Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

For Whom did Christ die? - Puritan Logic (Calvinism)
reformed.org ^ | UNK | John Owen

Posted on 05/07/2002 10:20:28 AM PDT by CCWoody

FOR WHO DID CHRIST DIE?

John Owen


The Father imposed His wrath due unto, and the Son underwent punishment for, either:

  1. All the sins of all men.
  2. All the sins of some men, or
  3. Some of the sins of all men.

In which case it may be said:

  1. That if the last be true, all men have some sins to answer for, and so, none are saved.
  2. That if the second be true, then Christ, in their stead suffered for all the sins of all the elect in the whole world, and this is the truth.
  3. But if the first be the case, why are not all men free from the punishment due unto their sins?

You answer, "Because of unbelief."

I ask, Is this unbelief a sin, or is it not? If it be, then Christ suffered the punishment due unto it, or He did not. If He did, why must that hinder them more than their other sins for which He died? If He did not, He did not die for all their sins!"




TOPICS: General Discusssion
KEYWORDS: calvinism; johnowen
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-241 next last
A tidbit of good ol' Puritan logic from the good doctor.
1 posted on 05/07/2002 10:20:29 AM PDT by CCWoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: CCWoody
Limited but lovely. It flies in the face of the promise made to us by our Lord, but then, that's Calvinism for ya.
2 posted on 05/07/2002 11:14:23 AM PDT by ventana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ventana; Jerry_M; RnMomof7
You would be suggesting that the Lord promised to pay for all the sins in the whole world! Scripture source please....
3 posted on 05/07/2002 11:22:40 AM PDT by CCWoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: CCWoody
I am not suggesting any such thing, but merely pointing out faulty logic.

"Whosoever believeth in me shall not perish but have everlasting life" "The Elect" does not and cannot equal "Whosoever," ever.

Not getting in the boat is not a sin, but the boat is what keeps you from drowning.

4 posted on 05/07/2002 11:52:07 AM PDT by ventana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ventana; CCWoody
Re. 4

We believe that all mankind is not only not in the boat, but has already drowned. Man doesn't need a lifeboat to save him from eventually drowning, he needs a heart transplant to give him new life because has has already drowned in his sin.

Where do you find support that "The Elect" does not and cannot equal "Whosoever," ever. ??

5 posted on 05/07/2002 12:07:50 PM PDT by Jerry_M
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: JHavard; Havoc; OldReggie; Iowegian; PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain;TrueBeliever9...
This could be a lively debate Woody :>)
6 posted on 05/07/2002 12:10:34 PM PDT by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ventana
Really, there are only 2 possibilities with the cross:
  1. Christ actually paid for sins on the cross.
  2. Christ did not pay for sins on the cross.
If Christ did not pay for sins on the cross, then by what means do you obtain remission of sins since there was no shedding of Blood on your behalf?

If Christ did pay for sins then why should not "getting in the boat" be any great hindrance?

BTW, your boat analogy is totally wrong as we are dead in sin, not drowning in sins.

7 posted on 05/07/2002 12:12:41 PM PDT by CCWoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7
Christ died for the ungodly.
8 posted on 05/07/2002 12:16:27 PM PDT by kjam22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7
Enjoy yourselves. Having pointed out error, I'm moving on. You are free to fail to grasp the truth.
9 posted on 05/07/2002 12:16:54 PM PDT by ventana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ventana
It kinda cheapens what Christ did on the cross when one claims that He didn't die for everyone. That his grace is not sufficient for everyone. That he only died for a select few. That his grace can only apply to a select few. That attonment is limited by God and the limited sacrafice of Christ.
10 posted on 05/07/2002 12:18:37 PM PDT by kjam22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Jerry_M
Where do you find support that "The Elect" does not and cannot equal "Whosoever," ever. ??

Perhaps the elect are the angels--as in the elect angels.

Unfortunately for the Arminian, who wants self-election, being elect as the angels are elect would mean that no man would ever be saved.

11 posted on 05/07/2002 12:22:17 PM PDT by CCWoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

"I ask, Is this unbelief a sin, or is it not?"
It is.

"If it be, then Christ suffered the punishment due unto it, or He did not."
He did.

"If He did, why must that hinder them more than their other sins for which He died?"
Because belief (or lack thereof) is unique. It is the ONLY requirement for Salvation.

"If He did not, He did not die for all their sins!"
He did.

"But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name."

Peace,
JWinNC

12 posted on 05/07/2002 12:28:51 PM PDT by JWinNC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CCWoody
Jesus did die for the sins of all. That's God doing His part. This piece leaves out the part where God (Jesus) puts the onus on each individual to accept it, and the consequences of not accepting it.

It's like you've been invited out for dinner. You can choose not to go, but if you stay home, you don't get the dinner.

13 posted on 05/07/2002 12:28:52 PM PDT by babylonian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CCWoody
Romans 5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

What Paul really meant is that the free gift unto justification of life came upon the "elect" because of the righteousness of one. Right??

14 posted on 05/07/2002 12:29:08 PM PDT by kjam22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Jerry_M; RnMomof7
It is quite evident that not one of these non-Calvinist understands sin.

And they are all saying that Jesus suffered for sinners whom God will then turn around and punish in the Lake of Fire for all eternity. Thus, God punished twice the same sins. And they call Calvinism sick!

I wonder if the Bible says that unbelief is a sin....

15 posted on 05/07/2002 12:48:04 PM PDT by CCWoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: CCWoody
You answer, "Because of unbelief." I ask, Is this unbelief a sin, or is it not? If it be, then Christ suffered the punishment due unto it, or He did not. If He did, why must that hinder them more than their other sins for which He died? If He did not, He did not die for all their sins!"

And if unbelief is that sin which makes people forfeit that which Christ did for them, then what about those who never get an opportunity to believe or not to believe? Do they get a get-into-heaven free pass because they live in ignorance of what Christ did? And, if so, is there then some other way to heaven than by explicit faith in Jesus Christ (such as dying in complete ignorance)?
16 posted on 05/07/2002 12:57:28 PM PDT by DittoJed2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kjam22
"It kinda cheapens what Christ did on the cross when one claims that He didn't die for everyone. That his grace is not sufficient for everyone. That he only died for a select few. That his grace can only apply to a select few. That attonment is limited by God and the limited sacrafice of Christ."

"It kinda cheapens" what Christ did on the cross to say that His death might have saved everybody, but didn't actually save anybody. That is the non-Calvinist "construct".

17 posted on 05/07/2002 1:05:57 PM PDT by Jerry_M
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: ventana
"Whosoever believeth in me shall not perish but have everlasting life" "The Elect" does not and cannot equal "Whosoever," ever.
Whosoever will may come, but nobody had the will to do so. So, God in grace elected some. Those are the ones who will believe thanks to the gift of faith and regeneration which God Himself does in the life of a believer. Those who do not believe are still condemned because they never wanted God to begin with.
18 posted on 05/07/2002 1:07:44 PM PDT by DittoJed2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: CCWoody
I have never seen it put that way before. That is a profound thought indeed that I need to chew on...
19 posted on 05/07/2002 1:19:36 PM PDT by Zack Nguyen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Jerry_M
God is a Being of infinite worth.

When man trangresses against God, he is committing a transgression of infinite magnitude. He has fallen short of the glory of God.

The just condemnation of such a man is of infinite separation.

When a Being of infinite worth suffers on behalf of a man whose transgression is of infinite magnitude then He has made a Propitiation of infinite value.

Any man to whom such a Propitiation is imputed is perfectly and eternally restored.

And because by one man all men became transgressors of infinite magnituded, so the Propitiation of a Being of infinite worth perfectly restores all to whom such a Propitiation is imputed.


A lack of belief of such a Being or a lack of belief of such a Propitiation is a slap in the face and is a transgression of infinite magnitude against the Being of infinite worth.

20 posted on 05/07/2002 1:31:21 PM PDT by CCWoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: CCWoody; ventana
I like Dr. Owen somewhat, but he's flat-out wrong here. He follows the Penal Substitionary Theory to its logical conclusion, at least--more than can be said for most that believe it is the only (or the "best") way to describe the Atonement.

But since when can justice be served by punishing the innocent for the guilty's crimes?

Biblical Theology has an article that shows the various theories of atonement, and their logical conclusions. It also says this about the Penal Substitutionary Theory:

[It] assumes that the Trinity divided itself and punished Jesus on the Cross. It assumes that the punishment of the innocent is wrong for man, but somehow, would be right for God. It assumes that sin can be transferred from one to another, which is an ethical fiction. Righteousness can no more be imputed [in the "transfer of character" sense] to a sinner than bravery to a coward or wisdom to a fool. While the theory assumes that Christ paid the sin-debt, but yet for this key issue they are without any Scriptural evidence. Consistent Calvinists will say this payment is limited to the Elect only and to their peril they must rob the Scriptures of all the references to the will of God to save all. Most who hold to this atonement theory are inconsistent in their use of it. When were sins paid? (assuming that they were paid) On the Cross of course! Then in reality, when someone gets “saved” they are actually just waking up to the fact that they have been saved all the time; they just woke up to the fact that they were paid for 2000 years ago. The inevitable conclusion of payment is, that if Jesus died for all, then all must be acquitted on judgment day.

He then gives a better option:

The Governmental Theory

The essence of this theory is that Jesus voluntarily suffered as a substitute for punishment. To be able to punish someone they must be guilty. But to torture an innocent man is to make him suffer. Suffering inflicted upon a man to make him better in the future is not punishment, but discipline: to be punishment, it must be inflicted for evil deeds done in the past. Suffering endured for the sake of society is not punishment: if accepted voluntarily, it is the heroism of self-sacrifice; if inflicted by arbitrary authority, it is injustice on the one side and martyrdom on the other. That the suffering inflicted is deserved is a necessary element in the conception of punishment.

This is illustrated from the form of oriental law that is still practiced in some places in the Middle East today. For example, in Turkey a criminal gets a one year prison sentence. His family cannot provide on their own. So according to their law, the wife, friend, or child can substitute for the breadwinner by taking their place in prison, or could even go as far as substituting in death. In the view of the government, this would satisfy the interest of justice. Through this approach, the demands of the government are met and the guilty given grace by the innocent substitute.

With this system we can still have the pardon the Bible talks about through the provision made by our Savior. Nowhere in the Bible is it said that Jesus was punished on the Cross, but everywhere it is said that He suffered. Luke 9:22; 17:25; Acts 3:18; 26:23; 2 Tim. 3:12; 1 Pet. 1:11; 2:21; 3:18; 4:1, 13; 5:1.

If Jesus suffered, he was not punished. If he was not punished, he was not sinful on the Cross. But what about 2 Cor. 5:21, “For he hath made him to be sin for us”? The Scriptures commonly use the singular term “sin” in the sense of a sin-offering. In the Old Testament we are told that the animal sacrifice was to become “sin” but yet it is translated sin-offering. In Heb. 10:4, it is said that “it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins.” If we say that Jesus literally became sin, then we must go against the Scripture and say that bull and goats were effectual offerings because they transferred sin.


21 posted on 05/07/2002 1:34:02 PM PDT by The Grammarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CCWoody
See 21.

And the non-Calvinists accuse us of parsing Scripture.

22 posted on 05/07/2002 1:41:20 PM PDT by Jerry_M
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: CCWoody; Jerry_M; RnMomof7; ventana; kjam22
And they are all saying that Jesus suffered for sinners whom God will then turn around and punish in the Lake of Fire for all eternity. Thus, God punished twice the same sins. And they call Calvinism sick!

Good point. That's why I don't accept the Penal Substitutionary Theory as the foundation upon which I base my understanding of the Atonement.

Here's Biblical Theology's Jeff Paton again:

We have insuperable philosophical and ethical difficulties in the way of receiving the statement that the guilt of the race was transferred to Christ. Character is personal, and cannot be transferred. Sin is not an entity, a substance which can be separated from the sinner and be transferred to another and be made an attribute of his character by such a transfer. Sin is the act or state of the thinker. If sin cannot exist in the abstract, it cannot be punished in the abstract. If it cannot be transferred to another, it cannot be punished in another, though a man may voluntarily suffer to save another from punishment.

While it is true that Jesus is our substitute, He is our substitute truly and strictly only in suffering, not in punishment. Sin cannot be punished and pardoned also. (in a court of law, the judge has only two options if you are guilty, he either pardons or he punishes, he cannot do both. So if sin was paid for on the cross, then the sin that He died for was punished and therefore, there is no need for God to forgive since the cause of justice has already been satisfied.)

In his presentation of the Governmental theory, Dr. Steele sees no division in the Trinity on Calvary’s Cross. The atonement is a provision and not a payment. The whole Trinity working together in God’s plan to reconcile man, there was no separation on the cross, for "God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself." 2 Cor. 5:19.

Further Steele says:

There is no punishment of sin except in the person of the sinner who neglects so great a Savior. Sin was not punished on the Cross. Calvary was the scene of wondrous mercy and love, not of wrath and penalty.

What is the inevitable outcome of the doctrine that sin was punished on the cross? Whose sin? If it be answered, that of the whole human race, then universalism emerges, for God cannot in justice punish sin twice.

Now there are several reasons why I have been unable to preach this theory of the atonement (that Jesus was punished on the cross).

1. It is not exact justice to punish the innocent.

2. Guilt is personal and can not be transferred.

3. It leaves no room for a literal and true pardon from sin,….. Pardon, being a gracious remission of deserved penalty, cannot be required after the penalty has been fully endured by the substitute. In essence he is saying, if it’s paid, there is nothing left to forgive.

4. The punishment of the innocent....would be wrong for man and right for God?

5. For if the sins of all men were punished in Jesus Christ, no man can be justly punished, either in this world or in the world to come, for sins already expiated by suffering their penalty. I lay no foundations for the delusive doctrine of the final salvation of all men.

In the Governmental Theory the vicarious sufferings and death of Christ are an atonement for sin as a conditional substitute for punishment, fulfilling, on the obligation of sin, the obligation of justice in moral government. The advantages of this theory are:

1. It can be preached without mental reservations.

2. It avoids the irrational idea that Christ was literally made sin and a curse.

3. It makes no dualism or collision between the divine Persons, the Father punishing the Son.

4. It satisfies the Protector of the divine law. Personifying the law and saying it was satisfied is wrong, Only persons can be satisfied.

5. This theory (the Governmental theory) is Biblical.

Here's another website dealing with the subject.
The Reformed Calvinist argues that by the very nature of atonement all must limit it in some sense—Calvinists and Arminians. But this is not so. The Calvinist must limit atonement to the elect or have Universalism, since all for whom Christ died are irresistibly saved. So to escape the scourge of “limited atonement,” it is claimed that Arminians “limit” atonement, too!

The New Testament theory of atonement does not assume, along with the Calvinist, that atonement and benefits are one and the same. It does not assume that atonement is expiation, i.e., that all for whom He died will be saved, but that the atonement (hilasmos) is the provision for all men, and that reconciliation (katallagê) and redemption (apolutrõsis), etc. are the benefits; and that the benefits are conditional and not irresistible. This requires no limitation whatsoever.

Thus, that all for whom Christ died are irresistibly saved necessi­tates “limited atonement.” But that atonement is an unlimited provision for all men as an act of God knows no limitations, is therefore universal in scope and intent, and cannot be limited. The benefits of the atonement —salvation and sanctification—are for whosoever will, therefore condi­tional, and must not and cannot be construed as a “limitation;” for the conditions call upon “whosoever will” to meet the standard of Divine appointment with respect to the benefits. Accordingly, “limited atone­ment” and the “conditional benefits” of the atonement for “whosoever will” differ infinitely in nature and can never be brought together; for they stand in antithesis, the one to the other.

It is therefore an utter absurdity to claim the “limited atonement” and the “conditional benefits” of the atonement are equals in that both necessarily “limit” the atonement!

We conclude, then, that “limited atonement” is limited necessarily; and that the “conditional benefits” of the atonement are unlimited necessarily!

For the rest of this article and another article similar to it, I would suggest looking here and here.

23 posted on 05/07/2002 1:55:43 PM PDT by The Grammarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Jerry_M
I'd love to know how I or the writers I quoted "parsed" Scripture there.
24 posted on 05/07/2002 1:57:08 PM PDT by The Grammarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Jerry_M
And the non-Calvinists accuse us of parsing Scripture.

Somehow, I think that he is out of even the mainstream Arminianism. Of course, I could be wrong. I guess that the puritan logic was too much for most of the non-Calvinist to even attempt to tackle.

25 posted on 05/07/2002 2:54:22 PM PDT by CCWoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: babylonian
It's like you've been invited out for dinner. You can choose not to go, but if you stay home, you don't get the dinner.

What if you are not hungery?

26 posted on 05/07/2002 2:54:31 PM PDT by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: The Grammarian
In his presentation of the Governmental theory, Dr. Steele sees no division in the Trinity on Calvary’s Cross. The atonement is a provision and not a payment. The whole Trinity working together in God’s plan to reconcile man, there was no separation on the cross, for "God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself." 2 Cor. 5:19.

So under this theory just who does pay for the sins? Perhaps you would like to join your Catholic breathern in Purgatory..

27 posted on 05/07/2002 3:02:12 PM PDT by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Jerry_M;drstevej;Matchett-PI
Excuse me for bothering you Pastors ..but do you both notice a bit of Finney in some of this?

Machett FYI

28 posted on 05/07/2002 3:04:35 PM PDT by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7
That's the problem with this world, too few truly hungry people.
29 posted on 05/07/2002 3:05:41 PM PDT by babylonian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7; Matchett-PI; drstevej
"..but do you both notice a bit of Finney in some of this?"

I had, but I thought that the material on Finney was on another thread, and it might confuse things here to comment on that. Looks like the "same-o, same-o" to me.

Was that another thread, or this one?

30 posted on 05/07/2002 3:07:57 PM PDT by Jerry_M
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7
Excuse me for bothering you Pastors ..but do you both notice a bit of Finney in some of this?

I was thinking bit o Pelagian...

31 posted on 05/07/2002 3:13:27 PM PDT by CCWoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: babylonian
It's like you've been invited out for dinner. You can choose not to go, but if you stay home, you don't get the dinner.

Sorry, but the Cross of Christ is not like dinner and the gospel ain't Rev 3:20.

Here's a hint: the gospel has a name that is exactly 5 words. And the gospel can be expressed in exactly 3 words.

BTW, using your analogy that unbelief is like not choosing to go for dinner, isn't this sin paid for? Why then should this hinder anybodies ultimate glorification more than any other sin?

32 posted on 05/07/2002 3:17:27 PM PDT by CCWoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: babylonian
That's the problem with this world, too few truly hungry people.

Exactly bab...Because of the fall, man is spiritually dead and so he does not hunger and thirst..so he will never will to come to the table. He will not even look for the restaurant:>)

He just goes along doing a little snacking here and there ,always with the goal of keeping himself comfortable. he gets to be in charge and select exactly the nibbles he wants...

But if that dead man is given a new life..ahhhhhhh he realizes he is starved for righteousnes......and there is only one place to find THAT table..and he will run to it..so he will never hunger and thirst again..

(psssss Calvinists call that being born again:>))) pass the milk please.*grin* hey Bab how be ya ??

33 posted on 05/07/2002 3:18:55 PM PDT by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: CCWoody
You would be suggesting that the Lord promised to pay for all the sins in the whole world! Scripture source please....

Gladly!



NIV John 1:7
 7.  He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all men might believe.
(sounds like the WHOLE WORLD to me!)
 
 
NIV John 3:17
 17.  For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.
(sounds like the WHOLE WORLD to me!)
 
 
NIV Acts 13:38-41
 38.  "Therefore, my brothers, I want you to know that through Jesus the forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you.
 39.  Through him everyone who believes is justified from everything you could not be justified from by the law of Moses.
 40.  Take care that what the prophets have said does not happen to you:
 41.  "`Look, you scoffers, wonder and perish, for I am going to do something in your days that you would never believe, even if someone told you.' "
(sounds like the WHOLE WORLD to me!)
 
 
NIV Colossians 1:19-20
 19.  For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him,
 20.  and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.
(sounds like the WHOLE WORLD to me!)
 
 
NIV Hebrews 7:25
25.  Therefore he is able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them.
(sounds like the WHOLE WORLD to me!)

34 posted on 05/07/2002 3:20:48 PM PDT by Elsie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Jerry_M
The big lie of Finney

Courtesy of our friend Matchett-PI

35 posted on 05/07/2002 3:22:41 PM PDT by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
Ignoring your misuse of scripture for a moment, why then is everyone not saved? And why does God, who hates a false balance, then punish 2 people (Jesus and the sinner in hell) for the same sins?

Is Jesus unable to keep His promise to pay for all sins?

36 posted on 05/07/2002 3:25:04 PM PDT by CCWoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Elsie; CCWoody
"(sounds like the WHOLE WORLD to me!)"

Unless you are going to tell us that everyone will be saved (Universalism), then maybe those verses you produced aren't saying what you think they say. Maybe they aren't talking about all men, everywhere, without exception.

37 posted on 05/07/2002 3:28:23 PM PDT by Jerry_M
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

I do reserve the right to examine your misused scriptures at my convenience, though.
38 posted on 05/07/2002 3:28:52 PM PDT by CCWoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: CCWoody
I wonder if the Bible says that unbelief is a sin....

Wonder no more...........



NIV Romans 4:17-25
 17.  As it is written: "I have made you a father of many nations."  He is our father in the sight of God, in whom he believed--the God who gives life to the dead and calls things that are not as though they were.
 18.  Against all hope, Abraham in hope believed and so became the father of many nations, just as it had been said to him, "So shall your offspring be."
 19.  Without weakening in his faith, he faced the fact that his body was as good as dead--since he was about a hundred years old--and that Sarah's womb was also dead.
 20.  Yet he did not waver through unbelief regarding the promise of God, but was strengthened in his faith and gave glory to God,
 21.  being fully persuaded that God had power to do what he had promised.
 22.  This is why "it was credited to him as righteousness."
 23.  The words "it was credited to him" were written not for him alone,
 24.  but also for us, to whom God will credit righteousness--for us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead.
 25.  He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification.
 
 
NIV Romans 11:13-23
 13.  I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I make much of my ministry
 14.  in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them.
 15.  For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead? 
 16.  If the part of the dough offered as firstfruits is holy, then the whole batch is holy; if the root is holy, so are the branches.
 17.  If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root,
 18.  do not boast over those branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you.
 19.  You will say then, "Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in."
 20.  Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but be afraid.
 21.  For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either.
 22.  Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off.
 23.  And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.
 
 
NIV 1 Timothy 1:13-16
 13.  Even though I was once a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent man, I was shown mercy because I acted in ignorance and unbelief.
 14.  The grace of our Lord was poured out on me abundantly, along with the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus.
 15.  Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners--of whom I am the worst. *
 16.  But for that very reason I was shown mercy so that in me, the worst of sinners, Christ Jesus might display his unlimited patience as an example for those who would believe on him and receive eternal life.
 
 
NIV Hebrews 3:18-19
 18.  And to whom did God swear that they would never enter his rest if not to those who disobeyed ?
 19.  So we see that they were not able to enter, because of their unbelief.

* (This should be ALL our attitudes!!!)


39 posted on 05/07/2002 3:32:15 PM PDT by Elsie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
NIV John 1:7 7. He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all men might believe.

ALL 3956 Go to Jhn 1:7
> 3956 pas {pas}
including all the forms of declension; TDNT - 5:886,795; adj
AV - all 748, all things 170, every 117, all men 41, whosoever 31, everyone 28, whole 12, all manner of 11, every man
11, no + 3756 9, every thing 7, any 7, whatsoever 6, whosoever + 3739 + 302 3, always + 1223 3, daily + 2250 2, any thing 2, no + 3361 2, not tr 7, misc 26; 1243

1) individually
1a) each, every, any, all, the whole, everyone, all things, everything
2) collectively
2a) some of all types ++++ ... "the whole world has gone after him" Did all the world go after Christ? "then went all Judea, and were baptized of him in Jordan." Was all Judea, or all Jerusalem, baptized in Jordan? "Ye are of God, little children", and the whole world lieth in the wicked one". Does the whole world there mean everybody? The words "world" and "all" are used in some seven or eight senses in Scripture, and it is very rarely the "all" means all persons, taken individually. The words are generally used to signify that Christ has redeemed some of all sorts -- some Jews, some Gentiles, some rich, some poor, and has not restricted His redemption to either Jew or Gentile ...

C.H. Spurgeon from a sermon on Particular Redemption

Some times ALL does not mean all Elsie

40 posted on 05/07/2002 3:32:52 PM PDT by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
NIV John 3:17 17. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. (sounds like the WHOLE WORLD to me!)

Could you explain why God failed?

41 posted on 05/07/2002 3:33:56 PM PDT by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
NIV Acts 13:38-41 38. "Therefore, my brothers, I want you to know that through Jesus the forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you. 39. Through him everyone who believes is justified from everything you could not be justified from by the law of Moses. 40. Take care that what the prophets have said does not happen to you: 41. "`Look, you scoffers, wonder and perish, for I am going to do something in your days that you would never believe, even if someone told you.' " (sounds like the WHOLE WORLD to me!)

No actually it is 39. Through him everyone who believes is justified from everything you could not be justified from by the law of Moses.

BUT not everyone believes...so that can not mean the WHOLE world Elsie Only those that believe.."all of a kind":>))))

42 posted on 05/07/2002 3:36:30 PM PDT by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7;the grammarian
Finney did precisely reject the penal view of the atonement and did embrace the governmental theory of the atonement. The grammarian is restating Finney.

Read Finney on justification where he clearly distances himself from the central doctrinal understanding of the Reformation (i.e. forensic justification).

The following article gives background on the ancestry of the governmental theory.

====

hope the links are coded correctly.

43 posted on 05/07/2002 3:37:24 PM PDT by drstevej
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
NIV Colossians 1:19-20 19. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20. and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross. (sounds like the WHOLE WORLD to me!)

Christs Blood is sufficent for all Elsie but only effective for those that come!

44 posted on 05/07/2002 3:38:11 PM PDT by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: CCWoody
Ignoring your misuse of scripture for a moment,
Misuse? I merely c&p'd it.

Slow down while reading, and you'll see that 'BELIEF' is REQUIRED.
The thrust of the original question (as I understand it) was

'What is the RANGE (or percentage) of people who are Qualified to receive 'salvation'?

The range is everyone (read it again)

The actual receivers are those that really believe they will.

45 posted on 05/07/2002 3:38:21 PM PDT by Elsie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
NIV Hebrews 7:25 25. Therefore he is able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them. (sounds like the WHOLE WORLD to me!)

No, again it is a limited all Elsie..self limited right in the text you quote...It is effective only for those that come...not the whole world..a limited all Elsie...

46 posted on 05/07/2002 3:40:49 PM PDT by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: CCWoody
See post #43 and links.
47 posted on 05/07/2002 3:43:01 PM PDT by drstevej
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: drstevej;Matchett-PI
I am feeling VERY smart .....geeeeeeeeee Matchett-PI I GOT IT :>) thanks to you I saw the fatal error immediately and called it..thank you Mat
48 posted on 05/07/2002 3:43:28 PM PDT by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7
Good! You've answered your own question...... #40,#42,#44......
NIV John 1:7 7. He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all men might believe.

All does mean all here, it's the MIGHT that does the qualifying.


And, as you well know, GOD did not fail...... #41
49 posted on 05/07/2002 3:45:02 PM PDT by Elsie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
Yes, your misuse of scripture.

I said:

You would be suggesting that the Lord promised to pay for all the sins in the whole world! Scripture source please....
to which you responded: Gladly!

And then proceeded to misuse scripture to support the premise that Jesus promised to pay for all the sins in the whole world. Well, He did nothing of the sort. However, given your assumption that He did, please explain:

  1. Why Jesus failed in His promise to pay for all the sins seeing that I will cite as proof the Revelation of John which says that people will indeed burn in the Lake of Fire for all eternity.
BTW, I still do reserve the right to examine your misuse of scripture at my convenience....
50 posted on 05/07/2002 3:47:28 PM PDT by CCWoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-241 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson