Scriptures that show that Christs death saved a person while in unbelief!

[brightfame52]

Believers were saved by Christs death alone because by His death alone He for them, before they became believers obtained for them eternal redemption Heb 9:12

12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.
The word redemption is λύτρωσι:

1. a ransoming, redemption
2. deliverance, esp. from the penalty of sin

He obtained for them by Himself deliverance from the penalty of their sin, This is in the legal phase of salvation. This is a true fact of the accomplishment of Christ b4 we are born and have any knowledge of it'

 

[brightfame52]

Is an unbelieving enemy in a state of being reconciled to God?

No the word reconciled is aorist past tense, while we we were enemies is a present tense participle. So Paul is saying while in pre conversion being enemies, they had been past tense reconciled to God by the Death of Gods Son

 

[brightfame52]

If that is your position then go back to post #9 where I outline by view of Romans 5 and counter it point by point. You can't keep ignoring what others post and simply posting "I disagree. I'm right and you are wrong" and expect that to be seen as anything but opinion that refuses to change, to hear, to listen, to engage. If you are correct and I am wrong it should be easy enough for you to take apart my support for my position line by line.

Just taking one sentence out of the middle of an entire discourse by Paul and ignoring its context and grammatical structure, just shows that you know the context will destroy your assertion.

Im not working on your comments but on mine.

 

[brightfame52]

Then you're a determinist.

Rabbit trail

 

[brightfame52]

You remove the necessity of a sinner being joined to Christ in union with him

You keep saying that, but maybe you dont understand that the elect had a legal union with Christ when He died and was buried and rose again. They because of their union with him die , was buried and rose together with Him. Thats why Paul could say Gal 2:20

20 ;I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

In the original it reads I was crucified with Christ συσταυρόω its a perfect passive indicative. Paul and every believer were legally in union with Christ their head in the crufixion. In fact thats what a new believer is confessing when they are water baptized.

{Edit: Violation of rule 2.3}

 

[makesends]

makesends said:
I consider myself a determinist, but not what most people would define a determinist to be.

No, your views are exactly what most people consider determinist.

Yet, I don't agree with @brightfame52 concerning us being saved before we were born, before we were regenerated.
makesends said:
I don't believe in robot/ puppet soteriology.

You do; you just don't realize it.

Robots, puppets, have no will. Our will is separate from God's will, but caused by God's will. Using WCF's term, "established", our wills, and the results of our wills, are established by God. There is no reality but what God has caused.

It may be a worthwhile endeavor to look at some outside works, concerning the will of creatures vs the will of God. I'm not good at articulating what is mistaken in what you believe —that meticulous causation implies puppetry/robot-hood—and its necessary counterstatement —that to deny meticulous causation, is to posit causation by chance, or by another first cause, both of which are logically self-contradictory.

You believe one act of creation, the first act, caused all other events in a singular cause-and-effect way. Creation is static and linear. You read WCF 3.1's to say, "I do agree that God has.... established second causes, though "liberty" is not a word I would incorporate into that thought." Yours is a view of creation in which "liberty or contingency" is established by God in a fixed manner. "I would not call, 'contingency', "determined conditions", though in my take of 3.1 they certainly are determined conditions." That is determinism. Contingencies are determined in your pov. What the WCF states is God did no violence to the contingency of secondary causes. Determining them would be doing violence.

"I think that "contingency" is not in itself the same sort of thing as counterfactuals, nor even 'possibilities'. To me, it only means that x is necessarily causal for y to result. So y is contingent on x. But speculating as to what would result, if z, while the results of z would be contingent on z, they are not actually contingent on z, anymore than counterfactuals have any basis, nor any use other than proposing bogus constructions, and mental exercises."​

"In spite of your meticulous defining to the term as used in the WCF, I still see their statement as valid even if God does meticulous causation. I'm not saying that I garner the notion of his meticulous causing of all things from the WCF, but that it allows for it. My reasoning for it does not come from the WCF, but from the simple logic of necessary implications of God's omnipotence as the uncaused causer (aka, First Cause)."​

In your view, the WCF "allows for meticulous causation." That phrase, "meticulous causation" is determinism, classic ordinary dictionary-definition determinism.

When these views are applied to salvation.... meticulous causation means God meticulously causes every aspect of salvation (and violence is, therefore, done to the human will).

Sorry, no. God USES the human will to do what he intended for it to do. Your claim implies synergism, in that, once freed and made alive, the human will is active in causing salvation. It is not. —Even you have claimed outright, the will is irrelevant concerning salvation, then you contradict it with this.

Whether prior to, or subsequent to regeneration, God is meticulously causing each and every even in each and every human's internal and external life. That is robot/puppet soteriology. Neither creation, nor humanity, is interactive with God. Every constituent aspect does only what God causes it to do. X causes y and z is contingent upon y only in the sense that God caused z as a meticulously caused event (never a consequence of any causation of design or volition). That is robot/puppet soteriology.

Not at all. See Moses, whom God raised up for the purpose, pleading for the sake of the Children of Israel God's glory at risk—are you going to say with the Arminians that God did NOT intend for Moses to do that, thus denying God's Impassibility, Perfection and Simplicity? I don't think you are. Can you show that something happened there that God did not cause? No.

So, then, if your tack is, rather, that meticulous causation is a different thing from what I am supposing it to be, or does differently from what I say it does, have at it. The human will is subject to God's causation, in every detail.

brightfame52 said:
Yes because Christ death reconciled them to God while unbelieving enemies.

Then you're a determinist.

I'm not disagreeing with you that BrFm is a determinist; I'm only saying he and I don't agree on what he means here. Our wills are indeed active in faith and repentance, which, along with their results, are established by God. And, in cause you slough this, "Active in faith and repentance", does not equal, "causal of salvation".

 

[makesends]

I disagree with you. They were reconciled to God, while enemies, by the death of the Son of God Rom 5:10 for it cant be stated any clearer.

All the benefits of what Christ did were established by what he did. Nobody is disputing that. But you are somehow locked into the notion that therefore they are made active at that point in time, which is not what the Bible teaches. You are contradicting Scripture, by quoting verses out of context, to make your point, and not for what they were intended.

 

[Josheb]

Rabbit trail

It's not a rabbit trail. It is the correct label for what the view asserted by this op. My observation of the op's determinism and mention of the problems inherent in determinism is an opportunity to self-examine the nature of the op with the fellowship of others.

How are the problems inherent in the kind of strict determinism underlying this op's position avoided?

What? I do not understand.​

It is determinism to say God has caused all the events beforehand and without regard to any of the dynamics of the involved events. It makes understanding and belief irrelevant and inconsequentially removes the normal, ordinary meaning of those words. How are the problems inherent in determinism like those avoided?

Rabbit trail.​

I see. The problems inherent in determinism are not avoided; they are embraced. These problems are considered a departure from the topic of Christ saving a person while in unbelief.

That is like saying Henry Ford made light speed possible before people believed the atom could be split. In a reasonable, rational, logical reading of scripture all the predicates have to be valid and veracious, not just the conclusion.

• All cats have fur and four legs.
• Dogs have fur and four legs.
• Therefore, dogs are cats.

The same problem exists in the other ops posted on eternal soteriological ordinances of God. Everyone here has concerns with the op but there's no fellowship had.

Rabbit trail

Yeah, okay. I predict this thread will become a long string of argumentum ad nauseam posts, just like this one because the deterministic nature of the argument is not being considered, nor are the problems inherent therein. Consider this:

Any god can make action figures that do only what he/she/it makes them do. There's nothing particularly godlike about that. You and I can, in fact do that. That god is not a God, and that god is definitely not the God of the Bible. A God that makes a dynamic and interactive creation while remaining sovereign over every aspect is a much greater God than the god of the action figure, and greater in every single aspect of Godness. It's not a rabbit trail but if you do not want to discuss it.....

I guess God deterministically made the thread that way and we're just doing what He's making us do.

 

[brightfame52]

All the benefits of what Christ did were established by what he did.

The legal benefits were accomplished and applied at the Cross, sin of the elect was purged Heb 1:3 and they were reconciled to God Rom 5:10, Justified Rom 5:9 and forgiven.

. Nobody is disputing that.

Yes it is being disputed, the legal benefits are

But you are somehow locked into the notion that therefore they are made active at that point in time,

Yes the legal benefits are, but not the Spiritual benefits, which are sure because of the legal benefits

You are contradicting Scripture, by quoting verses out of context, to make your point, and not for what they were intended.

No Im not contradicting scripture, but you are

 

[Arial]

You keep saying that, but maybe you dont understand that the elect had a legal union with Christ when He died and was buried and rose again.

I understand what "legal" means, and therefore, I understand that the elect did NOT have a legal union with Christ when he died and was buried and rose again. Most of the elect post incarnation weren't even born yet so how could they be legally declared united to Christ? Justified is the legal term. And justification is through faith. It is expressed as "in Christ" throughout the NT.

Is a person on trial who is going to be found innocent declared legally innocent by a judge before the judge makes that adjudication? Sinners are not in Christ until they are in him through faith. "By grace, through faith." Once again you have made faith unnecessary for reconciliation. If they were legally declared in Christ at the cross, the rest of the NT didn't even need to be written. In fact, none of it, not even the gospels needed to be written.

20 ;I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

Paul is talking about his conversion---his being in Christ now (when he wrote it). That is how tight, secure, unbreakable the union is. He is saying that the only way of peace with God is through the person and work of Jesus.. He is the one who tells us over and over how we too can be joined to Christ in a figurative sense of crucifixion (it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me). Once he was under the law with no hope. Now (indicating a change that occurred in time) he is in Christ.

It is Paul in that very set of verses that is subtitled "justification by Faith" who tells us again and again, that it is faith that unties one with Christ.

 

[brightfame52]

It's not a rabbit trail.

Yes it is. This thread is about how the death of Christ provided legal benfits at the Cross b4 the elect are born.

 

[Arial]

Im not working on your comments but on mine.

That is not a conversation it is simply pontificating. Your own conversation should contain rebuttals to what others say if they are wrong, in order to support your own view. No support. No meaning.

 

[Arial]

No the word reconciled is aorist past tense, while we we were enemies is a present tense participle. So Paul is saying while in pre conversion being enemies, they had been past tense reconciled to God by the Death of Gods Son

I wasn't asking Paul that question so it doesn't matter what tense his words were in for you to answer that question.

Is an unbelieving enemy of God in a state of reconciliation with him?

 

[brightfame52]

I understand what "legal" means, and therefore, I understand that the elect did NOT have a legal union with Christ when he died and was buried and rose again.

Speak for yourself. I see where all the elect of God had a legal union with Christ when He died and rose for them. Even while the elect are children of wrath by nature, they had been legally raised up with Christ and sitting with Him in the heavenlies Eph 2:5-6

5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved)

6 ;And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:

 

[brightfame52]

I wasn't asking Paul that question so it doesn't matter what tense his words were in for you to answer that question.

Is an unbelieving enemy of God in a state of reconciliation with him?

Im giving you what I see in the scripture, and why are you asking me a question that I have already answered? Maybe you should read my posts again, I was very clear

 

[Arial]

Maybe we should stop feeding this bear. There is no engagement and there won't be.

 

[Arial]

Im giving you what I see in the scripture, and why are you asking me a question that I have already answered? Maybe you should read my posts again, I was very clear

Here is why. And it isn't because of what Paul said but because of what you said.

Yes because Christ death reconciled them to God while unbelieving enemies.

I have understood you to be saying by that, from many past posts, that the elect were never unreconciled to Christ. That they were reconciled before they were even born. Am I understanding you correctly?

Maybe you should read my posts again, I was very clear

Maybe it is you who should read our posts. We have been very clear, and you keep disagreeing with us, so we can only assume we are not saying the same thing as you. And yet all that we have said is biblically sound and has been biblically supported. It is possible that you believe the same as us but just don't know how to make it clear. Your basic statements at face value are true. Our redemption and reconciliation took place on the cross. Jesus did the work that secures our reconciliation. We all agree on that. But since you disagree with us when we say we were not declared legally reconciled until we come to Christ through faith. That until that point in time when God regenerates us we are no different in who we are and our nature than anyone else. We are sinners. We are at enmity with God. We were not reconciled and an enemy at the same time. We were not both dead and alive spiritually speaking at the same time. When it comes to those statements we make, you tell us we don't understand scripture. So, either you know what we are saying and just want to argue or you genuinely believe something illogical is logical.

I don't know if you understand my posts or not. You never have anything to say about what I actually post. I can only assume that you don't even read them, don't understand them, or realize they can't be refuted and that they do refute your assertions.

 

[Josheb]

Yes it is. This thread is about how the death of Christ provided legal benfits at the Cross b4 the elect are born.

Yes, the op is about Christ's death providing benefits at the cross b4 the elect are born. This op (along with the other two you've authored on the subject) misunderstands the nature of Jesus's death providing legal (and other) benefit at the cross b4 the elect are born. The determinism is not a rabbit trail, but if there's no interest in discussing the problems therein, I'll move on to other matters and let the errors, lack of interest and lack of understanding sit as a matter of record.

Are you familiar with the theological concepts of sufficiency and efficiency as it applies to Christ's death providing legal benefits at the cross before the elect are born?

 

[brightfame52]

Yes, the op is about Christ's death providing benefits at the cross b4 the elect are born. This op (along with the other two you've authored on the subject) misunderstands the nature of Jesus's death providing legal (and other) benefit at the cross b4 the elect are born. The determinism is not a rabbit trail, but if there's no interest in discussing the problems therein, I'll move on to other matters and let the errors, lack of interest and lack of understanding sit as a matter of record.

Are you familiar with the theological concepts of sufficiency and efficiency as it applies to Christ's death providing legal benefits at the cross before the elect are born?

Those Christ died for, they were reconciled to God by His death while they were being enemies in their minds. The word reconciled means:

1. to change, exchange, as coins for others of equivalent value
   
   1. to reconcile (those who are at variance)
   2. return to favour with, be reconciled to one
   3. to receive one into favour

So even while being enemies, they are received into Gods Favor, Grace This is legally.. No sin can or wont be charged to them either, thats a legal blessing of reconciliation 2 Cor 5:19

19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.

Now are they still ungodly sinners by nature ? Yes, however they are legally in a right standing with God

 

[Josheb]

Those Christ died for, they were reconciled to God by His death while they were being enemies in their minds. The word reconciled means:

1. to change, exchange, as coins for others of equivalent value
   1. to reconcile (those who are at variance)
   2. return to favour with, be reconciled to one
   3. to receive one into favour

So even while being enemies, they are received into Gods Favor, Grace This is legally.. No sin can or wont be charged to them either, thats a legal blessing of reconciliation 2 Cor 5:19

19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.

Now are they still ungodly sinners by nature ? Yes, however they are legally in a right standing with God

Argumentum ad nauseam