The third way (Arminianism v Calvinism)

[Hepzibah]

Yes, this would mean that we do hold radically different ideas about God and the Gospel. And it means we will both be reading the Bible in very different ways.

Don't be too quick to label me, it won't help you to understand me.

Much love!

@Christian Soldier wrote on another thread:

"Every Christian hold to one of the two views. The fact that you reject Reformed theology, means that you hold to Arminian theology.

I would be interested to hear about a third option, but I won't hold my breath as nobody has ever found it thus far. The worlds greatest theologians and bible scholars have been searching for this illusive third view for the past 500 years and they haven't found it, but let me guess you have "

I know of a third way, which was described by the Quaker founder George Fox though I do not know who else taught it. I agree with Fox who said based on John 1:9:

9There was the true Light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man. 10He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. 11He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him. 12But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, 13who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

As every man is enlightened, Calvinism is false (not purely depending on this verse) and God comes to each man at His chosen time, and the man has the chance of not quenching the Holy Spirit and open up the way for more truth to be reveled and that man is saved if he continues seeking the Light.

I have been struck how many people have said that there was a day when they may have become Christian but did not.

 

[Christian Soldier]

@Christian Soldier wrote on another thread:

"Every Christian hold to one of the two views. The fact that you reject Reformed theology, means that you hold to Arminian theology.

I would be interested to hear about a third option, but I won't hold my breath as nobody has ever found it thus far. The worlds greatest theologians and bible scholars have been searching for this illusive third view for the past 500 years and they haven't found it, but let me guess you have "

I know of a third way, which was described by the Quaker founder George Fox though I do not know who else taught it. I agree with Fox who said based on John 1:9:

9There was the true Light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man. 10He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. 11He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him. 12But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, 13who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

As every man is enlightened, Calvinism is false (not purely depending on this verse) and God comes to each man at His chosen time, and the man has the chance of not quenching the Holy Spirit and open up the way for more truth to be reveled and that man is saved if he continues seeking the Light.

I have been struck how many people have said that there was a day when they may have become Christian but did not.

I can see how George Fox arrived at his erroneous interpretation, in a desperate attempt to invent a third gospel view. Sadly his interpretation is riddled with errors and his theology is fundamentally flawed.

Mr. Fox failed to take into consideration the doctrine of original sin, he overlooked this doctrine to push his idea that dead men can make themselves alive and can change their sin nature, in order to love the God they hate and hate the sin they love. So this is one major flaw in his gospel, but there are many more.

John 1:9-13 is not suggesting that that every man is enlightened, this view cannot be supported by any scripture. There's a huge difference between witnessing the light and being enlightened by it.
There were many who saw (witnessed) Jesus perform miracles, but seeing, they did not see and hearing they did not hear, because they were dead in their sin and a dead man can do noting but stink.

Mr. Fox, had no explanation for why some believed and others didn't, while they saw the same miracles and heard the same gospel and received the same offer. This is the crux of the matter, Arminian theology has no explanation for why perfectly intelligent people reject the free offer of eternal life in paradise and choose eternal torment in the lake of fire instead.

Mr. Fox, failed to consider that fact that none seek after God, for all have turned aside, each to his own way. There are none who do good, not a single one. he also failed to consider the fact that the gospel is the stench of death to those who God hasn't chosen, but it's a sweet smelling aroma of life to us who God has elected for salvation.

Mr. Fox failed to consider that there are only two kinds of people, there are only the Children of God and the Children of the Devil and there are no fence sitters as Mr. Fox suggested, that is nothing more than wishful thinking.

 

[Hepzibah]

I can see how George Fox arrived at his erroneous interpretation, in a desperate attempt to invent a third gospel view. Sadly his interpretation is riddled with errors and his theology is fundamentally flawed.

I can see how you have not studied early Quaker works, and have just repeated some errors you have read elsewhere. But you are correct in that George Fox did not receive formal theological education - just like the disciples. He claimed that God had enlightened him through the Holy Spirit's revelation, at a time of great error in the western world.

There was at least one highly educated man amongst them however - Robert Barclay - who wrote the highly regarded Apology.

Mr. Fox failed to take into consideration the doctrine of original sin, he overlooked this doctrine to push his idea that dead men can make themselves alive and can change their sin nature, in order to love the God they hate and hate the sin they love. So this is one major flaw in his gospel, but there are many more.

The doctrine of original sin was not in the church till later on and has a weak defence in scripture. Their doctrine says that all men do fall into sin, and studies have shown that the propensity to lie is found after the age of 3 to 4.

The early Quakers taught that man does not have the ability to make themselves alive unto God, and His intervention is needed, but not through prevenient grace. The man does not choose when God will come to him and illumine him, on the Day of Visitation, and if the man responds, then God will give him more light to lead to salvation. Most men do not respond and lose their chance at salvation.

Your mistaking them for Arminians shows how little you understand about them, but why would a Calvinist study them? I know I didn't when I was a Calvinist.

John 1:9-13 is not suggesting that that every man is enlightened, this view cannot be supported by any scripture. There's a huge difference between witnessing the light and being enlightened by it.
There were many who saw (witnessed) Jesus perform miracles, but seeing, they did not see and hearing they did not hear, because they were dead in their sin and a dead man can do noting but stink.

I am not going to debate Reformed theology. They deny all of the verses that say ALL or make up something like all of the predestined world. Surfice to say that the 5 points of TULIP are not found in the early church fathers until that great philosopher Augustine came along and dragged the west into error, on both sides of the dispute.

Mr. Fox, had no explanation for why some believed and others didn't, while they saw the same miracles and heard the same gospel and received the same offer. This is the crux of the matter, Arminian theology has no explanation for why perfectly intelligent people reject the free offer of eternal life in paradise and choose eternal torment in the lake of fire instead.

Mr. Fox, failed to consider that fact that none seek after God, for all have turned aside, each to his own way. There are none who do good, not a single one. he also failed to consider the fact that the gospel is the stench of death to those who God hasn't chosen, but it's a sweet smelling aroma of life to us who God has elected for salvation.

Mr. Fox failed to consider that there are only two kinds of people, there are only the Children of God and the Children of the Devil and there are no fence sitters as Mr. Fox suggested, that is nothing more than wishful thinking.

Rubbish. Do some research man if you want to avoid showing yourself up.

Chrysostom on John 1: "If he enlightens every man coming into the world, how comes it that so many men remain without light? For all do not so much as acknowledge Christ. How then doth he enlighten every man? He illuminates indeed so far as in him is; but if any of their own accord, closing the eyes of their mind, will not direct their eyes unto the beams of this Light, the cause that they remain in darkness is not from the nature of the Light, but through their own malignity, who willingly have rendered themselves unworthy of so great a gift. But why believed they not? Because they would not: Christ did his part." (Quoted by Barclay in Apology)

 

[JBO]

Mr. Fox failed to take into consideration the doctrine of original sin.......

Original sin is a false doctrine.

 

[Christian Soldier]

I can see how you have not studied early Quaker works, and have just repeated some errors you have read elsewhere. But you are correct in that George Fox did not receive formal theological education - just like the disciples. He claimed that God had enlightened him through the Holy Spirit's revelation, at a time of great error in the western world.

There was at least one highly educated man amongst them however - Robert Barclay - who wrote the highly regarded Apology.


The doctrine of original sin was not in the church till later on and has a weak defence in scripture. Their doctrine says that all men do fall into sin, and studies have shown that the propensity to lie is found after the age of 3 to 4.

The early Quakers taught that man does not have the ability to make themselves alive unto God, and His intervention is needed, but not through prevenient grace. The man does not choose when God will come to him and illumine him, on the Day of Visitation, and if the man responds, then God will give him more light to lead to salvation. Most men do not respond and lose their chance at salvation.

Your mistaking them for Arminians shows how little you understand about them, but why would a Calvinist study them? I know I didn't when I was a Calvinist.


I am not going to debate Reformed theology. They deny all of the verses that say ALL or make up something like all of the predestined world. Surfice to say that the 5 points of TULIP are not found in the early church fathers until that great philosopher Augustine came along and dragged the west into error, on both sides of the dispute.


Rubbish. Do some research man if you want to avoid showing yourself up.

Chrysostom on John 1: "If he enlightens every man coming into the world, how comes it that so many men remain without light? For all do not so much as acknowledge Christ. How then doth he enlighten every man? He illuminates indeed so far as in him is; but if any of their own accord, closing the eyes of their mind, will not direct their eyes unto the beams of this Light, the cause that they remain in darkness is not from the nature of the Light, but through their own malignity, who willingly have rendered themselves unworthy of so great a gift. But why believed they not? Because they would not: Christ did his part." (Quoted by Barclay in Apology)

I'm not sure why your trying to defend a doctrine which was thoroughly debunked and buried a long time ago. I can only assume you don't like Orthodox theology, so you're trying to rehash this dead and buried false doctrine.

Robert Barclay, doesn't even believe what the bible plainly states so I don't know why you would even consider anything he had to say. The doctrine of original sin has been taught in the Church since Adam fell, so Mr. Barclay is a straight out liar and we know liars are the children of the Devil.
Why would such a fool expect Christians to embrace the secular studies on children, while he blatantly rejects Gods Word.

I didn't invest any of my precious time reading about the Quakers, because I don't follow totally depraved fallen men as you do. I'm too busy learning about God, to waste time reading about false doctrine.

Every professing Christian holds to one of the two gospel interpretations, you're either follow Arminianism or Calvinism. You stooped to the bottom of the heap and quoted Fox, which no respected theologian would agree with. So you haven't offered any legitimate alternative to the two gospel views which every Christian denomination holds to one or the other.

So with all due respect I place you firmly in the Arminian camp, because your theology confirms it even if you don't like to admit it.

You don't want to debate Reformed Theology, because you can't find any fault with it and you don't like it because it exposes your false theology. The worlds greatest Theologians and Bible Scholars, have been trying to find errors in Reformed Theology for the past 500 years and they have come up with a big fat ZERO!!!, so I don't like you chances being an average punter, who is led by his emotions and not reason.

Barclay's book was inspired by his emotions and not by facts, but he was smart because he knew how to sell books by tickling itching ears.

 

[Christian Soldier]

Original sin is a false doctrine.

Is this your private opinion or do you have some evidence to support your opinion

 

[JBO]

Is this your private opinion or do you have some evidence to support your opinion

Romans 5: 15-19.

 

[Christian Soldier]

Romans 5: 15-19.

No, that's ridiculous. Those verses don't negate the doctrine of original sin, in any way shape or form. The truth is "FOR ALL HAVE SINNED AND FALLEN SHORT OF THE GLORY OF GOD"
You can't destroy scripture with scripture, unless you reject what God has said, and that would make you an infidel.

Paul used the word, "many" and you take that single word and create an entire false theology on it. "Many" can mean a lot of things, it doesn't denote a specific number. The world has many people in it see????

 

[JBO]

No, that's ridiculous. Those verses don't negate the doctrine of original sin, in any way shape or form. The truth is "FOR ALL HAVE SINNED AND FALLEN SHORT OF THE GLORY OF GOD"
You can't destroy scripture with scripture, unless you reject what God has said, and that would make you an infidel.

Paul used the word, "many" and you take that single word and create an entire false theology on it. "Many" can mean a lot of things, it doesn't denote a specific number. The world has many people in it see????

And you change the meaning of the word mid-sentence and create an entire false theology on that mid-sentence change.

 

[Christian Soldier]

And you change the meaning of the word mid-sentence and create an entire false theology on that mid-sentence change.

No, I didn't change the meaning of the word at all. I simply corrected your erroneous interpretation of the verse and you don't like being corrected. The bible says "a fool hates correction, but a wise man loves you for it".

 

[JBO]

No, I didn't change the meaning of the word at all. I simply corrected your erroneous interpretation of the verse and you don't like being corrected. The bible says "a fool hates correction, but a wise man loves you for it".

Rom 5:15 But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man's trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many.

If the many who died through one man's trespass are, as you claim, the entire mass of humanity at birth, and the many who have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of Jesus Christ are but a few of that mass of humanity how is that much more?

Rom 5:18 Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.

If the "all men" led to condemnation by Adam's one trespass is every last human being, how can the "all men" led to justification and life by Jesus' one act of righteousness not also be every last human being?

Rom 5:19 For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous.

Again, if the many that were made sinners by Adam's disobedience were the entire human race, then how could the many that were made righteous by Jesus' obedience not also be the entire human race?

I would point out to you that these verses are only comparing the effects upon humanity of Adam's disobedience and Jesus' obedience. Paul is not addressing the effects of each person's individual sins; the only sin being addressed here is Adam's sin. The effect of Adam's sin is almost always taken to be upon the unborn child at birth. And this is understood to be original sin. The "as -- so" construction of these verses means that the effect of Jesus' death on the cross must be also upon the unborn child at birth. Thus the "as -- so" construction of these verses must be understood as original grace. This means that whatever you might think the effect of Adam's sin could possibly on the entire human race at birth, the effect of Jesus' death on the cross negated that effect. Had Jesus' not been the perfect sacrifice, then all would have come into this world bound for eternal condemnation.

The "many" in verse 15 means the exact same thing through the entire verse. The "all men" in verse 18 means the exact same thing through the entire verse. The "many" in verse 10 means the exact same thing through the entire verse. They are the entire mass of humanity at birth. It would have been original sin for everyone; instead, it is original grace for everyone. It would have been spirits dead in trespasses and sins at birth; instead, it is spirits alive and righteous at birth. For the children, their spirits alive and righteous at birth remain so until they sin. Then they become dead in trespasses and sin and remain so unless they are reborn. If and when they are reborn they become once again alive and righteous. Becoming once again alive and righteous is called regeneration. Their spirits were initially generated as alive and righteous at birth. They sinned their spirits became dead in their trespasses and sins. When they were born again their spirits were regenerated and they once again became alive and righteous.

All of this has been discussing only the condition of the newborn. It is not dealing with the effect of Jesus' sacrifice upon the sins of humanity. That discussion follows beginning in Romans 5:20 and proceeds all through then next chapters.

You have been corrected, we shall see if you are the wise who loves it or the fool who hates it.

 

[Episkopos]

The truth is that there are two levels to following Christ. As a believer/follower...and as a disciple. We read in the bible how the masses followed Christ...as a spectacle, out of curiosity, out of need. People are free to come and go as they wish. Some were more fervent than others. The 5,000, the 120, the 70, the 12, and the 3 and the 1.
Where does the follower end and the disciple begin?

It's by personal calling.

So the Arminians follow Christ as they can. It's by their choice.

Calvin was hung up on the higher calling being normative, which it is not.

Saints come out of those who are called to that level of walk. Many are called, but few chosen. So even among those whom God calls, few attain.

What of salvation? All who call on the Lord will be saved. It remains that God decides if that salvation is for honour or dishonour.

The rejected ones who say Lord, Lord...and call upon the Lord live on...but as vessels of dishonour and shame. In outer darkness. There will be weeping and anger.

Those who are merciful will receive mercy. The commandments are about selfless love. There is no law against love.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

@Christian Soldier wrote on another thread:

"Every Christian hold to one of the two views. The fact that you reject Reformed theology, means that you hold to Arminian theology.

I would be interested to hear about a third option, but I won't hold my breath as nobody has ever found it thus far. The worlds greatest theologians and bible scholars have been searching for this illusive third view for the past 500 years and they haven't found it, but let me guess you have "

I know of a third way, which was described by the Quaker founder George Fox though I do not know who else taught it. I agree with Fox who said based on John 1:9:

9There was the true Light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man. 10He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. 11He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him. 12But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, 13who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

As every man is enlightened, Calvinism is false (not purely depending on this verse) and God comes to each man at His chosen time, and the man has the chance of not quenching the Holy Spirit and open up the way for more truth to be reveled and that man is saved if he continues seeking the Light.

I have been struck how many people have said that there was a day when they may have become Christian but did not.

Sadly, just pulling that verse out of its context makes it stand wrongly by Fox.

Yes Jesus is the light for every man, but as the rest of JOhn 1 says, men will not receive the light.

 

[Christian Soldier]

Rom 5:15 But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man's trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many.

If the many who died through one man's trespass are, as you claim, the entire mass of humanity at birth, and the many who have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of Jesus Christ are but a few of that mass of humanity how is that much more?

Rom 5:18 Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.

If the "all men" led to condemnation by Adam's one trespass is every last human being, how can the "all men" led to justification and life by Jesus' one act of righteousness not also be every last human being?

Rom 5:19 For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous.

Again, if the many that were made sinners by Adam's disobedience were the entire human race, then how could the many that were made righteous by Jesus' obedience not also be the entire human race?

I would point out to you that these verses are only comparing the effects upon humanity of Adam's disobedience and Jesus' obedience. Paul is not addressing the effects of each person's individual sins; the only sin being addressed here is Adam's sin. The effect of Adam's sin is almost always taken to be upon the unborn child at birth. And this is understood to be original sin. The "as -- so" construction of these verses means that the effect of Jesus' death on the cross must be also upon the unborn child at birth. Thus the "as -- so" construction of these verses must be understood as original grace. This means that whatever you might think the effect of Adam's sin could possibly on the entire human race at birth, the effect of Jesus' death on the cross negated that effect. Had Jesus' not been the perfect sacrifice, then all would have come into this world bound for eternal condemnation.

The "many" in verse 15 means the exact same thing through the entire verse. The "all men" in verse 18 means the exact same thing through the entire verse. The "many" in verse 10 means the exact same thing through the entire verse. They are the entire mass of humanity at birth. It would have been original sin for everyone; instead, it is original grace for everyone. It would have been spirits dead in trespasses and sins at birth; instead, it is spirits alive and righteous at birth. For the children, their spirits alive and righteous at birth remain so until they sin. Then they become dead in trespasses and sin and remain so unless they are reborn. If and when they are reborn they become once again alive and righteous. Becoming once again alive and righteous is called regeneration. Their spirits were initially generated as alive and righteous at birth. They sinned their spirits became dead in their trespasses and sins. When they were born again their spirits were regenerated and they once again became alive and righteous.

All of this has been discussing only the condition of the newborn. It is not dealing with the effect of Jesus' sacrifice upon the sins of humanity. That discussion follows beginning in Romans 5:20 and proceeds all through then next chapters.

You have been corrected, we shall see if you are the wise who loves it or the fool who hates it.

Thank you for sharing your opinion, but it doesn't line up with Gods Word. The verses you referred to do not cancel out the bible doctrine of original sin, and nor do they cancel out the bible doctrine of limited atonement.

Your interpretation of Romans 5:18 cannot be correct, because "all men" doesn't mean every person without exception. The Hebrew language uses very different terms to describe things, so we can't compare our modern English to the Hebrew of 2000 years ago.
You can't dismiss an entire systematic theology, by citing a few words which seem to support your Arminian theology.

If I was to go along with your view, then I would have to deny many bible doctrines, such as Gods hatred of unborn babies. As you know God said He hated Esau while he was in his mothers womb.
God doesn't need to wait for a baby to sin before it dies in sin. This is a false Arminian doctrine, it teaches that God doesn't know much and He is like us, He has to sit around to see if Johnny will help the old lady cross the road before He decides if Johnny is worthy of salvation.
This is a pathetic weak god, you describe. The God of the bible preordained all things and predestined all things to be exactly as they are.

I get the sense that you're not here seeking the truth, but you're rather here to push your private view. But the problem is, your view is not supported by Gods Word.

 

[JBO]

Thank you for sharing your opinion, but it doesn't line up with Gods Word. The verses you referred to do not cancel out the bible doctrine of original sin, and nor do they cancel out the bible doctrine of limited atonement.

What Bible doctrine of original sin? What bible doctrine of limited atonement.

Your interpretation of Romans 5:18 cannot be correct, because "all men" doesn't mean every person without exception.

In your interpretation of " Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men" means every person without exception.

Hebrew language uses very different terms to describe things, so we can't compare our modern English to the Hebrew of 2000 years ago.

Romans wasn't written in the Hebrew language.

He decides if Johnny is worthy of salvation.

That is not Reformed Theology. Reformed Theology says that who and what Johnny is has nothing to with God's election.

I get the sense that you're not here seeking the truth, but you're rather here to push your private view. But the problem is, your view is not supported by Gods Word.

It is pretty obvious that you don't really know what is supported by God's word and what isn't.

 

[Christian Soldier]

What Bible doctrine of original sin? What bible doctrine of limited atonement.

In your interpretation of " Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men" means every person without exception.



Romans wasn't written in the Hebrew language.


That is not Reformed Theology. Reformed Theology says that who and what Johnny is has nothing to with God's election.

It is pretty obvious that you don't really know what is supported by God's word and what isn't.

I'm surprised you've never read;

Romans 5:12 12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned

The Bible doctrine of "Limited Atonement" is confirmed by many biblical texts such as Mark chapter 10, verse 45, which says, “The Son of Man came . . . to give his life as a ransom for many.” That is, Christ didn’t die merely to make a ransom offer; His death actually was the ransom, and it was completely effective for the many to whom it applies.

That truth is reinforced by Revelation chapter 5, verse 9, where the worshipers in heaven sing to Jesus, “Worthy are you . . . for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation.”

Or think about Ephesians chapter 5, verse 25: “Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her.” Again, though Christ freely offers salvation to all, His death actually achieved salvation specifically for His bride, “the church.”

Or consider John chapter 10, verse 11, where Jesus says, “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.” The sheep here are those who hear Christ’s voice and follow Him. So, again, Christ doesn’t give His life for all people indiscriminately in the hope that some might decide to follow Him. The Good Shepherd lays down His life specifically for all those who actually follow Him.

John chapter 11, verse 52, says that Jesus died “to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad.” His death wasn’t simply to enable the possibility that God’s children might be gathered into one; the gathering was actually accomplished by Christ’s death.
At stake, then, is the effectiveness of Christ’s death. Did Jesus only succeed in making an offer of salvation which might be freely accepted or freely rejected? Or did He succeed not only in making an offer but also in actually securing salvation for His people?
Limited atonement—or definite atonement—says that yes, Christ’s offer of salvation really is held out to all people, for all time, and just because some reject that offer does not mean that His death was weak or ineffectual. On the contrary, His blood, shed on the cross, really did succeed in saving, ransoming, and gathering the people He intended to redeem. It was not shed in vain.
So is the term limited atonement unhelpful? Yes, if you think of limited as meaning “small” or “miserly.” But that is not what limited means here. Christ’s atonement is limited only in the way that a devoted husband’s marital love is limited to his bride.
What difference does this make? An awful lot, especially if you’re the bride.
God the Father didn’t send God the Son to give His life in the hope that a vague and hypothetical group of people might accept His offer of salvation at some point in the future, but then again might not.

He didn’t die as a potential substitute but as an actual one: your sin was paid for at the cross if you’re a follower of Jesus. He actually died specifically for you. He had you in mind in eternity before history began, He had you in mind as He went to the cross, and He has you in mind now as He sits at the Father’s right hand making intercession.

Just as God’s word never returns to Him empty, but always achieves precisely what He has sent it to do, so too does the blood of Christ: poured out to save His sheep, His people, His children His bride.

Paul was a Hebrew, so his letter to the Hebrews was translated to Greek, making it even more difficult for us to translate to English.

I was paraphrasing what Arminians think us Reformed people believe. I never suggested that God looked down the corridors of time and saw Johnny helping the old lady cross the road. To the contrary, we believe it has nothing to do with anything we do or have done or will do.

 

[JBO]

I'm surprised you've never read;

And I surprised you've never understood.

Romans 5:12 12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned

All that says is that Adam was the first man to sin and the first to become dead in his sins. It then says that death spread to all men because they sinned. Nothing there says anything about death spreading to all men because Adam sinned.

The Bible doctrine of "Limited Atonement" is confirmed by many biblical texts such as Mark chapter 10, verse 45, which says, “The Son of Man came . . . to give his life as a ransom for many.” That is, Christ didn’t die merely to make a ransom offer; His death actually was the ransom, and it was completely effective for the many to whom it applies.

His death was sufficient for the ransom for the whole world and was effective for the many who received him. A ransom paid does not mandate that the one ransomed is required to do anything or even return. A ransom isn't an offer.

That truth is reinforced by Revelation chapter 5, verse 9, where the worshipers in heaven sing to Jesus, “Worthy are you . . . for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation.”

That verse doesn't place any limit upon the extent of effectiveness of the ransom.

Or think about Ephesians chapter 5, verse 25: “Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her.” Again, though Christ freely offers salvation to all, His death actually achieved salvation specifically for His bride, “the church.”

His bride, the church, is made up of those who respond to the freely offered salvation.

Or consider John chapter 10, verse 11, where Jesus says, “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.” The sheep here are those who hear Christ’s voice and follow Him. So, again, Christ doesn’t give His life for all people indiscriminately in the hope that some might decide to follow Him. The Good Shepherd lays down His life specifically for all those who actually follow Him.

Yes, those who by their own choice, decide to follow Him.

At stake, then, is the effectiveness of Christ’s death. Did Jesus only succeed in making an offer of salvation which might be freely accepted or freely rejected? Or did He succeed not only in making an offer but also in actually securing salvation for His people?

Of course Christ's death produced the propitiation for which it was intended. But there is no indication that it was not sufficient for the entire world. The reason that not all received salvation is not due to any limit placed by God, but rather it is due to the many choosing not to believe in God.

 

[RedFan]

Paul was a Hebrew, so his letter to the Hebrews was translated to Greek, making it even more difficult for us to translate to English.

You raise an interesting question. Most scholars think Hebrews was written in Greek originally, not in Hebrew. (Its quotes of OT passages are all from the LXX, something that would likely not have been the case if the epistle was translated from the Hebrew language.) Why do you think otherwise?

I'm not at all sure Paul was the author, but that is a separate issue.

 

[Christian Soldier]

And I surprised you've never understood.

All that says is that Adam was the first man to sin and the first to become dead in his sins. It then says that death spread to all men because they sinned. Nothing there says anything about death spreading to all men because Adam sinned.

His death was sufficient for the ransom for the whole world and was effective for the many who received him. A ransom paid does not mandate that the one ransomed is required to do anything or even return. A ransom isn't an offer.

That verse doesn't place any limit upon the extent of effectiveness of the ransom.

His bride, the church, is made up of those who respond to the freely offered salvation.

Yes, those who by their own choice, decide to follow Him.

Of course Christ's death produced the propitiation for which it was intended. But there is no indication that it was not sufficient for the entire world. The reason that not all received salvation is not due to any limit placed by God, but rather it is due to the many choosing not to believe in God.

The verse doesn't need to state the obvious. The doctrine of original sin is taught throughout the entire bible. Because Adam’s nature was corrupted by the fall—as evidenced in his alienation to God.

Gen 3:7 Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked. And they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loincloths.
8 And they heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden.
9 But the LORD God called to the man and said to him, “Where are you?”
10 And he said, “I heard the sound of you in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked, and I hid myself.”
11 He said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten of the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?”
12 The man said, “The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me fruit of the tree, and I ate.”

Adam could never produce morally superior offspring. Human nature became corrupt in Adam and . . . this human nature which became corrupt in Adam is transmitted to posterity by natural generation. Since we all come into life as sinners, all mankind must necessarily be repugnant to God’s perfectly holy nature and be subject to his condemnation.
We therefore find Paul describing all of mankind as “by nature children of wrath” in Eph 2:3.

Jesus says in Mark chapter 7: “From within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within.”

Nobody is saying that Christ's atonement is not sufficient to save every single person, who ever lived. So the reason the vast majority are going to hell, is not because Christ's atonement is insufficient. It's because, only Gods elect are given the gift of His grace and the gift of faith, that is the gift of salvation. It's simply not given to all, you have no business putting God on trial and forcing Him to defend His reason for choosing some and leaving others dead in their sin.

God doesn't offer anything to anyone, He either gives you something or He doesn't give it to you. You can't show me a single verse of scripture to support this idea that God offers salvation, and it's up to the individual to reject or accept it.

Nobody chooses to follow the God they hate, because they love their sin and they are already following Satan to hell and nothing can change their minds, unless God quickens them to life and opens their eyes.

Christ said, "all that the Father gives Me shall come to Me and I shall lose none, because My Father is stronger than anyone, and none can snatch them out of My Fathers Hand".
Where is the part that says, you can add yourself to those the father gives Him, by your choice. I've never come across such a thing as that, because it doesn't exist.

 

[Christian Soldier]

You raise an interesting question. Most scholars think Hebrews was written in Greek originally, not in Hebrew. (Its quotes of OT passages are all from the LXX, something that would likely not have been the case if the epistle was translated from the Hebrew language.) Why do you think otherwise?

I'm not at all sure Paul was the author, but that is a separate issue.

I don't think it's worth splitting hairs over who wrote it or the language it was originally written in. The interpretation of the text in the most thing.
I'm not a bible scholar nor am I a theologian, but I am a keen student of the bible and I'm trying to lean as much as I can, so I can give an answer to people who ask me about the hope I have in Christ.