Some questions for anti-calvinists #3

Finally a question that has a correct answer. Questions 1 and 2 do not have a correct answer.

NO! Atonement is Applied to sin, and the Penalty thereof! Therefore any one-out-of-ALL-mankind can, by coming to the point of believing in God, have everlasting life, and not die for their sins.

Atonement Applies to ALL sins regardless of the faith condition of the sinner.

 

wes, what exactly does the word 'atonement' mean to you? I'm curious. It sounds to me that you view atonement as paying a debt rather than being a substitute. When we say Christ 'paid for sin' we don't imply that something like a monetary transaction occurred. We weren't merely bankrupt- we were condemned to hell! The shedding of blood on the cross was in the place of those who are or will be in heaven. If ALL sin had been atoned for, all in hell would be able to cry foul for having to pay for sin that's non-existant. When God says He removes sin as far as the east is from the west- is he speaking about the sin on the cross? If so- why has the sin come back to haunt people in hell? You might harken back to the monetary analogy, but that's not exactly a proper comparison. Christ actually took the place of (made propitiation) for sins on the cross. If those sins could be held against the sinners, what a weak sacrifice he made!

 

TCassidy, do you read in the Gospel of Luke's account of the Lord's Supper, where it clearly shows that Judas was still present at the table when Jesus passed around the Cup? Then Jesus passed the cup to ALL present, and said: "This cup is the New Testament in my blood, which is shed for you" (22:20). Surely, if Jesus did not want Judas to part-take of the cup of His blood, then he would has insitiuted the Lord's Supper after Judas had departed? No, but Jesus says that His blood was also shed for Judas, and allowed him to drink of it.

 

No I don't believe so but most calvinst I talk to say Christ died only for the elect.

 

If you are being consistant in this argument, you must also take this statement into account:

Jhn 17:6 I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word.

Did Judas keep God's word? Was he one of God's?

Jhn 17:8 For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received [them], and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.

Was Judas a believer? verse 8 seems to imply this.

Jhn 17:15 I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil.

Was Jesus praying that God keep Judas from the evil in verse 15?

Jhn 17:16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.

Was Judas 'not of the world' as Christ was 'not of the world?'

It's pretty obvious that Judas was excluded from such statements because he wasn't the true 12th disciple. He was an imposter- chosen for one task alone: his role in Christ's crucifixion. Your argument doesn't stand up with the rest of scripture. Christ didn't have to be talking directly to Judas at the last supper, just like he didn't have to be referring to Judas in his prayer to God in John 17.

 

Atonement means that I do not face death for the sins I commit. Jesus took my penalty upon himself so that I can have everlasting life by believing in him. . .AND I DO!

Atonement is for sin, and not for the person. Jesus atoned for ALL sin in ALL times, therefore no one is under a death penalty for sin! So sin is not in the salvation equation, it is not a factor in eternal life. But that does not give us license to sin, for if we sin we showing contempt for the one who took OUR death penalty on himself. Such behavior of a believer, can lead to disbelief which leads to the lake of fire.

The reason people die is they lack faith in God, thus their names are not found in the book of life. Names are added to, and names can be blotted from the book of life. Faith=written in; lack of faith=blotted from.

 

Amen, Tim, thank you for that answer. My position is that Christ's atonement was "sufficient for all, efficient only for the elect (believers)." I believe he "died for all" in a generic sense bringing many blessings to all people everywhere, but that His atonement was only for believers specifically. The unbelievers benefit from the general, but not the specific, results of the atonement.

</font>[/QUOTE]So Christ's atonement is "sufficient (but not intended) for all"? This doesn't answer the question about Judas at the Lord's Supper.

I don't know what kind of "blessings" the non elect can benefit from Christ's "generic" atonement for all. Non elect mankind was created to enjoy life for only 72 years then spend eternity separated from God? Man, what a blessing, huh?

 

it IS a blessing- a blessing that God would save ANY.

 

If you are being consistant in this argument, you must also take this statement into account:

Jhn 17:6 I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word.

Did Judas keep God's word? Was he one of God's?

Jhn 17:8 For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received [them], and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.

Was Judas a believer? verse 8 seems to imply this.

Jhn 17:15 I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil.

Was Jesus praying that God keep Judas from the evil in verse 15?

Jhn 17:16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.

Was Judas 'not of the world' as Christ was 'not of the world?'

It's pretty obvious that Judas was excluded from such statements because he wasn't the true 12th disciple. He was an imposter- chosen for one task alone: his role in Christ's crucifixion. Your argument doesn't stand up with the rest of scripture. Christ didn't have to be talking directly to Judas at the last supper, just like he didn't have to be referring to Judas in his prayer to God in John 17. </font>[/QUOTE]Whetstone, you completely missed the point of my post. Its all in the timing. You see, Jesus instituted the Lord's Supper while Judas was still with them. Luke being that only Gospel that shows this: "But behold the had of him that betrayeth Me is with me on the table" (22:21). This was AFTER Judas has drunk of the "cup" in verse 21, of the "New Testament in my blood which was shed for you". The fact that Jesus passed the cup to all of the twelve, and all of the twelve drank of it, and He said these words to all of the twelve, is very importanty. Why did not Jesus wait for Judas to have left the room, and then pass the cup around, and say the words which He spoke in verse 21? Why did Jesus include Judas in this very important "Supper"? Even today, all Bible-believing Churches will always give the "warnings" to those not part of the "Body of Christ", and those who are not "right with the Lord", that they should avoid part-taking of the Lord's Supper. Yet Jesus made sure that Judas was still with Him in the room, and gave him of the cup which "represented" His death on the cross for their sins.

You simply cannot ignore this.

 

Hello Brother Cassidy! I just ran by this thread and couldn't resist looking in to see what this is all about. Well, you are asking the "non-Calvinists," huh? I think this may be a baited question, but hey, I am game. Since I am neither a Calvinist, nor an Armenian, but a fundamental Bible believer, who does not need the creeds of men to enlighten me when there is the good old Bible - of which, through the aid of the Holy Spirit I can discern and interpret the Sacred Words for myself. As I have perceived it through my 66 years of sojourning here on planet Earth, the interpretation of the Bible has been done throughout the ages to the personal preferences of individuals, who then try to influence others to the tenet of their interpretation of certain key passages. Hence we have so many Bible Colleges and Seminaries at arms against each other. And I heard that if you are a student in any one of these colleges and you do not answer on your test papers the way you heard it from your Professor, you will not make a passing grade. That is why we have so many religious persuasions within Evangelical Christians as well as the various colors and shades of doctrine among Baptist believers.

The way I see it from the Bible, "atonement" was always associated with sin. In the Old Testament the people of Israel had to set a day apart when they brought their sin offering, so as to atone for their sins. In the new testament the death of Jesus was an all-time sufficient atonement for the sins of the world (PTL that included me). So to answer your question dear Dr. Cassidy, I quote the Apostle Paul from 1 Corinthians 15:3, 4 "For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures; And that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures." Yes, the atonement of Christ was offered for the whole wide world - to all generations - "for God so loved the world....", and it is only limited to "whosoever believeth in Him.... should not perish, but have everlasting life." Amen? Amen!

 

Amen, Tim, thank you for that answer. My position is that Christ's atonement was "sufficient for all, efficient only for the elect (believers)." I believe he "died for all" in a generic sense bringing many blessings to all people everywhere, but that His atonement was only for believers specifically. The unbelievers benefit from the general, but not the specific, results of the atonement.

Thanks, again, Tim for participating in an honest and Christ like manner.

We seem to agree on much more than we disagree. </font>[/QUOTE]I say Cassidy, how come you guys don't deal with John 3:15-18? I have asked all Calvinists who know Greek in another thread on this very subject.

 

Amen

 

Barnabas J. Halo said "Since I am neither a Calvinist, nor an Armenian, but a fundamental Bible believer, who does not need the creeds of men to enlighten me when there is the good old Bible - of which, through the aid of the Holy Spirit I can discern and interpret the Sacred Words for myself."

Amen, Bro. Barnabas. Me, too I have never understood the reason for this debate.

 

Wonderful reply, sir! Well answered. Amen!

 

It's FUN! FUN! FUN!

 

Less fun than a root canal!