Are the five points Biblical or man made?

[zrs6v4]

Jesus took away the "LAW" of death for sin, for everybody in the world, he didn't take away "YOUR SIN".

Since Jesus took away the law, he made it "POSSIBLE" that you "MIGHT BE" saved without having to fulfill the law by paying the wages of sin (death) yourself.

How are your sins taken away, remitted, same way Jesus took away the law, "DYING", "crucifying the "body of sin", only for us it's a spiritual death, not literal as Jesus was crucified.

Jesus asked, Can you drink of the cup I drink,

Le 17:11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.

Heb 9:22 and without shedding of (your) blood is no remission.(of your sin) (spiritual death of flesh)

Ro 6:6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed,

The flesh lust after the things of the world, the spirit after the spirit, which ever one we "CHOICE" to follow, flesh/spirit, is the God we serve.

Ro 6:16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?

The "Day of Atonement", two goats had to be sacrificed, the "Scapegoat" (Jesus) and the "Goat for the people", (body of sin) before atonement was "complete".

The scapegoat has been sacrificed but not many people are willing to sacrifice the "life of the flesh" for the "Spirit".

Ro 12:1 I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice,

During the Trib, people will literally sacrifice the flesh to be saved, the AC will kill those who worship Jesus and refuse to worship the image,

But this is God's "chastisement" and "stripe" in their "FLESH" for rejecting Jesus waiting until the trib.

The plan of salvation doesn't change, from "Genesis to Revelation".

lets start here
Are we going to hell for our sin or for not accepting Jesus as Savior? I think everyone who is not in Christ is already condemned and on their way to hell unless a miracle happens and Im not talking about maybe out of luck they might decide to freely give their lives to Christ in acceptance of Him for the payment of their sins. Now if they are condemned already then how do they have a substitution unless they come to christ by his grace? if Christ is already their payment, then why do they need to come..

I'm guessing your answer is that they need the blood applied to them (accept/faith), or they need the propitiation..

Do you understand why I'm confused--

 

[Allan]

I agree- nobody seeks God apart from the work of the Spirit of God.

See we do agree :laugh: :wavey:

Do you at least think that Jesus took on the wrath only for those he forknew (not in calvinist sense) would believe? or did Jesus take a bunch of extra wrath for no reason just in case? I think it is sufficient(from our view) and specific(from God's) He only took on the wrath of the chosen/believers at this point in my understanding.

I think you misphrased the question.
Did Jesus take upon Himself the full penalty 'for sin' as the scriptures attest to and that He did so for men who were in sin? Yes. Thus whatever sin or sins that may be committed the penalty has been paid in full IF it is received. Therefore the penalty with regard to sin has been paid and is available to all. Yet the very nature of that sacrifice illistrates there are some that are already known to God who will beleive, and receive that propitiation of Christ Jesus which God had already purposed. So in one sense it was made for all and thus resolutely and literally suffient for them all, but in another it is specific toward those for whom the sacrifice was purposed to save within that group.

I guess I need your explanation for Romans 9. yes man is totally depraved in sin all the way.

Chatper 9 is about a calling to purpose not salvation and it refers to the Nation of Israel. There two basic views on Romans 9 and one is to salvation the other is to purpose.

 

[zrs6v4]

Ok, for a moment I wish to focus on this because to me it make no sense, so bear with me.

God longs to see the non-elect saved but has done nothing to accomadate that longing. Now let us just clarify here. Why the longing for them to be saved is God does not intend for them to be saved? Why did God opt only to satisify part of His desire in the saving of people and not do what He chooses?

However - IF -God did everything that is necessary to draw all men unto Himself, and repent, and know truth, would this not then depict accurately God's desire all men to be saved and [thus] come to the knowledge of truth (believe)? - this in respect to man.

The above does not negate an effecual calling but actually establishes that principle. The calling is the same to all men but only some will recieve it and those are the people who will do so by faith. Thus it is a call is effectual yet it is only so toward those whom God knows will receive it by faith, while still reaching in earnest and honest sincerity for all men to believe it and be saved.

Thus God can desire all to be saved and reach out them all in the same manner even while knowing not all will but still not be in contradiction to His own desire because it fits His plan to offer salvation to all men everywhere..

God has done the same work before the non-elect and elect. He has shown the same signs externally and in a sence they see all they need to see, but yet God has not opened their hearts into the Spiritual and they are trapped in the blind carnal. man left alone is dead and under the work of Satan

I dont know how God longs for someone to be saved and yet doesnt choose them to be. It really doesnt make sense to me either

Well I think its more along the lines that God does as He chooses, but wishing doesnt have to be done if its not your will. Like I wish to stop and get ice cream on the way to church but I dont have time so I simply do my will rather than my desire. (ALL anologies have weaknesses)

Many do not consider it 'the big one' because the context does not lend itself to this interpretation. So let us just agree to disagree on THIS issue.

The context is Israel, but did God choose people of Israel any different than He chooses us Gentiles. I believe the context is God working on Israel and ultimatley a lesson of God's sovereiegn choice in Salvation. I will leave it there, but I really dont understand how that is not applicable to the choice in salvation..

by this I assume you mean saving grace and not just 'common grace'.

yes

The context is nations being used by God not individuals. Romans 9 is about the Nation of Israel from beginning to end. Each of the people in it are representives of those nations whom God is speaking of. Just look at the twins and what it says about them and then go look back in the OT what it is refering to. Jacob was representivie of Israel as the prophesy specifically addresses. Moses and Pharoah the exact same thing. The chapter is NOT about being chosen to salvation but to a 'purpose' The very context of the chapter preceding and suseding it illistrate exactly this - it is about the nation of Israel not specifically individuals. See - we disagree .

"19 You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” 20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? 22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— 24 even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?

So if it is purpose God has called them to, then what is all this talk about wrath, wouldnt that mean that He has also shosen them to salvation?

True. Which reveals there is much more to God and scripture than us mere men can really come to grips with on everything
These are difficult issues and I understand what goes into it when trying wrap our brains around them. God bless you as you search Him out brother.

I hear ya on that... Blessings to you as well

 

[BaptistBob]

Sorry to interrupt. Feel free to ignore me. I just feel the need to get in my two cents.

Its ok . I believe that God longs for everyone to come but nobody comes freely for the true heart of God unless drawn by God.

It has been the traditional position of all the major Protestant denominations, from Calvinists to non-Calvinists to Arminians, to hold to the doctrine of total depravity. Meaning, as you are probably aware, that men will not turn to God apart form God's inward working grace. Hence apart from God's drawing, according to this (my) perspective, any ability to turn to God presumes the working of the Spirit upon a man's/woman's heart.

Therefore, the question is whether or not a person can have the ability to believe and still not believe/resist belief. The Calvinist would say that it is impossible to be affected by God's grace and not believe, whereas the non-Calvinist would say that it is totally possible. Both would agree, however, that without the enabling grace of God, hearing the gospel and witnessing Christ's miracles would have no affect for salvation on the audience.

Christ reflects upon just such a situation in Matthew 11:

20Then Jesus began to denounce the cities in which most of his miracles had been performed, because they did not repent. 21"Woe to you, Korazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. 22But I tell you, it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon on the day of judgment than for you. 23And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted up to the skies? No, you will go down to the depths. If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day. 24But I tell you that it will be more bearable for Sodom on the day of judgment than for you."

Christ reflects upon the Old Testament events in the wicked cities of Tyre, Sidon and Sodom as he is chastising Korazin and Bethsaida. If those Old Testament people in the most wicked cities had seen what Korazin and Bethsaida had seen, they would have repented!

That being the case, it must be said that God was providing the enabling grace I just discussed. After all, without it they could not have repented. Therefore it is only logical to conclude that we have just such and example of enabling grace being present, but also being resisted.

Romans 9, hehe, yes, I pulled the big one,

Excellent. We should discuss it. Then we'll head for Ephesians 1.

tells me that God does have grace on those He chooses and that others He gives them a righteous payment. So I believe grace is a free give that leads us to faith and that God doesnt have mercy on everyone obviously or all would be saved. I am not going to pull all the verses that lead me to this conclusion (as you know there are many) but maybe that clears it up.

I agree with the wording of what God can do, but I disagree about the intended meaning.

I see that Allan is already discussing this with you, so try me out when you're done. I am one that believes that Paul is speaking about both purpose and salvation here, so I will hold back and not step on any toes.

I just say quickly, however, that the argument that God will have mercy on whom he pleases is the greatest news every person could hear. You see, Paul's opposition thought the mercy was restricted to the Jews. An easy study of "mercy" and the OT quotes Paul uses clears everything up.

"Has God's word failed?" the opponent asks. If not, how is it fulfilled? "Why does God find fault, for who resists his will?" What is God doing here?

To me and and good number of scholars, Romans 3 appears to be an outline of Romans 9-11. It really clears things up, if explained properly.

Well as I said Romans 9:22 says God desires to give wrath on people and others not.

Correct. But I don't think they are static categories. Even a good number of Calvinists don't think so these days. Does the last half of Romans 11 give you that impression?

 

[RAdam]

Alright, about Romans 5:18 - Paul says as by the offence of one judgement came upon all men (represented by the one man, Adam) to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men (represented by the this one, Christ) unto justification of life. Paul draws a comparison to what Adam. When Adam sinned, he was the representative of all mankind, thus we all fell in him. I didn't have to do anything to gain this sinful nature, this judgement, this condemnation, it came upon me by virtue of this representation. In like manner, says Paul, Christ represented a people as well, and by His righteousness and obedience the free gift came upon those represented by Him. What is this free gift? In the 17th verse this called the "gift of righteousness". Thus, we are made righteous in Christ and are thus declared just or righteous, or justified. Now, the comparison holds that, as I didn't do anything to gain the judgement to condemnation in Adam, I likewise didn't do anything to gain the free gift unto justification in Christ.

Paul will go on to say that as by the disobedience of one many were made sinners, even so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. He didn't say by the faith of man shall they be made righteous, he said by the obedience of Christ they are made righteous. Furthermore, he often uses the adjective "free" to describe the gift. Free means without merit, without condition, without payment. God has free justified us by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. How can it be free if I must do something?

 

[Me4Him]

lets start here
Are we going to hell for our sin or for not accepting Jesus as Savior? I think everyone who is not in Christ is already condemned and on their way to hell unless a miracle happens and Im not talking about maybe out of luck they might decide to freely give their lives to Christ in acceptance of Him for the payment of their sins. Now if they are condemned already then how do they have a substitution unless they come to christ by his grace? if Christ is already their payment, then why do they need to come..

I'm guessing your answer is that they need the blood applied to them (accept/faith), or they need the propitiation..

Do you understand why I'm confused--

I think you, like a many others, believe Jesus's death took away personal sin instead of the law, this is why "limited Atonement" was taught but it's wrong,

Jesus blotted out the law by paying the fine (wages) for every sin ever committed, even the sins of the whole world, beginning to end.

But Jesus's death only made it possible that we might be saved, we still have a "CHOICE", accept Jesus's payment on our behalf or reject it.

It all come down to where we believe the gospel, repent of our sins, have "FAITH" that Jesus' death did blot out the law against us and Jesus can/will save us.

Jesus's death points the way to the plan of salvation, we have to crucify the flesh as he did, or "Conform to his image",

Jesus could have stopped his crucifixion at any point, but he followed the "WILL OF THE SPIRIT" instead of the "FLESH".

Mt 26:39 And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.


Sacrificing ones flesh is a sacrifice only the person can decide to make,

it is a "FREE WILL" offering, as much as Jesus's sacrifice.

Joh 10:17 Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.

18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself.

Mr 8:35 For whosoever will save his life (of the flesh) shall lose it;

but whosoever shall lose his life (sacrifice body of sin) for my sake and the gospel's, the same shall save it.

Ro 12:1 I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice,

Ga 2:20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

Ga 5:24 And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.

25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.

 

[RAdam]

What do you, then, do with Romans 5:16? Paul there says, "And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgement was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification." If all Christ did was cover the law and not personal sin, why is this text worded this way? The fact is, Christ covered the sin of Adam as well as our personal sins by His death. God has also freely given us the righteousness of Christ, whereby we are justified.

Jesus' death doesn't point the way to salvation, it accomplished salvation. Notice the wording of Romans 5:10 - "For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life." Notice that we have been reconciled to God by the death of Christ. So, Christ's death definantly gained something. Then there's John chapter 19 verse 30 where Jesus, right before givng up the ghost on the cross, said, "it is finished". According to your theology, He was wrong. Then there's Hebrews chapter one which tells us that "he by himself purged our sins" after which he "sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high." Furthermore, Paul says in Romans 6 that "our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin." Christ not only paid for sins on the cross, our old man was crucified with Him to the end that we would be free from the dominion of sin and able and willing to serve God.

 

[RAdam]

Also, what about those that never heard the gospel? What about the person on the other side of the globe during the days of the apostles, which was never reached with the good news of Christ's saving work? He never heard to reject or accept. What happens to him?

 

[webdog]

Also, what about those that never heard the gospel? What about the person on the other side of the globe during the days of the apostles, which was never reached with the good news of Christ's saving work? He never heard to reject or accept. What happens to him?

I think that is dealt with in Acts 17...

26From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. 27God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us.

Each man is put in the exact location and time they need to be in to seek God, and Romans 1 is clear about the consequences in not doing so.

 

[RAdam]

What about the person in Athens that dies two months before Paul arrived there?

 

[webdog]

What about the person in Athens that dies two months before Paul arrived there?

Not sure I understand the question...are you saying the Scripture only went into affect upon Paul's preaching? The truth behind what Paul stated is eternal. The person who never heard Paul's message is still included in Acts 17, and has been placed in the exact point in time and location that is perfect for them to seek God.

 

[RAdam]

So you are saying people can be eternally saved without hearing the gospel?

 

[webdog]

So you are saying people can be eternally saved without hearing the gospel?

I've never even alluded to that. What one does with the Truth presented to them will determine whether more Truth is given. If someone has never heard the Gospel message, it is because they have already rejected God. All men are created with a conscience, God's Law on their hearts, the proof of His existence, and the desire to live forever (Ecc. 3:11). This coupled with them being placed specifically in the perfect location and time in history for them to seek after Him is more than enough to be held accountable. As Acts 17 states, He is not far from each one of us.

 

[Me4Him]

What do you, then, do with Romans 5:16? Paul there says, "And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgement was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification." If all Christ did was cover the law and not personal sin, why is this text worded this way? The fact is, Christ covered the sin of Adam as well as our personal sins by His death. God has also freely given us the righteousness of Christ, whereby we are justified.

You can't pull one verse/chapter/book out of the bible and build a doctrine based on it that is correct,

it takes the whole Bible to keep everything "IN CONTEXT".

And I think you're beginning to see that there's more to the plan of salvation than has been shown to you before.

Jesus' death doesn't point the way to salvation, it accomplished salvation. Notice the wording of Romans 5:10 - "For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life." Notice that we have been reconciled to God by the death of Christ. So, Christ's death definantly gained something. Then there's John chapter 19 verse 30 where Jesus, right before givng up the ghost on the cross, said, "it is finished". According to your theology, He was wrong. Then there's Hebrews chapter one which tells us that "he by himself purged our sins" after which he "sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high." Furthermore, Paul says in Romans 6 that "our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin." Christ not only paid for sins on the cross, our old man was crucified with Him to the end that we would be free from the dominion of sin and able and willing to serve God.

Jesus's death accomplished 100% of it's purpose, fulfilling the law of death for sin for "ALL" the sins of the "whole world",

so when you say it was "less" (limited) you should know there's something wrong with your interpretation.

All Bible studies should begin with a class on "LAW", at least the "basics of law",

"False interpretations of law" leads to "False interpretations of scripture".

 

[Amy.G]

All Bible studies should begin with a class on "LAW", at least the "basics of law",

"False interpretations of law" leads to "False interpretations of scripture".

You have an excellent point. It's important to understand OT Law and atonement if we are to understand the sacrifice of Christ and His atonement, once for all.

 

[RAdam]

How have I taken Romans 5:18 out of context? No really, tell me how I have taken that out of context. Don't just be vague and general, tell me specifically how I have taken it out of context.

If Christ put away all the sins of the whole word using your definition of "whole word" (that being every single person in existence without exception), then why is anyone cast into everlasting fire?

 

[RAdam]

So every single one of those that died before hearing the gospel had rejected God?

 

[zrs6v4]

I think you, like a many others, believe Jesus's death took away personal sin instead of the law, this is why "limited Atonement" was taught but it's wrong,

Jesus blotted out the law by paying the fine (wages) for every sin ever committed, even the sins of the whole world, beginning to end.

But Jesus's death only made it possible that we might be saved, we still have a "CHOICE", accept Jesus's payment on our behalf or reject it.

I honestly am willing to listen if we can do one scripture passage at a time. I have never though about your view of the atonement and at this point Scripture leads me to believe that Christs atonement was sufficient for all and specific for the elect. Not really trying to argue with you but allow for you to guide me to a passage (1 at a time, Im slow) that shows how his death and payment was for every single person alive. I do notice your Hebrews verse so you may start with that if you wish.

My initial thoughts/questions

-Why is anyone going to hell if Jesus paid it all for all? No offense but it leads to universalism in my thinking...

- You then must consider that we are going to hell only for rejecting the cross of Christ.

- where there is no Law there is no sin. Law brings knowledge of sin. If Jesus already paid for a lost persons sins then He is justified and lost. If he accepts Christ by faith then what? his justification is approved?

thanks for your time- zach

 

[zrs6v4]

You have an excellent point. It's important to understand OT Law and atonement if we are to understand the sacrifice of Christ and His atonement, once for all.

Yes the OT Atonement was a one time deal, but Christ's was. If Christ died for all of mankind, then all of mankind are His sheep. This is not so because the elect or children of God are the sheep. Christ's atonement was once and for all- believers/sheep/children/elect. It doesnt make sense to me at this time for the atonement to be universal.

 

[Amy.G]

Yes the OT Atonement was a one time deal, but Christ's was. If Christ died for all of mankind, then all of mankind are His sheep. This is not so because the elect or children of God are the sheep. Christ's atonement was once and for all- believers/sheep/children/elect. It doesnt make sense to me at this time for the atonement to be universal.

The OT atonement was done once a year for the nation of Israel, but was every individual person saved? Of course not. Only those with faith were saved, just as today. But that did not make the atonement of no affect. Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins. But without faith that blood will not be applied. Jesus shed His blood to atone for the sins of the whole world, but only through faith will it be applied.

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.