Evidence for God from Science

Maytan wrote:

B. W. wrote:Hi Maytan,

You are making good progress and trying to figure out things but moving into predestination as described by Calvinism and Arminianism will leave you confused. Hate to say it, but both sides limit the definition of predestination to fit their own terms and both leave behind looking at this from God's perspective.

So to gain a better understanding of predestination, let’s build off where we left off and let me ask two more questions:

Could God foreknow everything before anything ever was?

Again lay aside Calvinism and Arminianism reasoning on this as a person won’t get to far if they do. Just read the other posts to see what I mean. Good points in both, but nothing is ever settled.

I believe so.

From your answer to last question add this question:

With such knowledge as God already has, then could he know the final result that that His word (which created the choice) will have on everyone before any were ever born?

Hint: Greek word translated predestination is a compound of two Greek words – it involves a “decree”…
-
-
-

Once again, I believe he could.

Great answers Maytan!

Next question, where in the bible does it say these things?

[Please note, I was in a slight accident today and have 4 stitches in my lower lip and a sore neck and side (was in the hospital all morning long getting checked out – so I might take a break till late Monday Evening to get back on this topic but all things work together for good for them who love Christ and called to his purposes! Amen!]
-
-
-

August,

August wrote:Choosing not to sin is one of the issues, right? That would be to have ones destiny in ones own hands. How is that choice different than choosing Christ?

Choosing not to sin is certainly not an issue with me. Choosing not to sin is an impossibility. Perhaps my turn of phrase was not theologically tight. But I am saying that it is in one's hands to consciously trust in God's promise. If you're saying that there is no difference here, then I would certainly disagree.

August wrote:Is it in your hands or not? As per my questions above, does man have the faith to trust God in his natural sinful state? Some of us disagree on this point, as per the options I mentioned above.

The bible says we are credited with the righteousness of Christ by believing in him that justifies. Universal justification came with Christ's sacrifice. By trusting God's promise of this justification and taking away of sins I am committing myself to God's promise. This is my only subjective 'role'. Nothing I can do as a sinner can save me or contribute to saving me. If you think I am attributing my 'role' in all this to some kind of work or action then I assure you I am not.

But I readily accept my turn of phrase might not have been theologically sound.

DannyM wrote:Universal justification came with Christ's sacrifice.

Danny. Can you expand this thought? What is "universal justification"?

puritan lad wrote:

DannyM wrote:Universal justification came with Christ's sacrifice.

Danny. Can you expand this thought? What is "universal justification"?

PL, what I mean is Christ is the atoning sacrifice for all sins of all men.

1 John 2:2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.

In that case, are all men saved?

This is the problem. Justification is a declaration of innocence before God, and universal justification would be Universalism (or else justification isn't really justification). Either Christ died for all the sins of all men (Universalism), or he died for all of the sins of the elect (Calvinism), or he died for no one in particular (Arminianism - no real justification, redemption, or atonement).

puritan lad wrote:In that case, are all men saved?

This is the problem. Justification is a declaration of innocence before God, and universal justification would be Universalism (or else justification isn't really justification). Either Christ died for all the sins of all men (Universalism), or he died for all of the sins of the elect (Calvinism), or he died for no one in particular (Arminianism - no real justification, redemption, or atonement).

Well, as you can see, Christ is the atoning sacrifice for the sins of the whole world. That does not mean that the whole world is saved.

DannyM wrote:Well, as you can see, Christ is the atoning sacrifice for the sins of the whole world.

If you mean every single individual in the whole world, I don't see that.

DannyM wrote:That does not mean that the whole world is saved.

Then what does it mean? This is what you must explain without redefining redemption, justification, or atonement.

puritan lad wrote:

B.W. wrote:Well, as you can see, Christ is the atoning sacrifice for the sins of the whole world.

If you mean every single individual in the whole world, I don't see that.

B.W. wrote:That does not mean that the whole world is saved.

Then what does it mean? This is what you must explain without redefining redemption, justification, or atonement.

I'm a little confused here. You have the quotes attributed to B.W., but Danny is the one who made the statements. Anyhow, why is it so difficult to believe that this:

1 John 2:2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.

means Christ died to pay the price for all sins of everyone past, or present?

That isn't the same as saying that all are saved. We have to believe in Christ, and accept His gift to be saved. It's a very simple concept. Why are we making much more out of it than we need to?

puritan lad wrote:

B.W. wrote:Well, as you can see, Christ is the atoning sacrifice for the sins of the whole world.

If you mean every single individual in the whole world, I don't see that.

B.W. wrote:That does not mean that the whole world is saved.

Then what does it mean? This is what you must explain without redefining redemption, justification, or atonement.

Geeze get off your heresy hunting and grow up, PL and show some Christian intelligence, grace, and maturity.

Atonement is limited to those called out; however, the call goes forth to all. In this God does no violence to his own righteous, just character. If he did not call to all, he would not be just.

Forgive me but my temper is a bit hot. Spent yesterday morning in the hospital after being taken there by a ambulance, have 4 stitches in my lower lip, a broken in half front tooth, no insurance, all because I passed out and fell at home. Everything checked out okay at the hospital, came home. Praise God thru it all.

Have a blest day!
-
-
-

Thanks Rick - thought he was speakin' to me - sorry about that PL.
-
-
-

puritan lad wrote:

DannyM wrote:Well, as you can see, Christ is the atoning sacrifice for the sins of the whole world.

If you mean every single individual in the whole world, I don't see that.

DannyM wrote:That does not mean that the whole world is saved.

Then what does it mean? This is what you must explain without redefining redemption, justification, or atonement.

PL, the quote speaks for itself. Christ being the righteousness for all does not mean that all will accept his righteousness. At this time I see no insurmountable conflict.

RickD wrote:I'm a little confused here. You have the quotes attributed to B.W., but Danny is the one who made the statements. Anyhow, why is it so difficult to believe that this:

1 John 2:2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.

means Christ died to pay the price for all sins of everyone past, or present?

That isn't the same as saying that all are saved. We have to believe in Christ, and accept His gift to be saved. It's a very simple concept. Why are we making much more out of it than we need to?

DannyM wrote:PL, the quote speaks for itself. Christ being the righteousness for all does not mean that all will accept his righteousness. At this time I see no insurmountable conflict.

Sorry about the confusion. The editor here is hard to work with, especially with long posts, so I use notepad. This happens when trying to respond to more than one post at a time. Fixed the quote.

RIck, Does Christ save us on the condition that we believe? If so, how does a person obtain saving faith?

If what you guys say is true, then Christ's death on the Cross was effective for the salvation of nobody, and his blood is worthless for the vast majority for which is was intended.

B.W. Sorry about your incident yesterday (as well as the false witness).

B.W. wrote:Atonement is limited to those called out; however, the call goes forth to all.

This is Calvinism.

puritan lad wrote: RIck, Does Christ save us on the condition that we believe? If so, how does a person obtain saving faith?

If what you guys say is true, then Christ's death on the Cross was effective for the salvation of nobody, and his blood is worthless for the vast majority for which is was intended.

Eph 2:8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God--

Saving faith is the gift of God.

Rom 4:5 However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness.

The man who trusts God...his faith is credited as righteousness. By trusting in God, I receive the grace of God. I'm still working on some things, so let me come back to you, PL...

DannyM wrote:Saving faith is the gift of God.

Agreed.

So back to the question. Does God save us on the condition that we have faith in him? And even if he does, since that faith is itself a gift from God, how does that affect your view of fallen man's ability to come to Christ?

DannyM wrote:The man who trusts God...his faith is credited as righteousness. By trusting in God, I receive the grace of God. I'm still working on some things, so let me come back to you, PL...

Take your time.