God's Willingness and Man's unwillingness

MiddleTown Bible church ^ | Unknown | Unknown

[RnMomof7]

That's something I have to object to. I believe that zad's rebirth was accomplished at calvary, but the calvinist system teaches that it was accomplished by virtue of a decree that happened before time.

So was everyone born again at the cross?...So we have all men without exception reborn and saved at the cross then most of them burning in hell correct?

A Just God takes His creation..gives them a new life..pays the penelty for their sin and then has them pay it again in hell?

Is that fair?

[xzins]

A Just God takes His creation..gives them a new life..pays the penelty for their sin and then has them pay it again in hell? Is that fair?

You have the facts wrong, Rn. He paid the price for all, but it is only effective for those who accept the free gift. Some don't accept the gift, so they are lost. That is what I teach.

What do you teach?

[RnMomof7]

He paid the price for all, but it is only effective for those who accept the free gift. Some don't accept the gift, so they are lost. That is what I teach.

If He paid the price for all men how can God make some men pay again for the sin that is already paid for?

That is my question to you X

[RnMomof7]

You're an odd duck, Rn. You do try to use misrepresentation as a "teaching tool", and I'm used to it, so I know your trademark. Others don't, so I try to correct it every now and then.

I actually do not use "misrepresentation"..but natural exageration, and logical extention .

Most time we do not consider where the lines of our beliefs end if drawn to infinity...I try to draw the line to give a longer view

And This is an absolute truth " I take the mercy and grace of the cross very personally and always have..."

[xzins]

He paid the price for all, but it is only effective for those who accept the free gift. Some don't accept the gift, so they are lost. That is what I teach. If He paid the price for all men how can God make some men pay again for the sin that is already paid for? That is my question to you X

Let me say it again another way, Rn. The amount paid was more than enough to pay for everyone if everyone decided to accept the gift. None would have been turned away for lack of funds.

The price was effective only for those who received the free gift.

IN about 76/77 President Carter declared a provisional amnesty for MILITARY RESISTERS of the Vietnam War. The amnesty applied to every military resister. However, of the thousands eligible, only about 5000 actually applied.

That left the non-applicants legally liable for prosecution. If left those who had accepted the amnesty, free and clear and able to resume their lives as full American citizens.

You're old enough to be part of the Vietnam generation. You probably remember this event.

[RnMomof7]

Let me say it again another way, Rn. The amount paid was more than enough to pay for everyone if everyone decided to accept the gift. None would have been turned away for lack of funds.

So Jesus did not REALLY save anyone with His blood on the cross then..he simply deposited his blood in the Blood bank in case it would ever be wanted? It was not finished then?

[fortheDeclaration]

That's something I have to object to. I believe that zad's rebirth was accomplished at calvary, but the calvinist system teaches that it was accomplished by virtue of a decree that happened before time. In that sense, I believe calvinism cheapens the actual cross. I worry about all our theologies cheapening the cross.

Interesting, since the Bible states that we are all born in sin (Rom.3:23) and without Christ (Eph.2:12) having no hope!

Now,if one was saved at Calvary he did have hope!

Moreover, if he was already 'elect' he had to be put back into sin and taken out of Christ and then put back in again!

Zany!

[fortheDeclaration]

Only in some kind of a wierd works based salvation can you define faith as being obedient. Its a facet woody Philippians 2 8 Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. There you go, trying to minimize the works of Christ He obeyed in faith to Gods promise. Had Jesus not obeyed, there would have been no atonement - which would have suited you fine, since "elect" and "un-elect" were chosen from the start. Keep shoveling your Christ hating doctrine. Acts 13 10 And said, O full of all subtilty and all mischief, thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord?

Well, Woody is in a tough spot!

If faith is simply an act of obedience which we can take no credit for (1Jn.3:23,Rom.4:4-5,) his logical premise that, Arminians are arrogant because they think they are smarter then the unsaved by believing falls into ruin

Doth he thank the servant because he did the things that were commanded him? I trow not. So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded (1Jn.3:23!) you, say, We are unprofitable servants. We have done that which was our duty to do (Lk17:9-10)

Ofcourse, if on the other hand, God has chosen you and not someone else, for no apparent reason that is suppose to humble you? I trow not!

[fortheDeclaration]

This is Arminius's view on perseverance. — Arminius — My sentiments respecting the perseverance of the Saints are, that those persons who have been grafted into Christ by true faith, and have thus been made partakers of his life-giving Spirit, possess sufficient powers to fight against Satan, sin, the world and their own flesh, and to gain the victory over these enemies — yet not without the assistance of the grace of the same Holy Spirit. Jesus Christ also by his Spirit assists them in all their temptations, and affords them the ready aid of his hand; and, provided they stand prepared for the battle, implore his help, and be not wanting to themselves, Christ preserves them from falling. So that it is not possible for them, by any of the cunning craftiness or power of Satan, to be either seduced or dragged out of the hands of Christ. But I think it is useful and will be quite necessary in our first convention, to institute a diligent enquiry from the Scriptures, whether it is not possible for some individuals through negligence to desert the commencement of their existence in Christ, to cleave again to the present evil world, to decline from the sound doctrine which was once delivered to them, to lose a good conscience, and to cause Divine grace to be ineffectual. Though I here openly and ingenuously affirm, I never taught that a true believer can either totally or finally fall away from the faith, and perish; yet I will not conceal, that there are passages of Scripture which seem to me to wear this aspect; and those answers to them which I have been permitted to see, are not of such a kind as to approve themselves on all points to my understanding. On the other hand, certain passages are produced for the contrary doctrine [of unconditional perseverance] which are worthy of much consideration. (Vol 1, p 254, italics in original)

Note, the post that I copied this from had the wrong page number. The page number is 665-667 Vol.1

[fortheDeclaration]

Here I think you are making the same mistake the Calvinists make in regards to salvation, not reconciling scripture with scripture.

While it appears that there are many scriptures indicating loss of something, it does not mean that the Christian can lose his salvation.

Look at 1Cor.3:13-15, you will lose rewards but 'he himself whall be saved, yet so as by fire'.

In the book of James.(2:15-20) This is the passage that gave Luther fits!

Yet, it is not talking about salvation for Christians since it is addressed to the 12 tribes of Israel.

Thus, we have a 'rightly dividing issue' here.

A Christian who continues in sin can lose everything he has, including his life (1Jn.5, Acts.5) but he cannot lose his salvation, since he is part of the body of Christ, If we believe not, yet he abideth faithful, he cannot deny himself (2Tim.2:14)

That passage makes it clear that one cannot 'unbelieve' themselves out of salvation.

The difference between us and the Old Testament saints are that we are part of Christ's very Body, His bride, and He will never give up part of Himself (Eph.5,1:23)

Below is from Arminius himself on eternal security,

yet I will not conceal, that there are passages of Scripture which seem to me to wear this aspect; and those answers to them which I have been permitted to see, are not of such a kind as to approve themselves on all points to my understanding. On the other hand, certain passages are produced for the contrary doctrine [of unconditional perseverance] which are worthy of much consideration. (Vol 1, p 254, italics in original)

[fortheDeclaration]

We still love you though ma - and still consider your original conversion valid in the eyes of the Lord.

You're not saying she can't lose her salvation are you! :>

[Revelation 911]

You are behaving exactly like a spiritual Tare by telling lies and expressing your hatred for me by directly threatening to complain to the Texas authorities to have my CHL revoked among the many things. I will follow the words of the Lord for He fully intends to burn all the Tares (Mat 13:25)

ME telling "lies" - bwahahaha - I was on you like a new suit.

Get off the gun thing mr. threadkiller - that was a week ago.

I will follow the words of the Lord for He fully intends to burn all the Tares

You might want to rephrase that - cause it sounds like you want to "burn" me -

Woody: "I WILL FOLLOW THE WORDS OF THE LORD, HE INTENDS TO BURN"

As His agent in Christ - are you going to carry His actions out ?

-

Now, where did I put that Texas phone #?

[The Grammarian]

But that is NOT what you said and words mean things. You said "No, his blood's benefits are sufficient (and, more importantly to the discussion, intended) for all men; they are applied only to the regenerate."

Now the question at hand is 1) Was the sacrifice at the cross for all men?

Yes.

2) Was it effective for all men or only a tool for salvation...not REALLY salvation

It was sufficient and intended for all men. But covenants mean things, and the terms of the New Covenant are "believe, and be saved."

4) You said "No, his blood's benefits are sufficient (and, more importantly to the discussion, intended) for all men; they are applied only to the regenerate." That says that the regenerate get the benefit of the blood the unregenerate do not. That says that one must be regenerate to get the benefit..the regeneration must come first.

Not so. Regeneration may be the "logical" priority, but there is never a time when a person presently regenerate is not presently saved.

BTW I am very surprised at how low an esteem the cross of Christ is held by the Arminians here. It accomplishes nothing..amazing!

Only in your own conceit does it accomplish nothing.

[RnMomof7]

You said; No, his blood's benefits are sufficient (and, more importantly to the discussion, intended) for all men; they are applied only to the regenerate.

Now you have said

Not so. Regeneration may be the "logical" priority, but there is never a time when a person presently regenerate is not presently saved.

Sorry gram that sounds like double talk

What exactly does presently regenerate mean ?

Can a spiritually dead man reach for a life preserver?

I believe your first comment on the topic was correct. The Blood is only applied to a regenerate man .

Have you ever read the_docs thing he does with a bullet and board? He asks when a bullet passes throug the board which is first the bullet or the hole?

I can never explain it like he does..

that is the issue here. NORMALLY the tow events happen in what appears instantaneously. But they are not really...one thing by nature must occure first

In this situation the blood saved a repentant sinner. Men dead in sin can not repent no even desire to rerpent. So the natural order would be new heart (to repent) then salvation

If men were not saved at that monent on the cross the cross itself had no effect..do you want to comment on that (or do you want to call me names?)

[RnMomof7]

woops sorry about all the typos..my sis in from Flordia was walking through my door ..so I just pushed post..no check first ..and I can miss alot even with a check:>))..

[Don'tMessWithTexas]

You fail to understand what Calvin (and the Bible) actually teach. Salvation was not accomplished by virtue of the immutable decree of God. It was accomplished by Christ on the Cross. The scope of the eternal decree in predestination was only regarding those for whom Christ would die. No one can point to the decretive event as the ground of their salvation, because no one can determine the scope of that decree. What the sinner is commanded to do is believe on Jesus Christ.

The hyer-calvinist would point to that eternal decree as the basis for their salvation. A calvinist would never do so. The hyper sees no need for the preaching of the cross because God will save whom he will save. They ignore the expressed will of God that men preach and men repent and believe. The true calvinist insists that all men repent and believe.

At no time, therefore, can one allow one's view of atonement and predestination to cloud the scope of the call of the gospel or the nature of that call. Whether a sinner is effectually called by God to repent and believe is a matter that belongs to God alone.

[Cronos]

Another good thread --> A Problem For Extreme Calvinists

[Cronos]

Another good thread --> A Problem For Extreme Calvinists