Featured Doctrine of Unconditional Election

Why do you deny the truth that God loves His creation and desires all to be saved? If we went by your thinking it should be God loves just His elect and has condemned the rest to hell just because He could. If you want to see what God is like look to Christ Jesus.

You say >>He sees the heart, judges the motives of every creature<< and why would I question if God is fair. Well if He determines everything that happens that means everything not somethings. So if He makes a man a sinner that does not turn to Him then how is that man responsible since he cannot overrule God can he?

I understand that you want to protect the integrity of God but that is not what I am questioning. God is sovereign but in that sovereignty He has allowed for man to have a true free will so he can make true choices about his salvation.

If man only has the pseudo free will of Calvinism then God is still the only frre agent and thus is responsible for all that happens good or bad.

 

Did God make man a sinner?

How does man have freedom of His will?

Are you suggesting the human expressing a sinful faith is sufficient for salvation?

Did I state God determines everything?

Why is it that you have read the Scriptures I offered, but have nothing but God loves?

Certainly, Gods loves, but God is also the final authority as demonstrated in the Revelation.

To whom does He show love and compassion?

 

For Whom Did Jesus Taste Death?
For Whom Did Jesus Taste Death?

Hebrews 2:9
But we do see Him who has been made for a little while lower than the angels, namely, Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone.
From the sermon:
So my question this morning is this: "For whom did Jesus taste death?" Ask 100 evangelical Christians in America that question and 95 will probably say, "Everybody." And there is something healthy about that answer—and something unhealthy. What's healthy about it is that it is not cliquish or elitist or sectarian. It has an eye on the world. It wants others to enjoy the forgiveness of sins that believers enjoy. It is not narrow and confined in its affections.

...
The answer that 95% of evangelicals would give is a healthy sign of desire to say what the Bible says.

But to say what the Bible says and to mean what the Bible means are not necessarily the same thing. Which is why I said that there is something unhealthy about answering the question, "For whom did Jesus taste death?" by simply saying "everybody." What's unhealthy about it is not, first, that it's wrong. It might not be wrong. It depends on what you mean by saying that. What's unhealthy is that it stops short of asking what Jesus really accomplished when he died. It assumes that we all know what he accomplished and that this he accomplished for everybody in the same way. That is not healthy, because it is not true. My guess is that most of those 95% who say Jesus died for everybody would have a hard time explaining just what it is that the death of Jesus really, actually accomplished for everybody—especially what it accomplished for those who refuse to believe and go to hell.

Here's the problem with saying Christ died for all the same way he died for his bride. If Christ died for the sins of those who are finally lost, the same way he died for the sins of those who are finally saved, then what are the lost being punished for? Were their sins covered and canceled by the blood of Jesus or not? We Christians say, "Christ died for our sins" (1 Corinthians 15:3). And we mean that his death paid the debt those sins created. His death removed the wrath of God from me. His death lifted the curse of the law from me. His death purchased heaven for me. It really accomplished those things!

But what would it mean to say of an unbeliever in hell that Christ died for his sins? Would we mean that the debt for his sins was paid? If so, why is he paying again in hell? Would we mean that the wrath of God was removed? If so, why is the wrath of God being poured out on him in punishment for sins? Would we mean that the curse of the law was lifted? If so, why is he bearing his curse in the lake of fire?

 

Cont...
One possible answer is this: one might say that the only reason people go to hell is because of the sin of rejecting Jesus, not because of all the other sins of their life. But that is not true. The Bible teaches that the wrath of God is coming on the world, not just because of its rejection of Jesus, but because of its many sins that are not forgiven. For example, in Colossians 3:5–6, Paul refers to "immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and greed," and then says, "On account of these things the wrath of God will come." So people who reject Jesus really will be punished for their specific sins, not just for rejecting Jesus.
So, we go back to the problem: in what sense did Christ taste death for their sins? If they are still guilty for their sins and still suffer punishment for their sins, what happened on the cross for their sins? Perhaps someone would use an analogy. You might say, Christ purchased their ticket to heaven, and offered it to them freely, but they refused to take it, and that is why they went to hell. And you would be partly right: Christ does offer his forgiveness freely to all, and any who receive it as the treasure it is will be saved by the death of Jesus. But the problem with the analogy is that the purchase of the ticket to heaven is, in reality, the canceling of sins. But what we have seen is that those who refuse the ticket are punished for their sins, not just for refusing the ticket. And so what meaning does it have to say that their sins were canceled? Their sins are going to bring them to destruction and keep them from heaven; so their sins were not really canceled in the cross, and therefore the ticket was not purchased.

The ticket for heaven which Jesus obtained for me by his blood is the wiping out of all my sins, covering them, bearing them in his own body, so that they can never bring me to ruin—can never be brought up against me again—never. That's what happened when he died for me. Hebrews 10:14 says, "By one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified." Perfected before God for all time, by the offering his life! That's what it means that he died for me. Hebrews 9:28 says, "Christ also [was] offered once to bear the sins of many." He bore my sins. He really bore them (See Isaiah 53:4–6.) He really suffered for them. They cannot and they will not fall on my head in judgment.

If you say to me, then, that at the cross Christ only accomplished for me what he accomplished for those who will suffer hell for their sins, then you strip the death of Jesus of its actual effective accomplishment on my behalf, and leave me with what?—an atonement that has lost its precious assuring power that my sins were really covered and the curse was really lifted and the wrath of God was really removed. That's a high price to pay in order to say that Christ tasted death for everyone in the same way.

I don't think that the Bible commands us or, in fact, lets us say that Christ died for everybody in the same way. And the context of Hebrews 2:9 is a good place to show that the death of Christ had a special design or aim for God's chosen people that it did not have for others.

 

cont...
At the end of verse 9 the writer says, "By the grace of God [Christ] tasted death for everyone." The question here is whether "everyone" refers to every human without distinction, or whether it refers to everyone within a certain group. As when I say at staff lunch, "Is everyone present?" I don't mean everyone in the world. I mean everyone in the group I have in mind. What is the group that the writer has in mind: all of humanity without any distinction, or some other group?

Let's let him answer as we trace his thought in the next verses. Verse 10 is the support for verse 9: Christ tasted death for everyone "for it was fitting for him, for whom are all things, and through whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to perfect the author of their salvation through sufferings." In other words, immediately after saying that by the grace of God Christ tasted death for everyone, the writer explains that God's design in this suffering of Christ was to "bring many sons to glory." So verses 9 and 10 go together like this: Christ tasted death for everyone, because it seemed fitting to God that the way to lead his children to glory was through the suffering and death of Christ.
This means that the "everyone" of verse 9 probably refers to every one of the sons being led to glory in verse 10. In other words the design of God—the aim and purpose of God—in sending Christ to die was particularly to lead his children from sin and death and hell to glory. He had a special eye to his own elect children. It's exactly what the gospel of John says in 11:52—that Jesus would die to "gather together into one the children of God who are scattered abroad." These "children of God" that Christ died to gather are the "sons" that God is leading to glory through the death of Christ in Hebrews 2:10.

You can see this in the next verses too. Verses 11 and 12:

For both He who sanctifies [i.e., Christ] and those who are sanctified [the sons he is leading to glory] are all from one Father; for which reason He is not ashamed to call them brethren, saying [in Psalm 22:22], "I WILL PROCLAIM THY NAME TO MY BRETHREN, IN THE MIDST OF THE CONGREGATION I WILL SING THY PRAISE."

In other words the sons that God is leading to glory through the death of Christ are now called Christ's brothers. It was for every one of these that Christ tasted death.

Verse 13 goes on now to call them, not only brothers, but in another sense children of Christ:

And again, "I WILL PUT MY TRUST IN HIM" [Christ's own confession of faith in his Father along with his brothers]. And again, "BEHOLD, I AND THE CHILDREN WHOM GOD HAS GIVEN ME."

Notice, the sons that are being led to glory through the death of Christ are now called children that God has given to Christ. They don't just become children by choosing Christ. God sets his favor on them and brings them to Christ—gives them to Christ. And for every one of these he tastes death and leads them to glory. This is exactly the way Jesus spoke of his own disciples in the prayer of John 17:6: "I manifested Thy name to the men whom Thou gavest Me out of the world; Thine they were, and Thou gavest them to Me." So the picture we have is a chosen people that the Father freely and graciously gives to the Son as his children.

Then notice how verses 14–15 connect the aim of Christ's incarnation and death with this chosen group of children:

Since then the children share in flesh and blood [in other words, since those whom the Father gave to the Son have a human nature], He Himself likewise also partook of the same [human nature], that through death He might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil; and might deliver those who through fear of death were subject to slavery all their lives [namely, every one of those children and brothers that God had given him to lead to glory by his death].

So here the reason given for the incarnation and the death of Jesus (in verse 14) is that the "children" share in flesh and blood. That's the reason Christ took on flesh and blood. And the "children," according to verse 13, are not humans in general, but children God has given to Jesus. And so the whole design and aim of the incarnation and death of Jesus was to lead the sons, the brothers, the children, whom God gave to Jesus, to glory.

 

cont...
Now I will stop here in our text, even though we could keep right on going through the rest of this chapter showing that the aim of God in the sending and death of Jesus was to accomplish something definite for his brothers, his children, those whom God has given him out of the world. But I will stop and make a closing application.

I am not the least bit interested in withholding the infinite value of the death of Jesus from anyone. Let it be known and heard very clearly: God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son so that whoever believes on him—I say it again: whoever believes in him—should not perish but have eternal life. Christ died so that whoever (in this room this morning) believes might not perish but live.

And when you believe as you ought to believe, you will discover that your belief—like all other spiritual blessings—was purchased by the death of Christ. The sin of unbelief was covered by the blood in your case, and therefore the power of God's mercy was released through the cross to subdue your rebellion and bring you to the Son. You did not make the cross effective in your life by faith. The cross became effective in your life by purchasing your faith.

So glory in this, Christian. Glory that your sins really were covered when Jesus tasted death for you. Glory that your guilt really was removed when Jesus tasted death for you. Glory that the curse of the law really was lifted and that the wrath of God really was removed, and that the precious faith that unites you to all this treasure in Christ was a gift purchased by the blood of Christ.

Christ tasted death for everyone who has faith. Because the faith of everyone who believes was purchased by the death of Christ.

For further reflection see:

1 Timothy 4:10
Ephesians 5:25–27
Titus 2:14
John 10:15; 11:52; 17:6, 9, 19
Acts 20:28
Revelation 1:5; 3:9; 5:9
Romans 8:28–32
1 John 2:2 (compare John 11:52)
2 Peter 2:1

For Whom Did Jesus Taste Death?

 

Christ paid the sin debt for all, but all remain rebellious toward God until He does a wonderful mercy filled work x through His Word in a persons life.

The death and resurrection are only a benefit to those who believe, those who do not believe are already condemned.

I caution folks not to blend the payment of sin (shed blood) with the death and resurrection.

People without Christ die in their sins, because the rebellion remains, and the wages of sin is death.

 

agedman, Paul shows us that even in the believer the rebellion remains alive in us (Romans 7). The difference between the believer and the unbeliever is not the rebellion. The difference is the Redeemer. The effective atonement. The propitiation applied to the believer.
When I stand before God, I will be condemned by my sin and rebellion, but I will be ransomed by Jesus payment and God having mercy on me, a sinner saved by grace alone.

 

That's a fair point. A lot of Calvinist writers make it a point to insist that God is directly responsible for all that happens good or bad. I would say that God is sovereign over everything and evil things are something he allows in many cases - but I have to admit that many Calvinists do go all the way on this and insist that he is completely responsible for everything. When you discuss these things, I think sometimes we are for the sake of argument toning down some aspects to make it sound better in our day.

 

the real question is has anything ever happened in history that was outside the sovereign power of God to either permit or directly cause it, or to stop it?

 

That is the "legal fiction" of Luther, being both a sinner and a saint, that drove Rome wild and had them adopt Trent!

 

I agree. But this came up when discussing whether man has a truly free will or if God is so in charge that even an action that is evil is directly caused by God. I was just pointing out that there are indeed Calvinist theologians who make God directly responsible for everything, even evil. I don't go that far and agree with the way you put it above.

 

His Wisdom allows the unregenerate freedom within the confines of the Fallen systems.

The unregenerate may certainly know what it takes to choose a good gift, but have no capacity within themselves to choose beyond what the fallen nature has bound them.

Therefore, the”freedom of the will never extends to choosing righteousness that is not first awakened by the work of the Word and understanding given by the Holy Spirit.

There is no preceding or prevenient Grace that allows the fallen to engage their own will to accept and reject, for John plainly states that “13children born not of blood, nor of the desire or will of man, but born of God.”

I live in cattle country, and cattle are free to roam the field and eat from that contained or delivered to them. That is the estate of the unregenerate, free to roam the earth and take from it, but incapable of attaining or even understanding the mind of God.

 

No God gave man a free will and man chose to exercise that free will and sin.

If man does not have a God given freedom of his will then that would make him not responsible for the actions that he takes

What do you mean by sinful faith? Explain that one.

No but what you say would lead me to believe that is what you believe.

I did answer to your verses you just do not want to accept that answer. And do you think that God LOVES is not a good answer? Here is the answer I gave you >>Look at Christ Jesus if you want to see what God is like, it is all right there in the bible.<< Tell me the problem with that answer?

Yes God loves but you seem to want Him to love only a select group and not everybody. Read the scriptures and tell me what God desires? What point are you trying to make here?

To all.

Psa 145:9 The LORD is good to all; he has compassion on all he has made.

Rom_9:15 For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."

A suffering with another; painful sympathy… Compassion is a mixed passion, compounded of love and sorrow; at least some portion of love generally attends the pain or regret, or is excited by it. Webster

Gods compassion extends to all of His creation. As we see in His giving of His son for the salvation of the world.

 

So a question for you Yeshua1. Has any sin/evil ever happened in history that was outside the sovereign power of God to either permit or directly cause it, or to stop it?

 

That seems to be Hyper Calvinism, and hard for me to see how one can hold to that and not have God author evil!

 

none, for if there ever was one, He ceased then to being God!

 

First, I find it ironic you neglected a comma between No and God in your sentence. The actual accuracy without the comma makes me smile.

However, knowing that was in err, exactly where do we read this assertion of yours in scripture? Is this recorded in the creation narrative someplace?
Certainly God gave Adam and his helper, Eve, the capacity to rebel, which they did. But, where is free will exactly taught? I can point to the Trinity in Jesus baptism and other passages. I just want to know exactly where you get true free will, where the created being is not bound by the rules of the creator, but can override the will of the Creator.
Please, provide this theologically rich passage for us so that man can cast off the bondage placed on him by the Creator. I await your sharing.

 

Thank you for your candor. Now as a Calvinist you must hold to the LBCF or WCF not sure which. But in either case they both say that God decrees all thing, freely and unchangeably whatever comes to pass. Now that does not leave anything out does it? So when you say God permits sin/evil then that is just Him permitting the sin/evil that He decreed to happen. Correct?

Now I know that some will point to the next part of the sentence and tell me that, no, God does not do that. But what you seem to miss is that all that ends up doing is making the whole comment zero out. You cannot say He does something but then say He does not do that thing. That is not even close to being logical or coherent.

 

Man’s will is sin filled, and cannot be useful in salvation as recorded, “not by the blood, nor the body, nor the will.”

Yet, you would present the freedom of the will is sufficient for salvation. Directly contrary to the Scriptures.

Man’s “freedom extends to that which pertains to man, not to that of God. Man may select a good gift, but that which is perfect comes from above.

Every aspect of the unregenerate human condition is sin filled. Even the conception, is in sin. Does the unclean make the unclean clean?

No one person would post that God is not Love, but that is not the sum and total of all that God presents Himself.

Never said that, but even in my human adoration, there must be discipline. For the believer, whom God loves He chastises, and for the hypocrites - those unregenerate are told, “I never knew you.”

God is good to rain on the just and unjust, but that does not extend to freedom of the will as you want to perceive it.

I have a dog door so that the dogs may come and go at will, but if the bark at midnight, I tell them no more and shut the door. What then is there freedom, is it not ultimately bound by the fencing and dog door?

It seems your desire is to present a God that overlooks the consequences of the rebelliousness found in ever unregenerate as if His love is sufficient.

The mercy (unmerited favor) of God never extends beyond to whom He extends mercy, His compassion (pity) never goes beyond whom He will have compassion.

Consider if God loved one brother of the promise and hated the other from the same family of promise, is it possible that you have placed far too much emphasis upon the love of God and not upon the warning of wrath to come?