Particular Redemption: Misconceptions cleared up

RB,

To me, it appears that the doctrine of "particular redemption" applies to sanctification which cannot be accomplished in the unsaved but is automatically accomplished in the saved by the indwelling HS. I believe Calvinism is failing to make the distinctionhere between justification before God and sanctification through Christ.

That is, Christ died for ALL sin but most do not appropriate their justification in Christ through decisional reeneration. However, ALL will be "rescued" from hell to stand before Christ on account of their sins are forgiven.

Excuse me -- gotta go watch the morning sun highlighting the palm trees and peniusulas that jut out into the ocean (first morning in Kauai).


skypair

 

But there is a difference. You needn't "paint" me with that "brush."

Scripture affirms what I say -- it does not support the Calvinist formulation of what Christ accomplished on the cross.

skypair

 

Here are some responses to some of the statement on the Monergism sight.

John 3:17-18 is clear both to God's intent for the atonement and the reason for its limiting.
Here is God's intent: For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world should be saved through him.

Here is the reason for the limitation of the atonement's application: The one who does not believe has been condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the one and only Son of God.

Just as the believer's present suffering is not worthy to be compared to the glory that will follow, the unbeliever's eternal suffering is not to be compared to a temporal benefit of Christ's death. This argument is pretty silly.

Christ died for the Father. He died to satisfy God's wrath against sin and he died to display God's righteousness to men. God's righteous standard has always been made known to man, first through the conscience and then through the law. But today, God's righteousness is displayed for all the world to see and it is displayed by the Father, as Romans 3:25 says: God publicly displayed him at his death as the propitiation (satisfaction) accessible through faith.

 

Here are some responses to some of the statement on the Monergism sight.

John 3:17-18 is clear both to God's intent for the atonement and the reason for its limiting.
Here is God's intent: For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world should be saved through him.

Here is the reason for the limitation of the atonement's application: The one who does not believe has been condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the one and only Son of God.

Just as the believer's present suffering is not worthy to be compared to the glory that will follow, the unbeliever's eternal suffering is not to be compared to a temporal benefit of Christ's death. This argument is pretty silly.

Christ died for the Father. He died to satisfy God's wrath against sin and he died to display God's righteousness to men. God's righteous standard has always been made known to man, first through the conscience and then through the law. But today, God's righteousness is displayed for all the world to see and it is displayed by the Father, as Romans 3:25 says: God publicly displayed him at his death as the propitiation (satisfaction) accessible through faith.