Mark

Cheryl,

“So why is it that God did not take the complete payment of Jesus at the cross and put it to your account at the time that Jesus died? Was His payment not full and complete at that time?”

Let me try to say things again. I’m not sure if you don’t actually understand what I am saying since you keep asking me the same questions.

I believe that the atonement of Christ was effective for what he came to achieve. That is, he did not atone just to make salvation ‘possible’, but he atoned to make salvation effective. It is through the atonement that salvation becomes effective and purposeful. I reject the Arminian position (now I dunno if you agree with classical arminianism) because it only makes salvation ‘possible’. It didn’t actually achieve anything. For an Arminian what makes the atonement actually achieve anything is my own act of autonomous faith- not God’s predetermined plan to save me.
I see that Jesus secured my salvation on the cross by fully atoning for my sin. Because this is achieved by Christ, the Spirit then regenerates my heart to accept God’s gift of salvation.

“So you will agree that there was a condition that must be met first before the atonement can become effective for you?”

I agree that faith in Christ is what saves me. However the atonement is the reason I am saved, not vice versa. The atonement secured salvation for God’s sheep, then when he calls his sheep they listen and follow.

“Is the atonement not complete if it requires our faith? Is it just an offer and not given by Christ before our faith?”

Not at all because you see ‘faith’ as autonomous by the sound of it. The Bible sees it as a gracious gift of God. The atonement was 100% complete and because of that the elect put their trust in Christ. Again it does not happen the other way around. Our atonement doesn’t just dangle in mid air and God is just hoping someone in their autonomous faith takes it. God completes his purpose of what Christ achieved on the cross by bringing in His flock.

“Yes the atonement achieved something for God’s people but it also achieved something for all sinners.”

I agree with this actually. But I do not believe it achieved the same purpose for everyone. Christ only atoned for his sheep, but non believers receive many blessings and grace because of the cross- they just don’t have their sins atoned for because they don’t actually go to heaven.

“Eternal life is justification and yes this is given for all men.”

Cheryl, this is completely false and worries me. Being ‘justified’ is being ‘declared righteous’. Now if all men were declared righteous then none would go to hell. Also justification is only by faith is it not? Now I’m sure you do not believe that all people have faith in Christ, so therefore how can you say that all men are justified. This is another case where you are confusing biblical language.

“If it isn’t universal in both cases, then it doesn’t make sense. We could then say that the “all” that is condemnation isn’t really for all after all.”

Not at all, the context determines how universal language is understood. We know all men fell in Adam from the context

Rom 5:12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—

Death is a consequence of sin. All die therefore all sin. Also verse 18 tells us that the one sin of Adam was condemnation for all, relflecting again on death as a consequence. However Paul himself qualifies that the gift is not like the trespass proving your argument completely false

Rom 5:15 But the free gift is not like the trespass.
Rom 5:16 And the free gift is not like the result of that one man’s sin

So no, the comparison does not have to take universal language the same. The context ought to decide that. The context of Romans makes clear that not all are justified because not all put their faith in Christ. One example should suffice

Rom 5:1 Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.

Faith is what justifies. Not all have faith therefore not all are justified. You point is completely contradictory to the Bible.

“Oh really? Why does God sending His Own Son to die for all not make her more loving and merciful than God sending Jesus to die for just a few select individuals who have been chosen unconditionally?”

Now my assumption here is that you do actually hold to the clear bible teaching on divine foreknowledge. Therefore you would agree that God is creating people he knows will not believe. Thus he is creating people who will go to hell and he knows that, yet he still creates them. Still raises a tension don’t you think.

“but your position has God purposely creating people whom He has chosen them to go to hell and God has chosen to withhold from them what they need to be saved”

Regarding the first point I agree, but so does an Arminian position. God ‘chose’ people according to divine foreknowledge, so he had ‘chosen’ some to be saved and ‘chosen’ others to go to hell. The second point I don’t totally agree with. God is not obligated to save anyone, that’s the first thing, so get that out of your head. It is only by his mercy he chooses to save any. Second, he doesn’t withhold anything because he is not obligated to give it in the first place- he simply leaves people in their sinful state. So no God does not with-hold salvation from them. He simply leaves them, but for his elect he bestows his gift of grace, because that is what grace is- undeserved mercy. It seems to me that you almost believe that God is obligated to save us.

“That sounds a lot like injustice to me and any earthly judge who would act this way would have the world in an uproar about his injustice.”

That’s because you think God is obligated to save everybody- He is not. There is nothing unjust about God choosing to save some who did not deserve to be saved. In fact, this is the heart of the gospel is it not. Grace is only grace when it is underserved otherwise as Paul says, it no longer becomes grace.

“It isn’t logical at all. It creates a God who isn’t Sovereign and who not only lies about his abilities but he also is not able to act in advance but only able to react. What on earth would that God do if one of his elect dies that he was counting on for a work? No. The open theist position is not logical and it is not Biblical. I am quite concerned about you, that you would even consider it logical.”

I told you Arminians don’t like it! But anyway a few comments. The open theist sovereignty is identical to what both you and Kay say. The open theist believes God ‘chose to limit himself’ which is identical to your description of His soveriegnty- he chose not to determine all things unconditionally. Now I said it is logical to the Arminan position, I did not say I think it is logical. I agree with you that it is completely unbiblical. However if one holds to autonomous free-will then one can see the problem if the future is actually fixed- it’s not free at all. An Arminian believes the future is fixed because they believe in divine foreknowledge. However if the future is fixed then it is not free. See the problem? That is precisely why open theism has gained support. The rational logical conclusion of Arminianism leads there.

“Let’s have another look at the verse and compare it to what John himself said in the book of 1 John. John is not going to contradict himself.”

I agree that John did not contradict. In John 11 John is describing believers from the nation of Israel and those ‘scattered abroad’. 1 John 2:2 is describing the same thing ‘all the world’ i.e all the elect from every tribe toungue that are ‘scattered abroad’. Now answer how ones sins are propitiated but not actually propitiated since they go to hell?

“Thanks cobber!”

Lol, it’s good to have abit of humour

“How is it that those who have never had their sins atoned for are commanded to believe (apply) the atonement? Do you not see a contradiction here?”

Not at all. People are born with a corrupt sinful nature that equals eternal punishment. Now if God does not give them the gift of repentance and faith they will be condemned for their unbelief. Like I said earlier, God is not obligated to save anyone- it’s based on mercy and grace not obligation. We tell people to trust in Christ, but if God has not chosen to open their eyes then they will be punished for their unbelief. God simply leaves them in their sinful nature which by nature rejects Him. It is completely just. What is unjust, is that God would send Jesus to die for other people, but that is why God’s mercy and grace are so amazing. It is total undeserved, unconditional grace.

“My friend, Mark, you are adding that into the Scripture, because Jesus never said it. Jesus talked about those who would come to Him, but He never said that He would only atone for those who would come. By adding to the Scripture one goes beyond what is said.”

Ok then. Well maybe you can show me where Jesus said “I died for every single person and paid the price for their sins, but it is autonomous faith which seals the deal”. I’m not the only one who tries to explain their theology. Please don’t be so hypocritical.

“These are Calvinist doctrines but they cannot be proven from the actual Scriptures since to believe them one must add to what is written. That is why I don’t believe in Calvinism. I would rather believe in what is actually written in the Scriptures.”

That is a ridiculous statement. If Calvinism wasn’t proven from the scriptures then you have just condemned a lot of reformed people in Church history. It would be far safer to say that you give a different ‘interpretation’ to the same passages rather than saying Calvinism is not based on scripture. Perhaps you don’t believe in Calvinism for other reasons, since the whole theology is based on Biblical support. Be honest with yourself at least.

“Surely Jesus could have said that clearly. Why didn’t He say that he would save only a select few the God chose? Why didn’t He make it clear that those who did not believe Him had been selected by God to go to hell? Why would He have chosen words that were universal rather than limited? Doesn’t it appear that to accept Calvinism would require a reinterpreting of what has been inspired as universal language? If it is really truth, what should we have to do that?”

A theology is not solely based on the ‘red’ letters of the gospels. Jesus did say that he came to save sinners NOT the righteous. Also he did make clear in Matt 25:31ff that the goats would go to hell but the sheep to eternal glory which was prepared “for you since the creation of the world” (34). Jesus did use limited language – many, sheep and goats, sinners and righteous, healthy and sick. Jesus whole ministry was exclusive and limited. He came for his sheep and for their salvation.

I find it interesting that you accept the BDAG use of ‘world’ but have formerly criticised me for saying that God has a ‘special’ or ‘saving’ love for some and not others. Inconsistency?

“But people are blind for several reasons.”

I agree, and one of those reasons is because they are spiritually ‘dead’ (Eph 2:1) Dead people cannot see, they are blind!

“Drawing is not the same thing as coming.”

I agree, that is why I found it odd that you said about Jn 6 that people had to believe before they could come to Jesus.

“Romans 8:29 does not say “inward call” and the washing by the baptism into Jesus’ death is our justification.”

That is the only way to understand Rom 8:29 since those God calls, he also justifies. God does not call all in the sense of Rom 8 because simply not all are justified. And no, having faith in Christ is what justifies us. It is a declaring of righteousness.
1 Cor 6:11 says three parallel things, you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified. These are three elements of our total salvation. You have again mixed up the text.

“It is Jesus’ blood that justifies and He freely gives His salvation by His death to all.”

Again No! It is faith which justifies us. This is the historic protestant teaching. But of course Jesus death is tied into that.
Rom 5:1 Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.

That is why not all are ‘justified’ because not all have ‘faith’. You might say that Jesus atoned for everyone but to say he justified everyone is going to far. That is not biblical teaching. That is universalism.

“Romans 8:5-8 is not about all.”

I’m surprised and then not surprised. I’m surprised because a while back you agreed that the Bible teaches that we as humans because of Adam have a sinful nature. But then when Rom 8 specifically refers to sinful natures (5) you say it doesn’t apply to all. But then I’m not surprised because of your other views on other passages. You just seem to inconsistent.

“Ephesians 2:8, 9 is not talking about faith as a gift because the term is singular and faith is said to be the thing that the gift (salvation) comes through. If faith were also a gift, then the Greek term would have been plural.”

Not true. Notice in verse 8 what is the first word. It is the feminine definite article encompassing the entire verse “by (the) grace you have seen saved, by (the) faith. The definite article links into the noun ‘faith’ sandwiching everything in between, therefore the singular supports that, since what is in view in the singular gift is the whole statement “by grace you have been saved through faith”. (The) grace and (the) faith are both gifts but expressed in the singular because of the precise grammatical construction. They are not of ourselves so we cannot boast. Your point is wrong.

“In Romans 12:3, faith is a genitive.”

Nothing you said here disproves my point. In fact your own source cited that it is something ‘given’ to the believers. That is, anyone in Christ has nothing to boast about precisely because it is God who gave them their salvation including their faith. Also remember that the genitive case denotes possession and In this case who is the faith linked back to- God. It is the gift of God. So therefore again the greek grammar proves my precise point. Faith in the genitive is the possessive of God who as this verse saids gives or apportions to each member of the body. So yes faith here again is the gift of God.

“There is a difference between giving of the person and enabling them to believe.”

I’m not so sure. Look at how the terms are used interchangeably in John 6
Joh 6:37 All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.
Joh 6:39 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.
Joh 6:44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.
Joh 6:65 And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”

The NIV translates the last one ‘enabled’. So it appears that the three terms ‘gives’, enables/granted and ‘draws’ mean similar things. They all relate to the father giving to the Son. The first three relate the truth of assurance of salvation. The last one relates back to the third one. To me John 6 shows that these terms are synonomous.

“No, not true. We are all commanded to fear God and God is righteous enough to give us the ability to fear Him.”

I like this. It seems you finally admit that it is God who ‘gives’ us the ability to fear Him. You have never admitted that before. You have previously said that Job ‘fearing God’ was from his own free-will. I guess you have changed your mind. You realise that unregenerate people cannot fear God without his gift to do so.