A proposition (Calvinistic or no?)

[justbyfaith]

You still have not addressed what the propitiation IS. I repeat: THE QUESTIONS ARE A SET! Jumping ahead is meaningless without first laying the foundation. [Are you saying that Jesus accomplished NOTHING? ... You did not address the propitiation, so we must GUESS what you think and meant.]

I am actually pointing out my original point that the verse is typically "weaponized" or "brushed aside" but never honestly discussed in detail.

Propitiation is the appeasement of God's wrath, by definition.

1Jo 2:2, And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

It means that Jesus appeased the wrath of the Father towards all people...however, not all people avail themselves of that propitiation.

Let me ask you, what is "the sins of the whole world" in contrast to "our sins"?

Does "our sins" refer to the sins of the elect or does it apply to a smaller group of people?

Because, it must apply to a smaller group of people than the elect if you are going to interpret "the sins of the whole world" as being the sins of the elect.

That being said, we know that Universalism is not the reality (Matthew 13:41-42, 49-50, 25:46).

So, there must be a choice involved for "the whole world"...that their sins are in fact paid for...however they must make a choice, each of them individually, in order to appropriate what has been done for them.

 

[justbyfaith]

If we come to Christ because of US rather than because of God, then these:

• John 6:44 [NASB] "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day."
• Romans 9:15-16 [NASB] For He says to Moses, "I WILL HAVE MERCY ON WHOMEVER I HAVE MERCY, AND I WILL SHOW COMPASSION TO WHOMEVER I SHOW COMPASSION." So then, it does not depend on the person who wants it nor the one who runs, but on God who has mercy.
• Ephesians 2:1-10 [NASB] And you were dead in your offenses and sins, in which you previously walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. Among them we too all previously lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the rest. But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our wrongdoings, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the ages to come He might show the boundless riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.

... are all false.

• People CAN come to Him without the Father first drawing them.
• It DOES depend on the person who WANTS and RUNS rather than exclusively on God showing mercy.
• We were not DEAD, we were only SICK, since we staggered under our own power to the cross. God did not make us alive while we were dead, God merely healed us when we came to Him for healing. The faith that saved was most certainly NOT - "not of ourselves" - rather it WAS our faith that saved us and it was OUR WORK of coming to Christ that saved us ... giving those saved "something to boast about" [Romans 4:2].

That is why.

Soli Deo Gloria! ("All Glory to God Alone") is at stake.

However, as I said before, in your attempt to defend God's sovereignty, you are compromising His holiness and righteousness.

Because if God is the first cause of everything, then He is responsible for murder and rape and incest.

I do not see any of the verses that you have mentioned as contradicting the idea that we do something in order to procure salvation.

If there were a contradiction between these concepts, then certain unbelieving people would be correct in saying that there are contradictions in the Bible.

However, there is always a reconciliation.

 

[justbyfaith]

Because "coming to Christ" needs to be defined. To the Calvinist that means believing in who He is and what He has done and is doing. The real Christ as presented in the scriptures.

What does "coming to Christ" mean to you?

That Christ is a Person and He is the Saviour from sin and that He deserves to be our Lord.

Coming to Christ, therefore, means receiving Him as Lord and relying on Him as the Saviour from sin (through what He did for us on the Cross as well as through His coming into our hearts to live His life in us and through us).

 

[Arial]

So, God doesn't even need us...no need for us to evangelize since God does it all...

God doesn't need us. What a concept! He uses us as a means of fulfilling His purpose when it comes to evangelizing. We serve Him. He does not serve us.

 

[justbyfaith]

"17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom."

And, "If the Son of Man shall make you free, you shall be free indeed."

What's the problem? How does that counter what @fastfredy0 said?

You make it sound like all freedom is one and the same thing: Self-determination, absolute spontaneity, and other words that are possible only for First Cause. There are no little first causes trotting about the planet.

That the Spirit of the Lord brings freedom means that He is not going to force a singular decision when He draws a person to Christ.

When He draws a person to Christ, there is freedom to make a choice.

 

[justbyfaith]

God doesn't need us. What a concept! He uses us as a means of fulfilling His purpose when it comes to evangelizing. We serve Him. He does not serve us.

Yes...and the logical conclusion is that there is no need for any of us to evangelize...

a distinctly Calvinistic concept.

 

[justbyfaith]

If the First Cause is not successful, then by definition it is not a First Cause as it did not bring about an effect. *sigh*

You have people being the First Cause as you have people self-determining their salvation. This is not possible. You can will what your will desires. That is circular logic.

God is in fact the first cause of salvation for those who are saved. Those who are not saved are not saved because they chose to reject Christ and what He did for them on the Cross.

Faith is a work as John 6:29 points out. Jesus answered, “This is the work of God: that you believe [adhere to, trust in, rely on, and have faith] in the One whom He has sent.” ..... there it is... faith is a work and the work is done by God.

However Ephesians 2:8-9 says we are saved through faith and not of works....how then can faith be a work?

Are you trying to say that we are not saved through faith?

Ephesians 2:8 tells us that we are saved through faith.

John 6:28-29 is Jesus saying that if you want to insist on being saved by works...the only work that is going to save you is simple faith in Him.

Also, when we believe, we are the ones who believe; God does not believe for us.

If faith is a work, then it is our work...and it also saves us according to Ephesians 2:8.

To stretch it beyond that is to pit Ephesians 2:8-9 against itself.

 

[justbyfaith]

@makesends , @Arial , @fastfredy0 , @atpollard and @God ... that's 5 against 1
*giggle*
Aside: I took a little liberty with the last one but what the heck

Yes, actually you are quite wrong to add God as being on your side.

God and me make a majority.

1Co 16:9, For a great door and effectual is opened unto me, and there are many adversaries.

 

[justbyfaith]

Main reason is that that isn't how Scripture presents election. The focus is the work of God —not what we do, but what HE does.

What we see as practical in attaining what we see as the goal, is a false method for drawing doctrine. Not only do we not know what will work best to achieve God's ends, but our silly minds don't even know God's ends.

Effectual drawing is not our concern; God does not consult us for advice there.

You shouldn't worry —to use your use of practicality for a basis of doctrine, there's nobody effectually drawn who isn't effectually drawn. God will accomplish ALL he set out to do.

A person who is drawn to Christ is not necessarily given to Christ.

And there is also something that we do in order to procure salvation (Hosea 14:2, Romans 10:9-13, Acts 2:38-39).

If we don't do it, we aren't saved...

 

[justbyfaith]

1 Cor 3:17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.

I determine what is meant by freedom in this passage by what precedes and follows it.

5-6 Not that we are sufficient in ourselves to claim anything as coming from us, but our sufficiency is from God, who has made us sufficient to be ministers of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit, For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. So Paul is talking about the law of the old covenant comparing it to the new covenant without law.

He continues to speak of the Mosaic covenant law, calling it a ministry of death, carved on stone---which itself was so glorious they could not even gaze at Moses' face, and he says this was being brought to an end. He compares that to the ministry of the Spirit which has even more glory, surpassing the glory that came with the Law. 11. For if what was being brought to an end came with glory, much more will what is permanent have glory.

12-13 Since we have such a hope, we are very bold, not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face so that the Israelites might not gaze at the outcome of what was being brought to an end.

In verses 14-15 Paul says their minds were hardened and even to this day when the old covenant is read, that same veil is remains because it can only be taken away through Christ.

16-18 But when one turns to the Lord, the veil is remove. Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. And we all with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another. For this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit.

Paul's conclusion to all this is found in chapter 4, which was not a chapter break when the letter was written.

Therefore, having this ministry by the mercy of God, we do not lose heart. But we have renounced disgraceful, underhanded ways. We refuse to practice cunnion or to tamper with God's word, but by the open statement of the truth we would commend ourselves to everyone's conscience in the sight of God. (Which goes back to his opening remarks of chapter 3 where he was defending his apostleship.) And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the mage of God.

So what is this freedom? With unveiled face beholding the glory of God in Christ and being transformed into His image by God Himself. Out from under the Law. Christ alone.


What do you say that freedom is?

In context of what I am preaching, it is the ability to make a free will decision to either receive or reject Christ.

 

[justbyfaith]

That simply means in the context that they were not of Israel the nation and in that covenant.

They were of Israel according to Hosea 1:10-11.

 

[justbyfaith]

What if the doctrine contained in irresistible grace, which was stated as such to create the acronym were stated in a way that is consistent with the doctrine and less vulnerable to misconceptions? What if the doctrine actually teaches effectual grace? Grace that does what God sends grace to do.

Irresistible Grace simply is not a biblical teaching.

I can interpolate it from maybe one verse (1 Corinthians 13:8).

However, if Irresistible Grace be true, then the conclusion is either:

1) Limited Atonement: which is not the reality (1 John 2:2, 1 Timothy 4:10, 2 Corinthians 5:14-15).

2) Universalism: which is not the reality (Matthew 13:41-42, 49-50, 25:46).

Therefore Irresistible Grace is not the reality....

And 1 Corinthians 13:8 is therefore to be interpreted as saying that the love of the Lord will not fail to give to every man a free will decision to either receive or reject Christ.

 

[justbyfaith]

1 John 2:2 is not a valid counter to the doctrine of election and predestination.

Right...

However it is a valid counter to the concept of Limited Atonement; and is also not the only passage that does that.

 

[justbyfaith]

Very well done. You addressed the hard parts without blinking.

One must acknowledge that the SIMPLEST reading of the phrase "and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world" really is "and for all men without exception". The obvious flaw with this "simplest reading" is that it ignores context (which has nothing to do with sotieriology), it leads to the obvious "logical conclusion" of UNIVERSALISM (which is contra-Biblical),

It does not lead to Universalism if you base salvation on the choice of man to believe in, receive, and follow Christ...

Which is denied by some; perhaps because they personally have not made that decision, and want to consider themselves saved?

 

[Arial]

Irresistible Grace simply is not a biblical teaching.

Is effectual grace a biblical teaching? If not, why not?

I can interpolate it from maybe one verse (1 Corinthians 13:8).

Are you sure you mean interpolate? That means to alter or corrupt something like a text by inserting something new. Insert words into a text, I see no connection between that scripture and effectual grace.

However, if Irresistible Grace be true, then the conclusion is either:

1) Limited Atonement: which is not the reality (1 John 2:2, 1 Timothy 4:10, 2 Corinthians 5:14-15).

It is a reality no matter which way you look at it. In Calvinism the crucifixion does what it was intended to do. Save the elect. In your view it is effective for everyone but limited only to those who believe. And those scriptures have been dealt with as nauseum.

2) Universalism: which is not the reality (Matthew 13:41-42, 49-50, 25:46).

Universalism is the opposite of effectual grace. And since you have been told that it is effectual grace rather than your misinterpretation of irresistible grace, there is no excuse for you to continue to answer from the misconception.

Therefore Irresistible Grace is not the reality....

Your arguing points were wrong so your conclusion is wrong.

And 1 Corinthians 13:8 is therefore to be interpreted as saying that the love of the Lord will not fail to give to every man a free will decision to either receive or reject Christ.

That is certainly a blue ribbon example of interpolating.

Here is Webster's definition.

1
a
: to alter or corrupt (something, such as a text) by inserting new or foreign matter
b
: to insert (words) into a text or into a conversation

 

[fastfredy0]

God is in fact the first cause of salvation for those who are saved. Those who are not saved are not saved because they chose to reject Christ and what He did for them on the Cross.

True, but dig DEEPER. Why did they chose to reject Christ? Who determined their will? You can't will (determine) what your desires are. Your will was not designed by you. You will was created by God. It was created such that NO ONE SEEKS GOD. God is the FIRST CAUSE of your will. The Law of Causality states that every effect has a cause.(and everything you do is an effect of God the First Cause) God is eternal and immutable and therefore is not an effect; He is uncaused. He is unaffected by anything (Job 35:7-8). Since you cannot affect God in any way (Romans 11:34-35) it is impossible to save yourself by doing something that would CAUSE God to be affected. Again, He is immutable. Therefore, if you are to change from what God determined you to be then God must take the action (work John 6:29) to change you such that you believe and are saved.
You will NEVER act independently of God. (Acts 17:28 in Him we live and breathe and have our being). Any belief to the contrary is deism or dualism.

However Ephesians 2:8-9 says we are saved through faith and not of works....how then can faith be a work?

Faith is a work. It is the work done by God. Work is defined as the mental or physical activity to accomplish a purpose. God does the work via the Spirit to regenerate you causing you to believe. Like a carpenter with a hammer; God is the carpenter doing the work causing (First Cause) you, the hammer, to believe.
You, on the other hand, suggest God does part of the work and then it is up to you to finish the work of believing and thus your contention leads to yet another biblical contradiction as you have reason to boast because you independently of God somehow self-determined you would believe. Congrats, you are more righteous than the majority of mankind and you have changed an immutable God such that He will make you His son as a consequence of your independent achievement of salvific belief.

Also, when we believe, we are the ones who believe; God does not believe for us.

Well, that's true. Again, my contention is the God is the SOLE cause of your belief; you are an impotent "hammer". God doesn't have to use a hammer.

Premise 1: It is better to give than receive
Premise 2: You, independent of God, did the salvific work of belief.
Conclusion: You, in this scenario are superior to God for it is better to give than receive and you have given God the gift of believing upon Him ... congrats

 

[justbyfaith]

There is nothing meritorious about a faith that is based in a sinful fear of the lake of fire (based in the instinct of self-preservation)...in having such a faith I have no reason to boast.

Yet, God honours such a faith according to His word.

 

[justbyfaith]

Is effectual grace a biblical teaching? If not, why not?

Are you sure you mean interpolate? That means to alter or corrupt something like a text by inserting something new. Insert words into a text, I see no connection between that scripture and effectual grace.

It is a reality no matter which way you look at it. In Calvinism the crucifixion does what it was intended to do. Save the elect. In your view it is effective for everyone but limited only to those who believe. And those scriptures have been dealt with as nauseum.

Universalism is the opposite of effectual grace. And since you have been told that it is effectual grace rather than your misinterpretation of irresistible grace, there is no excuse for you to continue to answer from the misconception.

Your arguing points were wrong so your conclusion is wrong.

That is certainly a blue ribbon example of interpolating.

Here is Webster's definition.

1
a
: to alter or corrupt (something, such as a text) by inserting new or foreign matter
b
: to insert (words) into a text or into a conversation

Not talking to you anymore. I don't like your tone.

 

[Arial]

Right...

However it is a valid counter to the concept of Limited Atonement; and is also not the only passage that does that.

Exactly how does it counter limited atonement? Give a detailed exegesis way of countering limited atonement. I will be waiting. It is not a valid argument to just make statements with nothing to back them up.

 

[Arial]

Irresistible Grace simply is not a biblical teaching.

That is not what I asked you. I asked you if effectual grace---grace that does what God sends it to do---is a biblical teaching? Answer that question. You set a table, asked for input from Calvinists, and now you are just going to keep eating your own potatoes, and pay no attention to their offerings? You are not even going to address them? Where is the sincerity you implied?