Donations for the month of July


We have received a total of "0" in donations towards our goal of $175.


Don't want to use PayPal? Go HERE


Forum Search
Member Spotlight
Posts: 3,329
Joined: September 2003
Forum Statistics
Forums30
Topics7,805
Posts55,002
Members970
Most Online732
Jan 15th, 2023
Top Posters
Pilgrim 14,486
Tom 4,565
chestnutmare 3,329
J_Edwards 2,615
John_C 1,870
Wes 1,856
RJ_ 1,583
MarieP 1,579
gotribe 1,060
Top Posters(30 Days)
Tom 18
Pilgrim 11
John_C 3
Recent Posts
Did Paul go to Spain
by Tom - Thu Jul 18, 2024 12:45 AM
The Incorruptible God
by Pilgrim - Wed Jul 17, 2024 6:04 AM
Religion and Politics
by Anthony C. - Sun Jul 14, 2024 3:52 PM
Guns and the Population
by Tom - Sun Jul 14, 2024 12:11 PM
Lex Rex
by Tom - Wed Jul 03, 2024 4:26 PM
The Real Evidence about Scripture and Homosexual Practice
by Pilgrim - Mon Jul 01, 2024 6:40 AM
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Hop To
Page 3 of 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
xyz #39550 Sun Jun 01, 2008 6:59 PM
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 969
Old Hand
Offline
Old Hand
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 969
Quote
This seems to me to be precisely one of those. But we shall see.

'Christ died for all sins, past, present, future.'

That much is clear, surely?

All sins of whom? The elect? The general populace of Israel at the time of the crucifixion? The entire world? Only those of the Roman Catholic Church?

Let me make this clear: whom is the objective case of who as such it denotes a particular person or group of persons. To say: 'Christ died for all sins, past, present, future.' doesn't answer the question of "whom" did Christ die for ergo your response makes no sense in light of the original question.

The rest of your response is just incoherent babble in which you still do not deal with the question of whom. Until that question is answered you are just taking up data bits on this discussion board.


Peter

If you believe what you like in the gospels, and reject what you don't like, it is not the gospel you believe, but yourself. Augustine of Hippo
xyz #39551 Sun Jun 01, 2008 10:44 PM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,486
Likes: 58
Head Honcho
Offline
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,486
Likes: 58
Quote
xyz said:
'Christ died for all sins, past, present, future.'

That much is clear, surely?

'No-one can claim impunity against God.'

That means that no-one can say they sinned against God and got away with it. (If they could, they would be God.)

'However, not all will escape condemnation, because to reject substitutionary propitiation'

That means to reject the 'payment' made on one's behalf, like refusing a governor's pardon because you reckon you had not committed a crime.

Now, deal with all of that, and if you can then with reason claim that Owen is relevant, fair enough.
xyz,

Bonerges has captured the essence of your obfuscation, i.e., the issue of "whom"; the object of Christ's atoning work. Thus, I won't spend time iterating the obvious. However, IF I have grasped the remainder of the quote above, it would appear that you are saying that there are those who will not escape condemnation because they "reject substitutionary propitiation". scratchchin

As one who apparently is less educated in theological matters than you, I have some further problems comprehending the remainder of what you wrote for the following:

At face value, it seems you hold that if one simply assents to "substitutionary propitiation"; i.e., one aspect of Christ's vicarious substitutionary atonement, viz. propitiation, then that person will avoid condemnation.

a. Assensus which was made popular by Robert Sandeman (see here: Andrew Fuller and the Sandemanians), aka: "Easy Believism" has no saving value whatsoever. The demons believe in the Trinity, Christ's substitutionary work, etc., yet are destined to eternal damnation.

b. Since Christ's atonement was substitutionary, then whatever it did accomplish it was rendered complete "in behalf of" those who were the intended recipients.

c. In regard to propitiation (Gk: hilaskomai), which means to appease the wrath of one who is offended by the removal of that which has caused the offense. Since Christ IS the propitiation for sin, then God's anger is effectively and completely removed by the expiation of sin; the offense. Thus as Owen inarguably shows, if Christ's death was for all, i.e., every man, woman and child from Adam to the very last of the human race, then all MUST be saved. If one should argue, as you appear to be doing, that one is barred from salvation due to the rejection of one truth which you call "substitutionary propitiation", in itself a sin, and if Christ's death atoned for ALL sin, then why should the rejection of that one particular doctrine; a sin, prevent that one from being saved since Christ died for ALL sins, past, present and future? Indeed, Owen's thesis is more than relevant and indisputable.

d. ALL are under judgment by nature and thus there is no need to reject anything to be damned. For, being in Adam one is under the wrath of God and subject to damnation automatically. Any actual sins committed only add to that damnation. This is known as the doctrine of "Original Sin"; all have Adam's guilt imputed to their account AND inherit a corrupt nature which is predisposed to sin and sin only. Again, an unborn child is destined to eternal hell just because it is human unless God takes pity on that child and by the Spirit unites it to Christ by grace.

e. If a governor pardoned a criminal then it wouldn't matter if the individual refused to accept it and chose to remain in jail. The fact is, legally, the pardon would still be in effect since it is a legal pronouncement by the only one who has the authority and power to exact the pardon. The acceptance of the pardon does NOT make it effectual.

For a brief but more comprehensive summary of Christ's vicarious substitutionary atonement see here: The Atonement, by Prof. John Murray.

In regard to the biblical doctrine of "Original Sin" see here: The Sinfulness of Original Sin, by W.G.T. Shedd.

In His grace,


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
Pilgrim #39552 Mon Jun 02, 2008 6:28 AM
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 70
xyz Offline
Journeyman
Offline
Journeyman
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 70
Quote
Pilgrim said:
Quote
xyz said:
'Christ died for all sins, past, present, future.'

That much is clear, surely?

'No-one can claim impunity against God.'

That means that no-one can say they sinned against God and got away with it. (If they could, they would be God.)

'However, not all will escape condemnation, because to reject substitutionary propitiation'

That means to reject the 'payment' made on one's behalf, like refusing a governor's pardon because you reckon you had not committed a crime.
b. Since Christ's atonement was substitutionary, then whatever it did accomplish it was rendered complete "in behalf of" those who were the intended recipients.

c. In regard to propitiation (Gk: hilaskomai), which means to appease the wrath of one who is offended by the removal of that which has caused the offense. Since Christ IS the propitiation for sin, then God's anger is effectively and completely removed by the expiation of sin; the offense. Thus as Owen inarguably shows, if Christ's death was for all, i.e., every man, woman and child from Adam to the very last of the human race, then all MUST be saved. If one should argue, as you appear to be doing, that one is barred from salvation due to the rejection of one truth which you call "substitutionary propitiation", in itself a sin, and if Christ's death atoned for ALL sin, then why should the rejection of that one particular doctrine; a sin
But is it a sin? Does one not have the right to decide upon the nature of one's own conduct? We are gods. We have the sovereign right to determine our own fates. We have the right to say that we are sinless, and have no need of propitiation, or even that there is no such thing as sin. But if we do that, we have to prove it, and it is only then, when we come to judgment, that our denial becomes folly. And because it is a folly, and a lie, it can be accounted a sin- the unforgivable sin, as it will turn out.

So when we hear that all of our sins have been forgiven, we have the choice of accepting that, or rejecting it. We do not hear that all but one of our sins are forgiven, because that would be no better than hearing that none are forgiven.

xyz #39553 Mon Jun 02, 2008 7:32 AM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,486
Likes: 58
Head Honcho
Offline
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,486
Likes: 58
Quote
xyz said:
But is it a sin? Does one not have the right to decide upon the nature of one's own conduct? We are gods. We have the sovereign right to determine our own fates. We have the right to say that we are sinless, and have no need of propitiation, or even that there is no such thing as sin. But if we do that, we have to prove it, and it is only then, when we come to judgment, that our denial becomes folly. And because it is a folly, and a lie, it can be accounted a sin- the unforgivable sin, as it will turn out.

So when we hear that all of our sins have been forgiven, we have the choice of accepting that, or rejecting it. We do not hear that all but one of our sins are forgiven, because that would be no better than hearing that none are forgiven.
Methinks you have missed the point entirely and thus I can now understand how you can dismiss Owen's premise with a smile grin

Christ's atoning work is first and foremost OBJECTIVE and FORENSIC. What He accomplished was to accomplish justice, i.e., to appease God by taking upon Himself the punishment due to the breaking of God's holy law; aka: passive. Additionally, He also satisfied the necessity of actually keeping that holy law of God perfectly; aka: active. Thus, in His life, death and resurrection the FULL demands of God and the law were met. Secondly, since His atonement was vicarious and substitutionary, ALL those for whom He died share in that completed work (sacrifice, ransom, reconciliation and propitiation). ALL are freed from condemnation since justice was met. It matters not whether a person accepts or rejects what was done to make that work effectual. Thirdly, the salvation secured by Christ not only accomplished the redemption necessary but also the MEANS to that end. Thus, ALL for whom Christ died are irresistibly and infallibly brought to repentance and faith in Christ through and by the sovereign working of the Holy Spirit. And this same Spirit dwells within each and everyone for whom Christ died working sanctification within them all their earthly days. Not one for whom Christ died will nor can be lost. His people (sheep), ALL of them, hear his voice and follow Him. ALL those for whom He died will be raised up on the last day.

Thus, either one believes that Christ's death was effectual and 100% sufficient to accomplish salvation, which is the biblical teaching OR one rejects that truth and embraces any one of an inestimable choice of errors concerning the atonement, e.g., it made salvation possible IF a person does this, believes that, etc., etc., ad nauseam.

Perhaps you need to reconsider Owen's premise and understand it rightly? [Linked Image]

In His grace,


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
Pilgrim #39554 Mon Jun 02, 2008 8:03 AM
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 70
xyz Offline
Journeyman
Offline
Journeyman
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 70
Quote
Pilgrim said:
ALL are freed from condemnation since justice was met. It matters not whether a person accepts or rejects what was done to make that work effectual.
So there will be unrepentant sinners in heaven.

xyz #39555 Mon Jun 02, 2008 8:37 AM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,486
Likes: 58
Head Honcho
Offline
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,486
Likes: 58
Quote
xyz said:

Quote
Pilgrim said:
ALL are freed from condemnation since justice was met. It matters not whether a person accepts or rejects what was done to make that work effectual.
So there will be unrepentant sinners in heaven.
Sorry, but you have misunderstood what I wrote. My point was that the atonement of Christ does not DEPEND upon anything from man to make it effectual, i.e., the death of Christ accomplished ALL that it intended to do; save those whom the Father had given to Christ, i.e., all those whom the Father elected to salvation in Christ. (Jh 6:39; 17:9, 11, 24; Eph 1:4-6) And as I also stated, the redemption accomplished includes that it will be applied to all those for whom it was intended; the sheep, elect, chosen, predestinated, foreknown, loved, etc. The salvation of Christ's substitutionary atonement includes the MEANS by which the recipients are delivered by it; regeneration by the Spirit, the gift of repentance & faith and perseverance to the end. The atonement of the Lord Christ is complete; it actually accomplishes that which it intended, to save a sure number of sinners whom were eternally chosen by God out of the fallen race of mankind.

In His grace,


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
Pilgrim #39556 Mon Jun 02, 2008 8:49 AM
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 70
xyz Offline
Journeyman
Offline
Journeyman
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 70
Quote
Pilgrim said:
Quote
xyz said:

Quote
Pilgrim said:
ALL are freed from condemnation since justice was met. It matters not whether a person accepts or rejects what was done to make that work effectual.
So there will be unrepentant sinners in heaven.
Sorry, but you have misunderstood what I wrote. My point was that the atonement of Christ does not DEPEND upon anything from man to make it effectual, i.e., the death of Christ accomplished ALL that it intended to do
There is no disagreement about that.

Tom #39557 Mon Jun 02, 2008 10:53 AM
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 190
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 190
I read the posts and some thoughts came to mind. Is the question talking about whether Christ's sacrifice was sufficient for all sins and all men? Or are we just talking about the application of the atonement? I believe that Christ's death was sufficient for all men, but only those to whom it is applied were going to be the beneficiaries of it.

The word "for" in the question can be misapplied or misunderstood. Christ's death is available "for" all who call upon Him, so in that sense He did die for "all" men. It seems to me that God would be considered as not being truthful if salvation were not available to all when the Word says "whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved". Rom. 10:13.

For whom did Christ die? For God so loved the world that He gave.... It doesn't say for God so loved the elect. Now we go back to the post about "Who Does God Love" I believe as posted in that thread that God's love is extensive, not limited to just the elect as the majority seem to believe. I really would like more time to be able to write more on that subject, but my time has of late been consumed in other things, however, silence should not be thought of conceding the point.

I don't disagree with what has been posted, just that the question isn't entirely clear to me as to what is meant by the question for whom did Christ die? is it asking for the specific application or the general sufficiency of His sacrifice?


Hisalone
Matt. 6:33 But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you. KJV
hisalone #39558 Mon Jun 02, 2008 11:46 AM
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 193
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 193
Quote
I read the posts and some thoughts came to mind. Is the question talking about whether Christ's sacrifice was sufficient for all sins and all men? Or are we just talking about the application of the atonement? I believe that Christ's death was sufficient for all men, but only those to whom it is applied were going to be the beneficiaries of it.

I think you are exactly right!

Quote
The word "for" in the question can be misapplied or misunderstood. Christ's death is available "for" all who call upon Him, so in that sense He did die for "all" men. It seems to me that God would be considered as not being truthful if salvation were not available to all when the Word says "whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved". Rom. 10:13.

Again, I think you are exactly right. The only thing I would add is that, of course ,only those who are regenerated by the power of the Holy Spirit will in fact "call on the name of the Lord."

Quote
For whom did Christ die? For God so loved the world that He gave.... It doesn't say for God so loved the elect. Now we go back to the post about "Who Does God Love" I believe as posted in that thread that God's love is extensive, not limited to just the elect as the majority seem to believe. I really would like more time to be able to write more on that subject, but my time has of late been consumed in other things, however, silence should not be thought of conceding the point.

I have not read any of the posts on "Who Does God Love" and like you, my time for this type of thing is limited, so I probably won't unless you bait me with a juicy quote from one of the posts. Do the majority here really say that God only loves the elect? If so that saddens me and I disagree with them. I suppose no one here has had to ever punish or hold accountable someone they love.


[Linked Image]
xyz #39559 Mon Jun 02, 2008 11:52 AM
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,579
Veteran
Offline
Veteran
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,579
So if Jesus Christ intended to satisfy the wrath of God against all men individually without exception, why aren't all men saved?


True godliness is a sincere feeling which loves God as Father as much as it fears and reverences Him as Lord, embraces His righteousness, and dreads offending Him worse than death~ Calvin
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 190
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 190
You need to read the thread, when I mentioned about the majority not believing God loves all, it is more about the definition, agape or benevolence. Majority also meaning the majority of the posts, not everyone on this message board, I can't speak for everyone. It is hard to keep comments in certain parameters, just like programming it is best not to make ambiguous statements, which I do sometimes inadvertently. Everyone seems to agree that God has benevolent love for His creation, so my statement is not clear unless you take the time to read the thread.


Hisalone
Matt. 6:33 But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you. KJV
hisalone #39561 Mon Jun 02, 2008 1:01 PM
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 193
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 193
hisalone,

I do not claim to have read all of the posts in their entirety; but, I do think you might benefit from thinking about this in a different way or with different categories. Not that there's anything wrong with the classic distinction between the love of benevolence, the love of beneficence, and the love of complacency; but, when I find myself beating my head against a wall about something for a while I check to see if there's another way to the other side. I would heartily second Marie's recommendation of John MacArthur's excellent and inspiring book The Love of God.

You can also read his sermon series on the same subject:

The Love of God, Part 1

The Love of God, Part 2

The Love of God, Part 3

The Love of God, Part 4

the Love of God, Part 5

The Love of God, Part 6


[Linked Image]
xyz #39562 Mon Jun 02, 2008 4:29 PM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,486
Likes: 58
Head Honcho
Offline
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,486
Likes: 58
Quote
xyz said:

Quote
Pilgrim said:
Sorry, but you have misunderstood what I wrote. My point was that the atonement of Christ does not DEPEND upon anything from man to make it effectual, i.e., the death of Christ accomplished ALL that it intended to do
There is no disagreement about that.
And just to be 100% clear and accurate, my FULL statement was:


My point was that the atonement of Christ does not DEPEND upon anything from man to make it effectual, i.e., the death of Christ accomplished ALL that it intended to do; save those whom the Father had given to Christ, i.e., all those whom the Father elected to salvation in Christ. (Jh 6:39; 17:9, 11, 24; Eph 1:4-6)


In short, I qualified what the purpose was in God sending Christ to die for sinners, which was to secure infallibly the salvation of all the elect vs. making salvation possible to all mankind without distinction on the basis of an alleged free-will decision to ask Jesus into their heart, make Him Lord, decide for Christ or any other action on the part of man including believing upon Him. If you are still in agreement, then we have an understanding. If this is not agreeable to you, then we have a disagreement.

In His grace,


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
Pilgrim #39563 Mon Jun 02, 2008 4:58 PM
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 70
xyz Offline
Journeyman
Offline
Journeyman
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 70
Quote
Pilgrim said:
Quote
xyz said:

Quote
Pilgrim said:
Sorry, but you have misunderstood what I wrote. My point was that the atonement of Christ does not DEPEND upon anything from man to make it effectual, i.e., the death of Christ accomplished ALL that it intended to do
There is no disagreement about that.
And just to be 100% clear and accurate, my FULL statement was:

<blockquote>
My point was that the atonement of Christ does not DEPEND upon anything from man to make it effectual, i.e., the death of Christ accomplished ALL that it intended to do; save those whom the Father had given to Christ, i.e., all those whom the Father elected to salvation in Christ. (Jh 6:39; 17:9, 11, 24; Eph 1:4-6)<br>
</blockquote>
In short, I qualified what the purpose was in God sending Christ to die for sinners, which was to secure infallibly the salvation of all the elect vs. making salvation possible to all mankind without distinction on the basis of an alleged free-will decision to ask Jesus into their heart, make Him Lord, decide for Christ or any other action on the part of man including believing upon Him. If you are still in agreement, then we have an understanding. If this is not agreeable to you, then we have a disagreement. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />
Very true. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

xyz #39564 Tue Jun 03, 2008 3:42 AM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,565
Likes: 13
Tom Offline OP
Needs to get a Life
OP Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,565
Likes: 13
xyz

Just for the sake of clarity when you said:
"Very true."

Does that mean you are in agreement with Pilgrim about what he believes? I.e. you agree with John Owen.

Last edited by Tom; Tue Jun 03, 2008 3:43 AM.
Page 3 of 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Link Copied to Clipboard
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 263 guests, and 13 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
PaulWatkins, His Unworthy Son, Nahum, TheSojourner, Larry
970 Registered Users
ShoutChat
Comment Guidelines: Do post respectful and insightful comments. Don't flame, hate, spam.
July
S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31
Today's Birthdays
Readin, sojourner
Popular Topics(Views)
1,526,888 Gospel truth