Can mankind forfeit saving grace?

[Amy.G]

I don't know if he's MK exclusionist, but he definitely is "classic" dispensationalist. Two ways of salvation...

Dispensationalists do not believe in 2 ways of salvation. His views are far from classic anything.

 

[J.D.]

Dispensationalists do not believe in 2 ways of salvation. His views are far from classic anything.

See "The Scofield Reference Bible", page 1115, note 2.

 

[olegig]

So, you really were saying there are two different sets of instructions for salvation, and we're all really not one man in Christ now; there is a Jew, and a Gentile, and a Barbarian, and a Scythian, and a free. Never mind what Paul says........ different rules for different people. Right?

If you will notice the OP mentioned Jonah. Jonah is OT before the blood was shed.
And if you will review Luke 16 you will find one of the greatest OT saints, father Abraham, not in Heaven before the blood was shed for how could the blood be spread before it was shed?

IMO to place anyone at the throne of God before Christ's shed blood could be spread upon them is to relegate the cross to only a happening.
I feel the finished work of the cross made complete salvation available to all men/women of the Bible and I do not see anyone able to be in the presences of God until the work of the cross was finished.

Do you place the OT saint at the throne of God before the blood was shed, if so how and on what basis?

I believe all men today, be they Jew or Gentile are saved in only one manner and that is believing on the death, burial, and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ.

So what group does the law apply to now?

None that I know of. Is this a trick question?
Following the law kept the OT saint out of hell; but it did not grant them entrance to heaven until the blood was shed. (see Luke 16)

olegig said:
The full implications of this are seen when one studies OT salvation under the law and eventually has to answer the question of what became of an OT saint if he all of a sudden decided he no longer had to do all the things involved in Temple worship.

That confirms it, you DO believe people can be saved by keeping the law!

I specifically qualified my statement above in red as describing the OT saint.
I was not referring to anyone or any group now, in this age.

What underhanded motive do you have in twisting my words and trying to make it sound as if I am saying something other than what I said?

Do you believe an OT saint had to keep the law, and do you believe if they did, they went to heaven at death before the blood was shed?
If so, on what basis, because you feel they were simply chosen? (see, I can put words in your mouth also!)

I believe he is a Millennial Exclusionist.

Never heard of them.

After which they will then go to heaven with all other believers. But they will be excluded from the Millennial Kingdom.

I think I would have issue with them because the Bible says after the Millennial Kingdom the Heavenly city will come down to the new earth.

 

[kyredneck]

....if you will review Luke 16 you will find one of the greatest OT saints, father Abraham, not in Heaven....

You may be reading too much into that (Lu 16), there's not enough info there for me to argue that point.

..before the blood was shed for how could the blood be spread before it was shed? ....

Long before that blood was actually shed:

And he [Abraham] believed in Jehovah; and he reckoned it to him for righteousness. Gen 15:6

I have to believe that Abraham's faith was reckoned unto him for righteousness only because of the shed blood of Christ. In God's eyes, the work of the cross has always been a done deal.

IMO to place anyone at the throne of God before Christ's shed blood could be spread upon them is to relegate the cross to only a happening.....I do not see anyone able to be in the presences of God until the work of the cross was finished....Do you place the OT saint at the throne of God before the blood was shed, if so how and on what basis?....

Olegig, to be quite honest, you're off on a tangent here that is really insignificant to me. What God did with His Saints before or after the cross really has never concerned me. What matters is their blessedness because they are His Saints.

I believe all men today....are saved in only one manner.....

I take that to mean you're saying that yesterday there was another manner in which men were saved. Please, by all means, correct me if I'm wrong.

Is this a trick question?

No. It's a pertinent question considering the error that you espouse.

Following the law kept the OT saint out of hell

I reiterate:

....That confirms it, you DO believe people can be saved by keeping the law!....

Salvation from hell came from following the law is exactly what you just said.

but it did not grant them entrance to heaven until the blood was shed. (see Luke 16)...

Again, I think you read way too much into this passage, and it's insignificant to me how God deals with His Saints when they leave this time world.

I specifically qualified my statement above in red as describing the OT saint.
I was not referring to anyone or any group now, in this age.

Yes, I understand fully now what you are saying. The OT saint, in the OT age, was saved differently than how we are now in this age, and that was by keeping the law.

Peter concerning the law:

...a yoke...which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear... Acts 15:10

Paul concerning the law:

.....if there had been a law given which could make alive, verily righteousness would have been of the law. Gal 3:21

What underhanded motive do you have in twisting my words and trying to make it sound as if I am saying something other than what I said?

Well, it pans out that I've hit the nail on the head olegig. You have again confirmed my suspicions:

....That confirms it, you DO believe people can be saved by keeping the law!....

”Twisting my words “... something you do all the time olegig. Are you one of those that'll dish it out but can't take it? And, besides, the fact is, I WASN'T twisting your words. You DO believe exactly as I said, folks were saved by keeping the law. And I suspect that in your extremely lopsided focus and view on the millennial kingdom that is to come (along with your extremely dismal portrayal of the kingdom that is now) , there will again be a return to those weak and beggarly elements of the law, and folks will again be saved by keeping it.

Again, by all means, please correct me if I'm wrong. I'll go tit for tat with you.

Do you believe an OT saint had to keep the law, and do you believe if they did, they went to heaven at death before the blood was shed?

Again, it's insignificant to me what God does with His saints when they leave this time world.

If so, on what basis, because you feel they were simply chosen? (see, I can put words in your mouth also!)

Whether or not they are the elect is significant indeed.

You have some deep flaws in your theology olegig.

 

[olegig]

Yes, I understand fully now what you are saying. The OT saint, in the OT age, was saved differently than how we are now in this age, and that was by keeping the law.

Nope, that's not what I meant, and I think with a bit of honesty you know that's not what I meant. However you seem to want (for some reason) to put your words in my mouth.

The OT saint under the law, just as all men before the cross were kept out of hell by doing just what God told them to do.
They found themselves in Abraham's bosom after death, before the cross, and during the 3 days in the tomb Christ preached to them and carried them away to Heaven. (Eph 4:8-10; 1Pet 3:18-20; Matt 27:52)

...a yoke...which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear... Acts 15:10
Paul concerning the law:
.....if there had been a law given which could make alive, verily righteousness would have been of the law. Gal 3:21

Exactly, and that is why the OT saint under the law could not and did not go to heaven upon his/her physical death.

Again, I think you read way too much into this passage, and it's insignificant to me how God deals with His Saints when they leave this time world.

It seems we keep coming across passages of scripture you find insignificant or are "spiritualized away".
Why is that, do you just pick and chose which passages have meaning?

I will never understand how folks can belittle the work of the cross by spreading the blood before it was shed.

Hebrews 10:4 (King James Version)
4For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.

In God's eyes, the work of the cross has always been a done deal.

Perhaps you should supply the good reader with some scriptural proof of the above showing the shed blood of Christ was spread and paid for sins before it was shed on the cross.

You have some deep flaws in your theology olegig.

Why, because it does not agree with the theology you have gleaned by reading the books of man?

 

[kyredneck]

The OT saint under the law, just as all men before the cross were kept out of hell by doing just what God told them to do.

For the third post in a row you have plainly said that by following the law, the OT saints were saved from hell. The law was ' just what God told them to do.'

I will never understand how folks can belittle the work of the cross by spreading the blood before it was shed.

You're the one that's confining the application of the shed blood till after the cross. Who's actually doing the belittling here?

Hebrews 10:4 (King James Version)
4For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.

You quote from the book of Hebrews here, which on another thread you relegated it's significance 'to the Jews who will find themselves still on earth during the 7yr tribulation after the Body of Christ has been removed in the rapture.' Oh, I'll admit, you did 'feel there are many, many Biblical truths in the book of Hebrews that the Christian of today can learn from and glean understanding.' I'm thankful that we Christians can glean a little from what was intended for the Jew. Is this doctrine for Jews or gleanings for Christians that you're quoting here? Actually what you do with the book of Hebrews is nothing short of throwing the children's food away. Very much like your constant dismal portrayal of what the Christian has in his possession now.

Perhaps you should supply the good reader with some scriptural proof of the above showing the shed blood of Christ was spread and paid for sins before it was shed on the cross.

The fact alone that the OT saints were saved by faith and not by works of the law is all the proof that's needed olegig.

 

[olegig]

For the third post in a row you have plainly said that by following the law, the OT saints were saved from hell. The law was ' just what God told them to do.'

And for the first post in a row you have quoted me accurately.

You're the one that's confining the application of the shed blood till after the cross. Who's actually doing the belittling here?

Perhap you might attempt to show me and the reader with scripture (not theological mumbo jumbo) where the blood was shed before the cross.

You quote from the book of Hebrews here, which on another thread you relegated it's significance 'to the Jews who will find themselves still on earth during the 7yr tribulation after the Body of Christ has been removed in the rapture.' Oh, I'll admit, you did 'feel there are many, many Biblical truths in the book of Hebrews that the Christian of today can learn from and glean understanding.' I'm thankful that we Christians can glean a little from what was intended for the Jew. Is this doctrine for Jews or gleanings for Christians that you're quoting here? Actually what you do with the book of Hebrews is nothing short of throwing the children's food away. Very much like your constant dismal portrayal of what the Christian has in his possession now.

I'm glad you are paying attention and your retention is impressive.

The fact alone that the OT saints were saved by faith and not by works of the law is all the proof that's needed olegig.

Is your theology based on feelings, emotions, what? As yet you have offered no scriptural proof of anything.
I still have not figured out what part of the Bible you believe and what part you discard as insignificant.
But I do see why you don't like dispensationalism, it is far to restrainting for your liberal theology.


You seem to like the 'poll' thing, this might make a good one.
1. The OT saint was free to be in the presence of God before the cross because he/she was elected to salvation and the shed blood really was not needed to give them the righteousness of God.
2. The OT saint went to the bosom of Abraham where he/she was kept out of hell until the shed blood of Christ could be applied and cleanse them of their sins.

---------
I don't think this is the direction Skandelon wished for this thread, so I will give you the last word.

 

[Eagle]

Exactly! They weren't born given up, they are only "given up" AFTER they "changed the glory" and their hearts "became defiled" only AFTER they rebelled continuously and they were only "without excuse" AFTER they they clearly saw and understood God's divine nature.

Thanks for providing this passage! :applause:

Hey Skandelon, This is the very point i made when starting an earlier thread, titled, "...so that they are without excuse..."

I did not see you get in on that. It got railroaded down other avenues, as you know. I think there is great meat here, that an honest interpretation by Calvinists can't answer. Mankind judged as having no excuse based on their actual understanding of Him via Creation.

I did not intend the bold font here -- but I cannot turn it off!

 

[Skandelon]

Hey Skandelon, This is the very point i made when starting an earlier thread, titled, "...so that they are without excuse..."

I did not see you get in on that. It got railroaded down other avenues, as you know. I think there is great meat here, that an honest interpretation by Calvinists can't answer. Mankind judged as having no excuse based on their actual understanding of Him via Creation.

I did not intend the bold font here -- but I cannot turn it off!

True, Calvinists do give the lost a perfect excuse on judgement day.:thumbs:

 

[Iconoclast]

Winman said this:

Quote:
But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep. Jn 10:26

This is taken out of context, Jesus first says his sheep are those that hear his voice. And the scriptures say God does not know you until you first believe.

Gal 4:9 But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?

You are not known of God until after you trust on Christ.

1] Jn.10:26 is not taken out of context.....Jesus tells them the reason they believe not/be cause they are not His sheep
2] then you said this;

And the scriptures say God does not know you until you first believe.

God tells Jeremiah [ 1:5] before I formed you in the womb,I knew you and ordained you to be a prophet to the nations
3] if you describe a god who does not know the end from the beginning, or a god who has to wait and see what the sinner would do.....and learn something....you are no longer speaking of the God of the bible. Instead you are speaking of an imaginary god.
4] This same false and blasphemous idea usually has a completely defective view of the biblical word foreknowledge, as if God has to look ahead and see what will happen, then adjust His plans accordingly. He never has to look ahead, adjust His perfect plan, or go to a plan "b"
5] you completely misunderstand the Galatians verse as it teaches the complete opposite idea of what you suggest.

 

[Winman]

1] Jn.10:26 is not taken out of context.....Jesus tells them the reason they believe not/be cause they are not His sheep

Look at the very next verse.

John 10:27 My sheep (#1) hear my voice, and I (#2) know them, and they follow me:

Jesus is saying they are his sheep because they hear his voice, and then he knows them. Order is very important in scripture.

As for Jeremiah, this is showing God's foreknowledge. The scriptures show Jesus knew from the beginning who would believe not. Therefore he also knows who will believe.

John 6:64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.

There are several examples showing Jesus's foreknowledge of who would believe. Nathanael is another example.

John 1:45 Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.
46 And Nathanael said unto him, Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth? Philip saith unto him, Come and see.
47 Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him, and saith of him, Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile!
48 Nathanael saith unto him, Whence knowest thou me? Jesus answered and said unto him, Before that Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig tree, I saw thee.
49 Nathanael answered and saith unto him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel.
50 Jesus answered and said unto him, Because I said unto thee, I saw thee under the fig tree, believest thou? thou shalt see greater things than these.

Notice in verse 47 Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him. Notice that Nathanael asked, "Whence knowest thou me?". And notice that even before Philip "called" Nathanael that Jesus said he saw him. This is Jesus's foreknowledge, he knew that Nathanael would believe on him.

Foreknowledge is shown also in the parable of the prodigal son.

Luke 15:20 And he arose, and came to his father. But when he was yet a great way off, his father saw him, and had compassion, and ran, and fell on his neck, and kissed him.

The prodigal son repented and decided to return to his father. Notice that while he was yet a great way off (unregenerated), that his father saw him coming. This is foreknowledge.

God knew Jeremiah would believe his words, and this is why he chose Jeremiah to be a prophet.

The only other option is to believe that Jeremiah existed before the foundation of the world. How else could God know him?

Is this what you believe, that Jeremiah existed before the foundation of the world?

 

[Iconoclast]

response

Winman,
Thank you for responding to my post. I think you are still using a wrong description of God's foreknowledge. Consider how other believer's have understood correctly the use of the term.
JL.Dagg;

The Scriptures teach that election is according to the foreknowledge of God.[43] We are, however, not to understand the foreknowledge here mentioned, to be foreknowledge of faith or good works. Faith and good works do not exist, before the grace consequent on election begins to be bestowed; and therefore a foresight of them is impossible. Moreover, the objects of this divine foreknowledge are the persons of the elect, and not their faith or good works. "Whom he foreknow, them he also did predestinate."[44] In this foreknowledge of persons, according to the Scripture use of terms, a peculiar regard to them is implied. It is said, "Hath God cast away his people, whom he foreknew."[45] If simple knowledge, without any peculiar regard, were all that is here implied, it would be equally true that God foreknew the heathen nations, as well as the nation of Israel.

This case of national election may serve also to illustrate the ground of election to salvation. God's choice of the Hebrew nation arose from a peculiar regard to them, not founded on their superiority to other nations,[46] but on his own sovereign pleasure. He loved them, because he would love them. So the election of grace is according to God's foreknowledge of his people; a foreknowledge implying a peculiar regard not founded on any superiority in the objects of it, but arising from the sovereign pleasure of God.

Winman.....in Romans 8 the scripture says... For whomHe did foreknow ie, the persons themselves "whom"
It does not say....for what he did foreknow.....as in their faith, or belief. God knows all things, He never needs to learn as He is omnicient.

here are some more quotes about biblical foreknowledge;

Rom. 8:29. "Whom he foreknew he also foreordained to be conformed to the image of his Son." The foreknowledge here is of persons, not of personal acts, not of those whose faith he foreknew

Winman...you said this;

God knew Jeremiah would believe his words, and this is why he chose Jeremiah to be a prophet.

The only other option is to believe that Jeremiah existed before the foundation of the world. How else could God know him?

Is this what you believe, that Jeremiah existed before the foundation of the world?

Just read the text again,

Jer. 1:5. "Before I formed thee in the belly, I knew thee, and before thou camest forth out of the womb, I sanctified thee."

Twice God says before Before I formed you, before thou came forth.
Certainly, God is not merely saying that He knew "about" Jeremiah, but that He knew Jeremiah intimately and personally, He had a special regard for him while Jeremiah was yet in his mother's womb. In addition, not only was Jeremiah known, but even before he was born he was consecrated, set aside, marked out, not on the basis of anything Jeremiah did, or anything God saw. God simply says, "I did it."


Remember Jesus is declared to be the Lamb slain beforethe foundation of the world. Before sin entered the world,Jesus was the planned mediator of His people. We were intimately known in the mind and heart of God.
If you do not understand this point you will have a wrong foundation to try and study redemptive history. We will never come to agreement.

When we do this we find that "foreknowledge" consists of not merely precognition, but speaks of a relationship with an individual in God's eternal present. Thus, the word "foreknew", as used here, is understood to be equivalent to "foreloved" - those who were the objects of God's love, he marked out for salvation. This use of the term is prevalent throughout the Scriptures. See Gen. 18:19; Ex. 2:25; Psalm 1:6; 144:3; Amos 3:2, cf. Deuteronomy 7:7,8; 10:15; Jeremiah 1:5; Hosea 13:5; Matt. 7:22,23; 1 Corinthians 8:3; Galatians 4:9; 2 Timothy 2:19; and 1 John 3:1.

God does not say that He foreknew the decisions that individuals would make, but rather, He foreknew the individuals themselves.

As we have seen, the common Arminian explanation of foreknowledge is that God foreknows those who would believe. That is, He foresees that some will trust in Christ and some will not, and then predestines on that basis. However, upon a close reading of Rom. 8:29 we see that this is simply not what the text says.

 

[Allan]

Winman,
Thank you for responding to my post. I think you are still using a wrong description of God's foreknowledge. Consider how other believer's have understood correctly the use of the term.

While I don't agree with Winman's view of foreknowledge, I also think it humourous that you presume others have "correctly" understood it's usage. - it is humourous to me only in that - correct according to 'whom' and according to what definition? We are all entitled to our opinions, it just struck me funny is all - nothing against you or what you said.

However, you can not find much this supposed 'correct view's ', with respect to their definition, in any Greek or Hebrew Lexiconal aides.
ie. to know a person without knowing anything about the person (as Dagg illistrates below), or the other - foreknow means forelove.

And while Mr. Dagg was great man of God he had quite a few theological views that, IMO, did not squarely line up with scripture but more with his personal theological view. Note what I mean below in your own quote.

JL.Dagg;
The Scriptures teach that election is according to the foreknowledge of God.[43] We are, however, not to understand the foreknowledge here mentioned, to be foreknowledge of faith or good works. Faith and good works do not exist, before the grace consequent on election begins to be bestowed; and therefore a foresight of them is impossible.

Note in the above two things that ARE NOT laid out nor implied via scripture.
1. Faith or good works do not exist before the grace consequent on election.
You wont find this ANYWHERE in scripture. There is NOTHING in scripture which declares any specific order of decrees nor ANYTHING about exactly 'what' God knew/knows and 'how' it is that He know it.
---This is based purely upon a theological presupposition - IOW - assumption.

2. That foresight was impossible. Again since we do not know what God knows or how He knows what it is that He knows, anything view here is pure speculation, at best. To assume that God can not know every possible or potential outcome of every event or situation is, quite frankly, to limit God to nothing more than a God after man's image.

Moreover, the objects of this divine foreknowledge are the persons of the elect, and not their faith or good works. "Whom he foreknow, them he also did predestinate."[44] In this foreknowledge of persons, according to the Scripture use of terms, a peculiar regard to them is implied. It is said, "Hath God cast away his people, whom he foreknew."[45] If simple knowledge, without any peculiar regard, were all that is here implied, it would be equally true that God foreknew the heathen nations, as well as the nation of Israel.

Here, he is paritally correct but fails to identify what exactly foreknow 'entials'. I do agree agree however that it is about 'people' but his assumptions of foreknowledge leads him off on a side trail not used by scripture. Where he leaves the road for the trail, is that in God's 'knowing' the person, God also has no knowledge of them - ie. what they will do, be, have, ect... Here is one of the holes of this view.

Let me state this of 'my' view. I do not agree with God's election of people BASED on God having to look down through time to know who will and will not believe so He can make a good decision on election.

This case of national election may serve also to illustrate the ground of election to salvation. God's choice of the Hebrew nation arose from a peculiar regard to them, not founded on their superiority to other nations,[46] but on his own sovereign pleasure.

WHile I somewhat I agree that God's election of the nation 'for purpose' can serve also to illistrate the ground of election but he stays so vague as to give any real rendering of it's meaning.

Now, with respect to election to salvation:
We know He chose them, and we know that it wasn't arbitrarily but it had something to do with them imparticular. Yet we assumedly don't know why He chose them, but His choice can not be because of faith.
For me this just shows again how limiting this view is of God.

He loved them, because he would love them. So the election of grace is according to God's foreknowledge of his people; a foreknowledge implying a peculiar regard not founded on any superiority in the objects of it, but arising from the sovereign pleasure of God.

This is true and one of the reason election of the Nation for purpose is not a good illistration for election to salvation. While one (for purpose) is to simply use a person or group to bring about an outcome irregardless their spiritual condition, the other does not. Also 'for purpose' is irrespective of desire, 'to salvation' is not.

Another point of contension with scripture here is that he states election to salvation is the same as election to 'grace' and no where can we find any such language in scripture. This again is theological view overshadowing scripture.

With respect to election of salvation. I agree that we are not chosen based upon any superiority, but what he neglects or does comprehend is that faith,l of itself, is common to all men. How and into what we place it, is not the same with all men.

Winman.....in Romans 8 the scripture says... For whomHe did foreknow ie, the persons themselves "whom"
It does not say....for what he did foreknow.....as in their faith, or belief. God knows all things, He never needs to learn as He is omnicient.

Exactly, thus in His omnicience not only does He know them as an enitity but also all about them in every possible event or situation they could ever possibly be in. If God only knows them as an enitity/object without knowing anything else about them, then God is not omnicient.

Winman...you said this;

Just read the text again,

Twice God says before Before I formed you, before thou came forth.
Certainly, God is not merely saying that He knew "about" Jeremiah, but that He knew Jeremiah intimately and personally, He had a special regard for him while Jeremiah was yet in his mother's womb. In addition, not only was Jeremiah known, but even before he was born he was consecrated, set aside, marked out, not on the basis of anything Jeremiah did, or anything God saw. God simply says, "I did it."

Again, I don't agree with Win on the issue of God's election and foreknowledge. However if 'you' would read the passage again, you would note that before God formed him, He "knew" him. Not just as an object irrespective of will, wants, and desires, but all about him and this includes all that He would do, might do, believe not believe ... anything and everything about him. Thus, before he was created God knew everything about him, and God chose him - to be.. Yet this does not refer to salvation but to - purpose. Though the implication is that Jeremiah is saved by the time of his fulfilling of God's chosen ministry for him.

Remember Jesus is declared to be the Lamb slain beforethe foundation of the world. Before sin entered the world,Jesus was the planned mediator of His people. We were intimately known in the mind and heart of God.
If you do not understand this point you will have a wrong foundation to try and study redemptive history. We will never come to agreement.

This has nothing to do with his argument as he also agrees with scripture that Jesus is lamb slain before the foundation of the world. And as far as I have read regarding his posting on salvation, it is the very thing he also contends. The fact that He is the mediator for His people does not negate the biblical fact that He also shed His blood for all men.

 

[J.D.]

See "The Scofield Reference Bible", page 1115, note 2.

For those of you that have tried to find this reference, it is in the old Scofield Bible. It is a footnote to John 1:17, and reads:

"As a dispensation, grace begins with the death and resurrection of Christ (Rom. 3. 24-26; 4. 24, 25). The point of testing is no longer legal obedience as the conditions of salvation, but acceptance or rejection of Christ..."

(underlines added)

 

[Iconoclast]

response to allan

Hello Allan,
Thanks also for your good response. I am travelling now, just left SD,Mn, and am currently in Iowa so I cannot respond at great length for a couple of days. I will offer some brief thoughts now however, as this is a great topic. You remarked

I also think it humourous that you presume others have "correctly" understood it's usage. - it is humourous to me only in that - correct according to 'whom' and according to what definition?

The others I have referenced seek to understand biblical terms biblically.
Others go to secular sources and go astray fast.
Adam knew Eve,and she conceived. Adam knew Eve again and she conceived. It is an intimate knowledge ... he did not forget who she was.
God in Amos tells Israel you only have I known of all the nations of the earth.
Obviously He knows all about the other nations. But he set His love at that time on one nation in particular.

next;

And while Mr. Dagg was great man of God he had quite a few theological views that, IMO, did not squarely line up with scripture but more with his personal theological view. Note what I mean below in your own quote

The best of men are men at best,true. nevertheless his view here is historically in the mainstream, and actually if you look at his full treatment in his manual of theology, he [and others]explain why they hold the view they hold and contrast it to other views that pale in comparison.
I did not post all of it, because many do not enjoy to lengthy a post.I encourage them especially baptists to read some of our baptist brothers and what they have offered.

next;

2. That foresight was impossible. Again since we do not know what God knows or how He knows what it is that He knows, anything view here is pure speculation, at best. To assume that God can not know every possible or potential outcome of every event or situation is, quite frankly, to limit God to nothing more than a God after man's image.

Allan God does know every possibility, or potential action at all times. Iwas not nor would I intentional try to suggest otherwise. We are in agreement here:thumbs: Sometimes my posts are not as clear as I would like them to be:BangHead:
next;

Another point of contension with scripture here is that he states election to salvation is the same as election to 'grace' and no where can we find any such language in scripture. This again is theological view overshadowing scripture.

There are many passages I could offer here,but for now I think this covers it pretty well; gospel according to the power of God;

9Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,

10But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel:
A holy calling,according to grace given us before the world was. Eph 3;9-11 Hebrews 2:9-16 also come to mind.

next;

With respect to election of salvation. I agree that we are not chosen based upon any superiority, but what he neglects or does comprehend is that faith,l of itself, is common to all men. How and into what we place it, is not the same with all men.

Saving faith is a gift of God. Men have faith in natural things .When the fall took place Adam died, he was not just wounded. This in itself is a very big topic, cannot do justice to it here....
next;

Quote:
Remember Jesus is declared to be the Lamb slain beforethe foundation of the world. Before sin entered the world,Jesus was the planned mediator of His people. We were intimately known in the mind and heart of God.
If you do not understand this point you will have a wrong foundation to try and study redemptive history. We will never come to agreement.

This has nothing to do with his argument as he also agrees with scripture that Jesus is lamb slain before the foundation of the world. And as far as I have read regarding his posting on salvation, it is the very thing he also contends. The fact that He is the mediator for His people does not negate the biblical fact that He also shed His blood for all men.

Although the blood of the perfect sacrifice of the cross is able to pay for all sin, by God's design he has purposed who that blood would be effectual for.
this is also a massive topic. Unless you believe in universal redemption for everyone everywhere, The Lamb died a covenant death for the seed of Abraham, not the seed of Adam Hebrews 2:16 Those given by The Father to the Son before the world was.
Allan I enjoyed your post and when I can I would like to be more helpful to you. Thanks for raising these important issues.:godisgood:

 

[Allan]

Hello Allan,
Thanks also for your good response. I am travelling now, just left SD,Mn, and am currently in Iowa so I cannot respond at great length for a couple of days. I will offer some brief thoughts now however, as this is a great topic.

I live in SD and work at a Turkey plant (security) where many of our truckers run that route

The others I have referenced seek to understand biblical terms biblically. Others go to secular sources and go astray fast.

I'm not sure where you got your information from but there isn't some kind special biblical language distint or different from it's secular usage. The language is primarily understood in it's contextual form first, then by entention the book(s), and then to it's common form and usage in the culture.
However what you will not find in any Hebrew or Greek Lexiconal aides to state the meaning of 'know or knew' includes an "Intimate knowledge".

The Hebrew usage speaks of 'know or knew' specifically as a se*ual idiom only. Otherwise you would have those were raped in scripture (like Davids daughter) being 'known' by another man, as being the equal to a husbands intimate knowledge. While I agree it is 'intimate' knowledge of a person to which it is referencing, it is not a 'relational or loving knowledge'. The problem with some defintions come when the presumed 'biblical' definition is derived not from contextual nor it's common cultural understandings, but when it manipulated based upon theological view.

Adam knew Eve,and she conceived. Adam knew Eve again and she conceived. It is an intimate knowledge ... he did not forget who she was.

You misunderstand the Hebrew here. It is merely a se*ual idiom, and though it does refer to intimate knowledge, that knowledge is se*ual in and by nature and therefore intimate, just as a rapist would 'know' her.

God in Amos tells Israel you only have I known of all the nations of the earth.
Obviously He knows all about the other nations. But he set His love at that time on one nation in particular.

Yes, but that is not what the term 'know' means. We should not allow our presumed theological principles to become a words contextual definition.

The best of men are men at best,true. nevertheless his view here is historically in the mainstream, and actually if you look at his full treatment in his manual of theology, he [and others]explain why they hold the view they hold and contrast it to other views that pale in comparison.

First, this view is not historically mainstream. It was held but not necessarily mainstream, though I do acknowledge it was one of the mainstream views.

However, I have read much of his work, though not all, and have read much more of others of the reformed view and have to disagree that their view makes others pale. I have studied extensively for quite a few years the reformed view from the reformed writers themselves (Packer, Calvin, Piper, Gill, Henry, Spurgeon, and many others) in trying to find the most correct theology in relation to scripture. And through much prayer, fasting, and reading I found to many holes and suppositions to be able to adhere to it. I agree with much of it and there are many parts I disagree with.

I did not post all of it, because many do not enjoy to lengthy a post. I encourage them especially baptists to read some of our baptist brothers and what they have offered.

I agree.

Allan God does know every possibility, or potential action at all times. Iwas not nor would I intentional try to suggest otherwise. We are in agreement here:thumbs: Sometimes my posts are not as clear as I would like them to be

Ok, cool.

There are many passages I could offer here,but for now I think this covers it pretty well; gospel according to the power of God;

9Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,
10But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel:

A holy calling,according to grace given us before the world was. Eph 3;9-11 Hebrews 2:9-16 also come to mind.

This still does not allow for the election of salvation to be called equated as the election to grace. I understand what you are wanting to describe but I believe scripture disagrees with you on this. It might be more on how you are using the term grace though.

Saving faith is a gift of God. Men have faith in natural things .When the fall took place Adam died, he was not just wounded. This in itself is a very big topic, cannot do justice to it here....

This is not something that can be proven scripturally. At least in fact that men have faith just not a so called 'saving faith'. IOW - God gives to them something they do not and can not have. I believe it stems, quite frankly, from a misunderstanding of just what faith is amoung other smaller issues . But that is my opinion.

However, I DO agree that faith is a gift in that if it were not for God revealing truth to us, no one would ever come to faith in Christ. Yet, not that God has to give us faith. An interesting point on this, with respect to regeneration is that IF we are regenerated before faith, then why the need for some new type of faith since the falable faith of the man have been remade and is now new, just like his heart, desire, and spirit. Anyway, it was a point of pondering in times past

Although the blood of the perfect sacrifice of the cross is able to pay for all sin, by God's design he has purposed who that blood would be effectual for.

I agree here with respect to application, yet it's extend according to scripture is toward and for all men.

Unless you believe in universal redemption for everyone everywhere, The Lamb died a covenant death for the seed of Abraham, not the seed of Adam Hebrews 2:16

I will shoot for brevity but it is NOT my strong suite. :laugh:

While you are partially correct here, you must also take into account not only what was done, but also 'why' and for 'whom' as well as 'how' it is applied.
These questions answer you with respect to the propitiation of CHrist.
Why: He was fulfilling the OT Law of sacrifice. It was made on behalf of ALL of Israel. Now was all of Israel saved? No. It was only applied to them by faith and it is the same in the NT (Rom 3:25) - This answers the 'how' question regarding it's application toward us.

Some try to state but it was not made for any but Israel, so see it was limited. No. All other nations were allowed and encouraged to join and become one with them. But Israel was the picture and vessel through whom God was working and thus it is accurate to state - The propitiation was made for all of Israel but not all would be saved. (this answers the 'for whom' question)

It's purpose was to save all those of faith (children of Abraham) but it's extent was toward all mankind (children of Adam).

Allan I enjoyed your post and when I can I would like to be more helpful to you. Thanks for raising these important issues.

I agree, it has been enjoyable. Thank you. OH! And welcome to the BB.

 

[jbh28]

For those of you that have tried to find this reference, it is in the old Scofield Bible. It is a footnote to John 1:17, and reads:

"As a dispensation, grace begins with the death and resurrection of Christ (Rom. 3. 24-26; 4. 24, 25). The point of testing is no longer legal obedience as the conditions of salvation, but acceptance or rejection of Christ..."

(underlines added)

I guess Scofield isn't always right.

 

[Iconoclast]

Hi Allan,
Thanks for your reply's. Most of all I enjoy that you seem well read and are eager to search out the scriptures in order to improve your walk with the Lord. It is good to stand where you believe you see truth until you are able to see it clearer.That is the value of believer's interacting like this.
I would like to interact a bit more on this. :type:You said:

While you are partially correct here, you must also take into account not only what was done, but also 'why' and for 'whom' as well as 'how' it is applied.
These questions answer you with respect to the propitiation of CHrist.
Why: He was fulfilling the OT Law of sacrifice. It was made on behalf of ALL of Israel. Now was all of Israel saved? No. It was only applied to them by faith and it is the same in the NT (Rom 3:25) - This answers the 'how' question regarding it's application toward us.

Some try to state but it was not made for any but Israel, so see it was limited. No. All other nations were allowed and encouraged to join and become one with them. But Israel was the picture and vessel through whom God was working and thus it is accurate to state - The propitiation was made for all of Israel but not all would be saved. (this answers the 'for whom' question)

It's purpose was to save all those of faith (children of Abraham) but it's extent was toward all mankind (children of Adam).

Why/ It was made on behalf of ALL of Israel. Now was all of Israel saved? No.
Allan, Paul addresses this in Romans 9

6Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:

7Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.

8That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

Atonement was not made for all;

12In that day I will perform against Eli all things which I have spoken concerning his house: when I begin, I will also make an end.

13For I have told him that I will judge his house for ever for the iniquity which he knoweth; because his sons made themselves vile, and he restrained them not.

14And therefore I have sworn unto the house of Eli, that the iniquity of Eli's house shall not be purged with sacrifice nor offering for ever.

WHOM/ you said;
The propitiation was made for all of Israel but not all would be saved. (this answers the 'for whom' question)
Propitiation means to turn away the wrath. Allan in what way do you believe the wrath of God is 'turned away" from the unbeliever at the white throne judgement?? Propitiation is only for those in saving union with The Lord Jesus Christ.
You offered this:

It's purpose was to save all those of faith (children of Abraham) but it's extent was toward all mankind (children of Adam).

In John 8 Jesus explained to physical descendants of Abraham,that not all physical Jews were spiritual Israel,ie children of God.

37I know that ye are Abraham's seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you.

38I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father.

39They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham.

40But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham.

41Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.

Its extent you say was toward the seed of Adam? The scripture says it was toward the seed of Abraham, not Adam. Heb2:16
and yet it is more than from national Israel, but as it says in Jn 11:49-52

49And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all,

50Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.

51And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation;

52And not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad.

There are children of God scattered abroad among the nations, among some of Adam's race. This is exactly what Jn means when he describes the scope of the propitiation in 1jn2:2

51And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation;

52And not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad.

2And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

The promise to Abram when his name was changed to Abraham is that he was to be the Father of many nations. Not the Jew only and { not every person in those nations} but the children of God who were scattered abroad.

We might not always agree as we interact, but I believe the value of the posts is that we can try and understand how other's who see things differently come to believe what they do, and when necessary make scriptural corrections where needed.
It is more important to improve upon our grasp of the truth,then to "win "a debate and drift away from the texts of scripture.

 

[Allan]

Why/ It was made on behalf of ALL of Israel. Now was all of Israel saved? No.
Allan, Paul addresses this in Romans 9

6Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:

7Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.

8That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

No problem. The context in Rom 9:6-8 (and more than these) concerns not all people, but the Jews specifically. Paul goes to great lengths to single them out as people and when he does bring in the gentiles he does so in a way that identifies them as distinct from the Jewish people.

(1) Abraham—He was chosen as the father of the Hebrew nation, but Paul states that not all Israelites (Jews) are true sons of Israel. This noted much the same as back in 2:25-29 whereby in summary - Paul even goes so far as to say that the uncircumcised Gentile who obeyed God’s Word was better off than the circumcised Jew who disobeyed it, and that the circumcised Jew who disobeyed God was looked upon as uncircumcised! Since Paul is speaking of Jewish nation he elaborates in that a true Jew is one who has faith inwardly, whose heart has been changed, and not one who merely follows outward ceremonies in the flesh.
Remember, Abraham had many children (Gen. 25:1-6), but only one chosen son, Isaac, who was the child of promise by faith.

(2) Isaac—He was the child of promise by faith (see Gal. 4:21-31), while Ishmael (the first born who's posterity by rights the lineage promised to Abraham was potentially his) was a child of the flesh through works. And while it is true the true “seed of Abraham” are the believers, and not just all who have Jewish blood in their veins, the context 'here' is dealing specifically with the Jewish people in relation to being truely Israel. We can see this in the fact the Paul is going through the Jewish lineage up to Jacob (called Israel from which all the tribes sprang and brought the nation into being).

(3) Jacob—God bypassed Esau, the firstborn once again, and chose Jacob, and this choice was made even before the children were born. Why? To show that God’s purpose in electing His nation would be fulfilled (In context this chapter is about election to purpose and not specifically or necessarily election to salvation) Esau made the choice to rebel against God, but God’s purpose does not depend on man’s decisions. And while we cannot explain the relationship between man’s choice and God’s purpose we do know that both are true and are taught in His Word.

Atonement was not made for all;

12In that day I will perform against Eli all things which I have spoken concerning his house: when I begin, I will also make an end.

13For I have told him that I will judge his house for ever for the iniquity which he knoweth; because his sons made themselves vile, and he restrained them not.

14And therefore I have sworn unto the house of Eli, that the iniquity of Eli's house shall not be purged with sacrifice nor offering for ever.

Yes, it was made for all.
What you give is when Eli had rebelled against God and God judges him for it. Yet prior to that we know the atonement was for him also, not only because he was the high priest who made the sacrifice and entered into the Holy of Holies but also in the fact that God only here declares it is no longer for him.

Scripture shows over and over that only when men choose to continue in their sin, it is only then that God gives them over to their sin so they are damned because they did not (not could not) believe the truth (2 Thes 2:10-12; Rom 1:18-32; Prov 1:23-33; ect..)
They reject the truth that could have saved them.
If the propitiation was not made for them then the fact remains, it could not have saved them even if they believed.

WHOM/ you said;
The propitiation was made for all of Israel but not all would be saved. (this answers the 'for whom' question)

Propitiation means to turn away the wrath. Allan in what way do you believe the wrath of God is 'turned away" from the unbeliever at the white throne judgement?? Propitiation is only for those in saving union with The Lord Jesus Christ.

The propitiation is received by faith. It isn't give to anyone apart from faith. Therefore at the GWT judgement His wrath is only turned away from those who have, by faith received that propitiation provided by Christ (Rom 3:25). And since it is not applied prior to faith those at the judgment will have no way of escape, and no mercy.

In John 8 Jesus explained to physical descendants of Abraham,that not all physical Jews were spiritual Israel,ie children of God.

Yes, and Paul speaks to that as well.

Its extent you say was toward the seed of Adam? The scripture says it was toward the seed of Abraham, not Adam. Heb2:16

I think you misunderstand the context here. It is refering to Him being of Abraham's lineage making Him a Jew and thus able to be a High Priest and a sacrifice for the people (both are pictures of the Jewish religion). And yes, while it is broader than just the nation the context of argument there is of geneology - Mat shows that Jesus is decended from Abraham and Abraham from Adam. Thus in the immediate context of the Hebrew passage it was of the people group (Hebrews) and also through extension all mankind (of which are of/from Adam)

and yet it is more than from national Israel, but as it says in Jn 11:49-52

Agreed that is was for more than just national Israel but according to the passage you just quoted it Jesus was the propitiation for 'whole nation'.
Does that mean you believe the entire nation was saved since the propitiation was made the 'whole' nation?

Please note it wasn't for some people of the nation but for the people so that the whole nation will not perish:

50Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.

51And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation;

52And not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad.

There are children of God scattered abroad among the nations, among some of Adam's race.

Not accordint to context as the context states, not that nation only (for whom CHrist died, and remember not all in the nation of Israel was saved) but so that He would gather together the children of God [from out of those other nations for whom He died] that are scattered abroad (in them).

The context dictates that not that nation only refers to all the other nations (all people therein) for which Christ also died so He could bring out of them the Children of God. - No I'm refering to national election to salvation, but that the propiaition included all men from every nation, of which His children (those of faith) would be gathered together.

This is exactly what Jn means when he describes the scope of the propitiation in 1jn2:2

I agree with respect to context, especially when you compare Johns usage of how he 'always' used the term 'whole world' meaning the wicked and ungodly. Not for the nation of Israel only but for all the wicked and ungodly (whole world).

The promise to Abram when his name was changed to Abraham is that he was to be the Father of many nations. Not the Jew only and { not every person in those nations} but the children of God who were scattered abroad.

I feel that the above is going far beyond the context brother. He was the father of many nations as He is the father of the Hebrew Nation and the Arab Nations and his grand children which formed other nations.

We might not always agree as we interact, but I believe the value of the posts is that we can try and understand how other's who see things differently come to believe what they do, and when necessary make scriptural corrections where needed.

I agree whole heartedly. I appreciate your spirit, frankness, and steadfastness. Continue and keep the faith as God has revealed it to you and only move from it if God shows you something different.

It is more important to improve upon our grasp of the truth,then to "win "a debate and drift away from the texts of scripture.

What more can be said than - Amen!

 

[Skandelon]

Well crafted reply Allan!