The work is complete (for those it was intended for) regardless if some people don't believe in it. The work of Christ alone accomplished in full the redemption of God's people. So, not merely a potential atonement, but an accomplished atonement. If you say "faith" is a condition for the work to be complete, then you add to the work of Christ, making man's "faith" redemptive. So will the object of salvation be the sinner, not Christ.
God's freewill vs. Mankind's election
- Thread starter RickShafer
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
A
Well surely i can swollow that pill. But im not able to hide my feelings from the Lord. He knows i will never agree with that. And i dont feel bad having these feelings. Easy for the elect to say that. No skin off their tail. All i can honestly do is realize in my feebleminded position it cant make sense to me and that it must be good. but i will not lie and say it sounds ok to me at my position. Doesnt worry me tho, or make me want to read something better into scripture. It just goes into my big pile of dont get-its.
Well..Luther obviously thought and talked about it quiet a whole lot himself. Possible the "sin" he had in view was the reason and ground for God's election (the "why's"), which men can merely speculate about or the risk of falling into fatalism if the doctrine is abused. I'd certainly agree that such things would be in vain and of no benefit. Maybe zone or sarahm can say more about this, if they wish.
OK. Fact still remain: all have not heard, all will not hear. The thing is how we are to view God's intent with the atonement with this perspective. It all falls back to what the atonement actually accomplished. The answer to that leaves few alternatives. Some are afraid that if we dare to believe in the reality of limited atonement we shall have christians in fear of not being the elect and have their assurance gravelled by such a fear. This is not uncalled for in some cases. The other way around you'd have a potential atonement that in fact didn't redeem a single soul, in effect attacking the atonement. Not easy to divide this one!
I see what you're saying. Np.
I don't know what kinda calvinists you speak of here. The whole scope of predestination and election in Paul's writings is to hammer home the truth of grace being the cause and ground for salvation. Ever since Erasmus and the Remonstrants we've had this debate among us. I think its not unimportant where beliefs and doctrines comes from. Many people are unaware that what they are taught in their non-denom or house groups have a historic origin. The reformers already took up the task to reiterate what was accepted doctrine.
And we have not so few people saying that they got many verses that contradict the deity of Christ or the Trinity. Yes, there is a lot of things one can see that scripture MIGHT say, more or less minding the ifs and buts. Without a durable and tenable systematic reading of scripture we're quiet left out to "contradictions" and collisions. If you like to read Luther, which is really good reading, then you would also find he believed in regeneration before faith.
LOL! Not fully sure what you want to say here. I just hope that these communications, as much as they lack, might be helpful to someone.
It was actually your word, force(d) exegesis, and a good one to that.When I used it above I did so because it applies to much of universalist and universal atonement argumentation, me thinks.
I agree that this can be an issue with some calvinists. I've met a few extreme cases. Many things we have to drop and simply say "I don't know", especially when it is not implied that we must know same. We have to remember that both Calvin and also Arminius were affected by humanism (not the same kind of "humanism" as we popularly know it today). Reason was important. Not so much in Calvin's writings as in the successors one can see some traces. Can you exemplify any of these forced exegesis you've seen?
I wish not to be misunderstood here, but, feelings are feelings. Important as feelings can be, some feelings can obfuscate or cloud, or worse, something that we are to see. Things that maybe will not drop down "zenkrecht von oben". I'd find objectivity more interesting than subjectivity. Truth can always be discussed, errors and heresies don't like being discussed, they want to be blindly accepted without question, because those who advocate them think they are authorities in and by themselves.
All for now.
OK. Fact still remain: all have not heard, all will not hear. The thing is how we are to view God's intent with the atonement with this perspective. It all falls back to what the atonement actually accomplished. The answer to that leaves few alternatives. Some are afraid that if we dare to believe in the reality of limited atonement we shall have christians in fear of not being the elect and have their assurance gravelled by such a fear. This is not uncalled for in some cases. The other way around you'd have a potential atonement that in fact didn't redeem a single soul, in effect attacking the atonement. Not easy to divide this one!
I see what you're saying. Np.
I don't know what kinda calvinists you speak of here. The whole scope of predestination and election in Paul's writings is to hammer home the truth of grace being the cause and ground for salvation. Ever since Erasmus and the Remonstrants we've had this debate among us. I think its not unimportant where beliefs and doctrines comes from. Many people are unaware that what they are taught in their non-denom or house groups have a historic origin. The reformers already took up the task to reiterate what was accepted doctrine.
And we have not so few people saying that they got many verses that contradict the deity of Christ or the Trinity. Yes, there is a lot of things one can see that scripture MIGHT say, more or less minding the ifs and buts. Without a durable and tenable systematic reading of scripture we're quiet left out to "contradictions" and collisions. If you like to read Luther, which is really good reading, then you would also find he believed in regeneration before faith.
LOL! Not fully sure what you want to say here. I just hope that these communications, as much as they lack, might be helpful to someone.
It was actually your word, force(d) exegesis, and a good one to that.When I used it above I did so because it applies to much of universalist and universal atonement argumentation, me thinks.
I agree that this can be an issue with some calvinists. I've met a few extreme cases. Many things we have to drop and simply say "I don't know", especially when it is not implied that we must know same. We have to remember that both Calvin and also Arminius were affected by humanism (not the same kind of "humanism" as we popularly know it today). Reason was important. Not so much in Calvin's writings as in the successors one can see some traces. Can you exemplify any of these forced exegesis you've seen?
I wish not to be misunderstood here, but, feelings are feelings. Important as feelings can be, some feelings can obfuscate or cloud, or worse, something that we are to see. Things that maybe will not drop down "zenkrecht von oben". I'd find objectivity more interesting than subjectivity. Truth can always be discussed, errors and heresies don't like being discussed, they want to be blindly accepted without question, because those who advocate them think they are authorities in and by themselves.
All for now.
Last edited:
Bold.
If you mean God zapped only certain people that is plain wrong.
If you mean salvation is for everyone who believes that is right.
Belief in the unknown is not the same as having faith in it, faith comes with knowledge.
Faith in God is not required for salvation but we do need to believe in God. I hope you see the difference.
If you mean God zapped only certain people that is plain wrong.
If you mean salvation is for everyone who believes that is right.
Belief in the unknown is not the same as having faith in it, faith comes with knowledge.
Faith in God is not required for salvation but we do need to believe in God. I hope you see the difference.
My commentary says the man who sowed good seed, which is the Gospel of salvation, is you, me and the disciples, while the tares are sown by the servants of satan. Jesus said they would be separated at the harvest. The choice we make is who do we follow. 
Mat 13:24 He put another parable before them, saying, "The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field, but while his men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat and went away.
Mat 13:30 Let both grow together until the harvest, and at harvest time I will tell the reapers, Gather the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn.'"
Mat 13:24 He put another parable before them, saying, "The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field, but while his men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat and went away.
Mat 13:30 Let both grow together until the harvest, and at harvest time I will tell the reapers, Gather the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn.'"
At the end of the chapter (Mat 13) Jesus compares the Kingdom of heaven to treasure, pearls, and a net that is cast into the sea. I'm reading this to mean that the Kingdom of Heaven for those who find it is like treasure or a pearl of greatest price. While the net represents the harvest (second coming) and the separating of the good and the bad.
What difference? Are you saying that our salvation is conditioned on natural man working up some ability to have faith in God?
I am saying that any and all requirements for the salvation of God's people are conditioned on the work and person of Jesus Christ alone. Thus justification is wholly outside of man.
Regeneration brings saving knowledge of the person and work of Jesus Christ. Faith, which believes the promise of salvation conditioned on the work of Jesus Christ alone, is a fruit of this work of God. It is not a condition for salvation.
I am saying that any and all requirements for the salvation of God's people are conditioned on the work and person of Jesus Christ alone. Thus justification is wholly outside of man.
Regeneration brings saving knowledge of the person and work of Jesus Christ. Faith, which believes the promise of salvation conditioned on the work of Jesus Christ alone, is a fruit of this work of God. It is not a condition for salvation.
You say you agree with me. You cannot agree with me if you think that the apostle's salvation was conditioned on their "acceptance" of Jesus' call to them and their efforts to maintain and ultimately attain same. And that, they, as elect, could have rejected same. We are very far from each other here. You believe it was the efforts" of the apostles that brought them home to God. While I believe it was the work of Christ alone for them, in their stead, that brought them home to God.
While I certainly believe that the things you mentioned above, accept and follow Christ including repentance, belief and confession, are "musts", just as certainly I believe these are the fruit of salvation. Not in any way, shape or form a requirement and/or condition for same.
While I certainly believe that the things you mentioned above, accept and follow Christ including repentance, belief and confession, are "musts", just as certainly I believe these are the fruit of salvation. Not in any way, shape or form a requirement and/or condition for same.
E
I can't see this. We have historical records of the 1st century church which is inspired by God. You might have heard of it. it is called the New Testament.
Paul had big fights with jews trying to judaize the Gospel. They fought licentiousness, They fought all kinds of things.. Paul spent most of his writings trying to show we are saved by faith in Christ, apart from the works of the flesh (whether these works came out of law or just good deeds) and here we are 2000 years later trying to twist this, and make paul say we can "boast" of having faith in God alone..
Now does this make sense to you?
Paul had big fights with jews trying to judaize the Gospel. They fought licentiousness, They fought all kinds of things.. Paul spent most of his writings trying to show we are saved by faith in Christ, apart from the works of the flesh (whether these works came out of law or just good deeds) and here we are 2000 years later trying to twist this, and make paul say we can "boast" of having faith in God alone..
Now does this make sense to you?