He is more than able to save every human being, that's why He's extended the offer to every human being.
But the reason every human being isn't saved doesn't mean that God is somehow less powerful or powerless to save them - it means that God has given mankind a choice.
That Jesus could of, but didn't rescue Himself on the cross wasn't a knock on His omnipotence - even though some bystanders around the cross accused Him of being unable to save Himself. In a similar vein, God issued a call for all to repent and be saved - when all don't respond, it doesn't diminish Him or His desire for all to be saved.
There is far to many scripture issuing worldwide, every-man calls to repentance to negate God's unlimited atonement.
Good question, Fisher. I don't know. I think he could if he wanted to, but maybe this falls into the "making a rock so big he can't pick it up" category.
I suspect you're joshin' about the U, but just in case you're not, it stands for unconditional election. The L stands for limited atonement.
The statement is neither true or false. It is at best imprecise and at worst, misleading.
How about, "God has saved whomever He wanted when He wanted."
or "God will save whomever He chooses at the time He has chosen.
The statement has two variables, the first is regarding God's ability, which is infinite and limited only by His own character character. The second variable regards God's interaction with time.
I must believe that God's interactions in time and space are not capricious or responsive, but according to His predetermined plan. We are the ones who do the responding as God's plan unfolds in time.
Philippians 2:13 - if this speaks concerning His adopted children, why would we expect his enemies to be more capable of willing and doing for His good pleasure?
but what I'm wondering, is whose wife she'll be in the resurrection? (ba-da-dump - thank you, I'll be here all weekend ;^)
Brad to answer your question - God's Spirit is constantly striving with all mankind. That's why Jesus said: "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned."
The Holy Spirit will use the Gospel message to soften hearts. Men either believe it or reject it. Jesus didn't seem to indicate anything else than that.
Paul said in Acts 17: "The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent"
If Paul believed in LA, why would He say this? Why would the Holy Spirit cause Him to say this when, according to LA, all people, everywhere don't need to repent because some don't even have a chance to go to heaven anyway? I suppose LA proponents would add "some of all people, most everywhere" to try to solve this dilemma, but that would be making the Bible say something it doesn't.
Peter, in his sermon on the Day of Pentecost said to the crowd of multiple thousands: "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." Note his "every one of you" statement.
Was Peter speaking for God or John Calvin here? If it was for Calvin, he would have said, 'repent and be baptized the ones here who have been selected...'
The preponderance of scriptural evidence, like above - is too abundant to ignore.
With LA, I almost feel like there is a big hammer trying to hammer scripture into a doctrinal framework that seems esteemed even over the Word of God.
Perhaps we're not understanding one another. I believe with all my heart in God's universal call to repentence, but I'm not seeing how that disproves limited atonement.
Maybe my system is getting in the way again, but it seems to me that someone who goes to hell does so because his sins haven't been atoned for. You think otherwise?
brad, i don't think your system is getting in the way, i think eric is pleading to a different argument.
btw, i think we can say that God cannot save Satan or fallen demons. Christ took on HUMAN flesh so He could be the human sin substitute. this is why angels stoop down to look into these things...they can't comprehend reconciliation.
for God to propitiate the sin penalty of angels, their would have to be an angelic/divine payment. Christ died once for sin and is forever the God/Man, so He isn't an option to take on angelic form. Perhaps the Holy Spirit could come in that sense, but this would place Him into a somewhat sonship role, causing greater problems. not only that, but He would not be able to be born of an angel, since angels aren't born. perhaps that rabbit trail only muddied things up.
i think you guys may have a difficult time working through your question, brad, on the blogosphere. as eric has mentioned, he has a plethora of texts he believes present a problem for your viewpoint. however, i would argue that there are far more texts that present a problem for his. therefore, these are the kinds of conversations that typically need to be had in person.
but until then, i'll benefit from watching the conversation.
Brad - actually I was supposed to have a last minute appt. with someone else that morning but they canceled on me too late for me to show up for breakfast - please forgive me - I'll say three hail Mary's to atone ;^)
My problem is - the Bible's universal call to repentance that we apparently both agree on - doesn't make any sense whatsoever if it's not possible for everyone to be saved. Do you see my point?
In other words, why would God indicate that all can be saved - but not really mean it?
I believe all sin in general has been atoned for (how otherwise could we declare to everyone the good news that Jesus died for them, then?) - but my personal sin remains as a blockage (for a lack of a better term) between God and me until I do the Biblical 'repent and believe' thing. That sin has been atoned for, now makes it a possibility for all to be saved.
Maybe I am debating another direction, my apologies if I am...
I absolve you. Dave and I were so disappointed, we only talked for three and a half hours.
With respect to the atonement, do you really believe that the already damned have had their personal sins atoned for? And if not, mustn't you say that the atonement is, in at least some sense, limited?
How do you feel, perhaps, about the formulation: "sufficient for all, efficient for some?" Or how about "Limited (Actual) Atonement?"
Brad - let's approach this from scripture. I sort of let your comment about 2 Peter 3:9 slide - let me revisit this scripture, because honestly 'how I feel' is irrelevant ;^)
You stated that this verse was talking to the elect only.
But yet his phrase "longsuffering to us-ward" cannot be addressed to only the elect. It must include all mankind. If not, the phrase that follows "not willing that any should perish" must apply to only the elect. But that second statement can only mean all mankind since it refers to a perishing that certainly doesn't endanger the elect.
So there are two possibilities - this is in reference to either: perishing under the penalty of sin or escaping that penalty by repenting; OR, perishing in the fire that will destroy the world or escaping it. Certainly, perishing in a world destroying fire is no more applicable to the saved than perishing under the penalty of sin.
I get that 2 Peter is addressed to the 'elect', but that doesn't keep Peter from talking about God's desire to see the whole world saved - including the fate of unbelievers.
Peter is not speaking to mankind in general in his letter, but he is certainly not speaking ONLY about the elect in his letter either.
Is it the elect who are the last day scoffers? Is it the elect who perished in the flood? Likewise is it the elect to whom God is longsuffering, less they perish in the coming judgment?
Furthermore, if you believe in 'irresistable grace' that claims that God can make anyone get saved any time He wants - why would longsuffering even need to be mentioned, if talking about the elect? That would be quite odd to say the least.
Something else strange with your interpretation of this passage then, is the redundancy: God is not willing that any of those He has sovereignly elected not to perish to perish? And He is longsuffering to accomplish this goal?
Come on now bro - that argument is neither logical nor sustainable.
I think I answered this already - but, Christ has died for the sins of the entire world, period (Jn. 3:16). But if a person doesn't repent and believe, they can't be saved.
And by the way, I found someone who agrees with your universal interpretation of 2 Peter 3:9.
"the Lord defers his coming that he might invite all mankind to repentance... he does not hasten the end of the world, in order to give to all time to repent... So wonderful is his love towards mankind, that he would have them all to be saved, and is of his own self prepared to bestow salvation on the lost...God is ready to receive all to repentance, so that none may perish."
Since you bring up that Calvin quote ;^)....something interesting I've noticed as I've studied this topic that last couple months is that I have found many conflicting statements like that from some Calvinists in their writings.
I've read statements from Calvin, Spurgeon, James White and John MacAurthur that either completely contradict their five point(?) stands, or I find that they suddenly adopt astonishing reasoning where they seemingly expect the reader to have a suspension of disbelief.
MacArthur, who is one of my favorite authors, btw, I've noticed particularly - in his commentary on 1 Timothy 4:10 (White omits referrence to this verse btw) actually gets this verse right by pointing out the universality of salvations offer - which belies his belief that Christ died only for the elect - this clearly contradicts other statements he makes in other writings.
One of Spurgeon's most famous sermons, in fact, apparently has had some 5 pointers up in arms - but we see the evangelists passion coming out in Spurgeon as he calls for all men everywhere to repent, which, again, would belie other statements he made.
Just an interesting observation...
Btw, just a quick, short verse for you related to your above question about those in hell having their sin atoned for:
2 Peter 2:1: "there shall be false teachers...denying the Lord that bought them." These teachers are clearly lost - yet the Lord bought them by His blood - discuss ;^)
I’ve noticed that every so often you seem to treat your own inability to reconcile two statements as absolute proof that one of them isn’t true. I agree that we all should strive for coherence and consistency in our understanding of the scriptures, but have you ever considered the possibility that these men you mention (with apparent respect) might have solidly biblical ways of reconciling their views that you don’t quite yet understand? Does your difficulty in seeing how some of their statements fit together really prove them to be contradictory?
I think you're right. 2 Peter 2:1 does say that the Lord bought these false teachers. The most reasonable inference is that he bought them with his blood. It would be difficult not to conclude, therefore, that the power of Christ's blood does have some effect even upon some unsaved men.
I suspect that our real disagreement on Limited Atonement is simply the result of our both having different definitions of "atonement."
Let me ask you this one, is Christ the Savior of the world?
Well on the men I mentioned - it just can't be both ways. Jesus can't be the Savior of the world, and the Savior of only the elect at the same time - their way of reconciling (when it's offered) goes the way of 'suspension of disbelief' by having the reader believe that the word "world", for example, happens to mean only the elect in one particular verse when there is no way the Greek supports that.
The effect of Christ's blood has a potential effect on every human being if they will repent and believe (Rm. 10:9-10).
Do I believe Jesus is the Savior of the world? Absolutely - John 4:42 and 1 John 4:14 say that specifically:
"And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent the Son as Savior of the world."
So if Jesus is the savior of the world, then that must mean the whole world is saved, right? or does Savior mean something different here? Or does world mean something different?
to expound upon my previous answer...Jesus is also the Door, the Way, the Bread of Life - does that change because not everyone will go through the Door, follow the Way, or eat the Bread of Life? Of course not. He's still all of those things including Savior of the world. The opportunity stands for every human being to be saved - the only way they can be - through Jesus Christ - thus He is the Savior of the world.
But it doesn't make Jesus any less the only Way, or any less the Savior of the world, because some reject Him.
Similarly some reject God as creator - but God is still the creator.
No sir, you said that if Jesus did something for the world (like atone for sins), then he did it for every single person in the world, and you said that anyone who says otherwise is contradicting himself.
Therefore, If Jesus atoning for the world means that every single person is atoned for, then Jesus being the Savior of the world must mean that every single person is saved.
Either doing something for the world means doing it for every single person or it doesn't. It can't be both ways. Shall I just suspend my disbelief?
The Bible clearly calls Jesus 'Savior of the world', while also clearly indicating that not every person will be saved. John and other Bible authors don't appear to have any problem with that.
Christ did atone for all, but again, unless men "everywhere repent", Christ's death is no effect for them as Paul stated in Corinthians:
"For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect."
Obviously the gospel must be preached, Paul says, or the cross of Christ could be made of no effect. Surely the gospel must not only be preached, but believed on as well?
In Romans 5 he states:
"...Christ died for the ungodly."
Christ's death was for all, He is man's only hope, the Savior of the world indeed - but salvation comes to everyone who repent and believe. (Jn. 3:16, Mark 16:16)
As a side note, I may find out someday that my system of theology could be wrong - but it wouldn't shake my faith one bit or bum me out one bit if I found my doctrine to be off - how about you?
Oh no, I've made quite a habit of learning my doctrine is wrong. I've come to find it quite comfortable. As I've said in the past, to concede is to have learned.
No contradiction at all. The Bible clearly calls Jesus 'Savior of the world', while also clearly indicating that not every person will be saved. John and other Bible authors don't appear to have any problem with that.
Precisely the point. Likewise, the Bible clearly says that God is loving and righteous while also clearly indicating that chooses some men for salvation and hardens others. None of the biblical authors appear to have any problem with that.
Christ did atone for all, but again, unless men "everywhere repent", Christ's death is no effect for them
Exactly. And likewise, God freely offers that all who believe and repent will be saved, but unless God has chosen them and given them faith, his offer is of no effect to them.
39 comments:
I don't answer true/false questions asked by law students. You are always wrong no matter how you answer ;-)
Perhaps I should just answer "Yes".
Hey, that's the right answer...which means that you were wrong about being wrong...which I guess means that you were right about law students.
Oh well, stick around and help me with Eric who's about to give the right wrong answer.
Yes, God can do whatever He wants to.
He is more than able to save every human being, that's why He's extended the offer to every human being.
But the reason every human being isn't saved doesn't mean that God is somehow less powerful or powerless to save them - it means that God has given mankind a choice.
That Jesus could of, but didn't rescue Himself on the cross wasn't a knock on His omnipotence - even though some bystanders around the cross accused Him of being unable to save Himself. In a similar vein, God issued a call for all to repent and be saved - when all don't respond, it doesn't diminish Him or His desire for all to be saved.
There is far to many scripture issuing worldwide, every-man calls to repentance to negate God's unlimited atonement.
Can God even save a man who has chosen not to be saved?
Can God save Satan, the Demons or the Pharisaic Apostate after they have been cast into the lake of fire? You did ask whoever and whenever.
"Unlimited Atonement". That's the "U" in TULIP, right?
- Fisher
Good question, Fisher. I don't know. I think he could if he wanted to, but maybe this falls into the "making a rock so big he can't pick it up" category.
I suspect you're joshin' about the U, but just in case you're not, it stands for unconditional election. The L stands for limited atonement.
The statement is neither true or false. It is at best imprecise and at worst, misleading.
How about, "God has saved whomever He wanted when He wanted."
or "God will save whomever He chooses at the time He has chosen.
The statement has two variables, the first is regarding God's ability, which is infinite and limited only by His own character character. The second variable regards God's interaction with time.
I must believe that God's interactions in time and space are not capricious or responsive, but according to His predetermined plan. We are the ones who do the responding as God's plan unfolds in time.
Helpful clarification; thanks, Steve. My intent was to focus upon the first variable; the second was more of an afterthought.
WOULD God save a man that has chosen not to be saved?
By the way, what does it look like for a man to chose not to be saved?
*choose*
LU, I kind of wonder myself what such a thing looks like. I guess what I'm really after is this: DOES God CAUSE men to choose to be saved.
Philippians 2:13 - if this speaks concerning His adopted children, why would we expect his enemies to be more capable of willing and doing for His good pleasure?
- Fisher (yes, I was Josh'n)
but what I'm wondering, is whose wife she'll be in the resurrection? (ba-da-dump - thank you, I'll be here all weekend ;^)
Brad to answer your question - God's Spirit is constantly striving with all mankind. That's why Jesus said: "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned."
The Holy Spirit will use the Gospel message to soften hearts. Men either believe it or reject it. Jesus didn't seem to indicate anything else than that.
Paul said in Acts 17: "The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent"
If Paul believed in LA, why would He say this? Why would the Holy Spirit cause Him to say this when, according to LA, all people, everywhere don't need to repent because some don't even have a chance to go to heaven anyway? I suppose LA proponents would add "some of all people, most everywhere" to try to solve this dilemma, but that would be making the Bible say something it doesn't.
Peter, in his sermon on the Day of Pentecost said to the crowd of multiple thousands: "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." Note his "every one of you" statement.
Was Peter speaking for God or John Calvin here? If it was for Calvin, he would have said, 'repent and be baptized the ones here who have been selected...'
The preponderance of scriptural evidence, like above - is too abundant to ignore.
With LA, I almost feel like there is a big hammer trying to hammer scripture into a doctrinal framework that seems esteemed even over the Word of God.
Eric,
Perhaps we're not understanding one another. I believe with all my heart in God's universal call to repentence, but I'm not seeing how that disproves limited atonement.
Maybe my system is getting in the way again, but it seems to me that someone who goes to hell does so because his sins haven't been atoned for. You think otherwise?
brad, i don't think your system is getting in the way, i think eric is pleading to a different argument.
btw, i think we can say that God cannot save Satan or fallen demons. Christ took on HUMAN flesh so He could be the human sin substitute. this is why angels stoop down to look into these things...they can't comprehend reconciliation.
for God to propitiate the sin penalty of angels, their would have to be an angelic/divine payment. Christ died once for sin and is forever the God/Man, so He isn't an option to take on angelic form. Perhaps the Holy Spirit could come in that sense, but this would place Him into a somewhat sonship role, causing greater problems. not only that, but He would not be able to be born of an angel, since angels aren't born. perhaps that rabbit trail only muddied things up.
i think you guys may have a difficult time working through your question, brad, on the blogosphere. as eric has mentioned, he has a plethora of texts he believes present a problem for your viewpoint. however, i would argue that there are far more texts that present a problem for his. therefore, these are the kinds of conversations that typically need to be had in person.
but until then, i'll benefit from watching the conversation.
Hey, I invited him to breakfast, but he slept in and left me alone with Mohler.
I do think you're right about the shortcomings of the medium, but it's much better than nothing, which is what I'd be getting without it.
Brad - actually I was supposed to have a last minute appt. with someone else that morning but they canceled on me too late for me to show up for breakfast - please forgive me - I'll say three hail Mary's to atone ;^)
My problem is - the Bible's universal call to repentance that we apparently both agree on - doesn't make any sense whatsoever if it's not possible for everyone to be saved. Do you see my point?
In other words, why would God indicate that all can be saved - but not really mean it?
I believe all sin in general has been atoned for (how otherwise could we declare to everyone the good news that Jesus died for them, then?) - but my personal sin remains as a blockage (for a lack of a better term) between God and me until I do the Biblical 'repent and believe' thing. That sin has been atoned for, now makes it a possibility for all to be saved.
Maybe I am debating another direction, my apologies if I am...
oh - to weigh in on angels being saved - satan included - they aren't eligible for this wonderful gift!
I absolve you. Dave and I were so disappointed, we only talked for three and a half hours.
With respect to the atonement, do you really believe that the already damned have had their personal sins atoned for? And if not, mustn't you say that the atonement is, in at least some sense, limited?
How do you feel, perhaps, about the formulation: "sufficient for all, efficient for some?" Or how about "Limited (Actual) Atonement?"
Brad - let's approach this from scripture. I sort of let your comment about 2 Peter 3:9 slide - let me revisit this scripture, because honestly 'how I feel' is irrelevant ;^)
You stated that this verse was talking to the elect only.
But yet his phrase "longsuffering to us-ward" cannot be addressed to only the elect. It must include all mankind. If not, the phrase that follows "not willing that any should perish" must apply to only the elect. But that second statement can only mean all mankind since it refers to a perishing that certainly doesn't endanger the elect.
So there are two possibilities - this is in reference to either: perishing under the penalty of sin or escaping that penalty by repenting; OR, perishing in the fire that will destroy the world or escaping it. Certainly, perishing in a world destroying fire is no more applicable to the saved than perishing under the penalty of sin.
I get that 2 Peter is addressed to the 'elect', but that doesn't keep Peter from talking about God's desire to see the whole world saved - including the fate of unbelievers.
Peter is not speaking to mankind in general in his letter, but he is certainly not speaking ONLY about the elect in his letter either.
Is it the elect who are the last day scoffers? Is it the elect who perished in the flood? Likewise is it the elect to whom God is longsuffering, less they perish in the coming judgment?
Furthermore, if you believe in 'irresistable grace' that claims that God can make anyone get saved any time He wants - why would longsuffering even need to be mentioned, if talking about the elect? That would be quite odd to say the least.
Something else strange with your interpretation of this passage then, is the redundancy: God is not willing that any of those He has sovereignly elected not to perish to perish? And He is longsuffering to accomplish this goal?
Come on now bro - that argument is neither logical nor sustainable.
I will get to your points, but before we change subjects again:
Do you believe that those now in hell have had their sins atoned for?
I think I answered this already - but, Christ has died for the sins of the entire world, period (Jn. 3:16). But if a person doesn't repent and believe, they can't be saved.
How can they be in hell if their sins are atoned for?
And by the way, I found someone who agrees with your universal interpretation of 2 Peter 3:9.
"the Lord defers his coming that he might invite all mankind to repentance... he does not hasten the end of the world, in order to give to all time to repent... So wonderful is his love towards mankind, that he would have them all to be saved, and is of his own self prepared to bestow salvation on the lost...God is ready to receive all to repentance, so that none may perish."
"how can they be in hell if their sins were atoned for?"
Mark 16:16 - He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
Per Christ's own words it's because they didn't believe.
btw, is that citation from a Catholic commentary? Not sure that is saying what I'm saying...
No, it's Calvin.
lol - well he was heavily influenced by Augustine ;^)
Yes indeed.
Well, I have to yield for the night. I'm sure your head and your wall are as worn out as mine are.
Hopefully I'll be able to reengage before long.
God bless!
Bless you to bro!
Since you bring up that Calvin quote ;^)....something interesting I've noticed as I've studied this topic that last couple months is that I have found many conflicting statements like that from some Calvinists in their writings.
I've read statements from Calvin, Spurgeon, James White and John MacAurthur that either completely contradict their five point(?) stands, or I find that they suddenly adopt astonishing reasoning where they seemingly expect the reader to have a suspension of disbelief.
MacArthur, who is one of my favorite authors, btw, I've noticed particularly - in his commentary on 1 Timothy 4:10 (White omits referrence to this verse btw) actually gets this verse right by pointing out the universality of salvations offer - which belies his belief that Christ died only for the elect - this clearly contradicts other statements he makes in other writings.
One of Spurgeon's most famous sermons, in fact, apparently has had some 5 pointers up in arms - but we see the evangelists passion coming out in Spurgeon as he calls for all men everywhere to repent, which, again, would belie other statements he made.
Just an interesting observation...
Btw, just a quick, short verse for you related to your above question about those in hell having their sin atoned for:
2 Peter 2:1: "there shall be false teachers...denying the Lord that bought them." These teachers are clearly lost - yet the Lord bought them by His blood - discuss ;^)
Eric,
I’ve noticed that every so often you seem to treat your own inability to reconcile two statements as absolute proof that one of them isn’t true. I agree that we all should strive for coherence and consistency in our understanding of the scriptures, but have you ever considered the possibility that these men you mention (with apparent respect) might have solidly biblical ways of reconciling their views that you don’t quite yet understand? Does your difficulty in seeing how some of their statements fit together really prove them to be contradictory?
I think you're right. 2 Peter 2:1 does say that the Lord bought these false teachers. The most reasonable inference is that he bought them with his blood. It would be difficult not to conclude, therefore, that the power of Christ's blood does have some effect even upon some unsaved men.
I suspect that our real disagreement on Limited Atonement is simply the result of our both having different definitions of "atonement."
Let me ask you this one, is Christ the Savior of the world?
Well on the men I mentioned - it just can't be both ways. Jesus can't be the Savior of the world, and the Savior of only the elect at the same time - their way of reconciling (when it's offered) goes the way of 'suspension of disbelief' by having the reader believe that the word "world", for example, happens to mean only the elect in one particular verse when there is no way the Greek supports that.
The effect of Christ's blood has a potential effect on every human being if they will repent and believe (Rm. 10:9-10).
Do I believe Jesus is the Savior of the world? Absolutely - John 4:42 and 1 John 4:14 say that specifically:
"And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent the Son as Savior of the world."
So if Jesus is the savior of the world, then that must mean the whole world is saved, right? or does Savior mean something different here? Or does world mean something different?
Of course not - don't you believe that people must repent and believe in order to be saved?
to expound upon my previous answer...Jesus is also the Door, the Way, the Bread of Life - does that change because not everyone will go through the Door, follow the Way, or eat the Bread of Life? Of course not. He's still all of those things including Savior of the world. The opportunity stands for every human being to be saved - the only way they can be - through Jesus Christ - thus He is the Savior of the world.
But it doesn't make Jesus any less the only Way, or any less the Savior of the world, because some reject Him.
Similarly some reject God as creator - but God is still the creator.
No sir, you said that if Jesus did something for the world (like atone for sins), then he did it for every single person in the world, and you said that anyone who says otherwise is contradicting himself.
Therefore, If Jesus atoning for the world means that every single person is atoned for, then Jesus being the Savior of the world must mean that every single person is saved.
Either doing something for the world means doing it for every single person or it doesn't. It can't be both ways. Shall I just suspend my disbelief?
No contradiction at all.
The Bible clearly calls Jesus 'Savior of the world', while also clearly indicating that not every person will be saved. John and other Bible authors don't appear to have any problem with that.
Christ did atone for all, but again, unless men "everywhere repent", Christ's death is no effect for them as Paul stated in Corinthians:
"For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect."
Obviously the gospel must be preached, Paul says, or the cross of Christ could be made of no effect. Surely the gospel must not only be preached, but believed on as well?
In Romans 5 he states:
"...Christ died for the ungodly."
Christ's death was for all, He is man's only hope, the Savior of the world indeed - but salvation comes to everyone who repent and believe. (Jn. 3:16, Mark 16:16)
As a side note, I may find out someday that my system of theology could be wrong - but it wouldn't shake my faith one bit or bum me out one bit if I found my doctrine to be off - how about you?
Oh no, I've made quite a habit of learning my doctrine is wrong. I've come to find it quite comfortable. As I've said in the past, to concede is to have learned.
No contradiction at all. The Bible clearly calls Jesus 'Savior of the world', while also clearly indicating that not every person will be saved. John and other Bible authors don't appear to have any problem with that.
Precisely the point. Likewise, the Bible clearly says that God is loving and righteous while also clearly indicating that chooses some men for salvation and hardens others. None of the biblical authors appear to have any problem with that.
Christ did atone for all, but again, unless men "everywhere repent", Christ's death is no effect for them
Exactly. And likewise, God freely offers that all who believe and repent will be saved, but unless God has chosen them and given them faith, his offer is of no effect to them.
I feel the need to continue looking like I'm blogging as well - So how about giving me a home game bro!
Post a Comment