The Sovereignty of God

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
I Tim. 2:5 The Greek word for 'will have' is wishes . . . ALL men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

This is a simplistic way to do lexical work don't you think? After all every word has a semantic domain.

Romans 5:18 The gift of salvation is offered to all, because everyone is not too depraved to understand the ABC's of the Gospel.

That's not what Scripture says (1 Cor 2:14)

I Peter 3:18 ' . . . the Just for the unjust.' {not just the few unjust ones--all}

DId you just add "all" into Scripture here or are my eyes deceiving me??? This verse is not about how many Christ died for but the nature of the people (whoever they are) that Christ died for. This is a prime case of yanking Scripture out of context to support a preconcieved point.

 

[Eric B]

So why is this acceptable for your position but not for ours? Why can you appeal to mystery but we cannot?

I've said this before. Your position is not a true [scriptural] mystery. Your position boils down to God condemns them because of His sovereign right. But then you try to say "but no, God doesn't really decree them to Hell; it is completely 'their own choice'". Separately, those are not true mysteries; together, they are simply a contradictory pair of statements.

These are questions that you must answer, assuming you are not an open theist.
But in your position, you are not free from this "dilemma." For you, God created people that he knew would go to hell. You cannot simply accuse us of this. You must realize it is inherent in your position as well (unless you are an open theist).

No, they have worth, but if they continually reject God, they will lose that worth. You think the only other alternative is open theism, but this just shows where we are limited and cannot see it from God's perspective.
This argument once again tries to prove "in your position, God knows people will go to Hell, so you might as well at least make Him 'in control' of it, like our position" (which means making Him decree it). But then you keep trying to deny He decreed it.
The Bible does not go into an explanation of "all who will be in Hell" and how they could not escape it. (The focus of the Gospel is the steering of people away from Hell. Why spend so much time on an unbiblical supposition?). So both Calvinist teachings on this as well as the questions made to support them are speculative and there is no Biblical answer for the questions.

[ August 01, 2002, 07:36 PM: Message edited by: Eric B ]

 

[russell55]

do you mean to believe that Christ died for everybody?

He died to accomplish the salvation of His people, and in doing so, He provided a means by which anyone who believes may be saved. As the Synod of Dort says, "No man perishes for want of an atonement."

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Eric B:
I've said this before. Your position is not a true [scriptural] mystery. Your position boils down to God condemns them because of His sovereign right. But then you try to say "but no, God doesn't really decree them to Hell; it is completely 'their own choice'". Separately, those are not true mysteries; together, they are simply a contradictory pair of statements.

So now you get to define what is a mystery??? Your pair of "contradictory" statement is a mystery and mine is an inconsistency??? Man I need to live in your world. That must be an easy way to win arguments ...

Seriously, that is nonsense in teh nicest sense of the word. It simply doesn't make sense. My position is reconcilable with Scripture; yours is not totally. There are verses that you must minimize or ignore to arrive at your conclusions.

No, they have worth, but if they continually reject God, they will lose that worth.

They lose the image of God which gives them worth by rejecting him?? What Scripture are you going to base that on??

You think the only other alternative is open theism, but this just shows where we are limited and cannot see it from God's perspective.

So here again you appeal to limitations for things you can't explain while forbidding us to do the same. That is inconsistent.

Honestly, you are appearing very inconsistent and unable to offer any real answers to the problems. You just want to avoid it and appeal to a mystery that God doesn't explain.

 

[Ray Berrian]

Pastor Larry,

The reason why I was simplistic is because, without doubt, there are laypersons who might not be able to read the Greek or know how to access it's meaning. You should know that.

 

[Ray Berrian]

Pastor Larry,

I Peter 3:18 . . . If God had desired that the apostle write ' . . . the Just died for some of the unjust' Peter would have been so impressed to do this. The Just One dying for the unjust indicates that the entire group were unjust and this is who He died for on the Cross.

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
The Just One dying for the unjust indicates that the entire group were unjust and this is who He died for on the Cross.

Absolutely, Ray, I agree. All of God's elect are unjust as well as those that reject the gospel of Christ.

Ken
A Spurgeonite
www.spurgeon.org

 

[Ray Berrian]

Ken Hamilton,

The only shade of difference is that the Just One died for all the unjust. Do you know what God means when He says that He died for the unjust?

Christ dying as a substitute for sinners means that He paid the sin debt for everyone. Believing and trusting in Jesus is the only necessary ingredient for any sinner to be born again.
Everyone's sins have been atoned for, for all of human history.
Sincerely,

Ray Berrian

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
Christ dying as a substitute for sinners means that He paid the sin debt for everyone.

So, everyone in all of history will be saved since there is no further penalty for sin to be received?

Regards,
Ken

 

[Aki]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
People who go to hell do so because of their sin. They are victims only of their bad choices.

No! such concept produces inappropriate humility in the sight of God due to ignorance or misunderstanding, in part or in whole, of these concepts:

1. should there have been no law, there would have been no disobedience, and thus no sin.
2. with the law, men commit sins.
3. before a man commits his first sin, he is already spiritually dead, due to the Original Sin.
4. those laws were given not to get men condemned. indeed, they already are, even before their first disobedience to it.
5. those laws were not given to save men.
6. those laws were given (apart from its non-spiritual values) simply to prove that man is condemned, due to Adam's sin. God gave the laws to make it more clear to man that he is unworthy to be acceptable to God (and i'd say that's grace!)
7. thus, when man sins, it does not get him condemned. it only proves he is!

[ August 02, 2002, 02:18 AM: Message edited by: Aki ]

 

[Aki]

Originally posted by russell55:
He died to accomplish the salvation of His people, and in doing so, He provided a means by which anyone who believes may be saved.

the way i understand limited atonement, it says that God died only for the elect, thus giving no way of escape for the non-elect. now here you are saying that anyone (both elect and non-elect) who believes may be saved. i am admittedly at the point of misunderstanding you, the limited atonement concept, both, or it just might be that you are a calvinist but you are not one of the hyper-calivinists.

kindly explain your view of the substitutionary death of Christ further.

[ August 02, 2002, 02:23 AM: Message edited by: Aki ]

 

[pinoybaptist]

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
Ken Hamilton,

The only shade of difference is that the Just One died for all the unjust. Do you know what God means when He says that He died for the unjust?
Christ dying as a substitute for sinners means that He paid the sin debt for everyone.

You mean He also died for the Hittites, the Hivites, the Jebusites, the Philistines, the Amorites, the Egyptians, the Gentiles before Abraham's time, the Gentiles before and during the flood, and all those people whom He directly destroyed or commanded Israel to destroy ? And then He sends His Son to die for them ? Goodness,how theatric this god of yours is, Ray, at best, and how irrational, at worst. It seems like he can't decide whether to save them, or damn them.

Believing and trusting in Jesus is the only necessary ingredient for any sinner to be born again.
Everyone's sins have been atoned for, for all of human history.
Sincerely,

Ray Berrian

Which brings us back to those people I mentioned above, Ray. What about them ? They can't believe anymore, they can't trust anymore, so what about them ?

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
Pastor Larry,

I Peter 3:18 . . . If God had desired that the apostle write ' . . . the Just died for some of the unjust' Peter would have been so impressed to do this. The Just One dying for the unjust indicates that the entire group were unjust and this is who He died for on the Cross.

But this is a prime example of a failure to do exegesis. The text does not say that. The text is indicating the nature of the atonement, not the extent of it. Come on "Dr." Berrian, surely you know better. In exegesis we are looking at intent -- what did the author desire to communicate. The verse does not address anything about the extent of the atonement.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Aki:
No! such concept produces inappropriate humility in the sight of God due to ignorance or misunderstanding, in part or in whole, of these concepts:

You and I are on the same side of this one, alhtough I might take issue with the finer points of some of your statements. My point was a different one, namely, that man is not condemned by God's choice but by his own sinfulness.

[ August 02, 2002, 10:50 AM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

[Odemus]

Originally posted by ScottEmerson:

If God holds up pancakes and waffles and says, "have which one you want," but the people are unable to choose the pancakes, then they do not really have the option of choosing pancakes.

If God knows whether a person will choose the waffles or pancakes how could the person excersise free will to choose differently than what God already knows they will choose?

 

[Ray Berrian]

Christ died for all the 'ites.' Were they worse sinners than we were in Adam?

Have you not read that Christ was active through the Holy Spirit even before the Great Flood of Noah's time? [Genesis 6:3]

 

[Ray Berrian]

Pastor Larry,

Perhaps you need to review the meaning of Jesus dying on the Cross.

Respectfully,

Dr. Berrian

 

[Ray Berrian]

If God actively and autocratically decided to save His elect, by this very decree, He has wilfully decided against the non-elect. Stop trying to sugar-coat the doctrine so it is more palatable to Christians. But, then we are ready for just a little more error, so why not just say 'God over looked or bypassed them' in their real need to be saved.

Their sin in Adam plus their sins have insured their destiny, apart from saving faith in Jesus.

 

[pinoybaptist]

God is God. When everything else was just blackness and empty space, He was there. We weren't. If everything else again becomes blackness and empty space, He will still be there, and we wouldn't.
He is Creator, Sovereign, King, and none of His creation can, must, could, or should question His will.
Those who did, as in the case of Lucifer and his angels, suffered the consequences.
If He moved to save many, but not all of, mankind, from hell which all justly deserve, who is to stand up to Him and tell Him He must save everyone else because He is supposed to be a God of love.
If He chooses to be a God of love only to those whom He elects unto salvation, and to be a God of wrath to those whom He passed by, who are we question Him ? How dare one compares Him to a pancake distributor ?
And even if that were to be used as example, He is the One who owns the pancakes, and the One who
gives them to whom He will .
He gives life, and He takes life.
He clearly demonstrated this in the Old Testament, to the people of Noah's days, to Pharaoh, to Israel, and the nations who opposed Israel.
He has said He doesn't change. How dare we say He changed by implying that He sent His Son to die for all humankind ? He did not.
He sent His Son to die for and redeem His people, those whom He gave to His Son as His inheritance, and for whom Jesus is their inheritance.
Some say that those who bow down to His Sovereignty and His mercy make Him a monstrous deity, in that He would send many to hell, yet in the same breath they say that the number of those who will go to Heaven to be with Him are a miniscule percentage and that is because those who would not are so corrupted they did not choose life like the small percentage did.
And yet, people take offense at the thought that God needs to regenerate sinners first to enable
many to come to Him. Why?
Is it because the thought that without God making the first move, man will not be able to come to God on God's terms and approach Him as He had said He is, and therefore man cannot share His glory ? Which is a merciful God. One who leaves men to their own corruption, or one who works His will in men that they may have help in
coming to Him.

 

[John W Mergel]

If the death of Jesus Christ made atonement for all the sins of every person, then this would also include the sin of unbelief, which would mean that all will be saved. And I think we all know that the Bible does not teach universalism.

Here's a verse that even the "free-willers" never attempt to butcher.
"But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those
who believe in His name, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor the will of man, but of God." (John 1:12-13)

Enabled by the Father(John 6:44),
John W Mergel