Where are the boundaries? A review of OTC Theology

[GoBahnsen]

This thread will relate to the God Hater sticky thread in theo 201. If you haven't been there, that's ok. The question we often struggle with as believers is: just where are the lines drawn between true and false Christianity?

Many of us have different ideas about that, even though we carry the same 66 books of the Bible around with us. Marc Carpenter of Outside The Camp, an internet ministry with very narrow boundaries, thinks he knows where the lines are and he marvels at the failure of the Church, so called, to see those lines.

Mr. Carpenter says that once a person is regenerate they will believe the Gospel and will carry around no false version of it. Sounds good, but most Christians can testify to believing some pretty bad junk along their pilgrimage in their faith in Jesus.

One question that I posed, after more than 250 posts by myself, Carpenter and others was: if God makes sure that the regenerate get the Gospel "right" in all it's essential elements, then why doesn't God just go ahead and make sure that His elect get the rest of their Theology right?

Why stop at some point? Isn't eschatology important? Aren't those matters that pertain to the Church and her functions in this world important? Why would God just make sure that the Elect get the bare essentials of soteriology under their belt, but then let them swim on their own to figure out the rest?

The fact of the matter is, that the Church doesn't always look very united, but nevertheless, the LORD knoweth them that are His own, while we often do not. Any thoughts anybody?

[seer]

This thread will relate to the God Hater sticky thread in theo 201. If you haven't been there, that's ok. The question we often struggle with as believers is: just where are the lines drawn between true and false Christianity?

Many of us have different ideas about that, even though we carry the same 66 books of the Bible around with us. Marc Carpenter of Outside The Camp, an internet ministry with very narrow boundaries, thinks he knows where the lines are and he marvels at the failure of the Church, so called, to see those lines.

Mr. Carpenter says that once a person is regenerate they will believe the Gospel and will carry around no false version of it. Sounds good, but most Christians can testify to believing some pretty bad junk along their pilgrimage in their faith in Jesus.

One question that I posed, after more than 250 posts by myself, Carpenter and others was: if God makes sure that the regenerate get the Gospel "right" in all it's essential elements, then why doesn't God just go ahead and make sure that His elect get the rest of their Theology right?

Why stop at some point? Isn't eschatology important? Aren't those matters that pertain to the Church and her functions in this world important? Why would God just make sure that the Elect get the bare essentials of soteriology under their belt, but then let them swim on their own to figure out the rest?

The fact of the matter is, that the Church doesn't always look very united, but nevertheless, the LORD knoweth them that are His own, while we often do not. Any thoughts anybody?

Actually Mark's logic isn't off. Why aren't we on the same page? I mean even Calvinists disagree on certain important topics - for instance the universal offer of atonement. And as you said - eschatology. Isn't the Holy Spirit suppose to lead us into all truth? So one would have to believe that God wants Christians to hold somethings in error. If He didn't we wouldn't.

[Berean Todd]

Isn't the Holy Spirit suppose to lead us into all truth? So one would have to believe that God wants Christians to hold somethings in error. If He didn't we wouldn't.
Except that God has not yet taken away our sin natures, and we can see Paul in Romans even struggling with that. The Holy Spirit will lead you to all truth spiritually, but the problem is we ourselves do too much getting in the way of that in many various and sundry ways.

In regards to the OP, if you are asking where the line is drawn I would say the following:

1. God is Creator of all the world, and all that is in it.

2. Man is fallen, sinful, and unable to attain heaven on his own. This includes an understanding of one's own fallen, sinful nature.

3. Jesus is God. He came and lived the perfect life we could not, died on the cross, and rose on the third day.

4. One must place all of their faith and trust in Christ in order to come to the Father.

5. a repenting and turning from one's former ways will and must accompany that placing of faith.

That would be the bare minimum. There are others that would be nescacary for any kind of victorious Christian life at all, but I believe that at the core the above is enough for a true conversion to Christ.

[themuzicman]

They're probably best expressed in the Apostle's creed and the Nicene creed, final version./

[seer]

Except that God has not yet taken away our sin natures, and we can see Paul in Romans even struggling with that. The Holy Spirit will lead you to all truth spiritually, but the problem is we ourselves do too much getting in the way of that in many various and sundry ways.

So how does that bear on inerrancy? Did we get in the way there also? And if God can fully overcome our nature when it comes to the writting of scripture then why not now?

[Berean Todd]

So how does that bear on inerrancy? Did we get in the way there also? And if God can fully overcome our nature when it comes to the writting of scripture then why not now?
I think it is clear from scripture (for instance, start with 2 Pet 1:19-21) that the Holy Spirit overcame that in the writting of Scripture. Why then and not now? Because then He was giving us the guidebook that could lead us to all truth, but now it is upon us to seek it. We have the choice now, we can choose to submit ourselves to the Spirit and seek Him, or we can choose to get in the way. We have the Scriptures to guide us - unfortunately too many are still too stuborn to do so.

[smaller]

Greetings

A small(er) observation. God never meant The Good News to be understood completely or by all but by a few. Most find the "broad path" that leads to you know where. That is what "they" were meant to find.

For example, concerning The Law:

Galatians 3:19
Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions

Did The Law stem the tide of lawlessness? No!

Romans 5:20
Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:

This law added and causing the offence abounding is also a portion of God's Plan.

I have postulated that if the God given Law made the offence abound, then Grace and Truth in Jesus Christ accelerated the offence to an even greater degree, and this prior to the absolute and final judgment of this creation.

This working is exemplified in the so called "church" just as the abounding of lawlessness abounded in The Pharisees and Saducees. Jesus had His Harshest Words for "them."

Look around you. Do you see the divisions in the "church?" Yea! Jesus did His Deal then didn't He?

So were boundries of understandings of any sort even in question in this observation? No.

Jesus came to set a fire and bring His Sword of Division."

Luke 12:49
I am come to send fire on the earth;

Luke 12:
51 Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division

To separate Mankind from their "sins."

Matthew 1:21
And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

AND if you do not believe this, it does not matter. You were not meant to.

Your body is or will used in the judgment of THE SINS that inhabit it, and your life will not have been wasted.

enjoy!

smaller

[Ormly]

Greetings

A small(er) observation. God never meant The Good News to be understood completely or by all but by a few. Most find the "broad path" that leads to you know where. That is what "they" were meant to find.

For example, concerning The Law:

Galatians 3:19
Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions

Did The Law stem the tide of lawlessness? No!

Romans 5:20
Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:

This law added and causing the offence abounding is also a portion of God's Plan.

I have postulated that if the God given Law made the offence abound, then Grace and Truth in Jesus Christ accelerated the offence to an even greater degree, and this prior to the absolute and final judgment of this creation.

This working is exemplified in the so called "church" just as the abounding of lawlessness abounded in The Pharisees and Saducees. Jesus had His Harshest Words for "them."

Look around you. Do you see the divisions in the "church?" Yea! Jesus did His Deal then didn't He?

So were boundries of understandings of any sort even in question in this observation? No.

Jesus came to set a fire and bring His Sword of Division."

Luke 12:49
I am come to send fire on the earth;

Luke 12:
51 Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division

To separate Mankind from their "sins."

Matthew 1:21
And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

AND if you do not believe this, it does not matter. You were not meant to.

Your body is or will used in the judgment of THE SINS that inhabit it, and your life will not have been wasted.

enjoy!

smaller
Your perspective is totally onesided. You keep pressing the point that the glass is half empty while it is plain to see that it is half full. Funny, Calvinists never mention but one side of a knowledge that has both positive as well as negative attributes; the negative, of course, is emphasised as all that doesn't measure up to their definitions regardless of how wrong the definitions are. Their mind is made up and snapped shut.

:ahem:rm

John 1.9

[Starkman]

It would seem that a person must first come to realize that things are not as they should be; that he never lives up to his knowledge of right and wrong, of living rightly rather than wrongly, that "evil" thoughts and actions cannot be the norm. One must, therefore, be willing to conceed something is wrong in his own life and in life in general, or he will have no need of an answer...you can't convince one that he is going to drown in his leaky life boat if he doesn't believe there's a leak.

Since there was no Bible during the apostles' times, there doesn't need to be a Bible (in the seeker's hands) today in order to find answers. There does, however, have to be someone who can share something of the Bible's message of salvation to the seeker. That message must consist of core beliefs that both answer the person's dilemma (things are not as they ought to be) and are common among all other sharings of the message.

The message:
Neither man nor life are as they ought to be. Man was created to be in relationship with God, but chose otherwise, which he was free to do; however, the results of choosing otherwise meant that man would thrust himself into a conundrum out of which he would never be able to get out: trying to live as his own god and suffering the ramifications of doing so; for there is only one God, one maker of all. Man, therefore, needs forgiveness because he has not lived up to what he knows ought to be, and he has encouraged others to do the same. Man has committed atrocities for which he is both accountable. Man is in a hopeless position and cannot rescue himself.

God sent His Son Jesus to address the issue; born into the world but not into the confines of the conundrum that is upon all other men. Jesus claimed to be the bridge between God and man, thereby making it possible for God to have relationship with man again. The claim consisted of His need to die on behalf of mankind--there must be the shedding of blood for forgiveness. There must be a sacrifice from the human race ion order for God to be able to justly relate, once again, with mankind. No one but Jesus could offer this sacrifice, because no one but Jesus was outside the conundrum and could raise from the dead; death must be conquered as well as blood needed to be shed. Jesus offered both in perfect satisfaction to God.

Further, Jesus rose (rose, raised...one of these!) from the dead, proving that He was who He said He was and did what He said He would do. What is now required of man is that he must put his faith in and heart toward the act of Jesus' death and resurrection as the basis for finding relationship possible with God, for having hope that all will one day become as it ought to be. If one places faith in Jesus' death and resurrection as the only means of finding forgiveness and relationship with God, one is promised both forgivenss and everlasting life.

Finally, one proves how true one's faith and heart to God by lifestyle; one will want to please God by living a life that becomes seperated in action from the world's "ought nots" to a love and devotion to what ought to be. One must work out this "salvation" with respect for God and others until death does him part from his physical body.

There are holes here, of course, but the basics, I think, are covered.

(It's certainly good for me to put this in writing from time to time, because it's easy to have it become to slip-shod or loose if it I don't write it out once in a while.)

Starkman

[Ormly]

The message:
Neither man nor life are as they ought to be. Man was created to be in relationship with God,

Let"s stop putting this up as some willy-nilly walk in the park with God thing and explain what that RELATIONSHIP brings with it.


Orm

[GoBahnsen]

Except that God has not yet taken away our sin natures, and we can see Paul in Romans even struggling with that. The Holy Spirit will lead you to all truth spiritually, but the problem is we ourselves do too much getting in the way of that in many various and sundry ways.

In regards to the OP, if you are asking where the line is drawn I would say the following:

1. God is Creator of all the world, and all that is in it.

2. Man is fallen, sinful, and unable to attain heaven on his own. This includes an understanding of one's own fallen, sinful nature.

3. Jesus is God. He came and lived the perfect life we could not, died on the cross, and rose on the third day.

4. One must place all of their faith and trust in Christ in order to come to the Father.

5. a repenting and turning from one's former ways will and must accompany that placing of faith.

That would be the bare minimum. There are others that would be nescacary for any kind of victorious Christian life at all, but I believe that at the core the above is enough for a true conversion to Christ.Man, where were all you guys in the God hater sticky thread? I thought it might be good to open up a related thread, because the regulars just weren't going up there.


Todd, don't know if you read any of Mr. Carpenters remarks in that other thread, but he would want to press for the meaning of your 5 essentials you listed, especially #3. Jesus died on the cross. Ok, so did the Mormon jesus
(the JW jesus died on a pole, so he's really strange), so Carpenter has a legitament concern in that way. In other words...which Jesus and what/who did he actually die for? And can we separtate Jesus from His work.

These guys from Outside The Camp (OTC) are pretty good at working arguments for particular redemption... that seem to paint universal Atonement advocates into a corner, then with no apparent way of escape they pronounce all Arminians unregenerate for believing in another jesus and another atonement.

[GoBahnsen]

Actually Mark's logic isn't off. Why aren't we on the same page? I mean even Calvinists disagree on certain important topics - for instance the universal offer of atonement. And as you said - eschatology. Isn't the Holy Spirit suppose to lead us into all truth? So one would have to believe that God wants Christians to hold somethings in error. If He didn't we wouldn't.
seer, you really are changing aren't you? If Marc's logic is right on, then you and I are unregenerate. To answer your question, I would say that the Holy Spirit certainly led the original Apostles into all truth, as for the rest of us (the elect), He certainly is our Teacher, but like Todd has pointed out, we can get in the way.

OTC is saying that true Christians must and will have the Gospel essentials properly understood and believed. Well, who can argue with that? Yet we Christians, so called, sure do have some important disagreements and according to OTC, they are essential at points.

In my OP I pointed out a question that seemed to make OTC suddenly go quiet. They are probably in a huddle right now trying to figure out my bad logic. But is my logic bad? If God makes certain that the elect have a proper understanding of the Atonement when He regenerates them, then why stop there?

See... OTC knows that we can't have perfect Theology. They don't claim perfection in Theology for themselves. But they do claim perfection in the essential core (whatever that is for the moment) doctrines of the Gospel. So, that being... Calvinistic doctrines of grace, they claim Arminians have a different gospel and Calvinists who don't recognize this are unregenerate too.

[smaller]

[QUOTE=Ormly]Your perspective is totally onesided. You keep pressing the point that the glass is half empty while it is plain to see that it is half full. Funny, Calvinists never mention but one side of a knowledge that has both positive as well as negative attributes; the negative, of course, is emphasised as all that doesn't measure up to their definitions regardless of how wrong the definitions are. Their mind is made up and snapped shut.

Ormly, do you actually have some type, hopefully logical type of rebuttal, or just this more of this vain accusation stuff that has no direct engagement.

Here is my rebuttal. The glass is half empty and it will be fully emptied.

Then it will be refilled.

[GoBahnsen]

[QUOTE=Ormly]Your perspective is totally onesided. You keep pressing the point that the glass is half empty while it is plain to see that it is half full. Funny, Calvinists never mention but one side of a knowledge that has both positive as well as negative attributes; the negative, of course, is emphasised as all that doesn't measure up to their definitions regardless of how wrong the definitions are. Their mind is made up and snapped shut.

Ormly, do you actually have some type, hopefully logical type of rebuttal, or just this more of this vain accusation stuff that has no direct engagement.

Here is my rebuttal. The glass is half empty and it will be fully emptied.

Then it will be refilled.I'd say something here, but apparently my "mind is already made up and snapped shut." So why bother?

[lee_merrill]

Hi everyone,

Well, I would rather talk about specific doctrines, rather than which ones are essential, though certainly some truths are more critical. But I don't want to say that any truth is unimportant! "Can the eye say to the hand etc."

But can we ask: is acknowledgement of certain truths required for salvation? Well, I think even infants in the womb can rely on God, in a saving way:

Psalm 22:10 From birth I was cast upon you; from my mother's womb you have been my God.

Psalm 71:6 From birth I have relied on you; you brought me forth from my mother's womb. I will ever praise you.

So, I don't think we have to know certain facts, rather, we have to know Jesus, to submit to him, to be saved. And little children can sense the presence of the Lord, like John the Baptist in the womb! And respond to him too, maybe better than grownups.

But that being said, there are facts every believer will acknowledge, when they can understand them:

1 John 5:1 Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God.

Those who deny this are not believers:

1 John 2:22 Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a man is the antichrist-- he denies the Father and the Son.

But those who are unable to understand speech, for instance, or infants who can't understand words, may be in Christ, without knowing this fact per se, yet knowing and submitting to Jesus.

Paul starts out in the manner of a creed, in describing the gospel:

1 Corinthians 15:3-5 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter …

But then he trails off, and starts giving his testimony! That's not part of what you put in a creed. But I don't think Paul got off-topic, or got distracted from what he was saying. I think this was so we wouldn't put down "Five points that sum up the gospel, that everyone must believe to be saved."

"Faith is more than Creed. Faith concerns itself with a person. We are saved and blessed by the faith that passes through the facts of our Savior's life to Himself. We rest not on the atonement, but on Him who made it; not on the death, but on Him who died; not on the resurrection, but on Him who rose, ascended, and ever lives to make intercession; not in statements about Him, but in Him of whom they are made."

- F.B. Meyer

Blessings,
Lee

[seer]

seer, you really are changing aren't you? If Marc's logic is right on, then you and I are unregenerate. To answer your question, I would say that the Holy Spirit certainly led the original Apostles into all truth, as for the rest of us (the elect), He certainly is our Teacher, but like Todd has pointed out, we can get in the way.

OTC is saying that true Christians must and will have the Gospel essentials properly understood and believed. Well, who can argue with that? Yet we Christians, so called, sure do have some important disagreements and according to OTC, they are essential at points.

In my OP I pointed out a question that seemed to make OTC suddenly go quiet. They are probably in a huddle right now trying to figure out my bad logic. But is my logic bad? If God makes certain that the elect have a proper understanding of the Atonement when He regenerates them, then why stop there?

See... OTC knows that we can't have perfect Theology. They don't claim perfection in Theology for themselves. But they do claim perfection in the essential core (whatever that is for the moment) doctrines of the Gospel. So, that being... Calvinistic doctrines of grace, they claim Arminians have a different gospel and Calvinists who don't recognize this are unregenerate too.

Well GB, I have to ask - is it that God can't get us all on the same page or is it that He wants some of His children to hold false doctrines? I do not see any other choice.

[seer]

These guys from Outside The Camp (OTC) are pretty good at working arguments for particular redemption... that seem to paint universal Atonement advocates into a corner, then with no apparent way of escape they pronounce all Arminians unregenerate for believing in another jesus and another atonement.

I will debate any one of them on particular redemption. Get them to post here. I bet their arguments are not as solid as you suggest.

[seer]

I think it is clear from scripture (for instance, start with 2 Pet 1:19-21) that the Holy Spirit overcame that in the writting of Scripture. Why then and not now? Because then He was giving us the guidebook that could lead us to all truth, but now it is upon us to seek it. We have the choice now, we can choose to submit ourselves to the Spirit and seek Him, or we can choose to get in the way. We have the Scriptures to guide us - unfortunately too many are still too stuborn to do so.


I do not believe that helps. I know both Calvinists and Arminians who are humble and committed to God and His word - but still they differ on many important points. And I do not see why God would not want us all on the same page - we have the same Holy Spirit that inspired the writers.

[Berean Todd]

And I do not see why God would not want us all on the same page - we have the same Holy Spirit that inspired the writers.My personal view on this? Because a world where everything is vanilla would be very boring. In other words there are all kinds of people and it takes all kinds of churches to reach them. Some might lead to a more mature Christianity than others, but as long as my original 5 points are being met, then lives are being reached for Christ. There are charismatic churches reaching people my church never could, there are legalistic churches reaching people mine never would, and there are people my church is reaching that the others would never reach. Man is fallen and sinful and God wants us to come to Him - "behold I stand at the door and knock, if any would open the door I will come in and sup with him and he with Me."

[Xmansmommy]

Good points Todd. :thumb:

[GoBahnsen]

My personal view on this? Because a world where everything is vanilla would be very boring. In other words there are all kinds of people and it takes all kinds of churches to reach them. Some might lead to a more mature Christianity than others, but as long as my original 5 points are being met, then lives are being reached for Christ. There are charismatic churches reaching people my church never could, there are legalistic churches reaching people mine never would, and there are people my church is reaching that the others would never reach. Man is fallen and sinful and God wants us to come to Him - "behold I stand at the door and knock, if any would open the door I will come in and sup with him and he with Me."Todd, hide this post under your bed. All of us who have seen it so far promise not to tell. I just hope the OTC doesn't get a hold of this one. They just might find a way to party all week with lines like: "there are legalistic churches reaching people mine never would".

I think I know what you mean, but they won't. BTW, what do you mean?

[GoBahnsen]

These guys from Outside The Camp (OTC) are pretty good at working arguments for particular redemption... that seem to paint universal Atonement advocates into a corner, then with no apparent way of escape they pronounce all Arminians unregenerate for believing in another jesus and another atonement.

I will debate any one of them on particular redemption. Get them to post here. I bet their arguments are not as solid as you suggest.I'm e-mailing Marc the challenge now.

[seer]

I'm e-mailing Marc the challenge now.

Cool, bring him over!

[Berean Todd]

Todd, hide this post under your bed. All of us who have seen it so far promise not to tell. I just hope the OTC doesn't get a hold of this one. They just might find a way to party all week with lines like: "there are legalistic churches reaching people mine never would".

I think I know what you mean, but they won't. BTW, what do you mean?
I mean what I said. There is a core belief and doctrine that we can not compromise and still claim Christianity. Mormons are simply not Christians because they preach another Christ, one with no power, and no salvation. Same with JW's. Muslims will not come to the Father unless they repent and turn to Christ. I fully hold, believe and affirm the Bible when it says:

Ephesians 4:4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling;
5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism,
6 one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all.

But, if we are within that one faith, one baptism, one Gospel - we must be able to see that there are many ways of delivering and practicing that message. Some churches are charismatic - and as long as they are not falling into the appostacy of Word of Faith, or modalism or tongues-as-nescacary-for-salvation then there is no problem with that. Others are very dry and stale, but as long as it's the same Gospel being preached that is fine as well, there are people they are reaching. Others are middle of the road. That is fine as well.

Now, some churches are more conduscive to discipling someone into a mature Christianity, but that does not negate the fact that churches where there may be almost no spiritual maturity at all may well be reaching people with the message of Christ in great numbers. Now, they should strive to be more Biblical, more correct, because they will be accountable for their ministry, but the point is I believe there are so many denominations and styles of church because that is what is needed to reach so many people.

Now, let me clarify also - the active reason for so many splits and doctrinal differences is our fallen nature, our selfish ways, our innability to put off the old man and let the Spirit guide us into truth. But God could get past that - He did with the writters of Scripture. But I think that it is allowed because that is what will reach the most lives with the Gospel.

That's my opinion in any case. Practically I'm very much conservative, but I also am open to God's moving, and have, if you would call it that, more permissive views in areas such as this. We still must stand up against apostacy, against false teaching, against those who would lead astray the flock. But accept that someone doesn't have to think just like you in order to be doing the Lord's work and be in the Lord's will.

[GoBahnsen]

I mean what I said. There is a core belief and doctrine that we can not compromise and still claim Christianity. I agree, but so many of us are really masters of ambiguity as well. We can define that core belief as long as we don't have to define it. I'll say that again in other words. Most of us evangelicals agree that there is a core essential doctrinal Christianity, but we just don't want to define exactly what that is.

This is frustrating to many minds. OTC, being a prime example. They are a group that has decided that there is clear definition. Ok, so fine, but their noble attempt at clear definition also caused them to find out there are no Christians.



Mormons are simply not Christians because they preach another Christ, one with no power, and no salvation. Same with JW's. Muslims will not come to the Father unless they repent and turn to Christ. I fully hold, believe and affirm the Bible when it says:
Well, you are classic fodder for OTC. As much as I disagree with them for being too narrow, I must confess that the ambiguity in the Church toady is running amuck.



[QUOTE]
Ephesians 4:4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling;
5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism,
6 one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all.

But, if we are within that one faith, one baptism, one Gospel - we must be able to see that there are many ways of delivering and practicing that message. Some churches are charismatic - and as long as they are not falling into the appostacy of Word of Faith, or modalism or tongues-as-nescacary-for-salvation then there is no problem with that. Others are very dry and stale, but as long as it's the same Gospel being preached that is fine as well, there are people they are reaching. Others are middle of the road. That is fine as well.

Now, some churches are more conduscive to discipling someone into a mature Christianity, but that does not negate the fact that churches where there may be almost no spiritual maturity at all may well be reaching people with the message of Christ in great numbers. Now, they should strive to be more Biblical, more correct, because they will be accountable for their ministry, but the point is I believe there are so many denominations and styles of church because that is what is needed to reach so many people.

Now, let me clarify also - the active reason for so many splits and doctrinal differences is our fallen nature, our selfish ways, our innability to put off the old man and let the Spirit guide us into truth. But God could get past that - He did with the writters of Scripture. But I think that it is allowed because that is what will reach the most lives with the Gospel.

That's my opinion in any case. Practically I'm very much conservative, but I also am open to God's moving, and have, if you would call it that, more permissive views in areas such as this. We still must stand up against apostacy, against false teaching,
But how do we do that without strictly identifying the Gospel? Without giving it clear boundaries? We say words, phrases, we nod in happy agreement, but when we begin to DEFINE what we mean, friendships often dissolve into non-friendships. So we learn to not talk. So we learn to not talk. So we learn to not talk. So we learn to not talk. So we learn to not talk. So we learn to not talk. So we learn to not talk. So we learn to not talk. So we learn to not talk.



against those who would lead astray the flock. But accept that someone doesn't have to think just like you in order to be doing the Lord's work and be in the Lord's will.
So we learn to not talk. Just smile and say "praise the Lord brother." I don't know...

[GoBahnsen]

It would seem that a person must first come to realize that things are not as they should be; that he never lives up to his knowledge of right and wrong, of living rightly rather than wrongly, that "evil" thoughts and actions cannot be the norm. One must, therefore, be willing to conceed something is wrong in his own life and in life in general, or he will have no need of an answer...you can't convince one that he is going to drown in his leaky life boat if he doesn't believe there's a leak.

Since there was no Bible during the apostles' times, there doesn't need to be a Bible (in the seeker's hands) today in order to find answers. There does, however, have to be someone who can share something of the Bible's message of salvation to the seeker. That message must consist of core beliefs that both answer the person's dilemma (things are not as they ought to be) and are common among all other sharings of the message.

The message:
Neither man nor life are as they ought to be. Man was created to be in relationship with God, but chose otherwise, which he was free to do; however, the results of choosing otherwise meant that man would thrust himself into a conundrum out of which he would never be able to get out: trying to live as his own god and suffering the ramifications of doing so; for there is only one God, one maker of all. Man, therefore, needs forgiveness because he has not lived up to what he knows ought to be, and he has encouraged others to do the same. Man has committed atrocities for which he is both accountable. Man is in a hopeless position and cannot rescue himself.

God sent His Son Jesus to address the issue; born into the world but not into the confines of the conundrum that is upon all other men. Jesus claimed to be the bridge between God and man, thereby making it possible for God to have relationship with man again. The claim consisted of His need to die on behalf of mankind--there must be the shedding of blood for forgiveness. There must be a sacrifice from the human race ion order for God to be able to justly relate, once again, with mankind. No one but Jesus could offer this sacrifice, because no one but Jesus was outside the conundrum and could raise from the dead; death must be conquered as well as blood needed to be shed. Jesus offered both in perfect satisfaction to God.

Further, Jesus rose (rose, raised...one of these!) from the dead, proving that He was who He said He was and did what He said He would do. What is now required of man is that he must put his faith in and heart toward the act of Jesus' death and resurrection as the basis for finding relationship possible with God, for having hope that all will one day become as it ought to be. If one places faith in Jesus' death and resurrection as the only means of finding forgiveness and relationship with God, one is promised both forgivenss and everlasting life.

Finally, one proves how true one's faith and heart to God by lifestyle; one will want to please God by living a life that becomes seperated in action from the world's "ought nots" to a love and devotion to what ought to be. One must work out this "salvation" with respect for God and others until death does him part from his physical body.

There are holes here, of course, but the basics, I think, are covered.

(It's certainly good for me to put this in writing from time to time, because it's easy to have it become to slip-shod or loose if it I don't write it out once in a while.)

Starkman it certainly is good to think it through again and again, lest we become slip-shod or loose.

[Trout]

the Church toady is running amuck.

My church doesn't even have a toady. :huh:

Are they necessary for true fellowship?

[lee_merrill]

Hi everyone,

I do not see why God would not want us all on the same page - we have the same Holy Spirit that inspired the writers.God is into processes! Seeds and puppies and babies and kittens…

Philippians 3:15-16 And if on some point you think differently, that too God will make clear to you. Only let us live up to what we have already attained.

Paul recognizes the process here, and he doesn't say "get busy and repent" for mistakes, he just says "hold onto what you have, and God will work out the rest." Of course, deliberate rejection of truth is another matter, but Paul says it takes time to learn, and work it out...

Blessings,
Lee

[GoBahnsen]

My church doesn't even have a toady. :huh:

Are they necessary for true fellowship?Well, not really, but...that's a shame. We have several toadies at our Church. They usually run amuck, but if you're real quiet, they will just sit there and you can muse over them.

You know, Lee is actually putting up some good posts here. Thanks Lee.

You too trout. Glad you have a sense of humor.

[smaller]

I'd say something here, but apparently my "mind is already made up and snapped shut." So why bother?

OTC is no different than any of "you."

You all read what is applied to lawlessness and see that these things are indeed right and from God, and that God is surely against certain things.

What we might "all" be mindful of is that what was written to the lawless will "never" be heeded, nor were they, the lawless, meant to "heed" or "obey"
or come to "consensus." This "working" of "lawlessness" IS IN ALL PEOPLE.

The Law concludes that ALLLLL are UNDER sin.

Because you are a Child of God can you say you have NO SIN in your body and be IN TRUTH? Never while you occupy your present "Temple." A "man of sin" sits in your temple, thinking himself as "God." You are ALL defiled in this way in the body of flesh. I count myself in the same way.

How then can OTC, or ANYONE condemn other people to "eternal torture" (OR total annihilation) from "compromised Temples???"

This condemnation of others which the OTC, and nearly ALL other groups PRACTICE, has permanently blinded ALL PEOPLE who practice it. It is a form of Molech Worship. Sacrificing "God's Children" to the flames due to a false god.

Can you not hear your brothers blood crying from the ground???

God is a God of Perpetual Judgement. He is a God of SEPARATIONS and DIVISIONS.

His Role is to separate SHEEP from GOATS. He did so while He walked this earth, and does so to this very day. He separated MANkind from SIN kind. He cast out THE DEVILs from among PEOPLE and He healed them.

Mankind are HIS SHEEP.

The Devil and his messengers are "the goats."

When you see the "goat(s)" in yourself you will SEPARATE yourself from "them" and also from your fellow, mankind, just as Jesus DID.

As long as "we" live in the eternal condemnation of others, your defiled temple is filled with false smoke/incense and false fire. Remember how you measure is how you yourself are measured. If you hold sins against others, yours are held against you. This is the measure of ETERNAL TORTURE to the voice of such LIES. Is it to YOU then? No. Your body is their mouthpiece when you make this false measure.

When this hypocrisy and false judgment is put away (you must tend your garden by your own hand-separate the weeds and thorns out of it) The Word comes and heals us in Truth.

You, none of you, are fit to condemn ANY PERSON to BURN IN HELL FOREVER (or eternally annihilated.) This false judgment of others will keep you away from God's Word until the day your own physical temple crumbles.

Satan and his messengers remain condemned under The Word. They will ALL be slaughtered on that Great and Terrible Day. Til then they are still here.

The difficulty is these things DWELL IN PEOPLE, allllll people.

A DIVISION of God's Word is spoken to THESE THINGS (the devil and his messengers) that dwell IN PEOPLE, and some of God's Word is to the SLAVES of THESE THINGS (ranging from unbeliever to us,) and some of God's Words are for those who WALK IN AND WITH THE TRUTH as His servants.

The difficulty is that we, most of us, cannot discern US from THEM from the slaves.

As such we ALL (believers) remain part slave of darkness, part Truth Walker. Paul walked in the SAME WAY.

Those who walk in the eternal judgment of other people are the lowest form of slave, as they mete out the greatest form of hatred and sin that one person can measure to another person.

Such eternal judgement is reserved for God alone to the devil and his messengers that HE MADE for those very purposes that continue to happen to this day. God will destroy those who destroy His Temple.

Who desires TRUTH??? Truth=Love=Spirit=Word is all that matters, all that has ever mattered, all that ever will matter.

Now watch how Joseph tests his brothers, and see if you can hear a truth of The Truth. If you bear the hand of the accuser of others YOU are it's slave:

Genesis 42:16
Send one of you, and let him fetch your brother, and ye shall be kept in prison, that your words may be proved, whether there be any truth in you: or else by the life of Pharaoh surely ye are spies.

Do you remain in prison as a spy???

Or has The Word put His Light on YOUR path??? Narrow is The Way that leads to LIFE and few there be that find it. Most will remain locked into DESTRUCTION.

enjoy!

smaller

[GoBahnsen]

GoBahnsen wrote: <<And neither Marc nor yourself are anwering my question which is now a part of my OP in Where are the Boundaries? A review of OTC Theology tread here in 201. If you can't answer that, then maybe your house of cards is falling.>>

Nahum:I can answer that. I just haven't been able to get to the computer. I do have a life beyond the computer you know. I would like to be in front of it longer, but I have other obligations as well. Like work for instance.
We all have lives beyond the computer, like work for instance. I'm a patient man, take your time friend.

GoBahnsen wrote: <<How about this, and I'm asking the third time: Why doesn't God give His elect a right knowledge of doctrine outside of soteriology? Why can they be wrong on eschatology, but not the Atonement?>>


Nahum:God says in Mark 16:16 that those who do not believe the gospel are unregenerate. He says in 1 Corinthians 15:3 that the gospel includes the truth "that Christ died for our sins, according to the Scriptures." Thus, those who do not believe the truth "that Christ died for our sins, according to the Scriptures" are unregenerate.
So they have to have a perfect understanding? (a form of perfectionism) And God sees to this? Then doesn't God see to it in the whole of their Theology?


GoBahnsen, in Mark 16:16 Jesus says that those who do not believe the gospel will be condemned. In 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, Paul gives a list of the truths included in the gospel.

So, in light of Mark 16:16 and 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, do you know of any eschatological view that would be opposed to the truth that, "Christ died for our sins, according to the Scriptures"? In other words, do you know of any "heretical" echatological view in which the person propounding it, believes that it was something he did, or something that God enabled him to do, that made the ultimate difference between salvation, and damnation?
No, but there is the all crucial doctrine of the Second coming. Can someone deny the second coming and be saved? I believe full preterists might do this. But what if they have OTC soteriology, but they think Jesus already returned and there is no future coming to look forward to? Would God allow His elect to get that wrong as long as they have it right about the exact substitutionary work of Christ?

Personally, I would not want to be the one who is denying the second coming is yet future, nor do I want to die having the Gospel messed up, but either way, God is going to get me to heaven or He is not.


To reiterate, you had asked: <<Why doesn't God give His elect a right knowledge of doctrine outside of soteriology? Why can they be wrong on eschatology, but not the Atonement?>>

In John 17:3, Jesus says, "And this is everlasting life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom You have sent."

So, to answer your question: The knowledge given to God's elect at regeneration is the knowledge of the only true God, and Jesus Christ. Eternal life is to KNOW the only true God, and Jesus Christ. And of course, to KNOW Jesus Christ is to KNOW who He is, and WHAT He accomplished. His Person and His Work. Regarding John 17:3, Jesus did NOT say, "And this is everlasting life, that they may know the correct view of eschatology, or whether or not there should be a plurality of elders, or whether or not paedo/credo is the correct baptismal view, or whether or not one should eat meat or just eat vegetables, etc.
Well, I guess this can be rather subjective to one's interpretation. The whole Bible reveals God to the Christian. To know God better is to know the whole Bible better, not just the Atonement. So I think you would have a hard time separating eschatology out of John 17:3. Nice try though.

So you are specializing in certain aspects of the whole of scripture, saying that the elect will have these parts supernaturally correct, but other parts of the whole, God doesn't consider as crucial?


If one does not know who Christ is, then they cannot know what He accomplished. If one does not know what Christ accomplished, then they cannot know who He is. The view of universal atonement advocates is that Christ did not accomplish salvation at the cross, He only made salvation possible. Thus they deny that Christ is a Savior.


Chris

P.S. If I'm "still not answering your question" then reword it, expound a little, help me to understand what your point is, etc. An evangelical Arminian believes Jesus is God, that His death takes away sin, that Jesus is the only way to the Father. Not to mention the resurrection of Christ, bodily from the grave for justification.

Granted, they see Christ's work as universal in scope, but then a cursory reading of Scripture seems to teach that. It takes quite a lot of digging to come to the particular redemption understanding.

OTC is basically denying that, saying particular redemption is the plain reading of the text. I don't see that. Particular redemption is part of the strong meat of Scripture that many a babe in Christ chokes on, still only having taken milk. You say they are unregenerate because they cannot swallow the meat. That's untennable in my view.

[GoBahnsen]

I do not believe that helps. I know both Calvinists and Arminians who are humble and committed to God and His word - but still they differ on many important points. And I do not see why God would not want us all on the same page - we have the same Holy Spirit that inspired the writers.
OTC says we do not have the same Holy Spirit. That only the regenerate have the Holy Spirit and the Arminians and tolerant Calvinists do not. Personally, I think it is often too hard to judge, who has the Holy Spirit.

I find it enough of a challenge to make sure I do, let alone trouble myself with other's genuineness of faith. That's God's business, but OTC has made it theirs as well.

That isn't to say that we don't care if others are saved, but that determining whether they really are or are not is not always crystal clear to us. At my Church, the Elders examine a person before they accept him/her as a communicate member.

But in the final analysis, it will be found that all Churches will have accepted tares as the real thing. It is God who separates the wheat from the tares, not us.

[Nahum]

seer wrote: <<I will debate any one of them on particular redemption. Get them to post here. I bet their arguments are not as solid as you suggest.>>

This post below was originally posted a couple of times by Marc in response to those who hold to a universal atonement (which is really no atonement at all). But since I have more time available than does Marc, I will start off this discussion with the following post, and maybe seer can respond to it.

<<My first questions to [seer] are these: If Christ died for the sins of everyone without exception, then what is it that makes the difference between salvation and damnation? Since Christ did the same thing for those in heaven as he did in hell, what makes the difference between a person's going to heaven and a person's going to hell?

I now have some more specific questions for you. I'll first give you a Scripture verse and then ask some questions.

"On the morrow, John sees Jesus coming toward him and said, Behold! The Lamb of God, taking away the sin of the world!" (Joh 1:29)

Do you believe that Christ was taking away the sin of everyone without exception?

What does "taking away the sin" mean?

"For the love of Christ constrains us, having judged this, that if One died for all, then all died; and He died for all, that the living ones may live no more to themselves, but to the One having died for them and having been raised." (2Co 5:14-15)

Do you believe that Christ died for everyone without exception?

What does "died for" mean?

"as, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not charging their trespasses to them, and having put the Word of reconciliation in us." (2Co 5:19)

Do you believe that God in Christ was reconciling everyone without exception unto Himself?

What does "reconciling" mean?

Do you believe that God in Christ was not charging the trespasses of everyone without exeption to them?

What does "not charging their trespasses to them" mean?

"the One having given Himself a ransom on behalf of all, the testimony to be given in its own time." (1Ti 2:6)

Do you believe that Christ gave Himself a ransom on behalf of everyone without exception?

What does "ransom" mean?

"for to this we also labor and are reproached, because we hope on the living God, who is Savior of all men, especially of believers." (1Ti 4:10)

Do you believe that Christ is the Savior of everyone without exception?
What does "Savior" mean?

"but we do see Jesus crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death was made a little less than the angels, so that by the grace of God He might taste death for all." (Heb 2:9)

Do you believe that Christ tasted death for everyone without exception?

What does "taste death for" mean?

"But false prophets were also among the people, as also false teachers will be among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, and denying the Master who has bought them, bringing swift destruction on themselves." (2Pe 2:1)

Do you believe that Christ bought everyone without exception?

What does "bought" mean?

"And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for all the world." (1Jo 2:2)

Do you believe that Christ is the propitiation for the sins of everyone without exception?

What does "propitiation" mean?>>

Chris

[GoBahnsen]

[QUOTE]
seer wrote: <<I will debate any one of them on particular redemption. Get them to post here. I bet their arguments are not as solid as you suggest.>>

This post below was originally posted a couple of times by Marc in response to those who hold to a universal atonement (which is really no atonement at all). But since I have more time available than does Marc, I will start off this discussion with the following post, and maybe seer can respond to it.

<<My first questions to [seer] are these: If Christ died for the sins of everyone without exception, then what is it that makes the difference between salvation and damnation? Since Christ did the same thing for those in heaven as he did in hell, what makes the difference between a person's going to heaven and a person's going to hell?

Well, I'm not seer, but I hope he gets over here and gives it a go. Since I haven't participated with this reduction line of argumentation yet, I just wanted to say that the difference between heaven and hell and who's not going to hell is a five letter word...grace.


I now have some more specific questions for you. I'll first give you a Scripture verse and then ask some questions.

"On the morrow, John sees Jesus coming toward him and said, Behold! The Lamb of God, taking away the sin of the world!" (Joh 1:29)

Do you believe that Christ was taking away the sin of everyone without exception?
Christ was taking away the sin of all who would believe.

What does "taking away the sin" mean? Forgive them of it. Blot it out. Remember it no more.



"For the love of Christ constrains us, having judged this, that if One died for all, then all died; and He died for all, that the living ones may live no more to themselves, but to the One having died for them and having been raised." (2Co 5:14-15)

Do you believe that Christ died for everyone without exception?
He certainly died a death that invites all sinners to come and be washed. But, being a Calvinist, I do believe His death was for His own people.

What does "died for" mean? Took their place. Substitutionary.



"as, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not charging their trespasses to them, and having put the Word of reconciliation in us." (2Co 5:19)

Do you believe that God in Christ was reconciling everyone without exception unto Himself?
No, only believers.


What does "reconciling" mean? To bring together that which had been separated through offense.



Do you believe that God in Christ was not charging the trespasses of everyone without exeption to them?
To everyone who comes to Him, He will in no wise cast them out.


What does "not charging their trespasses to them" mean?
What it says.



"the One having given Himself a ransom on behalf of all, the testimony to be given in its own time." (1Ti 2:6)

Do you believe that Christ gave Himself a ransom on behalf of everyone without exception?
No, only for believers

What does "ransom" mean? To pay a debt owed in order to set a person free.


"for to this we also labor and are reproached, because we hope on the living God, who is Savior of all men, especially of believers." (1Ti 4:10)

Do you believe that Christ is the Savior of everyone without exception?
What does "Savior" mean?

Well, this verse certainly is a thorny one on the surface of it for us Calvinists, but I think the writer is merely referring to the fact that Jesus is the Savior of all men, not just the Jews. But He really only saves those who believe.


"but we do see Jesus crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death was made a little less than the angels, so that by the grace of God He might taste death for all." (Heb 2:9)

Do you believe that Christ tasted death for everyone without exception?

What does "taste death for" mean? Another tough verse for Calvinists and OTC wonders why so many are universal Atonement advocates. Again, I think Jesus tasted death for both Jew and Gentile, but only for those who would believe.


"But false prophets were also among the people, as also false teachers will be among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, and denying the Master who has bought them, bringing swift destruction on themselves." (2Pe 2:1)

Do you believe that Christ bought everyone without exception?

What does "bought" mean?
I think that verse is saying that these false teachers were denying the atonement altogether. In other words it can read "denying the Master having bought them." They were denying the redemptive aspect of Christ work. Saying Jesus did not purchase a people for Salvation.



"And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for all the world." (1Jo 2:2)

Do you believe that Christ is the propitiation for the sins of everyone without exception?

What does "propitiation" mean?>>

ChrisThe classic Arminian text. I believe Christ propitiated the wrath of God against all who would/will believe in Him alone for salvation. Thanks for the Sunday School lesson. Good night.

[seer]

My first questions to [seer] are these: If Christ died for the sins of everyone without exception, then what is it that makes the difference between salvation and damnation? Since Christ did the same thing for those in heaven as he did in hell, what makes the difference between a person's going to heaven and a person's going to hell?

A good place to start. Faith is the difference, one is justified by faith in Christ's blood. Just as Christ's atonement was of NO value to you (one of the elect) until you believed, Christ's universal offer of atonement is only effective towards those who believe. So unless you believe that you were justified from birth, there was a time in your life when Christ's work on the cross was of NO effect.

And I will take one proof text at a time:

"But false prophets were also among the people, as also false teachers will be among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, and denying the Master who has bought them, bringing swift destruction on themselves." (2Pe 2:1)

Do you believe that Christ bought everyone without exception?

What does "bought" mean?

gb
I think that verse is saying that these false teachers were denying the atonement altogether. In other words it can read "denying the Master having bought them." They were denying the redemptive aspect of Christ work. Saying Jesus did not purchase a people for Salvation.

GB, this is a reach. Clearly this says that Christ bought THEM. The false teachers. The same greek (agorazo) is used for the redemption of believers:

1 Cor.6:20

"Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, which you have from God? You are not your own; you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body."

7:23

"For he who was called in the Lord as a slave is a freedman of the Lord. Likewise he who was free when called is a slave of Christ. You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men."

[GoBahnsen]

My first questions to [seer] are these: If Christ died for the sins of everyone without exception, then what is it that makes the difference between salvation and damnation? Since Christ did the same thing for those in heaven as he did in hell, what makes the difference between a person's going to heaven and a person's going to hell?

A good place to start. Faith is the difference, one is justified by faith in Christ's blood. Just as Christ's atonement was of NO value to you (one of the elect) until you believed, Christ's universal offer of atonement is only effective towards those who believe. So unless you believe that you were justified from birth, there was a time in your life when Christ's work on the cross was of NO effect.

First off, let me say, I'm glad you're here seer. I look forward to seeing how you work through this exercise OTC likes to put un "unregenerates" through. You know what I find interesting seer, my old arguing buddie, is that you answered the first over-arching question...with faith. Do you really believe that? And I suppose you do, seeing you are not Reformed.

Certainly faith is "a" difference between the saved and lost, but it is not "the" ultimate difference. God did not have to save us even if we did produce our own faith as our "get out of jail" card. For we are saved by grace (Eph 2) and the faith we have, if we have it (for not all have faith 2Thes 3:2), is a gift of grace, so that it is all of grace.

This idea of being saved by our faith is the standard Arminian thought and does imply that we make ourselves to differ from one another. And I can see the idea of "fair play" there. Joe didn't want to exercise his faith in Christ, so he loses, but I did put mine into effect, so I win. I see the rational. I just don't see it as Biblical.


And I will take one proof text at a time:



GB, this is a reach. Clearly this says that Christ bought THEM. The false teachers. The same greek (agorazo) is used for the redemption of believers:

1 Cor.6:20

"Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, which you have from God? You are not your own; you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body."

7:23

"For he who was called in the Lord as a slave is a freedman of the Lord. Likewise he who was free when called is a slave of Christ. You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men."
Well, seer it might be a reach, but it is a difficult verse for anyone. If Jesus purchased the false teachers, then Jesus does not receive that which He purchased. That's a difficulty for you. I think it is a good answer to say that these teachers were denying Christ's Atonement, and that is what made them false.

But particular Redemption doesn't hang on one proof text, nor does it fall on one. Anyway, I'm looking forward to seeing how you deal with OTC in this thread.

Oh and BTW, the other verse you quoted, yes believer's were/are bought, to be sure. No disagreement there.

[smaller]

Seer, GB?

22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:

The righteousness of God by "faith of Jesus Christ" unto all AND...(similar wording to what is used in 1 Tim. 4:10)

always those pesky little details...

[GoBahnsen]

Seer, GB?

22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:

The righteousness of God by "faith of Jesus Christ" unto all AND...(similar wording to what is used in 1 Tim. 4:10)

always those pesky little details...And the point of your pesky little details? Try to be as plain as possible, I'm not good at reading between the lines. Thanks GB

[smaller]

Reading between the lines?

Is the righteousness of God by the faith of Jesus Christ unto ALL as Paul says?

or just you and the other few?

You think you can measure this to you and not to others?

[seer]

Certainly faith is "a" difference between the saved and lost, but it is not "the" ultimate difference. God did not have to save us even if we did produce our own faith as our "get out of jail" card. For we are saved by grace (Eph 2) and the faith we have, if we have it (for not all have faith 2Thes 3:2), is a gift of grace, so that it is all of grace.

Well faith is the condition of salvation. And as you know the text in Eph 2 is pointing to grace being of God, not faith it's self. I agree though that any ability we have to believe comes from God. All good gifts come down from above. But like the with ability not to sin we do not always exercise said gifts.

Well, seer it might be a reach, but it is a difficult verse for anyone. If Jesus purchased the false teachers, then Jesus does not receive that which He purchased. That's a difficulty for you. I think it is a good answer to say that these teachers were denying Christ's Atonement, and that is what made them false.

GB, it says that THEY were in fact bought by Christ. There is no way to minimize it's weight or clear meaning. And this is not a problem for Arminians because we believe that Christ made provision for all men, yet one must first believe before that provision becomes effective.


This idea of being saved by our faith is the standard Arminian thought and does imply that we make ourselves to differ from one another. And I can see the idea of "fair play" there. Joe didn't want to exercise his faith in Christ, so he loses, but I did put mine into effect, so I win. I see the rational. I just don't see it as Biblical.

Of course it is biblical. Why would Christ praise the Roman soldier for having such great faith and chide the Jewish religious leaders for having none? It makes no sense if God caused one to have faith and with held it from another. Praise or rebuke would be meaningless.

[lee_merrill]

Hi everyone,

If Christ died for the sins of everyone without exception, then what is it that makes the difference between salvation and damnation? Since Christ did the same thing for those in heaven as he did in hell, what makes the difference between a person's going to heaven and a person's going to hell?I believe that God ordains repentance, and that we may hope that people can repent, after judgment, even the judgment of hell. Thus the difference is God's choice! And yet Christ dying for all was not ineffective, for any.

"On the morrow, John sees Jesus coming toward him and said, Behold! The Lamb of God, taking away the sin of the world!" (Joh 1:29)

Do you believe that Christ was taking away the sin of everyone without exception?Yes, I think this verse gives us reason to believe that. "Taking away sin" means just that.

"For the love of Christ constrains us, having judged this, that if One died for all, then all died; and He died for all, that the living ones may live no more to themselves, but to the One having died for them and having been raised." (2Co 5:14-15)

Do you believe that Christ died for everyone without exception?Yes, and Paul says "all died," referring, I think, to "death came to all men" (Rom. 5:12), so "died for all" refers to everyone, and means "took their place, so that they could have eternal life."

Do you believe that God in Christ was not charging the trespasses of everyone without exception to them? What does "not charging their trespasses to them" mean?Yes, I believe this means that we may hope that all may be forgiven. And similarly with the verses that followed, such as this one:

"And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for all the world." (1Jo 2:2)

Do you believe that Christ is the propitiation for the sins of everyone without exception?

What does "propitiation" mean?>>Yes, he is the propitiation, for believers, for everyone, which means turning aside God's wrath.

I have a question in reply: Is the offer of salvation to everyone genuine? I don't mean from our perspective, I mean from God's perspective. If God only told us to tell people to repent, I could see little difficulty there. But when God himself tells everyone to "repent and live!", and "whoever wishes, let him come," then we can't say that the reason this offer is to everyone, because it is not known who is coming. God knows that! So is the offer here genuine?

Blessings,
Lee

[GoBahnsen]

Certainly faith is "a" difference between the saved and lost, but it is not "the" ultimate difference. God did not have to save us even if we did produce our own faith as our "get out of jail" card. For we are saved by grace (Eph 2) and the faith we have, if we have it (for not all have faith 2Thes 3:2), is a gift of grace, so that it is all of grace.

Well faith is the condition of salvation. And as you know the text in Eph 2 is pointing to grace being of God, not faith it's self. I agree though that any ability we have to believe comes from God. All good gifts come down from above. But like the with ability not to sin we do not always exercise said gifts.

Well, seer it might be a reach, but it is a difficult verse for anyone. If Jesus purchased the false teachers, then Jesus does not receive that which He purchased. That's a difficulty for you. I think it is a good answer to say that these teachers were denying Christ's Atonement, and that is what made them false.

GB, it says that THEY were in fact bought by Christ. There is no way to minimize it's weight or clear meaning. And this is not a problem for Arminians because we believe that Christ made provision for all men, yet one must first believe before that provision becomes effective.


This idea of being saved by our faith is the standard Arminian thought and does imply that we make ourselves to differ from one another. And I can see the idea of "fair play" there. Joe didn't want to exercise his faith in Christ, so he loses, but I did put mine into effect, so I win. I see the rational. I just don't see it as Biblical.

Of course it is biblical. Why would Christ praise the Roman soldier for having such great faith and chide the Jewish religious leaders for having none? It makes no sense if God caused one to have faith and with held it from another. Praise or rebuke would be meaningless.seer isn't it possible that the Roman soldier was one of God's elect? For it is God who is at work both to do and to will according to His good pleasure. In fact when any of us gets to heaven, we won't be praising our freewills or our faith, but all will be to the praise of God's grace toward His elect.

And those in hell will have no praise for God's grace, because they freely rejected it and were not recipients of it. And I've just got to do the Biblical thing here and remind you that there is mystery involved in this thing called salvation. I was listening to the Bible being quoted on the radio (by an Arminian) and that old Calvinist word "mystery" was right there in the text. There is mystery with God's ways. That's not a Calvinistic cop out.

Eph 1:9 Having made known to us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself:
Eph 5:32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.

Eph 6:19 And for me, that utterance may be given to me, that I may open my mouth boldly, to make known the mystery of the gospel,

Col 1:27 to whom God was pleased to make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory:

1Ti 3:9 Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience.

1Ti 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness; He who was manifested in the flesh, Justified in the spirit, Seen of angels, Preached among the nations, Believed on in the world, Received up in glory.

[seer]

seer isn't it possible that the Roman soldier was one of God's elect? For it is God who is at work both to do and to will according to His good pleasure. In fact when any of us gets to heaven, we won't be praising our freewills or our faith, but all will be to the praise of God's grace toward His elect.

And those in hell will have no praise for God's grace, because they freely rejected it and were not recipients of it. And I've just got to do the Biblical thing here and remind you that there is mystery involved in this thing called salvation. I was listening to the Bible being quoted on the radio (by an Arminian) and that old Calvinist word "mystery" was right there in the text. There is mystery with God's ways. That's not a Calvinistic cop out.

Again praise and rebuke would have little meaning in your model. Why chide the faithless - it's not their fault that they do not have faith - it's God's. And yes, God does work in us, but as Paul said - we must work out our salvation. God's part and man's part. BTW GB, where are your friends from OTC?

[GoBahnsen]

seer isn't it possible that the Roman soldier was one of God's elect? For it is God who is at work both to do and to will according to His good pleasure. In fact when any of us gets to heaven, we won't be praising our freewills or our faith, but all will be to the praise of God's grace toward His elect.

And those in hell will have no praise for God's grace, because they freely rejected it and were not recipients of it. And I've just got to do the Biblical thing here and remind you that there is mystery involved in this thing called salvation. I was listening to the Bible being quoted on the radio (by an Arminian) and that old Calvinist word "mystery" was right there in the text. There is mystery with God's ways. That's not a Calvinistic cop out.

Again piaise and rebuke would have little meaning in your model. Why child the faithless - it's not their fault that they do not have faith - it's God's. And yes, God does work in us, but as Paul said - we must work out our salvation. God's part and man's part. BTW GB, where are your friends from OTC?I've got to take my wife out to dinner and meet with our pastor, so let me just say for the moment: the guys at OTC are not my friends. Though I hope they will become my friends. They do have some good things to say, even though they end up in a very dreadful place IMHO.

Love you seer. Do be nice to Lady. GB

[Nahum]

Seer wrote: <<Of course it is biblical. Why would Christ praise the Roman soldier for having such great faith and chide the Jewish religious leaders for having none? It makes no sense if God caused one to have faith and with held it from another. Praise or rebuke would be meaningless.>>

So, you don't think Christ knew that that "great faith" came from God?
Also, is the matter of salvation even in the context of that "great faith"?

So, you're saying that if God causes one man to believe while He actively causes, and so hardens another man, then praise and rebuke is meaningless? In other words, if man does not have "free-will," praise and rebuke is meaningless? Is that correct?

Well, there is no such monstrosity of free-will taught in the Bible. God controls every action of every man. That doesn't mean that man is unable to think or unable to choose. It's just that God controls what every man thinks and chooses. Let me give you some Scriptures to look at (please read these very closely to see what God causes):

But as for you, ye thought evil against me; [but] God meant it unto good, to
bring to pass, as [it is] this day, to save much people alive. (Gen 50:20)

And the LORD said unto Moses, When thou goest to return into Egypt, see that thou do all those wonders before Pharaoh, which I have put in thine hand: but I will harden his heart, that he shall not let the people go. (Exo 4:21)

And the LORD hardened the heart of Pharaoh, and he hearkened not unto them; as the LORD had spoken unto Moses. (Exo 9:12)

But Sihon king of Heshbon would not let us pass by him: for the LORD thy God
hardened his spirit, and made his heart obstinate, that he might deliver him
into thy hand, as [appeareth] this day. (Deu 2:30)

For it was of the LORD to harden their hearts, that they should come against
Israel in battle, that he might destroy them utterly, [and] that they might
have no favour, but that he might destroy them, as the LORD commanded Moses.
(Jos 11:20)

And Absalom and all the men of Israel said, The counsel of Hushai the
Archite [is] better than the counsel of Ahithophel. For the LORD had
appointed to defeat the good counsel of Ahithophel, to the intent that the
LORD might bring evil upon Absalom. (2Sa 17:14)

So the king hearkened not unto the people: for the cause was of God, that
the LORD might perform his word, which he spake by the hand of Ahijah the
Shilonite to Jeroboam the son of Nebat. (2Ch 10:15)

But Amaziah would not hear; for it [came] of God, that he might deliver them
into the hand [of their enemies], because they sought after the gods of
Edom. (2Ch 25:20)

He turned their heart to hate his people, to deal subtilly with his
servants. (Psa 105:25)

The LORD hath made all [things] for himself: yea, even the wicked for the
day of evil. (Pro 16:4)

The king's heart [is] in the hand of the LORD, [as] the rivers of water: he
turneth it whithersoever he will. (Pro 21:1)

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the
LORD do all these [things]. (Isa 45:7)

Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye
have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: (Act 2:23)

For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both
Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were
gathered together, For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done. (Act 4:27-28)

For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give
their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled.
(Rev 17:17)



Chris

[Nahum]

I have a question in reply: Is the offer of salvation to everyone genuine? I don't mean from our perspective, I mean from God's perspective. If God only told us to tell people to repent, I could see little difficulty there. But when God himself tells everyone to "repent and live!", and "whoever wishes, let him come," then we can't say that the reason this offer is to everyone, because it is not known who is coming. God knows that! So is the offer here genuine?
There is no offer. God does not offer salvation to sinners if the sinners would only do their part. The good news of the gospel is an unconditional promise of salvation that is conditioned on the work of Christ alone. God's covenant of grace is not a conditional covenant. It is a sure and certain covenant that ensures the salvation of all whom God gave to Christ. Scripture refers to it as the "sure mercies of David" (Isaiah 55:3; Acts 13:32-34). It is based on the finished, efficacious work of Christ. God is not waiting for the sinner to respond before He can do His saving work. God saves unconditionally. And when He saves His people, He causes them to believe the true gospel of salvation conditioned on Christ and to repent of ever thinking that salvation was conditioned on themselves.

Chris

[Nahum]

My first questions to [seer] are these: If Christ died for the sins of everyone without exception, then what is it that makes the difference between salvation and damnation? Since Christ did the same thing for those in heaven as he did in hell, what makes the difference between a person's going to heaven and a person's going to hell?

A good place to start. Faith is the difference, one is justified by faith in Christ's blood. If you believe that it is your "faith" that makes the ultimate difference between salvation and damnation, heaven and hell. Then you certainly cannot make your boast in the cross of Christ alone, as Paul did (Galatians 6:14). For what one believes makes the difference between saved and lost is obviously what one boasts and glories in.

It was something YOU DID that made the difference, and so you have a boast, BUT not with God (Romans 4:2). Paul asks, "Then where is the boasting? It was excluded. Through what law? Of works? No, but through a Law of faith" (Romans 3:27). Paul says that boasting is EXCLUDED through a Law of faith. If faith is what makes one man to differ from another, then boasting is not excluded. The Law of faith, of which Paul speaks, is the faith that believes Christ met all the demands of God's law and justice by His obedience and bloody death upon the cross. You do NOT believe that Christ met all the conditions for His people's salvation. This is evident by your belief that "faith" is the condition for salvation. Faith is NOT the condition for salvation. Perfect righteousness is the condition for salvation (Leviticus 18:5; Romans 10:5; Galatians 3:10).

Faith believes that Christ alone met the conditions for salvation. Now, since Christ alone met all the conditions for salvation, it is impossible that one sinner for whom Christ died to end up in hell. To assert that Christ died for those in hell is to assert that He did not meet all the conditions for salvation. If Christ did not meet the condition of a perfect righteousness that answers the demands of God's law and justice, then it must be the sinner who does.

You said above that, "one is justified by faith in Christ's blood." The phrase, "Faith in Christ's blood," of course, comes from Romans 3:25. Now, what does it MEAN to have faith in Christ's blood? In connection with faith in Christ's blood, Paul mentions the word "propitiation." So, for one thing, "faith in Christ's blood" means the belief that the blood of Christ actually propitiates. That is, it actually and really turns away the wrath of God towards all for whom it was shed.

Now, since you believe that Christ shed His blood for those in hell, you do not believe that His blood actually propitiates. For if you believed that Christ's blood had power in and of itself to propitiate, then you would believe that no one for whom this blood was shed could end up in hell.


You believe that Christ shed His blood for people in hell. Therefore you deny that Christ's blood actually propitiates. And since you deny that Christ's blood actually propitiates, you do not have faith in Christ's blood. So, in this context, whatever makes the difference between heaven and hell, is what propitiates and satisfies God. You do not believe that God was satisfied by Christ's blood. You do not believe that the blood of Christ is enough, or sufficient to satisfy God. But you think that your "faith" is enough. For since you believe that it was your "faith" that makes the difference, that is what you think propitiated God. You replace the precious blood of Christ with your wicked "faith."

Paul states that God set forth Christ Jesus as a propitiation through faith in Christ's blood. Faith is the means by which God's people become partakers of the benefits of Christ's propitiation. It is faith in the blood of Jesus Christ. It is the belief that Christ's blood ACTUALLY paid the ransom price and satisfied God's justice for all whom He represented, meaning that all whom Christ represented on the cross will not have to pay the ransom price or receive God's wrath by suffering eternal punishment in hell.

Those who believe that Christ died for everyone without exception DO NOT have faith in Christ's blood, and thus are NOT partakers of the benefits of His blood. They are dead in their sins. The only ones who have FAITH in Christ's blood are the ones who BOAST in Christ's blood as their only ground of salvation. They believe that Christ's blood, which includes His entire redemptive, atoning work, is what makes the difference between salvation and damnation. This is the ONLY kind of faith that is the true faith of believers.

Chris

[Nahum]

Seer wrote: <<Just as Christ's atonement was of NO value to you (one of the elect) until you believed, Christ's universal offer of atonement is only effective towards those who believe. So unless you believe that you were justified from birth, there was a time in your life when Christ's work on the cross was of NO effect.>>

Every unregenerate person, whether elect or reprobate treat the atonement of NO value. That's not even the point. The point is that the blood of Christ was shed to save every single person for whom it was shed. And the atonement has an effect toward every person for whom it was made. And the atonement has NO EFFECT towards every one for whom it was NOT made.

The fact that the atonement of Christ DOES save every person for whom it was made shows that it is 100% powerful -- 100% effectual. Had Jesus Christ made atonement for every single person without exception, then every single person without exception would be saved, since the blood of Christ is 100% powerful and 100% effectual.

Now what about those who believe that the blood of Christ was shed for every single person without exception, yet also say that there are some people who go to hell anyway? What does this say about the POWER of the blood of Christ? It says that the blood of Christ was NOT powerful enough to save. Instead, the blood of Christ needed something else -- the works of man -- to make it effectual. This is the damnable false gospel of salvation conditioned on the sinner.

"For the Word of the cross is foolishness to those being lost, but to us being saved, it is the power of God" (1 Corinthians 1:18).

All who believe that something they did ("faith") made the difference between saved and lost count the Word of the cross as foolishness. But to us being saved, the cross is the power of God. It is the cross of Christ alone that makes the difference between saved and lost, between heaven and hell. Apart from the efforts of the sinner (Romans 3:28).

Chris

[GoBahnsen]

Nahum to seer:
You believe that Christ shed His blood for people in hell. Therefore you deny that Christ's blood actually propitiates. And since you deny that Christ's blood actually propitiates, you do not have faith in Christ's blood. So, in this context, whatever makes the difference between heaven and hell, is what propitiates and satisfies God. You do not believe that God was satisfied by Christ's blood. You do not believe that the blood of Christ is enough, or sufficient to satisfy God. But you think that your "faith" is enough. For since you believe that it was your "faith" that makes the difference, that is what you think propitiated God. You replace the precious blood of Christ with your wicked "faith."
Let me jump in here and make some tolerant Calvinist remarks. Nahum I'm going to say that I think Arminians like seer are really just confused Calvinists (sorry seer). You yourself have to use a lot of ink just to try and explain your argument.

Seer obviously does not belief "his faith" is enough. He thinks (correct me seer where I'm wrong) that it is his faith in Christ's blood that makes the difference. I think seer erred in saying faith makes the difference, instead of grace, but then seer is also going to believe in prevenient grace that made it possible for him to exercise his faith.

These kind of disagreements need not make or break salvation. I think they matter in terms of the affect they have in sanctification. My growth in sanctification has improved, I think, since I have come to believe in a particular electing grace that sought me out personally. Knowing a God who has decided to rescue you by pure grace, while justly leaving another for judgment, is humbling and makes one tremble. These are good things in sanctification.

For guys like seer, they are too troubled within that this kind of grace sovereignly passes some people by, leaving them to justice, and yet seeks others out for mercy. I think they are wrong to draw these conclusions, but I don't think it has to spell their eternal doom.

And I know OTC goes to great lengths to make these drawn out arguments that seem to be logical and must eliminate Arminians and guys like me who tolerate their errors, but I'm not convinced God's heart is the same as OTC's on this. I'll try to keep an open mind, but it doesn't look good at all.

By the way, what men of repute does OTC believe are regenerate? Has Herman Hoeksema been deleted yet? I'm thinking it is just a matter of time before you all find some wrong thing Herman said and he'll be off the list of the regenerate as well.

[seer]

The fact that the atonement of Christ DOES save every person for whom it was made shows that it is 100% powerful -- 100% effectual. Had Jesus Christ made atonement for every single person without exception, then every single person without exception would be saved, since the blood of Christ is 100% powerful and 100% effectual.

Now what about those who believe that the blood of Christ was shed for every single person without exception, yet also say that there are some people who go to hell anyway? What does this say about the POWER of the blood of Christ? It says that the blood of Christ was NOT powerful enough to save. Instead, the blood of Christ needed something else -- the works of man -- to make it effectual. This is the damnable false gospel of salvation conditioned on the sinner.

Let's try this again. First, unless you were born justified Christ's blood was not effective for you at one point. It was only potential. And yes, man needs to do something - believe. And faith is not a work according to Paul. Were you saved before you believed Nahum? If you say yes, then it is you teaching the damnable false gospel...

[seer]

For guys like seer, they are too troubled within that this kind of grace sovereignly passes some people by, leaving them to justice, and yet seeks others out for mercy. I think they are wrong to draw these conclusions, but I don't think it has to spell their eternal doom.

GB, that doesn't bother me at all. You have never seen me use the "fair" argument. My argument rests solely on scripture - God desires all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth...

[smaller]

The fact that the atonement of Christ DOES save every person for whom it was made shows that it is 100% powerful -- 100% effectual. Had Jesus Christ made atonement for every single person without exception, then every single person without exception would be saved, since the blood of Christ is 100% powerful and 100% effectual.

Perhaps this is where the wheels came off the cart Chris?

1 Timothy 4
10 For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

Two classes of people. Blinded slaves of darkness and those who "believe" by The Word. The Saviour is "effective" for ALL in either case.

Romans 3
22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:

Two classes of people. Blinded slaves of darkness and those who believe. There is NO difference. The Saviour is "effective" for ALL in either case.

God saves even the enemies of the Gospel.

Romans 11:
25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of [b]this mystery,

->lest ye should be wise in your own conceits;<-

that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.
26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.
28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the father's sakes.
29 For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.
30 For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief:
31 Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy.
32 For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.

Two classes of people. Believing Israel and enemies of the Gospel. IN either case God's Mercy is "effective" for all, the fulness of Jesus Christ which will be testified of IN DUE TIME.

Jesus is after all The Saviour of The World. Not of some, but of ALL.

If MOST die in this life and remained SLAVES OF SIN, Jesus will NOT JUDGE THEM FOR THIS. God WILL JUDGE that which "blinded them" and in fact it was GOD who BOUND THEM to "unbelief" for purposes of actually SHOWING HIS ETERNAL MERCY to ALL.

Luke 6:37
Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:

God has made a place for HIS WRATH to abide. It is NOT upon PEOPLE, but upon the devil and his messengers WHOM HE MADE FOR THAT PURPOSE OF JUDGMENT. You think the anti-Christ spirit MADE ITSELF??? LOL God made ALL THINGS including the "wicked" for a DAY OF JUDGMENT. The wicked are not your fellow, mankind. The wicked control your neighbors just as they CONTROL YOU.

You cannot say YOU HAVE NO SIN, no matter how much you "confess" and "repent" John's statement stands.

God also hoped we, as His Children, MIGHT learn some things about His Divine Character in the PROCESS. So in this way evil is our servant, teaching US ALL about DIVINE AND ETERNAL MERCY that ALL will receive. (except from you of course!)

John 12:47
And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.

This is the WORD FOR THE UNBELIEVING MAN and THIS WORD will JUDGE THAT MAN on the LAST DAY.

"I judge him NOT." Jesus' Word will NOT CHANGE. You cannot break HIM.

Most of YOU here are blinded to this TRUTH of God as well.

You all live in the eternal condemnation by burning fire or complete annihilation of your "unbelieving neighbors." This is the pathetic form of "truth" that you walk in.

You have NO mercy. NONE!

You do not understand God's Purpose in any way, save for YOUself and your little band of "see like me or burn forever" buddies.

God will surely JUDGE this THING that has blinded you as well. You are mere slaves to the eternal damnation of others as you all seek to make DOUBLE SONS OF HELL! You could not "free" yourself from this position with all the free will in the world because you think THIS IS HOW GOD IS.

Is God as YOU think? I think NOT.

I say this to YOUR SHAME.

You Nahum, go on even further to measure ETERNAL CONDEMNATION and burning torture even to those who know JESUS, at least as their own SAVIOUR!

That is how HARD you ARE. Seared to the very core.

You and a FEW. Shutting up the Gates of Heaven. Ascending your eternal thrones and DISHING OUT eternal DAMNATION by fire to nearly ALL.

Jesus condemned SIN in SINFUL FLESH, not MANkind.

Deal with it.

Your presentation is a DRY CUT OFF TWIG fit for the FLAMES and that eternal damnation of others is EXACTLY the opposite of God WHO IS LOVE and makes you in DIRECT CONTENTION with the above scriptures and many many many many more.

Why don't you all pick up a "little love" and see how it fits you? The most that YOUR LOVE can bring is "SAVE YOURSELF FROM GOD!!!" or "God loves you so much that if you do not cower to Him, He will burn you forever in flames," or "I love you so DO AS I SAY or GOD will burn you forever." A pathetic demonstration of LOVE by anyones measure. All absurd notions.

My dogs have more love than that. My DOGS!

So much for niceties.

Some of your positions make me sick, they are so far gone from God's Heart.

enjoy!

smaller

[seer]

Well, there is no such monstrosity of free-will taught in the Bible. God controls every action of every man. That doesn't mean that man is unable to think or unable to choose. It's just that God controls what every man thinks and chooses. Let me give you some Scriptures to look at (please read these very closely to see what God causes):

About your proof texts. Just because God causes somethings does not mean He causes all. Do you believe that God causes the believer to sin?

[lee_merrill]

Hi everyone,

Chris: There is no offer. God does not offer salvation to sinners if the sinners would only do their part. The good news of the gospel is an unconditional promise of salvation that is conditioned on the work of Christ alone.Revelation 22:17 The Spirit and the bride say, "Come!" And let him who hears say, "Come!" Whoever is thirsty, let him come; and whoever wishes, let him take the free gift of the water of life.

That's an offer! So is this verse:

Isaiah 27:5 Or else let them come to me for refuge; let them make peace with me, yes, let them make peace with me.

And this verse, too:

Matthew 11:28-29 Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.

Other verses could be mentioned:

Isaiah 55:1-3 Come, all you who are thirsty, come to the waters; and you who have no money, come, buy and eat! Come, buy wine and milk without money and without cost. Why spend money on what is not bread, and your labor on what does not satisfy? Listen, listen to me, and eat what is good, and your soul will delight in the richest of fare. Give ear and come to me; hear me, that your soul may live.

Also Prov. 9:1-5 is similar. There is an offer.

God is not waiting for the sinner to respond before He can do His saving work. God saves unconditionally. And when He saves His people, He causes them to believe the true gospel of salvation conditioned on Christ and to repent of ever thinking that salvation was conditioned on themselves.I agree! I believe that God ordains salvation, and how and when and where they repent and believe. But does "whoever wishes" in Rev. 22:17 include everyone?

Here is another, similar question: Does God seek only some of the lost? Was Jesus seeking to save the people of Jerusalem? Even though he knew they would not receive him (Dan. 9:26)?

Blessings,
Lee

[Nahum]

The fact that the atonement of Christ DOES save every person for whom it was made shows that it is 100% powerful -- 100% effectual. Had Jesus Christ made atonement for every single person without exception, then every single person without exception would be saved, since the blood of Christ is 100% powerful and 100% effectual.

Now what about those who believe that the blood of Christ was shed for every single person without exception, yet also say that there are some people who go to hell anyway? What does this say about the POWER of the blood of Christ? It says that the blood of Christ was NOT powerful enough to save. Instead, the blood of Christ needed something else -- the works of man -- to make it effectual. This is the damnable false gospel of salvation conditioned on the sinner.

Let's try this again. First, unless you were born justified Christ's blood was not effective for you at one point. It was only potential. And yes, man needs to do something - believe. And faith is not a work according to Paul. Were you saved before you believed Nahum? If you say yes, then it is you teaching the damnable false gospel...I do NOT say I was born justified and I do NOT say that I was "saved before [I] believed. Justification only comes by FAITH. Where there is no FAITH, there is no justification. Thus, if an elect person has not yet been regenerated, he is not justified, because he does not yet have faith. Faith and justification always go together. You never see one without the other.

My faith does NOT make the blood of Christ effective. Christ's blood is powerfully effective in and of itself. And because it IS effectual, EVERYONE for whom this blood was shed will IN TIME, be justified. And because it IS effectual, NO ONE for whom this blood was shed will end up in hell.

When Jesus Christ died upon the cross He appeased God's wrath in full toward all for whom He died and paid the ransom price in full for all for whom He died, guaranteeing and infallibly securing the salvation of all for whom He died. There is no potentiality in the blood of Christ. The blood of Christ does not "potentially" save. The blood of Jesus Christ demands the salvation of all for whom it was shed. It is a simple matter of the justice of God. God will only justify on just grounds. That ground is the blood of Christ. And since you say that Christ's blood was shed for those in hell, then you must believe that God justifies on other grounds. That ground being "faith."

Furthermore, the atonement is designed for the benefit of the elect alone and is absolutely effectual to secure pardon for their sins and all the blessings of God's favor and fellowship toward them.

Faith is not a work, but an immediate fruit of regeneration. God's promise to save His people is not conditioned on their faith. Of course, no one is saved apart from faith, but faith in Christ is the evidence or fruit, not the cause of salvation (John 5:24,25).

Nahum

[Nahum]

Faith is not a work, but an immediate fruit of regeneration. God's promise to save His people is not conditioned on their faith. Of course, no one is saved apart from faith, but faith in Christ is the evidence or fruit, not the cause of salvation (John 5:24,25).

NahumI wanted to add something to the statement above: God saves unconditonally. God FREELY gives His people eternal life and an immediate and necessary fruit of this eternal life that has been freely given is faith in Christ. This faith in Christ believes that Christ alone met all the conditions for salvation. Faith is the instrument through which a believer receives the imputed righteousness of Christ and is justified.

Nahum

[Nahum]

For guys like seer, they are too troubled within that this kind of grace sovereignly passes some people by, leaving them to justice, and yet seeks others out for mercy. I think they are wrong to draw these conclusions, but I don't think it has to spell their eternal doom.

GB, that doesn't bother me at all. You have never seen me use the "fair" argument. My argument rests solely on scripture - God desires all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth...1 Timothy 2:1 uses the term "all men," and verse 2 explains who the "all men" are. They are all KINDS of men. They are not all men without exception; they are all men without distinction. Those who use this to try to prove Arminianism must believe in a god who cannot fulfill what he desires, since he desires that all men be saved, but he cannot actually do that which he desires. And if Christ gave Himself a ransom for everyone without exception, then everyone without exception would be ransomed! If Christ paid the ransom price for a possession so as to rescue or deliver that possession, then could it ever be that this possession would be lost? Not if the true Christ paid the ransom price. The false christ of universal atonement gives himself a ransom for everyone without exception, yet some for whom the ransom price was paid end up in hell. Of what value was the ransom price? It was of no value in the realm of the false christ.

Nahum

[GoBahnsen]

For guys like seer, they are too troubled within that this kind of grace sovereignly passes some people by, leaving them to justice, and yet seeks others out for mercy. I think they are wrong to draw these conclusions, but I don't think it has to spell their eternal doom.

GB, that doesn't bother me at all. You have never seen me use the "fair" argument. My argument rests solely on scripture - God desires all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth...Really? Well, I apologize if I misrepresented you. Just when you think you have a sure thing for an Arminian, they come tell you they don't believe that. But of course, people do the same thing to us Calvinists.

I would agree that God desires all men to be saved in a broad generic sense. I think John Piper did a nice article on this very subject. A while back I argued that I might desire apple pie and yet determine before-hand to not have any.

As the pie is being sliced, I might say "that sure looks good, I not willing that it should go to waste, but that it be completely consumed." People might get the idea that I'm planning on have some, but I'm not...else I would.

The very fact that part of the pie ends up being thrown out and that I did not help, by eating some, still can't be used to prove that I was planning on eating some, or that I was willing that none be thrown out in some sense that had I really willed it... I would have taken stronger steps to see to it that no one violated my desires.

God loves all men, but not equally. Some men find grace in God's eyes. Some men find God's wrath because they spurn His love (in terms of His general goodness toward them). In that sense it can also be said that God hates them. And when they die they will face His anger toward them.

[seer]

1 Timothy 2:1 uses the term "all men," and verse 2 explains who the "all men" are. They are all KINDS of men. They are not all men without exception; they are all men without distinction. Those who use this to try to prove Arminianism must believe in a god who cannot fulfill what he desires, since he desires that all men be saved, but he cannot actually do that which he desires.

But Paul does not say all kinds. Besides are not the non-elect a "kind." And the reference in verse 2 certainly includes the non-elect. Unless you believe that the kings and those in authority only refers christians. Never mind the fact that Paul makes it clear that "all men" does include the non-elect in the very same letter - 4:10

And no - God does not always get what He wants because He does not force men to love Him:

Matthew 23:37

"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, killing the prophets and stoning those who are sent to you! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not!"

Acts 7:51

"You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit. As your fathers did, so do you."

Romans 10:21

"But of Israel he says, All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and contrary people."

Isaiah 5:4

"And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem and men of Judah, judge, I pray you, between me and my vineyard. What more was there to do for my vineyard, that I have not done in it? When I looked for it to yield grapes, why did it yield wild grapes? "







And if Christ gave Himself a ransom for everyone without exception, then everyone without exception would be ransomed! If Christ paid the ransom price for a possession so as to rescue or deliver that possession, then could it ever be that this possession would be lost? Not if the true Christ paid the ransom price. The false christ of universal atonement gives himself a ransom for everyone without exception, yet some for whom the ransom price was paid end up in hell. Of what value was the ransom price? It was of no value in the realm of the false christ.

Again, the provision of salvation is still genuine even if men refuse the offer. That says nothing about the work of Christ and everything about us...

[seer]

My faith does NOT make the blood of Christ effective. Christ's blood is powerfully effective in and of itself. And because it IS effectual, EVERYONE for whom this blood was shed will IN TIME, be justified. And because it IS effectual, NO ONE for whom this blood was shed will end up in hell.

Of course faith makes Christ's blood effective. If not you would have been saved from birth. You were not saved (Christ's blood was NOT effective towards you) until you believed.


Faith is not a work, but an immediate fruit of regeneration. God's promise to save His people is not conditioned on their faith. Of course, no one is saved apart from faith, but faith in Christ is the evidence or fruit, not the cause of salvation (John 5:24,25).

Well you would have to prove from scripture that regeneration comes before faith. And since the Holy Spirit is the agent of regeneration I believe scripture teaches the very opposite:

Ephesians 1:13

"In him you also, who have heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and having believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit."

First you believe then you are sealed with the Holy Spirit.

Acts 5:32

"And we are witnesses to these things, and so is the Holy Spirit whom God has given to those who obey him."

The Holy Spirit is given to those who first obey(i.e. responding to the Gospel).

[seer]

When Jesus Christ died upon the cross He appeased God's wrath in full toward all for whom He died and paid the ransom price in full for all for whom He died, guaranteeing and infallibly securing the salvation of all for whom He died. There is no potentiality in the blood of Christ. The blood of Christ does not "potentially" save. The blood of Jesus Christ demands the salvation of all for whom it was shed. It is a simple matter of the justice of God. God will only justify on just grounds. That ground is the blood of Christ. And since you say that Christ's blood was shed for those in hell, then you must believe that God justifies on other grounds. That ground being "faith."

You see Nahum, I do not care where your human reasoning leads. We thankfully have scripture:

"My little children, I am writing this to you so that you may not sin; but if any one does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous;and he is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world."

[lee_merrill]

Hi everyone,

1 Timothy 2:1 uses the term "all men," and verse 2 explains who the "all men" are. They are all KINDS of men. They are not all men without exception; they are all men without distinction.But as Seer pointed out, Paul can't mean "pray for all kinds of men" in verse 1! Is that what you are saying?

Matthew 5:44 But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you…

Did Jesus mean "pray for your elect enemies"? And even more clearly, Paul certainly didn't mean "pray for all kinds of rulers," instead of "pray for all rulers without exception."

Nahum: Those who use this to try to prove Arminianism must believe in a god who cannot fulfill what he desires, since he desires that all men be saved, but he cannot actually do that which he desires. And if Christ gave Himself a ransom for everyone without exception, then everyone without exception would be ransomed!

GoBahnsen: I would have taken stronger steps to see to it that no one violated my desires.Yes, God does desire all to be saved (Eze. 18:23; Eze. 33:11; Lk. 15:6-10,23-24; 1 Tim. 2:4), and all of God's desires will be fulfilled (Ps. 115:3; Ps. 135:6; Isa. 46:10), thus I believe we may hope that all will be saved, that God will not have to compromise! C