Originally posted by Bill the Cat
View Post
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
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
The truth about limited atonement.
Collapse
X
-
. . . 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
-
Originally posted by 37818 View PostStrong in his Greek dictionary for "foreknow" gives that word the meaning to foresee.That's what
- She
Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
- Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)
I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
- Stephen R. Donaldson
Comment
-
Originally posted by Bill the Cat View PostAgain, God foresees and foreknows everything. Nothing happens that He did not foreknow and nothing happens that He did not foresee.. . . 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
-
Originally posted by 37818 View PostGod is omniscient. He cannot not know. Down to state of every electron past, present and future.That's what
- She
Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
- Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)
I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
- Stephen R. Donaldson
Comment
-
Originally posted by 37818 View PostGod is omniscient. He cannot not know. Down to state of every electron past, present and future.The greater number of laws . . . , the more thieves . . . there will be. ---- Lao-Tzu
[T]he truth I’m after and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance -— Marcus Aurelius, Meditations
Comment
-
Originally posted by Bill the Cat View PostThat is correct.
Jeremiah 31:34
And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
Comment
-
Originally posted by dacristoy View PostDoes God still know that which he chooses to forget?
Jeremiah 31:34
And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
1 Samuel 1:19 Early the next morning they arose and worshiped before the Lord and then went back to their home at Ramah. Elkanah made love to his wife Hannah, and the Lord remembered her.
So, we see this isn't about God's memory, but about acting for someone or, in the negative, not acting against them.That's what
- She
Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
- Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)
I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
- Stephen R. Donaldson
Comment
-
Originally posted by rhutchin View PostThen Paul addresses issues:
1. How can people call on the one they have not believed in? (v14) Well, the gospel must be preached. Thus, people who do not hear the gospel preached cannot be saved. Ignorance of the gospel leads to hell.
2. "...not all the Israelites accepted the good news. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed our message?” (v16) Well, faith is needed to believe the gospel. Without faith, a person cannot be saved. But faith comes from the gospel being preached.
3. When the gospel is preached, why don't people hear it (v18); why don't they understand it (v19); Has God rejected those who don't hear or understand? (11:1) To which God responds, I have a remnant (My elect) chosen by grace.
So, the chicken and egg problem. Do people believe the gospel because they are God's remnant - His elect - or do they become God's elect by believing?
2 Thess, 2:10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
"because they received not the love of the truth," One cannot receive what has not been offered,
In John 16, Jesus speaks of the Comforter who would come after His death and convict the world of sin. By world, Christ means not just the Jews but gentiles also. We know that the Comforter (the Holy Spirit) convicts God's elect of their sin with the result that they then confess Christ and believe God raised Him from the dead. Does the Holy Spirit convict others? Apparently not since their exhibit no response to the preaching of the gospel. From this we can conclude that God has chosen a remnant to whom He sends His Spirit to convict them of sin whereupon, through the preaching of the gospel, they believe and call on God to be saved.
Is salvation conditional?
Is the expression of faith and belief the natural consequences of God's working in His elect to convict them of sin and to give them the ability to hear and understand the gospel?
One conclusion is that God's elect merely do what comes naturally once God extends grace to them by His Spirit and it would be erroneous to condition salvation on man's response as God's elect always respond positively to the preaching of the gospel.
You will probably want me to explain my conclusion, but I have found that you suffer from that same John
Comment
-
Originally posted by Bill the Cat View PostYes. When God says He will "remember" their sin no more, it means that He will not act against them. The same term was used in 1 Samuel 1:19
1 Samuel 1:19 Early the next morning they arose and worshiped before the Lord and then went back to their home at Ramah. Elkanah made love to his wife Hannah, and the Lord remembered her.
So, we see this isn't about God's memory, but about acting for someone or, in the negative, not acting against them.
Comment
-
Originally posted by dacristoy View PostSo, are you concluding that God lacks the power to "Choose to forget".That's what
- She
Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
- Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)
I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
- Stephen R. Donaldson
Comment
-
This is not a reply to any particular post.
The Merriam-Webster dictionary online says atonement is "the reconciliation of God and humankind through the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ" http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atonementThe greater number of laws . . . , the more thieves . . . there will be. ---- Lao-Tzu
[T]he truth I’m after and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance -— Marcus Aurelius, Meditations
Comment
-
Originally posted by Bill the Cat View PostYes. He can not un-know what He knows. It's a logical contradiction for omniscience
"You say; “When God says He will "remember" their sin no more”, it means that He will not act against them. The same term was used in 1 Samuel 1:19", I think that it is a stretch of one’s imagination to attempt to encase the phrase “remember sins no more” within a decision not to act against the sinner.
1 Samuel 1:1919 And they rose up in the morning early, and worshipped before the LORD, and returned, and came to their house to Ramah: and Elkanah knew Hannah his wife; and the LORD remembered her.
Hebrews 10: 17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.
It is absolutely illogical to attempt to find similarities in meaning between these two passages. Elkanah knew (had sex) his wife, and the Lord remembered her is a veiled promise of good things to come, not a promise not to act on her sins.
Therefore, the interpretation of Hebrews 10:17 stands in its own integrity un-swayed by what is written in 1Samuel 1:19…
Comment
-
Originally posted by dacristoy View PostThere is a functional difference between to un-know, forget, and remember no more...
There is a plethora of things that I do not know, as opposed to the things that I do know but do not remember.
I believe that God choosing to remember our sins no more is an essential part of establishing the relationship that he intends when we are with him. Can he not choose to see us still covered (in his memory) by the sins and immorality that covered us in this life.
"You say; “When God says He will "remember" their sin no more”, it means that He will not act against them. The same term was used in 1 Samuel 1:19", I think that it is a stretch of one’s imagination to attempt to encase the phrase “remember sins no more” within a decision not to act against the sinner.
It is absolutely illogical to attempt to find similarities in meaning between these two passages.
Elkanah knew (had sex) his wife, and the Lord remembered her is a veiled promise of good things to come, not a promise not to act on her sins.
Therefore, the interpretation of Hebrews 10:17 stands in its own integrity un-swayed by what is written in 1Samuel 1:19…That's what
- She
Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
- Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)
I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
- Stephen R. Donaldson
Comment
-
Originally posted by Bill the Cat View PostNot where omniscience is concerned.
But God is not limited by such trivialities as "the unknown".
If He "remembers them no more" in a literal forgetting, then at that point, we would be sinless in His eyes and not in need of our covering, the blood of Christ any longer. I find that highly problematic.
Because you seem to not care that the same word is being used in a positive manner (1 Sam) and a negative one (Isaiah 43 as quoted by Hebrews 10)
No it isn't. It is completely consistent. God's "remembering" means He is acting on His promise while His "not remembering" is Him NOT acting on His promise. Or are you saying that He had simply forgot that Hannah was around until that time?
It is a promise to act while Isa 43 is a promise NOT to act.
The two verses are in harmony and they both are proof that God doesn't "un-remember" things. He is omniscient and nothing changes that.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post"Limited" could be regarded as pleonastic. If one is elected, atonement is in effect for him or her. If not, atonement is not.Last edited by Rushing Jaws; 07-25-2015, 02:05 PM.
Comment
widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
Comment