if all sin of the elect is paid for in the cross why are the calvinist elect not sinless.
you convince me that calvinism is rank heresy. i dont deny that you are as christian as the rest of us but you cannot know God personally when you so grossly misrepresent Him.
I am done here, your idolatrous commitment to the doctrine of a tyrant will not be shifted even by me for spiritual truth is spiritually discerned
christ paid or my sin of unblief, and i am no calvinist. in personal relationship with the Spirt he, as my wonderful counsellor, is leading me to repent of my sin by personal persuasion, on the basis of the sacrifice of the cross. the cross did not remove my sin, tha is magical thinking, but it is the purchase price foe the couhselling tehSpirit gives me peronally
my free will is not anaddtion to salvation but a manifestation of it when lead by the Spirit
a skin paid for is a sin removed? if this is so then surely ALL calvinists are sinless. but if not all sins are removed as the paying for it (redemption) is different from the removal of htem (sanctification) then oine can have one's sin ands it still be there, ie unbelief.
if christ paid for all the sins of the elect then they do not sin. if sin remains either christ did not pay for them or he paid for the sins of sinners who atill sin, ie ALL
when it coimes to works related pelagianism, theology is as we do not as we argue about. so when anyone is legalist he has forsaken christ so is pelagian. any hard working striving calvinist trying to show he is of the elect is a pelagian in how he lives as the rest of us: and we are a;l; pelagain if wer are carnal and take our religion seriously
jesus paid for the sins of EVERYBODY but the offer MUST be accepted personally. actually it is calvinism that leads to universalism if it is to escape the charge that God plays favourites. but that atonement is limited repudiates the truth that god is nit willing that ANY should perish.
the sins are paid for but not removed. THAT Comes with sanctification which come s from relationship with God.
calvinists make accepting christ a legalistic work to reject it
To attempt to answer John Owen: I pose a question. Where is the Scripture that clearly states that the Lord Jesus died ONLY for the 'elect'? Does the Lord wish for some to perish? Can it be that for those who 'choose' Christ, in their freely chosen response to the Spirit of God, the Lord ONLY then will do all He can to keep those who choose Him in His love? If so, then what our Lord said according to the apostle John makes sense.
excellent video...clarifies a few more issues for me. ...I really love the doctrines of grace...LaneCh thanks for all the videos...they have helped to establish a more clear and sound biblical understanding of God's work of redemption as I am relatively new to Calvin's understanding. :)
I always wander because I know I do not believe in Limited Atonement as those who know me know I claim Calvinism. I somewhat see Limited Atonement based on that which is against the five points of Arminianism. The problem I have is teaching limited atonement because those they disagreed with taught unlimited atonement. To me this is where they erred as they should have looked at everypoint in light of the scriptures. Ido believei n Limited Atonement but it isnever God who limits it but humanity.
what john owen said make sense! suppose that the blasphemy against the holy spirit is ubelief, and that Christ didnt die for it because is the unforgiveable sin! then how are the people that is been and will be saved, saved? if these people were skeptic one time?the answer can only be that the blasphemy against the holy spirit is not the same as unbelief OR that it is but this unforgiveable sin is supassed by God in time.
what john owen said make sense! suppose that the blasphemy against the holy spirit is ubelief, and that Christ didnt die for it because is the unforgiveable sin! then how are the people that is been and will be saved, saved? if these people were skeptic one time?the answer can only be that the blasphemy against the holy spirit is not the same as unbelief OR that it is but this unforgiveable sin is supassed by God in time.
Unbelief is not blasphemy of the Spirit. Read the context of Mark 3; the Pharisees were attributing the works of the Spirit through Christ to Satan:
-
The scribes who came down from Jerusalem were saying, "He is possessed by Beelzebul," and "He casts out the demons by the ruler of the demons." (Mark 3:22)
-
Therefore, according to the text, blasphemy of the Spirit is attributing the Spirit's works to Satan.
"The Holy Spirit persuades and enables men to accept Christ and enjoy the saving benefits of the gospel [John 16:8; 1 Corinthians 2:12-14; Acts 7:51], but if anyone refuses to submit to the Spirit's gracious constraint, preferring to call good evil and evil good, how can the gospel avail for him? The deliberate refusal of the grace of God is the one sin which by its very nature is irremediable" [F.F. Bruce, Answers to Questions
The Holy Spirit doesn't try to save and fail. That is unbiblical. Those whom God calls, He justifies, said Paul in Romans 8. Justification will happen as a result of the call.
-
I am not convinced of Bruce's statement if he is saying unbelief is the blasphemy of the Spirit. Mark tells you what the blasphemy is: "but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin"-- BECAUSE THEY WERE SAYING "HE HAS AN UNCLEAN SPIRIT" (Mark 3:29-30)
In any case, that doesn't answer the argument in this video. You're left with a pretzel of an argument in which you state that Jesus died for the sin of unbelief but not for the sin of CONTINUAL unbelief, even though He died for every other sin of that person who has continual unbelief. I think that such an argument is clearly trying to appease a philosophical belief rather than honestly trying to line up with Scripture.
here's Calvin's take on it...is he an authority you'll submit too?
"I say, therefore, that he sins against the Holy Spirit who, while so constrained by the power of divine truth that he cannot plead ignorance, yet deliberately resists, and that merely for the sake of resisting."
Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion Book III Chapter III Section 22
The argument's premise is flawed, as I stated earlier. You're welcome to maintain your TULIP's L, but please don't think for a moment this argument props it up at all,
The authority I submit to is Scripture, not Calvin. In any case, as I already said, either view of the blasphemy of the Spirit doesn't change the argument in the video. You said in your other comment that the premise is flawed: prove it. You simply saying it is utterly worthless. And you didn't respond to my criticism of your position that I unfolded in my previous comment. Come now! Either address the issues or do not respond with empty words.
JESUS himself said that he lays down his life for HIS SHEEP. If his sheep consisted of every person that ever lived then why didn't Jesus say that he was laying down his life for everyone. Nowhere in the scriptures does Jesus say he was going to the cross to save everyone. He said he was saving all that the Father has given him, and that none would be cast out. But nowhere does Jesus say he was dying for everyone. Great video, by the way.
As far as Irrisitable grace, I believe this but not in the way most teach it. I believe those called are the elect. The elect will be saved when called. Me, I somewhat see Godjustifying or whatever many teach happens so man can now accept Christ without sin inhabiting. Me, I tend to think we are weak against sin-dead because of it. God is greater then sin. God is stronger than sin thus why I disagree with IG as taught God justifying(not sure which comes first) is God is not powerless
The knowledge the Synod of Dort had I am not aware of what they had compared to today. In other words, judging based on what we know today compared to the knowledge they had would be a bit merciless. Yet, this does not again allow error. As I see it, it would be better to define truth as from the scriptures and not because those they disagreed with taught. For me, this makes quite a bit eisegetical. I would point to John 3:16 as Calvin would disagree with many today who claim Calvinism
Lain, you know I love your ministry and often am challanged, inspired, chastized, and educated by many of your videos. what I think, often times, anti-Calvinists use the type of reasoning tenfold worst compared to Calvinists. This does nbot excuse error from us. Using logic as did Spurgeon and I also believe those in Dort err in a similar way. Limited Atonement and Irrisistable grace I see as being against Arminianism. For me, I see this as bad but with the knowledge they had
who is the person between about 1:30-2:35? recognize the voice from childhood, but don't remember his name. think i remember him from some live broadcasts long before cable tv was around when i still lived in southern california.
The concept of God is a proposterous, mind-shrinking falsehood. It teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world we live in. If the religiously-minded got their own way they would scrap all future scientific endeavour and dismantle such things as the Hubble Telescope because it undermines their very position. In short, science makes a mockery of their lives.
Read John Goodwin's Redemption Redeemed. He refutes this strangely worded argument and as a contemporary of John Owen he refutes all arguments on limited atonement. This is a classic work from an era when doctrine was thoroughly studied and expounded on.
Mark 9:45 "And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:" Whosover that believes that only some are predestined, please, address if Mark 9:45 is directed towards the predestined of your view or the people that are not predestined in your view, or both.
"Strange! that no one has ever been persecuted by the church for believing God bad, while hundreds of millions have been destroyed for thinking him good. The orthodox church will never forgive the Universalist for saying, "God is love." It has always been considered one of the very highest evidences of true and undefiled religion that all men, women and children deserve eternal damnation. It has always been heresy to say, "God will at last save all."
nogogma: "The church" believes "God bad"!?! An odd notion. Who does Intgersoll point to as "the church" anyway? And how does he get his numbers of the destruction of "hundreds of millions"? But if we go with them, it seems that many WOULD deserve eternal damnation. Intgersoll is implying, is he not, that religious minded people, who believe in hell, destroy people who think God good? Hmmm. I'd say with THAT kind of religious killing going on, hell would be the perfect place for such persons.
Bible Gawd isn't about justice. The Gawd of the babble is a freaking blood thirsty cosmic tyrant. Christianity is not the religion of love. It's the religion of fear, hate and blood. It's pure insanity and stupidity.
The God of the bible isn't a God of justice. Sending people to hell is not characteristic of justice. Justice also must include fairness. Hell is not about fairness nor justice. It is characteristic of a tyrant. Believe or burn forever.
Actually it's sad that in this day and age religion and Christianity is still around. It should be looked upon as fiction a long long time ago. Ignorance and gullibility will not die any time soon.
400 ad The Catholics took the 49 Original Books of the bible chopped them up into 66 then scrambled the books to hide the Truth from even their Priest, You can now order a restored bible at Amazon Books and Century one books (Coulter) 1-800-852-8346, put the bible back in Gods order read the Bible as a Progressive book and the Answer becomes Clear, Last Revelation dealing with eternal salvation, Ephesians, Phil, Col, 1st and 2nd Timothy, All saved at predestinated time, Faith is Gift, Calling is
The video's objection to the Remonstrant theory of the atonement is that it would mean either that unbelief is not sinful or that Jesus didn't die for the "sin of unbelief" (and so that he did not in fact die for all sins of all men). I believe I have characterized the video's argument fairly, without snarl words, etc. [Continuing...]
[..Continued from above, or below, or however this gets formatted] But it's simply a non-sequitur; The Remonstrants can maintain that unbelief is sinful and that unbelief does in fact prevent one's salvation, even if Jesus died for all the sins of all men, because they do *not* claim that it is the (granted) fact of unbelief's sinfulness that impairs salvation, but rather some other fact about unbelief.
The premise of the video is that if unbelief is a sin and Jesus died for all the sins of everyone, why doesn't everyone go to heaven since all their sins are paid for? How that is a non-sequitur is beyond me.
The belief being objected it is that Jesus died for all the sins of all men BUT THAT not all men are saved, as faith (belief, whatever) is required. Since the view is *not* that the sin of unbelief is unforgiven (unbelief disqualifies one from salvation for reasons other than the fact of its sinfulness), the argument is either flailing away at a straw-man or drawing a non-sequitur.
If you believe that Jesus atoned for all the sins of all men then there is no need for a man to be born again since the atonement has been made and there are no sins to be punished for.
There are many misrepresentations of the Arminian position within this video, which sadly, seems to be a common feature of Calvinist materials.
Is unbelief a sin? Yes it is a sin. As long a person continues in unbelief, he is condemned in his sins. When he respondes to the prevenient grace of God and repents of his sins, he is forgiven of his sins.
The point is to show that general atonement (the belief that Jesus died for everyone who ever has and ever will live) is wrong. If Jesus died for every sin of every person, people should not be going to Hell. The Ariminian will then respond that people go to Hell because of their unbelief. The question in turn raised by the Calvinist is "Is unbelief a sin?". Since it is a sin, then Jesus died for that sin too. Thus general atonement is turned on its head. For the rest, read the description box.
If you read Matthew 18:23-35 you see that someone who has been forgiven an unpayable debt can have their forgiveness revoked. Jesus could have died for all men and all their sins forgiven. Their forgiveness is revoked when they reject the light of God and Christ and harden their hearts against God or reject the gospel outright. Romans 11:17-23 also speaks of being grafted in and cut off according to ones own faith. And yes, Romans 11 is talking about salvation evidenced by verses 14 & 26.
The parable in Matthew 18 doesn't say anything about forgiveness being revoked. It speaks of God's discipline and punishment of those with an unforgiving heart. And the tree in Romans 11 represents the Abrahamic covenant to which both Jews and Gentiles enjoy the blessing of. It speaks of the removal from the place of privilege and blessing, not removal from salvation.
Matt 18 is about our unpayable sin debt to God. He forgave us and expects us to forgive others as God has forgiven us (the parallel to the Lords prayer is clear) but if we do not, we move back into a position of having to pay our sin debt off which is unpayable by us. So the forgiveness no longer applies. Jesus said God can and will do this! It also said we will be handed over until WE pay the debt off! WE cannot pay our debt to God apart from Christ so the punishment is eternal.
Yes,God commands us to forgive others,and the parable teaches this. But the unforgiving servant isn't pictured as one losing his salvation,he is pictured as being punished: "And his lord...handed him over to the torturers until he should repay all that was owed him." In the parable,he is punished until his debt is paid in full, picturing the severity and justice of God's discipline. You're pressing the imagery of the story when you try to say "he can't pay the debt off because of such and such".
So just that I am understanding you correctly, you would say Matthew 18 is not about a man owing an debt to God that can't be paid, nor is it about God forgiving this man a debt and later placing this debt back on this man to repay. So can we pay God back our debt we owe Him? Apparently you think we can. We don't need to be forgiven by God, we can just work our debt off. Interesting.
You are just refusing to understand Matthew 18. Study the Scripture. There should be no need for me to continually spoon feed to you such a simple parable since you judge yourself so knowledgeable of divine doctrine.
I didn't answer the questions in that comment because, as seen from your questions, you obviously didn't understand my response to your last comment about Matt. 18, which is why I said "you are refusing to understand (or believe) what Matthew 18 is teaching", rather willing to try to force Arminian theology into the passage.
Oh wow, force Arminian theology into it? You are simply not reading the passage and letting it speak for itself. It's not ambiguous. Your view makes Matthew mean nothing other than punishment for the unforgiving person, yet you avoid the implications of the forgiveness granted by the king (God) and then revoked because the debt we owe Him is placed back on the man to pay. "Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us".
se, the parable was spoken in part in response to Peter's question(v 21)that Christ answered(v 22)and then proceeded to elaborate on in the parable(vs 23-35). The parable doesn't speak of salvation or a loss thereof. The parable is spoken to teach us to be forgiving to one another. However forgiving one another is not a condition of salvation; believers are,or should,be forgiving BECAUSE they are saved and the spirit of Christ dwells in them,but we don't forgive IN ORDER TO be(or stay)saved...
Never said we forgive to get saved. And I agree it shows the punishment of the unforgiving man. Yet you keep ignoring the stated fact that (v25) he was not able to pay the debt. What debt does God forgive us of? Jesus also said: Mark 11:25 "And whenever you stand praying, if you have anything against anyone, forgive him, that your Father in heaven may also forgive you your trespasses. 26 But if you do not forgive, neither will your Father in heaven forgive your trespasses."
When Jesus says if you don't forgive your neighbor your Father won't forgive you He is speaking of God not forgiving our sins to restore fellowship with Him in our Christian walk, not about God withholding forgiveness of sins whereby we are justified. Has God not already forgiven the sins of the believer when he is justified? What kind of Gospel are you believing in?
Say what? So according to you there is occasion for God not forgiving our sins in order to restore fellowship with Him but at the same time He has already forgiven us all our sins? Seems like a contradiction.
So when Jesus died for the elect's sins, are they born forgiven without need of justification by faith since Jesus already paid the price? If so, why is justification by faith required? Or is it that we do not personally benefit from the atonement until we believe and are justified.
Christians sin. When Christians sin they don't lose their salvation, meaning that if a Christian dies before having the chance to ask for forgiveness of a sin they committed, they will still go to Heaven because Jesus already paid for their sins and justified them. But when a Christian sins, he doesn't have fellowship with God in his walk....
..Do you ever notice (if you are saved) that you feel separated from God when you're in sin? That it is what I'm talking about. And if you don't forgive others, God won't forgive you so as to restore you from that condition. It is not an issue of salvation, it is an issue of fellowship with the Lord.
As for your other question, the elect aren't born forgiven, or else how or why would there be a second birth? The elect are chosen from before the foundation of the world to be saved, but they aren't saved from birth, they are saved when they are called by God to salvation and believe the Gospel.
...The parable shows the master's forgiveness of the servant and then shows the cruel servant not being forgiving of others, thus resulting in the punishment of the servant. Remember, this is a parable, a story that demonstrates a real life scenario to teach a spiritual lesson. What you are doing is taking this parable and reading into it and pressing the imagery in the parable that Jesus is using and coming up with a conclusion that the parable doesn't teach, nor intends to teach.
The context of Rom 11 is salvation! The Abrahamic covenant brought justification by faith to Gentiles as well as Jews. Read Rom 11, it is clearly about salvation. Rom 11:7 What then? Israel has not obtained what it seeks; but the elect have obtained it, and the rest were blinded.Rom 11:11 I say then, have they stumbled that they should fall?Certainly not! But through their fall, to provoke them to jealousy, salvation has come to the Gentiles. SALVATION, not a vague "blessing" is the context.
Listen, you can't just pick apart a few verses with tunnel vision and then say "this is the context!" when all the while not putting these verses together to see the point Paul is making when he's speaking of the removal of unbelieving Jews from the tree. He teaches that there is a partial hardening of Israel so that they will not believe the Gospel...
re: Rom 11. How does one take part of the "privilege and blessing" as you say, apart from salvation (which is by faith)? If those who are on are believers and those who are cut off are unbelievers then it makes it pretty clear what Paul is talking about. The context is Paul's concern for unbelieving Jews and how they will be saved. The analogy of being grafted onto the olive tree signifies justification by faith. Rom 11 speaks about salvation. Just read what it says. It's about salvation.
Same with Romans 11. You just don't seem to get it. Lest there be more confusion than there already is, allow me to explain: I'm not saying that those who are cut off are, or were, believers. They are obviously unbelievers who rejected the Messiah; they were never believers. They were hardened, as Paul teaches, and had not obtained grace. Thus I never said that one partakes of the blessings of the tree, the Abrahamic covenant, apart from salvation.
RE: Rom 11. I'm saying this passage is about those who have been cut off, those who are not elect and are blinded (Rom 11: 7) are not beyond redemption (v14) Paul hopes to provoke these non-elect, blinded by God to salvation (as he clearly states in Rom 11:13-14) through his work among the Gentiles. Read it carefully. Paul is trying to rouse his own countrymen, the very ones mentioned in verse 7, to salvation! He's saying don't count the castaway Jews as having no hope of salvation.
Paul says that he is trying to move fellow Jews to jealousy that they might believe. Paul knew that not all the Jews were reprobate (non-elect), for he himself was a Jew. Thus he labored that they might believe. But Paul also understood that there were Jews who were blinded and reprobate, as he also teaches in Romans 9.
If one is non-elect, he cannot be saved. That is why he is "non-elect"! Paul's point was "don't boast against Israel" because the nation will repent and be saved in the future.
Lets look at the text. Rom 11:5 at this present time there is a remnant according to the election of grace. At THIS time, not the future. Next: v7 the elect have OBTAINED IT, and the REST were blinded. Ok the Elect I get, but what about the "rest". What's their fate? v11 I say then, have THEY stumbled that THEY should fall? Certainly not! Who is "they". Are you saying the Elect stumbled? read v7 again if you think so. Those Paul seeks to save in v14 are the same "they" in v11 & the "rest" in v7
Ok, se, you aren't paying attention to my comments my friend. I SAID THAT in my last comment, that there were still Jews who were being saved in Paul's day. The rest who were blinded, which is the majority of Israel as a nation that rejected Christ, are blinded for a period but salvation will come to Israel (as a nation) in the end times....
Just like when Jesus said to the Jews in Matthew 23, "You shall not see Me until you say 'Blessed is He who comes in the name of the LORD' ", meaning that there will be a period where Israel as a nation(not the Jews that Jesus is immediately speaking to, since they never repented), but as a nation, will repent and believe the Lord....
..."They" (the unbelieving nation of Israel) haven't stumbled so as to fall, but so that salvation can come to Gentiles. They didn't stumble so as to FALL, meaning the Jewish people's rejection isn't beyond recovery, because salvation will come to Israel in the end times. You see?
Now you are ignoring context and reading dispensationalism into it. Paul said: Rom 11:13 For I speak to you Gentiles; inasmuch as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry if by any means I may provoke to jealousy those who are my flesh and save some of them.
Paul held out hope that HE could save some of them. How on earth could this be true if what he meant was they will all be lost except for some FUTURE Israel? Paul said those he knew THEN could be saved/grafted back on.
The point STILL is that those Paul held out hope for were those who, living AT THAT TIME had rejected Christ. They were non-elect and blind (v7) You have still not accounted for the fact that the text states it THESE whom Paul held out hope for, the NON ELECT. The ones who stumbled (v11) are those LIVING THEN, NOT SOME FUTURE PEOPLE. THOSE ARE THE ONES PAUL IS SEEKING TO ROUSE. Otherwise Paul was mistaken about those who already stumbled and they are indeed beyond hope! Paul was wrong?
11:7 What then? Israel has not obtained what it seeks; but the elect have obtained it, and the rest were blinded 11 I say then, have they stumbled that they should fall? Certainly not!
13 For I speak to you Gentiles; inasmuch as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry, 14 if by any means I may provoke to jealousy those who are my flesh and save some of them. 15 For if their being cast away is the reconciling of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?
..Because of their unbelief they are removed from the place of privilege and blessing,and Gentiles,of all people,are put in their place until "the fullness of the Gentiles has come in",and then "all Israel will be saved" and they will be grafted back in to their place of blessing in the covenant made to Abraham,that he and his descendants(believing Jews and Gentiles)will be blessed by God. The Abrahamic covenant itself isn't simply "justification by faith". Go back and read Gen chptrs 15 & 22.
The arminiest wants a salvation that they can boast about.They can claim that I could have accepted or rejected Jesus' sacrifice,I control God's will,He doesn't control my will.
Unbelief is a nasty word used to portray atheists as being intellectually hungry, as being believers in nothing, or as a back-handed parody implying we are undead, evil, or not worthy of life.
I go news for you:
Its SAFE to be an atheist.
Im intellectually satisfied as an atheist.
I believe in many other things than there are no gods!
There is not a choice, Christ's offer of a relationship is compulsory. It says "if you reciprocate my love for you I will grant you the gift of eternal life. If you choose not to, you will suffer unimaginable pain and anguish for all eternity, no matter how virtuous you were in life." Now, for the record, all of this is most certainly a moot point because it is all nonsense. When Christ died he ceased to exit, end of story. But if I did believe, how is it a just bargin? Answer: it is not.
That isn't my problem. You are here communicating in a forum in English with English speaking people. Everyone else seems to have some modicum of respect for the language, whether they are native speakers or not. Either assimilate or expect that someone will call you out on it.
Wow....ignorant AND illiterate. You're 2 for 2. On what evidence do you base the assertion that most atheists are bad people? Do you know any atheists? You might point to Stalin, and Stalin was certainly and atheist and an evil man. He also wore a mustache. Does that make all people who wear mustaches (like your mother) inherently evil? You are an ignorant stooge. If you wish to reply, please learn the English language first.
So, defending myself and those who share my scientific and evidence based belief system against your vicious attacks makes me a bad guy? What a display of hypocrisy. And, to your point about the prison population, in the United States it is about 80% Christian, about 12% Muslim and less than 1% atheist. In fact, Prisons are some of the most pious places in America. Atheists also have a far lower rate of divorce than members of all three major monotheistic religions. Statistics don't lie.
You show yourself to be intellectually dishonest when you bring up this "percentage of atheists to Christians in prison" argument. First, not everyone who says they are a Christian are indeed a Christian. For most people, going to church every once in a while or being baptized as a baby makes them a Christian. This is not correct. Thus, most people in the 80% you quote (assuming that statistic is correct in the first place) are not Christians. You must consider that in your statistics..
Secondly, you must also consider in your statistics that atheists are the overall minority in country, thus you wouldn't expect a large number of atheists in prison, or in most other general statistics. If the tables were turned and more people were atheists and the minority was the Christians (or those so called), it would be the atheists which would be the majority in the prisons. It's only logical. Thus your argument is a fail.
Absolute facts: Augustine, Spurgeon, Luther, Sproul, White, Calvin are all unsaved and going to Hell. Jesus paid for 100% of all sins, but you can't accept this atonement, if you don't accept it. Therefore, you will go to Hell if just like the Calvinist you don't access His atonement, for they refuse to repent and believe in Christ to be regenerated. A Calvinist boasts in assuming his regeneration (a selfish salvation) without genuine repentance and faith in Christ to then be saved by grace.
At 6:00 The "most grace-centered teaching on justification(he boasts)...it offers absolutey no room for boasting." If only you could see your contradiction. Besides, if it is so grace-centered than why does it teach men are predestined to hell? Calvanism is NOT biblical ----->The Lord does not delay His promise, as some understand delay, but is patient with you,not wanting any to perish, but all to come to repentance. 2 Pet 3:9
The teachings of men? Everyone has some view of Bible teachings, and it depends on the interpretation we adhere to. Simply put, Calvinism stands up the most against scrutiny because it leaves the Bible perfect with no contradictions.
Regarding 2 Peter 3:9, let me address it.
Let us begin by scrolling back up to verse 8. Who is he talking to? The beloved. Who are the beloved? Go back to the beginning of 1 Peter and we see Peter is writing to God's ELECT.
Furthermore, let's examine the word "some" and "any" in the Greek according to Strong's Concordance. We see that BOTH of these words point to the SAME exact Strong's number, which is 5100! Now this Greek word "tis" can be translated in that passage as follows: "The Lord is not willing certain ones to perish".
And just to push the envelope further, in case you are trying to convince yourself of a doctrine that is not in the text, let's examine the Greek word "pas" which is the word "all" in 2 Peter 3:9.
According to Strong's Concordance, this word rarely refers to all things individually, everywhere at all times. The Greek scholar even cited that as a footnote.
So in this case, the word "all" or "pas" translates as definition 2a. "Collectively; some of all types"
I John 2:2, "He is the propitiation for our sins: and not for our's only, but also for the sins of the whole world ." 1 Timothy 2:5,6 says, " The man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all...."I John 4:14, "And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world." John 3:17 says, " For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.".... Shall I continue?
I could dissect each of those scriptures and properly translate the words such as "all" and "world". For example, "kosmos" is the Greek word for "world" and actually refers to "of believers only" in the Greek.
Ready? The official Strong's Concordance actually cites these scriptures with the definition "of believers only":
As I mentioned before, the word "all" is "pas" in Greek. In context, the correct translation in that scripture you gave me is as follows: "Collectively; some of all types"
Here are the words of the author of the Greek lexicon, and what he himself wrote:
"The words "world" and "all" are used in some seven or eight senses in Scripture, and it is veryrarely the "all" means all persons, taken individually. The words aregenerally used to signify that Christ has redeemed some of all sorts-- some Jews, some Gentiles, some rich, some poor, and has notrestricted His redemption to either Jew or Gentile..."
Thanks for taking the time to explain your view. I definitely think your approach of using the Greek words merits more attention than a logical argument-especially since they can be made from both sides. Generally, I don't have much time to dig in Concordances or try to learn Greek so I esteem those that do. As far as plain-reading I can't make sense of verses like ... 1 Tim 4:10...the living God, who is the Savior of everyone, especially of those who believe. with a Calvinist bent.
I respect your views, but neither of us are infallible. I guess we'll see who was right when we get to Heaven. It'll be interesting... Well God bless you, I can tell you are a man of God.
Just remember though, the manuscripts weren't written in English. The Greek language is so expressive that many English words cannot accurately represent them in the truest manifestation. I guess that's why they call it Bible study...
Thanks for the suggestion. I don't see seminary in my future for a few reasons.
1. I dont want to be like people who come from seminary
2. I dont charge money for my services
3. I dont have or save money
4. I believe seminary corrupts many and others, who have been through seminary, agree with me.
Thanks for your accusation about emotionalism. I'll suggest you risk your life for spreading the gospel, and do 40-day fasts, before you consider another person who does so of "emotionalism" PEACE.
Thanks, I am actually planning on doing a 40 day fast. I am rather young, so I have a whole life ahead of me. I didn't mean to attack you, I just wanted to propose the idea that God's Word is infinitely complex. Even I don't claim to know His full truth, and I don't think anyone can. All I am saying is to love the Lord with all your mind, and seek to honor Him in that area as much as possible. I once thought I knew it all as well. God bless.
And why would you assume such things of all people that go to a seminary? It can be of great value and knowledge... Many of them are corrupt, but some are definitely of God. And anywhere you do there are obviously false converts and hypocrites...
Oh yeah, and I do plan on risking my life for the gospel. Amen to that. Thanks for the suggestion. My life is worth nothing.
I think that is great that you are planning an extended fast and risking your life. May God bless you as you seek and serve Him. I would say that I disagree with you on the Calvinism, though my views have not always been so. Much of my, doctrine is formed on studying the Word and in-the-field experience. Contrary, to what u might think(infer),I don't think I know much. Have you completed seminary? I am not saying nothing good can come from it, just, that it is not for me.
I apologize if I was harsh, as my knowledge of the Bible can sometimes get to my head. And this in itself is deceiving, because honestly I know I don't know much, and I should read the Bible more than I currently do.
I thank you for your kind words, and I don't think anyone should divide the body of Christ over such issues...
I actually am a hypocrite you see. I haven't even started seminary, lol. But I do have a hunger for truth and God's Word understood to the greatest extent.
Don't worry about it. =) I'm glad we "met"- its always good to find someone on-fire for the Lord and hungry for the truth of God. Again, God bless you. (2 cor 13:14 or 13:13 if u read HCSB lol)
Anyway, I've always thought that 1 Tim 4:10 could either be interpreted Universally or like He "offers" it to everyone but is the Savior "especially" of those who believe because they actually attain(receive) it. Though I admit I haven't thought much about this. What are your thoughts?
"For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe." - 1 Timothy 4:10 (KJV)
Well on the surface it still seems to be referring to a specific group of people just as John 3:16 does in its "whosoever believeth".
Also note that if Christ was the savior of all men everywhere at all times, no one would go to Hell... We must also remember that belief is a gift, because the unregenerate are dead in sin
"As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep." - John 10:15
"No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day." - John 6:44
For a simpler way of defining the broader scriptures, the more specific ones are often used as a benchmark. And as we know, God's Word is perfect and has no contradictions.
Well, what specific group of people? It doesn't make sense to me, only the believers, because than it would read "Saviour of the believers, specially of those that believe." Well, it could depending on your theology, but I don't want to open a can of worms. I just see salvation as a gift that is available to everyone and certain people take advantage of it. This is not any less glorifying to God. Maybe I'll catch up with you later - its almost 4am my time. I'll send you a friend request.
Maybe I can put it for you in simpler terms. I see reading back on what I wrote it was unclear. Basically, Christ has offered salvation to everyone, but only those who believe (God's elect) are credited with the benefits. I would have to study this passage more though.
So Christ's death was sufficient for an infinite number of individuals, but only efficient for His children...
Yeah, but if we're gonna say that "Christ has offered salvation to everyone" than isn't Calvinism out the window?(Limited Atonement)
"So Christ's death was sufficient for an infinite number of individuals, but only efficient for His children" Yeah, I agree with the general idea though I don't subscribe to Calvinism or Arminianism. (btw How is Christs death sufficient for everyone if Limited atonement is true. Am I missing something?
And just so you know, Paul Washer is a Calvinist... I saw the video in your favorites, thought I'd let you know. It's definitely God's blessing what he's doing in other countries.
Belief is a gift, and no one would be able to believe if Christ did not enable us to. Regeneration precedes any seeking after Christ because we are DEAD in our trespasses and sins.
Jesus died for His elect, and did not waste His death on the unsaved. Do you claim God failed to save some people? Simply put, His death was sufficient for ALL, but only EFFICIENT for the elect.
This means the actual payment of His death was made to His elect. If Arminianism was true, everyone would be saved.
Actually, you're misunderstanding 1 John 2:2. The only other place in 1 John where the phrase "the whole world" is used is in 1 John 5:19 "The whole world lies under the power of the evil one." Being consistent with 1 John 2:2 then, we must conclude that all people past, present and future lie under the power of the evil one. Obviously this is not the case. Though the phrase "the whole world" is used in 5:19, it clearly excludes millions of people. Why can't it exclude millions of people in 2:2
Joh 1:9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
Rev 22:17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.
777, if I may, I would like to correct you on something: John 12:32 does indeed speak of election when Jesus speaks of drawing "all men". Allow me to explain: If you read verse 20 of John 12, you'll see that there were Greeks present when Jesus was speaking. Thus, it is both relevant and proper for Jesus to mention, in the presence of these Greeks hearing Him, that He will draw all men (not all men without exception, but all men without distinction, as in both Jew and Greek) to Himself.
...Then in verse 33, which states "This He said, signifying by what death He would die" is talking about the part in verse 32 where He speaks of being "lifted up", not where He speaks of drawing all men, especially since all men were not drawn to the crucifixion. Not even His apostles, save one, were there.
I just wanted to be helpful in explaining John 12:32 a little bit. :)
So although the work of atonement is full and complete,not all will secure it's blessings.
This will bear record to the evil and depraved nature of sin that is contrary to the holy nature of God throughout the ages.
Just as Cain stubbornly refused to do what is right after being directly confronted by God,so man will have only himself to blame when he is eternally banished from the presence of God who is life to weep with remorse and gnash his teeth like Esav who found no place for repentance.
They seem to forget about that one unforgivable sin. . . rejecting the holy spirit. Isn't that saying no to this gift? I would say that Christ did die for all sin, but there is a rejection of the gift of his sacrifice which is the blaspheming of the holy spirit. It is clear that this is why people are unforgiven with the logic of Arminianism. This arguement isn't completely sound on this video and they don't give the whole truth of the other side.
The blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is a lifelong of rejecting the gospel.
The forgivable kind of unbelief is temporary unbelief. This means that this person will not live continually in unbelief all the days of their life. This can be forgiven, and is paid for.
Therefore, if unbelief is a sin, and Christ died for everyone, why are not all of the people in the world saved?
Answer: Christ had to intervene to enable anyone to believe. Therefore, belief is a gift, and Christ died for His elect.
1 John 2:2 also doesn't mean that Jesus is the propitiation for everyone that's ever lived. The only other place the phrase "the whole world" is used in 1 John is 5:19 "The whole world lies under the power of the evil one." Clearly that doesn't mean everybody past, present and future. Rather, it excludes millions. Why can't 1 John 2:2 also exclude millions? Could the thought of "the whole world" convey "not JUST JEWS, but GENTILES EVERYWHERE"?
How long will you hold to that which is untrue and cast off the truth that is in Yahshua,to cherish that which is profane and evil in the heart of wicked vain foolish men?
O ye sons of men,How long will you turn my glory into shame?How long will you love what is worthless and seek after LIES? Selah.
Again it is written concerning those for whom hell was prepared,
"Then shall he say unto them on the left hand,Depart from me ye cursed into everlasting fire prepared for the DEVIL AND HIS ANGELS."
The old testament bears witness to the heart of God that vile men has spoken evil of,"And they/men have built the high places of tophet,which is in the valley of the sons of Hinnom/a type of hell to burn their sons and daughters in the fire which I commanded them not,neither came it into my heart.
Those who hold to the unscriptural doctrine of limited atonement are in direct contradiction before God,and man seeing they tout a belief that was conceived in the sinful wicked heart of man and not of God.
What God hath said concerning this matter,"As I live,saith the Lord YHWH,I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked but that the wicked turn from his way and live,turn ye,turn ye from your evil ways,for why will ye die?
Hear God plead for the wicked to be saved,does God speak in vain?
Christ died as an atonement for sin... not to pay for anybody's sins. That's why Calvinism is in serious error. An atonement is not a 1 for 1 exchange. The sufferings of Christ most certainly added to the merits of his work, which he gives away freely to all who believe in him. Arminianism is far closer to orthodoxy than Calvinism, which is just a steaming heap of nonsense.
God does not speak in the abstract here nor else where in scripture.Had Cain desired to do what is right,would he not have been accepted?
The cross of Messiah will be the center point of all eternity,in as much as it was here that God demonstrated his hatred for sin by manifesting his holy judgement upon sin,as well as his great love for sinners and his willingness to die for them in order that they might be justified and sanctified in the knowledge of the truth.
He that commits sin is of the devil,for the devil has been sinning from the beginning.
For THIS PURPOSE the Son of God was manifested that he might destroy the WORKS/SIN of the devil.
1 John 3:8
Again when Cain was approached by God after he had killed his brother,the LORD remonstrated to Cain.
If you do what is right shall you not be accepted,but if you do what is evil,sin is crouching at the door/of your heart and his desire is for you,but you must rule over him.
When the Son of God died upon the cross his payment for sin was so complete that it included all sin.
This does not make God unjust,nor does it have ought to do with unverisalism.
The very essence of sin was devoured and rendered null and void of its power,even as Moses rod bore witness to this when it devoured the serpent rods of Pharaoh's magicans.
Through death Yahashua destroyed him who had the power of death,even the devil.
Just because men cannot grasp this does not make it untrue.
except a man be born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.new birth is the word of God implanted by the Spirit in the mind and heart,when a person believes the message about Jesus and this is recieving him Jn1.v12 they are born again
if all sin of the elect is paid for in the cross why are the calvinist elect not sinless.
you convince me that calvinism is rank heresy. i dont deny that you are as christian as the rest of us but you cannot know God personally when you so grossly misrepresent Him.
I am done here, your idolatrous commitment to the doctrine of a tyrant will not be shifted even by me for spiritual truth is spiritually discerned
Strefanasha 1 month ago
christ paid or my sin of unblief, and i am no calvinist. in personal relationship with the Spirt he, as my wonderful counsellor, is leading me to repent of my sin by personal persuasion, on the basis of the sacrifice of the cross. the cross did not remove my sin, tha is magical thinking, but it is the purchase price foe the couhselling tehSpirit gives me peronally
my free will is not anaddtion to salvation but a manifestation of it when lead by the Spirit
Strefanasha 1 month ago
a skin paid for is a sin removed? if this is so then surely ALL calvinists are sinless. but if not all sins are removed as the paying for it (redemption) is different from the removal of htem (sanctification) then oine can have one's sin ands it still be there, ie unbelief.
if christ paid for all the sins of the elect then they do not sin. if sin remains either christ did not pay for them or he paid for the sins of sinners who atill sin, ie ALL
Strefanasha 1 month ago
@Strefanasha a "sin" paid for is a sin removed
I am no typist
Strefanasha 1 month ago
when it coimes to works related pelagianism, theology is as we do not as we argue about. so when anyone is legalist he has forsaken christ so is pelagian. any hard working striving calvinist trying to show he is of the elect is a pelagian in how he lives as the rest of us: and we are a;l; pelagain if wer are carnal and take our religion seriously
Strefanasha 1 month ago
it is straw man to think that arminians must be remonstrance, and misunderstanding the nature of "paying for the sin"
no, our faith is not conjured up by our effort, my faith arose by personal encounter with the Holy SPirit, as did Paul on the Damascus road
the thinking here is that mans free will is seen to and to salvation. this is nonsense.
i cannot boast of my free will choice for without the personal encounter with the Spirto of Christ it NEVER would have happened
Strefanasha 1 month ago
actually calvinist thinking is magical, rigid and legalist.
paying for a sin is not the same as removing it. paying for the sin permits God the SPirit to come to me to lead me to repent and thus remove it.
it is removed in personal relationship, paid for that ALL might receive.
calvinism is abstract, as I said.
the problem is solved when personal relationship with the Spirit is real. Without this the whole gospel falls apart in contradictions
Strefanasha 1 month ago
jesus paid for the sins of EVERYBODY but the offer MUST be accepted personally. actually it is calvinism that leads to universalism if it is to escape the charge that God plays favourites. but that atonement is limited repudiates the truth that god is nit willing that ANY should perish.
the sins are paid for but not removed. THAT Comes with sanctification which come s from relationship with God.
calvinists make accepting christ a legalistic work to reject it
Strefanasha 1 month ago
To attempt to answer John Owen: I pose a question. Where is the Scripture that clearly states that the Lord Jesus died ONLY for the 'elect'? Does the Lord wish for some to perish? Can it be that for those who 'choose' Christ, in their freely chosen response to the Spirit of God, the Lord ONLY then will do all He can to keep those who choose Him in His love? If so, then what our Lord said according to the apostle John makes sense.
010101zz 6 months ago
Excellent video. It's all 100% God, and 0% man. If God didn't save men then none would be saved.
DougCameraMan 6 months ago
excellent video...clarifies a few more issues for me. ...I really love the doctrines of grace...LaneCh thanks for all the videos...they have helped to establish a more clear and sound biblical understanding of God's work of redemption as I am relatively new to Calvin's understanding. :)
scooner67 7 months ago
I always wander because I know I do not believe in Limited Atonement as those who know me know I claim Calvinism. I somewhat see Limited Atonement based on that which is against the five points of Arminianism. The problem I have is teaching limited atonement because those they disagreed with taught unlimited atonement. To me this is where they erred as they should have looked at everypoint in light of the scriptures. Ido believei n Limited Atonement but it isnever God who limits it but humanity.
daveme7 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
what john owen said make sense! suppose that the blasphemy against the holy spirit is ubelief, and that Christ didnt die for it because is the unforgiveable sin! then how are the people that is been and will be saved, saved? if these people were skeptic one time?the answer can only be that the blasphemy against the holy spirit is not the same as unbelief OR that it is but this unforgiveable sin is supassed by God in time.
moniato89 1 year ago
what john owen said make sense! suppose that the blasphemy against the holy spirit is ubelief, and that Christ didnt die for it because is the unforgiveable sin! then how are the people that is been and will be saved, saved? if these people were skeptic one time?the answer can only be that the blasphemy against the holy spirit is not the same as unbelief OR that it is but this unforgiveable sin is supassed by God in time.
moniato89 1 year ago
"Unbelief" is the unforgivable sin, bro...blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, it's what results in eternal separation from God.
Jesus paid the price for all men's sins, but there is one even Jesus's sacrifice won't absolve.
Mark 3:29 "Whoever blasphemes against The Holy Spirit will never have forgiveness, but is guilty of everlasting sin"
The premises are faulty ,the argument assumes ALL types of sin may be atoned for.
rntlee 1 year ago
@rntlee
-
Unbelief is not blasphemy of the Spirit. Read the context of Mark 3; the Pharisees were attributing the works of the Spirit through Christ to Satan:
-
The scribes who came down from Jerusalem were saying, "He is possessed by Beelzebul," and "He casts out the demons by the ruler of the demons." (Mark 3:22)
-
Therefore, according to the text, blasphemy of the Spirit is attributing the Spirit's works to Satan.
AgApE010 1 year ago
@AgApE010 -What is the Holy Spirit's purpose in the world?
Is FF Bruce's opinion convincing for you?
cont.----->
rntlee 1 year ago
"The Holy Spirit persuades and enables men to accept Christ and enjoy the saving benefits of the gospel [John 16:8; 1 Corinthians 2:12-14; Acts 7:51], but if anyone refuses to submit to the Spirit's gracious constraint, preferring to call good evil and evil good, how can the gospel avail for him? The deliberate refusal of the grace of God is the one sin which by its very nature is irremediable" [F.F. Bruce, Answers to Questions
rntlee 1 year ago
@rntlee
-
The Holy Spirit doesn't try to save and fail. That is unbiblical. Those whom God calls, He justifies, said Paul in Romans 8. Justification will happen as a result of the call.
-
I am not convinced of Bruce's statement if he is saying unbelief is the blasphemy of the Spirit. Mark tells you what the blasphemy is: "but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin"-- BECAUSE THEY WERE SAYING "HE HAS AN UNCLEAN SPIRIT" (Mark 3:29-30)
AgApE010 1 year ago
@rntlee
-
In any case, that doesn't answer the argument in this video. You're left with a pretzel of an argument in which you state that Jesus died for the sin of unbelief but not for the sin of CONTINUAL unbelief, even though He died for every other sin of that person who has continual unbelief. I think that such an argument is clearly trying to appease a philosophical belief rather than honestly trying to line up with Scripture.
AgApE010 1 year ago
Ok,
here's Calvin's take on it...is he an authority you'll submit too?
"I say, therefore, that he sins against the Holy Spirit who, while so constrained by the power of divine truth that he cannot plead ignorance, yet deliberately resists, and that merely for the sake of resisting."
Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion Book III Chapter III Section 22
rntlee 1 year ago
The argument's premise is flawed, as I stated earlier. You're welcome to maintain your TULIP's L, but please don't think for a moment this argument props it up at all,
rntlee 1 year ago
@rntlee
-
The authority I submit to is Scripture, not Calvin. In any case, as I already said, either view of the blasphemy of the Spirit doesn't change the argument in the video. You said in your other comment that the premise is flawed: prove it. You simply saying it is utterly worthless. And you didn't respond to my criticism of your position that I unfolded in my previous comment. Come now! Either address the issues or do not respond with empty words.
AgApE010 1 year ago
Jesus paid it all, all to Him I owe, sin had left a crimson stain He washed it white as snow.
Nothing in my hands I bring, only to Thy cross I cling.
God is either omnipotent or He is not.
Salvation is of the LORD!
We will all agree that we are dead in the trespasses of sin until He redeems us.
Preach the Gospel to a corpse (we're dead). Get much response?
It takes the resurrection power of God to make us alive in Christ.
Salvation is only of the LORD,to the glory of HIS grace.
reginaDexant 1 year ago
JESUS himself said that he lays down his life for HIS SHEEP. If his sheep consisted of every person that ever lived then why didn't Jesus say that he was laying down his life for everyone. Nowhere in the scriptures does Jesus say he was going to the cross to save everyone. He said he was saving all that the Father has given him, and that none would be cast out. But nowhere does Jesus say he was dying for everyone. Great video, by the way.
NewDirection4us 1 year ago
As far as Irrisitable grace, I believe this but not in the way most teach it. I believe those called are the elect. The elect will be saved when called. Me, I somewhat see Godjustifying or whatever many teach happens so man can now accept Christ without sin inhabiting. Me, I tend to think we are weak against sin-dead because of it. God is greater then sin. God is stronger than sin thus why I disagree with IG as taught God justifying(not sure which comes first) is God is not powerless
daveme7 1 year ago
The knowledge the Synod of Dort had I am not aware of what they had compared to today. In other words, judging based on what we know today compared to the knowledge they had would be a bit merciless. Yet, this does not again allow error. As I see it, it would be better to define truth as from the scriptures and not because those they disagreed with taught. For me, this makes quite a bit eisegetical. I would point to John 3:16 as Calvin would disagree with many today who claim Calvinism
daveme7 1 year ago
Lain, you know I love your ministry and often am challanged, inspired, chastized, and educated by many of your videos. what I think, often times, anti-Calvinists use the type of reasoning tenfold worst compared to Calvinists. This does nbot excuse error from us. Using logic as did Spurgeon and I also believe those in Dort err in a similar way. Limited Atonement and Irrisistable grace I see as being against Arminianism. For me, I see this as bad but with the knowledge they had
daveme7 1 year ago
2 Thessalonians 3:16
Now may the Lord of peace himself give you peace at all times and in every way. The Lord be with all of you.
MODERATECALVINISM 1 year ago
who is the person between about 1:30-2:35? recognize the voice from childhood, but don't remember his name. think i remember him from some live broadcasts long before cable tv was around when i still lived in southern california.
HermitintheRain 1 year ago
Comment removed
tat161161 1 year ago
If Jesus, God, wanted to save everyone.....He would do so.......the bible says this is not so........
Jacobrester 1 year ago
The concept of God is a proposterous, mind-shrinking falsehood. It teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world we live in. If the religiously-minded got their own way they would scrap all future scientific endeavour and dismantle such things as the Hubble Telescope because it undermines their very position. In short, science makes a mockery of their lives.
5anthonys 1 year ago
Read John Goodwin's Redemption Redeemed. He refutes this strangely worded argument and as a contemporary of John Owen he refutes all arguments on limited atonement. This is a classic work from an era when doctrine was thoroughly studied and expounded on.
19501977 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Mark 9:45 "And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:" Whosover that believes that only some are predestined, please, address if Mark 9:45 is directed towards the predestined of your view or the people that are not predestined in your view, or both.
ThePottersvessel 2 years ago
great video.
Even those that are not Arminian but some other creature --between Arminianism and Calvinist should see this.
Many Anti-Calvinist today are not Arminian but something else.
ScottDaMoose 2 years ago
Robert Intgersoll put it very well;
"Strange! that no one has ever been persecuted by the church for believing God bad, while hundreds of millions have been destroyed for thinking him good. The orthodox church will never forgive the Universalist for saying, "God is love." It has always been considered one of the very highest evidences of true and undefiled religion that all men, women and children deserve eternal damnation. It has always been heresy to say, "God will at last save all."
nogogma 2 years ago
nogogma: "The church" believes "God bad"!?! An odd notion. Who does Intgersoll point to as "the church" anyway? And how does he get his numbers of the destruction of "hundreds of millions"? But if we go with them, it seems that many WOULD deserve eternal damnation. Intgersoll is implying, is he not, that religious minded people, who believe in hell, destroy people who think God good? Hmmm. I'd say with THAT kind of religious killing going on, hell would be the perfect place for such persons.
Shiloh2rtn 2 years ago
Shil;
Maybe you need to read a couple more times and allow it to sink into that skull of yours.
nogogma 2 years ago
So mercy is the only attribute that is considered "good", but justice is not an attribute that belongs in the category of good? Fail.
skalapunk 2 years ago
Comment removed
nogogma 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hey punk;
Bible Gawd isn't about justice. The Gawd of the babble is a freaking blood thirsty cosmic tyrant. Christianity is not the religion of love. It's the religion of fear, hate and blood. It's pure insanity and stupidity.
nogogma 2 years ago
Hey sk punk;
The God of the bible isn't a God of justice. Sending people to hell is not characteristic of justice. Justice also must include fairness. Hell is not about fairness nor justice. It is characteristic of a tyrant. Believe or burn forever.
nogogma 2 years ago
It's sad that calvinists are still around.. and teach people their heresy
jgarcia6385 2 years ago
jgarcia;
Actually it's sad that in this day and age religion and Christianity is still around. It should be looked upon as fiction a long long time ago. Ignorance and gullibility will not die any time soon.
nogogma 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"It's sad that calvinists are still around.. and teach people their heresy "
Oh you mean the heresy that God saves sinners without fail for His own glory, and not that He tries to save sinners, but fails?
skalapunk 2 years ago
Excellent video. Jesus died for those He saved. He didn't go to the cross merely to make people savable as some preachers would have us believe.
NewDirection4us 2 years ago
400 ad The Catholics took the 49 Original Books of the bible chopped them up into 66 then scrambled the books to hide the Truth from even their Priest, You can now order a restored bible at Amazon Books and Century one books (Coulter) 1-800-852-8346, put the bible back in Gods order read the Bible as a Progressive book and the Answer becomes Clear, Last Revelation dealing with eternal salvation, Ephesians, Phil, Col, 1st and 2nd Timothy, All saved at predestinated time, Faith is Gift, Calling is
deadadelta 2 years ago
*groans* The premise of the video is a hideous non-sequitur. It hurts.
fakejohnwilkesbooth 2 years ago
*groans* Pink elephants like to make butter in the Spring. It hurts.
(Both of our statements are meaningless in and of themselves, but I'm going to ask you to prove yours.)
LaneCh 2 years ago
The video's objection to the Remonstrant theory of the atonement is that it would mean either that unbelief is not sinful or that Jesus didn't die for the "sin of unbelief" (and so that he did not in fact die for all sins of all men). I believe I have characterized the video's argument fairly, without snarl words, etc. [Continuing...]
fakejohnwilkesbooth 2 years ago
[..Continued from above, or below, or however this gets formatted] But it's simply a non-sequitur; The Remonstrants can maintain that unbelief is sinful and that unbelief does in fact prevent one's salvation, even if Jesus died for all the sins of all men, because they do *not* claim that it is the (granted) fact of unbelief's sinfulness that impairs salvation, but rather some other fact about unbelief.
fakejohnwilkesbooth 2 years ago
The premise of the video is that if unbelief is a sin and Jesus died for all the sins of everyone, why doesn't everyone go to heaven since all their sins are paid for? How that is a non-sequitur is beyond me.
LaneCh 2 years ago
The belief being objected it is that Jesus died for all the sins of all men BUT THAT not all men are saved, as faith (belief, whatever) is required. Since the view is *not* that the sin of unbelief is unforgiven (unbelief disqualifies one from salvation for reasons other than the fact of its sinfulness), the argument is either flailing away at a straw-man or drawing a non-sequitur.
fakejohnwilkesbooth 2 years ago
If you believe that Jesus atoned for all the sins of all men then there is no need for a man to be born again since the atonement has been made and there are no sins to be punished for.
m1dewitt 2 years ago
What "other fact about unbelief" impairs salvation?
AgApE010 2 years ago
There are many misrepresentations of the Arminian position within this video, which sadly, seems to be a common feature of Calvinist materials.
Is unbelief a sin? Yes it is a sin. As long a person continues in unbelief, he is condemned in his sins. When he respondes to the prevenient grace of God and repents of his sins, he is forgiven of his sins.
I don't see the point of this video personally.
GuardianofTwilight 2 years ago
The point is to show that general atonement (the belief that Jesus died for everyone who ever has and ever will live) is wrong. If Jesus died for every sin of every person, people should not be going to Hell. The Ariminian will then respond that people go to Hell because of their unbelief. The question in turn raised by the Calvinist is "Is unbelief a sin?". Since it is a sin, then Jesus died for that sin too. Thus general atonement is turned on its head. For the rest, read the description box.
AgApE010 2 years ago
If you read Matthew 18:23-35 you see that someone who has been forgiven an unpayable debt can have their forgiveness revoked. Jesus could have died for all men and all their sins forgiven. Their forgiveness is revoked when they reject the light of God and Christ and harden their hearts against God or reject the gospel outright. Romans 11:17-23 also speaks of being grafted in and cut off according to ones own faith. And yes, Romans 11 is talking about salvation evidenced by verses 14 & 26.
sevideos 2 years ago
The parable in Matthew 18 doesn't say anything about forgiveness being revoked. It speaks of God's discipline and punishment of those with an unforgiving heart. And the tree in Romans 11 represents the Abrahamic covenant to which both Jews and Gentiles enjoy the blessing of. It speaks of the removal from the place of privilege and blessing, not removal from salvation.
AgApE010 2 years ago
Matt 18 is about our unpayable sin debt to God. He forgave us and expects us to forgive others as God has forgiven us (the parallel to the Lords prayer is clear) but if we do not, we move back into a position of having to pay our sin debt off which is unpayable by us. So the forgiveness no longer applies. Jesus said God can and will do this! It also said we will be handed over until WE pay the debt off! WE cannot pay our debt to God apart from Christ so the punishment is eternal.
sevideos 2 years ago
Yes,God commands us to forgive others,and the parable teaches this. But the unforgiving servant isn't pictured as one losing his salvation,he is pictured as being punished: "And his lord...handed him over to the torturers until he should repay all that was owed him." In the parable,he is punished until his debt is paid in full, picturing the severity and justice of God's discipline. You're pressing the imagery of the story when you try to say "he can't pay the debt off because of such and such".
AgApE010 2 years ago
So just that I am understanding you correctly, you would say Matthew 18 is not about a man owing an debt to God that can't be paid, nor is it about God forgiving this man a debt and later placing this debt back on this man to repay. So can we pay God back our debt we owe Him? Apparently you think we can. We don't need to be forgiven by God, we can just work our debt off. Interesting.
sevideos 2 years ago
You are just refusing to understand Matthew 18. Study the Scripture. There should be no need for me to continually spoon feed to you such a simple parable since you judge yourself so knowledgeable of divine doctrine.
AgApE010 2 years ago
You didn't answer my questions. :-)
sevideos 2 years ago
I didn't answer the questions in that comment because, as seen from your questions, you obviously didn't understand my response to your last comment about Matt. 18, which is why I said "you are refusing to understand (or believe) what Matthew 18 is teaching", rather willing to try to force Arminian theology into the passage.
AgApE010 2 years ago
Oh wow, force Arminian theology into it? You are simply not reading the passage and letting it speak for itself. It's not ambiguous. Your view makes Matthew mean nothing other than punishment for the unforgiving person, yet you avoid the implications of the forgiveness granted by the king (God) and then revoked because the debt we owe Him is placed back on the man to pay. "Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us".
sevideos 2 years ago
se, the parable was spoken in part in response to Peter's question(v 21)that Christ answered(v 22)and then proceeded to elaborate on in the parable(vs 23-35). The parable doesn't speak of salvation or a loss thereof. The parable is spoken to teach us to be forgiving to one another. However forgiving one another is not a condition of salvation; believers are,or should,be forgiving BECAUSE they are saved and the spirit of Christ dwells in them,but we don't forgive IN ORDER TO be(or stay)saved...
AgApE010 2 years ago
Never said we forgive to get saved. And I agree it shows the punishment of the unforgiving man. Yet you keep ignoring the stated fact that (v25) he was not able to pay the debt. What debt does God forgive us of? Jesus also said: Mark 11:25 "And whenever you stand praying, if you have anything against anyone, forgive him, that your Father in heaven may also forgive you your trespasses. 26 But if you do not forgive, neither will your Father in heaven forgive your trespasses."
sevideos 2 years ago
When Jesus says if you don't forgive your neighbor your Father won't forgive you He is speaking of God not forgiving our sins to restore fellowship with Him in our Christian walk, not about God withholding forgiveness of sins whereby we are justified. Has God not already forgiven the sins of the believer when he is justified? What kind of Gospel are you believing in?
AgApE010 2 years ago
Say what? So according to you there is occasion for God not forgiving our sins in order to restore fellowship with Him but at the same time He has already forgiven us all our sins? Seems like a contradiction.
So when Jesus died for the elect's sins, are they born forgiven without need of justification by faith since Jesus already paid the price? If so, why is justification by faith required? Or is it that we do not personally benefit from the atonement until we believe and are justified.
sevideos 2 years ago
Christians sin. When Christians sin they don't lose their salvation, meaning that if a Christian dies before having the chance to ask for forgiveness of a sin they committed, they will still go to Heaven because Jesus already paid for their sins and justified them. But when a Christian sins, he doesn't have fellowship with God in his walk....
AgApE010 2 years ago
(contd)
..Do you ever notice (if you are saved) that you feel separated from God when you're in sin? That it is what I'm talking about. And if you don't forgive others, God won't forgive you so as to restore you from that condition. It is not an issue of salvation, it is an issue of fellowship with the Lord.
AgApE010 2 years ago
As for your other question, the elect aren't born forgiven, or else how or why would there be a second birth? The elect are chosen from before the foundation of the world to be saved, but they aren't saved from birth, they are saved when they are called by God to salvation and believe the Gospel.
AgApE010 2 years ago
It's been fun but there is simply not enough room here on YouTube to debate this thoroughly. Peace!
sevideos 2 years ago
(contd)
...The parable shows the master's forgiveness of the servant and then shows the cruel servant not being forgiving of others, thus resulting in the punishment of the servant. Remember, this is a parable, a story that demonstrates a real life scenario to teach a spiritual lesson. What you are doing is taking this parable and reading into it and pressing the imagery in the parable that Jesus is using and coming up with a conclusion that the parable doesn't teach, nor intends to teach.
AgApE010 2 years ago
The context of Rom 11 is salvation! The Abrahamic covenant brought justification by faith to Gentiles as well as Jews. Read Rom 11, it is clearly about salvation. Rom 11:7 What then? Israel has not obtained what it seeks; but the elect have obtained it, and the rest were blinded.Rom 11:11 I say then, have they stumbled that they should fall?Certainly not! But through their fall, to provoke them to jealousy, salvation has come to the Gentiles. SALVATION, not a vague "blessing" is the context.
sevideos 2 years ago
Listen, you can't just pick apart a few verses with tunnel vision and then say "this is the context!" when all the while not putting these verses together to see the point Paul is making when he's speaking of the removal of unbelieving Jews from the tree. He teaches that there is a partial hardening of Israel so that they will not believe the Gospel...
(contd)
AgApE010 2 years ago
re: Rom 11. How does one take part of the "privilege and blessing" as you say, apart from salvation (which is by faith)? If those who are on are believers and those who are cut off are unbelievers then it makes it pretty clear what Paul is talking about. The context is Paul's concern for unbelieving Jews and how they will be saved. The analogy of being grafted onto the olive tree signifies justification by faith. Rom 11 speaks about salvation. Just read what it says. It's about salvation.
sevideos 2 years ago
Same with Romans 11. You just don't seem to get it. Lest there be more confusion than there already is, allow me to explain: I'm not saying that those who are cut off are, or were, believers. They are obviously unbelievers who rejected the Messiah; they were never believers. They were hardened, as Paul teaches, and had not obtained grace. Thus I never said that one partakes of the blessings of the tree, the Abrahamic covenant, apart from salvation.
AgApE010 2 years ago
RE: Rom 11. I'm saying this passage is about those who have been cut off, those who are not elect and are blinded (Rom 11: 7) are not beyond redemption (v14) Paul hopes to provoke these non-elect, blinded by God to salvation (as he clearly states in Rom 11:13-14) through his work among the Gentiles. Read it carefully. Paul is trying to rouse his own countrymen, the very ones mentioned in verse 7, to salvation! He's saying don't count the castaway Jews as having no hope of salvation.
sevideos 2 years ago
Paul says that he is trying to move fellow Jews to jealousy that they might believe. Paul knew that not all the Jews were reprobate (non-elect), for he himself was a Jew. Thus he labored that they might believe. But Paul also understood that there were Jews who were blinded and reprobate, as he also teaches in Romans 9.
If one is non-elect, he cannot be saved. That is why he is "non-elect"! Paul's point was "don't boast against Israel" because the nation will repent and be saved in the future.
AgApE010 2 years ago
Lets look at the text. Rom 11:5 at this present time there is a remnant according to the election of grace. At THIS time, not the future. Next: v7 the elect have OBTAINED IT, and the REST were blinded. Ok the Elect I get, but what about the "rest". What's their fate? v11 I say then, have THEY stumbled that THEY should fall? Certainly not! Who is "they". Are you saying the Elect stumbled? read v7 again if you think so. Those Paul seeks to save in v14 are the same "they" in v11 & the "rest" in v7
sevideos 2 years ago
"At THIS time"
Ok, se, you aren't paying attention to my comments my friend. I SAID THAT in my last comment, that there were still Jews who were being saved in Paul's day. The rest who were blinded, which is the majority of Israel as a nation that rejected Christ, are blinded for a period but salvation will come to Israel (as a nation) in the end times....
AgApE010 2 years ago
(contd)
Just like when Jesus said to the Jews in Matthew 23, "You shall not see Me until you say 'Blessed is He who comes in the name of the LORD' ", meaning that there will be a period where Israel as a nation(not the Jews that Jesus is immediately speaking to, since they never repented), but as a nation, will repent and believe the Lord....
AgApE010 2 years ago
(contd)
..."They" (the unbelieving nation of Israel) haven't stumbled so as to fall, but so that salvation can come to Gentiles. They didn't stumble so as to FALL, meaning the Jewish people's rejection isn't beyond recovery, because salvation will come to Israel in the end times. You see?
AgApE010 2 years ago
Now you are ignoring context and reading dispensationalism into it. Paul said: Rom 11:13 For I speak to you Gentiles; inasmuch as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry if by any means I may provoke to jealousy those who are my flesh and save some of them.
Paul held out hope that HE could save some of them. How on earth could this be true if what he meant was they will all be lost except for some FUTURE Israel? Paul said those he knew THEN could be saved/grafted back on.
sevideos 2 years ago
(cont'd)
The point STILL is that those Paul held out hope for were those who, living AT THAT TIME had rejected Christ. They were non-elect and blind (v7) You have still not accounted for the fact that the text states it THESE whom Paul held out hope for, the NON ELECT. The ones who stumbled (v11) are those LIVING THEN, NOT SOME FUTURE PEOPLE. THOSE ARE THE ONES PAUL IS SEEKING TO ROUSE. Otherwise Paul was mistaken about those who already stumbled and they are indeed beyond hope! Paul was wrong?
sevideos 2 years ago
11:7 What then? Israel has not obtained what it seeks; but the elect have obtained it, and the rest were blinded 11 I say then, have they stumbled that they should fall? Certainly not!
13 For I speak to you Gentiles; inasmuch as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry, 14 if by any means I may provoke to jealousy those who are my flesh and save some of them. 15 For if their being cast away is the reconciling of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?
sevideos 2 years ago
So I guess your question is "why are the unbelieving branches there in the first place if they were never saved?", correct?
AgApE010 2 years ago
..Because of their unbelief they are removed from the place of privilege and blessing,and Gentiles,of all people,are put in their place until "the fullness of the Gentiles has come in",and then "all Israel will be saved" and they will be grafted back in to their place of blessing in the covenant made to Abraham,that he and his descendants(believing Jews and Gentiles)will be blessed by God. The Abrahamic covenant itself isn't simply "justification by faith". Go back and read Gen chptrs 15 & 22.
AgApE010 2 years ago
"I endure all things for the elect's sake" - Jesus Christ (II Tim. 2:10)
"All that the Father giveth to me shall come to me" - Jesus (John 6:37)
"I pray NOT for the world, but for those whom thou hast given me; for they are thine". - Jesus (John 17:9)
NewDirection4us 2 years ago
Isn't unbelief fall into the category of blaspheming the Holy Spirit? It is a sin that cannot be forgiven.
Shalom & Ahavah
theheat151 2 years ago
The arminiest wants a salvation that they can boast about.They can claim that I could have accepted or rejected Jesus' sacrifice,I control God's will,He doesn't control my will.
CBALLEN 2 years ago
Interesting argument about universal atonement being unjust because we might not accept it and thus pay twice for the same sin.
Why is it not equally unjust if I live for a finite amount of time, committing a finite amount of sin, then pay an infinite price (eternity in hell)?
MGCAUSTIN4 2 years ago
Unbelief is a nasty word used to portray atheists as being intellectually hungry, as being believers in nothing, or as a back-handed parody implying we are undead, evil, or not worthy of life.
I go news for you:
Its SAFE to be an atheist.
Im intellectually satisfied as an atheist.
I believe in many other things than there are no gods!
JohnHasSeriousQ 2 years ago
There is not a choice, Christ's offer of a relationship is compulsory. It says "if you reciprocate my love for you I will grant you the gift of eternal life. If you choose not to, you will suffer unimaginable pain and anguish for all eternity, no matter how virtuous you were in life." Now, for the record, all of this is most certainly a moot point because it is all nonsense. When Christ died he ceased to exit, end of story. But if I did believe, how is it a just bargin? Answer: it is not.
TimMcGrath74 2 years ago
AND second English is NOT my language...
mavrogerimos 2 years ago
That isn't my problem. You are here communicating in a forum in English with English speaking people. Everyone else seems to have some modicum of respect for the language, whether they are native speakers or not. Either assimilate or expect that someone will call you out on it.
TimMcGrath74 2 years ago
the atheist don't want to believe in God b/c they like to sinn all the time!!!!
you can't see an atheist that he is a good person most of them is bad persons
mavrogerimos 2 years ago
Wow....ignorant AND illiterate. You're 2 for 2. On what evidence do you base the assertion that most atheists are bad people? Do you know any atheists? You might point to Stalin, and Stalin was certainly and atheist and an evil man. He also wore a mustache. Does that make all people who wear mustaches (like your mother) inherently evil? You are an ignorant stooge. If you wish to reply, please learn the English language first.
TimMcGrath74 2 years ago
that was my point thank you.
every one can see what atheist means.
only for you comment can some one know that atheists are bad people.
prisons is full of them....
mavrogerimos 2 years ago
So, defending myself and those who share my scientific and evidence based belief system against your vicious attacks makes me a bad guy? What a display of hypocrisy. And, to your point about the prison population, in the United States it is about 80% Christian, about 12% Muslim and less than 1% atheist. In fact, Prisons are some of the most pious places in America. Atheists also have a far lower rate of divorce than members of all three major monotheistic religions. Statistics don't lie.
TimMcGrath74 2 years ago
what ever...
see you in Hell
bb
mavrogerimos 2 years ago
Well, there it is. You've run out of argument so I should suffer unimaginable pain and anguish for all eternity. You are truly a man of God.
TimMcGrath74 2 years ago
You show yourself to be intellectually dishonest when you bring up this "percentage of atheists to Christians in prison" argument. First, not everyone who says they are a Christian are indeed a Christian. For most people, going to church every once in a while or being baptized as a baby makes them a Christian. This is not correct. Thus, most people in the 80% you quote (assuming that statistic is correct in the first place) are not Christians. You must consider that in your statistics..
(contd)
AgApE010 2 years ago
(contd)
Secondly, you must also consider in your statistics that atheists are the overall minority in country, thus you wouldn't expect a large number of atheists in prison, or in most other general statistics. If the tables were turned and more people were atheists and the minority was the Christians (or those so called), it would be the atheists which would be the majority in the prisons. It's only logical. Thus your argument is a fail.
AgApE010 2 years ago
The wages of sin is death.
lolfunny is in error to believe that the sins of the unsaved will not be judged at the great white throne judgement seat of Messiah.
(rev 20, at The Great White Throne of Judgment, the works of the unsaved are being judged, not sins.) LOLfunny
What is sin but the breaking of the Law.
Unless the shedding of blood is applied,as in the exdous account,there is NO remission of sins.
The unlearned proud statements of men continue to get more and more absurd.
8Anya8 2 years ago
This could be one of the most outrageous and ignorant posts ever.
Charles Haddon Spurgeon went to hell?
The error here must be in words,and not in devotion to the truth.
Faith alone is the basis of salavtion,upon which the work of the Spirit of holiness will begin to manifest itself in the life of the believer.
A works salvation preformed by the flesh cannot save,but the good works that God has prepared for us to do through his Spirit reveal HIS works in us.
A sure sign of God in us.
8Anya8 2 years ago
Absolute facts: Augustine, Spurgeon, Luther, Sproul, White, Calvin are all unsaved and going to Hell. Jesus paid for 100% of all sins, but you can't accept this atonement, if you don't accept it. Therefore, you will go to Hell if just like the Calvinist you don't access His atonement, for they refuse to repent and believe in Christ to be regenerated. A Calvinist boasts in assuming his regeneration (a selfish salvation) without genuine repentance and faith in Christ to then be saved by grace.
lvdyou 2 years ago
I am so sick of the teachings of men.
At 6:00 The "most grace-centered teaching on justification(he boasts)...it offers absolutey no room for boasting." If only you could see your contradiction. Besides, if it is so grace-centered than why does it teach men are predestined to hell? Calvanism is NOT biblical ----->The Lord does not delay His promise, as some understand delay, but is patient with you,not wanting any to perish, but all to come to repentance. 2 Pet 3:9
JesusisPerfect 2 years ago
The teachings of men? Everyone has some view of Bible teachings, and it depends on the interpretation we adhere to. Simply put, Calvinism stands up the most against scrutiny because it leaves the Bible perfect with no contradictions.
Regarding 2 Peter 3:9, let me address it.
Let us begin by scrolling back up to verse 8. Who is he talking to? The beloved. Who are the beloved? Go back to the beginning of 1 Peter and we see Peter is writing to God's ELECT.
WingsOfFortitude 2 years ago
Furthermore, let's examine the word "some" and "any" in the Greek according to Strong's Concordance. We see that BOTH of these words point to the SAME exact Strong's number, which is 5100! Now this Greek word "tis" can be translated in that passage as follows: "The Lord is not willing certain ones to perish".
WingsOfFortitude 2 years ago
And just to push the envelope further, in case you are trying to convince yourself of a doctrine that is not in the text, let's examine the Greek word "pas" which is the word "all" in 2 Peter 3:9.
According to Strong's Concordance, this word rarely refers to all things individually, everywhere at all times. The Greek scholar even cited that as a footnote.
So in this case, the word "all" or "pas" translates as definition 2a. "Collectively; some of all types"
WingsOfFortitude 2 years ago
I John 2:2, "He is the propitiation for our sins: and not for our's only, but also for the sins of the whole world ." 1 Timothy 2:5,6 says, " The man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all...."I John 4:14, "And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world." John 3:17 says, " For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.".... Shall I continue?
JesusisPerfect 2 years ago
I could dissect each of those scriptures and properly translate the words such as "all" and "world". For example, "kosmos" is the Greek word for "world" and actually refers to "of believers only" in the Greek.
Ready? The official Strong's Concordance actually cites these scriptures with the definition "of believers only":
"3b. of believers only, John 1:29; 3:16; 3:17; 6:33; 12:47 1 Cor. 4:9; 2 Cor. 5:19"
There you have it, the Greek scholar went out of his way to make it clear for you.
WingsOfFortitude 2 years ago
As I mentioned before, the word "all" is "pas" in Greek. In context, the correct translation in that scripture you gave me is as follows: "Collectively; some of all types"
WingsOfFortitude 2 years ago
Here are the words of the author of the Greek lexicon, and what he himself wrote:
"The words "world" and "all" are used in some seven or eight senses in Scripture, and it is veryrarely the "all" means all persons, taken individually. The words aregenerally used to signify that Christ has redeemed some of all sorts-- some Jews, some Gentiles, some rich, some poor, and has notrestricted His redemption to either Jew or Gentile..."
WingsOfFortitude 2 years ago
Thanks for taking the time to explain your view. I definitely think your approach of using the Greek words merits more attention than a logical argument-especially since they can be made from both sides. Generally, I don't have much time to dig in Concordances or try to learn Greek so I esteem those that do. As far as plain-reading I can't make sense of verses like ... 1 Tim 4:10...the living God, who is the Savior of everyone, especially of those who believe. with a Calvinist bent.
JesusisPerfect 2 years ago
I respect your views, but neither of us are infallible. I guess we'll see who was right when we get to Heaven. It'll be interesting... Well God bless you, I can tell you are a man of God.
Just remember though, the manuscripts weren't written in English. The Greek language is so expressive that many English words cannot accurately represent them in the truest manifestation. I guess that's why they call it Bible study...
WingsOfFortitude 2 years ago
Before making such assertive assumptions, I would suggest to go study at a seminary for a few years.
Remember, context is the key to Bible interpretation, not emotionalism.
WingsOfFortitude 2 years ago
Thanks for the suggestion. I don't see seminary in my future for a few reasons.
1. I dont want to be like people who come from seminary
2. I dont charge money for my services
3. I dont have or save money
4. I believe seminary corrupts many and others, who have been through seminary, agree with me.
Thanks for your accusation about emotionalism. I'll suggest you risk your life for spreading the gospel, and do 40-day fasts, before you consider another person who does so of "emotionalism" PEACE.
JesusisPerfect 2 years ago
Thanks, I am actually planning on doing a 40 day fast. I am rather young, so I have a whole life ahead of me. I didn't mean to attack you, I just wanted to propose the idea that God's Word is infinitely complex. Even I don't claim to know His full truth, and I don't think anyone can. All I am saying is to love the Lord with all your mind, and seek to honor Him in that area as much as possible. I once thought I knew it all as well. God bless.
WingsOfFortitude 2 years ago
And why would you assume such things of all people that go to a seminary? It can be of great value and knowledge... Many of them are corrupt, but some are definitely of God. And anywhere you do there are obviously false converts and hypocrites...
Oh yeah, and I do plan on risking my life for the gospel. Amen to that. Thanks for the suggestion. My life is worth nothing.
WingsOfFortitude 2 years ago
WingsOfFortitude:
I think that is great that you are planning an extended fast and risking your life. May God bless you as you seek and serve Him. I would say that I disagree with you on the Calvinism, though my views have not always been so. Much of my, doctrine is formed on studying the Word and in-the-field experience. Contrary, to what u might think(infer),I don't think I know much. Have you completed seminary? I am not saying nothing good can come from it, just, that it is not for me.
JesusisPerfect 2 years ago
I apologize if I was harsh, as my knowledge of the Bible can sometimes get to my head. And this in itself is deceiving, because honestly I know I don't know much, and I should read the Bible more than I currently do.
I thank you for your kind words, and I don't think anyone should divide the body of Christ over such issues...
I actually am a hypocrite you see. I haven't even started seminary, lol. But I do have a hunger for truth and God's Word understood to the greatest extent.
WingsOfFortitude 2 years ago
Don't worry about it. =) I'm glad we "met"- its always good to find someone on-fire for the Lord and hungry for the truth of God. Again, God bless you. (2 cor 13:14 or 13:13 if u read HCSB lol)
Anyway, I've always thought that 1 Tim 4:10 could either be interpreted Universally or like He "offers" it to everyone but is the Savior "especially" of those who believe because they actually attain(receive) it. Though I admit I haven't thought much about this. What are your thoughts?
JesusisPerfect 2 years ago
"For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe." - 1 Timothy 4:10 (KJV)
Well on the surface it still seems to be referring to a specific group of people just as John 3:16 does in its "whosoever believeth".
Also note that if Christ was the savior of all men everywhere at all times, no one would go to Hell... We must also remember that belief is a gift, because the unregenerate are dead in sin
WingsOfFortitude 2 years ago
"As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep." - John 10:15
"No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day." - John 6:44
For a simpler way of defining the broader scriptures, the more specific ones are often used as a benchmark. And as we know, God's Word is perfect and has no contradictions.
WingsOfFortitude 2 years ago
Well, what specific group of people? It doesn't make sense to me, only the believers, because than it would read "Saviour of the believers, specially of those that believe." Well, it could depending on your theology, but I don't want to open a can of worms. I just see salvation as a gift that is available to everyone and certain people take advantage of it. This is not any less glorifying to God. Maybe I'll catch up with you later - its almost 4am my time. I'll send you a friend request.
JesusisPerfect 2 years ago
Maybe I can put it for you in simpler terms. I see reading back on what I wrote it was unclear. Basically, Christ has offered salvation to everyone, but only those who believe (God's elect) are credited with the benefits. I would have to study this passage more though.
So Christ's death was sufficient for an infinite number of individuals, but only efficient for His children...
WingsOfFortitude 2 years ago
Yeah, but if we're gonna say that "Christ has offered salvation to everyone" than isn't Calvinism out the window?(Limited Atonement)
"So Christ's death was sufficient for an infinite number of individuals, but only efficient for His children" Yeah, I agree with the general idea though I don't subscribe to Calvinism or Arminianism. (btw How is Christs death sufficient for everyone if Limited atonement is true. Am I missing something?
JesusisPerfect 2 years ago
Thank you friend. I'll talk to you later!
WingsOfFortitude 2 years ago
This isn't exactly my strong suit, but I'll do some more studying. I'm going to sleep. (For real this time.) I'll catch you later.
JesusisPerfect 2 years ago
And just so you know, Paul Washer is a Calvinist... I saw the video in your favorites, thought I'd let you know. It's definitely God's blessing what he's doing in other countries.
WingsOfFortitude 2 years ago
lol. yes unbelief is a sin. and good thing Jesus paid for all sins. just accept the gift of salvation--its that simple
LOLFunny687 2 years ago
Belief is a gift, and no one would be able to believe if Christ did not enable us to. Regeneration precedes any seeking after Christ because we are DEAD in our trespasses and sins.
Jesus died for His elect, and did not waste His death on the unsaved. Do you claim God failed to save some people? Simply put, His death was sufficient for ALL, but only EFFICIENT for the elect.
This means the actual payment of His death was made to His elect. If Arminianism was true, everyone would be saved.
WingsOfFortitude 2 years ago
lol that's the dumbest statement I've ever heard.
First of all, Arminianism and Calvinism are 2 of the biggest heresies ever created.
Secondly,
1Jn 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
Every single person's sin is already paid for.
rev 20, at The Great White Throne of Judgment, the works of the unsaved are being judged, not sins.
LOLFunny687 2 years ago
Actually, you're misunderstanding 1 John 2:2. The only other place in 1 John where the phrase "the whole world" is used is in 1 John 5:19 "The whole world lies under the power of the evil one." Being consistent with 1 John 2:2 then, we must conclude that all people past, present and future lie under the power of the evil one. Obviously this is not the case. Though the phrase "the whole world" is used in 5:19, it clearly excludes millions of people. Why can't it exclude millions of people in 2:2
jaybramer 2 years ago
Joh 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
Joh 12:32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.
all men are drawn to God to either choose to accept the gift of salvation or to reject it.
How much greater is the love of someone who has the choice to not love you?
LOLFunny687 2 years ago
You took John 12:32 straight out of context sir. Read on the chapter and see the exact context.
"He said this to show the kind of death he was going to die."
(John 12:33)
Drawing = drawing men to His crucifixion. Has nothing to do with election,
you know this now, so don't harden and continue this misuse of verse 32!
SalvationEternity777 2 years ago
Joh 1:9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
Rev 22:17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.
done talking to you. God Bless~
LOLFunny687 2 years ago
Are you going to continue to use John 12:32 out of context in spite that I have proven publicly your error?
SalvationEternity777 2 years ago
777, if I may, I would like to correct you on something: John 12:32 does indeed speak of election when Jesus speaks of drawing "all men". Allow me to explain: If you read verse 20 of John 12, you'll see that there were Greeks present when Jesus was speaking. Thus, it is both relevant and proper for Jesus to mention, in the presence of these Greeks hearing Him, that He will draw all men (not all men without exception, but all men without distinction, as in both Jew and Greek) to Himself.
(contd)
AgApE010 2 years ago
(contd)
...Then in verse 33, which states "This He said, signifying by what death He would die" is talking about the part in verse 32 where He speaks of being "lifted up", not where He speaks of drawing all men, especially since all men were not drawn to the crucifixion. Not even His apostles, save one, were there.
I just wanted to be helpful in explaining John 12:32 a little bit. :)
God bless you!
-Your friendly neighborhood Calvinist
AgApE010 2 years ago
How did Jesus draw every single person past present and future to Himself when billions of people never heard of Him?
jaybramer 2 years ago
Though as scripture makes plain,'He/Esav sought it carefully with tears.'Being rejected by God.
Calvanism has much that they need to repent of ,having based their doctrine on the foolishness of mans wicked and deceitful heart.
Better to REPENT now before God and show humility before men,then face the stern judgement of God when you are corrected by Him.
And truly we all have need of correction and repentance,seeing we are all members one of another.
May God again open the eyes of the blind.
8Anya8 2 years ago
So although the work of atonement is full and complete,not all will secure it's blessings.
This will bear record to the evil and depraved nature of sin that is contrary to the holy nature of God throughout the ages.
Just as Cain stubbornly refused to do what is right after being directly confronted by God,so man will have only himself to blame when he is eternally banished from the presence of God who is life to weep with remorse and gnash his teeth like Esav who found no place for repentance.
8Anya8 2 years ago
They seem to forget about that one unforgivable sin. . . rejecting the holy spirit. Isn't that saying no to this gift? I would say that Christ did die for all sin, but there is a rejection of the gift of his sacrifice which is the blaspheming of the holy spirit. It is clear that this is why people are unforgiven with the logic of Arminianism. This arguement isn't completely sound on this video and they don't give the whole truth of the other side.
MickoBricko 2 years ago
The blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is a lifelong of rejecting the gospel.
The forgivable kind of unbelief is temporary unbelief. This means that this person will not live continually in unbelief all the days of their life. This can be forgiven, and is paid for.
Therefore, if unbelief is a sin, and Christ died for everyone, why are not all of the people in the world saved?
Answer: Christ had to intervene to enable anyone to believe. Therefore, belief is a gift, and Christ died for His elect.
WingsOfFortitude 2 years ago
This of course dose not teach universalism/that all will be saved,lest some misunderstand what is being said here.
Although Messiah died for the sins of the world."He is the propitiation for our sins,and NOT for ours only,but ALSO for the sins of the WHOLE WORLD.
And hereby do we know that we know him if we KEEP his commandments."
1 John 2:2,3
The foremost being LOVE ONE TO ANOTHER.
"He that has my commandments and KEEPS them he it is who loves me,he that loves me not keeps not my sayings.
8Anya8 2 years ago
Comment removed
jaybramer 2 years ago
1 John 2:2 also doesn't mean that Jesus is the propitiation for everyone that's ever lived. The only other place the phrase "the whole world" is used in 1 John is 5:19 "The whole world lies under the power of the evil one." Clearly that doesn't mean everybody past, present and future. Rather, it excludes millions. Why can't 1 John 2:2 also exclude millions? Could the thought of "the whole world" convey "not JUST JEWS, but GENTILES EVERYWHERE"?
jaybramer 2 years ago
How long will you hold to that which is untrue and cast off the truth that is in Yahshua,to cherish that which is profane and evil in the heart of wicked vain foolish men?
O ye sons of men,How long will you turn my glory into shame?How long will you love what is worthless and seek after LIES? Selah.
Psalm 4
REPENT and BELIEVE THE TRUE GOSPEL!
8Anya8 2 years ago
Again it is written concerning those for whom hell was prepared,
"Then shall he say unto them on the left hand,Depart from me ye cursed into everlasting fire prepared for the DEVIL AND HIS ANGELS."
The old testament bears witness to the heart of God that vile men has spoken evil of,"And they/men have built the high places of tophet,which is in the valley of the sons of Hinnom/a type of hell to burn their sons and daughters in the fire which I commanded them not,neither came it into my heart.
8Anya8 2 years ago
Those who hold to the unscriptural doctrine of limited atonement are in direct contradiction before God,and man seeing they tout a belief that was conceived in the sinful wicked heart of man and not of God.
What God hath said concerning this matter,"As I live,saith the Lord YHWH,I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked but that the wicked turn from his way and live,turn ye,turn ye from your evil ways,for why will ye die?
Hear God plead for the wicked to be saved,does God speak in vain?
8Anya8 2 years ago
Christ died as an atonement for sin... not to pay for anybody's sins. That's why Calvinism is in serious error. An atonement is not a 1 for 1 exchange. The sufferings of Christ most certainly added to the merits of his work, which he gives away freely to all who believe in him. Arminianism is far closer to orthodoxy than Calvinism, which is just a steaming heap of nonsense.
Magnulus76 2 years ago
God does not speak in the abstract here nor else where in scripture.Had Cain desired to do what is right,would he not have been accepted?
The cross of Messiah will be the center point of all eternity,in as much as it was here that God demonstrated his hatred for sin by manifesting his holy judgement upon sin,as well as his great love for sinners and his willingness to die for them in order that they might be justified and sanctified in the knowledge of the truth.
IT IS FINISHED!
8Anya8 2 years ago
He that commits sin is of the devil,for the devil has been sinning from the beginning.
For THIS PURPOSE the Son of God was manifested that he might destroy the WORKS/SIN of the devil.
1 John 3:8
Again when Cain was approached by God after he had killed his brother,the LORD remonstrated to Cain.
If you do what is right shall you not be accepted,but if you do what is evil,sin is crouching at the door/of your heart and his desire is for you,but you must rule over him.
Genesis 4:7
8Anya8 2 years ago
When the Son of God died upon the cross his payment for sin was so complete that it included all sin.
This does not make God unjust,nor does it have ought to do with unverisalism.
The very essence of sin was devoured and rendered null and void of its power,even as Moses rod bore witness to this when it devoured the serpent rods of Pharaoh's magicans.
Through death Yahashua destroyed him who had the power of death,even the devil.
Just because men cannot grasp this does not make it untrue.
8Anya8 2 years ago
Comment removed
8Anya8 2 years ago
Comment removed
8Anya8 2 years ago
Comment removed
8Anya8 2 years ago
Jesus did not pay for the sin of everyone! Be logical!
LOCKMANakaAC 2 years ago
I loved this! Thank you and God bless!
Karen
KarensFaith 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
except a man be born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.new birth is the word of God implanted by the Spirit in the mind and heart,when a person believes the message about Jesus and this is recieving him Jn1.v12 they are born again
bibliosca 2 years ago
rc sproul jr.!!!
sincerelygideon 2 years ago