Thinkingstuff
Active Member
Ok that's fair. However, I cannot see that God was remise in providing salvation for the whole world (universally speaking) for those who avail themselves of it.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Conditional election
- Thread starter Dr. Walter
- Start date
Ok that's fair. However, I cannot see that God was remise in providing salvation for the whole world (universally speaking) for those who avail themselves of it.
Actually he said we know we are of God, that's present tense. The whole world lieth in wickedness, again present tense. We are presently of God and the whole world presently lies in wickedness. Again, whole world is not to be taken universally without exception here. It's funny that you accuse me of denying a scriptural definition to fit my belief system, when you did some pretty good gymnastics with this text to fit your view.
Doc Wally.....as I asked earlier privately if you were this individual (which you are not) please allow me to apply this passage from Doc Martin at Wheaton. He States....
"John the Apostle tells us that Christ gave His life as a propitiation for our sin (i.e., the elect), though not for ours only but for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2)....[People] cannot evade John's usage of 'whole' (Greek: holos). In the same context the apostle quite cogently points out that 'the whole (holos) world lies in wickedness' or, more properly, 'in the lap of the wicked one' (1 John 5:19, literal translation). If we assume that 'whole' applies only to the chosen or elect of God, then the 'whole world does not 'lie in the lap of the wicked one.' This, of course, all reject."
"John the Apostle tells us that Christ gave His life as a propitiation for our sin (i.e., the elect), though not for ours only but for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2)....[People] cannot evade John's usage of 'whole' (Greek: holos). In the same context the apostle quite cogently points out that 'the whole (holos) world lies in wickedness' or, more properly, 'in the lap of the wicked one' (1 John 5:19, literal translation). If we assume that 'whole' applies only to the chosen or elect of God, then the 'whole world does not 'lie in the lap of the wicked one.' This, of course, all reject."
Last edited by a moderator:
How does one avail himself of it if none seek after God?
Here's another question: why are you going to heaven? Is it because you availed yourself of salvation?
World and whole world does not mean the elect. I know some say that, but they are wrong. World in the bible many times refers to a mass of humanity. Sometimes it refers to a system or to the physical creation. But many times it refers to a mass of humanity. That mass of humanity must be defined by context. The key thing is I can't think of a single time it is used to mean universally without exception. If it is used that way, it isn't often, and that's not the main definition.
Dr. Walter
New Member
I understand his logic. However, there are other contextual factors that I believe he fails to take into consideration. The readers are Jewish Christians as John's ministry was to the Jewish believers (Gal. 2:9). The earliest and foremost problem in the mind of Jews was that Gentiles could be partakers on an equal basis. Indeed the first great issue was over Gentiles and refusal to accept them unless they became Jewish by circumcision (Acts 15). This is the constant problem Paul dealt with throughout his epistles. I believe that John is telling his Jewish readers that the satisfaction for sin provided by Christ was not for Jewish believers only but for the "whole" world - all ethnic classifications. The Jew had a hard time thinking outside the box of Judaism.
In regard to the "whole world" lieth in wickedness, that is entirely a different application altogether. Here he is speaking of the SYSTEM that is in opposition to God that operates among all nations of mankind. However, He does not include within this "whole" the elect of God or His kingdom.
In regard to the "whole world" lieth in wickedness, that is entirely a different application altogether. Here he is speaking of the SYSTEM that is in opposition to God that operates among all nations of mankind. However, He does not include within this "whole" the elect of God or His kingdom.
Doc....Earlier I asked the question about the angels sinning...
Why would God have Christ die for those whom He, in His omniscience, knew would never receive His provision? Answer: "Why did God richly endow the angels who subsequently sinned, when He knew they would not use His gifts to their everlasting good? Why did He bestow valuable gifts on our first parents, to be employed for their and our advantage, when He knew they would not so employ them? Why did He send Noah to preach to people He knew would not receive His message? And why did He send the prophets to Israel, when He knew they would continue in their apostasy? There is such a thing as the divine benevolence."
Why would God have Christ die for those whom He, in His omniscience, knew would never receive His provision? Answer: "Why did God richly endow the angels who subsequently sinned, when He knew they would not use His gifts to their everlasting good? Why did He bestow valuable gifts on our first parents, to be employed for their and our advantage, when He knew they would not so employ them? Why did He send Noah to preach to people He knew would not receive His message? And why did He send the prophets to Israel, when He knew they would continue in their apostasy? There is such a thing as the divine benevolence."
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
Yes and no. I didn't seek God to provide salvation for me. Salvation comes from God alone. Salvation comes from God's initiative alone because of his love for all of us. So that
and to
. So Jesus gave himself of his own initiative to ransom himself for us Mt20:28, 1 Pet 1:18. And I believe univerally in this passage. 1 Tim 2:4
. So God provides the Gift as his initiative. I did not initiate the gift. It is God's grace that helps me to understand that this gift is offered to me. But I can reject the gift or accept it
1 Tim 1:18-19. Man's response to faith must be free and thus no one is forced into the faith against his or her will.
Dr. Walter
New Member
Yes, I believe that. Also, the Greek term agape or "love" is used on many different levels. For example, we are to love our enemies but we do not love our enemies as we love our friends, we do not love our friends as we do our family and we do not love our family as we do our immediate household, and we do not love our children as we love our spouse and we do not love our spouse as we do God. There are different priorities within love as God takes top priority. True, we are to do right by all and love in the sense of doing right is equal to all.
However, there is a difference between God's love or benevolence and redemptive love. God has benevolent love toward all even his worst enemies angelic and human. God demonstrates this by blessing them and enriching them with all the good they possess.
There is nothing but the wrath of God OUTSIDE of Christ (Jn. 3:36) and there is nowhere else the love of God can be experienced but "in Christ." However, God's benevolent love is experienced by all creation and all His creatures.
But what I want to know is how you are going to get to heaven. Did Jesus Christ save you or did you avail yourself of salvation? It's a simple question.
By the way, for someone that preaches so hard on context you sure do take texts out of context.
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
I gave you a very simple answer already. Jesus saved me and I accepted. Fortunately, I don't have to take a multiple choice test Like many here seemed to believe to gain entrance into the kingdom. And Also unlike many here I believe I am already a part of the kingdom evidenced by my faith. I haven't taken anything out of context. I take text as they are with the understanding of the time they were writen in the context of the culture of the time. I don't put modern conatations with scriptures.
quantumfaith
Active Member
Well, I am certainly not "worried" about you.
Dr. Walter
New Member
I am glad to hear that. The Lord takes care of me quite well and so other need not worry.
Brownnoser! LOL
Ok, well let me ask it like this: why are you going to be in heaven but another man will be in hell?
RAdam, seriously dude why the bevy of questions? Did you get a list from your bible study youth minister & your job is go around the neighborhood?
With all do respect, it really does sound like that. It wouldn't surprise me if you threw in "If you died today.....you complete the thought but I hope you don't take it the wrong way.
Id be more than happy to discuss with you other theological topics with you as I'm sure we all would.
Dr. Walter
New Member
Do you mean "I accepted and so Jesus saved me" or do you mean "Jesus saved me and I accepted"??? Yes, it does make a difference. The first way, you are giving Christ permission to be the Savior whereas the second way you are submitting to the Savior's salvation.
The first way is the same as the testimonies I walked the isle, I signed a card, I said a prayer, I got baptized, I joined the church, I...I...I....I....I....I and I......etc. This is prescription salvation.
The Second way is all about Christ and what He did to save me. This is Christ honoring salvation.
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
HP: How convenient for you to see clearly the manner that words are often used in different contexts and applications, yet deny it vehemently when it might suggest a different end than what you so desire.
There is no other way to describe such self serving convenient applications as you apply at will, but deny any and all that others see clearly but are in conflict with your desired ends, i.e., pure arrogance.
Just as ‘the world’ may or may not be used in an all inclusive fashion, words such as ‘impossible’ and ‘cannot’ in no wise eliminate the distinct ‘possibility’ of contrary choice to be within the realm of theoretic possibilities.
My question is for this reason:
People on here are saying Jesus died for everybody without exception. Ok, so you have Jesus dying for two men. One ends up in heaven, the other in hell. There must be a reason why one ended up in heaven, the other in hell. If Jesus died for them both, then it cannot be the work of Jesus in redemption. After all, He did the same for both men. So what is the difference?
You see this is a logic problem that universal atonement has. It has Jesus doing for those in heaven exactly what He did for those in hell. The only difference, say many, is whether or not they availed themselves of salvation. The difference then is not in the work of Jesus but in the action of the sinner. How then can one call Jesus their Savior? Jesus didn't save you under this scenario. How do I know that? Because He did the same thing for the other guy. The reason you are going to heaven and the other guy isn't is because of something you did. Really, you are your own savior. You should be praising yourself. You won't be singing the song from Revelation 5, "thou hast redeemed us by the blood." Instead, you'll be singing about how you availed yourself of salvation.
You'll notice that the bible gives full credit to Jesus Christ. Why? Because it belongs to Him. The reason one person ends up in heaven is because Jesus died for him/her at the cross, and in that reconciled that person to the Father. Jesus redeemed them by His blood. The reason one will end up in hell is because Jesus didn't die for him/her. The difference between the saved and the damned is in the work of Christ, not the action of man. Who maketh thee to differ? Jesus Christ did. The entire race was under condemnation, but by the actions of Jesus Christ there is now no condemnation to those He died for.
People on here are saying Jesus died for everybody without exception. Ok, so you have Jesus dying for two men. One ends up in heaven, the other in hell. There must be a reason why one ended up in heaven, the other in hell. If Jesus died for them both, then it cannot be the work of Jesus in redemption. After all, He did the same for both men. So what is the difference?
You see this is a logic problem that universal atonement has. It has Jesus doing for those in heaven exactly what He did for those in hell. The only difference, say many, is whether or not they availed themselves of salvation. The difference then is not in the work of Jesus but in the action of the sinner. How then can one call Jesus their Savior? Jesus didn't save you under this scenario. How do I know that? Because He did the same thing for the other guy. The reason you are going to heaven and the other guy isn't is because of something you did. Really, you are your own savior. You should be praising yourself. You won't be singing the song from Revelation 5, "thou hast redeemed us by the blood." Instead, you'll be singing about how you availed yourself of salvation.
You'll notice that the bible gives full credit to Jesus Christ. Why? Because it belongs to Him. The reason one person ends up in heaven is because Jesus died for him/her at the cross, and in that reconciled that person to the Father. Jesus redeemed them by His blood. The reason one will end up in hell is because Jesus didn't die for him/her. The difference between the saved and the damned is in the work of Christ, not the action of man. Who maketh thee to differ? Jesus Christ did. The entire race was under condemnation, but by the actions of Jesus Christ there is now no condemnation to those He died for.
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
I'm in heaven because Jesus saved me. Another man is in hell because of his rejection of the Lord. Why is satan in hell?