John 10:15 and the Atonement

[ILUVLIGHT]

Hi Gene;
You amaze me you even try to take what other's say and twist it to your own logic. I never said that Calvinist have a Logic of any worth. I only acknowledge that this is what they think they have. Actually your logic deny's the clear teaching of God's word and You strain that of what Calvinism actually is for your own purposes. Even Calvin would disagree with you.

If you think Calvinism is illogical, then start a thread on it, and show us step by step how that is true. This thread is about the atonement.

I have shown you, but you're to blinded to see it
May God open your eyes;
Mike

 

[Wes Outwest]

GENEMBRIDGES,

Don, exegetically, did the ot sacrifices apply to the gentiles as well as the jews? Did it apply to the people of god (israel) or to the nations as well?

Were they meant to?

There need be no distinction btw. The intercession and the sacrifice. Christ intercedes for those for whom the sacrifice is made, just as the high priest made intercession for those for whom that sacrifice was made. Did he (the high priest) make sacrifice and intercession for everybody in the world? Did he make sacrifice and intercession for the people of god only?

The high priest never made the declaration that the sacrifice he performed was for the sins of the world. JESUS DID!

 

[Southern]

Bob,

It is like saying "Oh - well since you say that Christ died for you then that means you don't think He died for me!". Such an imposed meaning can never be made with the Gospel. Yet you seek to do so simply because Calvinism "needs" it.

What I was saying is that Jesus said that He layed down His life for His "sheep" (vs. 15). Then He tells some of His hearers that they are not of His "sheep" (vs. 26). This "distinction" is made by Jesus and not some "Calvinist", so your supposed result of my viewpoint is utterly untrue and fails to deal with what I am trying to say.

IT is quite clear that IF the superset is the "WHOLE WORLD" as Christ tells us in 1John 2:2 then the subset "OUR SINS" or "MY SHEEP" as in the case of John 10 IS INCLUDED in the superset scope already set in 1John 2:2 and in 1John 4 and in John 3:16 and in John 1:1-10 and in ...

You know - the Bible.

Bob, please go to the I John 2:2 forum and provide evidence for your interpretation.

I am trying to show that Jesus clearly said that some were "NOT" of His sheep (vs. 26), after He said that He lays down His life for the "sheep" (Vs. 15). Let me ask this question:

Did Jesus lay His life down for those in verse 26?

The text does "not" say "I have only died for my sheep and no one else" but "Cavlinism needs it" so you gladly insert it.

In verse 26 Jesus tells some that they are "NOT" of His "sheep". These are the ones Jesus just said He laid His life down for (vs. 15). Calvinism does not need to insert this when Jesus taught it plainly.

In conclusion, I would just like to say that Jesus clearly showed that He had a particular people (sheep) in mind when laying down His life and then told some that they were not part of this group (the sheep). This is in direct contradiction to your view of scripture.


In Christ...

 

[Wes Outwest]

GeneMBridges,

Second, you need to support the idea exegetically that God exacts penalty for sins twice. Personally, I'd love to find it, but if you do, then that's a real problem, because how can we be sure He won't do the same thing to us for our other sins if He's doing it for unbelief?

I'm not shouting, but I want you to understand the clear GOSPEL message regarding sins. JESUS DOES NOT "EXACT A PENALTY FOR SINS", NOT EVEN ONCE. HE ATONED FOR SINS BY PAYING THE PENALTY FOR ALL SIN BY MEANS OF HIS OWN ONCE-FOR-ALL SACRIFICIAL DEATH ON THE CROSS. Once you understand that, sins become a non issue! And if you are a pastor, you should look at your flock in a whole new light! That does not mean that we can continue sinning. Paul spoke pretty dramatically on the effect of the atonement, and our responsibility relative to it.

However, Sins do have Consequences. For example if you have sexual intercourse with a person who is HIV positive, the consequence is that you too, will become HIV positive! If you sin by violating natural law in the sense of driving a car too fast around a curve, the consequence is you will leave the road. So far you are still OK, but when your careening car slams into that rock mountain at a high rate of speed, you receive the consequence of your sin. In neither of those examples of the result of sin, is Jesus exacting a penalty against you, you are just receiving the natural result of sin.

Sixth: I might be wrong, but I still say unbelief is a sin. No Scripture supports it. Neither does Scripture say that Jesus paid for all our sins, except unbelief

God commands that we believe, We have a choice, do we obey or do we disobey God's command? If we obey (an action) we become a believer (a result), If we disobey (an action) we remain an unbeliever (thus the result is, no change). Unbelief is not a sin, disobedience is a sin. Obedience is not a result, it is the means to a result. Unbelief, like belief is a choice!

Seventh: The only way I can justify general atonement is to say all a person's sins are paid for, including unbelief, so basically, we all have clean slates, including that sin, or else the atonement is not actual, and that God is the one that makes it effectual, and the only way around double jeopardy is to posit a new round of God's wrath on unbelievers, which is pure speculation. I don't find double jeopardy supported in Scripture.

You have a vivid imagination. Atonement does not mean you have a clean slate. It means you don't die for the sins you do because the penalty you faced for sin has been paid by another! But instead, You live eternally through your belief and faith in the atoner, Jesus Christ.

Yes, you will sin, but if you confess your sins,he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from All unrighteousness. Forgiveness comes after confession.

Atonement is NOT forgiveness of sins. Just as in our penal system Pardon does not convey forgiveness, neither does atonement which is pardon from the death penalty afford any forgiveness. Atonement removed the penalty. If you acknowledge your sins, and confess your sins, then you receive forgiveness for the sins you commit.

The bottom line is this, Atonement clears the way for man to have everlasting life through faith in Jesus. Belief in, that is, FAITH in God is the condition of human spirit that receives God's attention, and He saves ALL who have faith in him.

Faith alone saves, while we are under God's grace.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Paul33:
Bob,

Calvinism does not require a limited sacrifice for the elect only.

Paul - you argue for 3 pt Calvinism and I typically post objections to 4 and 5pt Calvinism.

I view Arminianism as a kind of 2.5 pt Calvinism so it is difficult to contrast your views with what I am saying as distinctly as I can with 4 and 5pt Calvinism.

I spent today reading Calvin's commentaries on the relevant verses. I am convinced that John Calvin believed that Jesus died for the sins of the world,

Indeed - Calvin also appears to insist that those who are saved will remain faithful to the end (rejecting the typical 4pt Calvinism today that emphasizes the preservation of the saints no mater how the persevere).

but that the payment for sin accomplished by Jesus on the cross is not applied to the elect until Christ intercedes on their behalf on account of faith.

This is the same view that Arminians would make with the Bible teaching on Atonement in Lev 16 VS the Atoning Sacrifice of 1John 2:2. The sacrifice provides the payment needed for ALL - but the Atoning "process" of Lev 16 does not end with the Sacrifice. It goes on to the High Priestly Work of Christ in the heavenly sanctuary. (Something we see Him doing in Heb 8-10 as the type predicted).

So we are in agreement there.

The sacrifice is universal in that Christ paid the penalty for every person's sin. The benefits of the sacrifice are available to all, because he really did pay the penalty for sin.

Agreed.

The intercession is particular in that God credits that payment only to those who have faith, as Christ intercedes on their behalf at the Father's right hand.

True enough. His work as our High Priest applies that payment to our life.

This is in fact the focus of my particular denomination.

Forgiveness doesn't take place until Christ intercedes. If it took place before then, then the elect would be forgiven whether they had faith or not.

This is where you have a problem. But take it from a group that has been digging through this territory for a 150 years - you can not limit forgivenes or God Himself to "time" or the "time of the NT after the Cross".

Christ states emphatically to people before the cross "your sins ARE forgiven" - and He was right.

Further we have Moses and Elijah fully glorified, fully forgiven, fully in harmony with God in Matt 17 "mount of transfiguration" before the Cross.

There are ample texts in Heb 11 and in the OT and all through the Gospels pre-cross SHOWING that forgiveness, new birth, Gospel living was fully in play before the cross. There is no escaping it.

The external work of Christ's role as High Priest and application of the Atoning Sacrifice on the individual level illustrates the Gospel - and solves the very real problem for the saints God describes in Daniel 7 - but it is not "the moment of forgiveness" for the saint.

Each saint (OT or NT) experiences real forgiveness when they repent and yield to the New Birth - the saving drawing of God the Holy Spirit.

Your payment vs application model is perfect for the Lev 16 doctrine on atonement vs atoning sacrifice.

(It is difficult for me to argue with 3 pt Calvinists)

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Wes, Outwest:

Atonement is NOT forgiveness of sins. Just as in our penal system Pardon does not convey forgiveness, neither does atonement which is pardon from the death penalty afford any forgiveness. Atonement removed the penalty. If you acknowledge your sins, and confess your sins, then you receive forgiveness for the sins you commit.

The bottom line is this, Atonement clears the way for man to have everlasting life through faith in Jesus. Belief in, that is, FAITH in God is the condition of human spirit that receives God's attention, and He saves ALL who have faith in him.

Faith alone saves, while we are under God's grace.

If you replace the term "Atonement" with "Atoning Sacrifice" (of 1John 2:2) then that works perfectly.

But if you look at the entire process of Atonenment - (as God Himself describes it in Lev 16) then you see that it INCLUDES the act of the sinner in repenting for sins and in claiming the blood of Christ. When the process is complete - nothing remains to be done.

The problem you are facing is that Calvinists typically use the term atonement while ignoring what God has said about it.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[GeneMBridges]

I'm not shouting, but I want you to understand the clear GOSPEL message regarding sins. JESUS DOES NOT "EXACT A PENALTY FOR SINS", NOT EVEN ONCE. HE ATONED FOR SINS BY PAYING THE PENALTY FOR ALL SIN BY MEANS OF HIS OWN ONCE-FOR-ALL SACRIFICIAL DEATH ON THE CROSS.

But it's not once for all, Wes, if there is one sin not paid for, the sin of unbelief. You have yet to deal with the sin of unbelief exegetically. You have plainly stated that unbelief is not a sin in order to validate your argumetn.. However, Scripture clearly teaches otherwise. Even those that hold to your own teaching on this, like a Dallas Theological Seminary do not teach that unbelief is not a sin, Wes. If unbelief is paid for at the cross, then you DO have a scenario in which God is allowing unbelievers to go to hell for a sin for which Jesus paid. This is double jeopardy. The only way this can not be true is if unbelief is not a sin or if Jesus did not pay for the sin of unbelief. You have stated the former position without one piece of exegetical evidence. Now, show us the exegetical evidence to support your position on unbelief not being a sin, instead of a bunch of theories.

Once you understand that, sins become a non issue! And if you are a pastor, you should look at your flock in a whole new light! That does not mean that we can continue sinning. Paul spoke pretty dramatically on the effect of the atonement, and our responsibility relative to it.

However, Sins do have Consequences. For example if you have sexual intercourse with a person who is HIV positive, the consequence is that you too, will become HIV positive! If you sin by violating natural law in the sense of driving a car too fast around a curve, the consequence is you will leave the road. So far you are still OK, but when your careening car slams into that rock mountain at a high rate of speed, you receive the consequence of your sin. In neither of those examples of the result of sin, is Jesus exacting a penalty against you, you are just receiving the natural result of sin.

Wes, I realize you do not know this about me, but this is in poor taste. I am HIV positive. I tuned you out immediately when I saw this, because you have no right to lecture me about this issue. I understand it better than you can even begin to know.

God commands that we believe, We have a choice, do we obey or do we disobey God's command? If we obey (an action) we become a believer (a result), If we disobey (an action) we remain an unbeliever (thus the result is, no change). Unbelief is not a sin, disobedience is a sin. Obedience is not a result, it is the means to a result. Unbelief, like belief is a choice!

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Seventh: The only way I can justify general atonement is to say all a person's sins are paid for, including unbelief, so basically, we all have clean slates, including that sin, or else the atonement is not actual, and that God is the one that makes it effectual, and the only way around double jeopardy is to posit a new round of God's wrath on unbelievers, which is pure speculation. I don't find double jeopardy supported in Scripture.

You have a vivid imagination. Atonement does not mean you have a clean slate. It means you don't die for the sins you do because the penalty you faced for sin has been paid by another! But instead, You live eternally through your belief and faith in the atoner, Jesus Christ.

Yes, you will sin, but if you confess your sins,he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from All unrighteousness. Forgiveness comes after confession.

Atonement is NOT forgiveness of sins. Just as in our penal system Pardon does not convey forgiveness, neither does atonement which is pardon from the death penalty afford any forgiveness. Atonement removed the penalty. If you acknowledge your sins, and confess your sins, then you receive forgiveness for the sins you commit.

The bottom line is this, Atonement clears the way for man to have everlasting life through faith in Jesus. Belief in, that is, FAITH in God is the condition of human spirit that receives God's attention, and He saves ALL who have faith in him.

Faith alone saves, while we are under God's grace. </font>[/QUOTE]Wes, Scripture says that Jesus IS the atoning sacrifice for our sins. It teaches the atonement is actual, not potential. THAT'S THE LINGUISTIC CONSTRUCT OF THE TEXT. Did Jesus pay for our sins Himself or not? If you have to add faith to it, you add value to the atonement, Wes. Do you understand what the difference is between a potential atonement and an actual atonement?

You say unbelief is a choice. Yes it is. Nobody says it isn't. It is a sin not to believe. God says we are commanded to believe in Jesus. To fail to do so is sin. Did you fail geometry in high school? A =B; B=C. therefore A=C. Scripture teaches that unbelief is disobedience, they are even the same word. Unbelief is a sin. You have yet to show one Scripture that says that unbelief is NOT a sin. Hebrews 3 even speaks of an evil heart of unbelief. If unbelief is morally neutral, then how can talk about an evil unbelieving heart? No, unbelief is not morally neutral. Moreover, if unbelieving is morally neutral, so is believing, and Scripture overwhelming teaches that believing is not morally neutral.

The ONLY way your scenario works is if one of two things is true:

A. Jesus did not pay our sin of unbelief.

or

B. Unbelief is a morally neutral act.

If it is morally neutral, that contradicts 1 John 3 and Heb.3 as well as Romans. Again, WHATEVER is not of faith is sin. Unbelief, I would think, falls into the "whatever" category. (How odd that those that would say hat "whosoever," "all," and "world" always mean everybody without exception, suddenly start making exceptions about ""whatever" is not of faith being unbelief...this is a major inconsistency). Unbelief IS disobedience WES. THEY ARE THE SAME WORD IN GREEK. YOU HAVE YET TO DEAL WITH THIS EXEGETICALLY. Show us EXEGETICALLY that unbelief is NOT a sin. I have shown you exegetically that it is a sin.

Nobody says that justification is not by faith. However, it is untrue that man himself musters it of his own accord. Again, Ephesians 2 clearly teaches that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone, but that there is no faith apart from grace, which is a gift of God. Salvation is not synergistic or we have something about which we can boast.

Why do some people have faith and others not, Wes?

 

[GeneMBridges]

Originally posted by Paul33:
If John Calvin were alive today, he would be a 4 point Calvinist!

I don't mean to rile anyone up. But I've read his commentaries, and Calvin made a distinction between the sacrifice which makes salvation available to all, and the intercession, which applies the benefits of the sacrifice to the elect.

I disagree with that assessment. One of the key points in his commentaries is the unity of the atonement and the intercession.

Take a look here:

http://www.the-highway.com/articleJuly02.html

 

[GeneMBridges]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Wes, Outwest:

Atonement is NOT forgiveness of sins. Just as in our penal system Pardon does not convey forgiveness, neither does atonement which is pardon from the death penalty afford any forgiveness. Atonement removed the penalty. If you acknowledge your sins, and confess your sins, then you receive forgiveness for the sins you commit.

The bottom line is this, Atonement clears the way for man to have everlasting life through faith in Jesus. Belief in, that is, FAITH in God is the condition of human spirit that receives God's attention, and He saves ALL who have faith in him.

Faith alone saves, while we are under God's grace.

If you replace the term "Atonement" with "Atoning Sacrifice" (of 1John 2:2) then that works perfectly.

But if you look at the entire process of Atonenment - (as God Himself describes it in Lev 16) then you see that it INCLUDES the act of the sinner in repenting for sins and in claiming the blood of Christ. When the process is complete - nothing remains to be done.

The problem you are facing is that Calvinists typically use the term atonement while ignoring what God has said about it.

In Christ,

Bob </font>[/QUOTE]You're ignoring that the people did no work contributing to their atonement.

Nobody denies that repentance is involved. Repentance and faith go hand in hand and on them justification is dependent. Nobody denies that. The atonement makes the ground for it. That's the issue. You're confusing the atonement with justification.

Calvinists do not deny that a person must repent and believe or believe and repent (there is no real logical order there, because the two are considered to be hand-in-hand). Calvinists do not deny that justification is by faith.

The atonement is the GROUND of justification, it is by faith in Christ and His work that we are saved. Do we believe on our own accord from our own resources and abilities or not?

The core teaching is that justification IS conditional and that God Himself causes us to fulfill the condition. Election is not justification. Election is unconditional on our part, it is grounded in God and God alone. In a sense it is conditional on faith, but we teach that that faith, if it is considered a condition of election is provided for us by God's supernatural action in our hearts. He sees to it that the condition is fulfilled. He does this for each and every individual Christian.

That is what regeneration is about. It fulfills the "can" part of John 6:44 as a result of the giving and drawing in the same chapter. We then believe and repent or repent and believe, whichever order they go, and we are justified.

We are all united around justification by faith. You say it is by grace through faith. We say it is by grace alone through faith alone and that the atonement is actual and not potential. It can only be potential if unbelief is not a sin or if unbelief is a sin not paid for in the atonement. Even the dispensational view of the atonement is an actual atonement. They say, however, it does not cover the sin of unbelief. That's a major problem, because it contradicts the teaching that Jesus paid for ALL our sins and there is nothing contextual anywhere that indicates that unbelief is not a sin or it is exempted from the atonement if it is. Thus, you end up with an actual ineffective atonement, which is an oxymoron or with double jeopardy, meaning God sends people to hell for unbelief when Jesus paid for it. That means you need to find support in Scripture that supports the idea of God exacting double jeopardy.

 

[Paul33]

Hi Gene,

I've already read Helm on Kendall. I read it again just now to honor your request and to see if my evalution of Helm's critique has changed.

It hasn't. Helm is not assessing the material accurately. He does not quote from the commentaries. He does not engage Kendall's critique of Calvin. He does not site a single quote from Calvin that proves his point that Calvin did not maintain a distinction between the atoning sacrifice for all and the application of the benefits of the atoning sacrifice for the elect.

It was disturbing to read. Helm approached the writings of Calvin to prove his own viewpoint and he failed.

I would encourage everyone to read the sources for yourself and to come to your own conclusions. It is just too easy to take someone else's word for it and be mislead.

I double checked Kendall's footnotes on Calvin and found him to be quoting accurately and in context. In reading Helm's critique, the quotes he sited were often contradicting the point he was trying to make.

It is true, if you spend time with the original, you can spot the counterfeit when you come accross it. In this case, you can spot the misuse of quotes when you come accross them.

A very poor effort by Helm.

 

[Southern]

Jesus said that He did not lay down His life for certain individuals. Is there a difference between Him "laying His life down for" and "dying for" somebody?

If so, please explain how.

In Christ

 

[BobRyan]

On the subject of Lev 16 and the entire process of Atonement - vs the Atoning Sacrifice.

Originally posted by GeneMBridges:

You're ignoring that the people did no work contributing to their atonement.

Huh??

Lev 16 is the service performed at the end of the year for the final disposition of sin for the entire year. All the sins commited by all the people for the entire year - confessed and brought in via the animal sacrifices - reach final disposition in that year-ending ceremony.

Forgiveness was achieved at the time of repentance and confession and the animal sacrifice at that time testifies to that fact. But the final disposition of sin in the ceremony of Atonement at the end of the year - is still needed according to God's Word.

Nobody denies that repentance is involved. Repentance and faith go hand in hand and on them justification is dependent. Nobody denies that. The atonement makes the ground for it.

The atonement process of LEv 16 dealt with past forgiveness, past repentance and past confession not future forgiveness, future repentance future confession.

The Calvinist model seeks to stand the Lev 16 instruction by God on its head.

However - my argument is that God is right even in this case.

You are confusing the entire process of atonement with the Atoning Sacrifice made by Christ.

You're confusing the atonement with justification.

Justification takes place at the moment a person accepts Christ.

Full Atonement takes place even later. At the end of that sacrificial year AFTER all the animal sacrifices, confession, repentance and returning to God for the year had been completed.

Calvinists do not deny that justification is by faith.

I never said they did. The problem Calvinists have is with Atonement -

The problem 4 and 5 pt Calvinists have with Justification is of the form "IF He forgives us our sins and cleanses us from all unrighteousness - he is faithful and just to cause us to repent from our sins"

Election is not justification. Election is unconditional on our part, it is grounded in God and God alone.

See the Calvinist future scenario post for an illustration of that point.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/35/1207/2.html#000016


In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

GeneMB said --
We are all united around justification by faith. You say it is by grace through faith.

Indeed - Eph 2:8-10.

GeneMB said --
We say it is by grace alone through faith alone

The only place in scripture where "faith alone" if found is in James 2 and there it says "NOT by faith alone".

and that the atonement is actual and not potential. It can only be potential if unbelief is not a sin or if unbelief is a sin not paid for in the atonement.

You simply show your confusion on the atonement. The Atoning Sacrifice of 1John 2:2 is passed - it is in the past it is not "potential" it is "actual" and it is the sacrifice needed by ALL sins of ALL people of ALL time.

What is future is the Atonement process completed as Christ completes it in his role has High priest doing exactly what HE said He would do in His own illusrtation given in Lev 16 explaining the atonement process not just the Atoning Sacrifice.

Calvinists can't help but ignore the atonement - cling only to the Atoning Sacrifice and then call that -- the entire Atonement process.

Hence their mistake.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Southern]

Bob,
Jesus said that He did not lay down His life for certain individuals. Is there a difference between Him "laying His life down for" and "dying for" somebody?

If so, please explain how.

In Christ

 

[Wes Outwest]

GeneBridges,

But it's not once for all, Wes, if there is one sin not paid for, the sin of unbelief.

If what you say is true then Jesus must die again for those sins that he missed the first time. Are you willing to do the crucifying?

You have yet to deal with the sin of unbelief exegetically. You have plainly stated that unbelief is not a sin in order to validate your argument.. However, Scripture clearly teaches otherwise.

I suppose you have exegeted the scriptures that support this declaration.

The truth is that not all that can be said about 'belief' and 'unbelief' is contained in the scriptures. For example the scriptures do not say exactly what belief is! Yes, they elude to it, but do not describe the truth essence of belief. Nor does it speak of the true essence of unbelief.

Even those that hold to your own teaching on this, like a Dallas Theological Seminary do not teach that unbelief is not a sin, Wes. If unbelief is paid for at the cross, then you DO have a scenario in which God is allowing unbelievers to go to hell for a sin for which Jesus paid. This is double jeopardy.

I can see that you do not understand what "paid in full" means. Atonement is payment in full for the penalty levied by God for sin. Scriptures do not say that there are sins that are not included in the definition of SIN, You are saying that! So your exegesis is flawed!

Your premise that there is a scenario in which God allows unbelievers to go to hell for a sin which Jesus paid, is completely bogus, and is not supportable in scripture. No one goes to hell for sin, sin has been atoned, ONCE-for-ALL. People go to hell because they lack Faith in God! NOT because they SIN!

The only way this can not be true is if unbelief is not a sin or if Jesus did not pay for the sin of unbelief. You have stated the former position without one piece of exegetical evidence. Now, show us the exegetical evidence to support your position on unbelief not being a sin, instead of a bunch of theories.

IF, unbelief is sin, then every human who ever lived sins that sin. because there are many things that you have no belief in. Therefore you are guilty of Sin. For example, if I told you that John Kerry won the election, and you did not believe it, then you are guilty of the sin of unbelief. If I told you that the first president of the United States was Adolf Hitler, and You chose to not believe it, You would again be guilty of unbelief! If any unbelief is sin, then ALL unbelief is sin! Compare that with a lie. If any lie is a sin, then ALL lies are sin. If any immorality is sin, then ALL immorality is sin.

As has been pointed out, we are commanded to believe. If we choose to not believe, we are not guilty of the sin of unbelief, we are guilty of the sin of disobeying the command to believe.

Wes, I realize you do not know this about me, but this is in poor taste. I am HIV positive. I tuned you out immediately when I saw this, because you have no right to lecture me about this issue. I understand it better than you can even begin to know.

Gene, It is never in poor taste to speak the truth. I am not "lecturing you" about HIV. I have merely presented an example of a sin and it's consequence! You do a deliberately dangerous thing, you will reap the consequence, but that is not Jesus exacting a penalty against you, it is a matter of action and consequences of the action.

I am deeply saddened to hear that you are afflicted by HIV. But I will not apologize for speaking the truth! By the way, I have diebetes so we are both under a death penalty! But it is only the means by which my spirit gets set free from the flesh to be present with my Lord and Savior, Jesus, the Christ!

Wes, Scripture says that Jesus IS the atoning sacrifice for our sins. It teaches the atonement is actual, not potential. THAT'S THE LINGUISTIC CONSTRUCT OF THE TEXT. Did Jesus pay for our sins Himself or not? If you have to add faith to it, you add value to the atonement, Wes. Do you understand what the difference is between a potential atonement and an actual atonement?

The act of self sacrifice for the sins of others (the sins of the world for example) is an atoning sacrifice while it is taking place! Once it is over, ALL sins have been atoned for by that "past sacrifice", even those sins that have not yet been committed. Jesus, in a self-less act of atonement, atoned ONCE, for ALL THE SINS of the world, Past, present and future.

You say unbelief is a choice. Yes it is. Nobody says it isn't. It is a sin not to believe. God says we are commanded to believe in Jesus. To fail to do so is sin. Did you fail geometry in high school? A =B; B=C. therefore A=C. Scripture teaches that unbelief is disobedience, they are even the same word. Unbelief is a sin. You have yet to show one Scripture that says that unbelief is NOT a sin. Hebrews 3 even speaks of an evil heart of unbelief. If unbelief is morally neutral, then how can talk about an evil unbelieving heart? No, unbelief is not morally neutral. Moreover, if unbelieving is morally neutral, so is believing, and Scripture overwhelming teaches that believing is not morally neutral.

Believe as you will. Unbelief is not sin, disobedience of God's command is sin.

One's MORALITY is controlled by what one chooses to believe!

The ONLY way your scenario works is if one of two things is true:

A. Jesus did not pay our sin of unbelief.

or

B. Unbelief is a morally neutral act.

If it is morally neutral, that contradicts 1 John 3 and Heb.3 as well as Romans.

Neither belief nor its opposite, unbelief, is an action! both are opposite states of the spirit of man! Every element of information that we intake in to our brain's memory, must be evaluated, and cataloged, and either believed or unbelieved. what is believed in one case may very well be unbelieved in another. The collection of facts we have to evaluate may persuade us to believe or to not believe in a major principle, or the lask of information could also persuade us to the opposite choice regarding the same major principle.

Again, WHATEVER is not of faith is sin.

COMPLETELY FALSE Gene! Knowledge and experience are not of faith! Neither of those are sin unto themselves! What you have knowledge of and experience in may be sin. but that which we call knowledge and experience are not sin.

Unbelief, I would think, falls into the "whatever" category. (How odd that those that would say hat "whosoever," "all," and "world" always mean everybody without exception, suddenly start making exceptions about ""whatever" is not of faith being unbelief...this is a major inconsistency). Unbelief IS disobedience WES. THEY ARE THE SAME WORD IN GREEK. YOU HAVE YET TO DEAL WITH THIS EXEGETICALLY. Show us EXEGETICALLY that unbelief is NOT a sin. I have shown you exegetically that it is a sin.

NO sir, You may have shown yourself what you want to see, but you have not shown exegetically that unbelief is a sin! If any unbelief is a sin, ALL unbelief is Sin. And I've already shown you the error of that thinking!

Nobody says that justification is not by faith. However, it is untrue that man himself musters it of his own accord. Again, Ephesians 2 clearly teaches that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone, but that there is no faith apart from grace, which is a gift of God. Salvation is not synergistic or we have something about which we can boast.

I am one who says that Justification is NOT BY FAITH! Justification is by action on someone's part. Jesus took unilateral action to justify ALL mankind by atoning for the sins of ALL mankind, Once for ALL. Sanctification is through faith. It is our faith in God that sets us apart (sanctifies us) from those lacking faith in God.

Why do some people have faith and others not, Wes?

Faith is a matter of belief sustained. The parable of the Sower is the answer to your question.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Southern:
Bob,
Jesus said that He did not lay down His life for certain individuals. Is there a difference between Him "laying His life down for" and "dying for" somebody?

If so, please explain how.

In Christ

In John 6 Jesus said He DID lay down His life "FOR THE WORLD".

Do you have a quote of Him saying "I do NOT lay down my life for YOU" to somebody?

No?

I thought not.

Where Calvinism lacks a text - it simply makes one up and pretends that it is in the Bible. It is the circular argument of first editing scripture and then pretending that one's inserted verbage were actually found in scripture.

As it is - we do have the superset and subset idea for Christ said in John 6 that He in fact lays down his life for the SUPERSET - WORLD and also in John 10 for the SUBSET within that superset - "my sheep".

But nowhere does He say "I did NOT lay down my life for you" to anyone or OF anyone. But that is a pretty simple thing for Calvinism to "make up" is it not?

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Southern]

Bob,
Your interpretation flies in the face of John 10!
Notice that Jesus "did" say, despite your objection to the contrary, that He some of those that were listening to Him were not of His "sheep" (Jn. 10:26)that He laid His life down for.

If you will go to the I John 2:2 forum, you will see that the verses you mentioned that speak of the "world" are in line and consistant with my interpreation with John 10, but you on the other hand must insist that Jesus did in fact lay His life down for those that are not His sheep when He said the complete opposite.

Bob, Please explain in your next post how Jesus could tell some that they were not of the group that He just said He laid His life down for.

In Christ...

 

[BobRyan]

Jesus said some people were not his sheep. That was never disputed. That the fact that there are saints and sinners - the saved and the lost in every age has never been in doubt.

What has been exposed is your claim that Christ ever said "I only laid down my life for My sheep - not the World and certainly not the Whole World".

Get it? You have no text to back up the salient point of your claim.

That is a huge problem for most - but not always a big obstacle for Calvinism.

I don't doubt that there is some way to edit the text so that it can say what you need - but as it reads today -- the superset and the subset are clear. "HE is the atoning sacrifice for our sins AND NOT FOR OUR SINS ONLY but for those of the WHOLE WORLD".

Hard to miss (under normal circumstances).

You needed a text to say "I ONLY laid down my life for my sheep" -- see?


In Christ,

Bob

 

[Southern]

Bob,
First of all, please go to I John 2:2 and provide information for your interpretation. You keep bringing it up as if it proved anything about John 10. If you go to the forum you will notice that it is consistent with my interpretation here.

In your post you admitted that Jesus said that some were not of His "sheep", the same group He just said He laid His life down for. I don't have to "make" the text say anything, it is obvious that you can see it too, you just dont accept the only conclusion of this... Particular Redemption.

In Conclusion, Jesus told us who He laid His life down for (the Sheep) and then told some of those same people listening to Him that they were not of His "sheep"! You may not like this, but as long as Jesus teaches it, it does not matter. Im sure anyone can see that this is devastating to all forms or Arminianism on the atonement.

In Christ...

 

[BobRyan]

You keep making the point that there are some people who are not saint "not His sheep".

That is not under debate - so it is insteresting that you continue to make the point.

You fail to make the point "those who are today not saints - never will be saints".

You fail to make the point "Christ ONLY died for OUR SINS (the saints) and NOT the sins of "THE WHOLE WORLD" -- yet your argument desperately "needs" you to find such a text.

By contrast I "actually HAVE" the text that says that Christ died NOT ONLY for the saints sins - the church's sins - the people of God's sins - but ALSO the "SINS of the WHOLE WORLD" 1John 2:2.

Though the text "says that" you seem to be unhappy with it.

I understand why you need to find that text confusing to continue to support your argument so far - I just don't see how it actually "is" as confusing as you need it to be.

In Christ,

Bob