Announcement

Collapse

Theology 201 Guidelines

This is the forum to discuss the spectrum of views within Christianity on God's foreknowledge and election such as Calvinism, Arminianism, Molinism, Open Theism, Process Theism, Restrictivism, and Inclusivism, Christian Universalism and what these all are about anyway. Who is saved and when is/was their salvation certain? How does God exercise His sovereignty and how powerful is He? Is God timeless and immutable? Does a triune God help better understand God's love for mankind?

While this area is for the discussion of these doctrines within historic Christianity, all theists interested in discussing these areas within the presuppositions of and respect for the Christian framework are welcome to participate here. This is not the area for debate between nontheists and theists, additionally, there may be some topics that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream evangelical doctrine that may be more appropriately placed within Comparative Religions 101 Nontheists seeking only theistic participation only in a manner that does not seek to undermine the faith of others are also welcome - but we ask that Moderator approval be obtained beforehand.

Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 or General Theistics 101 forum without such restrictions. Theists who wish to discuss these issues outside the parameters of orthodox Christian doctrine are invited to Unorthodox Theology 201.

Remember, our forum rules apply here as well. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

John 3:16 Support for Limited Atonement

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
    Originally posted by rhutchin View Post
    Apparently God did. Else He would have given His son so that even the non-elect would not perish.
    No, the God you cooked up in your head did.
    Yet the non-elect are not to be saved and never were. When God created the universe in Genesis 1, He already knew His elect and the non-elect. The elect were always going to be saved - thus 3:16, God gave His son so that the elect would not perish - and the non-elect were never going to be saved. Are you claiming that this is not so?

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by rhutchin View Post
      Yet the non-elect are not to be saved and never were. When God created the universe in Genesis 1, He already knew His elect and the non-elect. The elect were always going to be saved - thus 3:16, God gave His son so that the elect would not perish - and the non-elect were never going to be saved. Are you claiming that this is not so?
      Do you know who the elect are? You walk into a crowded room, and you could pick out the elect?
      The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by rhutchin View Post
        I don't see your point here. Certainly, Christ is the ONLY propitiation that exists for sin. Christ is, thereby, the only remedy for sin. He is the only propitiation available for the sins of God's elect and for the sins of any one else, even the whole world. That speaks to the infinite value of Christ's death.

        However, it is one thing for Christ to be a propitiation for sin and another for Christ to atone for sin. God gave His son so that His elect would not perish - thus Christ was offered not only as a propitiation for the sins of God's elect but specifically to propitiate the sins of God's elect.
        To atone and to propitiate are virtually synonyms, to attempt to separate then as you are trying makes no sense at all.

        “God gave His son so that His elect would not perish." His elect consists of whosoever believeth, not whosoever is elected. Reformed Theology is unbiblical at its roots, it cannot be reconciled with scripture without much fudging and twisting. You twist it into reconciliation with one passage if scripture, inevitably it violates many others.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by 37818 View Post
          His Son died for the ungodly (Romans 5:6; 2 Corinthians 5:14-15).
          The term, ungodly, is used in a general sense in Romans 5:6 and then, specifically, in the following verses. Here is the context--

          6 ...in due time Christ died for the ungodly....
          8 But God commended his love toward His elect, in that, while His elect were yet sinners, Christ died for them.
          9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, God's elect shall be saved from wrath through Christ.
          10 For if, when His elect were enemies, they were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, they shall be saved by his life.
          11 And not only so, but His elect also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom His elect have now received the atonement.

          2 Corinthians 5:14-15 (tracing through the antecedents)

          14 For the love of Christ constrains God's elect; because God's elect thus judge, that if Christ died for both Jews and Gentiles, then were both Jews and Gentiles dead:
          15 And that he died for both Jews and Gentiles, that God's elect which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto Christ who died for His elect, and rose again [for the justification of His elect].

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by rhutchin View Post
            Yet the non-elect are not to be saved and never were. When God created the universe in Genesis 1, He already knew His elect and the non-elect. The elect were always going to be saved - thus 3:16, God gave His son so that the elect would not perish - and the non-elect were never going to be saved. Are you claiming that this is not so?
            He knew that "whosoever believeth" would be his elect or chosen people. In that context, you are correct.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by dacristoy View Post
              To atone and to propitiate are virtually synonyms, to attempt to separate then as you are trying makes no sense at all.
              Even as synonyms, the meaning is not that God saves, propitiates, or atones any other than His elect. The meaning is that Christ is the means by which God saves, propitiates, or atones for His elect.

              Originally posted by dacristoy View Post
              “God gave His son so that His elect would not perish." His elect consists of whosoever believeth, not whosoever is elected. Reformed Theology is unbiblical at its roots, it cannot be reconciled with scripture without much fudging and twisting. You twist it into reconciliation with one passage if scripture, inevitably it violates many others.
              God's elect are those who believe; the non-elect are those who do not believe. "Whosoever believes" are identical to God's elect. God gave His son so that "whosoever believes" (i.e., His elect) would not perish. God knew His elect when He created the universe. God naturally sent His son to save His elect so naturally they are "whosoever believes."

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by rhutchin View Post
                The term, ungodly, is used in a general sense in Romans 5:6 and then, specifically, in the following verses. Here is the context--

                6 ...in due time Christ died for the ungodly....
                8 But God commended his love toward His elect, in that, while His elect were yet sinners, Christ died for them.
                9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, God's elect shall be saved from wrath through Christ.
                10 For if, when His elect were enemies, they were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, they shall be saved by his life.
                11 And not only so, but His elect also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom His elect have now received the atonement.

                2 Corinthians 5:14-15 (tracing through the antecedents)

                14 For the love of Christ constrains God's elect; because God's elect thus judge, that if Christ died for both Jews and Gentiles, then were both Jews and Gentiles dead:
                15 And that he died for both Jews and Gentiles, that God's elect which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto Christ who died for His elect, and rose again [for the justification of His elect].
                Continually you insert the word "elect" where it is not used in scripture as though the word was unavailable to the writers of scripture. If you have to rewrite the bible in order for it to make sense of reformed doctrines, perhaps it is reformed doctrine that needs to be rethought and scripture left alone....

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                  Originally posted by rhutchin View Post
                  Yet the non-elect are not to be saved and never were. When God created the universe in Genesis 1, He already knew His elect and the non-elect. The elect were always going to be saved - thus 3:16, God gave His son so that the elect would not perish - and the non-elect were never going to be saved. Are you claiming that this is not so?
                  Do you know who the elect are? You walk into a crowded room, and you could pick out the elect?
                  The discussion is not about us. It is about God. If God walks into a crowded room, He could pick out the elect. It is God who sent His son so that His elect would not perish. He knows His elect and does not want them to perish.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by dacristoy View Post
                    Continually you insert the word "elect" where it is not used in scripture as though the word was unavailable to the writers of scripture. If you have to rewrite the bible in order for it to make sense of reformed doctrines, perhaps it is reformed doctrine that needs to be rethought and scripture left alone....
                    My claim is that the antecedent where Paul refers to "us" or "we" goes back to the people to whom the letter is addressed and these people are believers - God's elect. You are saying that I am doing this, which I admit, but you are not offering any arguments against doing this.

                    Do you want to argue that God's elect are not in view (i.e., that Paul means someone other than believers)? If so, let's see your argument. Stop complaining about what I am doing and explain why I am wrong to do so.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by rhutchin View Post
                      The term, ungodly, is used in a general sense in Romans 5:6 and then, specifically, in the following verses. Here is the context--

                      6 ...in due time Christ died for the ungodly....
                      8 But God commended his love toward His elect, in that, while His elect were yet sinners, Christ died for them.
                      9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, God's elect shall be saved from wrath through Christ.
                      10 For if, when His elect were enemies, they were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, they shall be saved by his life.
                      11 And not only so, but His elect also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom His elect have now received the atonement.

                      2 Corinthians 5:14-15 (tracing through the antecedents)

                      14 For the love of Christ constrains God's elect; because God's elect thus judge, that if Christ died for both Jews and Gentiles, then were both Jews and Gentiles dead:
                      15 And that he died for both Jews and Gentiles, that God's elect which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto Christ who died for His elect, and rose again [for the justification of His elect].
                      I believe only God's elect will be saved. And it is true the identity of God's elect are those who believe. So I do not believe you are doing your view justice by your line of argument. The election is God's and is wholly unmerited on the part of those whom God has elected. From our stand point the yet to profess Christ elect and non-elect are indistinguishable. Again the election is God's. The only way we recognize God's elect is by those who believe in God's Christ (1 John 5:1). There are more issues than this. I, for one, am not a 5 point Calvinist.
                      Last edited by 37818; 02-17-2015, 02:13 PM.
                      . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                      . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                      Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                        I believe only God's elect will be saved. And it is true the identity of God's elect are those who believe. So I do not believe you are doing your view justice by your line of argument. The election is God's and is wholly unmerited on the part of those whom God has elected. From our stand point the yet to profess Christ elect and non-elect are indistinguishable. Again the election is God's. The only way we recognize God's elect is by those who believe in God's Christ (1 John 5:1). There are more issues than this. I, for one, am not a 5 point Calvinist.
                        yes, but Rhutchin is...
                        "What has the Church gained if it is popular, but there is no conviction, no repentance, no power?" - A.W. Tozer

                        "... there are two parties in Washington, the stupid party and the evil party, who occasionally get together and do something both stupid and evil, and this is called bipartisanship." - Everett Dirksen

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          For some reason I think we have discussed this in the past and we actually went through the Yohanine literature in the Bible to find that 'world' is never used to refer to 'the elect'.

                          In fact, pretty much everywhere else it has a negative connotation if anything (and neutral at best). Theological presuppositions regarding a 5-pointerism must be imposed upon the text to get such a notion. And to be clear - it can't be found in the text.

                          E.G.

                          John 1:10
                          He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him.



                          That being said, it should be at least noted that the way John separates those who are saved and those who are not is through the action of the person...i.e. 'whosoever believes', 'whoever follows me', etc.
                          Last edited by phat8594; 02-17-2015, 03:09 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by phat8594 View Post
                            For some reason I think we have discussed this in the past and we actually went through the Yohanine literature in the Bible to find that 'world' is never used to refer to 'the elect'.
                            This discussion has nothing to do with the "world = elect" argument.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                              I believe only God's elect will be saved. And it is true the identity of God's elect are those who believe. So I do not believe you are doing your view justice by your line of argument. The election is God's and is wholly unmerited on the part of those whom God has elected. From our stand point the yet to profess Christ elect and non-elect are indistinguishable. Again the election is God's. The only way we recognize God's elect is by those who believe in God's Christ (1 John 5:1). There are more issues than this. I, for one, am not a 5 point Calvinist.
                              John 3:16 is not written from our standpoint; it is written from God's standpoint. The verse has God telling us that He sent his son so that His elect would not perish.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Littlejoe View Post
                                yes, but Rhutchin is...
                                Yep. I am Calvinist and a Calvinist is, by definition, a five-pointer.

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X