Armi-Calvinist?

[EdSutton]

Originally posted by Calvibaptist:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by EdSutton:
Calvi sez:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> No, every free-willer fits into this statement if they believe in universal atonement. You want to say that Jesus atoned for the sins of every single person who ever lived without exception, but some of those same people end up in hell because they blew it by not exercising faith.

I'd suggest that this is what John 3:16-18 says.</font>[/QUOTE]John 3:16-18 says that all the believing ones receive eternal life and all those who don't believe receive condemnation. This says nothing about whether those who did not believe had their sins atoned for. From other Scriptures (1 Cor. 1:21, 24 and Eph. 1:4-5) we know that those who believe are the ones who were elect and called.

To my knowledge, there is not a single verse that 'says', to use some good religiosity, that anyone-
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> "...goes to hell to pay for his or her sins..."

But I hear this "canonized rhetoric" spoken from the pulpit in many sermons. Wonder why??</font>[/QUOTE]Gee, I don't know. I guess the whole concept of redemption, ransom, and atonement has to do with payment, doesn't it? Whether you can find a proof-text that says, "Sinners pay for their sins in hell" or not really is inconsequential when the entire Old Testament and New Testament talk about redemption (purchasing) and atonement (payment/covering for sins). </font>[/QUOTE]Calvi, I was actually addressing the fact that John 3:18 does not say, as you stated, that "all those who don't believe receive condemnation" but rather says that one who "believeth not" (KJV) or as in another passage in Mark 16:16 'disbelieves' (ASV, NASB, Darby) is 'already condemned', not something that is future and yet to happen. "believe not" is not something passive , as I read it, but is an active 'rejection', (as also opposed to a mere failure to yet believe in a positive sense) for lack of a better word by me at this time, of the person, work, and blood of the Lord Jesus Christ.

I'd liken it to many sermons I've heard, in the past, where it almost seems the speakers first thought they "had to get someone 'lost' before they could 'get 'em saved'. They are already 'lost', as I understand it. How much "loster" is 'lost', or how much "loster" can they get?? That is the doctrine of Total Depravity in a nutshell. Man is as bad off, as he can possibly be.

The idea that one might "pay for his own sins in hell" logically would lead to the question of "How much payment is required?" The price and payment for sin, according to Hebrews, is a once and for all time payment. II Cor. 5:19 says "God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them". And the judgment at the Great White Throne is said to be on the basis of their works (good deeds), not their sins.

Ed

 

[JackRUS]

Originally posted by whatever:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by JackRUS:
And I am wondering why you think that an unsaved person would not find eternal life to be desirable?

Why don't you tell us? Your theology says that any unsaved person can have eternal life if he desires it. Why are there still unsaved people then? </font>[/QUOTE]They either have not heard the Gospel, or they love their sin more. And most don't know that they're lost in the first place. They think that God grades on a curve.

 

[JackRUS]

I noted that:

How is conversion different than salvation? Don't they occur at the same time and mean the same thing?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ed replied

In a word, no. Peter was saved, but was told "And when you are converted, strengthen the brethren."

How do you know he was saved, and at what point are you talking about? Didn't he receive the Holy Spirit in John 20:22 after the Resurrection?

And I would argue that Peter denied Jesus before the Resurrection but would not even think or doing so after John 20:22.

 

[MRCoon]

Ok my 2 yen worth on the Elect if you will accept this simple example:

Everyone is faced with a door marked "salvation" if you don't go through it you don't partake of it but once you enter you are saved...once saved if you happen to look back at the door on the inside above the door it says "the elect".

PS. 'Entering' is believing or accepting what Christ did on the Cross and not an action that we can do.

 

[doulous]

Jack,

When Jesus breathed on the ten (JN 20:22) and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit", He was not saving them. They were already saved. Jesus was sending them the Comforter that He had promised(JN 14:16). Let's look at why Peter was saved before JN 20:22.

John 6:68-69 68 Simon Peter answered Him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have words of eternal life. 69 "And we have believed and have come to know that You are the Holy One of God."

Peter had confessed with His mouth that Jesus was the Messiah (RM 10:9,10).

John 11:25-27 25 Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me shall live even if he dies, 26 and everyone who lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe this?" 27 She said to Him, "Yes, Lord; I have believed that You are the Christ, the Son of God, even He who comes into the world."

Would Mary (who was not part of the twelve) have confessed this great truth and Peter would not? Unlikely.

Luke 5:8 8 But when Simon Peter saw that, he fell down at Jesus' feet, saying, "Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord!"

Peter did not say, "Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Rabbi!" He called him "Lord."

Did Peter's denial of Christ prove he was not saved? No. It proved that Peter sinned. How often have we denied the presence of God in our lives? And that word "convereted" in Luke 22:32 simply means to be turned back. An unsaved person does not need to be turned back. They need to be changed completely.

 

[Calvibaptist]

Originally posted by EdSutton:
Calvi, I was actually addressing the fact that John 3:18 does not say, as you stated, that "all those who don't believe receive condemnation" but rather says that one who "believeth not" (KJV) or as in another passage in Mark 16:16 'disbelieves' (ASV, NASB, Darby) is 'already condemned', not something that is future and yet to happen. "believe not" is not something passive , as I read it, but is an active 'rejection', (as also opposed to a mere failure to yet believe in a positive sense) for lack of a better word by me at this time, of the person, work, and blood of the Lord Jesus Christ.

In John 3:18, the words ho pisteuown are translated "He that believes." More literally, it is "the one who is believing." It is an active verb. The words ho me pisteuown are translated "he who does not believe." More literally, it is "the one who is not believing." It is also an active verb. But it does not necessitate an active rejection. Just an active unbelief or failure to believe. That would include everyone who is not in the first category of the ones who are believing.

I'd liken it to many sermons I've heard, in the past, where it almost seems the speakers first thought they "had to get someone 'lost' before they could 'get 'em saved'. They are already 'lost', as I understand it. How much "loster" is 'lost', or how much "loster" can they get?? That is the doctrine of Total Depravity in a nutshell. Man is as bad off, as he can possibly be.

I sort of agree with you, except that, while we don't have to get someone lost, part of our job is to make them realize they are lost.

The idea that one might "pay for his own sins in hell" logically would lead to the question of "How much payment is required?"

Since the sin is against an eternal God, then the payment required is an eternal payment.

The price and payment for sin, according to Hebrews, is a once and for all time payment.

Payment for whom?

Hebrews 7:26-27 For such a High Priest was fitting for us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and has become higher than the heavens; 27 who does not need daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the people's, for this He did once for all when He offered up Himself.

Hebrews 9:12-14 Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption. 13 For if the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifies for the purifying of the flesh, 14 how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

Hebrews 10:10 By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

All of these were written to and about believers (which, I would argue, are the elect). It says nothing about unbelievers or the non-elect.

II Cor. 5:19 says "God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them".

Absolutely. The world means people from every nation under heaven.

And the judgment at the Great White Throne is said to be on the basis of their works (good deeds), not their sins.

What good deeds will unbelievers have to present before God at the Great White Throne??? All OUR righteousnees is as filthy rags. Unless we (or anyone) is clothed in the righteousness of Christ, we have no good works, just filthyness.

 

[EdSutton]

I sort of agree with you, except that, while we don't have to get someone lost, part of our job is to make them realize they are lost.

Uh, I thought that was part of the 'job description' of the Holy Spirit. Where does it say that that is ours? Although we are to rebuke, reprove, and exhort the saved individuals, I believe I read somewhere.

Ed

 

[JackRUS]

Originally posted by J.D.:
Jack:

John 3:16 and 1 John 2:2

If it were not for the elect, the remnant, God would simply destroy the whole creation (world) because of its corruption.

But God chose not to destroy the whole world (the creation), because he so loved it.

But in order for God to remain just, in order to judge sin, and to save the world, he sent his
Son into the world to make atonement for sin. God's wrath was satisfied (propitiated) not only for us, the elect, but also for the whole world (the creation), esle God would destroy it.

The world which will pass away is the present evil world system, which will be replaced by the new heaven and new earth - our eternal abode. But the world (the creation) will not be destroyed, but will be regenerated in the final eschaton.

In order to make the world redeemable, God's plan required the personal redemption of that remnant, known as the elect.

That remnant, which is made up of whosoever believes, whether Jew, Greek, male, female, etc.; makes the world redeemable through the faith given them by God.

So God Himself saves the world by injecting into it a faithful remnant, and that faithful remnant shall inherit the world (the renewed creation), which will be purified, and which God has saved for them.

You see how many ways "world" is to be understood? If you try to make "world" to mean "each and every person", you're always going to get yourself into a theological corner, and the answer to your delimmas will always be a "mystery".

Actually my theology doesn't have to hinge on the word world, but in those verses that you mentioned I would look to "whosoever" and "whole" as well. (not to mention the context)

 

[JackRUS]

Originally posted by doulous:
Jack,

When Jesus breathed on the ten (JN 20:22) and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit", He was not saving them. They were already saved. Jesus was sending them the Comforter that He had promised(JN 14:16). Let's look at why Peter was saved before JN 20:22.

John 6:68-69 68 Simon Peter answered Him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have words of eternal life. 69 "And we have believed and have come to know that You are the Holy One of God."

Peter had confessed with His mouth that Jesus was the Messiah (RM 10:9,10).

John 11:25-27 25 Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me shall live even if he dies, 26 and everyone who lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe this?" 27 She said to Him, "Yes, Lord; I have believed that You are the Christ, the Son of God, even He who comes into the world."

Would Mary (who was not part of the twelve) have confessed this great truth and Peter would not? Unlikely.

Luke 5:8 8 But when Simon Peter saw that, he fell down at Jesus' feet, saying, "Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord!"

Peter did not say, "Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Rabbi!" He called him "Lord."

Did Peter's denial of Christ prove he was not saved? No. It proved that Peter sinned. How often have we denied the presence of God in our lives? And that word "convereted" in Luke 22:32 simply means to be turned back. An unsaved person does not need to be turned back. They need to be changed completely.

That may be. But I'm not a Charismatic who believes that one receives the Holy Spirit into their body on more than one occasion. But some hold to that teaching.

As I stated, my defense relies on the actions of Peter both before and after receiving the Holy Spirit in John 20. He denied Christ three times and fled when they came to arrest Jesus. And the book of Acts of course attests to Peter's new creation (2 Cor. 5:17).

Many people know the facts of salvation, Jesus, and the Gospel long before regeneration. But you could be right considering his confession in Mt. 16.