REDEMPTION/ATONEMENT: US vs THEM (the L of TULIP)

[Messy]

-

 

[Albion]

So those who are not 'predestined to faith', Christ died for?

Yes. What's so difficult to accept about that? -- that Christ died in order to lift the condemnation that affected every mortal up until Calvary, making each of us eligible for salvation for the first time since Adam and Eve...depending upon the life lived by each of us thereafter?

So how does one obtain eternal life, without Christ dying for their sin?

Faith.

Faith in Christ as God incarnate who died in order to pay the price for the sins of mankind.

One is a contradiction of human logic, where the Trinity goes beyond human logic.

The nature of God is beyond human comprehension, that's true, but we have the essentials (Trinity) revealed in God's word and we accept it as true.

Yes, but there are many verses that speak in terms of 'predestination', 'election', 'remnant', 'God's choice', 'potter/clay', etc.

And they have all been explained by Bible experts and the mainline of Christian history through the years. These words can have a variety of shadings of meaning, just like a lot of other terms we deal with.

The problem is that a lot of people today immediately take the explanation that was offered in the 16th century by a segment of the Protestant Reformation as though that interpretation is the one and only possible meaning of those words in Scripture.

Those whom Christ dies for, He regenerates and they know beyond a shadow of a doubt.

I don't know whom you are referring to there, but I suppose there are such people. If they are actual believers in the Reformed version of Christianity (i.e. the Calvinist, predestinarian one), they are doing it on their own because it makes them feel better. The theology they adhere to doesn't claim that they will know for a certainty if they are among the Elect or not.

And because you say that you didn't learn that it's possible to "know" while attending a Lutheran church, I can tell you that I've put the question to knowledgeable people who belong to one of the churches that actually believe the POV that you are promoting...and they admitted that there is no way to know.

 

[Messy]

One is a contradiction of human logic, where the Trinity goes beyond human logic.

Ok, He died for all, but chooses some. Makes sense (tongue in cheek).

Why is it not logical? I don't see the problem. To me it's logical. Lets say predestination is true. God predestines a sheep and that sheep gets faith and choses to come to Him. Jesus prayed for and died to save His bride. Yes. That's a text. But other texts say He died for everyone. How can He judge people who reject Him and don't want to eat His flesh and drink His blood, yet tell them they have to, when He doesn't even die for them.

 

[Josiah]

So those who are not 'predestined to faith', Christ died for?

@prism This isn't hard....

Here is what the Bible states (and thus, most Christians think is true):

1. Christ died for all people.
2. Some are predestined to receive faith.

Both are essential for personal justification (the variable being faith).

This is the teaching of the Bible. This is the teaching that Christians universally embraced for nearly 1600 years and nearly all still do. This is the teaching affirmed and declared dogma by an Ecumenical Council. This is the teaching of the Orthodox Churches, the Catholic Church, Lutherans, Anglicans, Calvinists and beyond. I'm pretty sure my five-year-old son would have no problem understanding this. I'm perplexed why it alludes you... and why you conclude it must be wrong if you can't comprehend it.

So how does one obtain eternal life, without Christ dying for their sin?

They don't.

Here is what the Bible states (and thus, most Christians think is true):

1. Christ died for all people.
2. Some are predestined to receive faith.
Both are essential for personal justification (the variable being faith).

This is the teaching of the Bible. This is the teaching that Christians universally embraced for nearly 1600 years and nearly all still do. This is the teaching affirmed and declared dogma by an Ecumenical Council. This is the teaching of the Orthodox Churches, the Catholic Church, Lutherans, Anglicans, Calvinists and beyond. I've been teaching Sunday School and leading Bible Studies for years and have yet to meet anyone who could not grasp this clear biblical teaching, this historic Christian belief. I'm perplexed how it alludes you and why you suggest that makes it wrong. It didn't allude any Church Father, it didn't allude Luther or Calvin.



Here's what God literally, flat-out, verbatim, in black-and-white, repeatedly states:

1 John 2:2 He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.​

John 3:16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

Hebrews 2:9 But we see him who for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.

2 Corinthians 5:14 For the love of Christ controls us, because we have concluded this: that one has died for all

2 Corinthians 5:15 And he died for all.

1 Timothy 2:6 "Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all.

There are more.

There are NO verses that state, "No, Jesus did not die for all but only for some."

The reason some are not personally justified is NOT that the Bible is wrong about Jesus dying for all but rather because the Bible is right about faith not being in all. Yes, not all are appointed to believe but Jesus did die for all, at least that's what God says and what Christianity believed for 1600 years (and nearly all still does).




.

 

[prism]

Why is it not logical? I don't see the problem. To me it's logical. Lets say predestination is true. God predestines a sheep and that sheep gets faith and choses to come to Him. Jesus prayed for and died to save His bride. Yes. That's a text. But other texts say He died for everyone. How can He judge people who reject Him and don't want to eat His flesh and drink His blood, yet tell them they have to, when He doesn't even die for them.

And some unbelievers take Communion in unbelief and end up sick or dead...

1 Corinthians 11:29-30 KJV
For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. [30] For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.

Why is 'what' not logical?

 

[Messy]

And some unbelievers take Communion in unbelief and end up sick or dead...

1 Corinthians 11:29-30 KJV
For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. [30] For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.

Why is 'what' not logical?

You said it was not logical for Jesus to die for everyone, yet the Father not predestining everyone, but whatever. Who cares. You're saved. I doubt you'll tell an unbeliever there is only a chance that Jesus died for them, so it doesn't matter.

 

[prism]

This isn't hard....

Here is what the Bible states (and thus, most Christians think is true):

1. Christ died for all people.
2. Some are predestined to receive faith.

Both are essential for personal justification (the variable being faith).

This is the teaching of the Bible. This is the teaching that Christians universally embraced for nearly 1600 years and nearly all still do. This is the teaching affirmed and declared dogma by an Ecumenical Council. This is the teaching of the Orthodox Churches, the Catholic Church, Lutherans, Anglicans, Calvinists and beyond. I'm pretty sure my five-year-old son would have no problem understanding this. I'm perplexed why it alludes you... and why you conclude it must be wrong if you can't comprehend it.

It's not what Calvinists teach: From their own Westminster...

Chapter X - Of Effectual Calling. i. All those whom God hath predestinated unto life, and those only, He is pleased, in His appointed and accepted time, effectually to call,(1) by His Word and Spirit,(2) out of that state of sin and death in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ;(3) enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God;(4) taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them a heart of flesh;(
5) renewing their wills, and, by His almighty power determining them to that which is good;(6) and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ;(7) yet so as they come most freely, being made willing by His grace.(8)
(1) Ro 8:30; Ro 11:7; Eph 1:10,11.
(2) 2Th 2:13,14; 2Co 3:3,6.
(3) Ro 8:2; Eph 2:1-5; 2Ti 1:9,10.
(4) Ac 26:18; 1Co 2:10,12; Eph 1:17,18.
(5) Eze 36:26.
(6) Eze 11:19; Php 2:13; Dt 30:6; Eze 37:27.
(7) Eph 1:19; Jn 6:44,45.
(8) SS 1:4; Ps 110:3; Jn 6:37; Ro 6:16,17,18.

My point all along is that Who Christ died for is a moot point in the light of predestination and effectual calling.

They don't. (obtain eternal life without Christ dying for them)

Yet they can't obtain eternal life even if Christ 'died for them' unless God predestined them (to faith?).
Still sounds like a moot issue.

 

[prism]

You said it was not logical for Jesus to die for everyone, yet the Father not predestining everyone, but whatever. Who cares. You're saved. I doubt you'll tell an unbeliever there is only a chance that Jesus died for them, so it doesn't matter.

I'll tell them the Gospel and let His Spirit do the convicting, illuminating, and drawing.

 

[Messy]

My point all along is that Who Christ died for is a moot point in the light of predestination and effectual calling.

Yet they can't obtain eternal life even if Christ died for them unless God predestined them (to faith?).
Still sounds like a moot issue.

I was starting to think that too, but it does show who rejects who. If Jesus only died for the elect, the others had no chance, cause God hated them. When Jesus did die for them, they had a chance, but rejected Him and hardened their heart and it's not God who is so evil to reject some on the basis of nothing and create them hard and evil, but instead they hated Him without a cause.

 

[prism]

I was starting to think that too, but it does show who rejects who. If Jesus only died for the elect, the others had no chance, cause God hated them. When Jesus did die for them, they had a chance, but rejected Him and hardened their heart and it's not God who is so evil to reject some on the basis of nothing and create them hard and evil, but instead they hated Him without a cause.

Since when did God work by chance?

Did Jesus die for Judas Iscariot? (since He died for all)

Mark 14:18-21 KJV
And as they sat and did eat, Jesus said, Verily I say unto you, One of you which eateth with me shall betray me. [19] And they began to be sorrowful, and to say unto him one by one, Is it I? and another said, Is it I? [20] And he answered and said unto them, It is one of the twelve, that dippeth with me in the dish. [21] The Son of man indeed goeth, as it is written of him: but woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! good were it for that man if he had never been born.

It is also WRITTEN concerning Judas...

Acts 1:17-18,20 ESV
For he was numbered among us and was allotted his share in this ministry." [18] (Now this man acquired a field with the reward of his wickedness, and falling headlong he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out. [20] "For it is written in the Book of Psalms, "'May his camp become desolate, and let there be no one to dwell in it'; and "'Let another take his office.'



Also:
Romans 9:18-21 KJV
Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. [19] Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? [20] Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? [21] Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

 

[Messy]

Since when did God work by chance?

Did Jesus die for Judas Iscariot? (since He died for all)

Mark 14:18-21 KJV
And as they sat and did eat, Jesus said, Verily I say unto you, One of you which eateth with me shall betray me. [19] And they began to be sorrowful, and to say unto him one by one, Is it I? and another said, Is it I? [20] And he answered and said unto them, It is one of the twelve, that dippeth with me in the dish. [21] The Son of man indeed goeth, as it is written of him: but woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! good were it for that man if he had never been born.

It is also WRITTEN concerning Judas...

Acts 1:17-18,20 ESV
For he was numbered among us and was allotted his share in this ministry." [18] (Now this man acquired a field with the reward of his wickedness, and falling headlong he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out. [20] "For it is written in the Book of Psalms, "'May his camp become desolate, and let there be no one to dwell in it'; and "'Let another take his office.'



Also:
Romans 9:18-21 KJV
Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. [19] Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? [20] Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? [21] Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

Yes He did, since He died for all.

The false teachers in 2 Peter 2:1 denied the One who bought them (with His blood)

(2 Pet. 2:1) Do false teachers lose their salvation? | Evidence Unseen

www.evidenceunseen.com

this is an instance where someone is bought by Christ’s blood, but since they reject him, they never have salvation.

 

[Josiah]

My point all along is that Who Christ died for is a moot point in the light of predestination and effectual calling.

Okay @prism ....so why are you posting (on and on and on) to disagree with what the Bible so clearly, boldly states: Jesus died for all?

In stead of insisting this is wrong, why not just say "I don't believe it matters?"
In stead of insisting, "I can't understand this so it can't be true?" why not just say "I don't think it matters, one way or the other?"

I could state that astrophysicists state that the Earth is the third planet from the sun... and you could say "I can't understand that" or "I don't think that matters" but that would have no bearing on whether it's true or not.

Yet they can't obtain eternal life even if Christ 'died for them' unless God predestined them (to faith?).

That's not the issue (you keep TRYING - as hard as you can - to change the subject). The issue here is singular and clear: Did Christ die for all OR rather, instead, did He die only for some few? THAT is the issue of the "L" and the issue of this thread and the issue of the posts in this thread. NOT if everyone is personally justified.


Personally, I don't accept that a teaching SO often clearly, verbatim, repeatedly stated in Scripture is "moot." God obviously thinks it matters or He would not have taught us this - over and over, verbatim, specifically, flat-out. But we seem to disagree on that. I've already repeatedly shared why this teaching is critical, you never responded to that.



.



.

 

[prism]

Yes He did, since He died for all.

The false teachers in 2 Peter 2:1 denied the One who bought them (with His blood)

Thanks for your honesty.

Yes He did, since He died for all.

The false teachers in 2 Peter 2:1 denied the One who bought them (with His blood)

(2 Pet. 2:1) Do false teachers lose their salvation? | Evidence Unseen

www.evidenceunseen.com

this is an instance where someone is bought by Christ’s blood, but since they reject him, they never have salvation.

These false teacher claimed a lot of false ideas (called lying) such as 'the Lord bought me'. Yet they denied (contradicted) their claim of being 'bought' through their deeds.

 

[prism]

In stead of insisting this is wrong, why not just say "I don't believe it matters?"
In stead of insisting, "I can't understand this so it can't be true?" why not just say "I don't think it matters, one way or the other?"

If you look at my first posts on this topic, I tried to express that it was a moot point. You're right, I should have kept it there. I laid stress on expressing my understanding rather than 'insist' the other view was wrong.

That's not the issue (you keep TRYING - as hard as you can - to change the subject). The issue here is singular and clear: Did Christ die for all OR rather, instead, did He die only for some few? THAT is the issue of the "L" and the issue of this thread and the issue of the posts in this thread. NOT if everyone is personally justified.

I guess you fail to see the link between 'predestination' and 'limited atonement'.

I've already repeatedly shared why this teaching is critical, you never responded to that.

If I recall, your objection involves 'how can one be assured that Christ died for them?'
I would say that the message of 'Repent and believe the Gospel' is a call to all and in time 'those who have ears to hear' will hear by the convicting and illuminating work of the Holy Spirit upon their hearts.

 

[Messy]

Thanks for your honesty.

These false teacher claimed a lot of false ideas (called lying) such as 'the Lord bought me'. Yet they denied (contradicted) their claim of being 'bought' through their deeds.

Peter says that He bought em, not they. They deny Him.

The guy from that link has good points.

Limited Atonement: A Critique | Evidence Unseen

www.evidenceunseen.com

But why would Christ pay for someone’s sins, if he knew that they would ultimately reject him? Why not just die for those he knew would receive the offer?​

We aren’t certain on how we should answer this objection, but we feel that our biblical exegesis should inform our view of God’s actions and plan. To put this another way, our philosophical speculation should not trump God’s revelation. At the end of the day, we don’t know God’s plans and desires; we need to depend on his revelation to us to understand this. And God’s revelation makes it clear that Christ died for the whole world—not just the elect.

the doctrine of limited atonement has severe practical problems. For instance, we could never tell someone with certainty that Christ died for them under this view, because we are not sure. As counselor Jay Adams writes, “As a Reformed Christian, the writer believes that counselors must not tell any unsaved counselee that Christ died for him, for they cannot say that. No man knows except Christ himself who are his elect for whom he died.”[8] We feel that there is a major practical problem with this position, and we certainly never see this sort of approach in the NT (1 Cor. 15:3; Acts 3:26; Lk. 22:20-21). For these reasons, we hold that this doctrine should be abandoned.

 

[Josiah]

Peter says that He bought em, not they. They deny Him.

The guy from that link has good points.

Limited Atonement: A Critique | Evidence Unseen

www.evidenceunseen.com

But why would Christ pay for someone’s sins, if he knew that they would ultimately reject him? Why not just die for those he knew would receive the offer?​

We aren’t certain on how we should answer this objection, but we feel that our biblical exegesis should inform our view of God’s actions and plan. To put this another way, our philosophical speculation should not trump God’s revelation. At the end of the day, we don’t know God’s plans and desires; we need to depend on his revelation to us to understand this. And God’s revelation makes it clear that Christ died for the whole world—not just the elect.

the doctrine of limited atonement has severe practical problems. For instance, we could never tell someone with certainty that Christ died for them under this view, because we are not sure. As counselor Jay Adams writes, “As a Reformed Christian, the writer believes that counselors must not tell any unsaved counselee that Christ died for him, for they cannot say that. No man knows except Christ himself who are his elect for whom he died.”[8] We feel that there is a major practical problem with this position, and we certainly never see this sort of approach in the NT (1 Cor. 15:3; Acts 3:26; Lk. 22:20-21). For these reasons, we hold that this doctrine should be abandoned.

@Messy

For this post, you get the Josiah Award for Brilliance ....

Very well said... nail on head.




.

 

[atpollard]

Let us, therefore, embrace the INEFFECTUAL ATONEMENT of Christ … where God the Son dies and, thereby, effectually saves NO ONE, but merely purchases for ALL MEN WITHOUT EXCEPTION a “ticket to heaven” that must be redeemed with HUMAN ACTION.

omnis gloria homini

 

[Josiah]

Let us, therefore, embrace the INEFFECTUAL ATONEMENT of Christ … where God the Son dies and, thereby, effectually saves NO ONE, but merely purchases for ALL MEN WITHOUT EXCEPTION a “ticket to heaven” that must be redeemed with HUMAN ACTION.

omnis gloria homini

@atpollard Of course, this presumes that faith is created by the dead/unregenerate/enemy of God - and such gives the same to self. An action of the unregenerate, atheistic, enemy of God. That's not what the Bible (or Christianity) teaches (although some "Evangelicals" do, I'll admit). Faith - like the Cross - is fully the work of God.

It IS true that the CROSS alone - by itself - does not result in the personal justification of anyone. If this were so, then your Calvinist friends who invented Universalism would be correct and the Bible wrong. But TWO things are needed: BOTH fully, completely, absolutely the act and gift of God - the Cross and Faith. The Cross which supplies the atonement and faith that apprehends/relies/applies such to the individual. Radical Calvinists like to render faith irrelevant but Scripture indicates it's essential to personal justification. Lutherans hold to BOTH Solus Christus AND Sola Fide, both as Soli Deo Gloria. Some Calvinists simply eliminate faith from any role in justification.

Esteemed friend (sic), the reason some are personally justified and others not is not because the Bible is wrong when it so boldly and repeatedly states that Jesus died for all, it's because the Bible is correct when it states that not all people have faith.


Blessings on your Easter season...




.

 

[Messy]

Let us, therefore, embrace the INEFFECTUAL ATONEMENT of Christ … where God the Son dies and, thereby, effectually saves NO ONE, but merely purchases for ALL MEN WITHOUT EXCEPTION a “ticket to heaven” that must be redeemed with HUMAN ACTION.

omnis gloria homini

You're saved by grace through faith and that not from yourself, but it is the gift of God. Faith comes by hearing the Word of Christ. The sower sows the Word. If you heardened your heart, the birds come. The soil does nothing. It just lays there. The seed (Word) becomes a faith plant and if the soil is not hard and full of weed and rocks, the plant bears fruit. The soil (heart, person) did nothing here.

 

[Albion]

Let us, therefore, embrace the INEFFECTUAL ATONEMENT of Christ … where God the Son dies and, thereby, effectually saves NO ONE, but merely purchases for ALL MEN WITHOUT EXCEPTION a “ticket to heaven” that must be redeemed with HUMAN ACTION.

omnis gloria homini

Well, that's not something to argue about. It's just an error.

No one gets a ticket to heaven thanks to his own action or striving. It's accomplished by Faith in Christ and his saving work and by this alone.