A Question for Arminians (or no-name theology believers)

[webdog]

I'll just cut to the chase, because we can't get straight answers from webdog et al:

It is written no where that faith appeases God's wrath. Quite the opposite, really. It's written that by faith men believe unto righteousness, and by faith the elders received a good report, but God's wrath was appeased by the sacrifice of Christ.

If webdog et al would presume to analyze the atonement they should study the Law. That is where Christ's sacrifice is dissected and laid out in its elementary components for our learning.

If a man sinned, two sacrifices had to be made for him. One was a sin offering, and the other was a trespass offering. In one, sin itself is judged, and in the other, the guilt of the sinner. But these are two parts of Christ's one offering on the cross, appeasing God's wrath against both the sin and the sinner in that one act.

It was accomplished. It is finished.

But dog has the atonement divided into two acts: one on the part of Christ, and the other on the part of man. Despite dog's protests, the logical end of his dichotomy is that man partly atones for himself.

Congratulations, you have just made the requirement and the application of the passover's lamb's blood to the door posts (a foreshadowing of Christ, btw) a moot point and a silly requirement as the death of the lamb was sufficient to save the Israelites.

I'll stick to what the Bible says.

 

[MB]

I agree... There are so many wrong statements made by MB above that any response point-by-point would only give credence to the veracity of what he wrote. I'll let him hang by his own rope.

Ever read what Christ had to say about gossips?
MB

 

[glfredrick]

Ever read what Christ had to say about gossips?
MB

I'm not gossiping. I'm writing in plain view of you and everyone else.

 

[MB]

glfredrick;
Rom 10:10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

Hmmmmm: Confession is made unto Salvation. That means with out confession there is no Salvation.

Rom 10:11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
Rom 10:12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.
Rom 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
Rom 10:14 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?
Rom 10:15 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!
Rom 10:16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?
Rom 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

If faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God then obviously your wrong about hearing coming by regeneration.
MB

 

[glfredrick]

glfredrick;
Rom 10:10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

Hmmmmm: Confession is made unto Salvation. That means with out confession there is no Salvation.

Rom 10:11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
Rom 10:12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.
Rom 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
Rom 10:14 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?
Rom 10:15 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!
Rom 10:16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?
Rom 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

If faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God then obviously your wrong about hearing coming by regeneration.
MB

We're not debating that point, but thanks for the Scripture. :thumbsup:

 

[menageriekeeper]

Hey GL? Did you miss my post 63?

I addressed your OP and asked you a question in return. This freewiller (can't call me arminian because I believe he too had things wrong with his theology) isn't afraid to answer your suppositions. But I doubt you'll like my answer any better than the other answers you've recieved.

 

[glfredrick]

Hey GL? Did you miss my post 63?

I addressed your OP and asked you a question in return. This freewiller (can't call me arminian because I believe he too had things wrong with his theology) isn't afraid to answer your suppositions. But I doubt you'll like my answer any better than the other answers you've recieved.

I did. I'm mostly interested in discussion about the topic that I proposed, and not all the side talk that is going on in this or most of the other threads. I think your response may have gotten burried in the side talk.

Which of the E-s did you pick?

 

[menageriekeeper]

ACK! Post 62, GL. Page 7.

I can't type worth a flip today!

 

[glfredrick]

Okay... I remember this just failed to come back to it the next day. Some interesting questions raised about the OP. (THANKS)

Since I don't mind being called a universalist, I thought I'd throw in.

You already know the problems with being a universalist, yet you continue in that light. Makes me wonder why, but that is your belief and I'll not belittle it.

Is anyone surprised to find that I am E-3er? Nah, didn't think so.

You would have to...

"The problem is that unbelief is a sin". Why is that a problem, GL? Why is it that you can see the difference between attonement made and attonement applied? The price for all sin committed by all men has been paid. But it hasn't been applied to each individual account.

Are you suggesting that unbelief is not a sin? I don't think that you can support that via the Scriptures. Jesus had several occasions where He went toe-to-toe with people who came to Him proclaiming some form of human righteousness. Yet in all those cases the individual walked away without the satisfaction of Christ saying, "Well done good and faithful servant." Why? Because they could not believe that Jesus Christ was Lord and Savior, the only begotten Son of God, Immanuel. They could not get past their human-centered efforts and merely "believe" that Jesus could save them.

Concerning atonement made and atonement applied, I was waiting for someone to get to that point. Several sort of tried, but they did so in a way that did not support the OP proposition.

Here is the deal... We have God, in 3 persons -- the Trinity -- who purpose before the foundations of the world to do His will, and that everything in His will would be accomplished. In so purposing, He elected persons as yet uncreated to be the objects of His attention. He willed that there would be an atonement by God the Son (Christ) for those whom He elected, and Christ indeed fulfilled every requirement and part of God's purposed will in the atonement. The Holy Spirit was present throughout, and is now the driving force behind the completion of God's purpose before the foundations of the world. To say otherwise is to say that God is A) unable to purpose His will, B) that God is unable to accomplish His will or C) that God is less than His divine attributes (like almighty, omniscient, etc.) indicate, which is blasphemy and leads to heretical belief.

The atonement was purposed to cover the elect from before the foundation of the world -- and it did -- each or all of the elect. To suggest that Christ's atonement was performed for persons who were or are not capable of salvation is to suggest that Christ's work (God's work) is impotent, rendering Him something less than the God of the Bible -- the God who is almighty and the Creator of all things.

That is why there can be no general atonement with specific application.

While Winman's Superbowl tickets were a good illustration, let me offer you one that is a little more specific:

My husband works for a major hospital. They have approximately 2000 patients at any given time. I also have a rich uncle named Sam. Suppose Sam walks in and tells the business administrator to total up the bill for every patient that is residing at the hospital because he is going to pay their bills down to the last penny owed to the last doctor that walked through the patients' rooms.

Hospital business admin being what they are, they add it all up and Sam approves the wire transfer of the funds. HIPAA laws being what they are, the hospital admin CAN'T APPLY PAYMENT to the individual accounts without the patients' individual consent! (not kidding!)

Now the money is there. The hospital is holding it in bank account ready to distribute to those 2000 patients, but first the patients have to consent.

Patients 1-500 don't even ask questions, they just sign the form! Patients 501-1000 have reservations about the motives of the one who paid the price and they want to wait and see what happens with the first 500 before committing their signature. Patients 1001-1500 tell the administers they don't have an ink pen. (stands for all the foolish reasons men don't accept Christ) and the rest of the patients say they can pay their own bill thank you very much!

The price was paid. Who benefitted?

Christ paid the price for all sin, including unbelief or else you wouldn't be saved because at some point in your life you commtted that particular sin yourself. You and I benefitted from Christ's sacrifice because we accepted the gift while those who are still unbelieving cannot and will not benefit from that same gift because they have not yet or they will not accept it, just as 1500 of the people in my illustration haven't signed the consent form.

Unlike your (very human) example, God indeed has the ability to cause persons to WANT to come to get their tickets, and He indeed does just that. He does not go about and force tickets into one's hand. That does not happen. Everyone knows that from both the Scriptures and from life examples. But, He can cause life circumstances and the preaching of the Word, with the power of the Holy Spirit (who as God can be omnipresent) so that the individual for whom the atonement was purposed will in fact become one of God's own, though they may not even understand the mechanism behind God's actions to accomplish His perfect will.

In your allusion above, we can consider that those who were holding back out of fear or some other consideration, would see the first group have their free gift. They would see the great rejoicing, and after watching for some time, realize that they too could have the same offer -- and they willingly come! What of those who simply will not trust the gift or the giver of the gift? Therein lies the flaw in your allusion. God already selected all those who He would cause to want the gift. That is what election is. No one will have a gift if they are not caused by God to come and all who have a gift will come. God is perfect in His economy and He does not waste a drop of the precious blood of Jesus.

M fav scripture at the moment that illustrates God waiting on His people to make the choice to belief is,

Deu 30:19 I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:


What a wonderfully illustrative scripture God has given us to display the simplicity of His plan.

Who set before them life or death? They certainly did not do the "setting before." God is doing what God always does -- giving the elect a chance to respond to Him -- and there is never a coercion about the way He does it.

 

[Aaron]

I'll stick to what the Bible says.

You kinda have to know what the Bible says to do that. You'll find my description of the sin and trespass offerings to be clearly stated in Lev. 4:1 - 6:7

 

[webdog]

You kinda have to know what the Bible says to do that. You'll find my description of the sin and trespass offerings to be clearly stated in Lev. 4:1 - 6:7

Likewise, you will find the passover account in Exodus 12 if you haven't read it before.

 

[menageriekeeper]

Are you suggesting that unbelief is not a sin?

No, I'm suggesting it is a sin just like any other sin. In the same manner, it cannot be forgiven (attonement applied) until belief occurs, though the payment for that sin is available.

Here is the deal... We have God, in 3 persons -- the Trinity -- who purpose before the foundations of the world to do His will, and that everything in His will would be accomplished. In so purposing, He elected persons as yet uncreated to be the objects of His attention. He willed that there would be an atonement by God the Son (Christ) for those whom He elected, and Christ indeed fulfilled every requirement and part of God's purposed will in the atonement. The Holy Spirit was present throughout, and is now the driving force behind the completion of God's purpose before the foundations of the world. To say otherwise is to say that God is A) unable to purpose His will, B) that God is unable to accomplish His will or C) that God is less than His divine attributes (like almighty, omniscient, etc.) indicate, which is blasphemy and leads to heretical belief.

The atonement was purposed to cover the elect from before the foundation of the world -- and it did -- each or all of the elect. To suggest that Christ's atonement was performed for persons who were or are not capable of salvation is to suggest that Christ's work (God's work) is impotent, rendering Him something less than the God of the Bible -- the God who is almighty and the Creator of all things.

You and I are closer in belief than it appears on the surface.

One difference I see in the above quote. You appear to think the criteria for God's election is His abitrary decision (ie God chooses "whosoever will" according to some unknown to us factors) while I believe the criteria for God's election is a decision to believe by the individual.

Therefore, while Christ's blood will certainly only cover the sins of believers, it is available to cover the sins of every man if only they would chose to believe.

The second thing that sets you and I apart is the part of the quote I bolded. God has told us plainly that He is willing for none to perish, but all to come to repentance (as it says in my sig). This is the verse that most often gets me accused of being a universalist! However, I don't believe all will be saved in the end. I'd like it, but just as I can't get past the verses that deal with free will, I also can't get past the verses that deal with the consequences of dying as an unbeliever.

The admission God makes in 2 Peter 3:9 doesnt make him less of a God or impotent in the least. It makes Him more, more everything, because in essence this admission makes Him capable of giving way to our will. Most gods are dictators, but our God is capable of allowing us to decide if we want Him. He doesn't need to force us into belief or ease us into thinking we want to believe (which strikes me as a form of deception and God cannot decieve) and He is grieved when we don't believe, but He allows us our rebellion and the very grave consequences thereof.

God indeed has the ability to cause persons to WANT to come to get their tickets, and He indeed does just that.

Here again is a difference between us. It isn't about God's ability. None of us, I hope, believe that God doesn't have the ability to do exactly what He wants! But what He wants is us to chose Him as He has chosen us.

But, He can cause life circumstances and the preaching of the Word, with the power of the Holy Spirit (who as God can be omnipresent) so that the individual for whom the atonement was purposed will in fact become one of God's own,

So can you to a certain extent, but this doesn't negate free will. When you courted your wife, what did you have to do to get her to say yes? Did any of those things negate the fact that she had to say yes before you could marry her? Did any of those things remove her free will? If she had said "no", would you have forced her? You may have redoubled your efforts, but you couldn't remove her free will. If in the end she had finally had enough and made it clear that you weren't to come around any more you would have had to let her go.

God has one thing you don't have: the ability to negate freewill. To ignore it. To force puny humans to beleve. But He choses not to do so.

Let's go back to my example. If in the end your wife had said no, but you carried her off to anther country and forced her to marry you (as was done in ages past) would your marriage be complete and fulfilling? Would you insist on God having a marriage to people who believed out of something other than their own freely chosen decision? Because eventually, if a person doens't believe freely, if they've been somehow manipulated into believing, then eventually they will figure out that belief in God wasn't what they really wanted and they will be incomplete and unfulfilled as a woman forced into marriage. God wants servants, not slaves!

What of those who simply will not trust the gift or the giver of the gift?

Read carefully, 500 said that for whatever reason they didn't need or want their bill paid. So what happened? The bill remained unpaid! Their bill is still out there waiting at the debt collector who is harrassing them day and night (hell, where the worm never dies) because they can't pay their bill on their own and they refused payment on their behalf!

(yes, there was supposed to be humor in that response)

God is perfect in His economy and He does not waste a drop of the precious blood of Jesus.

God own the cattle on a thousand hills, what does He need with economy? I know I sound sarcastic, but I'm serious. Where does the idea come from that Christ's blood must be going to waste simply because its not being applied? That would mean there was a limit to what Christ could accomplish! A limit? A limitless God, can't be limited!

Who set before them life or death? They certainly did not do the "setting before."

God is doing what God has always done: setting before man a choice he must make.

:thumbsup: Good discussion GL! I appreciate how debating you always pushes me to consider and reconsider what I believe.

 

[glfredrick]

i dare you to tell the Apostle Paul all that stuff above about 10 minutes after his encounter with Christ on the Damascus Road.

I'll check back in when I next visit the board.

 

[Luke2427]

Webdoggie---come on now—not all of the reformed flavor lack a sense of humor—take me for example---every time I read your posts about libertarian free will—I sit back & laugh & laugh--& go that webdog—he’s gotta be joken when he writes this stuff—b/c surely no one with any real biblical sense would say mankind is completely free to choose without out any outside forces restraining personal decisions. But then again—if one has the ability to believe that bene elohim refers to Sethities—maybe they do have the ability to support something as amusing as lfw!-:laugh: Now back to the thread at hand-:smilewinkgrin:

a page out of quantum's book...

:thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[Iconoclast]

I believe OT saint were looking foward to redemption, but redemption wasn't complete until the resurrection of Christ.

If as Romans says, all Israel was not of Israel, then not everyone was affected by the completion of Christ's sacrifice. (I think we agree on this?)

MT=Matthew? Then I agree. The cursings that concerned Israel as a nation came to a point of finality by AD 70, though I won't go so far as to say every single curse was by then fulfilled. Even so, as the OT is the foreshadowing of the NT, how God dealt with nation Israel is a foreshadowing of how He deals with us today, both as individuals and as the Bride of Christ. (we have it much better!)

Yes...we agree on this......When I go past 70ad. I believe God is dealing with Jesus as The True Israel now...jew and gentile..one new man in Christ now.:thumbs:

however.....I really think you error here...because you do not realize the chapter is addressed to the elect saints;

The admission God makes in 2 Peter 3:9 doesnt make him less of a God or impotent in the least. It makes Him more, more everything, because in essence this admission makes Him capable of giving way to our will. Most gods are dictators, but our God is capable of allowing us to decide if we want Him. He doesn't need to force us into belief or ease us into thinking we want to believe (which strikes me as a form of deception and God cannot decieve) and He is grieved when we don't believe, but He allows us our rebellion and the very grave consequences thereof.

You reasoning here is wrong in many ways, but I am glad we could agree on the other verses.

 

[Aaron]

Likewise, you will find the passover account in Exodus 12 if you haven't read it before.

The Passover is merely one aspect of Christ's one offering. The burnt offering another, the meat offering another, the peace offering another, and the sin and trespass offerings still others.

All of these are contained in Christ's one offering.

In ignorance of the law of the offerings, and quite contrary to their doctrines, you attempted to assert that Christ's offering only covered one's sin, not his guilt. And, in despite to the Spirit of grace, you asserted that man must bring something of his own (see post 20) in addition to Christ's work on the cross to fully appease His wrath. You said that a man must bring his natural faith to appease God's wrath against him personally.

Now I've presented the Scriptures to show you the error in your dichotomy of the work of atonement, and those you must deal with. If you choose to merely bail in your signature scoffing fashion, I have but one word for you:

Troll.

 

[menageriekeeper]

i dare you to tell the Apostle Paul all that stuff above about 10 minutes after his encounter with Christ on the Damascus Road.

Which part do you think Paul would disagree with, GL?

Were Saul's sins forgiven before the Damascus Rd? Did he not suffer from the sin of unbelief before this point? Did he have a choice to not believe? Were there not clear consequences for Saul if he didn't change his course? (as suggested by the phrase "kick against the pricks") Did Christ leave anything unclear about the choice Saul had to make, or did he have the same choice the people in Deuteronomy had: blessing or cursing?

however.....I really think you error here...because you do not realize the chapter is addressed to the elect saints;

No, I understand that Peter was talking to those who were saved, but in this verse he was speaking about those who were yet unsaved.

 

[Skandelon]

Are all sins and all people atoned?

Yes, provisionally so, as my rebuttal and illustration fully explain. Your argument leaves out the "provisional" aspect because it doesn't serve your purpose in creating a false dichotomy.

 

[Winman]

The Passover is merely one aspect of Christ's one offering. The burnt offering another, the meat offering another, the peace offering another, and the sin and trespass offerings still others.

All of these are contained in Christ's one offering.

In ignorance of the law of the offerings, and quite contrary to their doctrines, you attempted to assert that Christ's offering only covered one's sin, not his guilt. And, in despite to the Spirit of grace, you asserted that man must bring something of his own (see post 20) in addition to Christ's work on the cross to fully appease His wrath. You said that a man must bring his natural faith to appease God's wrath against him personally.

Now I've presented the Scriptures to show you the error in your dichotomy of the work of atonement, and those you must deal with. If you choose to merely bail in your signature scoffing fashion, I have but one word for you:

Troll.

I believe the point Webdog was making is that faith was required when the angel of death passed over Egypt. It was not enough to simply kill the passover lamb and pour out it's blood (a figure of Christ who poured out his blood), the Israelites had to believe God's promise to pass over them if they applied the blood to their door. If they had killed the lamb, poured out it's blood, but failed to apply the blood to their door, then the firstborn in that house would have died. This is faith, it is believeing God's promise. He promised to pass over them if they remained inside (in Christ) and applied the blood to their door. Those who did not believe God's word and follow his instructions would have their firstborn perish.
So, the blood was sufficient to save all, but only saves those who believe.

 

[Aaron]

I believe the point Webdog was making is that faith was required when the angel of death passed over Egypt. It was not enough to simply kill the passover lamb and pour out it's blood (a figure of Christ who poured out his blood), the Israelites had to believe God's promise to pass over them if they applied the blood to their door. If they had killed the lamb, poured out it's blood, but failed to apply the blood to their door, then the firstborn in that house would have died. This is faith, it is believeing God's promise. He promised to pass over them if they remained inside (in Christ) and applied the blood to their door. Those who did not believe God's word and follow his instructions would have their firstborn perish.
So, the blood was sufficient to save all, but only saves those who believe.

Don't try to bail him out. He said plainly that Christ's death does NOT appease God's wrath against the sinner.

You're saying something completely different. You're saying it does, but a man has to add something to make it effectual.

(Edit: And you're wrong concerning the Passover. Any house with the blood on the lintel and door posts was passed over, and anyone in that house, believing or not, was spared. That most of them were unbelievers we know by their response to the report of the spies.)