PhilipJames
New member
Hello Sonnet!
Does this verse not make us rejoice that Jesus is the judge! (and not anyone here including me!
)Peace!
PJ
ECT Justification through faith in Christ's blood disproves limited atonement
- Thread starter Sonnet
- Start date
Hello Sonnet!
Does this verse not make us rejoice that Jesus is the judge! (and not anyone here including me!
)Peace!
PJ
Sonnet
New member
Hello Sonnet!
Does this verse not make us rejoice that Jesus is the judge! (and not anyone here including me!
Peace!
PJ
Hi PeterJames
Yes, Jesus is the judge.
PhilipJames
New member
Hi PeterJames
Yes, Jesus is the judge.
If there's ONE thing that all of us here, who profess Jesus is Lord!, can agree on, I hope it is this!
Because I trust and HOPE in HIS mercy!
Peace!
PJ
Sonnet
New member
Right - anyone you have in mind that is suggesting otherwise?
PhilipJames
New member
Sonnet
New member
Nope.
Ok.
Redeemed-777
New member
Aren't you missing the "OR", followed by an alternative?
Re: free-will choices ...
When Sammy gives Johnny a gift,
Johnny makes a decision (at some point)
what he will do with the Sammy-gift.
Will he keep it?
Will he keep it and use it?
Will he keep it and hide it?
Will he throw it in the nearest dumpster?
And many other choice choices.
beloved57
Well-known member
Those Christ died for are reconciled to God and made Righteous while they're enemies and unbelievers and rejecting God Rom 5:10,19 !
Sonnet
New member
I didn't write what you quoted.
nikolai_42
Well-known member
Sonnet said:
You quoted John 3:18 in the OP. In it, Jesus says that the one who does not believe is already condemned. That indicates a pre-existing (natural?) condition. Saul was under that condemnation "already" when he held the cloaks of those who stoned Stephen (just as an example). But was he condemned in the end? Rather, he passed from death (the pre-existing, natural, fleshly condition) unto life (which only comes by faith in the blood of Christ and being born again.
So if it is pre-existing then it must be natural - unless one is born of the flesh and (perchance) can be utterly sinless and enter the kingdom of heaven by virtue of his perfection. Of course, Jesus made it clear that no one can enter that kingdom unless he is born again. Was He simply saying that He knew no one would be sinless and so the new birth would inevitably be necessary for everyone? Or, rather, was He saying that the condition of everyone entering the world was such that they naturally fall under the condemnation of death and so is the default condition of the human race without Christ?
Either way, the (seemingly natural) exclusion is spoken of by Jesus.
Sonnet
New member
I'm not sure you are understanding my point. What business has Paul preaching justification through faith in Christ's blood if Paul is cognizant of that blood not being shed for all? How can there be the condemnation for not believing (in Him, the crucifixion, His blood) if there was a limited atonement? One cannot be condemned if no way out was possible (which is the logical end of Calvinism).
Calvinism's limited atonement leads a logical inconsistency does it not?
nikolai_42
Well-known member
My point about free will there is that you are saying it is unfair not to tell us in scripture what is known by experience and conviction (but that most men reject) - that we are sinners by nature and ALL are "naturally" excluded. ALL are naturally under that judgment and condemnation. ALL have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Thus, while the message of salvation has been given to all, not all will be saved (at least as I read scripture, it seems that way). The only way the exclusion of some is in any sense "unfair" is if they "wanted" to be saved but were prevented from that salvation. In other words, their free will was to know God and God said "No". I don't believe that was the case and since your post seems to be directed at the Calvinist understanding of salvation, I say I don't know any Calvinist who believes that.
Or do you believe that God's "hope" of Romans 8:20 was literally one born of not knowing how His plan would turn out?
For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,
Romans 8:20
It seems God can (and does) do what He wants and doesn't need man's willingness to go along with it (even when His actions concern the creature itself - and his will). So unless you see God's subjection of man as resulting in universal salvation (Calvinism and certain forms of universalism differ mainly in numbers saved), I have to believe you think those poor souls who were ultimately lost were not treated fairly in having this futility thrust upon them. And did Jesus ever make a comment about this?
So your response is that because you believe a certain thing, you read the text a certain way? I'm asking what scripture is saying about who disposes. Proverbs 16:9 seems to say that God does the (effectual) disposing.
{Matthew 28:16-17}
I'm willing to accept that position (speculatory), but you quoted the passage in your OP as primary proof that you said very categorically that tasso is never translated as "ordained" in the NT. Are you willing, at least, to admit that that statement is not quite so solid? You seem to agree in some of the other verses I quote that the word refers to ordination or determination as opposed to "being disposed".
All the points I make in the ensuing verses is that they are not saying someone was "disposed" or "inclined" to believe or act a certain way - but the instances all refer to certainties, not tendencies.
If your argument is simply trying to establish that common decency demands this, then you are judging God by man's standards.
nikolai_42
Well-known member
God told Elijah that He had reserved to Himself 7,000 that had not bowed the knee to Ba'al when Elijah complained to God that he alone had not forsaken Him. It seems to me that Romans 11 addresses your objection :
What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded.
Romans 11:7
Paul goes further than I do. He says that what Israel sought for was only found by a remnant - and the rest were blinded. How unfair of God was that?!?
nikolai_42
Well-known member
Followup - "common decency" and "fairness" imply some standard by which God can be said to meet man's expectations of what gives him (man, that is) a chance to meet God's demands. The problem is that there has never been a man alive (that I know of) that approached God on the basis of some such standard that has ever found approval on that basis. Everyone who approached the Savior in any way connected with fulfilling the law went away disappointed. They hadn't "gotten it" yet - that their own righteousness would never measure up and that God's "fair chances" extended to tolerating a few thousand years of moral failure after moral failure. Israel of old is an example to all of us and there need be no more examples given or explanatory warnings issued. We will either believe or we won't - and no amount of human reasoning, laying out of parameters or understanding what God is doing will change the response of the individual sinner. If he is inclined to charge God with being "unfair", he will do so and find some excuse so to do. That God has been unfathomably merciful and patient only requires a little reading. But if the gospel is hid, it is hid to those that are perishing.
beloved57
Well-known member
Justification by Faith in Christ blood actually proves limited atonement, because Faith is only given[by New Birth] to those who have been Justified by Christ's Blood/Death apart from Faith and solely by His Blood Rom 5:9
9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.
When Christ rose from the Grave, those for whom He died was then declared Justified before God Rom 4:25
25 Who was delivered for[because of] our offences, and was raised again for[because of] our justification.
Now, This proves that their Justification was prior to their Faith. Which came first, Christ's resurrection or a believers Faith ? If a Person whom Christ died for became a believer i n 1957, and Christ's Death Justified them in 33 ad as His Resurrection proved, then was he not Justified before God before he believed ? The answer is Yes !
Now we know Christ's death did not Justify all men because the bible speaks of the unjust Matt 5:45
That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
2 Pet 2:9
The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished:
Rev 22:11
He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.
So those Unjust people Christ could not have died for them, that proves limited atonement.
Well what about 1 Pet 3:18
For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:
All sinners are unjust by nature, elect and non elect, so unjust here means sinful, but even the elect, as unjust sinful, they are still Just before God based upon the Blood of Christ, whereas the unjust non elect are not !
So the one starting this thread , started it with a false premise which cannot be supported by scripture !
9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.
When Christ rose from the Grave, those for whom He died was then declared Justified before God Rom 4:25
25 Who was delivered for[because of] our offences, and was raised again for[because of] our justification.
Now, This proves that their Justification was prior to their Faith. Which came first, Christ's resurrection or a believers Faith ? If a Person whom Christ died for became a believer i n 1957, and Christ's Death Justified them in 33 ad as His Resurrection proved, then was he not Justified before God before he believed ? The answer is Yes !
Now we know Christ's death did not Justify all men because the bible speaks of the unjust Matt 5:45
That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
2 Pet 2:9
The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished:
Rev 22:11
He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.
So those Unjust people Christ could not have died for them, that proves limited atonement.
Well what about 1 Pet 3:18
For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:
All sinners are unjust by nature, elect and non elect, so unjust here means sinful, but even the elect, as unjust sinful, they are still Just before God based upon the Blood of Christ, whereas the unjust non elect are not !
So the one starting this thread , started it with a false premise which cannot be supported by scripture !
Sonnet
New member
What are you suggesting - that the seeming unfairness of Romans 11 permits the seeming unfairness of preaching faith in Christ's blood when that blood was not shed for all? Really
I don't concede to your assertion regarding Romans 11 - Paul says that God reserves for Himself those that have 'not bowed the knee to Ba'al'; that does not underpin unconditional election.
nikolai_42
Well-known member
Paul says Israel didn't receive that which it sought for - but the elect did and the rest were blinded. I'm saying the unfairness of Romans 11 appears to be precisely what you call a lack of common decency. And I put it to you that God reserving to Himself 7,000 that have not bowed the knee to Ba'al goes to God keeping that faithful remnant for Himself. Not that the remnant were keeping themselves for Him. And in Romans 11:5, Paul calls it a remnant according to the election of grace. The same language used to distinguish between those that were blinded and those that were elect.
Saved.One.by.Grace
New member
Your quotation disproves the premise of this thread. Whom God hath set forth (who God chose, who God elected, etc.), Q. E. D., quod erat demonstrandum.
Last edited: