I think jn 3:16 is a very poor passage to use when trying to defend anything Calvinistic. In the case of limited atonement the fact that "whosoever" isn't in the original Gk is a weak argument. It is common to put in English words so the sentences will flow smoothly for the reader. God so loved the world, that is everybody. So whosoever fits the context. In the Gk grammar whosoever believes means whosoever Continues to believe, and shall have everlasting life means will continue to etc etc. So
To ARMINIANS -Romans 11:32 "for God has shut up all to unbelief, that he might have mercy on all".
To CALVINISTS -1 Timothy 4:10"for for this we both labour and are reproached, because we hope on the living God, who is Saviour of ALL MEN ESPECIALLY y of those believing."
DOUBTERS I Cor. 15:23-28"But every man in his own order:..For He must reign until He has put all enemies under His feet..last enemy...destroyed is DEATH... Son also Himself be subject unto Him..that God may be ALL IN ALL"
even with whosoever, it still is true, because Whosoever, or anyone who does believe, WILL be saved,...problem is not everyone will, Only his elect will
Actually, I did, he just hasn't approved it yet (can't imagine why...perhaps because it exposes this video as a fraudulent and gross twisting of scripture...nah!).
Amazing... you claim that we get our conclusion of Limited Atonement through philosophical inferences but when we show you Scripture you say it's nothing but "fraudulent and gross twisting of scripture."
Your attitude needs to change, kid. I'm not much older then you (I'm only 22) but your idea of "debate" is a joke.
You wouldn't be saying that if you actually watched my response. He's ripped 1 Samuel 3:14 completely out of its context and that was his strongest argument. I call it like I see it. I'm not required to talk nice to scripture-twisting heretics and coat my responses with sugar.
Please try to understand this. This is what my initial video was about in the first place: his sheep are part of the group known as all people. Numerous clear scriptures say he died for all people. Saying he died for his sheep doesn't negate everyone else because they are part of all, and I PROVED conclusively in my response that 1 Sam 3:14 isn't talking about damnation, but Eli's family losing their priesthood and longevity.
You claim to follow Scripture, but you also claim that you don't need to respect people when dealing with their theology. Well, you are going directly against the word of God (1 Pet. 3:11).
Tell me, is every individual a sheep of Christ? And yes, Christ died for all PEOPLE (i.e. every tribe, nation, and tongue), but does that mean every individual person? Is every individual person a sheep of Christ?
October is not asking a reason for the hope that is in me, he's twisting Scripture. Totally different scenario, unless you'd like to accuse Jesus for calling people vipers, hypocrites, etc.
Hebrews 2:9, "But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man."
Tribe, nation, etc. is in a different context. He died for every man. What about 2 Peter 2:1?
No, but that question is not the issue. Unless it says he only died for the sheep (and it doesn't), it is merely complementary to statements that say he died for every man. Now what about 2 Peter 2:1?
"But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction."
Oh, so you're one of those "I need the EXACT words" type of people... great... :-/ Thanks for showing your inconsistency.
The word "Lord" or "Master" here is not talking about Christ. It is referring to the Father (i.e. Greek "despotes"). It is not "kurios" as EVERY other reference to Christ "buying" says. Also, it doesn't say "bought with a price" as every other reference to Christ purchasing with His blood states. You are forcing a concept into this text that doesn't exist in the text.
I'M forcing into the text? Look what you do on the reference that Christ died for the sheep! You read into it as if it means he only died for the elect, but it absolutely does not say that.
If you think the exact words are NOT important, I see no reason to continue this discussion. The emphasis on words is all over the Bible.
But I'll pretend for a moment that you're right, that it isn't Jesus buying the false prophets...what then does it refer to?
If you want exact words then why do you believe in the Trinity? Why do you believe in the "Deity of Christ"? Oh, and you can't use 1 John 5:7 because it DOES NOT EXIST in the original manuscripts.
And why "pretend" that I am right? I'm telling you exactly what the ORIGINAL LANGUAGE says! It's sad that your KJV Onlyism has blinded you to the truth of His word.
Wow, that was a huge jump in logic. No wonder you don't understand any of my points. I say you're not reading the words that are there carefully enough to notice that a passage doesn't really support limited atonement, and you jump to this Trinity thing...totally different!
Regardless of the Greek term used, it means some Lord bought the false prophets, does it not? I'm asking you what that is referring to if you're right (you're not) that it doesn't refer to Jesus. No other NT context fits.
I wasn't trying to change the subject to the Trinity, David. I was simply using it as an example of how dumb it is to say "I need exact words or else I won't believe it" like you do.
And about 2 Pet. 2:1. I'll just send you a Private Message with a video link since I cannot link it in comments.
No, I ran out of room. I explained multiple times that you are not reading your own proof texts very carefully and you switched to the nonsense about "well if the word Trinity isn't in the Bible why do you believe it?" It's a red herring. You're worse than atheists saying such and so verses contradict each other even though a careful reading of the words that are there rather than what they want to believe reveals that there is no problem.
Jesus never said He lays down His life for his sheep. He said He lays down His life for THE sheep.
Later on He tells the pharisees that they are not His sheep because His sheep hear His voice and follow him. All men are like sheep and have gone astray. Only those who hear Christ's voice and follow Him are considered His sheep.
Wrong. He said that they do not believe BECAUSE they are not of His sheep. He said that His sheep hear His voice and follow. And not everyone is a sheep. If they were sheep then they would have listened to His voice and believed.
You are twisting Jesus' simply words into a huge mess for no reason. Just believe what He says.
I'm sorry but you are the one who mis-quoted scripture. You said that Jesus said "I lay down my life for MY sheep" I simply pointed out that Christ never said that. He said "THE sheep".
Of course those that don't believe are not His sheep. I don't dispute that, but If all sheep belong to Him then why even mention "His" sheep? Why not "the sheep"? There are sheep that don't belong to Him. Scripture says "we all like sheep have gone astray but the Lord has laid on Him, the initquity of us all"
"I will search for the lost and bring back the strays. I will bind up the injured and strengthen the weak, but the sleek and the strong I will destroy. I will shepherd the flock with justice."
"See, I myself will judge between the fat sheep and the lean sheep. ...I will save my flock, and they will no longer be plundered. I will judge between one sheep and another. I will place over them one shepherd, my servant David, and he will tend them; he will tend them and be their shepherd." Ezek34
Brother I love you in Christ, BUT why the bloody billy goat pic... every time I sit down now to enjoy my lamb chops that pic is going to resonate in my head! THANKS A LOT!!
The Arminian idea of Universal atonement is proposterous. Jesus died to pay for the sins and secure the salvation of all that the Father gave him to save out of the World:
John6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
The whole John 3:16 thing doesn't limit the atonement in any way! All you showed is that only those who believed would be saved.
This verse leans to Arminianism since it's talking about the whole world (yes, I've heard Calvinists redefinitions of "world" and "all" but I don't buy them at all.).
κοσμος is world. In fact the only time it excludes anybody is in passages like Jn 15 where it is used specifically as the UNbelieving ANTI Christ world.
For God so loved the entire world, all of his created humans, that he gave his only begotten Son that whoever [of the entire world that He loved and sent Christ for] would believe in Him would not perish but have eternal life.
"κοσμος is world. In fact the only time it excludes anybody is in passages like Jn 15""For God so loved the entire world, all of his created humans"
So in light of Jn 3:16 οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον and your static definition with this only exception can you explain why we are commanded in 1 Jn 2:15 Μὴ ἀγαπᾶτε τὸν κόσμον?
"that whoever [of the entire world that He loved and sent Christ for] would believe in Him would not perish but have eternal life" the passage is more properly rendered "so that everyone believing in Him will not perish but have eternal life."
That point doesn't contradict either Calvinism or Arminianism, which leads back to my first comment that this video doesn't prove limited atonement in the text, but that salvation is limited to those who believe.
To deny that is to go into universalism or some other means of salvation such as works.
"That point doesn't contradict either Calvinism or Arminianism" You didn't answer my question though, why are we commanded in 1 John 2:15 to Μὴ ἀγαπᾶτε τὸν κόσμον?
My last comment didn't answer a question because your last comment didn't have any.
We shouldn't love the world (its sin, pleasure, whatever it offers), but we should have the same compassion for those lost in the world that Jesus had. The same love that drove Him to the cross. The same love that God had for τον κοσμον when he sent His Son in Jn 3:16.
"We shouldn't love the world (its sin, pleasure, whatever it offers)"
You're doing what you just accused Calvinists of doing in redefining κόσμος, 1 John 2:15 does not state that κόσμος means sin, pleasure etc. those things would be classified as the things in the κόσμος which are set off by μηδὲ. I remind you, you defined κόσμος as: "world [the entire world] [the only time] it excludes anybody is in passages like Jn 15"
My last comment didn't contradict my first on defining κοσμος. I Jn 2:16 clearly links κοσμος to sinful/unholy things which, as I said originally, is the only way κοσμος is ever limited to a certain group.
Since you seem to want to stick to just one ridgid English definition for κοσμος the Calvinist interpretation must read:
"Do not love the elect nor the things in the elect."
"I Jn 2:16 clearly links κοσμος" I think you're having a hard time understanding the context, in 1 John 2:15 it says to not love the world (Μὴ ἀγαπᾶτε) NOR (μηδὲ) the things in the world, 1 John 2:16 states "For all that IS IN the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the boastful pride of life, is not from the Father, but is from the world." So again why are we commanded to not love the world if God loved the world in John 3:16?
What Calvinism teaches is that Christians are pre-destined and elected and nobody can ever accept Christ unless they were chosen even before creation!!
Show us that doctrine, show us verses in the Bible where it says that...
Limited Atonement is true, but not the way Calvinism speaks of it!
You said whosoever and only those who believe, yes! that is true, who will believe will be atoned for by Christ! and as you said, everybody is welcome....there for its unlimited, but limited to only those who do not believe and who do not except it...why should God save those who don't wanna believe and follow His teaching?
But what ChristianTruthHammer meant is that you say free will is not envolved
I obviously cannot and will give details beyond this as SCripture does not go so far....but it clear from Scripture that God is not the author of sin and all good things come from God and what is sinful comes through us into this world....even Satan could not bring sin into our world without it having gone through Adam first
please explain to me how God is not the author of sin if he sovereignly decrees to remove the 'restraints' of Adam which inevitably causes Adam to take the fall of humanity?
I just did...God allows the creatures to sin....they are the active agents in sin, not God.
now you also must consider that God knew from all eternity that Adam would fall....and in "free will" theology, God still choose to create Adam and let him sin did he not? I mean , unless you want to go the Open Theist route that God didn't know....in some manner, you and I must agree that God allowed Adam to sin
Why do so many people ignore the creature/Creator distinction?
God is the measuring stick of all things. What He does IS Just, IS Right, IS Holy, IS Love, IS Grace, IS Wrath, IS Truth.
Our Creator is not subject to the measure of an autonomous attribute....HE IS THE POSITIVE OF THAT ATTRIBUTE.
What God does can NEVER be unjust, unrighteous, unholy, or unloving because we measure those characteristics by Him, not measure Him by those characteristics.
God's love is still a mystery to me. Man's pride is an even greater mystery. Since the beginning man chose to sin and his fate awaits him in hell. By the grace of God we are saved from that, this is good news. But, what are most xians complaining about today? "Oh! Its not fair God why did you save me and seal the others to their fate?" Dear xians, calvinist or not, I dont care, just be grateful that He saved you.
Why do you Calvinists stress context and then butcher it, ignore it, or make up a totally new one? Ugh...I wish I didn't have to do this, but you've earned yourself a video response. I will say that this was a better effort than the first one, but it's still so wrong it's not even funny. I'll warn you now that it'll be several parts, but I'll release them all at once, so it might not be right away. Probably within a few days.
The peculiar elect is in it's own group, they are not of the world, nor do they behave like the world. There is stumbling though of course.
"He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God. "
There it is.....a text that reveal intention and scope of the work of Christ!!! He WILL save...and his work is for "His people"....clearly a limited group....sound exegesis here!!!
in what sense are you used the intention of Christ to save? Is it an intent with an actual accomplishment or an intent with potential accomplishment.....
This is what logicians do to clarify argument Blair so if we can just get you to clarify in what sense you are purporting the usage of the intention behind the word "save" in your major premise we can test validity
yes....deductive logic has such things as informal and formal fallacies.....
Chapter 3 Hurley, 7th Edition ....fallacies like equivocation, Fallacies of relevance are included here, fallacies of weak induction, fallacies of presumption, fallacies of ambiguity, or fallacies of grammatical analogy are all Informal fallacies that take place in Inductive and Deductive arguments...again, Hurley pg. 171-172
Have you taken an actual logic class or just online lectures? curious...
uh...no I'm not implying without faith.....if anything I would argue that the gift of faith through the regeneration of the Holy Spirit was also purchased on the Cross....its a package deal so to say so that the ones that Christ died for must and inevitably will be drawn to Him....hence, they will ACTUALLY be saved....so if he did that for "all men" then universalism is being purported.
but if that is not the case, then the questions are left - what did the death of Christ really do?
so if atonement has been paid for on behalf of all men, on what basis does God send men to hell? If God is just, and a person has no sin that is in their account.....on what basis does God punish anybody in hell?
sorry...these comments are connected straight ....lol
In other words, a child has no say in their birth....they are wholly passive...in the same manner, we believe that a person is passive in the new birth....Calvinist do not consider it unjust when God brings forth his own children yet you seem too think it is unjust....would you be consistent and say that it is unjust when a child is born into this world since they have no say in when, where, how they are born,etc...?
b/c I already answered 'yes' to unbelief being a sin earlier, but we are mass messaging each other, so comments get lost, lol.
no, it is not unjust for a baby to be born in this world, as they will eventually be drawn by God to make a free will choice where they will spend eternity.
isn't it also an act of love? Do you consider it unjust when law enforcement stops a person from committing suicide? Hardly! How can it be unjust to SAVE a person???/
So simple, your telling us that you are morally superior to those who die in unbelief, and that God is going to reward your moral superiority with heaven. And, that your moral superiority deserves to be rewarded with heaven. How do you support that thesis with the Bible?
I walk into an ice cream store where I'm faced with two flavors of ice cream. Rocky Road, which is one of my favorites, and Dog Vomit. Does the fact that I don't choose the "Dog Vomit" flavored ice cream mean that my choice wasn't a fee-will choice?
what he saying is that if God draws all men equally, what made you willing to go to Christ and not others? Was it something in you? Were you more "pliable"....something? It has to be something in you that made you willing and something in somebody else that doesn't make them willing.....
So the question, what IN YOU makes you better than the ones who don't come?
according to the Bible, God was gracious and loved me inspite of my sin and didnt leave me to die in my sins...he SAVED me from my sin.....good thing I didn't have a say in it or I would have been on my way to hell!!! Thank God for His grace!!!! Soli Deo Gloria!!!
Through regeneration God grants me a new will through a new heart with new desires....Ezek 36:25-27.....there is everything gracious about it and nothing unjust on God's part! We are the creatures and he is the creator....the injustice is when the creatures rebels against anything the Creators determines to do....
injustice is giving me something contrary to what I deserver....I don't deserve salvation....I'm getting mercy...I don't see the injustice in God's grace.
what rights does a creature have contrary to their creator? What happened to the God of the bible who does "whatsoever he wills in heaven and on earth and none can sway his hand or say to him, what have you done?" (Dan 4:35)....instead we have a god who does "whatsoever he can according to the wills of the creatures....."
God didn't "force" anybody to believe....when he saves, he saves all of our being from sin, including our wills my friend...Thank God he saved me!!!
Simple, Look at my "Dog Vomit" example above. If at one time I liked dog vomit (sin), and God changed my nature so that I no longer like dog vomit (sin), He didn't do any violence against my will, He just changed my nature. And, if in doing so He also saves me from eternal punishment, isn't that gracious? I'm glad that Christ paid the penalty for my sins, and that the Holy Spirit is changing my nature. Do you believe that people have the freedom to sin in heaven?
He didn't save me "against my will"...he saved me WITH it.....the will is not some independent faculty in our beings....it is vitally connected to our inmost being....by giving me a new heart there is, in a sense, a new will......surely you can see that God does this in Ezekiel 36:25-27.....This is the new covenant!! God will not leave us to our own power but will give us what we lacked to obey him....a heart for Him!!!
perhaps, if I may, you don't understand the concepts of the compatibolism and freedom....they are deeper than you might think and deeper than most non-philosophers are willing to go...
All Christians must be Theistic determinist in some form for the Bible clearly teaches that God has decrees and a plan that he is carrying out
Yes I believe God decreed the fall of Adam....all things have been predestined...God did not "force" Adam to fall....it was a passive decree. I have a study on this..
an active decree is something that God decrees to happen through the activity of his own personal will and power to bring to pass while an active decree is God making allowing the creature "free reign" to be sinful as it were....that is, God removes his restraint that providentially uphold (in these cases, the moral restraint) and hence God is not the active agent in the passive decree; the creature is and bears the responsiblity of the act.
not just "simply allowing" but removing restraints that allow the creature to be without his upholding graces as it were....of course God is in charge of how far they will go, etc.....and the consequences of their sinfulness....we can see God's preserving grace in the kings that Abraham met whom God kept from sinning against Sarah in the OT we also see God "giving people over' to the sinfulness in their own hearts....he is not making them sin, but allowing them to and still sovereignly in charge
Adam, like all other creatures are not eternal and are subject to change...Adam was not upholding himself as a creature either physically, spiritually or morally....were God to remove his physical restraints he would have decayed back to non-existence....all things that exist, even spirits, are upheld by the will of God.....Adam was even upheld morally by God....for Adam to disobey, all God had to do was "leave him to himself" as it were and that is where Satan came to tempt...man is not eternal
on the day of judgment, those who refused to believe the gospel will be judged by their WORKS.
their works don't meet the necessary requirement to enter Heaven(which is Christ's Righteousness), so they are cast in to the lake of fire for eternity..
you just said that all the sins of all men have been atoned for...the "eternal debt" has been dealt with....so how will they be judged by their works when their sins have been cleared.....????
This makes no sense....I just no support for such a teaching in Scripture either....
God is still punishing them because their works "fall short" ...isn't that what sin is??? "to miss the mark", to "fall short"??? Aren't their "short fallings" /sins paid for??? and what does it mean to "pay for" if not to render to God what they could not of themselves?
also, you seem to be separating the work of Christ.....as if Christ can totally pay for a person's sin and then just leave them neutral.....do not the Scriptures say that we are justified through his death (Rom. 3:24, 5:9)....justification is linked to his death as well as his life.
it seems like your saying a person can have no sin at all in their account because atonement has been made BUT they can still undergo punishment.....if there is no sin for anybody that God counts against them, on what basis is the wrath of God still being displayed in the world (Roman 1:18)? What basis does God have to be wrathful anymore if all the sins of all men have been paid for?? is God's not being just? Double jeopardy?
oh yeah....and monergism is not and has nothing to do with the metaphysical system of determinism
Monergism means that one power regenerates...that is that God alone causes regenerationg and not as a cooperative effort between God's power and man's permission.
Also you should know that determinism is not necessarily fatalism....there are different branches of determinism such as soft determinism that still hold to means whereas fatalism disregards means to bring about state of affairs.
I am a compatibolist ....you also need to determine the positive and negative aspects of freedom...."free from..." and "free to...", metaphysics differentiates between different kinds of freedom.....compatibolism teaches that a persons will is free to do what they desire or according to the nature of the one choosing.....hence a person is always "free" to be what they are...in our case, if they are righteous, they are free do righteousness, but if they are sinful then they are free to be sinful
ok, the bit that I did watch he had his terms all wrong and stuff....I was actually gonna correct him but I still haven't gotten around to that.....but he clearly is ignorant of the meaning of those terms and the history of determinism, fatalism etc....
you can just tell he studied from the internet....I was a philosophy minor so I'm familiar in depth with these topics
so the question in choosing for a compatibolist is what is the nature of the one choosing....the nature of the thing determines its desires.....its desires invoke the will as a means of expressing the heart....
hence, the person is "free" to be what they are....if they are sinner that is what they will be....if they are a "new creature" then that is what they must be...inevitably.
No. determinism is not the logical conclusion of monergism....a strict determinism lead to non-personality
ok, these are not the only fallacies in logic....There are also informal fallacies which are detected in the analysis of the contents of the argument rather than through structure...
again, you need to be more precise in your meaning of "save" ....do you mean to "actually save" or to "potentially save"? There is ambiguity there in the first place....if you leave it as it, Universallism is what the conclusion is proposing.
but "perspective" doesn't play a part in determining validity or arguments Blair....logic is about structure.
A is B
B is not C
Therefore, A is not C
There is validity but not TRUTH....which is my point in your construction of your argument.....an argument might be valid but not necessarily true.....this is logic Chapter 1
redemption, that he didn't make reconciliation, that his death was not really substitutionary....and then you would have to prove that his death was only POTENTIALLY those things and that his death is only considered valid BEFORE THE FATHER WHO ORDAINED IT when it is accepted first by the sinner.
Your argument is not even an attempt to deal with the scholarship and myriads of arguments that serve the doctrine of Limited Atonement....do your best if you want....
Recant my position, I would have to ask you to first deal with all the exegesis and argument offered in works like George Smeaton"s "the apostles doctrine of the atonement" and "Jesus' doctrine of the ATonement", "The Death of Death in the Death of Christ" by John Owen, "The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross" by Leon Morris, "Studies in the Atonement" by Robert Morey, "The Cross of Christ" by John Stott...you would have to prove that Christ didn't make an actual propitiation, an actual....
Again Blair....your argument offered is not worth engaging.
The other thing you have to consider is that SCRIPTURE not LOGIC is the ultimate determiner of truth....again, your argument (logical construction can be valid but still yield something contrary to the true state of affairs that Scripture teaches like I demonstrated in my logically valid argument). Exegesis of the relevant passages of Scripture...to recant my position......
Numbers and I sam have reference to God in saying "God is not a man that he should lie, nor a son of man that he should repent"
I was only using the argument to demonstrate that pieces of Scripture can be used to make logically valid argument that do not necessarily yield that actual state of affairs that SCripture teaches....
I agree that the Bible is a whole...but when interpreting a TEXT it is important to stick within the text itself....if you keep running to another text you have to understand that those connections are not created by the immediate text itself unless explicit....let me ask you: could "sinners" in 1 Tim 1:15 be a reference to the kind of people Jesus came to save without including all of them? For instance, "I have come to call sinners to repentance, not the righteous? Why or why not?
but you act and treat me as if I do not share the same integrity to be Biblical and to handle the Scriptures correctly...you act as if I'm flippant about these things....I've been a Christian for 12 years now and have been studying those entire 12....
you are treating and responding to me as if I - and others - are somehow below you. A true display of pride and arrogance which has no place in these holy discussions in which we seek God's truth TOGETHER. =/
I agree...but in interpreting this particular text, what in THIS text (without running to another text) warrants sinners being understood as "all men universally and individually"?
I agree with the statement that "all men are sinners" but can you point that out from THIS TEXT are you are inserting it into this particular text?
Anybody can take piece of Scripture to formulate "logical statement" and even valid ones. Eg. Jesus is God, God is not a man, Therefore Jesus is not a man...silly
ok...so in the text, you offered, what in the text is the warrant for saying that "sinners" is a reference to all men universally and individually.....
so do I....but "his people" and "The Church" and "His sheep" belong to the category of sinners too so if God only saves them in the atonement, the statement "Christ came to save sinners' is not disproven at all.....it still remains true....after all, isn't Christ saving sinners even if he saves some and not all?
sure...and does SCripture mean here that God came to save all sinners universally or some sinners? Would not Scripture teach that only sinners who believe are the ones that are saved?
well the problem is a failure to elucidate it seems....in the actual argument the understanding of the word "save" is now ambigous....is it to actually save or to possibly save???
Its also obvious that the conclusion or the argument - as is - is actually supporting universalism.....he has to modify the term "save" to clarify
unless you are willing to change your first premise to "Christ came to try to save all men", your version of the atonement / salvation is not being supported by your argument.....again, you are actually purporting universalism as Christ's intended purpose
No....again, while you might claim logical consistency, your conclusion is not supported by Scripture.....
How does your conclusion stand against Matt 1:21 which says, "he WILL SAVE HIS PEOPLE..." This is not hypothetical language either...it is langauge of certainty, "He will save...."
If we get nitpicky too, Christ is not contained in your major or minor premise but appears in your conclusion. There is something wrong with this syllogism too....
You're argument is not worth engaging....I already told you, YOU created that construct, not Scripture.....logic is a tool, not a be and and end all. I've cited problems with your conclusion in reference to all Scripture. you started with universals and ended with particulars, something happened there....
Let Scripture define its own terms....exegesis...not logic
I think jn 3:16 is a very poor passage to use when trying to defend anything Calvinistic. In the case of limited atonement the fact that "whosoever" isn't in the original Gk is a weak argument. It is common to put in English words so the sentences will flow smoothly for the reader. God so loved the world, that is everybody. So whosoever fits the context. In the Gk grammar whosoever believes means whosoever Continues to believe, and shall have everlasting life means will continue to etc etc. So
coolhellcat18 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
To ARMINIANS -Romans 11:32 "for God has shut up all to unbelief, that he might have mercy on all".
To CALVINISTS -1 Timothy 4:10"for for this we both labour and are reproached, because we hope on the living God, who is Saviour of ALL MEN ESPECIALLY y of those believing."
DOUBTERS I Cor. 15:23-28"But every man in his own order:..For He must reign until He has put all enemies under His feet..last enemy...destroyed is DEATH... Son also Himself be subject unto Him..that God may be ALL IN ALL"
motibi 6 months ago
Whose the guy in the video? He's really cool! Does he have his own youtube channel?
DudeDesi07 10 months ago
haven't seen such an awesome video in defense of Limited Atonement!!
DudeDesi07 10 months ago
@HolinessCrusade
Well it does say clearly in the scripture that their sins will not be atoned for ever. Even if Christ was reveled to them they would not accept him.
Pking2death 1 year ago
Comment removed
Pking2death 1 year ago
even with whosoever, it still is true, because Whosoever, or anyone who does believe, WILL be saved,...problem is not everyone will, Only his elect will
CripForChrist 2 years ago
Why haven't you approved my video responses yet? I uploaded them 6 days ago.
ChristianTruthHammer 2 years ago
"Why haven't approved my video responses yet? I've uploaded them 6 days ago."
This question coming from a gentlemen who also doesn't admit all video nor text responses himself? LOL!
zmode82 2 years ago
I approved this video as a response. All I did here is ask a question. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect an answer.
ChristianTruthHammer 2 years ago
I wonder if ChristianTruthHammer attempted to respond to these videos. I somehow doubt it.
Keep up the good work!
CmRoddy 2 years ago
Actually, I did, he just hasn't approved it yet (can't imagine why...perhaps because it exposes this video as a fraudulent and gross twisting of scripture...nah!).
ChristianTruthHammer 2 years ago
Amazing... you claim that we get our conclusion of Limited Atonement through philosophical inferences but when we show you Scripture you say it's nothing but "fraudulent and gross twisting of scripture."
Your attitude needs to change, kid. I'm not much older then you (I'm only 22) but your idea of "debate" is a joke.
CmRoddy 2 years ago
You wouldn't be saying that if you actually watched my response. He's ripped 1 Samuel 3:14 completely out of its context and that was his strongest argument. I call it like I see it. I'm not required to talk nice to scripture-twisting heretics and coat my responses with sugar.
ChristianTruthHammer 2 years ago
Then you are blatantly ignoring the command of Scripture and are, in so doing, being a hypocrite.
Thanks for playing. I'll go back to believing the Bible when Jesus said that He lays His life down FOR HIS SHEEP and not for every individual.
CmRoddy 2 years ago
How so? How am I being a hypocrite?
Please try to understand this. This is what my initial video was about in the first place: his sheep are part of the group known as all people. Numerous clear scriptures say he died for all people. Saying he died for his sheep doesn't negate everyone else because they are part of all, and I PROVED conclusively in my response that 1 Sam 3:14 isn't talking about damnation, but Eli's family losing their priesthood and longevity.
ChristianTruthHammer 2 years ago
You claim to follow Scripture, but you also claim that you don't need to respect people when dealing with their theology. Well, you are going directly against the word of God (1 Pet. 3:11).
Tell me, is every individual a sheep of Christ? And yes, Christ died for all PEOPLE (i.e. every tribe, nation, and tongue), but does that mean every individual person? Is every individual person a sheep of Christ?
CmRoddy 2 years ago
October is not asking a reason for the hope that is in me, he's twisting Scripture. Totally different scenario, unless you'd like to accuse Jesus for calling people vipers, hypocrites, etc.
Hebrews 2:9, "But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man."
Tribe, nation, etc. is in a different context. He died for every man. What about 2 Peter 2:1?
ChristianTruthHammer 2 years ago
*sigh*
David, you never answered my question. Is everyone a sheep of Christ? Is every individual person a sheep of Christ?
CmRoddy 2 years ago
No, but that question is not the issue. Unless it says he only died for the sheep (and it doesn't), it is merely complementary to statements that say he died for every man. Now what about 2 Peter 2:1?
"But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction."
ChristianTruthHammer 2 years ago
Oh, so you're one of those "I need the EXACT words" type of people... great... :-/ Thanks for showing your inconsistency.
The word "Lord" or "Master" here is not talking about Christ. It is referring to the Father (i.e. Greek "despotes"). It is not "kurios" as EVERY other reference to Christ "buying" says. Also, it doesn't say "bought with a price" as every other reference to Christ purchasing with His blood states. You are forcing a concept into this text that doesn't exist in the text.
CmRoddy 2 years ago
I'M forcing into the text? Look what you do on the reference that Christ died for the sheep! You read into it as if it means he only died for the elect, but it absolutely does not say that.
If you think the exact words are NOT important, I see no reason to continue this discussion. The emphasis on words is all over the Bible.
But I'll pretend for a moment that you're right, that it isn't Jesus buying the false prophets...what then does it refer to?
ChristianTruthHammer 2 years ago
If you want exact words then why do you believe in the Trinity? Why do you believe in the "Deity of Christ"? Oh, and you can't use 1 John 5:7 because it DOES NOT EXIST in the original manuscripts.
And why "pretend" that I am right? I'm telling you exactly what the ORIGINAL LANGUAGE says! It's sad that your KJV Onlyism has blinded you to the truth of His word.
CmRoddy 2 years ago
Wow, that was a huge jump in logic. No wonder you don't understand any of my points. I say you're not reading the words that are there carefully enough to notice that a passage doesn't really support limited atonement, and you jump to this Trinity thing...totally different!
Regardless of the Greek term used, it means some Lord bought the false prophets, does it not? I'm asking you what that is referring to if you're right (you're not) that it doesn't refer to Jesus. No other NT context fits.
ChristianTruthHammer 2 years ago
I wasn't trying to change the subject to the Trinity, David. I was simply using it as an example of how dumb it is to say "I need exact words or else I won't believe it" like you do.
And about 2 Pet. 2:1. I'll just send you a Private Message with a video link since I cannot link it in comments.
CmRoddy 2 years ago
No, I ran out of room. I explained multiple times that you are not reading your own proof texts very carefully and you switched to the nonsense about "well if the word Trinity isn't in the Bible why do you believe it?" It's a red herring. You're worse than atheists saying such and so verses contradict each other even though a careful reading of the words that are there rather than what they want to believe reveals that there is no problem.
/watch?v=KsakUoLW40w
/watch?v=AULkA3WaQIE
ChristianTruthHammer 2 years ago
Wow. Your tradition has clearly grasped your mind in such a way that you can't even BEGIN to see what I am trying to say.
Forget it, David. I'm not going to argue with a brick wall anymore.
CmRoddy 2 years ago
Likewise. Have a nice life.
ChristianTruthHammer 2 years ago
Jesus never said He lays down His life for his sheep. He said He lays down His life for THE sheep.
Later on He tells the pharisees that they are not His sheep because His sheep hear His voice and follow him. All men are like sheep and have gone astray. Only those who hear Christ's voice and follow Him are considered His sheep.
shteve77 2 years ago
Wrong. He said that they do not believe BECAUSE they are not of His sheep. He said that His sheep hear His voice and follow. And not everyone is a sheep. If they were sheep then they would have listened to His voice and believed.
You are twisting Jesus' simply words into a huge mess for no reason. Just believe what He says.
CmRoddy 2 years ago
I'm sorry but you are the one who mis-quoted scripture. You said that Jesus said "I lay down my life for MY sheep" I simply pointed out that Christ never said that. He said "THE sheep".
Of course those that don't believe are not His sheep. I don't dispute that, but If all sheep belong to Him then why even mention "His" sheep? Why not "the sheep"? There are sheep that don't belong to Him. Scripture says "we all like sheep have gone astray but the Lord has laid on Him, the initquity of us all"
shteve77 2 years ago
"I will search for the lost and bring back the strays. I will bind up the injured and strengthen the weak, but the sleek and the strong I will destroy. I will shepherd the flock with justice."
"See, I myself will judge between the fat sheep and the lean sheep. ...I will save my flock, and they will no longer be plundered. I will judge between one sheep and another. I will place over them one shepherd, my servant David, and he will tend them; he will tend them and be their shepherd." Ezek34
shteve77 2 years ago
Brother I love you in Christ, BUT why the bloody billy goat pic... every time I sit down now to enjoy my lamb chops that pic is going to resonate in my head! THANKS A LOT!!
Keep up the good work!
aburocko 2 years ago
Interesting point of view Mark!
OurGr8God 2 years ago
Universal atonement = Universalism
DeathRattleShakes 2 years ago
Which other passages reveal that some individuals' sins will never be atoned for? Are those the only ones?
2rowsChannel 2 years ago
The Arminian idea of Universal atonement is proposterous. Jesus died to pay for the sins and secure the salvation of all that the Father gave him to save out of the World:
John6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
Matt26:28
For this is my blood of the new testament, which is SHED FOR MANY for the remission of sins.
No possibility that those given may decide not to come and these are the MANY the blood was shed for.
ChristianTULIP 2 years ago
The whole John 3:16 thing doesn't limit the atonement in any way! All you showed is that only those who believed would be saved.
This verse leans to Arminianism since it's talking about the whole world (yes, I've heard Calvinists redefinitions of "world" and "all" but I don't buy them at all.).
wuteverfloatsurkayak 2 years ago
"yes, I've heard Calvinists redefinitions of [world]"
For no other reason than for curiosity sake, I was wondering if you could provide for us the definition of κόσμος in John 3:16
Tessares12345 2 years ago
κοσμος is world. In fact the only time it excludes anybody is in passages like Jn 15 where it is used specifically as the UNbelieving ANTI Christ world.
For God so loved the entire world, all of his created humans, that he gave his only begotten Son that whoever [of the entire world that He loved and sent Christ for] would believe in Him would not perish but have eternal life.
wuteverfloatsurkayak 2 years ago
"κοσμος is world. In fact the only time it excludes anybody is in passages like Jn 15""For God so loved the entire world, all of his created humans"
So in light of Jn 3:16 οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον and your static definition with this only exception can you explain why we are commanded in 1 Jn 2:15 Μὴ ἀγαπᾶτε τὸν κόσμον?
Tessares12345 2 years ago
"that whoever [of the entire world that He loved and sent Christ for] would believe in Him would not perish but have eternal life" the passage is more properly rendered "so that everyone believing in Him will not perish but have eternal life."
Tessares12345 2 years ago
That point doesn't contradict either Calvinism or Arminianism, which leads back to my first comment that this video doesn't prove limited atonement in the text, but that salvation is limited to those who believe.
To deny that is to go into universalism or some other means of salvation such as works.
wuteverfloatsurkayak 2 years ago
"That point doesn't contradict either Calvinism or Arminianism" You didn't answer my question though, why are we commanded in 1 John 2:15 to Μὴ ἀγαπᾶτε τὸν κόσμον?
Tessares12345 2 years ago
My last comment didn't answer a question because your last comment didn't have any.
We shouldn't love the world (its sin, pleasure, whatever it offers), but we should have the same compassion for those lost in the world that Jesus had. The same love that drove Him to the cross. The same love that God had for τον κοσμον when he sent His Son in Jn 3:16.
wuteverfloatsurkayak 2 years ago
"We shouldn't love the world (its sin, pleasure, whatever it offers)"
You're doing what you just accused Calvinists of doing in redefining κόσμος, 1 John 2:15 does not state that κόσμος means sin, pleasure etc. those things would be classified as the things in the κόσμος which are set off by μηδὲ. I remind you, you defined κόσμος as: "world [the entire world] [the only time] it excludes anybody is in passages like Jn 15"
Tessares12345 2 years ago
My last comment didn't contradict my first on defining κοσμος. I Jn 2:16 clearly links κοσμος to sinful/unholy things which, as I said originally, is the only way κοσμος is ever limited to a certain group.
Since you seem to want to stick to just one ridgid English definition for κοσμος the Calvinist interpretation must read:
"Do not love the elect nor the things in the elect."
Yet I'm sure that's not what you believe it says.
wuteverfloatsurkayak 2 years ago
"I Jn 2:16 clearly links κοσμος" I think you're having a hard time understanding the context, in 1 John 2:15 it says to not love the world (Μὴ ἀγαπᾶτε) NOR (μηδὲ) the things in the world, 1 John 2:16 states "For all that IS IN the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the boastful pride of life, is not from the Father, but is from the world." So again why are we commanded to not love the world if God loved the world in John 3:16?
Tessares12345 2 years ago
Cool hair bro!
2row777 2 years ago
"Oh I see you are correct all the ones believing"
That's all I wanted to discuss with you was grammar my friend, thank you for the discussion ;)
Tessares12345 2 years ago
You didn't answer my questions, How is a participle in a subjunctive phrase modifying a noun in an indicative clause?
Can you also explain why an adjective in the nominative case is modifying a noun in the accustive also for that matter?
Tessares12345 2 years ago
"adjective — A word that modifies or describes a noun, noun substitute (e.g., pronoun, participle as a substantive), or another adjective."
No as I stated believing is a participle which as your definition indicates puts it in line with being modified by an adjective ;)
Tessares12345 2 years ago
"So as I noted pas being a pronoun relates to the NOUN world "
It is a verbal adjective in that it is build off a verb stem but functions as an adjective not a verb as you previously stated.
How is a participle in a subjunctive phrase modifying a noun in an indicative clause?
Tessares12345 2 years ago
"Believing is a verb not a noun so what does pas modify"
Believing is not a verb in the text it's a participle
Tessares12345 2 years ago
"[pas] is used as an adjective [which describes kosmos]"
No it doesn't, it is an adjective but it doesn't describe or modify kosmos
the phrase is πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων which means either "all the ones believing" or "everyone believing"
Tessares12345 2 years ago
What Calvinism teaches is that Christians are pre-destined and elected and nobody can ever accept Christ unless they were chosen even before creation!!
Show us that doctrine, show us verses in the Bible where it says that...
Sergei91 2 years ago
Wait my dear friend.
Limited Atonement is true, but not the way Calvinism speaks of it!
You said whosoever and only those who believe, yes! that is true, who will believe will be atoned for by Christ! and as you said, everybody is welcome....there for its unlimited, but limited to only those who do not believe and who do not except it...why should God save those who don't wanna believe and follow His teaching?
But what ChristianTruthHammer meant is that you say free will is not envolved
Sergei91 2 years ago
I obviously cannot and will give details beyond this as SCripture does not go so far....but it clear from Scripture that God is not the author of sin and all good things come from God and what is sinful comes through us into this world....even Satan could not bring sin into our world without it having gone through Adam first
prchdaword 2 years ago
lol.
please explain to me how God is not the author of sin if he sovereignly decrees to remove the 'restraints' of Adam which inevitably causes Adam to take the fall of humanity?
simple475 2 years ago
I just did...God allows the creatures to sin....they are the active agents in sin, not God.
now you also must consider that God knew from all eternity that Adam would fall....and in "free will" theology, God still choose to create Adam and let him sin did he not? I mean , unless you want to go the Open Theist route that God didn't know....in some manner, you and I must agree that God allowed Adam to sin
prchdaword 2 years ago
no no.
what you said is different than merely God allowing Adam to sin.
I believe God created Adam with a free will.
Adam ate of the apple and disobeyed the commandment of God by his own free will.
God knew full well that Adam was going to sin, but he did not tamper with Adam's free will.
what YOU are saying is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT than what I believe.
you say Adam was in the garden all perfectly fine.
then God decides to (ACTION)REMOVE the 'restraints' of Adam. which causes Adam to sin.
simple475 2 years ago
Why do so many people ignore the creature/Creator distinction?
God is the measuring stick of all things. What He does IS Just, IS Right, IS Holy, IS Love, IS Grace, IS Wrath, IS Truth.
Our Creator is not subject to the measure of an autonomous attribute....HE IS THE POSITIVE OF THAT ATTRIBUTE.
What God does can NEVER be unjust, unrighteous, unholy, or unloving because we measure those characteristics by Him, not measure Him by those characteristics.
kamaujackson811 2 years ago
God's love is still a mystery to me. Man's pride is an even greater mystery. Since the beginning man chose to sin and his fate awaits him in hell. By the grace of God we are saved from that, this is good news. But, what are most xians complaining about today? "Oh! Its not fair God why did you save me and seal the others to their fate?" Dear xians, calvinist or not, I dont care, just be grateful that He saved you.
zmode82 2 years ago
Why do you Calvinists stress context and then butcher it, ignore it, or make up a totally new one? Ugh...I wish I didn't have to do this, but you've earned yourself a video response. I will say that this was a better effort than the first one, but it's still so wrong it's not even funny. I'll warn you now that it'll be several parts, but I'll release them all at once, so it might not be right away. Probably within a few days.
ChristianTruthHammer 2 years ago
I'll be back in a bit
prchdaword 2 years ago
you know that the word "world" is used in 14 different senses in Scriptures right?
prchdaword 2 years ago
"I have given them your word and the world has hated them, for they are not of the world any more than I am of the world."
(John 17:14)
"" 'For I will take you out of the nations; I will gather you from all the countries and bring you back into your own land."
(Eze 36:24)
Take it from scripture, I just follow what His word says.
God bless.
SalvationEternity777 2 years ago
The peculiar elect is in it's own group, they are not of the world, nor do they behave like the world. There is stumbling though of course.
"He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God. "
(John 1:11-13)
There's distinction between the lost world and the sheep. GB!
SalvationEternity777 2 years ago
then you are content with the conclusion that the intention of Christ is universalism correct?
now think of the counter to your argument....Jesus Christ is a human being....is he a sinner??
prchdaword 2 years ago
"She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins." "
(Matthew 1:21)
He WILL save His people.
He might?... He will!
God bless,
SalvationEternity777 2 years ago
There it is.....a text that reveal intention and scope of the work of Christ!!! He WILL save...and his work is for "His people"....clearly a limited group....sound exegesis here!!!
prchdaword 2 years ago
ok so in this argument, could we reconstruct it to say
(Major) Christ came to attempt to save sinners
(Minor) All men are sinners
Therefore Christ came to attempt to save all men
is that your argument?
prchdaword 2 years ago
in what sense are you used the intention of Christ to save? Is it an intent with an actual accomplishment or an intent with potential accomplishment.....
This is what logicians do to clarify argument Blair so if we can just get you to clarify in what sense you are purporting the usage of the intention behind the word "save" in your major premise we can test validity
prchdaword 2 years ago
yes....deductive logic has such things as informal and formal fallacies.....
Chapter 3 Hurley, 7th Edition ....fallacies like equivocation, Fallacies of relevance are included here, fallacies of weak induction, fallacies of presumption, fallacies of ambiguity, or fallacies of grammatical analogy are all Informal fallacies that take place in Inductive and Deductive arguments...again, Hurley pg. 171-172
Have you taken an actual logic class or just online lectures? curious...
prchdaword 2 years ago
again...are we evaluating the text now, or your argument?
prchdaword 2 years ago
why don't you guys debate this on my video I put in video response to MC's video.
it answers this clearly...
simple475 2 years ago
in what sense are you using "save" in the major premise and in what sense are you using it in the Conclusion? are they the same meaning?
and which meaning? To potentially save or to actually save?
prchdaword 2 years ago
Christ came into the world to ACTUALLY save all sinners, prchdaword...
you are trying to imply that there is no condition(Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved) upon salvation.
which is exactly why monergism = determinism(fatalism)
simple475 2 years ago
uh...no I'm not implying without faith.....if anything I would argue that the gift of faith through the regeneration of the Holy Spirit was also purchased on the Cross....its a package deal so to say so that the ones that Christ died for must and inevitably will be drawn to Him....hence, they will ACTUALLY be saved....so if he did that for "all men" then universalism is being purported.
but if that is not the case, then the questions are left - what did the death of Christ really do?
prchdaword 2 years ago
...universalism isn't being purported in the slightest.
the atonement is God-ward.
God paid God the debt HUMANITY owed God.
it was an unconditional atonement.
the eternal punishment on sin has been paid for.
those who go to hell go there because they remain spiritually dead, thanks to the fall of Adam.
they don't get regenerated(born-again/saved), and thus, don't have Christ's Righteousness which is the requirement to enter heaven.John3:3
simple475 2 years ago
so if atonement has been paid for on behalf of all men, on what basis does God send men to hell? If God is just, and a person has no sin that is in their account.....on what basis does God punish anybody in hell?
prchdaword 2 years ago
the eternal punishment on sin has been atoned for.
remember, hell was made for the angels.
God doesn't want anyone to be in hell, right?
the people who go to hell go there because they refuse to Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved..
they go there because God IS just.
God can't let them in to heaven un-regenerated.
and God is not going to force regeneration upon them, because that is unjust.
simple475 2 years ago
is it "unjust" when a child is born into this world with no will to say yes or no?
prchdaword 2 years ago
hmm?
could you elaborate on that questino please
simple475 2 years ago
its pretty straight forward....is unbelief a sin? Is it a sin to not believe what God says or in God?
prchdaword 2 years ago
you asked,
"is it "unjust" when a child is born into this world with no will to say yes or no?"
this is what I'm asking you to elaborate on.
simple475 2 years ago
sorry...these comments are connected straight ....lol
In other words, a child has no say in their birth....they are wholly passive...in the same manner, we believe that a person is passive in the new birth....Calvinist do not consider it unjust when God brings forth his own children yet you seem too think it is unjust....would you be consistent and say that it is unjust when a child is born into this world since they have no say in when, where, how they are born,etc...?
is unbelief a sin?
prchdaword 2 years ago
yea, lol, that's ok.
b/c I already answered 'yes' to unbelief being a sin earlier, but we are mass messaging each other, so comments get lost, lol.
no, it is not unjust for a baby to be born in this world, as they will eventually be drawn by God to make a free will choice where they will spend eternity.
simple475 2 years ago
ok, so on what basis is God bring forth his own children unjust?
If unbelief is a sin, was it not paid for through the atonement? Doesn't that mean that God can't hold them accountable for unbelief?
prchdaword 2 years ago
God regenerating you against your own will when all you wanted to do was go to hell is what is unjust.
simple475 2 years ago
isn't it also an act of love? Do you consider it unjust when law enforcement stops a person from committing suicide? Hardly! How can it be unjust to SAVE a person???/
prchdaword 2 years ago
I am not denying in your theology it would be an act of grace and mercy.
but it is still completely unjust.
you wanted nothing to do with god, and wanted to spend eternity in hell.
but, he forced you AGAINST your will, to spend eternity with Him in heaven, and gave you a new heart after regeneration.
simple475 2 years ago
So simple, your telling us that you are morally superior to those who die in unbelief, and that God is going to reward your moral superiority with heaven. And, that your moral superiority deserves to be rewarded with heaven. How do you support that thesis with the Bible?
dkreichen1968 2 years ago
I am not morally superior to those who die in unbelief, dkreichen1968.
When God drawed me, I received Christ.
same with you, if you are saved.
Act 16:30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
Act 16:31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
simple475 2 years ago
Simple,
I walk into an ice cream store where I'm faced with two flavors of ice cream. Rocky Road, which is one of my favorites, and Dog Vomit. Does the fact that I don't choose the "Dog Vomit" flavored ice cream mean that my choice wasn't a fee-will choice?
dkreichen1968 2 years ago
what he saying is that if God draws all men equally, what made you willing to go to Christ and not others? Was it something in you? Were you more "pliable"....something? It has to be something in you that made you willing and something in somebody else that doesn't make them willing.....
So the question, what IN YOU makes you better than the ones who don't come?
prchdaword 2 years ago
he didn't "force" me at all.....he gave me a new heart and I willingly came to him....no coercion at all.
prchdaword 2 years ago
according to you saying you are a compatibilist and a monergist,
God is unjust.
you had a will and you wanted to hate god and spent eternity in hell.
but He was unjust and chose your eternity for you, and saved you against your own will.
simple475 2 years ago
according to the Bible, God was gracious and loved me inspite of my sin and didnt leave me to die in my sins...he SAVED me from my sin.....good thing I didn't have a say in it or I would have been on my way to hell!!! Thank God for His grace!!!! Soli Deo Gloria!!!
prchdaword 2 years ago
exactly.
you didn't have a say in it, so God is unjust.
all you wanted to do was 'hate God' and go to hell.
but he unjustly saved you against your will, and decided for you that you would go to heaven for eternity even though you wanted to go to hell.
simple475 2 years ago
I see what you are saying though.
but you already stated you are a compatibilist.
and everyone's will will always choose unholiness.
so don't you think it is unjust for God to
save you against your own will when all you wanted to do was go to hell?
simple475 2 years ago
Through regeneration God grants me a new will through a new heart with new desires....Ezek 36:25-27.....there is everything gracious about it and nothing unjust on God's part! We are the creatures and he is the creator....the injustice is when the creatures rebels against anything the Creators determines to do....
prchdaword 2 years ago
ok..are you trying to mix in determinism and free will again?
and yes, I understand your theology about God giving you a new heart after regeneration.
but we are talking about before regeneration.
you wanted to hate God.
you wanted to burn in hell.
but he unjustly chose your eternity for you, and forced you to spend eternity in Heaven.
completely against your will.
this is why it is unjust.
simple475 2 years ago
How is it "unjust" though?
Isn't it mercy?
injustice is giving me something contrary to what I deserver....I don't deserve salvation....I'm getting mercy...I don't see the injustice in God's grace.
prchdaword 2 years ago
Injustice:
1 : absence of justice : violation of right or of the rights of another : unfairness
God is unfair to you.
you say you had a free-will.
and that you wanted to hate God.
and you wanted to burn in hell.
this was your desire.
then God FORCED AGAINST YOUR ORIGINAL WILL, for you to spend eternity in heaven.
when all you wanted to do was spend eternity in hell.
simple475 2 years ago
what rights does a creature have contrary to their creator? What happened to the God of the bible who does "whatsoever he wills in heaven and on earth and none can sway his hand or say to him, what have you done?" (Dan 4:35)....instead we have a god who does "whatsoever he can according to the wills of the creatures....."
God didn't "force" anybody to believe....when he saves, he saves all of our being from sin, including our wills my friend...Thank God he saved me!!!
prchdaword 2 years ago
lol...
simple475 2 years ago
Simple, Look at my "Dog Vomit" example above. If at one time I liked dog vomit (sin), and God changed my nature so that I no longer like dog vomit (sin), He didn't do any violence against my will, He just changed my nature. And, if in doing so He also saves me from eternal punishment, isn't that gracious? I'm glad that Christ paid the penalty for my sins, and that the Holy Spirit is changing my nature. Do you believe that people have the freedom to sin in heaven?
dkreichen1968 2 years ago
but anyways..
I'm still not sure how you can be a calvinist and hold to monergism and at the same time believe man has a free will of any sorts.
I don't know nearly as much as you about calvinism..but the way I see it..
I think all calvinists to be consistent must be determinism in their theology.
I just don't see how anyone can hold to free will of any sorts.
do you believe God decreed/determined the fall of Adam?
simple475 2 years ago
Virtually no Calvinist will argue that man has a 'free' will....our will is in bondage to sin, death, satan, and our sinful nature.
God doesn't save people against their will; He changes and transforms their will.
kamaujackson811 2 years ago 2
I mentioned this in the discussion prchdaword and I were having..
prchdaword's theology teaches that God saves man THEN changes his will.
God saves prchdaword against his will.
as his only will was to hate God and go to burn in hell.
simple475 2 years ago
He didn't save me "against my will"...he saved me WITH it.....the will is not some independent faculty in our beings....it is vitally connected to our inmost being....by giving me a new heart there is, in a sense, a new will......surely you can see that God does this in Ezekiel 36:25-27.....This is the new covenant!! God will not leave us to our own power but will give us what we lacked to obey him....a heart for Him!!!
prchdaword 2 years ago
perhaps, if I may, you don't understand the concepts of the compatibolism and freedom....they are deeper than you might think and deeper than most non-philosophers are willing to go...
All Christians must be Theistic determinist in some form for the Bible clearly teaches that God has decrees and a plan that he is carrying out
Yes I believe God decreed the fall of Adam....all things have been predestined...God did not "force" Adam to fall....it was a passive decree. I have a study on this..
prchdaword 2 years ago
what is a 'passive decree'?
and how does it differ from an active decree?
just curious.
simple475 2 years ago
an active decree is something that God decrees to happen through the activity of his own personal will and power to bring to pass while an active decree is God making allowing the creature "free reign" to be sinful as it were....that is, God removes his restraint that providentially uphold (in these cases, the moral restraint) and hence God is not the active agent in the passive decree; the creature is and bears the responsiblity of the act.
prchdaword 2 years ago
so you are saying
a 'passive decree' is God just simply allowing things to happen.
so you still believe everything is determined then.
just not 'actively' determined
simple475 2 years ago
not just "simply allowing" but removing restraints that allow the creature to be without his upholding graces as it were....of course God is in charge of how far they will go, etc.....and the consequences of their sinfulness....we can see God's preserving grace in the kings that Abraham met whom God kept from sinning against Sarah in the OT we also see God "giving people over' to the sinfulness in their own hearts....he is not making them sin, but allowing them to and still sovereignly in charge
prchdaword 2 years ago
ok.
'removing restraints'
please explain what 'restraints' Adam had, and which 'restraints' were 'removed'
simple475 2 years ago
Adam, like all other creatures are not eternal and are subject to change...Adam was not upholding himself as a creature either physically, spiritually or morally....were God to remove his physical restraints he would have decayed back to non-existence....all things that exist, even spirits, are upheld by the will of God.....Adam was even upheld morally by God....for Adam to disobey, all God had to do was "leave him to himself" as it were and that is where Satan came to tempt...man is not eternal
prchdaword 2 years ago
We all have a will, but is the will free?
Bibletouchstone 2 years ago
on the day of judgment, those who refused to believe the gospel will be judged by their WORKS.
their works don't meet the necessary requirement to enter Heaven(which is Christ's Righteousness), so they are cast in to the lake of fire for eternity..
simple475 2 years ago
ok....is unbelief a sin?
prchdaword 2 years ago
you just said that all the sins of all men have been atoned for...the "eternal debt" has been dealt with....so how will they be judged by their works when their sins have been cleared.....????
prchdaword 2 years ago
they are being judged by their works, not their sins.
and their works don't measure up to the righteousness of Christ which is required to enter heaven.
their sins aren't brought up
simple475 2 years ago
so a person can have works that aren't sinful, have no sin to answer for and still endure the punishment that was already endured on their behalf?
prchdaword 2 years ago
the eternal punishment on sin was endured on their behalf, yes.
this is why they aren't getting double punished in hell/lake of fire.
they go there by their own choice.
God draws them, they reject the gospel, and die and go to hell.
Judgment day comes, and they are judged according to their works.
their works don't meet the righteousness of Christ which is neccessary to enter Heaven, so they are cast in to the lake of fire.
simple475 2 years ago
This makes no sense....I just no support for such a teaching in Scripture either....
God is still punishing them because their works "fall short" ...isn't that what sin is??? "to miss the mark", to "fall short"??? Aren't their "short fallings" /sins paid for??? and what does it mean to "pay for" if not to render to God what they could not of themselves?
Is unbelief a sin?
prchdaword 2 years ago
yes man, UNBELIEF IS A SIN, lol.
ok, there is a video you should go watch to help explain it better.
go to video in my 'Calvinism' playlist, entitled,
"Unconditional Atonement"
simple475 2 years ago
also, you seem to be separating the work of Christ.....as if Christ can totally pay for a person's sin and then just leave them neutral.....do not the Scriptures say that we are justified through his death (Rom. 3:24, 5:9)....justification is linked to his death as well as his life.
prchdaword 2 years ago
exactly, we are justified the moment we believe Christ paid for our sins.
we are justified to enter Heaven, is that not right?
we are born-again with Christ's Righteousness, right?
simple475 2 years ago
is unbelief a sin?
prchdaword 2 years ago
yes.
simple475 2 years ago
it seems like your saying a person can have no sin at all in their account because atonement has been made BUT they can still undergo punishment.....if there is no sin for anybody that God counts against them, on what basis is the wrath of God still being displayed in the world (Roman 1:18)? What basis does God have to be wrathful anymore if all the sins of all men have been paid for?? is God's not being just? Double jeopardy?
prchdaword 2 years ago
oh yeah....and monergism is not and has nothing to do with the metaphysical system of determinism
Monergism means that one power regenerates...that is that God alone causes regenerationg and not as a cooperative effort between God's power and man's permission.
Also you should know that determinism is not necessarily fatalism....there are different branches of determinism such as soft determinism that still hold to means whereas fatalism disregards means to bring about state of affairs.
prchdaword 2 years ago
ok, I've been doing more research on determinism.
maybe you could explain this to me...
how on earth can someone be a monergist and still believe mankind has any free-will whatsoever?
isn't this invoking a paradox?
isn't determinism the logical conclusion of monergism?
aka, God 'determined' the fall of Adam, etc.?
simple475 2 years ago
I am a compatibolist ....you also need to determine the positive and negative aspects of freedom...."free from..." and "free to...", metaphysics differentiates between different kinds of freedom.....compatibolism teaches that a persons will is free to do what they desire or according to the nature of the one choosing.....hence a person is always "free" to be what they are...in our case, if they are righteous, they are free do righteousness, but if they are sinful then they are free to be sinful
prchdaword 2 years ago
yea,
but didn't you watch those GBFNorwalk videos? :)
he demonstrated that you can't be a monergist and a compatibilist at the same time.
simple475 2 years ago
ok, the bit that I did watch he had his terms all wrong and stuff....I was actually gonna correct him but I still haven't gotten around to that.....but he clearly is ignorant of the meaning of those terms and the history of determinism, fatalism etc....
you can just tell he studied from the internet....I was a philosophy minor so I'm familiar in depth with these topics
prchdaword 2 years ago
ok,
I'd like to see how ya respond to the monergism/determinism videos he did.
but let me ask this question again..
since you say you hold to monergism and compatabilism..
how can you say God is just in punishing those whom he didn't even draw?
simple475 2 years ago
so the question in choosing for a compatibolist is what is the nature of the one choosing....the nature of the thing determines its desires.....its desires invoke the will as a means of expressing the heart....
hence, the person is "free" to be what they are....if they are sinner that is what they will be....if they are a "new creature" then that is what they must be...inevitably.
No. determinism is not the logical conclusion of monergism....a strict determinism lead to non-personality
prchdaword 2 years ago
Here is the argument, once again.
A. Christ came in to the world to save sinners.
B. All men are sinners(Rom 3, Rom 5)
C. Christ came in to the world to save all men.
If all men are saved or not is irrelevant to this argument.
why don't we further this debate on the video LA refuted or on my response to MC's video where I talk a little more about this.
simple475 2 years ago
and here is the kicker....Does Christ save all men?
prchdaword 2 years ago
ok, these are not the only fallacies in logic....There are also informal fallacies which are detected in the analysis of the contents of the argument rather than through structure...
again, you need to be more precise in your meaning of "save" ....do you mean to "actually save" or to "potentially save"? There is ambiguity there in the first place....if you leave it as it, Universallism is what the conclusion is proposing.
Lost the logic and do exegesis ;)
prchdaword 2 years ago
Then all men are saved?
October31st1517 2 years ago
If I posted the argument
Christ came to save sinners
Satan is a sinner
Therefore Christ came to save Satan
is this true? The argument is valid.....but is it true? If not, on what basis?
prchdaword 2 years ago
so does Christ actually save all sinners?
prchdaword 2 years ago
but "perspective" doesn't play a part in determining validity or arguments Blair....logic is about structure.
A is B
B is not C
Therefore, A is not C
There is validity but not TRUTH....which is my point in your construction of your argument.....an argument might be valid but not necessarily true.....this is logic Chapter 1
prchdaword 2 years ago
redemption, that he didn't make reconciliation, that his death was not really substitutionary....and then you would have to prove that his death was only POTENTIALLY those things and that his death is only considered valid BEFORE THE FATHER WHO ORDAINED IT when it is accepted first by the sinner.
Your argument is not even an attempt to deal with the scholarship and myriads of arguments that serve the doctrine of Limited Atonement....do your best if you want....
prchdaword 2 years ago
Recant my position, I would have to ask you to first deal with all the exegesis and argument offered in works like George Smeaton"s "the apostles doctrine of the atonement" and "Jesus' doctrine of the ATonement", "The Death of Death in the Death of Christ" by John Owen, "The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross" by Leon Morris, "Studies in the Atonement" by Robert Morey, "The Cross of Christ" by John Stott...you would have to prove that Christ didn't make an actual propitiation, an actual....
prchdaword 2 years ago
Again Blair....your argument offered is not worth engaging.
The other thing you have to consider is that SCRIPTURE not LOGIC is the ultimate determiner of truth....again, your argument (logical construction can be valid but still yield something contrary to the true state of affairs that Scripture teaches like I demonstrated in my logically valid argument). Exegesis of the relevant passages of Scripture...to recant my position......
prchdaword 2 years ago
Numbers and I sam have reference to God in saying "God is not a man that he should lie, nor a son of man that he should repent"
I was only using the argument to demonstrate that pieces of Scripture can be used to make logically valid argument that do not necessarily yield that actual state of affairs that SCripture teaches....
prchdaword 2 years ago
I agree that the Bible is a whole...but when interpreting a TEXT it is important to stick within the text itself....if you keep running to another text you have to understand that those connections are not created by the immediate text itself unless explicit....let me ask you: could "sinners" in 1 Tim 1:15 be a reference to the kind of people Jesus came to save without including all of them? For instance, "I have come to call sinners to repentance, not the righteous? Why or why not?
prchdaword 2 years ago
but you act and treat me as if I do not share the same integrity to be Biblical and to handle the Scriptures correctly...you act as if I'm flippant about these things....I've been a Christian for 12 years now and have been studying those entire 12....
you are treating and responding to me as if I - and others - are somehow below you. A true display of pride and arrogance which has no place in these holy discussions in which we seek God's truth TOGETHER. =/
prchdaword 2 years ago
I agree...but in interpreting this particular text, what in THIS text (without running to another text) warrants sinners being understood as "all men universally and individually"?
I agree with the statement that "all men are sinners" but can you point that out from THIS TEXT are you are inserting it into this particular text?
Anybody can take piece of Scripture to formulate "logical statement" and even valid ones. Eg. Jesus is God, God is not a man, Therefore Jesus is not a man...silly
prchdaword 2 years ago
ok...so in the text, you offered, what in the text is the warrant for saying that "sinners" is a reference to all men universally and individually.....
prchdaword 2 years ago
again, I'm not accepting your presupposition here.....
and I am not applying a universal to particular....I believe Christ came for a particular group called that elect
prchdaword 2 years ago
ok, are you using the text or your argument construction?
prchdaword 2 years ago
so do I....but "his people" and "The Church" and "His sheep" belong to the category of sinners too so if God only saves them in the atonement, the statement "Christ came to save sinners' is not disproven at all.....it still remains true....after all, isn't Christ saving sinners even if he saves some and not all?
prchdaword 2 years ago
sure...and does SCripture mean here that God came to save all sinners universally or some sinners? Would not Scripture teach that only sinners who believe are the ones that are saved?
Isn't that a limited scope?
prchdaword 2 years ago
"My argument
A. God came to save sinners
B. All men are sinners
Thus C. Christ came to save all men." - moderatecalvinist
Actually your syllogism isn't valid :-)
crazypills2 2 years ago
well the problem is a failure to elucidate it seems....in the actual argument the understanding of the word "save" is now ambigous....is it to actually save or to possibly save???
Its also obvious that the conclusion or the argument - as is - is actually supporting universalism.....he has to modify the term "save" to clarify
prchdaword 2 years ago
unless you are willing to change your first premise to "Christ came to try to save all men", your version of the atonement / salvation is not being supported by your argument.....again, you are actually purporting universalism as Christ's intended purpose
prchdaword 2 years ago
Does Christ save all men?
No....again, while you might claim logical consistency, your conclusion is not supported by Scripture.....
How does your conclusion stand against Matt 1:21 which says, "he WILL SAVE HIS PEOPLE..." This is not hypothetical language either...it is langauge of certainty, "He will save...."
If we get nitpicky too, Christ is not contained in your major or minor premise but appears in your conclusion. There is something wrong with this syllogism too....
prchdaword 2 years ago
You're argument is not worth engaging....I already told you, YOU created that construct, not Scripture.....logic is a tool, not a be and and end all. I've cited problems with your conclusion in reference to all Scripture. you started with universals and ended with particulars, something happened there....
Let Scripture define its own terms....exegesis...not logic
don't worry...we'll get to that debate soon ;)
prchdaword 2 years ago