Unprofitable Servant wrote: God has no delight in the death of the wicked but that they turn from their wickedness and live, .... In our time here below we should sow in tears that by God‚Äôs grace, Who alone can give the increase, we can reap in joy.
Agreed brother. The Lord uses means to bring in the elect and alongside the preaching of the gospel, he uses the witness of believers, our burdened and even tearful prayers etc.
Mike wrote: Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;"
That was precisely the author's point viz. that Christ only prays for those who believe or will believe. These are the sheep, the elect, given to him by the Father and therefore drawn by the Father to him so that Christ can save them. He doesn't pray for the "world" as understood by arminians viz. every single soul, which he would do if he died for every soul..
He mentions universal redemption viz. the notion that Christ died for everyone, which is the heart of arminianism and also believed by the hybrid Calminians like John UK. The only thing that separates you all from universalists is that universalists believe Christ actually achieved the salvation of all for whom he died. Whereas Arminians and Calminians believe that Christ only made salvation possible and that the sinner has to save himself by appropriating the benefits of the possible salvation by his own acts of repentance and faith. Regarding those who fail so to appropriate, Christ died for them in vain.
Mike wrote: Yet when the writings of the infallible One are denied via self-imagined exclusive special knowledge, multitudes(necessarily so) of explanatory words, and grammatical explosion, is not the Holy Spirit being blasphemed for he is being called a liar? Refuse to repent? Exactly why men are condemned.
Amazing statements, coming as they do from someone who denies the plainest verses in the Bible, and chooses to sneak in his theological bent behind general terms like "world", and "all" etc. Agenda much?
".. ; which though it asserts a redemption of all, yet it is possible none may be saved.
4. Hence, even to those who are redeemed and saved, it lays no foundation for, nor does it furnish with any argument to engage to love Christ, to be thankful to him, and to praise him for the redemption of them ; since the difference between them and others is not owing to the efficacy of Christ's death, but to their own wills and works ; that they are saved from destruction, if ever they are, according to this scheme they can not indeed sing the song of praise to the Lamb, for their redemption, saying, Thou art worthy, for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us, &c." Jn Gill
Problems caused by people who make Christ to be a liar when he specifically stated that he came to lay down his life for his sheep, for those whom the Father had given him, to save his people from their sins, hence why he was named "Jesus"!
They hold to a system of doctrine which is marked by rank unbelief and yet think themselves ever so wise.
Even Caiaphas unwittingly prophesied the truth of which they are ignorant viz. that Christ died to gather together in one the children of God (i.e. Jews and Gentiles). John 11.50-52. The children of God are being gathered by the gospel, not the children of the devil.
"...Now those for whom he prays and intercedes, are not all men, himself being witness ; I pray for them; I pray not for the world, John xvii. 9. Yet, according to the universal scheme, he died for them for whom he would not pray which is absurd and incredible.
5. if Christ died for all men, and all men are not saved, Christ will not see the travail of his soul and be satisfied, as was promised him, Isa. liii.
Other arguments against universal redemption, may be taken from the uselessness of it to great numbers of men.
1. To those whose sins are irremissible ; whose sins will never be forgiven, neither in this world, nor in that which is to come, Matt. xii. 31, 32. Christ cannot be thought to die for such.
2. Redemption, if for all, must be useless to those who never were favoured with the means of grace.
3. The universal scheme, affords no encouragement to faith and hope in Christ. According to the universal scheme, men may be redeemed by Christ, and yet not saved, but eternally perish: what hope of salvation can a man have upon such a scheme? Which is most eligible of the two schemes, that which makes the salvation of some certain, or that which leaves the salvation of all precarious and uncertain ...
"...whatever obscures, or lessens the grace of Christ in redemption, or depreciates his work as a Redeemer, can never be true.
1. The universal scheme, reflects on the love and grace of Christ. What sort of love is that, to love men to such a degree as to die for them, and yet withhold the means of grace from multitudes of them.
2. The universal scheme, reflects upon the work of Christ. Either he has made satisfaction for every man, or he has not : if he has, then they ought to be set free, and fully discharged, and not punishment inflicted on them, or their debts exacted of them. If he has not made satisfaction by redeeming them, this lessens the value of Christ's work, and makes it of no use, and ineffectual.
3. According to the universal scheme, the death of Christ, with respect to multitudes, for whom he is said to die, must be in vain. If he paid a ransom for all, and all are not ransomed, the price is given to no purpose.
4. The universal scheme, separates the works of Christ, the work of redemption, and the work of intercession ; and makes them to belong to different persons; for his advocacy is founded upon his propitiatory sacrifice. ...
"If Christ died for the sins of all men, and the punishment of their sins is inflicted on him, and bore by him, and yet multitudes of them are everlastingly punished for them, where is justice? If Christ has paid the debts of all men, can it be just with God to arrest such persons.
4. The universal scheme, reflects on the power of God. If Christ has redeemed all men, and all men are not saved, it must be either from want of will in God to save them, or from want of power : not from want of will ; for, according to this scheme, it is the will of God that every individual man should be saved : it must be therefore for want of power; and so he is not omnipotent.
5. The universal scheme, reflects on the immutability of God, of his love and of his counsel: God, in the scripture, says, l am the Lord I change not, Mal. iii. 6. Yet, according to this scheme, he is sometimes in one mind, and sometimes in another; sometimes his mind is to save them, at another time his mind is to damn them. 6. The universal scheme, disappoints God of his chief end, and robs him of his glory. If men, any of them who are redeemed, are not saved, so far God loses his end.
Another set of arguments against universal redemption, might be taken from its reflecting on the grace and work of Christ.."
"I shall give some reasons, or produce some arguments against the universal scheme of redemption. And, the first set of arguments shall be taken from hence, that universal redemption reflects highly on the perfections of God.
1. The universal scheme, greatly reflects on the love of God to men. What kind of love must that be, which does not secure the salvation of any by it? What sort of love must this be in God, not to spare his Son, but deliver him up to death for all the individuals of mankind, for their redemption; and yet, to multitudes of them, does not send so much as the gospel?
2. The universal scheme, highly reflects on the wisdom of God. Where is his wisdom in forming a schema, in which he fails of his end? Should it be said, that the failure is owing to some men's not performing the conditions of their redemption required of them ; it may be observed, either God did know, or did not know, that these men would not perform the conditions required : if he did not know, this ascribes want of knowledge to him: if he did know they would not perform them, where is his wisdom, to provide the blessing of redemption, which he knew beforehand, would be of no service to them?
3. The universal scheme, highly reflects on the justice of God..."
B. McCausland wrote: one single sin. eternal sacrifice of death unto life
Where do we find justice demanded an eternal sacrifice of death? And, why bother to mention the multitude of sins/transgression etc. in the verses cited in the following quote?
"All passages which refer to the cause of His sufferings, explicitly state that these had definite relation to accurately considered sins. ‚ÄúWith His stripes,‚ÄĚ i.e., with stripes inflicted on Him, one by one, till the required number was reached, ‚Äúwe are healed.‚ÄĚ ‚ÄúThe Lord hath laid on Him,‚ÄĚ not the iniquity, or sin as sin, but, as in the margin, ‚Äúthe iniquities of us all.‚ÄĚ ‚ÄúFor the transgressions of my people was He smitten.‚ÄĚ ‚ÄúThe chastisement of our peace,‚ÄĚ i.e., such punishment as must be endured to ensure our peace ‚Äúwas upon Him.‚ÄĚ ‚ÄúHe was delivered for our offences.‚ÄĚ ‚ÄúHe died for our sins.‚ÄĚ ‚ÄúHe suffered for us in the flesh.‚ÄĚ He, ‚Äúthe just‚ÄĚ one, died instead of the ‚Äúunjust‚ÄĚ ones. ‚ÄúHe gave Himself for our sins.‚ÄĚ The wrath of God excited by our sins therefore caused His suffering, and to exhaust that measured wrath He suffered." Wm Styles
If death was all that was required that could have been achieved with very little suffering.
Adriel wrote: All that Christ did and suffered would have been necessary had only one human soul been the object of redemption; and nothing different and nothing more would have been required had every child of Adam been saved through his blood." (Charles Hodge) https://www.monergism.com/whom-did-christ-die
Scriptural, proof of any of this, assuming it matters to you?
Perhaps Mr Itchy ears from the UK whose theology changes with the wind has some answers.
Some genuine questions to the universal atonement crowd on this forum.
You insist that the blood was of infinite value because Christ was also divine. Did the blood become divine?
If in the atonement God, because of his love to every single individual, provides for their sins to be removed, what about all those in the world who lived and died before Christ arrived and who never heard the gospel, not even the gospel as Abraham knew it? What hope did they ever have? And what about those who even now know nothing of Christ? Isn't God obliged to make Christ known to every soul so that his love and provision may be communicated to them? If so, isn't he failing big time?
Finally for the hybrid part calvin part arminians here, if every soul who will ever come to trust the Savior, has to be drawn, what's the point of making a provision for those who will never be drawn? Do you believe with Ryle that for these creatures Christ died in vain?
ladybug wrote: Ryle makes the same mistake many Arminians and Calminians do, assuming 'world' means every person ever born. Christ did not die just to make salvation possible, for IF He did, what prevents ALL from being saved? What does their 'possible salvation' hinge on?
I asked for any specific scripture that taught of the infinite value of Christ's blood because of his divinity and crickets.
Don't expect them to answer yours either, because they have no answer. Probably just more quotes from other people who agree with them.
What a cosy life it must be to put faith in other religious believers but not in the Bible. One wonders how much the bible even matters to these folk. Sad, very sad.
"The essence of the atonement must not be confounded with the Divinity of Him who made it; for then the slightest pang would have sufficed, and a plenary punishment been avoided" William Palmer
Likewise, if his blood were of infinite value on account of his divinity then one drop would have sufficed.
It is not the dignity of the person who suffered which determines the merits of His work, but the actual suffering that he had to endure to make satisfaction for the sins of His people.
John UK wrote: ...as the Prince of Preachers himself said, the value of the atonement is of infinite value; and that, because of the Great Person who made it. ...
Scripture verses that indicate that the value of the blood was infinite because of the person who made it? Or, does it not matter what the Bible actually says? Why would an atonement of infinite value be required for the purchase of the elect?
Me thinks that your system requires you to bend scripture to accommodate it. Isn't this the very thing that Ryle objected to when he said "I have long come to the conclusion that men may be more systematic in their statements than the Bible, and may be led into grave error by idolatrous veneration of a system."?
"We repeatedly hear today in evangelistic messages: ‚ÄėChrist died for you. What will you do for him?‚Äô But do we ever find in the Bible that someone is told personally, ‚ÄėChrist died for you‚Äô? Rather, we find the work of Christ explained, followed by a call to everyone: ‚ÄėRepent and believe the gospel.‚Äô The message is not ‚ÄėBelieve that Christ died for you‚Äô or ‚ÄėBelieve that you are one of the elect.‚Äô It is ‚ÄėBelieve on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved.‚Äô
We may with equal force state that no one in the Bible was ever told personally "God loves you with a saving love".
So simple and yet apparently so difficult for some to imitate.
Christopher000 wrote: When I said, "Sure is amazing...", it was because the same exact Bible is used to arrive at those differing views.
It is always important to read passages in their immediate and wider contexts, to compare scripture with scripture, to let the plain explain the obscure, to let the NT inform our reading of the OT, to not build doctrine on vague types and parables, and to keep with the analogy of faith viz. appreciate that the bible does not contradict itself and therefore if two passages appear contradictory or a passage appears to contradict a doctrine that is plainly taught elsewhere then the fault is in our understanding, not in the bible etc.
Sadly most Christians, whether they accept the accusation or not, read the bible begrudgingly as a duty and therefore they read it hurriedly, patchily, and superficially. They park their brains for short cut devotional lessons and proof texts. They grow up reading it like that and never get out of the habit.
On forums like this the above becomes very evident, and for the casual reader that can be very confusing.
Christopher000 wrote: ...topics are viewed so differently.
At the heart of the 2 most variant views is the controversy about whether an unregenerate sinner has the power of will to do good and turn unaided to God. The problem with the free will view is that (ignoring all scriptural data) it takes the most optimistic view of fallen human nature. The will is tied to our nature; it is not a free agent that can act against nature.
With this in mind read Roms 7 and Paul's on experience:
18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.
19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.
This is Paul writing as a regenerate person. What about the unregenerate? Can they be in a better position?
Roms 8 answers this:
5. ..they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.
6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
8 So then they that are in the flesh ***cannot*** please Go
John UK wrote: Romans 10:13 KJV (13)¬† For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
It is funny what preconceived notions folk import into the NT.
Here we have a prime example in quoting Roms 10.13 as though this is a totally new concept to the bible. Instead we read of people who call upon the name of the Lord from Genesis 4.26 throughout the OT. Indeed Roms 10.13 is itself a quote from Joel 2.32.
Was it a different Lord that they called upon in the OT?
What is difficult to understand about the transition period, where the godly OT folk who did call upon the name of the Lord are brought to a specific knowledge of the Savior whom they awaited and in the process received the NT gifts of the Spirit; in the case of Cornelius as a signal to the apostles that the Gentiles too are accepted in the NC?
Maybe God is actually consistent in what he teaches and doesn't with one breath teach that unregenerate sinners are filthy and corrupt and can produce no spiritual good and with the next breath change his mind and accept their persons and works? That is unless one has a favorite theology that things must be bent to to make God contradict himself. The capricious god of arminianism maybe?