Early Church Dads And Reformers ...

Ok, that makes more sense. I thought they were supposed to be from you last set of quotations. However, It is still glaringly obvious that you have not given the origination of where these 'quotes' arise - other than from Gills book. Please do some research and give us where these quotes can be located that we can see the context of these quotes and validation of them. (I don't dispute the validation part but you know as well as I do that we should never just take a persons word for it)

He didn't say "the congregation which Thou hast PURCHASED..." but "which thou hast POSSESED from the beginning , which thou hast purchased by the sufferings of thine only begotten Word".
And just how does this statement differ from my beliefs as a non-Cal. This says nothing about the extent or limit of Christs atonement. And when placed against his other writtings you see quite clearly that he held the view most Non-Cals do. The atonement was toward the world but applied only to the elect which God possesed from the beginning and established His claim of them at the death of Christ as these are the ones who come to Jesus. Read his works and judge for yourself.

Yes, another Calvinist declaring the early church fathers were Calvinists - there is a shock. Much like the Non-Calvinist theologians and Church historians who claim the Early Church Fathers were NOT Calvinistic- another shocker there!

I don't care and neither should anyone else care what they wrote until they have researched it for themselves by going BACK to the writtings of those authors. This is why I want to know where the quotes originated to read, verify, and eximine what the originals said and MEANT via context.

 

He possesed them from the beginning, but He did not purchase them from the beginning. Just like in from the beginning God called those who are TO BE His Holy, but we are not until God has in our life completed that process. God call you Holy based On His ability and not yours. Some people use the analogy of Credit - ie God calls you what you WILL be as though You are based on Him alone.

And Yes I agree the atonement in the sense of those to whom it is applied is limited but Atonement was made for all but specific to those who received it.
All you have to do is study the OT atonement to understand it. I don't understand why Calvinists are afraid to go back and see who the atonement was for and just how much of ALL the blood given was used for the atonement of Israel. The Nation as a whole was atoned for but many in that nation were rebellious toward God. How can God as for the Priests to give a sacrifical atonement for the Nation when the whole Nation was revbellious toward God. The answer is in understanding the OT atonement and just why the rest of that precious atoning blood was poured out onto the ground to be trampled under foot in dirt.

Well unfortunately scripture disagrees with you as to the extent of atonement for only the elect.

This is one of many Non-Cals and 4 points Cals use to show the measure of atonement able to expound toward. I'm not going to cite every one because I know you wouldn't hear it any way. I'm just stating there are many verses in scripture that punch holes in your theory of the atoning work of Christ was able to save all but saved instead only those who believed. - Just like the OT atonment.

 

Nice TRY. But the context of their writing is quite clear they beleived Christs atonement was for MAN but saved or redeemed only those who believed - and they are known as Gods sheep, church, people, ect..

I agree there is nothing vague about His cross-work. It is specific and clear.

And agian, that is simply your view point. It has never been proven or established as an immutable truth. This is the reason it was under contention in Calvins day and is still so today. To much of scripture testifies to the contrary.

That verse has nothing to do with salvation (salvation is by grace not mercy) however, I agree it is Gods perogitive to save whom He desires. And it just so happens He desires to save those who will believe the truth He reveals to them. And He knows them all by heart and name and He knows the one that reject it as well.

 

It only deals with salvation in your VIEW. It is consistant to context as refering to Israels election as a nation and that God can do and choose whom He desires that His purposes be fulfilled. No problem there for me, it is when you have to change the context to support a view is when scripture looses all authority.

And yet scripture says Christ died for ALL men but that only those who God foreknew would be saved.

Just to quote a few.

So tell me Rippon has Gods word come to no effect because you say it doesn't mean just what it says. I think not. Let God be true and every man a liar as says the scritpures. This is all inclusive of myself as well. I speak only what I have seen and heard. And according to scripture and by your own admission below- that you believe I am a saved, which by default makes me also redeemed and a Spirit filled Child of God. Is this not what it means to be saved? And if so then the scriptures bear out that I am taught of the Spirit of God. What I believe according to scripture as one who is saved and sealed by His Spirit, I am also taught of the self same Spirit. Do you believe that I can frustrate of conter in anyway the will of God the Father. Then all I can do believe that truth He has revealed to me that I may in turn preach and teach with all my heart that which He has empowered me to speak. So tell me my friend, is it I that believes or Christ who has shown me that I may believe as His child and taught by His Spirit?

The authority of the scriptures was presented to you in the above quotes, and thereby shows you are in error - as to the extent of the atonement being made.

Yes, He did. God hates sin and all that is in that hate resides under His wrath. All believes before the come into union with and of Christ are (according to the scriptures) under Gods eternal wrath. Christ's prayer was for those who will be in Him but that does not exclude the fact He died for all men as saith the scriptures. There is not point in praying for those who will not be in Him since His prayer was not for their salvation but for their endurance and continued fellowship with God the Father and not for their salvation.

No man is eternally justified before they are born. All men are under the condemnation till they come to faith in Christ. No sin or penalty of sin is removed without belief/acceptance in the truth and the repentence that follows. So when Christ died for sin it was for everyone under sin but it is not and can not be imputed to anyone who does not believe/recieve it for all that it is and does, just like the OT Atonement. Christ's atonement was not the same but different regarding its means and work from that of the OT but it was the same. The only real difference was that Christs only had to be offered once and it was perpetual for ever more.

Again, He purchased all those who will come to Him or better accepted His redeption for them. If they accept it not they reject what Christ has done for them and will judged on their own merits when the stand before God. That is THE REASON they are judged like they will be. Because they rejected the redemption offered them in the truth of Christ Jesus.

God knows quite intimately everyperson who ever has or will ever live. So I guess by your own statement, you can say- No He didn't die for those He didn't know. But I know that He did die for everyone that He did know about.

As says the scriptures brother: Yes.

Yes, and that is truth. For it was by His death His church was even formed so without it (His death) There would be no church.

How can it be sad and wrong when God has determinded me to believe as I do. You should be rejoicing in the Father. Again I ask, can I frustrate the Will of God for me? Can I go against the determinded will of God for my life. That pervasive doctrine is an evasive doctrine scripturally and is the very reason it is and has been nothing more than a VEIW of certain dotrines with regard to the immutable truths we both hold and believe. It has never been a provable View just as mine is much the same. They speak to the mechanics of What God is and does that no man can ever really know. But that aside, Scritpure states that as a Child of God I am taught of God who reveals His truth to me via the Holy Spirit who lives in me and guides me into all truth. If He did not then I can not be a child of God.

For eternal life is this -

 

I have always maintained Christ died for His Church for the salvation of His Church as in the culmination of His work on the Cross.

You also admitted that Christ did not die for those He did not know . Good again ! But then you began to slip when you said that "He did die for those he knew about ." No Allan . He died for those he knew , not knew about .[/quote]
You misread me. I said that if God knew every person intimately because God knows ALL about them. So by YOUR definition given previously if Christ died for those He knew He died for all men because He knew them all. I was playing on your words. (just having some fun with ya) I believe without question that those who are redeemed God knew intimately in a Loving way towards His own. But those are the redeemed and is something different from what I was speaking to regarding Atonement. Redemption is comes out of atonement but just because a person gives (OT) an atoning sacrifice did not make them atoned for unless they had a contrite and humble heart before God (which one could not have unless God was dealing with them). Atonement was offered to all in the National sense for Israel but not ALL Israel was Atoned for in that sacrificial offering. Same thing regarding Christs Atoning sacrifice but in a large context (ie. the world - but not all the world is Atoned for)

This is one I will use to illistrate almost verbatum your issue of "...people who do not "accept their redemption...where in the scriptures is that notion found?" If you will note these are NOT believers that fell into godless theology but even go so far as to even deny Christ Jesus who BOUGHT them. They speak evil of truth and use God's people for their profit. But scripture proves most infatically they are Not Gods people for it states their damnation slumbers not or is just waiting for them. But we must note the scriptures are plain here that those false teachers and prophets were denying the very Lord Jesus that BOUGHT them.

Agreed.

Oh yes. And as shown above, the scriptures state those false teachers and prophets denied the that same Jesus who BOUGHT them. They rejected/denied that redemption.

I didn't THINK you did, but I did know that Gill did. Glad you see the scriptures concerning that.

Read the context of Chapter 9 - it is speaking of Israel and whom that nation will come forth from. 9:7 shows this plainly - not all are Israel because they are the seed of Abraham. Ishmael was also of his seed but they are not Israel for God states through Isaac shall his seed be. This is not pertaining to salvation for the context continues thus. And just like it spoke of Isaac and Abraham and excluded Ishmael from the lineage of Gods elected people (though not a SAVED people- as a whole) Paul speaks to Jacob and Esau but NOT as individuals concerning salvation. He speaks of them as Heads of their people just as Abraham and Isaac were. 'This' election is not concerning salvation but of a people through whom God would send forth His message into all the earth and through whom He would send the Redeemer. 'This' election concerns not salvation but purpose. Look at the scriptures in context. It starts off concerning the NATION as being brought forth and chosen to be of God in the Past, CHapter 10 is about the NATION at Pauls present time, and Chapter 11 is about the NATIONS future. Context is key to understanding them. You can't take make one part mean personal salvation when it distorts the rest of the context and intent of the author. They do concern God election and that God circumvented much cultural policy to maintian His intended line of People - Israel - but He was God that brought forth ALL people and it is His perogitive to choose unto Himself any people and show mercy to whomever He wished - in spite of their faults. And on the converse He would show His wrath on those people (just like His people) who would continue in sinful perverseness even though they could come to God through the Jews. They will not and have prepared themselves by their own wilfulness to be used by God go show His wrath against unrighteousness that all may see His glory and Power.

 

No problem. I have been on here sporatic at best due to time constrants.

Yes it will it you take that scripture out of its context. Keep the context in spite of your pre-text. The context which is established by the content regarding chapter 9 is about the Nation. In the beginning of the chapter it is about the Nation, in the middle, and at the end it is still concerning the nation. The election here is not speaking of salvation either but of purpose.

Not for salvation (we know that not all Israel was saved) but for purpose. Israel as a Nation was elected by God to be His Nation and people. We can not DO anything whereby we make God look at us and say wow I like that, so I will use you. God determines who He will use and who He will not use concerning His purposes.
Now look at the next verse:

Some people try to maintain that these verses are speaking only of Jacob and Esau and not them as the heads or representives of their decendants. Throughout chapter 9 this is done using Abraham, Isaac (Through Isaac shall His seed be called. WHy? because Ishmael was Abrahams first born the normal bearer of the family lineage name) and then to Jacob. Now here is where the whole argument crumbles for the group who wants to say these verses speak to Jabob and Esau specifically and that for salvation. Well show me the scripture reference where Esau was EVER Jacobs servent. Jacob was scared to death of Esau, even when Esau wanted to bless his brother. Jacob snuck out. Esau was NEVER served Jacob (as in being his servent). So God lied here, right? Of course Not! Esaus generations DID serve Jacobs generations. God was speaking of them concerning them as representives of their people. Not the implication CAN be made as a principle here regarding God and individuals but it is not the context of the chapter. This is about election to a purpose - which did include salvation to those who would heed Gods words but the election itself was not about salvation.

Look at the next verse:

Oh, this is the bad verse...I better skip this one. :laugh:
Keeping context in view we see this is speaking of a people through these men. What is a tragidy is that many people think God actually hated Esau. Yet we find that God blessed Esau and honored the blessing his father bestowed on him the Lords name. That does not sound like the antithesis of love does it?
Yet we also find this word hate in other passages like this one:

Please note that one is to have a singleness of heart for or toward a purpose and anything which rises to its equal is to be detested. Nothing is is to be equalled in our purpose and desire to be a disciple of Christ or doer of God will or purpose. Do you see that God loved Jacob (Israel) for His purpose sake and hated (detested) Esau because because Esau (his people) would contend against that purpose.

Is God unrighteous for purposing Jacob to be the people of God and the lineage of Christ, and Esau was not. No, because both were the same before the Lord and God chose Jacob as the purveyor of His purpose. Again Not speaking of salvation but the Purposes of God and through whom He would use. God spoke to Moses concerning this same thing regarding use for a purpose - NOT salvation. Moses was the representive of Gods people just as pharaoh is/was. And though God spoke to both it was regarding the whole of their people.

So now that we see this verse we can note that is refers to God deciding who he will use for what purpose because of His own decision and not on the account or ability of any man. This verse is not and does not speak to salvation, but in fact it speaks to the issue that God can use whomever He wishes to fulfill His purpose

Pharaoh here is spoken to, so maybe this is where it God deals with individuals. Nope again. Though God did speak this to Pharaoh look back at what was fully said:

Pharaoh is the head the very voice of his people, Egypt. The plague that God sent was against pharaoh AND his people. He represented all of Egypt. So we see that though God spoke to Pharaoh of judgment God's judgment was actually upon all of Egypt. Though it was to the one it was dispursed upon them all. God raised up or allowed to be Pharaoh but there would be no Pharaoh with Egypt whom He also raised up or allowed to be. Notice it says "for to show in THEE my power..." Now it is interesting that God showed His power in Egypt who was ruled by Pharaoh. God did nothing IN Pharaoh which showed forth His power to the Nations but He did show forth His power in Egypt! They were raised up or placed there for show forth the Glory of the Lord to the World. And Gods purpose was fulfilled! It is about purpose not salvation. The very next verse shows this same thing when read in context.

Can you not see this is speaking of God working among men to the fulfilling of His purpose. You must bring to the text the presupposition it is speaking of salvation here. It have have implications towards that effect but the scriptures do not speak (here at least) of salvation but election for the purpose of God (Making a people and preparing the way for His Christ).

I am stopping here because I think I set my point forth enough to see the context refers to peoples more specifically Israel as a nation as well as Gods hand dealing with all men as He so determines for His purpose though (here) not regarding salvation. Remember salvation is by Grace, not mercy. Mercy is NOT giving someone what they deserve. Though it is because of mercy grace is imparted it is not mercy that saves. So when we see the verses that speak of God and His mercy here it pertains to His purpose played out on earth. This is why He will have mercy (concerning His purpose for Israel and His greater plan) and will harden whom He will (for His purpose regarding Israel and His greater plan).

 

Funny you should say it like that...

agorazo {ag-or-ad'-zo}
to buy (purchased) or redeem.

I agree they are not redeemed but have been bought. Redeem means to get full value back, but to buy, purchase, or be bought means to pay the required price. Jesus paid the price of mankinds sin but redeemed only those whom the Father Gave Him - Those who repent and beleive. Jesus will get His full purchase value one way or another. Just as the Judge will sentence one to pay the fullness of their debt to the debtor so it will be at the Judgment seat. However since the payment is a perpetual or eternal one so must the sentence be for the one not who still has a debt owed against them. Though the Greek word is the same only one gives the conotation of being given full restitution back to the purchaser for what they gave. The other implicates a debt still owed.

Thayers Lexicon:
2 Pet ii. 1 He is said to have bought them for God ... Rev v. 9 - they to are spoken of as being purchased though the word should not be translated redeemed as some have done.

Can you see the difference. The early church fathers understood this and is why they had no problem holding to the doctrine of Unversal Atonement, But I don't know of one then or now who hold to Universal Redemption.

So Christ is not God?
You need to do more homework on those words my friend.
The word 'Depotes' is used not only as a title for God but man as well. Check it out. It is not a title reserved only for God as it is a relational title of master/slave.

And the word 'Kurios' is a title used both of God AND Christ - it is the proper title for either one. Actually it is a title refering to God before Christ was even born and God even after Christ. It means supreme Ruler or as Strongs puts it:

He is supreme in His rulership! Now please tell me, what is NOT the Lords to decide what to do with it?

Additionally the Title 'God' is used of both the Father, the Son, AND the Holy Spirit.

Just take scripture for what it says, Jesus purchased them who are reserved for the judgment (2 Pet 2:1-4)

Again, according to the scriptures you are incorrect. Historically, you are incorrect as well.

 

I have in no way rejected scripture. I qualified it's meaning based on the context of the text. Did you know that God never stated He hated anyone else in scripture. As a matter of fact, in doing a study on those whom scripture states God 'hates' (in both OT and NT) you will find God never stating that He hates anyone in paticular. He hates those who continue IN sin. Only Esau is singled out and it is evident why if you will look at context. It was not Esau specific but in general. Again I ask, WHEN did Esau serve or become Jacob's servent? That is part of the context of Jacob and Esau to which the passage is regarding, is it not?

My thoughts are not segmented. You trying to see my view through your bent is what is segmented. I am not going in opposite lanes for I have set forth one cohesive and consistant thought based on a verse by verse study of which I gave you the condenced poster board model. I do agree Rippon, that God hates. For God is love and thereby what God does not love He must by nature hate. The question then comes, what does God hate and why? Scripture does say ya know and very clearly.

I agree here as well.

I agree here as well, since scripture states He hates those who do unrigheousness, wickedness, and who will not turn from those paths unto Him. The scritpure state these, not me. There is a reason for His hate, and it is due to man not obeying truth.

This is where you fall off the wagon again, for philosophy rather than bible.

Here I agree., and no one argues this point. God knows those who are His. It is just your VIEW of how He knows them is different than my VIEW.

Then throw away your bible for it must be a book of myths and legands. Toss out the works of our early church fathers for they to speak of such legends as well.

Regardless of whether you think it is 'to temporal' or not, it is scripture verse for verse and therefore God must be a little to temporal for your taste. If you want to read into scripture to give it something you feel or think is lacking, that is your choice - do so freely if you dare. But don't expect me to follow you.

Of course it does, just not with regard to salvation in Romans 9. But do not forget that His mercy also has to do with temporal matters as well.

Again, your adding to scripture. No where in those passages is such a sentiment or intent declared. You are once again bringing presupposition to the text and adding to it for your theological sensiblities

 

Allan.

RO 9:10 Not only that, but Rebekah's children had one and the same father, our father Isaac. 11 Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad--in order that God's purpose in election might stand: 12 not by works but by him who calls--she was told, "The older will serve the younger." 13 Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."

And His hardening also deals with those He has purposed for everlasting woe . (Rippon.)

1 Peter 2:8 ...They stumble because they disobey the message--which is also what they were destined for.

john.

 

Yes, I know what it says AND I dealt with it in context. This is not about salvation, no matter how much you squeeze that turnip you wont get blood. THis is about election to and for a purpose. That is why the choosing was done BEFORE either had done any wrong. This shows they We can not DO anything whereby we make God look at us and say wow I like that, so I will use you. God determines who He will use and who He will not use concerning and for His purposes. So when we see the purposes of God come to pass we know that which God purposed not only has but will be.

Do you contend that every time you see a person as elect it is speaking to their their salvation or to their purpose? Or, is can it be one, the other and or both?

There is still no problem here. God knowing they would reject His truth and be a disobedient people against Him, ordained from the first they may do just that.

John - Not even the Calvinists (Historically or otherwise) agree with you on God being the author of sin and the one who makes men to sin against him. So on this issue I respectfully choose not to go into it with you. It is your fallacy and you deal with it or keep it, as you so choose.

 

Hello Allan.

Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad...Esau I hated.

I think you said the twins were Israel and Edom didn't you? Before the nations came into being? It was said of two nations and not two individuals. He did hate Edom and proved it.

1 Peter 2:8 ...They stumble because they disobey the message--which is also what they were destined for.

Skipping the fact that you are using words different to their proper meanings let's have an answer to the actual question Paul expects you to ask after hearing this passage. Why does Paul expect someone to ask, "Why does He still blame us for who resists His will?" ?

Why don't you ask that question Allan? Is it because that question doesn't arrive with the false doctrine being peddled. In fact it is a non-sense line to you isn't it? Especially the answer.

They destine themselves?

Only salvation of individuals, the word is not used for office or task but the office of Royal Priest becomes ours. Elect is never used of the reprobate, but it is of the holy angels 1 Tim 5:21, and neither is predestined but destined means predestined. Look it up. Judas was doomed. Doomed means predestined. Look it up. What God ordains will come to pass as you said. God ordains all things that come to pass and that is why Paul expects you to ask, RO 9:19 One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" 20 But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, `Why did you make me like this?' " 21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?

And there you have the proper meaning of ordained. Why blame us then?

Don't you think I know this? Do you think I take this position lightly? Am I a fool and a poor deluded soul? How can I know? I trust my Jesus and speak what I know, I am His problem not mine and if I spoke in any other way I would be a liar. I am saved and true to what I know. If He reveals my error then I will change won't I? If He does not I will not change, it's up to Him. It's not my fault what I believe is it? Am I really free to believe what I like or what?

I cut my teeth on the Reformers and the Puritans, much learning and insight they shared with me. Have you read the Death of Death by John Owen? Who am I to think they missed a thing, me uneducated and unskilled in any trade? A guttersnipe from the lower social order. I knows me place 'guv'. I persist because I am confident of this, that he who began a good work in me will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus. Php 1:6.
I think I'm not very far down the road because I know my fallen nature does not like this doctrine. I am aware of the fact that the thought occurs that mankind are victims of some Mad Monster God who wants to torture people forever for the things He made them do. It is complete madness. And that is supposed to be the Good News? Some Good News. My fallen nature is no longer in charge in the way it influences me. I hear it and I believe what God says about Himself. If He says He's good then He's good. He is the one I don't question. If He says He is not unjust because He told us He wasn't and isn't that is good enough for me. If He said 2 plus 2 equals 5 but He would not. The Reformers who gave God's Sovereignty away are wrong and God is right. He will harden whoever He wants, even those that want to be saved. Look how He treated the five virgins that went to get more oil. It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy.

He is The Despot. The Sovereign Lord.

john.

 

one thing and that will be the extent of my conversation with you.

Can you still say that in light of the fact, Jesus was elect of God.

Now, can elect or chosen be for purpose or is it still ONLY for salvation.
If still ONLY for salvation, then do you also contend the Jesus needed salvation and therefore was of the elect also?

 

Allan.

The NIV has chosen at 1 Peter and so does your refs: Matt 12:18 and Luke 23:35. You asked about the word 'elect' and then show me chosen?

john.

 

The greek word is the same.
eklektos {ek-lek-tos'} - It comes from the root word meaning to pick out.

1) picked out, chosen

a) chosen by God,

1) to obtain salvation through Christ

a) Christians are called "chosen or elect" of God

2) the Messiah in called "elect", as appointed by God to the
most exalted office conceivable

3) choice, select, i.e. the best of its kind or class, excellence preeminent: applied to certain individual Christians

The Greek word is rendered - elect 16 times / and Chosen 7 times in the KJV. (This per Blueletterbible.org)



Are you not "chosen" to salvation? Are you not Gods Chosen? Are you not Gods elect? Are you not Elect to salvation?