The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum For Whom Did Christ Die?

Sorry, I did not read the last post. Silly me to come blundering in the middle.

Mercy,

Speaking unofficially, but based on your forthright confession in your first post, not to mention your sole listing of Owen as your favorite author, I wouldn't be surprised if you were to find yourself quite at home here! No need to apologize for answering a direct question directly--and correctly--even if its intended target audience were another!

AMEN! to that! It is indeed refreshing to see another fellow believer who is unashamed to speak the truth, especially one who just joined a "strange" discussion board!

to The Highway Discussion Board, mercy!

Thanks,I am so excited to discuss theology with like-minded brothers and sisters. I am passionate about doctrine and mourn that so few are searching the Scripture to be sure that their calling and election are sure.

Do not concern yourself with it mercy I do it all the time myself.

Is it a sin to reject the propitiation of Christ?

It is acceptable if one is without sin. But, because the Christ is the Christ because he alone is without sin, rejection is unacceptable, even folly. One may, like the 'blind' Pharisees, say that one does not sin, and that living a decent, law-abiding life is enough; or one may openly accept that one is a sinner, and even accept that Jesus' propitiation is effective, but refuse to give up the riches and 'pleasures' of this passing world. Either way, to reject Christ's sacrifice is to commit the unforgivable sin, unrepentance, and put oneself under law and therefore condemnation.

(Scriptural support for unrepentance being the unforgiveable sin?)

So Christ's propitiation is not effective for the unrepentant. This being the case, was it Christ's intention to die on behalf of the unrepentant? And if so, did Christ fail in His mission?

Christ died for all sins, past, present, future, so that no-one can claim impunity against God.

Christ died for all sins, past, present, future, so that no-one can claim impunity against God.

So then, no one has anything to worry about. If Christ has atoned for all the sins of all the people, then everyone is saved automatically whether they know it or not.

But the Bible clearly indicates that all are not saved, therefore we must conclude that Jesus did not atone for those people's sins. His sacrifice was certainly sufficient to do so, but His intention from before the foundation of the world was to atone only for the sins of the remnant called out from the fallen race of Adam.

You've reiterated yourself, but you haven't answered my questions.

Was it Christ's intention to die on behalf of the unrepentant, yes or no? If yes: Did Christ fail in His mission since His propitiation is not effective for the unrepentant, yes or no?

Not if we have read the thread.

<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scratchchin.gif" alt="" /> I've read this thread and even contributed to it and I only see two basic and fundamentally antithetical answers:

1. Christ died for ALL and atoned for ALL sins, yet some are not not saved.

2. Christ died for the elect and atoned for ALL their sins, and thus all the elect are infallibly saved.

The first results in universalism. If one argues that not all are saved because they failed to do: xxxx or xxxx to finalize their salvation, then salvation is synergistic and not of grace. Either Christ's death was substitutionary and therefore accomplishes all that it was intended to do; vis a vis "save His people from their sins". Or, it was not substitutionary and thus something on the part of the sinner is required to accomplish salvation.

What say you? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/shrug.gif" alt="" />

In His grace,

xyz

I don't want to make it sound like I am attacking you personally, because I only want God's best for you. However, I don't know of a better way to say this.
Your bio, says that you have been an educator in theology for many years as well as a missionary and preacher.
If that is true, I am sorry to say this, but I wouldn't want you teaching my kids theology based on what you have written so far.
Your latest post says "Not if we have read the thread."
Pilgrim's answer to you is basically my opinion of the matter. I would also venture to guess that almost everyone who has read this thread would not see this issue the way you do.
So you saying: "Not if we have read the thread." Does not make any sense, I would expect a lot more coming from an educator. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/nono.gif" alt="" />
I don’t even mind the fact that you disagree, but you sure are not defending your position very well.
If you are not willing to defend what you believe, then for everyones sake, please don't participate.
More times than not, your posts leave me scratching my head. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scratch1.gif" alt="" />

Tom

One reader has noted the reference to the unforgivable sin. If one can do it, why not others?