In the Cross, Did God Reconcile ALL Or Just The saved Peoples?

[Iconoclast]

skan:



Are you going to show us how some can be reconciled to God, not almost reconciled, but reconciled to God by the death of His Son, and be under Legal condemnation at the same time.

The verse says nothing about provisional reconciliation or atonement but actual reconciliation.

The word reconciled is in the past tense and passive voice, its a finished done deal. Rom 5:10

10For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.

Now do you deny this actual reconciliation that took place while these sinners were enemies ?

:applause::applause: Of course you have posted correctly here. You might not get a response because there is no response to the clear scriptures offered. Any attempted response would be futile.

 

[Alive in Christ]

Luke2427...

Originally Posted by Luke2427

Yes, we do. But Skandelon believes that unregenerate man somehow generates faith in himself.....

Error.

That would be faith in CHRIST. And the reason we are able to choose to place our faith in Christ is because this idea that God pre-progams people, like robots, to do certain things regarding salvation...is 100% uncriptural and is error.

...when hearing the word and in an unregenerate state can turn to God and repent of sin and believe.

You mock and ridicule, and yet....

I did that very thing many many years ago. I am sure about that because I was their when I did it.. And millions upon millions of people have chosen Christ as well over the past 2000 years. They all can testify to choosing Christ because they too were there when it happened

Yet you mock and ridicule.

God have mercy

 

[Dr. Bob]

Is "putting my faith in Christ" a good thing? A righteous act?

If so, HOW did "I" do it?

And WHY did "I" do it, and not Mohammed down the block?

Of course the correct answers are evident in the Bible to those who see a sovereign God, not a sovereign man.

 

[Alive in Christ]

Aaron...

That's the inescapable conclusion of any noncalvinistic thought. In fact, man doesn't need to be regenerated, because he is not completely ruined. He just needs a little repair.

Nonsense.

All people MUST be regenerated and placed in Christ..in order to be saved.

I remember that very moment when I was regenerated. It was glorious. It was breathtaking. I'll never forget it. Knowing Christ personally has changed my life so dramatically.

My heart breaks for those who reject Him, when He only asks for faith, and faith alone. And in return, you get a brand new life here on earth, and the surety of heaven for eternity.

Praise the Lord.

 

[webdog]

Is "putting my faith in Christ" a good thing? A righteous act?

What does the Bible say?

If so, HOW did "I" do it?

Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God.

And WHY did "I" do it, and not Mohammed down the block?

You tell me. I would venture it has something to do with you not exchanging the truth for a lie.

Of course the correct answers are evident in the Bible to those who see a sovereign God, not a sovereign man.

...which includes all believers...or were you just trying to attack all non-cal's?

 

[Alive in Christ]

Dr Bob...

Is "putting my faith in Christ" a good thing? A righteous act?

I'm somewhat taken aback that you would have to ask.

If so, HOW did "I" do it?

By faith. Faith alone in Christ. You simply make that choice.

From the scriptures....

I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. So choose life in order that you may live, you and your descendants,

Thats just one among multitudes upon multitudes of scriptures where God gives men and women a choice to make.

And WHY did "I" do it, and not Mohammed down the block?

There could be any number of reasons for why someone will not choose for Christ. We are to plant seeds, and leave the person under conviction to God,
and the Holy Spirits ministry.

Of course the correct answers are evident in the Bible to those who see a sovereign God, not a sovereign man.

Amen to that.

I dont believe there has ever been anyone "sovereign" but God. Certainly not man. And of course it goes without saying that mans role in choosing Christ does not in any way make him "sovereign", as God is sovereign. He is simply accepting Gods offer of mercy, and eternal life.

Through faith in Christ alone. Its all of God, and none of us. God clearly considers "faith" to be a non-work.

 

[Skandelon]

In one thing you are consistent: no matter what is written or by whom, you will misconstrue it.

Excuse me but you are the one who suggested that all non-Cals believe men aren't really ruined, but just need repair. I'm the one who brought clarity by quoting straight from Arminius himself saying just the opposite of what you claimed he and other non-Cals believe. You are the one doing the misconstruing Aaron.

Here it is summed up: The natural man has the power to save himself, but not without help.

Case and point.

Skandy, I'll ask you one more time before I spank you soundly and put you to bed on this topic.

I define belief the same way you do Aaron. Spank away. I'm sure your straw-man will enjoy the attention.

 

[Skandelon]

Is "putting my faith in Christ" a good thing? A righteous act?

Bob, regardless how one answers that question we all must admit that faith is required for salvation and we both believe we need divine assistance to have faith. The difference is that you believe the assistance is effectual and we believe it can be resisted. So, you tell us, is it a righteous act or not? Are we saved by grace through a work that is effectually produced, or through a work that is produced through hearing, but is resistible? Either way, seems like you would have us saved by Grace through works.

 

[glfredrick]

Does God not hold the curse of the fall/Law against anyone any more due to the atoning death of Christ on the Cross, basically we all got a clean slate with God, no longer His emernies...

OR

Did that apply JUST to those who would make up the redeemed of the Lord, that others still are NOT reconciled back with God via the Cross?

Neither...

 

[Winman]

skan:



He was speaking of those of His Present Ministry who were not believing, it was because they were condemned in their sins, they had not substitute, so quite naturally they must stand alone and condemned.

But those who Christ died for, even while they are in unbelief and enemies by nature, they are not condemned, they are reconciled to God, they are in His Favor. Rom 5:10

10For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.

Now you explain how one can be reconciled to God by the death of His Son, and at the same time be Legally condemned by God !

You pull this verse out of context, it is speaking of believers. How does this chapter begin?

Rom 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. 2 By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.

Jesus's death provided reconciliation to God, but we access this grace by faith.

And you conveniently ignore verse 9.

Rom 5:9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.

Paul is speaking of believers who have been justified, they are no longer condemned.

Being justified by faith IS being reconciled to God.

 

[Iconoclast]

You pull this verse out of context, it is speaking of believers. How does this chapter begin?

Rom 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. 2 By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.

Jesus's death provided reconciliation to God, but we access this grace by faith.

And you conveniently ignore verse 9.

Rom 5:9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.

Paul is speaking of believers who have been justified, they are no longer condemned.

Being justified by faith IS being reconciled to God.

You have completely mis-read sbm"s post...it is clear you do not understand the actual point made

 

[Aaron]

Excuse me but you are the one who suggested that all non-Cals believe men aren't really ruined, but just need repair. I'm the one who brought clarity by quoting straight from Arminius himself saying just the opposite of what you claimed he and other non-Cals believe. You are the one doing the misconstruing Aaron.

I expected to have to spell it out for you.

"In the state of Primitive Innocence, man had a mind endued with a clear understanding of heavenly light and truth concerning God, and his works and will, as far as was sufficient for the salvation of man and the glory of God; he had a heart imbued with "righteousness and true holiness," and with a true and saving love of good; and powers abundantly qualified or furnished perfectly to fulfill the law which God had imposed on him. This admits easily of proof from the description of the image of God, after which man is said to have been created (Gen. 1:26-27), from the law divinely imposed on him, which had a promise and a threat appended to it (Gen 2:17), and lastly from the analogous restoration of the same image in Christ Jesus (Ephesians 4:24; Col. 3:10)."
​

IOW: Man was created with a free will. My proof is: 1) my assumption that God could choose to sin, and man is made in that image, 2) my assumption that a commandment presupposes the ability to obey or disobey it, and 3) my assumption that in salvation, man is merely restored to his previous innocent state. (All, fallacious assumptions, BTW.)

"But man was not so confirmed in this state of innocence as to be incapable of being moved by the representation presented to him of some good (whether it was of an inferior kind and relating to this [natural] life, or of a superior kind and relating to spiritual life), inordinately and unlawfully to look upon it and to desire it, and of his own spontaneous as well as free motion, and through a preposterous desire for that good, to decline from the obedience which had been prescribed to him. Nay, having turned away from the light of his own mind and his Chief Good, which is God, or, at least, having turned towards that Chief Good not in the manner in which he ought to have done, and besides having turned in mind and heart towards an inferior good, he transgressed the command given to him for life. By this foul deed, he precipitated himself from that noble and elevated condition into a state of the deepest infelicity, which is under the Dominion of Sin. . . ."
​

IOW: Not only did Adam have a free will, but he wasn't so innocent that he couldn't desire to sin. So, faced with the desire of the good offered from God vs a desire to do evil (though he didn't understand it as really evil, just a lesser good), and not yet corrupted or fallen, he freely chose to do evil.

"In this state, the Free Will of man towards the True Good is not only wounded, maimed, infirm, bent, and weakened; but it is also imprisoned, destroyed, and lost: And its powers are not only debilitated and useless unless they be assisted by grace, but it has no powers whatever except such as are excited by Divine grace."

​

IOW: Man's free will died, but it's still there. It's just waiting for new batteries. So, God gives it a jump start and gives man a second chance by his own natural ability to choose obedience.

I define belief the same way you do Aaron. Spank away. I'm sure your straw-man will enjoy the attention.

If you did, you'd be a Calvinist. One last chance.​

 

[savedbymercy]

winn:

You pull this verse out of context, it is speaking of believers.

Its not out of context, and of course its speaking to believers, but its what is said to those believers you are ignoring.

Paul says to them, that even while, at the same time, they were being enemies, that is unbelievers and hostile to God by nature, that even then, they had been reconciled to God. How ? Was it by Faith and Repentance ? No, it was solely by the Death of God's Son. Rom 5:10

10For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son,

Now you explain how they were condemned by God while unbelievers, and at the same time reconciled to God by the blood of Christ. If you deny this, you deny the significance of the Cross.

 

[Aaron]

Now you explain how they were condemned by God while unbelievers, and at the same time reconciled to God by the blood of Christ. If you deny this, you deny the significance of the Cross.

*fanfare*:applause:

And that's the great sin of noncalvinistic thought. The Cross saves no one.

Let's compare and contrast:

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Cross

Noncalvinism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Calvinism

Creates a situation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Creates an individual
Redeems an environment . . . . . . . . . . Redeems an individual
Atones for sin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Atones for sinners
Saves no one . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Saves the elect

 

[savedbymercy]

You have completely mis-read sbm"s post...it is clear you do not understand the actual point made

Yes, he has missed the point, and thats not good. However let me say this as a follow up. Because the elect of God are already legally reconciled by the cross of calvary [His Blood] while even being enemies, unbelievers, there yet remains a subjective reconciliation that is brought about by the new birth. The elects heart by nature [as other men] are still at enmity against God until changed by His Spirit and Grace. Thats why Paul in 2 Cor 5:20

20Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.

This is imperative is issued out to those who are already legally reconciled as vs 18 would evidence

18And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;

It is to them that God through Paul gives this imperative " Be ye reconciled to God" and its just as effective as God saying " Let there be Light". The imperative is now be ye reconciled to God subjectively, now this very imperative in itself brings about the subjective reconciliation for its in the passive voice in the original. Its a command that is being fulfilled[in them] by the Grace of God through Christ work on the Cross. This work actually brings them to God as pointed out here 1 Pet 3:18

For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

 

[Skandelon]

IOW: Man was created with a free will. My proof is: 1) my assumption that God could choose to sin, and man is made in that image,

There is nothing in that quote which comes remotely close to making this argument. You interpret him like you interpret scripture.

2) my assumption that a commandment presupposes the ability to obey or disobey it, and

Again, not found in this quote, though it is probably something he believes. It does after all make much more since than the opposite assumption that God likes torturing people for all eternity for not obeying a command he didn't create them with the ability to willingly obey. I mean, don't we all love telling our kids to do things they can't do and then beating them mercilessly when they don't?

(All, fallacious assumptions, BTW.)

Oh, and because you say so it must be so... :laugh:

The rest is more of the same. IOW, you couldn't properly represent us even if you wanted to and I know you don't want to, so I'm not going to waste my time correcting all of your erroneous descriptions. If I thought you were honestly attempting to make an effort to properly represent Arminius quotes and then address them, I'd be more than happy to engage you in discussion, but with comments such as, "Man's free will died, but it's still there. It's just waiting for new batteries. So, God gives it a jump start..." I know you aren't serious. Funny, yes, serious and worthy of serious consideration, no.

 

[Aaron]

There is nothing in that quote which comes remotely close to making this argument.

Absolutely is. It's the central error of noncalvinists to think of God in the image of fallen man. When he cited being made in God's image (though he doesn't understand the concept) as evidence that Adam had the power to do good, the converse is understood. He also had the power to do evil, and God wouldn't endow him with power that He didn't have himself.

You interpret him like you interpret scripture.

Correctly.

Again, not found in this quote, though it is probably something he believes.

Again, it's obvious to the most casual observer. He draws on that assumption by citing the fact that a command was given with a "threat" for disobedience as evidence for Adam's free will. It couldn't be more plain. There would be no other reason to cite it for proof.

. . . but with comments such as, "Man's free will died, but it's still there. It's just waiting for new batteries. So, God gives it a jump start..." I know you aren't serious. Funny, yes, serious and worthy of serious consideration, no.

It's exactly what he said. ". . . but it (man's free will) has no powers whatever except such as are excited by Divine grace."

He doesn't say God creates a new heart in man. He doesn't say that man's free will is dead and buried. No, it's dead and lays there waiting for excitement.

It couldn't be more plain.

 

[Winman]

Yes, he has missed the point, and thats not good. However let me say this as a follow up. Because the elect of God are already legally reconciled by the cross of calvary [His Blood] while even being enemies, unbelievers, there yet remains a subjective reconciliation that is brought about by the new birth. The elects heart by nature [as other men] are still at enmity against God until changed by His Spirit and Grace. Thats why Paul in 2 Cor 5:20

20Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.

This is imperative is issued out to those who are already legally reconciled as vs 18 would evidence

18And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;

It is to them that God through Paul gives this imperative " Be ye reconciled to God" and its just as effective as God saying " Let there be Light".

Have you ever seen where two people were having a fight or disagreement where one person is willing to end it and extends his hand in friendship, but the other refuses? This is similar to salvation. Jesus dying on the cross, shedding his blood, rising from the dead, ascending to heaven and sprinkling his own blood on the mercy seat in heaven has satisfied God's justice. God has in effect extended his hand to us in an offer of friendship. But it takes two to reconcile as Paul points out. By faith we must reach out and shake God's hand to be reconciled.

If your view was correct, Paul would not need to tell us to be reconciled to God.

It takes two to reconcile.

 

[Skandelon]

Absolutely is. It's the central error of noncalvinists to think of God in the image of fallen man.

We affirm the biblical teaching that we were created in the image of God, just as Calvinists do. We also affirm that man is affected to the point as needing divine grace in order to be save, just as Calvinists do. The difference is that we believe that grace to be resistible, while you believe it to be effectual.

As pointed out numerous times our view leaves men without excuse, while your view has significant issues of divine culpability.

Again, it's obvious to the most casual observer. He draws on that assumption by citing the fact that a command was given with a "threat" for disobedience as evidence for Adam's free will. It couldn't be more plain. There would be no other reason to cite it for proof.

And what you don't seem to understand is that even Calvinists (at least those in the compatibilistic camp) affirm man's free will (defining it as acting in accordance with ones nature/desires), thus this distinction is not unique to Arminianism...but I'm sure you already knew that.

It's exactly what he said. ". . . but it (man's free will) has no powers whatever except such as are excited by Divine grace."

Which is what Calvinists, who are not being intentionally nit-picky, affirm as well. The difference is the effectuality of that divine grace, regardless of what adjectives or various verbiage you would prefer for good measure. Heaven forbid you say anything that might suggest that someone might believe and it be credited to them as righteousness. The Monergistic counsel might descend upon you and strike you down.

 

[savedbymercy]

win:

Have you ever seen where two people were having a fight or disagreement where one person is willing to end it and extends his hand in friendship, but the other refuses?

Rabbit trail, deal with the scripture I provided if you are able. People always say, show me scripture, then when its shown, they ignore it and go to something else..