So who DO you agree with?

I would not say it was 'intended' for everyone, but that the propitiation extends toward all mankind but it's 'intent' is for those of faith. Thus it is by faith the propitiation is applied.

I will ask this though - what else can be said when we look at scripture which says "He is the propitiation for our sins, and not our only but the sins of the whole world".
If you do a comparitive study you will find this type of thing spoken of in the gospels (I believe by the pharasees), which the 'we' refers to Israel (who were not all saved) and the propitiation was said to have been made for them all. And then it goes on to, not ours (Israel) only but for the sins of the whole (entire) world (Gentiles).

What is of note is John's usage of 'whole world' consistently in all his writing refering the godless, unbelieving of mankind with emphasis toward the gentiles.

Thus I would have to ask with respect to the propitation, how one can see in the above spoken of verse (sin of the whole world) as a general declaration of certain ones from in the world?

In light of the above I would have to state that this is the very reason the gospel call not only is to be given to all but why all are held accountable for believing or not,. If the propitation is not for the unelect then their rejection of the gospel call should have absolutely no bearing on their eternal destiny and yet scripture states without question their rejection of that propitiation of Christ does have absolute bearing. Also I believe this is why the offer of salvation can be sincerely and honestly given to all men everywhere, because the propitiation was toward all men but intended to be applied only for those of faith. At least that is my understanding.

 

So you think that those who have never heard the Gospel of Christ will not be accountable for their sins? No, that's a false contention. Even those who have never heard the Gospel will be responsible for their sins. Their sins will send them to perdition.

 

Especially in light of the fact that these labels were designed intitially to show false teachings and the originator of that teaching with respect to soterology. This includes the label of Calvinism.

But there are numerous labels out there that aren't even addressed in the OP.
However let me put this out there. If one does not hold to all of a certian 'labels' views then one can not be called that label.

Take 4 point Calvinists, who to the large majority of Calvinists are not to be considered the same. They are given their own label. Or take the Hyper Cal that holds to all 5 basic aspets of Calvinism but are declared by Cals the Hypers should not even be considered as part of their group (even though the hypers hold to all 5 of their basic views)

Yet if someone holds to only 2 points of Arminianism they are declared by Cals to be 100% Arminian. Or the Arminian is said to be Semi-Pelagianism not because they hold to any of their basic views but because man is said to be able to choose, while ignoring the fact the semi-pel states man choose without any grace or influence of God and Arminianism states they can only choose because of these things being present.

 

And how will they know of their sin especially since it is something spiritually discerned?
Man being totally depraved does not know he stands in sin or what sin is.

 

Secondly I have never stated, ever, that a person who does not hear the gospel is not accountable for their sins. Therefore I have NO idea where you concocted that little ditty.

 

But he is still accountable.

 

He is 'accountable' when he comes to know his sin.

Or as the ESV puts it:

Notice that it states if you were blind (not knowing sin) you would have not sin/guilt, but since you 'see' your sin/guilt - remains.

He accountable for what he knows not what he doesn't.
We also 'only' find those who 'reject' the truths God reveals are judged as being damned/condemned. I am not disupting a person being born in sin, I am stating that biblcally they are not accountable till they know what it is they are doing and this is understood at whatever age God opens their understanding to the knowledge of good and evil as understood and declared by God and not social conduct or parental appeasement.

 

This is not what Romans 1 and 2 say.

I believe you are misapplying this passage and making it universal. Otherwise, I was not accountable for my sin when I was an astrologer since I did not believe in sin, nor really know what it was. So you're saying I was not accountable then?

 

Yes it is.

To your first sentence, no it stands in context to sin and when guilt is applied.

To your second sentence about being an astrologer;
No, you knowingly rejected those things God had arleady showed you as being right (going back to Romans 1 and 2) and at that time you came of understanding you became accountable. You did understand sin, just not in the fulness you do now. Just because you denied it's truth does not mean you did not understand it because in order to deny it you had to deny the very truth of it. And in so doing you denied righteousness and the judgement to come because they are established within and procede from the first. These are the ministries of the Holy Spirit and is also seen in Romans 1 and 2. Both chapters deal with the fact of a person is judged by God after rejecting the truths revealed by God.

 

You had God's law written on your heart even back then. You knew right and wrong, just dismissed the wrong.

 

Rom. 1 and 2 tells us that all men are accountable to God. In fact, this is the premise of Romans. This would mean accountable for their sin, of course.

So you are saying that we are only guilty when we know something is a sin? So pagans who sacrificed children to false gods were not sinning? After all, they thought it was a good thing to do.

How do you know I understood it? I did not understand it at all! I did not think I was sinning and I did not even accept the concept of sin. I did not even believe in evil, Allan. So according to what you say, I was not accountable for what I was doing.

 

No dispute here

Are contending that chapters 1 and 2 does not apply to pagans?

I am not saying I know your life, but I am saying God works in the same manner toward every person; that being to bring them the understanding of sin, righteousness, and the judgment to come. Therefore I can state with assurance that you had understanding of these basic concepts and rejected them. I also understand your argument but astrology is not the only sin out there. In order for you to even go into it without it throwing up flags to your conscience you had to have already rejected those those basic truths presented to you in Romans 1 and 2 and you state as much in the rest of your post. You going into astrology was not your 'first' sin but it was the result of you contiuning in your chosen sin. The very fact you 'did not even accept the "concept of sin"' proves that at some point you were faced with the truth of it and rejected it. You had already reject the very basic premise of 'evil' and to even do that you were at some point prior face with the truth of it, and again, rejected it. As such you show that God had shown you truth and rejected it (Romans 1 and 2) and thus yes, you were accountable long before you entered astrology and therefore were equal accountable for the sin 'of' astrology.

 

The conversation Allan and Marcia are having can be resolved, I believe, by my view of accountability.

According to Romans 2, those Gentiles who do not have the law, or know anything about it, are a law unto themselves.

I take this to mean that each person, regardless of the extent of their awareness of God's law, have a personal moral code. Even though Marcia didn't believe in sin, she understood that some things were right and wrong.

Marcia may not have defined stealing or killing as sin, but I suspect she would have not done it or want it done to her.

The problem with those with their own personal moral code is that they can't keep it perfectly, because they are imperfect. I believe God will judge them by their own moral code, and they will be forced to admit that they have violated it, and thus deserving of condemnation.

 

Agreed. The thing I would add (if you would permit me) is that those truths God reveals to all men everywhere is not enough for salvation but enough to make all men both responsible and accountable for their deeds. Therefore it is by these basic concepts that men 'who are a law unto themselves' use these concepts to detemine their own versions of right and wrong. This is why you will find people of other nations never having met hold to a great many of the same views of right and wrong.

Thank you very much for your interjection brother, well stated. :thumbs:

 

Amen, Amen, Amen. I am in complete agreement. This answers the "person who never heard" dilemma that is often presented against Christianity. I believe when the books are opened at the Great White Throne judgment, God will show each person where they violated their own sense of right and wrong, their own moral code. A person cannot even live up to his own standard of what is right, much less God's, which proves the depravity of man.

 

I disagree about this "personal" moral code. The knowledge of right and wrong comes from God, not the person. Whether the person accepts that is another story.

 

And I think your addition also makes sense.

 

Amy, I agree that God is the ultimate source of all knowledge.

Let me throw this out for your reaction. This is a hypothetical situation.

I plan to built a town, but allow only atheists to live there. They will have the opportunity to build a society from scratch. I guarantee you that one of their first actions will be to agree on a set of norms for their own self-protection. They will agree not to kill each other and devise some means of both punishing those who do and discouraging those who might.

They will try to protect themselves from thieves and robbers in the same way. They might even come up with some norms regarding a man's messing with another's wife.

Now, what they're doing is a natural course of action. We know those concepts are of Godly origin, but they don't care. They just make sense.

Just as they will seek to hold accountable those who violate those societal norms, so will they be held accountable by God.

 

Yes. They will still be accountable to God. Paul explains this in Romans 1.

 

Amy, if you look at my posting in 114 you will note that their 'personal' moral code of right and wrong had it's concepts derived from what God has revealed already. Therefore even though they make up their own rights and wrongs to suite their lusts, it has it's orgins from the very truths God revealed to them but were rejected and therefore modified.