What was accomplished at the cross?

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Ken Hamilton:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
[ John 6:44 says that no one can come unless he is drawn, and it has been shown that Christ will draw all men. What could this mean?

That is not true, Scott. Is it your experience that all men are drawn to Christ? If that is true, then all men will saved. It is my experience that most men want nothing to do with Christ.

One redeemed by Christ's blood,

Ken</font>[/QUOTE]I was drawn to Christ most my life, and I continually said, "No." It is conceivable that people could say no all of their life. I've, in fact, worked with people who feel the Spirit moving them to become Christians, but they choose not to - they are unable to believe.

 

[Primitive Baptist]

I think this frustrates most evangelical Arminians, because they are not arguing that everyone will be saved. They agree that only some will be saved, but do not agree that only some can be saved. In essense, their contention is that everyone could in theory be saved, although not all will be. In other words, Christ's death on the cross made it possible for all men to be saved.

Christ did not make salvation obtainable, He actually obtained it. The writer of Hebrews wrote, "Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us." (Hebrews 9:12) Paul wrote in his epistle to the Galatians, "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:" (Galatians 3:13) If us in this passage refers to the entire Adamic race, there are redeemed people, purchased by the blood of God Himself, in hell. That is blasphemy.

Perhaps Christ made a 'downpayment' of some sort at Calvary, and then He pays the balance when man believes. Perhaps Christ has 'made the deposit,' but it's up to man to transfer the funds.

At Calvary, Jesus Christ said, "It is finished." He did not say, "To be continued..." Jesus said, "And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day." (John 6:39) Jesus was not defeated at Calvary nor will the results ever fail. The New Testament states that Christ reconciled (Romans 5:10), healed (I Peter 2:24), forever perfected (Hebrews 10:14), sanctified (Hebrews 10:10), redeemed (Galatians 3:13), and obtained eternal redemption (Hebrews 9:12) on behalf of those for whom He died. Salvation is all of God from the beginning to the ending, from election to glorification and everything in between.

In other words, He died for all men in general and no man in particular.

Isaiah, prophesying of the crucifixion, wrote, "Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand." (Isaiah 53:10) According to Isaiah, Christ saw His seed, the elect. He saw them coming out on the other side as a redeemed people. This prophecy teaches a Christ of prosperity. The Arminians teach a christ of poverty and defeat.

Do you believe Jesus actually paid the price for your sins at Calvary? If so, do you believe Christ has paid for the sins of men who will ultimately be condemned to Hell anyway?

Jesus Christ did not shed His blood in vain for any. According to Arminian theology, Jesus Christ paid the debt for sin on behalf of every man. Was the blood lacking so much it needed the free will of man to consent? I think not! Besides, what joy is there in paying a debt for someone who will not benefit from it? The writer of Hebrews, wrote, "Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God." (Hebrews 12:2) Jesus endured the cross with joy, not disappointment. Joy because He knew multitudes for whom He was going to die would ultimately perish because an evangelist did not go to a mission field? No! Joy because He knew He would lose nothing. Jesus said, "And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day." (John 6:39) This was the joy set before Him.

 

[KenH]

Perhaps the real problem is that man is still attracted by this snare of the devil:

(Gen 3:4-5 NKJV) Then the serpent said to the woman, "You will not surely die. {5} "For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

I will now share a quote from Elie Wiesel's essay, "What Really Makes Us Free": "Man, who was created in God's image, wants to be free as God is free: free to choose between good and evil, love and vengeance, life and death."

I don't know Mr. Wiesel's theology or what the rest of his essay is about so I apologize if I am taking his quote out of context, but I think this is the center of man's problem. Fallen man wants to have the same abilities as God. As the old saying goes, "In the beginning God created man in His own image and ever since man has been trying to return the favor."

One redeemed by Christ's blood,

Ken

 

[connieman]

Let us consider the other half of John 6:44, "No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him; and I will raise him up at the last day.

Who is this that shall be raised up, but the same 'him' who is drawn? He does not say, "I shall "try" to raise him up. Nor does He say, "I will raise up some of them."

All who are drawn of the Spirit Of God shall come, and all of them shall be raised up at the last day. There are none who are drawn of the Father, and yet lost at the last day. for God cannot fail.

And again in the same chapter, there is further clarification in v.65, "And he said, therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father."

Men are unable to come to the Son until the ability is given to them by the Father. But when God gives the ability, clearly it is the will and intention of God that they come. And they do come, for God cannot fail.

And the following verse 66 becomes most significant, "From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him."

Why? Why were they so offended? He had just told them that salvation was not a matter of their choice, but of the enabling power and will of God. This truth is always offensive to many of his "disciples". They will not have it to be so.

In the Name of Him Who loved us who believe before we ever loved Him,

connieman

 

[Eric B]

This is the second time someone tried to link this "offense" or "hard teaching" with Calvinistic election. (The first time, it was Larry, and I was sorry I didn't answer it for whatever reason, because this is obviously wrenched beyond belief). The "hard teaching" was the eating of Christ's flesh and drinking of His blood. This was totally gross to the Jews, who misunderstood it (just like thwe Catholics on the "Other religions" board). Please keep these things in their contexts!

Perhaps the real problem is that man is still attracted by this snare of the devil:

(Gen 3:4-5 NKJV) Then the serpent said to the woman, "You will not surely die. {5} "For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

I will now share a quote from Elie Wiesel's essay, "What Really Makes Us Free": "Man, who was created in God's image, wants to be free as God is free: free to choose between good and evil, love and vengeance, life and death."
Fallen man wants to have the same abilities as God. As the old saying goes, "In the beginning God created man in His own image and ever since man has been trying to return the favor."

This is the same old Calvinistic assumption about non-Calvinists belief. No one here wants to do what God does. We just believe He doesn't intentionally "reprobate" people by leaving them unable to repent but still condemning them for sinning and not repenting. That is ALL.

 

[Ray Berrian]

Eric,

Good post.

We who lean more toward an Arminian persuasion really are Christians.

No one wants to respond to the truth that the Lord cannot remain a good God and keep His Divine attributes in tact, if He has not really loved all human beings redemptively. Neither can He remain a just God if He has preferential treatment toward only-- we who are His elect ones.
Thank God there are some things that God's attributes will not allow Him to activate against human beings.

'How then shall they call on Him in Whom THEY HAVE NOT BELIEVED.' [Romans 10:14a] Human response to the call of God wouldn't you say?

'For the elect shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.' [Romans 10:13] {Calvinistic paraphrase version}

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
No one wants to respond to the truth that the Lord cannot remain a good God and keep His Divine attributes in tact, if He has not really loved all human beings redemptively. Neither can He remain a just God if He has preferential treatment toward only-- we who are His elect ones.
Thank God there are some things that God's attributes will not allow Him to activate against human beings

The apostle Paul had an answer for your allegation:

(Rom 9:19-21 NKJV) You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?" {20} But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, "Why have you made me like this?" {21} Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?

Your statement is thus condemned by the Scriptures. You had best re-think your position, my friend. And I say that with the best of intentions.

One redeemed by Christ's blood,

Ken

[ June 07, 2002, 11:07 PM: Message edited by: Ken Hamilton ]

 

[SolaScriptura]

Rom 3:25 "Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood..." NOT THROUGH FAITH IN PUNISHMENT.

 

[Primitive Baptist]

We just believe He doesn't intentionally
"reprobate" people by leaving them unable to repent but still condemning them for sinning and not repenting.

"Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed [it], Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?" (Romans 9:20)

God is sovereign. Who are you to charge Him? This is the exact objection Paul is addressing here.

 

[Eric B]

I'm not charging Him. You're taking a passage that is not even referring to the reprobation of individuals and actually laying the charge on Him (but then "accepting" it as "sovereignty"), when really, it's out of context.

 

[AITB]

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
No one wants to respond to the truth that the Lord cannot remain a good God and keep His Divine attributes in tact, if He has not really loved all human beings redemptively. Neither can He remain a just God if He has preferential treatment toward only-- we who are His elect ones.

I like this, Ray. This is an excellently concise summary of some key issues - imo

I see that a theme in the responses to it has been to quote to you "Who are you to speak back to God?"

So, not only are the people who quoted that to you not dealing with the questions raised about God's goodness and fairness, now they've raised questions about whether His response to sincere questions goes beyond "I'm bigger than you so shut up!" Oh, was that a bit of an unfair paraphrase of that Romans 9 quote, though?

Anyway, let's put it in human terms. A father locks one child in the basement, giving her just enough food and water to survive. If she died the torture would be over. Part of the torture is knowing that he's lavishing every good thing on the other child - they spend tons of time together, he takes this child to wonderful places all the time etc etc.

If the basement child would dare ask "why are you treating us so differently?" the father would respond "Who are you, child, to talk back to me?"

What would we think of that father?

I know what the Calvinists would say - he's not the father of the non-elect in the same way that he is of the elect. Yes, but, if He created the non-elect then He ordained their eternal torment. How can He rest knowing that? I couldn't rest knowing something like that.

Yeah, yeah, I know "His ways are higher than our ways", "We can't understand God" "You're ignoring that He must punish sin - He is just" "He is holy" etc etc

I know the answers and I have still have trouble with them.

Call me a resister of the truth if you want, but...I really really do resist the idea that God is like that father. I don't deny it.

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by AITB:
Yes, but, if He created the non-elect then He ordained their eternal torment. How can He rest knowing that? I couldn't rest knowing something like that.

Unless you are an Open Theist, one who believes that God doesn't know the future, then how do you resolve your own problem with God creating people, using your assumption that man can freely in his natural self respond savingly to God, that He knew before they were born would reject Him and end up in Hell. Yea, I know, you people say that He gave them a choice and they blew it. But, you can't get around the fact that God knew they would blow it. So why did He create them in the first place? Why not just create the ones He knew would repent and believe the gospel? Using your own assumpton, how can God rest knowing that?

One redeemed by Christ's blood,

Ken

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Eric B:
I'm not charging Him. You're taking a passage that is not even referring to the reprobation of individuals and actually laying the charge on Him (but then "accepting" it as "sovereignty"), when really, it's out of context.

This is amazing. The Bible has a specific passage to refute the charge that free-willers make against God, to refute their doctrinal error, and this is all you people can do? You deny what is self-evident in your own argument, and you deny the crystal clear teaching of Scripture.

The Bible says that salvation if not of man's will, or of the flesh, or of man's running, and you say "Yes, it is." The Bible says God can do as He pleases with what He creates, and you say "No, He can't." You are wanting to limit God according to your own thoughts of how God should be, how He should act. Your ideas are Jacksonian democracy gone to seed in your theology.

If anyone had any doubt that free-willers have developed an idea of a god after their own image, any doubt should now be removed.

Election is unto salvation, damnation is all of sin. Sinners go to Hell because they are sinners, they do not repent and believe the gospel. God doesn't cause them not to repent and believe, they don't do so because that is what the flesh simply won't do. Without God's intervention, no one would.

Why does God only intervene for some, the Bible does not say. In the same way, according to your assumption, the Bible does not say why God created people whom He knew would reject Him and end up in Hell when He could have simply not created those people.

The whole thrust of the Bible throughout is that God is the Creator and the Sovereign, and man is the created and powerless. You have reversed this. You say that man, the created, is sovereign and God, the Creator, is powerless; this is proven because you say that man can prevent God from doing what(according to your assumption) He desires and wants, the salvation of everyone who has lived or ever will live.

I pray that God will have mercy on you all, according to His will.

One redeemed by Christ's blood,

Ken

 

[AITB]

Originally posted by Ken Hamilton:
Unless you are an Open Theist, one who believes that God doesn't know the future, then how do you resolve your own problem with God creating people, using your assumption that man can freely in his natural self respond savingly to God, that He knew before they were born would reject Him and end up in Hell.

Indeed

(And I'm not an open theist, fwiw)

I don't know is my current answer.

One thing I do know is: I am very reluctant to resolve it in ways which seem anti-thetical to my core beliefs about God.

I'd rather be uncertain than say I believe things about God which mess with my deepest convictions about what 'love' is.

And, yeah, I know - the obvious Christian response is: "you just don't understand love!"

Whatever. I'll let Him be the judge of that.

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Ken Hamilton:
The Bible says that salvation if not of man's will, or of the flesh, or of man's running, and you say "Yes, it is."

From earlier - you'll see that it's more than a pat "Yes, it is." Through a careful reading of SCripture and appropriate context, your comment is a little off.

Considering the context and the parallel to John 3, I think what John is saying that this birth is a spiritual birth, not a physical one. Another translation (NIV) says, "children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God." The word for man is not anthropou, but andros, signifying male, not mankind.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Rom 9:15-16 NKJV) For He says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion." {16} So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ah, but a few verses later, in chapter 11, Paul says that "Rom 11:32 For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all." It seems that it's God's perogative to show mercy on every man - and since we know that all aren't saved, there must eb a mechanism whereby man can choose "no."

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How much plainer than it be? "not of the will of man", "not of him who wills"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not of the will of the husband, refers to physical childbirth. We don't will mercy on ourselves, but God wills mercy on all. Not very plain, I think.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Man is dead in sin(Ephesians 2). A dead man can't act on his on behalf - he can't raise a finger. Man's will is corrupted by the Fall. God saves and God alone, not God does His part and man does his part.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Man is dead in his sin and he can no way make himself alive again. Ephesians 2:8 says that grace is not of ourselves, but a gift from God - (not faith, as it is assumed - check out the endings of the words). When that grace is offered, man can make a choice to follow, otherwise how can even the elect choose to follow?

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Ken Hamilton:
You say that man, the created, is sovereign and God, the Creator, is powerless; this is proven because you say that man can prevent God from doing what(according to your assumption) He desires and wants, the salvation of everyone who has lived or ever will live.
[/QB]

Jeremiah 18:7-10

If at any time I declare concerning a nation or kingdom, that I will pluck up and break down and destroy it, and if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will repent of the evil that I intended to do to it. And if at any time I declare concerning a nation of a kingdom that I will build and plant it, and if it does evil in my sight, not listening to my voice, then I will repent of the good which I had intended to do to it.

Matthew 23:37 says that Jesus was in agony over the people who didn't recognize him as Messiah, but they rejected. Acts 7:51 has Steven telling his accusers that "You always resist the Holy Spirit!" Another instance where God's will was changed based on human response is in the saving of the nation of Ninevah in the book of Jonah.

Perhaps what God wants is to have an interactive relationship with His Creation. Does this make man God? Absolutely not! This shows that God is like a King who has compassion on his servants, who is sovereign enough to have a relationship with them.

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
This shows that God is like a King who has compassion on his servants, who is sovereign enough to have a relationship with them.

Ah, so you are saying that God "gives" some of His sovereignty to man. So you are saying that man's will can ultimately trump God's will.

But the Bible says:

(Dan 4:35 NKJV) All the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing; He does according to His will in the army of heaven And among the inhabitants of the earth. No one can restrain His hand Or say to Him, "What have You done?"

One redeemed by Christ's blood,

Ken

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Ken Hamilton:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
[qb] This shows that God is like a King who has compassion on his servants, who is sovereign enough to have a relationship with them.

Ah, so you are saying that God "gives" some of His sovereignty to man. So you are saying that man's will can ultimately trump God's will.</font>[/QUOTE]Not at all! Why do you insist on putting words in my mouth. You seem to be trying a slippery slope, which is a logical fallacy. What God wants, he gets, but in the verses that I stated, his wants can be shaped by humans. Man having a choice doesn't make sovereignty. God's sovereignty allows man to have a choice.

But the Bible says:

(Dan 4:35 NKJV) All the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing; He does according to His will in the army of heaven And among the inhabitants of the earth. No one can restrain His hand Or say to Him, "What have You done?"

God does whatever he wants - that's for sure - but you've ignored the passages that shows that even He can shape His will through what His people do or do not do, or did you not even read the Jeremiah passage!

Again:
Jeremiah 18:7-10

If at any time I declare concerning a nation or kingdom, that I will pluck up and break down and destroy it, and if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will repent of the evil that I intended to do to it. And if at any time I declare concerning a nation of a kingdom that I will build and plant it, and if it does evil in my sight, not listening to my voice, then I will repent of the good which I had intended to do to it.

I think that to think that God is somehow detatched from His creation is a huge a priori, since over and over and over again, we see Him interacting with His children, having a dialogue with them, and even changing His plans because of them. One only looks at his conversations with Abraham, Moses, and Jeremiah to see this.

 

[Eric B]

This is amazing. The Bible has a specific passage to refute the charge that free-willers make against God, to refute their doctrinal error, and this is all you people can do? You deny what is self-evident in your own argument, and you deny the crystal clear teaching of Scripture.

This is precisely what I'm saying-- youlre interpreting these passages as "refutations" of free will, when the context of the entire passage is not free will versus election, but rather faith versus inheritance, which would help one to understand the rest of the passage, as below:

The Bible says that salvation if not of man's will, or of the flesh, or of man's running, and you say "Yes, it is."

Scott has answered this well. "Man's will" is not talking about choosing to believe, it is talking once again of physical inheritance and works of the Law.

The Bible says God can do as He pleases with what He creates, and you say "No, He can't."

It's not "no He can't", it's that what you're saying He pleases in doing, is not what He says He pleases in doing. Yes, He hardens Israel. The Israelites would be offended by Paul teaching this, and have no right to question God's plan and their role in it. But as an individual, each could still repent of his own sin.

You are wanting to limit God according to your own thoughts of how God should be, how He should act. Your ideas are Jacksonian democracy gone to seed in your theology.

That's another ridiculous assumption-- that our view is some American thing. It goes way before Jackson or any other American founder, and this was the way the passage was understood before Augustine and Calvin, who limited God according to the way they thought He should act.

God doesn't cause them not to repent and believe, they don't do so because that is what the flesh simply won't do. Without God's intervention, no one would.

Yet you cite the passage as saying "God hardens whom He will". That right there should show you that the passage must not be teaching what you say it is.

Why does God only intervene for some, the Bible does not say. In the same way, according to your assumption, the Bible does not say why God created people whom He knew would reject Him and end up in Hell when He could have simply not created those people.

This shows that we have all crossed into the unsearchable. (So AITB, you are in the right by admitting you don't know!) We need to stop speculating on God's decrees that can't be completely known.

[ June 08, 2002, 04:53 PM: Message edited by: Eric B ]

 

[Ray Berrian]

KenHamilton,

If I can enter the discussion with you people, your last statement is well taken. God was at least magnanimous making a perfect offer to all human beings as to their personal salvation in that which we call time. He cannot, because of His just Character, force humans to worship or to become saved through His overpowering will. The people who refuse the claims of the Cross will be left without excuse at their resurrection [Rev. 20:5a] and most assuredly at the Great White Throne Judgment [Rev. 20:11-15].

You ask why He essentially created the majority who will by their own choice make themselves the non-elect. I believe it is because He is sovereign and He really did not ask human beings their views as to what He should have done. Do you agree?