Featured The Atonement of Christ: What did it REALLY Achieve ?5

No, did not, did you not understand the verses?

 

You mean it flat out denies what your theology needs the the verse to say.
The atonement, His shed blood, does not and can not save or cause one to serve God. The risen Christ saves those that trust in Him and as a result will serve God.

 

Did you loose your train of thought and not complete your sentence?

 

I quite agree. That is what I wrote in my post above. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear enough.

Here, obviously, I disagree. I find a particular redemption in Scripture, but I am still assured that I am saved.
I wrote something on this some ears ago which you might like to read:
New Birth (9). Evidences of the New Birth
But I'm aware that people tend not to read links so I will quote one small extract: If, as we have seen, being born again is the sovereign work of the Holy Spirit and if without such a birth, no-one will see or enter the Kingdom of God then surely the most important question we can ask ourselves is, “What evidence can I find that the Spirit has wrought new life in me? How can I be assured that I am truly a child of God?” We must be very careful here; if anyone is relying on feelings or on supposed spiritual gifts (Matt. 7:21ff), or on his good deeds (Isaiah 64:6) as proof that he is a child of God, he is very likely deceiving himself. The only true ground for assurance of salvation is trust that the blood of Christ shed on the cross was shed for you and that the penalty for your sin has been paid already.

As I wrote in my earlier post, the sinner's warrant to believe is not that he thinks he is one of the elect. It is that he is a sinner and Christ died for such as he (eg. 1 Timothy 1:15).

 

No.

That is quite true.
John 3:19. "And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil."

I am glad to see that you believe in prevenient grace. It is absolutely true that the Gospel goes out to all men, but it is equally true that unless God does a special work of grace in the heart of a sinner, he will not repent and believe, not because God prevents him, but because he has a wicked, unbelieving heart. See John 3:19 above.

What one cannot do is to make the Scriptures mean the opposite of what they say
'The natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God' cannot be made to mean
'The natural man sometimes does receive the things of the Spirit of God.'

 

I have no problem with what you call prevenient grace as that is just the grace of God that is available to all people. God, as you know, desires all to come to repentance and He uses many methods to draw people to Himself as I am sure you also know. That could be creation, the gospel message or just people seeing how we as Christians live.

What are the things of the Spirit of God and when are they received? Until a person is indwelt by the Holy Spirit they are just a natural man but that same natural man can hear the gospel and believe the gospel and be then indwelt by the Holy Spirit. That is why God says man has no excuse for not knowing Him.

You quote John 3:19 as if I would find a problem with it which I do not because I also trust 1 Timothy 2:3-4 that tells me God wants all to come to Him and also John 12:32 that says Christ will draw all men not just some men. Man has been given enough information about God that all can and some do call out to Him and God will respond to that call. Romans 10:13 That is why we are told to proclaim the gospel the message of hope until He returns. Romans 1:16

 

While the blood of Christ covered the sins of all mankind we are saved by His resurrection. 1 Corinthians 15:17 "...if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins!" I understand what the blood of Christ did and did not accomplish. The real question is, do you?

 

Particular redemption should never be confused with the general redemption. Again without the general redemption no one can even know if one has any part in the particular redemption. The Scripture teaches both.

 

If Christ had not risen we would still be in our sin. The blood does not save. The blood covers all mans sin. You as a calvinist have to have one saved by the blood of Christ, your limited atonement, but that idea is not biblical.

Why do you deny clear scripture? 1 Corinthians 15:17 "...if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins!"

BF note the contrast being made in these verses.
Heb 9:13 For if the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifies for the purifying of the flesh,
Heb 9:14 how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

 

I do not do so.

And here we disagree, but the points have been made on both sides so many times that I see no benefit in rehearsing them again. You asked for a text showing how unsaved people come to an assurance of salvation and I gave you one (post #115).

 

In order to have a reason to believe Christ paid for one sins to believe in Him.

Now that requires the understanding of that being a general redemption.