Jesus was a Calvinist?

I don't think we are arguing that only sovereignty is there. But as you said, Control is either sovereign or it is not. But that is incompatible with your position as I understand it. The Bible teaches that God is in control of all things. That "all things" of necessity must include salvation. I think this is a troubling issue that no one on your side is really willing to deal with.

I did not discuss the people who hold them. Certain of your institution have gone on public record as saying some amazing things. I have heard them. I found myself for about an hour in between laughing at how a "doctor" can be so out of touch and and being upset at how he can be so misrepresentative. When people go public with things, they have to endure the grief that it brings. My point was not to slam your institution but to point out a blind spot.

No there's not. You have equated "regeneration" with "salvation" and every calvinist I know of is going to reject that. Every calvinist beleives both faith and sovereignty are involved. However, I cannot see any possible equality in them. That is not supported by one text of Scripture. I think the end result is that you make God equal to man, but asserting that his sovereignty is limited by man's sovereignty, since as you said above "control is sovereignty" and man controls his own destiny. This is something that I think deserves some serious interaction.

The second statement is simply a rewording of the first. IF the atonement is sufficient for all, then salvation is available to all who will believe. We have constantly said that whosoever will may come. It is available to anyone who wants it. Some calvinists parse this differently than others, but I have never heard a calvinist argue that Christ's death was not sufficient for all sins for all time. The bottom line in the LA debate is intent. What was it intended to do? It was intended to save the elect. Even you agree that the atonement is not efficient for anyone who does not believe, so therefore, your position is scarcely better.

Once again, you have demonstrated some of the inherent fallacies in your position. It simply will not stand in light of what the text says apart from the presuppositions that you approach the text with. If you were to abandon your presuppositions and precommitments, and simply let the text speak, it would be clear, at least it was for me.

 

I read this as the Calvinist position I see posted on this board and that I hear preached and taught. We agree with the author of the source that all who accept of it are the elect.

I see no discrepancy in the statement provided and the position of Calvinists, simply put, no man will accept it without having first been effectually called, regenerated and then acceptance is made his/hers.

The trouble is that others accuse our position of an 'elitist' when in truth we believe in proclaiming the Gospel to all that we can in our respective spheres. We just agree that only those to whom the atonement is applied will respond.

Bro. Dallas

 

"To whom the atonement is applied" certainly limits the atonement.

The Atonement is for sin. All have sinned! Therefore the Atonement is for ALL! No one can rationalize that away by any scriptural text!

God's grace is for ALL
God's love is for ALL
God's mercy is for ALL
God's Justice is for ALL
ALL have sinned.
Is there any reason whatever to limit God's atonement?

The point is, man cannot by any means except by personal rejection, limit anything of God. It is simply not possible to do so!

Likewise, God's salvation of man is for ALL, and is limited only by one's personal rejection through unbelief.

 

It's not like we haven't gone over this before, but if you believe the atonement is applied universally, then you have wandered (unwittingly, perhaps) into the error of universalism.

Believing that the atonement is applied universally puts you outside the pale of orthodoxy....but then being outside the P of O never caused you to pause in the past, I suppose it won't now.

You know, the conclusion just doesn't follow from the premises. It's like saying:

</font>

• This bag of cat food is for feeding cats.</font>
• All cats need to be fed.</font>
• Therefore, this bag of cat food is for all cats.</font>

This is just plain illogical thinking. And unscriptural as well, as I've pointed out to you previously. Romans 3 tells us that it is a propitiation (or atonement) through faith.

But you've shown in the past that you prefer your own illogical conclusions over the teaching of scripture on the subject anyway, so I'm not sure why I'm even bothering, except to point out to anyone who is reading this and doesn't know, that what you are arguing for here is not only not the calvinist viewpoint on the atonement, it's not the orthodox noncalvinist viewpoint either.

 

Larry, you wrote:

When you say "control" do you mean "cause" or mere "oversight."

For example we might say a contractor is in control of the building of the house, but he may not have been the cause of the house being built, so he would be one who controlled through oversight.

On the other hand you might say a driver is in control of the car and turned it into a ditch, meaning that the driver caused the accident.

Do you mean control as in God causes all things or that he is the overseer of all things and must permit all things to be?

 

Russell55,

ONLY if you believe that ATONEMENT = SALVATION! I do not!

Is atonement necessary for salvation? Yes, in this way. Atonement, a work, is the payment of the penalty for sin, SIN MUST BE PAID FOR!

JESUS PAID THAT PENALTY FOR ALL MANKIND! That eliminates all possible works that man can do to earn salvation leaving ONLY faith in Jesus Christ while God's Grace prevails to save whosoever believeth in Him.

Will all be saved? NO because a larger number will not believe in Jesus than will. However, Every man has the ability to believe in Jesus. Everyman will at some point in his life be faced with the decision to accept the gospel and believe, or not. Those who do believe fall into the categories of "ground" illustrated in the parable of the sower. The seeds of faith are the same for all types of ground; hard soil, rocky soil, weedy soil, and good soil, but as the illustration shows, the results are significanly different by type of soil. This is consistent with the scriptural thought that the road to destruction is broad and crowded while the pathway to paradise is narrow and few there are who find it.

I cannot speak of ORTHODOXY, but I am sure the parable of the sower applies universally to them as well. But rest assured their sins are already atoned for.

If that is your definition of universalism then you'd better find a better dictionary.

 

Russell55,

Seems purrrrfect logic to me. That which was done for a type is done for all of that type. The bag of cat food does not limit itself to calico cats, but includes black cats, white cats, pretty cats, ugly cats, big cats little cats, furry cats, hairless cats, etc. All cats are included, and if the bag is limitless, as is divine atonement, then all cats who come to the bag can eat. Purrrfect logic! Quite scriptural as well. for all (regardless of category) have sinned and come short of the Glory of God. Jesus atoned for the sins of the whole world (all categories).

Ya know, Russell55, this is not difficult, it is logic 101.

 

According to this, the atonement is not for ALL SIN. I disagree with this statement and it's Logic 101 end result. Either the Atonement is for ALL SIN including the sin of rejection, which if the Atonement is universal payment for sin(s), there is not sin of rejection in reality; or the Atonement was not for all sin. There is no way to make both statements reconcile.

Bro. Dallas

 

According to this, the atonement is not for ALL SIN. I disagree with this statement and it's Logic 101 end result. Either the Atonement is for ALL SIN including the sin of rejection, which if the Atonement is universal payment for sin(s), there is not sin of rejection in reality; or the Atonement was not for all sin. There is no way to make both statements reconcile.

Bro. Dallas </font>[/QUOTE]The whole quote

speaks for itself.

Unlike the individual uniqueness of personal salvation through each individual's belief in Jesus, the Atonement is Jesus' Universal sacrifice for the sins of all mankind, and nothing man can do will ever change that.

The Atonement for sin, did not put an end to sin. Every day we all continue to sin. Knowing that the debt for my sin has previously been paid neither makes me sin more nor less. However my love and devotion to Jesus does make me sin less, because I am accountable to him the one who paid the price. When I do sin, and the Holy Spirit reveals to me every time I sin, I confess my sin and receive from the Christ the forgiveness for that sin.

 

'Either the Atonement is for ALL SIN including the sin of rejection, which if the Atonement is universal payment for sin(s),'

Brother Dallas your above concept is flawed. How? Jesus clearly tells the saints that the sin of rejection is not included in the atonement/blood of cleansing. It needs no atonement because when you believe in Christ there is acceptance of Him not rejection. ' . . . he that believeth not is condemned already {and at death or the judgment} because he hath not believed in the Name of the only Son of God.' (John 3:18)

The sinner who receives Christ has not rejected Him and all of his other sins are covered. Rejection in his case does not need to be covered or atoned for and indeed cannot be covered. Only the souls who reject Christ get to keep their sin of rejection when they stand before the Lord. [Revelation 20:11]

To believe in Jesus is the required criterion mandated by the Lord God; when this is done there is no sin of rejection of His Divine Being.

 

I don't know how you will get these two statements to g-haul.

Jesus said '...is condemned already' he said nothing about at death or the judgement, that was added by you in {} on 4/15/03.

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

 

The basic flaw in your argument is that unless a person never rejects the gospel, his sins would never be totally covered. So according to your scheme if a person did not come to Jesus in repentance and faith the very instant the first time he heard the command to do so, he could never be saved as he would have experienced an instance of rejecting the gospel. Also, everything we do, as we do not have perfect faith, is tainted by our sin nature, even our believing.

The Bible teaches that Jesus died for 100% of the sins of all of His people. To deny this is to deny the only hope of being saved.

 

'So according to your scheme if a person did not come to Jesus in repentance and faith the very instant the first time he heard the command to do so, he could never be saved . . . .'

In this statement you have superimposed your idea into my post which I did not say. Only God knows how many opportunities a sinner is going to have to receive Christ. He is sovereign.

'Also, everything we do, as we do not have perfect faith, is tainted by our sin nature, even our believing.'

Trust me, God is not intimidated with our sin nature or the fact that our believing might be tainted by sin. You are right that it is our faith and not handed to us by God Almighty, so it might be tainted by sin, but this is what and how He requires it of sinners. 'Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved.' [Acts 2:21; 16:31]

'The Bible teaches that Jesus died for 100% of the sins of all of His people.'

True. [I John 2:2a] But, don't neglect part b of the verse. ' . . . and not FOR OURS ONLY, but for the sins of the whole world.' The New Century Version says, 'He is the way our sins are taken away, and not only our sins but the sins of all people.'

'To deny this is to deny the only hope of being saved.'

If you are saying that the only people that will be saved are those who believe in Limited Atonement, you are limited in your thinking and on top of it wrong. I don't think you mean this because this would be a bigoted statement.

 

Nope, I believe no such thing. I do not believe in theological regeneration anymore than I believe in baptismal regeneration or decisional regeneration, etc., etc., etc.

 

The basic flaw in your argument is that unless a person never rejects the gospel, his sins would never be totally covered. So according to your scheme if a person did not come to Jesus in repentance and faith the very instant the first time he heard the command to do so, he could never be saved as he would have experienced an instance of rejecting the gospel. Also, everything we do, as we do not have perfect faith, is tainted by our sin nature, even our believing.

The Bible teaches that Jesus died for 100% of the sins of all of His people. To deny this is to deny the only hope of being saved. </font>[/QUOTE]Stop blowin' smoke Ken.

Divine Atonement for the sins of the world is total atonement. There is only one sin defined as unforgivable and that is blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. If one rejects the Gospel that one is rejecting the Holy Spirit. Rejection of God is blasphemy, because that rejection says that God does not exist.

When does that rejection occur? For most, it occurs at death, and is passive rejection. Passive in that they did not actively choose to believe in Jesus or God. Some percentage of rejecters actively reject God while living this temporal life.

Rejection of God is rejection of God's atonement. Therefore when before the Judgment throne of God there is no defense, no advocate. Nothing to offer God in self defense, remember the rejection of Him while living the temporal life. Even though Jesus paid the penalty for sin, God owes those who reject him nothing. It is not the sin that condemns one to the Lake of fire, but unbelief.

 

This gets deeper and deeper. (Rev. 2.18-24)

Then those who do not believe are not condemned because they are sinners? NO. WHY? because they possess the same nature as ADAM did prior to the fall.

So those who are condemned do so because of unbelief, but this is not a sin? No. WHY? Because all sin is paid for by the atonement worked on the Cross by the Son of God. Then why are these condemned, because they are sinners? No. They cannot be, for all sin is paid for. Then why are these condemned because they did not believe? NO. Because they rejected God and this rejection is most generally passively accomplished, thus they are not aware they have rejected Him, they just die in their sins, oops scratch that because they died not in their sins because all sin is paid for, OK, then why are they condemned? Because they did not believe. It is not because they were/are sinners? NO. Only because they did not believe have they been condemned, Christ worked the atonement for them, but they failed to believe so thus they are doomed for eternity. Yeah, because they were sinners and not covered by the atonement at Calavary....NO!! it is because they did not believe, all sin is answered for, thus they cannot die sinners, nor can they accuse God of being unjust because he Gave the opportunity to believe, but they did not exercise their human ability to believe so they are condemned, but it is not because of sins. If they die as sinners then we have to admit that Christ did not atone for all sins, right? NO! Christ atoned for all sins, except the sin of unbelief because it is only for unbelief that man rejects the salvation of God and by this unbelief then men are condemned. So you are saying that unbelief is a sin? NO!, I never said that, I said that man has the ability to believe or not to believe, he has lost nothing because of Adam's fall, rather he is yet in possession of the original attributes which God created him in and cannot do anything to change these attributes. So then you do not believe that by sinning man changes the original creation he is first in? Yes, I did not say this either, what I said if you would listen to me is that man dies condemned not knowing that he is condemned until he goes down to the grave, because of this, though he has rejected God without having physically exerting any effort on his part, so condemnation is not an activity of God, rather it occurs because men do not believe. Why do men not believe? Men do not believe, but they do not know they are not believing, because they do not know they are not believing they are rejecting God, this is why God is just in condemning them, but it is not because they have sinned, Christ paid for all sin, except the sin of rejection of the Holy Spirit, this sin has not been atoned for because the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is unforgiveable...So you are telling me that Christ did not die for all sin, right? NO! I did not say that, I said that Christ's atonement paid for all sin...So the suffering of Christ on the Cross has paid all sin, NO! I didn't say that either, Christ was not punished for man on the Cross, why would God cause His Son to be punished for the sin of man....Maybe for the ransom price?(Job 33.24). NO!!! To call it a ransom implies we are bought from out of the marketplace and we were sinners, we must first choose to be bought out of the market place, once we choose to be bought, then the purchaser comes into the market and purchases us, but not before...So, we find ourselves in the market place and in this condition we being bound...NO!! We are not bound...though we have a propensity to sin, we have the power to choose not to sin, by choosing not to sin we choose not to reject God, by not rejecting God we choose to believe, by believing we are saved, once we are bought out of the market place we may choose to return to this bondage...So, what you are saying is that once we are bought, we have believed, we are able to 'unbelieve'? NO!! I did not say that either....I said that we can choose to walk away from God, even as we chose to walk to Him...So going to God is what saves? No!! 'Except ye believe, ye shall likewise perish' So...we must believe or else we will remain lost? Yeah...now you are getting it Ok, if we remain lost does this mean that this was our condition and wouldn't this mean that being lost we know not what way to go...NO!!! I did not say that


Got Milk???

Bro. Dallas

[ April 16, 2003, 01:26 AM: Message edited by: Frogman ]

 

The only one blowin' smoke in the wind is you, Yelsew.

So, Yelsew, you declare that no one ends up in hell because he sinned. That is a bald-faced lie straight from the devil who is the father of lies. You, Yelsew, you falsely claim that to refuse to come to Jesus in repentance and faith is not a sin. Another bald-faced lie straight from the evil one.

Your comments are now not a mere theological disagreement between Calvinists and non-Calvinists but you are striking a blow at the character of God by claiming He doesn't place His own creation in hell because of their sin but because of a non-sin.

The Bible takes a much, much more serious view of sin than you do, Yelsew -

1 John 3:8(NASB)
8 the one who practices sin is of the devil; for the devil has sinned from the beginning...

Revelation 20:12(NASB)
12 And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged from the things which were written in the books, according to their deeds.

The above verse says those that end up in hell are judged by their deeds, their actions, their works, not merely by whether they had believed or not. Remember, your side is always saying that belief is not a work. So these people are not being judged by their belief but by their works and are condemned because of their works.

You need to go argue that in the "Other Religions/Doctrines" forum because your doctrine in this area is not Biblical, it is not Christian. To claim that a person does not end up in hell because of their sin is wretchedly heinous in my view.

Now, go ahead and blow some more smoke and claim that you didn't say what you said.

So there!

[ April 16, 2003, 09:10 AM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

The only one blowin' smoke in the wind is you, Yelsew.

So, Yelsew, you declare that no one ends up in hell because he sinned. That is a bald-faced lie straight from the devil who is the father of lies. You, Yelsew, you falsely claim that to refuse to come to Jesus in repentance and faith is not a sin. Another bald-faced lie straight from the evil one.</font>[/QUOTE]I said,

What in that do you find is false? What in that says that rejection of God, (or as you say, refusing to come to Jesus in repentance and faith), is not a sin? I said that rejection of God is the unforgivable sin because it is blasphemy against God to claim He doesn't exist. Even though blasphemy is a sin it is not the sin that condemns, it is the unbelief that condemns. The unbelief causes the sin.
Jesus says,

The sinner who believes in Jesus does not instantly become a non-sinner, as we see in our congregations, denominations, and among denominational leaders. These are not necessarily condemned to hell, because they can seek forgiveness from God because they believe in God.

Your failure to understand the clear teaching of Jesus is appalling! If you are going to quote me, quote me correctly. You went on to say,

I made no such statement! Refer to John 3:18.

You are entitled to your opinion, no matter how wrong you are!

That same verse does not distinguish between believers and unbelievers. It does in fact say that both believers and unbelievers will be judged for what they did. You must include verses 11 through 15 in this reference especially verse 15, because it says Rev 20:15. and anybody whose name could not be found written in the book of life was hurled into the burning lake. John 3:16 says that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. Therefore, believer's names are written in the book of life, the unbelievers names are not. Because Sin has been atoned, sin is not an issue in eternal life or death in the lake of fire. Rev 20:15 establishes that fact.

It is the Christ, the head of Christianity that supports what I've said. You need a refresher course in Christianity 101.

OK! I did not say what you said I said!

[ April 16, 2003, 09:12 AM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

The over-view of things is that the predominant reason why people go to Hell is because of their rejection of Jesus. Simply read John 3:18. Sinners are condemned because of unbelief. At the Great White Throne Judgment of sinners all present will have one thing in common. "I rejected or neglected Christ in my life." Sinners will bare the responsibility and not the alleged God who fancifully chose His elect and passed by the less fortunate.

On the other hand, and secondarily, the Adamic nature of sin and all other sins will be punished by God.

 

OK Pastor Larry What did I say this time that made you edit my post?

What rule did I violate?

Why are you CENSORING ME while leaving all the inflammatory commentary by Calvinists intact? Or can you even recognize it because you are one?

You are exceedingly unfair in your moderations and I call for your removal from being a moderator!