Galatians 3:3
Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Why? or Why Not?
- Thread starter 37818
- Start date
Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?
Well since you are a sinner, you have no hope of salvation because it would be an unjust abomination for Jesus to clear your account of your guilt.
KenH
Well-Known Member
Not my theory, Jon. It is what the Bible teaches. It is the gospel.
2 Corinthians 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.
An atonement is an appeasement. It assumes that there is an offense, an offender, an offended party, and a moral obligation for a correction to be made to the end of restitution.
The offense is sin.
The offender is mankind.
The offended is God.
The moral obligation is wrapped up in the being of God Himself. It is His law written in our hearts. It is clearly defined in Scripture.
A correction is not merely a cancellation. Principles of bookkeeping are not isolated to the tracking of finances. Finances are tracked using basic principles of moral law. Restoration/correction must be made from somewhere. It costs something.
If the cash drawer comes up short at the end of the day, someone must make a correction to bring restitution to the accounts. It generally is the person responsible for the drawer. Occasionally without recognizing the example that they are, the store owner will take the damage upon himself.
Essentially God has taken the damage upon Himself when Jesus made an appeasement. Jesus took our shortcomings onto Himself.
The offense is sin.
The offender is mankind.
The offended is God.
The moral obligation is wrapped up in the being of God Himself. It is His law written in our hearts. It is clearly defined in Scripture.
A correction is not merely a cancellation. Principles of bookkeeping are not isolated to the tracking of finances. Finances are tracked using basic principles of moral law. Restoration/correction must be made from somewhere. It costs something.
If the cash drawer comes up short at the end of the day, someone must make a correction to bring restitution to the accounts. It generally is the person responsible for the drawer. Occasionally without recognizing the example that they are, the store owner will take the damage upon himself.
Essentially God has taken the damage upon Himself when Jesus made an appeasement. Jesus took our shortcomings onto Himself.
KenH
Well-Known Member
God does not clear the guilty. (Numbers 14:18)
All of Adam's race is guilty. If someone is guilty, then they suffer punishment. Christ took the guilt of God's elect upon Himself by imputation, took all their punishment upon Himself, and paid their total sin debt. Likewise, Christ's perfect righteousness as the Surety and Redeemer of God's elect was placed upon them by imputation.
All of Adam's race is guilty. If someone is guilty, then they suffer punishment. Christ took the guilt of God's elect upon Himself by imputation, took all their punishment upon Himself, and paid their total sin debt. Likewise, Christ's perfect righteousness as the Surety and Redeemer of God's elect was placed upon them by imputation.
Salvation was promised to the entire human population of the world in the garden.
Christ answers for the sins of the whole world in his atonement for mankind.
The only thing between men and God is our unbelief. Jesus answered the sin problem. The reason Jesus Christ does not do mighty works in every man is because of their unbelief.
It is written, believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved.
KenH
Well-Known Member
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.
I didn’t say that He will save the world without any qualifiers. Only that salvation is available to all and that God will recompense each person according to their relationship with Him.
KenH
Well-Known Member
"and not for ours only; but for the sins of Old Testament saints, and of those who shall hereafter believe in Christ, and of the Gentiles also, signified in the next clause:
but also for the sins of the whole world; the Syriac version renders it, "not for us only, but also for the whole world"; that is, not for the Jews only, for John was a Jew, and so were those he wrote unto, but for the Gentiles also.
...
this phrase, "all the world", or "the whole world", in Scripture, unless when it signifies the whole universe, or the habitable earth, is always used in a limited sense, either for the Roman empire, or the churches of Christ in the world, or believers, or the present inhabitants of the world, or a part of them only, Luke 2:1; and so it is in this epistle, 1 John 5:19; where the whole world lying in wickedness is manifestly distinguished from the saints, who are of God, and belong not to the world; and therefore cannot be understood of all the individuals in the world; and the like distinction is in this text itself, for "the sins of the whole world" are opposed to "our sins", the sins of the apostle and others to whom he joins himself; who therefore belonged not to, nor were a part of the whole world, for whose sins Christ is a propitiation as for theirs: so that this passage cannot furnish out any argument for universal redemption; for besides these things, it may be further observed, that for whose sins Christ is a propitiation, their sins are atoned for and pardoned, and their persons justified from all sin, and so shall certainly be glorified, which is not true of the whole world, and every man and woman in it; moreover, Christ is a propitiation through faith in his blood, the benefit of his propitiatory sacrifice is only received and enjoyed through faith; so that in the event it appears that Christ is a propitiation only for believers, a character which does not agree with all mankind; add to this, that for whom Christ is a propitiation he is also an advocate, 1 John 2:1; but he is not an advocate for every individual person in the world; yea, there is a world he will not pray for John 17:9, and consequently is not a propitiation for them. Once more, the design of the apostle in these words is to comfort his "little children" with the advocacy and propitiatory sacrifice of Christ, who might fall into sin through weakness and inadvertency; but what comfort would it yield to a distressed mind, to be told that Christ was a propitiation not only for the sins of the apostles and other saints, but for the sins of every individual in the world, even of these that are in hell? Would it not be natural for persons in such circumstances to argue rather against, than for themselves, and conclude that seeing persons might be damned notwithstanding the propitiatory sacrifice of Christ, that this might, and would be their case."
- except from John Gill's Bible commentary on 1 John 2:2
Thus coming from a man who believed he was saved before he was born.
Didn't see the need for the Gospel to be preached to all men.
A very disturbed man!
KenH
Well-Known Member
If you are referring to me, I certainly do not believe that I was saved before I was born. God's elect come into this world in the same condition as those whom God reprobated - spiritually dead.
Ephesians 2:1-3
And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;
wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:
among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.
Referring to the Hyper-Calvinist who wrote the commentary you posted.
KenH
Well-Known Member
Since I am also a "Hyper-Calvinist", then you might as well include me in your reference. And John Gill wrote similar as I wrote in my post #31 above.
"who were dead in trespasses and sins; not only dead in Adam, in whom they sinned, being their federal head and representative; and in a legal sense, the sentence of condemnation and death having passed upon them; but in a moral sense, through original sin, and their own actual transgressions: which death lies in a separation from God, Father, Son, and Spirit, such are without God, and are alienated from the life of God, and they are without Christ, who is the author and giver of life, and they are sensual, not having the Spirit, who is the spirit of life; and in a deformation of the image of God, such are dead as to their understandings, wills, and affections, with respect to spiritual things, and as to their capacity to do any thing that is spiritually good; and in a loss of original righteousness; and in a privation of the sense of sin and misery; and in a servitude to sin, Satan, and the world.
...
Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past,.... What the apostle says of the Gentile Ephesians before conversion, he says of himself and other Jews; and this he does, partly to show that it was not from ill will, or with a design to upbraid the Gentiles, that he said what he did; and partly to beat down the pride of the Jews, who thought themselves better than the sinners of the Gentiles; as well as to magnify the grace of God in the conversion of them both: the sense is, that the apostle and other Jews in the time of their unregeneracy, had their conversation according to the customs of the world, and to the prince of the air, and among unbelievers, as well as the Gentiles; and that they were equally sinners, and lived a like sinful course of life."
- excerpts from John Gill's commentary on Ephesians 2:1,3
If you don't believe you were saved before you were born, or that all men do not need to hear the Gospel, why do you think you're Hyper?
KenH
Well-Known Member
I use the term, "hyper-calvinist" as Brandan Kraft does in this article - "Confession of a Hyper-Calvinist":
I can't read all of that, Ken, that much reading gets me fidgety. So I skimmed it.
What he's claiming as Hyper seems to be what Calvin taught more/less and I consider that Calvinism.
Hyper, in my opinion goes over the edge of Calvinism, such as Gill.
I haven't seen the Hyper in your posts, but maybe I missed something.
KenH
Well-Known Member
If that is the case, then you shouldn't consider John Gill to be a hyper-Calvinist, then.
Calvin believed all men should hear the gospel, Gill didn't.
That is the main reason most consider Gill as Hyper.
There are several other things where Gill takes Calvinism to extremes.
You can read all about it comparing their commentaries.
KenH
Well-Known Member
Do you have a link to a specific quote where Gill said that? Since you made the accusation, surely you have a specific quote to back it up. Right?
I've read both Calvin and Gills commentaries in part over 40 years ago.
He is a comparison of their beliefs
.
John Calvin's Election Theory
- Atonement: Calvin taught that Christ's atonement was sufficient for all humanity, meaning its value could cover the sins of all people, but it is effectual (applied) only to the elect.
- Gospel Offer: He supported the free, indiscriminate offer of the gospel to all people, as it is the Holy Spirit who opens the eyes of the elect to believe.
- Lapsarianism: Calvin is often associated with the supralapsarian position, which suggests God's decree of election/reprobation logically precedes the decree to permit the Fall.
- Love of God: Calvinists generally believe God has a general love or goodwill for all people (common grace), even those He does not intend to save, while also having a special, saving love for the elect.
- Human Responsibility: True Calvinism maintains that all humans are responsible for repenting and believing the gospel, despite their inherent inability due to total depravity.
John Gill's Election Theory (Hyper-Calvinism)
- Atonement: Gill's view, characteristic of Hyper-Calvinism, argues that Christ's atonement was intended for and sufficient only for the elect, not the entire world.
- Gospel Offer: This view often denies the appropriateness of offering the gospel message universally to all, especially to those who have not shown signs of being among the elect.
- Love of God: Gill's perspective tends to limit God's love strictly to the elect, denying that God has any favor or "grace" of any kind toward the non-elect.
- Human Responsibility/Ability: A core difference of Hyper-Calvinism is the belief that ability and responsibility must correspond; since only the elect have the ability to believe, only the elect are considered responsible for doing so. This contrasts with Calvin's view of a moral inability that does not negate responsibility.