John 10:15 and the Atonement

So what. All of that is immaterial according to Scripture, besides we are talking specifically about 1 John 3:23, which clearly says we are commanded to believe in Christ and love our brethren. (Incidentally, this directly parallels Jesus' own summary of the Ten Commandments, to love God with all our being and to love others as ourselves...to love God one must, by definition, believe in God).


According to Scripture, the Gentiles do the works of the Law without having the Law to tell them whether or not it is sin. (Rom. 1:14-16) This does not absolve them of sinning, Corrine, so says Scripture. Sin exists as sin apart from presence or absence of the Law. The Law only makes it plainer. Unbelievers are guilty apart from the Law and any belief in God. According to your logic an atheist is not sinning if He lies because He does not believe in God. I ask you, are atheists sinners or not? Consult Romans 3 on that one.

Besides God commands that we believe. Are you now restricting the command to believe in Jesus to believers and not extending its scope to atheists? (While at the same time extending "the world" to include all men everywhere in all times? That's a creative hermaneutic.) Scripture says that there is no under name given to men by which they must be saved. "Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent." (Acts 17:30). I believe it is safe to say that the command to believe in Christ extends to both the regenerate and the unregenerate, since there is no repentance unto salvation that is not directly linked to faith in Christ. On this Arminians and Calvinists have always agreed. However, according to the logic I perceive in the above post, unbelievers are not guilty of disobeying this declaration (which takes the form of a command according to 1 John 3:23), since they, by definition don't believe.

You say unbelief is not a sin. Let Scripture be the arbiter. Scripture clearly teaches that God pours out his wrath on the sons of disobedience. He pours out his wrath because people disobey Him. Propitiation is for sins. Propitation is the word we use for that which satisfies wrath, in this case, God's wrath. Now, that means that God pours out wrath on apeithia. Apeitha is the same word translated elsewhere for unbelief. Translations, however, are not the issue. In Greek they are the same word. God simply pours out His wrath on all apeithia...disobedience/unbelief. In order for there to be wrath for them, it must be because they are sinful things. If something is sinful, it is, by definition, sin. Unbelief is a sin. Disobedience is a sin. Unbelief is a sin, because the command is to believe in Christ. To disobey a command is not a separate sin called "disobedience," it is simply the sin of unbelief (and even if it was, it would be the same word in the underlying text, which means you believe that apeithia/unbelief is not sin and apeithia/disobedience is sin, and that means you are elevating the English text to the level of inspiration, not the underlying text...here at Baptistboard, we sometimes call that KJVO logic...not only that all sins that are disobedient to specific commands like "Thou shalt not steal," would have to be the sin of disobedience, not the sin of stealing/theft, if you were to be truly consistent).

Unbelief and disobedience are only not sins if, for example, you disobey a command to murder somebody or you disbelieve a lie. Not all unbelief is sin, not all disobedience is sin, not because of the nature of unbelief or disobedience, but because of the object of the unbelief or the disobedient act. If the object of the unbelief is a lie, then we are even commanded not to listen, much less disbelieve. We are told we are not under any obligation to obey the commands of men when the conflict directly with God's own law, like a command to steal or murder. If Jesus is the propitation for our sins, that must include the sin of unbelief. There is no Scripture that says otherwise. Bottom line: since they are the same word in the underlying text, there is no distinction between them. If disobedience is sin, so is unbelief, unless the object of the disobedient/unbelieving state/thought/act/"whatever" is properly disobeyed or disbelieved. In short, not believing, even in Christ, is, in point of fact, a sin, because it is disobedient to not believe in Christ, and all unbelief and all disobedience relative to the commands of God is/are, by definition, sin.

Thus, if we say that the atonement is general, it includes the sin of unbelief too, because it is assumed that the propitation is made for ALL sins. Now, if "the world" means all persons, you end up with a huge problem, because you must either say that unbelief in Christ/disbelief is not included in the atonement (which invalidates the entire idea of "all sins"), or you are saying that God is condemning unbelievers using a concept of double jeopardy. Now, where is the Scripture that says God punishes sins twice, especially after the penalty has already been exacted and His wrath satisfied? What is wrong with the propitiation of Jesus that does not satisfy God's wrath for unbelievers, when we are told that it in fact does satisfy God's wrath for us? What is it about their sins that doesn't get the satisfaction of God's wrath from Jesus work? What is it about us that merits the satisfaction? Disbelief in Christ/Faith in Christ? Okay, but if the propitiation is for all sins, then by definition you must include disbelief as well, and you are saying that our unbelief is covered but not theirs, while at same time saying that the atonement is for all the sins of all the world, meaning both believers and unbelievers.

 

Ray, where in the world, did you get your Th.M that you did not study Finney or studied him soooooooo incompletely?

Let's take some quotes:

Lecture 25 on Justification, in Finney’s Systematic Theology, pages 360-377 in the 1994 Bethany House publication.

In this discussion I use the term condition in the sense of a sine qua non, a "not without which."… A condition as distinct from a ground of justification, is anything without which sinners cannot be justified, which, nevertheless, is not a procuring cause or fundamental reason of their justification. As we shall see there are many conditions while there is but one ground of the justification of sinners.

The five conditions are:
the atonement of Christ,
repentance,
faith in Christ,
present sanctification,
perseverance in faith and obedience.

Note here, Ray, that Finney does not mean what you and I mean about repentance. He means works. He does not mean "former" sanctification, as a separate piece of the gift of salvation. He clearly makes PRESENT sanctification a condition of JUSTIFICATION ITSELF. Not only that he makes perseverance in faith and obedience a CONDITION of salvation.

"...full present obedience is a condition of justification. But again, to the question, can man be justified while sin remains in him? Surely he cannot, either upon legal or gospel principles, unless the law be repealed...But can he be pardoned and accepted, and justified, in the gospel sense, while sin, any degree of sin, remains in him? Certainly not (p. 57)."


Ray, that is just plain salvation by works. Finney's own words condemn him.


Here's a tidbit from his view of the atonement:

Neither is the atonement nor anything in the mediatorial work of Christ, the foundation of our justification, in the sense of the source, moving or procuring cause."

If he [Christ] had obeyed the Law as our substitute, then why should our own return to personal obedience be insisted upon as a sine qua non of our salvation?" (p. 206).

"The atonement would present to creatures the highest possible motives to virtue. Example is the highest moral influence that can be exerted...If the benevolence manifested in the atonement does not subdue the selfishness of sinners, their case is hopeless" (p. 209).

Come on, Ray, that shows that Finney not only denied substitutionary atonement, but He also believed that Christ only died as an example to us of self-sacrifice, not as an atonement for our sins. In fact, Ray, Finney plainly says this, "It is true, that the atonement, of itself, does not secure the salvation of anyone." In fact, Ray, Finney implies that the only sins that Jesus paid for, if any, were HIS OWN. Reading his systematic theology, which is just a collection of essays on ethics, one is left to wonder if Finney believed Jesus was really sinless.

All of that, Ray is pure heresy. The cross, in his view has nothing to do with mediation or substitutionary atonement, propitiation, or anything that even today's Arminian evangelicals say they believe!

Here's a lovely quote telling us what he thought of the imputation of Christ's righteousness:

But for sinners to be forensically pronounced just, is impossible and absurd...As we shall see, there are many conditions, while there is but one ground, of the justification of sinners...As has already been said, there can be no justification in a legal or forensic sense, but upon the ground of universal, perfect, and uninterrupted obedience to law. This is of course denied by those who hold that gospel justification, or the justification of penitent sinners, is of the nature of a forensic or judicial justification. They hold to the legal maxim that what a man does by another he does by himself, and therefore the law regards Christ's obedience as ours, on the ground that he obeyed for us.


The doctrine of an imputed righteousness, or that Christ's obedience to the law was accounted as our obedience, is founded on a most false and nonsensical assumption." After all, Christ's righteousness "could do no more than justify himself. It can never be imputed to us...It was naturally impossible, then, for him to obey in our behalf." This "representing of the atonement as the ground of the sinner's justification has been a sad occasion of stumbling to many" (pp. 320-322).


Ray, is that "rightly dividing the word of truth?"


Charles Finney on regeneration:

regeneration consists in the sinner changing his ultimate choice, intention, preference; or in changing from selfishness to love or benevolence," as moved by the moral influence of Christ's moving example (p. 224). "Original or constitutional sinfulness, physical regeneration, and all their kindred and resulting dogmas, are alike subversive of the gospel, and repulsive to the human intelligence" (p. 236).


Finney on eternal security:

Whenever he sins, he must, for the time being, cease to be holy. This is self-evident. Whenever he sins, he must be condemned; he must incur the penalty of the law of God...If it be said that the precept is still binding upon him, but that with respect to the Christian, the penalty is forever set aside, or abrogated, I reply, that to abrogate the penalty is to repeal the precept; for a precept without penalty is no law. It is only counsel or advice. The Christian, therefore, is justified no longer than he obeys, and must be condemned when he disobeys; or Antinomianism is true...In these respects, then, the sinning Christian and the unconverted sinner are upon precisely the same ground. (p. 46)

Wesley is closer to modern day evangelical Arminianism than Finney, yet millions of Christians extol his virtues as a great revivalist. I'm reminded of the story of the child's song, "Jesus loves me." We take it to mean that Jesus loves me, and it is true, because it is in the Bible and the Bible itself is God's revelation. However, it originated with the words of Reinhold Neibuhr who was the father of modern neo-orthodoxy who meant that as something he believed not because the Bible is objective revelation, but because it is a channel that God uses to speak to man through some kind of "encounter." Even Neibuhr, however, is closer to all of us, Calvinist and Arminian alike, in his own soteriology than Finney.

I agree with Pastor Larry, what Finney says goes far, far beyond an intramural soteriological debate, it goes into the realm of heresy. Reading his Systematic Theology will cast a whole new light on his sermons. Your "millions of Christians" are wrong.

 

How, pray tell, is this any less fixed an event in your view than ours? This is pure determinism, because man can only do what God knows He will do. There is still no true free will in this view. Man is sovereign, God is not, there is no difference beyond that.

You know, Clark Pinnock had problems with that scenario of yours. His answer was Open Theism. What's yours?

 

Gene M. Bridges,

If you think that the Five Points of Calvinism is orthodoxy, in this light, Rev. Finney did not do too badly in his theological understanding. I do not have the text before me that you are quoting from in your post. Sometimes writers rework words to prove their theology is better than the other theologian. This might be the case here. If you believe the above five points you are wrong at every point in theology except the security of the believer/eternal security.

You said,

First, in theology there is not time to study every great preacher or evangelist as to his theology. Much of our time was spent on classical theology, Roman Catholicism, liberalism, Calvinism and the Arminian perspective of theology, plus others. My highest theological degree is the Th.D. Summa Cum Laude; to God be all the glory and praise!

Let's take some quotes:

Lecture 25 on Justification, in Finney's Systematic Theology, pages
360-377 in the 1994 Bethany House publication.

In this discussion I use the term condition in the sense of a sine qua
non, a "not without which."… A condition as distinct from a ground of
justification, is anything without which sinners cannot be justified,
which, nevertheless, is not a procuring cause or fundamental reason
of their justification. As we shall see there are many conditions while
there is but one ground of the justification of sinners.

The five conditions are:
the atonement of Christ,
repentance,
faith in Christ,
present sanctification,
perseverance in faith and obedience.' [/quote]

Jesus is the ground of our justification. It looks to me as though Rev. Finney was 'covering all of the bases' to insure that a person was really saved as you have noted above. He believed that Christians could not continue in sinning and thus sanctification is included in his salvation scheme of thinking. The last point of 'perseverance in faith and obedience' should be pleasing to you Calvinists who believe that 'perseverance' is a must if you are truly saved.

How do you know that Finney's idea of repentance is vastly different from mine or yours? You probably believe that God gives you the faith, grace, and the repentance, but I have no way of reading your mind.

I believe faith comes only because of the wooing of the Holy Spirit to receive the Son.

There are various views as to 'good works' following an alleged conversion. Arminian theology looks to see the gifts of the Spirit and good behavior in the life of a person who claims they have faith. I think this is what Finney was saying.

I believe Finney is saying here that if you have a true faith you must strive for perfection in the Christian life so that you are not practicing sinning in some areas of your life. If there is no difference between a sinner and a saint, then why are we to strive for Christian holiness? Study I Peter 1:15-16. Christian maturity is not an option to God's people. Some people understand the Gospel and think they have repented when in fact they are lost as lost can be. Finney and all Arminians that I know believe that 'good works' must follow saving faith. [Ephesians 2:10]

If your above quote is correct and taken in context, I could not agree with his alleged statement above. His statement is probably an overkill of some Calvinists antinomianism, in Finney's era, who thought after conversion to Jesus Christ by faith, thought that this is acceptable to the Lord just because once saved always saved.

Gene, you must keep in mind that these men of God did not have all the enlightenment that we have today. In Rev. Jonathan Edwards era, Dr. Stoddard, a Calvinist, taught all of the New England colonies that Communion was for the saved and unsaved, and we both know this is not correct. Stoddard called it, the "Stoddard Way" and the "Half-Way Covenant." As long as a person was not a vial sinner, he was accepted at the Communion table of the Lord. Do you follow this kind of Puritan, Calvinistic thought in your church. Do you invite the saved and lost to the altar for Holy Communion?

Jesus did have a moral affect on people from all generations. Do you agree? Systematic theology does have its practical aspect of moral integrity and ethics.

I agree with you that Rev. Wesley is much closer to my way of thinking than Rev. Finney. And for me, all of Calvinism is error except the eternal security of the true Christian, which is even different than people who believe in the Perseverence of the Saints.

We will all be judged at the Judgment Seat of Christ for our theology that we have taught other people whether, Revs. Finney, Edwards, Wesley, Whitefield, or you and me.

I sure would not want to stand before the Lord for telling people that His blessed atonement was only good for some sinners. [I John 2:2]

Brother Ray

 

How does he know this if people are free to change their mind?

</font>[/QUOTE]Well you do make a good point about how hard it is to "BE" God. Good thing that our ability to solve God's problems for Him is not the measure of the truth of doctrine.

The elect can be chosen by God's absolute foreknowledge - but then God does not need that since already from the start "HE is not willing that ANY should perish but that ALL should come to repentance". He can simply elect to have ALL saved - and then can perfectly foreknow WHO WILL freely accept that provision.

In Christ,

Bob </font>[/QUOTE]If God intended such a determined world as the one you imply (by which he would know and control all the elects, including their sins) and if he intended to save the elect before the creation of the world, then explain to me why there was a need for him to send his Son Jesus Christ into the world to "save" us believers?

Absolute pre-determination of the world and everything included in it, to the smallest particle, negates, in my opinion, the sacrifice of Christ or at the very least reduces it to a meaningless and purely symbolic action. If we were saved when in the womb of God, before the beginning of our world, then why the need for Christ?

Corinne
http://www.christianresistance.com

 

Gene,

Here is a quote from the lips of Rev. Finney:

'Just at that point the whole question of God's salvation opened to my mind in a manner most marvelous tome at that time. I think I saw then, as clearly as I ever had in my life, the reality and fullness of the atonement of Christ. I saw that His work was a finished work; that instead of having, or needing, any righteousness of my own to recommend me to God, I had to submit myself to the righteousness of God through Christ. It was full and complete; and all that was necessary on my part was to get my own consent to give up my sins, and accept Christ. Salvation, it seemed to me, instead of being a thing to be wrought out, by one's own works, was a thing to be found entirely in the Lord Jesus Christ, who presented Himself before me as my God and Savior.'

Finney speaks of the atonement of Christ, the finished work of Christ in dying for all of his sins, he agrees that he is not personally righteous before God and that he cannot present his righteousness to Him. He goes on to say that He is dependent on Christ's righteousness, he agrees to give up his sins (repentance), he accepts Christ not on the basis of his own 'good works' and finds in Jesus the work of salvation complete as He sees Jesus presented before his life.

That is about as orthodox as one can find. He did not as some Calvinists trust in that fact that God might have elected them, and then try to live out a life of God-likeness in hopes that they will be saved. Salvation is a choice to receive Christ and not some kind of metamorphosis into the Christian way of life. No one is saved by just saying my family always went to this church so I am a Christian also.

Finney's preaching and greatly aided by the Holy Spirit brought deep conviction on hundreds of thousands of unbelievers, so much so that for days people could not sleep until they made their peace with God.

Your information appears to be an anti-Finney smear because he was at the opposite spectrum with Calvinism.

Rev. Finney's personal quote you will find in this second paragraph, and is taken from "Charles Finney" The Great Revivalist, "Barbour Publishing" p. 32.

Find an objective source before you write.

Although Revs. Edwards and Whitefield were Calvinists and I freely admit that God used their preaching to bring men and women to Christ. People were saved because the Holy Spirit took the basic truth of Christ and revealed their need of Jesus in their lost souls.

God blessed and used all three men for His glory and praise.

Ray

 

Again the flaw is in your innability to "be God". I agree that God has "a tough job" knowing all about the future and still allowing free will.

But your conclusion is obviously incorrect since by that definition God has no free will - and the sinless Christ had no free will. (Unless of course you are going to argue that the only part of the future God DOESN'T know is what He will do - or that God did not know the complete life of Christ before Christ lived it).

My solution is as follows.

#1. IT is "tough" to BE God.
#2. My BEING God is not a pre-condition for free will to be true.
#3. Christ had Free will.
#4. God has free will
#5. God knows all details about the future - absolutely.

If you think that through - then that is the end of the Calvinist argument that foreknowledge ends free will.

In Christ,

Bob

 

I am not sure that this was directed to me or to Pastor Larry.

In my case - I did not mean to say that God only knows the future by being able to absolutely controll everyone. He knows it - without absolutely controlling everyone.

Absolute knowledge of the future - could only be done by a human - if that human had absolute control over all aspects of the future and exercixed that control such that he can reliably tell you exactly what will happen.

God has the power to control - but also has the power to KNOW the future WITHOUT controlling every atom. In other words - he can know the future without forcing it - hence there is room for "free will".

In Christ,

Bob

 

God is sovereign! It is well within God's perimeters, not that He has any limitations, in His designing because He is sovereign, the freedom of the will of all of His created beings. While he does not pick men and women for Heaven and Hell, He is involved in human history in bringing about His grand designs. Does He know the exact number of His elect? Yes. [I Peter 1:2]

For example, we are headed toward Armageddon [Revelation 16:16] and the Kingdom Age on earth. [Zechariah chapter fourteen & Revelation chapter twenty] His plan is fully in motion and human history will one day end on this planet which we call earth.

 

But how in the world does he know this? What is one of them exercises his free will and changes his mind? Or what if one of the non-elect exercise their free will and change their mind? Can they do that?

 

Which of these has anything to do with the Count of "the saints"?
1 Peter 1:2. in the foresight of God the Father, to be made holy by the Spirit, obedient to Jesus Christ and sprinkled with his blood: Grace and peace be yours in abundance.

2 Peter 1:2. Grace and peace be yours in abundance through the knowledge of our Lord

 

But how in the world does he know this? What is one of them exercises his free will and changes his mind? Or what if one of the non-elect exercise their free will and change their mind? Can they do that? </font>[/QUOTE]As you point out above - it certainly is "hard to be God".

But that is not the measure of how true something is.

God has absolute foreknowledge - and God has also enabled choice - the choice that is disabled via total depravity - by "drawing ALL mankind" unto Himself supernaturally. That supernatural drawing ENABLES that which TD disables regarding choice.

But "what if Lucifer choses to rebel"? What if "Adam chooses to disobey"? What if "Noah chooses to be faithful"? ...

Indeed - God knew it all.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Well you do make a good point about how hard it is to "BE" God. Good thing that our ability to solve God's problems for Him is not the measure of the truth of doctrine.</font>[/QUOTE]

Actually I did address that. I point out that your conclusion is merely based on the idea that "it is hard to BE God". I point out that such a basis for conclusion is flawed.

The fact that "as a human" you can only know the future if you are in absolute control of everyone's decisions - does not mean this is the only way for God to know the future.

You start off with the premise "God is limited like me" and conclude "therefore God CAN only know the future IF He controls what everyone thinks and does".

You also conclude that If God KNOWS something - then those who live in that future that God knows - have no free will.

That logic is shown to be flawed by the fact that your logic must dictate that Christ had no free will (or God did not know Christ's future).

It must also conclude that God has no free will (or that God does not know what HE will do in the future).

You're bogged down in the quagmire of trying to "be God" to discover what God can and can not do and how that would limit both Himself and mankind.

The only "real data" that you have is that "it is hard to BE God".

IN Christ,

Bob

 

I think one of the first things that I learned about God as a child was God knows everything. He understands all the contingencies of men and women. Their true faith, backsliding, carelessness, and faithfulness. And best of all He does not determine any of the above, execpt as He helps Christians to remain faithful to His so great salvation. The fallen angel, Adam and Eve and all humans have a free will to either love Jesus or to walk away from Him. [John 3:18]

While we are awake or asleep, He is drawing sinners to Himself through the wooing of the Holy Spirit. God is always at work in our world.

 

But how in the world does he know this? What is one of them exercises his free will and changes his mind? Or what if one of the non-elect exercise their free will and change their mind? Can they do that? </font>[/QUOTE]According to God's Word the answer is YES, we mere mortals have the power to change our mind. That is why we are warned about our names being "blotted from" the Book of Life.

We can lose our faith. There are those things that we used to have faith in, that we no longer have faith in. If we can lose faith in them, why do you think we cannot lose faith in God? There is but one human faith, and that one human faith has many objects in which it has faith, but it still remains one human faith, and not many faiths. In other words, we do not receive faith from outside our own self. You cannot give me your faith and I cannot give you mine. God, who is ALL knowing, All seeing, etc. is not in need of faith. What can there be that God does not know or that He needs to put "hope" into, or that God does not see? Since he has no Faith, he cannot give faith to man. All that God can do is give man the reasons to have faith, and the objects in which man's faith must be, for man to be sanctified (set apart) unto salvation.

Larry, there are people who become disenchanted with Faith in God, and lose their way because they take their eyes off the cross. You have known many of them in your lifetime. Their faith diminishes over time to the point that they have no faith. At that point their name is blotted from the book of life, and they lose their salvation. God did not do that to them, they did it to themselves.

Look at all the warnings such as, "he who puts his hand to the plow, then turns back is not worthy"; being on "the roof top and going inside to find your cloak", may cause you to lose your promised salvation because you were busy tending to your self; etc.

So, Yes Larry, man can change his mind and does it all the time. You personally know many who have done so, if you will just recall to mind those who came, ate of the word, then departed...You know them!

 

Many people sit under the sound of the Gospel without getting saved. The Apostle John says in I John 2:19 an important truth. Remember it! It is only those who stay with the church or move to another Christian church who are saved souls. If they have partaken of spiritual food and were saved, they remain in a relationship to God, though they may be chastened. [Hebrews twelve] They may be away for a while but God loses none of His people. Not unless you do not believe John 10:27-30 . . .

 

Another verse that teaches the complete security of the true Christian is found in I John 5:18; approaching the original language will help in understanding.

 

"No one can pluck them from My Father's Hand"

"He that hath the Son hath life."

Salvation is eternal--praise the Lord, for His salvation so rich and free.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

Hi Ray;

Before you apply this verse to your self you should keep this in mind;
1Jo 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us

There is only one who has no sin and that is Christ

How is it that a man who believes in the willfull decision to believe in Christ. Can also believe that man looses his freewill after he is saved? Man still sins no doubt. So if man still sins he still has the freewill to do so.
I know there are a lot of one point calvinist and I don't really believe it's a Salvation issue as long as you believe in Christ. The word begotten refers to born not adopted. So how does this verse support the OSAS position. No one is born of God but Christ. If we loose freewill after being saved then you have the same dominate God of Calvinism.
Now if being bornagain means we were born of God at that time then you would have to explain why God would adopt what was born to Him in the first place. Maybe I just misunderstand if so please explain.
May God Bless You;
Mike