OK, PL . . . for your rebuttal:
1. You cannot use the standard Calvinist "all" argument as a blanket statement to respond to the various exegeses I provided. In them, I demonstrated why "all" must refer to "all men" and cannot refer to "all the elect."
For the record, I have no problem with "all" referring to a limited audience. That's the way the word works in both English and Greek. If I say I have "all," I mean I have everything. If I say I have "all apples," I mean I have every apple. If I say I have "all apples in the house," I mean just that, and I am making no claim on the apples at the grocery store. However, you will note that in each of these cases, the "all" is limited by the grammatical structure of the sentence. These limiters are not found in the passages I provided. Therefore, you are required to examine each verse as I presented it and deal with the various arguments I presented for each.
Let me take a moment to deal specifically with 2 Corinthians 5:19. In my original argument, I referenced 2 Corinthians 5:14-15, which a) you have not handled, and b) serve as the context for this verse. The good news is that I don't have to offer an exegesis again! To answer your specific question, the text means just what it says. What was God doing at the cross? He was reconciling the world to Himself. Notice that the action is not completed. It is something that God was doing. The job was not completed at the cross nor at the resurrection. If you read the very next verse, PL, your question is answered: "We implore you on Christ's behalf: Be reconciled to God." (NIV) How are we reconciled? Through belief. How is it possible? Because of the work of Christ at the cross, which God was doing at that time. Who is it for? The whole world, as the text
clearly states.
Also, let's use a play from your book, shall we? We know this epistle was written to Christians (see 2 Corinthians 1:1). It would be odd for Paul to use the word "world" here to refer to Christians when he was talking to that particular group. If that was Paul's intent, it would have been far more natural to simply say "you" or "the elect." How would Paul say that Christ died for all? Well, read the whole last half of that chapter, and you'll see . . . exactly like he did!
For the record, I've already handled Hebrews 9:12 in this thread. I'm starting to wonder if you are reading me, PL . . .
2. It is either idiocy or ignorance on your part to equate my view of universal atonement with the Arminian's. Take your pick. The Arminian believes that the atonement saves. I believe the atonement makes man savable. Thus, the Arminian believes that the atonement is applied only to those who believe. On the other hand, I believe the atonement is applied to ALL. The Arminian believes in Unlimited Atonement. I believe in Universal Atonement. So, let's pick this apart with a little more detail . . .
Puritan Lad wrote: If, as you seem to hold, that all men within themselves have the ability to choose to believe, (since you quote John 3:16 as a proof text), then you end up with the age-old Arminian salvation by works.
I'm glad you bring this argument up, PL. I'll handle it in a moment when I further my argument. Suffice it to say here that it is not me who is advocating salvation by works, but it is, in fact, you. What are doing, unfortunately, is importing your concept of faith into the system I propose. If I looked at faith the way you do, you would be exactly right. However, I reject the model you propose, and therefore, your argument is moot. I'll take this up in more detail later.
Puritan Lad wrote: You claim that “The Gospel I have presented is that all sin has been paid for”. That would necessarily have to include the sin of unbelief, which would result, once again, in universal salvation.
Of course the sin of unbelief is paid for, PL. How many times have I said that sin is not the thing that condemns a man to Hell? Seriously, are you even reading me? You certainly have a habit of not responding to arguments, and you don't seem to be grasping the very foundation of the system I'm advocating.
Puritan Lad wrote:(BTW: John 3:16 identifies those who will be saved. It does NOT lay any conditions for that salvation. Try as you might, you cannot throw any synergism into this passage. It does not say “whosoever CHOOSES to believe”. You are reading more into the text then what is not there.)
That's funny, PL. Really . . .
Don't forget that this verse is part of Jesus' conversation with Nicodemus. In verse nine, he had asked, "How can these things be?" Throughout this entire passage, Jesus is talking about
how a man is saved,
not who is saved! (see John 3:3, 5, 15). I've seen bad context arguments before, PL, but that about takes the cake . . .
Puritan Lad wrote:If, on the other hand, you believe (correctly) that the ability to believe is itself a gift from God, then you are still faced with the biblical truth that man has no part to play in his own salvation. Salvation is of the Lord. (Jonah 2:9). Belief is not a voluntary action, but is rather a condition of the heart, which God alone is in control of. (This is scriptural, and very easy to illustrate.) He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills, He hardens.
This garbage I don't even need to deal with. Puritan, listen to me. It doesn't do you any good--it doesn't do this discussion or anyone reading this any good--for you to spout off what Calvinists believe. That's the very assumption we are dealing with. You can't prove Calvinism is true by assuming its true, PL. Now, throughout this entire thread, I have been dealing with, explaining, and showing the fallacies of comments like the above. You making baseless assertions that are just Calvinist talking points add nothing to the discussion.
Puritan Lad wrote:Just like the Arminian, you claim that Christ paid for all sin, and has left it into our hands to decide whether or not to believe.
You see, it's quotes like this that are the reason we still are talking. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Listen:
Arminians don't believe that all sin is paid for. They believe that sin is paid for once you accept the atonement. For them, atonement leads to salvation. Let me put this in the clearest terms possible:
Arminians: Atonement = Salvation
Jac: Atonement <> Salvation
Now, let's make sure this is really, really clear:
The atonement of sin does not result in salvation. The atonement of sin does not result in salvation. The atonement of sin does not result in salvation. The atonement of sin does not result in salvation. The atonement of sin does not result in salvation. The atonement of sin does not result in salvation.
I realize that this is hard for you to get so far as my system goes. In fact, if we go back to the first page of this thread:
Puritan Lad wrote:. Hint: If one goes to Hell, it is because his sins were not atoned for.
You see Puritan . . . this is where you cannot seem to grasp what I am saying. I disagree with you on this, and I have provided ample Scripture to back my point. You have NONE. You have NOT dealt with my arguments in this area AT ALL.
Now, for the
last time: my system of atonement is diametrically opposed to the Arminian system. If you cannot grasp that basic understanding, then we need to quit wasting our time. I'll simply be able to walk away with this with the joy of knowing that I've clearly demonstrated the heretical nature of Calvinism, because you have misunderstood and misapplied the doctrine of atonement.
Now, I DO agree with the Arminian in that we decide whether or not to believe. BUT THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ATONEMENT. You argue against this by saying that, "Christ's work did not just include “payment for all sin”, as if that payment were just abstract and meaningless. Christ work involves actually salvation and redemption. The scriptures couldn't be any clearer on this fact." Now, I have never said that Christ's work was ONLY to pay the price for sin. Seriously, PL . . . where have I said that?!? In fact, it should be quite clear that I do NOT believe that. Do you believe the only thing Christ's work includes is His death on the cross? That is terrible. His work includes His perfect life, His death, and His resurrection. So far as the Atonement goes, it is universally applied. Sin is no longer an obstacle between man and God. Man is now savable. Now, God can impute the righteousness of Christ to those who are "in Christ." That's part of His work, too . . . let's look at the verses you provided.
- ...He shall save his people from their sins (Matthew 1:21).
I've already dealt with that passage in this thread. Again, PL, are you reading me at all?
- ...Christ came to seek and to save what was lost (Luke 19:10).
Yes . . . and men are lost, like Zacheus in this passage, and Christ seeks them and finds them to save them. Too bad this has nothing to do with Atonement.
- ...Jesus came to save sinners (1 Timothy 1:15).
Do you suppose I thought He came to save the righteous? In fact, PL, do you suppose that the non-elect are not sinners? After all, if He came to save sinners, and the non-elect are sinners, then doesn't it follow that He came to save the non-elect?!? After all, Christ's work has to be perfectly accomplished, right? I suppose my non-elect friends will be happy to know that they aren't sinners in your book.
- ...We have actual redemption (Ephesians 1:7).
I didn't know there was such thing as non-actual redemption. How about offering an exegesis rather than an interpretation? In this passage, Paul is talking to Christians. Eph 1:4 says, "He chose us in Him", as I have previously noted. Who, then, has redemption? The elect. You do realize that redemption is not the same thing as atonement, right?
- ...Christ purchased the church with his own blood (Acts 20:28).
Yes, and the Church is most definitely made up of only the elect. The word "redeem" means "to buy back." Jesus paid the price for sin, and those who believe in Him become "the Church." This isn't hard stuff, PL.
- ...He gave himself to us to redeem us from all iniquity and to purify for himself a peculiar (chosen) people" (Titus 2:14).
Yes . . . you can't exactly have a Church made up of people who have the wrath of God burning against their sin, now can you? So we've established that in order for there to be a Church, sin must be atoned for. I've not said anything different from that, PL.
- ...He entered once for all into the Holy Place, taking ... his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption" (Hebrews 9:12).
And again, I've already dealt with this passage. Are you reading me, PL?
Puritan Lad wrote:This is what Christ came to do. He came to save HIS people from their sins. Furthermore, it is clear that those who end up in Hell do so precisely because of their sins. (Ezekiel 18:20, John 8:24, Matthew 7:21-23 cf. 1 John 3:4, 1 Cor. 6:9-10, Galatians 5:19-21, Revelation 21:8). Therefore, we must conclude, based on these scriptures, that Christ did NOT pay for the sins of those in Hell, and that they are “none of His”. Again, if your view is correct, then there are millions of souls currently burning in Hell that were just as much bought with the blood of Christ as you and I. You've all but admitted that you accept this. Esau sought God with tears, but was unable to receive Him. Why? Because God hated Esau, and he did so before Esau was ever born, not of works. (I'm glad that you like the plain meaning of scripture.)
*sigh* I guess it's true. You really truly are not reading my posts. You are skimming them, if that. I've already dealt with the "HIS people" comment. Now, let's del with the seven passages you cited:
Oh, and let me put this on a new line so that in your skimming, you'll notice it . . . please observe how I am actually dealing with the Scripture references you provide on a verse-by-verse basis. You see, PL, I am dealing with your arguments, one by one. Try it.
- Ezekiel 18:20, The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father's iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son's iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself. (NASB)
"Die" here does not refer to eternal damnation. It has to do with physical death. See the following verses. If the wicked man turns form his sins, he will live.
- John 8:24, Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins. (NASB)
Yes, if a person does not believe in Christ, then they will die "in their sins." This does not mean a person will go be condemned because of their sins. In fact, quite the opposite. Jesus is talking about the state one is in at the time of death. If the Jews were to believe in Christ, they would die "in Him." But, if they reject Him, they would die "in their sins."
- Matthew 7:21-23, Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?' And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.' (NASB)
Great passage, PL. What is Jesus saying? First, let's notice that this is a reference to eschatological judgement. These people are going to go to Hell. Next notice that the criteria for getting into heaven is
not professing Jesus as Lord *gasp*. In fact, there will be MANY who will say 'Lord, Lord.' But notice this, too . . . these people
honestly believed that their profession of Lordship would save them. They go so far as to prove their submission by citing the works they do
in His name. Did these people believe they were saved? YES. This makes a great case against Perseverance of the Saints, which I'll get to later. Finally, note Jesus' response. He says, "I never knew you." He then tells them to depart. Now, here's the question: are they to depart because of the lawlessness they practice, or are they to depart because Jesus never knew them? Clearly, the latter is the case. Jesus is saying that even the "good" deeds they did were lawless deeds, because they rejected His simple plan of salvation. They were, then, NOT condemned for their sins. They were condemned because they were not in Christ! This passage can't be much clearer, PL.
- 1 John 3:4, Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness. (NASB)
Yup . . . this is good, because I've been wanting to deal with this text for awhile anyway. Let's just look at the rest of the passage, too, so that I can score some extra points while here:
- Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness. You know that He appeared in order to take away sins; and in Him there is no sin. No one who abides in Him sins; no one who sins has seen Him or knows Him. Little children, make sure no one deceives you; the one who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous; the one who practices sin is of the devil; for the devil has sinned from the beginning. The Son of God appeared for this purpose, to destroy the works of the devil. No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. (1 John 3:5-9, NASB)
OK, with all of these together . . . this passage is teaching the very important truth that the practice of sin resides only in the Old Man. It is foreign to the New Man. Notice especially verses 6 and 9: "no one who abides in Him sins," and "he cannot sin, because he is born of God." Let's take this to mean exactly what it says: the New Man DOES NOT SIN. EVERY sin we commit is an expression of the Old Man, not the New. Now, because of that, these Christians could know who the false teachers were that were in their midst. It would be those who were teaching that there was no sin and no sin nature (cf. 1 John 1:6, 8, 10).
Does this passage, then, teach that a man goes to Hell because of his sin? Nope. It teaches, again, that the Old Man is man who sins.
- 1 Cor. 6:9-10, Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. (NASB)
This is another passage
I have already dealt with. Gal. 5:19-21 is handled in the same thread . . . in fact, in the same post, the very next paragraph.
- Revelation 21:8, But for the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and immoral persons and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death. (NASB)
This passage is exactly the in nature as the previous two. But, we can also note that this verse is written in contrast with verse seven, which says, "He who overcomes will inherit these things, and I will be his God and he will be My son" Who is the one who overcomes? It is the one who believes. Thus, that list is a sample of people who have not overcome.
So, we see, still, that it is not sin for which a man is condemned, but it is for his unbelief. Dying in a state of unbelief means to die in a state of death. As death means "separate from," the person dies in a state of broken fellowship with God for all of eternity. All who are in Adam are condemned, because the Adamic Race is condemned. All who are in Christ are saved, because the Christian Race is saved.
So, we have thoroughly refuted the idea that my understanding has any similarity whatsoever with Arminianism. Sorry.
Moving on, then . . .
3. In your original rebuttal, you claimed that my view was Semi-Peligan and that I believed that all were elected to be in Christ. I'm still not over that. I really am convinced that you are not reading these replies . . .
In your clarification, you stated:
Puritan Lad wrote:As I read this, I see one of two positions.
1.) He chooses all "in Christ". In that case, you have universal salvation.
or,
2.) He chooses all who choose to come to Christ. In that case, you have salvation by works. Maybe this is your position, since you add, "But, again, we see that those who believe in Christ are born again in Christ, and that God looks at all those in Christ and chooses them for salvation."
Again, I have paragraph after paragraph arguing against the first position. The fact that you would even THINK I could hold to that proves to be absolutely that you have no concept of the position I am advocating. I don't get offended easily, PL. Now, I have throughout our discussions handled your arguments thoroughly and in context. I have not attributed to you positions you do not hold, and it cannot be argued that I do not well understand your doctrines. I expect the same in return.
Now, let's deal with the second interpretation of my argument, because this is a good way for me to provide a good cap to my argument that Calvinism is a heresy in general. Let's unpack your statement very carefully, and it should become obvious where the flaw in your thinking is:
"[God] chooses all who choose to come to Christ."
A) "God chooses," that is, God elects. Let us always remember that election is GOD'S choice, not ours. We can make any choices we like, we can do anything we like, but in the end, election comes only when God decides to pick someone.
B) "all," Thus, the election is unconditional. Of course, "all" here is limited to a particular group, but the emphasis is still the same. Absolutely EVERYONE in that group is chosen for salvation. God chooses you by virtue of being in this particular group. Nothing you think, say, or do merits that choice. Further, nothing you can do will change that choice. God decided before the foundation of the world to choose all of those who were in this group. Simple.
C) "who choose," Here's where you start getting murky. You've used a very sloppy word that has false connotations. People don't "choose" . . . they "trust." They take Christ at His word. They believe His promise. Now, discipleship . . . that's a matter of choice! But simple trust isn't a "choice" in the same sense of the word. Either you believe or you don't. You don't say, "Hey, I'm going to go believe this today." Actually, we see that you choose not to believe rather than choosing to believe. You hear the claim of Christ, and you have to choose whether or not He is telling the truth. Since Jesus is making an assertion, if you reject it, that's the primary choice. Accepting it is simply taking Christ at His word. The two actions are not on the same volitional level.
D) "to come to Christ." This phraseology is closely linked with (C). We don't "choose to come to Christ." We believe the promise He made, which is that He will provide us eternal life if we trust Him. If we believe that, He does. It's that simple.
Now, look, though, at what you've done. You've pictured faith as a work. This is not surprising, because for you, faith necessarily leads to repentance. For you, faith is a commitment of life. It is not "mere belief." If I believed as you do, you would have a great point, PL. But, unfortunately for you, I don't. You see, if in order to be saved, I had to commit my life to Christ (therefore choosing Him), then I WOULD be teaching a salvation by works. But, that's not what I teach at all. I believe that in order to be saved, I have to place my mere belief in the Person and Promise of Christ. Upon doing this, I am born again into the Family Tree of Christ. Now, TOTALLY SEPARATE FROM MY BELIEF, God looks at me as a member of Jesus' family tree and He chooses me for salvation. You see,
He chooses based on position. And how did I get to my position? Because
He bore me into the family tree. Regeneration was His work. I was grafted in (adopted). I was justified. All of those are works of God. It is in NO way "works" to say that I took Christ at His word. God did all the work! (c.f. Rom. 4:5).
Now, against this, you DO teach a salvation by works. In comes across in your belief in Final Perseverance of the Saints. Again, for you, faith is a commitment of life. For you, repentance is necessary for salvation. Now, this is OBVIOUSLY a works based salvation, so to avoid this, you say that the man is saved completely and totally by God, and
because He is saved, the man comes to belief and repentance. The problem is that Scripture everywhere teaches that if a man believes then he is saved, not vice-versa. So, what Calvinism does is to take a works-based salvation, deny a man the ability to belief, have God arbitrarily decide who completes this process. In my view, man does absolutely nothing. He takes Christ at His word, and therefore, God does more than a few things. Belief is not a work, PL.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Now, with all that out of the way . . .
I would like to close this by pointing out, yet again, the terrible track record you have for answering arguments. In this thread, I have provided Scripture to argue against:
1) Total depravity (never answered)
2) Calvinist Election (responded with a straw man; didn't deal with provided Scripture)
3) Limited Atonement (Scripture never dealt with)
4) and now Perseverance of the Saints.
In addition to this, I have made several other arguments that you have completely ignored, including:
1) The use of
polus and the problems it creates for Calvinism,'
2) The eisegesis of election into "all" texts,
3) Calvinism's heretical understanding of the simple gospel message based on the notion that repentance and perseverance are required for salvation,
4) The obviously false teaching that God chooses some to commit specific sins,
5) The judicial hardening of the rejecting heart,
6) "Easy believism" is actually harder to believe than your system,'
7) "Simple believism" verses "hard believism",
8) The view that repentance is necessary for salvation also requires that baptism is necessary for salvation,
9) God justifies the wicked, not the regenerate,
10) Request to outline the position I hold in relation to the five major tenant.
I got those out of a very brief skim through our thread. These are all issues that you either have failed to deal with or have not clearly dealt with (that is, I requested a clarification that you did not provide). PL, my final problem with all this is simple:
You aren't dealing with my arguments. Please note that the vast majority of what I have to say has come from exegesis of Scripture. I've used the not "proof-text" method for anything. I have looked at Scripture, exegeted it, and showed how it destroys the Calvinist doctrines. I respectfully request that you deal with the biblical arguments I have put forward throughout this thread. I have more than dealt with yours.
God bless
