the "all" verse 18 and the "many" in 19

Your definition of the sacrifice is more limiting than mine, though. The Grace is unlimited though.

Scripture says that Christ is the propitiation for everyone - for us and the entire world. The logical conclusion is that it is up to us to accept that means or deny it. I'd like to see your Scripture that backs it up.

So you agree that Christ bought the sins for all men?

Then we'll have to come up with a definition of efficient. Since the offer was made for all and the sacrifice was made for all and all are drawn, I think the text leans much more to my side.

 

You missed my question, Ken. Were these people enlightened by the Holy Spirit or not? I can only see two choices here:

1. They were saved and lost their salvation.
2. The Spirit can enlighten a non-believer, yet he still is able to say "no."

If you can agree that the Holy Spirit can enlighted a non-believer and he still continue to say no, then the "all" in several verses must be broadened to include "all" and not "some."

 

Scott,

To paraphrase John Gill: These enlightened ones are those who see the consequences of sin but not the evil in sin, who see the good things that Christ gives but not the goodness in Christ, who may be good on the outside(even an atheist may act morally) but there is no internal sanctification, who have gospel knowledge in the head but not experimentally, maybe even able to preach the gospel to others but yet without the saving grace of God in their souls.

As the hymn says: "Almost cannot avail, almost is but to fail; Sad, sad that bitter wail, almost but lost."

One redeemed by Christ's blood,

Ken
Were it not for grace...

 

So were they visited and enlightened by the Holy Spirit or not? This is the key question! Does the Holy Spirit come to those who "never will accept Christ?" Does that make the Holy Spirit impotent in some cases?

 

Since the passage does not say "enlightened by the Holy Spirit" I don't think I can answer your question based on this passage. I do know from the Bible as a whole that all those regenerated(born from above) by the Holy Spirit will be saved.

God is never impotent, for if He ever was, He would not be God.

One redeemed by Christ's blood,

Ken
Were it not for grace...

 

As for propitiation and sin, the word propitiation means satisfaction. It deals with atonement as an actuality, not as a possibility. In 1 John 2, whatever Christ did for "our sins" he did for the sins of the "world." Therefore, Christ did not propitiate the sins of the world without exception for in that case no one would go to hell. God doesn't send people to hell whose sins have been paid for. That point of Rom 5 is the same as 1 John 2:2 -- the "all" are in reference to those in Christ, those whose sins were propitiated.

However, we need to get it back on topic guys. Start another one if you want to talk about something other than the all or many in Rom 5.

[ June 28, 2002, 04:26 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

They've been enlighted and have shared in the Holy Spirit.

Is there a difference between enlightenment and regeneration? Is it possible that the Holy Spirit can come to a man without saving him?

I believe this is KEY to the use of the word "all." Are ALL men enlightened by the Holy Spirit? If not, what happened to these people who were enlightened and who have shared in the Holy Spirit, but never really saved?

 

Anyone who is never regenerated, never repents, never believes, never converted is damned to hell because of his sin.

One redeemed by Christ's blood,

Ken
Were it not for grace...

[ June 29, 2002, 01:09 PM: Message edited by: Ken Hamilton ]

 

Anyone who is never regenerated, never repents, never believes, never converted is damned to hell because of his sin.

One redeemed by Christ's blood,

Ken
Were it not for grace...</font>[/QUOTE]So we are in agreement that the Holy Spirit can enlighten a man, but the man NOT become a Christian?

 

I will agree as long as you do not equate enlightenment with regeneration or effectual calling and that you do equate enlightenment with simply the reading/hearing of the Scriptures and the influence of Christians.

One redeemed by Christ's blood,

Ken
Were it not for grace...

 

I will agree as long as you do not equate enlightenment with regeneration or effectual calling and that you do equate enlightenment with simply the reading/hearing of the Scriptures and the influence of Christians.

One redeemed by Christ's blood,

Ken
Were it not for grace...</font>[/QUOTE]Now I'm confused. How is reading the Scriptures "sharing in the Holy Spirit?" What exactly is the Holy Spirit doing - is he calling, but not "effectually calling?" Where is your SCripture for this?

 

'Does that make the Holy Spirit impotent in some cases?'

It is not that the Holy Spirit is without power in convicting and convincing some lost people, it is because the lost ones sometimes reject His gracious and wonderful ministry. [Acts 7:51; John 5:40]

People have the power to reject Christ's offer of salvation. You only have to be a pastor for a couple of years before you encounter this reality. People do have the power, through free will, to accept His offer and plan for their eternal security. And if the Holy Spirit did not want them in the Kingdom, why would He offer it in the first place? Jesus says, believe, accept, have faith. He does not conqueror sinners and make saints out of them only by His sheer and mighty power. We as sinners must invite Him into our hearts and lives.

 

Ray, have you forgotten about the Fall and its effect on man's nature?

Do you not believe that Christ's finished work is sufficient for salvation? Do you not believe that Christ's power is sufficient? How can you use the word "only"? Methinks you have much, much, much too high of a regard for fallen man's ability. God is Creator, man is creature. God is Potter, man is clay. Tell ya what - go to a human potter, watch him work, and let me know the first time you hear the piece of clay crying out and refusing to be formed into what the potter wants the clay to be. Okay? The human potter works his will on the clay, yet you want to take away in your theology the same right from The Potter. I submit that your theology makes The Potter less than a human potter, for all practical purposes.

One redeemed by Christ's blood,

Ken
Were it not for grace...

 

(Eph 6:17 NKJV) And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God;

(Heb 4:12 NKJV) For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

One redeemed by Christ's blood,

Ken
Were it not for grace...

 

So the Holy Spirit is the Scriptures? Does this mean only the OT, since that was the only canonical thing back then? Or does it literally mean "the word of the LORD?" How do we know that God in the form of the HOly Spirit isn't what "shared in the Holy Spirit" is talking about?

Note that it doesn't say the Word of God IS the Spirit - but the Sword of the Spirit. Paul could very well be talking about the "spirit" that refers to the spirit of a man, since there is no agios to be found anywhere.

 

Ken Hamilton,

'Have you forgotten the results of the Fall?'

Your view of total depravity leads you and others into all kind of error. The Image of God in man/woman was not totally lost because God willed it this way. Therefore, humans have some autonomy and can think, act, and are responsible for all of their sins. In that the nature of man is not totally depraved, he or she can make decisions as to their final estate in Heaven or Hell. And please, don't try to inform me that man can commit all kinds of sordid sins; I know that.

Please, give me a one paragraph commentary, as you see it, taken from John 1:9. You may really have to think, since Calvinistic commentators tend to dilute this very important aspect of the Word of God in connection with all those nasty sinners.

 

Once again Ray, you show that you are not familiar with your opponents. Please show some reformed theologians of significance who believes that the image of God in man was destroyed by the fall. That will be your homework assignment. I am tempted to forbid you from posting until 1) your come up with such a person or 2) until you apologize for your continual misrepresentation of your opponent. However, I will not do that at this point.

We do not believe that the image of God was destroyed. John 1:9, Rom 2:14-15, and Rom 1:18-22 are good proof of that. The image of God was marred but not destroyed. That leaves man with only a feeling of autonomy, one that he is not willing to give up. It also leaves him responsible for his actions because he knows better.

[ July 04, 2002, 11:18 AM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

(John 1:9 NKJV) That was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world.

From John Gill - as always succinct and to the point:

"some connect the phrase, "that cometh into the world," not with "every man," but with the "true light"; and the Arabic version so reads, and joins it to the following verse; but this reading is not so natural and the order of the words requires the common reading; nor is the difficulty removed hereby; for still it is every man that is enlightened: it is best therefore to understand these words of the light of nature, and reason, which Christ, as the word, and Creator and light of men, gives to every man that is born into the world; and which serves to detect the Quakers' notion of the light within, which every man has, and is no other than the light of a natural conscience; and shows how much men, even natural men, are obliged to Christ, and how great a person he is, and how deserving of praise, honour, and glory."

One redeemed by Christ's blood,

Ken
Were it not for grace...

 

Here is what I found perusing the net regarding this:

The image of God is so marred and twisted by the fall of Adam that every person who is conceived is at that point at enmity with God. (from apuritansmind.com

Hence the image of God, with all its divine adornings on the mind, is utterly defaced, and the greatest of all blessings, that of life, is lost. (WH Huntington)

Man completely lost the image of God and took on the image of Satan at the fall. The idea of common grace is unbiblical. "[T]hrough this fall the recipient of God's revelation was so changed and corrupted that he can no longer truly hear the Word of God. For he lost the image of God, and all his light was changed into darkness. ... And no 'natural theology' can ever be constructed by that fallen man! So darkened is his understanding that he will always lie about the living God" (pp. 41-42). (From Reformed Dogmatics by Herman Hoeksema)

we grant that the image of God was not utterly effaced and destroyed in him, it was, however, so corrupted, that any thing which remains is fearful deformity (Institutes).

-- so it's not actually completely lost, just extraordinarily perverted beyonf recognition, according to Calvinist thought.

Wait a minute! I thought "there is none that does good, no not one!" How can they "know better" if they are totally and completely depraved?

 

So "reason" is the true light? Could this interpretation be any more Platonic? "He himself was not reason, but he came as a witness to reason?" Did people before the time of Christ NOT have reason? This doesn't make sense and goes against the context of the passage. The fact that he says "it is best therefore" is only right if "best" referst o that which fits in his theological system. Indeed, the "best" way of reading the text is by believing what it says - that Christ came to give light to all men.