John 10:15 and the Atonement

[Wes Outwest]

What I have said is the simple truth of Scripture. You do not accept it for some reason. I have never been able to figure out why people believe like you do, after having been confronted with teh clear truth of Scripture. You cannot go on now and claim to have never been shown the truth. You will have to come up with some other reason why you don't accept it.

The difference is that you, sir, are influenced by the works of Calvin and his disciples. I am not, and will not be. Nor have I been influenced by Arminius, having never read his writings either.

I am influenced by Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, James, Peter, and Jude, as well as their predecessors, the Authors of the Old Testament books. But it is by the teachings of those I named, the Elect of God, that I, who was "of the world", have come to faith in Jesus the Christ resulting in my election to Salvation in Christ.

 

[Pastor Larry]

The difference is that you, sir, are influenced by the works of Calvin and his disciples.

As I have said many times, I have never read Calvin. I am a student of Scripture. I became a Calvinist in the mid 90s by reading Scripture.

I am influenced by Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, James, Peter, and Jude, as well as their predecessors, the Authors of the Old Testament books.

Apparenlty not, since you don't believe what they say. I have repeatedly asked you to provide scriptural evidence for this idea that belief leads to election, but you refuse to quote any of those guys. I know why you refuse ... because none of them teach it.

But it is by the teachings of those I named, the Elect of God, that I, who was "of the world", have come to faith in Jesus the Christ resulting in my election to Salvation in Christ.

Then why not show this teaching in Scripture? It would be so simple, but you refuse. Why?

 

[Wes Outwest]

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I am influenced by Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, James, Peter, and Jude, as well as their predecessors, the Authors of the Old Testament books.

Apparenlty not, since you don't believe what they say. I have repeatedly asked you to provide scriptural evidence for this idea that belief leads to election, but you refuse to quote any of those guys. I know why you refuse ... because none of them teach it</font>[/QUOTE]For by grace are ye savedthroughfaith.....if being saved is not being elect, then I don't want to be elect, I'd rather be saved! However, since there is a judgment day, and since Jesus told us that we who believe in him ARE NOT JUDGED, that can only mean that we are, before we die the first death, ELECTED into EVERLASTING LIFE! All unbelievers face God who casts them into the lake of fire because their names are NOT written in the book of life.

 

[Wes Outwest]

Then why not show this teaching in Scripture? It would be so simple, but you refuse. Why?

Have tried Larry, but you steadfastly refuse to understand. Jesus says in John 17 that it is the teaching of the apostles

[John 17:20] I pray not only for these (the apostles) but also for those who through their (the apostles') teaching will come to believe in me.

You call Jesus savior? YOU'd better believe his words!

 

[Ray Berrian]

Gene M. Bridges,

You said,

Of course, Ray, you forget to mention that the elect "few" are, in fact, the elect "many," who are a people that "no man can number," because there are so many of them.

The term ‘few’ is a relative term used by Jesus in Matthew 7:14. He is saying that out of the mega millions of sinners who have heard the saving Gospel only the ‘few’ will respond to the clear message.
Your passage about ‘the great multitude which no man could number’ comes out of Revelation chapter 7:9 which will be all of the martyred saints who die at the authority of the future coming antichrist after the church is taken into Heaven.

We get the teaching that God treats all human beings as puppets because men and women have lost their freedom to will anything.

This is taken from a Calvinist in the 1800’s as to having no will or freedom of choice in matters of salvation and other areas also. We realize that there are many flavors of Calvinists today.

Of course this is a misrepresentation. We only believe man can not come to Jesus apart from being drawn by God. NO CALVINIST believes the will has been destroyed. As usual, you misstate what we believe.

You are wrong here because I gave you a direct quote from Dr. Hodge, a teacher of Calvinism. Some Calvinists may have evolved into what you speak about as the Effectual Calling or irresistible drawing of the Holy Spirit. Anyway if God decreed the saved and lost in eternity past it is a finished, planned undertaking, even without His drawing. This is how many variations there are within the Calvinistic teachings.

You quote Calvinists all the time, but you seem to have missed the Opinions of the Remonstrants themselves which clearly say this: quote:

The will in the fallen state, before calling, does not have the power and the freedom to will any saving good.

Actually, sinful men and women are called by the Spirit of God to welcome the Son every hour of every day. They are not people with a 50 I.Q. and clearly understand the Gospel when explained. That is why we witness to the saving power of Jesus. They have the cognitive power to either reject or to receive Christ as Savior. The Lord does all of the saving and giving of everlasting life.

Not even the original Arminians believe what you guys believe about the will of man.

You have not defined what you mean. As in Calvinism there are variations as to what Arminian theological understanding means to various Christians. It is my understanding that Jacob Arminius never said that it was possible for Christians to be lost, but Wesleyan Arminians most assuredly believe and teach that a person can fall from grace and lose their hope of eternal life.

Personally, I am a four point Arminian and a one point Calvinist, in that I believe that a true Christian will not be lost but may be 'ashamed' in the Presence of the Lord. [I John 2:28]

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Wes, Outwest:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Then why not show this teaching in Scripture? It would be so simple, but you refuse. Why?

Have tried Larry, but you steadfastly refuse to understand. Jesus says in John 17 that it is the teaching of the apostles

[John 17:20] I pray not only for these (the apostles) but also for those who through their (the apostles') teaching will come to believe in me.

</font>[/QUOTE]Okay ... Where does this verse talk about the causal relationship between faith and election? Do you understand what "causal relationship" means? We are talking about which comes first and causes the other: Does election come first and lead to faith (as 2 Thess 2:13; 2 Tim 2:10, and a host of other passages teach), or does faith come first and cause election (as you teach, but are unwilling to provide any Scripture for)? John 17:20 does not address that point.

You call Jesus savior? YOU'd better believe his words!

I do.

 

[Ray Berrian]

Wes Outwest,

Because some of the brethren have laid down their alleged truth, should mean that you should dovetail with their concepts. I do not think anyone on the board is a Protestant Pope except perhaps one Pope and a couple of Archbishops.

God through the pen of the Apostle John makes it clear that the true Light, being Jesus, has come into the world so that all human, sinners, might believe. [John 1:7] The new birth, being born again can only come from our loving and gracious God, as noted in John chapter three. Everything pivots on 3:16 & 18 as to who will be one day in the Presence of the Lord. There is no ‘secret’ election as thought by Dr. A.A. Hodge in his book, “Outlines of Theology” Thomas Nelson & Sons, Paternoster Row; Edinburgh & New York, p. 97 under his subtitle, “Augustinianism.”

God speaking through His agent, John says, ‘. . . that all men through Him might believe.’ Jesus knows that all will not believe but this does not deny the fact that indeed He did die and taste physical death [Hebrews 2:9] for every person, securing His atonement on their behalf. Jesus precious atonement is sufficient for all but only efficient in those who believe and trust in Him as personal Savior

Wes, you are a pastor too aren't you? Sorry if I am confused; I always want to avoid my 'extreme confusion.'

 

[Pastor Larry]

IT is interesting Ray, to see you post here. You were the one who I originally asked to post Scriptural evidence that belief leads to election. You posted John 3:16 and when I pointed out that John 3:16 did not address election, you quit. Why? If you believe that belief leads to election, surely the Bible teaches that somewhere and surely you can show us that. Maybe between you and Wes you can finally come up with a place in the Bible to support your doctrine. So far, both of you individually have failed.

Jesus precious atonement is sufficient for all but only efficient in those who believe and trust in Him as personal Savior

This is a very Calvinistic thought. It is the theological definition of limited atonement. Sufficient for all; efficient for the elect (those who believe). It shows some inconsistency on your part. You are willing to accept biblical truth in some areas, but not in others. Why?

 

[Ray Berrian]

My former quote was, 'Jesus precious atonement is sufficient for all but only efficient in those who believe and trust in Him as personal Savior. [/quote]

I John 2:2 indicates that nothing is lost because Jesus died for all sinners. It is to their eternal loss of salvation to avoid or reject Christ's all encompassing plan for His lost created human beings.

Election pivots on trusting in Christ and not on some nebulous 'secret' and autocratic election by Almighty God.

Biblical theology posts the saved as those who believe in Christ savingly; or as the Arminian second point of theology states, Election By Faith.

 

[Wes Outwest]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
IT is interesting Ray, to see you post here. You were the one who I originally asked to post Scriptural evidence that belief leads to election. You posted John 3:16 and when I pointed out that John 3:16 did not address election, you quit. Why? If you believe that belief leads to election, surely the Bible teaches that somewhere and surely you can show us that. Maybe between you and Wes you can finally come up with a place in the Bible to support your doctrine. So far, both of you individually have failed.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Jesus precious atonement is sufficient for all but only efficient in those who believe and trust in Him as personal Savior

This is a very Calvinistic thought. It is the theological definition of limited atonement. Sufficient for all; efficient for the elect (those who believe). It shows some inconsistency on your part. You are willing to accept biblical truth in some areas, but not in others. Why? </font>[/QUOTE]NO! it is not a good thought at all, because ATONEMENT was never intended to be an "individual thing". Jesus' Atonement was for one purpose and one purpose only, it is a completed work of God that removed the penalty of sin from mankind! It is not only sufficient, but also efficient and effective for its purpose! The result is that:
NO MAN DIES IN SIN,
NO MAN DIES FOR SIN,
NO MAN IS CHARGED WITH SIN!

There is only ONE reason man dies, and that is because he lacks FAITH in God!

=============================================
As for Election?

DICTIONARY ENTRIES
elect
v. : elected, electing, elects
v.tr. :To select by vote for an office or for membership.
To pick out; select:elect an art course.
To decide, especially by preference:elected to take the summer off.
To select by divine will for salvation.Used of God.
v.intr.: To make a choice or selection.

adj.: Chosen deliberately; singled out.
Elected but not yet installed. Often used in combination: the governor-elect.
Chosen for marriage.Often used in combination: the bride-elect.
Selected by divine will for salvation.

n. : One that is chosen or selected.
One selected by divine will for salvation.(used with apl.verb) An "exclusive" group of people. Used with "the"ne of the elect who have power inside the government.

THESAURUS ENTRIES:

election, noun
Definition: choosing
Synonyms: acclamation, advance poll, alternative, appointment, ballot, balloting, by-election, choice, decision, determination, franchise, judgment, option, poll, polls, preference, primary, referendum, selection, ticket, vote, vote-casting, voting

selection, noun
Definitiion: preference
Synonyms: alternative, choice, choosing, collection, culling, draft, druthers, election, excerpt, option, pick, picking

appointment, noun
Definition: responsibility
Synonyms: allotment, approval, assigning, authorization, certification, choice, choosing, commissioning, delegation, deputation, designation, election, empowering, installation, naming, nomination, ordination, promotion, selection

choice, noun
Definition: selection
Synonyms: alternative, appraisal, bag, choosing, cull, decision, determination, discretion, discrimination, distinction, druthers, election, evaluation, extract, favorite, finding, free will, judgment, opportunity, option, pick, preference, rating, say, substitute, variety, verdict, volition, vote, weakness

nomination, noun
Definition: appointment
Synonyms: choice, designation, election, naming, proposal, recommendation, selection, suggestion

option, noun
Definition: alternative
Synonyms: advantage, benefit, choice, claim, dibs, dilemma, discretion, druthers, election, flipside, franchise, free will, grant, license, opportunity, pickup, preference, prerogative, privilege, right, security, selection, title

preference, noun
Definition: choice
Synonyms: alternative, bag, choice, desire, druthers, election, favorite, flash, groove, inclination, option, partiality, pick, predilection, prepossession, propensity, say, say so, selection, top, weakness

volition, noun
Definition: free will
Synonyms: accord, choice, choosing, conation, desire, determination, discretion, election, option, preference, purpose, resolution, selection, will, willingness, wish.
==================================================

The way I see it, Unless there is a specific definion of "Elect" referenced in a post, WE ARE ALL ELECTED to SALVATION!

Now, before you all Jump all over that, NO, that is not universalism. You see, election has such a broad, all inclusive meaning, that every human is covered one way or another by it...in scripture.

Elect could mean God's Choice, or Man's choice. It could be an expression of God's will or man's will.
It could be proactive or reactive.
It could be predetermined or immediate
It could be planned or unplanned
It could be God's plan for man, or Man's response to God!

Calvinism places strict limits on election, where scripture does not seem to.

So, Because I choose, that is, "elect to believe" as Jesus told us to, God's Word, and Have faith in God, I am just as saved as any Calvinist, who thinks that God elected them from the foundation of the world! There is no difference in us! And the doctrine of election simply goes out the window! No doctrine is needed where the definition is so broad and all inclusive in scope.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Election pivots on trusting in Christ

Will you please support this with Scripture? You and Wes keep avoiding this like the plague. If you make the claim, why not show where Scripture teaches it?

 

[Pastor Larry]

NO MAN DIES IN SIN,

Which is a direct contradiction of John 8:24 24 "Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins."

NO MAN DIES FOR SIN,

Which is a direct contradiction of Romans 5:12 12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned--

NO MAN IS CHARGED WITH SIN!

Which is a direct contradiction of Revelation 21:8 8 "But for the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and immoral persons and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone.

There is only ONE reason man dies, and that is because he lacks FAITH in God!

Lack of faith in God is a sin since it is disobedience to God's command to believe in Jesus. And this makes your post not only wrong a fourth time, but internally incoherent since you previously claimed that man did not die from sin or in sin, and then claim that he only dies from lack of faith which is itself a sin.

Your definition of election is unbiblical. It doesn't even begin to address the scriptural teaching. Of course, you know this since you have seen it before. Quoting long English dictionary definitions doesn't help when you are fundamentally wrong on the bibical teaching.

 

[Wes Outwest]

I do not deny the Atonement or its purpose.

Rev 21:8 speaks of those lacking faith in God!

Romans 5:12 speaks of those lacking faith in God!

John 8:24 even states "unless you believe in me..." believing means having FAITH.

The atonement removed the penalty for sin, so no one dies because of sin! They die because of lack of faith!

Though I do not agree, Not having faith may be a sin, but you don't die for sin you die because you have not faith! You don't die for what you do, you die because you LACK FAITH!

My definition of "Elect"? Which one?

 

[GeneMBridges]

John 8:24 even states "unless you believe in me..." believing means having FAITH

But it does not say that one dies because one does not have faith. It says one dies in his sins if He does not receive Christ. It does not mean that man is not held accountable for his sins. It says exactly the opposite.

Romans 5:12 speaks of those lacking faith in God!

Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned--

Faith is not even mentioned Romans 5:12 is talking about the fall of man, e.g. Adam's fall.

Rev 21:8 speaks of those lacking faith in God!

Again, faith is not even mentioned.

Lack of faith is "apeitheia" in Greek. "Disobedience" is the same Greek word. All disobedience is sin. God pours out His wrath on all disobedience, e.g. apeitheia. If God pours out on all apeitheia, and the single word in Greek translates as both words in English, then how is unbelief not a sin, since God only pours out His wrath on all disobedience and all sin is disobedience?

Your position is unbiblical and indefensible.

 

[Wes Outwest]

This form of communication is very limited and is not conducive to full explanation or you would know that my "position" is not as limited as you all want to describe it.

 

[GeneMBridges]

Then why can you not support it with Scripture?

 

[GeneMBridges]

chapter 7:9 which will be all of the martyred saints who die at the authority of the future coming antichrist after the church is taken into Heaven.

This, of course, depends on your particular view of Revelation, not the actual exegesis of the text.

He is saying that out of the mega millions of sinners who have heard the saving Gospel only the ‘few’ will respond to the clear message.

However, you perversely twist this into a straw man to say that Calvinists are teaching some sort of exclusivity that we do not teach at all. Like Dave Hunt, you paint a caricature of what we teach, not what we actually teach.

This is taken from a Calvinist in the 1800’s as to having no will or freedom of choice in matters of salvation and other areas also.

Which you took completely out of context. The closest either Charles Hodge or A.A. Hodge comes to saying that is in a single sentence in an outline of a lecture on historical theology, not as person statements of what they themselves taught. Neither Charles Hodge or A.A. Hodge believed the will was destroyed. You are manifestly repeating the errors of Dave Hunt, not what the Hodges believed and taught. This, by the way, is exactly what atheists do when they object to theism. The merely parrot what other atheists say theism teaches, not what theism actually teaches. For a man that supposedly has a Th.D., you misuse sources frequently and repeat common errors a first semester theology student in any seminary would not repeat. Of course, Dave Hunt says Spurgeon believed in general atonement and you believe Hunt to be "without any error," so I'm not surprised.

You are wrong here because I gave you a direct quote from Dr. Hodge, a teacher of Calvinism.

Really, then what is the exact citation?

I believe that Dr. Hodge begins the same essay by saying exactly the opposite, because he begins it with this words: "I do not assert, nor is it necessary that I should, what are the essential elements of free agency. Men may differ about that. But we know we have a conscience, and that a person is not a mere machine — for that a machine cannot have an obligation, cannot be subject to command, is certainly proved; but that a person is subject to command, is subject to obligations of conscience, is a matter of universal consciousness." The entire article explains that position. Perhaps if you had read the entire essay and his other works you would understand that Charles and A.A. Hodge believed precisely the opposite from what you said and A.A. Hodge in particular wrote to show that men are NOT robots or puppets with destroyed wills as you say they taught.

They have the cognitive power to either reject or to receive Christ as Savior.

No Calvinist says otherwise. Cogntive power is not moral power. Certainly, people have the cognitive power to understand the basics of the gospel. Nobody says otherwise. However, they lack the moral power to respond to it, so said Jesus in John 6:44, 8:43, and Paul in Romans 8:9 and I Cor. 2:14.

You have not defined what you mean.

I quoted from the Opinions of the Remonstrants themselves. Have you not read them?

Personally, I am a four point Arminian and a one point Calvinist, in that I believe that a true Christian will not be lost but may be 'ashamed' in the Presence of the Lord.

Actually, you do not hold to the perseverance of the saints, you hold to antinomian eternal security. True perseverance of the saints means that all the saints persevere because God preserves them. Your doctrine says only that God preserves the saints, but not all the saints perservere, and your view of eternal security is logically inconsistent with the rest of your soteriology.

 

[Wes Outwest]

Originally posted by GeneMBridges:
Then why can you not support it with Scripture?

I've already been chastised for posting too much scripture, and Pastor larry wants me to post more. What's a fella to do?

 

[GeneMBridges]

No, Wes, you were chastised for posting too much Scripture and not interacting with it. In fact, both Larry and I have repeatedly asked you to support your answers with Scripture beyond posting verses and not interacting to explain why they support your view. Posting Scripture does not indicate you understand Scripture. Telling people what Scripture does NOT mean, does not equate to telling them what you think it DOES mean. Additionally, you were the one that got upset because we were asking you to support Scripture, going so far as to tell us that you do not believe Scripture contains all truth on these issues. You openly expressed disdain for the concept of Sola Scriptura. Moreover, Pastor Larry specifically did not chastise you for posting Scripture. He chastised you for posting long exerpts from English language dictionaries. I personally have been round with you over unbelief being a sin in at least two threads, I think three, now four with this one, and not one time have you ever posted an exegetical response.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Wes, Outwest:
Rev 21:8 speaks of those lacking faith in God!

Romans 5:12 speaks of those lacking faith in God!

John 8:24 even states "unless you believe in me..." believing means having FAITH.

The atonement removed the penalty for sin, so no one dies because of sin! They die because of lack of faith!

Did you think before you said this? Think about it for a m inute. You admit that they die beecause of lack of faith. You say they don't die because of sin. Yet lack of faith is sin, so you have contradicted yourself.

The passages clearly state that unbelief is one of the sins that send people to hell. It is not the only sin, according to Rev 21:8. You simply didn't read hte passage and think about it.

Not having faith may be a sin, but you don't die for sin you die because you have not faith! You don't die for what you do, you die because you LACK FAITH!

That is a contradiction. There is no way that you thought about that before you wrote it. AT least, it seems that way. Why would you say something so incoherent? It may be a sin because people don't die because of sin?

Clearly, failure to believe is a sin, and people die for failure to believe, by your own admission. Therefore, contrary to one of your claims, and consistent with another of your claims, people die because of sin.

However, Scripture makes clear in Rev 21:8 that people go to hell for things other than unbelief. Unbelief is simply one of hte things listed there.