The Absence of Free Will

[UnitedWithChrist]

this is true but they cant admit it. they say gospel is the means by which God save His elect.

problem is again that calvinist cant really preach gospel honestly. they cant say Jesus died for you. because they dont know if you are elect. if they say that they might be lying.

Think about this for a moment.

Do you believe God knows the future in advance?

If so, then he knows who is going to be saved and who is going to be lost. And there's nothing whatsoever that person will do in order to stop it.

This is true no matter if you are Reformed or not.

Therefore, in God's mind, the person is already either lost or saved.

By the way, as a Reformed believer, I can say, if you believe and repent, you will be saved. Christ's atoning sacrifice will be applied to you. That is true.

I don't have to discuss election with that person. What I said is totally true. The Reformed person believes this, the same as any other. I don't need to tell someone Christ died for them specifically, and they can be saved if they believe and repent.

I believe that the regenerative work of the Holy Spirit is what leads to belief and repentance, but I don't need to describe the mechanics of this to them.

However, maybe the free-willer should disclose this:

Jesus died for you specifically, but it might not be effectual. Free-willers believe that the atonement was universal but not necessarily effective. Jesus' atonement made salvation POSSIBLE, but not effective. In fact, you may end up burning in hell even though Jesus died for you.

That doesn't seem logical, does it? Jesus paid the price for all sin, but unbelievers end up in hell anyways. Their sin was atoned for, but they end up in hell.

By the way, I really don't think you guys understand union with Christ, and how that impacts salvation. Unless a person is united with Christ, they don't have anything to do with his death, burial and resurrection. So, claiming Jesus' sacrifice on the cross is for unbelievers who will never be united to Christ is not reasonable. Read Romans 6:1-14.

There's no salvation, theoretically or otherwise, without being united with Christ.

I am probably wasting my time trying to explain deeper concepts like this to you guys, though.

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

So would you agree then that this makes God morally ambiguous?

No, I don't think he's morally ambiguous. Jesus paid for the sins of the elect on the Cross. The Cross was required because someone needed to redeem the elect from the wrath of God.

By the way, the constant claim that Reformed theology negates the necessity of the Cross is ridiculous and false. Again, God ordains both the means and the end. His holiness and wrath against sin demanded that the sins of the elect (those bought and given to Christ) be paid. There was no way the elect could be redeemed without the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross.

Claiming that predestination negates the need for the Cross is ridiculous and displays a distorted view of Reformed theology. In fact, the sins of those who are elect needed to be paid in order to make election possible.

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

Yeah..some really credible source of information..KJVist dispensationalist and identifies himself as such right at the start

I've watched his videos before. It's apparent he's a young believer indoctrinated in extreme fundamentalism.

 

[UnderGrace]

No, I don't think he's morally ambiguous. Jesus paid for the sins of the elect on the Cross. The Cross was required because someone needed to redeem the elect from the wrath of God.

By the way, the constant claim that Reformed theology negates the necessity of the Cross is ridiculous and false. Again, God ordains both the means and the end. His holiness and wrath against sin demanded that the sins of the elect (those bought and given to Christ) be paid. There was no way the elect could be redeemed without the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross.

Claiming that predestination negates the need for the Cross is ridiculous and displays a distorted view of Reformed theology. In fact, the sins of those who are elect needed to be paid in order to make election possible.

I am not speaking to the cross, I am addressing the fact that God chooses his elect.

Is this not morally ambigous that God has predestined His elect and we have no clear indication, parameters on whom he has chosen?

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

this same channel has good videos on the topic going thru many calvinism arguments

By the way, are you aware that Gene Kim is a Ruckmanite, yet you are appealing to him as an authority figure? He claims the original Greek is garbage, and only the English matters?

He claims that if you don't bow the knee and confess that the teachings of people like Ruckman and Gail Replinger's teachings were correct, you are going to be lost?

I invite others to listen to his rants and those of his congregation:

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

I am not speaking to the cross, I am addressing the fact that God chooses his elect.

Is this not morally ambigous that God has predestined His elect and we have no clear indication, parameters on whom he has chosen?

We don't sit in judgment over God's decisions. He's not subject to our review.

Man tries to place himself in the judge's seat and to preside over God, but the reality is man is being judged, not vice versa.

He doesn't have to disclose his decisions and the basis for them.

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

By the way, are you aware that Gene Kim is a Ruckmanite, yet you are appealing to him as an authority figure? He claims the original Greek is garbage, and only the English matters?

He claims that if you don't bow the knee and confess that the teachings of people like Ruckman and Gail Replinger's teachings were correct, you are going to be lost?

I invite others to listen to his rants and those of his congregation:

Melach, are you aware of Gene Kim's weirdness? He is a Ruckmanite and claims biblical Greek isn't what is important, only the English, due to his weird KJV Only beliefs.

Peter Ruckman claimed that the CIA was operating alien breeding facilities and has implanted brain transmitters in the minds of children, elderly, and black people. He also divorced three different times, and was well known for his craziness.

Why are you appealing to him as an authority figure on anything? He's obviously a nut.

LOL

 

[UnderGrace]

We don't sit in judgment over God's decisions. He's not subject to our review.

Man tries to place himself in the judge's seat and to preside over God, but the reality is man is being judged, not vice versa.

He doesn't have to disclose his decisions and the basis for them.

You do realize that this is the answer that is always offered.

But really if you really stop and think about everything God reveals about Himself by going to the cross.... certainly I see no way around the moral ambiguity of God in this selection process of whom he saves and then leaves others with no possibility of the "gift"... .....which in the monergestic view, is the entire package that God bequeaths.

I read the Gospel and I see believe, believe, believe (be persuaded) directed towards humans, yet somehow God has to do the believing for us too in order to protect His sovereignty, however it is after all His sovereignty and He is sovereign over that too!

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

You do realize that this is the answer that is always offered.

But really if you really stop and think about everything God reveals about Himself by going to the cross.... certainly I see no way around the moral ambiguity of God in this selection process of whom he saves and then leaves others with no possibility of the "gift"... .....which in the monergestic view, is the entire package that God bequeaths.

I read the Gospel and I see believe, believe, believe (be persuaded) directed towards humans, yet somehow God has to do the believing for us too in order to protect His sovereignty, however it is after all His sovereignty and He is sovereign over that too!

God isn't morally ambiguous by the way..he gave the Law and his Son..his Son displayed perfect obedience.

So, we have had a witness.

And all have failed to meet his standards and have sinned.

The only way to salvation is through faith and repentance; repentance meaning a fundamental change of attitude (I would identify that with the new nature which God gives).

And you are right..God must give us the faith...we are spiritually dead and separated from Him.

I think Eph 2:1-10 is the best synopsis of the gospel, and it is plainly monergistic. The last few verses are plain that no flesh can glory as if it did anything to achieve salvation.

No matter how hard "free willers" try, they cannot get past Scripture in this regard.

 

[TooFastTurtle]

God isn't morally ambiguous by the way..he gave the Law and his Son..his Son displayed perfect obedience.

So, we have had a witness.

And all have failed to meet his standards and have sinned.

The only way to salvation is through faith and repentance; repentance meaning a fundamental change of attitude (I would identify that with the new nature which God gives).

And you are right..God must give us the faith...we are spiritually dead and separated from Him.

I think Eph 2:1-10 is the best synopsis of the gospel, and it is plainly monergistic. The last few verses are plain that no flesh can glory as if it did anything to achieve salvation.

No matter how hard "free willers" try, they cannot get past Scripture in this regard.

I do believe in free will, as does everyone. But I have to commend you for being consistent in what you believe. If you believe in once saved always saved you should be reformed in your theology to be consistent with the idea that you play no part in your salvation. True monergism.

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

I do believe in free will, as does everyone. But I have to commend you for being consistent in what you believe. If you believe in once saved always saved you should be reformed in your theology to be consistent with the idea that you play no part in your salvation. True monergism.

Ok.

One, I don't like the phrase "once saved always saved". I believe in "preservation of the Holy Spirit".

The Holy Spirit conforms the person to the image of Christ over time. This appears, at the human level, to be personal effort, but at the God-level, it is a work of God through the Holy Spirit.

Two, God ordains both means and the end. He ordains that the end is salvation for the individual. But the means is through obedience, that is a result of the Holy Spirit conforming the person into the image of Jesus.

That is why I believe in "compatibilism".

 

[Melach]

Think about this for a moment.

Do you believe God knows the future in advance?

If so, then he knows who is going to be saved and who is going to be lost. And there's nothing whatsoever that person will do in order to stop it.

This is true no matter if you are Reformed or not.

Therefore, in God's mind, the person is already either lost or saved.

By the way, as a Reformed believer, I can say, if you believe and repent, you will be saved. Christ's atoning sacrifice will be applied to you. That is true.

I don't have to discuss election with that person. What I said is totally true. The Reformed person believes this, the same as any other. I don't need to tell someone Christ died for them specifically, and they can be saved if they believe and repent.

I believe that the regenerative work of the Holy Spirit is what leads to belief and repentance, but I don't need to describe the mechanics of this to them.

However, maybe the free-willer should disclose this:

Jesus died for you specifically, but it might not be effectual. Free-willers believe that the atonement was universal but not necessarily effective. Jesus' atonement made salvation POSSIBLE, but not effective. In fact, you may end up burning in hell even though Jesus died for you.

That doesn't seem logical, does it? Jesus paid the price for all sin, but unbelievers end up in hell anyways. Their sin was atoned for, but they end up in hell.

By the way, I really don't think you guys understand union with Christ, and how that impacts salvation. Unless a person is united with Christ, they don't have anything to do with his death, burial and resurrection. So, claiming Jesus' sacrifice on the cross is for unbelievers who will never be united to Christ is not reasonable. Read Romans 6:1-14.

There's no salvation, theoretically or otherwise, without being united with Christ.

I am probably wasting my time trying to explain deeper concepts like this to you guys, though.

you are arrogant by saying that. i know teh arguments they arent as deep as you think they are. i understand them perfectly i just disagree but yes you are wasting your time you will never convince me or any other bible believer who knows their bibles. the calvinist likes to pretend to be some great intellectual while really their entire doctrine is just philosophical junk and pseudo-intellectual arrogant babbling with very poorly faked humbleness. its so transperant we can all see through this.

there is no problem with Jesus dying for someone and they still going to hell. thats what happened in o.t. too, if you didnt humble yourself day of atonement didnt matter for you. its just made up idea by calvinist that because atonement is made people are saved. thats why you are stuck in the "if Christ died for all then universalism so we have to twist romans 5 to make it only some".

look at this simple verses proving that yes atonement Jesus died for all but still people have to believe, st.paul here is telling these people in very uncalvinist fashion:

2Co 5:18 And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;
2Co 5:19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.
2Co 5:20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.

we see Christ reconciled the world unto HImself not imputing their trespasses unto them but still, st.paul says we pray: BE YE RECONCILED to God. he just said world was reconciled, but still be ye reconciled. you have to believe the gospel. God tells you to do it, God does not repent or believe for you. thats so stupid idea, why would God tell anyone to do something if He does it for them anyway and they cant do it.looks to me calvinist god has some issues because he violates his own will back and forth? wants people to obey and pleads them to repent but then he is at fault for not giving them that repentance. come on god do something about it instead of whining about it. thats the calvinist god, sitting there pleading people yet he is the one who just dont give the gift of repentance and faith to all, then stop telling people what to do. it makes god so evil i hate it and i will always hate it. praise Jesus not many peopel believe this nonsense but few do. i hope no new christian hears of this evil doctrine.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

Agreed, Melach.


[quoting portion of article I've posted in past posts]

Paul Wilson - [Source: Biblecentre, link below]

"The Two Goats Of Leviticus 16

"The "limited atonement" doctrine is built upon a premise that lacks understanding of the two views of the cross of Christ as regards His work, that is, propitiation and substitution. The types used on the day of atonement in Leviticus 16 are set aside in deference to a theory, a doctrine of men (be they good men or bad is not the point). On that memorable day, which occurred once a year in Israel's history, there were, among other similitudes two goats - one called the Lord's lot, and the other the people's. The goat of the Lord's lot was killed and its blood taken inside of the veil by the high priest, where he sprinkled the blood once upon the mercy seat and seven times on the desert sand before it. It was there above the mercy seat that God dwelt among the people, and as they were sinners He must needs have the evidence of death presented before Him - the blood was sprinkled there. This was propitiation - a satisfaction rendered to God whereby He could act in grace toward a sinful people. On the head of the other goat, the sins of the people were confessed by the high priest, and it was led into a land not inhabited, so that their sins were removed. This was substitution.
In a sense, both goats are one in the matter of sin - the one being slain and its blood presented before God, and the other bearing the sins away to be remembered no more - for without the blood of the one goat there could be no bearing away of sins on the other. Let us notice the words of another:

"Denial Of Substitution

"There is a continual tendency in the different classes, even of believers in Christendom, to ignore one or other of these truths. Take for instance those zealous that the gospel go out to every creature. It is notorious that most of these deny God's special favor to the elect. They overlook or pare down any positive difference on God's part toward His own children. They hold that a man throughout his course may be a child of God today and not tomorrow. This destroys substitution [seen in the live goat led away]. They hold propitiation [seen in the blood of the other goat as presented before God], and there they are right, and quite justified in preaching the gospel unrestrictedly to every creature, as the Lord indeed enjoined, But how their one-sidedness enfeebles the proper portion of the saints!

"Denial Of Propitiation

"But look for a moment at the opposite side [Mr. Pink's], which holds that all God has done and reveals is in view of the elect only, and that all He has wrought in Christ Jesus is in effect for the Church, and that He does not care about the world, except to judge it at the last day. This may be put rather bluntly, for I do not present such grievous narrowness toward man and dishonor of God and His Son in as polished terms as those might desire who cherish notions so unsavory and unsound. But it is true that a certain respectable class around us do see nothing but the elect as the object of God. Their doctrine supposes only the second goat, or the people's lot. They see the all-importance of substitution, but Jehovah's lot has no place as distinct."

--Paul Wilson

http://biblecentre.org/content.php?mode=7&item=892

[end quoting]

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

you are arrogant by saying that. i know teh arguments they arent as deep as you think they are. i understand them perfectly i just disagree but yes you are wasting your time you will never convince me or any other bible believer who knows their bibles. the calvinist likes to pretend to be some great intellectual while really their entire doctrine is just philosophical junk and pseudo-intellectual arrogant babbling with very poorly faked humbleness. its so transperant we can all see through this.

there is no problem with Jesus dying for someone and they still going to hell. thats what happened in o.t. too, if you didnt humble yourself day of atonement didnt matter for you. its just made up idea by calvinist that because atonement is made people are saved. thats why you are stuck in the "if Christ died for all then universalism so we have to twist romans 5 to make it only some".

look at this simple verses proving that yes atonement Jesus died for all but still people have to believe, st.paul here is telling these people in very uncalvinist fashion:

2Co 5:18 And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;
2Co 5:19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.
2Co 5:20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.

we see Christ reconciled the world unto HImself not imputing their trespasses unto them but still, st.paul says we pray: BE YE RECONCILED to God. he just said world was reconciled, but still be ye reconciled. you have to believe the gospel. God tells you to do it, God does not repent or believe for you. thats so stupid idea, why would God tell anyone to do something if He does it for them anyway and they cant do it.looks to me calvinist god has some issues because he violates his own will back and forth? wants people to obey and pleads them to repent but then he is at fault for not giving them that repentance. come on god do something about it instead of whining about it. thats the calvinist god, sitting there pleading people yet he is the one who just dont give the gift of repentance and faith to all, then stop telling people what to do. it makes god so evil i hate it and i will always hate it. praise Jesus not many peopel believe this nonsense but few do. i hope no new christian hears of this evil doctrine.

Like I said, this is a waste of time.

I already told you that God regenerates the person, and they respond in faith and repentance because they have been given a new heart.

Of course all who are saved believe. I have never claimed otherwise, and neither does any Reformed person I know. The issue is what CAUSES faith, and that is regeneration.

Yet, you continue to distort the position, either 1) because you don't understand it or 2) you intentionally are lying and distorting it.

Regarding 2 Cor 5, the letters to Corinth are addressed to believers, not unbelievers. Consider the context.

You really think everyone is already reconciled to God from the moment of Christ's sacrifice forward? If so, then apparently you believe they are already saved. Well, that's the logic you applied to me earlier with regards to Reformed theology anyways. You said something like I believe the gospel isn't necessary because I believe in election. I could say the same thing about your position if I wanted to misrepresent you. You would cry foul, yet you use the exact same logic with regards to me.

I will also note that you have basically called Reformed people individuals who don't know their Bible, so examine the beam in your own eye before you call someone else arrogant.

Regarding whether Reformed theology is philosophical, I believe non-Reformed theology is philosophical. The idea that a hardened heart can accept Christ in faith and repentance is ludicrous. Such individuals are rebellious and God-hating. That is the state of the fallen nature. In fact, they are spiritually dead and can't make themselves alive again.

I would suggest reading Ephesians 2:1-10 carefully..every word..it is totally consistent with Reformed theology.

Decisional regeneration is a bunch of free-willer nonsense. In other words, you decide to be regenerated. A heart hardened in sin who hates God decides to be regenerated lol. It was popularized by Charles Finney in the USA, though, and because so many Pentecostals and charismatics and general baptists believe elements of his Semi-Pelagian teachings, it has become the norm simply by proliferation amongst Pentecostals and charismatics.

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

Agreed, Melach.


[quoting portion of article I've posted in past posts]

Paul Wilson - [Source: Biblecentre, link below]

"The Two Goats Of Leviticus 16

"The "limited atonement" doctrine is built upon a premise that lacks understanding of the two views of the cross of Christ as regards His work, that is, propitiation and substitution. The types used on the day of atonement in Leviticus 16 are set aside in deference to a theory, a doctrine of men (be they good men or bad is not the point). On that memorable day, which occurred once a year in Israel's history, there were, among other similitudes two goats - one called the Lord's lot, and the other the people's. The goat of the Lord's lot was killed and its blood taken inside of the veil by the high priest, where he sprinkled the blood once upon the mercy seat and seven times on the desert sand before it. It was there above the mercy seat that God dwelt among the people, and as they were sinners He must needs have the evidence of death presented before Him - the blood was sprinkled there. This was propitiation - a satisfaction rendered to God whereby He could act in grace toward a sinful people. On the head of the other goat, the sins of the people were confessed by the high priest, and it was led into a land not inhabited, so that their sins were removed. This was substitution.
In a sense, both goats are one in the matter of sin - the one being slain and its blood presented before God, and the other bearing the sins away to be remembered no more - for without the blood of the one goat there could be no bearing away of sins on the other. Let us notice the words of another:

"Denial Of Substitution

"There is a continual tendency in the different classes, even of believers in Christendom, to ignore one or other of these truths. Take for instance those zealous that the gospel go out to every creature. It is notorious that most of these deny God's special favor to the elect. They overlook or pare down any positive difference on God's part toward His own children. They hold that a man throughout his course may be a child of God today and not tomorrow. This destroys substitution [seen in the live goat led away]. They hold propitiation [seen in the blood of the other goat as presented before God], and there they are right, and quite justified in preaching the gospel unrestrictedly to every creature, as the Lord indeed enjoined, But how their one-sidedness enfeebles the proper portion of the saints!

"Denial Of Propitiation

"But look for a moment at the opposite side [Mr. Pink's], which holds that all God has done and reveals is in view of the elect only, and that all He has wrought in Christ Jesus is in effect for the Church, and that He does not care about the world, except to judge it at the last day. This may be put rather bluntly, for I do not present such grievous narrowness toward man and dishonor of God and His Son in as polished terms as those might desire who cherish notions so unsavory and unsound. But it is true that a certain respectable class around us do see nothing but the elect as the object of God. Their doctrine supposes only the second goat, or the people's lot. They see the all-importance of substitution, but Jehovah's lot has no place as distinct."

--Paul Wilson

http://biblecentre.org/content.php?mode=7&item=892

[end quoting]

Actually, the concept of Leviticus 16 affirms limited atonement.

The atonement ONLY APPLIED TO THE NATION OF ISRAEL.

Therefore, it was SPECIFIC.

It did not apply to the Gentile nations all around them.

So if you guys want to bring up Leviticus 16, you are actually PROVING my point that the atonement is particular, or limited. It only covered a specific set of individuals, the nation of Israel.

So, there is precedence to believe that the atonement only covers the Church, those that have been SPECIFICALLY GIVEN to the SON by the Father.

“And you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins” (Matt. 1:21)

Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, for he has visited and redeemed his people” (Luke 1:68)

“I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. . . . I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me, just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep” (John 10:11, 14–15).

“The Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Matt. 20:28)

“This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins” (Matt. 26:28).

Notice that Jesus died for HIS PEOPLE and he died for the MANY not the ALL.

Only specific individuals have been given to the Son by the Father, and they ALL COME TO HIM, AND WILL ALL BE RAISED UP (GLORIFIED) ON THE LAST DAY.

John 6:37 37 All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out (ESV)

John 6:39 39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. (ESV)

In fact, the only reason someone believes is because they are one of the sheep that the Father has given the Son:

John 10:26-28 26 but you do not believe because you are not among my sheep. 27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. (ESV)

Unlike "free-willer" theology teaches, the reason individuals believe is because they are already given to the Son by the Father.

Now, I don't deny that belief and repentance are the response of all those who are saved, but the question is, what is the cause? The cause is 1) those who are saved have already been given to the Son by the Father and 2) regeneration occurs and faith and repentance are the response of the regenerated person.

So, you can continue whining and slandering all you want...the Reformed position is biblical, whether you like it or not, and the free-willer position is GARBAGE.

Clasp your hands tightly over your eyes when you read Ephesians 1, 2, John 6, 10, and most of the book of Romans. Perhaps you can peak through the cracks a little bit and still maintain your "free-will" position, but you can't do it very much. Otherwise you might have to confront the fact that your free-will, self-glorifying version of Christianity is ill-informed.

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

By the way, the Reformed person believes all should be reached with the gospel. There is no mark on someone that indicates whether they are a part of the elect. So, the claim that Reformed people don't believe in preaching the gospel to everyone is FALSE.

The message is, Jesus died for those who will believe and repent. There's no contradiction here. Everyone who believes and repents will be saved.

The issue is, what causes belief and repentance? We believe salvation is a work of God, therefore we believe that God regenerates the person, and then they respond in faith and repentance. Discussing the mechanics of this is not appropriate in a gospel encounter. I am not going to discuss calculus with a child who is learning how to add numbers together.

I think free-willers are plain ignorant to bring this up, by the way, acting as though Reformed people are trying to hide some deep secret if they don't bring up this issue.

By the way, free-willers often have such a horrid gospel to start with. For instance, in many cases, free-willers believe you are simply entering into another probationary state where the believer is still under potential condemnation and wrath, even after salvation. And, it is mainly their camp that is into the charismatic and Pentecostal excesses. Some will claim, later, that they must speak in tongues to be a super-duper Christian, etcetera. There are so many goofy teachings within free-willer circles. I don't see why they would bother to criticize the Reformed doctrine of election since there are so many heretical views in free-willer circles. Some even believe in open theism...these things are never taught in Reformed circles (other than the few weird charismatic Reformed people that I don't associate with, like Driscoll or Piper).

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

Actually, the concept of Leviticus 16 affirms limited atonement.

The atonement ONLY APPLIED TO THE NATION OF ISRAEL.

Therefore, it was SPECIFIC.

It did not apply to the Gentile nations all around them.

So if you guys want to bring up Leviticus 16, you are actually PROVING my point that the atonement is particular, or limited. It only covered a specific set of individuals, the nation of Israel.

So, there is precedence to believe that the atonement only covers the Church, those that have been SPECIFICALLY GIVEN to the SON by the Father.

“And you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins” (Matt. 1:21)

Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, for he has visited and redeemed his people” (Luke 1:68)

“I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. . . . I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me, just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep” (John 10:11, 14–15).

“The Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Matt. 20:28)

“This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins” (Matt. 26:28).

Notice that Jesus died for HIS PEOPLE and he died for the MANY not the ALL.

Only specific individuals have been given to the Son by the Father, and they ALL COME TO HIM, AND WILL ALL BE RAISED UP (GLORIFIED) ON THE LAST DAY.

John 6:37 37 All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out (ESV)

John 6:39 39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. (ESV)

In fact, the only reason someone believes is because they are one of the sheep that the Father has given the Son:

John 10:26-28 26 but you do not believe because you are not among my sheep. 27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. (ESV)

Unlike "free-willer" theology teaches, the reason individuals believe is because they are already given to the Son by the Father.

Now, I don't deny that belief and repentance are the response of all those who are saved, but the question is, what is the cause? The cause is 1) those who are saved have already been given to the Son by the Father and 2) regeneration occurs and faith and repentance are the response of the regenerated person.

So, you can continue whining and slandering all you want...the Reformed position is biblical, whether you like it or not, and the free-willer position is GARBAGE.

Clasp your hands tightly over your eyes when you read Ephesians 1, 2, John 6, 10, and most of the book of Romans. Perhaps you can peak through the cracks a little bit and still maintain your "free-will" position, but you can't do it very much. Otherwise you might have to confront the fact that your free-will, self-glorifying version of Christianity is ill-informed.

In case you missed my point, notice that Jesus died for HIS PEOPLE and HIS SHEEP and THE MANY.

This indicates a select group, and it is NOT talking about Jews as a whole. It is talking about the Church. How do I know? His sheep know his voice. The Jews rejected him.

It is talking about believers.

Drawn by the Father (James White) covers this well, if there are any sincerely open minded seekers on this thread.

I would also recommend David Steele's book The Five Points of Calvinism for those who want to see an honest representation of Reformed theology with tons of Scriptural references on each point.

Regarding Reformed theology being philosophical, that is so ridiculous. Reformed people are well-known for being careful exegetes of Scripture. In fact, I have a strongly anti-Reformed friend who tells me he reads Reformed authors mainly because they make sense and they are great at exegeting Scripture.

And, one of the arch-enemies of Reformed theology, Leighton Flowers, has told his free-willer scholar friends that they need to start coming up with decent systematic teaching because the reason Reformed theology is popular with younger people is that the free-willer camp doesn't offer much in that respect. So, even Leighton Flowers, who I strongly dislike, admits that Reformed authors exegete Scripture better than free-willers

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

you are arrogant by saying that. i know teh arguments they arent as deep as you think they are. i understand them perfectly i just disagree but yes you are wasting your time you will never convince me or any other bible believer who knows their bibles. the calvinist likes to pretend to be some great intellectual while really their entire doctrine is just philosophical junk and pseudo-intellectual arrogant babbling with very poorly faked humbleness. its so transperant we can all see through this.

there is no problem with Jesus dying for someone and they still going to hell. thats what happened in o.t. too, if you didnt humble yourself day of atonement didnt matter for you. its just made up idea by calvinist that because atonement is made people are saved. thats why you are stuck in the "if Christ died for all then universalism so we have to twist romans 5 to make it only some".

look at this simple verses proving that yes atonement Jesus died for all but still people have to believe, st.paul here is telling these people in very uncalvinist fashion:

2Co 5:18 And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;
2Co 5:19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.
2Co 5:20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.

we see Christ reconciled the world unto HImself not imputing their trespasses unto them but still, st.paul says we pray: BE YE RECONCILED to God. he just said world was reconciled, but still be ye reconciled. you have to believe the gospel. God tells you to do it, God does not repent or believe for you. thats so stupid idea, why would God tell anyone to do something if He does it for them anyway and they cant do it.looks to me calvinist god has some issues because he violates his own will back and forth? wants people to obey and pleads them to repent but then he is at fault for not giving them that repentance. come on god do something about it instead of whining about it. thats the calvinist god, sitting there pleading people yet he is the one who just dont give the gift of repentance and faith to all, then stop telling people what to do. it makes god so evil i hate it and i will always hate it. praise Jesus not many peopel believe this nonsense but few do. i hope no new christian hears of this evil doctrine.

By the way, annihilationists and unbelievers would say that the doctrine of eternal punishment (hell) is wrong because it would make God into an evil God. This is because individuals will be burning forever for sins committed in their lifetimes, and for rejecting Christ.

My view of it is this: God can do whatever he wants with whoever he wants. If the Bible teaches it, I believe it. I don't let my feelings get in the way.

Additionally, I believe God is 100% effective when he sets out to do something. He is not a failure god. If I believed the free-willer version of God, I would believe in a god who is a failure. He intends to save all of mankind, but he fails in some cases.

The God I worship is not a failure. He knows exactly what he is doing.

Additionally, I think Reformed theology is about as fair as it gets. From a human perspective, if everyone has exactly the same exposure (which isn't true), the guy in Saudi Arabia has much less chance at salvation than a guy in the USA. Yet, I believe God elects individuals out of every sort of background, and they WILL come to faith and they WILL be in his kingdom. That's actually more "fair" than the free-willer view because there are much more barriers in his case than mine.

It isn't my decision what is fair and what is not, though. God is sovereign and he does what he wants with people. He creates some vessels for honor, and some for destruction. Some men are like brute beasts, who were predestined for destruction.

I can point to Scriptures to back that up, by the way. You guys should recognize the allusions if you are as biblically literate as you claim to be.

 

[Whispered]

No, I don't think he's morally ambiguous. Jesus paid for the sins of the elect on the Cross. The Cross was required because someone needed to redeem the elect from the wrath of God.

Concerning that point in your post.
Launching this query from the standpoint of predestination and the Elect. Why would the horrific suffering Jesus endured prior to the cross and then the suffering on the cross itself be necessary to redeem those God Elected to be saved before the world they would inhabit was created?
The Augustinian view of the Election doctrine not only states that God predestined those whom would be His Elect, saved from their sins and this election occurred prior to the world coming to exist, but also states that to secure that Election by those Elected for His grace, which isn't actually grace when it is predetermined to be bestowed on only a select number of persons, that God divinely bestowed upon those Elect individuals the requisite faith to believe in Jesus so as to be those Elect.

Given both idea's concerning the Elect of God, the standard version wherein God predestined the Elect to receive Salvation knowing they would come to faith prior to their existence, as well as the Augustinian view, when it all comes down to it the foundation principle behind the entire process is, eternal salvation from sin that causes eternal death.

When God predestined that select salvation number to enter into eternal life and prior to the world's creation, why would He need to preach the Salvation doctrine? When before the garden of Eden God had already predetermined who would be saved from sin?
In short, the predestined Elect of God were saved before sin entered the world so as to need saving from that. And the salvation principle was only to be bestowed on those God predetermined to receive it before even the Old Testament came to exist.

What's the purpose of preaching salvation when only those God chose to save are saved?
Teaching all the world , as Jesus said to do and as what is called the great commission, would be pointless when God already knows who are saved. While the ministering of salvation implies anyone can receive Christ as their savior.

 

[Whispered]

Question: "Who are the elect of God?"

Answer: Simply put, the “elect of God” are those whom God has predestined to salvation. They are called the “elect” because that word denotes the concept of choosing. Every four years in the U.S., we "elect" a President—i.e., we choose who will serve in that office. The same goes for God and those who will be saved; God chooses those who will be saved. These are the elect of God.

As it stands, the concept of God electing those who will be saved isn’t controversial. What is controversial is how and in what manner God chooses those who will be saved. Throughout church history, there have been two main views on the doctrine of election (or predestination). One view, which we will call the prescient or foreknowledge view, teaches that God, through His omniscience, knows those who will in the course of time choose of their own free will to place their faith and trust in Jesus Christ for their salvation. On the basis of this divine foreknowledge, God elects these individuals “before the foundation of the world” (Ephesians 1:4). This view is held by the majority of American evangelicals.

The second main view is the Augustinian view, which essentially teaches that God not only divinely elects those who will have faith in Jesus Christ, but also divinely elects to grant to these individuals the faith to believe in Christ. In other words, God’s election unto salvation is not based on a foreknowledge of an individual’s faith, but is based on the free, sovereign grace of Almighty God. God elects people to salvation, and in time these people will come to faith in Christ because God has elected them.

The difference boils down to this: who has the ultimate choice in salvation—God or man? In the first view (the prescient view), man has control; his free will is sovereign and becomes the determining factor in God’s election. God can provide the way of salvation through Jesus Christ, but man must choose Christ for himself in order to make salvation real. Ultimately, this view diminishes the biblical understanding of God's sovereignty. This view puts the Creator's provision of salvation at the mercy of the creature; if God wants people in heaven, He has to hope that man will freely choose His way of salvation. In reality, the prescient view of election is no view of election at all, because God is not really choosing—He is only confirming. It is man who is the ultimate chooser.

In the Augustinian view, God has control; He is the one who, of His own sovereign will, freely chooses those whom He will save. He not only elects those whom He will save, but He actually accomplishes their salvation. Rather than simply make salvation possible, God chooses those whom He will save and then saves them. This view puts God in His proper place as Creator and Sovereign.

The Augustinian view is not without problems of its own. Critics have claimed that this view robs man of his free will. If God chooses those who will be saved, then what difference does it make for man to believe? Why preach the gospel? Furthermore, if God elects according to His sovereign will, then how can we be responsible for our actions? These are all good and fair questions that need to be answered. A good passage to answer these questions is Romans 9, the most in-depth passage dealing with God’s sovereignty in election.

The context of the passage flows from Romans 8, which ends with a great climax of praise: “For I am convinced that... [nothing] in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Romans 8:38-39). This leads Paul to consider how a Jew might respond to that statement. While Jesus came to the lost children of Israel and while the early church was largely Jewish in makeup, the gospel was spreading among the Gentiles much faster than among the Jews. In fact, most Jews saw the gospel as a stumbling block (1 Corinthians 1:23) and rejected Jesus. This would lead the average Jew to wonder if God’s plan of election has failed, since most Jews reject the message of the gospel.

Throughout Romans 9, Paul systematically shows that God’s sovereign election has been in force from the very beginning. He begins with a crucial statement: “For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel” (Romans 9:6). This means that not all people of ethnic Israel (that is, those descended from Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) belong to true Israel (the elect of God). Reviewing the history of Israel, Paul shows that God chose Isaac over Ishmael and Jacob over Esau. Just in case anyone thinks that God was choosing these individuals based on the faith or good works they would do in the future, he adds, “Though they [Jacob and Esau] were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad – in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls” (Romans 9:11).

At this point, one might be tempted to accuse God of acting unjustly. Paul anticipates this accusation in v. 14, stating plainly that God is not unjust in any way. “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion” (Romans 9:15). God is sovereign over His creation. He is free to choose those whom He will choose, and He is free to pass by those whom He will pass by. The creature has no right to accuse the Creator of being unjust. The very thought that the creature can stand in judgment of the Creator is absurd to Paul, and it should be so to every Christian, as well. The balance of Romans 9 substantiates this point.

As already mentioned, there are other passages that talk to a lesser extent on the topic of God’s elect (John 6:37-45 and Ephesians 1:3-14, to name a couple). The point is that God has ordained to redeem a remnant of humanity to salvation. These elect individuals were chosen before the creation of the world, and their salvation is complete in Christ. As Paul says, “For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified” (Romans 8:29-30).