Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God. Everyone has the capacity for faith. As well, God gives grace to the humble and resists the proud. He will have mercy on Whom He will have mercy based on His own criteria. I have heard others as well, say that He has not seen fit to make known His motivation or His process. Well, I just gave you one example from scripture that actually is about a process. Another: Those who humble themselves will be exalted and those who exalt themsef will be humbled. How hard is that to comprehend? (Luke18:10-14) But as far as being saved by faith, that is not exactly true. We are saved by grace. The means by which we recieve this grace, is faith. Faith is a receiver. God is the giver. But if we are to believe that God just saves people apart from their own input, then how do you explain 2Cor.5:19,20, where we see God pleading with people to respond to His gift of reconciliation through the death of His Son? Why would He plead with anyone if He knows they cannot respond? I think that some do not consider the power of God's love to turn a sinner. You mean to tell me that He allowed mankind to get so handcuffed that He had to covertly manipulate people to respond to Him? How can that produce any kind of satisfying relationship? We put people in jail for forcing themselves on others against their will. But yet you want us to accept that God does just that?BiggAndyy said:
Calvinism
- Thread starter Stephen100
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Great post.williemac said:
It is interesting that you refer to 2Cor 5:19-20 for it was just today that I was listening to this latest message from brother Mike where he expounds on that very scripture.
Having it both Ways, Serving two Masters
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZ6V2dZkRYw
Good scripture BA, here's another close to it.BiggAndyy said:
For God has imprisoned everyone in disobedience so he could have mercy on everyone.33 Oh, how great are God’s riches and wisdom and knowledge! How impossible it is for us to understand his decisions and his ways!
Romans 11:32-33 (NLT)
That does not mean God plays favoritism. You are adding your own interpretation.BiggAndyy said:
You are the one calling God out on playing favorites, I have made no such claim. He hates sin yet loved the sinner enough to provide a way of salvation. But, since we are unable to save ourselves He had to go the extra mile to do it.
If everyone gets saved then no one is left to be condemned and His Eternal Justice is not satisfied.
If no one gets saved and everyone is condemned to hell His Eternal Compassion (Love) is not satisfied.
If some CHOOSE to be saved and some do not and He has to peek into the future to see who makes that choice then His Eternal Omniscience is not satisfied.
If He chooses some to be saved and the rest He allows to their just end then his Eternal Justice, Eternal Compassion, and His Eternal Omniscience are all satisfied.
God isn't an Either/Or type of being, he is a Both/And. Justice AND Mercy MUST be satisfied. It's as simple as that.
If everyone gets saved then no one is left to be condemned and His Eternal Justice is not satisfied.
If no one gets saved and everyone is condemned to hell His Eternal Compassion (Love) is not satisfied.
If some CHOOSE to be saved and some do not and He has to peek into the future to see who makes that choice then His Eternal Omniscience is not satisfied.
If He chooses some to be saved and the rest He allows to their just end then his Eternal Justice, Eternal Compassion, and His Eternal Omniscience are all satisfied.
God isn't an Either/Or type of being, he is a Both/And. Justice AND Mercy MUST be satisfied. It's as simple as that.
God did not say He play favoritism, you are saying it.BiggAndyy said:
God is just God, not tyrant God.
I can almost agree with that Rach... however, I see it more as the Lord extracting Glory for Himself since we have no innate glory in which to offer Him. Unless the Holy Spirit moves within us, all our deeds (be they well intentioned or not) amount to nothing more than soiled toilet paper to the Lord. Since He is the author of our Good deeds the Glory He takes from us originates within Himself, ultimately.
horshack, you are anthropomorphizing God. He is not a man to play "favorites" (your derogatory term for salvation through Grace Alone in Christ Alone). He chooses of His own good pleasure. What else do you think John 1:13 means?
horshack, you are anthropomorphizing God. He is not a man to play "favorites" (your derogatory term for salvation through Grace Alone in Christ Alone). He chooses of His own good pleasure. What else do you think John 1:13 means?
We don't decide to be saved, we don't inherit it, we don't receive salvation from the salvation of a spouse. God gives it. What else does Tim 1:9 mean then?
Argue what you want, your dispute is not with me but with Scripture.
A scripture monkey is a person who believes a blizzard of bible passages, painstakingly cut and pasted in a huge torrent of verbatim regurgitation somehow makes their argument more compelling. Sometimes used to mask an ad-homenim insult or just disguise poor scholarship. Occasionally the scripture monkey will just paste page after page of scripture for no better reason that to satisfy their felt need to "educate" all others on the forum since we all obviously don't have bibles or know how to type www.biblegateway.comJustin Mangonel said:
Are you calling horshak?
Are you not supposed to be model poster since you are a mod?
Is that how you behave when you cannot deal with the truth?
Jesus does not play favoritism either, Jesus commands you to be faithful to Him until the end. He did not say you are saved faith alone. Who is your Lord?
Are you not supposed to be model poster since you are a mod?
Is that how you behave when you cannot deal with the truth?
Jesus does not play favoritism either, Jesus commands you to be faithful to Him until the end. He did not say you are saved faith alone. Who is your Lord?
Justice was satisfied at the cross..remember the cross? (sarcasmBiggAndyy said:
). People do not choose to be saved. They accept the offer to be saved. Why do some want to twist it to sound like one would be making an assertive action. It is a passive response of faith.God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself and hs committed to us the ministry of reconciliation as ambassedors for Christ. We represent Him, with God inside us, pleading to the world to be reconciled to Him. God pleads for a response. (2Cor.5:19,20).
God initiates the relationship. We respond. Just like a courtship in our fleshly lives. This is about relationship. It is not about heaven or hell. It is about living or dying (John6:50,51). It is about knowing God (John17:3). How does anyone imagine He would be satisfied in a relationship with one who didn't see it coming and had no interest in it until God covertly flipped a switch? Are we robots? Are we mere puppets? Or do we have a mind that God can enjoy fellowship with...a mind that responded to His love?
As for the ifs you are giving us...these are opinions of men who are trying to put God in a box. Eternal Omniscience has a need to be satisfied? Who says? What does that even mean?
BTW, for those who are not saved, it is not about satisfying justice. God is not that shallow. As I shared, the bible tells us that He took care of the requirement for justice by sending His Son to bear the wages of sin. Does this sacrifice fall short, so that further justice is necessary? What?
The fact is that those who perish will do so for the protection of the rest. We have seen just what harm sin can do to the world and to the universe. Those who remain unchanged will be a danger to both us and themselves if allowed to remain. It is simple. He who has the Son has life. He who does not have the Son, does not have life.
But I must also comment on the one statement that God chooses some to be saved and the rest He allows to their just end.....You have got to be kidding!! This is the mind of God? He does the eenie meenie minee moe? He flips a coin? He makes random selections? He satisfies His justice on the cross but still demands more? How does that fit with the revelation from Paul that He pleads with the lost to respond to Him for reconciliation? (2Cor.5:20) Easy; It doesn't fit.
Justice was indeed meted out upon Christ at the Cross. However, the ultimate end of that sacrifice was God's Eternal Mercy being made available to Mankind.
So we can recast the statement I made above in this light; If everyone receives Mercy, God's justice is nullified. It was this type of tension in our understanding of the nature of God that a Limited Atonement reading of scripture helps alleviate. God's Justice AND Mercy displayed at the Cross can be harmonized realizing while, again, Christ's atonement is universally sufficient, it is only applied by God to those He has chosen according to His own good pleasure to apply it to.
So we can recast the statement I made above in this light; If everyone receives Mercy, God's justice is nullified. It was this type of tension in our understanding of the nature of God that a Limited Atonement reading of scripture helps alleviate. God's Justice AND Mercy displayed at the Cross can be harmonized realizing while, again, Christ's atonement is universally sufficient, it is only applied by God to those He has chosen according to His own good pleasure to apply it to.
Generally speaking the Calvinist will say everyone is pre-destined to be a believer or not
Generally speaking the Anti-Calvinist will say ... NO WAY .... it is up to the individual to decide if he is a believer or not
Then they spend the rest of their foquing life arguing about it.
Want proof ?
Just read this thread.
Generally speaking the Anti-Calvinist will say ... NO WAY .... it is up to the individual to decide if he is a believer or not
Then they spend the rest of their foquing life arguing about it.
Want proof ?
Just read this thread.
The Penal Substitution view of the Atonement is only a 400 year old doctrine. It is not Biblical.BiggAndyy said:
The Reformers added a "judicial punishment" aspect to Anselm's Satisfaction view which was put forth in the 11th century.
Jesus DID NOT "pay the penalty due sin" nor did Jesus "satisfy the wrath of God." The Bible teaches that Jesus PURCHASED the church from the dominion of sin in order that they can come under the dominion of righteousness via approaching God through repentance and faith. The blood of Christ purges the conscience of sin.
What Satan has done is disconnect heart purity from salvation via the doctrines of Original Sin and Penal Substitution. Thus under the deception justification is merely FORENSIC or POSITIONAL whilst the subject REMAINS defiled within.
This is why today the Gospel is preached in such a manner where an individual is saved IN their sin as opposed to being saved FROM their sins.
It is a very refined deception and extremely insidious.
Generally speaking the issue is in the context of getting saved IN sin versus getting saved FROM sin.Arnie Manitoba said:
Both the Arminian side of the church and the Reformed side are in error. They both disconnect salvation from LITERALLY being in the Spirit of life IN Jesus Christ.
Hence Romans 714:25, 1Joh 1:8, 1Tim 1:15 are twisted to support the teaching of "sin you will and sin you must."
Modern Christianity is pretty much Gnostic Dualism dressed up in Christian terminology.
ScottAU, I'm finding your ideas very disturbing. I'm also finding the comment section of the individual in the video you previously linked to disturbing. Christ's death did not satisfy the wrath of GOD? Surreal.
Saved from sin as opposed to saved in sin? For the rest of your life will you be in a sinful body, or will you not be saved from it until the resurrection?
Saved from sin as opposed to saved in sin? For the rest of your life will you be in a sinful body, or will you not be saved from it until the resurrection?
My "ideas" ought to be very disturbing to those who have staked their "justification" on the premise that Jesus was their "wrath substitute." For this teaching of Penal Substitution is a very dangerous teaching and so many people have been deceived by it. It is extremely difficult to get many people to see through the deception because they have been taught the Penal Substitution idea for so long and to challenge it is akin to heresy in their minds.ChristRoseFromTheDead said:
The truth is that this doctrine originated with the Reformation approximately 400-500 years ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_substitution
In the 11th century a Catholic Bishop by the name of Anselm began to develop what was to be known as the Satisfaction Model of the Atonement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anselm_of_Canterbury
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satisfaction_theory_of_atonement
The Satisfaction model teaches that the death of Christ atoned for sin by balancing or satisfying justice in the sense that God's honour was protected in that when He forgives sins it does not cast aspersion on His righteousness. In other words the "demands of justice" is satisfied by the death of Christ. Jesus "balanced" out the equation so to speak.
The Satisfaction view also lies at the root of the Moral Government (Governmental View) view as taught by men like Charles Finney and is often upheld by those of an Arminian persuasion. The Moral Government view focuses on the "Government of God" and that due to sin being a violation of God's law it cannot simply be forgiven otherwise God's law would be viewed as optional. Thus the death of Christ satisfies the justice of God in a similar way to the Satisfaction view. The major difference between the Satisfaction View and the Moral Government view is that the Moral Government view is viewed more in a "corporate" sense as opposed to being "individualistic."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atonement_%28Governmental_view%29
It was Thomas Aquinas who first began to attach the idea of some from of "punishment" to the Satisfaction Model and it was later during the Reformation that theologians (many of whom were lawyers) began teaching that Jesus literally bore the wrath of God as a substitute for the sinner (hence "Penal" substitute). This is where the idea of a Limited Atonement (L in TULIP) was born for if Jesus literally bore the punishment for sins then those sins could not be punished a second time, hence Jesus only bore the punishment for the Elect.
The early Church held to the Ransom View of the Atonement alongside the Christis Victor view.
The Ransom view teaches that Jesus "ransomed" or "purchased" sinners from the dominion of sin in order that they become slaves of righteousness. Basically a sinner has sold themselves over to being a slave of sin and Jesus Christ has bought them back. The shift from one master to the other occurs via repentance and faith and the blood of Christ cleanses the conscience of sin (effecting the release from sins dominion) that one may then serve God acceptably with a clear conscience having been reconciled.
The Christis Victor view is that Jesus came to the earth and overcame the works of the devil (sin), sickness, and even death.
There is also the Recapitulation view which is more a focus on the Kinsman Redeemer aspect of Christ.
Now some of these views work concurrently with each other. For example many who hold to Penal Substitution will refer to aspects of Ransom although it will be coloured through the tenets of substitution.
I myself adhere to the Ransom, Christis Victor and Recapitulation views for I clearly see them taught in Scripture and they make sense to me. I used to believe in Penal Substitution because that was what I was always taught although I did question some of its logical inconsistencies. Nevertheless back then I was ignorant of church history.
In order to get to the bottom of all these doctrines one must look at what the Bible actually teaches. Does the Bible actually teach that Jesus "paid the penalty due for sin" as Penal Substitution teaches? I assert that it does not.
The passage that is most used as evidence that Jesus was literally punished by God and thus bore the wrath due the sinner is this...
Isa 53:3 He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
Isa 53:4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.
Isa 53:5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
Does that passage ACTUALLY teach that Jesus was punished in the place of the sinner? That is the question we all have to answer ourselves.
My assertion is that Jesus suffered on our behalf, not in our place. From human perspective (we) he was esteemed stricken and punished of God. He was wounded for our transgressions and bruised for our iniquities (on our behalf as a sin offering). The "chastisement" of our peace was upon Him, and and it is by Him offering Himself on our behalf that we are healed.
Chastisement - mûsâr - H4148
From H3256; properly chastisement; figuratively reproof, warning or instruction; also restraint: - bond, chastening ([-eth]), chastisement, check, correction, discipline, doctrine, instruction, rebuke.
1Pe 2:24 Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.
Bare - anapherō - G399
From G303 and G5342; to take up (literally or figuratively): - bear, bring (carry, lead) up, offer (up).
2Cor 5:21 is often used as a proof text that Jesus literally "became sin."
2Co 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.
Yet there is no possible way that Jesus literally "became sin" simply because if that was the case then He would not have been "without spot" when He offered Himself, He would have been "with our spots."
Heb_9:14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
Jesus was a "sin offering" and the purpose was to "purge our consciences of sin." Jesus was not a wrath substitute.
Here is what Adam Clarke wrote on 2Cor 5:21...
http://www.godrules.net/library/clarke/clarke2cor5.htm
Adam Clarke succinctly points out the bias used by the translators in favour of a doctrine they already beheld. Again there is no possible way Jesus "became sin" for then He would not have been "without spot." Also sin is moral and not a transferable substance. In the Old Testament, when the sins of the people were laid upon the animal it was "figurative" of the sins being "removed" from the people so they would be clean before God.
Here are my chief objections to the Penal Substitution view...
1. Under Penal Substitution God does not forgive sin. Sin is instead transferred to an innocent and they are punished instead. In other words an innocent in punished in order to excuse the guilty. This defies justice, not to mention that "sin" and "virtue" are moral and are not transferrable substances.
2. Penal Substitution is a doctrine which was birthed out of the Protestant Reformation when certain Reformers added a Judicial Aspect to the Anselmian Satisfaction Model of the Atonement. The doctrine was never taught before this time and church history bears this out. Some Reformers attempt to quote some patristic writers who use the term "substitution" but if one is to read those passages there is clearly no connection whatsoever with the "wrath of God being poured out on Jesus." It most definitely can be said that the death of Christ was a substitute by which a sinner can be redeemed instead of remaining under the wrath of God, yet that is a far cry to what the doctrine of Penal Substitution teaches.
3. The penalty for sin is not being crucified on a cross by men. The wages of sin is death, both spiritual and the second death (being cast into the Lake of Fire). Jesus did not die spiritually and Jesus was not cast into the Lake of Fire.
4. If Jesus literally bore the penalty due the sinner and thus satisifed the wrath of God then it would clearly mean that the atonement is Limited in that Jesus died only for those who would be saved. If the Atonement is Universal in application then that would mean that the penalty of sin was satisifed on behalf of all sinners and thus could not be due again. Therefore under Penal Substitution the Atonement is either limited in scope or universal salvation is true.
Therefore it is a logical necessity that anyone who holds to the Penal Substitution view of the atonement must consistently hold to the view that Jesus did not die for all men lest universalism be true.
5. Penal Substitution logically concludes that salvation is purely forensic and that unconditional eternal security is true.
Penal Substitution serves to redefine salvation as a mere book-keeping entry where the problem between God and man is rectified through a legal transaction as opposed to repentance and faith whereby the actual motivation for rebellion is dealt with once and for all. Due to the "penalty being paid" under Penal Substitution it cannot be "made due again" thus if it has been paid for on your behalf then there is no sin you can do which would forfeit your right standing before God which means you now have a license to sin. Many on these forums believe this very tenet and while they deny that they have a license to sin and will this say you "should" not sin, they simply cannot say you "cannot" sin, because in their minds salvation is merely forensic in nature and is totally disconnected from deeds.
6. Penal Substitution completely negates the release from the bondage of sin. Under Penal Substitution salvation is merely "being set free from condemnation" as opposed to "being set free from condemnation and bondage." Penal Substitution gives people a false assurance of salvation whilst they remain in bondage to their sins. This is why those beholden to this error take so much offense to the message of "go and sin no more" because in their minds "going and sinning no more" has NOTHING to do with salvation. To imply that "going and sinning no more" is related to "being saved" is a direct attack upon their assurance of salvation.
To imply that a cessation of sin must result from a genuine repentance is a direct attack on the premise of a salvation based on an abstract judicial exchange. This is why Penal Substitution theology is so dangerous for it innoculates the mind against the truth of Biblical repentance and Biblical faith having replaced them with "abstract and passive notions."
7. If the sins of all men were literally transferred to the account of Jesus (if He bore the guilt) then He would not have been without spot. The Bible clearly teaches that Jesus offered Himself without spot to God (Heb 9:14). Yet Penal Substitution teaches that Jesus offered Himself up "with our spots." If Penal Substitution is true then Jesus was spotted with sin when He offered Himself. This view is probably the reason why the translators of the King James Bible concluded with "He was made sin" in 2Cor 5:21 as opposed to "sin offering" which would be more in line with the Septuagint
Here is an article I wrote on the subject of the "Blood of Christ."
The Blood of Christ: "Ransom" NOT "Penal Substitution"
http://thesinmuststop.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-blood-of-christ-ransom-not-penal.html
ScottAu,
I'm not really interested in following the history because I don't think that of itself will prove anything. If I find substance to your claims, I will.
Also, your posts are much to long. IMO, long explanations are that way for a reason, i.e., to make connections that don't really exist. The truth is simple to explain.
It seems to me you are making distinctions without a difference. Jesus paid the price, whether as a ransom, or as wrath from GOD. What's the point? What are the practical implications of your distinctions?
I'm not really interested in following the history because I don't think that of itself will prove anything. If I find substance to your claims, I will.
Also, your posts are much to long. IMO, long explanations are that way for a reason, i.e., to make connections that don't really exist. The truth is simple to explain.
It seems to me you are making distinctions without a difference. Jesus paid the price, whether as a ransom, or as wrath from GOD. What's the point? What are the practical implications of your distinctions?
The main implication is this.ChristRoseFromTheDead said:
Penal Substitution attributes the basis of Justification and thus being reconciled to God to a "forensic legal transaction." In other words Jesus swaps places with the sinner. The sinners sin is transferred to Jesus and Jesus absorbs the punishment. While the righteousness of Jesus is credited to the believer. Thus when God looks at the believer He no longer sees their sin (for it has been paid for), instead He sees the righteousness of Christ.
Thus the convert is reconciled to God in a sinful state and the cleanup occurs AFTERWARDS. Thus the believer is still double-minded and in bondage to sin.
Under Ransom the sinner is PURCHASED from the "dominion of sin" (sin holds death over the sinner). The sinner approaches God through repentance and faith (whereby the rebellion to God ceases) and then the blood purges the conscience of PAST SIN. Thus the believer has a fresh start having been reconciled. They then grow in the grace and knowledge of Jesus Christ and add to their faith having ESCAPED the corruption in the world through lust.
Under PS there is no release from bondage for salvation is POSITIONAL. PS only addresses CONDEMNATION. Thus PS is really a fancy way of teaching "you can sin and not surely die" (because the price has already been paid).
Under Ransom one is set free from bondage (through dying WITH Christ whereby the old man is crucified) and salvation is ACTUAL. Ransom addresses BOTH "bondage" and "condemnation." Ransom teaches that "if you sin you will surely die" which is why one must mortify the deeds of the flesh by the Spirit.
The difference between the two is huge.
Similar threads
