-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
What's the point of Jesus dying for everyone?
- Thread starter Isaiah40:28
- Start date
examiningcalvinism
New Member
Romans 3:27
One Calvinist writes: "From personal experience, when I was a free-willer, it made me feel special that I was <something> enough to see the light and make the right decision. While I wasn't glad that anyone went unaved, I was, without doubt, proud that I made the difference between the fact that I was saved and another wasn't. Although I would NEVER say so, I "knew" I had something about which to boast."
Now compare this with Sciprture:
Romans 3:27: "Where then is boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? Of works? No, but by a law of faith."
Romans 4:5: "But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness."
Translation: trusting in Christ is not a meritorious work of self-righteousness for which we gain room to boast before God.
One Calvinist writes: "From personal experience, when I was a free-willer, it made me feel special that I was <something> enough to see the light and make the right decision. While I wasn't glad that anyone went unaved, I was, without doubt, proud that I made the difference between the fact that I was saved and another wasn't. Although I would NEVER say so, I "knew" I had something about which to boast."
Now compare this with Sciprture:
Romans 3:27: "Where then is boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? Of works? No, but by a law of faith."
Romans 4:5: "But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness."
Translation: trusting in Christ is not a meritorious work of self-righteousness for which we gain room to boast before God.
Hello ex.
If you have an answer give it to me, I am not about to wade through a reading list just to discover that someone somewhere said that God did give an atonement to Eli's house, deal with the scripture.
If you are willing to drop the 'God loves you'.
Who do you mean, the dead ones? Could Moses have told them? What of the blind?
It will not get resolved as you are blanking scripture that explicitly says He gave Eli's house no atonement and that on oath and I will hold to it. 1 Sam 3:14 Therefore, I swore to the house of Eli, `The guilt of Eli's house will never be atoned for by sacrifice or offering.' "
I see no problem to this just as it is written.
john.
If you have an answer give it to me, I am not about to wade through a reading list just to discover that someone somewhere said that God did give an atonement to Eli's house, deal with the scripture.
If you are willing to drop the 'God loves you'.
Who do you mean, the dead ones? Could Moses have told them? What of the blind?
It will not get resolved as you are blanking scripture that explicitly says He gave Eli's house no atonement and that on oath and I will hold to it. 1 Sam 3:14 Therefore, I swore to the house of Eli, `The guilt of Eli's house will never be atoned for by sacrifice or offering.' "
I see no problem to this just as it is written.
john.
Since you claim you saved yourself Amy no other boasting quite matches the boast in this as Jesus said this is impossible for man. You say you can do what God has stopped you doing and you claim to be enabled to do the impossible.
MT 19:25 When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, "Who then can be saved?" 26 Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."
Gen 3:22 ..."The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."
RO 9:14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15 For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." 16 It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy.
john.
Hello Blammo.
If it was your choice to save yourself then you are claiming sovereignty over your own destiny and this leaves God unsovereign in your destiny. Of course you boast even though you protest about it you cannot overcome it. You chose and others did not. It makes you different.
Of course it is for you, believing is a condition and if you meet the condition then you have earned your salvation. Belief is a work. John 6:29.
Romans 4:5: "But to the one who does not work, but believes...
How can one not work in their belief if belief is a work Blammo?
Did you have a nice day out?
john.
If it was your choice to save yourself then you are claiming sovereignty over your own destiny and this leaves God unsovereign in your destiny. Of course you boast even though you protest about it you cannot overcome it. You chose and others did not. It makes you different.
Of course it is for you, believing is a condition and if you meet the condition then you have earned your salvation. Belief is a work. John 6:29.
Romans 4:5: "But to the one who does not work, but believes...
How can one not work in their belief if belief is a work Blammo?
Did you have a nice day out?
john.
examiningcalvinism
New Member
To John P
To John P,
I had asked: "Could Moses have walked up to anyone bitten and tell them that the standard had sufficient power to heal them?"
You responded: Who do you mean, the dead ones? Could Moses have told them? What of the blind?
No, the living ones. Could Moses have walked up to the living ones and tell any one of them, the blind included, that the standard had sufficient power to heal them?
Here is the link to 1st Samuel 3:14. It's only 1 page.
http://www.examiningcalvinism.com/files/OT/1Sam3_14.html
Rest assured, after we resolve John 3:14/Numbers 21, we most assuredly will deal with 1st Samuel 3:14. I have a battery of questions just waiting in the queue for you. It has to do with the nature of the curse, what it is that could not be atoned for, whether this involved the damnation of the descendants of Eli, including David's priest Abiathar and the priests of Nob. Don't worry, John P, we will definitely cover that ground. But first, I have not yet heard you answer the question above concerning Numbers 21. That comes first. Then after 1st Samuel 3:14, we have Romans 3:27 and Romans 4:5 concerning the nature of faith & works. Don't you worry, my friend, we have plenty to discuss.
To John P,
I had asked: "Could Moses have walked up to anyone bitten and tell them that the standard had sufficient power to heal them?"
You responded: Who do you mean, the dead ones? Could Moses have told them? What of the blind?
No, the living ones. Could Moses have walked up to the living ones and tell any one of them, the blind included, that the standard had sufficient power to heal them?
Here is the link to 1st Samuel 3:14. It's only 1 page.
http://www.examiningcalvinism.com/files/OT/1Sam3_14.html
Rest assured, after we resolve John 3:14/Numbers 21, we most assuredly will deal with 1st Samuel 3:14. I have a battery of questions just waiting in the queue for you. It has to do with the nature of the curse, what it is that could not be atoned for, whether this involved the damnation of the descendants of Eli, including David's priest Abiathar and the priests of Nob. Don't worry, John P, we will definitely cover that ground. But first, I have not yet heard you answer the question above concerning Numbers 21. That comes first. Then after 1st Samuel 3:14, we have Romans 3:27 and Romans 4:5 concerning the nature of faith & works. Don't you worry, my friend, we have plenty to discuss.
Last edited by a moderator:
Hello ex.
What about the dead ones, were they not part of Israel? How could a blind man look? Mind you, you have given that there were blind men without a fight. Anyone that looked at the snake was healed, that God healed rather than giving an image power.
Why make a case of universal atonement from a passage that denies a universal application, many died before the bronze snake existed? Why are you blanking those who fell first, those that had no atonement to look to?
The rest of the line was damned through the behaviour of the two sons. Where's free will gone?
...His sons, however, did not listen to their father's rebuke, for it was the LORD's will to put them to death. 1 Sam 2:25. Why did the sons not listen? Who got the blame? 1 Sam 3:13 For I told him that I would judge his family forever because of the sin he knew about; his sons made themselves contemptible, and he failed to restrain them.
But it was the Lord's will to put them to death. RO 9:19 One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?"
It is just like I said it would be. God swore an oath that they would never receive an atonement and your website says Jesus died for the house of Eli. Therefore, I swore to the house of Eli, `The guilt of Eli's house will never be atoned for by sacrifice or offering.' " 1 Sam 3:14. End of argument isn't it? You oppose scripture. You say Jesus atoned for the house of Eli and God said `The guilt of Eli's house will never be atoned for by sacrifice or offering.'
john.
What about the dead ones, were they not part of Israel? How could a blind man look? Mind you, you have given that there were blind men without a fight.
Anyone that looked at the snake was healed, that God healed rather than giving an image power.Why make a case of universal atonement from a passage that denies a universal application, many died before the bronze snake existed? Why are you blanking those who fell first, those that had no atonement to look to?
The rest of the line was damned through the behaviour of the two sons. Where's free will gone?
...His sons, however, did not listen to their father's rebuke, for it was the LORD's will to put them to death. 1 Sam 2:25. Why did the sons not listen? Who got the blame? 1 Sam 3:13 For I told him that I would judge his family forever because of the sin he knew about; his sons made themselves contemptible, and he failed to restrain them.
But it was the Lord's will to put them to death. RO 9:19 One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?"
It is just like I said it would be. God swore an oath that they would never receive an atonement and your website says Jesus died for the house of Eli.
Therefore, I swore to the house of Eli, `The guilt of Eli's house will never be atoned for by sacrifice or offering.' " 1 Sam 3:14. End of argument isn't it? You oppose scripture. You say Jesus atoned for the house of Eli and God said `The guilt of Eli's house will never be atoned for by sacrifice or offering.' john.
examiningcalvinism said:
Exam: It takes very little effort to find the context in which Kosmos is used in John 3:16.
God hated Esau. Rom 9
Did God love Esau? For the answer, see Rom 9.
So does Kosmos in John 3:16 mean "every person that ever lived without exception"?
Do the math.
Jesus IS the savior of all men, not just Jews; and he IS the savior (temporaly) of all men without exception. Were it not for his grace, the "whole world" (the creation) would be immediately destroyed.
If we go back to the OP, this isn't necessarily a C v A issue. The question can be presented by any philosopher. What exactly is the point of Christ dying for everyone's sins if he already knows through omniscience that everyone will not be saved?
I will tack on an additional question: If God SO loves everyone, that he crucified His own Son for them, why does he still require that a person believe in order to receive the benefits of that sacrifice? Why doesn't he just apply them universally? I mean, if Christ SATISFIED the justice of God toward all people, what purpose does it serve God to cast those same people into Hell?
Was God's justice satisfied, or was it not satisfied, on the cross?
Pick one.
Last edited by a moderator:
examiningcalvinism
New Member
JD
JD,
Keep those thoughts in mind. You and I will go through each one in detail. First I've got John P on the line.
JD,
Keep those thoughts in mind. You and I will go through each one in detail. First I've got John P on the line.
examiningcalvinism
New Member
John P
To John P,
We'll go through 1 Sam 3:14 in just a moment. We'll cover the hardening of the two sons and exactly what the "curse" was that could not be atoned for, whether the unatonable curse of 1 Sam 3:14 meant that Eli's entire lineage was born damned or whether the unatonable "curse" involved premature death, poverty and the loss of its priestly heritage. (1st Samuel 2:28-36; 1st Kings 2:26-27; 1st Samuel 22:22) Realize that in Eli's line, you had generations of priests, including Abiathar, the priest to David, and your argumentation would render them ALL as born-damned. So the argument is NOT whether I deny that the curse was unatonable. The argument is what exactly WAS that unatonable "curse"? A curse to damnation or a curse to premature death, poverty and loss of its priestly heritage. (1st Samuel 2:28-36; 1st Kings 2:26-27; 1st Samuel 22:22) Here is a sample of the coming questions: Is Abiathar in Hell? Are the 85 priests of Nob in Hell? Is Ahimelech in Hell. If the unatonable "curse" is what you're telling me, my question there is this: was Abiathar and the generations of the priests of Eli all born damned and in Hell today? It's a simple question. I have verses to back up the type of unatonable curse that I'm referencing. There are similar types of curses in the OT, such as the lineage of Gehazi (servant of Elisha) receiving the unatonable curse of being lepers forever. (2Kings 5:27) We'll get into that.
Back to Numbers 21:6-9, the analogy that Jesus used to explain the Cross of Calvary, Jesus' own illustration of the Atonement.
Question: Could Moses have walked up to the living ones and tell ANY one of them, the blind included, that the standard had sufficient power to heal them? (Yes/No?)
To John P,
We'll go through 1 Sam 3:14 in just a moment. We'll cover the hardening of the two sons and exactly what the "curse" was that could not be atoned for, whether the unatonable curse of 1 Sam 3:14 meant that Eli's entire lineage was born damned or whether the unatonable "curse" involved premature death, poverty and the loss of its priestly heritage. (1st Samuel 2:28-36; 1st Kings 2:26-27; 1st Samuel 22:22) Realize that in Eli's line, you had generations of priests, including Abiathar, the priest to David, and your argumentation would render them ALL as born-damned. So the argument is NOT whether I deny that the curse was unatonable. The argument is what exactly WAS that unatonable "curse"? A curse to damnation or a curse to premature death, poverty and loss of its priestly heritage. (1st Samuel 2:28-36; 1st Kings 2:26-27; 1st Samuel 22:22) Here is a sample of the coming questions: Is Abiathar in Hell? Are the 85 priests of Nob in Hell? Is Ahimelech in Hell. If the unatonable "curse" is what you're telling me, my question there is this: was Abiathar and the generations of the priests of Eli all born damned and in Hell today? It's a simple question. I have verses to back up the type of unatonable curse that I'm referencing. There are similar types of curses in the OT, such as the lineage of Gehazi (servant of Elisha) receiving the unatonable curse of being lepers forever. (2Kings 5:27) We'll get into that.
Back to Numbers 21:6-9, the analogy that Jesus used to explain the Cross of Calvary, Jesus' own illustration of the Atonement.
Question: Could Moses have walked up to the living ones and tell ANY one of them, the blind included, that the standard had sufficient power to heal them? (Yes/No?)
Last edited by a moderator:
examiningcalvinism said:
I did not say it was a meritorious work. What I said that is if the difference between a saved person and an unsaved person is the free will decisions they made, then the person who made the "right" decision has something about which to boast. "I'm saved because I made the right decision. You remain lost because you made the wrong decision. The same salvation was available to both of us, so the difference between your state and mine boils down to what WE chose. Therefore, those who choose "rightly" have something about which to boast."
I know you won't see it that way, and I've heard all the pious sounding arguments against it. So I'll stop here. If it's not obvious to you now, maybe someday it will be. And maybe not.
examiningcalvinism
New Member
NP
NP
Do you have explanations for these two verses?
Romans 3:27: "Where then is boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? Of works? No, but by a law of faith."
Romans 4:5: "But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness."
NP
Do you have explanations for these two verses?
Romans 3:27: "Where then is boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? Of works? No, but by a law of faith."
Romans 4:5: "But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness."
Last edited by a moderator:
Hello ex.
Who said any sin could not be atoned for?
Let me put it into plain English. If God says no atonement would ever be given to Eli's house it means that Eli's house had no atonement for it and all in Eli's house go to Hell without passing go.
If God says that no atonement will ever be given for Eli's house then no atonement will ever be given and God is not referring to the shadow but the reality of atonement. Is that is clearer than, 1 Sam 3:14 Therefore, I swore to the house of Eli, `The guilt of Eli's house will never be atoned for by sacrifice or offering.' " ?
Like brute beasts born only to be caught and destroyed, 2 Peter 2:12 or like those destined to stumble, 1 Peter 2:8 or like Rom 9:11 Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad--in order that God's purpose in election might stand: 12 not by works but by him who calls--she was told, "The older will serve the younger." 13 Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."?
Where's the problem with that? Doesn't God know who will reject Him before they are born? All the damned are born so aren't they? Yes or no?
If you can explain how a blind man looks on the serpent I would be interested to know. You must show me that everyone that heard looked, including the blind, and you have a win. But if you want to know if the standard was sufficient to heal why are not all men healed? Is it because they refuse to look at what bit them?
DT 29:2 Moses summoned all the Israelites and said to them:
Your eyes have seen all that the LORD did in Egypt to Pharaoh, to all his officials and to all his land. 3 With your own eyes you saw those great trials, those miraculous signs and great wonders. 4 But to this day the LORD has not given you a mind that understands or eyes that see or ears that hear. 5 During the forty years that I led you through the desert, your clothes did not wear out, nor did the sandals on your feet. 6 You ate no bread and drank no wine or other fermented drink. I did this so that you might know that I am the LORD your God.
How could they believe since they did not have eyes to see with? Moses would have been a fool to tell a blind man that just one look at the snake on the cross would heal them. John 6:40 For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day."
john.
Who said any sin could not be atoned for?
Let me put it into plain English. If God says no atonement would ever be given to Eli's house it means that Eli's house had no atonement for it and all in Eli's house go to Hell without passing go.
If God says that no atonement will ever be given for Eli's house then no atonement will ever be given and God is not referring to the shadow but the reality of atonement. Is that is clearer than, 1 Sam 3:14 Therefore, I swore to the house of Eli, `The guilt of Eli's house will never be atoned for by sacrifice or offering.' " ?
Like brute beasts born only to be caught and destroyed, 2 Peter 2:12 or like those destined to stumble, 1 Peter 2:8 or like Rom 9:11 Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad--in order that God's purpose in election might stand: 12 not by works but by him who calls--she was told, "The older will serve the younger." 13 Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."?
Where's the problem with that? Doesn't God know who will reject Him before they are born? All the damned are born so aren't they? Yes or no?
If you can explain how a blind man looks on the serpent I would be interested to know.
You must show me that everyone that heard looked, including the blind, and you have a win. But if you want to know if the standard was sufficient to heal why are not all men healed? Is it because they refuse to look at what bit them?DT 29:2 Moses summoned all the Israelites and said to them:
Your eyes have seen all that the LORD did in Egypt to Pharaoh, to all his officials and to all his land. 3 With your own eyes you saw those great trials, those miraculous signs and great wonders. 4 But to this day the LORD has not given you a mind that understands or eyes that see or ears that hear. 5 During the forty years that I led you through the desert, your clothes did not wear out, nor did the sandals on your feet. 6 You ate no bread and drank no wine or other fermented drink. I did this so that you might know that I am the LORD your God.
How could they believe since they did not have eyes to see with? Moses would have been a fool to tell a blind man that just one look at the snake on the cross would heal them.
John 6:40 For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day."john.
examiningcalvinism
New Member
John P
John P,
To summarize, you are saying that Abiathar, the faithful priest of David, the 85 priests of Nob and Ahimelech, who aided the soldiers of David, are all in Hell. This is because you are assuming that the curse was a curse to damnation, though you have no verse in Samuel to back this up. However, I have biblical text which tells us EXPLICITLY what that unatonable curse of 1Samuel 3:14 was, namely, a curse to premature death, poverty and the loss of the priestly heritage. (1st Samuel 2:28-36; 1st Kings 2:26-27; 1st Samuel 22:22) On my writeup, you probably noticed that I had no Calvinist author to quote your viewpoint. I could really use one. Do you have a quote from a Calvinist author which espouses your "curse to damnation" theory at 1Samuel 3:14? I checked White's book, the Potter's Freedom, and he doesn't even comment on that verse. I checked Calvin's writings, and...nothing. Are you the lone ranger on this interpretation?
Question: Could Moses have walked up to the living ones and tell ANY one of them, the blind included, that the standard had sufficient power to heal them? (Yes/No?)
John P,
To summarize, you are saying that Abiathar, the faithful priest of David, the 85 priests of Nob and Ahimelech, who aided the soldiers of David, are all in Hell. This is because you are assuming that the curse was a curse to damnation, though you have no verse in Samuel to back this up. However, I have biblical text which tells us EXPLICITLY what that unatonable curse of 1Samuel 3:14 was, namely, a curse to premature death, poverty and the loss of the priestly heritage. (1st Samuel 2:28-36; 1st Kings 2:26-27; 1st Samuel 22:22) On my writeup, you probably noticed that I had no Calvinist author to quote your viewpoint. I could really use one. Do you have a quote from a Calvinist author which espouses your "curse to damnation" theory at 1Samuel 3:14? I checked White's book, the Potter's Freedom, and he doesn't even comment on that verse. I checked Calvin's writings, and...nothing. Are you the lone ranger on this interpretation?
Question: Could Moses have walked up to the living ones and tell ANY one of them, the blind included, that the standard had sufficient power to heal them? (Yes/No?)
examiningcalvinism
New Member
NP
NP,
Romans 10:17 states that faith comes from hearing the Gospel preached.
Having said that, Romans 3:27 rejects grounds for boasting on the law of faith, period. In other words, even if you correctly applied that faith in Christ, you STILL have no grounds for boasting, as per Romans 3:27. It's explicitly "excluded."
NP,
Romans 10:17 states that faith comes from hearing the Gospel preached.
Having said that, Romans 3:27 rejects grounds for boasting on the law of faith, period. In other words, even if you correctly applied that faith in Christ, you STILL have no grounds for boasting, as per Romans 3:27. It's explicitly "excluded."
examiningcalvinism said:
No, Romans 10:17 says that faith comes by hearing. It then says that hearing comes by the utterance of God. Yes, I know how it's translated, but the word is rhema, which is utterance.
Anyway, I never said I had grounds for boasting. I believed I did once, although I never would have admitted it at the time.
What part of the following don't you understand? It seems pretty clear to me:
What I said that is if the difference between a saved person and an unsaved person is the free will decisions they made, then the person who made the "right" decision has something about which to boast. "I'm saved because I made the right decision. You remain lost because you made the wrong decision. The same salvation was available to both of us, so the difference between your state and mine boils down to what WE chose. Therefore, those who choose "rightly" have something about which to boast."
But boasting is excluded, therefore it cannot come down to your decision versus my decision. It must be a work entirely of God, including our faith, otherwise we do have something about which to boast.
And what does the Bible say? It says, "This is the WORK OF GOD, that you believe on Him who he has sent." Whether or not we believe is a WORK OF GOD, not a decision of man.