Cause and Effect/Conditions of Salvation

[DHK]

DHK, you paint as clear a picture of Calvinistic 'irresistable grace,' limited atonement, and double predestination as any Calvinist I have ever spoken to, and I have indeed spoken to many. Eliminating absolutely all conditions to salvation does absolutely nothing to separate your views from any run of the mil Calvinist on these issues. The very heart and soul of Calvinism is total depravity and 'no conditions.' That is the only system of theology I know of that eliminates any and all conditions. Does that honestly surprise you?

And if you are going to make such contrasts like this then you paint your method of being save no differently than that of a Hindu, and I am quite serious about that. A Hindu must work to attain salvation. He must please his god (or in some cases gods). If he doesn't please his god he cannot attain nirvana (sanctification), which for you would be a failure, and the end result would be the inability of entering heaven.
It is not Christ that saves you HP (in your theology). Like the Hindu it is your works. You have a works-based salvation. That is sad. It is pitiful.

I am not a Calvinist, but I do believe that Jesus saves. John 14:6 makes it abundantly clear he is the only one that can save. "I am the way...no man comes to the Father but By ME." It is not by works; it is by Jesus Christ, and him alone. Salvation is all of God or it is no salvation at all.

Either his blood was sufficient enough to pay the penalty of all our sins (past present and future), or he was a complete failure, a fraud, and a liar. There are only those two choices. Which do you choose?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: It is not Christ that saves you HP (in your theology). Like the Hindu it is your works. You have a works-based salvation. That is sad. It is pitiful.

HP: What is pitiful DHK is that you would stoop so low in flat contradiction to the truth on a Christian discussion board. Your comments are far from the truth and unbecoming a believer in Christ. Your lies make a mockery of the rules of this forum and Christian charity.

 

[DHK]

HP: What is pitiful DHK is that you would stoop so low in flat contradiction to the truth on a Christian discussion board. Your comments are far from the truth and unbecoming a believer in Christ. Your lies make a mockery of the rules of this forum.

It was a comparison HP. There is no need to be offended. Salvation is all of God. It is either all of grace or all of works. It can't be both. See Romans 11:6. It plainly tells you the same thing. Let me also repeat part of my last post:

Either his blood was sufficient enough to pay the penalty of all our sins (past, present, and future), or he was a complete failure, a fraud, and a liar. There are only those two choices. Which do you choose?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Your so called 'comparison' is nothing short of a low down worthless lie.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: Either his blood was sufficient enough to pay the penalty of all our sins (past, present, and future), or he was a complete failure, a fraud, and a liar. There are only those two choices. Which do you choose?

HP: For the sake of others on this discussion list, I will respond to this comment. DHK in reality says absolutely nothing here as to the ‘sufficiency’ of the blood of Christ that I and most if not all others on this list would clearly attest to. What is at stake is NOT the ‘sufficiency’ of the blood of Christ as DHK actually speaks to, but rather was it a ‘literal payment’ in a forensic sense of the word? Was it ‘sin specific’ in its scope at the moment it was shed? Was there a specific amount of blood that covered every specific sin in the sense of a transaction, a payment specific to a specific sin(s) made, covering all past present and future sins? Absolutely not. If that was true, and Christ died not for our sins only but for the sins of the entire world, all would of necessity be saved or the blood of Christ would appear to be less than effective to accomplish its ends. If Christ literally paid for the sins of the world in a literal payment sense, it would be absurd for God to punish anyone when His blood had already literally paid the price. It would be holding man accountable for that which Christ’s blood should have already covered, an unscriptural and absurd concept at best.

The atonement made was indeed 'sufficient' for the sins of the whole world, but is not made 'effective' in the lives of the sinner until the sinner fulfills the conditions to repent and exercise faith. Even then, the sins that are covered are ‘sins that are past’ NOT future infractions of God’s law according to Scripture. Ro 3:25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

 

[steaver]

HP: For the sake of others on this discussion list, I will respond to this comment. DHK in reality says absolutely nothing here as to the ‘sufficiency’ of the blood of Christ that I and most if not all others on this list would clearly attest to. What is at stake is NOT the ‘sufficiency’ of the blood of Christ as DHK actually speaks to, but rather was it a ‘literal payment’ in a forensic sense of the word? Was it ‘sin specific’ in its scope at the moment it was shed? Was there a specific amount of blood that covered every specific sin in the sense of a transaction, a payment specific to a specific sin(s) made, covering all past present and future sins? ..........

Absolutely correct!

Mat 12:31Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy [against] the [Holy] Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.

.......If that was true, and Christ died not for our sins only but for the sins of the entire world,...........

1Jo 2:2And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for [the sins of] the whole world.

.......all would of necessity be saved or the blood of Christ would appear to be less than effective to accomplish its ends. If Christ literally paid for the sins of the world in a literal payment sense, it would be absurd for God to punish anyone when His blood had already literally paid the price. It would be holding man accountable for that which Christ’s blood should have already covered, an unscriptural and absurd concept at best.

Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy [against] the [Holy] Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. (Matt 12:31)

The atonement made was indeed 'sufficient' for the sins of the whole world, but is not made 'effective' in the lives of the sinner until the sinner fulfills the conditions to repent and exercise faith.

False. All sin has been atoned for except for the sin of unbelief. Unbelief will not be forgiven.

Even then, the sins that are covered are ‘sins that are past’ NOT future infractions of God’s law according to Scripture. Ro 3:25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

Romans 3:25 says nothing of sins of one's future NOT covered. This is conjecture, going beyond what is written.

:jesus:

 

[Amy.G]

If Jesus didn't atone for my future sins (after the moment of salvation) does that mean that He has to be crucified again? Where does the blood come from to atone for my future sins?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Amy, to 'atone for' is not the same as 'to pay for' in the sense of a literal payment as commonly understood in the system of theology best known to the church world as Calvinsim. May I suggest a great read on the subject?

http://www.gospeltruth.net/Barnes_atonement/barnesindex.htm

 

[DHK]

Amy, to 'atone for' is not the same as 'to pay for' in the sense of a literal payment as commonly understood in the system of theology best known to the church world as Calvinsim. May I suggest a great read on the subject?

http://www.gospeltruth.net/Barnes_atonement/barnesindex.htm

Here is the definition from the American Tract and Society Dictionary

ATONEMENT
The satisfaction offered to divine justice for the sins of mankind by the death of Jesus Christ; by virtue of which all true penitents believing in Christ are reconciled to God, are freed from the penalty of their sins, and entitled to eternal life. The atonement by Jesus Christ is the great distinguishing peculiarity of the gospel, and is presented in a great variety of terms and illustrations in both the Old Testament and the New.
The English word atonement originally denoted the reconciliation of parties previously at variance. It is used in the Old Testament to translate a Hebrew word which means a covering; implying that by a Divine propitiation the sinner is covered from the just anger of God. This is actually effected by the death of Christ; while the ceremonial offerings of the Jewish church only secured from impending temporal judgments, and typified the blood of Jesus Christ which "cleanseth us from all sin."

Note: "It is covering...that by a Divine propitiation the sinner is covered from the just anger of God."
Propitiation means satisfaction in the legal sense of the term. The legal demands of God's laws were satisfied when the blood was shed, thereby atoning for our sins, or making the payment that God required.

 

[Mississippi John]

I love God,The Holy Spirit, Jesus Christ, All mankind, and the Scriptures.....in that order...so help me GOD.

 

[DHK]

Your so called 'comparison' is nothing short of a low down worthless lie.

1. It is not a worthless comparison.
2. It is not a lie.
3. It is the truth.

Every religion of the world (Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism, Taoism, and even the RCC), all have one thing in common--they believe you can get to heaven (or their concept of it) by works.

Biblical Christianity stands alone, different from all other religions in that it is not a religion of works. It is a living faith wrought by the grace of God, initiated by faith alone in God, and kept by Christ alone unto the end without any merit by mankind.

That is not Calvinism; it is Biblical salvation that is taught in the Bible and was taught long before Calvin was ever born; long before Augustine was ever born.