold that there need not be any repentance on our part so long as just believe. I whole heartedly disagree. Maybe you need to start another thread on salvation and repentance?

I would state scriptural since I used the passages of scripture and elaborated on them quite a bit showing their distinctions. You on the other hand simply state that it is your opinion.
But I will show you again:

Notice it states 'they'. Who are 'they'? All those who were listening to Peter preach. There is not qualifier which reduces the 'they' to some subgroup but maintains this same group to whom Peter preached is the same group that was pricked in their hearts.

However in verse 41 there is a distinction given in group being addressed:

The distinction is in the 'they' because it has a qualifier that breaks the group up - who gladly received his word. This shows very clearly not all of the group who ask Peter what shall we do, believed since this verse states plainly that those who gladly received his word is a seperate group from those who didn't.

Yes, according to scripture all those who heard Peter, their hearts were pricked and asked that question. They all did have faith for all men have the capcity of faith but not all men will believe. This is what I'm talking about concerning bringing in theological presuppositions to the text. Peter not once stated "if God has given you faith then repent" or anything of the sort. Peter stated to them all (and remember that not all of them will be saved) this promise is to 'you' not only to those who have faith.

 

As I said earlier Peter isn't limiting but expanding.
Seconly, the supposition of the inward call as something different from the 'call' has no biblcal support. It is a contention born from a logical conclusion that all things regarding their (Reformed) doctrines are correct. However I would state that if they are true it is a good and logical conclusion to be drawn, but I do not believe some of the doctrince are true and those have a specific bearing on the discussion of the calling of God to all men.

It is perfectly logical and sensable.
You have God limiting when in fact the it's usage by Peter is not to limit but increase. It is the only logical conclusion based upon the text in which Peter uses it. God is calling all men to repentance but no man can repent unless the Lord first call him. The call is to all men and it is an inward call that reveals God and sin. It is the reason for Spirit of God going into the world with His 3 fold ministry, Christ's statement that He will draw all men unto Himself, the scripture of John 1 stating the Jesus is the light which gives light to every man that comes into the world, the fact of the OT law of atonement being made for all though not all was saved, Him being the propitiation for our sins and not ours only but for the sins of the whole world, et... the list goes on and on and on... God is calling all men but not all men will receive His calling as seen here:

Paul echos this same thing (most specifically verse 24) in Rom 10:

Not mention other illistrations such as the Wedding Feast and so forth.

 

Thanks for your post, Allan. I am hesitant about replying, because I could so easily find myself weaving a web of semantics, or repeating the various monergism/synergism threads.

I think we probably are in agreement that it is those who believe on the Lord Jesus Christ who are saved. That glorious promise is in God's Word over and over again, praise His name! My problem with the idea that Christ died "for" those who would never believe is this: If He died on their behalf, taking their sins in His own body on the tree, as Peter puts it, and they end up in hell for eternity, it seems to me that we would have a God Who punishes the sames sins twice - once in His beloved Son on the cross, and once on those He condemns to hell.

I said that I think we are probably largely in agreement, for if I understand you correctly, we could (and would) both say to unsaved sinners, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved." Although you say that Christ died for every single person, but the benefits of His death only apply if a person believes, and I say that He died for those who believe, we both (as I see it) say that belief is absolutely essential for salvation.

 

We do agree brother that that "it is those who Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ who are saved."

Regarding your 'payment twice' idea. I am most often very wordy in my posts in discribing my position on various things and those posts can grow extensively long. Therefore if I may, I would like to paste something from Ryrie Basic Theology that address the payment twice misconception since it would be more concise:

 

I have trouble with your view of this after studying Acts, and how God made a point of offering salvation to the gentiles through Peter, beginning with Cornelius. Before that, it doesn't seem any gentiles were saved. I could be wrong.

I do agree that without repentance men will perish. I just have difficulty seeing this as necessary to salvation, or a result of salvation. Perhaps that is what you are saying. My apologies is I am misunderstanding you.

Thanks for discussing these verses with me. :wavey:

 

I'm not saying that the gospel presented here was to the gentiles since we know it was toward the Jewish audience. However, salvation was not only to the Jews and that is what I am saying. IF a gentile was amoung them (though there is not report of such) do you believe that God would not have saved him. Of course not for you hold as I do that he could not believe unless God was working on that mans heart. I'm simply stating that just as Jesus came to the Jews first but did not deny the gentiles who believed so to was the message to Jews first though it does not negate any besides coming. The point is not that it was 'only' to but that the message was first sent to or better that it is for the Jews first off and anyone else was welcome (if they came) However after Israel rejected the message then went to the Gentiles as a people and anyone else who desired to come can (that goes back to the Jews)

It is not that repentance is either necessary to salvatrion northat it is a result of salvation but that is a part OF Salvation. If you believe then virtue of that believe there has to be a change of mind (repentance) thus it is a part of but necessary to (as in some work) or the result of being saved.

Hope that better explains what I'm saying

 

Who exactly are you quoting?? Regardless his analysis is very poor and easily refutable brother.

Here is his first mistake and a common error amounst Calvinists. We are not Arminian in theology and he starts off with a poor understanding of Ryries views. Non-Cals and Arminianism differ quite a bit theologically just as we do with some aspects of Calvinism. However since we are closer theologically to Calvinism than Arminianism the title Non-Cal is used and not Non-Armin.

He did previously this was a conclusion regarding on subsection. Thus his point here stems apparently from your friend not reading those things previous to it on the Atonement and the differing views of it.

Did Ryrie ever state that it did? No. However what your friend fails to take into account is that the blood of bulls and goats did 'cover' them till that one an true sacrifice comes to remove them. Thus the picture here is not only applicable it is necessary in order to understand the sacrifice being made.

Again straw man since he never brings up such an issue. Again however what you friend is missing is that it IS an OT symbol pointing to Christ and illistrating not only what Christ had to do but what we are to do as well.

Your friend missed the point entirely here since it Ryrie never brought this issue up either. He is speaking only of the Israelites and never mentions anything about the Egyptians. He creates a straw and effectively tears it down. But his problem is that it is a straw man and he never actaully deals with that Ryrie says nor with the multitude of scripture that speaks to unlimited atonement.

So far he has even dealt with Ryrie's contention at all but erected straw men of his own making.

What??
Let us take his 'logic' to its final conclusion. Christ died and took away all sin then and there for the elect of God. So now you have people from that point forward being born not only sinless but justified and sanctified for ever. Your friend needs couldn't have it more wrong.

Christ takes away sin, but it has not already been taken away. That happens when the propitiation is applied by faith. (Rom 3:25) And it is through His death and Resurrection and coming again when all sin will be taken away forever from the world. There will be a new Heaven and a new Earth made in sinless perfection. But that is another thread.

It was finished and the payment is in full however it was not paid at that exact moment for all so it isn't legal fiction but biblical . This does not argue anything against unlimited atonement atonement view since it squares with it. The sacrifice had to be perfect so that it would perfectly satisify God however it was not imparted to anyone until they first, by faith, received it. We see this exact same thing with the sacrifice of atonement in the OT (that it was made for or on behalf of all - who were of Israel by lineage or belief but applied to them only on via faith) and it is the exact same thing in the NT since Christ had to full the Law.

The main problem is that he doesn't understand the sacrifice of atonement.
Man adds nothing and since he starts off with a false premise he ends with a false understanding.

If he is stating that it is imparted before faith (or even at Christ's death) then no 'would be' believer would be born under His wrath (thus called children of wrath) but would be born effectively saved already. I highly doubt that this is his argument but I do know some of the Sovereign grace doctrines who hold to such. It is called eternal salvation and temporal salvation. In the first God saves all who He elects period regardless of if they will believe or not, and the second has something to do with 'if' you believe you are resposible to live right before God. (I never quite understood the second one).

But please note: His question has nothing to do with point Ryrie is making. None. Ryries never even insinuates that anything is to be 'added' to make it 'effectual' but contrary he is stating scripturally that man's belief in necessary in the effectual working of the atonement.

Regarding Boettner (another who poorly understands anothers view)

Who said it failed?? No one but the Calvinist and that due to their misunderstanding.

Man is not the judge regarding what gives glory nor how much to God. God decides that and Him alone. If God desired to die for all men and save only those of faith who are we to question God?

This is silly and sadly based more upon opinion than any truth. Yet it is and has been said just as imfactically in converse. Does this get us anywhere? No.

I personally think that it lacks any.

Ryrie is well known but is not the end all regarding the non-Cal theological view but is a good read to get a decent grasp on the non-Cal view. The only reason I use him to quote regarding non-cal views so much is because it is the only electronic book regarding theology where I can cut and paste if need be.

and actaully, I would be interesting to here/see what you have to say. If nothing else I enjoy it because it cause me to look closer and inspect my own views with more scrutiny.

 

Could you possibly clarify that, please? If it is true that "without repentance men will perish," how can it not be necessary for salvation? What is a sinner turning Christ for? As Easton says in his Bible Dictionary:

Evangelical repentance consists of
a. a true sense of one’s own guilt and sinfulness;
b. an apprehension of God’s mercy in Christ;
c. an actual hatred of sin Ps 119:128 Job 42:5,6 2Co 7:10 and turning from it to God
d. a persistent endeavour after a holy life in a walking with God in the way of his commandments. The true penitent is conscious of guilt Ps 51:4,9 of pollution Ps 51:5,7,10 and of helplessness Ps 51:11 109:21,22 Thus he apprehends himself to be just what God has always seen him to be and declares him to be. But repentance comprehends not only such a sense of sin, but also an apprehension of mercy, without which there can be no true repentance Ps 51:1 130:4

​

 

ReformedBaptist-

I don't want to take this thread into a different direction you intended with the OP.

What I gave to David was to hopefully help clarify a point in which he asked me a question from my position.

I don't desire to get into the whole my view glorifies God more than your view does nor do I wish to debate (at this time in this thread) Limited vs Unlimited views of Atonement. (not saying you are either but elaborating myself for clarification)

You asked (paraphrasing) in the OP is there any place in Acts whereby the message "Christ died for you' et.. can be seen.

I gave you one such place in Acts 2 because Peter was stating to the crowd in general that the 'promise was to them, et...' The issue revolves around who the 'them' are and if Peter ever stated that Christ only died for some (or that the promise is only to some).

I contest that Peter did not so limit it but, as per the text, declared that this promise (which included Christ death for the remission of sins) was 'for' them all there and that this promise is to all men and can be seen as a foreshadowing of the gospel going to the gentiles as a people eventually.

 

Its kind of hard to clarify what I am thinking but I will try. I am thinking that possibly I am unsure what repentance means. Unfortunately, I am no seminary graduate (yet.)
So, does repentance mean saying I am sorry?
Or, does repentance mean to stop doing the sin that I still want to do?
Or, is repentance somehow linked with sanctification?
Is repentance something I must do, or something Christ does in me?

The concern I have with saying that repentance is necessary to be saved is making repentance a work I must do to receive salvation.