Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Was Anyone Saved at the Cross? (Limited Atonement)
Alpha and Omega Ministries ^ | James White

Posted on 07/18/2002 8:49:17 PM PDT by A.J.Armitage

We say Christ so died that he infallibly secured the salvation of a multitude that no man can number, who through Christ's death not only may be saved, but are saved, must be saved, and cannot by any possibility run the hazard of being anything but saved. ---Charles Haddon Spurgeon

There was a time when I called myself a "four-point Calvinist." There are a lot of people who use that term, and, almost all the time, the one point of the five that they reject is the terrible, horrible, "L". Limited atonement. There is just something about the term that doesn't sound right. How can Christ's atonement be limited? And that is exactly what I said until I began to seriously think about the whole issue. It is my experience that most of those who reject the specific, or limited atonement of Christ, do not *really* believe in the complete sovereignty of God, or the total depravity of man, or the unconditional election of God. Most objections that are lodged against the doctrine are actually objections to one of the preceding points, not against limited atonement itself. The "break" in my thinking came from reading Edwin Palmer's book, The Five Points of Calvinism. [Edwin H. Palmer, The Five Points of Calvinism (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1980) pp. 41-55.] In doing a radio program on the truth of God's electing grace, I was challenged by a caller in regards to the death of Christ. "Why would Christ die for the whole world if God did not intend to save everyone?" I looked at my co-host, and he looked at me, and I made a mental note to do more study into that particular question. I grabbed Palmer's book as soon as I returned home, and began to read the chapter on the atoning work of Christ.

I became a full "five-pointer" upon reading the following section:

The question that needs a precise answer is this: Did He or didn't He? Did Christ actually make a substitutionary sacrifice for sins or didn't He? If He did, then it was not for all the world, for then all the world would be saved. (Palmer, The Five Points of Calvinism, p. 47.)

I was faced with a decision. If I maintained a "universal" atonement, that is, if I said that Christ died substitutionarily in the place of every single man and woman in all the world, then I was forced to either say that 1) everyone will be saved, or 2) the death of Christ is insufficient to save without additional works. I knew that I was not willing to believe that Christ's death could not save outside of human actions. So I had to understand that Christ's death was made in behalf of God's elect, and that it does accomplish its intention, it does save those for whom it is made. At this point I realized that I had "limited" the atonement all along. In fact, if you do not believe in the Reformed doctrine of "limited atonement," you believe in a limited atonement anyway! How so? Unless you are a universalist (that is, unless you believe that everyone will be saved), then you believe that the atonement of Christ, if it is made for all men, is limited in its effect. You believe that Christ can die in someone's place and yet that person may still be lost for eternity. You limit the power and effect of the atonement. I limit the scope of the atonement, while saying that its power and effect is unlimited! One writer expressed it well when he said,

Let there be no misunderstanding at this point. The Arminian limits the atonement as certainly as does the Calvinist. The Calvinist limits the extent of it in that he says it does not apply to all persons...while the Arminian limits the power of it, for he says that in itself it does not actually save anybody. The Calvinist limits it quantitatively, but not qualitatively; the Arminian limits it qualitatively, but not quantitatively. For the Calvinist it is like a narrow bridge that goes all the way across the stream; for the Arminian it is like a great wide bridge that goes only half-way across. As a matter of fact, the Arminian places more severe limitations on the work of Christ than does the Calvinist. (Lorraine Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1932) p. 153.)

Therefore, we are not talking about presenting some terrible limitation on the work of Christ when we speak of "limited atonement." In fact, we are actually presenting a far greater view of the work of Christ on Calvary when we say that Christ's death actually accomplishes something in reality rather than only in theory. The atonement, we believe, was a real, actual, substitutionary one, not a possible, theoretical one that is dependent for its efficacy upon the actions of man. And, as one who often shares the gospel with people involved in false religious systems, I will say that the biblical doctrine of the atonement of Christ is a powerful truth that is the only message that has real impact in dealing with the many heretical teachings about Christ that are present in our world today. Jesus Christ died in behalf of those that the Father had, from eternity, decreed to save. There is absolute unity between the Father and the Son in saving God's people. The Father decrees their salvation, the Son dies in their place, and the Spirit sanctifies them and conforms them to the image of Christ. This is the consistent testimony of Scripture.

The Intention of the Atonement

Why did Christ come to die? Did He come simply to make salvation possible, or did He come to actually obtain eternal redemption (Hebrews 9:12)? Let's consider some passages from Scripture in answer to this question.

For the Son of Man came to seek and to save what was lost (Luke 19:10).

Here the Lord Jesus Himself speaks of the reason for His coming. He came to seek and to save the lost. Few have a problem with His seeking; many have a problem with the idea that He actually accomplished all of His mission. Jesus, however, made it clear that He came to actually save the lost. He did this by His death.

Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners---of whom I am the worst (1 Timothy 1:15).

Paul asserts that the purpose of Christ's coming into the world was to actually save sinners. Nothing in Paul's words leads us to the conclusion that is so popular today---that Christ's death simply makes salvation a possibility rather than a reality. Christ came to save. So, did He? And how did He? Was it not by His death? Most certainly. The atoning death of Christ provides forgiveness of sins for all those for whom it is made. That is why Christ came.

Christ's Intercessory Work

But because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood. Therefore he is able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them (Hebrews 7:24-26).

The New Testament closely connects the work of Christ as our High Priest and intercessor with His death upon the cross. In this passage from Hebrews, we are told that the Lord Jesus, since He lives forever, has an unchangeable or permanent priesthood. He is not like the old priests who passed away, but is a perfect priest, because He remains forever. Because of this He is able to save completely those who come to God through Him. Why? Because He always lives to make intercession for them.

Now, before considering the relationship of the death of Christ to His intercession, I wish to emphasize the fact that the Bible says that Christ is able to save men completely. He is not limited simply to a secondary role as the great Assistor who makes it possible for man to save himself. Those who draw near to God through Christ will find full and complete salvation in Him. Furthermore, we must remember that Christ intercedes for those who draw near to God. I feel that it is obvious that Christ is not interceding for those who are not approaching God through Him. Christ's intercession is in behalf of the people of God. We shall see how important this is in a moment.

Upon what ground does Christ intercede before the Father? Does He stand before the Father and ask Him to forget His holiness, forget His justice, and simply pass over the sins of men? Of course not. The Son intercedes before the Father on the basis of His death. Christ's intercession is based upon the fact that He has died as the substitute for God's people, and, since He has borne their sins in His body on the tree (1 Peter 2:24), He can present His offering before the Father in their place, and intercede for them on this basis. The Son does not ask the Father to compromise His holiness, or to simply pass over sin. Christ took care of sin at Calvary. As we read in Hebrews 9:11-12:

When Christ came as high priest of the good things that are already here, he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not man-made, that is to say, not a part of this creation. He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption.

When Christ entered into the Holy of Holies, He did so "by his own blood." When He did this, we are told that He had "obtained eternal redemption." This again is not a theoretical statement, but a statement of fact. Christ did not enter into the Holy of Holies to attempt to gain redemption for His people! He entered in having already accomplished that. So what is He doing? Is His work of intercession another work alongside His sacrificial death? Is His death ineffective without this "other" work? Christ's intercession is not a second work outside of His death. Rather, Christ is presenting before the Father His perfect and complete sacrifice. He is our High Priest, and the sacrifice He offers in our place is the sacrifice of Himself. He is our Advocate, as John said:

My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have one who speaks to the Father in our defense---Jesus Christ, the Righteous One. He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:1-2. [This passage is often used to deny the specific atonement of Christ; yet, when the parallel passage in John 11:51-52 is consulted, it is clear that John means the "world" to be taken in the same sense that is explained for us in Revelation 5:9-11, where Christ's death purchases for God men "from every tribe and language and people and nation," that is, from all the world.]

Christ's atoning death is clearly connected with His advocacy before the Father. Therefore, we can see the following truths:

1) It is impossible that the Son would not intercede for everyone for whom He died. If Christ dies as their Substitute, how could He not present His sacrifice in their stead before the Father? Can we really believe that Christ would die for someone that He did not intend to save?

2) It is impossible that anyone for whom the Son did not die could receive Christ's intercession. If Christ did not die in behalf of a certain individual, how could Christ intercede for that individual, since He would have no grounds upon which to seek the Father's mercy?

3) It is impossible that anyone for whom the Son intercedes could be lost. Can we imagine the Son pleading before the Father, presenting His perfect atonement in behalf of an individual that He wishes to save, and the Father rejecting the Son's intercession? The Father always hears the Son (John 11:42). Would He not hear the Son's pleas in behalf of all that the Son desires to save? Furthermore, if we believe that Christ can intercede for someone that the Father will not save, then we must believe either 1) that there is dissension in the Godhead, the Father desiring one thing, the Son another, or 2) that the Father is incapable of doing what the Son desires Him to do. Both positions are utterly impossible.

That Christ does not act as High Priest for all men is clearly seen in His "High Priestly Prayer" in John 17. The Lord clearly distinguishes between the "world" and those who are His throughout the prayer, and verse 9 makes our point very strongly:

I pray for them. I am not praying for the world, but for those you have given me, for they are yours.

When Christ prays to the Father, He does not pray for the "world" but for those that have been given to Him by the Father (John 6:37).

For Whom Did Christ Die?

There are a number of Scriptures that teach us that the scope of Christ's death was limited to the elect. Here are a few of them:

Just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many (Matthew 20:28).

The "many" for whom Christ died are the elect of God, just as Isaiah had said long before,

By his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their iniquities. (Isaiah 53:11)

The Lord Jesus made it clear that His death was for His people when He spoke of the Shepherd and the sheep:

I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep....just as the Father knows me and I know the Father---and I lay down my life for the sheep (John 10:11, 15).

The good Shepherd lays down His life in behalf of the sheep. Are all men the sheep of Christ? Certainly not, for most men do not know Christ, and Christ says that His sheep know Him (John 10:14). Further, Jesus specifically told the Jews who did not believe in Him, "but you do not believe because you are not my sheep" (John 10:26). Note that in contrast with the idea that we believe and therefore make ourselves Christ's sheep, Jesus says that they do not believe because they are not His sheep! Whether one is of Christ's sheep is the Father's decision (John 6:37, 8:47), not the sheep's!

...just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God....husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless (Ephesians 5:2, 25-27).

Christ gave Himself in behalf of His Church, His Body, and that for the purpose of cleansing her and making her holy. If this was His intention for the Church, why would He give Himself for those who are not of the Church? Would He not wish to make these "others" holy as well? Yet, if Christ died for all men, there are many, many who will remain impure for all eternity. Was Christ's death insufficient to cleanse them? Certainly not. Did He have a different goal in mind in dying for them? [I am not here denying that the death of Christ had effects for all men, indeed, for all of creation. I believe that His death is indeed part of the "summing up of all things" in Christ. But, we are speaking here solely with the salvific effect of the substitutionary atonement of Christ. One might say that Christ's death has an effect upon those for whom it was not intended as an atoning sacrifice.] No, His sacrificial death in behalf of His Church results in her purification, and this is what He intended for all for whom He died.

He who did not spare His own Son, but gave him up for us all---how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things? Who will bring a charge against those whom God has chosen? It is God who justifies. Who is he that condemns? Christ Jesus, who died---more than that, who was raised to life---is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us (Romans 8:32-34).

The Father gave the Son in our place. Who is the "our" of this passage? The text says that it is "those whom God has chosen," that is, the elect of God. Again, the intercessory work of Christ at the right hand of the Father is presented in perfect harmony with the death of Christ---those for whom Christ died are those for whom He intercedes. And, as this passage shows, if Christ intercedes for someone, who can possibly bring a charge against that person and hope to see them condemned? So we see what we have seen before: Christ dies in someone's place, He intercedes for them, and they are infallibly saved. Christ's work is complete and perfect. He is the powerful Savior, and He never fails to accomplish His purpose.

Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends (John 15:13).

Are all the friends of Christ? Do all own His name? Do all bow before Him and accept Him as Lord? Do all do His commandments (John 15:14)? Then not all are His friends.

While we wait for the blessed hope---the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good (Titus 2:13-14).

Both the substitutionary element of the cross (gave himself for us) and the purpose thereof (to redeem us...to purify) are forcefully presented to Titus. If it was the purpose of Christ to redeem and purify those for whom He died, can this possibly not take place?

She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins (Matthew 1:21).

Christ will save His people from their sins. I ask what Edwin Palmer asked me before: Well, did He? Did He save His people, or did He not?

I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me (Galatians 2:20).

This is the common confession of every true believer in Christ. We died with Him, our Substitute, the one who loved us and gave Himself in our behalf.

We have seen, then, that the Word teaches that Christ died for many, for His sheep, for the Church, for the elect of God, for His friends, for a people zealous for good works, for His people, for each and every Christian.

Perfected and Sanctified

One could quite obviously fill entire volumes with a study of the atonement of Christ. [The reader is strongly encouraged to make the effort to read completely a work that stands as a classic in the field: John Owen's The Death of Death in the Death of Christ from Banner of Truth, for a full discussion of the issues surrounding the atonement of Christ.] It is not our purpose to do so here. Instead, we shall close our brief survey of Scripture with these words from Hebrews 10:10-14:

And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifice, which can never take away sins. But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God. Since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool, because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.

While we have seen many logical reasons for believing in limited atonement, and we have seen many references to Christ's death in behalf of His people, this one passage, above all others, to me, makes the doctrine a must. Listen closely to what we are told. First, what is the effect of the one time sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ? What does verse 10 tell us? "We have been made holy," or, another translation would be, "We have been sanctified." The Greek language uses the perfect tense here, indicating a past, and completed, action. The death of Christ actually makes us holy. Do we believe this? Did the death of Christ actually sanctify those for whom it was made? Or did it simply make it possible for them to become holy? Again, these are questions that cannot be easily dismissed. The writer goes on to describe how this priest, Jesus, sat down at the right hand of God, unlike the old priests who had to keep performing sacrifices over and over and over again. His work, on the contrary, is perfect and complete. He can rest, for by His one sacrifice He has made perfect those who are experiencing the sanctifying work of the Spirit in their lives. He made them perfect, complete. The term refers to a completion, a finishing. Again, do we believe that Christ's death does this? And, if we see the plain teaching of Scripture, are we willing to alter our beliefs, and our methods of proclaiming the gospel, to fit the truth?

What of Faith?

One common belief needs to be addressed in passing. Many who believe in a "universal" or non-specific atonement, assert that while Christ died for all, His atonement is only effective for those who believe. We shall discuss the fact that faith itself is the gift of God, given only to the elect of God, in the next chapter. But for now, we defer to the great Puritan writer, John Owen, in answering this question:

To which I may add this dilemma to our Universalists:---God imposed his wrath due unto, and Christ underwent the pains of hell for, either all the sins of all men, or all the sins of some men, or some sins of all men. If the last, some sins of all men, then have all men some sins to answer for, and so shall no man be saved; for if God enter into judgment with us, though it were with all mankind for one sin, no flesh should be justified in his sight: "If the LORD should mark iniquities, who should stand?" Ps. cxxx. 3....If the second, that is it which we affirm, that Christ in their stead and room suffered for all the sins of all the elect in the world. If the first, why, then are not all freed from the punishment of all their sins? You will say, "Because of their unbelief; they will not believe." But this unbelief, is it a sin, or not? If not, why should they be punished for it? If it be, then Christ underwent the punishment due to it, or not. If so, then why must that hinder them more than their other sins for which he died from partaking of the fruit of his death? If he did not, then he did not die for all their sins. Let them choose which part they will. (John Owen, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ, (London: Banner of Truth Trust, 1985) pp. 61-62.)

Conclusion

Some object to the doctrine of limited atonement on very pragmatic grounds. "The doctrine destroys evangelism, because you cannot tell people that Christ died for them, because you don't know!" Yet, we ask, is there an advantage in presenting to men an atonement that is theoretical, a Savior whose work is incomplete, and a gospel that is but a possibility? What kind of proclamation will God honor with His Spirit: one that is tailored to seek "success," or one that is bound to the truth of the Word of God? When the Apostles preached the Gospel, they did not say, "Christ died for all men everywhere, and it is up to you to make His work effective." They taught that Christ died for sinners, and that it was the duty of every man to repent and believe. They knew that only God's grace could bring about repentance and faith in the human heart. And far from that being a *hindrance* to their evangelistic work, it was the power behind it! They proclaimed a *powerful* Savior, whose work is all sufficient, and who saves men totally and completely! They knew that God was about bringing men to Himself, and, since He is the sovereign of the universe, there is no power on earth that will stay His hand! Now there is a solid basis for evangelism! And what could be more of a comfort to the heart that is racked with guilt than to know that Christ has died for sinners, and that His work is not just theoretical, but is real?

The Church needs to challenge the world again with the daring proclamation of a gospel that is offensive---offensive because it speaks of God saving those whom He will, offensive because it proclaims a sovereign Savior who redeems His people.


TOPICS: General Discusssion
KEYWORDS: calvinism; limitedatonement
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 301-308 next last

1 posted on 07/18/2002 8:49:17 PM PDT by A.J.Armitage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: kjam22; fortheDeclaration; xzins; Revelation 911; The Grammarian; winstonchurchill; ...
Calvinist BTTT
2 posted on 07/19/2002 5:13:56 AM PDT by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
Wonderful find, A.J.

Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight.
--St. Matthew 11:26

3 posted on 07/19/2002 5:49:32 AM PDT by rdb3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
Very good article. Solid on logic and Scripture.
4 posted on 07/19/2002 5:54:48 AM PDT by DittoJed2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage; RnMomof7; rdb3; CCWoody
Should be a wild ride, but I won't be able to participate until Monday at the earliest. Chaplain duty the next 24 hours, and all that "Sunday stuff", ya' know.
5 posted on 07/19/2002 6:10:31 AM PDT by Jerry_M
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7
Good article. I think limited atonement seems to be the point most argued about among us. The question is will anything new come of this round of debate, or will we all continue to bang our heads against the same old wall, slipping insults and prideful comments in when we can?:)
6 posted on 07/19/2002 7:10:18 AM PDT by Frumanchu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage; RnMomof7; Jerry_M; rdb3; the_doc; Jean Chauvin; Matchett-PI; Wrigley

Good title. It fits perfectly with my latest stuff to show how the Arminians with their "Prevenient grace" nonsense completely render Christ inefficacious at the Cross in their attempts to mount up man as the efficacious cause of his own salvation.

What the Arminians don't realize is that by denying the saving grace they are essentially denying the Lord himself. For the Grace of God in Salvation has appeared. In other words Titus 2:11 is talking about the first coming of Christ. The appearance of the Saving Grace of God was the appearance of Christ Himself. To deny the efficatious saving grace is to deny Christ himself.

And the Arminian, who attempts to turn Titus 2:11 into "Prevenient Grace", is attempting to turn the first appearance of Christ into a sad inefficatious grace able to save no one.

7 posted on 07/19/2002 7:15:33 AM PDT by CCWoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7
Great reading. Did you send it to all the "others"?
8 posted on 07/19/2002 8:33:43 AM PDT by irishtenor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage; Jerry_M; RnMomof7; the_doc; OrthodoxPresbyterian; Jean Chauvin
Instead, we shall close our brief survey of Scripture with these words from Hebrews 10:10-14:
And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifice, which can never take away sins. But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God. Since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool, because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.
Now the author has gone and done it. Yet one more fellow who sees the Eternal Security of the saints in Hebrews 10:14.
9 posted on 07/19/2002 8:46:56 AM PDT by CCWoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage; OrthodoxPresbyterian; RnMomof7; irishtenor; carton253; CCWoody; lockeliberty; ...
"Why would Christ die for the whole world if God did not intend to save everyone?"

There is at least one scriptural assumption in this line to which Arminians vehemently object. Can any of you calvinists guess what it is?

10 posted on 07/19/2002 11:27:52 AM PDT by xzins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xzins
Can any of you calvinists guess what it is?

As a Calvinist, why would I even care? Still going from Rome, and back to Rome, I see.

Carry on.

11 posted on 07/19/2002 12:21:33 PM PDT by rdb3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: xzins
Your objection is designed to ignore the question.
12 posted on 07/19/2002 12:39:24 PM PDT by the_doc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: xzins; RnMomof7
There is at least one scriptural assumption in this line to which Arminians vehemently object. Can any of you calvinists guess what it is?

Well, you Arminians object to so much of what is plainly written in scripture that it is hard to narrow it down.

I suppose you would claim that God did intend to save everyone (if they, corrupt and fallen creatures, gave Him, their Creator, permission to do so) and that is why Christ died for the whole world.

That may not be exactly it but it always comes down to the ultimate Arminian sacred purpose for man in Creation: free will.

You pro-choicers are always on about it. Me, me, me, me, me. It's so predictable.

My personal preferred writing of this line would read: "Why would Christ die for the whole world if the Father did not intend to save everyone?".

You Arminians not only neglect the sovereignty of God generally but even more so the sovereignty of the Father in salvation.
13 posted on 07/19/2002 1:20:04 PM PDT by George W. Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage; drstevej; xzins; RnMomof7; rdb3; the_doc; CCWoody; Wrigley; DittoJed2; ...
Bump for the Calvinist "narrow bridge that goes all the way across the stream."

I am forever drawn to the exquisite logic of TULIP.

Paging drstevej...

14 posted on 07/19/2002 1:26:28 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg
As mentioned before, I do not have a problem with the logic of Limited Atonement. I do have exegetical problems with several of the passages, most notably 2 Peter 2.

-----

White: I became a full "five-pointer" upon reading the following section:

The question that needs a precise answer is this: Did He or didn't He? Did Christ actually make a substitutionary sacrifice for sins or didn't He? If He did, then it was not for all the world, for then all the world would be saved. (Palmer, The Five Points of Calvinism, p. 47.)

----

I agree that this is a strong point. My response would be that the blood must not only be shed, but also applied. Christ died (shed His blood) as a substitute for all, but the elect alone have it applied by the Holy Spirit.

15 posted on 07/19/2002 2:11:17 PM PDT by drstevej
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: xzins
There is at least one scriptural assumption in this line to which Arminians vehemently object. Can any of you calvinists guess what it is?

Sure can! Was anyone Saved at the Cross?
16 posted on 07/19/2002 2:28:58 PM PDT by CCWoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: drstevej; CCWoody
My response would be that the blood must not only be shed, but also applied. Christ died (shed His blood) as a substitute for all, but the elect alone have it applied by the Holy Spirit.

This actually does sound good to me. But it leaves some questions unanswered, it seems to me.

If Christ did shed His blood for all, then the blood He shed for all those who will be condemned to hell was shed in vain. I prefer to think that every drop of Christ's blood was effective in our salvation. I do not like to think that Christ's blood was shed for those who will be ultimately damned because it would mean that Christ's sacrifice was only partially effective. It would then mean that He was not, contrary to what Hebrews tells us, a perfect sacrifice.

Inasmuch as we can understand these matters from plain scripture, your suggested modality of application of the blood seems absolutely at odds with the Old Covenant. I think the only way to understand Christ's crucifixion is as the final fulfillment of God's plan of salvation in which Christ fulfilled the Old Covenant by offering Himself as a perfect sacrifice and established the New Covenant. The Old Covenant Jews were required to sacrifice an animal at the altar to expiate their sin debt to God (as I understand it). How much animal blood was shed? All. Until death followed. And no less. A mere bloodletting which left the animal alive was not allowed. So, it required all of the blood (and the actual final quantity was unimportant). Just so, our savior's blood was completely required of Him as a perfect and one-time sacrifice on our behalf, the worthy Shepherd who gave His life for the Flock, the Bridegroom who loves His bride beyond death, the Son who does the Father's will in love and for the sake of the Father's love. And how much blood? Until He was dead. And no less. Under the Old and New Covenant, the only acceptable sacrifice was an unblemished one which shed blood until dead.

And so, I believe that no drop of His precious blood was shed in vain. And I certainly cannot accept that even one drop of His blood was shed for anyone whose eternal destination is hell. I simply cannot believe that the Father would permit it. His love for His Son was too great for any part of His sacrifice on a rude cross to have been in vain.

I just cannot reconcile these matters in the way you suggest.

You mention a belief that only the elect have the blood of Christ applied by the Holy Spirit to expiate their sin. I'm racking my brain to try to remember any scripture that says anything about Christ's blood being applied by the Holy Spirit to be effective in salvation. Can you supply at least one unambiguous scripture reference for this?

Even if you are correct about the application of His blood by the Holy Spirit, I don't see that it really answers the question of for whom did Christ die. In the end, He still either died for the Elect or for all mankind.
17 posted on 07/19/2002 2:41:51 PM PDT by George W. Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: xzins; CCWoody; Jerry_M; drstevej; Wrigley
When the High priest offered his sacrifice who was it offered for?
18 posted on 07/19/2002 5:33:27 PM PDT by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: irishtenor
Good to see you Irish where have ya been?

yep I sent it to all interested parties..

19 posted on 07/19/2002 5:37:14 PM PDT by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: drstevej
. My response would be that the blood must not only be shed, but also applied. Christ died (shed His blood) as a substitute for all, but the elect alone have it applied by the Holy Spirit.

Steve could you point me to a scripture on that

20 posted on 07/19/2002 7:49:41 PM PDT by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: CCWoody
CCWoody: Now the author has gone and done it. Yet one more fellow who sees the Eternal Security of the saints in Hebrews 10:14.

Let's see what he actually writes:
While we have seen many logical reasons for believing in limited atonement, and we have seen many references to Christ's death in behalf of His people, this one passage [Hebrews 10:10-14], above all others, to me, makes the doctrine a must.
This is not the author's secret code for eternal security.

No, Woody, he's finding Limited Atonement in Hebrews 10. I don't object to the way he's using it to support his argument. I doubt he'd have much problem with my argument for sanctification either. We both use very much the same reasoning and application. I did enjoy reading his line of reasoning here overall. But this author has written his entire article to support limited atonement, not eternal security. In the TULIP, while all petals may be mutally supportive, the 'L' and 'P' are not used interchangably.

Your reading is a little strained. Read what the author actually wrote and try not to put your words in his mouth.
21 posted on 07/19/2002 8:00:44 PM PDT by George W. Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7
My reference was to the parallel between the Passover and Christ as our Passover (ex. 12:13).

Also Hebrews 9 addresses the sprinkling of the blood that has been shed for remission of sin.
22 posted on 07/19/2002 8:05:30 PM PDT by drstevej
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: drstevej
Let me ask you Steve ..isnt the High priest a type of Christ?

When the high Priest offered his yearly sacrifice was not that a limited atonement?

It was a shadow of things to come.

That sacrifice was offered only for the sins of a limited number that was limited by the election of God..

Yes?

23 posted on 07/19/2002 8:14:27 PM PDT by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: drstevej
Also Hebrews 9 addresses the sprinkling of the blood that has been shed for remission of sin.

You're saying that Hebrews 9 tells us that the elect and only the elect are sprinkled with Christ's blood to expiate sin?

Hebrews 9 KJV
6   Now when these things were thus ordained, the priests went always into the first tabernacle, accomplishing the service of God.
7   But into the second went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people:
8   The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing:
9   Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience;
10   Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.
Is this your reference? It's the only reference to the Holy Spirit I can locate but it doesn't seem to apply. I keep looking but can find no reference to believers being sprinkled with Christ's blood by the Holy Spirit. Is there any particular denomination that teaches this doctrinally?
24 posted on 07/19/2002 8:48:47 PM PDT by George W. Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: George W. Bush; RnMomof7
Actually my original statement linked the application of Christ's blood with salvation (Ex. 12 parallel in mind). Since the Holy Spirit is the agent of regeneration, my reference was to Him.

The Hebrews 9 passage focuses on both the shedding of blood and the sprinkling of blood for forgiveness of sin. The focus in this passage is the High Priest rather than the Holy Spirit. My citing of this was to point out that the blood shed (Lamb slain) must then be applied to accomplish redemption.

2 Peter 2 states that Christ bought false teachers who deny Him. In their case, the price was paid but they do not reap the benefit because they are left in their unbelief and sin.




25 posted on 07/19/2002 9:05:12 PM PDT by drstevej
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: George W. Bush; drstevej; fortheDeclaration; winstonchurchill
I suppose you would claim that God did intend to save everyone (if they, corrupt and fallen creatures, gave Him, their Creator, permission to do so) and that is why Christ died for the whole world.

Close, but not quite. God's intent was that salvation be made possible for everyone.

Once you accept that God made it possible for everyone, then you make a radical statement about the nature of God that he would make it possible but would ALSO deny it as a matter of His choice. It seems a birfurcation of his own will.

26 posted on 07/20/2002 1:38:59 AM PDT by xzins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: xzins
God's intent was that salvation be made possible for everyone.

Scripture please.

27 posted on 07/20/2002 3:53:20 AM PDT by zadok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: drstevej
"My response would be that the blood must not only be shed, but also applied. Christ died (shed His blood) as a substitute for all, but the elect alone have it applied by the Holy Spirit."

Ah yes, but realize that we Five-point Calvinists have been saying "sufficient for all, effective only for the elect" for centuries.

Is it truly an atonement unless it is applied?

28 posted on 07/20/2002 9:36:12 AM PDT by Jerry_M
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: xzins
Xzins Is the High Priest a type of Christ? Was the Lamb a type of Christ? Was His sacrifical atonment universal , or was it specific?
29 posted on 07/20/2002 10:31:41 AM PDT by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: xzins
I suppose you would claim that God did intend to save everyone (if they, corrupt and fallen creatures, gave Him, their Creator, permission to do so) and that is why Christ died for the whole world. Close, but not quite. God's intent was that salvation be made possible for everyone. Once you accept that God made it possible for everyone, then you make a radical statement about the nature of God that he would make it possible but would ALSO deny it as a matter of His choice. It seems a birfurcation of his own will.

Amen. God respected the free will of His creation that He even self-limited Himself in allowing their decisions to go against His own desire for them (Matt.23:37, Rom.10:21)

What the Calvinists refuse to accept is that while God allows mankind to choose for or against Him, He does not allow man to choose what the consquences of those decisions will be.

Reality still remains reality and man cannot change that.

There are two choices, but only one reality, (Jn.3:36)

30 posted on 07/20/2002 1:17:07 PM PDT by fortheDeclaration
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7
thanks for the bump.

This effectively summarizes the argument that led me to accept a 5-point position in my gradual evolution from Free-will to Calvinism.

I was led to see that there were two options: either an atonement in some way limited, or universal salvation -- even unbelievers would see their sins expiated in an unlimited atonement. Any exclusion of some group -- unbelievers, whatever - as regards the efficacy of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ -- would lead to a "limited atonement." From there, limiting that to the elect was easy to see.

31 posted on 07/20/2002 3:21:43 PM PDT by jude24
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration
What the Calvinists refuse to accept is that while God allows mankind to choose for or against Him, He does not allow man to choose what the consquences of those decisions will be.

Actually, what Arminians are either ignorant of or choose to ignore is that man will only choose further rebellion rather than salvation apart from the intervention of the Holy Spirit. Thats what 1 Corinthians 2:14 explains that, "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." (and you will observe that, in a concession to you, I am using the AV).

32 posted on 07/20/2002 3:25:48 PM PDT by jude24
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: George W. Bush; Jean Chauvin; drstevej

Your reading is a little strained. Read what the author actually wrote and try not to put your words in his mouth.

I'm not putting "words in his mouth;" I'm simply reading them:

While we have seen many logical reasons for believing in limited atonement, and we have seen many references to Christ's death in behalf of His people, this one passage, above all others, to me, makes the doctrine a must. Listen closely to what we are told. First, what is the effect of the one time sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ? What does verse 10 tell us? "We have been made holy," or, another translation would be, "We have been sanctified." The Greek language uses the perfect tense here, indicating a past, and completed, action. The death of Christ actually makes us holy. Do we believe this? Did the death of Christ actually sanctify those for whom it was made? Or did it simply make it possible for them to become holy?

Well, did the the "one offering" actually sanctify those for whom it was made or did it simply make it possible for them to be holy? Is the action "past and completed" and nothing more required or does something else have to be done?

But, enough mere simple reading of the author's words, let us ask two (drsteve & Jean) who were not a part of the original "discussion":

  1. Does Hebrews 10:14 present the Eternal Security of the saints?

  2. Does the author see Eternal Security presented in Hebrews 10:14?


33 posted on 07/20/2002 3:28:34 PM PDT by CCWoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
For all of my life I thought I was a Presbyterian.

After reading your post, I must me a Calvinist.

Thank you.
34 posted on 07/20/2002 3:45:35 PM PDT by Dakota gal in Seattle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dakota gal in Seattle
Presbyterians used to be Calvinists:>)
35 posted on 07/20/2002 3:48:31 PM PDT by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
I guess what I am trying to say is: YES!
36 posted on 07/20/2002 4:03:39 PM PDT by Dakota gal in Seattle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: zadok; fortheDeclaration
scripture please

sure can: longsuffering to usward, not willing that any should perish...

The prelude indicates God is longsuffering; i.e., putting up with a lot, being patient. Why be patient EXCEPT in the case in which there are those who are refusing to listen?

"There are those who are refusing to listen at this time, so I'm being patient with them, because my PERFECT will is that ALL of them would enter the sheepfold."

If I be lifted up, I will draw all men unto me.

37 posted on 07/20/2002 4:15:25 PM PDT by xzins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: jude24; xzins; winstonchurchill; Revelation 911
What the Calvinists refuse to accept is that while God allows mankind to choose for or against Him, He does not allow man to choose what the consquences of those decisions will be. Actually, what Arminians are either ignorant of or choose to ignore is that man will only choose further rebellion rather than salvation apart from the intervention of the Holy Spirit.

No, Arminians accept the fact that it is God that must send the light

The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might be saved. He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world (Jn.1:7-9).

Thus, God has left himself to a witness to unregenerate man both in nature (Psa.19,Rom1) and in the Gospel itself (Jn.12:32)

Satan is very aware of this (even though Calvinists aren't) (2Cor.4:4) because man must reject the Light that God sends.

Thats what 1 Corinthians 2:14 explains that, "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." (and you will observe that, in a concession to you, I am using the AV).

Well at least you are using the right translation, even if you do not understand it!

1Cor.2 is not talking about salvation and the Gospel is not mentioned.

Paul is admonishing the Corinthians for not understanding spiritual things.

Paul is telling them that they have access to God's wisdom as children of God,(vs.16) yet are acting as unbelievers.(chapters 3-5)

Thus, they run to the unbelievers law courts (chapter 6).

CONTEXT,CONTEXT,CONTEXT

This is from a post I made earlier by John Fletcher regarding Wesley's believes on God's role in the revealing the Gospel. http://truthinheart.com/EarlyOberlinCD/CD/Fletcher/1stCk.htm

I must, however, confess, that he does not, as some real Protestants, continually harp upon the words FREE grace, and FREE will; but he gives reasons of considerable weight for this. (1.) Christ and his apostles never did so. (2.) He knows the word grace necessarily implies the freeness of a favor; and the word will, the freedom of our choice: and he has too much sense to delight in perpetual tautology. (3.) He finds, by blessed experience, that when the will is touched by Divine grace, and yields to the touch, it is as free to good, as it was before to evil. He dares not, therefore, make the maintaining free will, any more than free breath, the criterion of an unconverted man. On the contrary, he believes none are converted but those who have a free will to follow Jesus; and, far from being ashamed to be called a "free-willer," he affirms it as essential to all men to be "free-willing creatures," as to be "rational animals;" and he supposes he can as soon find a diamond or a flint without gravity, as a good or bad man without free will.

Nor will I conceal that I never heard him use that favorite expression of some good men, Why me? Why me? though he is not at all against their using it, if they can do it to edification. But as he does not see that any of the saints, either of the Old or New Testament ever used it, he is afraid to be humble and "wise above what is written," lest "voluntary humility" should introduce refined pride before he is aware. Doubting, therefore, whether he could say, Why me? Why me? without the self-pleasing idea of his being preferred to thousands, or without a touch of the secret self applause that tickles the Pharisee's heart, when he "thanks God he is not as other men," he leaves the fashionable exclamation to others, with all the refinements of modern divinity; and chooses to keep to St. Paul's expression, "He loved me," which implies no exclusion of his poor fellow sinners; or to that of the royal psalmist, "Lord, what is man, that thou art mindful of him; and the son of man, that thou visitest him."

5. As a consequence of the doctrine of general redemption, Mr. Wesley lays down two axioms, of which he never loses sight in his preaching. The first is, that ALL OUR SALVATION IS OF GOD IN CHRIST, and therefore OF GRACE; -- all opportunities, invitations, inclination, and power to believe being bestowed upon us of mere grace; -- grace most absolutely free: and so far, I hope, that all who are called Gospel ministers agree with him. But he proceeds farther; for, secondly, he asserts with equal confidence, that according to the Gospel dispensation, ALL OUR DAMNATION IS OF OURSELVES, by our obstinate unbelief and avoidable unfaithfulness; as we may "neglect so great salvation," desire to "be excused" from coming to the feast of the Lamb, "make light of" God's gracious offers, refuse to "occupy," bury our talent, and act the part of the "slothful servant;" or, in other words, "resist, grieve, do despite to," and "quench the Spirit of grace," by our moral agency.

The first of these evangelical axioms he builds upon such scriptures as these: -- "In me is thy help. Look unto me and be saved. No man cometh unto me except the Father draw him. What hast thou that thou hast not received? We are not sufficient to think aright of ourselves, all our sufficiency is of God. Christ is exalted to give repentance. Faith is the gift of God. Without me ye can do nothing," &c, &c.

And the second he founds upon such passages as these: "This is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light. Ye always resist the Holy Ghost. They rejected the counsel of God toward themselves. Grieve not the Spirit. Quench not the Spirit. My Spirit shall not always strive with man. Turn, why will ye die? Kiss the Son, lest ye perish. I gave Jezebel time to repent, and she repented not. The goodness of God leads [not drags,] thee to repentance, who after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up wrath unto thyself. Their eyes have they closed, lest they should see, and be converted, and I should heal them. See that ye refuse not him that speaketh from heaven. I set before you life and death, choose life! Ye will not come unto me that ye might have life. I would have gathered you, and ye would not," &c, &c.

38 posted on 07/20/2002 4:20:33 PM PDT by fortheDeclaration
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: CCWoody
The emphasis in the greek text of Hebrews 10:14 is on the ONE sacrifice of Jesus that has ENDURING impact and actually results in the REMOVAL OF SIN; in contrast to the REPETETIVE sacrifices of the Aaronic priests which can merely COVER sins for a SHORT TIME.

The placement of the word translated ONE at the beginning of the sentence emphasizes the contrast of one verses many sacrifices.

The sacrifice is the complete basis of our forgiveness and security. It is also the basis of our justification and sanctification (positional and progressive).

However, the blessings of his sacrifice become effective in the life of an elect individual at the point of regeneration. Saul, the persecutor of the church was elect prior to his conversion, he was not justified or sanctified at that time. However, once regenerated Paul was both positionally sanctified (teliow - perfect tense active voice verb) and was being sanctified practically (agiazw - present tense passive voice participle).

This passage does imply the eternal security of those for whom the work of Christ has been applied through regeneration. Christ is seated, the work of the cross is complete. The Holy Spirit is active applying those benefits to the elect at the time of His choosing.
39 posted on 07/20/2002 4:21:17 PM PDT by drstevej
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: xzins
Yes, it would seem that Calvin himself was for unlimited atonment!

(Calvin, 2Pet.3:9) Not willing that any should perish. So wonderful is his love towards mankind, that he would have them all to be saved, and is of his own self prepared to bestow salvation on the lost. But the order is to be noticed, that God is ready to receive all to repentance, so that none may perish; for in these words the way and manner of obtaining salvation is pointed out. Every one of us, therefore, who is desirous of salvation, must learn to enter in by this way.

But it may be asked, If God wishes none to perish, why is it that so many do perish? To this my answer is, that no mention is here made of the hidden purpose of God, according to which the reprobate are doomed to their own ruin, but only of his will as made known to us in the gospel. For God there stretches forth his hand without a difference to all, but lays hold only of those, to lead them to himself, whom he has chosen before the foundation of the world. 1 But as the verb cwrh~sai is often taken passively by the Greeks, no less suitable to this passage is the verb which I have put in the margin, that God would have all, who had been before wandering and scattered, to be gathered or come together to repentance.

40 posted on 07/20/2002 4:26:23 PM PDT by fortheDeclaration
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration
Satan is very aware of this (even though Calvinists aren't) (2Cor.4:4) because man must reject the Light that God sends.

2 Corinthians 4:4 says absolutely nothing about man rejecting the light.
{read verse 3}

41 posted on 07/20/2002 4:33:05 PM PDT by lockeliberty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration
***Yes, it would seem that Calvin himself was for unlimited atonment!***

Dr. Roger Nicole's article in Westminster Journal makes a convincing case that Calvin made no definitive statement on the issue. I have posted this before and can give the reference, IF you care to be historically accurate rather than apologetically oportunistic.

42 posted on 07/20/2002 4:35:11 PM PDT by drstevej
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: xzins
Those scriptures in NO WAY prove that "God's intent was that salvation be made possible for everyone."

2 Peter 3:9

"The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance."

Who is the US referred to in 2 Peter 3:9?

That is answered in 2 Peter 1:1

2 Peter 2:1 "Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ."

2 Peter was written to believers, please don't try to apply it to non-believers.

"If I be lifted up, I will draw all men unto me. "

All men in this passage is referring to ALL TYPES of men, from every nation, tongue and tribe, not all men without exception.

Revelation 5..

"9: And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation; 10: And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth."

43 posted on 07/20/2002 4:41:38 PM PDT by zadok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: xzins
Was the High priest a type of Christ xzings? Was the lamb a type of Christ?

Was the sacrifice the Priest offered for all man kind? Was the lamb slayed for all the heathan nations around Israel?

Or was it limited?

44 posted on 07/20/2002 4:42:11 PM PDT by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: zadok
"2 Peter 2:1 "Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ."

Oops that's actually 2 Peter 1:1, sorry about that.
45 posted on 07/20/2002 4:43:30 PM PDT by zadok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: zadok
Excellent point...the lettes were all written to the churchs.....Thank you Zadok
46 posted on 07/20/2002 4:43:55 PM PDT by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7
I am tired of watching scripture twisted from its intended context to support man centered worldviews.

How can anyone find hope in the Arminian salvation model?

If our salvation is dependant on a choice we must make, we are all lost.
47 posted on 07/20/2002 4:55:12 PM PDT by zadok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: zadok; fortheDeclaration
While the entire letter is certainly part of the context of 2 Peter 3:9, the first rule of context is the verses which are around (in proximity to) the verse in question.

7By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men. 8But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. 9The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance. 10But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare.[1]

I'm not a Calvinist, Zadok, but the verse above says, "Not want anyone to perish."

Now, if calvinism is true, which of those who have been predestined from the foundation of the world is God concerned will be lost in OPPOSITION TO his decree?

Are any of the predestined from the foundation of the world going to be lost? Is it possible for them to be lost?

48 posted on 07/20/2002 4:58:27 PM PDT by xzins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7
Hebrews 4&5, Rn.
49 posted on 07/20/2002 5:00:53 PM PDT by xzins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: xzins
Not responsive xzings ..I asked if the sacrifice that was offered by the High Priest was for whole world ....or was it only offered for the sins of Israel?

When they killed the Lamb was it slain for all the emeny nations of Israel? Was it slain for the national enemies of israel or was the lamb slaid for a limited people ..the Jewish people?

50 posted on 07/20/2002 5:20:43 PM PDT by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 301-308 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