Why the caps?
-
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!
John Calvin vs Calvinism
- Thread starter SavedByGrace
- Start date
- Status
Alan Gross
Well-Known Member
If someone else's thinking in particular is the ultimate authority,
what can anyone else do, to appeal it?
Yet, if the Bible were to appeal to our reason to substantiate its meanings
it would implicitly show that human reason is a higher authority.
So, thankfully, the Bible does not appeal to our feelings
or our reason for its authority, as to what the meaning of a passage is.
If we deny the clear testimony of Scripture that
there are certain specific details which people choose to believe,
using only their feelings and their reason to be their authority,
who then Add in their own Wording "to prove their point",
EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE NOT CONTAINED WITHIN THE TEXT OF THE BIBLE,
we would be making our minds to be a higher standard of Truth than the Bible
...
I picked out a "good one" for you, to show,
"Jesus didn't Die for the entire human race",
even though some folks like to go about Adding that into that verse.
I 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."
See: "He is the propitiation for our sins...also for the sins of the whole world." I John 2:2.
...
Luke 22:17 "And he took the cup, and gave thanks,
and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves:
18 "For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine,
until the kingdom of God shall come.
19 "And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it,
and gave unto them, saying,
This is my body which is given for you: "
(where Jesus didn't tell all the 12 Disciples,
explicitly, in any words like that,
that He was to shed His Blood for them all, without an exception,
which would have to be Added into the verse,
in order for someone to make the claim,
"The fact that Luke records Jesus telling all the 12 Disciples,
that He was to shed His Blood for them all",
or that: "Jesus was to shed His Blood for them all, including Judas."
That kind of wording is just not contained within that verse
and can not be assumed, no matter how badly someone desires
Jesus' Substitutionary Atonement to be mocked,
instead of ever "taking under consideration" Jesus knew what He was saying
and to whom He was saying it, as well as to whom He actually
was not talking to, or referring to, at all.
Since the specific one He did speak of next was the one whom Jesus said,
"the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table".
The prospect that Judas simply wasn't specifically included, by "for you",
in Jesus' words when He said, "This is my body which is given for you",
or "This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you."
which is entirely feasible, while the contention that Judas was included,
as being among the others Jesus shed His Blood for, is not in the Bible.
As believers we should avoid charging Jesus with Double Jeopardy.)
Luke 22:19b; "This is my body which is given for you:
"this do in remembrance of me."
20 "Likewise also the cup after supper, saying,
This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you."
21 "But, behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me
is with me on the table.
22 "And truly the Son of man goeth, as it was determined:
but woe unto that man by whom he is betrayed!"
...
What needs to be Added into this verse, to say,
"that Jesus Died for those who will be damned"?
2 Peter 2:1 "But there were false prophets also among the people,
even as there shall be false teachers among you,
who privily shall bring in damnable heresies,
"even denying the Lord that bought them,
and bring upon themselves swift destruction."
Let's Add in what would need to be required and see.
First, although this verse mentions nothing about,
"The Savior, Jesus Christ",
that kind of wording would, of necessity, would be required to be Added
into that verse, before it could be used to try and teach,
"Jesus Died for those who will be damned".
So, the first "Add" needed is here:
"even denying the Lord" ("and Savior, Jesus Christ", as if we must automatically assume that "The Lord", here, is The Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, without "taking under consideration" the alternative,
which would be, "God the Father".
Then, secondly, there would be the prerequisite
involved of also Adding:
"even denying the Lord that bought them."
(as if there is any indication of The Lord Jesus Christ,
here in this verse,
Who has already had to be assumed
to be there in that verse somewhere(?)
and then, to assume that Jesus is the One Who is said
to have "bought" them,
by purchasing them with His Own Blood(?).
....
what can anyone else do, to appeal it?
Yet, if the Bible were to appeal to our reason to substantiate its meanings
it would implicitly show that human reason is a higher authority.
So, thankfully, the Bible does not appeal to our feelings
or our reason for its authority, as to what the meaning of a passage is.
If we deny the clear testimony of Scripture that
there are certain specific details which people choose to believe,
using only their feelings and their reason to be their authority,
who then Add in their own Wording "to prove their point",
EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE NOT CONTAINED WITHIN THE TEXT OF THE BIBLE,
we would be making our minds to be a higher standard of Truth than the Bible
...
I picked out a "good one" for you, to show,
"Jesus didn't Die for the entire human race",
even though some folks like to go about Adding that into that verse.
I 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."
See: "He is the propitiation for our sins...also for the sins of the whole world." I John 2:2.
...
Luke 22:17 "And he took the cup, and gave thanks,
and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves:
18 "For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine,
until the kingdom of God shall come.
19 "And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it,
and gave unto them, saying,
This is my body which is given for you: "
(where Jesus didn't tell all the 12 Disciples,
explicitly, in any words like that,
that He was to shed His Blood for them all, without an exception,
which would have to be Added into the verse,
in order for someone to make the claim,
"The fact that Luke records Jesus telling all the 12 Disciples,
that He was to shed His Blood for them all",
or that: "Jesus was to shed His Blood for them all, including Judas."
That kind of wording is just not contained within that verse
and can not be assumed, no matter how badly someone desires
Jesus' Substitutionary Atonement to be mocked,
instead of ever "taking under consideration" Jesus knew what He was saying
and to whom He was saying it, as well as to whom He actually
was not talking to, or referring to, at all.
Since the specific one He did speak of next was the one whom Jesus said,
"the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table".
The prospect that Judas simply wasn't specifically included, by "for you",
in Jesus' words when He said, "This is my body which is given for you",
or "This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you."
which is entirely feasible, while the contention that Judas was included,
as being among the others Jesus shed His Blood for, is not in the Bible.
As believers we should avoid charging Jesus with Double Jeopardy.)
Luke 22:19b; "This is my body which is given for you:
"this do in remembrance of me."
20 "Likewise also the cup after supper, saying,
This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you."
21 "But, behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me
is with me on the table.
22 "And truly the Son of man goeth, as it was determined:
but woe unto that man by whom he is betrayed!"
...
What needs to be Added into this verse, to say,
"that Jesus Died for those who will be damned"?
2 Peter 2:1 "But there were false prophets also among the people,
even as there shall be false teachers among you,
who privily shall bring in damnable heresies,
"even denying the Lord that bought them,
and bring upon themselves swift destruction."
Let's Add in what would need to be required and see.
First, although this verse mentions nothing about,
"The Savior, Jesus Christ",
that kind of wording would, of necessity, would be required to be Added
into that verse, before it could be used to try and teach,
"Jesus Died for those who will be damned".
So, the first "Add" needed is here:
"even denying the Lord" ("and Savior, Jesus Christ", as if we must automatically assume that "The Lord", here, is The Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, without "taking under consideration" the alternative,
which would be, "God the Father".
Then, secondly, there would be the prerequisite
involved of also Adding:
"even denying the Lord that bought them."
(as if there is any indication of The Lord Jesus Christ,
here in this verse,
Who has already had to be assumed
to be there in that verse somewhere(?)
and then, to assume that Jesus is the One Who is said
to have "bought" them,
by purchasing them with His Own Blood(?).
....
Alan Gross
Well-Known Member
"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."
Let's look at a couple of verses in context, just before this one,
because we're going to want to see who he was talking to.
In considering this verse, it is needful to remove a word or two,
in order to make it prove out to say what is alleged,
"God is not willing that, any
(including the mockers and scoffers) should perish in hell"
2 Peter3:1 "This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you..."
So, this Epistle is written to the "beloved',
"That ye (beloved) may be mindful of the words,
and these "beloved" were, of course, saved born again children of God.
2 "That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before
by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us
the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:"
Again, just before vs 9, we see vs 8 addressing the "beloved".
8 "But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing..."
I pointed those out, to say that he is speaking to the "beloved" saved children of God, because of the couple of words that would be required to leave out, in vs 9.
Here is what it looks like and the way it reads without them;
9 "The Lord is not slack concerning his promise,
as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering,
not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance."
If God had written those words like that, it is almost as if they could say,
"God is not willing that, any
(including the mockers and scoffers) should perish in hell".
However, the words that are included in the Bible prophet and restrict
this verse to be saying something else entirely different.
Do you want to know what God is saying?
I'll go ahead and "Add" back in the absent words, plus some extra words,
from the context, so it may be easier for you to catch on.
9 "The Lord is not slack concerning his promise,
as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward,
who are? the "beloved" saved born again children of God he is talking to,
"not willing that any" of those "beloved" saved born again children of God,
should perish, but that all should come to repentance."
You see? where the Bible in that verse is not saying anything about,
"God is not willing that, any
(including the mockers and scoffers) should perish in hell".
2 Peter 3:1; doesn't say anything about, "mockers and scoffers",
or that God is not willing that any mockers and scoffers perish.
God says there that He "is longsuffering to us-ward, DOESN'T IT,?
And who are the "us-ward"? that God is referring to in that verse?
Well, it's the "beloved" saved born again children of God he is talking to,
that God is "not willing that any" of those "beloved" saved children of God,
should perish, but that all should come to repentance."
God wanted His beloved children to live and be saved from dying, soon.
And do I have to point out that no reference to "perish in hell,"?
is in there? anywhere?
I sure hope not by now.
Last edited:
Alan Gross
Well-Known Member
I went about looking up the opposite of "HUMAN FALLACY",
and got for it's antonym;
The Strongest opposite:
Strong opposites:
- accuracy
- certainty
- conformity
- correction
- directness
- facing
- fairness
- frankness
- honesty
- meeting
- openness
- reality
- sameness
- truthfulness
Ha!
atpollard
Well-Known Member
... and THIS (what you have provided in response) is platitudes that leave everyone reading it STILL STARVING!
[That was my point: If we (Christians) do not communicate our message so that REAL PEOPLE - who do not attend seminary and bible college - can understand the message, then we are "preaching to the choir" and just maintaining "Fortress Church" as the world perishes around us. That is NOT our "Great Commission"!]
Are you saying to dumb it down?
atpollard
Well-Known Member
I wanted to reply to the rest before the post got lost and I couldn't find it again ...
- "It is appointed man once to die and then the judgment." - cannot disagree with that: GOD said it.
Furthermore, I completely agree that WE (Christians, whosoever believes, children of God, the saints) escape it [John 3:18]. - So what about "everyone without exception"? In your opening position, we posit that Christ died for ALL mankind [everyone without exception], so why is His death effective at providing "escape in Christ is not suffering and death but the wrath to come (Judgment)" for SOME of ALL MANKIND and not OTHERS of ALL MANKIND?
- There is clearly either a disconnect or a "missing ingredient". Since ETERNITY is at stake, we should probably be clear what is required ... what that "missing ingredient" is ... or at least be "Lutheran Honest" and throw ourselves on "MYSTERY" and admit our ignorance of the paradox.
- So what about "everyone without exception"? In your opening position, we posit that Christ died for ALL mankind [everyone without exception], so why is His death effective at providing "escape in Christ is not suffering and death but the wrath to come (Judgment)" for SOME of ALL MANKIND and not OTHERS of ALL MANKIND?
- I agree, as does the clear testimony of Scripture, that Jesus is the one who Judges men. However, I suspect that you have more in mind here than that, so I will withhold "guessing" and simply invite you to expound on what you meant.
- For example: Did you mean that God the Father poured the punishment that we would have received upon Christ at the Cross? If so: Did Jesus suffer for all men without exception and are all sins being judged twice?
- "All man will be raised. Death is not the conclusion." - I acknowledge that this answers part of the questions raised in my FIRST RESPONSE. It is in THIS sense that Death has been defeated (even though we all still die).
- "Some will be raised to eternal life, and others to eternal condemnation." - This part makes me want to become a Buddhist! What sort of a gift is it to defeat death so that you can die for your sin (wages), be raised to stand judgement, and then face an eternal "second death" that is FAR WORSE than the death that Christ defeated? Would it not have been better for the damned to be left "worm food"? Jesus death for "all without exception" really screws over a LOT of people, doesn't it?
- To quote Ricky: "Lucy, You got some 'splainin' to do!" [LOL]
Last edited:
atpollard
Well-Known Member
No, I am saying ...
"WHERE'S THE BEEF!"
People live in a world of real problems and need a God with real answers.
Clever catch phrases are just not going to cut it when you are burying your murdered brother and someone asks you if you want revenge. Then you need a REAL JESUS with REAL answers.
"This is HUMAN FALLACY!" is not a REAL JESUS with REAL ANSWERS.
[FYI: I told them "If it would bring Richard back, I would crush the life out of his killer with my bare hands ... but it won't bring him back and what I want is Richard alive, not his killer dead. So I want nothing from his killer." ... welcome to the REAL WORLD where B.S. just doesn't cut it.]
Yes of course which is a constant balancing act brother between justice & mercy. In short, that’s a real God, a savior who addresses both judiciously. I’d take that over retribution.No, I am saying ...
"WHERE'S THE BEEF!"
People live in a world of real problems and need a God with real answers.
Clever catch phrases are just not going to cut it when you are burying your murdered brother and someone asks you if you want revenge. Then you need a REAL JESUS with REAL answers.
"This is HUMAN FALLACY!" is not a REAL JESUS with REAL ANSWERS.
[FYI: I told them "If it would bring Richard back, I would crush the life out of his killer with my bare hands ... but it won't bring him back and what I want is Richard alive, not his killer dead. So I want nothing from his killer." ... welcome to the REAL WORLD where B.S. just doesn't cut it.]
No.
The Lord Jesus Christ did die for the whole world. That is extremely clear in Scripture. It is also extremely clear that we must receive Christ for God to reckon it to our account.
John 1:11-13
Romans 4:8
Hebrews 11:6
Hell is needed because people still REFUSE God’s forgiveness and rulership.
- "It is appointed man once to die and then the judgment." - cannot disagree with that: GOD said it.
- So what about "everyone without exception"? In your opening position, we posit that Christ died for ALL mankind [everyone without exception], so why is His death effective at providing "escape in Christ is not suffering and death but the wrath to come (Judgment)" for SOME of ALL MANKIND and not OTHERS of ALL MANKIND?
- There is clearly either a disconnect or a "missing ingredient". Since ETERNITY is at stake, we should probably be clear what is required ... what that "missing ingredient" is ... or at least be "Lutheran Honest" and throw ourselves on "MYSTERY" and admit our ignorance of the paradox.
It is appointed man once to die and then the judgment.
Christ dying for all of mankind in no way saves all of mankind. We are freed from the bondage of sin and death, but we escape the wrath to come (Judgment).
If all of mankind were "in Christ" ("in Whom there is no condemnation") then all of man would be saved.
But they are not. The Light has come and they rejected the Light.
No, I do not mean God the Father poured the punishment that we would have received upon Christ at the Cross.
I mean that all judgment has been given to the Son. Those who are condemned are so because the Light has come into the world and they rejected the Light.
At Judgment nations will be separated as a shepherd separated the sheep from the goats. One group will have been resurrected to eternal life. The other group to condemnation.
I mean that Judgment is Christ-centeted, not centered on man. I believe this applies to the saved and the lost.
Daniel 12:2 Many of those who sleep in the dust of the ground will awake, these to everlasting life, but the others to disgrace and everlasting contempt. (See also
John 5:24–29)
Your question, ultimately, is whether remaining in Sheol would be better than the Second Death at Judgment (when Sheol and death is cast into the Lake of Fire).
I believe so. I think that this judgment of the Second Death is a worse punishment. How? I cannot say, other than it was s being cast from God Himself into the outer darkness.
Does this mean those who reject Christ would have been better off had Christ not died for them (had they never been in a position to reject Him)?
Yes, it does.
My apologies, @atpollard . I read your replies out of order (I responded to your second one first).
Here I mean "Christ died for our sins" literally. It was for ("for that reason" or "because of") our sins that Christ died. Mankind was under a curse. The wages of sin is death. Man would die because of sin. Jesus, who is without sin, took upon Himself the sins of man and the associated curse. And He died in a cross. God was, on the cross, reconciling man (mankind) to Himself and because of this we can now urge men to be reconciled to God.
Christ dying for "all men without exception" is a Calvin quote. But it is accurate. It means that Christ experienced the death that we will all experience (the wages of sin). Death is, because of the Cross, without its "sting". It is not final. Afterwards, again because of Christ's work) all men will be raised - some to life, others to a second death.
By freeing man from the bondage of sin and death I am speaking of Christ as "the Way" to God. The list, ultimately, choose to remain in sin (the Light has come and they reject the Light).
We still die, but death is no longer a chain. We still sin, but sin is not our master.
This does being a greater condemnation on the lost. They have rejected the Light and choose to serve the master of sin.
You mistakenly misquoted my words.
We are freed from the bondage of death. But yes, we do still die.
God's words are immutable (His words stand). All who sin will die. The wages of sin is death. It is appointed man once to die.
BUT because of Christ, dying we shall also live. There is life after death in Him.
I mean exactly what I have said. I am not one of those who ask people to invent some sort of definition for "death" other than death. I am not using "death" to mean some separation or spiritual concept. I mean, literally, death.
My question to you is how you equate Christ dying for mankind as universal salvation. It seems that Scripture draws a very clear distinction between the wages of sin being death (sin bringing forth death) and the wrath to come (the wrath we, in Christ, escape).
I agree that we often take phrases for granted not realizing those who are not familiar may not get the precise meaning.
Here I mean "Christ died for our sins" literally. It was for ("for that reason" or "because of") our sins that Christ died. Mankind was under a curse. The wages of sin is death. Man would die because of sin. Jesus, who is without sin, took upon Himself the sins of man and the associated curse. And He died in a cross. God was, on the cross, reconciling man (mankind) to Himself and because of this we can now urge men to be reconciled to God.
Christ dying for "all men without exception" is a Calvin quote. But it is accurate. It means that Christ experienced the death that we will all experience (the wages of sin). Death is, because of the Cross, without its "sting". It is not final. Afterwards, again because of Christ's work) all men will be raised - some to life, others to a second death.
By freeing man from the bondage of sin and death I am speaking of Christ as "the Way" to God. The list, ultimately, choose to remain in sin (the Light has come and they reject the Light).
We still die, but death is no longer a chain. We still sin, but sin is not our master.
This does being a greater condemnation on the lost. They have rejected the Light and choose to serve the master of sin.
You mistakenly misquoted my words.
We are freed from the bondage of death. But yes, we do still die.
God's words are immutable (His words stand). All who sin will die. The wages of sin is death. It is appointed man once to die.
BUT because of Christ, dying we shall also live. There is life after death in Him.
I mean exactly what I have said. I am not one of those who ask people to invent some sort of definition for "death" other than death. I am not using "death" to mean some separation or spiritual concept. I mean, literally, death.
My question to you is how you equate Christ dying for mankind as universal salvation. It seems that Scripture draws a very clear distinction between the wages of sin being death (sin bringing forth death) and the wrath to come (the wrath we, in Christ, escape).
So He lets them exist till he tortures them for eternity? ( there is that all caps thing again —that’s like screaming in internet lingo). Just saying
It’s shouting when the whole post is all caps. It is quite tedious to make bold words on this machine—literally thirteen keystrokes, so I use caps for a few words I want to emphasize. I thought a person would know that.
The Bible never ever says God tortures anyone. It says they are tormented, never tortured. That’s barbaric.
Not everyone believes the punishing is eternal. Punishment, yes; punishing, no.
We’ll find out on the other side.
I want to address another topic. The sufferings of Christ, the blood shed, the crucifixion, death and resurrection are the same for one man as for all men.
If only one person were saved, it would not diminish one iota from His suffering. If ten billion were saved, it would not add one iota to His suffering.
It took it ALL to save you.
It took it ALL to save me.
It works for me... And you can change the color if you want... I think Alan has already conquered that department... Icon!... Is that you, incognito?... Brother Glen
Simple…I contend that if Christ died for all men then every man would be saved. Christ is God and is not a failure. Matthew 1:21 tells us, "he shall save his people from their sins." If all men are His people, all men are saved.
But you are wrong (of course).
Had you said that under your theology had Christ died for all of mankind then all would be saved you would have been correct.
Under a different position, if Jesus did not die for all of man then no man could be saved.
That is why these discussions, while fun, are essentially meaningless.
You have to put my statements within your theology to refute it. It doesn't work that way. Under my theology your view would mean Jesus completely failed and no man can be saved.
While we would never get to real disagreements, it is fun.
And you know me....I'm all 'bout fun.
I will agree, you are funny
- Status