Evidence for God from Science

DannyM wrote:

jlay wrote: I am not saying you are lying. I am saying it is disingenoius. If you say to someone, Jesus died for your sins. You don't really believe that. What you beleive is, IF you are elect, Jesus died for your sins. If the person is repropate, then to present them the gospel is to ask THEM to believe a lie.

Then the Gospel is disingenuous, since that is what we are to preach promiscuously to all. You seem to like to tell us what we believe, but I’ve already told you what I believe. For the sake of the Gospel I’ll believe, yes, Christ died for your sins. I’m doing what is required. If it turns out I was wrong then I was wrong for the sake of the Gospel. You want to ascribe to the Calvinist a contradiction of heart when proclaiming Christ. The way you are going about showing this is not convincing, to say the least.

Danny, I'm glad to hear you say that you would rather preach the gospel, and include, "Christ died for your sins", than to hold strictly to Calvinism's "Christ only died for you if you are the elect, that God chose before time". There is hope for you, yet.

Now, all you have to do, is admit you're wrong for the sake of the gospel, now.

Rick, did the death of Christ secure salvation for everyone?

RickD wrote:Danny, I'm glad to hear you say that you would rather preach the gospel, and include, "Christ died for your sins", than to hold strictly to Calvinism's "Christ only died for you if you are the elect, that God chose before time". There is hope for you, yet.

Now, all you have to do, is admit you're wrong for the sake of the gospel, now.

Rick, of course I'll preach the Gospel. I'm not sure where the conflict with election is here. If you see conflict, then you need to reconcile the two, since both are biblical.

Rick, I know what he said, and I pointed out that he falls by the same standard, because he defines the elect as those who choose to believe. So if the person you are sharing the gospel with ends up not believing, then you have lied to him too. Or you have to maintain that the work of Christ on the cross is not what is documented in Hebrews. Go ahead and believe that if you want, but I seriously implore you, as a brother in Christ:



August, if while sharing the gospel, I say "Christ died for your sins", I would not be lying, because I believe Christ did die for all the sins of all mankind. And, I don't think one has to completely understand "atonement" to preach the gospel, either. Many Christians certainly don't fully grasp the atonement, and they are capable of witnessing.



The we are in serious disagreement. That turns you into a universalist, believing that all people, everywhere are saved. You have to show me how that is not true, or you need to show me how the finished work of Christ can possibly fail what it set out to do. You cannot escape this.

Yes, August, you finally exposed me. I'm a Universalist. I've been trying to hide that, but I cannot live the lie any longer.
August, you know that I don't believe all people are saved.

You cannot on one hand claim that the finished work of Christ was for all people everywhere, at all times, and then add a qualifier in terms of belief.

The finished work of Christ, was for all the sins of all people everywhere. I'm not adding any qualifier, August. The qualifier already exists, in John 3:16 “For God so loved the world, that He gave His [a]only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.

August, I know you don't agree with this, but I know you are able to understand it, aren't you?

DannyM wrote:

RickD wrote:Danny, I'm glad to hear you say that you would rather preach the gospel, and include, "Christ died for your sins", than to hold strictly to Calvinism's "Christ only died for you if you are the elect, that God chose before time". There is hope for you, yet.

Now, all you have to do, is admit you're wrong for the sake of the gospel, now.

Rick, of course I'll preach the Gospel. I'm not sure where the conflict with election is here.

Danny, I'm not asking you to agree with what jlay and I are saying. I'm just asking you to see what we're saying. A Calvinist cannot, in good conscience say "Christ died for your sins", when the Calvinist believes that Christ did not die for everyone's sins.

August wrote:Rick, did the death of Christ secure salvation for everyone?

August, here is another example of where we disagree on word meanings.

I'll try my best. What do you mean by, "secure", in this context.

RickD wrote:Danny, I'm not asking you to agree with what jlay and I are saying. I'm just asking you to see what we're saying. A Calvinist cannot, in good conscience say "Christ died for your sins", when the Calvinist believes that Christ did not die for everyone's sins.

Rick, I see what you're saying, and it is untrue.

The Calvinist in no way knows the person is not saved. Therefore the Gospel is preached in good faith, and in accordance with the scripture. You and Jlay are simply barking up the wrong tree.

RickD wrote:

August wrote:Rick, did the death of Christ secure salvation for everyone?

August, here is another example of where we disagree on word meanings.

I'll try my best. What do you mean by, "secure", in this context.

Did Christ's atonement secure salvation for everyone?

DannyM wrote:

RickD wrote:Danny, I'm not asking you to agree with what jlay and I are saying. I'm just asking you to see what we're saying. A Calvinist cannot, in good conscience say "Christ died for your sins", when the Calvinist believes that Christ did not die for everyone's sins.

Rick, I see what you're saying, and it is untrue.

The Calvinist in no way knows the person is not saved. Therefore the Gospel is preached in good faith, and in accordance with the scripture. You and Jlay are simply barking up the wrong tree.

Danny, please correct me if I'm wrong. You're saying that you could, in good conscience say to someone, "Christ died for your sins"? Even though you are not sure if Christ died for his sins?

RickD wrote:August, you know that I don't believe all people are saved.

I did not think so, but by asserting universal atonement, that is what the implication is. You cannot add onto something that is finished. The atonement was not something theoretical or enabling, it is finished. Salvation has already been secured. Nothing left to do....when the blood was poured out, it was done. Matt 26:28

You cannot on one hand claim that the finished work of Christ was for all people everywhere, at all times, and then add a qualifier in terms of belief.

The finished work of Christ, was for all the sins of all people everywhere. I'm not adding any qualifier, August. The qualifier already exists, in John 3:16 “For God so loved the world, that He gave His [a]only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.

August, I know you don't agree with this, but I know you are able to understand it, aren't you?

Right, I pointed that out to both neo and jlay too. Once you add the qualifier, as one rightfully should, then the atonement itself is not universal, it is just the offer being made in the gospel that is universal...and we are to to indiscriminately make that offer, because whether you believe in sovereign election or belief through free will, we do not know who will believe. It may take years before someone believes, and we would not know. That happens in God's time, not ours.

And of course I agree with it, don't be silly. Those that believe are saved, I have always said that. One cannot be saved without faith, of which belief is one component. I also pointed out that our disagreement is about how people come to believe...had a long post about it about 9 pages ago.

DannyM wrote:

RickD wrote:

August wrote:Rick, did the death of Christ secure salvation for everyone?

August, here is another example of where we disagree on word meanings.

I'll try my best. What do you mean by, "secure", in this context.

Did Christ's atonement secure salvation for everyone?

Danny, "secure" is still not defined for me to answer. When we don't agree what certain terms mean, it's useless for me to answer.

RickD wrote:

August wrote:Rick, did the death of Christ secure salvation for everyone?

August, here is another example of where we disagree on word meanings.

I'll try my best. What do you mean by, "secure", in this context.

If we have to debate meanings about this, we are in trouble. Secure means made sure, or ensure. Did the death of Christ ensure that everyone is saved? Did it ensure that any one specific person is saved?

RickD wrote:August, you know that I don't believe all people are saved.



I did not think so, but by asserting universal atonement, that is what the implication is. You cannot add onto something that is finished. The atonement was not something theoretical or enabling, it is finished. Salvation has already been secured. Nothing left to do....when the blood was poured out, it was done. Matt 26:28

Of course the atonement was enabling, as well. Christ's work is what enables us to be able to believe. If Christ's work is finished, as you assert, and nothing else can be added, then isn't witnessing, something that is added?

Right, I pointed that out to both neo and jlay too. Once you add the qualifier, as one rightfully should, then the atonement itself is not universal, it is just the offer being made in the gospel that is universal...and we are to to indiscriminately make that offer, because whether you believe in sovereign election or belief through free will, we do not know who will believe. It may take years before someone believes, and we would not know. That happens in God's time, not ours.

I'm sorry, I really don't understand this. Just for reference, I believe that God's election, and free will have to both work together. And, before you say it, I don't mean libertarian free will. I mean free will, in as much as God has enabled us.

RickD wrote:Danny, please correct me if I'm wrong. You're saying that you could, in good conscience say to someone, "Christ died for your sins"? Even though you are not sure if Christ died for his sins?

Yes, Rick, absolutely. The Gospel is the means by which God calls the elect. I could have such an individual standing in front of me. How else could I honour God but tell the person that Christ died for his sins?

And what if the person slings a load of expletives my way and walks off? Am I to miraculously conclude he can't be elect? Of course not. Next opportunity presents itself and I’m on it.

How else do you suggest we proceed, bro?

RickD wrote:Of course the atonement was enabling, as well. Christ's work is what enables us to be able to believe. If Christ's work is finished, as you assert, and nothing else can be added, then isn't witnessing, something that is added?

Scripture? Show me where the atonement is anything but finished. What I meant by enabling is that it opens up possibilities, but nothing sure.

Is grace the same as atonement? What did Jesus mean when He said John 19:30?

Right, I pointed that out to both neo and jlay too. Once you add the qualifier, as one rightfully should, then the atonement itself is not universal, it is just the offer being made in the gospel that is universal...and we are to to indiscriminately make that offer, because whether you believe in sovereign election or belief through free will, we do not know who will believe. It may take years before someone believes, and we would not know. That happens in God's time, not ours.

I'm sorry, I really don't understand this. Just for reference, I believe that God's election, and free will have to both work together. And, before you say it, I don't mean libertarian free will. I mean free will, in as much as God has enabled us.

If God has enabled it, to what extent is it free? Free from what?