False accusations.

[AustinC]

Your arguments make no sense. Since I reject Universalism. And you cannot be reasoned with. It must only be according to your view.

How do you think one's name is gotten into the book of life? The only promise is one's name to never be removed, Revelation 3:5. 1 John 5:4-5.

If you reject universalism, you must therefore reject universal atonement/general redemption. Anything other is intellectual dishonesty on your part.
Reason with me from scripture not from a website.

Let's look at your verses, consider the context and see what they tell us.

Revelation 3:1-6
“And to the angel of the church in Sardis write: ‘The words of him who has the seven spirits of God and the seven stars. “‘I know your works. You have the reputation of being alive, but you are dead. Wake up, and strengthen what remains and is about to die, for I have not found your works complete in the sight of my God. Remember, then, what you received and heard. Keep it, and repent. If you will not wake up, I will come like a thief, and you will not know at what hour I will come against you. Yet you have still a few names in Sardis, people who have not soiled their garments, and they will walk with me in white, for they are worthy. The one who conquers will be clothed thus in white garments, and I will never blot his name out of the book of life. I will confess his name before my Father and before his angels. He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.’

This passage tells us two things. First, many of the saints had left Sardis and many in the church were not Christian at all.
Second those who were Christians had not fallen into heresy and God promised them they would never have their name removed from the book of life.

What this passage does not teach is the heresy that Christians could lose their salvation.

The names of the saints have been written down since before the foundation of the world.

1 John 5:1-5
Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God, and everyone who loves the Father loves whoever has been born of him. By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and obey his commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome. For everyone who has been born of God overcomes the world. And this is the victory that has overcome the world—our faith. Who is it that overcomes the world except the one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God?
This passage clearly teaches particular redemption. I have no idea how one could read it any other way. "Everyone who has been born of God" brings us back to John 3 and Jesus dialogue with Nicodemus. God does the work of making us born again.

Tell me how universal atonement/general redemption is extrapolated from these two passages.

 

[37818]

If you reject universalism, you must therefore reject universal atonement/general redemption.

If general redemption is not true, how does anyone know they were even redeemed?

 

[37818]

Let's look at your verses, consider the context and see what they tell us.

Revelation 3:1-6
“And to the angel of the church in Sardis write: ‘The words of him who has the seven spirits of God and the seven stars. “‘I know your works. You have the reputation of being alive, but you are dead. Wake up, and strengthen what remains and is about to die, for I have not found your works complete in the sight of my God. Remember, then, what you received and heard. Keep it, and repent. If you will not wake up, I will come like a thief, and you will not know at what hour I will come against you. Yet you have still a few names in Sardis, people who have not soiled their garments, and they will walk with me in white, for they are worthy. The one who conquers will be clothed thus in white garments, and I will never blot his name out of the book of life. I will confess his name before my Father and before his angels. He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.’

This passage tells us two things. First, many of the saints had left Sardis and many in the church were not Christian at all.
Second those who were Christians had not fallen into heresy and God promised them they would never have their name removed from the book of life.

What this passage does not teach is the heresy that Christians could lose their salvation.

The names of the saints have been written down since before the foundation of the world.

1 John 5:1-5
Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God, and everyone who loves the Father loves whoever has been born of him. By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and obey his commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome. For everyone who has been born of God overcomes the world. And this is the victory that has overcome the world—our faith. Who is it that overcomes the world except the one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God?
This passage clearly teaches particular redemption. I have no idea how one could read it any other way. "Everyone who has been born of God" brings us back to John 3 and Jesus dialogue with Nicodemus. God does the work of making us born again.

Tell me how universal atonement/general redemption is extrapolated from these two passages.

How does general redemption not be true because of those passages? Without general redemption how can one know one has any part in those promises? It goes to what does it mean to believe Jesus is the Christ.

 

[AustinC]

If general redemption is not true, how does anyone know they were even redeemed?

I don't understand this question. Why would universal atonement/general redemption be needed for a child of God to know they are adopted/redeemed?

 

[AustinC]

How does general redemption not be true because of those passages? Without general redemption how can one know one has any part in those promises? It goes to what does it mean to believe Jesus is the Christ.

I am not seeing any connection in your thoughts at all.

The believer knows they have the promises by reading God's word and being quickened by God through the gift of faith.

What it means to believe is expressed in Ephesians 2:1-10.

We were dead...but God...made us alive...by grace we are saved...through faith...which is not of ourselves...so we might do the good works God has ordained.

 

[Hackberry]

Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. Philippians 2:12

For me, that is challenge enough. I am not going to try to investigate or make judgement on anyone else's salvation.

 

[1689Dave]

Calvinism, Arminianism and other.
When false accusations are made, meaning accusing the other side of believing what the other side does not believe, it never persuades.

Each of us comes to our own points of view for reasons. The reasons may not be good reasons to another person.

Common ground. The written word of God should be our common ground.

The points of disagreement are more than the 5 points of the TULIP.

1 Corinthians 1:10 , "Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment."

No one believer can fix this or make obedience to this insruction to be followed.

Think. Do you really think the other fellow really sets out to believe what is false?

There is how we know what we know comes before what we know.

How we understand words.
Who we believe.
The logic we use.

How can we frame what one believes over against the other person we disagree with without accusing that person of believing something that person does not believe?

Are you suggesting unity at the expense of truth? Using the lowest common denominator? What if God's love for others won't allow you to remain silent?

 

[37818]

Are you suggesting unity at the expense of truth?

Not at all.

Using the lowest common denominator?

What determines in your mind what is higher or lower?

What if God's love for others won't allow you to remain silent?

Then speak the truth in love.

 

[37818]

I don't understand this question. Why would universal atonement/general redemption be needed for a child of God to know they are adopted/redeemed?

The adoption is yet future, Romans 8:23. And because the redemption is for whole world each of us can know we have a part in it. Isaiah 53:6, not just Israel. Romans 5:8 not just the believers in the first century church in Rome. 1 John 2:2 not just those first century believers John wrote to.

 

[AustinC]

The adoption is yet future, Romans 8:23. And because the redemption is for whole world each of us can know we have a part in it. Isaiah 53:6, not just Israel. Romans 5:8 not just the believers in the first century church in Rome. 1 John 2:2 not just those first century believers John wrote to.

Ah... that's right, you ignore all passages about adoption and force Romans 8:23 to be future rather than before the foundation of the world as Ephesians 1 clearly expresses. It's your faulty grasp of adoption that sets the dominos falling toward an imaginary general redemption theory. Based upon a poor understanding of adoption, you then look for verses to prop up your faulty understanding. Now I see how you have fallen down the bunny hole.

 

[37818]

Ah... that's right, you ignore all passages about adoption and force Romans 8:23 to be future rather than before the foundation of the world as Ephesians 1 clearly expresses.

Wrong. First, that Greek term is only used by the Apostle Paul in his writings.
Let us look at Ephesians 1:5, ". . . Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, . . ." Which Romans 8:29, speaks of as, ". . . predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, . . ." And so John writes, 1 John 3:2, ". . . now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; . . ." So I understand the use of the term "adoption" to only refer to our promised future state. I have studied all its references where that term is used. You do not understand that usage, that is your understanding of it. We do not agree on this.

 

[atpollard]

Then speak the truth in love.

Two big thumbs up.

(I know that this is where my train tends to jump the track ... I run out of love before I run out of truth.)

 

[37818]

. . . run out of love before . . . run[ing] out of truth. . . .

That, I think brother, is a common problem for many of us.

 

[atpollard]

If you reject universalism, you must therefore reject universal atonement/general redemption. Anything other is intellectual dishonesty on your part.

It always surprises and disappoints me when people choose "General vs Particular Atonement" as the hill to die over. I cannot think of a less important point to argue over than which sins Christ chose and the Father accepted on the cross above and beyond YOUR/MY sins. What ever happened to "who are you to judge another man's servant?" That question is really GOD'S BUSINESS and both cases can be made from scripture. Anyone that denies the opposition has scriptural support, is wearing blinders.

 

[AustinC]

It always surprises and disappoints me when people choose "General vs Particular Atonement" as the hill to die over. I cannot think of a less important point to argue over than which sins Christ chose and the Father accepted on the cross above and beyond YOUR/MY sins. What ever happened to "who are you to judge another man's servant?" That question is really GOD'S BUSINESS and both cases can be made from scripture. Anyone that denies the opposition has scriptural support, is wearing blinders.

From my perspective this is an issue of universalism versus particular redemption.
I see the importance of rejecting universalism.

Now, I understand many people refuse to acknowledge or grasp that general redemption/universal atonement is in fact universalism, however their unwillingness to see the connection is merely a lazy approach meant to glorify man as a cooperator with God, which therefore glorifies man.

This, for me, is an important distinction.

 

[37818]

. . . that general redemption/universal atonement is in fact universalism,

That is your bias.

Prove that general redemption is explicitly disallowed by the truth of particular redemption as found in Scripture. No such thing exists. A general redemption is taught in Scripture even as particular redemption is taught.

John Owen against general redemption posed To The Reader the following question, "To what purpose serves the general ransom, but only to assert that Almighty God would have the precious blood of his dear Son poured out for innumerable souls whom he will not have to share in any drop thereof, and so, in respect of them, to be spilt in vain, or else to be shed for them only that they might be the deeper damned?"

Romans 8:34, ". . . Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, . . ."

 

[atpollard]

From my perspective this is an issue of universalism versus particular redemption.
I see the importance of rejecting universalism.

Now, I understand many people refuse to acknowledge or grasp that general redemption/universal atonement is in fact universalism, however their unwillingness to see the connection is merely a lazy approach meant to glorify man as a cooperator with God, which therefore glorifies man.

This, for me, is an important distinction.

The opposite of "Particular Atonement" is not "Universalism", that is a heretical shot into the weeds. The opposite of "Particular Atonement" is some form of "synergism". While that is a violation of "monergism", it is not "heretical". Both the monergistic "particular" and the synergistic "general" atonement can be supported from scripture without drowning in the heresy of "universalism".

Personally, I think that "monergism" and "particular" atonement has a slightly stronger logical argument than synergysm/general atonement, however when you set up "general atonement = universalism", you are tilting at windmills and defeating straw man giants. Monergism does not need to be defended from imaginary threats. It flows from the character of God ... trustworthy and in control ... and the character of man ... untrustworthy and out of control.

Focus instead on the true meaning of Total Depravity (the nature of man), along with the true meaning of Unconditional Election and Perseverance/Preservation of the Saints (the nature of God). (L) and (I) are just the nuts and bolts of how "man is man" and "God is God". WHY is more important than HOW.

 

[1689Dave]

Not at all.

What determines in your mind what is higher or lower?
Then speak the truth in love.

You are judging people's motives (sinning) when you judge their motives. Only God knows the motive. You can judge their fruits but that's as far as you can go without sinning.

 

[kyredneck]

a general redemption where a particuar redemption is part of the general redemption.

Well articulated, lots better than 'no babies in hell'.

Babies In Hell 2
"He bought the whole field, but He particularly bought the treasure that was hidden in that field. "The Saviour of all men, specially of them that believe.""

 

[37818]

You are judging people's motives (sinning) when you judge their motives. Only God knows the motive. You can judge their fruits but that's as far as you can go without sinning.

You have here falsely accusing me of judging motives as being evil, have you not? The fruit of the Spirit is, "love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith." None of which has been called in question. But that truth should be spoken in love. And I have been falsely accused of Univrsalism because I believe in a general redemption as being taught in the word of God, is this not so? Is what I am saying here not true? I believe in particular redemption as a key part of the general redemption, and believe it cannot not be the case.