What's the point of Jesus dying for everyone?

[Amy.G]

Johnp:

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

John, I never said any such thing. Here's what I said.

Wow. I believe in free will and I never even considered for one second that I had something to boast about. I don't feel proud at all. Who am I that God even knows my name? I boast in the grace and mercy of the Lord who saved me, wretched sinner that I am. The free will that I have was given to me by the Creator Himself. Even that is to His glory alone and not mine.

And this.

No, I'm saved because Christ paid the penalty for my sin. He required me to repent, have faith and follow Him. He didn't, however force me or say "you're saved because I say so".

I give God the glory and God alone.
I did not save myself, since that is impossible. But, with God all things are possible.

 

[examiningcalvinism]

NP

NP,

You wrote: "But boasting is excluded, therefore it cannot come down to your decision versus my decision."

Does Romans 3:27 say that boasting is excluded by a law of "decision", or a law of "faith"?

You then quote John 6:29, in which Jesus is citing faith in Him as a "work," because they were looking for a word TO DO. Jesus is saying that if you want to "work", here it is, believe in Me. He is not establishing a doctrine whereby faith is a work. It is made abundantly clear from Romans 4:5 that faith is NOT a work. Would you like to exlain what Romans 4:5 really means?

 

[npetreley]

You wrote: "But boasting is excluded, therefore it cannot come down to your decision versus my decision."

Does Romans 3:27 say that boasting is excluded by a law of "decision", or a law of "faith"?

You then quote John 6:29, in which Jesus is citing faith in Him as a "work," because they were looking for a word TO DO. Jesus is saying that if you want to "work", here it is, believe in Me. He is not establishing a doctrine whereby faith is a work. It is made abundantly clear from Romans 4:5 that faith is NOT a work. Would you like to exlain what Romans 4:5 really means?

Jesus is not saying that at all, otherwise Jesus would be saying that faith is, indeed, a work. Notice Jesus does NOT say, "This is the work REQUIRED BY God." He says, "This is the WORK OF GOD." It's the work God DOES.

Regardless, you are deliberately de-railing the argument and failing to address my point. I'm talking about free will decisions. You're retreating to an argument about faith vs. works. I am not saying that free-willers claim they are saved by works. I do not believe free-willers say they are saved by works.

I am saying that free-willers believe the difference betwen the saved and the lost comes down to the decisions THEY made. Therefore those who are saved do have something about which to boast, because they made the right decision, and the lost made the wrong decision. If man is the hinge and turning point of his own salvation, then man has a right to boast when he turns the hinge the right way.

 

[examiningcalvinism]

NP

NP,

John 6:28-29: They said therefore to [Jesus], ‘What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?’ Jesus answered and said to them, ‘This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent.’”

Essentially the Jews were asking Jesus: Jesus, what "work" can we do that will justify us before God? They were used to works, that is, the works of the Law.

Jesus answers them by saying that if they want to do the work of God, here it is, BELIEVE IN ME. That's the work of God.

 

[johnp.]

Hello ex.

To summarize, you are saying that Abiathar, the faithful priest of David...

Do you mean this faithful one?

1KI 2:26 To Abiathar the priest the king said, "Go back to your fields in Anathoth. You deserve to die, but I will not put you to death now, because you carried the ark of the Sovereign LORD before my father David and shared all my father's hardships." 27 So Solomon removed Abiathar from the priesthood of the LORD, fulfilling the word the LORD had spoken at Shiloh about the house of Eli.

As God prophesied.

This is because you are assuming that the curse was a curse to damnation...

That is the effect of having no atonement or have you found another way into the Kingdom of God? 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.' "

...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.

I thought, 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.' " Was a verse where we learn that God limits the atonement to those He chooses. If you have texts that explicitly state what you state you seem to be a bit slow airing them.

On my writeup, you probably noticed that I had no Calvinist author to quote your viewpoint. I could really use one.

Why, you don't seem the type to thirst after a Calvinist writer? I know of none.

Do you have a quote from a Calvinist author which espouses your "curse to damnation" theory at 1Samuel 3:14?

Do I need one? My theory in regard to 1 Sam is to believe the scriptures not try to modify it in accordance with a preconceived notion that would make me see that God did indeed atone for those God swore on oath He wouldn't atone for.

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?

Who me kimo sabi? Who's White?


john.

 

[npetreley]

Who's White?

I am, but please don't hold that against me. I don't tan easily anymore.

 

[examiningcalvinism]

JP

JP,

Abiathar was faithful to David all of his life, and he made the mistake of agreeing to anoint one of David's other son to be king, instead of Solomon. Solomon said that he deserved death, because Solomon was not right with God. He had a hot temper, and was paranoid about losing his kingdom. Solomon had tremendous spiritual problems, documented in the book of Ecclesiastes, until he finally found peace and fulfillment when he sought God with all of his heart. In spite of this, Solomon is the one who introduced idolitry to the Jews in Judah, in order to appease his pagan wives. Point being, when Solomon said that Abiathar was worthy of death, realize that Solomon, not God, was making that assessment.

Whose "White"? James White, Potter's Freedom.

In my write-up, it would be helpful if I had a respected author espouse your argument. If you know of none, so be it.

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?)

Don't you see the significance of this question? It parallels us walking around today and indiscriminately saying to lost souls, "The Cross of Christ has sufficient power to save you." Now if you keep going back to 1Samuel 3:14, you need to address the verses that I cited which prove exactly what the curse WAS, namely an unatonable 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)

 

[npetreley]

I suggest JohnP I respect him as an author. He knows the Bible better than most people I've ever met.

 

[examiningcalvinism]

NP

NP,

Excellent! I need the book & page in which he has written this point so that I can quote it.

 

[npetreley]

Jesus, what "work" can we do that will justify us before God? They were used to works, that is, the works of the Law.

Jesus answers them by saying that if they want to do the work of God, here it is, BELIEVE IN ME.

So Jesus lied to them and said that faith is a work that we can do. Okay, if you want to interpret it that way, fine.

That's the work of God.

That's what I said, but you disagree for some reason, even though that's exactly what the Bible says.

 

[examiningcalvinism]

NP

NP,

Jesus did not strike up a conversation about how faith is a work. -- We agree (Romans 4:5).

Let's look at it again:

John 6:28-29: "They [the Jews] said therefore to [Jesus], ‘What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?’ Jesus answered and said to them, ‘This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent.’"

The Jews: What shall we do to work the "works of God"?

Jesus: This is it: Believe in Him whom He sent.

Allow me to paraphrase what I perceive that you are saying:

NP Parapharse: "They [the Jews] said therefore to [Jesus], 'What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?' Jesus answered and said to them, ['You cannot. God works to put faith in you so that you believe in Him whom He sent].'”

Was that what you are saying?

John Calvin: “They had spoken about ‘works.’ Christ reminds them about one ‘work’--that is, faith, by which he means that everything that men do without faith is in vain and useless. Only faith is enough, because God requires that we ‘believe.’ There is an implied contrast here between ‘faith’ and the ‘works’ and efforts of men. It is as if Christ had said, ‘Men work to no purpose when they try to please God without faith, because they are running off-course and do not go towards the finishing post.’ This is a remarkable passage, since it shows that even if men strain themselves throughout their lives, they achieve nothing if they do not have faith in Christ as the rule of their life. People who infer from this passage that faith is God’s gift are mistaken, for Christ does not show here what God produces in us, but what God wants and requires from us.”

http://www.examiningcalvinism.com/files/Gospels/John6_29.html

 

[npetreley]

You know, I'm actually laughing out loud in real lifeat the lengths to which you will go to avoid the plain meaning of the passage, and ascribe to the human will the ability to believe or not believe. That Calvin disagrees about this passage is nothing to me. Let God be true and every man a liar. Therefore, I would have to say that on this point, Calvin is wrong, but Martin Luther is right.

If you want to get into a war of quotes, I would rather not play. This is about the Bible, not about Calvin or even Luther. But so that you know Luther could not possibly interpret this passage the way you do, here is a quote for you.

Bondage of the Will, Dicussion, First Part

And as to those words, 'which lead unto eternal salvation,' I suppose by them are meant the words and works of God, which are offered to the human will, that it might either apply itself to them, or turn away from them. But I call both the Law and the Gospel the words of God. By the Law, works are required; and by the Gospel, faith. For there are no other things which lead either unto the grace of God, or unto eternal salvation, but the word and the work of God: because grace or the spirit is the life itself, to which we are led by the word and the work of God.

[...]

U[SIZE=-1]PON[/SIZE] the authority of Erasmus, then, "Free-will," is a power of the human will, which can, of itself, will and not will to embrace the word and work of God, by which it is to be led to those things which are beyond its capacity and comprehension. If then, it can will and not will, it can also love and hate. And if it can love and hate, it can, to a certain degree, do the Law and believe the Gospel [According to Erasmus]. For it is impossible, if you can will and not will, that you should not be able by that will to begin some kind of work, even though, from the hindering of another, you should not be able to perfect it. And therefore, as among the works of God which lead to salvation, death, the cross, and all the evils of the world are numbered, human will can will its own death and perdition. Nay, it can will all things while it can will the embracing of the word and work of God. For what is there that can be any where beneath, above, within, and without the word and work of God, but God Himself? And what is there here left to grace and the Holy Spirit? This is plainly to ascribe divinity to "Free-will." For to will to embrace the Law and the Gospel, not to will sin, and to will death, belongs to the power of God alone: as Paul testifies in more places than one.

 

[examiningcalvinism]

NP

NP,

I'm not citing Calvin to force you into lockstop with his beliefs. I simply cited him for support of my own at John 6:29, and in refutation of yours.

Is Luther exegeting John 6:29 in that quote?

If you would like to challenge the exegesis of Calvin at John 6:29, I'm listening.... Don't misunderstand me, Calvin absolutely does indeed teach that faith is a gift, and affirms Luther's double predestination. The issue, however, is the correct exegesis of John 6:29, and how Calvin is calling you "mistaken."

 

[Amy.G]

NP:

You know, I'm actually laughing out loud in real lifeat the lengths to which you will go to avoid the plain meaning of the passage
The whole problem with Calvinism is that you avoid the plain meaning of the passages.
Behold the Lamb of God that takes away the sins of the WORLD.

 

[examiningcalvinism]

Amy G

Jesus: "I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world." (John 12:47)

John Calvin comments on John 1:29: “And when he says the sin of the world he extends this kindness indiscriminately to the whole human race, so that the Jews might not think the Redeemer had been sent to them alone. From this we infer that the whole world is bound in the same condemnation, and that since all men without exception are guilty of unrighteousness before God, they have need of reconciliation. John the Baptist, therefore, by speaking about the sin of the world in general wanted to make us feel our own misery and exhort us to seek the remedy. Now it is for us to embrace the blessing offered to all, that each may make up his mind that there is nothing to hinder him from finding reconciliation in Christ if only, led by faith, he comes to him.” (John: The Crossway Classic Commentaries, p.37, emphasis mine)

 

[Jarthur001]

You know, I'm actually laughing out loud in real lifeat the lengths to which you will go to avoid the plain meaning of the passage, and ascribe to the human will the ability to believe or not believe. That Calvin disagrees about this passage is nothing to me. Let God be true and every man a liar. Therefore, I would have to say that on this point, Calvin is wrong, but Martin Luther is right.

If you want to get into a war of quotes, I would rather not play. This is about the Bible, not about Calvin or even Luther. But so that you know Luther could not possibly interpret this passage the way you do, here is a quote for you.

Bondage of the Will, Dicussion, First Part

NP...

this guy is unreal...You should go to his website and see how he post only part of peoples post. He is all about misleading and will never answer when you pen him down. I stopped wasting my time with him.

 

[npetreley]

NP...

this guy is unreal...You should go to his website and see how he post only part of peoples post. He is all about misleading and will never answer when you pen him down. I stopped wasting my time with him.

Thanks for the tip. I think I'll skip looking at the website. I'm still recovering from someone else's explanation that "many" refers only to the application of the remission of sins ("For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins") because Jesus is talking about the future from the present past participle of a time machine, or something like that.
The reasoning on this board sometimes boggles the imagination. I think maybe I need a long break.

 

[Blammo]

Thanks for the tip. I think I'll skip looking at the website. I'm still recovering from someone else's explanation that "many" refers only to the application of the remission of sins ("For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins") because Jesus is talking about the future from the present past participle of a time machine, or something like that.
The reasoning on this board sometimes boggles the imagination. I think maybe I need a long break.

Many refers only to the application of the atonement. :wavey:

 

[Tom Butler]

Many refers only to the application of the atonement. :wavey:

Blammo, you keep this up and you'll drive Npetreley sane!

 

[npetreley]

Many refers only to the application of the atonement. :wavey:

Jesus didn't say that. He said His blood was shed for many - why? for the remission of sins. He didn't say that His blood was shed for all for the remission of sins but it will only apply to many.