Featured Christ payment was for all mankind

This is exactly what Calvinists believe!!!!!

"All that the Father gives me will come unto me..."


Van, have you become a Calvinist?????

 

Hi Agedman, no I believe the TULI are mistaken views. As you well know, you or at least Calvinism, defines "drawn" to mean compelled irresistible, but I agree with the lexicons which indicate the word is used metaphorically to mean attracted but not compelled.

Likewise, I believe God prevents those of His choosing from coming to the Lord by hardening their hearts, i.e. Romans 11, but most folks, i.e. soils 2, 3 and 4 are able to seek God and trust in Christ because God has not prevented them from seeking God.

Finally, Agedman, I am as always a one point Calvinist, once saved always saved.

 

But, Van, your statement was not that God becomes attractive, but was put into a context that without the Father's intervention and actually giving that person to Christ, the person would remain lost.

That is also what Calvinist's think.

That God must intervene and do a work in the person.
That God presents that person to Christ.

That all the Father gives to Christ will be saved.

(I didn't put specific verses down - for you know them as well as anyone).

So, taking your thinking, it seems that you are not a one point, but at least agree with limited atonement, unconditional election, and irresistible grace.

If you agree with those three even loosely, then total depravity is but and extrapolation to the condition of the lost. For without it, atonement would not be limited to only those who God gives the Son, election would not be conditioned upon only those God gives the son, and grace would be resistible making "all the Father gives me..." untrue.

Perhaps, your thinking is not the extreme some Calvinistic folks, but you do seem to have strong indicators in that direction. This isn't the first time I noticed it in your writings.

 

Lets put it this way, Agedman, you and I use the same phrases but mean entirely different things. I use biblical words according to their lexiconal meanings, considering the context.

1) God does not "become attractive" but when we see Him high and lifted up, i.e. dying for us, we are attracted by His lovingkindness.

2) Obviously, without God's action, every individual would remain lost, it is God who puts them spiritually in Christ.

3) All the Father gives to Christ refers to the Father transferring the individual into Christ, and once in, Christ promises not to cast us out! We must be in before we could be cast out. Thus the "giving" refers to a change in location, not a change of view brought by irresistible grace.

 

???

How are you going to defend THAT from Scripture?

OSAS is but a weak semblance of the fifth point.

 

No?

1. There is no reference to Christ in 2 Peter 2:1. The natural referent to despotes is God the Father (Luke 2:29; Acts 4:24; cf. Deut. 32:6).
2. There is no mention of a death in 2 Peter 2:1.
3. There is no mention of 'all mankind' in 2 Peter 2:1

On the contrary, God chose His elect 'from the beginning' (cf. Eph. 1:4-5) for salvation first by the sanctifying work of the Spirit (NIV), andthen through faith that the Spirit gives. It's a bit naughty to leave out inconvenient bits of Scripture.

Christ is indeed the propitiation for the whole world, but nowhere is He described as the 'means of salvation' for anyone, let alone the whole world. If 'the whole world' means 'all mankind' in 1 John 2:2 then Christ is the propitiation for all mankind, the Father is propitiated toward all mankind and you and I know that isn't so.

The natural meaning of kosmos, translated 'world' in 1 John 2:2 and in 186 other places in the NT, is 'Planet Earth.' have a look at the following texts and see if that isn't the natural meaning:

Matt. 4:8; 5:14; 13:35; 16:26; 24:21; 25:34; 26:13; Mark 8:36; 14:9; 16:15; Luke 11:50; 12:30; John 1:9, 10; 3:19; 6:14 etc., etc., etc.

That there are places where kosmos can and probably does mean 'all the people in the world' I fully accept, but 1 John 2:2 cannot be one of them for the reason given above. I gave an extract earlier by A.W. Pink showing around eight possible meanings of kosmos. You have made no comment on it. Why not?

If you would show me where these terms appear in the Bible, that would be very helpful. Christ is not the 'means' of anything. He is the Saviour. I quoted Titus 3:4-6 earlier. It clearly shows the 'means' God uses to save sinners. Perhaps you would like to deal with that.

Perhaps an illustration will help. Suppose you are on a boat and you see someone drowning. You throw him a life-belt, he lays hold of it and is saved. You are his saviour; you have saved him. But you are not his means of salvation; that is the life-belt. Now according to Titus 3, both Father and Son are Saviours. The means mentioned there is the New Birth (water and Spirit). Other means might have been mentioned like the blood of Christ, and faith in Him, but hopefully you get the point.

 

Here we go again.

Jhn 8:24 KJV . . . for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.

 

Hi Martin,
1) You say their is no reference to Christ in 2 Peter 2:1. I say the "Master" is Christ. Personal incredulity is not rebuttal.
2) Christ laid down His life as a ransom for all.
3) If a person who will never be saved is bought, then logical necessity requires all mankind, and not just the elect, were bought.
4) Being chosen from salvation through faith in the truth is a conditional election.
5) You can deny Christ is the means of salvation for the whole world till the cows come home. Person incredulity is not rebuttal.
6) Christ is the propitiation for the whole world just as 1 John 2:2 says. The word translated "propitiation" is a noun, not a verb. Your claim that it is a verb (Christ propitiated the whole world) is mistaken.
7) The word translated world in 1 John 2:2 refers to fallen mankind, not planet earth. Ditto for John 1:9, where Jesus enlightens every man. In John 1:10 the world did not know Jesus, thus again requiring mankind rather than the earth. John 3:19 indicates Jesus was sent into the world to save the world. Since the planet will be destroyed and replaced with a new earth, mankind is once again in view. Again, John 6:14 refers to mankind witnessing Christ's miracles as a purpose for Christ coming into the world of fallen mankind. The effort to deny how John used the Greek world translated "world" is naughty indeed.
8) Christ is the propitiation, the means of salvation, the lifeboat, everyone placed in Christ is saved, everyone not placed in Christ remains unsaved.

 

Mr. Rippon, Romans 11 teaches how God hardened hearts to prevent those hardened from accepting Christ. Your point about OSAS is a distinction without a difference.

Christ laid down His life as a ransom for all. He tasted death for everyone. His death bought even those who would never be saved. Christ is the propitiation or means of salvation for the whole world. Everyone God places in Christ is saved, propitiated, justified, made righteous, and everyone who enters Christ will never be cast out.

 

The Calvinist in you is peeking out, again.

Unconditional election and irresistible grace - "Everyone God places in Christ is saved"

Limited atonement - "propitiated, justified, made righteous"

Perseverance (preservation) of the saints - "everyone who enters Christ will never be cast out."

By a person not meeting your statement, they are by default totally depraved.


You may not want to embrace the title, but you have more than a casual hold with that thinking.

 

Sequence matters.

God gives to Christ those of His choosing. Thus chosen before given.
God chooses folks for salvation through faith in the truth. Thus our election is conditional.

Limited Atonement, two very different definitions. Calvinism says Christ died only for the elect. Everybody else says Christ tasted death for everyone, but only those God places in Christ are reconciled.

Agreed my one point Calvinism, OSAS, is plainly taught in scripture.

Matthew 13 teaches that the first soil suffers from total spiritual inability, but the other three have some limited spiritual ability. Romans 11 teaches where God takes away the limited spiritual ability of some unbelieving Jews to facilitate the spread of the gospel to the Gentiles. But in both cases, their spiritual ability was lost either by the practice of sin or the intervention of God for His purpose.

 

You had said "God prevents those of his choosing from coming to the Lord by hardening their hearts."

Romans 11 does not support your claim.

Romans 11 speaks of two groups --the elect and the hardened.

It speaks of the remnant chosen by grace and those God has made spiritually deaf and blind.

It speaks of the kindness and the severity of God.

The Lord does not harden the hearts of His elect.

The mere repetition of a fallacy does not change the facty that it is indeed a fallacy.

Propitiation does not = means of salvation. You are left alone in that supposition.

 

Yet another "taint so" post with no support from scripture.

According to Calvinism with everyone suffering from "total spiritual inability" unless enabled by "irresistible grace" God would not have needed to harden anyone, as they would have been hardened from conception. Thus the "T" of Calvinism as once again been shown, this time by Romans 11, to be mistaken doctrine.

No one said or implied that God ever hardens the hearts of His elect, thus the statement is simply yet another mischaracterization for the purpose of misdirection.

Christ = Propitiation = means of salvation. This is basic Christianity. See Romans 5:9 for example. "We shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him."

 

Calvinist quote for the ages:

 

Again, you had said in post 82:"God prevents those of his choosing from coming to the Lord by hardening their hearts."

I did not mischaracterize your words at all.

If you want to now deny that you believe that --please do.

God never hardens the hearts of his elect.

The ones given by the Father to the Son will indeed come to Christ. None of them will be lost. The given and drawn ones are the elect.

 

Amen! Christ is the Saviour! To degrade Him from that position to a mere instrumentation is a serious error.

I tell you what, Van; you list all the Scripture texts that clearly declare that Christ is 'means of salvation, and I'll list the one's that declare Him to be the Saviour.

Here you go:
Luke 2:11; John 4:42; Acts 5:31; 13:23; Eph. 5:23; Phil. 3:20; 2 Tim. 1:10; Titus 1:4; 2:13; 3:6; 2 Peter 1:1, 11; 3:2, 18; 1 John 4:14.

These of course do not include the many other texts where the word 'Saviour' is not used, but is clearly implied by the word 'save': eg. Matt. 1:21; 'You shall call His name Jesus, for He shall save His people from their sins' or Matt. 18:11; 'For the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost.'

Now it's your turn.

 

2 Peter 2:1b: '....even denying the Lord [Gk. despotes]who bought them.' The word 'Christ,' not to mention any reference to blood is missing. As I pointed out, the natural referent of despotes is the Father. Check out the texts I quoted.

Really?? Matt. 20:28; '......and to give His life as a ransom for MANY.' Mark 10:45 is similar. If 1 Tim. 2:6 means that Christ is the ransom for all men, then all are ransomed and therefore saved, which clearly they are not. Rather, it means all men in the sense of Jew and Greek, slave and free, rich and poor, male and female etc.

In that case you have a 'Christ' who saves people who aren't saved, who ransoms people who aren't ransomed and who is the propitiation for people for whom God is not propitiated. Such a 'Christ' is not worthy of worship. How can such a being be 'King of kings and Lord of lords'? The true Christ says, 'And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing but raise it up at the last day.'

How then can Paul give thanks for the Thessalonian Christians if many of them are not saved?

Well, all you have to do to convince me is to show me all those NT texts where Christ is clearly described as the means of salvation. I'm looking forward to it.

I have never, ever, ever claimed that Christ propitiated the whole world, or even part of it. For the umpteenth time, the world does not need to be propitiated. God needs to be propitiated; Christ is the propitiation, and either the Father is propitiated or He isn't. Which is it? Was Christ's act of propitiation acceptable to the Father or not?

John 1:9-10: 'That was the true light which gives light to every man coming into the world [ie. Planet Earth]. He was in the world [ie. Planet Earth], and the world [Planet Earth] was made by Him, the world [people of the earth minus Christians] did not receive Him.' Nowhere in John 1:9-10 does 'world' mean 'all the people in the world.' Now who's being naughty?

This has been refuted time and time again. Constant denial of fact is not firmness but foolishness.

 

The so-called 5 points of Calvinism {At least in my opinion.} are not really intended to fully define the Doctrines of Sovereign Election and Grace. Rather they are a response to the 5 Remonstrances of the followers of Arminius published after the death of both Calvin and Arminius.

I have one question/comment. You say that through HIS death on the Cross Jesus Christ paid the sin debt for every person. Why then are some saved and others not?

 

Yes, those that adopt the view of "freedom of the will" seem to justify their doctrine.

However, as the great Baptist theologian Johnathan Edwards points out in the hallmark work, "Freedom of the Will," there is no such ability outside those who are believers. See "Freedom of the Will" by Jonathan Edwards

One is either a believer (saved) or heathen and bound by sin and death. There is no true "freedom of choice/will" as far as to be saved or not. Once saved, the believer has TWO natures, one that rattles and battles against the new nature born of Christ. The believer may then be considered (as was Adam) with the true freedom of choice/will.

One other matter related to this idea of "freedom of the will:"

In my opinion, order to bypass the Calvinistic thinking and teaching, the more Armenian thinking folks had to develop an ethereal state; a place, in which God would lift a person and place a person, so that they could then of "freedom of the will" choose or reject Christ. In a sense, the person would become as that of Adam to choose between God and Death. I have heard some who would even make the point of conviction as a movement to that place by God so that the person could then know and choose.

Two points:

First, NO WHERE is this (preceding or prevenient grace) taught or even alluded too in Scriptures. It is a totally man constructed concept which has to rip Scriptures out of any relatively true meaning to support.

Second, because this "doctrine" is not Scripturally sound, and because it is a linchpin to many modernists who desire there to be "freedom of choice/will", it has been taught for decades in the classrooms of churches, schools and seminaries as if it were fact. Therefore, when confronted with the truth, many of that teaching react strongly and attempt to repulse the truth and often reject the truth in favor of a more comfortable and crowd pleasing, less harsh and judgmental, ear tickling teaching.

So, the question is, does one embrace the real truth, or does one cozy up to a lie that was formed as a convenience to cover and delude what was the truth?