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

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 301-308 next last
To: xzins
"the first rule of context is the verses which are around (in proximity to) the verse in question. "

And why can't you seem to follow the context of the verses surrounding the verse in question?

2:8 is addressed to the "dear friends".

Who are the dear friends to whom Peter is speaking?

They are the BELOVED referred to in 2 Peter 3:1

Who are the BELOVED referred to in 2 Peter 3:1?

2 Peter 1:1 tells us who they are... "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"

You need to bone up on your reading comprehension skills xzins.

"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?"

What?

God is NOT concerned that ANY who have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ, will be lost.

2 Peter 3:9 says "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."

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

No, God is not willing that ANY of His elect will be lost. The sacrifice of Jesus Christ is sufficient to pay for all of their sins, it is impossible for them to be lost.

51 posted on 07/20/2002 5:28:02 PM PDT by zadok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration
It was this simple for me: God sent his son, because He loved me and wanted me to know me.

Because of my sin, I could not get close to Him.

Because of the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus and by my belief...I am saved.
52 posted on 07/20/2002 5:31:50 PM PDT by Dakota gal in Seattle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: zadok
"2:8 is addressed to the "dear friends".

That should be 2 Peter 3:8

Ugh. Looks like I need to bone up on my proof reading skills. :)

53 posted on 07/20/2002 5:48:23 PM PDT by zadok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: xzins
God made a covenant with the twelve tribes of Israel (Gods elect nation) at the foot of Mount Sinai. Animal sacrifices were offered,as God had prescribed Then "Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the Lord hath made with you.

Hebrews 5 through 10 is a New Testament commentary on Leviticus, emphasizing the priesthood of Christ and his atoning death. there is nothing there to indicate the sacrifice of the High Priest was an unlimited atonment .

The sacrificial system of Leviticus foreshadows tha sacrifice of Calvery

"On the Day of Atonement the priest made a special sacrifice. At this annual event, the High Priest would make a sacrifice for the nation of Israel as a whole. He would take two goat kids, one of which would become a burnt offering.

The second kid was a sin offering,( "scapegoat." )The High Priest would place his hands on the goat's head and confess over it the sins of the nation of Israel . Israel's sin was symbolically transferred to the goat. Then the goat was released in the wilderness, to die in the wild .

Both these goats were types of Christ. The first died for Israel's sins. The second, the scapegoat, symbolized the carrying away of their sin, where it would be lost and forgotten. Like the first, Christ died for our sins and like the second He carried away our sins "as far as the east is from the west" , But when that High Priest placed his hands on those goats he knew who's sin he was transfering. It was specific to the nation of Israel

All of this was peculiar to the agreement between God and Israel. It was not a general atonment by the Lamb. It was a specific atonment for a limited preselected people.

This type of Christ demonstrated a limited atonement

54 posted on 07/20/2002 6:08:33 PM PDT by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: xzins; drstevej; Jerry_M; RnMomof7; Jean Chauvin; rdb3; Wrigley; Matchett-PI; Dr. Eckleburg; ...

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

The very words "Christ died to save all men" seem to have an air of majesty worthy of God. However, it cannot be said that Christ offered atonement and secured the salvation of all men. This is the heresy of Universalism, vile and disgusting. The entire wording of such a construction then is reduced to this simple contention: God has made a "possible salvation" for all men. Please note though, that the very wording of this construction implies that a "possible salvation" by grace is not in and of itself a salvation by grace, but at best is a salvation in the use of grace by the man.

It must be stated up front that a "possible salvation" by grace is most definitely NOT an actual salvation by grace; the certainty of the salvation of not one human being is provided for. This grace led NONE to salvation. Before a "possible salvation" can become an actual salvation something must be done. Those who defend a mere "possible salvation" must contend then that man must perform that something for a mere "possible salvation" to become an actual salvation. The efficacious act comes from the man who can accept or stifle and kill the grace of God.

In order for the Arminian's construct to be proved there then must be some inequality in the mix that will determine the final outcome of either salvation or damnation. If grace is the inequality, then the Reformed theologians position is correct and Arminianism is overthrown by the concession. If it is in the efficacious act of the natural fallen MAN improving the "possible salvation" to an actual salvation through faith that he supplies, then salvation is not by grace. Salvation is ultimately by the efficacious act of the natural fallen MAN.


Is the inequality:

    1. the GRACE of God?

    2. the efficacious act of the natural fallen MAN?




Now, the Arminian will maintain that God has given every man a "Prevenient Grace" to overcome man's Totally Depraved nature. This is the Arminian's attempt to avoid the Pelagian idea that the natural fallen man is capable of fully grasping salvation for himself. This is part of what the Arminian means when they say that God has made salvation possible for all men. But the very way that the Arminian has constructed his unBiblical "Prevenient Grace" he has either made himself a man exalting hypocrite or he has just disguised the fact that he is still fully Pelagian his belief.

Now, it must be stated at this point that the man, prior to the offer of "Prevenient Grace" has absolutely nothing but his own natural fallen VIRTUE to use in his decision on whether or not to receive this "Prevenient Grace". Man without the aid of anything from God must decide whether or not to receive the grace that he will then use to create his own salvation from the mere "possible salvation" that Christ wrought on the Cross.

Therefore, the only reasonable conclusion is that the Arminian believes that the natural fallen man is fully capable of creating his own salvation from the tools that he finds conveniently left by God. What a Pelagian man exalting doctrine!

55 posted on 07/20/2002 6:33:57 PM PDT by CCWoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration; zadok
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.

Naw! We just reject your Pelagianesque man exalting doctrines. Zadok, please see my previous post.
56 posted on 07/20/2002 6:36:02 PM PDT by CCWoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: CCWoody; drstevej; Jean Chauvin
I can't imagine why you want to open this can of worms again. Dozens of bitter posts, countless conspiratorial FReepmails, Calvinists not speaking to each other to this day, Calvinists banned, etc.

And you really want to start up again? To what purpose?

If Jean and drsteve really want into the middle of all that, I don't particularly object. I suspect they're both too wise to tiptoe into a live minefield. And my own reading is pretty unswerving in any event.

Naturally, I've retained all the old threads and FRmails.
57 posted on 07/20/2002 6:57:09 PM PDT by George W. Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: zadok; winstonchurchill; fortheDeclaration
No, God is not willing that ANY of His elect will be lost. The sacrifice of Jesus Christ is sufficient to pay for all of their sins, it is impossible for them to be lost.

Zd, it's quite obvious from calvinist doctrine that the folks who are to be saved are preselected before time. These preselected ones, then, CANNOT be lost, they cannot perish.

By calvinist doctrine you are saying that the verse actually reads: God is not willing that any of the ones who he has already decided cannot fail to exist and cannot ever perish, actually perish.

What is this: "The theology of the God prone to anxiety attacks?"

Isaiah 45:22 Turn to me and be saved, all you ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is no other.

1 John 2:1 "My little children, I am writing these things to you that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; 2 and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world."

58 posted on 07/20/2002 7:18:32 PM PDT by xzins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: George W. Bush
Can't think of any Calvinist that I am not speaking to.

As for me, I have stated my views on many ocassions and don't feel compelled to change any 5 pointers to 4 pointers. Ditto on the issue of single vs. double predestination. I do believe that one's view of T U I and P are foundational.

-- the compassionate Calvinist
59 posted on 07/20/2002 7:21:59 PM PDT by drstevej
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: drstevej
-- the compassionate Calvinist

That is wrong sometimes *grin*

60 posted on 07/20/2002 7:24:44 PM PDT by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: xzins
Xzins, I think many Calvinists argue that in the 2 Peter 3:9 passage the "usward" is a reference to believers (the elect) and the "any" likewise is a reference to the elect.

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.

His will is accomplished. All [of the elect] do come to repentance.

61 posted on 07/20/2002 7:28:50 PM PDT by drstevej
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7
***That is wrong sometimes *grin* ***

True, or should I say T-ROO??
62 posted on 07/20/2002 7:31:11 PM PDT by drstevej
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: drstevej
Steve, the anxiety-ridden God INHERENT if one accepts that calvinist rendering probably means it was intended for a general audience rather than a limited audience. (Not willing that any of the impossible to perish should actually perish?)
63 posted on 07/20/2002 7:33:03 PM PDT by xzins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: drstevej
True, or should I say T-ROO??

God Bless you....

64 posted on 07/20/2002 7:39:27 PM PDT by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: xzins
Steve, the anxiety-ridden God INHERENT if one accepts that calvinist rendering probably means it was intended for a general audience rather than a limited audience

So did everyone get pizza that night?

65 posted on 07/20/2002 7:42:35 PM PDT by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: xzins
No anxiety. He's not biting His nails, nor is He wrapping up things untill the final elect person is regenerated. This is a statement of plan not frenzy. We get impatient, we think He is slow on His promise. He is neith impatient or slow.

Your concept of God hoping we will vote yes having been given us a neutral zone better fits the expression "anxiety ridden God."
66 posted on 07/20/2002 7:43:37 PM PDT by drstevej
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | 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."

You've blown it this time Drsteve:

The blood was applied... On the mercy seat before the Father in Heaven.

67 posted on 07/20/2002 7:52:12 PM PDT by editor-surveyor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: drstevej
1 Timothy 4:10: "We have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe."

Again, we see no anxiety here with an unlimited atonement.

"Especially of those who believe" differentiates that class from the class of those who do not believe. Yet, Jesus is the only possible Savior of that class, as well.

It's ok to push an illustration such as "neutral zone" to a ridiculous point if one wishes, but it's better to take it in the manner intended. It signifies the enlightening, convicting moments in life when the offer is extended.

Did you ever hear an invitation to accept Christ and turn it down? I did many times. I nonetheless FELT the conviction; I felt the emptiness of my negative decision; I felt the grace present that held all in abeyance and made it possible for me to have said "yes."

I remember these things.

68 posted on 07/20/2002 7:53:55 PM PDT by xzins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7
pizza

Rn, you have no idea how POWERFUL was the grace of God at that moment in my life. You have no idea how great a sinner I was at that time....and yes, far greater than any sinning I do now. You have no idea how fast I was running from God and how far I had run. I WAS RESISTING. I am certain of it.

69 posted on 07/20/2002 7:59:03 PM PDT by xzins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: xzins
Rn, you have no idea how POWERFUL was the grace of God at that moment in my life. You have no idea how great a sinner I was at that time....and yes, far greater than any sinning I do now. You have no idea how fast I was running from God and how far I had run. I WAS RESISTING. I am certain of it.

Steve at that moment you were under the grace of God..the running stopped and you did not choose to say no.

What was different that day Steve?

That was THE moment God had predestined to be..that time was no accident ..it was Gods perfect timing. All the nos were not Gods time..they were mans offer. That night it was God that offered.....and like Isaiah you fell on your knees before the God that sought you!

That was the night that God chose let you hear and see anew so you would desire Him

THEN with open eyes you chose..

70 posted on 07/20/2002 8:05:13 PM PDT by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: xzins
BTW I DO know how powerful the Grace of God was at that moment...It knocked this pregnant lady to her knees in repentance..

I know what it is to be enveloped in the grace of God so that all you want and need and desire is HIM .....

Could I say no...sure...but why would I ? The bush was burning...the water was coming out of the rock...the manna was falling .....Ohh My God your presence is all I seek.......yes Steve I do know ...and it was no calculated altar call

71 posted on 07/20/2002 8:10:10 PM PDT by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7
It WAS the night I chose. That is correct and that is free choice. And all the times when I said "no" was also free choice.

But it is not fair to either of us to use my experience to formulate theology. The Bible explains my experience. My experience should not be used to explain the Bible.

Although I bash you calvinists a bit, and that because I do see things differently, by and large I try to be fair with you. (With YOU, though, RN, I sometimes have great, great fun bear-baiting! LOL!)

72 posted on 07/20/2002 8:13:10 PM PDT by xzins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: xzins
Irresistible grace is often preceeded by His Spirit convicting us of sin, righteousness and judgement.

What were the circumstances surrounding your conversion? That is if you desire to share them (freep mail is fine if you'd prefer).

I became a Christian as a senior in high school (a while back) at a evangelistic meeting hosted by my Methodist Church (an astounding occurance in itself!) I do not remember much of what was said except I knew I needed a savior. None of my friends were believers, nor were my church going parents so I had no follow up to explain the ABC's of the faith until I went off to Ga Tech and was followed up by a Campus Crusade staff person.

Since then I was privledged to see my father, mother andd brother come to faith. In each of them there was an extended period od rejection of my witnessing to them and then one by one each changed from resistance to embracing the Savior.
73 posted on 07/20/2002 8:13:43 PM PDT by drstevej
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: xzins
Steve God wants all of us to freely choose Him..but a man that is bound can not "freely " choose. God has to give you the new heart so that you have a really free will ...THEN you make a choice you could not have made before..

What was different on the day you chose. Think back what happened to make you change your mind (will)?

74 posted on 07/20/2002 8:18:55 PM PDT by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7
Wish I could remember my conversion that clearly. I was a young 'un at the time -- perhaps 4?? . I only vaguely remember the circumstances surrounding it. Sometimes I think that would be more helpful if I could recall them.
75 posted on 07/20/2002 8:22:02 PM PDT by jude24
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: jude24
Perhaps in eternity the Lord will give you His description of that great event in your life!
76 posted on 07/20/2002 8:24:37 PM PDT by drstevej
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7; drstevej
Rn, if you have copies, can you send DrSteve a copy of each of the email/freepmails I sent you regarding "knock on door" that you call "pizza delivery?" I can't find my copy, so I must have deleted it already. The "knock on door" email and others related. Thanks.
77 posted on 07/20/2002 8:29:42 PM PDT by xzins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: jude24
I was thinking about that today. It is a real blessing to be raised a Christian and to be converted as a child..to grow in grace and stature at the same time.....but then you do miss the memory of the adult conversion

God has His time and HIS purpose ......

Sometime ask God to help you to remember it ....who know maybe he will:>)

I am going to talk to my granddaughters .. I believe that one of them was saved last year..but we have never had a good conversation on it. I want her to tell the story so it stays fresh..I did not do that with my son and I feel bad about that

78 posted on 07/20/2002 8:31:46 PM PDT by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: xzins
Ohhhhhhh I cleaned my mail box today ..let me go check
79 posted on 07/20/2002 8:32:59 PM PDT by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7
Sometimes I feel like my testimony is kinda boring, and I'm generally embarassed to present it. First time I had to with Crusade in an evangelistic setting, I was scared silly.

I've always wondered how I should approach that -- most of the people I know through Crusade, and a good number thru church were all saved as adults.

80 posted on 07/20/2002 8:36:42 PM PDT by jude24
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: xzins
You can not find it in your mail because it was not a mail it was a post..I teases you about it then in a post and we exchangeda mail on the pizza thing..I will look for it..But I rememberd when I read my mail
81 posted on 07/20/2002 8:40:39 PM PDT by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: xzins; drstevej
Found it... seeing it was a post I linked it :>)



http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/715529/posts?page=70#70
82 posted on 07/20/2002 8:43:45 PM PDT by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: jude24
You know it is such a blessing ..do not ever be ashamed.....

What is to be ashamed of that God saved you as a child so you were preserved from the depravity most of us had to repent?

God needs children in the world that are his so they can be a light to other kids that live in darkness.

Sit down and write a testimony..every christian should do one, You have a precious testimony....and one thing to share is how God uses kids and the difficulity in holding your testimony through your childhood..

THAT is a testimony

I will be glad to help you..

Be pepared to give a reason for the hope that is in you..

83 posted on 07/20/2002 8:53:48 PM PDT by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7
Thanks, Rn.
84 posted on 07/20/2002 8:54:46 PM PDT by xzins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: xzins
thats what nurses are for:>)
85 posted on 07/20/2002 8:57:25 PM PDT by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7; drstevej
tell me to take 2 aspirin and call in the mornin'

it's bedtime and tomorrow's the Lord's Day.

night.
86 posted on 07/20/2002 9:00:27 PM PDT by xzins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: xzins
night.
87 posted on 07/20/2002 9:05:42 PM PDT by drstevej
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: xzins; Dr Steve; Jerry_M
All Pastors Take two aspirins and do not call me in the am:>) I have a husband for that
88 posted on 07/20/2002 9:12:31 PM PDT by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Dakota gal in Seattle; RnMomof7; A.J.Armitage
For all my life I thought I was a Presbyterian. After reading your post, I must be a Calvinist.

The very same thing happened to me. 8~)

Thank you, Lord.

89 posted on 07/20/2002 10:46:34 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: xzins; zadok
No, God is not willing that ANY of His elect will be lost. The sacrifice of Jesus Christ is sufficient to pay for all of their sins, it is impossible for them to be lost.

If that is case, why does the verse describe God as 'longsuffering'?

If God has already decided who is going to be saved and who not, where does the need for 'longsuffering' come in?

90 posted on 07/21/2002 3:41:54 AM PDT by fortheDeclaration
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Dakota gal in Seattle
It was this simple for me: God sent his son, because He loved me and wanted me to know me. Because of my sin, I could not get close to Him. Because of the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus and by my belief...I am saved.

Amen! That is how simple it should be!

91 posted on 07/21/2002 3:43:36 AM PDT by fortheDeclaration
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: xzins
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?

Amen!

Isn't it a bit ironic that we have to defend Calvin from the Calvinists!

92 posted on 07/21/2002 3:46:12 AM PDT by fortheDeclaration
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: drstevej; xzins; winstonchurchill; Revelation 911
***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.

Well, Dr. just because you agree with one article doesn't make it so!

The Calvinist, Curt Daniel's writes,

When we come to the Swiss Reformation, we find the same view as well (speaking of the acceptance of the Lutherians of Unlimited Atonement), Ulrich Zwingli, Heinrich Bullinger and Wolfgang Musclus all believed that Christ died for every man. There has been debate whether Calvin believed in Universal or Particular Atonement, but the evidence is overwhelming that John Calvin believed with the other Reformers that Christ died for all...Universal Atonement was the accepted viewpoint of Reformed theology up to about the year 1600. Theodare Beza was probably the first Reformer to explicitly teach Limited Atonement. (History and Theology of Calvinism, Curt Daniel, p.370)
Vance, however, takes the opposite view and agrees with your view that Calvin was not for Unlimited Atonement!

Unlimited Atonement is a red herring anyway, since the issue is unconditional vs conditional election or is someone saved because they believe or do they believe because they are saved'

That, not Limted vs unlimited Atonement, is the essence of the debate.

93 posted on 07/21/2002 4:11:13 AM PDT by fortheDeclaration
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: lockeliberty; xzins; winstonchurchill; Revelation 911
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}

Yes, they are 'lost'(vs.3) because they 'believe not', they believe not, because they reject the light, He came unto his own, and his own received him not, but as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them which believe on his name (Jn.1:11-12), He that rejecteth me and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him, the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him on the last day (Jn.12:48)

These are those of Romans 1 who became vain in their imaginations and their foolish hearts were darkened, who God has turned over to 'strong delusion that they should believe a lie' because they believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness (2Thess.2:11-12), thus,

And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather then light, because their deeds were evil (Jn.3:19)

94 posted on 07/21/2002 4:44:48 AM PDT by fortheDeclaration
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration
I can not find Curt Daniel, History and Theology of Calvinism on amazon.com can you give a publisher, date for this publication.
95 posted on 07/21/2002 5:16:53 AM PDT by drstevej
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: CCWoody; drstevej; Jean Chauvin; RnMomof7
CCWoody: 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?

Of course, the sanctification of believers was eternal, a perfect and one-time offering. And nothing else need be done for sanctification of believers under the New Covenant. And naturally, that means all those saved under the Old Covenant, were ultimately sanctified by Christ's sacrifice as well prior to the actual crucifixion.

This sanctification which you work so hard to minimize in Hebrews 10 to promote an Eternal Security (which is properly found elsewhere) is the very guarantee we have against the need for priests and religious ritual, a guarantee that we are santified as believers in Christ so that the Father can even hear our prayers to Him. Christ Himself sits at God's right hand and intercedes on our behalf with the Father but He could not intercede for us unless we had been sanctified by His own blood purchase of us, His Flock. This assurance of sanctification in Christ was important to early Jewish Christians so they knew that the Jewish rituals were ineffective and temple worship was no longer effective in any way. The naming of Christ as the High Priest was to assert His authority over that of the worldly High Priest and his hierarchy. And that same teaching applies as well to ancient Jewish high priests as it does to popes of all stripes. So the message here is both directly relevant to the ancient church and to the modern church and all those of all ages within the church.

I can never grasp why several of you wish to so diminish the message of assurance and the authority of Christ found in Hebrews 1-10 so you can insert Eternal Security, a doctrine so well-supported elsewhere in scripture. Of course our sanctification is as eternal as our salvation because without the sanctification we could have no salvation! But sanctification is not salvation. It wasn't under the Old Covenant and it isn't under the New Covenant. However, sanctification under the New Covenant is only effective for believers and all the sanctification performed under the Old Covenant was only meaningful for those who would eventually be redeemed by Christ's sacrifice.

Why is this simple teaching, found in the first nine chapters of Hebrews, so difficult? Why is it, Woody, that those of you with a fetish for inserting Eternal Security in Hebrews 10 have never managed to post any reference to Eternal Security in any other scripture passages? I certainly have posted on Perseverance from many other passages along the same lines as the great Baptist Confessions and the Westminster Confession and innumerable sermons and books. It's downright bizarre.

You pursue a ridulous contest of personalities over scripture. The very wording of your initial post was obviously baiting. In case you've forgotten, the real war banner of your crusade to impose Eternal Security in Hebrews 10 reads "sanctification=salvation". Yes, that is the very first post by the_doc to RnMomof7 on this entire topic. All else has followed from it. I will once again point out that sanctification is not a synonym of salvation. Salvation subsumes sanctification.

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

Entirely true. But that is not what Hebrews 10 is teaching so directly. It is the elimination of all of types of external sanctification which is primary here in verses 10-14. One may observe that it supports that Christ's sacrifice was an eternal and one-time sacrifice. And of course it was. But we have hundreds of other scriptural assurances of Christ's sacrifice as effective to cleanse our sin with the Father. Hebrews 1-9 is very special and unique in its teachings, i.e. they are much more than merely another redundant statement of Christ's redemptive sacrifice for our sins. And His sacrifice was the sanctification of all believers, that which makes it even possible for the Father to hear our prayers, our very plea for forgiveness of sin. This follows the typology of sanctification under the Old Covenant, even as Christ fulfilled it and set it aside for the New Covenant in Him. The rituals were not anywhere considered effective unless the priest was sanctified in complete observance to God's scriptural commands.

A perfect, unblemished and one-time sacrifice of Christ to redeem the sins of believers, to set aside the Old Covenant, to establish Him as the High Priest, and sanctify all believers before the Father is not the same matter as Eternal Security (Perseverance), which deals with the ability of the Father to maintain His spiritual hold upon the Elect through all temptations and snares of hell and deliver them to heaven as Christ's flock, as He determined to do from the very foundation of the world.

drstevej: 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.

I think you're sidestepping the question. Is Eternal Security explicity taught in Hebrews 10 or not?

I've yet to find any reference to the Holy Spirit applying Christ's blood to the believer or applying any benefits other than those described explicitly in scripture. These works of the Holy Spirit were the miraculous gifts of the early apostolic church (given for a period to establish Christ's church) and, to the believers who came after, bringing spiritual conviction upon sinners as they approach regeneration and repentance, the gifts of spiritual discernment and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

Where do you find in scripture additional works of the Holy Spirit (applying Christ's blood or applying the benefits of salvation)?

As far as Woody's two questions to you and Jean, it appears you've answered "Does Hebrews 10:14 present the Eternal Security of the saints?" in the affirmative, more or less.

His other question was: "Does the author see Eternal Security presented in Hebrews 10:14?". So, is eternal security found in any part of this article, actually the original contention of Woody's post? I hope you can be a little more definitive about the author's writing than suggesting it is "implied".
96 posted on 07/21/2002 9:17:45 AM PDT by George W. Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: CCWoody; xzins; fortheDeclaration; RnMomof7
Now, it must be stated at this point that the man, prior to the offer of "Prevenient Grace" has absolutely nothing but his own natural fallen VIRTUE to use in his decision on whether or not to receive this "Prevenient Grace". Man without the aid of anything from God must decide whether or not to receive the grace that he will then use to create his own salvation from the mere "possible salvation" that Christ wrought on the Cross.

Actually, I like this argument very much. The Arminians will reply that their mythical Prevenient Grace is adequate to enable any to repent. But they never answer why they were good enough or smart enough to take advantage of this Prevenient Grace? Were all of them given the same amount? Their enthroning of the god of Human Free Will seems to be a throne of thorns when one considers that they still affirm God's action in their salvation. But in their egalitarian philosophy of salvation, is God any less "cruel" because He didn't give enough Prevenient Grace to save others or send His Holy Spirit strongly enough to convict their hearts?

The real root of Arminianism is a judgment of God. They try to explain away His justice because they do actually believe God to be cruel. This is why they make free will the central object of their religion. Their posited free will is a failed attempt to justify God's justice. Their theological artifices like Prevenient Grace are merely the rotten timber used to support their Free Will tower of Babel.

Getting back to the article's thrust, it's quite obvious that their Prevenient Grace is only a "possible grace", just as their salvation is a "possible salvation". It's rather striking when you think about it. I keep thinking that we once had a terrific Spurgeon sermon where he dealt with some of these same topics but I can't recall it exactly.

Arminian: Because I'm good enough and I'm smart enough...
Calvinist: Amazing grace, how sweet the sound, that saved a wretch like me...

97 posted on 07/21/2002 9:38:23 AM PDT by George W. Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration
ftD to drstevej: Vance, however, takes the opposite view and agrees with your view that Calvin was not for Unlimited Atonement!

I would think you'd been around long enough to know that FR's Calvinists have said exactly the same thing many times. I suppose you're suprised that we Calvinist Baptists don't believe in infant baptism even though Calvin supported it (while admitting the scriptural foundation was quite weak).

I think you imagine Calvin to be something we do not.

BTW, most Arminians are far more Arminian than Arminius was. Since you claim Arminianism, do you consider yourself utterly restricted to Arminius' various doctrinal beliefs? No. And Calvinists are not the prisoners of Jean Chauvin of Geneva (the real one). As I understand it, there were no "Calvinists" until after there were "Arminians". There was merely the broad doctrine of the Reformation churches across Europe, united in a general resistance to Rome (of which Calvin was generally the exemplar outside of Germany), then Arminius' five objections to Reformation doctrine (a retreat to Rome's theology), the Dordt condemnation of "Arminianism", and finally, the name "Calvinists" was attached to those who affirm the TULIP in the broad tradition of the Reformation.

Calvin would have had no idea what a Calvinist or an Arminian was. Neither would Arminius since he was already dead before his work was latched onto by his anti-Reformation colleagues. Arminius can hardly be claimed as a Reformer in any way since he actually undermined the Reformation.

BTW, since you mentioned the great Beza, Arminius was Beza's unworthy student at Geneva. From the perspective of the Genevan Reformers, Arminius was undoubtedly the Judas of the Reformation, a man who attempted to undermine the entire basis of the break with the church of Rome.
98 posted on 07/21/2002 9:54:48 AM PDT by George W. Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: George W. Bush; fortheDeclaration; winstonchurchill
1 Timothy 4:10: "We have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe."
99 posted on 07/21/2002 11:00:46 AM PDT by xzins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: George W. Bush
Actually, I like this argument very much.

Did you read the entire argument which I have posted twice now elsewhere? The Arminians never found an answer and ftd actually declared in response to it that man makes salvation complete.
100 posted on 07/21/2002 12:09:49 PM PDT by CCWoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 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