Some questions for anti-calvinists #3

And faith in Christ would include believing He died on the cross for our sins and accepting that gift of salvation.

We're playing word games now.

 

What I am sayin is that the Christ's Atonement for sin does not need our concurrence to be effective or affective. The atonement was accomplished 2000 years ago, we have nothing to contribute toward it but our faith in the atoner!

 

But those who do not have faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior i.e. accept forgiveness, will face hell and its punishment.

 

NO! they do not face hell for the reason of sin, they face hell for reason of lack of faith only!

Both Jesus and Paul say that certain people cannot enter heaven, and that is those who, though expressing faith in Jesus or in God, steadfastly refuse to repent of their behavioral flaws. Examples are the liars, the sexually immoral, the thieves, the frauds, etc. They may all claim Jesus, but they do not give up their sinful ways. It is they who will not enter the kingdom of God because they have not washed their robes spotless, they are still filthy rags. See the parable of the Wedding Feast.

 

So why does Revelation and other passages make it clear that they face hell for their sin? Did John miss the signals and write something wrong? Or are you wrong?

And why do you persist in saying that unbelief is not a sin? Scripture says belief is commanded, and failure to obey the command of God is a sin. And unbelief is listed in Rev 21:8 as one of the sins for which people go to hell.

 

Do you believe that those sins are paid for twice, then?

 

Christ died for my sins and it is HIS sacrifice which pays my sin debt but I must accept the gift of salvation which is offered and intended for all men. </font>[/QUOTE]Certainly we must accept the gift of salvation. But wouldn't you say that Christ didn't do any more for you than He did for anyone else, even an unbeliever? If so, then Christ's work for you is not enough, by itself; and the difference between you and the unbeliever is not Christ's sacrifice, but your belief. If you were to stand before God, and if He were to ask you why He should allow you into Heaven, what would you point to? Christ's work alone, or Christ's work plus your faith?

 

If you are commanded to "have faith" but you do not "Have faith", and since you believe that the only faith you can have is that which is given you BY GOD! Do you sin?

 

The blood sacrifice was demanded BY God for ALL men.

You love word plays, don't you Doc? .

Psalms 56:5a All day they twist my words;

 

Not sure who you are talking to, but the answer is "yes". If God commands you to do something and you do not do it then it is sin, every time.

 

Bro. Halo,

There are a couple of things that I am curious about. How is it that you are able to interpret Scripture without interference from your own personal preferences when no one else can (except maybe those who agree with you)? And why is it OK for you to try to influence us with your interpretation of the atonement, but it's not OK for Calvinists or Arminians to do so? </font>[/QUOTE]Dear whatever: Sorry for the address, but I do not know your name other than the displayed one. Now, you are asking a pretty fare question and it makes me think if I was clear enough of what I wanted to say in the first place? When I was referring to the interpretation of the Bible I was purely referring to the aid of the Holy Spirit in my life over the years. Clearly, if you are a Bible student, you can affirm that the best teacher of the Bible is the Holy Spirit. This is what Jesus told His disciples also as He prepared them for the time when He will no longer be with them: "But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you" (Matthew 14:26 KJV). And I am sure you must have heard preachers say that "the Bible interprets itself" (in other words, when you cross reference certain verses, you will understand them better for they are being illuminated from different angles).

Now, I do have a number of Bible expository books from Matthew Henry, (Albert) Barnes Notes, J. Vernon McGee, (Robert) Jamieson, (Andrew) Fausset, (David) Brown, and (Adam) Clark) to name a few. And they are a great help in illuminating the Bible from a different perspective, but the ultimate interpreter of the Bible is the Bible. I read from these godly men and then go back to the Bible and check it out if what they have said is so? Ultimately through God's precious gift to me as a believer, I can discern and see how the things they write is conforming to the Word of God. That is why I said that I (do) "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." I think it is now a little clearer of what I have meant (aside from the topic at hand, which is "limited atonement".

As far as the "influence" of one's interpretation of the Bible is concerned, I was thinking (even though I did not mention) about great schools of the Bible which were divided over two theological thoughts. Professors who has not seen eye to eye were influential enough to get followers who were then fought the battle for them to the point of separation. In the Bible we see such event when Paul and Barnabas could not agree whether they ought to take with them John Mark. The two great men wound up on a separate road for the rest of their lives. Practical School of the Bible in Johnson City, NY., had such event and the school split down in the middle. The other half is now called the Baptist Bible College & Seminary in Clarks Summit, PA. I personally know a former seminary professor of Old Testament studies at Grace College and Theological Seminary (Winona Lake, IN), who had to leave the seminary because he would hold to his views. Dr. John C. Whitcomb, who served with distinction for 38 years at that seminary, had to leave because he would not withdraw his support of the first 11 chapters of the Bible as true - and not fable. He was asked to leave because other men, more influential in their theological views persuaded good men to rally against him. When I was referring to "influence" I was referring to these types of influences which have dire circumstances. And no, my friend, I did not mean that anyone ought to prescribe to my understanding of the Bible - for we are created in the "image" of God and we are not robots in our way of thinking. If you hear of me something and you ponder how to take it..... check it out from the Bible and see if it agrees with God's Word. If not, you let it go behind your ears and pay no attention to it.

Lastly, you mentioned Calvinist and Armenian teachings as a possible source of influence? If you recall, I did not say that the teachings of those theological positions do not have something to offer to a believer and a student of the Bible. I simply remarked that, "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." I could add that while I hold great respect for those men who were the founders of those doctrinal positions (Calvin & Arminius), by which they changed history, for some reason I am unable to ascribe to their teachings. Now it is perhaps my own fault, because by studying history I have learned how John Calvin was instrumental in burning one of his fellow believers, Michael Servetus, at the stake. Evangelical Christians could never adequately reconcile this dark phase at the onset of Reformation. As I understand it, Geneva only now erected a monument as a memorial to Serveticus, not as a reconciliatory move but as a gesture of religious tolerance.

Well, I may have been a little long and rightfully be chastised by the forum Moderator, Pastor Larry. But I wanted to make it sure that the paragraph on the top is not misunderstood for something I did not mean. Thank you for your question, and God bless!

 

And thank you for your answer! I hope you aren't chastised.

Just to clarify one thing, I'm a Calvinist but I am no fan of John Calvin. Like Spurgeon I believe "Calvinism" is just a nickname for "the gospel". I don't believe Calvinism because certain other men believe(d) it, I believe it because I see it all throughout the Bible.

The reason I asked what I did is that I sometimes meet people who think that they can't learn from others. I'm glad that's not the case with you. God's blessings on you too.

 

Offered to God. Heres one for you. Who applied the blood? Men....hmmm according to calvinist logic they saved themselves by obeying God in appling the blood on the doorpost and thus helping save themselves.

 

And thank you for your answer! I hope you aren't chastised.

Just to clarify one thing, I'm a Calvinist but I am no fan of John Calvin. Like Spurgeon I believe "Calvinism" is just a nickname for "the gospel". I don't believe Calvinism because certain other men believe(d) it, I believe it because I see it all throughout the Bible.

The reason I asked what I did is that I sometimes meet people who think that they can't learn from others. I'm glad that's not the case with you. God's blessings on you too. </font>[/QUOTE]Fair enough but let me say I have no man who I totally agree with and when I read thier books I sift them scripture and it is I who am held accountable for what I believe.

 

That's what we should all do. Keep sifting.

I don't usually agree with everything I read. But often I am the one who is wrong.

 

The blood sacrifice was demanded BY God for ALL men.

God demanded the blood sacrifice for the sins of the WORLD (all men).

The sacrificial death of Jesus was freely offered to ALL MEN as payment for their sin.

The blood sacrifice of the sinless lamb was offered to God to pay for the sins of ALL THOSE who freely accept Christ Jesus as their Lord and Savior.

Now, like I said, I'm no theologian and am not good at expressing myself like the highly educated so I hope that's clear.

I was 'implying' that you twist my words. I had posted the whole verse but was afraid you'd not get my point and went back and removed all but the one remark. Notice I even used only part a of the verse in an effort to not offend. I didn't mean to hurt your feelings.