Christ's Atoning Death on the Cross

[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.

Ah, yes... the "I know you are but what am I" response. One would think that if you had indeed studied Calvinism for decades, you'd demonstrate a modicum of proper understanding, which you haven't.

The Archangel

 

[PreachTony]

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.

I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree here, Protestant. For me and my camp, we see too much in scripture that says Christ died for the world, and that God loved the world, and that God desires that no one should perish. It's only in Calvinism that those broad descriptors are compacted to speak only of the Elect.

Your side claims the Father's will is successfully fulfilled in damning huge numbers of humanity to eternal torment. How you rectify that with God desiring that none perish I'll never know (...wait, I do know...you change the meaning of the terminology in play and it makes the scripture work with your theology). Of course, I've had Calvinist tell me that Election doesn't count for those being damned to torment. It bugs me that your side is so keen on saying God is the sole actor in salvation, but then so many on your side won't accept the equally necessary premise that if God has chosen the Elect, then He similarly chose, even by process of elimination, those bound for Hell and the Lake of Fire.

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.

We believe in a gospel of grace. We recognize that we are saved by grace, through faith, and not by our works. We just happen to see the accounts of salvation in the scripture differently. Paul says that we must confess Christ with our mouths, and believe with our hearts, to be saved. Your camp seems to advocate that we are saved before we can ever even confess Christ. Christ says He stands at the door and knocks. No one is obligated to open the door to someone knocking, except in Calvinism, where God forces an Elect person to open the door.

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.

You're still demanding from man something he is incapable of, and then condemning him for that same incapability. We don't see that in scripture. We see accounts of people hearing the gospel, then accepting Christ. We also see people hearing the gospel and rejecting Christ.

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.

The rain falls on the just and the unjust. Offering salvation to someone is not done out of debt. It is done out of love and mercy. To some Calvinist, they say God is loving and merciful because He condemns so many to Hell. And yes, I believe that some Calvinists hold to God being the final arbiter, therefore God does condemn people to Hell, and seeing as He only offers grace to some, He therefore must desire that many perish.
We don't see that in scripture.

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.

I don't appreciate the accusation that I think the Lord evil. I most certainly do not. I do, however, think the Calvinist representation of God is twisted. I do not believe that your representation of the Lord fits the scriptures.

 

[Protestant]

I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree here, Protestant. For me and my camp, we see too much in scripture that says Christ died for the world, and that God loved the world, and that God desires that no one should perish.

Thank you, PT, for returning to the discussion.

In reviewing your latest responses I have a clear sense of how you exegete Scripture: Choosing only those Scriptures which appeal to the natural human mind as portraying the Lord as only loving all men equally, Christ having died for all men equally, God sincerely desiring not one human perish, not even Judas, the son of perdition.

Let us for a moment assume you and your supporters are correct.

Your side all agree that election is based on God's foreknowledge.

Your argument is as follows:

God is eternal and omniscient. In eternity He foresees which men will accept Jesus and which will not.

He then elects and predestinates, in eternity, those men who will, in the course of time, accept Jesus in their hearts.

Let us assume that is the biblical teaching of election.

Please, if you can, explain how it is -- since God loves everybody equally and sincerely desires none perish -- God does not change the circumstances and DNA of the billions whom He foresees will not accept Jesus in their hearts, since His foreknowledge preceded creation and He has all eternity to reconstruct His plan infinite times to His good pleasure before He actually begins His first act of creation?

Since we all agree that which is impossible with man is possible with God, certainly the all-wise, all-powerful God knows exactly what each unbelieving human needs in order to come to saving faith in Jesus.

And yet billions are already damned while billions more are soon be damned for all eternity.

Here is the predicament re-stated:

Either God is not all-wise and all-powerful and is therefore impotent and unable to design a perfect plan to save the billions who will eventually reject Christ – though He has done everything in His power and wisdom to save them -- or God is all-wise and all-powerful and never intended to give the billions the saving graces necessary to believe unto justification, sanctification and glorification in the first place.

Either God is eternally all-wise and all-powerful to an infinite degree or He is not.

Either God is able to carry His purposes and objectives to perfection or He is not.

Is the God you describe the God of the Bible?

Now if you respond, “But God gave man free will, leaving the destiny of man in man’s own hands,” I respond, then God does not love them, for He infallibly knew from eternity the destiny of billions was Perdition, as you concede, and yet created them anyway.

Therefore, they were created as destined vessels of wrath fitted to destruction.

It would have been far better for them had He not created them at all, would you not agree?

Yet He chose to create them knowing full well the eternally miserable outcome of their destiny.

Why, I ask, create those whom God infallibly knows will burn in eternal hellfire?

Either He created them willingly, or He created them unwillingly.

If He created them unwillingly then He is no God, for something greater than God forced His will.

But if He created them willingly, then He is the sovereign God and and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?

And if He created them willingly He had a wise, holy, righteous and excellent reason to do so.

Can you imagine a reason?

You can be sure it wasn't because He loved them.

PT, the issues I raise are quite serious because they center on the identity of the very God we all claim to know, serve and worship.

Eternal life hangs on the true knowledge of God and Jesus Christ.

And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

 

[Iconoclast]

PreachTony;

Your side claims the Father's will is successfully fulfilled in damning huge numbers of humanity to eternal torment. How you rectify that with God desiring that none perish I'll never know

Correct.....you will never know as long as you repeat this unscriptural error over and over....

 

[Rebel]

Ah, yes... the "I know you are but what am I" response. One would think that if you had indeed studied Calvinism for decades, you'd demonstrate a modicum of proper understanding, which you haven't.

The Archangel

I understand it much better than you, which you do demonstrate, and continually. Carry on, though. I enjoy seeing you make my point. That leaves less work for me to do.

 

[The Archangel]

I understand it much better than you, which you do demonstrate, and continually. Carry on, though. I enjoy seeing you make my point. That leaves less work for me to do.

Funny! Of course, if you did understand Calvinism, one would expect you to rightly articulate what it says, not what you say it says. Perhaps you learned Calvinism from those who draw caricatures of it, which would explain why you continue to propagate the caricature. If one were to approach the study of mathematics in the same way you've "studied" Calvinism, you'd be continually answering "5" to the equation of 2+2=.

The Archangel

 

[Protestant]

To date neither PT nor his advocates have responded to my last post.

I have raised a theological quagmire in which they are apparently stuck.

They have no problem with citing Scripture out of context interpreting it to suit their positions.

However, such a biased method of exegesis can be proved to be inconsistent with their own views of God, man and free will.

The truth never contradicts itself.

Nor does Scripture.

For example, let us assume with our opponents that God has given man free will after the fall.

Man’s acceptance or rejection of Jesus rests entirely upon his shoulders.

Let us assume with our opponents that though God goes to much trouble and effort to present the free gift of salvation in Christ, He will never ‘force’ man to make his decision.

Man’s decision is left entirely up to man.

Man has the freedom, power and wherewithal to believe or not believe.

Let us also assume that God’s foreknowledge is knowledge formed in eternity as to which men will choose Jesus.

God’s omniscience allows Him to foresee the future choices of men.

Those whom He foresees obedient to the Gospel are those whom He elects and predestines to salvation.

Let us now bring into the mix our opponents’ teachings which include "God loves every person ever born," "not willing that any person should perish."

The law of logic dictates that God not only foresees those who will accept Christ, but He also foresees those who will reject Christ.

Because God is eternal as is His foreknowledge, God now has a choice to make.

In eternity, before creation, He can either do nothing to change the destiny of those who reject Him, or He can use His omniscience and omnipotence to revise His initial plan of creation so that millions more will freely accept Jesus.

Certainly, if the Lord knows the circumstances and dispositions which persuade only one man to freely will to come to Christ with faith, He knows what circumstances and dispositions all men need in order that they may be persuaded to freely come to Christ.

Nothing is impossible with God. His wisdom and powers are infinite.

But the fact remains unalterable.

Billions are already in Hell and billions more are soon to join them.

Would it not have been more merciful to not create the Hell-bound sinner in the first place?

Please explain how God loves those whom He knows, with infallible knowledge, will infallibly experience eternal damnation?

And how is it that if God is not willing for any human to perish He does nothing to alter the course of their damnable destiny?

 

[Marooncat79]

Man’s decision is left entirely up to man.

Jesus disagrees with you in John 6, John 3 as does Paul in Romans 9 and others

 

[Marooncat79]

The apostle Paul says the natural man read here unregenerate man understands not the things of God. I Cor 2

 

[Protestant]

The apostle Paul says the natural man read here unregenerate man understands not the things of God. I Cor 2

If you are responding to the several points I have made in my last two posts, please cite them point by point with your accompanying refutation point by point.

I'm sure the Board looks forward to your scriptural arguments as do I.

 

[Rebel]

Funny! Of course, if you did understand Calvinism, one would expect you to rightly articulate what it says, not what you say it says. Perhaps you learned Calvinism from those who draw caricatures of it, which would explain why you continue to propagate the caricature. If one were to approach the study of mathematics in the same way you've "studied" Calvinism, you'd be continually answering "5" to the equation of 2+2=.

The Archangel

Oh, another "You just don't understand Calvinism" post, which is resorted to by those who can't defend it and want to deflect.

You have no clue how or to what extent I have studied Calvinism, so all you can do is bleat and blather on. Maybe if you had studied it as extensively as I have, you would actually be armed enough to discuss it with me, or perhaps you would have come to disbelieve it. Regardless, you have nothing to stand on, junior. Come back when you do have.

 

[Rippon]

You have no clue how or to what extent I have studied Calvinism,

Based on your juvenile and vile posts with both your current and former identities you have no room to even talk, much lest boast.

Maybe if you had studied it as extensively as I have, you would actually be armed enough to discuss it with me, or perhaps you would have come to disbelieve it.

You are not the kind of person worthy of dispensing any kind of advice.

 

[Rebel]

Based on your juvenile and vile posts with both your current and former identities you have no room to even talk, much lest boast.

You are not the kind of person worthy of dispensing any kind of advice.

I see that you're looking in the mirror again.

 

[Rebel]

I have a good or decent relationship with several members here who have views that are diametrically opposite to mine. I can say the same about a couple of members whose views are close to mine on many things but whom I've had personal problems with, or they with me. This happened many times because I reached out to them with a peace offering, and they accepted.

Why is this true of them but not of Rippon? It's because he has not wished it to be so. I have also reached out to him with no reply on his part. And he continues to attack me, even when I have not addressed anything to him. The problem is thus not with me but with his dark soul, which is just as dark as the man he glorifies, defends, and idolizes.

 

[Protestant]

I don't appreciate the accusation that I think the Lord evil. I most certainly do not. I do, however, think the Calvinist representation of God is twisted. I do not believe that your representation of the Lord fits the scriptures.

Ultimately the character of God always comes into focus when debating the issue of Absolute Predestination by the sovereign all-wise will of God.

According to our opponents the Calvinist God is ‘twisted.’

Truth be told, they intensely dislike the fact that our Lord does not divide His talents equally.

Yet in the Parable of the Talents this truth is clearly taught.

The talents which our Lord gives to mankind are as varied in kind as they are in quantity.

The talents include both natural and spiritual riches.

All that man has is given Him by the Lord.

Not all men acknowledge that fact.

Many on this Board deny that saving faith is the rich spiritual gift of God.

In the Parable those given five and two talents were Christians who entered into the joy of the Lord.

They were given spiritual riches in varying degrees.

Nonetheless, both were equally justified because they both had the necessary saving graces freely given them.

All men, generally speaking, are given one talent making them responsible, rational, moral beings.

That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

But not all men are given spiritual riches which are the true riches.

Notice how the man with one talent accuses his Lord as being callous and self-serving, unjustly taking that which is not his:

Lord, I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed.

Is this not the same argument our opponents make when they accuse our Lord of being ‘twisted’?

Do they not also accuse our Lord of injustice when He freely and sovereignly gives to the undeserving spiritual riches, while denying them to others?

Do not our opponents also consider such a sovereign God cruel and hard-hearted, though He has every right to do with His creatures as He wills?

Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own? Is thine eye evil, because I am good?