Christ's Atoning Death on the Cross

[Protestant]

Just curious, but where do the more Calvinistic among your side come up with the idea that Christ is praying for the Elect here? I've only ever read that as Christ praying for those performing the crucifixion on him. I just don't see any contextual clues to indicate a sudden switch in perspective away from the immediate situation into some spiritual reverie concerning the Elect.

Excellent question. First, I assume you agree that Christ’s prayer in John 17 was spoken just before He was taken to be crucified.

You must agree that it was the ‘high priestly’ prayer of Christ acting in the office of High Priest. Yes?

You agree that Christ was praying for the salvation of certain men given Him by the Father. Yes?

I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.

You acknowledge Christ made atonement on the cross.

Do you agree that Christ was both the High Priest and sacrificial offering for sins?

I hope so, because Christ was both the sacrificing High Priest as well as the sacrifice Himself.

But our High Priest offered himself to God as a single sacrifice for sins, good for all time. Then he sat down in the place of honor at God's right hand. (New Living Translation)

On the Day of Atonement the Jewish High Priest offered blood sacrifices for his, the sins of his fellow priests, as well as the people of Israel.

And Aaron shall bring the bullock of the sin offering, which is for himself, and shall make an atonement for himself, and for his house, and shall kill the bullock of the sin offering which is for himself……..Then shall he kill the goat of the sin offering, that is for the people, and bring his blood within the vail, and do with that blood as he did with the blood of the bullock, and sprinkle it upon the mercy seat, and before the mercy seat:
16 And he shall make an atonement for the holy place, because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel, and because of their transgressions in all their sins: and so shall he do for the tabernacle of the congregation, that remaineth among them in the midst of their uncleanness.

Christ’s intercessory prayer on the cross was on behalf of those given Him by the Father.

As High Priest, He offered the Father His blood sacrifice as payment for the sins of those same ones given Him by the Father.

It is on the basis of His innocent shed blood that He asks their sins be forgiven, that atonement be made, just as the Jewish High Priest, a type of Christ, asked the Lord to forgive the sins of Israel on the Day of Atonement.

Christ’s atonement was specific and efficacious to only those given Him by the Father: the Israel of God, spiritual Israel, comprised of both Jews and Gentiles chosen in Christ from the foundation of the world.

These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:
2 As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.

Eternal life is Christ’s to give.

He gives this divine gift to as many as the Father has given Him; no more, no less.....per the Father's express instructions.

He does not give eternal life to ‘the world.’

We know this is true because He does not pray for 'the world,' nor does He ask forgiveness for the sins of ‘the world.’

Had He asked forgiveness for the sins of ‘the world’ - meaning every human who ever lived, then one of two things would have happened:

1. The sins of ‘the world’ would be forgiven because the Father always hears and answers the prayers of His Son;

2. Christ’s prayer would be in conflict with the will of the Father. As such, it would be considered sin and a sinful Christ would not have been raised from the dead.

Since we know that not all ‘the world’ has forgiveness of sins and eternal life, and we know that Christ always walks, talks, and prays according to the Father’s will, therefore we know Christ could not possibly have prayed for or made atonement for the sins of the world – i.e., every human ever born.

The ones given Christ are not of ‘the world,’ meaning they are to be delivered out of the kingdom of darkness and brought into the kingdom of light in Christ:

If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.

Make sense?

 

[Rebel]

You compared us to islamists....

Both Calvinism and Islam are determinist, fatalist systems. Both believe and teach absolute predestination. That is factual. I did not say that Islam and Calvinism have anything in common other than that.

 

[The Archangel]

Both Calvinism and Islam are determinist, fatalist systems. Both believe and teach absolute predestination. That is factual. I did not say that Islam and Calvinism have anything in common other than that.

Then you demonstrate that you understand neither Calvinism nor Islam.

The Archangel

 

[robustheologian]

Then you demonstrate that you understand neither Calvinism nor Islam.

The Archangel

Yes...fatalism and determinism are very different from each other.

 

[convicted1]

Both Calvinism and Islam are determinist, fatalist systems. Both believe and teach absolute predestination. That is factual. I did not say that Islam and Calvinism have anything in common other than that.

Wrong. God placed man in the Garden and gave him a choice to obey and live or rebel and die. God never coerced, twisted an arm, pushed him to the tree of knowledge of good and evil, but he chose to do this of his own volition.

From that point forth, everybody could have been damned for hell and God would still be holy, just, good, &c. But, in His grace and mercy, He chose a people from amongst the fallen to give to His Son to atone for their sins. It was they that Christ was mocked for, was smacked for, had His beard plucked from His sweet face for, was nailed to the cross for, bled for, died for, was buried for, was resurrected for, and will come back for....

 

[convicted1]

Yes...fatalism and determinism are very different from each other.

They show they don't understand that which they think they do....

 

[Iconoclast]

Then you demonstrate that you understand neither Calvinism nor Islam.

The Archangel

:thumbsup::applause::thumbsup:Yes....he has completely missed it.

 

[PreachTony]

Wrong. God placed man in the Garden and gave him a choice to obey and live or rebel and die. God never coerced, twisted an arm, pushed him to the tree of knowledge of good and evil, but he chose to do this of his own volition.

A couple points of consideration, Bro. Willis...

1. You wrote "God ... gave him a choice to obey and live or rebel and die." God places that same commandment in the hands of Israel in Deuteronomy 30...

11 For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off.

15 See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil;
16 In that I command thee this day to love the Lord thy God, to walk in his ways, and to keep his commandments and his statutes and his judgments, that thou mayest live and multiply: and the Lord thy God shall bless thee in the land whither thou goest to possess it.
17 But if thine heart turn away, so that thou wilt not hear, but shalt be drawn away, and worship other gods, and serve them;
18 I denounce unto you this day, that ye shall surely perish, and that ye shall not prolong your days upon the land, whither thou passest over Jordan to go to possess it.

That sounds like Israel had a choice in loving and serving God or turning from Him and suffering evil and death. But this is after the Fall, and I've often heard the Predestinarian/Election camp say that man's free ability to choose was severly damaged, if not altogether taken away, after the Fall. Why, then, would God present this as an option if no one He was presenting it to could actually remotely perform it?

From that point forth, everybody could have been damned for hell and God would still be holy, just, good, &c. But, in His grace and mercy, He chose a people from amongst the fallen to give to His Son to atone for their sins. It was they that Christ was mocked for, was smacked for, had His beard plucked from His sweet face for, was nailed to the cross for, bled for, died for, was buried for, was resurrected for, and will come back for....

2. You wrote about 'those that Christ ____ for...' I'm inferring from what I know about you that you are referring to the Elect. But what about this verse from 2 Peter?

But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

If these are not the Elect, as it seems quite clear they are not, then how/why did the Lord buy them? Why does Peter refer to them as such if, under Election doctrine, the Lord never bought the non-Elect, but instead paid the sin-debt of the Elect only.

 

[Protestant]

I see scriptural evidence of us having the ability to sin or to not sin, even after the fall. The woman caught in adultery, brought before Jesus, was instructed by Jesus to "Go, and sin no more." Now, if we are so depraved that we cannot help but sin, why would Jesus tell her this? Obviously, she had the ability to choose not to sin.

PT, I am returning to your previous responses since I have not yet read a response to my assertion that Christ our High Priest prays and makes atonement only for those given Him by the Father, the rest of the ‘world’ is excluded by the eternal, immutable decree of God.

Re: ability to not sin intact after the fall………Several other Board members agree with you…..as did Pelagius, the Socinians, (now called Unitarians), as well as the Church of Christ denomination.

Let’s see what Scripture says:

For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.

For the wages of sin is death.

Scripture clearly states all humans are sinners, the proof of which is all humans die….even infants.

I’m sure you are in agreement thus far.

All unrighteousness is sin

If all have sinned and all unrighteousness is sin, then we must conclude that all humans are unrighteous.

Does Scripture agree with this conclusion?

As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one.

Thus, your argument begins with a false assumption: an unrighteous man can do that which is pleasing and spiritually ‘good’ in the eyes of the Lord.

Scripture states otherwise:

there is none that doeth good, no, not one

Therefore, the question is not whether man has the ability to not sin, meaning does not commit a heinous crime which all acknowledge is sinful or can cease from engaging in a particular sin.

The issue centers on the fact that unless we are regenerated by the Spirit we are slaves of sin who can do nothing spiritually ‘good’ in the eyes of God because every imagination of the thoughts of his heart is only evil continually.

Scripture tell us it is with the heart that man believes unto righteousness.

Spiritual saving faith which justifies cannot be generated by the evil heart of sinful man.

Therefore, man must be born anew first before he can birth justifying faith.

There is nothing evil in God commanding man to cease sinning.

Neither is it evil for you or I to demand evil doers cease from their wicked ways.

Neither is it evil for the Lord to command men to repent and believe the Gospel.

Such a command is truthful, good, holy and righteous.

The fault lies not in the command, but in men who refuse the truthful, good, holy and righteous command.

Any thoughts?

 

[PreachTony]

PT, I am returning to your previous responses since I have not yet read a response to my assertion that Christ our High Priest prays and makes atonement only for those given Him by the Father, the rest of the ‘world’ is excluded by the eternal, immutable decree of God.

Re: ability to not sin intact after the fall………Several other Board members agree with you…..as did Pelagius, the Socinians, (now called Unitarians), as well as the Church of Christ denomination.

Let’s see what Scripture says:

For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.

For the wages of sin is death.

Scripture clearly states all humans are sinners, the proof of which is all humans die….even infants.

I’m sure you are in agreement thus far.

I do agree, although I won't take the hardline Calvinist approach that some take that literally has babies going to Hell. There are scriptures in which God Himself speaks of the children and infants of both Israel and the Gentile nations as "His children," or "innocents." How many "innocent" people go to Hell?

All unrighteousness is sin

If all have sinned and all unrighteousness is sin, then we must conclude that all humans are unrighteous.

Does Scripture agree with this conclusion?

As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one.

Fair assumption...but remember that Abraham's faith was counted to him for righteousness. Job was a perfect and upright man.

Thus, your argument begins with a false assumption: an unrighteous man can do that which is pleasing and spiritually ‘good’ in the eyes of the Lord.

If my argument begins with a flawed premise then Jesus told the woman caught in adultery a flawed command. I doubt either of us would accuse the Son of God of commanding someone to do something that He knew they would fail. As I've told Bro. Willis before, this is one of the biggest faults I find with Predestinarianism/Election, specifically Calvinistic: God commands all men to repent, but then never regenerates some men so that they can repent, but then all the same condemns them for failing to do something He never allowed them to do. I simply do not see that God in the Bible.

I see the argument that God commands men to repent, and they have the ability to. As I wrote to Bro. Willis, God told the Israelites that He placed before them life and good, or death and evil, so long as they keep the commandment, and He explains that the commandment is not far off from them, nor is it out of reach. That tells me we have the ability to keep the commandment. Seeing as God has not changed, if Jesus tells someone to go and sin no more, then obviously that person has the option and ability to actually go and sin no more.

Scripture states otherwise:

there is none that doeth good, no, not one

Therefore, the question is not whether man has the ability to not sin, meaning does not commit a heinous crime which all acknowledge is sinful or can cease from engaging in a particular sin.

You can't change the terms here. Christ said "Go, and sin no more." He didn't say, "Go, and commit no heinous crime which all acknowledge is sinful."

The issue centers on the fact that unless we are regenerated by the Spirit we are slaves of sin who can do nothing spiritually ‘good’ in the eyes of God because every imagination of the thoughts of his heart is only evil continually.

Again, you are placing a restriction on people that my camp simply does not see. We agree on depravity. Man is a sinful creature. But again, God commands all men everywhere to repent. If man cannot repent except God move in Him first, and assuming Calvin's Irresistible grace is indeed so true that man so moved in by God cannot do anything except repent, then Calvinists are left with a God that has truly damned a sizable portion of creation into torment without so much as giving them opportunity to perform the very commandment He laid before them. Is that truly what you see in the Bible? Does the God who refuses grace to allow mankind to adhere to the commandment actually fit in with the same God that said to Israel the commandment was not far off or out of reach to them?

Scripture tell us it is with the heart that man believes unto righteousness.

Spiritual saving faith which justifies cannot be generated by the evil heart of sinful man.

Therefore, man must be born anew first before he can birth justifying faith.

The verse immediately preceding the one you quoted reads "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. (Romans 10:9)" You say we must be born again before we can be saved. I guess I don't understand how the Calvinist can enforce such a separation of "regeneration / born again" and "salvation." Bro. Willis has told me that they are different, but digesting your theology seems to indicate that they are so closely intertwined as to be one and the same. Man cannot be saved without being born again, and man that is born again cannot escape being saved, due to irresistible grace. None of the Elect will lose their election; and no member of the non-Elect can by any means gain salvation.

So man must be born again to have faith to be saved; yet we see being born again and salvation as two parts of the same end goal. And then we are still left with the issue of those the Lord bought, yet they denied Him.

There is nothing evil in God commanding man to cease sinning.

Neither is it evil for you or I to demand evil doers cease from their wicked ways.

Neither is it evil for the Lord to command men to repent and believe the Gospel.

Such a command is truthful, good, holy and righteous.

Agreed, to all.

The fault lies not in the command, but in men who refuse the truthful, good, holy and righteous command.

How can you rightly say they refuse the truth when you say it requires first the God change them before they can accept the truth? As I've said throughout, we simply do not see God doing that to His creation. Can you reasonably get mad at a dog for not being a cat? No, a dog is a dog, and will only do things a dog is capable of doing. If you command a dog to climb a tree, why would you punish that dog when it proves that, because of it's very nature as a dog, it cannot climb a tree?

 

[Protestant]

If my argument begins with a flawed premise then Jesus told the woman caught in adultery a flawed command.

PT, you seem to be very focused on this particular adultery incident. So let’s examine it:

And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

It is one thing to be commanded to cease partaking of an adulterous relationship, and quite another to have the Lord forgive that sin.

There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

Jesus has the authority to forgive sins.

Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Rise, take up your bed and walk’?

Jesus forgave her sin, as He did the paralytic.

Why, then, is it a flawed command to admonish the forgiven adulteress to commit adultery no more?

Is not the NT rife with admonitions addressed to professing Christians that they not walk after the flesh, but rather after the Spirit?

Let us assume, on the other hand, that Jesus did not forgive her sin, but simply admonished her to sin no more.

What is flawed about such an admonition?

Would it not be to her best interests to cease such destructive behavior?

Would not silence knowing the seriousness of the sin and its consequences be considered assent?

I doubt either of us would accuse the Son of God of commanding someone to do something that He knew they would fail.

As I have explained in previous posts, our Lord’s commands to men are His revealed Preceptive will as to man’s duty before God and his fellow man.

It is this revealed Preceptive will which man may disobey.

The fact that man disobeys God’s command does not make the command flawed.

Had the adulteress gone and continued in her sin, Christ’s command would be no less true, good, holy and righteous.

Adam was given one negative commandment which he willfully broke.

The Lord knew, from eternity, such would be the case.

Does that make the command “not to eat…” a flawed command?

Of course not.

PT, please reexamine the construct of your argument.

I must respectfully remind you your premise is erroneous; therefore your conclusion has no biblical basis of truth whatsoever.

Any thoughts?

 

[Protestant]

As I've told Bro. Willis before, this is one of the biggest faults I find with Predestinarianism/Election, specifically Calvinistic: God commands all men to repent, but then never regenerates some men so that they can repent, but then all the same condemns them for failing to do something He never allowed them to do. I simply do not see that God in the Bible.

PT, your POV is widespread among our adversaries, including many on this Board.

Other Board members skirt around this very issue – the possible injustice of God – by declaring regeneration occurs after placing saving faith in Jesus Christ.

All men, they say, have the innate ability to believe if they so will.

By such a declaration they view God as just, giving believers what they rightly deserve: regeneration and union with Christ.

Your POV is similar:

If God does not give all men the necessary supernatural divine gift of regeneration, He is unjust in condemning them.

But both POVs are not founded in biblical truth.

Salvation is not of justice, but of grace.

Grace gives men what they do not deserve: salvation.

God has declared it is His sole prerogative to bestow saving grace to whom He wills, as well as to withhold saving grace from whom He wills.

God does no injustice in denying men what they do not deserve.

God would be unjust, however, if He did not give men what they do deserve: condemnation for their sin.

The men you had mentioned in a previous post, Abraham and Job, were recipients of saving grace.

The saving grace of regeneration is not owed anyone.

Salvation is all of the Lord’s grace: from efficacious calling unto glorification.

Do you pray for the regeneration of your unsaved loved ones?

I do.

 

[PreachTony]

PT, you seem to be very focused on this particular adultery incident. So let’s examine it:

I was focusing on it for the fact that Jesus commanded the woman to go and sin no more, but I so often hear your side of the aisle say that we couldn't keep that command unless God makes you keep that commandment.

Why, then, is it a flawed command to admonish the forgiven adulteress to commit adultery no more?

I will own up to the fact that "flawed" was the wrong choice of word. Apologies. That said, I do not see a God in the Bible who commands us to do something that we cannot do unless He makes us, and then condemns us for not doing that which He never moved us to do in the first place.

Would it not be to her best interests to cease such destructive behavior?

It would...so can she do so?

PT, please reexamine the construct of your argument.

I must respectfully remind you your premise is erroneous; therefore your conclusion has no biblical basis of truth whatsoever.

It's erroneous from your point of view. I find the predestination/Calvinist Election premise flawed.

 

[Reformed]

Another sane, sound, biblically informative, clear and edifying post Protestant. Thank you.

Agreed. Also, a very irenic response.

 

[Rebel]

Then you demonstrate that you understand neither Calvinism nor Islam.

The Archangel

And by saying that, you demonstrate that you understand neither. I have studied Calvinism for decades. I understand it well. That's why I am so much against it -- it and Roman Catholicism.

 

[Rebel]

I think I won't say anything more on this topic, if I can restrain myself. It won't change any minds, and besides that, I have some friends on here with Calvinist beliefs, and I don't want to create antagonism between us. I know I have some enemies, too, but that's neither here nor there.

 

[BrotherJoseph]

And by saying that, you demonstrate that you understand neither. I have studied Calvinism for decades. I understand it well. That's why I am so much against it -- it and Roman Catholicism.

Brother Rebel,

You do error equating predestination synonymous with fatalism. I suggest you read the brief one paragraph article below on the difference.

God bless,

Brother Joe

"PREDESTINATION AND FATALISM

Is the doctrine of the predestination of all things fatalism? If not, wherein do they differ? Those who assert that they are the same, certainly betray an entire lack of understanding of the meaning of words, or of their uses; and besides, they are certainly ignorant of what the doctrine of fatalism is. They are not in the slightest degree the same. Fatalism was held by some in the past centuries, and we are informed by writers, that some people in the east hold this dogma still. It means that there is an indefinite something which has no consciousness, and therefore no will, and which is blind, which fixes the destiny of God, as well as of men. It is a dumb and dead power that is supreme, and from which the divine powers can no more escape than can men. In heathen ideas, the many gods whom they worshipped, were all subject to this intangible, indefinable power, as completely as were men. On the other hand, the doctrine of predestination declares that there is a supreme being, who ever lives and reigns, and whose purpose is eternal, and who governs all things, and moves all things, and is moved by none. This God is the Sovereign arbiter of all, and all things must bow to his sway. There is no power back of him, but he is himself the source of all power, and being, and life. We trust that those who have been saying that predestination was fatalism, have been ignorant of the difference, for if they have not been, they have been guilty of willingly deceiving, or trying to deceive the people by saying that they were the same. All things are fixed, but not as fatalism claims, by a dumb, dead power, above and beyond Diety, but by the sovereign will and power of the all-wise God himself. "

Elder F. A. Chick
December, 1897

Republished – Signs of the Times
Volume 143, No. 5
May, 1975

 

[Rebel]

Brother Rebel,

You do error equating predestination synonymous with fatalism. I suggest you read the brief one paragraph article below on the difference.

God bless,

Brother Joe

"PREDESTINATION AND FATALISM

Is the doctrine of the predestination of all things fatalism? If not, wherein do they differ? Those who assert that they are the same, certainly betray an entire lack of understanding of the meaning of words, or of their uses; and besides, they are certainly ignorant of what the doctrine of fatalism is. They are not in the slightest degree the same. Fatalism was held by some in the past centuries, and we are informed by writers, that some people in the east hold this dogma still. It means that there is an indefinite something which has no consciousness, and therefore no will, and which is blind, which fixes the destiny of God, as well as of men. It is a dumb and dead power that is supreme, and from which the divine powers can no more escape than can men. In heathen ideas, the many gods whom they worshipped, were all subject to this intangible, indefinable power, as completely as were men. On the other hand, the doctrine of predestination declares that there is a supreme being, who ever lives and reigns, and whose purpose is eternal, and who governs all things, and moves all things, and is moved by none. This God is the Sovereign arbiter of all, and all things must bow to his sway. There is no power back of him, but he is himself the source of all power, and being, and life. We trust that those who have been saying that predestination was fatalism, have been ignorant of the difference, for if they have not been, they have been guilty of willingly deceiving, or trying to deceive the people by saying that they were the same. All things are fixed, but not as fatalism claims, by a dumb, dead power, above and beyond Diety, but by the sovereign will and power of the all-wise God himself. "

Elder F. A. Chick
December, 1897

Republished – Signs of the Times
Volume 143, No. 5
May, 1975

I know what I'm talking about, and the author is mistaken. That's all I'll say.

 

[Protestant]

Originally Posted by Protestant:
"The fault lies not in the command, but in men who refuse the truthful, good, holy and righteous command."

How can you rightly say they refuse the truth when you say it requires first the God change them before they can accept the truth? As I've said throughout, we simply do not see God doing that to His creation. Can you reasonably get mad at a dog for not being a cat? No, a dog is a dog, and will only do things a dog is capable of doing. If you command a dog to climb a tree, why would you punish that dog when it proves that, because of it's very nature as a dog, it cannot climb a tree?

PT, I see you have still not answered my assertion that Scripture clearly teaches Christ, as both High Priest and sacrifice, atoned for the sins of only those given Him by the Father.

Nor have you answered how Christ could successfully fulfill the Father’s eternal, immutable decree to ‘save His people from their sin,’ if, as you allege, the Father’s decree included every human ever born.

Nor have you addressed my conclusion that you advocate a Gospel of justice, whereby all men are given an equal chance to be saved; salvation is left up to man’s good use of his faculties.

Our side advocates a Gospel of grace, whereby all men are justly condemned before our holy righteous God, but because of His unmerited love and grace many are freely given those spiritual gifts necessary unto salvation.

In essence, the controversy centers on several key points:

1. The lessons learned in the Garden.

2. The effect of Adam’s disobedience upon his posterity.

3. The purpose of Christ’s mission.

4. The eternal purpose and intention of the Father’s sending Christ in the first place.

5. The meaning of ‘saving grace.’

6. The difference between God’s justice and God’s grace.

In reviewing your quote posted above, I perceive a critical error in your argument.

You use an inappropriate analogy.

Though man is now a depraved sinner who hates the true God, he, nonetheless, is a responsible moral being.

Had our Lord insisted that man first ‘fly’ 100 yards in order to be saved, your analogy would have merit.

Man is physically incapable of flying like a bird.

But, truth be told, our Lord demands from man that which man utilizes daily: a will which is able to make decisions and choices upon which man acts daily.

The fault lies not in man’s mental ability to think, or his physical ability to act, but rather his moral ability to desire the holiness and truth of God.

Our Lord is well aware of man’s moral depravity and graciously uses His power to overcome man's intense hatred through the new birth.

In the new birth man is changed from carnal to spiritual, a necessary change in order to desire the things of God.

However, the new birth is owed no man, since God is debtor to no one.

It is God’s prerogative to either give to the undeserving that which is not deserved – saving grace – or to deny it to the undeserving.

Denying to man what he does not deserve is not evil.

Neither is giving good things to some undeserving man evil.

Sadly, there are many on this Board, such as yourself, who think it evil of the Lord because He is good and gracious to some, but not to all.

 

[Protestant]

See, my camp views the scriptures as revealing that God offers man the choice.

PT has apparently taken a sabbatical from this thread. Hopefully it is for the purpose of reassessing his theology since he has been unable to refute my assertions.

Let us continue examining his theses.

Re: the above quote…… Man was offered the choice of obedience or disobedience in the Garden.

He failed, as would any other man put in his place.

The testing of man is over. The Lord is not in the business of having to resort to plan ‘B’ in the hopes of finding success.

Salvation of the Elect by the perfect life and sacrifice of Jesus Christ was always plan ‘A.’

Our Lord is presently calling out a people for His name.

His sheep hear His voice and follow Him.

His sheep hear His words (teachings/doctrines) and believe them.

Other shepherds they will not follow.

Say the richest man in America dies and he leaves his estate to every person in the nation. Everyone will get $100. All you have to do is drive to City Hall to pick up your money. If you don't go and pick yours up, can you reasonably accuse the wealthy man of not giving you anything? Can you reasonably say he left you nothing, if you are the one who did not move to receive it?

Truth be told, the richest man of the highest estate in the Universe became a poor nobody for our sakes.

Yet He was spurned, mocked, persecuted and executed.

Today most spurn His message. Why?

Because nobody wants what He has to give……unless He first performs a miraculous change in them.

Then and only then do they see and appreciate His true beauty, wisdom and selfless sacrifice; taking our sin upon Himself that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

Lamentably, there are huge numbers of professing Christians who view Christ as their personal ATM machine.

They eagerly go to church to collect those imaginary $100 bills He offers them.