Logic and the Literal Payment Theory

Start with 1 Cor 1 where God chose people for salvation. If that doesn't help, then I don't know of any other Scripture.

 

It's an unconditional choosing by God of sinners, because sinners cannot come to God on their own (John 6:65).

Now tell me why from Scripture this is not the case?

 

Until I agree with you every interpretation I propose would be "yet only distantly linked."

 

Disagreements surrounding soteriology did not begin with us and neither will they end with us.

We come to this issue with our presuppositions. We both have them. I surely will not deny that fact from my end.

While God has equipped us all with reason, I believe Scripture teaches that our reasoning has been affected by sin.

Until my spiritual eyes are open by God, I'm not able to see and discern spiritual realities and ultimately come to the Lord (Acts 16:14; 2 Cor 4:3-6).

 

In John 12:32 Christ said "I will DRAW ALL unto Me"

(Hint: John 12:32 does not say "actually just ALL of the SOME that Calvinists like to downsize this to".)

SO if we allow that GOD DRAWS ALL and that God ALSO "sends His Son to be Atoning Sacrifice for OUR SINS and NOT for OUR SINS only but for the SINS of the WHOLE WORLD"1John 2:2

Then we start to notice a "pattern" in John's writings.

"God so LOVED THE WORLD" not just an "arbitrarily select FEW".

And we find that the unconditional GRACE of God is in the form of "SO LOVING THE WORLD" and "Atoning sacrifice for the sins of the WORLD" and "Drawing ALL" by supernatural GOD - means.

With such a foundation - there no room for "LIMITED Gospel, Limited Love, Limited Atonement".

In God's Free WILL system "HE came unto His OWN and His OWN received Him not" -- (That John "AGAIN") showing that the difference is not GOD "failing to reach out effectively".

In Christ,

Bob

 

The Arminian position needs a "completed Atoning Sacrifice" 1John 2:2 WHILE ALSO allowing for people to ACCEPT salvation STILL (out of free will) and to LOSE salvation still.

The only way this works is to ACCEPT the Lev 16 model for Atonement that INCLUDES the High Priestly work of Christ.

And the only way to argue for the "THE SINS of the WORLD" being accounted for in that offering "NOT JUST OUR SINS" is to admit that there is a DIFFERENCE between the suffering and torment "payment" needed for "JUST OUR SINS" vs "The SINS of the WORLD".

Basically I am pointing to the fact that this SOLVES the problems in the Arminian view by avoiding the most basic of errors --

i.e
DON't take a Calvinist defintion for Atonement then try to reach an Arminian conclusion "anyway".

The "Arminian" statement is in the form of the solution NEEDED by the Arminian framework of "free will" and "God so Loved the WORLD that He gave -- yes really" and "The Atoning Sacrifice for OURS sins and NOT our sins ONLY but for the sins of the WHOLE WORLD".

If people are STILL coming to Christ and some are STILL losing salvation then the ATONEMENT completed 2000 years ago as Calvinists define it - is not correct the correct model. Even Calvinists would have to agree to that.

In Luke 12:45-50 Christ argues for DEGREES of payment owed SOME owe FEW in hell while others owe MANY stripes (much suffering). The payment of that debt in the torment of the lake of fire and brimstone is called "the second Death" that is the death that the sinner owes. And the sinner "does not survive it" according to Matt 10:28.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Indeed "sufficient" to meet the demands of the Law -- exactly, not merely "fuzzy logic" but exactly.

Luke 12

45 ""But if that slave says in his heart, "My master will be a long time in coming,' and begins to beat the slaves, both men and women, and to eat and drink and get drunk;
46 the master of that slave will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he does not know, and will cut him in pieces, and assign him a place with the unbelievers.

47 ""And that slave who knew his master's will and did not get ready or act in accord with his will, will receive many lashes,
48 but the one who did not know it, and committed deeds worthy of a flogging, will receive but few. From everyone who has been given much, much will be required; and to whom they entrusted much, of him they will ask all the more.
49 ""I have come to cast fire upon the earth; and how I wish it were already kindled!

Luke 12 makes it clear that there are degrees of suffering -- some suffer more than others -- some owe more than others "based on deeds" based on what they knew and what they did.

That establishes the concept of "amounts" and ALSO "amounts that vary by individual" based on deeds and knowledge.

Christ "paid for it".

in Matt 18 the story of "forgiveness revoked" it is a massive debt owed the sinner does not survive it -- but it is finite.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob, in the context of John 12 "All/All people" refer to both Jews and Gentiles. The context makes this clear.

Verse 20 pictures the Greeks seeking out Jesus, so his "I will draw all to me" is in order.

Is it possible for "all" to have this meaning?

Regarding 1 John 2:2 I believe John is referring to sinful people who need to be redeemed.

 

Do you think I know who will be of this group? Are you putting me in the place of God?

 

In Calinism the downsizing of "I will Draw ALL unto ME" forces an abuse of "ALL" in John 12:32 while LEAVING ALL alone in places like Romans 3 "ALL have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God".


In Romans 3 Calvinism is kind enough to leave ALL as "ALL Jews and ALL gentiles... All yes really ALL!"

But in John 12 "ALL" is taken to a downsize by saying "at least one person from ALL groups"

It makes it clear as we see in Romans 5 "ALL have sinned" but it does not make it clear as in the Calvinist "At least ONE person from ALL people-groups".

That is clear for ALL to see.

in Christ,

Bob

 

I'm only interested in biblical truths not philosophical ones.

Only the Spirit of God will allow me to see those spiritual truths (1 Cor 2:6-14). I can't rely on my human reason.

 

Context defines meaning.

 

Context

Please excuse me TC for just jumping in here but, if I might ask, what truly defines "context"?

I am given to understand that the context, is the parts of a discourse which precede or follow a particular section of interest; the passages which are near the particular text that is in question, either before it or after it. The sense of a passage being often illustrated by its surrounding context.

However, each unit of any communication must be understood via the composit of its terms and their appropriate definitions.

The terms that are used in each context must be fully understood for their application to be correct. This must be done by choosing the appropriate definition within the semantic range of each term or the specific text of interest cannot be correctly interpreted.

Would you agree that if a particular Precept of God is to be interpreted correctly, whether it is a stand alone verse or a larger context, its underlying terms must be correctly understood?

If so, then it becomes a simple matter of defining terms and, of course, their gramatics.

A case in point would be Romans 8:28, of which I am particularly fond. If it is read in all of the more popular versions it becomes clear that terms and definitions are quite important for the context to become clear.