Featured "passive" in justification; "not passive" in sanctification

LOL right LOL

 

Naw...he's on the left....

 

Perhaps you could comment on John's statement and explain why Van is incorrect in his statement:


1 John 2

King James Version (KJV)

2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.


God bless.

 

LOL, I see several Calvinist posters posting logical fallacies right and left, i.e. Van is on the right, Van is on the left. Total evasion of the topic.

Jesus is the propitiation for the whole world, thus Jesus = Propitiation.
Jesus is the means of salvation, thus Propitiation = Jesus = Means of Salvation. So simple a child could understand it.

Thanks Darrell C, your observation is spot on!!

 

2 Thessalonians 2:13 says our individual, not corporate election for salvation is conditional, i.e. through faith in the Truth. All these efforts to change the subject are simply evasions. Man is passive in regeneration, justification and adoption. This seems true, God regenerates us, causes us to be born anew. God justifies us, we do not justify ourselves by works of righteousness. And God will adopt us, the redemption of our bodies, at Christ's second coming. The issue of course comes with our understanding of what prompted God's monergistic action, did He credit our faith in Christ as righteousness, or did He chose us unconditionally and give us faith via irresistible grace. 2 Thessalonians 2:13 makes the answer crystal clear.

Calvinism collapses like a house of cards when scripture is actually studied.

1) They say no unregenerate person ever seeks God at any time, but scripture (Matthew 23:13) says unregenerate men were entering heaven.
2) They say we are chosen individually unconditionally, but scripture (2 Thess. 2:13) says we are chosen through faith in the truth.
3) They say Christ died only for the elect, but scripture say Christ laid down His life as a ransom for all.
4) They say the grace drawing individuals to salvation is irresistible, but scripture say men entering heaven were blocked by false teachers. ​

 

Here's an example of argument by assertion turning into argumentum ad nauseam.

 

Hello Van, just thought I would throw in a few thoughts concerning the following.

It has become increasingly evident to me in recent years that the one issue that is lacking in the continuous debate between Calvinists and those who think they are Arminian in position is the Ministry of the Comforter which began with the establishing of the New Covenant. I would say stop me if you've heard this but taking advantage of a "captive" audience (don't you love forum discussion, lol) I thought that once again I would just bring this up.

In regards to the above Scripture I would like to point out that I agree that we have to distinguish from an individual and a corporate context, though in many cases both might be found to be either applicable or irrelevant as to the teaching discussed.

So just bear with me a little, Van.

That's why it's important to control the subject, right?

Agreed wholeheartedly, but let's back up a little and talk about something else he is passive in: righteousness.

I don't mean the righteousness the natural man can attain to, and be patted on the back, or even receive a medal for, but the righteousness of God which is the standard God has set forth in regards to the eternal perspective.

So long before we get to regeneration, justification and adoption, we must first deal with the condition man is in from birth, that being separated from God and wholly incapable within himself to discern the spiritual things of God.

How that is introduced into the life of the individual is where the debate should, I feel, begin.

The question is why? What leads up to that?

And also, by way of a question, "Can one be born again and not indwelt of God?" There are those who have taught this, meaning they taught one can be a Christian yet not have the Spirit of God. It becomes a little more complicated as we have the Old Testament accounts of the ministry of the Spirit in the lives of men, whereby we do not exclude the Spirit working in their hearts and lives, yet do we equate this to the establishment of the New Covenant Economy which in the Old Testament was only prophesied, and remained, until established, a Promise.

Agreed.

Agreed, though there is much more to adoption, I feel, than just the redemption of our bodies.

I would say that His love is the primary reason.

Yes, but I believe He also made that faith possible.

That His choosing is unconditional is a given, unless we want to impose upon people something Scripture is clear does not exist. Meaning there is nothing achieved by man in his natural condition which causes the Lord to say, "Okay, they qualify."

Irresistible grace? Well, not something I think can be broad-brushed, because there is in fact enough Scripture to present a case that the Lord does at times bring about His will in the lives of men despite their desire for a different course. What I mean by that is that in certain cases it may be the intent of an individual to kick against the goads put in place by the Lord for the purpose of directing them on a proper course. Abraham, Jonah, and Paul all come to mind.

That is not to say, though, that we make this to be a twisting of the arm, so to speak, leaving the individual a puppet on a string without interaction in events. Neither is it to say that an individual's positive response to the efforts of God are something found within himself. The balance is viewing the opportunity for salvation as given to the world, yet maintaining the necessity of God's interaction in the life of an individual before the possibility of a positive response occurs.

In other words, men can resist he grace of God and we have numerous passages to verify that. When we look at those who fall under condemnation we see that they themselves have turned from the truth, the primary focus being that it is necessary to know the truth before one can be said to have rejected it. It is necessary to know of Christ before one can be said to have rejected Him. And we know that in his natural condition men cannot know the spiritual things of God, and based upon Christ and Paul's teachings we conclude that the One Who reveals this truth is in fact God.

And that is precisely what the Ministry of the Comforter does.

I agree...

2 Thessalonians 2:13

King James Version (KJV)

13 But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:

[/QUOTE]



...but let's consider what else it teaches.

No one is saved apart from the ministry of the Spirit of God. We can preach and teach until we are blue in the fingertips, but except God open the eyes of the blind our efforts are in vain.

And that is all I will say in regards to this verse and will just await your response.

Not all of it. Like most systems, we will find what is correct and what is error. Unfortunately rejection of certain doctrines compounds error through exclusion of any acceptance of anything that might even closely resemble the rejected doctrine. We also see hyper positions of certain doctrines taken to extremes by necessity, because the doctrine does not allow for any other conclusion. A good example would be a hyper-Calvinist position that demands babies go to Hell. In a recent Reformed conference about eight great reformed theologians were asked about it and not one could (or would) respond in detail, though I think John MacArthur answered best, though still found his answer inconclusive and likely leaving the audience with no clear answer.

But that is just typical in Theological debate. Right?


Continued...

 

I saw this the other day and didn't comment, but will at this time:


Matthew 23:13

King James Version (KJV)

13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in


I would just point out that Christ has made it clear that no unregenerate man will enter the Kingdom of God, much less Heaven itself (and I do distinguish between the two, finding them completely separate topics). The verse, from my view/position, is a reference to men in a temporal capacity, rather than speaking about entrance to Heaven. in view I believe we see a reference to those who are, in a temporal capacity, seeking to do the will of God, yet the influence of those who do not represent sound teaching inhibit the efforts of those seeking to do the will of God.

I would agree with the Calvinist that Paul makes a certain point that the natural man does not seek after God. And it is not until the unregenerate come under the convicting ministry of the Holy Spirit that they are brought to a place where they can understand, believe, and then respond, whether favorably or unfavorably, to the Gospel. In his natural condition the Gospel means nothing to them.

2 Thessalonians 2:13

King James Version (KJV)

13 But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:

Let's consider the opposite of belief in the truth: rejection.

We see those people here:


2 Thessalonians 1:8

King James Version (KJV)

8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:


We can't charge someone with failure to obey something they are not aware of.

This one should be seen as humorous, really, as it is akin to saying "Only the saved will be saved.

We would not count the unsaved as Elect for obvious reasons, or perhaps more to the point those who will remain under condemnation, which is the condition we are all born into.

We are in agreement that the provision of Christ was for the world, all inclusive, and yet we also understand it will prove beneficial only to those who receive Christ.

I have to again disagree with this point, because I do not see the proof-text teaching the unregenerate entering Heaven. When Christ establishes the Millennial Kingdom, not even then, in that temporal Kingdom, will the unregenerate enter. And if we look at Christ's teachings which were specific to Israel and complimented prophecy concerning that Kingdom, we will see that what is in view in the teachings becomes clear.

For example:


Matthew 13:40-42

King James Version (KJV)

40 As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world.

41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;

42 And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.


We can place this in, I believe, an identical context with...


John 3:3-5

King James Version (KJV)

3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?

5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

What Kingdom would Nicodemus have had in view? The same one Peter so desperately tried to help the Lord establish, lol. The one Peter took up the sword in an attempt...to keep Christ from the Cross. The same one the disciples ask if the Lord will, at the time of His Ascension, establish at that time.

The Gospel of Christ, though spoken of both in Prophecy and by Christ Himself, remained a mystery until revealed through the Spirit of God.

And that has not changed unto this day.

All of this just to bring into the debate amongst Calvs and Arms...the Ministry of the Comforter and the absolute necessity for the Gospel to be revealed to the natural man. I believe it puts to rest the conflict between the two, and if pursued leads to the inevitable conclusion that both sides have points that are correct, but need refining in order to place into an order that is presented and can be defended from the Word of God.

We are saved by grace through faith, yet the question arises for some whether we are born with that grace already in place and whether it could be attributed as an element of man's existence. I would suggest we are not, but on an individual basis that grace is bestowed upon men through the Comforter's Ministry.

God bless.

 

Still awaiting an argument that would present a Biblical Basis to refute the assertion.


God bless.

 

Propitiation is the "satisfaction of God's wrath"...not the "means to satisfying God's wrath". While Jesus himself is the means to propitiation, to say that propitiation is just a means to satisfying God's wrath would make Jesus a means to a means (which is ridiculous) and not a means to an end (that end being propitiation).

So if we inserted the definition of propitiation into 1 John 2:2 it would read:
And he is the satisfaction of God's wrath for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sin of the whole world.

Now if Jesus satisfied God's wrath for the whole world, why does God need to pour out his wrath (which is already satisfied) on anyone by sending them to hell? The point is His wrath is not satisfied for all.

The best parallel from John's writing for 1 John 2:2 would be John 11:51-52: "He did not say this of his own accord, but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but also to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad."

Using synthetic exegesis, we can see the parallel clearly:
He (Jesus) is the propitiation for our sins (died for the nation), and not for ours only (and not for the nation only) but also for the sins of the whole world (the children of God who are scattered abroad).

John is saying (when reading 1 John 2 in parallel with John 11) that Jesus is not just the satisfaction of wrath for Jews but for all His children (the elect Gentiles) who are scattered abroad.

Now this is where Van continues with his argumental fallacy of proof by repetitive assertion (i.e. claims of logical fallacy, evasion, reference to himself in third person, "so simple a child...", and etc.).

 

I think you overcomplicate what is in view to the point of making propitiation a generality in regards to God's wrath. I don't think anyone has suggested that Christ has appeased and thus precluded God's wrath in totality, but what is in view is appeasement in regards to the issue of sin.

And I have to disagree with that...Christ is the propitiation, not a means of propitiation.

It is, again, specific to the issue of remission of sins which itself is necessary due to sin. That does not mean that all sin has been covered and is no longer dealt with, which is not even true concerning those who have received remission of sin. If a Christian sins, there is the potential for judgment in his life, such as sickness and even physical death.

But...only you are saying that, lol.

Look at it in the context it is presented in:


1 John 2:1-3

King James Version (KJV)

1 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:

2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

3 And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.


In view is the specific believer/s, yet John makes it clear that Christ is the propitiation for our sins. That is all inclusive of both groups, both distinguished separately.

Yet we do not exclude...


Romans 3:25

King James Version (KJV)

25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;


In other words propitiation requires faith in Christ in order for it to actually be beneficial. That does not negate the truth that He is propitious for the entire world, yet propitiation is realized through faith in Christ.

His righteousness brings about remission of sins, and that too is specific to the Cross. In other words, Christ died for all, not just the Elect, though it remains true that only the Elect will be saved, just as only Great Whites will be sharks.

Isn't that what is being debated here? lol

Maybe I am missing something.

In view would be whether Christ died for all men or just the elect, right? It seems that John makes it very clear. It compliments such teachings that "God so loved the world," and "He will convict the world..."

Again, this overcomplicates the matter and implies something that is not seen in the text, nor is taught in such generality in Scripture. That Christ satisfies wrath in a salvific context in regards to any who embrace faith in Christ...does not negate the wrath set for those who reject Christ and the provision of remission of sin.

But in the context of the Atonement, it is clear, His wrath is satisfied once for all. In other words, on that matter there is nothing left to be accomplished. That does not negate the consequences of rejection.

I think a better parallel would be...


2 Peter 3:9

King James Version (KJV)

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.

I think you are inserting into the above parallel an exclusivity which is denied by many statements concerning God's offer of salvation to all men.

Christ's death is clearly said to extend beyond Israel (in the above quote). Gentile Inclusion, according to Paul, was a mystery not revealed until after the New Covenant was established. It was foretold, but as far as understanding it...nobody did.

Salvation is available to "whosoever," and it is just my view that God makes the opportunity available to every man, or it could be said He was willing some should perish, and perhaps even the charge of respect of persons might be laid.

But that is not the case. The wrath that is to come does not detract from the Work of Christ, nor negate that He is the propitiation for the sins of the world. Those who are eternally separated from God and wind up in Hell do so, not because they lacked opportunity, but because they rejected the revelation provided them. Now we have to address the issue of those persons who have never heard the Gospel, knowing that such do exist. They too have not been denied revelation which can determine their destiny, for as Paul makes clear man has been given revelation through internal witness, Creation, and specific revelation. Each man is judged based upon his response to whatever revelation, in whatever Age, they have been given.

In other words, not one person will stand at the Great White Throne and justifiably charge God with withholding the opportunity to escape condemnation.

Again, over-complication: the context is specifically soteriological, which does not negate the necessity for wrath on the part of God in regards to those who are rejecting of His provision.

Whether Jew or Gentile, and specifically because it is Jew and Gentile, lol, the Elect are drawn from...the World.

In a salvific context there is no further appeasement necessary that any man might require in order to be saved. Christ is sufficient.

Best to refrain from personal remarks. As one crotchety moderator I used to know was fond of saying, "Address the post, not the poster!" lol

And I am not fond of the terms of psycho-babble. It is easy to charge someone with such terms, but a proper address of the issues negates the necessity to do so.

Correct me if I am wrong (I have been taking on a number of topics, so may have this discussion confused with another), but isn't the issue at hand whether Christ's Work is beneficial to all, rather than solely for the Elect (which is a given, as I have said before)?

And if Christ is our propitiation for sin, and the propitiation for the sins of the world, who among the world would we exclude as potential recipients?

God bless.

 

The actual definition of propitiation is the appeasing of God's wrath. So to say that Christ is the propitiation for the whole world is to make his appeasing of God's wrath universal and total.

But that's what I'm saying Christ IS the satisfaction of God's wrath...NOT A MEANS to having God's wrath satisfied for everyone.

Anytime the term "propitiation" is being used, it is about God's wrath...not sin. While God's wrath is because of sin, propitiation deals with the wrath...it is justification and sanctification that deals with sin.

Umm...it is Van that brought the whole idea of means into the conversation in post #36. Van says: Jesus is the propitiation or means of salvation for the whole world.

The nature of propitiation means that if Christ has appeased the wrath of God for the whole world the whole world is saved.

As annsni put it in another thread:

The accusation of overcomplication for something that IS clearly taught in scripture because you disagree with it is an argument from personal incredulity.

Two questions should be asked here:
1. Is “any” here referring to everyone ever or everyone in context? A brief grammatical study would reveal that it is all IN CONTEXT.

2. Is this willing a reference to God’s decretive, preceptive, or dispositional will?

Obviously you seem intent on defending Van here. Your lack of attention to Van’s babble and unwillingness to address his remarks of evasion shows that you guys must be buddies or something—maybe or maybe not. What would prove otherwise would be addressing Van and correcting his personal accusations of evasion towards me since you can see by the length at which I went about addressing this subject that there is no evasion on my part.

 

You need to get outta kindergarten....

 

And I'm a diehard Lakers' fan....:tear:

 

Thanks..........and I too am a diehard Lakers's fan...even though it hurts right now lol

 

Agreed, we are made holy and blameless and righteous at our new birth by God alone.

Disagree. If you read 1 Cor. 2:14-3:3 you will see men of flesh can understand some spiritual things of God, spiritual milk, but not spiritual meat.

No, everyone God causes to be born anew is indwelt without delay.

Romans 8:23 defines adoption. To go beyond that is speculation.

We trust in God's revelation, both general revelation and special revelation, and of course primarily in the birth life death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, as given to us through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Now if you go beyond that, i.e. Prevenient grace, then we disagree.

We disagree. How can you read 2 Thessalonians 2:13, which explicitly says we are chosen for salvation through faith in the truth, and then say we are chosen unconditionally? It is God alone who either credits our faith as righteousness, or not. Again, you cannot deny that God credits our faith as righteousness, turning a sows ear into a silk purse. Romans 4:4-5/24.

Again we disagree. I am talking specifically about trusting in Christ. God allows us to make that autonomous choice. Otherwise, we would not bring glory to God if we repented under compulsion.

We disagree again. We are condemned at conception in our unbelief, John 3:18.

2 Thess. 2:13 does not teach all fallen individuals are blind to the revelation of God. No one is saved apart from the ministry of the Holy Spirit (general and special revelation including the birth, life, death and resurrection of Christ.

Lets not sidetrack the discussion with what scripture actually teaches concerning the fate of those who die before the age of accountability, such as the mentally challenged and babies.

 

We disagree, Matthew 23:13 means what it says - fallen men were entering heaven, thus seeking God effectively.

I already addressed 1 Cor. 2:14-3:3 where Paul teaches the exact opposite of your claim.

To be sure, rejection of the gospel is an additional sin, and no one who was unable to receive it can be charged with rejection. But, as they are condemned already (John 3:18) your point is moot.

Agreed, Christ's death provides reconciliation to the whole world, but only those who receive the reconciliation are saved.

We disagree again. There is a difference between "entering heaven" i.e. in the process of entering, and having entered heaven, a completed action. Matthew 23:13 teaches the unregenerate were in the process of "entering heaven" but does not say or teach they actually entered heaven. They were blocked. Clearly, John 3:5 teaches unregenerates cannot "reach the destination" without being born anew.

King James Version (KJV)

3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?

5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.​

I have addressed this twice before.

I certainly agree both Calvinists and Arminians hold flawed views that add to scripture.

The grace in view is the monergistic action of God to put a person spiritually into Christ, to transfer them from the realm of darkness into the kingdom of His Son. We never at any time possess that capacity!! Are we born with the grace of being able to understand God's revelation to us? Yes. But we can loose it, like the first soil of Matthew 13. We can harden ourselves and God can harden individuals for His purpose, i.e. Romans 11.​

 

So what part of the natural person, one who has just their own sin nature, will be freely able to respond to Jesus to get saved?

And IF the Cross of Jesus meant that all sinners were averted from wrath of God, then all should get saved, correct?

 

That's exactly what I've been saying. Propitiation for all means salvation for all. To endorse universal atonement would be to endorse (whether knowingly or not) universalism.