No greater love and limited atonement

[quantumfaith]

Would someone please, in very clear and simple terms explain the difference between "sufficient" and "efficacious". From what I have gathered to this point in my life, it sure seems like a dance.

 

[Winman]

So, if you saw a child drowning and you said, believe me and the child said no, would you let the child drown? You see how your argument isn't the same?

With a child, I would not put the decision in their hands as they are not old enough to truly understand their actions. This is why I do not believe small children go to hell when they die, because they cannot understand sin and damnation.

An adult is a different matter. I cannot control their actions. I can warn a person that it is dangerous to drive their car 100 MPH with bald tires. I could call the cops on them, but I cannot continuously watch them (nor could the police). If they continue this risky behavior, they could crash and kill themselves. I did all I could do to save them.

And this is what God told us to do, warn people. Now why in the world would God tell us to warn people if they cannot possibly repent? Does that make sense to you? It doesn't make a bit of sense to me. And if God has decided to regenerate them, then why would I need to warn them? That would be just as ridiculous.

Eze 3:18 When I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; and thou givest him not warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life; the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand.

Wow, God says here I can save another man's life by warning him that he will die because of his wicked ways. How can that be possible? I could warn him from now till eternity if your doctrine is true, but unless God regenerates him he cannot repent. And if God regenerates him I could try to talk him out of repenting, but he irresistably will.

You see, your doctrine makes no sense at all and does not match up with what the scriptures say. Warning a person only makes sense if the person has the ability to respond to the warning. That is the very definition of responsible, "able to respond". But you teach spiritually dead men are absolutely unable to respond. Therefore by definition they cannot be "responsible".

 

[jbh28]

God said he is not willing any should perish. By his own nature he is obligated to save everyone he can. Can God deny himself?

2 Pet 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

So God is unable to save everyone. He is weak. Again though, you are not understanding. God isn't obligated to save anyone except that He is a merciful God and has chosen to save.

How can a person be responsible for sin if they are born dead in sin? Do we punish blind people because they are born blind? Do we beat a person who was born crippled because they cannot walk?

You are punished for your sins. You are born with a sin nature and commit your own sins of which you are responsible for.

By your doctrine, man has no control whatsoever. He cannot choose God. God has all the power to easily save every man but chooses to let billions upon billions of men die as sinners and be tortured forever in hell.

Are you saying God is weak and cannot save everyone if He chose to?[/quote] This is worse than watching a child fall in a pool and drown, it is equivalent to pushing them in, and then holding them under when they try to come up for air. [/quote]Giving somebody their just punishment is worse that watching a child drown. Well you do realize God is going to do this right. Many will be sent to hell by God for their sin.

I am sorry, but this doctrine is plain sick, and anybody who cannot see that is not firing on all cylinders.

Well, then you must be a universalist then. If God is so sick that he would send somebody to hell.

 

[jbh28]

With a child, I would not put the decision in their hands as they are not old enough to truly understand their actions. This is why I do not believe small children go to hell when they die, because they cannot understand sin and damnation.

An adult is a different matter. I cannot control their actions. I can warn a person that it is dangerous to drive their car 100 MPH with bald tires. I could call the cops on them, but I cannot continuously watch them (nor could the police). If they continue this risky behavior, they could crash and kill themselves. I did all I could do to save them.

And this is what God told us to do, warn people. Now why in the world would God tell us to warn people if they cannot possibly repent? Does that make sense to you? It doesn't make a bit of sense to me. And if God has decided to regenerate them, then why would I need to warn them? That would be just as ridiculous.



You see, your doctrine makes no sense at all and does not match up with what the scriptures say. Warning a person only makes sense if the person has the ability to respond to the warning. That is the very definition of responsible, "able to respond". But you teach spiritually dead men are absolutely unable to respond. Therefore by definition they cannot be "responsible".

Again, hell is a place of punishment for the sins willfully committed. It's not a dangerous outcome we are being warned about and God would be mean to let us go there. Hell is a place that God sends the ungodly outside of Christ.

also, any man may call on the name of the Lord and be saved. they are "unable" because of their nature. Their nature is to not want to come to Christ. We have a sin nature to and that's why we sin. Also, the Bible teaches that men are unable to come. No man can come unless the father draws him. Now, we can argue weather all men are drawn or not, but that means that a person at some point is unable to come. Men on their own are not able to come without the power of God.

Eze 3:18 When I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; and thou givest him not warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life; the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand.

Wow, God says here I can save another man's life by warning him that he will die because of his wicked ways. How can that be possible? I could warn him from now till eternity if your doctrine is true, but unless God regenerates him he cannot repent. And if God regenerates him I could try to talk him out of repenting, but he irresistably will.

Yes, we should warn, but that's all we do. We tell other's about Jesus and leave the rest to God. Yes you are correct, you can warn him, but unless God changes him, he will never want to come to Christ.

 

[jbh28]

Would someone please, in very clear and simple terms explain the difference between "sufficient" and "efficacious". From what I have gathered to this point in my life, it sure seems like a dance.

Sufficient = enough power to cover every single sinner's sin that has ever existed.
efficient = only those that believe will the atonement cover.

 

[Winman]

So God is unable to save everyone. He is weak. Again though, you are not understanding. God isn't obligated to save anyone except that He is a merciful God and has chosen to save.

You will not understand this, God is not able to save all men. He has done the one and only thing that can save men, give his Son as a perfect sacrifice for our sins. Nothing else could save us. But men must believe on Jesus to be saved, if a man refuses to believe God cannot save him.

This is not heresy, the scriptures show Jesus could not perform miracles and mighty works because of people's unbelief. This is absolutely scriptural.

Mark 6:5 And he could there do no mighty work, save that he laid his hands upon a few sick folk, and healed them.
6 And he marvelled because of their unbelief. And he went round about the villages, teaching.

Does verse 6 say Jesus "would not" do mighty works? No, it says he "could there do no mighty work". And in verse 7 and in the parallel account in Matthew it shows why, because of their unbelief.

Matt 13:58 And he did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief.

Jesus gave his disciples power over devils to cast them out, but why could they not cast out the devil in the possessed boy? Unbelief.

Matt 17:18 And Jesus rebuked the devil; and he departed out of him: and the child was cured from that very hour.
19 Then came the disciples to Jesus apart, and said, Why could not we cast him out?
20 And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.

God has determined to save men by faith in his Son Jesus. If men refuse to trust Jesus he cannot save them.

 

[jbh28]

You will not understand this, God is not able to save all men. He has done the one and only thing that can save men, give his Son as a perfect sacrifice for our sins. Nothing else could save us. But men must believe on Jesus to be saved, if a man refuses to believe God cannot save him.

You have a weak god. He is unable to save all he wants to save. he is not sovereign. He can only save those that want to be save and is unable to save the rest. What a weak god!

This is not heresy, the scriptures show Jesus could not perform miracles and mighty works because of people's unbelief. This is absolutely scriptural.

Mark 6:5 And he could there do no mighty work, save that he laid his hands upon a few sick folk, and healed them.
6 And he marvelled because of their unbelief. And he went round about the villages, teaching.

Does verse 6 say Jesus "would not" do mighty works? No, it says he "could there do no mighty work". And in verse 7 and in the parallel account in Matthew it shows why, because of their unbelief.

Matt 13:58 And he did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief.

Jesus gave his disciples power over devils to cast them out, but why could they not cast out the devil in the possessed boy? Unbelief.

Matt 17:18 And Jesus rebuked the devil; and he departed out of him: and the child was cured from that very hour.
19 Then came the disciples to Jesus apart, and said, Why could not we cast him out?
20 And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.

God has determined to save men by faith in his Son Jesus. If men refuse to trust Jesus he cannot save them.

God has determined that faith and believe to be prerequisites. It is God that determined that. It isn't that God was unable to save, but that he has determined that belief is required. that is why He couldn't do mighty works there. They people didn't believe. God has belief as requirement, so Jesus couldn't do any might works there because God determined that belief was a requirement, but because he didn't possess the ability. Otherwise, God is weak and not sovereign. He is unable to do something by a force outside of himself. You say He doesn't have the ability to save someone because of the person means that an outside force has power over God. That is not the God of the Bible.

 

[Winman]

You have a weak god. He is unable to save all he wants to save. he is not sovereign. He can only save those that want to be save and is unable to save the rest. What a weak god!

It is not a matter of weakness, John the Baptist said God could raise up children to Abraham from the very stones. It is not that God lacks power, it is that men do not fulfill his requirement. It is like the movies, no ticket, you don't get in.

Isa 59:1 Behold, the LORD'S hand is not shortened, that it cannot save; neither his ear heavy, that it cannot hear:
2 But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear.

What is God saying here? Does he have the power to save? Then why can't he save them?

To be saved you must trust Jesus. There is no other way.

Luke 18:9 And he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others:
10 Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican.
11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.
12 I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.
13 And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.
14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.

The Pharisee did not trust Jesus. He bragged about how good he was. He trusted in his own righteousness. His faith was not in God, it was in himself.

The publican on the other hand made no claim to salvation of himself. He knew and confessed he was a wicked sinner. But he had faith that God was very good and very merciful and cast himself upon God's mercy. This is faith, and his sins were forgiven.

Both men prayed to God, but only one was saved. Why? Because one man placed his faith in himself and trusted in his own righteousness, while the other placed his faith and trust in God.

God has determined that faith and believe to be prerequisites. It is God that determined that. It isn't that God was unable to save, but that he has determined that belief is required. that is why He couldn't do mighty works there. They people didn't believe. God has belief as requirement, so Jesus couldn't do any might works there because God determined that belief was a requirement, but because he didn't possess the ability.

Now you are agreeing with me. This is exactly what I said. It does not make God weak to require faith, but at the same time he cannot save a person without faith.

You are coming around. :thumbs:

 

[Robert Snow]

The problem with your objection is that Calvinists DO see that. When someone at your church starts talking about the gospel you tune it out?Another silly, empty, argument. We are the ones who quote the scripture. You are the ones who cannot respond to it.

Not true. We quote Scripture; it's you Calvinists who say it doesn't mean what is says. For instance in John 3:16 it's you Calvinist who say that the world doesn't actually mean the world.

BTW, when someone at my church starts talking Calvinism, they certainly aren't talking the Gospel that is in the bible. They are talking a system invented by man, plain and simple.

 

[jbh28]

It is not a matter of weakness, John the Baptist said God could raise up children to Abraham from the very stones. It is not that God lacks power, it is that men do not fulfill his requirement. It is like the movies, no ticket, you don't get in.

There, that's what I was saying. God has the power to save all, but made faith a requirement. God could have saved all and not made faith a requirement, but chose to make it a requirement. God still had the power to save everyone.

Isa 59:1 Behold, the LORD'S hand is not shortened, that it cannot save; neither his ear heavy, that it cannot hear:
2 But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear.

What is God saying here? Does he have the power to save? Then why can't he save them?

To be saved you must trust Jesus. There is no other way.

Luke 18:9 And he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others:
10 Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican.
11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.
12 I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.
13 And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.
14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.

The Pharisee did not trust Jesus. He bragged about how good he was. He trusted in his own righteousness. His faith was not in God, it was in himself.

The publican on the other hand made no claim to salvation of himself. He knew and confessed he was a wicked sinner. But he had faith that God was very good and very merciful and cast himself upon God's mercy. This is faith, and his sins were forgiven.

Both men prayed to God, but only one was saved. Why? Because one man placed his faith in himself and trusted in his own righteousness, while the other placed his faith and trust in God.

Now you are agreeing with me. This is exactly what I said. It does not make God weak to require faith, but at the same time he cannot save a person without faith.

You are coming around. :thumbs:

I think you were misunderstanding what I was saying, or I wasn't saying it correctly. I was in no way trying to say that faith isn't required. He cannot save without faith because that is what HE has said. God can limit himself. (God cannot lie) but man cannot limit God. God made faith the requirement. He could have just saved everyone if He wanted to do that, but He didn't. There is more to it than that.

 

[jbh28]

Not true. We quote Scripture; it's you Calvinists who say it doesn't mean what is says. For instance in John 3:16 it's you Calvinist who say that the world doesn't actually mean the world.

BTW, when someone at my church starts talking Calvinism, they certainly aren't talking the Gospel that is in the bible. They are talking a system invented by man, plain and simple.

Um, you might want to be careful with what you say. From what I have seen, Calvinist are very much into the Scriptures and do a lot of study in the Scriptures. I don't agree with them on all the points, but to say that don't quote Scripture or that they don't like it when you quote Scripture is totally false.

 

[Winman]

Um, you might want to be careful with what you say. From what I have seen, Calvinist are very much into the Scriptures and do a lot of study in the Scriptures. I don't agree with them on all the points, but to say that don't quote Scripture or that they don't like it when you quote Scripture is totally false.

Lots of folks quote scripture. Ever spend some time with a Jehovah's Witness? They can show you twenty verses they believe prove Jesus is not God. Of course, when you show them verses that prove that Jesus is God, they will change the meanings and definitions of words, just as Calvinists change terms like "all men" to men only some men, or "world" to mean only a few elect.

It is not enough to simply quote scripture, we are commanded to rightly divide the word of truth. You can pull verses out of context, or change the definitions of simple words to make the scriptures say anything you want it to say.

Ever see this one?

"Once upon a time, a man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, and the thorns grew up and choked him.

And he went on and met the Queen of Sheba, and she gave him a thousand talents of gold and silver, and a hundred changes of rainment. And he got in his chariot and drove furiously. And when he was driving along under a tree his hair got caught in a limb and left him hanging there.

And he hung there many days and many nights, and ravens brought him food to eat and drink. And one night while he was hanging there asleep, his wife, Delilah, came and cut off his hair, and he dropped and fell on the stony ground; and it began to rain and it rained forty days and forty nights, and he hid himself in a cave.

And he went on and met a man who said, "Come in and take supper with me," but he said, "I cannot come, for I have married a wife." And the man went out into the highways and byways and compelled him to come.

He went on and came to Jerusalem and he saw Queen Jezebel sitting high up in a window. When she saw him she laughed. And he said, "Throw her down out of there," and they threw her down. And he said, "Throw her down again," and they threw her down seventy times seven times, and of the fragments they then picked up twelve baskets full. Now whose wife will she be in the day of judgment?"

Laugh, but that is how lots of folks build doctrine, by pulling verses out of context to agree with their presuppositions, often ignoring many scriptures that absolutely refute it.

 

[Iconoclast]

Not true. We quote Scripture; it's you Calvinists who say it doesn't mean what is says. For instance in John 3:16 it's you Calvinist who say that the world doesn't actually mean the world.

BTW, when someone at my church starts talking Calvinism, they certainly aren't talking the Gospel that is in the bible. They are talking a system invented by man, plain and simple.

how to defeat calvinism;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OebZJzB7W_c

 

[Iconoclast]

Hello Webdog,
Thanks for posting and seeking to respond on these threads. I would like to respond to some of the issues you raised. You said this:

I guess my problem is I hold the Bible at a higher authority than the Canons of the Synod of Dordt.

We all agree that the bible alone is the God given rule of faith and practice.
When someone offers you a quote from godly men in church history who gathered together with open bibles to see what the bible teaches, why be so quick to dismiss what is offered to you from these pastors and teachers?

Webdog, you or I might not always understand or agree with a man made statement or teaching. However to ignore what other gifted pastors or teachers offer is to despise the gifted teachers God has given to His church.

Do you think that these men did not view the bible as our highest authority?
Of course they did. These "manmade" teachings view the same topics we discuss here on the BB. Why re-invent the wheel? Most in the church held to these teachings.....so take time to discuss the merits of the teachings,based on the verses offered,and if you need to give your scriptural reasons why you do not agree.

Most false teachers preface thier remarks with the ignorant phrase....
well my bible says...........as if all bibles did not say the same thing!

to say......all means all or world means world without seeking to understand what is meant in each case is not a serious attempt to come to truth./ Do you see what I am getting at?

Initially others are trying to help answer supposed difficulties.

If they look at your response and you mis-represent what is posted, little or no progress will be made.

Looking back over this thread, I think you will see examples of it.

 

[Winman]

How do you defeat Calvinism?

Easy, read the scriptures and don't get your doctrine from Youtube.

 

[TCassidy]

Not true. We quote Scripture; it's you Calvinists who say it doesn't mean what is says.

Sorry, but you are wrong. The word of God means what it says and says what it means.

For instance in John 3:16 it's you Calvinist who say that the world doesn't actually mean the world.

Sorry, but you are wrong again. God, in this manner, loved the world (of mankind): He gave His only begotten Son. It says what it means and means what it says.

BTW, when someone at my church starts talking Calvinism, they certainly aren't talking the Gospel that is in the bible. They are talking a system invented by man, plain and simple.

No, they are talking about the bible. That salvation is of the Lord (Jonah 2:9). That by grace are we saved through faith, and that, NOT OF OURSELVES (Eph 2:8). And not by works of righteousness we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us (Titus 3:5). And no one can come to Christ, unless the Father who sent Him draws that person (John 6:44).

The Gospel is clear.

No part of man is good enough to merit salvation on it own.

No person meets God's perfect standard of salvation, there is nothing in man good enough to earn salvation.

Only those who come to Christ for salvation will have their sins forgiven.

No true believe will resist God's grace unto damnation.

No true believer will ever be lost.

That is the Gospel. You either accept it or reject it.

 

[Winman]

Sorry, but you are wrong. The word of God means what it says and says what it means. Sorry, but you are wrong again. God, in this manner, loved the world (of mankind): He gave His only begotten Son. It says what it means and means what it says.No, they are talking about the bible. That salvation is of the Lord (Jonah 2:9). That by grace are we saved through faith, and that, NOT OF OURSELVES (Eph 2:8). And not by works of righteousness we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us (Titus 3:5). And no one can come to Christ, unless the Father who sent Him draws that person (John 6:44).

The Gospel is clear.

No part of man is good enough to merit salvation on it own.

No person meets God's perfect standard of salvation, there is nothing in man good enough to earn salvation.

Only those who come to Christ for salvation will have their sins forgiven.

No true believe will resist God's grace unto damnation.

No true believer will ever be lost.

That is the Gospel. You either accept it or reject it.

Then explain this verse:

Rom 5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

The phrase "all men" is used twice in this verse and they are the EXACT same words in the Greek.

Calvinists teach that Adam's sin nature and the condemnation for being a sinner passed onto every man. You would interpret the first "all men" to mean every single person who has ever lived except Jesus.

So, wouldn't the second "all men" teach that the free gift of justification came upon every single man who ever lived as well?

Dig out that commentary!

 

[TCassidy]

Calvinists teach that Adam's sin nature and the condemnation for being a sinner passed onto every man. You would interpret the first "all men" to mean every single person who has ever lived except Jesus.

So, wouldn't the second "all men" teach that the free gift of justification came upon every single man who ever lived as well?

So you are admitting you believe in universal salvation?

That is where we differ. I believe the atonement is sufficient for all men everywhere without distinction but is efficient only for those who believe.

And, if you had sufficient understanding of the bible you would recognize the parallelism with verse 15.

If you deny the parallelism you are left with the heresy of universalism which calls Christ a liar every time He spoke of hell.

 

[Winman]

So you are admitting you believe in universal salvation?

That is where we differ. I believe the atonement is sufficient for all men everywhere without distinction but is efficient only for those who believe.

And, if you had sufficient understanding of the bible you would recognize the parallelism with verse 15.

If you deny the parallelism you are left with the heresy of universalism which calls Christ a liar every time He spoke of hell.

No, I understand this verse perfectly and it is not teaching universalism whatsoever. You will never figure it out with Calvinist doctrine. I am not going to answer you until you tell me whether "all men" in this verse is the same EXACT words with the same EXACT meaning. And please explain if it means every man who has ever lived, or just a few elect.

Oh, and while you are at it, look at this verse.

1 Tim 2:3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

The phrase "all men" in 1 Tim 2:3 is the exact same words in Greek as used twice in Romans 5:18

Does this mean every single man who has ever lived, or just a few elect?

And if it is God's and Jesus's will that "all men" be saved, then why aren't 100% of mankind saved?

You Calvinists love to play word games, so you should get lots of enjoyment out of figuring these verses out.

I will be going soon, but I'll check back in a day or so to see how you did. Good luck.

 

[TomVols]

Reading the posts of some, I never cease to be amazed at the folks who have such a man-centered God, who does our bidding and is bound to our whims and fancies. Stunning, just stunning. Open Theism may have died in name, but the remnants and its adherents are very present.

TCassidy, I've enjoyed your posts thoroughly. You know more than just Bible versions Always good to hear from you!