The Sovereignty of God

This is a simplistic way to do lexical work don't you think? After all every word has a semantic domain.

That's not what Scripture says (1 Cor 2:14)

DId you just add "all" into Scripture here or are my eyes deceiving me??? This verse is not about how many Christ died for but the nature of the people (whoever they are) that Christ died for. This is a prime case of yanking Scripture out of context to support a preconcieved point.

 

I've said this before. Your position is not a true [scriptural] mystery. Your position boils down to God condemns them because of His sovereign right. But then you try to say "but no, God doesn't really decree them to Hell; it is completely 'their own choice'". Separately, those are not true mysteries; together, they are simply a contradictory pair of statements.

No, they have worth, but if they continually reject God, they will lose that worth. You think the only other alternative is open theism, but this just shows where we are limited and cannot see it from God's perspective.
This argument once again tries to prove "in your position, God knows people will go to Hell, so you might as well at least make Him 'in control' of it, like our position" (which means making Him decree it). But then you keep trying to deny He decreed it.
The Bible does not go into an explanation of "all who will be in Hell" and how they could not escape it. (The focus of the Gospel is the steering of people away from Hell. Why spend so much time on an unbiblical supposition?). So both Calvinist teachings on this as well as the questions made to support them are speculative and there is no Biblical answer for the questions.

[ August 01, 2002, 07:36 PM: Message edited by: Eric B ]

 

He died to accomplish the salvation of His people, and in doing so, He provided a means by which anyone who believes may be saved. As the Synod of Dort says, "No man perishes for want of an atonement."

 

Pastor Larry,

The reason why I was simplistic is because, without doubt, there are laypersons who might not be able to read the Greek or know how to access it's meaning. You should know that.

 

Pastor Larry,

I Peter 3:18 . . . If God had desired that the apostle write ' . . . the Just died for some of the unjust' Peter would have been so impressed to do this. The Just One dying for the unjust indicates that the entire group were unjust and this is who He died for on the Cross.

 

Absolutely, Ray, I agree. All of God's elect are unjust as well as those that reject the gospel of Christ.

Ken
A Spurgeonite
www.spurgeon.org

 

Ken Hamilton,

The only shade of difference is that the Just One died for all the unjust. Do you know what God means when He says that He died for the unjust?

Christ dying as a substitute for sinners means that He paid the sin debt for everyone. Believing and trusting in Jesus is the only necessary ingredient for any sinner to be born again.
Everyone's sins have been atoned for, for all of human history.
Sincerely,

Ray Berrian

 

So, everyone in all of history will be saved since there is no further penalty for sin to be received?

Regards,
Ken

 

No! such concept produces inappropriate humility in the sight of God due to ignorance or misunderstanding, in part or in whole, of these concepts:

1. should there have been no law, there would have been no disobedience, and thus no sin.
2. with the law, men commit sins.
3. before a man commits his first sin, he is already spiritually dead, due to the Original Sin.
4. those laws were given not to get men condemned. indeed, they already are, even before their first disobedience to it.
5. those laws were not given to save men.
6. those laws were given (apart from its non-spiritual values) simply to prove that man is condemned, due to Adam's sin. God gave the laws to make it more clear to man that he is unworthy to be acceptable to God (and i'd say that's grace!)
7. thus, when man sins, it does not get him condemned. it only proves he is!

[ August 02, 2002, 02:18 AM: Message edited by: Aki ]

 

the way i understand limited atonement, it says that God died only for the elect, thus giving no way of escape for the non-elect. now here you are saying that anyone (both elect and non-elect) who believes may be saved. i am admittedly at the point of misunderstanding you, the limited atonement concept, both, or it just might be that you are a calvinist but you are not one of the hyper-calivinists.

kindly explain your view of the substitutionary death of Christ further.

[ August 02, 2002, 02:23 AM: Message edited by: Aki ]

 

But this is a prime example of a failure to do exegesis. The text does not say that. The text is indicating the nature of the atonement, not the extent of it. Come on "Dr." Berrian, surely you know better. In exegesis we are looking at intent -- what did the author desire to communicate. The verse does not address anything about the extent of the atonement.

 

You and I are on the same side of this one, alhtough I might take issue with the finer points of some of your statements. My point was a different one, namely, that man is not condemned by God's choice but by his own sinfulness.

[ August 02, 2002, 10:50 AM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

If God knows whether a person will choose the waffles or pancakes how could the person excersise free will to choose differently than what God already knows they will choose?

 

Christ died for all the 'ites.' Were they worse sinners than we were in Adam?

Have you not read that Christ was active through the Holy Spirit even before the Great Flood of Noah's time? [Genesis 6:3]

 

Pastor Larry,

Perhaps you need to review the meaning of Jesus dying on the Cross.

Respectfully,

Dr. Berrian

 

If God actively and autocratically decided to save His elect, by this very decree, He has wilfully decided against the non-elect. Stop trying to sugar-coat the doctrine so it is more palatable to Christians. But, then we are ready for just a little more error, so why not just say 'God over looked or bypassed them' in their real need to be saved.

Their sin in Adam plus their sins have insured their destiny, apart from saving faith in Jesus.

 

If the death of Jesus Christ made atonement for all the sins of every person, then this would also include the sin of unbelief, which would mean that all will be saved. And I think we all know that the Bible does not teach universalism.

Here's a verse that even the "free-willers" never attempt to butcher.
"But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those
who believe in His name, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor the will of man, but of God." (John 1:12-13)

Enabled by the Father(John 6:44),
John W Mergel