Help on Limited Atonement

[Plaid Panther]

I was just wondering...

"This is good and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth." 1 Timothy 2:3-4 (NIV)

If God desires for us all to be saved, then wouldn't a limited attonement be shooting Himself in the foot? I'm not sure how to reconcile TULIP to this. Any clarification would be appreciated.

In Christ,
Plaid Panther

[Zipperhead]

I was just wondering...

"This is good and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth." 1 Timothy 2:3-4 (NIV)

If God desires for us all to be saved, then wouldn't a limited attonement be shooting Himself in the foot? I'm not sure how to reconcile TULIP to this. Any clarification would be appreciated.

In Christ,
Plaid PantherJohn Gill in his exposition of the Bible:

1 Timothy 2:4

Ver. 4. Who will have all men to be saved,.... The salvation which God wills that all men should enjoy, is not a mere possibility of salvation, or a mere putting them into a salvable state; or an offer of salvation to them; or a proposal of sufficient means of it to all in his word; but a real, certain, and actual salvation, which he has determined they shall have; and is sure from his own appointment, from the provision of Christ as a Saviour for them, from the covenant of grace, in which everything is secured necessary for it, and from the mission of Christ to effect it, and from its being effected by him: wherefore the will of God, that all men should be saved, is not a conditional will, or what depends on the will of man, or on anything to be performed by him, for then none might be saved; and if any should, it would be of him that willeth, contrary to the express words of Scripture; but it is an absolute and unconditional will respecting their salvation, and which infallibly secures it: nor is it such a will as is distinguishable into antecedent and consequent; with the former of which it is said, God wills the salvation of all men, as they are his creatures, and the work of his hands; and with the latter he wills, or not wills it, according to their future conduct and behaviour; but the will of God concerning man's salvation is entirely one, invariable, unalterable, and unchangeable: nor is it merely his will of approbation or complacency, which expresses only what would be grateful and well pleasing, should it be, and which is not always fulfilled; but it is his ordaining, purposing, and determining will, which is never resisted, so as to be frustrated, but is always accomplished: the will of God, the sovereign and unfrustrable will of God, has the governing sway and influence in the salvation of men; it rises from it, and is according to it; and all who are saved God wills they should be saved; nor are any saved, but whom he wills they should be saved: hence by all men, whom God would have saved, cannot be meant every individual of mankind, since it is not his will that all men, in this large sense, should be saved, unless there are two contrary wills in God; for there are some who were before ordained by him unto condemnation, and are vessels of wrath fitted for destruction; and it is his will concerning some, that they should believe a lie, that they all might be damned; nor is it fact that all are saved, as they would be, if it was his will they should; for who hath resisted his will? but there is a world of ungodly men that will be condemned, and who will go into everlasting punishment: rather therefore all sorts of men, agreeably to the use of the phrase in 1Ti 2:1 are here intended, kings and peasants, rich and poor, bond and free, male and female, young and old, greater and lesser sinners; and therefore all are to be prayed for, even all sorts of men, because God will have all men, or all sorts of men, saved; and particularly the Gentiles may be designed, who are sometimes called the world, the whole world, and every creature; whom God would have saved, as well as the Jews, and therefore Heathens, and Heathen magistrates, were to be prayed for as well as Jewish ones. Moreover, the same persons God would have saved, he would have also.

http://www.freegrace.net/gill/

John Gill in A Body of Doctrinal Divinity

Book 6—Chapter 4

Of those Texts of Scripture which seem to Favour Universal Redemption:

1g. The words in 1 Timothy 2:4. "Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth". It is certain that all that are saved, it is the will of God they should be saved, and that by Christ, and by him only; "I will save them by the Lord their God"; salvation of whomsoever, is not of the will of men, but flows from the sovereign will and pleasure of God; and if it was the will of God that every individual of mankind should be saved, they would be saved; for "who hath resisted his will?" he works all things after the counsel of it; he does according to it in heaven and in earth; but as it is certain in fact that all are not saved, it is as certain that it is not the will of God that every man and woman should be saved; since there are some who are "foreordained to condemnation"; and if there are any he appoints to condemnation, it cannot be his will that the selfsame individuals should be saved; besides, there are some of whom it is clearly signified that it is his will they should be damned; as the man of sin and the son of perdition, Antichrist and his followers; to whom "God sends strong delusions, that they should believe a lie, that they might be damned" (2 Thessalonians 2:11, 12). Besides, those it is the will of God that they should be saved, it is his will that they should "come unto the knowledge of the truth"; both of Christ, who is the way, the truth, and the life, the true way to eternal life; through the faith of whom, as well as through sanctification of the Spirit, men are chosen unto salvation; and of the truth of the gospel; not a notional and superficial, but an experimental knowledge of it; now to all men it is not the will of God to give the means of knowledge, of Christ, and the truths of the gospel: for hundreds of years together God gave his word to Jacob, and his statutes unto Israel, a small people in one part of the world; and as for other nations, they knew them not; God winked at and overlooked the times of their ignorance, and sent not the gospel, the means of knowledge, unto them; and this is the case of many nations at this day; yea, where the gospel is sent and preached, it is the will of God to hide the truths of it from many, and even from those who have the most penetrating abilities; "even so, Father", says Christ, "for so it seemeth good in thy sight" (Matthew 11:25, 26), it was his will it should be so, and therefore it could not be his will they should be saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth. It is best therefore to understand by "all", some of all sorts, as the word "all" must be understood in many places, particularly in Genesis 7:14, and this sense agrees with the context, in which the apostle exhorts that prayers and thanksgivings be made for all men, for kings, and for all in authority; not only for men of low degree, but for men of high degree also; for all sorts of men; this being agreeable to God, and acceptable in his sight; whose will it is that men of all sons should be saved, and know the truth. Though it is best of all to understand this of the Gentiles, some of whom God would have saved as well as of the Jews; and therefore had chosen some of both unto salvation; and had appointed his Son to be his salvation to the ends of the earth; and therefore had sent his gospel among them, declaring that whoever believed in Christ should be saved, whether Jew or Gentile; and had made it the power of God unto salvation to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile; and therefore it was proper that prayers and thanksgivings should be made for Gentiles in every class of life.

http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Doctrinal_Divinity/Book_6/book6_04.htm

Compare to his exposition of Romans 5:18 in that same study:

The passage of the apostle in Romans 5:18. "By the righteousness of one, the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life"; is undoubtedly meant of the righteousness of Christ, called the free gift, because it was freely wrought out by Christ, and is freely imputed without works; and faith, which receives it, is the gift of God; but then this does not come upon, or is imputed to, every individual son and daughter of Adam; for then they would be all justified by it, and entitled to eternal life through it; and would be glorified, for "whom he justified, them also he glorified": and being justified by the blood and righteousness of Christ, they would be secure from condemnation, and saved from wrath to come; but this is not true of everyone; there are some who are righteously "foreordained to condemnation"; yea, there is a "world" of ungodly men, a multitude of them, that will he "condemned" (Jude 1:4; 1 Cor. 11:32). The design of the apostle in the text and context is to show, that as all men are sinners, and are originally so through the sin and offence of the first man Adam; so all that are righteous become righteous, or are justified, only through the righteousness of Christ imputed to them to their justification; and those who are justified by it, are described by the apostle in this epistle as the elect of God; "Who shall lay anything to the charge of God’s elect? it is God that justifies"; as believers in Christ, on whom his righteousness comes, or is imputed to their justification; that is, "unto all, and upon all them that believe"; and such who receive that, receive also "abundance of grace" (Rom. 8:33; 3:22; 5:17), all which cannot be said of every individual of mankind. But what will set this matter in a clear light is, that Adam and Christ, throughout the whole context, are to be considered as two covenant heads, having their respective seed and offspring under them; the one as conveying sin and death to all his natural seed, and the other as conveying grace, righteousness, and life to all his spiritual seed; now as through the offence of the first Adam judgment came upon all to condemnation, who descended from him by natural generation, and upon none else; as not upon the human nature of Christ, which did not so descend from him; nor upon the angels that sinned, who were condemned and punished for their own offences, and not his, being none of his offspring; so the free gift of Christ’s righteousness comes upon all to justification, and to none else, but those who are the spiritual seed of Christ; given to him as such in the covenant of grace in which he stands an head to them; and "in whom all the seed of Israel", the spiritual Israel of God, "are justified", and shall glory (Isa. 45:24, 25).

http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Doctrinal_Divinity/Book_6/book6_04.htm

There you have it: Free Willer proof text abuse corrected!

PS- For more of Gill's work, and his proving of the TULIP from proper exegesis, see his archive:

http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/gills_archive.htm

God Bless the best exegete of all time!

[Assistant Junior Deputy Janitor Analogman]

John Gill the best exegete of all time? :lmbo:

I thought you said you were leaving. Arminianism becoming more attractive? It should.

[infide]

I was just wondering...

"This is good and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth." 1 Timothy 2:3-4 (NIV)

If God desires for us all to be saved, then wouldn't a limited attonement be shooting Himself in the foot? I'm not sure how to reconcile TULIP to this. Any clarification would be appreciated.

In Christ,
Plaid Panther

Of course. Thats why Calvinists postulate two wills of God's without any reason from their theology for doing so.

I think the Biblical record usually catches up with bad theology, and thats whats happenning here. But as zipperhead pointed out, bad theology normally denies the obvious.

peace,
jd

[Zipperhead]

John Gill the best exegete of all time? :lmbo:

I thought you said you were leaving. Arminianism becoming more attractive? It should.Yes he is the best of all time, no I did not say I was leaving, I said I was taking a break, which I did, no Arminianism is not becoming attractive, it is pure evil, and exegetically absurd.

[Zipperhead]

Of course. Thats why Calvinists postulate two wills of God's without any reason from their theology for doing so.I don't postulate two wills, and niether did Gill in any of the writing I quoted above.

[Plaid Panther]

"The salvation which God wills that all men should enjoy, is not a mere possibility of salvation, or a mere putting them into a salvable state; or an offer of salvation to them; or a proposal of sufficient means of it to all in his word; but a real, certain, and actual salvation, which he has determined they shall have; and is sure from his own appointment, from the provision of Christ as a Saviour for them, from the covenant of grace, in which everything is secured necessary for it, and from the mission of Christ to effect it, and from its being effected by him: wherefore the will of God, that all men should be saved, is not a conditional will, or what depends on the will of man, or on anything to be performed by him, for then none might be saved; and if any should, it would be of him that willeth, contrary to the express words of Scripture; but it is an absolute and unconditional will respecting their salvation, and which infallibly secures it"

Zipperhead, this sound a lot like Universalism. You sure you support Calvinism?

[Bill the Cat]

"The salvation which God wills that all men should enjoy, is not a mere possibility of salvation, or a mere putting them into a salvable state; or an offer of salvation to them; or a proposal of sufficient means of it to all in his word; but a real, certain, and actual salvation, which he has determined they shall have; and is sure from his own appointment, from the provision of Christ as a Saviour for them, from the covenant of grace, in which everything is secured necessary for it, and from the mission of Christ to effect it, and from its being effected by him: wherefore the will of God, that all men should be saved, is not a conditional will, or what depends on the will of man, or on anything to be performed by him, for then none might be saved; and if any should, it would be of him that willeth, contrary to the express words of Scripture; but it is an absolute and unconditional will respecting their salvation, and which infallibly secures it"

Zipperhead, this sound a lot like Universalism. You sure you support Calvinism?

Plaid,

Gill says later (wrongly though)
It is best therefore to understand by "all", some of all sorts, as the word "all" must be understood in many places, particularly in Genesis 7:14, and this sense agrees with the context, in which the apostle exhorts that prayers and thanksgivings be made for all men, for kings, and for all in authority; not only for men of low degree, but for men of high degree also; for all sorts of men; this being agreeable to God, and acceptable in his sight; whose will it is that men of all sons should be saved, and know the truth.

So Zipperhead and Gill believe all means all types, not all

Am I right zipps?

[Zipperhead]

"The salvation which God wills that all men should enjoy, is not a mere possibility of salvation, or a mere putting them into a salvable state; or an offer of salvation to them; or a proposal of sufficient means of it to all in his word; but a real, certain, and actual salvation, which he has determined they shall have; and is sure from his own appointment, from the provision of Christ as a Saviour for them, from the covenant of grace, in which everything is secured necessary for it, and from the mission of Christ to effect it, and from its being effected by him: wherefore the will of God, that all men should be saved, is not a conditional will, or what depends on the will of man, or on anything to be performed by him, for then none might be saved; and if any should, it would be of him that willeth, contrary to the express words of Scripture; but it is an absolute and unconditional will respecting their salvation, and which infallibly secures it"

Zipperhead, this sound a lot like Universalism. You sure you support Calvinism?You took that out of context, did you read the part where he said "all men" should NOT be viewed as meaning "every individual of mankind?"

All men means all men OF THE ELECT, all KINDS (Jew, Gentile, king, poor man) of men, not all men without exception.

Read in context.

[Zipperhead]

Plaid,

Gill says later (wrongly though)
It is best therefore to understand by "all", some of all sorts, as the word "all" must be understood in many places, particularly in Genesis 7:14, and this sense agrees with the context, in which the apostle exhorts that prayers and thanksgivings be made for all men, for kings, and for all in authority; not only for men of low degree, but for men of high degree also; for all sorts of men; this being agreeable to God, and acceptable in his sight; whose will it is that men of all sons should be saved, and know the truth.

So Zipperhead and Gill believe all means all types, not all

Am I right zipps?Yes, and Gill doesn't say that wrongly, the proof that "all men" means "all men of the elect" is explicit in Gill's (correct) exegesis of Romans 5:18, read it, here it is again:

The passage of the apostle in Romans 5:18. "By the righteousness of one, the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life"; is undoubtedly meant of the righteousness of Christ, called the free gift, because it was freely wrought out by Christ, and is freely imputed without works; and faith, which receives it, is the gift of God; but then this does not come upon, or is imputed to, every individual son and daughter of Adam; for then they would be all justified by it, and entitled to eternal life through it; and would be glorified, for "whom he justified, them also he glorified": and being justified by the blood and righteousness of Christ, they would be secure from condemnation, and saved from wrath to come; but this is not true of everyone; there are some who are righteously "foreordained to condemnation"; yea, there is a "world" of ungodly men, a multitude of them, that will he "condemned" (Jude 1:4; 1 Cor. 11:32). The design of the apostle in the text and context is to show, that as all men are sinners, and are originally so through the sin and offence of the first man Adam; so all that are righteous become righteous, or are justified, only through the righteousness of Christ imputed to them to their justification; and those who are justified by it, are described by the apostle in this epistle as the elect of God; "Who shall lay anything to the charge of God’s elect? it is God that justifies"; as believers in Christ, on whom his righteousness comes, or is imputed to their justification; that is, "unto all, and upon all them that believe"; and such who receive that, receive also "abundance of grace" (Rom. 8:33; 3:22; 5:17), all which cannot be said of every individual of mankind. But what will set this matter in a clear light is, that Adam and Christ, throughout the whole context, are to be considered as two covenant heads, having their respective seed and offspring under them; the one as conveying sin and death to all his natural seed, and the other as conveying grace, righteousness, and life to all his spiritual seed; now as through the offence of the first Adam judgment came upon all to condemnation, who descended from him by natural generation, and upon none else; as not upon the human nature of Christ, which did not so descend from him; nor upon the angels that sinned, who were condemned and punished for their own offences, and not his, being none of his offspring; so the free gift of Christ’s righteousness comes upon all to justification, and to none else, but those who are the spiritual seed of Christ; given to him as such in the covenant of grace in which he stands an head to them; and "in whom all the seed of Israel", the spiritual Israel of God, "are justified", and shall glory (Isa. 45:24, 25).

http://www.pbministries.org/books/g..._6/book6_04.htm

So you see, just as all whom Adam represented fell into a sinful nature, all whom Christ represented are justified.

Romans 5:18 is talking about the two humanities, those outside of Christ (which was once all men without exception) and those in Christ (all of the elect men).

To deny this is to wrongly imply that God glorifies people who go to hell (for those he jusfitied he glorified) which is unfounded, and to falsely claim that justification came TO all men without exception in a sense that all hear the gospel, is to ignore the fact that not all men have the gospel preached to them in their lifetime.

"All men" does NOT refer to every individual of mankind without exception in the places free willers try to claim proof of their denials of any part (s) of the TULIP.

[Plaid Panther]

Zipperhead,
Gill took that out of context. Nowhere does Paul say "all elect men" nor does he imply it.
Plaid Panther

[seer]

Zipperhead,
Gill took that out of context. Nowhere does Paul say "all elect men" nor does he imply it.
Plaid Panther

You are quite right. Here the Calvinist must finally deny scripture. Paul says all men with no qualifications. Not all kinds and types. Of course even the non-elect would be a kind and type. But Paul makes it very clear that "all men" includes the non-elect in the very same letter...

Chapter. 4 and vs.10


"For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe."

Believers are a sub set of "all men" which must then comprehend the non-elect...

[Nang]

Zipperhead,
Gill took that out of context. Nowhere does Paul say "all elect men" nor does he imply it.
Plaid Panther

The verse can only teach one of two things:

1. God wants all men to be saved. (Universalism)
2. God wants all kinds of men to be saved. (Calvinism)

The subject of the teaching is not who is saved, but what God wills.

If God wills all men to be saved, why have multitudes died without ever hearing of Jesus Christ? Why does empirical evidence show us that not all men love God and repent of their sins? Why are there numerous Scriptures that teach people will suffer judgment and Hell?

These questions are the reason countless versions of "free" will religionists have cropped up during the church age. Men trying to find a theological compromise because of this very verse. But this particular teaching says nothing about the will or wants of "all men," or the necessity of human choice, but reveals only the will and want of God. (Remember the law of contradiction, if you desire to read and understand the Bible logically.)

But if God wills and wants all kinds of mankind (male and female, commoner and royalty, rich and poor, black or white or yellow or red, Jew or Gentile, etc.) to be saved; namely those He has elected unto salvation, and God wants us to pray for all (kinds) of men, then God's will be done with certainty (every single elect soul WILL BE SAVED) and the teaching conforms logically with human history, the great commission (Matt. 28:19&20), as well as all the rest of Holy Scripture.

God's will remains God's will, and God's will be done.

As we pray for all men, not knowing who God will save, or when God might save, or which persons will some day prove to be amongst the elect, we pray in obedience and conformance to this specific teaching. Prayer is a privilege God has given us along with sharing the Gospel of Jesus Christ with all men we come into contact with . . .all kinds of men out of all the nations. That is the Christian mission.


Nang

[mickiel]

I was just wondering...

"This is good and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth." 1 Timothy 2:3-4 (NIV)

If God desires for us all to be saved, then wouldn't a limited attonement be shooting Himself in the foot? I'm not sure how to reconcile TULIP to this. Any clarification would be appreciated.

In Christ,
Plaid Panther




There is no clairification for the christian mind with simple truth. What you are asking for is more confusion so you do not have to believe it. You are not asking for the verse to be recomciled, you are asking for assistance in changing its meaning, because it does not square with your religous understanding and doctrine. Notice all the help you got. This is what is occuring in christianity, they are assisting each other in digging themselves futher and futher away from the truth. Amazingly all the while believeing that they represent truth.

Peace, Mickiel.

[Plaid Panther]

The verse can only teach one of two things:

1. God wants all men to be saved. (Universalism)
2. God wants all kinds of men to be saved. (Calvinism)

Nang,
Universalism is the teaching that God will save everyone regardless - not that He desires that everyone to be saved. Not everything that God desires is accomplished.

Example: God desired that Isreal would follow Him, but the OT is mostly a record of how they continued to rebel. Another example: Today, I seriously doubt that God desires that we would continue to sin (Matt 5:8), yet we continue to do so.

Simply because God desires something, does not mean that it will be accomplished. So I fail to see how the rest of your argument stands.

Please bear in mind, I do not deny predestination. What I am looking for here is help reconciling this to limited atonement. Believe it or not, I would say that I lean towards Calvinism but have trouble with this verse accepting the L in TULIP.

In Christ,
Plaid Panther

[Plaid Panther]

There is no clairification for the christian mind with simple truth. What you are asking for is more confusion so you do not have to believe it. You are not asking for the verse to be recomciled, you are asking for assistance in changing its meaning, because it does not square with your religous understanding and doctrine. Notice all the help you got. This is what is occuring in christianity, they are assisting each other in digging themselves futher and futher away from the truth. Amazingly all the while believeing that they represent truth.

Peace, Mickiel.


On the contrary, I am asking for clarification. I do not understand how this verse can allow limited atonement to stand. If you think for a moment that I am trying to "[dig myself] further and further away from the truth" then you are gravely mistaken. I am asking for others to help me understand, but so far all I have received are copy and pasted quotes that simply insert their own context into the verse. I find that to be rather inadequate. I'm not here to cause division, but to more fully understand the truth.

In Christ,
Plaid Panther

[Nang]

Nang,
Universalism is the teaching that God will save everyone regardless - not that He desires that everyone to be saved.

Huh?

God saves everyone even though He does not desire to save everyone? That's a new joke. You posted Timothy, questioning why he said God desired to save all men, and now you back away from your OP. What silliness is this?

Not everything that God desires is accomplished.

That is pure blasphemy. (And the weakness of Arminianism.)


Example: God desired that Isreal would follow Him, but the OT is mostly a record of how they continued to rebel.


God commanded Israel to follow Him, but they did not. Commanded and desire are not the same. To command is to issue a "should." The fact that Israel "should" have followed God, does not mean that God intended or desired Israel to act other than they did.

Another example: Today, I seriously doubt that God desires that we would continue to sin (Matt 5:8), yet we continue to do so.

So we overrule God's desires, wants, and will? I don't think so.

Simply because God desires something, does not mean that it will be accomplished. So I fail to see how the rest of your argument stands.

That's the point. I describe a Sovereign God who's will be done. You describe a God who fails to see His will accomplished. Your "god" is no God.



Please bear in mind, I do not deny predestination. What I am looking for here is help reconciling this to limited atonement.

Reconciling what? There is NO compromise with this verse. God either gets what He wants, or He does not.

Universalists say God does so, by overruling all sins of all men. You deny this view.

Calvinists say God does so, by overruling the sins of all kinds of (elect) men. You deny this also.

So your attempt to reconcile the unreconcilable, is just another attempt to deny God's will be sovereign, but man's will is sovereign.



Believe it or not, I would say that I lean towards Calvinism but have trouble with this verse accepting the L in TULIP.

In Christ,
Plaid Panther

Yes, studying the doctrine of Limited Atonement is crucial to understanding Covenant God and appreciating His saving grace.

Once it is grasped that Jesus Christ successfully represented a particular people, and saved them to the uttermost, without compromise or failure of the will and desires of His Father, gives believers great assurance and security and brings great glory to God.

I answer you, not to argue, but hopefully to discuss and to encourage you to continue to ask questions in this regard. They are VERY IMPORTANT questions, and they should not be sidetracked in muddy and confusing waters.

Nang

[mickiel]

On the contrary, I am asking for clarification. I do not understand how this verse can allow limited atonement to stand. If you think for a moment that I am trying to "[dig myself] further and further away from the truth" then you are gravely mistaken. I am asking for others to help me understand, but so far all I have received are copy and pasted quotes that simply insert their own context into the verse. I find that to be rather inadequate. I'm not here to cause division, but to more fully understand the truth.

In Christ,
Plaid Panther



If you are here to understand truth, you have come to the wrong place. The verse means simply what it states. Gods will is that all men be saved. Whatever God wills is going to happen, weather people believe it or not. The christians here are teaching that God will not get what he wills and not all people will be saved, in direct violation of Gods will. And you come here for truth. You need your directions examined.

Peace, Mickiel.

[Nang]

If you are here to understand truth, you have come to the wrong place.

There is no truth at this site?

You are wrong.

The Gospel of Jesus Christ is being proclaimed on this site.



The verse means simply what it states. Gods will is that all men be saved. Whatever God wills is going to happen, weather people believe it or not.


So, your conclusion is that all men will be universally saved, whether they believe or exhibit faith, or not?



The christians here are teaching that God will not get what he wills

Not this Christian! I am teaching that God gets exactly and completely what He desires.

It is only the "free willers" who claim God's will is thwarted by the will of men and women.



and not all people will be saved, in direct violation of Gods will.

(Do you realize how inconsistently you post?)

But the Bible clearly teaches not all people are written in the Lamb's Book of Life, and all unbelievers will be cast into Hell.


And you come here for truth. You need your directions examined.

Leave him alone. Let him ask his questions.

They are crucial and not to be discouraged.

Nang

[Zipperhead]

You are quite right. Here the Calvinist must finally deny scripture. Paul says all men with no qualifications. Not all kinds and types. Of course even the non-elect would be a kind and type. But Paul makes it very clear that "all men" includes the non-elect in the very same letter...

Chapter. 4 and vs.10


"For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe."

Believers are a sub set of "all men" which must then comprehend the non-elect...How is Jesus the SAVIOR of people who are never SAVED?

How is Christ a Savior to people who he doesn't save from hell (people that go to hell) ?

Once again, I invite you to read some Gill on that verse:

1 Timothy 4:10

Who is the Saviour of all men; in a providential way, giving them being and breath, upholding them in their beings, preserving their lives, and indulging them with the blessings and mercies of life; for that he is the Saviour of all men, with a spiritual and everlasting salvation, is not true in fact.

Specially of those that believe; whom though he saves with an eternal salvation; yet not of this, but of a temporal salvation, are the words to be understood: or as there is a general providence, which attends all mankind, there is a special one which relates to the elect of God; these are regarded in Providence, and are particularly saved and preserved before conversion, in order to be called; and after conversion, after they are brought to believe in Christ, they are preserved from many enemies, and are delivered out of many afflictions and temptations; and are the peculiar care and darlings of providence, being to God as the apple of his eye: and there is a great deal of reason to believe this, for if he is the Saviour of all men, then much more of them who are of more worth, value, and esteem with him, than all the world beside; and if they are saved by him with the greater salvation, then much more with the less; and if he the common Saviour of all men, and especially of saints, whom he saves both ways, then there is great reason to trust in him for the fulfilment of the promises of life, temporal and eternal, made to godliness, and godly persons. This epithet of God seems to be taken out of Ps 17:7 where he is called Myowx eyvwm, "the Saviour of them that trust", or believe.

http://www.freegrace.net/gill/

Do you believe that Jesus saves everyone, or just some?

If he only some are saved, then why do you assert that that verse is calling Christ the "Savior" (in a salvation from hell sense, as opposed to a preserving until judgment sense) if most people go to hell?

The interpertation Gill gave is clearly consistent, whereas yours, like all free willer twistings, leads to problems.

[Zipperhead]

Zipperhead,
Gill took that out of context. Nowhere does Paul say "all elect men" nor does he imply it.
Plaid PantherTry doing an exegesis and proving that it was taken out of context, rather than just ASSERTING that it was.

EXPLAIN why your assertion is correct, and see if you can exegetically counter Gill's exegesis of Romans 5:18 (which by the way, really puts the nail in the coffin of those who assert that "all men" must always refer to every individual of mankind without exception).

[Zipperhead]

More Gill on 1 Timothy 4:10:

1i. Another passage in the same epistle is sometimes brought in favour of the general scheme (1 Tim. 4:10), where God is said to be "the Saviour of all men"; but the passage is not to be understood of Christ, and of spiritual and eternal salvation by him; which it is certain all men do not share in; but of God the Father, and of temporal salvation by him; and of his preservation of all his creatures; who is the "preserver of men", supports and upholds them in being, and supplies them with the necessaries of life; and in a providential way is "good to all"; but his providence is extended in a special manner towards those that trust and believe in him; he takes a particular care of them, and makes particular provisions for them; these being his people, his portion, and the lot of his inheritance, like Israel of old, he surrounds them by his power, leads them about by his wisdom, and keeps them as tenderly as the apple of his eye.

http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Doctrinal_Divinity/Book_6/book6_04.htm

[Plaid Panther]

Huh?

God saves everyone even though He does not desire to save everyone?

You misunderstand my point. I was trying to draw the distinction between desire and will. Universalism teaches that God will save everyone regardless of their faith, the condition of their heart, etc.


God commanded Israel to follow Him, but they did not. Commanded and desire are not the same. To command is to issue a "should." The fact that Israel "should" have followed God, does not mean that God intended or desired Israel to act other than they did.
So are you implying that God did not desire for the nation of Isreal to follow Him when He commanded it?



So we overrule God's desires, wants, and will? I don't think so.

Desires? Yes:
You and I sin every day.
You assert that everything that happens is in accordance with God's desire.
The natural conclusion that is drawn from your position is that God DESIRES for us to sin.


Yes, studying the doctrine of Limited Atonement is crucial to understanding Covenant God and appreciating His saving grace.
Did the early Church have this doctrine firmly established? If not, how then were they saved?


Once it is grasped that Jesus Christ successfully represented a particular people, and saved them to the uttermost, without compromise or failure of the will and desires of His Father, gives believers great assurance and security and brings great glory to God.
I will respond with Paul's words:

And every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; but He, HAVING OFFERED ONE SACRIFICE FOR SINS FOR ALL TIME, sat down at the right hand of God.
(Also see Heb 7:27 and 1Pet 3:18)

So no, I don't see your point.

In Christ,
Plaid Panther

[seer]

Do you believe that Jesus saves everyone, or just some?

If he only some are saved, then why do you assert that that verse is calling Christ the "Savior" (in a salvation from hell sense, as opposed to a preserving until judgment sense) if most people go to hell?

The interpertation Gill gave is clearly consistent, whereas yours, like all free willer twistings, leads to problems.

First, the word Savior is "soter" in the greek. It is used about 22 times in the N.T. And it is never used in the sense of simple preservation - but in the sense of salvation from sin. So I doubt that Paul invented a meaning here not found in the rest of the N.T.

But that was NOT my point zipper. My point was that "all men" as Paul uses it in this letter includes the non-elect. As 4:10 makes quite clear. As the "all men" of 2:1 would naturally include the non-elect, therefore the verse in question 2:4 would also naturally include the non-elect.

[seer]

More Gill on 1 Timothy 4:10:

1i. Another passage in the same epistle is sometimes brought in favour of the general scheme (1 Tim. 4:10), where God is said to be "the Saviour of all men"; but the passage is not to be understood of Christ, and of spiritual and eternal salvation by him; which it is certain all men do not share in; but of God the Father, and of temporal salvation by him; and of his preservation of all his creatures; who is the "preserver of men", supports and upholds them in being, and supplies them with the necessaries of life; and in a providential way is "good to all"; but his providence is extended in a special manner towards those that trust and believe in him; he takes a particular care of them, and makes particular provisions for them; these being his people, his portion, and the lot of his inheritance, like Israel of old, he surrounds them by his power, leads them about by his wisdom, and keeps them as tenderly as the apple of his eye.

http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Doctrinal_Divinity/Book_6/book6_04.htm

Please Zipper - try and stop debating by quoting others, make your own arguments. This is quite lazy, and Gill does not carry much weight with many of us. Just more opinions of men...

[Nang]

You misunderstand my point. I was trying to draw the distinction between desire and will.

That was your point?

Could'a fooled me. When did you exactly state that?



Universalism teaches that God will save everyone regardless of their faith, the condition of their heart, etc.

Yeah!

That is what makes Universalism a false gospel. For "without faith, it is impossible to please God." (Heb. 11:6)

Right?


So are you implying that God did not desire for the nation of Isreal to follow Him when He commanded it?

If God had "desired" the nation of Israel to be totally faithful to Him, God would have worked it. Instead, God gave a "two-edged sword" command for Israel, which would either work salvation or judgment.


You assert that everything that happens is in accordance with God's desire.
The natural conclusion that is drawn from your position is that God DESIRES for us to sin.

Yes, I assert everything that happens is in accordance with God's will. All things will bring glory to God. It is God's wisdom and will to demonstrate that things MADE are not good like God.

Creatures cannot achieve, practice, or live righteously under holy and perfect Law.

The evidence is displayed between the two men:

1. The first man made of flesh, incapable of Godly righteousness.
1. The last Man, the Lord from Heaven, personifcation of Godliness and righteousness.



So no, I don't see your point.

In Christ,
Plaid Panther

Keep asking . . .

Nang

[Plaid Panther]

That was your point?
That is what makes Universalism a false gospel. For "without faith, it is impossible to please God." (Heb. 11:6)
You and I are both arguing the same side of the issue here. I was talking about how Gill's argument superficially looked like Universalism. (Look at Reply #7)


If God had "desired" the nation of Israel to be totally faithful to Him, God would have worked it. Instead, God gave a "two-edged sword" command for Israel, which would either work salvation or judgment.

Yes, I assert everything that happens is in accordance with God's will. All things will bring glory to God. It is God's wisdom and will to demonstrate that things MADE are not good like God.
If God is good and all His actions are therefore good and, as you say, He desires that sin occur, then you are arguing that evil is actually good.


Oh, and would you mind responding to Heb 10:11-12?

In Christ,
Plaid Panther

[Plaid Panther]

Try doing an exegesis and proving that it was taken out of context, rather than just ASSERTING that it was.

EXPLAIN why your assertion is correct, and see if you can exegetically counter Gill's exegesis of Romans 5:18 (which by the way, really puts the nail in the coffin of those who assert that "all men" must always refer to every individual of mankind without exception).

Zipperhead,
I would love to respond to you right away. Unfortuneatly I am a busy engineering student and will not be able to do what you ask for in short order (the next few weeks). I had hoped that this thread would be a little less vicious when I simply asked how this was reconciled to limited atonement.

In Christ,
Plaid Panther

[Nang]

If God is good and all His actions are therefore good and, as you say, He desires that sin occur, then you are arguing that evil is actually good.

No, I do not call evil good.

But I do declare God in sovereign control over both.


Oh, and would you mind responding to Heb 10:11-12?

"And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God." Hebrews 10:11-12

This Scripture compares the temporal Levitical priesthood with the eternal priesthood of Jesus Christ, our High Priest.

The animal blood the Levitical priests offered before God in the tabernacle and temple did not take away sin, but simply and temporarily covered (atoned) for the sins of the people for a year's time.

But the blood offered to God by the Son, was a once for all time offering (eternal), which truly worked remission and justification for the sins of those Jesus Christ represented in His body on the cross.

Then, after overcoming death, He resurrected to sit at the right hand of God to represent those same people He justified, before the face of God as worthy of grace and help. (See within the Book of Hebrews, Chapter 10 context, vss 18-22)

The everlasting priesthood of Jesus Christ not only worked everlasting remission of sins for His people, but He continue as their eternal High Priest in the position as Mediator and Intercessor on their behalf forever and ever, sitting at the throne of grace before Father God.


Nang

[Thomas2003]

You took that out of context, did you read the part where he said "all men" should NOT be viewed as meaning "every individual of mankind?"

All men means all men OF THE ELECT, all KINDS (Jew, Gentile, king, poor man) of men, not all men without exception.

Read in context.

This is correct, it is properly understood in the same context as 1 John 2:2, "for the sins of the whole world."

This regards the scope of the Covenant and its global expansion in Christ to all nations. Just as John 3:16 where God says He "loved the world" does not mean every individual, for just a few verses later those that don't believe are condemned already with the wrath of God abiding upon them.

[seer]

This is correct, it is properly understood in the same context as 1 John 2:2, "for the sins of the whole world."

Not quite: "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 expiation for our sins, and not for our (believers) sin only but also for the sins of the whole world."

This expiation it not only for our (believers) sins, but goes beyond...

[Zipperhead]

First, the word Savior is "soter" in the greek. It is used about 22 times in the N.T. And it is never used in the sense of simple preservation - but in the sense of salvation from sin. So I doubt that Paul invented a meaning here not found in the rest of the N.T.Are you asserting that words in the Bible do not have different meanings based on CONTEXT?

Would you like me to give you examples, or will you take my word for it for the time being?But that was NOT my point zipper. My point was that "all men" as Paul uses it in this letter includes the non-elect. As 4:10 makes quite clear.No it is not "quite clear" that your twisting is anything other than a twisting.

Please answer my question: How is Christ the "Savior" of every individual of mankind without exception in a salvation from hell sense, if most people remain in their sins and go to hell?

How is Christ a "Savior" of someone who is never SAVED by Christ?

You have yet to answer that question.As the "all men" of 2:1 would naturally include the non-elect, therefore the verse in question 2:4 would also naturally include the non-elect.That's absurd. Words can mean different things based on context.

[Zipperhead]

Please Zipper - try and stop debating by quoting others, make your own arguments. This is quite lazy, and Gill does not carry much weight with many of us. Just more opinions of men...I use the same arguments as Gill, but he wrote them more eloquently, no truth is original, so therefore I use and there is nothing wrong with my use of, his work to answer questions and objections. Gill may not "carry weight" with you, but that means nothing, especially when you have offered zero refutations of his expositions. You talk about opinions of men, yet you fail to prove that sound exegesis is simply an opinion and shouldn't be taken seriously. Should everyone just start believing all your "opinions" when you comment on the Bible?

[Zipperhead]

This is correct, it is properly understood in the same context as 1 John 2:2, "for the sins of the whole world."

Not quite: "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 expiation for our sins, and not for our (believers) sin only but also for the sins of the whole world."

This expiation it not only for our (believers) sins, but goes beyond...Even though I think Marc Carpenter is a heretic for claiming that a denial of annihilationism is "an essential gospel doctrine" I agree with him on most doctrine, so I shall quote his post on this issue because he does a good job of explaining the truth on it:

The "world" does not mean "every human being without exception." Examples:

"The Pharisees therefore said among themselves, Perceive ye how ye prevail nothing? behold, the world is gone after him." (John 12:19)

"If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you." (John 15:19)

"But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world." (1 Corinthians 11:32)

"Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him." (1 John 2:15)

"Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not." (1 John 3:1)

"Marvel not, my brethren, if the world hate you." (1 John 3:13)

"They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them." (1 John 4:5)

"And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness." (1 John 5:19)

Obviously, "world" does not mean "every human being without exception." Now what does "world" mean in passages like John 3:16? In John 3:16, Jesus was talking to Nicodemus, a self-righteous Pharisee who believed that God's love was confined to the Jews only. Jesus told him this astounding thing -- that God's love was not confined just to the Jews, but was also manifested toward the Gentiles. God so loved the world -- both Jews and Gentiles -- that He gave His only begotten son. The Jews knew exactly what this meant. The Jews knew that Jesus was not talking about every individual without exception. When the Jews talked about the "world" in contrast with "us," they meant "Jews and Gentiles." John again talks about this in 1 John 2:2. He says that Jesus is not the propitiation for the Jews only, but the whole world, including the Gentiles. This is the mystery about which Paul speaks in Ephesians 3: "How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery ... That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel" (Ephesians 3:3-6; also see Colossians 1:25-27). The mystery that was hidden from ages and generations that is now revealed is that Jesus saves the world -- both Jews and Gentiles.

This is what the "world" means in passages talking of Christ's work.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=692396&postcount=230

He then in that post goes on to comment on the verses from Timothy you abuse to try to prove your false case:

How about the "all men" passages? For example, I Timothy 2:3-6 says," ... this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one mediator also between man and God, the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony given at the proper time."

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.

Now in the passage where it says that God is the Savior of all men, especially those who believe, that's not even talking about soteriology at all. "Savior" here means PRESERVER. Notice that it does not say that CHRIST is the Savior of all men; it says that GOD is the Savior of all men. It is talking about God the Father's preservation of His creatures, with special preservation of those who believe.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=692396&postcount=230

So again "Seer" your argument that words cannot mean different things based on context is a very bad argument.

[Zipperhead]

My above post (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1179463&postcount=34) supplies the examples I talked about here:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1179456&postcount=32

But for right now, on to this:Zipperhead,
I would love to respond to you right away. Unfortuneatly I am a busy engineering student and will not be able to do what you ask for in short order (the next few weeks). I had hoped that this thread would be a little less vicious when I simply asked how this was reconciled to limited atonement.I understand you not having enough time to respond right away, it happens to me alot, but I DID explain how that verse in Timothy is compatible with Limited Atonement (via showing you what Gill wrote, heh), and I'm sarcastically "sorry" if you find my posts vicious, but if you're referring to the posts of others about viciousness, I can't be held responsible for what they type. Not that I'm implying you implied I should be, I'm just making that clear.

[seer]

I use the same arguments as Gill, but he wrote them more eloquently, no truth is original, so therefore I use and there is nothing wrong with my use of, his work to answer questions and objections. Gill may not "carry weight" with you, but that means nothing, especially when you have offered zero refutations of his expositions. You talk about opinions of men, yet you fail to prove that sound exegesis is simply an opinion and shouldn't be taken seriously. Should everyone just start believing all your "opinions" when you comment on the Bible?

It's just lazy Zip... And I did refute Gill. I proved from the wider text (2:1,4:10) that Paul's use of "all men" (Pas Anthropos) naturally includes the non-elect. It does not say all kinds or types That is an unbiblical notion invented by Gill and others.

Now Zip, let me as you a question - If Paul wanted to say that God desired all men to be saved - how do you think he would word it. Be specific please...

[seer]

How about the "all men" passages? For example, I Timothy 2:3-6 says," ... this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one mediator also between man and God, the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony given at the proper time."

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.

Now in the passage where it says that God is the Savior of all men, especially those who believe, that's not even talking about soteriology at all. "Savior" here means PRESERVER. Notice that it does not say that CHRIST is the Savior of all men; it says that GOD is the Savior of all men. It is talking about God the Father's preservation of His creatures, with special preservation of those who believe.

One question Zip. Does the "all men" of 2:1 and 4:10 include the non-elect?

Another question: Could you show me in the N.T where soter (Savior) is used only in the sense of "PRESERVER" and not a Savior from sin and death. You know there is a word in the greek for preserve (Zoogoneo) which Paul uses elsewhere - and could have used it here if he wanted to limit the scope...

[seer]

"Notice that it does not say that CHRIST is the Savior of all men; it says that GOD is the Savior of all men. It is talking about God the Father's preservation of His creatures, with special preservation of those who believe."

No, but God the Father is also our Savior.

"Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus according to the commandment of God our Savior, and of Christ Jesus, who is our hope."

"This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior."

"but at the proper time manifested, even His word, in the proclamation with which I was entrusted according to the commandment of God our Savior."

"But when the kindness of God our Savior and His love for mankind appeared..."

[seer]

Are you asserting that words in the Bible do not have different meanings based on CONTEXT?

Would you like me to give you examples, or will you take my word for it for the time being?

You can't have context without words. Again can you show where Savior is used simply to mean preserver in any other text? Or are you saying that Paul invented a new meaning here?

No it is not "quite clear" that your twisting is anything other than a twisting.

Please answer my question: How is Christ the "Savior" of every individual of mankind without exception in a salvation from hell sense, if most people remain in their sins and go to hell?

How is Christ a "Savior" of someone who is never SAVED by Christ?

Again Zipper, that does not matter. We are not there yet - The question at hand is: Does the "all men" of 2:1 and 4:10 include the non-elect - yes or no?

That's absurd. Words can mean different things based on context.

This is sad, really. 2:1 and 4:10 are in the context of the same letter. Heck 2:1 is in the same chapter, just a couple of lines away from 2:4. So again, does 2:1 and 4:10 naturally include the non-elect?

[Colossians]

Limited atonement is best derived at the philosophical level rather than the scriptural level.



The proof runs like this:

If Christ took upon Him the sins of every individual, then those sins are paid for. Seeing that they cannot be paid for twice, no individual could rightfully be punished by God.

Arminians illegally modify this to say that in order for your sins to be paid for, you have to believe they are paid for, thus in effect retrospectively altering the amount of sin on the cross. There is no corresponding legal philosophy for such a concoction.

So the fact remains, once sin is paid for it is irrreversibly paid for.

Thus because we know that most do not go to heaven, we derive that Christ did not pay for everyone's sins, and that His atonement is indeed limited to those whom the Father has given Him.
And we further derive that our believing our sins are paid for, is the result of their having been paid for, and not the cause.

[Xmansmommy]

How is Christ a "Savior" of someone who is never SAVED by Christ?

Much the same way as the Calvinist describes that Christ's atonement was effectual for all but applicable to those that believe. :teeth:

[seer]

If Christ took upon Him the sins of every individual, then those sins are paid for. Seeing that they cannot be paid for twice, no individual could rightfully be punished by God.

Arminians illegally modify this to say that in order for your sins to be paid for, you have to believe they are paid for, thus in effect retrospectively altering the amount of sin on the cross. There is no corresponding legal philosophy for such a concoction.

So the fact remains, once sin is paid for it is irrreversibly paid for.

That does not follow. Unbelief is the one sin that separates one for the very work of Christ. Look at it this way - you think yourself one of the elect - correct? Christ paid for your sins 2000 years ago. Yet while you were in unbelief Christ's death did not benefit you at all - you were under God's wrath. So your assumptions fail...

[Thomas2003]

This is correct, it is properly understood in the same context as 1 John 2:2, "for the sins of the whole world."

Not quite: "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 expiation for our sins, and not for our (believers) sin only but also for the sins of the whole world."

This expiation it not only for our (believers) sins, but goes beyond...

Dear Sir,

The proper understanding of the grammer of the text is "ours" (my little children), not "believers" in a generic context - but those who he has written to as they are the subject of the text. The whole world is geographic, not personal language.

[Thomas2003]

Much the same way as the Calvinist describes that Christ's atonement was effectual for all but applicable to those that believe. :teeth:


What are you talking about? Christ's atonement was effectual for the elect and only the elect, whoever told you that was in error.

[smaller]

I was just wondering...

"This is good and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth." 1 Timothy 2:3-4 (NIV)

If God desires for us all to be saved, then wouldn't a limited attonement be shooting Himself in the foot? I'm not sure how to reconcile TULIP to this. Any clarification would be appreciated.

In Christ,
Plaid Panther

You just have to turn all the scriptures that say "world" into just a tiny fraction of the world.

You just have to turn the statements of "all men" into just a tiny fraction of "all men."

You just have to turn The Saviour of The World into some form of bizarre failure of "terms and conditions."

It's easy!

Of course such a thing requires many years of study under a "systematic theology" to learn how to do such things.

"God IS The Saviour of ALL MEN, especially those who believe." (1 Tim. 4:10)

Even the Arminians can eradicate that one...;)

[Xmansmommy]

What are you talking about? Christ's atonement was effectual for the elect and only the elect, whoever told you that was in error.

Although I've heard it quoted that way I've also heard many Calvinists say that it was sufficient for all but not applicable to all. How is that much different than what the Arminian says regarding the atonement and it's effectiveness/application?

[Thomas2003]

If Christ took upon Him the sins of every individual, then those sins are paid for. Seeing that they cannot be paid for twice, no individual could rightfully be punished by God.

Arminians illegally modify this to say that in order for your sins to be paid for, you have to believe they are paid for, thus in effect retrospectively altering the amount of sin on the cross. There is no corresponding legal philosophy for such a concoction.

So the fact remains, once sin is paid for it is irrreversibly paid for.

That does not follow. Unbelief is the one sin that separates one for the very work of Christ. Look at it this way - you think yourself one of the elect - correct? Christ paid for your sins 2000 years ago. Yet while you were in unbelief Christ's death did not benefit you at all - you were under God's wrath. So your assumptions fail...

The original explanation above is correct. The atonement is forensic, a non-forensic atonement is an alien and extra-biblical concept. You see, we believe that Jesus Christ is God of very God and man of very man, two natures but one person. Hence, we have no division in His natures when we understand the atonement through His one person. We do not doctrinally de-incarnate Christ to understand the atonement.

If the atonement is non-forensic, then something other than Christ is the mediator, which you are claiming is faith. This requires a doctrinal de-incarnation and posits an alternating conscienceness in Christ where he atones for all, on one hand, and then takes it back on another because of their "unbelief." That Christ the man does one thing, and Christ the God does another thing.

The gentlemen above explained it very well, it is an "illegal modification" that strikes at the very heart of the doctrine of the incarnation of Jesus Christ. Which is the whole problem.

It is not correct to say "unbelief is the one sin that separates one from the very work of Christ." Faith is irrelevant to the atonement, again you are simply expressing a non-forensic concept. One is separated from the work of Christ by God, not "unbelief." It was God who judged Adam, not Adam that judged Adam. And it was God that judged Jesus Christ, not you that judges Jesus Christ. All men are in Adam by the judgment upon Adam, some are in Christ by the judgment upon Christ by the Trinity.

Calvinists don't "think of themselves as the elect," however. The concept of election is juridical. Scripture uses it in a juridical sense, "make your calling and election sure" 1 Peter 2, I think and other similar Scriptures.

Calvinism really isn't this difficult to understand. It is merely a biblical expression of Trinitarian soteriology. When one rejects it one rejects Christian Trinitarianism, which was the foundation of the condemnation of Arminius. We believe there isn't any disagreement in the Godhead. However, Arminianism demands a disagreement, which is best expressed by Grotius and his "moral government theory."

While modern Arminianism, following after Grotius, is nominally Trinitarian it is doctrinally Unitarian, which is the foundation of the whole problem. If you wish to understand Calvinism you must understand it in terms of the Trinity, otherwise it is incomprehensible. There is no way to explain a trinitarian doctrine in unitarian terms, or challenge it in unitarian terms, and have any agreement in meaning, we are talking about two completely and entirely different concepts of the Godhead and His saving work.

John Calvin held that the definition of the incarnation of Jesus Christ into human flesh was correctly defined in the Chalcedon Creed, he cannot be understood outside of his fidelity to that definition. If you want to challenge Calvinism, that is fine, but at least do it honestly and not as some guerilla fighter for humanism arguing over vagaries of a couple nouns and pronouns &c.

To disprove Calvinism you are going to have to show how and why the biblical definition of the incarnation of Jesus Christ in the Chalcedon Creed is incorrect. You are going to have to show why and how there is disagreement in the Trinity.

This is much much bigger than anyones opinions on the words "all", "ours" and "world." Calvinists define those terms the way we do because it is necessary to express a consistent Trinitarian doctrine of soteriology. Our Christology rests absolutely upon this foundation and is consistent with the Christian definition of the Trinity.

If you want to support a different Christology at least do it honestly and contrast it to our Christology and show us where we are incorrect.

Calvinism is a slam dunk on the playing field of Chalcedon, you can't come on this playing field arguing it's a "free throw," because that denies the playing field without supporting the free throw argument. You're a guerilla fighter and we have rules to the game, you foul to get the ball and then get offended when the referree gives the free throw to the Calvinist!

I used to preach against Calvinism, railed it against it - I spent nearly ten years studing this and finally had to repent. Calvinism is the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

If it's not then you have to explain why Jesus Christ is not God manifest in the flesh. Everything else is just blabbering.

[seer]

Dear Sir,

The proper understanding of the grammer of the text is "ours" (my little children), not "believers" in a generic context - but those who he has written to as they are the subject of the text. The whole world is geographic, not personal language.

That is what you must assume. Again, not what is in the text. They still are believers. Or is John saying that Christ only died for this little sup group of Christians. And of course John uses the same phrase later in his letter 5:19: "We know that we are of God, and that the whole world lies in the power of the evil one." I wonder if this is the same "whole world" that Christ died for...

But I will ask you Thomas: If God wanted to say that Christ died for all men, how do you think He would word it?

[seer]

If the atonement is non-forensic, then something other than Christ is the mediator, which you are claiming is faith. This requires a doctrinal de-incarnation and posits an alternating conscienceness in Christ where he atones for all, on one hand, and then takes it back on another because of their "unbelief." That Christ the man does one thing, and Christ the God does another thing.

I have no idea what you are getting at Tom. Did Christ die for you 2000 years ago? And were you under God's wrath until you believed? How can that be?

[Thomas2003]

Although I've heard it quoted that way I've also heard many Calvinists say that it was sufficient for all but not applicable to all. How is that much different than what the Arminian says regarding the atonement and it's effectiveness/application?


Because it is a completely different concept.

I think a Calvinist that might say that in trying to explain something in terms that you would have a frame of reference with and be able to understand.

I see where you claim to be a "radical arminian." Have you studied Grotius and then define yourself after his moral government view of the atonement? Or are you more of an "arminian" because that is what the Scripture says to you from a personal sense and you find agreement with others there?

[seer]

I see where you claim to be a "radical arminian." Have you studied Grotius and then define yourself after his moral government view of the atonement? Or are you more of an "arminian" because that is what the Scripture says to you from a personal sense and you find agreement with others there?

The fact is Thomas, your view of Atonement (which I generally agree with) was not known for the first 1100 years of the church. The forensic view was really first put forth by Anselm. Not even Augustine held that view...

[Thomas2003]

If the atonement is non-forensic, then something other than Christ is the mediator, which you are claiming is faith. This requires a doctrinal de-incarnation and posits an alternating conscienceness in Christ where he atones for all, on one hand, and then takes it back on another because of their "unbelief." That Christ the man does one thing, and Christ the God does another thing.

I have no idea what you are getting at Tom.

I understand that. At least investigate the issue from its foundation.

http://reformed.org/documents/chalcedon.html

John Calvin cannot be understood outside of this.



Did Christ die for you 2000 years ago? And were you under God's wrath until you believed? How can that be?

I came to a profession of faith in 1972. Thus, I would try to explain that when Christ died is irrelevant to the atonement. I was regenerated by the Holy Spirit in 1972. Grappling with time as a created thing is not the way to approach the doctrine, we approach this problem in terms of the Creator of time.

May I ask you a question? When you look at this, consistent with your question, do you kind of see a verticle division of time between the Old Testament and the New Testament? As in that law is an Old Testament, in the past, and grace is a New Testament concept?

If so, Calvinism looks at this differently. Coming out of Chalcedon we see an "eternal Son of God", incarnate in time, but not subjugated to time. "Jesus Christ the same today, yesterday and forever." Thus, in our view, grace is timeless, because Christ is timeless.

Thus, I see and understand history in terms of Christ in a horizontal division between law and grace, in terms of God's judgment upon sin and election in Christ's atonement. This means, conceptually, that when I was born I was "under law" if you were to maybe envision a horizontal line with grace on top and law on bottom. Being in Adam I was bottom. When regenerated and "born again" one ethically comes on top of that law - up through that line of separation, which I would call God's judgment upon sin.

I don't know if that is a good way to explain it or not, I'm trying to give a frame of reference that may answer it in terms of your question. But grace and law are both ethical and both operative with grace being timeless and law being bound to time.

I've got to get to work.

[Thomas2003]

I see where you claim to be a "radical arminian." Have you studied Grotius and then define yourself after his moral government view of the atonement? Or are you more of an "arminian" because that is what the Scripture says to you from a personal sense and you find agreement with others there?

The fact is Thomas, your view of Atonement (which I generally agree with) was not known for the first 1100 years of the church. The forensic view was really first put forth by Anselm. Not even Augustine held that view...

I think there may be a misunderstanding, I don't agree with Grotius.

[seer]

I understand that. At least investigate the issue from its foundation.

http://reformed.org/documents/chalcedon.html

John Calvin cannot be understood outside of this.





I came to a profession of faith in 1972. Thus, I would try to explain that when Christ died is irrelevant to the atonement. I was regenerated by the Holy Spirit in 1972. Grappling with time as a created thing is not the way to approach the doctrine, we approach this problem in terms of the Creator of time.

May I ask you a question? When you look at this, consistent with your question, do you kind of see a verticle division of time between the Old Testament and the New Testament? As in that law is an Old Testament, in the past, and grace is a New Testament concept?

If so, Calvinism looks at this differently. Coming out of Chalcedon we see an "eternal Son of God", incarnate in time, but not subjugated to time. "Jesus Christ the same today, yesterday and forever." Thus, in our view, grace is timeless, because Christ is timeless.

Thus, I see and understand history in terms of Christ in a horizontal division between law and grace, in terms of God's judgment upon sin and election in Christ's atonement. This means, conceptually, that when I was born I was "under law" if you were to maybe envision a horizontal line with grace on top and law on bottom. Being in Adam I was bottom. When regenerated and "born again" one ethically comes on top of that law - up through that line of separation, which I would call God's judgment upon sin.

I don't know if that is a good way to explain it or not, I'm trying to give a frame of reference that may answer it in terms of your question. But grace and law are both ethical and both operative with grace being timeless and law being bound to time.

I've got to get to work.

Tom, I understand the Chalcedon creed. But I'am am not getting your point. I certainly believe that all men (Old and New Testament) are saved by grace, through faith (or maybe faith and works like Augustine taught, but never by works alone). But that does not change my point. You were under God's wrath until you believed. Even though Christ atoned for you long ago, it was not applied to you until you believed.

[seer]

I think there may be a misunderstanding, I don't agree with Grotius.

I did not think you did. I'am saying that the forensic view of atonement was not known in the church for the first 1100 years. I generally agree with the forensic view though...

[Xmansmommy]

Because it is a completely different concept.

I've listened to both sides. And although I know that Calvinists say that it was only the elect God intended to save, thus it was effective only for them, I also know that Arminians know that it is the elect that God will save, but that wasn't His only intent. The point I was trying to make is that when a Calvinist says that God's grace was sufficient for but not intended to, and the Arminian says it was intended to but not applicable toward, I see them much the same.

I think a Calvinist that might say that in trying to explain something in terms that you would have a frame of reference with and be able to understand.

Perhaps, nevertheless, it is the language used. And I've spent alot of time asking and listening to Calvinist arguments.

I see where you claim to be a "radical arminian."

Yes indeed.

Have you studied Grotius and then define yourself after his moral government view of the atonement?

No I have not. I'm not familiar with him nor his view.

Or are you more of an "arminian" because that is what the Scripture says to you from a personal sense and you find agreement with others there?

I call myself a Radical Arminian because of a joke...but there is some relevance to it. I am an Open Theist who came to the view I hold by studying the scriptures. I find it to be the most reconcilable view to scripture. I have considered the other views and have spent the last several years discussing with Calvinists. I'm no theologian but I am trying to understand God just as much as the next girl. :teeth:

[seer]

I call myself a Radical Arminian because of a joke...but there is some relevance to it. I am an Open Theist who came to the view I hold by studying the scriptures. I find it to be the most reconcilable view to scripture. I have considered the other views and have spent the last several years discussing with Calvinists. I'm no theologian but I am trying to understand God just as much as the next girl.

Linda, you went over to the dark side of open theism? : {

[Xmansmommy]

Linda, you went over to the dark side of open theism? : {

I'm not sure whether or not to take that as a joke, Jim. But yes, I have been an OVT for quite some time.

[seer]

I'm not sure whether or not to take that as a joke, Jim. But yes, I have been an OVT for quite some time.


I don't agree with OT but I'am sure you came by that belief honestly... : )

[Xmansmommy]

I don't agree with OT but I'am sure you came by that belief honestly... : )

I'd like to believe so. :smile: Thanks Jim.

[Kevin Wayne]

More Gill on 1 Timothy 4:10:

1i. Another passage in the same epistle is sometimes brought in favour of the general scheme (1 Tim. 4:10), where God is said to be "the Saviour of all men"; but the passage is not to be understood of Christ, and of spiritual and eternal salvation by him; which it is certain all men do not share in; but of God the Father, and of temporal salvation by him; and of his preservation of all his creatures; who is the "preserver of men", supports and upholds them in being, and supplies them with the necessaries of life; and in a providential way is "good to all"; but his providence is extended in a special manner towards those that trust and believe in him; he takes a particular care of them, and makes particular provisions for them; these being his people, his portion, and the lot of his inheritance, like Israel of old, he surrounds them by his power, leads them about by his wisdom, and keeps them as tenderly as the apple of his eye.

http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Doctrinal_Divinity/Book_6/book6_04.htm





This is an example of why I threw Gill out of my e-sword & replaced him with Matthew Henry.


Throughout the above quote, Gill postulates the idea of a “temporal salvation” and of “preservation” with no support from the text whatsoever .


Because of Gill’s habit in pulling things out of thin air that he doesn’t support, I got rid of him. Sad too, since I wanted to have a good Calvinist & Arminian (Clarke) expositor to refer to on any given text, but Gill reeks with personal opinion.


Btw, here’s Matt Henry on the v.10 text:

_______________

We trust in the living God. The consideration of this, that the God who has undertaken to be our pay-master is the living God, who does himself live for ever and is the fountain of life to all who serve him, should encourage us in all our services and in all our sufferings for him, especially considering that he is the Saviour of all men. (1.) By his providences he protects the persons, and prolongs the lives, of the children of men. (2.) He has a general good-will to the eternal salvation of all men thus far that he is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. He desires not the death of sinners; he is thus far the Saviour of all men that none are left in the same desperate condition that fallen angels are in. Now, if he be thus the Saviour of all men, we may hence infer that much more he will be the rewarder of those who seek and serve him; if he has such a good-will for all his creatures, much more will he provide well for those who are new creatures, who are born again. He is the Saviour of all men, but especially of those that believe; and the salvation he has in store for those that believe is sufficient to recompense them for all their services and sufferings. Here we see, [1.] The life of a Christian is a life of labour and suffering: We labour and suffer. [2.] The best we can expect to suffer in the present life is reproach for our well-doing, for our work of faith and labour of love. [3.] True Christians trust in the living God; for cursed is the man that trusts in man, or in any but the living God; and those that trust in him shall never be ashamed. Trust in him at all times. [4.] God is the general Saviour of all men, as he has put them into a salvable state; but he is in a particular manner the Saviour of true believers; there is then a general and a special redemption.

_____________



And here's Adam Clarke:




__________

1Ti 4:10 -

For therefore we both labor - This verse was necessary to explain what he had before said; and here he shows that his meaning was not that the followers of God should enjoy worldly prosperity and exemption from natural evils; for, said he, it is because we exercise ourselves to godliness that we have both labor and reproach, and we have these because we trust In the living God: but still we have mental happiness, and all that is necessary for our passage through life; for in the midst of persecutions and afflictions we have the peace of God that passeth knowledge, and have all our crosses and sufferings so sanctified to us that we consider them in the number of our blessings.

Who is the Savior of all men - Who has provided salvation for the whole human race, and has freely offered it to them in his word and by his Spirit.

Specially of those that believe - What God intends for All, he actually gives to them that believe in Christ, who died for the sins of the world, and tasted death for every man. As all have been purchased by his blood so all may believe; and consequently all may be saved. Those that perish, perish through their own fault.

[Assistant Junior Deputy Janitor Analogman]

:thumb:

[infide]

Calvinism really isn't this difficult to understand. It is merely a biblical expression of Trinitarian soteriology. When one rejects it one rejects Christian Trinitarianism, which was the foundation of the condemnation of Arminius. We believe there isn't any disagreement in the Godhead. However, Arminianism demands a disagreement, which is best expressed by Grotius and his "moral government theory."

While modern Arminianism, following after Grotius, is nominally Trinitarian it is doctrinally Unitarian, which is the foundation of the whole problem. If you wish to understand Calvinism you must understand it in terms of the Trinity, otherwise it is incomprehensible. There is no way to explain a trinitarian doctrine in unitarian terms, or challenge it in unitarian terms, and have any agreement in meaning, we are talking about two completely and entirely different concepts of the Godhead and His saving work.

John Calvin held that the definition of the incarnation of Jesus Christ into human flesh was correctly defined in the Chalcedon Creed, he cannot be understood outside of his fidelity to that definition. If you want to challenge Calvinism, that is fine, but at least do it honestly and not as some guerilla fighter for humanism arguing over vagaries of a couple nouns and pronouns &c.

To disprove Calvinism you are going to have to show how and why the biblical definition of the incarnation of Jesus Christ in the Chalcedon Creed is incorrect. You are going to have to show why and how there is disagreement in the Trinity.

This is much much bigger than anyones opinions on the words "all", "ours" and "world." Calvinists define those terms the way we do because it is necessary to express a consistent Trinitarian doctrine of soteriology. Our Christology rests absolutely upon this foundation and is consistent with the Christian definition of the Trinity.

If you want to support a different Christology at least do it honestly and contrast it to our Christology and show us where we are incorrect.

Calvinism is a slam dunk on the playing field of Chalcedon, you can't come on this playing field arguing it's a "free throw," because that denies the playing field without supporting the free throw argument. You're a guerilla fighter and we have rules to the game, you foul to get the ball and then get offended when the referree gives the free throw to the Calvinist!

I used to preach against Calvinism, railed it against it - I spent nearly ten years studing this and finally had to repent. Calvinism is the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

If it's not then you have to explain why Jesus Christ is not God manifest in the flesh. Everything else is just blabbering.

Nonsense. There is no rationale for declaring that Arminians are non-Trinitarians, nor that Arminianism posits some kind of disagreement in the Trinity.

Why dont you explain this apparent disagreement, and I will be glad to refute you. The fact is, many Arminians are ardent defenders of Trinitarian doctrine, and that so consistantly (self-included).

Nor do I deny Chalcedon's definition.

Nor does the Arminian deny that Christ is God manifested in the flesh. This is, of course, a nuanced and difficult problem - and not even the Calvinists are consistant on that matter.

peace,
jd

[Kevin Wayne]

Nonsense. There is no rationale for declaring that Arminians are non-Trinitarians, nor that Arminianism posits some kind of disagreement in the Trinity.

Why dont you explain this apparent disagreement, and I will be glad to refute you. The fact is, many Arminians are ardent defenders of Trinitarian doctrine, and that so consistantly (self-included).

Nor do I deny Chalcedon's definition.

Nor does the Arminian deny that Christ is God manifested in the flesh. This is, of course, a nuanced and difficult problem - and not even the Calvinists are consistant on that matter.

peace,
jd


If he would ever read Clark Pinnock's Flame of Love he would SO see how wrong he is! Pinnock's picture of of what the Trinity is is very touching and VERY theo-logical .

[Nang]

Nonsense. There is no rationale for declaring that Arminians are non-Trinitarians, nor that Arminianism posits some kind of disagreement in the Trinity.


Arminians consider themselves to be good Trinitarians, but they often abuse the Trinity by placing the Persons of the Triune Godhead at odds.

The most glaring example is their erroneous teaching that:

1. The Father loves all men and women.
2. Jesus Christ died for all men and women.
3. The Holy Spirit fails to call all men and women with the Gospel; fails to convict all men and women thereby bringing them to repentance, and thereby fails to convince all men and women of salvation.

This insults God.

Anyone who truly grasps the covenantal and consistent workings of the three Persons of the Godhead understands this doctrine cannot stand, and that the Trinity is not understood, let alone appreciated by Arminian teachers.


Nor does the Arminian deny that Christ is God manifested in the flesh. This is, of course, a nuanced and difficult problem - and not even the Calvinists are consistant on that matter


In what way do you believe Calvinists are inconsistant regarding the incarnation?

Nang

[Colossians]

Seer,

If Christ took upon Him the sins of every individual, then those sins are paid for. Seeing that they cannot be paid for twice, no individual could rightfully be punished by God. Arminians illegally modify this to say that in order for your sins to be paid for, you have to believe they are paid for, thus in effect retrospectively altering the amount of sin on the cross. There is no corresponding legal philosophy for such a concoction. So the fact remains, once sin is paid for it is irrreversibly paid for.
That does not follow. Unbelief is the one sin that separates one for the very work of Christ. Look at it this way...Christ paid for your sins 2000 years ago. Yet while you were in unbelief Christ's death did not benefit you at all - you were under God's wrath. So your assumptions fail...
You are suggesting the cart can go before the horse.
In order for my unbelief to be placed upon Him, it had to actually occur in time: the sins of unbelief which Christ bore were actual events past present and future, not merely potential events. There are no doubt still more to come from my old man who was judged at Calvary.

You are confusing the causal with the temporal.
Causally I was under God's wrath, and had been accordingly judged as guilty in Christ, and exonerated in His resurrection.
Temporally I was never under God's wrath, attested to by His message of love toward me in time.
When I found out about it in time plays no part in the cause: it is merely the effect in time.


So it remains that the sins paid for by Christ, are irreversibly paid for. God is legally oblidged to accept as innocent those whose sins were paid for. To do otherwise, is to dishonour His Son. Such legal obligation results in His sending the Holy Spirit to reconcile my life with the fact that Christ has in advance paid for my sins.

[seer]

You are suggesting the cart can go before the horse.
In order for my unbelief to be placed upon Him, it had to actually occur in time: the sins of unbelief which Christ bore were actual events past present and future, not merely potential events. There are no doubt still more to come from my old man who was judged at Calvary.

You are confusing the causal with the temporal.
Causally I was under God's wrath, and had been accordingly judged as guilty in Christ, and exonerated in His resurrection.
Temporally I was never under God's wrath, attested to by His message of love toward me in time.
When I found out about it in time plays no part in the cause: it is merely the effect in time.

See, you have to make stuff up. Scripture says nothing about Temporally or Causally. Whatever that is supposed to mean. You were under God's wrath period. Christ's work on the cross was of no saving benefit to you until you believed.

Let me ask you something - can God love a man or men, then not love them?

[Kevin Wayne]

Arminians consider themselves to be good Trinitarians, but they often abuse the Trinity by placing the Persons of the Triune Godhead at odds.

The most glaring example is their erroneous teaching that:

1. The Father loves all men and women.
2. Jesus Christ died for all men and women.
3. The Holy Spirit fails to call all men and women with the Gospel; fails to convict all men and women thereby bringing them to repentance, and thereby fails to convince all men and women of salvation.

This insults God.

Anyone who truly grasps the covenantal and consistent workings of the three Persons of the Godhead understands this doctrine cannot stand, and that the Trinity is not understood, let alone appreciated by Arminian teachers.


Nang

What you have presented is simply an extrapolation of the Arminian view of the Trinity based on a rhetorical need to prove a point. NOT the thing itself....

Once again, I refer you to the book by Pinnock.

[seer]

The most glaring example is their erroneous teaching that:

1. The Father loves all men and women.
2. Jesus Christ died for all men and women.
3. The Holy Spirit fails to call all men and women with the Gospel; fails to convict all men and women thereby bringing them to repentance, and thereby fails to convince all men and women of salvation.

This insults God.

Nonsense. You believe that God forces men to love Him. And that dishonors God.

[Kevin Wayne]

Seer,

If Christ took upon Him the sins of every individual, then those sins are paid for. Seeing that they cannot be paid for twice, no individual could rightfully be punished by God. Arminians illegally modify this to say that in order for your sins to be paid for, you have to believe they are paid for, thus in effect retrospectively altering the amount of sin on the cross. There is no corresponding legal philosophy for such a concoction. So the fact remains, once sin is paid for it is irrreversibly paid for.
That does not follow. Unbelief is the one sin that separates one for the very work of Christ. Look at it this way...Christ paid for your sins 2000 years ago. Yet while you were in unbelief Christ's death did not benefit you at all - you were under God's wrath. So your assumptions fail...
You are suggesting the cart can go before the horse.
In order for my unbelief to be placed upon Him, it had to actually occur in time: the sins of unbelief which Christ bore were actual events past present and future, not merely potential events. There are no doubt still more to come from my old man who was judged at Calvary.

You are confusing the causal with the temporal.
Causally I was under God's wrath, and had been accordingly judged as guilty in Christ, and exonerated in His resurrection.
Temporally I was never under God's wrath, attested to by His message of love toward me in time.
When I found out about it in time plays no part in the cause: it is merely the effect in time.


So it remains that the sins paid for by Christ, are irreversibly paid for. God is legally oblidged to accept as innocent those whose sins were paid for. To do otherwise, is to dishonour His Son. Such legal obligation results in His sending the Holy Spirit to reconcile my life with the fact that Christ has in advance paid for my sins.



DEAD wrong. God isn't legally obliged to anything:


Matt 18:21 Then Peter came to Him and said, "Lord, how many times could my brother sin against me and I forgive him? As many as seven times?" 22 "I tell you, not as many as seven," Jesus said to him, "but 70 times seven. 23 For this reason, the kingdom of heaven can be compared to a king who wanted to settle accounts with his slaves. 24 When he began to settle accounts, one who owed 10,000 talents was brought before him. 25 Since he had no way to pay it back, his master commanded that he, his wife, his children, and everything he had be sold to pay the debt. 26 "At this, the slave fell down on his face before him and said, 'Be patient with me, and I will pay you everything!' 27 Then the master of that slave had compassion, released him, and forgave him the loan. 28 "But that slave went out and found one of his fellow slaves who owed him 100 denarii. He grabbed him, started choking him, and said, 'Pay what you owe!' 29 "At this, his fellow slave fell down and began begging him, 'Be patient with me, and I will pay you back.' 30 But he wasn't willing. On the contrary, he went and threw him into prison until he could pay what was owed. 31 When the other slaves saw what had taken place, they were deeply distressed and went and reported to their master everything that had happened. 32 "Then, after he had summoned him, his master said to him, 'You wicked slave! I forgave you all that debt because you begged me. 33 Shouldn't you also have had mercy on your fellow slave, as I had mercy on you?' 34 And his master got angry and handed him over to the jailers until he could pay everything that was owed. 35 So My heavenly Father will also do to you if each of you does not forgive his brother from his heart."

[Nang]

You were under God's wrath period. Christ's work on the cross was of no saving benefit to you until you believed.

Sorry to be a butt in, but while reading this I discerned a detail has been overlooked. . .

The Bible does not teach that the Elect sons of God were subjects of God's wrath (ever), but merely states they:

"were by nature children of wrath, just as the others." Ephesians 2:3

This is explained by Scripture as follows:

"Inasmuch as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared in the same, that through death He might destroy Him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, and release those who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage." Hebrews 2:14&15

God's wrath is reserved for Satan, his minions, and all wicked seed he has issued and held throughout the ages in spiritual bondage.

The sons of God share in the sinful nature of flesh and blood as long as they are in this earthly existence; there is a "law of sin" abiding in their members (Romans 7:23). But "there is no condemnation (wrath) for those who are in Christ Jesus . . .(Romans 8:1)

I apologize. Carry on. I am enjoying reading this thread.

Nang

[Thomas2003]

Tom, I understand the Chalcedon creed. But I'am am not getting your point. I certainly believe that all men (Old and New Testament) are saved by grace, through faith (or maybe faith and works like Augustine taught, but never by works alone). But that does not change my point. You were under God's wrath until you believed. Even though Christ atoned for you long ago, it was not applied to you until you believed.

I believe it was applied in eternity, the atonement is between God and Christ. All men are under law on earth and thus under the wrath of God, including Jesus Christ when He came made of a woman, under the law.

My ethical standing changed upon regeneration, if that is what you mean. But I don't see the problem you are posing. God takes from juridically dead humanity and creates redeemed humanity with eternal life.

[seer]

Sorry to be a butt in, but while reading this I discerned a detail has been overlooked. . .

The Bible does not teach that the Elect sons of God were subjects of God's wrath (ever), but merely states they:

"were by nature children of wrath, just as the others." Ephesians 2:3

This is explained by Scripture as follows:

"Inasmuch as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared in the same, that through death He might destroy Him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, and release those who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage." Hebrews 2:14&15

God's wrath is reserved for Satan, his minions, and all wicked seed he has issued and held throughout the ages in spiritual bondage.

The sons of God share in the sinful nature of flesh and blood as long as they are in this earthly existence; there is a "law of sin" abiding in their members (Romans 7:23). But "there is no condemnation (wrath) for those who are in Christ Jesus . . .(Romans 8:1)

I apologize. Carry on. I am enjoying reading this thread.

Nang

Scripture say that we were by nature children of wrath. But you say no. Who am I to believe? And you are correct, once we believe God's wrath is removed - but not until...

[Kevin Wayne]

Sorry to be a butt in, but while reading this I discerned a detail has been overlooked. . .

The Bible does not teach that the Elect sons of God were subjects of God's wrath (ever), but merely states they:

"were by nature children of wrath, just as the others." Ephesians 2:3




The Holman Bible states the verse as folows:


Eph 2:3 We too all previously lived among them in our fleshly desires, carrying out the inclinations of our flesh and thoughts, and by nature we were children under wrath, as the others were also.



New Living Translation:


"All of us used to live that way, following the passions and desires of our evil nature. We were born with an evil nature, and we were under God's anger just like everyone else."


NIV:

3All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature[a] and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath.



KJV:


"By nature the children of wrath."




New Life Version:


3At one time all of us lived to please our old selves. We gave in to what our bodies and minds wanted. We were sinful from birth like all other people and would suffer from the anger of God.


Wordlwide English NT:


3At one time we too all lived like them. We lived to please ourselves. We did what our bodies and our minds wanted us to do. We were people with whom God was angry, just like other people.






Now I suggest that the difference between what I cited and your particular translation isn't so much who's doing better Greek, but the fact that you want to read into it something that isn't there.

[seer]

I believe it was applied in eternity, the atonement is between God and Christ. All men are under law on earth and thus under the wrath of God, including Jesus Christ when He came made of a woman, under the law.

My ethical standing changed upon regeneration, if that is what you mean. But I don't see the problem you are posing. God takes from juridically dead humanity and creates redeemed humanity with eternal life.

Are you saying that when Christ was growing up He was under God's wrath? But my point (again) Tom, is that Christ's work was not applied to you until you believed. Before that it had no saving effect. And you were under God's wrath even though Christ already payed for your sins.

[Kevin Wayne]

I have looked thorugh this particular book on the development of the Atonement in the early history of the Reformed movement, and I got a lot out of it. He sort of picks up where R.T. Kendal left off and gets more in-depth:


The Extent of the Atonement: A Dilemma for Reformed Theology from Calvin to the Consensus (1536-1675) (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/085364828X/qid%3D1078283578/sr%3D11-1/ref%3Dsr%5F11%5F1/002-6633607-4870425) by Michael G. Thomas




Book Description

Reformed theologians of the 16th and 17th centuries were led by their doctrine of predestination to ask whether Christ had died only for the 'elect'. This book traces the way they tackled the extent of the atonement. Following closely the debates of the time, it provides insights into the development of Reformed theology and argues that the difficulties experienced then point to a need for a new departure by those who stand in the Reformed tradition today.


From the Publisher

Traces Reformed theologians of the 16th and 17th centuries as they were led by their doctrine of predestination to ask whether Christ had died only for the 'elect'.

[Kevin Wayne]

The most glaring example is their erroneous teaching that:

1. The Father loves all men and women.
2. Jesus Christ died for all men and women.
3. The Holy Spirit fails to call all men and women with the Gospel; fails to convict all men and women thereby bringing them to repentance, and thereby fails to convince all men and women of salvation.

This insults God.




Nonsense. You believe that God forces men to love Him. And that dishonors God.




And it's his own rhetorical device that calls it a failure to begin with. I don't see the fact that God intends humans to be autonomous a "failure" at all.

[seer]

And it's his own rhetorical device that calls it a failure to begin with. I don't see the fact that God intends humans to be autonomous a "failure" at all.

As if forced love would satisfy God. Heck it would'nt satisfy us...

[Nang]

Now I suggest that the difference between what I cited and your particular translation isn't so much who's doing better Greek, but the fact that you want to read into it something that isn't there.

Or vice versa. . .

(Actually I looked up a Greek reading before I posted and felt confident with the NKJV.)

Nang

[Nang]

Once again, I refer you to the book by Pinnock.

I have read Pinnock.

I do not like Pinnock.

Nang

[Assistant Junior Deputy Janitor Analogman]

As if forced love would satisfy God. Heck it would'nt satisfy us...

Actually I think that the calvinist would say that God opened his eyes with regeneration, not forced his love on them. Just 2 cents from a non-calvinist.

[seer]

Or vice versa. . .

(Actually I looked up a Greek reading before I posted and felt confident with the NKJV.)

Nang

It doesn't change anything. We were still under God's wrath...

[seer]

Actually I think that the calvinist would say that God opened his eyes with regeneration, not forced his love on them. Just 2 cents from a non-calvinist.

Was that with or without the man's consent? If without,the end is still the same, the man WILL love God apart from his choice...

[infide]

It seems to me that Calvinists view the atonement as a punishment-to-sin payment which runs out as more and more people are saved. When all the elect are saved, they seem to assume, the balance will be 0.

It is possible that the Arminian just sees the atonement as so great and so wonderful that it would pay for the sin of one sinner, or the sin of infinitely many sinners.

peace,
jd

[Assistant Junior Deputy Janitor Analogman]

Was that with or without the man's consent? If without,the end is still the same, the man WILL love God apart from his choice...

Without. True, the man would initially, but now we're getting hypothetical as I don't believe in regeneration before faith. I was just trying to stave off potential strawmen.