The True Gospel of Christ's Saving Death

[KenH]

I don't know why any theological road blocks need to be thrown in front of people who hear the Gospel.

I agree. Tell them the entire gospel of Christ from Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21. There is no valid reason anyone who claims to be a Christian should be opposed to doing so.

 

[KenH]

A case in point. I presonally believe in both the general redenption and that Christ died to explicitly to redeem His own. I do not believe in universalism.

Sounds like you believe that statements that are exclusive in nature are overridden by statements that are, on the surface, general in nature. Is that correct about your view?

 

[KenH]

1Co 15:3 For I delivered to you first of all

"first of all" - apparently you have ignored that phrase. First means that there were other things afterward.

 

[DaveXR650]

Appears that I am being attacked by three versus one. Okie dokie.

Ken. You do alright. Use this instead:

 

[KenH]

Jesus' quote as given in Luke, His redemption includes lost Judas, Luke 22:20-21, ". . . Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you. But, behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table. . . ."

No, it does not. I would not have expected Christ to say, "Given for all of you except for Judas."

It is no different than when the congregation of which I am a part has the Lord's Supper and Scriptures about Christ shedding His blood are read. There could be some there who are not really saved; God knows who are His elect and who are not.

Seems to be a lot of effort on this board to spread the false teaching that Christ paid the sin debt of people and then God will make those people pay the same sin debt, also.

 

[37818]

Sounds like you believe that statements that are exclusive in nature are overridden by statements that are, on the surface, general in nature. Is that correct about your view?

You are make a generalization of some kind. So you are probably wrong in what ever you think you mean.

I gave few specifics.

If one is aware of do such, one would not.
A case in point. I presonally believe in both the general redenption and that Christ died to explicitly to redeem His own. I do not believe in universalism.
Jesus' quote as given in Luke, His redemption includes lost Judas, Luke 22:20-21, ". . . Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you. But, behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table. . . ."

 

[37818]

No, it does not. I would not have expected Christ to say, "Given for all of you except for Judas."

It is no different than when the congregation of which I am a part has the Lord's Supper and Scriptures about Christ shedding His blood are read. There could be some there who are not really saved; God knows who are His elect and who are not.

Seems to be a lot of effort on this board to spread the false teaching that Christ paid the sin debt of people and then God will make those people pay the same sin debt, also.

You deny the Bibical redemption. 1 John 2:2.

 

[KenH]

You deny the Bibical redemption. 1 John 2;2.

No, I do not.

 

[37818]

No, I do not.

Then you agree Jesus Christ is the propitiation for the sins of the whole of mankind.
1 John 2:2, ". . . And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. . . ."

 

[KenH]

Then you agree Jesus Christ is the propitiation for the sins of the whole of mankind.

No, if I agree with that, then I would be agreeing with a false teaching.

See my post #42 earlier in this thread.

 

[37818]

I found this debate.

 

[Silverhair]

I agree. Tell them the entire gospel of Christ from Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21. There is no valid reason anyone who claims to be a Christian should be opposed to doing so.

That is a odd comment coming from a Calvinist. Under your Calvinism why bother telling someone that is reprobate the gospel as they can not be saved and why tell the "so called elect" as they do not need to be saved. The command to preach the gospel to everyone a valid command for the non-calvinist but is just window dressing for a Calvinist.

 

[Silverhair]

"first of all" - apparently you have ignored that phrase. First means that there were other things afterward.

Can't read a full post I see.

 

[37818]

No, if I agree with that, then I would be agreeing with a false teaching.

Well, it would seem, we both believe each other believe something that is not true.

 

[37818]

I found this debate.

Well, Dr Brown accepts Dr Hernandez as a brother in the Lord. But Dr Hernandez believes Dr Brown is not yet saved, because he does not accept Dr Brown's view of atonement is according to the true gospel.

 

[KenH]

why bother telling someone that is reprobate the gospel as they can not be saved and why tell the "so called elect" as they do not need to be saved.

1. God commanded it - Matthew 28:19-20.

2. God is absolutely totally sovereign and He has ordained the means:

Romans 10:13-15 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!

 

[37818]

A book by Sonny Hernandez, Trinity Gospel Church, Shelbyville, Kentucky.

"The doctrine of particular atonement has been historically vilified and treated with contempt by many. Advocates of universal atonement will appeal to emotional trends and not exegetical truths. There are even professing Calvinists who will treat the doctrine of Christ’s particular and effectual death like it is a trivial matter. This is why there will always be provocations between men who affirm particular atonement and those who affirm or tolerate doctrines that oppose it.

The doctrine of particular atonement is not the doctrine of adiaphora. Particular redemption points to the finished work of Christ. Adam transgressed God’s law, but Christ perfectly obeyed it. Adam’s sin was imputed to all men without exception. But since God loves the elect, He imputed their sin to Christ, and He imputes the righteousness of Christ to the elect. Therefore, Christ redeemed the elect (Ephesians 1:7). Christ reconciled the elect to God (Romans 5:10), and He placated His Father’s judicial wrath for the elect (Romans 3:25).

Particular redemption is also grounded in the doctrine of the Trinity. God chose the elect, Christ died for the elect, and the Spirit seals the elect. There is perfect unity in the Godhead. This is the gospel that must be defended and declared. For His glory! Amen."


View attachment 7708

Dr. Hernandez teaches those who do not believe in particular atonement are not saved! Watch end of video. He does not believe Dr Brown is saved. Post #71

 

[KenH]

Well, Dr Brown accepts Dr Hernandez as a brother in the Lord. But Dr Hernandez believes Dr Brown is not yet saved, because he does not accept Dr Brown's view of atonement is according to the true gospel.

1. For the record, I am friends with Sonny Hernandez on Facebook.

2. Do you think a person can be saved under a false gospel which conditions salvation on man and not 100% by the free grace of God?

Galatians 1:8-9 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

 

[DaveXR650]

Dr. Hernandez teaches those who do not believe in particular atonement are not saved! Watch end of video. He does not believe Dr Brown is saved. Post #71

I like to listen to Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones sermons since they are available on-line and he's recent enough that they are preserved in his own voice. I have been listening to his series on Ephesians. They are easy to find and start I think with sermon no. 4001. I bring him up because he gives a pretty powerful case for the truth of the doctrines of grace and Calvinism in general but he maintains that this is not a salvation issue. We all need to come to Christ by faith. Good debate on a theological level is fine but I wouldn't question the other side's salvation. Lloyd-Jones makes the point that a Calvinist more that anyone should be aware that God can save us even when we stumble doctrinally.

 

[Silverhair]

1. God commanded it - Matthew 28:19-20.

2. God is absolutely totally sovereign and He has ordained the means:

Romans 10:13-15 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!

But those commands must only apply to the non-calvinist as for the calvinist they would have no valve.

You just do not seem to understand your own theology, the reality of which leads to this:
The absolutely elect must have been saved without him; and the non-elect cannot be saved by him.

But that is a good text that you quoted as it proves free will.
Romans 10:13-15 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things.