Do You Agree with Calvin or Wright On the Nature of the Atonement?

[Van]

“If the shoe fits...”
“If it walks like a duck...”

You have been shown your view on this matter is not only false, but in direct opposition of the Scriptures.

I was not the only one on the B.B. pointing out the alignment of your thinking with heretical teaching.

Your desire to present humans as being able to exercise some innate faith or ability to enter God’s kingdom (be saved) is unscriptural.

Shiow me the quote where I said "innate faith" or ability save themselves?" None will be forthcoming, so yet another falsehood, from smear - o matic.

Did you address the bogus doctrine of total spiritual inability? Nope. So yet another change the subject post.

Folks, this is all they have, the use of false arguments to deflect and obfuscate any actual discussion of biblical doctrine.

1) Fallen people can will be be saved, Romans 9:16.
2) Fallen people seek God ;through works or faith or both, Romans 9:31-33
3) 3 of 4 soils received the gospel, Matthew 13:1-23
4) Men were entering the kingdom showing some spiritual ability, Matthew 23:13

But has Agedman addressed these scriptures? Nope. He did indicate they do not show spiritual ability. Which is laughable.

 

[Van]

Surely you know better!
Surely you take as truthful Paul quoting Moses!

“15For He says to Moses, “I WILL HAVE MERCY ON WHOM I HAVE MERCY, AND I WILL HAVE COMPASSION ON WHOM I HAVE COMPASSION.” 16So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy.” (Caps added by source to indicate what is quoted).​

Are the Scriptures not proving the frailty of the view your holding?
Van, remember there is a difference in “mercy” (eleos) which is compassion, clemency... and “desire” (thelo) - wishing/wanting what is best.
What is best for the social order of the world?

1First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, 2for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity.3This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 5For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony given at the proper time.
​

It is inappropriate to consider the above passage to mean all will be saved because God desires all yo be saved.
Therefore, your view is again shown frail, because it lacks the backing of Scriptures put in context.

My view is robust because it is biblical truth.
Did I say or suggest all would be saved? Nope, so yet another smear.
My view is the contextual view, (God desires all people to be saved but not by compulsion) most people (except #1 soil) have the limited spiritual ability to seek God and have faith in God.
Your claim of total spiritual inability has been shown to be bogus and unbiblical.

 

[agedman]

The last part is you adding to scripture. I refuse to go beyond what is written.

1Cor. 4:6 Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively transferred to myself and Apollos for your sakes, that you may learn in us not to think beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up on behalf of one against the other.​

If you want to tell me God is sovereign, I agree. If you want to say God knows the future exhaustively, I agree. If you want to say God predestined I agree. If you want to say we deserve no credit in our salvation, I agree.

But once you say God didn't desire all to be saved and die for all, you've preferred your systematic theology over Scripture. It's the same as any other eisegetical error.

Sola Scriptura, not Scripture plus human systematic theology.

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

1Tim. 2:4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.​

I was pointing out that the scripture posted DID NOT support what some people would desire.

You still have not stated where I added to the Scriptures.

I even showed exactly how THAT verse is to be viewed. That is not adding to the Scripture, it is discerning the truth.

So take 2 Peter 3, post it, and show where I added or even where what I posted was error. It was THAT scripture you said I added.

I wait and look forward to reading your own work on 2 Peter 3 with figuring out the Scripture.

 

[agedman]

Jesus was the sin bearer of the father, correct?

1 Peter 2 - “Christ bore our sins...”

 

[agedman]

My view is robust because it is biblical truth.
Did I say or suggest all would be saved? Nope, so yet another smear.
My view is the contextual view, (God desires all people to be saved but not by compulsion) most people (except #1 soil) have the limited spiritual ability to seek God and have faith in God.
Your claim of total spiritual inability has been shown to be bogus and unbiblical.

Van,

You are most inconsistent.

You say fallen people can enter, then deny they have the ability.

You say fallen people can will on their own to be saved, then deny they have that ability.

And so forth.

What makes discussing with you difficult is you make a statement, throw in a Scripture, make some claim, but have no foundational support from the Scripture - even the one you posted.

Because you can’t discuss, then there is no point continuing the interaction on this topic with you.

 

[Van]

Why not address the topic. Why seek to change the topic.
Why say that I say people were entering, when the person who said it was Jesus. Why not stick to the truth.
Why say that I people can will to be saved, when the person who said it was Paul. Why not stick to the truth.
Why say you have been interacting on the topic of total spiritual inability, when you have not. Why not stick to the truth.

1) Fallen people can will be be saved, Romans 9:16.
2) Fallen people seek God ;through works or faith or both, Romans 9:31-33
3) 3 of 4 soils received the gospel, Matthew 13:1-23
4) Men were entering the kingdom showing some spiritual ability, Matthew 23:13

Total Spiritual Inability, the "T" of the TULIP is bogus and unbiblical doctrine, the actual biblical doctrine is fallen people have limited spiritual ability, they can understand spiritual milk bu t not spiritual meat, 1 Corinthians 2:14-3:3.

 

[agedman]

1) Fallen people can will be be saved, Romans 9:16.
2) Fallen people seek God ;through works or faith or both, Romans 9:31-33
3) 3 of 4 soils received the gospel, Matthew 13:1-23
4) Men were entering the kingdom showing some spiritual ability, Matthew 23:13

To continue with Van's list, from the same passages could be taught,

5) Fallen men add to the guilt of their parents, Matthew 23:32
6) Swearing is approved by God, Matthew 23:18 - 23
7) People will be rich by taking from the poor, Matthew 13:12
8) Fallen people will attain righteousness, Romans 9:30

 

[Calminian]

I was pointing out that the scripture posted DID NOT support what some people would desire....

You attempted, but the passage is crystal clear. I've also supplied crystal clear supporting passages. All you've cited are theological options. Classic eisegesis.

 

[TCassidy]

Total Spiritual Inability, the "T" of the TULIP is bogus and unbiblical doctrine, the actual biblical doctrine is fallen people have limited spiritual ability, they can understand spiritual milk bu t not spiritual meat, 1 Corinthians 2:14-3:3.

Except "T" does not stand for "Total Spiritual Inability." It stands for "Total Depravity" and does not mean every person is as bad as he could be, it means that the total person, body, soul, and spirit has been negatively affected by the fall and no part of man escaped the consequences of the fall and maintained innocence enough to merit salvation.

And in the next verse, 1 Corinthians 2:15, Paul contrasts the lost of verse 14 who can't receive spiritual things, considers them foolish, and can't know them, with the saved man who can receive them, consider them, and know them, but is yet a babe in Christ because he needs spiritual growth much like a baby who is alive but needs milk because he can't eat meat. In fact Paul calls them "Brothers" in 3:1.

 

[Van]

To continue with Van's list, from the same passages could be taught,
5) Fallen men add to the guilt of their parents, Matthew 23:32
6) Swearing is approved by God, Matthew 23:18 - 23
7) People will be rich by taking from the poor, Matthew 13:12
8) Fallen people will attain righteousness, Romans 9:30

No quote will be forthcoming, these are not my views. Agedman simply makes up bogus views and attributes them to me, wasting everyone's time and hindering discussion of total spiritual inability.

Here is the actual list, the list being dodged, avoided, etc!
1) Fallen people can will be be saved, Romans 9:16.
2) Fallen people seek God ;through works or faith or both, Romans 9:31-33
3) 3 of 4 soils received the gospel, Matthew 13:1-23
4) Men were entering the kingdom showing some spiritual ability, Matthew 23:13

 

[Van]

You can say the T means this, and I will say the T means that. My view is well know, and to challenge it is just another deflection. Folks just google it!!!

 

[Van]

Total depravity

(also called radical corruption or pervasive depravity) is a theological doctrine derived from the Augustinian concept of original sin. It is the teaching that, as a consequence of the Fall of Man, every person born into the world is enslaved to the service of sin as a result of their fallen nature and, apart from the efficacious or prevenient grace of God, is utterly unable to choose to follow God, refrain from evil, or accept the gift of salvation as it is offered.

Pay no mind to efforts to deflect.

 

[Yeshua1]

Jesus would have experienced the same thing from the father that the lost sinner does in judgement for their sins.
Are sinners punished in hell?

 

[Yeshua1]

Shiow me the quote where I said "innate faith" or ability save themselves?" None will be forthcoming, so yet another falsehood, from smear - o matic.

Did you address the bogus doctrine of total spiritual inability? Nope. So yet another change the subject post.

Folks, this is all they have, the use of false arguments to deflect and obfuscate any actual discussion of biblical doctrine.

1) Fallen people can will be be saved, Romans 9:16.
2) Fallen people seek God ;through works or faith or both, Romans 9:31-33
3) 3 of 4 soils received the gospel, Matthew 13:1-23
4) Men were entering the kingdom showing some spiritual ability, Matthew 23:13

But has Agedman addressed these scriptures? Nope. He did indicate they do not show spiritual ability. Which is laughable.

They cannot save themselves apart from the working of the Holy Spirit towards them as they are spiritual deaf dumb and blind!

 

[Yeshua1]

My view is robust because it is biblical truth.
Did I say or suggest all would be saved? Nope, so yet another smear.
My view is the contextual view, (God desires all people to be saved but not by compulsion) most people (except #1 soil) have the limited spiritual ability to seek God and have faith in God.
Your claim of total spiritual inability has been shown to be bogus and unbiblical.

No, its more that your view of freewill salvation is lacking biblical support!

 

[Yeshua1]

Except "T" does not stand for "Total Spiritual Inability." It stands for "Total Depravity" and does not mean every person is as bad as he could be, it means that the total person, body, soul, and spirit has been negatively affected by the fall and no part of man escaped the consequences of the fall and maintained innocence enough to merit salvation.

And in the next verse, 1 Corinthians 2:15, Paul contrasts the lost of verse 14 who can't receive spiritual things, considers them foolish, and can't know them, with the saved man who can receive them, consider them, and know them, but is yet a babe in Christ because he needs spiritual growth much like a baby who is alive but needs milk because he can't eat meat. In fact Paul calls them "Brothers" in 3:1.

I believe that he holds that even the lost can receive some milk of the bible, can receive some spiritual truths though....

 

[agedman]

You attempted, but the passage is crystal clear. I've also supplied crystal clear supporting passages. All you've cited are theological options. Classic eisegesis.

Perhaps you need to consider the following:

1) Christ died because His blood was depleted from His body, and it was the blood that is the remissions of sin.
John's use of propitiation in his letters was specific about the blood dealt with the sin issue for the whole world.
Johns statement in the gospels of the death of Christ was for the whole world.
Paul's use of propitiation was specific to the tabernacle/temple furniture in which the blood was sprinkled. That the seat of God (so to indicated when God's presence came to rest on both the tabernacle and temple) was sprinkled with the blood for all in the land - irregardless of faith, race, creed, custom...

There is no contention between us on this matter.

What seems to have rubbed the fur wrongly is the work on the verse of 2 Peter 3.

2) As one who holds to the Doctrines of Grace, without the "reformed view" of limited atonement, but the Scripture view that atonement is limited by God's direct and purposed choosing of those saved, it is highly inconsistent to suggest that "desire" contains some obligation of God. It does not.

For example:
Scriptures state that "every knee will bow.." That is not a desire; rather, it is that which will take place.

In contrast the Scriptures state in Acts 17, "30“Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent,..."

Yet in 2 Peter 3, "9The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.

What is the difference between these two "ALL" statements.

The one in Acts 17 is directed to the people of the world.

The one in 2 Peter 3 is directed to the believers. As one follows the flow of who is the subject (the personal pronouns of the verse), there is nothing to even suggest that the verse can be aligned to all people of the world.

But there is a matter of deportment we need to address.

It is appropriate that we discuss the Scriptures and that we render meaning from the Scriptures.

It is appropriate that we discuss the limits of application that occur in a passage.

But it is not appropriate for you to slander this old man by stating that I have added to the Scriptures. That is a false statement, only supported by bias and opinion. It has no basis in reality.

 

[Yeshua1]

Perhaps you need to consider the following:

1) Christ died because His blood was depleted from His body, and it was the blood that is the remissions of sin.
John's use of propitiation in his letters was specific about the blood dealt with the sin issue for the whole world.
Johns statement in the gospels of the death of Christ was for the whole world.
Paul's use of propitiation was specific to the tabernacle/temple furniture in which the blood was sprinkled. That the seat of God (so to indicated when God's presence came to rest on both the tabernacle and temple) was sprinkled with the blood for all in the land - irregardless of faith, race, creed, custom...

There is no contention between us on this matter.

What seems to have rubbed the fur wrongly is the work on the verse of 2 Peter 3.

2) As one who holds to the Doctrines of Grace, without the "reformed view" of limited atonement, but the Scripture view that atonement is limited by God's direct and purposed choosing of those saved, it is highly inconsistent to suggest that "desire" contains some obligation of God. It does not.

For example:
Scriptures state that "every knee will bow.." That is not a desire; rather, it is that which will take place.

In contrast the Scriptures state in Acts 17, "30“Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent,..."

Yet in 2 Peter 3, "9The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.

What is the difference between these two "ALL" statements.

The one in Acts 17 is directed to the people of the world.

The one in 2 Peter 3 is directed to the believers. As one follows the flow of who is the subject (the personal pronouns of the verse), there is nothing to even suggest that the verse can be aligned to all people of the world.

But there is a matter of deportment we need to address.

It is appropriate that we discuss the Scriptures and that we render meaning from the Scriptures.

It is appropriate that we discuss the limits of application that occur in a passage.

But it is not appropriate for you to slander this old man by stating that I have added to the Scriptures. That is a false statement, only supported by bias and opinion. It has no basis in reality.

God desires that all sinner would repent and receive Jesus as their Lord
Jesus died for sins of whole earth/but onlu effective and applied towards THE elect
Only the elect will be saved by that act on the Cross
The will of God to save is not the same as His desire that all get saved

 

[agedman]

I believe that he holds that even the lost can receive some milk of the bible, can receive some spiritual truths though....

He goes much further.
Van states:

1) Fallen people can will be be saved, Romans 9:16.
​

Unsupported by the Scripture he offers.

2) Fallen people seek God ;through works or faith or both, Romans 9:31-33
​

Unsupported by the Scripture he offers.

3) 3 of 4 soils received the gospel, Matthew 13:1-23
​

Ignores that the stony and shallow were given no ability nor prepared to sustain life. That only one soil was harvested.

4) Men were entering the kingdom showing some spiritual ability, Matthew 23:13
​

Unsupported by the Scripture he offers

 

[Calminian]

You can say the T means this, and I will say the T means that. My view is well know, and to challenge it is just another deflection. Folks just google it!!!

[Edit] People are totally unable to come to Christ apart from God's drawing grace. Don't see much of a problem with this biblically.