Well, at least I get to have some fun today . . .
Puritan Lad wrote:How is your view any different than Arminianism? It is identical in that you hold that Christ died for everyone on the planet and then left the final decision to us. While you may agree with "Once saved, Always saved", this belief itself becomes dangerous in light of your other views. It becomes "fire insurance for the wicked". Once you take away Christ's Lordship (another debate) and God's Sovereignty in election, you put an easy-believism form of salvation into the hands of man.
I would ask you how my view is similar to the Arminian, because your equation is very off base. When I say that Christ died for everyone and the Arminian says that Christ died for everyone, we are saying very different things. The Arminian holds that Christ's death was "sufficient for all." I hold that Christ's death was effectual for all. The Arminian holds that Christ's atoning death leads to justification. I reject that notion entirely.
As for the "easy believism" charge, I can refute that in two ways. First, I can prove that it isn't so easy to believe. You don't believe it. Half the people on this board don't believe it. Better than eighty percent of Americans believe it. No reformed theologian believes it. Catholics don't believe it. Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, and atheists don't believe it. It is, in fact, very difficult for someone to accept that in order to be saved, all they have to do believe. Someone has said that human beings always try to add works to salvation. The doctrine I advocate is the
only one that has NO works. And look what you do . . . you accuse it of being wrong because it is "too easy."
Secondly, your attack is loaded with a purjorative word that doesn't need to apply. While it is not at all easy to believe this profound truth, it most certainly is very simple. I would thoroughly advocate "simple believism." And why should it be any different? Do you not know the character of God? I realize that the Calvinist god is cruel and arbitrary and lords His sovereignty over His creation, all the while mocking those whom He decides not to deliver, even while He has the power to do so. But God is a father. He is Love. As such, why would He make it
difficult to come to Him? We would expect following Him to be difficult, because suffering causes us to die to self. As C. S. Lewis noted, a perfectly good God is one who is to be terribly feared, because such a God will not spare you of pain. Like a dentist, He will finish the work He must do to accomplish the greater good, regardless of the temporary pain. But why should God make it difficult to come to Him? It defies logic.
Do you have any children, Puritan? How hard would you make it on one of them to come to you? I was witnessing to a friend of mine who is an unbeliever. He rejected the gospel because "it's just too easy." As it happened, his son was in the room at the time. I said, "Doug. You love Mackie, right? How hard would you make it on him to be called your son?" When he composed himself, he finally said, "I see your point. You don't have to say another word."
So, is this easy believism? By all means, no it is not. But it most certainly is simple believism, which is exactly what we expect to find.
Puritan Lad wrote:Christ pays the price for everyones sins, yet many still end up in Hell.
Of course it does. That's one of the major points. The price for sin has been paid. Period. Now, I'll handle the scriptures you posted, and then refer you back to the ones I provided:
- Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord (Acts 3:19, NIV)
Beautiful verse . . . it's also a beautiful passage. Here, Peter had just healed a lame man. The people were astonished, so he preached to them to explain his power. He, of course, cites Jesus as the source of his authority. But notice what he says . . . he notes that these same people who were astonished were the ones that had just had Jesus crucified. Now, you really should have quoted the rest of Peter's statement to them. In fullness, he said, "Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord, and that he may send the Christ, who has been appointed for you—even Jesus." Repentance in this verse yield three results:
1) The blotting out of sins,
2) The restoration of Israel,
3) The return of Christ.
Belief alone saves these people from eternal damnation, repentance was necessary for these people (as it is for the Jews today) for the last two items on that list. Now, you may cite the first result as proof that repentance leads to remission of sins. Hey, good. I would, too! Too bad that a lack of remission doesn't mean damnation. It means that judgment would soon come upon them, which it did, in AD 70. This is the same point Paul made in Romans 10:7ff. So, to wrap up, remission of sins here is to avoid judgment and bring the return of Christ. It is not for salvation.
- And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.' (Acts 22:16, NIV)
Again, this "washing away of sins" has nothing to do with salvation. If we look at the account, Paul refers to Jesus as "Lord" in verse 10, and notice that he asks what he is to do. Clearly, he has believed! When we go further, we see that Ananias referred to Paul as "Brother Saul" in verse 13. He then gives this
Christian instructions to go be baptized. Now, if you want to take this washing of sins to be the reference to Paul's salvation, then unfortunately you have to believe that baptism is required for salvation, because Ananias says: "Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name." Once again, repentance leads to the forgiveness of sins. Paul had to have his sins forgiven if he was to be God's chosen vessel among the Gentiles. But, again, the forgiveness of sins does not save Paul. He was already saved. Once again, we can compare with Romans 10, and specifically verse 13 there. The meaning in both of these passages are the same. We call on the name of the Lord to be saved, not from damnation, but from temporal judgment.
- Blessed are they whose transgressions are forgiven, whose sins are covered (Rom. 4:7, NIV)
Now you truly don't think that I would argue that the person whose sins are forgiven isn't blessed! Puritan, you have to deal with my basic argument, which is that the forgiveness of sins is not what gets a person to Heaven! Forgiveness of sins leads to proper fellowship with God. It was that way in the OT (c.f. 2 Chron. 7:14), and it is that way in the NT. In fact, you really should have quoted this whole passage, because it is one of the great proof texts for a free grace theology. Further, it flatly contradicts Calvinism. Verses 4 and 5 of that passage is one of the most beautiful in the whole of the NT. The NIV renders it:
"Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness."
It is here that we see that righteousness is imputed through faith ALONE. But notice that in verse five, especially, God justifies
the wicked. Now wait . . . in the Calvinist view of things, a man is first regenerated, and then he has the faith to believe, and then, through that faith, God justifies him. But are you saying that the new man--the man "born from above" is wicked? Of course, if you believe that faith precedes regeneration, as this passage clearly teaches, you don't have that problem.
- in their effort to keep us from speaking to the Gentiles so that they may be saved. In this way they always heap up their sins to the limit. The wrath of God has come upon them at last (1 Thess. 2:16, NIV)
Paul is referring to the Jews who crucified Christ and were hindering his ministry. This verse cannot be used to support that repentance is necessary for salvation, or that it is sin that condemns a man to Hell. Notice a few things:
1) These people have already rejected Jesus as the Messiah. This is the basis for condemnation to Hell.
2) Their sins are "heaped up to the limit" because they are discouraging the work of the apostles. And yet, how can a condemned man be further condemned? Condemnation is condemnation! However, the suffering of one can be worse than the suffering of another. Paul is saying that the punishment of these people will be great indeed, and it increases as their hostility increases.
3) These people were not presently in Hell, so therefore, "wrath" cannot here refer to Hellfire. As such, this verse has nothing to do with eternal salvation. Paul is referencing the judgment that God had decreed against the unbelieving Israel, which took place in AD 70.
- Then I heard another voice from heaven say: "Come out of her, my people, so that you will not share in her sins, so that you will not receive any of her plagues (Revelation 18:4, NIV)
I have trouble seeing how this verse could even slightly suggest eschatological judgment or salvation--even in the preterist view of things! Of course, being the good dispensational pre-millennialist that I am, this is an incredibly easy passage that thoroughly supports the doctrine I am advocating. Jesus is calling out to the Christians to flee from Babylon, for it is about to be destroyed. And it will fall "in one day." Yet again, we see a passage that refers to God's
temporal judgment against sin!
So far, you haven't done anything to show I'm mistaken anywhere in my theology, although these verses count strongly against you.
Puritan Lad wrote:Through Christ, Christians have actual redemption (Colossians 1:14). Christ did not come to "offer" salvation. He came to "save His people from their sins" (Matthew 1:21).
Lest you object, let me ask you. Who did Christ, with His own blood, secure eternal redemption for? (Hebrews 9:12)
I have no doubt that in Christ our sins are forgiven, nor that Christ came to save us from them. Had Christ not come, we would have all been condemned to Hell
because of our sins. But, now that He has, if anyone is condemned, it is no longer for sin! He DID save his people from their sins. Now, we can say a few things about Matt. 1:21 with regard to "his people." I suspect you take this to mean "the elect." It much more likely refers to Israel. John says, "came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him." (John 1:11, NIV). Second, in the Millennial view, Jesus will save ALL Israel from their sins in the day He returns. As such, we can read "save his people from their sins" in either of two ways:
1) A reference to the crucifixion, in which Christ made atonement for all sin, or
2) A reference to the establishment of the Kingdom, in which Christ will reign forever on the Davidic Throne.
If you are familiar with the OT, you will know that in the book of Deuteronomy, God lays out the Covenant by which He will govern Israel. This covenant is enforced by the prophets. In order for the kingdom to last, the people had to serve only God. Therefore, it follows that if their Messiah was to reign forever, then the people would have to serve only God forever! Thus, they would have to be "saved from their sins" to avoid being destroyed by God. So, either understanding can be correct, and I would advocate that both ideas are found in this passage.
Now, you ask who Christ secured eternal redemption for. Without going into massive details, I could concede that Christ secured redemption only for the elect . . . I have to study it more. But a brief look at the text yields a few observations. Paul (or whoever wrote Hebrews) is comparing the Old Covenant and its sacrificial system with the New. The high priest of the Old would enter a man-made tabernacle and offer a sacrifice for all under that covenant. In the same way, the everlasting High Priest has entered into the everlasting tabernacle and and secured redemption for all in the New Covenant. And who are those? Those who are "in Christ," as I have elsewhere demonstrated.
Let's remind the reader
again, the atonement does NOT necessarily lead to salvation. It was sufficient AND effectual for ALL. In contrast with this, the righteousness of Christ is sufficient for any who would come, but it is only IMPUTED to those who believe. Since Christ did not come to impute righteousness to all, but only to those who believe, we cannot say that the righteousness of Christ is sufficient for all. It is sufficient only for those who will believe, that is, the elect. These seem to be the ones Christ secured redemption for.
Now . . . I'll probably get to the rest of your post tomorrow, but for the time being it is late. I'll just say that your post did very little to answer my initial argument. If you remember, in it I argued for:
1) Universal Atonement
2) Unconditional Election for those in Christ
3) The ability of man to respond to the Gospel, once invited.
You will also note that the verses you have given to me, I have handled individually, and yet, you have not taken up my own supplied Scriptures. I continue to charge that the Bible clearly teaches that Christ died for all, as per Scripture, which has been provided. I continue to charge that the elect are those in Christ, as per Scripture, which has been provided. I continue to charge that man is able to respond to the invitation of God, as per Scripture, which has been provided.
As I have handled, and will continue to handle, the passages you bring to my attention, I expect the same in return from you.
God bless
edit: actually, PL, given our discussions, I want to see if you can tell me where I stand on each of the five points between Calvinism and Arminianism. I have been very clear on each of these, so it will be interesting to see if you can articulate them. I can explain both of the five points in the two systems under consideration, and thus, I at least have a good starting ground for offering a critique. Can you do the same for me?
Salvation is by belief in Christ and Christ alone, no more and no less.