Do you agree with this? Washer & Lordship salvation

From what I understand, Calvin wrote out his positions somewhere. I guess this is why there is something called Calvinism. I never read any of them, but you can start a thread on his writings and go at it with him or those who support him.

But you haven't. You have not placed my post up against Calvin's writings to show me how it is one in the same. You simply just make the accusation. Bring forth his words and compare them to mine if you wish to have such a debate. But I would rather you show me from scripture why my views are wrong.

Hey, that's what I do with your views! You see, it is a meaningless jabb. You OF COURSE have no presuppositions and that is why you are able to show me mine, right? raying:

I would very much like to see you back up your accusations of Calvinism with some actual comparision between my post and his words. Then you might have some respect from the board.

God Bless!

 

Let's see if we can redirect the past course of this thread to get us back on track with studying Scripture and doctrinal positions. We were at one time discussing the doctrine of imputed righteousness. I tried, in post #50 to Marcia, to set forth two distinct ideas as to the righteousness of Christ being imputed to the believer. Are we all on board with the distinctions I have made as being factual? Do we all agree that for a sinner to be righteous one must have the righteousness of Christ imputed to us on behalf of sins that are past, as laid out in the following Scripture? Ro 3:25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;.

I see this passage as clarifying that it is 'sins that are past' that is the object here of forgiveness and that the blood serves as a covering for, NOT sins presently being committed or future sins, or sins in general in which the believer has not fulfilled the conditions by which a pardon from them is received, i.e., repentance and faith.

Does not the whole issue of the distinctions between views concerning the imputed righteousness of Christ lie in two basic ideas? 1. Whether or not actual sins of individuals were 'paid for' in the atonement 2. Whether or not present and future sins being committed now or in the future were in actuality paid for as in a forensic proceeding at the cross, antecedent to any conditions being fulfilled by us such as repentance and faith?

I believe all of us desire to find the truth of Scripture on the matter, so please support you views with Scripture if possible. It does little good to simply list a litany of Scripture without ones interpretation, for again it IS NOT Scripture we are debating but our interpretation of it that is in question. For starters, show forth a clear passage of Scripture that states all present past and future sins of the believer have been literally paid for and as such the righteousness of Christ has been imputed on the account of those sins and that without exception.

 

Sitting beneath the same coconut tree (on the same deserted island some on this list have visited and set under,) with no outside ideas influencing my thoughts, having only my own thoughts and the Word of God before me, a few thoughts came to my mind as I developed my system of theology apart from all outside influences. (only kidding!:laugh

Forget all systems of theology for a moment, and use your God given abilities of logic to discover truth. Some are claiming that Christ literally paid for sin as in a forensic proceeding at the cross. They obviously have stated that the sins of all that believe have been atoned for at the cross and forgiveness was imputed to the believer on behalf of every past, present, and future act of disobedience regardless of any and all stated conditions of forgiveness. Although some say all will repent, they deny that repentance is a condition of salvation and insist that men repent 'because they have been saved,' not 'in order to be saved.'

My question to those believing in imputed righteousness in the manner just explained, if in fact some sins were in reality atoned for in the lives of those making their final abode in hell, or if in fact their sins were never atoned for. Scripture states Joh 1:29 ¶ The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.” Also it states, 1Jo 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

Can Christ literally pay for the sins of the whole world such as Scripture clearly states, and yet only a select few have the righteousness of Christ imputed to them? How can this be so? If the atonement automatically imputes the righteousness of Christ to all actual past present and future sins, and Christ atoned for the sins of the entire world, why does not universalism reign? If not, is not the atonement in reality necessitated as a 'limited atonement,' Christ only paying for the sins of the elect?

Is not irresistible grace established, seeing that such was accomplished antecedent to any choice being made and the actual debt owed paid for literally before it ever occurred on the account of a selected few at least, termed 'the elect?'

Try putting on your thinking caps and play out your beliefs to their logical conclusions instead of constantly taking aim at the messenger asking the questions. Now that is a novel idea!

 

Are you done then with the "you are a Calvinist" post and ready then to just debate the interpretations of the scriptures? If so we can move on :thumbs:

 

HP: There was no ‘you are a Calvinist post.’ Stop with the false accusations or show me where I stated such, so we can move on. Preferably let's just move on. :thumbs:

 

And what are they then, really, in your view? Calvinism?

Calvin believed that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and so do I and you as well. What if someone told you that Calvin believed Jesus is the Son of God you know? Look in the mirror! Like Calvin like HP! No?

God Bless!

 

Why do you conclude this? Are you saying that repentence and faith is not necessary for sins that are past?

 

What I see written here in this verse is Jesus is the "propitiation" for sin.

You conclude from this that the "propitiation" is only for sins past since it does not state "past, present, future".

If this should be the interpretation then the "logical" conclusion of your view is that Jesus is NOT the propitiation for sins present and future. Thus we are all doomed unless God makes another sacrifice for sin.

Is there another propitiation for sins present and future that you know of?

:jesus:

 

In these texts you would conclude that John is speaking to believers about their past sins before they were saved, correct?

 

Quote:
HP: I see this passage as clarifying that it is 'sins that are past' that is the object here of forgiveness and that the blood serves as a covering for, NOT sins presently being committed or future sins, or sins in general in which the believer has not fulfilled the conditions by which a pardon from them is received, i.e., repentance and faith.

HP: If in fact all ones sins were paid for at the cross, were you alive to repent and exercise faith? Is it not your position that ‘all was finished’ as to the forgiveness of our sins, past, present, and future at the cross? If so, you have forgiveness accomplished antecedent to the sin, and antecedent to any repentance or faith upon the part of the individual, do you not?

My position is simple. I believe no sin, regardless of when it is committed, is forgiven or in reality atoned for until the stated conditions are met. The way was made to make an atonement for ALL sin possible on the cross, i.e., the bridge was built, but no forgiveness for actual ‘individual sins’ is accomplished until we fulfill the conditions of salvation which are repentance and faith.

So to answer your question from what I believe is the Scriptural position, yes, repentance and faith are necessary to receive forgiveness from sins that are past and must be accomplished antecedent to any forgiveness being accomplished in any individual’s life.

 

Salvation is unconditional. It is called "the free gift of God." Gifts don't have conditions attached.
What is "repentance?" Most Christians don't have a good understanding of repentance, and thus their understanding of salvation is also clouded.

Do you mean, by repentance, that one should repent of all their sins? If so, that is unsciptural and no such command is found in the NT. We are not saved via repentance. We are saved by faith in Christ. We are condemned by rejection of Christ. Repentance is part and parcel of Bbilical faith.
Define repentance.
God has never commanded anyone to repent of all their sins.
That being so, when one puts their faith and trust in Christ, God justifies them. Then their sins are forgiven--the past, present and the future. Simply put justification is "just as if I never sinned." God looks down upon me just as if I never sinned. He has paid the penalty for my sins--all of them. The ransom was paid. They payment was accepted by God the Father. He accepted it as sufficient and paid in full, not in part but the whole. That is important to remember. It was all sufficient. It covered all my sins. It was not a partial payment that God the Father accepted. It was full atonement; complete atonement; "not in part, but the whole...is nailed to the cross and I bear it no more, Praise the Lord, Praise the Lord, Oh my Soul!"

 

There will no more labeling allowed in this thread. It is not good debate form to pigeon-hole another into a preconceived theological camp. The fact that one has beliefs in common with another does not make them a party to the belief system as a whole.

For example, I believe in the biblical doctrine of the depravity of man. That does make make me a Calvinist nor does that mean that I espouse Calvinistic doctrine. This doctrine precedes Calvin.

Peter Ruckman shares my belief in the biblical doctrine of the inspiration of Scripture. That does not make me a Ruckmanite. I believe in the biblical doctrine of the security of the believer. That does not make me an Arminian.

Any further labeling will result in certain editing and the possibility of further action.

 

This is totally different than what you said earlier...

I will ask again. Does the propitiation cover past, present and future sins? First you said NOT (second quote here) and then you said ALL (first quote here).

Please pick one and reject the other so we can know your final position.

God Bless!

 

HP:I have said the same thing all along. There is a sense in which all sins have been atoned for, but that does not guarantee any particular sin(s) will be forgiven. There is no contradiction on my part and I have not changed my position.

 

Acceptance of a gift is a requirement attached by God.

"Grace is not opposed to effort...grace is opposed to earning"

 

Acceptance of a gift is not a "condition" as defined as such.
If I give a gift to my child. I gift it unconditionally out of my love for her. There are no conditions attached. She just has to receive it. Receiving the gift is not rightly called a condition. A condition is a "work." There is no work my daughter has to do to receive the gift. She doesn't have to do a day's worth of chores in order to get it. She doesn't have to memorize a chapter of Scripture in order to get it. Those are examples of conditons. Simply receiving the gift is not defined as a condition. It is not a work.

 

Written regarding salvation, how in Scripture it

Correct; otherwise, they are called `transactions' or `exchanges.'

A different Greek word is used for that, and in Scripture, salvation is not described using that word.

 

None of us can "fulfill the conditions of salvation!!" Salvation is a gift received through faith. At the moment of faith, we are made new creatures and at the same time, the righteousness of Christ is imputed to us for all sins - past, present, and future. This is supported by many other scriptures.

I do not think anything I have posted has anything to do with Calvinism. It is a basic of biblical faith - righteousness of Christ imputed to the person saved through faith by grace.

 

It is being stated by some and implied by others that there are no conditions to salvation. Is faith a condition to God imputing the righteousness of Christ to an individual?

To those who will stick with faith NOT being a condition, please explain the following:

Romans 4:22 "And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness. 23 Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him; 24 But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; 25 Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification."

 

It's not a condition in the sense of works although I realize that there are some on this Board who will argue that (I recall this vividly from my previous time on the BB).

Some will say God gives the faith to the person, so it's not a condition. Those who do not think God gives the faith will stay say it's not a condition.

HP wrote that only our past sins are forgiven at the moment of trusing Christ and we must do further things to be forgiven of future sins.

It seems we are discussing 2 or 3 different things in this thread.

Maybe you should start a thread on whether or not faith is a condition of salvation and whether or not it is works if you want to discuss that. Just a suggestion.