Ot salvation topics

[12strings]

(THE FOLLOWING IS A CONTINUATION OF A RABBIT TRAIL SKAN AND i STARTED ON ANOTHER THREAD...I'M HOPING TO CONTINUE IT HERE. )


1. Are you saying these verses are saying that God graciously looks over the sins of those non-jewish nations in the OT who did not turn to the one true God? If so, This sounds sketchy.

(SKANDALON): No, I'm saying he over looked all sin until justification was provided. He didn't punish people for sin (breaking the laws), but only for unbelief (not acknowledging God as God).

Ok, Skan, I've been out of town. And some of these ideas were a bit new to me...So here goes:

1. I recognize the reference to Romans 3, but is not the Old Testament very clear that God Judges actual sins, not only those of unbelief? Perhaps you or someone else, or a web link could further explain this idea that God does not Judge people for their sins, but only for their unbelief.

--> In addition, I have heard some on this board go so far as to say Christ's Atonement actually did pay for the sins of every man and woman, and was applied to them, such that those who go to hell are ONLY going there for their sin of unbelief, not their other sins. (would you agree or disagree with this?)

(#2 in next thread)

 

[12strings]

2. If you say God judges these OT nations based on their rejections his natural revelation...but saves those Israelites who respond to his specific revelation, which he withholds from those pagan nations...is this not a "choosing" of God to provide a way of salvation to one group of people, while not revealing the way of salvation to another group?

(SKANDALON) Both Jews and non-Jews have always had sufficient revelation for believing in God. Only Israel had sufficient revelation for entering covenant with Him (circumcision, law, etc), but Paul is now declaring that this has NEVER been the path for attaining true righteousness and true relationship with God. In fact, no one is righteous according to the law and thus no one has ever attained righteousness through the law.
20 Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.21 But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22 This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe.
All people, of all nations, are guilty according to the law. And no one, even the most law biding Jews, have attained righteousness through observance of the law. HOWEVER, anyone (from any nation), who has had the faith even the size of mustard seed, has attained righteousness by God's gracious provision through Christ's atoning work. So, for example, Rahab's simple fear of the Israelite God which lead her to hide the spies was credited to her account as righteousness. She was a sinner, she didn't obey the laws, but she wasn't punished for those sins. Her sins were overlooked. Instead, God, who is gracious in mercy, justified her through the cross and credited her faith as righteousness. In contrast, even Abraham, who did follow the laws, was credit as righteous not because of his being circumcised, but on account of his faith in God.

So, God, because of his great love, takes even the small filthy rage of humble fear in an unseen God and credits it as righteousness, not because the faith itself is worthy of that gift, but on the basis of Christ's worth and provision. That is GRACE!!!

First, it might be helpful to point out that in all the OT records of Pagans who came to believe in the One true God, they seem to ALL be as a result of direct contact with people from God's Chosen Nation, bringing to them the knowledge of the one true God...a knowledge that they had previously been lacking. Rahab, Naman, the ninevites, none of them responded in saving faith to God's natural revelation alone. And it seems that the recorded instances were pointing out something that was unique... Foreigners coming to faith in the true God. It seems that for the vast majority of them, they were never given the opportunity to hear of this God.

Second, would you not say that the mustard seed of faith needed for salvation must be faith in a specific thing, or person/being? Applying what you have said to today: If a person grows up in a remote place on earth and never hears of Christ, but looks at nature and beleives some God made it, are you saying God will credit that faith as righteousness? Or must they hear and beleive the Gospel of Jesus?

 

[Skandelon]

First, allow me to commend you for a very profitable and cordial discussion. I get the impression that you approach these matters with a true intent to learn about other perspectives even if you will never agree with them. That is to be commended. I will do my best to return in kind. :thumbsup:

1. I recognize the reference to Romans 3, but is not the Old Testament very clear that God Judges actual sins, not only those of unbelief? Perhaps you or someone else, or a web link could further explain this idea that God does not Judge people for their sins, but only for their unbelief.

--> In addition, I have heard some on this board go so far as to say Christ's Atonement actually did pay for the sins of every man and woman, and was applied to them, such that those who go to hell are ONLY going there for their sin of unbelief, not their other sins. (would you agree or disagree with this?)

I like the way the synod of Dort said it and even Charles Hodge affirmed: "No one perishes for a lack of atonement."

Even Calvin affirmed as much when he wrote:

"As no man is excluded from calling upon God, the gate of salvation is set open to all men; neither is there any other thing which keepeth us back from entering in, save only our own unbelief." - John Calvin​

I believe in what is sometimes referred to as 'provisional atonement,' which means exactly what it sounds like it would mean. Atonement is provided for ALL, but only those who BELIEVE benefit.

Allow for an analogy. Suppose their is a deserted island with 100 shipwrecked passengers and a man is sent to rescue them but only takes a raft able to carry 10 preselected passengers back with him because he knows none of the people will want to come back with him due to the pleasures of the Island and he will have to effectually convince 10 to come with him. Can that man honestly say he has provided the means for everyone to be rescued? No. He has only provided the means for 10 to come back. But suppose he had a boat that would hold all 100 passengers. In that case he would be providing the means for ALL to be saved. The idea that Christ paid just so much for just so many is not biblical, nor is it supported by classic Calvinistic teaching.

More later... got to run!

 

[12strings]

First, allow me to commend you for a very profitable and cordial discussion. I get the impression that you approach these matters with a true intent to learn about other perspectives even if you will never agree with them. That is to be commended. I will do my best to return in kind. :thumbsup:


I like the way the synod of Dort said it and even Charles Hodge affirmed: "No one perishes for a lack of atonement."

Even Calvin affirmed as much when he wrote:

"As no man is excluded from calling upon God, the gate of salvation is set open to all men; neither is there any other thing which keepeth us back from entering in, save only our own unbelief." - John Calvin​

I believe in what is sometimes referred to as 'provisional atonement,' which means exactly what it sounds like it would mean. Atonement is provided for ALL, but only those who BELIEVE benefit.

Allow for an analogy. Suppose their is a deserted island with 100 shipwrecked passengers and a man is sent to rescue them but only takes a raft able to carry 10 preselected passengers back with him because he knows none of the people will want to come back with him due to the pleasures of the Island and he will have to effectually convince 10 to come with him. Can that man honestly say he has provided the means for everyone to be rescued? No. He has only provided the means for 10 to come back. But suppose he had a boat that would hold all 100 passengers. In that case he would be providing the means for ALL to be saved. The idea that Christ paid just so much for just so many is not biblical, nor is it supported by classic Calvinistic teaching.

More later... got to run!

1. Even reading these quotes from Hodge and Calvin, I wonder if they would go so far as to say what some on this board have said, that Those who are in hell are suffering only for the sin of unbelief, not for all the other sins they have committed. I would be more inclined to say that the sin of unbelief is the reason that they are not suffering for that and all their other sins, because the atonement of Christ was never applied to them.

 

[Skandelon]

1. Even reading these quotes from Hodge and Calvin, I wonder if they would go so far as to say what some on this board have said, that Those who are in hell are suffering only for the sin of unbelief, not for all the other sins they have committed. I would be more inclined to say that the sin of unbelief is the reason that they are not suffering for that and all their other sins, because the atonement of Christ was never applied to them.

I'm not apposed to that explanation. The application of the atoning work of Christ only benefits those who believe, but you have to sincerely believe it is a work available for all to make that claim, something true 'limited atonement believing' Calvinists can't really claim IMO.

It's like this. If I commit a crime and the judge pays my fine and asks me only to apologize for my offense in order to be freed, but I refuse to apologize and instead rebelliously curse him instead; do I say that I'm going to prison because of the original crime, or because I refused to apologize and cursed the judge? All of those obviously contributed to my going to prison, but once the fine had been paid and the offer proffered, the real reason for my imprisonment became my response to that offer, not the fine owed for the original crime. Make sense?

 

[12strings]

I'm not apposed to that explanation. The application of the atoning work of Christ only benefits those who believe, but you have to sincerely believe it is a work available for all to make that claim, something true 'limited atonement believing' Calvinists can't really claim IMO.

It's like this. If I commit a crime and the judge pays my fine and asks me only to apologize for my offense in order to be freed, but I refuse to apologize and instead rebelliously curse him instead; do I say that I'm going to prison because of the original crime, or because I refused to apologize and cursed the judge? All of those obviously contributed to my going to prison, but once the fine had been paid and the offer proffered, the real reason for my imprisonment became my response to that offer, not the fine owed for the original crime. Make sense?

1. Yes, but the question remains as to whether the payment is actually made for those who do not believe, or if it is just made available.

2. What would you say to my #2 OP above (post #2).

3. If I may jest a bit, here's a summary of a typical post by SKAN:

-Begin with response to previous post.
-Add a quote from a Calvinist who seems to be disagreeing with Calvinism.
-Tell a hypothetical story that supports my point.
-End with "Make sense?"

:laugh:

 

[Yeshua1]

1. Even reading these quotes from Hodge and Calvin, I wonder if they would go so far as to say what some on this board have said, that Those who are in hell are suffering only for the sin of unbelief, not for all the other sins they have committed. I would be more inclined to say that the sin of unbelief is the reason that they are not suffering for that and all their other sins, because the atonement of Christ was never applied to them.

ALL have us have sinned before god, by both deeds/thoughts, and by being reckoned by god as dead in adam!

The sinner is gulity before god , as the lotrd had adam be the represenattive for all to come after Him, so ALl were found guilty and condemned in him...

That is why we MUST have a saviour, for even IF one could keep law perfectly, STILL would be judged for being found by God in Adam!

For its NOT rejecting jesus that damns one, but by the fact are born and act as sinners, for ONE sin causes the wrath of god to abide on one...

For if its "merely" the relection of yeshua that condemns us, why even send forth missionaries, wouldn't "ignorance be bliss?"

 

[Winman]

Yeshua1, you never fail to misrepresent scripture;

ALL have us have sinned before god, by both deeds/thoughts, and by being reckoned by god as dead in adam!

The scriptures do not say we are "dead in Adam". I challenge you to show where that is said in scripture. I already know you can't, because the phrase "in Adam" is said only once in scripture, which is 1 Cor 15:22;

1 Cor 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

Does this verse say we are dead in Adam? NO, it says in Adam "all die". That is a very different thing. You have to be alive to "die".

Besides this, this verse is speaking of physical death only, not spiritual. The entire 15th chapter of 1st Corinthians deals with the resurrection of our physical bodies, not spiritual death.

So, as usual, you completely misrepresent what the scriptures actually say.

 

[Yeshua1]

Yeshua1, you never fail to misrepresent scripture;



The scriptures do not say we are "dead in Adam". I challenge you to show where that is said in scripture. I already know you can't, because the phrase "in Adam" is said only once in scripture, which is 1 Cor 15:22;

1 Cor 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

Does this verse say we are dead in Adam? NO, it says in Adam "all die". That is a very different thing. You have to be alive to "die".

Besides this, this verse is speaking of physical death only, not spiritual. The entire 15th chapter of 1st Corinthians deals with the resurrection of our physical bodies, not spiritual death.

So, as usual, you completely misrepresent what the scriptures actually say.

Adam is the representative for mankind before God, he failed, we ALl shared in his guilty verdict, we ALL physically AND spiritually died in him...

in jesus, ALL are made spiritually alive...

THAT is what the Bible teaches!

 

[Skandelon]

1. Yes, but the question remains as to whether the payment is actually made for those who do not believe, or if it is just made available.

Seems to be a distinction without a difference to me. I believe scripture is clear that the payment is made for all.

2 Peter 2:1
But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them--bringing swift destruction on themselves.

Luke 19:10: "For the Son of Man came to seek and to save what was lost." (The "lost" seems to refer to the entire world of lost humanity, not just the lost elect.)

John 1:29: "The next day John saw Jesus coming towards him and said, 'Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world.'"

Acts 2:21: "And everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."

Acts 17:30: "In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent."

Romans 5:6: "You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly."

2 Corinthians 5:14-15: "For Christ's love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died. And he died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again."

1 Timothy 2:3-4: "This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth."

1 Timothy 2:5-6: "For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all men - the testimony given in its proper time."

1 Timothy 4:10: "We have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe."

Titus 2:11: "For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men."

Hebrews 2:9: "But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone."

2 Peter 3:9: "The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance."

1 John 2:2: "He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world." (Note the distinction between "ours" and "the whole world.")

1 John 4:14: "And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world."
​

2. What would you say to my #2 OP above (post #2).

I had responded to that but just noticed it never posted. I'll have to retype that I guess, I'm not sure why its not here???

3. If I may jest a bit, here's a summary of a typical post by SKAN:

-Begin with response to previous post.
-Add a quote from a Calvinist who seems to be disagreeing with Calvinism.
-Tell a hypothetical story that supports my point.
-End with "Make sense?"

The quotes from Calvinists are there to show that more moderate leaning (classical) Calvinists are willing to even say something like: "Although the provision of atonement is unlimited, yet the application of it is limited." Which is virtually the same as my view on the subject.

Let me explain it this way. High Calvinists think God limits those who are saved with 3 points in TULIP, where as moderate Calvinists would say it is only limited by two points...

A High Calvinist would say those who are saved are limited by "U", "L" and "I". God preselects a particular number (U), only atones for those chosen (L), and irresistibly calls them (I).

A Moderate Calvinist would say those who preselected (U), are irresistibly called (I), but the atonement is available to all, if they were willing. It is only limited in its application (L). Make sense? :laugh:

Here are some more quotes, so as to be consistent with my presentation:

Answers to Three Common Questions

1. If Christ died for those who go to hell, what benefit have they from His death?

Answer: "We may as well ask, What good did the bitten Israelites get from the brazen serpent to which they refused to look? None, of course, but God got the glory of being a God generous enough to provide for them."

2. If satisfaction has been made for all, how can any go to hell?

Answer: "Though God has provided atonement for all, He has also stipulated that none get the good of it, except through repentance and faith. Deliverance from doom was not contingent on the atonement itself but on the reception of it. Men can starve in the presence of a free feast, if they refuse to partake of it."

3. Why would God have Christ die for those whom He, in His omniscience, knew would never receive His provision?

Answer: "Why did God richly endow the angels who subsequently sinned, when He knew they would not use His gifts to their everlasting good? Why did He bestow valuable gifts on our first parents, to be employed for their and our advantage, when He knew they would not so employ them? Why did He send Noah to preach to people He knew would not receive His message? And why did He send the prophets to Israel, when He knew they would continue in their apostasy? There is such a thing as the divine benevolence."​

 

[Skandelon]

2. If you say God judges these OT nations based on their rejections his natural revelation...but saves those Israelites who respond to his specific revelation, which he withholds from those pagan nations...is this not a "choosing" of God to provide a way of salvation to one group of people, while not revealing the way of salvation to another group?

Who says everyone from Pagan nations have rejected God's natural revelation? I submit that some acknowledged God and feared Him based on the clear natural revelation of Himself. If natural revelation isn't sufficient to allow man to respond by acknowledging God as God, then its not sufficient to remove all excuses of those who refused to do so. IOW, if you claim natural revelation isn't sufficient to bring someone to believe the truth of that revelation, then you have given those who don't believe the perfect excuse for not believing what God has clearly made known.

First, it might be helpful to point out that in all the OT records of Pagans who came to believe in the One true God, they seem to ALL be as a result of direct contact with people from God's Chosen Nation, bringing to them the knowledge of the one true God...a knowledge that they had previously been lacking. Rahab, Naman, the ninevites, none of them responded in saving faith to God's natural revelation alone.

I disagree, they responded to the level of revelation they had been given. Cornelius and Lydia 'feared God' prior to hearing the gospel, for example. Pagans had natural revelation and their inborn conscience, to which God held them to account. That alone is sufficient for some measure of divine acknowledgment and accountability. There is no reason to believe it is insufficient for a response and thus 'responsibility.''

Second, would you not say that the mustard seed of faith needed for salvation must be faith in a specific thing, or person/being?

Yes, in God and His revelation. One may not know the biblical revelation (special) but they may still acknowledge God as God and fear him. God, in His grace, may choose to credit that to their account as righteousness, over looking their sin for a time (ref. Rm 3; 2 Cor 5), or may send a messenger to give them more revelation (i.e. Jonah, Isaiah, etc).

Applying what you have said to today: If a person grows up in a remote place on earth and never hears of Christ, but looks at nature and beleives some God made it, are you saying God will credit that faith as righteousness? Or must they hear and beleive the Gospel of Jesus?

Short answer: I don't know. Scripture is not perfectly clear on this point. But based on how God dealt with OT peoples who had yet to hear the gospel, I believe a very strong case can be made for the view that God will hold men accountable for the level of revelation they have received.

Jesus said, "If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains. John 9:41

Mt.13:12: “For whoever has, to him more will be given, and he will have abundance; but to whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken away.” If we are teachable, it is profitable, “more will be given.” The condition of increase is by our hearts openness. If you do not respond correctly what light you have been given will be taken away. He who lays hold of truth and uses it will receive more enlightenment, but he who refuses to appropriate truth will lose even the understanding of truth he once had been given. But if someone does not live up to the light given there will be enough to judge them.

 

[Yeshua1]

Seems to be a distinction without a difference to me. I believe scripture is clear that the payment is made for all.

2 Peter 2:1
But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them--bringing swift destruction on themselves.

Luke 19:10: "For the Son of Man came to seek and to save what was lost." (The "lost" seems to refer to the entire world of lost humanity, not just the lost elect.)

John 1:29: "The next day John saw Jesus coming towards him and said, 'Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world.'"

Acts 2:21: "And everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."

Acts 17:30: "In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent."

Romans 5:6: "You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly."

2 Corinthians 5:14-15: "For Christ's love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died. And he died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again."

1 Timothy 2:3-4: "This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth."

1 Timothy 2:5-6: "For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all men - the testimony given in its proper time."

1 Timothy 4:10: "We have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe."

Titus 2:11: "For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men."

Hebrews 2:9: "But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone."

2 Peter 3:9: "The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance."

1 John 2:2: "He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world." (Note the distinction between "ours" and "the whole world.")

1 John 4:14: "And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world."
​

I had responded to that but just noticed it never posted. I'll have to retype that I guess, I'm not sure why its not here???


The quotes from Calvinists are there to show that more moderate leaning (classical) Calvinists are willing to even say something like: "Although the provision of atonement is unlimited, yet the application of it is limited." Which is virtually the same as my view on the subject.

Let me explain it this way. High Calvinists think God limits those who are saved with 3 points in TULIP, where as moderate Calvinists would say it is only limited by two points...

A High Calvinist would say those who are saved are limited by "U", "L" and "I". God preselects a particular number (U), only atones for those chosen (L), and irresistibly calls them (I).

A Moderate Calvinist would say those who preselected (U), are irresistibly called (I), but the atonement is available to all, if they were willing. It is only limited in its application (L). Make sense? :laugh:

Here are some more quotes, so as to be consistent with my presentation:

Answers to Three Common Questions

1. If Christ died for those who go to hell, what benefit have they from His death?

Answer: "We may as well ask, What good did the bitten Israelites get from the brazen serpent to which they refused to look? None, of course, but God got the glory of being a God generous enough to provide for them."

2. If satisfaction has been made for all, how can any go to hell?

Answer: "Though God has provided atonement for all, He has also stipulated that none get the good of it, except through repentance and faith. Deliverance from doom was not contingent on the atonement itself but on the reception of it. Men can starve in the presence of a free feast, if they refuse to partake of it."

3. Why would God have Christ die for those whom He, in His omniscience, knew would never receive His provision?

Answer: "Why did God richly endow the angels who subsequently sinned, when He knew they would not use His gifts to their everlasting good? Why did He bestow valuable gifts on our first parents, to be employed for their and our advantage, when He knew they would not so employ them? Why did He send Noah to preach to people He knew would not receive His message? And why did He send the prophets to Israel, when He knew they would continue in their apostasy? There is such a thing as the divine benevolence."​

Actually, BOTH high/Mod cals would see the elect ONLY being the ones to benefit by the Cross of christ, as BOTh would see it as being the Lord predestinating out for Himself a remnant peoples...

main difference is that high sees jesus paying the sins death for JUST Hi9s elect, while Mods seeing that His death paid for all , but ONLY effectual towards the Elect!