Poll: For whom did Christ die?

[Winman]

You could not be more wrong. You have, again, demonstrated that you have not the first clue of what or how we believe. Sad.

The Archangel

And yet again you come back with a one-liner saying I am wrong without offering one word of scripture to support your belief, or showing how I have misinterpreted scripture. What a fine teacher.

 

[Winman]

And it is what John Piper teaches.

But that is not what he says here. He says, "not because of works but because of Him who calls." Why? Because faith is a condition of justification, but it is not a condition of election. Election is unconditional. But justification is conditional. Before we can be justified we must believe on Jesus Christ. But before we can believe on Jesus Christ we must be chosen and called. God does not choose us because we will believe. He chooses us so that we will believe.

There you go, John Piper teaches that Election is unconditional and not conditioned on faith in Christ. He clearly says we are not chosen because we believe in Christ, but we are chosen so that we will believe in Christ.

So, Calvinism absolutely teaches that God elects men outside of faith in Christ.

Here is the source of this sermon.

http://unconditionalelection.com/Re..._Election_and_the_Invincible__Purpose_of_God/

You know, I used not to quote men, didn't think it was necessary. But after being accused numerous times of misrepresenting Calvinism, I have found it very helpful to quote from Calvinists themselves. So, as you see if you are honest, Piper believes and teaches election outside of faith in Christ. I do know what you teach, but it seems it is you that does not know your own doctrine.

 

[The Archangel]

And it is what John Piper teaches.

There you go, John Piper teaches that Election is unconditional and not conditioned on faith in Christ. He clearly says we are not chosen because we believe in Christ, but we are chosen so that we will believe in Christ.

So, Calvinism absolutely teaches that God elects men outside of faith in Christ.

Here is the source of this sermon.

http://unconditionalelection.com/Re..._Election_and_the_Invincible__Purpose_of_God/

You know, I used not to quote men, didn't think it was necessary. But after being accused numerous times of misrepresenting Calvinism, I have found it very helpful to quote from Calvinists themselves. So, as you see if you are honest, Piper believes and teaches election outside of faith in Christ. I do know what you teach, but it seems it is you that does not know your own doctrine.

If you would take the time to read much Piper, you would see that he believes that we are elected "In Christ" just as the scripture says.

Now, on a completely different note, I think you missed this statement at the end of the article you posted from:

Permissions: You are permitted and encouraged to reproduce and distribute this material in any format provided that you do not alter the wording in any way and do not charge a fee beyond the cost of reproduction. For web posting, a link to this document on our website is preferred. Any exceptions to the above must be approved by Desiring God. (emphasis mine)

So, unless you emailed them to post a selection from the material, you are in violation of their copyright.

The Archangel

 

[The Archangel]

And yet again you come back with a one-liner saying I am wrong without offering one word of scripture to support your belief, or showing how I have misinterpreted scripture. What a fine teacher.

I tire of you insolence. The reason I haven't offered any scripture is because I've done it all before. And you, like the ostrich I've described, have left your head buried in the ground.

So, it is not this teacher that is the problem, it is you, the student, showing a neolithic incompetence in even hearing what I have said. You choose to change the subject or obfuscate in some other way. So, quite simply, you aren't worth the time or effort to explain things for the umpteenth time.

The Archangel

 

[Rippon]

This is one of the problems of Calvinism, it teaches God elected men outside of Christ.

This sort of wild and irresponsible remark should be denounced by honest non-Cals. Winman is so out-of-bounds he should be taken-to-task by his own.

But if it is understood that God in his foreknowledge sees who will believe in Jesus and elects them,

A classic statement which has absolutely no biblical merit. Since God gives faith to His own -- He doesn't have to look down the corridors of time to tell which ones He will grant faith. You water-down foreknowledge to such a low level.

God does not elect us unconditionally as Calvinism teaches, but God does not elect us for any merit of our own as well.

You can't have your cake and eat it also. Since you believe that God elects people conditionally, then it is due to creaturely merit. You can't have it both ways.

 

[Cypress]

If you would take the time to read much Piper, you would see that he believes that we are elected "In Christ" just as the scripture says.

Now, on a completely different note, I think you missed this statement at the end of the article you posted from:



So, unless you emailed them to post a selection from the material, you are in violation of their copyright.

The Archangel

Archangel, if he didn't alter the original, he in no way violated the prohibition. The part about the link was preferred not required . Kinda like the arguments we have about interpretations of scripture.

 

[kyredneck]

This sort of wild and irresponsible remark should be denounced by honest non-Cals. Winman is so out-of-bounds he should be taken-to-task by his own........

Rippon, you have expressed what I've thought many times. There comes a point when they should be policing themselves.

 

[AresMan]

I think that arguably, he could die for those who would not believe. The atonement was for all sins -- "once for all." But forgiveness only comes through faith. I agree Jesus advocates only for those who believe in Him, but this does not mean he died only for them.

But we do see Him who was made for a little while lower than the angels, namely, Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, so that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone. Heb. 2:9

The next day he saw Jesus coming to him and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!" John 1:29

and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world. 1 John 2:2

We have seen and testify that the Father has sent the Son to be the Savior of the world. 1 John 4:14

Are you are referring to Hebrews 10:10 as the quote for "once for all"?

Heb 10:10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

The "for all" is in italics, but is implied in the word ephapax, which means "once," but with a temporal sense of completion. The "for all" in this verse does not mean "for all sin" as in the sins of every single individual; it means "for all time."

The context is that of priests having to make atoning sacrifices that only qualify for one year. They have to keep offering the same sacrifices over again for God's people. However, the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ is complete and perfecting. He offered His sacrifice once for all time. No need exists for future continual sacrifices. He did it one time for all time.

 

[rbell]

Your comments are silly. Yes, I have an "agenda". I love the Word of God and sharing it with others, getting encouragement.

I'm assuming that love for the Word also includes John 3:16, which you seemingly dismissed.

You will not believe this but it is the absolute truth: I am sick of debates - especially the ones here.

Then why did you start one?

 

[Marcia]

Are you are referring to Hebrews 10:10 as the quote for "once for all"?

The "for all" is in italics, but is implied in the word ephapax, which means "once," but with a temporal sense of completion. The "for all" in this verse does not mean "for all sin" as in the sins of every single individual; it means "for all time."

The context is that of priests having to make atoning sacrifices that only qualify for one year. They have to keep offering the same sacrifices over again for God's people. However, the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ is complete and perfecting. He offered His sacrifice once for all time. No need exists for future continual sacrifices. He did it one time for all time.

You ignored the verses I posted and addressed the one I didn't.

But we do see Him who was made for a little while lower than the angels, namely, Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, so that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone. Heb. 2:9

The next day he saw Jesus coming to him and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!" John 1:29

and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world. 1 John 2:2

We have seen and testify that the Father has sent the Son to be the Savior of the world. 1 John 4:14

 

[asterisktom]

On another note:



That's why I asked you to be my friend. You and I are exactly alike in that respect. As far as the encouragement thing goes, I suggest that you may be unrealistic if you expect any encouragement from a clique that exists on this board.



I for one greatly appreciate your posts, and although I may not always provide comment, I DO read them, and they DO have their affect, and I'm certain I'm not the only one. Bear that in mind, don't get discouraged, just keep putting the Word out there. You never know what God's gonna do with it. It may be Tom's articulation of a certain truth that finally turns the light on for someone and odd's are you'll probably never know of it or be thanked for it. I believe many preachers experience discouragements simply because of our unmindfulness to stop and take the time to comment or thank them.. IMO, it would please 'the clique' well if you were to leave. I'm not fond of debates either, but, it IS a debate forum, you know.

Somehow I missed this.

Thanks, KYRedneck. I don't intend to leave.

Well, actually, I do. Tomorrow we are going to Guatemala and will be gone for a week or so. Our housesitter might fill in here, but I doubt it.

No, I don't have unrealistic ideas about certain cliques being won over.

 

[asterisktom]

I'm assuming that love for the Word also includes John 3:16, which you seemingly dismissed.



Then why did you start one?

My love for the Word includes all of it. Which is better: To let all of Scripture put John 3:16 in proper perspective, or to impose John 3:16 over all of Scripture?

 

[kyredneck]

... Which is better: To let all of Scripture put John 3:16 in proper perspective, or to impose John 3:16 over all of Scripture?

Outstanding point; I'll remember that one!

 

[rbell]

My love for the Word includes all of it. Which is better: To let all of Scripture put John 3:16 in proper perspective, or to impose John 3:16 over all of Scripture?

Does "proper perspective" mean that "the world" doesn't really mean "the world?"

I always enjoy hearing that one...

 

[Winman]

If you would take the time to read much Piper, you would see that he believes that we are elected "In Christ" just as the scripture says.

Now, on a completely different note, I think you missed this statement at the end of the article you posted from:



So, unless you emailed them to post a selection from the material, you are in violation of their copyright.

The Archangel

Baloney, Piper absolutely said a person is chosen or elected before they believe. You cannot be "in Christ" unless you have believed on him. According to him we are elected outside of Christ. He clearly said we are not chosen or elected because we will believe, but says a person is chosen or elected in order to believe. That is absolutely unscriptural and is the teaching of Calvinism.

And yes, I did not read the statement at the end. Why don't you send them an e-mail.

You can't have your cake and eat it also. Since you believe that God elects people conditionally, then it is due to creaturely merit. You can't have it both ways.

I believe God elected those whom he saw would believe. This is God's foreknowledge and is absolutely shown in scripture.

1 Pet 1:2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

There it is, plain as day, we are elect according to God's foreknowledge. And I don't believe this baloney you teach that we somehow existed before the foundation of the world and God knew us. No, the scriptures clearly show God could see who would believe.

John 14:29 And now I have told you before it come to pass, that, when it is come to pass, ye might believe.

Jesus told his disciples many things that would happen "before it come to pass". It didn't happen before the foundation of the world, but God could see things that would happen in the future. This is shown many times in scripture.

John 6:64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.

John 6:70 Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?
71 He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve.

Jesus knew from the beginning who would believe not and who would betray him. Judas didn't betray Jesus before the foundation of the world, but Jesus knew he would betray him. And this is why he chose Judas. Do you not realize that Judas was elect? He was.

 

[The Archangel]

Baloney, Piper absolutely said a person is chosen or elected before they believe. You cannot be "in Christ" unless you have believed on him. According to him we are elected outside of Christ. He clearly said we are not chosen or elected because we will believe, but says a person is chosen or elected in order to believe. That is absolutely unscriptural and is the teaching of Calvinism.

And yes, I did not read the statement at the end. Why don't you send them an e-mail.

I didn't email them, because my goal is not to get you into trouble. I merely wanted you to be aware of their copyrights and permissions.

As for Piper's teaching, I think you have not read him widely. Does Piper believe that one is elected before they believe? Sure, that is what Election, by definition, means. But it is not, as you suppose, an election outside of Christ. If Christ is "The Lamb slain before the foundation of the world," which He is then, as Ephesians 2 shows, the elect were placed into Christ. So, it is an election based on the work of Christ.

Again, you are showing a basic misunderstanding of our position. We have never claimed that one is elected outside of Christ--that is your perverse misunderstanding. We claim that we are elected "in Christ." But, it is not we ourselves that place ourselves in Christ, it is God Himself that does that to the elect.

The Archangel

 

[Winman]

I didn't email them, because my goal is not to get you into trouble. I merely wanted you to be aware of their copyrights and permissions.

As for Piper's teaching, I think you have not read him widely. Does Piper believe that one is elected before they believe? Sure, that is what Election, by definition, means. But it is not, as you suppose, an election outside of Christ. If Christ is "The Lamb slain before the foundation of the world," which He is then, as Ephesians 2 shows, the elect were placed into Christ. So, it is an election based on the work of Christ.

Again, you are showing a basic misunderstanding of our position. We have never claimed that one is elected outside of Christ--that is your perverse misunderstanding. We claim that we are elected "in Christ." But, it is not we ourselves that place ourselves in Christ, it is God Himself that does that to the elect.

The Archangel

That is pure baloney, and I am amazed you can convince your own self of such a thing. Piper absolutely said we are not chosen or elected because we will believe. That puts you outside Christ right there. Faith in Christ is not required, isn't that why you call it "unconditional election"??

He says that a person is chosen or elected in order to believe.

Calvin said the same thing.

“This way of speaking, however, may seem to be different from many passages of Scripture which attribute to Christ the first foundation of God’s love for us and show that outside Christ we are detested by God. But we ought to remember, as I have already said, that the Heavenly Father’s secret love which embraced us is the first love given to us.” (John: Calvin, The Crossway Classic Commentaries, pp.76,

Calvin here clearly teaches that God secretly loved the elect even though they were outside Christ and believes they are chosen or elected to believe on Christ. This is exactly what Piper is teaching also.

James White says the same.

“I just also believe the undisputed and unrefuted fact that I come to Christ daily because the Father, on the sole basis of His mercy and grace, gave me to the Son in eternity past.” (Debating Calvinism, p.306,

Here is a very serious error. James White is teaching that the reason he came to Christ is because God first chose him outside of Christ, and then gave him to Christ.

The scriptures teach the opposite, that when a person believes on Christ, then God chooses or elects that person. It is because of Christ's merit that we are accepted. Jesus is God's elect or chosen one, and when we believe we become part of his body and so become elect.

Eph 1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
6 To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.

The scriptures say God has "chosen us in him" and that "he hath made us accepted in the beloved". It is only after you are in Christ that you are chosen and accepted, not before as Calvinism falsely teaches. This is serious error.

 

[The Archangel]

That is pure baloney, and I am amazed you can convince your own self of such a thing. Piper absolutely said we are not chosen or elected because we will believe. That puts you outside Christ right there. Faith in Christ is not required, isn't that why you call it "unconditional election"??

He says that a person is chosen or elected in order to believe.

According to Piper our eventual belief is a result of our having been chosen, not the cause of our being chosen.

You are clearly railing against something you don't understand. Faith in Christ is required. But that faith is not required in order to be elected, it is required in order to be (finally) saved.

It is called unconditional election because it is not based on foreseen faith. Foreseen faith is a condition. So Arminians believe in conditional election--God saw who would believe of their own free will and, therefore, elected them. Calvinists reject this--mostly based on a proper understanding of "Foreknowledge."

The root of your misunderstanding is that you believe grace is a reward. This belief of yours puts you far outside the mainstream of orthodoxy...and it may imperil your soul.

The scriptures teach the opposite, that when a person believes on Christ, then God chooses or elects that person. It is because of Christ's merit that we are accepted. Jesus is God's elect or chosen one, and when we believe we become part of his body and so become elect.

Eph 1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
6 To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.

The scriptures say God has "chosen us in him" and that "he hath made us accepted in the beloved". It is only after you are in Christ that you are chosen and accepted, not before as Calvinism falsely teaches. This is serious error.

There is no possible way that you are correct--whether in Greek or the King's English.

In this passage, whom has God chosen? Is it Christ as you suggest? No, it is "us."

In verse 5, who is predestined? Believers.

Here's a simple question: If we are chosen after we believe in Christ, how, then, are we chosen before the foundation of the world?

Furthermore, in Chapter 2, there is a list of things that God did to the "elect" "In Christ." He made us alive, He raised us up, and seated us with Christ in the heavenly places. God is the one who did these things and they were done "in Christ." In Christ simply means that the elect were somehow present with Christ when God did all these things to Christ. So, when God poured out His wrath for our sin on Christ, we were, in some way, present "in Christ" so that, figuratively speaking, God's wrath was poured out on us "in Christ" (because Christ was standing as our substitute). And all the other things--being made alive, being raised up, etc. are part-and-parcel.

I don't expect you to understand this. It seems you are unable or unwilling to do so.

The Archangel

 

[asterisktom]

Does "proper perspective" mean that "the world" doesn't really mean "the world?"

I always enjoy hearing that one...

I enjoy it too. It makes us dig deeper in our Bible study.

 

[Jerome]

Spurgeon, on the shenanigans some Calvinism enthusiasts undertake when the pesky Scripture just doesn't line up with their "grand theory":

[I Tim. 2:4]

"What then? Shall we try to put another meaning into the text than that which it fairly bears? I trow not. You must, most of you, be acquainted with the general method in which our older Calvinistic friends deal with this text. "All men," say they, —"that is, some men": as if the Holy Ghost could not have said "some men" if he had meant some men. "All men," say they; "that is, some of all sorts of men": as if the Lord could not have said "all sorts of men" if he had meant that. The Holy Ghost by the apostle has written "all men," and unquestionably he means all men. I know how to get rid of the force of the "alls" according to that critical method which some time ago was very current, but I do not see how it can be applied here with due regard to truth. I was reading just now the exposition of a very able doctor who explains the text so as to explain it away; he applies grammatical gunpowder to it, and explodes it by way of expounding it. I thought when I read his exposition that it would have been a very capital comment upon the text if it had read, "Who will not have all men to be saved, nor come to a knowledge of the truth." Had such been the inspired language every remark of the learned doctor would have been exactly in keeping, but as it happens to say, "Who will have all men to be saved," his observations are more than a little out of place. My love of consistency with my own doctrinal views is not great enough to allow me knowingly to alter a single text of Scripture. I have great respect for orthodoxy, but my reverence for inspiration is far greater. I would sooner a hundred times over appear to be inconsistent with myself than be inconsistent with the word of God. I never thought it to be any very great crime to seem to be inconsistent with myself, for who am I that I should everlastingly be consistent? But I do think it a great crime to be so inconsistent with the word of God that I should want to lop away a bough or even a twig from so much as a single tree of the forest of Scripture. God forbid that I should cut or shape, even in the least degree, any divine expression. So runs the text, and so we must read it, "God our Saviour; who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth."" —Salvation By Knowing the Truth