"For God SO LOVES the HUMAN RACE..."

[37818]

. . . an atonement that does not deal with any sin.

I disagree. I hold the view that the propitiation serves one of two purposes. To condemn or redeem, Romans 8:34. In the one common purpose of Christ being Lord of all, Romans 14:9-11.

 

[The Archangel]

No. I was explaining my thinking as to why the interpretation, that Greek word translated "world" can be understood throughout the NT, understood to refer to "mankind," the human race. I am not expecting you to agree.

It seems explicit to me that meaning can be understood in such references as John 3:16 and 1 John 2:2.

John 3:16 and 1 John 2:2, perhaps. But that’s not the discussion we were having, is it. We were discussing John 21:25, so the introduction of John 3:16 and 1 John 2:2 is nothing more than a red herring.

The Archangel


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JonC]

Good that's some progress, you are on my prayer list.

For a $19.95 love offering you can be on mine as well. For a $59.95 love offering I'll send you a prayer Kleenex.

 

[1689Dave]

I disagree. I hold the view that the propitiation serves one of two purposes. To condemn or redeem, Romans 8:34. In the one common purpose of Christ being Lord of all, Romans 14:9-11.

But, if the atonement is for all sin, and for all people, all will be saved. But we know this is not the case. So your version of the atonement doesn't pay for sin at all. Pelagius needs to move over and make more room for those trying to sleep with him.

 

[1689Dave]

Exactly!!!! The basis. But what single part of salvation saves apart from the rest (per Scripture)? Is it the blood? Is it faith? Repentance? Belief? Divine obedience? Rebirth (from above), forgiveness?

The failure of your treatment of the "other view" is an unbiblical view of Salvation accomplished as a business type transaction at the Cross isolated from the whole of salvation as offered in Scripture.

The answer is that salvation is the complete work of God from start to finish. Men are always wrong to pull it apart as if God took the "long way around".

The fact is Christ as the propitiation for the sins of the world in toto necessitates neither universal salvation nor sins for which Christ did not die. The "other view" looks to all judgment being given the Son. That is really the primary difference.

Whole world according to your understanding = Christ did not pay for any sin. If so all would be saved.

 

[JonC]

Whole world according to your understanding = Christ did not pay for any sin. If so all would be saved.

No. "Whole world" means, as Calvin put it, "the whole world without exception". And this means ALL sin.

When we look at others who believed this (like Calvin and Augustine) we can recognize through their theologies that they also rejected universal salvation while affirming Christ as the propitiation for ALL sin.

So your argument should not be related to the view but to your understanding (or lack of understanding) of the view (Calvinism as a whole).

If you want we can start a discussion - not to change your view but to get you past this barrier (hopefully) in understanding the other. I had hoped we would be there by now.

 

[Mr. Davis]

But this still leaves an atonement gutted of its ability to pay for sin. In fact, it ignores it completely and makes calling without justification the means of salvation.

Please flesh-out further what you mean.
TULIP: requires that all of its components rise or fall -together-. Do you agree with that premise?

 

[1689Dave]

No. "Whole world" means, as Calvin put it, "the whole world without exception". And this means ALL sin.

When we look at others who believed this (like Calvin and Augustine) we can recognize through their theologies that they also rejected universal salvation while affirming Christ as the propitiation for ALL sin.

So your argument should not be related to the view but to your understanding (or lack of understanding) of the view (Calvinism as a whole).

If you want we can start a discussion - not to change your view but to get you past this barrier (hopefully) in understanding the other. I had hoped we would be there by now.

Calvin was a universalist and turned the gospel into law. And grace into works people would accomplish by grace. His offshoots at Dordt set things straight at least in acknowledging the Atonement actually secured salvation for those intended.

 

[1689Dave]

Please flesh-out further what you mean.
TULIP: requires that all of its components rise or fall -together-. Do you agree with that premise?

No, the first 3 points are near perfect as can be. Point 4 turns the gospel into law and grace into works people perform by grace. Point 5 is sketchy but could use some refinement.

 

[JonC]

Calvin was a universalist and turned the gospel into law. And grace into works people would accomplish by grace. His offshoots at Dordt set things straight at least in acknowledging the Atonement actually secured salvation for those intended.

Prove Calvin was a universalist (it sounds as if you are redefining peoples views so that you can assign to them a conclusion of your choice.

The fact, however, is many believe Christ us the propitiation for the sins of the whole world (without exception), and only those who bekueve are saved.

The difference is these fo not view the cross as a business transaction. Instead the Cross is Christ redeeming the human race. Those who do not believe remain in their sins, but Christ is Judge because He is the Propitiation for the sins of man.

 

[37818]

But, if the atonement is for all sin, and for all people, all will be saved.

Simply not true.

John Qwen sarcasticly wrote To The Reader, "To what purpose serves the general ransom, but only to assert that Almighty God would have the precious blood of his dear Son poured out for innumerable souls whom he will not have to share in any drop thereof, and so, in respect of them, to be spilt in vain, or else to be shed for them only that they might be the deeper damned?"

Which is the case, BTW. Romans 8:34. Romans 14:9-11.

 

[JonC]

Simply not true.

The problem is that he cannot deal with the view in its own context. He takes your view and applies to it his philosophy and arrives at a false conclusion.

This is the most common issue on this forum (in all camps). What most often separates people are not really the conclusions but how we get there. One cannot understand the other's reasoning.

 

[Mr. Davis]

No, the first 3 points are near perfect as can be. Point 4 turns the gospel into law and grace into works people perform by grace. Point 5 is sketchy but could use some refinement.

Is the atonement as you understand it limited (particular redemption) or unlimited (universal)?
Doesn't particular redemption require "irresistible grace" to accomplish its end?

 

[1689Dave]

Is the atonement as you understand it limited (particular redemption) or unlimited (universal)?
Doesn't particular redemption require "irresistible grace" to accomplish its end?

The atonement is limited to the elect. Irresistible grace is a result of turning the gospel into law and grace into works that the elect perform by grace. The truth is that Christ justifies the elect by his blood and based on this, God regenerates them giving a new holy nature that lives accordingly. Upon hearing the gospel they naturally believe and follow Christ.

 

[1689Dave]

Simply not true.

Then you are implying the atonement has nothing to do with sin.

 

[1689Dave]

Prove Calvin was a universalist (it sounds as if you are redefining peoples views so that you can assign to them a conclusion of your choice.

The fact, however, is many believe Christ us the propitiation for the sins of the whole world (without exception), and only those who bekueve are saved.

The difference is these fo not view the cross as a business transaction. Instead the Cross is Christ redeeming the human race. Those who do not believe remain in their sins, but Christ is Judge because He is the Propitiation for the sins of man.

Calvin was a universalist who turned the gospel into law and grace into works. Later Calvinists corrected this notion.

 

[JonC]

Calvin was a universalist who turned the gospel into law and grace into works. Later Calvinists corrected this notion.

Interesting idea. It is, of course, false as evidenced by Calvin's writings on election and Hell, but it is interesting nonetheless (mostly because it demonstrates how one recreates history to support one's notions in "black & white").

 

[1689Dave]

Interesting idea. It is, of course, false as evidenced by Calvin's writings on election and Hell, but it is interesting nonetheless (mostly because it demonstrates how one recreates history to support one's notions in "black & white".

You should at least google this before drawing too many conclusions. Why Calvin is More Biblical Than Some Calvinists

 

[Van]

And where does that faith come from?

I have been asked and have answered that question many times over the years. Do you have any original with you questions?
Now here is another question for you. If God instilled our faith as Calvinism falsely claims, God would not need to credit it as righteousness. Therefore the "gift of faith" via irresistible grace is as bogus as a three dollar bill.

 

[JonC]

You should at least google this before drawing too many conclusions.

I don't have to google it. I have read his Institutions. It is always best to read source materials instead of propaganda.

In Institutions Book 2 Calvin speaks of the church as God's people and Christians as heris of God rather than non-Christians who are "heirs of Hell".

Book 2, the reprobate (those who do not believe) face righteous destruction.

Book 3 deals with the eternal punishment of the reprobate (compare to the correction of the believer).

Please provide a reference of Calvin affirming universal salvation. Is there a document you have in mind by Calvin renouncing his writings denying universalism?