Puritan Lad's Response

[FFC]

Very good, Bart!

I heard a preacher, when asked about predestination, give this illustration:

On the door to God's kingdom there are two signs. The one on the outside says: And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

The one on the inside says: Welcome, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world

[B. W.]

-
-
Here is an interesting site:

http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/openhse/calvinism.html

This man has many valid points and should be noted in discussion as I would use the same to answer many of PL's questions…

Here is a quote from Mr. Jones site that makes a valid point that others are now making...

"...So what doctrine do we put in the place of the Calvinist's Unconditional Election? Do we opt for one of the many Arminian forms of election? Tempting as that may be, I must now settle on the mysterious Biblical Election, the details of which have not been fully disclosed as we look into our "glass, darkly..."

Now what does Colossians 1:9 and context of Colossians 1:9-29 and note verses 26-27. The Lord wants believers to explore the mystery of the knowledge of God. Interesting...

What do you guys want to do - continue or stop?

Next,

Now also see Quote below from Steve Jones site:

http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/openhse/ ... Conclusion

Conclusion...

Calvinism is one more illustration of the futility of systematic theology. God's truths, particularly relating to soteriology, are too lofty to be put into concise formulae. The Five Points of Calvinism oversimplify the profound truths of God. They derive their force from proof-texts rather than the general tenor of Scripture.

More than that, the doctrines frequently create a spirit of division, elitism and theological snobbery. The system erects walls between believers. It creates a class of Christians within the church general who are supposedly part of a worthy "inner circle."

Many Calvinists read nothing but Reformed titles, hence these brethren seldom learn new perspectives. On the contrary, they are continually reaffirming their own "theological correctness." Such authors such as A. W. Pink, the Puritans, John Murray and such publishing companies as Banner of Truth become the sole staple for many. I say without intending offense that such exclusiveness differs little from that of Jehovah's Witnesses or other authoritarian groups.

Of course, I do not intend to paint all Calvinists with this brush. Many are thinkers who read outside literature, even Arminian literature. But the overarching trend in this tradition - a tradition of which I was once a part - is often one of narrow-mindedness and doctrinal superiority. As we have seen, the Scriptures give no warrant for such bigotry. The average Calvinist may be amazed at just how weak his system is when scrutinized in the light of revealed truth.

May our brethren see fit to adopt a Berean spirit (Acts 17:11) and honestly rethink their Calvinism. We would urge them to, for a time, lay aside the commentaries of Calvin and Gill, the theology of Warfield and Hodge. With an open Bible and mind, may they take a second look at the so-called "doctrines of grace" to see if they truly are the doctrines of Christ.

Wow - and a hardy Amen!
-
-
-

[puritan lad]

It is Finished! - The Atoning work of Christ

"He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities." (Isaiah 53:11)

"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." (Hebrews 9:12)

In these passages, we have both the intent and the accomplishment of the Atoning Work of our Savior. It is important to see that Christ's work on Calvary was a purposeful means to a purposeful end, and that end being the eternal redemption of His people, justifying many and bearing their iniquities.

The Doctrine of Universal Redemption, ever popular in today's churches, is unscriptural as well as illogical. While it sounds pleasing to the ear to hear that "Christ died for everybody", what it in fact teaches is that Christ's work on the Cross was effectual in the salvation of nobody. Thus the "plan" of redemption is really no plan at all, but rather a hopeful possibility. Our Savior, rather than being satisfied with His work, would be most disappointed to find that His precious blood was indeed absolutely worthless to the vast majority for which it was intended. For we have His own words that there will be many goats on His left hand who will be cast "into everlasting fire, prepared for the Devil and His angels" (Matthew 25:41).

We can establish the proper doctrine of the atonement by looking at,

1.) The Intention of Christ

When the fullness of time had come, God sent forth His Son (Galatians 4:4). To what end was this done, but “to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons” (Galatians 4:5)? This was the intent of Christ at His death, to “justify many, for he shall bear their iniquities" (Isaiah 53:11). Those who hold to some sort of universal redemption must actually deny that anyone was actually redeemed by the blood of Christ. Redemption (apolutrosis) means "ransom in full, that is, riddance, or Christian salvation: - deliverance." Thus a "universal redemption" being defined as a potential redemption is really no redemption at all. At the announcement of Christ's birth, it was said that “He shall save his people from their sins (Matthew 1:21). Christ came to seek and to save what was lost (Matthew 18:11; Luke 19:10), to save sinners (1 Timothy 1:15). How this is compatible with the idea of Universal Redemption I know not. For the idea of universal redemption requires either:

1.) Universal Salvation, or
2.) A belief that Christ failed in His mission, not actually saving His people (the whole world without exception) from their sins.

Christ died for His people, those whom He predestined, that He might be the firstborn of many brethren (Romans 8:29). He died for the children who "share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery.” (Hebrews 2:14-15). Thus He “abolish[ed] death, and to bring life and immortality to light" (2 Timothy 1:10). Can it rightly be said that Christ intended this for every person on planet earth? Will anyone claim that Christ intended to deliver every person from the Second Death, including many who have already gone to hell prior to His incarnation? What was the intent of Christ's death, but to“sanctify and cleanse His Church” (Ephesians 5:25-27), and to "make and end of sins, reconciliation for iniquity, and bring in everlasting righteousness” (Daniel 9:24)? He came to “bear our sins" (1 Peter 2:24), to "bear our iniquities, and to have them laid upon him" (Isaiah 53:5-12). Therefore, He “sanctified Himself, that they (those who the Father had given Him) also might be sanctified through the truth." (John 17:17-19)

2.) The Effect of Christ's work

Having examined the intention of Christ, we now address the question, "did He successfully complete His mission?". When Christ hung in agony, bearing the sins of many, He claimed "It is finished" (John 19:30). In His own words, He came "to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work." (John 4:34). We'll examine "the will of the Father shortly", but for now we'll address the actual completion of Christ's work. If, in fact, Christ went to the cross to save every single person on planet earth, then it is a common observation that He failed in His mission. His work apparently did not accomplish what He intended. (For those who reject the term "Limited Atonement", who is limiting it now?) However, as we have established previously, Christ work was to save His people. As a result of Christ's completed work, we have actual redemption (Ephesians 1:7), for He "purchased the church with his own blood" (Acts 20:28). Those who oppose this doctrine would have us believe that the millions of souls currently burning in Hell are just as much bought with the blood of Christ as His saints. How does this square with the actual accomplishment of Christ's work, who "gave himself to us to redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar (chosen) people, zealous of good works" (Titus 2:14). "He entered once for all into the Holy Place, taking ... his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption" (Hebrews 9:12), so ...“that we might be made the righteousness of God in him (2 Corinthians 5:21). Has this been accomplished for every single person on the planet? Who did Christ "secure an eternal redemption" for? Everyone? If Christ has secured an eternal redemption, how can such ever end up in Hell? Is our "free will" more powerful that Christ's redemption? Again, Christ came to “lay down His life for His Sheep…to give them eternal life, and they shall never perish” (John 10:11, John 10:27-28). "He redeemed us from the curse, being made a curse for us" (Galatians 3:13), to “purge your consciences from dead works to serve the living God." (Hebrews 9:14). This was the completed, effectual work of our Lord Jesus Christ at Calvary. Can it be rightly said by anyone that Christ did this for every person who ever lived? In elevating the power of man's will, it is actually those who oppose these Doctrines who "limit" the atonement.

3.) The Will of the Father

We established earlier that Christ came not to do is own will, but "to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work." (John 4:34). What was that will of the Father, and did Christ indeed finish the work? Romans 8:28 tells us that God predestinated us to be conformed to the image of his Son. Why? "That He might be the firstborn among many brethren". Yet if this predestination was "contingent" upon human freedom, then how could the Father be sure that His Son would be the firstborn of many brethren? If those who oppose thje doctrines of sovereign grace are correct, then it would be entirely possible for the precious blood of Jesus to have saved no one. Christ could have died in vain, unless His death was actually a purposeful means to a purposeful end, that end being the actual salvation of His elect. The idea of "universal" atonement is really no atonement at all. It becomes a mere "ointment in a box" that becomes effective only when this box is open and applied by someone of their own virtuous resources. Woe then be to those who are not so inclined to do so. For is seems to be that Christ, despite His best efforts, is unable to overcome the wills of those who aren't, in their own natures, already bent towards Him. So much for John 5:21.

The fact is that it was never, at any time, God's intention to save every person on planet earth. We established that clearly under the Predestination article. God's will was the purposeful salvation of His people, thus Christ came to “[give] himself for our sins to deliver us from the present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father" (Galatians 1:4).

4.) The Purpose of Jesus' Parables

And he said, "Go, and say to this people: "'Keep on hearing, but do not understand; keep on seeing, but do not perceive.' Make the heart of this people dull, and their ears heavy, and blind their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their hearts, and turn and be healed" (Isaiah 6:9-10).

Did God actually hide His kingdom from the Pharisees? Yes. This is why Jesus spoke in parables, "because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given" (Matthew 13:10-11). In contrast to this, Jesus told His disciples that "... it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom. (Luke 12:32) Why did God hide these things from the "prudent" pharisees ? In case that "at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them" (Matthew 13:15). Obviously, the pharisees cannot choose what they cannot see (John 3:3). They "were disobedient to the word, to which they were appointed" (1 Peter 2:8). Let our opponents explain away all that they wish by interjecting the "free will" of the pharisees into the matter. The Bible explanation is the only one we need, "...even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight" (Luke 10:21).

5.) The Intercession of Christ

...Ask of me, and I shall give thee the nations for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession," (Psalm 2:7-8). What was the inheritance that Christ was promised by the Father? The nations. Christ was promised an inheritance that He alone chose (Psalm 33:12). Did God the Father fail to keep His promise? We know that Christ "makes intercession for us" (Romans 8:34), and that He is always heard of the Father (John 11:41-42). Who does Christ make intercession for? Does Christ pray for everyone? What saith the Scriptures?

"I am praying for them (that you gave me - John 17:8). I am not praying for the world but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours". (John 17:9).

Christ does not pray for the world, but only for those whom that Father has given Him. Since He is always heard of the Father, "All the Father gives shall come" (John 6:37)

The Lord's Supper, the continuing sign and seal of the new covenant itself, testifies to this fact.

"And he took a cup, and gave thanks, and gave to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many unto remission of sins." (Matthew 26:27-28)

Conclusion

Christ blood was not for a "general ransom" for every person on planet earth, but was poured out for many, and unto the actual remission of their sins. The salvation provided by Christ was not abstract and universal, but particular and personal. God tells us over and over again in His Word, "I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy." In response to this, Paul deals with a couple of questions in Romans 9.

Romans 9:14
"What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God?"

Romans 9:19
"You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?""

The question I have for my opponents to consider for now is, "Does your view of the Atonement prompt such questions?" If not, then it probably doesn't agree with Paul's view. Indeed, Calvinism has already brought out similar objections in this very thread.

Objections

1.) ”The Lord is ... not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance” (2 Peter 3:9)

This would be a big problem for Limited Atonement, if this is actually what the verse said. What it actually says is...

2 Peter 3:9
"The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance."

The promise and the patience is “toward us”, not to every person on planet earth. Who is "us"? Who is Peter writing to?

2 Peter 1:1
"Simon Peter, a bondservant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained like precious faith with us by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:"

Peter is writing this to the elect, "To those who have obtained like precious faith with us by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ". This verse is absolutely true. God is not willing that any of his elect should perish, but that all of them should come to repentance. And they will, as we have already established in dealing with the intercession of Christ.

2.) Christ is said to have died for "the whole world" (1 John 2:2) or "all men" (1 Timothy 2:4).

It can readily be established that these phrases are rarely used in a universal sense, not only in Scripture, but in normal everyday usage. (Richard Deem correctly makes this point in dealing with the flood, but then seems to forget that in dealing with the atonement.) These words were usually spoken (John 3:16) or written to Jewish believers to explain that the Messiah wasn't just a Messiah for Jews, but for "the whole world", ie. "all men without distinction" rather than "all men without exception. In 1 John 2:7 says, "Beloved, I am writing you no new commandment, but an old commandment that you had from the beginning", suggesting that John was writing this epistle to Jewish Christians, who had the Old Commandment from the beginning. In 1 Timothy 2, Paul is clearly defending his ministry to the gentiles (1 Timothy 2:7).

The biggest problem with interpreting such phrases universally is that doing so would result in universal salvation. For example, if “the world” in 2 Corinthians 5:19 were taken to mean every single person who ever lived, then we would have to believe that God through Christ has reconciled every single person who ever lived to Himself, ie. universal salvation. The same would apply to 1 John 2:2, where Christ is the propitiation for the sins of every person who ever lived, in which case God would be unjust in punishing anyone for sins that He has already punished Christ for. Likewise, if “all men” in Romans 5:18 were taken to mean all men without exception, as opposed to all types of men, then we would be force to conclude that “one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men” without exception. This idea, however, is refuted in the very next verse (as well as a plethora of other Scriptures.)

Christ died for His Sheep, His church, and His elect. Christ's work on the cross was effective in providing actual, not potential, redemption, abolishing death (2 Timothy 1:10), in order to “sanctify and cleanse His Church” (Ephesians 5:25-27). He bore our iniquities (Isaiah 53:11), and paid the ransom for many. Christ's work of atonement is finished, and it saves all that it intended to save.

[puritan lad]

Very good, Bart!

I heard a preacher, when asked about predestination, give this illustration:

On the door to God's kingdom there are two signs. The one on the outside says: And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

The one on the inside says: Welcome, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world

Of course, Jesus goes to the highways and byways to get them, because no one will come unless the Father draws (literally drags by force) him.

[FFC]

Very good, Bart!

I heard a preacher, when asked about predestination, give this illustration:

On the door to God's kingdom there are two signs. The one on the outside says: And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

The one on the inside says: Welcome, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world

Of course, Jesus goes to the highways and byways to get them, because no one will come unless the Father draws (literally drags by force) him.

Welcome back, PL, you have a lot of catching up to do.

Question: how can you take the water of life freely and willingly if you had to be dragged by force? Besides I think the point of that parable was that the kings people (the Jews) rejected his offer so he sent his invitation to those outside of his kingdom domain (the gentiles). The choice was up to those invited and they passed on it.

[puritan lad]

Very good, Bart!

I heard a preacher, when asked about predestination, give this illustration:

On the door to God's kingdom there are two signs. The one on the outside says: And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

The one on the inside says: Welcome, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world

Of course, Jesus goes to the highways and byways to get them, because no one will come unless the Father draws (literally drags by force) him.

Welcome back, PL, you have a lot of catching up to do. :lol:

Question: how can you take the water of life freely and willingly if you had to be dragged by force? Besides I think the point of that parable was that the kings people (the Jews) rejected his offer so he sent his invitation to those outside of his kingdom domain (the gentiles). The choice was up to those invited and they passed on it.

No argument here. But that doesn't deal with the question, "what made the difference?" Why did they pass on it? They were appointed to do so, as I have pointed out. This issue surrounds the effects of man's fall upon his will. Man loves darkness and hates the light. They will only "freely" drink of the water if they are enabled by the father.

B.W.

I am curious. In your own words, what is the difference between your theology and Arminianism? You have already openly defended 4 of the 5 points of Arminianism, and yet you adamantly claim not to be Arminian. What would you say distinguishes you from them?

God Bless,

PL

[FFC]

No argument here. But that doesn't deal with the question, "what made the difference?" Why did they pass on it? They were appointed to do so, as I have pointed out. This issue surrounds the effects of man's fall upon his will. Man loves darkness and hates the light. They will only "freely" drink of the water if they are enabled by the father.

The difference in my opinion is the levels of the hardness of heart and sin upon sin in these individuals, as is in all individuals. If I agreed with you that all men are totally depraved in the sense that they don't have the free will to make the slightest concession that they need Christ as their Savior then that would be that and the case would be closed. The Scriptures, however, don't leave it at that no matter how we try to piece them together to make our theology right. A choice is not a choice if it is coerced. We may all be totally depraved because of original sin, but nowhere in the bible are we condemned without the hope of everlasting life if we choose to accept the gift that God offers...which is salvation.

Romans 10:9-13 is astoundingly clear if taken literally. It only becomes confusing when it's said to only include a certain group of people. The problem with the Calvinist viewpoint is that in light of the great commission which is to be preached to the whole world, it would be a lie to those not of "the elect". God is not a liar.

[puritan lad]

The problem with the Calvinist viewpoint is that in light of the great commission which is to be preached to the whole world, it would be a lie to those not of "the elect". God is not a liar.

Not so, but it does affect the way the gospel is presented. I'll address this at a later time when I explain why I think these doctrines are so important. It isn't a matter of whether an Arminian or a Dispensationalist is a Christian as I used to be both as I was a Christian. (I have my doubts about "open theism"). The issue is that these doctrines, I hold, have made the church impotent. When you combine a lack of doctrinal clarity with superficial, seeker-sensitive evangelism and tell the church that the world is about to end, you get a recipe for the weak version of American Christianity that we are now experiencing. The true gospel, that Jesus died to save sinners, and that all men need Him, is to be preached to all the world. The modern gospel, that "God loves you just the way you are" and "wants to give you a better life", is a lie, even if preached to the elect.

[FFC]

The issue is that these doctrines, I hold, have made the church impotent. When you combine a lack of doctrinal clarity with superficial, seeker-sensitive evangelism and tell the church that the world is about to end, you get a recipe for the weak version of American Christianity that we are now experiencing. The true gospel, that Jesus died to save sinners, and that all men need Him, is to be preached to all the world. The modern gospel, that "God loves you just the way you are" and "wants to give you a better life", is a lie, even if preached to the elect.

I agree that the wishy washy call to evangelism used by liberal and luke warm churches needs to be addressed and spoken against! People need to see that in God's eyes they are sinners who are helplessly and hopelessly lost. They also however need to see that they are not dealing with an uncaring God who hates them would just as well send them all to hell as look at them. God does love the world. He demonstrated that when He sent His Son to die an excruciating death on the cross for them. God does in fact want to give them a better life as well. He offers abundant life in Jesus. He wants to make them new creatures. He offers oneness to them that Jesus has with the Father.

Telling the church that the world is going to end is meant as a warning and to remind Christian to be viligent and keep on their toes so that when Christ comes again they will not be ashamed. I'm not sure how you have equated that message with the state of the liberal church of today.

[puritan lad]

Telling the church that the world is going to end is meant as a warning and to remind Christian to be viligent and keep on their toes so that when Christ comes again they will not be ashamed. I'm not sure how you have equated that message with the state of the liberal church of today.

Actually, I had the conservative, Bible-believing church in mind as being weak and superficial. Liberalism is a whole separate issue. (Those who deny the inerrancy of Scripture (Liberalism) aren't churches, but social clubs.)

[FFC]

Telling the church that the world is going to end is meant as a warning and to remind Christian to be viligent and keep on their toes so that when Christ comes again they will not be ashamed. I'm not sure how you have equated that message with the state of the liberal church of today.

Actually, I had the conservative, Bible-believing church in mind as being weak and superficial. Liberalism is a whole separate issue. (Those who deny the inerrancy of Scripture (Liberalism) aren't churches, but social clubs.)

You have a point there.

[B. W.]

-
I am sorry for not being able to respond in a timelier manner but the one year anniversary date of my wife's father passing way is drawing near and I find it difficult to respond due to family issues and my own brought on by this time. But to continue…

Acts 2:22-24, “Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know: 23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: 24 Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.” KJV

These passages in Acts are unfortunately used as a proof text for determinism. Doing so misses what is being truly revealed about how sovereign God really is. God had a predestined plan — that call which reveals God's salvation and also God's goal of populating the future new heavens and earth with those that will not rebel. No doubt about it.

The question comes to this: did God sovereignly act in the acts of wicked men to bring about the work of the cross? The answer would be 'Yes' but the method of how God so acts is rarely consider in determinisms doctrines. Instead, it is used to paint the wrong picture of God's sovereignty as an example of how God deals with all mankind, not just His plan and work of salvation as the text clearly states.

It is taught in a manner that turns the ones driving the nails into Jesus and hanging him on a cross as God pounding the nails - not sinners who hate God. Those who put Jesus on trial are taught they were made to do this because they were either acting on God's behalf to condemn the innocent to death or they were somehow inhabited by God himself to punish Jesus, not as sinners who hate God. Those that mocked Jesus and beat him - were they God or God's agents acting on God's behalf? Were they forced to do this?

God is all powerfully absolutely sovereign, God can and does work in such a manner that controls free minded souls by letting them remain free minded — that is all powerful. God had a predetermined plan. He works through peoples freedom, orchestrates the free minded souls to carry out his plans without violating their freedom. This can be because God foreknows everything, period.

He foreknew and placed people in that time and place knowing full well how each would behave, feed off each other, and act in the manner they would because each acted of their own accord, they would not change their course because that was not in them. So don't speculate that they would have acted differently: fact — they hated God and shown it openly as many freely do so overtly today.

God triumphs over them all and brought his plan to pass — none could stop it. God's predetermined plan remains un-coerced; yet, preplanned! Only God can pull this off and it defines what all-powerful really is about

That is all powerful my friend — not God forcing or making them act. He did not have to make them act. He knew they would act in the manners they did fulfilling his predetermined plan that cries out salvation form God - that salvation has come! Think on this if you want to speculate: Would the work of the cross have happened if Jesus, God's Word, would not have come? Without God's call — none could be saved.

God sovereignly put it all together: He, Jesus, being delivered by the determine counsel and foreknowledge of God, you have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain! It says YOU HAVE TAKEN BY WICKED HANDS! God did not take — we did. Thus God condemned sin and paid the penalty of sin, which is death, as the bible plainly teaches concerning the work of the cross.

So the question is: how sovereignly powerful is God? As the determinist state — that God forces and coerces to get things done, or instead, God working through the acts of free minded souls his plans, purpose, will in an outstandingly profound manner? Which of these two points of view line up squarely with God's nature, character and wisdom fulfilling each?

Now these statements are bound to create a stir but a stir it must if it must. You are after all free to disagree or agree in whole or part. It is difficult to realize, as A W. Tozer put it, we put Jesus on the cross, we drove the nails, we put God on trial, we mocked God, spat on him, and That Jesus died on the cross also bearing God's wrath. How can this be? Was not Jesus God manifest in the flesh, the second person of the blessed Trinity? Was he also not man — great is this mystery! Who put Christ on the Cross?

Acts 2:22-24, “Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: 24 Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.” KJV
-
-
-

[puritan lad]

B.W.,

Three Questions.

1.) If God already "foreknew" the that Christ would be crucified, then was it not inevitable? Why was it inevitable?

2.) How would you interpret Isaiah 53:10 and Acts 3:18, which plainly tell us that God did the work?

3.) How about Acts 4:27-28?

[FFC]

God is sovereign and in control of everything, including the right time to execute his predetermined plan, which was that Christ would redeem us from the penalty of the law. As with Judas and the players that sentenced and crucified Him, it had to happen in order for his plan to be fulfilled.

Gal 4:4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,


Gal 4:5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.

[LowlyOne]

Objections

1.) ”The Lord is ... not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance” (2 Peter 3:9)

This would be a big problem for Limited Atonement, if this is actually what the verse said. What it actually says is...

2 Peter 3:9
"The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance."

The promise and the patience is “toward us”, not to every person on planet earth. Who is "us"? Who is Peter writing to?

2 Peter 1:1
"Simon Peter, a bondservant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained like precious faith with us by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:"

Peter is writing this to the elect, "To those who have obtained like precious faith with us by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ". This verse is absolutely true. God is not willing that any of his elect should perish, but that all of them should come to repentance. And they will, as we have already established in dealing with the intercession of Christ.

Nice attempt to expain away this verse. Appeal to the context, appear to be exegeting, and viola, an answer pops up out of nowhere. But sad to say that that answer is really just a mirage; that is, one that you see, but is not really there!

You see, as you said, Peter is writing to the elect, and you see again just as you said, the elect here are people that have already obtained precious faith. This would mean that they were believers at that present time. And to this, you declare that it it absolutely true. But this just creates another problem for your theology.

If all Peter meant when he said "all" was only his believing readers, then wouldn't he be saying that God is not willing for any (of his readers, who are believers) to perish, but for all (of his readers, who are believers) to come to repentance? Can one be a believer while he/she has not came to repentance yet? I mean, if God takes away the heart of stone and gives a heart of flesh, makes one a new creature, and regenerates an individual in the manner you assume, which is irrespective of a postive response to God, then isn't faith and repentance an immediate on the spot fruit of regeneration? So are these people believers or non-believers?

It really doesn't take a scholar or an expert in Greek to see that it is more logical for God to be refering to those who were mentioned being ungodly, and will face God's judgment and destruction. The contextual structure actually links these ungodly people as those who God whom God desires to come to repentance. Therefore, when Peter mentions "us" it is very likely if not certain that he had humanity in mind, you know, people. God is longsuffering towards his people; (When I say people, I mean each person that was created by him) One of my primary reasons for coming to this conclusion is actually from Scipture. See for yourself:

"Did not he that made me in the womb make him? and did not one fashion us in the womb?" (Job 31:15)

"Thy hands have made me and fashioned me." (Psalm 119:73)

"The Spirit of God hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life." (Job 33:4)

These Scriptures show that when God created us and fashioned us in our mother's womb, He breathed his breath into us, which created our spirit. So in this since, we are all children of God in the sence of being his creation. Each one of us are part of God in a similar way that each child of man is part of his Father. We are God's came from God's breath in the same way we came from our human father's seed. Understanding this brings clarity to the text of God not wanting any of us to perish, but for all of us to come to repentance and be eternally united with Him in His Kingdom.