The Myth of saying that Jesus Christ died for all men without exception !

[justbyfaith]

@Tong2020,

I take it you are going to answer post #539 (The Myth of saying that Jesus Christ died for all men without exception !).

 

[Tong2020]

Tong2020 said: ↑
Well I read what you posted and your position is that Jesus did not die for all men without exception. But what you say is my position, is not what you can read in my posts.

It is not your position for you are inconsistent. You say Christ died for all humanity 1 Jn 2:2

See? You don’t know the whole of what I said in my posts.

That is perhaps because you only see the death of Christ as accomplishing only one thing when there’s more that scriptures says it accomplishes.

The death of Christ was not only a sin offering as a sacrifice for the forgiveness of the sins of those whom the Father have given Him to raise in the last day, His sheep, His people, His church. Until you will acknowledge the other things that Christ accomplished through his death, you will have to explain away scriptures such as 1 John 2:2.

Tong
R2060

 

[Tong2020]

Renniks said: ↑
How can I understand what isn't logical?

The Greeks at the time of the apostles, them who knows logic and were the wise of the times, saw the message of the cross as illogical, without wisdom ~ foolishness. How do you suppose did the Christian understand the message of the cross? If you know the answer to that, then you know the answer to your question.

Tong
R2061

 

[Tong2020]

Tong2020 said: ↑
Call it what you want, it does not change anything. However, the danger is not in giving it a name, but in that in doing, you may well lead others into thinking that it is what you call it when it is not. And that is simply then a strawman in the making.

It is in the Bible you say. Yes, after pointing to a strawman, one could easily say, it is not in the Bible.

It's what you are teaching. Others have explained it better perhaps, but it's the same thing.
It's part of the calvinists tulip.

Does not Calvin teaches that Jesus Christ is the Lord and is the Savior? Now when I discuss with you for example, and tell you that my understanding of scriptures is that Jesus Christ is the Lord and is the Savior, am I teaching what Calvin teach or am I teaching what scriptures teach? I am pretty sure you teach that as well. Are you by that teaching the doctrine of Calvin or the scriptures?

Tong
R2062

 

[Tong2020]

Tong2020 said: ↑
Yes it is. If one’s understanding of salvation is that man does something, something that he credits to man and thinking that because he had done such a thing, that he is saved which otherwise he will not be saved. Is that not your understanding and is that not what you say and teach? At least that’s what I am gathering from your postings.

God does 100 percent of the work of salvation. He just has a condition before he will do that work. Our faith doesn't merit salvation, but God chose to save on that basis.

Just to be clear, the you in my post refers to JBF.

For God to do His work of salvation does not depend on conditions, nor is according to the will of man. More so, I have to say that in my view of God, salvation is God’s plan more than it is a choice of God.

Tong
R2063

 

[Tong2020]

Tong2020 said: ↑
Yes it is. If one’s understanding of salvation is that man does something, something that he credits to man and thinking that because he had done such a thing, that he is saved which otherwise he will not be saved. Is that not your understanding and is that not what you say and teach? At least that’s what I am gathering from your postings.

I would only say that God does not make a person born again against their will.

And it is not my view that God does anything against the will of any man.

But may I follow up on my question, is it not your understanding and is it not what you teach, that which I said in my post in the quote box?

Tong
R2064

 

[Tong2020]

Tong2020 said: ↑
I think you might get an answer from JBF, but you will just not find it in scriptures

So, your belief is that a man is born again / regenerated and then he receives Christ, correct?

Is that the order that we find in John 1:12?

My answer to the first question is in a sense yes, and in a sense no. Yes in the sense that one needs quickening of the person who is rendered as dead, the quickening being the beginning of the new birth. No in the sense that regeneration does not end with the quickening but continues on to perfection until he is resurrected unto eternal life.

On the second question, one will not find any order there, for none is said about any such order pertaining to which comes first, being born again or the receiving of Christ. What we have in John 1:12 is a simple statement of fact and truth that those who received Christ, God gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name. And what we have in v.13 is a description and identification of those who believe in His name, that they are those who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

Tong
R2065

 

[CadyandZoe]

Why not?

Exodus 8:15
"When Pharaoh saw that there was relief, however, he hardened his heart and would not listen to Moses and Aaron, just as the LORD had said."


1 Samuel 6:6
"Why harden your hearts as the Egyptians and Pharaoh hardened theirs? When He afflicted them, did they not send the people on their way as they departed?"

It seems like a combination of God and Pharaoh here. God knew Pharaoh would harden his own heart so, God gave him up to a hard heart to serve His own purposes perhaps?[/QUOTE]
Exodus 6:2-4
2 God spoke further to Moses and said to him, “I am the Lord; 3 and I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as God Almighty, but by My name, Lord, I did not make Myself known to them. 4 I also established My covenant with them, to give them the land of Canaan, the land in which they sojourned.

Beginning with Moses, God began to reveal himself as the transcendent creator. The passage I quoted above indicates this transition, though it is a bit difficult to see it, given this translation. His name is "Lord", which in Hebrew is "Yahweh". The NET Bible explains it this way.

The announcement “I am the Lord” (Heb “Yahweh”) draws in the preceding revelation in Exod 3:15. In that place God called Moses to this task and explained the significance of the name “Yahweh” by the enigmatic expression “I am that I am.” “I am” (אֶהְיֶה, ʾehyeh) is not a name; “Yahweh” is. But the explanation of the name with this sentence indicates that Yahweh is the one who is always there, and that guarantees the future, for everything he does is consistent with his nature. He is eternal, never changing; he remains. Now, in Exodus 6, the meaning of the name “Yahweh” will be more fully unfolded.​

In other words, while Abraham, being a polytheist, knew God as El Shaddai, "God almighty", the God that rules all gods, beginning with Moses, God will reveal himself as "Yahweh", "he who is" or "I am that I am", the one who is always there and the one who guarantees the future. He is not merely the strongest god within our reality; he is the God that exists at a higher plane of existence such that he is the source of everything that exists, including history.

I agree with you; there is a combination of God and Pharaoh here. But the combination is not as you suggest, which understands God to be on the same plane of reality as Pharaoh. With Moses, God begins to reveal his true nature as the transcendent creator. Abraham knew him to be the greatest, most powerful God in all of reality. So powerful, in fact, that he believed God could bring Isaac back from the dead, according to Paul the apostle. God tells Moses, now I am going to reveal myself as "the one who creates everything including history."

The Lord said to Moses, “When you go back to Egypt see that you perform before Pharaoh all the wonders which I have put in your power; but I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go.

When we remember this event, we tend to remember the event this way. It pleased God almighty to free an enslaved people and set them free. And in order to do this he coerced Pharaoh to comply through a series of plagues, and in the process, he demonstrated his mighty power. But God actually told Moses, I am going to send you to perform miracles before Pharaoh, but in the mean time I will harden his heart. Why did he do it that way?

While we remember the event in terms of the most powerful God freeing the slaves, in fact, the Exodus story is a prime example of Yahweh's nature as the one who writes history. God doesn't tell Moses, "I predict that Pharaoh will harden his heart." Rather, he tells Moses, "I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go. On purpose. I don't want Pharaoh to let the people go. The purpose of the plagues wasn't to coerce or force Pharaoh to comply. He tells Moses that he will make sure that Pharaoh doesn't comply. The people will not be freed until God is ready to release them. It was God's will that Pharaoh have a hard heart and refuse to let the people go, even in light of the most awful circumstances.

Finally, we have a New Testament reference to the fact that God creates history to his liking.

Hebrews 1:1-2
1 God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, 2 in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world.

The word translated "world" in this context is "ages", indicating history. Paul says that God creates history.

 

[CadyandZoe]

That's impossible in your world where God causes everything.

Remember, my view is that God creates everything. If a man makes a free-will choice to believe in his son, God is speaking that choice into existence.

 

[CadyandZoe]

None of us knows how God's foreknowledge works. But events aren't " things." Events have multiple causes. God doesn't claim to cause sin for example. There's things he does say he causes, but he's not the sole cause in a world with free will people and fallen angels.

If you don't know how foreknowledge works, then how can you be certain that his foreknowledge isn't due to his plans and purposes?

 

[CadyandZoe]

Of course I manipulate them. My characters have no real freedom. Everything they do is my doing. God doesn't claim this,... just the opposite when it comes to Israel. He says they did things he never thought of.

No, you don't manipulate them because they have no other existence except in your mind, and once you have written the story, they exist in the minds of your readers.

Look, the analogy of the author is intended to illustrate the concept of transcendent creation, which is wholly different than causation. Suggesting that author's manipulate their characters is to confuse transcendent causation with normal causation.

You seem to be arguing for autonomous free-will, which postulates that man's freedom is free of any sort of influence. But there are those who recognize that freedom of the will can not be understood in isolation from the man himself. Freewill choices are not arbitrary or capricious choices. A man's free choice reflects his own motives, wishes, desires, dreams, aspirations, and values. My freewill choices are mine, not only because I make them without coercion, but because I own them.

In a novel the characters in the novel are making free-will choices in that sense. Every free choice they make says something about them as an individual, revealing something about their motives etc. And the choices they make are understood within the context of the story. And, this is important also, the choices they make might not reflect the values of the author. Rather, we judge the values of the author based on how the story turns out. Is evil punished; are the good rewarded? What does the story, taken as a whole, reveal about the author?

I maintain that God is revealing himself through the story he is telling.

 

[brightfame52]

See? You don’t know the whole of what I said in my posts.

That is perhaps because you only see the death of Christ as accomplishing only one thing when there’s more that scriptures says it accomplishes.

The death of Christ was not only a sin offering as a sacrifice for the forgiveness of the sins of those whom the Father have given Him to raise in the last day, His sheep, His people, His church. Until you will acknowledge the other things that Christ accomplished through his death, you will have to explain away scriptures such as 1 John 2:2.

Tong
R2060

So as I stated, you and i dont agree at all. You hold that Christ died for all humanity, I dont !

 

[Tong2020]

Tong2020 said: ↑
See? You don’t know the whole of what I said in my posts.

That is perhaps because you only see the death of Christ as accomplishing only one thing when there’s more that scriptures says it accomplishes.

The death of Christ was not only a sin offering as a sacrifice for the forgiveness of the sins of those whom the Father have given Him to raise in the last day, His sheep, His people, His church. Until you will acknowledge the other things that Christ accomplished through his death, you will have to explain away scriptures such as 1 John 2:2.

So as I stated, you and i dont agree at all. You hold that Christ died for all humanity, I dont !

I agree with you that Christ did not die as a sin offering sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins of all humanity. However you don’t agree that the death of Christ does not only serve as a sin offering but also for other purposes such as it being a sacrifice for atonement for the sins of the whole world.

Tong
R2066

 

[BarneyFife]

Yes it is. If one’s understanding of salvation is that man does something, something that he credits to man and thinking that because he had done such a thing, that he is saved which otherwise he will not be saved. Is that not your understanding and is that not what you say and teach? At least that’s what I am gathering from your postings.

Tong
R2056

Spoken like a dyed-in-the-wool Calvinist. :)

 

[BarneyFife]

I think you might get an answer from JBF, but you will just not find it in scriptures.

Tong
R2057

Well, whatever answer he gives, it's got to be better than predestination as taught by staunch Calvinism, which makes a cruel, monstrous God in man's image.

 

[Renniks]

Does not Calvin teaches that Jesus Christ is the Lord and is the Savior? Now when I discuss with you for example, and tell you that my understanding of scriptures is that Jesus Christ is the Lord and is the Savior, am I teaching what Calvin teach or am I teaching what scriptures teach? I am pretty sure you teach that as well. Are you by that teaching the doctrine of Calvin or the scriptures?

Tong
R2062

Yes, but so does every other Christian sect. The form of predestination you are teaching was not something that was common throughout church history.

 

[Renniks]

For God to do His work of salvation does not depend on conditions, nor is according to the will of man. More so, I have to say that in my view of God, salvation is God’s plan more than it is a choice of God

Scripture says otherwise, as you have been shown numerous times. Does God save those who don't believe in him? Ever?

 

[Renniks]

Remember, my view is that God creates everything. If a man makes a free-will choice to believe in his son, God is speaking that choice into existence.

Which is the same as God causing it. You want to have your cake and eat it too. How can it be a free will choice if God is causing it to happen in the same way he spoke all creation into existence? That's like saying the earth has a free will choice to be created or not.

 

[BarneyFife]

I agree with you that Christ did not die as a sin offering sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins of all humanity. However you don’t agree that the death of Christ does not only serve as a sin offering but also for other purposes such as it being a sacrifice for atonement for the sins of the whole world.

Tong
R2066

You might want to study up on the word "atonement." The Cross does nothing to reconcile unrepentant sinners to a Holy God. It does however grant them a probation period in which to make a free will decision to follow Jesus Christ or follow Him not. Even sinners who eventually repent should, by all rights, expire directly upon having their first sinful thought. Mercy is never without cost (Calvary). It is thus that the Lamb of God takes away the sin of the world. :)

 

[Renniks]

If you don't know how foreknowledge works, then how can you be certain that his foreknowledge isn't due to his plans and purposes?

Because that's not omniscience. It's just knowing what he's going to cause to happen. I can do that. Besides which, if God caused men to be so evil he had to wipe them off the earth, he would hardly be saying he grieved about it. That would make God schizophrenic.