Are the five points Biblical or man made?

[Me4Him]

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?

The law requires a "Death" for sin, if Jesus had not fulfilled the law, (paid the fine)

Then there was no "possibility" for anyone to be saved, since we're "ALL" sinners, we would "ALL" have to pay the "fine" ourselves by dying/going to hell.

Jesus took away the law than condemned "ALL" of us, that we "MIGHT BE" saved, his death didn't take away our sins, for that to ocurr, we have to make the same sacrifice Jesus made,

Crucify the flesh by confessing/repenting of the sins of the flesh, and allowing the "Spirit" to take control instead of obeying the "lust of the flesh".

"Born again" is the death of the "old man" (flesh) and "resurrected" to live by the spirit.

Ro 8:13 For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.

Col 3:9 Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds;

10 And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him:

 

[BaptistBob]

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.

I like to say that Christ is the objective atonement that satisfies wrath. By faith we Christ's act applies to us, but not apart from it.


Romans 3:25: God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood.

"General" is less confusing than "universal" when speaking of atonement.

 

[Allan]

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.

Something that might help you a bit more brother is to check out those of four point Calvinistism also known as "Amyraldism" which is sometimes also called - sublapsarianism. One place to get a good summary is Ron Rhodes (The Case for Unlimited Atonement) which is a very thorough but brief outline for both the arguments speaking for Limited Atonement and for Unlimited from the stand point of the Reformed position.

 

[zrs6v4]

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.

So technically there are many people that Jesus took wrath for that never accepted?

thanks

 

[zrs6v4]

Something that might help you a bit more brother is to check out those of four point Calvinistism also known as "Amyraldism" which is sometimes also called - sublapsarianism. One place to get a good summary is Ron Rhodes (The Case for Unlimited Atonement) which is a very thorough but brief outline for both the arguments speaking for Limited Atonement and for Unlimited from the stand point of the Reformed position.

thanks allan-

I do have an understanding of unlimited and limited atonement but I will look up the view you listed.. Im just not sure if I was hearing things right..

 

[zrs6v4]

I like to say that Christ is the objective atonement that satisfies wrath. By faith we Christ's act applies to us, but not apart from it.


Romans 3:25: God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood.

"General" is less confusing than "universal" when speaking of atonement.

I can understand that from our view point it is viewed as universal. But from Gods view point it must be limited or Christ has died for more sinners than accepted and the wrath of God is being satisfied 2 times (one on Christ and two on the unbeliever in hell)..

 

[webdog]

So technically there are many people that Jesus took wrath for that never accepted?

thanks

Yes...that is why man is held accountable. How can man be accountable for rejecting a God that didn't come to save them?

 

[Allan]

Yes...that is why man is held accountable. How can man be accountable for rejecting a God that didn't come to save them?

That sounds familar Good point.

 

[Allan]

thanks allan-

I do have an understanding of unlimited and limited atonement but I will look up the view you listed.. Im just not sure if I was hearing things right..

No prob. However the website isn't to help you understand the difference between them but because it is that it is from a person of the reformed perspective so it might deal with certain aspects that are or could be dealt with differently by non-cals via their understanding, which is sometimes different than yours

 

[Rippon]

"General" is less confusing than "universal" when speaking of atonement.

Why? What's the difference? You think that God has a general or generic love for everyone who has ever existed don't you?

 

[Rippon]

How can man be accountable for rejecting a God that didn't come to save them?

People are accountable for their sins regardless if Jesus came to save them or not. Man is fully responsible for His sins whether they are elect or not. Do you seriously want to argue otherwise?

 

[zrs6v4]

Yes...that is why man is held accountable. How can man be accountable for rejecting a God that didn't come to save them?

Your right Jesus deserved to take our punishment rather than us, He owes it to us to give us a chance .. Your statement basically says its not fair to go to hell without a plea bargain... I disagree strongly... and that is scary if you really believe that in all kindness..

Man is held accountable because He has sinned against a righteous and Holy God not because He did or didnt accept the Savior. There is an aspect that by rejecting Christ sinners go to hell, but that isnt the core reason people go to hell its because they are condemned and under the wrath of God. How can the Law lead someone to Christ if they arent condemned by it?

 

[Allan]

Your right Jesus deserved to take our punishment rather than us, He owes it to us to give us a chance .. Your statement basically says its not fair to go to hell without a plea bargain... I disagree strongly... and that is scary if you really believe that in all kindness..

You erected your own straw-man and burned it. That is not the argument which is being discussed. Go back to scripture and you find only two different reasons (though both are actaully one and the same only lesser and greater) people are condemned/damned. 1. is rejection of the general truths revealed by God Himself to them.. and 2. Rejection of the gospel.

If there is condemnation AT ALL in rejection of the gospel or even the lesser spiritual truths God reveals which lead to the full gospel then logically you must conclude that rejection has great bearing on damnation and acceptance upon salvation.

IF it were not then it would have NO, I repeat NO bearing on why they are damned. And therefore there would be no reason for God to even show these people anything because their belief or rejection would be meaningless to God and their eternal destiny. However scripture speaks absolutely to the contary (2 Thes 2:10-12)

Man is held accountable because He has sinned against a righteous and Holy God not because He did or didnt accept the Savior.

See even here you prove my point. How has man sinned, brother.
He can only do so if he knows what is truth and choose to rebel against it. Thus you have man being condemned for rejection of the truth just like Web stated. And all those truths the extensions of Christ Jesus the Lord who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. Thus to reject even those lesser ones which are not per-say the gospel they are involved in and apart of the gospel message itself.

There is an aspect that by rejecting Christ sinners go to hell, but that isnt the core reason people go to hell its because they are condemned and under the wrath of God.

No they are 'under' condemnation but they are not yet condemned.

How can the Law lead someone to Christ if they arent condemned by it?

And that is point in spades. They are condemned not by the law but rejection of it and thus Christ who is the perfection of the Law personified.

 

[BaptistBob]

I can understand that from our view point it is viewed as universal. But from Gods view point it must be limited or Christ has died for more sinners than accepted and the wrath of God is being satisfied 2 times (one on Christ and two on the unbeliever in hell)..

That touches on the point I was trying to make. If God provides the acceptable sacrifice for sin, and it only applies to believers, then the sins of NNE is satisfied apart from faith -- not even once.

The point being that God's wrath hasn't been satisfied for unbelievers at all. God's wrath can't possibly be on Christ, so those who are included in him by faith receive what Christ has done.

22This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— 26he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.

God presented him------>as a sacrifice of atonement<--------through faith

 

[BaptistBob]

Why? What's the difference? You think that God has a general or generic love for everyone who has ever existed don't you?

Both work, but one seems to cause less confusion.....at least, that's been my experience.

 

[Me4Him]

Man is held accountable because He has sinned against a righteous and Holy God not because He did or didnt accept the Savior.

If everything was predestine before the foundation of the world, then Adam/Eve didn't have a "Choice",

so, Why would God blame/hold them accountable for sin entering the world???

if Jesus died that the whole world might be saved by faith in Jesus, yet some refuse to believe,

Are they condemned for being a sinner or remaining a sinner by refusing to believe???

As many as Adam made sinners, Jesus can save, Grace exceeds sin, all sin.

This "view" that God predestine some to condemnation must begin with the predestination of Adam/Eve to sin, without a choice, and it's wrong.

and this view that the whole world can't be "REDEEMED" through Faith in Jesus because of predestination is wrong as well,

Jesus can't die for the sins of the whole world, that the whole world might be saved,

while at the same time, God's predestination is withholding the Grace from certain people that prevents them from being saved.

Predestination starting with Adam/Eve, contradicts scripture.

Predestination=make God out to be lying,
Foreknowledge= doesn't

That's the difference between the two.

 

[webdog]

People are accountable for their sins regardless if Jesus came to save them or not. Man is fully responsible for His sins whether they are elect or not. Do you seriously want to argue otherwise?

What does John 3:18 say?

 

[RAdam]

Again, the true doctine of predestination as I understand it and argue for it is not that God predestinated all events that happen, nor people to hell. No sir, the bible speaks of predestination with regards to one thing and one thing only and that is people being predestinated to heaven. Again, again, again, predestination as is being argued here is not that God predestinated me to be typing on this computer at this point (although He knew I would), but that He predestinated a people to be conformed to the image of His sin unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ unto Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, and to the praise of the glory of His grace. I must insist that you quit erecting your straw man of "if God predestinated everything then Adam/Eve didn't have a choice and weren't responsible." God didn't predestinate them to sin. He knew they would and allowed them to, but He didn't cause them too.

If anyone in existence can come to Christ and choose salvation, explain this text to me. Isaiah 26:10 - "Let favor be shewed to the wicked, yet will he not learn righteousness: in the land of uprightness will he deal unjustly, and will not behold the majesty of the Lord." When the wicked are made partakers of common grace, for instance, they aren't thankful, they don't glorify God.

 

[RAdam]

Jesus didn't come to condemn man. Man was already under condemnation. How or whem? In Adam. "Therefore, as by the offence of one judgement came upon all men to condemnation, even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life." We are told that in Adam we were made sinners, and in Christ we are made righteous. In Adam we were made subject to condemnation, in Christ we are given the free gift of righteousness and are thus freed from that condemnation. Whether the gospel reaches one's ear or not, that man is under condmenation. Why? He's a sinners. He's a sinner by nature. He sins in action proving his nature. When one is told, "depart from me ye cursed into everlasting fire" there is no argument against such. How is that? Because that person is a violator of a law that declares that if one breaks this law he shall die. Because the wages of sin is death, eternal separation from God.

Now, rejection of the truth of Christ is a sin. However, so is lying. So is covetousness. So is idolatry. And so forth. The sinner dead in sins that rejects Christ is no more condemned than the sinner dead in sins that didn't hear the gospel.

 

[RAdam]

Nowhere in Leviticus 16 will you see a qualifier for whom this atonement would cover except the nation of Israel. You'll never see God say there, "this is only for those with faith." This was made for the nation of Israel. Aaron didn't go out of the tabernacle after the atonement was made and ask the people if they wanted this to apply to them. Now we know that these sacrifices never put away one sin. This was a picture of something. It was a picture of the work Christ would do for His people one day. When Christ made His sacrifice, He didn't run around asking people if they wanted this to apply to them. When the sacrifice was made, it was good, it was accepted, and it covered every single person for whom it was intended.