Featured Lewis on Atonement theories

The entire sacrificial system pointed towards the sacrifice of the lord Jesus, as the slain Lamb of God, who bore upon himself all of the sins and wrath and judgement due to us!

 

was the gospel not given to Abraham though?

 

Jesus died as our substitute, as the sin bearer of his own people, taking upon Himself and receiving all that sinners will in the final judgement!

 

Yes, but it was veiled. You and I can understand how the seed Abraham believed God would give him was Christ, but Abraham didn't understand the ramification of the Seed (singular). This is why Paul explains that in Galatians 3.

Abraham was justified based on the fact he believed God, and the revelation God provided to him. He died still in need of Eternal Redemption and reconciliation to God.


God bless.

 

Where is your Scripture!

Sorry!

Just thought I would ask!

God bless!

 

he was in the sight of God already justified by the basis of the Cross of Christ, per Romans!

 

1 Peter 2:24

 

No. Again. Adam did not stand as our representive. We were literally and truly IN him. We were in his loins. His sin IS our sin.

What? You think creation is still going on? Creation was over on the sixth day. All who were to exist were created on the sixth day.

And so in the Second Adam. We were literally and truly IN Him. All who were destined to eternal life were in Him before the foundation of the world.

You only think you yield to the Scripture. Until you yield to Peter's appeal to the type of the Ark, you aren't even close to being a Baptist, let alone to faith in Christ.

 

Jesus died in our stead/place

 

I think you have gone a step to far in your comment. The Holy Spirit can open the mind so that a person can understand the truth of the Gospel. But the person still has the choice, accept it or reject it. God only regenerates those that believe.

 

This section of your post seems to be a bit confused. You say that "David and Abraham believed the revelation of God" If they believed they also, logically, must have had the ability to not believe. So whatever they believed, they were either forced to believe or they chose to believe. This you confirm they chose to believe when you say they had "the ability to understand what the focus of that belief was." So here we see free will established.

You then go on to say "God does that, not man. There is no aspect of the corrupt notion of "free will" in that." But how can you be forced to believe something? You may say you do when under duress but is it really what the person believes? I agree with the first two conclusions you make, "You can't have faith if you don't believe, and you can't believe unless you have something to believe in" In the context of Abraham & David, or anyone for that matter, your third conclusion does not fit. Understanding the spiritual things of God are not a requirement of faith it is the result of faith.

 

Sigh, you and your blaming God for choosing you.
When Marines chose people in Afghanistan to set free from Taliban oppression, were they forced?
When people in prison are chosen to be freed, are they forced to be free (as if they would be ungrateful to be freed). Silverhair, your incapacity to see the vileness of your thoughts about God in choosing you is shocking. How can you hate the God who chose to redeem you without ever asking your permission?

 

Just was stating what Isaiah and peter and paul all stated here!

 

Sigh, your same old tired comments. You need to get some new material. Your theology does not align with the bible so it would be time for you to realign your thinking.

 

My theology is directly from the Bible. Our difference is that God is primary and authoritative in my understanding of God's Word while man is primary and authoritative in your understanding of God's Word. I make no apologies for believing God is authoritative because that is what the Bible actually says.
Meanwhile, you hate an authoritative God.

 

I respect the fact that you reject my comment. But it came from the WCF Larger Catechism Question 67. It is the understanding of the Puritans and those who wrote the document. Your point is well taken though regarding choice. If you read or listen to any good reformed pastor they will tell you that you can humble yourself and ask to be born again. Listen to Martyn Lloyd Jones sermon on being "Born Again". Just plug it into the search on his website. I have no problem with that if presented like that and if no more is meant than you are coming to Christ and asking to receive him and be born again. Of course you still have the question of how you came to realize your need and desire to do this, don't you? It does trouble me that there is a demand for a type of sovereignty of our wills that was always around, yet seemed less common in the older literature than nowadays. It's something to do with our modern psychology I think. I had been trying to read Augustine's Confessions, (with much difficulty) I might add, but one thing I noticed was that he gave God total credit for everything good that happened to him in his life. Whether it involved a change in circumstances or a verse he discovered, or a new book, he immediately gave all credit to God. We don't do that much nowadays I fear. To simply say "I had to believe" as a matter of fact, is fine. To say that as a matter of reserving some sovereignty over the whole salvation process would not only offend old Calvinists but I think Arminius as well.

 

Then you have ignored most of what I have written on here but that is expected from you. You claim that the bible is your authority and yet you ignore much of what it says. Your DoG has more weight with you than the bible so please do not continue to claim you trust the bible. Your theology shows me that you do not.

 

I have noted that you refer to a number of old writers and that is fine. I have read some of them but I do not get my theology from them. I find it strange that a calvinist would say that you have to humble yourself and ask to be born again. Don't they understand the calvinist TULIP or WCF/LBCF. You can not deny man has a free will and then say just ask to be saved. How many times have we heard from calvinists that man is dead like lazarus or that the only free will he has is to sin but then they say man is responsible to the sovereign God to believe even though they can not because God has not saved them so they can believe. Calvinism has way to many contradictions in it for it to be a viable theology.

You wrote "To simply say "I had to believe" as a matter of fact, is fine." But think about where this idea goes. Do you mean that "I had to believe" because I was forced to do so or is it because when I looked at and weighed the evidence I could come to no other conclusion.

I have pointed out a number of times how a person can come to realize that they need a savior. It is in the bible if you will just believe what the bible says rather than require the bible to fit with calvinism.