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.
Amazing claim...help!
Discussion in 'General Baptist Discussions' started by ReformedBaptist, Jul 1, 2008.
Page 2 of 3
-
God bless you. -
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.
-
-
I know you are not saying that having read your posts in the past.
-
-
How else would Peter preach that God calls everyone and say as many as the Lord our God shall call? Your explaination doesn't seem sensible to me to what the text is saying. -
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.
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.
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 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.
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. -
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.
But I will show you again:
However in verse 41 there is a distinction given in group being addressed:
-
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.
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:
-
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. -
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:
-
Thanks for discussing these verses with me. :wavey: -
I think he has some valid points. I also like this quote,
-
Hope that better explains what I'm saying :) -
So far he has even dealt with Ryrie's contention at all but erected straw men of his own making.
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.
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)
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. -
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. -
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.
Page 2 of 3