BSBKJVWEBYLTASVBBEWMBT4TDBY|HymnsMusicDonate
Menu
← Back to forum index
Sign In Register
Theology

Limited Atonement??

sermonindex Mar 23, 2007

Here is a very important topic. Limited or Universal Atonement?

The scripture I used to use for "[b]Limited Atonement[/b]" when I was a Calvinist was this:

[b]John 15:13-14[/b] "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life [b]for his friends[/b]. Ye are [b]my friends[/b], if ye do whatsoever I command you."

[b]Here was my reasoning:[/b]

1. Jesus died for his friends
2. Those who obey Him are his friends
3. Therefore Christ died [i]only[/i] for his friends, [i]only[/i] those He foreknew would obey him.

Point 1 is [i]scripture.[/i]

Point 2 is [i]scripture[/i].

Point 3 is [i]conjecture or inference[/i]. It's nothing other then an assumption.

It is true that Christ died for His friends. It is true that Christ those who obey Him are His friends. But [b]nowhere[/b] does this scripture say that he died exclusively for His friends. Actually, the scripture says He also died for His enemies.

The same is true with [b]John chapter 10[/b].

[b]It says:[/b]

1. Christ died for His sheep
2. The Pharisees were not of His fold

But nowhere does this passage say that He died only or [b]exclusively[/b] for His sheep, for those who follow Him. That is an assumption, inference, conjecture, but not scripture.

Anyone who doesn't believe is not Christ's sheep. I was not His sheep, He was not my Shephard, when I was a sinner. Only those who follow the Shephard are His sheep (John 10:27), those who do not follow are not of His fold, but are astray.

The reasoning that "Christ died for His sheep, therefore He died only for His sheep" is nowhere in John 10. The first is scripture: Christ died for His sheep. The second is conjecture or inference: Christ died only for His sheep.

It is [b]very dangerous[/b] to isolate certain scriptures, to the ignorance of the rest of scriptures, to build an entire doctrine. Heresies like Limited Atonement are built that way. And many genuine Christians have been decieved by such practices.

Evangelism and preaching is greatly affected by Limited Atonement. You cannot tell anyone that "Christ died for you" with any confidence or certainty. Neither can a Christian have any true assurance of salvation, because how can you be certain Christ actually died for you? We tell men to believe. But to believe what? Believe that Christ died for them. But if Christ didn't die for everyone, what are we telling them to believe? We couldn't tell them to believe that Christ died for them.

Here are [u][b]17 [/b][/u]verses that says Christ died for everyone. They are scripturally clear. No conjecture or inference or assumption is needed to come to the conclusion that Christ died for everyone.

[b]Should we interpret these [u]17[/u] scriptures by those other [u]2[/u], or should we interpret those other [u]2[/u] by these [u]17[/u]?[/b]

I affirm the latter.

[b]Isa 53:6[/b] "All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity [b]of us all[/b]."

[b]John 3:16[/b] "For God so loved the [b]world[/b], that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. "

[b]John 3:17[/b] "For God sent not his Son into the [b]world[/b] to condemn the [b]world[/b]; but that the [b]world[/b] through him might be saved.

(Which note, if "world" is interpreted "elect" then "God sent not His son into the elect"?)

[b]John 1:29[/b] "The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the [b]world[/b]."

[b]John 12:47[/b] "And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the [b]world[/b]."

[b]1John 2:1 [/b]"[b]if any man sin[/b], we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous"

[b]Romans 5:18[/b] "Therefore as by the offence F20 of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came [b]upon all men [/b]unto justification of life."

[b]2Corinthians 5:19[/b] "To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the [b]world[/b] unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation."

[b]Heb 2:9[/b] - "But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for [b]every man[/b]."

[b]Colossians 1:20[/b] "And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile [b]all things [/b]unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven."

[b]1 Timothy2:4[/b] "Who will have [b]all men [/b]to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth."

[b]1Timothy 2:6[/b] "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom [b]for all[/b], to be testified in due time."

[b]2 Peter 3:9[/b] "The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that [b]any[/b] should perish, but that [b]all[/b] should come to repentance."

[b]1 John 2:2[/b] "And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for [b]ours only[/b], but also for the sins of the [b]whole world[/b]."

[b]1John 4:15[/b] "the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the [b]World[/b]"

[b]1Timothy 4:10[/b] "We trust in the living God, who is the Savior of [b]all men[/b], especially of those that believe."


Truth is, "[b]Limited Atonement[/b]" is a conjecture, inference, assumption, a logical conclusion or philosophy, but it is not the clear and basic teaching of the scriptures. The clear and basic teaching of the scriptures, without any theological bias in interpretation, is that Christ died so that everyone might be, or could be, saved.

sermonindex Mar 23, 2007

The blood of Christ only becomes effectual for those that trust and rely on Him for His sacrifice. So in that way their is limited atonment. For the blood will not avail for those that trample it underfoot.

V
vico Mar 23, 2007

I heard someone else say that since Christ died, took the punishment for sin, and the wrath of God on behalf of all, then all the world must be saved!! and that on the final day all will be saved!

Scriptures:

1Timothy 2:4-6
Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

2Pe 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

Eph 1:11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:

If God "is not willing that any should perish", and He works "all things after the counsel of His own will" then all will be saved, right?

1Ti 4:10 For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

Can Christ hold the title "Saviour of all men" and all men not be saved?

Phil. 2:9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

1John 4:15 Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God.

If everyone that confesses that Jesus Christ is Lord has God dwelling in Him, and one day everyone will do that, can we not assume that all men have God dwelling in them??

Theres a lot more he said, and a lot more scriptures for this. But I just thought this was a good example of taking scriptures by themselves.


least of all,
vico

*edit* Amen bro. Greg!

J
JaySaved Mar 23, 2007

Truth is, "Limited Atonement" is a conjecture, inference, assumption, a logical conclusion or philosophy, but it is not the clear and basic teaching of the scriptures. The clear and basic teaching of the scriptures, without any theological bias in interpretation, is that Christ died so that everyone might be, or could be, saved.

From Edwin H. Palmer, The Five Points of Calvinism (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1980):

“The question that needs a precise answer is this: Did He or didn't He? Did Christ actually make a substitutionary sacrifice for sins or didn't He? If He did, then it was not for all the world, for then all the world would be saved.”

Jesse, unless you are a Universalist you believe in Limited Atonement.

From (Lorraine Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1932) p. 153.)

“Let there be no misunderstanding at this point. The Arminian limits the atonement as certainly as does the Calvinist. The Calvinist limits the extent of it in that he says it does not apply to all persons...while the Arminian limits the power of it, for he says that in itself it does not actually save anybody. The Calvinist limits it quantitatively, but not qualitatively; the Arminian limits it qualitatively, but not quantitatively. For the Calvinist it is like a narrow bridge that goes all the way across the stream; for the Arminian it is like a great wide bridge that goes only half-way across. As a matter of fact, the Arminian places more severe limitations on the work of Christ than does the Calvinist.”

From James White:
“Why did Christ come to die? Did He come simply to make salvation possible, or did He come to actually obtain eternal redemption (Hebrews 9:12)? Let's consider some passages from Scripture in answer to this question.
For the Son of Man came to seek and to save what was lost (Luke 19:10).
Here the Lord Jesus Himself speaks of the reason for His coming. He came to seek and to save the lost. Few have a problem with His seeking; many have a problem with the idea that He actually accomplished all of His mission. Jesus, however, made it clear that He came to actually save the lost. He did this by His death.
Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners---of whom I am the worst (1 Timothy 1:15).
Paul asserts that the purpose of Christ's coming into the world was to actually save sinners. Nothing in Paul's words leads us to the conclusion that is so popular today---that Christ's death simply makes salvation a possibility rather than a reality. Christ came to save. So, did He? And how did He? Was it not by His death? Most certainly. The atoning death of Christ provides forgiveness of sins for all those for whom it is made. That is why Christ came.”

What about Faith?
One common belief needs to be addressed in passing. Many who believe in a "universal" or non-specific atonement, assert that while Christ died for all, His atonement is only effective for those who believe. We shall discuss the fact that faith itself is the gift of God, given only to the elect of God, in the next chapter. But for now, we defer to the great Puritan writer, John Owen, in answering this question:
To which I may add this dilemma to our Universalists:---God imposed his wrath due unto, and Christ underwent the pains of hell for, either all the sins of all men, or all the sins of some men, or some sins of all men. If the last, some sins of all men, then have all men some sins to answer for, and so shall no man be saved; for if God enter into judgment with us, though it were with all mankind for one sin, no flesh should be justified in his sight: "If the LORD should mark iniquities, who should stand?" Ps. cxxx. 3....If the second, that is it which we affirm, that Christ in their stead and room suffered for all the sins of all the elect in the world. If the first, why, then are not all freed from the punishment of all their sins? You will say, "Because of their unbelief; they will not believe." But this unbelief, is it a sin, or not? If not, why should they be punished for it? If it be, then Christ underwent the punishment due to it, or not. If so, then why must that hinder them more than their other sins for which he died from partaking of the fruit of his death? If he did not, then he did not die for all their sins. Let them choose which part they will. (John Owen, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ, (London: Banner of Truth Trust, 1985) pp. 61-62.)

Conclusion
Some object to the doctrine of limited atonement on very pragmatic grounds. "The doctrine destroys evangelism, because you cannot tell people that Christ died for them, because you don't know!" Yet, we ask, is there an advantage in presenting to men an atonement that is theoretical, a Savior whose work is incomplete, and a gospel that is but a possibility? What kind of proclamation will God honor with His Spirit: one that is tailored to seek "success," or one that is bound to the truth of the Word of God? When the Apostles preached the Gospel, they did not say, "Christ died for all men everywhere, and it is up to you to make His work effective." They taught that Christ died for sinners, and that it was the duty of every man to repent and believe. They knew that only God's grace could bring about repentance and faith in the human heart. And far from that being a *hindrance* to their evangelistic work, it was the power behind it! They proclaimed a *powerful* Savior, whose work is all sufficient, and who saves men totally and completely! They knew that God was about bringing men to Himself, and, since He is the sovereign of the universe, there is no power on earth that will stay His hand! Now there is a solid basis for evangelism! And what could be more of a comfort to the heart that is racked with guilt than to know that Christ has died for sinners, and that His work is not just theoretical, but is real?
The Church needs to challenge the world again with the daring proclamation of a gospel that is offensive---offensive because it speaks of God saving those whom He will, offensive because it proclaims a sovereign Savior who redeems His people.


[url=http://www.sounddoctrine.net/LIBRARY/Modern%20Day%20Reform%20Teaching/James%20White/saved_cross_white.htm]James White on the Dreaded L[/url]

sermonindex Mar 23, 2007

Jesse, unless you are a Universalist you believe in Limited Atonement.

The cross of Christ made salvation possible for all, but automatic for none. The cross was not the exact and literal payment of our debt, so that we are saved by necessity. But the cross enabled God to be just in forgiving our sin, so that our salvation is a possibility, if we repent and believe.

Salvation is offered to all. Christ died for everyone. But His blood only covers those who recieve it, those who respond to the gospel, by repenting and believing.

J
JaySaved Mar 23, 2007

Luke 19:10, "For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost."

Did Jesus come to seek and save or just to seek?

You say that when Jesus died He made salvation possible for all men, but did not secure salvation for anyone.

I say that Jesus died for those who believe and actually secured their salvation at that moment.

This latter view is consistent with Scripture in that it affirms that Jesus came to seek and save.

R
roaringlamb Mar 23, 2007

Salvation is offered to all. Christ died for everyone. But His blood only covers those who recieve it, those who respond to the gospel, by repenting and believing.

So then a sovereign man determines if he will be saved or not?
If this is true, then why pray for folks to be saved? If God has done all He could do to save them, and all they need to do is "choose" when they will believe, they why ask God to change man's heart?

Also, your belief leads to a works based salvation in which man may boast because he chose to believe in Christ. You have now made salvation based upon a meritorious work, and by doing so are echoing the eighteenth premise of Pelagius which in essence states
"God's grace gives no added benefit to the nature of man, but is given by God according to merit."

Again, Pelagian teaching, as well as Semi-Pelagian teaching has already been declared heresy by the Church in the past.

sermonindex Mar 23, 2007

Why pray for sinners? If everyone was individually elected, there would be no need to pray for anyone to get saved. Your prayer won't change or reverse or create the election of God.

But we pray for them that they might not harden their hearts when the Spirit presents truth to their mind, in order to influence them into submission.

Again, Pelagian teaching, as well as Semi-Pelagian teaching has already been declared heresy by the Church in the past.

Free-will, and surrendering your free-will to be saved, and general atonement, was a doctrine held by the Early Church Fathers, the ante-nicean Fathers.

Strange pelagian heresy this is, that the early Church Fathers believed before Pelagius was born.

The name "Pelagius" has become the theological boogy man. If you think free-will, and submitting your free will in order to be saved, and general atonement is a "heresy", you should call it the heresy of the Early Church Fathers.

P
philologos Mar 23, 2007

The blood of Christ only becomes effectual for those that trust and rely on Him for His sacrifice. So in that way their is limited atonment. For the blood will not avail for those that trample it underfoot.

I agree with your conclusions but this is not what 'Limited Atonement' or 'Particular Redemption' teaches. We have to be cautious when we use theological terms that have long histories. We cannot redefine the phrases. Perhaps we can create new ones but we cannot redefine the old ones.

Systematic Theology is a historical journey.

sermonindex Mar 23, 2007

Strange pelagian heresy this is, that the early Church Fathers believed before Pelagius was born.

The name "Pelagius" has become the theological boogy man. If you think free-will, and submitting your free will in order to be saved, and general atonement is a "heresy", you should call it the heresy of the Early Church Fathers.


The teachings of this man was heretical because he took the free-will of men beyond its reasonable and God given usauge. Armenians and Calvanists agree on this point that it is "God that initiates" it is quite foolish to rant about our freewill and what we can do when we would have not chosen God unless he drawed us to Himself first. Now the question must come does God draw all men, I would say no for many reasons but he does "call" and "draw" many. But few are chosen.

I know to jump to extremes is profitable at times in theological discussions but truly some calvanist positions have more reverence for God in that they know we have a freewill but they do not flaunt it before men as a rebellious entity. We should desire our wills to be conformed to His glorious will. We should decrease and He should increase in us! Without you God I cannot do anything should be our cry!

sermonindex Mar 23, 2007

my reasoning

I would beware of believing that we can reason God fully. Some things are a mystery and truly election and predestination are. My ways are above your ways and my thoughts are above your thoughts saith the Lord God almighty. May every mouth be stopped before God. I am personally willing to accept I cannot figure out election and freewill. And also to give to God the right to be soveriegn in certain areas and I don't have to be privy to them.

R
roaringlamb Mar 23, 2007

Notice what this Scripture says
Isaiah 53:11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall [b]my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.[/b]

It does not say "all", but rather "many". Why would they be justified? Because He would bear their iniquities.

Matthew 20:28 Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, [b]and to give his life a ransom for many.[/b]
Again not "all"

Matthew 26:28 For [b]this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many[/b] for the remission of sins.
Here it seems Jesus is limiting the Atonement does it not?

John 1:12 But [b]as many as received him[/b], to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
Now notice how this happens
John 1:13 Which were born, not of blood, [b]nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.[/b]

John 17:2 As thou hast given him power over all flesh, [b]that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.[/b]

Acts 13:48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and [b]as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.[/b]

Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, [b]that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.[/b]
Not all the world, but many.

Hebrews 2:10 For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things,[b]in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.[/b]

Hebrews 9:28 [b]So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many[/b]; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

There are many more verses, to post, and I believe Jay has already done a wonderful job of explaining 2 Peter 3:9 on another thread of which I cannot recall at the moment, but I will post a tiny bit here.

2Peter 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
2Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
First question is who is Peter addressing here? The beloved in verse 8
Second question is who is God longsuffering towards? Us or us-ward
Third question then is who is the us? Must be the beloved in verse 8 as noone else has been mentioned.

So who is God not willing to let perish? All of "us" which would be the Church, or Christians if you like. He wants them to come to repentance, and will work so that not one of God's elect shall be lost, and not one drop of Christ's precious blood shall be wasted.

Lastly the "any" refers to the us as a certain number, here is the Thayer's definition
τίς
tis
Thayer Definition:
1) a certain, a certain one
2) some, some time, a while

sermonindex Mar 23, 2007

"God that initiates"

I do agree with Finney that God must initiate man's conversion, or else man would never be converted.

The Spirit must draw them, by presenting to their mind the influence of truth. Without the Spirit's presentation of the truth, sinners would only serve their Sensibilities.

calvanist...know we have a freewill

The Calvinists view of free-will is that man is free to sin, but not free to obey. This is not a free will under the law of liberty, but this is the will under the law of necessity. And it is completely contrary to the teachings on free-will found among the Early Church Fathers.

The [b]Orthodox doctrine of free will[/b] is that all men can either will or nill, recieve or reject.

If it happen by fate that men are either good or wicked; the good were not good , nor should the wicked be wicked.” Justin (the) Martyr

“Every created being is so constituted as to be capable of vice and virtue. For he can do nothing praise worthy, if he had not the power of turning either way.” Justin (the) Martyr

“Unless we suppose man has the power to choose the good and refuse the evil, no one can be accountable for any action whatever.” Justin (the) Martyr

“God had not made man, like the trees and the brutes, without the power of election.” Justin (the) Martyr

“Man being appointed for God’s judgment, it was necessary to the justice of God’s sentence that man should be judged, according to the deserts of his free will.” Turtullian

“Man, a reasonable being, and in the respect like God, is made free in his will, and having power over himself, is the cause that sometimes he becomes wheat and sometimes chaff.” Irenaeus

“They who do good shall obtain honor and glory, because they have done good when they could forbear doing it. And they who do it not shall receive just judgment of our God; because they have not done good when they could have done it.” Irenaeus

“What is forced is not pleasing to God, but what comes from a truly virtuous motive, and virtue comes from the Will not from Necessity.” Basil

“The will depends on what is within us, and within us is free will.” Basil

“Forasmuch as God has put good and evil in our power, he has given us free power to choose the one or the other; and as he does not retain us against our will, so he embraces us when we are willing.” Chrysostom

“After a wicked man, if he will, is changed into a good man; and a good man, through sloth, falls away and becomes wicked; because God hath endowed us with free agency; not does he make us to do things necessarily, but he places proper remedies before us, and suffers all to be done according to the will of the patient.” Chrysostom

“God hath endowed us with free will. We are not necessarily drawn either to virtue or vice. For when Necessity rules, there is no room left either for d**nation or crown.” Jerome

“Even to those who shall be wicked, God gives power to repent and turn to him.” Jerome

“Our will is kept free to turn either way, that God may dispense his rewards and punishments, not according to his own pre-judgment, but according to the merits of everyone.” Jerome

“Let the man who condemns it [free will] be himself condemned.” Jerome

“It would be more just to punish the stars, which make a wicked action necessary, than to punish the poor man, who does that wicked action by necessity.” Epiphanius

“The soul does not incline to either part out of necessity, for then neither vice nor virtue could be ascribed to it; not would its choice of virtue deserve reward; nor could its declinations to vice punishment.” Origen

“How could God require that of man which he had not power to offer Him?” Origen

“Ten thousand things may be found both in the gospels and authorities of the apostles, clearly manifesting the liberty and self election of man.” Theodorite

“For how can He [God] punish a nature which had no power to do good, but was bound in the hands of wickedness.” Theodorite

Neither promises nor reprehensions, rewards, nor punishments are just, “if the soul has not the power of choosing or abstaining, but evil is involuntary.” Clemens of Alexandria

“This opinion”, the doctrine of necessity, “absolves sinners, as doing nothing of their own accord, which was evil; and would cast all the blame of the wickedness committed in the world, upon God, and upon His providence.” Eusebius

Regarding free will, “this is not only ours, but the opinion of all who speak orthodoxy, of rational being.” Didymus

“God does not command impossibilities” Augustine

“They that came to Christ ought not to impute it to themselves, because they came, being called: and they that would not come, ought not to impute it to another, but only to themselves, because they are called, it was in their power of their free will to come.” Augustine

“What man ought to do, he can do.” Pelagius

Here are some quotes after the Early Church Fathers:

“What man ought to do, he can do.” A. W. Tozer

“Does God give commands which man cannot obey? Is he so arbitrary, so severe, so unloving, as to issue commandments which cannot be obeyed? The answer is that in all the annals of Holy Scripture, not a single instance is recorded of God having commanded any man to do a thing, which was beyond his power. Is God so unjust and so inconsiderate as to require of man that which he is unable to render? Surely not! To infer it is to slander the character of God.” E. M. Bounds

“Everyone knows that the peculiar doctrines [necessity] to which the victory was assigned by the Synod [of Dort] was absolutely unknown in the first ages of the Church.” Mosheim

“The Church teachers agreed unanimously, in maintaining the free will of man as a necessary condition of the existence of morality.” Neander

“the earliest Christian fathers unanimously ascribed to man freedom of will, according to which he can choose either the good or the bad.” Bredschneider

The “Ancient Fathers held to autexousion, understanding by this, or the term liberum arbitrium, the power of man to choose the good or evil freely without compulsion.” Knapp

“All the Fathers differed from Augustine and agreed with Pelagians in attributing free will to man.” Wiggers

“The Greek Fathers above others, and among them especially Chrysostom, have exceeded bounds in extolling the power of the human will…they attribute to man too much power to become virtuous.” John Calvin

R
roaringlamb Mar 23, 2007

Daniel 4:35 And all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?

Isaiah 14:24 The LORD of hosts hath sworn, saying, Surely as I have thought, so shall it come to pass; and as I have purposed, so shall it stand:

Isaiah 14:27 For the LORD of hosts hath purposed, and who shall disannul it? and his hand is stretched out, and who shall turn it back?

Of course these are but a small portion of Scripture referring to God's Sovereign decrees. But the question remains, is God anxiously awaiting the decision of men, and unfolding His purpose as man chooses? If so could not the Scriptures be in error because man exerted his "free will" while penning them?

Or does God know the end from the beginning, and has set His love upon those whom He foreknew, before they had done anything bad or good?

Is God at the beck and call of man, or is man a greated being of God, and thus resposible for his sin against His goodness?

Jesse, I admire your zeal always have. But what concerns me is that if you continue on in Finneyesque way, you will leave people moral, but without hope. You will replace Christ and His finished work with man's striving to be morally acceptable to God, and that is where I am coming from.

Blessings to you and congratualtions(belated) on your marriage.

sermonindex Mar 23, 2007

Jesse, I admire your zeal always have. But what concerns me is that if you continue on in Finneyesque way, you will leave people moral, but without hope. You will replace Christ and His finished work with man's striving to be morally acceptable to God, and that is where I am coming from.

I totally understand.

All I'm saying is this:

Heb 5:9 - And being made perfect, he became the author of [b]eternal salvation[/b] unto all them that [b]obey[/b] him;

While I do believe that Finneyism and the Early Church doctrines are pretty much completely biblical and orthodox, and Augustinianism and Calvinism seems very heretical, I do not let theological disagreements blind my eyes as to not see that there are Christians in many different (and opposing) theological camps, and revivals have transcended theological boundaries.

But like Ravenhill said, "75% of Finneys converts stayed, because he knew how to attack the human will".

K
Koheleth Mar 23, 2007

EDIT: I was admonished for this post and agree with the admonishment. The content was off-topic.

V
vico Mar 23, 2007

I would beware of believing that we can reason God fully. Some things are a mystery and truly election and predestination are. My ways are above your ways and my thoughts are above your thoughts saith the Lord God almighty. May every mouth be stopped before God. I am personally willing to accept I cannot figure out election and freewill. And also to give to God the right to be soveriegn in certain areas and I don't have to be privy to them.

Amen Greg!

by the way, Who is this Salvation that you guys are going on and on about?

E
elected Mar 23, 2007


I think we are dealing with interpretations of the atonement and that's very important for your personal convictions but if these kind of knowledge you have not acquired or receive from your personal intimacy with the Lord and from the bible but you have borrowed from the teachers and theologians i dont think it will profit much for your personal edification.

Unless your reason is set on fire your theology will be stiffing and suffocating to the soul. Dead orthodoxy is our problem, evangelical revival in the 18th and 19th century has been a reaction agaist spiritual and theological laxity.

We need a holy protest and dissatifaction first of all agaist are status quo, our spiritual shallow experiences or backslidings.Personal revival is better then to analyse the atonement and its extent.Childlike faith and attitute evn though with little knowledge will profite more then if we had the academic knowledge of a theologian.

Just sharing some reflections with my brothers in faith.

J
JaySaved Mar 26, 2007

But like Ravenhill said, "75% of Finneys converts stayed, because he knew how to attack the human will".

Is it a proven fact that 75% of Finney's converts will be in heaven?

This discussion is locked.

Archived
First
1 of 19 posts
Last