Lewis on Atonement theories

[Darrell C]

Hey brother,

We do disagree. It is good to look at our disagreements (not trying to change your mind but explore our views).

I agree wholeheartedly. That is how we are going to find the resolve to the disputes.

As far as changing minds, that is up to God, and I leave it in His hands, lol. We cannot change minds. As one of my Pastors has said, "If I can change your mind, someone can come right behind me and—change it back!" lol

1 Peter 3:18 KJV
For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit

I absolutely agree with this verse. Christ died for us - the Just for the unjust. He bore our sins bodily.

So how is that not visiting the punishment we owed to Christ?

He vicariously bore our sins that we might not die.

One thing I would throw in here is that we need to keep the context of the Covenant of Law as it was given: the penalty for death under the Law was a physical death literally. We see a physical death of the animal as opposed to the physical death of the sinner, hence a vicarious death.

We also see physical death in this Age: Christians that sin to a point that God decides is worthy of physical death—die.

Ananias and Sapphira are examples, as are the Corinthian believers who were partaking of Communion unworthily.

Physical death in Old Testament times should not be equated to "spiritual" or eternal death (separation from God), but should remain in the context it was given. It is true that it is likely those who died physically under the Law will suffer eternal separation, but that doesn't negate the judgment these people will face.

Some reject the notion that these sacrifices actually provided remission of sins, but that is just a fact:


Leviticus 4:13-21 King James Version

13 And if the whole congregation of Israel sin through ignorance, and the thing be hid from the eyes of the assembly, and they have done somewhat against any of the commandments of the Lord concerning things which should not be done, and are guilty;

14 When the sin, which they have sinned against it, is known, then the congregation shall offer a young bullock for the sin, and bring him before the tabernacle of the congregation.

15 And the elders of the congregation shall lay their hands upon the head of the bullock before the Lord: and the bullock shall be killed before the Lord.

16 And the priest that is anointed shall bring of the bullock's blood to the tabernacle of the congregation:

17 And the priest shall dip his finger in some of the blood, and sprinkle it seven times before the Lord, even before the vail.

18 And he shall put some of the blood upon the horns of the altar which is before the Lord, that is in the tabernacle of the congregation, and shall pour out all the blood at the bottom of the altar of the burnt offering, which is at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.

19 And he shall take all his fat from him, and burn it upon the altar.

20 And he shall do with the bullock as he did with the bullock for a sin offering, so shall he do with this: and the priest shall make an atonement for them, and it shall be forgiven them.

21 And he shall carry forth the bullock without the camp, and burn him as he burned the first bullock: it is a sin offering for the congregation.


So the basic principle of the Doctrine of Christ seen here (Hebrews 6:1) is physical in nature, and has a temporal context. It is the figure of the true, and meant only as a temporary means of remission.

This is why the Writer of Hebrews contrasts the Old with New. Old sacrifice, old Priesthood, old remission.


Hebrews 13:11-12 King James Version

11 For the bodies of those beasts, whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high priest for sin, are burned without the camp.

12 Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate.

I disagree that this means God punished Christ instead of punishing us.

I'm not sure I would view both statements to be the same. I see where a distinction could be made between the concept of Christ dying in the stead of the sinner, and "God punishing Christ instead of us."

In the former, we recognize that it is Christ that laid His life down willingly, no man took it from Him. He did this to take upon Himself the penalty for our sin. That is a vicarious death.

In the latter, we still have God Himself taking that penalty upon Himself, so I wouldn't state it as God punishing Christ with our sin.

It still remains that this general concept is seen in His death. Death is a penalty for sin, a punishment, and Christ took our punishment for us. God will punish those who reject His vicarious death, so the corollary would (or could be viewed as) our punishment was placed on Him, and in that sense it is the punishment for sin received by Christ, and can only be inflicted upon men by God (Matthew 10:28).

So I see two different issues in the two statements, both of which would need to be addressed separately, in my view.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

When we look at the OT and the sacrifice system we have to keep in mind the exodus of the Jews and the Passover. The sacrifices did not appease God's wrath, and they were not substitutionary.


Hebrews 10:4: For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.

It would depend on what context you are using wrath here. If the wrath of God in regard to eternity are in view, then no, God's wrath was not appeased.

But in the temporal context (and remember, we need to maintain the context of these passages if we are going to use them to support our views) God's wrath was appeased. That is seen in the fact that those who obeyed did not die. And again we see it is physical death in view, not spiritual or eternal.


Exodus 12:13-14 King James Version

13 And the blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses where ye are: and when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and the plague shall not be upon you to destroy you, when I smite the land of Egypt.

14 And this day shall be unto you for a memorial; and ye shall keep it a feast to the Lord throughout your generations; ye shall keep it a feast by an ordinance for ever.


We see again the "token" (sign/figure/parable/shadow) of the Blood of Christ which the death of the animal represents. The lamb died specifically so the people did not. And again, the death in view is physical death. To assume that all Egyptians went to the unjust side of Hades and will go into eternal separation when they died that day is not something I think to be a realistic conclusion drawn from the principle of grace we see God showing mankind throughout Biblical History.

Secondly, we see the institution of the memorial of that grace. Every year, when Israel celebrated Passover, they were not delivered from physical death. THat vicarious death of the animal/s continued to ictorally prophesy of Christ's death.

Much to the chagrine of the millennial, I believe firmly there will be sacrifice in the Millennial Kingdom, and this for the same reason we see in the Old Testament: remission of sins in a temporal context and memorial of God's provision for remission of sin. Celebrating Passover for the Jews was the same as celebrating Communion as Christians. We aren't saved again when we do so, even as Israel was not spared from physical death every year when they did so.

As far as Hebrews 10:4 goes, this too has to be kept in its context:


Hebrews 10:4: For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.


We see that in view is not whether they "took away sins" in a general manner, but that they did not make the "comer thereunto" (the worshiper) complete in regard to the reason they were offered: remission of sins:


Hebrews 10:1-14 King James Version

1 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.

2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.

3 But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.

4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.


This doesn't negate the many statements of God Himself that He would forgive their sins when they offered up sacrifice. THe taking away of sin/s is contrasted between the temporal and the eternal, the incomplete and the complete:


Hebrews 10:10-14 King James Version


10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:

12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;

13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.

14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.


Again, remission of sins through vicarious animal sacrifice was prescribed by God and is seen to begin in the Garden.

The promise found in the destruction of our enemy in the Garden is fulfilled in Christ, but pictured in vicarious animal death.


15 Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before,


16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;


17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.


18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.


The remission of sin in view in this chapter is everlasting as opposed to the temporary remission found in animal sacrifice.

It does not negate the clear statement of God concerning remission given when an animal died in the stead of the sinner in the Old Testament Eras.

I will just give one example of this outside of the Law (though we see them all throughout Biblical History):


Job 1 King James Version

1 There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil.

2 And there were born unto him seven sons and three daughters.

3 His substance also was seven thousand sheep, and three thousand camels, and five hundred yoke of oxen, and five hundred she asses, and a very great household; so that this man was the greatest of all the men of the east.

4 And his sons went and feasted in their houses, every one his day; and sent and called for their three sisters to eat and to drink with them.

5 And it was so, when the days of their feasting were gone about, that Job sent and sanctified them, and rose up early in the morning, and offered burnt offerings according to the number of them all: for Job said, It may be that my sons have sinned, and cursed God in their hearts. Thus did Job continually.


Hope these clearly present why I view Christ's death as the fulfillment of the figure/parable found in the Old Testament, and why I would maintain that principle in His vicarious death in my stead for the sin I am guilty of.


God bless.

 

[AustinC]

There simply is no Scripture that teaches men are regenerated in order to have faith.

Sure there is, but you reject what it says.
Ephesians 2:1-10
And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved— and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

 

[Aaron]

Christ died for in our place, as our representative (as the "Second Adam").

No. Not as our representative. That is a completely foreign and faithless notion. In union with us. There is absolutely no similarity in the concepts of representation and being in union with Christ. You don't even come close to what is being preached.

But you mean by God punishing Him instead of punishing us..

Yes, but not only I mean that, but the Spirit, and Paul, and Peter, and Isaiah, and practically every author that contributed to the Scriptures.

(a pagan concept).

Not at all, and your constantly saying it doesn't make it true.

You add to Scripture.

No, I amplify it. You take away from it. What does it mean 'our sins were laid on Him?'

 

[Darrell C]

Thanks for the response, I think this goes a long way in taking these issues apart and analyzing the dispute/s that arise among the Body. That's the only way we are going to be able to come together, in my view, by working these things out, lol.

But the classic Arminian idea and that of the non-Cal Baptists is that you have the final say and it is possible to reject the call.

You raise a point I think is absolutely vital: there is a difference in the doctrines from when they were first debated and the modern view.

An example might be the Catholic objection to being saved by faith alone. Many today do in fact teach an unbiblical view that men are saved by faith alone. Men are only saved by grace alone. Thus instead of teaching salvation by grace alone through faith alone (which is what Scripture teaches) they teach men are saved by faith alone through grace alone, lol.

A look at "prevenient grace" might go a long way to seeing a difference between what men believe today as opposed to the original debate. And I am not saying Arminius' teachings are correct or should be embraced, just pointing out that issue in this debate in a broader context.

The Calvinists agree and explain that in the general call in the WCF. They say though that when the call is effective it is an effectual call!

And I would agree with that. Primarily because I take a view that God overrules man's proclivity to reject His will when He is ministering to them. But not always. Paul is probably the best example of that: he wanted to murder Christians, but it is God that opened his eyes to his error.

That doesn't mean He forces man to comply in every case. We have too much teaching concerning God's withdrawal from seeking to bring men into agreement with His will to think that, in my view.

One thing to consider is that all men will stand before God and they will be judged according to their response to His Will. Those under Law who rejected the provision for relationship with God will not be as severely judged as those who reject the provision of the New Covenant (Hebrews 10:16-19). No man will be able to say God did not reveal His will to them.

That sounds simplistic almost to the point of being silly but it amounts to this: "help" given in any area, if it makes something easier or faster or less of a burden on someone is not the same as "help" where something could not have occurred without that help. It's not the same at all. If you are willing to admit that no one comes to Christ without the convicting power of the Holy Spirit then you are left with the idea that it is a necessary thing done to you - not an assistance to some ability you have.

Again, I agree: we see in every single case of faith given in Scripture that it is God Who initiates the relationship and gives them the focus of their faith. If someone can find me an example where someone came to saving faith without God's intervention then perhaps they might have a case for "free will" as most teach it in modern times.

It won't be found.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

If it were the latter you would still have a few good men who would make it to Christ without such help and you don't.

My own views would force me to make a distinction between the Ages/Eras of Revelation, and acknowledging the Mystery of the Gospel, I recognize that the Old Testament Saints did not have a specific knowledge of Christ, His death in their stead, or His Resurrection that they might be reconciled to God.

Abraham, for example, was given the Gospel in veiled form, "...your seed shall be the source of blessing for all families/nations of the earth (Galatians 3:8)." He did not meet Christ in his lifetime but was justified based on the promise of God which we who have had the Mystery revealed to us can understand as being the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

But it was "the Spirit of Christ" that revealed the veiled Gospel to men in the Old Testament, so we still see the "outside stimuli" all men need.

I am not going to look up scripture for you but let me suggest this. Look at the conversions we have in scripture. You have some action or message and BAM, a conversion or multiple conversions. It does not fit the description of modern non-Cals who have given man an autonomous will that is independent of outside influence and sovereign.

Agreed. Man has no capacity to understand the Gospel. He has no inherent ability, he is dead (without life). He can no more embrace the reality of the knowledge of the truth through his intellect than a corpse in a morgue can. A better example would be one who dies on the operating table and is revived/resuscitated by the doctor. That analogy breaks down, though, because when one is born again they receive life they were born without.

That is, eternal life, which is possessed only by God alone.

 

[JonC]

No. Not as our representative. That is a completely foreign and faithless notion. In union with us. There is absolutely no similarity in the concepts of representation and being in union with Christ. You don't even come close to what is being preached.


Yes, but not only I mean that, but the Spirit, and Paul, and Peter, and Isaiah, and practically every author that contributed to the Scriptures.

Not at all, and your constantly saying it doesn't make it true.

No, I amplify it. You take away from it. What does it mean 'our sins were laid on Him?'

That is what is meant by Christ being the "Second Adam". It is what the "First Adam" means. The First Adam stood in the place of all men. The Second Adam did as well.

What you are doing is making assumptions of and reading into Scripture. If God punished Jesus instead of punishing us then this would be expressed in the text of Scripture....but it isn't.

I am not sure why you believe that we have a former grasp on God's Word than any Christian prior to the Reformation.

 

[Silverhair]

Sure there is, but you reject what it says.
Ephesians 2:1-10
And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved— and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

Once again you over look the portion of the quote you do not like.

"But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved— and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them."

The reason that God shows us His grace is because of our faith as we see in vs 8.

 

[Darrell C]

And if you read the modern anti Calvinist arguments they stress this autonomous free will as not the same as the free will Jonathan Edwards talks about - where you are free to do what you most want to.

It boils down to distinguishing between man's will in temporal matter and man's will in eternal/spiritual matters.

As the example seen in Matthew 16:12-18, it was God Who revealed to the disciples that Jesus was the Christ (the prophesied Messiah God's Word said would come) and that He was the Son of God (which according to Biblical Definition demands they believed He was directly related to God, thus God Himself). However, we see in Matthew 16:20-23 that they did not understand the Gospel, and Peter in fact rejects the Gospel given him by Christ Himself.

God makes the truths He means to convey real to those He ministers to, and it is in response to that ministry that men respond.

It is the person responding, though, not God forcing them.

If I threw a bucket of ice-water on someone on a 100 degree day, there would be a response. THey won't work for that response, nor will they take to intellectually decide if they are going to respond, they simply respond to that "outside stimuli," lol.

Now regarding the earlier statement about "help" I think that is what Jesus was trying to say in John chapter 3. It is more than a logical sequence or a learning method or a set of facts. It is something more that men need.

And He tells Nicodemus exactly how men will be born again:


John 3:9-16 King James Version

9 Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be?

10 Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?

11 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.

12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?

13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:

15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.


Christ had to die that men might have everlasting life.

Now some say Jesus was just saying that you have to humble yourself but the description in chapter 3 seems like more than that to me. I think being born again is another description of regeneration. And remember, if you define "help" as essential then you still have the problem of why aren't all men given the same kind of help.

Nicodemus was, like all of Israel, interpreting with a physical lense. We can't blame him (though the Lord did, lol) for having a physical expectation and a physical response, because there are physical elements to the Restoration of Israel as promised by God (i.e., long life, eradication of enmity between man and animals, and among animals).

However, God also promised of a spiritual aspect of that restoration. The valley of dry bones was a passage dealing with Israel "living again." Many probably did what people do today, they go to one extreme or another. That passage (Ezekiel 37) was probably viewed as speaking about the general resurrection they awaited, where the just and the unjust would be judged and rewarded or condemned (Daniel 12:1-2). They did not understand that the life the dead would receive would be the Life of Christ literally (John 6:46-54).

They didn't understand God's promise that He would "put His Spirit within them" was a promise of eternal indwelling (Ezekiel 36:24-27). A "spirit" is also understood in the context of one's will.

But the bottom line is that regeneration (which is the New Birth, except where the context is of the Millennial Kingdom (Israel's physical restoration which includes the restoration of the creation to a Pre-Fall condition)) is only possible by the Son of Man being lifted up. This is specific to the Eternal Son of God (the Creator) in His incarnation being put to death. That is how the Lord answered Nicodemus' question as to how men can be born of God (again/from above) and born of water (the Word of God, 1 Peter 1:22) and of the Spirit.

No man will be saved through exercise of something he does not possess. For the natural man, who is dead and without life (though he has physical life) there is no possibility that he will hear the Gospel and have faith and believe on Christ. None.

Only when God shows him/her the reality of the truth of the Gospel can he turn to Christ in faith. But I view this as something the person does, and that is why men are called to believe. The necessary repentance unto life is granted by God (Acts 11:17-18).

Thanks again for the response.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

Sure there is, but you reject what it says.
Ephesians 2:1-10
And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved— and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

This doesn't state men are regenerated in order to have faith.

It states men are saved by grace. I don't think anyone here is disputing that.

That men are saved by grace through faith doesn't mean God regenerates them prior to His grace being extended to them.

It is grace that enlightens the natural mind to the truth of the Gospel.


1 Corinthians 2:11-14 King James Version

11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.

12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.

13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.



It is the Gospel that creates repentance:


Acts 11:13-18 King James Version

13 And he shewed us how he had seen an angel in his house, which stood and said unto him, Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon, whose surname is Peter;

14 Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved.

15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.

16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.

17 Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God?

18 When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.



It is the Holy Spirit that brings conviction:


John 16:7-9 King James Version

7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.

8 And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:

9 Of sin, because they believe not on me;


Nothing in the order of salvation shows men are regenerated so they can believe and have faith. In Acts 10-11:18 it is obvious that the Gospel is given to unregenerate men and they believe, not because they have an inherent ability, but because God is bringing conviction of their unbelief and granting repentance that they might have life.

Just isn't open for debate.




God bless.

 

[DaveXR650]

@Darrell C , I agree with everything you said above except I'm not sure Jesus was explaining how to be born again. He explains being born again as essential and in verse 8 explains how mysterious and out of Nicodemus's own control it is. But as for what we are supposed to do - it is always back to believing. You are correct. Do people born themselves again by believing or do born again people immediately believe? Do all that the Father gives to Christ come to Christ or do all that come to Christ make themselves part of the number of those that are given to Christ? Calvinism is correct in noticing the many scriptures that make God the total author of salvation. But we really do, ourselves, have to believe and come to Christ. A Calvinist goes too far if he cannot see that this is still true. But a non-Cal is going against the scriptures if he insists that it all depends upon his own wise choice.

 

[DaveXR650]

It is grace that enlightens the natural mind to the truth of the Gospel.

You just defined regeneration or being born again.

 

[Darrell C]

Confession with the mouth is a work. Telling me a work is not a work is not going to work.

It's not a work, lol.

It is a response.

Is fear a work? Or a response?

It's the same principle, man's belief and faith is a response to God's ministry in their hearts.

As is calling on the LORD, Romans 10:13-14. Praying is a work too. In either work faith are their (those works) prerequisites.

Great example: men can make a conscious decision to pray. But they cannot make a conscious decision to fear or not. If you walk through the woods and look down to see you are getting ready step on a copperhead, you don't consciously decide there is a problem. If you understand the snake might kill you the response is going to be immediate: fear.

And that is just one aspect of the conviction and repentance God brings about in our hearts when He enlightens the natural mind: fear.

Was a fear of Hell a non-issue when you turned to Christ in faith?

Romans 4:5.

Romans 4:4-7 King James Version

4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.

5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,

7 Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.


None of this denies that men believe as a response to the revelation God provides.

David and Abraham believed the revelation of God and the result was they believed He would do what He said He would do and their faith was the evidence of that belief.

But they first had to 1) have something to believe that they might be able to believe in something and 2) they had to have the ability to understand what the focus of that belief was.

God does that, not man. There is no aspect of the corrupt notion of "free will" in that. There is no reason to deny that God demands men believe. You can't have faith if you don't believe, and you can't believe unless you have something to believe in, and you can't believe the spiritual things of God unless God allows you to.

So again, I will post this:


2 Peter 2:20-22 King James Version

20 For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.

21 For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.

22 But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.


Please answer the following. It will help us end the endless reiteration of opinion:

1. Does Scripture say that these men had the holy commandment delivered unto them?

2. Did they know the way of righteousness?

3. Did they return to their former conversation?


Just answer, please.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

@Darrell C , I agree with everything you said above except I'm not sure Jesus was explaining how to be born again. He explains being born again as essential and in verse 8 explains how mysterious and out of Nicodemus's own control it is. But as for what we are supposed to do - it is always back to believing. You are correct. Do people born themselves again by believing or do born again people immediately believe? Do all that the Father gives to Christ come to Christ or do all that come to Christ make themselves part of the number of those that are given to Christ? Calvinism is correct in noticing the many scriptures that make God the total author of salvation. But we really do, ourselves, have to believe and come to Christ. A Calvinist goes too far if he cannot see that this is still true. But a non-Cal is going against the scriptures if he insists that it all depends upon his own wise choice.

I will come back to this, Dave, but wanted to throw out this question in between responding to the alerts:

What is Nicodemus referring to when he asks "How can these things be?" in John 3:9?


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

You just defined regeneration or being born again.

No, not really, lol.

The New Birth, Regeneration, is the result of believing, not the means.

It is our receiving the life Christ came to bestow on men.

It is the New Creature, not the belief or faith of the New Creature.

It is salvation, Eternal Life, and that which Paul refers to when he speaks of how it is accomplished: salvation is accomplished by grace through faith. If I say "I was hospitalized by an injury through an ambulance," lol, I don't make the ambulance the state I am in (hospitalized).

New Birth/Regeneration is the condition of having life, and specifically Eternal/Everlasting life.

It is eternal in the context of our being in Eternal Union with God, and everlasting in the context of having no end. We share Eternal Life with God though we ourselves have a beginning in time.

Regeneration is entirely new to our condition, as we are born separated from God (and in fact from conception).

It is not a resurrection in the sense that we receive something back that we had formerly lost. The resurrection we will receive refers to bodily redemption, not eternal/spriitual redemption.

Christ taught that the fathers in the wilderness were dead:


John 6 King James Version

49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.


50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.


51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.


52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?


53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.


54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.


The Jews knew the fathers were dead (and this includes Moses).

Christ is contrasting the Old Testament Provision with the provision promised back then. He contrasts physical sustenance received in the wilderness and eternal sustenance provided through the Living Bread. We can distinguish that this provision became available when He came down from Heaven, right?

We can distinguish that the Living Bread (the "bread/provision" for life which is not physical) is a reference to His death, right?

And we can distinguish that eating of the flesh and drinking of the blood is believing that His death provides that provision for life, right?

So here is the point: regeneration did not and could not take place until He came down from Heaven and was lifted up (crucified/died). That means that the men and women of faith (Hebrews 11) believed and had faith despite the fact that they were not regenerate. But, that does not give credence to the fact that their belief and faith was a result of inherent ability. Scripture denies that. What Scripture does teach is that it is God that gives men and women an understanding of the Revelation He provides them.


God bless.

 

[Silverhair]

Agreed.

I would just ask you to clarify if you believe men have that ability within their natural/dead condition?

The "outside stimuli" is of course the Biblical position, but what some here seem to be arguing against is the position that men have the ability in their natural dead/natural/unregenerate state to make that decision. If you were to clarify whether you are or aren't taking that position it might help eliminate one aspect of the dispute.




"Free will" has a couple of different faces, and what most stand on today is the belief that men have an inherent ability. It differs from what I see Arminius teaching (Prevenient Grace), and is what I call a result of that teaching.

Again, I would ask if you could clarify where you stand on that, and to what extent you would demand of the "outside stimuli." Truly God gives man witness in Creation, and an internal witness of His will, but I take a position that in this Age, and in the context of the dispute between "sovereignty" and free will," only the testimony of the Comforter would really be relevant.

I don't view Lewis as someone who came to belief through the witness of Creation or the internal witness he was born of alone. They may have played a part but Lewis was saved through the "outside stimuli" of the Ministry of the Comforter.



Agreed.


Continued...

Man does not have such a free will as Pelagius would have it but man does have a God given free will such that he can evaluate information and make real choices. Arminius called this prevenient grace or grace that goes before. The work of the Holy Spirit in convicting man would be this type of grace.

As I had said before, the outside stimuli could be creation, hearing the gospel, conviction of the Holy Spirit etc but at the end of the day it still comes down to man having to make a choice. Some on BB have called mans ability to choose “absolute free will” but that is just an attempt by them to avoid what the bible teaches so they can hold to their theological view.

As I understand it we either have God picking out a select group to save and condemning the rest or we have God giving man the ability to respond to the stimuli that He has provided.

Man can not save himself but God only saves those that accept His son. Man has creation so he can know that there is a creator, man can hear the gospel so he can know there is a savior, man can be convicted by the Holy Spirit so he can know that he is a sinner but even then the man must decide if he will trust in Christ Jesus or not.

 

[Darrell C]

I agree with everything you said above except I'm not sure Jesus was explaining how to be born again.

He is explaining how men are able to be born again. We would say man is born again because of Christ's death and that would be correct, but not complete. We are born again based on His death (in our stead for eternal/complete remission of sins) and His Resurrection. Both are vital, and we can't exclude one or the other, and we cannot emphasize one or the other (though His Resurrection might get the emphasis if we did that, but we wouldn't have a Resurrection with His death (and this is the kind of problem that arises when we do not include the broader context of Scripture in our Theology)).

He explains being born again as essential and in verse 8 explains how mysterious and out of Nicodemus's own control it is.

I would agree, basically, because Paul makes it clear that the Gospel was a Mystery not revealed in the past Ages and generations (i.e., Colossians 1:25-27).

But Nicodemus wasn't excused as a teacher of Israel for not understanding a spiritual aspect to God's promises.

But as for what we are supposed to do - it is always back to believing. You are correct. Do people born themselves again by believing or do born again people immediately believe?

And it is when the notion that our belief or faith is something we do, rather than a response to what God does, that we see the dispute arise. If we simply understand that it is God that causes that belief and the resulting faith we wouldn't need to get upset about the notion that men are commanded to believe.

Do all that the Father gives to Christ come to Christ or do all that come to Christ make themselves part of the number of those that are given to Christ?

We love Him because He first loved us, lol.

God always initiates saving faith. Apart from His divine intervention, no man would be saved.

Calvinism is correct in noticing the many scriptures that make God the total author of salvation.

Agreed. He is not only the Author, but He is the Finisher (Completer) of our faith. That is why we can be confident He will finish the work He has begun in us, lol.

But we really do, ourselves, have to believe and come to Christ.

Yes, we do.

But a non-Cal is going against the scriptures if he insists that it all depends upon his own wise choice.

And I think that is a result of trying to deny the equally absurd notion that those that are saved do not believe.

So the original dispute gets worse to the point where it becomes absurd as a whole. I call that an extreme argument. A similar dispute would be those who seek to deny a deification or over-glorification of Mary: they sometimes end up going to the extreme of negating what Scripture does teach about her special role, and sometimes belittling her.

Another is the Calvinist teaching that men have always been regenerated in order to believe and have faith: this arises from an attempt to deny free will.

But if we maintain only what Scripture teaches these arguments can be seen for what they are: absurd.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

Man does not have such a free will as Pelagius would have it but man does have a God given free will such that he can evaluate information and make real choices. Arminius called this prevenient grace or grace that goes before. The work of the Holy Spirit in convicting man would be this type of grace.

The only thing I might add is that we have to be careful to distinguish what areas man's will can operate in. To illustrate that, I would ask you how many pounds of refrigerant would you need to make a three-ton heat pump system (that has an air handler on a third floor) work properly?

Now, it might be possible that you are involved with Refrigeration Technology and can answer this question.

Or, it might be that you cannot. Don't feel bad, many of the people in the trade cannot answer this question, lol.

The point is this: until you first have the knowledge and then secondly an understanding of this knowledge you cannot answer/understand.

It's even more extreme in regard to salvation because I would have to ask you to answer this question without me even asking it.

Now, if you heard the question or the situation on an HVAC forum, you might be able to educate yourself to the point where you could answer the question, as a natural man might be able to educate himself about the Gospel, but you still wouldn't have the experiential knowledge that would allow you to make an informed and understanding answer to the question.

Hope that makes sense, lol.

As I had said before, the outside stimuli could be creation, hearing the gospel, conviction of the Holy Spirit etc but at the end of the day it still comes down to man having to make a choice. Some on BB have called mans ability to choose “absolute free will” but that is just an attempt by them to avoid what the bible teaches so they can hold to their theological view.

I agree. But we have to acknowledge that it is still God giving man that ability. Because unless one is first given the revelation of what it is they must believe, they cannot believe. When they do believe, then faith is a result of that belief. Faith works within their lives as a result of belief. Belief is a result of enlightenment by God.

As I understand it we either have God picking out a select group to save and condemning the rest or we have God giving man the ability to respond to the stimuli that He has provided.

And I take the position that "all" means all here:


1 Timothy 2 King James Version

3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;

4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.


Doesn't mean all will be saved, but it does indicate that God gives all men the opportunity.

"For God so loved the world" seems pretty all-inclusive to me.

Man can not save himself but God only saves those that accept His son. Man has creation so he can know that there is a creator, man can hear the gospel so he can know there is a savior, man can be convicted by the Holy Spirit so he can know that he is a sinner but even then the man must decide if he will trust in Christ Jesus or not.

I think it goes beyond that, but it isn't going to matter to those who believe men were regenerated prior to Pentecost. The witness of Creation and the internal witness of God spoken of in Romans 1-2 are a separate issue from the convicting ministry of the Comforter. We see Gentiles justified (declared righteous) based on the latter in the Old Testament Ages, but I think that is a rarity today. More true earlier on in this Age, but as the Gospel has spread to the point where few have ever heard the Gospel there is less room for justification based on those witnesses.

I do think there are people in this world who will die without ever hearing a Gospel Presentation, but as I said, I think that is more of a rarity these days.

Thanks for the responses!


God bless.

 

[JesusFan]

Only because of the Devil and his angels for whom Christ did not die for. Matthew 25:41, Hebrews 2:14. There was no fire on the cross.

You deny then that the OT Prophets spoke of God storing up towards people bowls of wrath due to their sins?

 

[JesusFan]

"Atonement theory" is a faithless phrase. The Atonement is described in detail in the laws of the offerings. One either believes them, or they don't.

And Jon doesn't. And neither does anyone who denies the eminently substitionary nature thereof. The faithless neither have eyes to see nor ears to hear.

He denies that sins are purged. They're merely 'passed over,' or ignored.

But faith will beg of the Lord, "Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean: wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow."

he and others seem to deny Jesus being imputed our sins, so do they also deny imputed righteousness of Christ towards us when Justified?