Does Calvinism limit God?

jobeth

Member
Originally posted by godrulz

Actually, an omnicausal God would cause everyone to be saved, because this would be for the highest good and glory of the Loving God.
I disagree. Even an Omnicausal, Omnibenevolent God may have a legitimate reason for creating the wicked (Prov 16:4) and pre-condemning them to Hell (Jn 3:18).
The reality is that not everyone is saved.
I agree that not everyone is saved. The reason not everyone is saved is because not everyone believes the gospel. There are some will never, ever repent and acknowledge the truth, because they are unable to.
The atonement is not a literal payment (commercial transaction theory) or everyone would be saved automatically (no further obligation on our part if the debt is literally paid).
I agree. The atonement was God's act of reconciling the world to Himself. (2 Cor 5:19)
But only those who acknowledge the sufficiency of the Atonement God provided for the world are saved.

It is easy for an Omnicausal God to institute a Conditional Salvation in order to exclude those whom He chooses to exclude.
Open Theists are in the Arminian camp. Limited atonement is a Calvinistic idea (tuLip; U= unconditional election/L= limited atonement).
That is one of the many reasons why I am not a Calvinist.
Open Theists would generally believe in an unlimited atonement...i.e. Jesus died for all men, not just the elect. The reason that not all are saved is not related to limited atonement or only choosing the elect (Calvinism), but is related to man rejecting the provision/atonement by his free moral agency.
I agree that Jesus died for all sin, not just for the sins of the elect only.
And I agree that not all are saved in spite of the fact that Christ already paid the penalty for all sin.
But I disagree that their rejection has anything to do with their own freewill. Rather:
Matthew 11:25 (KJV)
At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.

John 12:40 (KJV)
He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.
Hence, man is accountable/responsible for his destiny.
I strongly disagree that man is responsible for his own destiny. Rather, God determines every person's destiny.
Romans 9:18 (KJV)
Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
God has done everything He can wisely and justly do. The ball is in our court (He draws, we respond).
Yes, that is what is commonly taught. But I disagree with that teaching. God is STILL working.
John 5:17 (ESV)
But Jesus answered them, "My Father is working until now, and I am working."
God is done creating, for now. (God will again create and make all things new, when He creates the new Heaven and new earth in the World to Come). But, even now, God still works in this world. (One example is that God is currently "preparing" a place for His bride and simultaneously "conforming" us into the likeness of His son. But there is no need for me to show you there are many more examples of God working here and now.)
Perhaps we are using unlimited atonement differently. My use is the standard use in the Calvin/Arminius debate.
Well, there may be more than two ways to describe the extent of our Lord's atonement.
1. Christ died for the sins of all men.
2. Christ died for the sins of the elect only.
3. Christ died for the sins of the whole world (= everything that offends people including all natural disasters, wars, governments, and even the Wrath that is to Come, has all been atoned for.)
I affirm #3.
Jobeth, what camp are you in again (for clarification)?
Well, let's see. As far as I know, there is no "camp" that believes exactly the way I do.

1. I agree with the Open Theists that the future does not already actually exist. (which means I am not a Arminian)
2. I agree with the Arminians that Christ was the propitiation (=paid the penalty) for the sins of the whole world, and not for the sins of the elect only. (which means I am not a Calvinist)
3. I agree with the Calvinists that God foreknows every future event BEFORE those events are actualized. (which means I am not an Open Theist)

I was raised Southern Baptist, but I got kicked out. Now I attend either the Church of God or Michael Yousef's church or if I want to drive that far, I go to Charles Stanley's church.

Is there some "camp" or denomination that believes exactly the way you do?
 

Z Man

New member
Originally posted by 1Way

Right Z Man, I’m quite sure that the problem as stated from Rolf is with me, not his over the top presentations. Thus you agreed with a huge multi post refutation slash correction, except for one concept, and now I’m a bad thinker/communicator. And we “apparently” have no lasting problems about that single concept, so for you to suggest my inability to respectfully dialogue these issues, is a stretch of anyone’s imagination. Or were you insincere when you conceded virtually every point I made save the one that was apparently only a slight disagreement?

Playing history revisionism will get you no where quite efficiently. So Rolf is mistaken, give him a break, were all human. The grace should be more than sufficient.
:darwinsm:

This is exactly what Rolf, Freak and I just agreed on about you. I made one, simple comment, agreeing with Rolf's post by simply stating "Exactly". And somehow, you come back with a whole paragraph trying to belittle me and declare that I and Rolf are both wrong and insincere, and that:

Rolf is mistaken....The grace should be more than sufficient.

:darwinsm:
 

Z Man

New member
Originally posted by godrulz

Love would want all men to be saved from sin and enjoy God forever.
But what about perfect Justice?

:think:
Love is the highest good of God and man (in that order). Selfishness is seeking one's good at the expense of love/best of another.
It maybe that way in our terms, but would God be selfish if He deceided to "harden" a person's heart to declare and show His glory to many more people, so that they may be saved through the hardness of one person's heart?
It would be unloving and unjust to create man for the purpose of displaying wrath or watching their torment for sport.
If God's glory was never displayed through His wrath on others, how would we ever come to know Him?

Or, put it this way: If Christ never took the wrath of God upon Himself, and displayed His great glory, how would we ever come to know Him?

And another thing, who ever said that God creates men to torment them for sport? That's sick... No one that I know has ever believed in something like that.
The problems God faced in the atonement are not personal. He wants to freely forgive, but cannot wisely do so to uphold the moral law of the universe. He does not need to be appeased like the pagan gods demanding sacrifices. He is loving and does not need His inner disposition changed. The problems are governmental. He is the Moral Governor of the universe and cannot wisely or justly forgive without dealing with sin, penalities, continued rebellion, etc. Hence, the conditions of repentance, faith, continuance in addition to His grace and atonement.
Ok, in that paragraph, you stated:

[God] does not need to be appeased like the pagan gods demanding sacrifices.

But then you turn right around and say:

[God] is the Moral Governor of the universe and cannot wisely or justly forgive without dealing with sin, penalities, continued rebellion, etc. Hence, the conditions of repentance, faith, continuance in addition to His grace and atonement.

I interpret that to mean that you are saying God cannot simply just "forgive" people of their sins without somehow dealing with their sins first. And that's true, but our sins were taken care of on the cross!

You said that in order for a person to be forgiven, they must meet the required conditions of repentance, faith, and endurance in His grace. It sounds to me that those conditions are a way to appease God, like those who try to appease pagan gods through sacrifices; as if we do those good things, then and only then will God save us! As if salvation depends upon man!!! God help us if it ever did depend upon us!!! :shocked:

God already took care of our sins on the cross. We don't have to do anything for God to save us; it's already been done! What could we do anyways to acquire God's mercies? Nothing!

Those who believe and confess that Christ is Lord are those whom Christ died for and saved.
 
Last edited:

Z Man

New member
1Way,

To be quite honest with you, that paragraph directed to me I did not understand one bit. It made absolutely no sense at all. And I could care less what intent you had for it. With that paragraph, you proved exactly what Rolf was talking about in his previous post about you.
 

jobeth

Member
Originally posted by 1Way
You are a trip,

Evil does not exist
Evil does exist (in the form of necessary evil)
Correct.
Evil, defined as being unnecessary pain or harm that causes nothing good, does not ever actually occur.
Evil, defined as being necessary for the purpose of facilitating some good, does actually occur.

Why is this distinction so hard for you to understand?

I wouldn't be offended if you disagreed with me, but I am offended that you have not yet grasped the idea that I am making a distinction between necessary and unnecessary evil.

So is this evil good or evil? Make up your mind and stop speaking out of both sides of your mouth.
Why can't you understand what I am saying?

Animals called "Unicorns" do not actually exist.
Animals called "Horses" do actually exist.
Do those two declarative sentences concerning animals contradict one another? Do you see that I am making a distinction among 2 different kinds of "animals"?

In the same way:

Unnecessay evil is evil.
Necessary evil is good.
Do those two declarative sentences concerning evil contradict one another?
Do you see that I am making a distinction among 2 different kinds of "evil".


God never, ever, ever, ever causes unnecessary evil to occur.
God does cause necessary evil to occur for the purpose of bringing about good.

Unnecessary evil never, ever, ever actually occurs.
Necessary evil is the only kind of "evil" that ever actually occurs.

Secondly, God refutes your view that God was implicated in any unjust evil because of Christ’s sacrifice.
It is not my view that God was unjust. It pleased Jehovah to bruise Him, (Is 53:10) but God was not unjust in causing Christ to suffer. It was for the joy that was foreordained prior to the cross that he endured the cross. (Heb 12:2)
So God’s involvement in Jesus willingly sacrificing His life for ours, was purely a righteous, just and agape. God is not implicated in murder, He says the opposite, that He lovingly sacrificed Himself for us, and, after it happened, He said that was a completely righteous and just thing that God did.
Well of course God's actions were just. He always is just in all His ways. And who would claim otherwise? Some may claim that God is not just. But certainly not me.
Here is what I think you fail to understand. God never holds someone else responsible for someone else’s actions. Just as you and I do all the time, if someone did something especially good or bad, we attribute that to them, not someone else!
Are you saying that Christ dreamed this whole Atonement thing up all by Himself and God had nothing to do with planning or causing the event of the crucifixion?

Didn't Christ himself say "I come to do thy will, O God" and "the Son of Man must suffer, and be rejected, and be killed, and after three days rise again" and that the reason these things must necessarily happen is in order that "the scripture be fulfilled"???
We do not deny that God is the sole creator of this created world, all of it, your statement is too broad and unclear. God even created in such a way that evil is possible from free will moral agents. But His is not implicated in any evil because it is always the person who does the evil that is guilty, not someone else.
Yes, that may be true IF unnecessary evil actually occurs, which I doubt. Even then, the fact remains that they couldn't have done any evil had God prevented them. So why does God get a pass from you, when He could easily have prevented them from doing any evil towards you, and didn't?
We do not deny that God foreknows the future, that is also inaccurate. God does a great deal of foreknowing the future, He just does not do it according to the Greek classical pagan understanding, and like your understanding.
How do you know? Maybe I am right and you are wrong. Ever think about that?
You disqualify yourself as a reasonable knowledgable person when you do so much violence to your understandings.
Really? And what do you do when you can't even comprehend a simple thing like the distinction between necessary and unnecesary evil.
No, we do not deny the unlimited atonement, and your reasonless reason for asking such a question is as reasonless as it plainly is.

I responded to you about how to contact me, no need to pretend like I did not, you have my response, so if you want to talk to me, I’m still waiting.
I changed my mind. I don't want to talk to you while you're in a bad mood.
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Originally posted by jobeth


Is there some "camp" or denomination that believes exactly the way you do?

No, and that is probably true of all of us, which is OK.

The reason God hid things at times was because of their hard hearts and sin. It was not because He wanted to condemn some to hell. It was a judicial hardening or withholding of further light, lest their condemnation would be greater.
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
"The Atonement" by Albert Barnes (Bethany House) would clear up misconceptions that are distorting this concept.
 

jobeth

Member
Originally posted by godrulz

No, and that is probably true of all of us, which is OK.

The reason God hid things at times was because of their hard hearts and sin. It was not because He wanted to condemn some to hell. It was a judicial hardening or withholding of further light, lest their condemnation would be greater.
That's nice. But is that so??
Please explain this:

Hosea 4:6 (KJV)
My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children.

How can God reject people for lacking knowledge if they never had it? And how can people reject knowledge if they never had it?

It seems to me that God considers it a way of punishment, not mercy, when He withholds knowledge.
 

jobeth

Member
Zman:
And another thing, who ever said that God creates men to torment them for sport? That's sick... No one that I know has ever believed in something like that.
Well, maybe that's a sick way to think, but Moses must've thought that way.

Deut. 28:63 (KJV)
And it shall come to pass, that as the Lord rejoiced over you to do you good, and to multiply you; so the Lord will rejoice over you to destroy you, and to bring you to nought; and ye shall be plucked from off the land whither thou goest to possess it.

Why did Moses tell the people that God would "take delight" (ESV) in bringing them to ruin?

Does anyone have a redacting pen on them? One of those black sharpies will do. Pass it over to Zman quick.

Better mark this one out too:
Psalm 2:4 (KJV)
He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision.
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Originally posted by jobeth

That's nice. But is that so??
Please explain this:

Hosea 4:6 (KJV)
My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children.

How can God reject people for lacking knowledge if they never had it? And how can people reject knowledge if they never had it?

It seems to me that God considers it a way of punishment, not mercy, when He withholds knowledge.

The Word of the Lord was available, but they chose to reject God and His Word. There are many calls for Israel to return to God and His Word. When they came in repentance and obedience, God would lift the exile/judgment and restore them in relationship. It is not God unjustly condemning, but the people being far from God. Read the books and verses in context to know what is going on (vs proof text that does not support your preconceived theology).
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Originally posted by jobeth

Zman:

Well, maybe that's a sick way to think, but Moses must've thought that way.

Deut. 28:63 (KJV)
And it shall come to pass, that as the Lord rejoiced over you to do you good, and to multiply you; so the Lord will rejoice over you to destroy you, and to bring you to nought; and ye shall be plucked from off the land whither thou goest to possess it.

Why did Moses tell the people that God would "take delight" (ESV) in bringing them to ruin?

Does anyone have a redacting pen on them? One of those black sharpies will do. Pass it over to Zman quick.

Better mark this one out too:
Psalm 2:4 (KJV)
He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision.

A theme of Deuteronomy is that God's people will be blessed for their obedience, or cursed for their disobedience. The issue is the heart of the people, not the arbitrary will of God not based on virtue or vice.

Ps. 2:4 God rebukes the rebellious and scoffs at their stupid rejection of Him; He brings righteous judgment based on truth, holiness, and the moral law of God. He does not just arbitrarily pick some to show wrath and some to show mercy. It is based on their reception or rejection of truth and light. Anything else would be contrary to the attributes and character of God and His moral law revealed in Scripture. He is a responsible Moral Governor, not a fickle god.
 

jobeth

Member
Originally posted by godrulz

The Word of the Lord was available, but they chose to reject God and His Word. There are many calls for Israel to return to God and His Word. When they came in repentance and obedience, God would lift the exile/judgment and restore them in relationship. It is not God unjustly condemning, but the people being far from God. Read the books and verses in context to know what is going on (vs proof text that does not support your preconceived theology).
That may all be so, but you haven't answered my 2 specific questions nor my 1 objection.

Question 1: How can God reject people for lacking knowledge if they never had it?
Question 2: And how can people reject knowledge if they never had it?
Objection 1: It seems to me that God considers it a way of punishment, not mercy, when He withholds knowledge. Am I wrong about that?
 

jobeth

Member
Originally posted by godrulz
He does not just arbitrarily pick some to show wrath and some to show mercy. It is based on their reception or rejection of truth and light. Anything else would be contrary to the attributes and character of God and His moral law revealed in Scripture. He is a responsible Moral Governor, not a fickle god.

Does God give truth and light universally to everyone and then show wrath to people based on their rejection of that truth and light?
Or does God show mercy to some as a judicial hardening or withholding of further light, lest their condemnation would be greater?

I ask because you affirmed both things, and I don't see how that can be so.
Either God gives truth and light to everyone or He doesn't. So which of these is the case?
 

1Way

+OL remote satellite affiliate
Jobeth – You said
Correct.
Evil, defined as being unnecessary pain or harm that causes nothing good, does not ever actually occur.
Evil, defined as being necessary for the purpose of facilitating some good, does actually occur.

Why is this distinction so hard for you to understand?
I define evil and sin as that which goes against God and His ways and His will. Your definition says nothing about moral wrongs, like immorality and wickedness and deceit. Pain and harm are amoral concepts; you are presenting a purely amoral definition for what you consider to be the two main varieties of evil! Or did you leave out the third moral evil for some reason? Consider:

Doing harm or pain is not a moral issue.
When you kill weeds that are chocking up your garden produce, you are causing harm, when you spank your children for being bad, you are causing them pain, but for a good cause. Also, the reverse is true. The shedding of innocent blood causes harm and pain and is absolutely condemned by God that it should not happen. So your definition is an amoral one, and one that is rather foolish for forgetting about the most significant way that God uses the word "evil", which is somewhere on the order of 95% of the time or more, namely, He uses it to condemn evil and promote goodness, to oppose all wickedness and support and bless righteousness. God is intensely concerned about right and wrong, but in your definition of what evil, somehow you forgot all about right and wrong.

Also, to the extent that you intended on your definition being complete and comprehensive, you have another problem, you contradict scripture in yet another way. You suggest that evil can somehow produce something good, but God says that idea is strictly condemnable, never mix good and evil. This should be obvious since God’s entire word demonstrates the same message only consistently, that good never produces evil and evil never produces good. Consider.


Joh 5:29 "and come forth——those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation.

8 And why not say, "Let us do evil that good may come"? ——as we are slanderously reported and as some affirm that we say. Their condemnation is just.

Am 5:14 Seek good and not evil, That you may live; So the LORD God of hosts will be with you, As you have spoken. 15 Hate evil, love good; Establish justice in the gate. It may be that the LORD God of hosts Will be gracious ...

Isa 5:20 Woe to those who call evil and good evil; Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! 21 Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes, And prudent in their own sight!

Pr 14:19 The evil will bow before the good, And the wicked at the gates of the righteous.

1Pe 3:12 For the eyes of the LORD [are] on the righteous, And His ears [are open] to their prayers; But the face of the LORD [is] against those who do evil."

1Jo 3:12 not as Cain [who] was of the wicked one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his works were evil and his brother’s righteous.
Woe to you Jobeth, for exchanging good and evil and slanderously teaching that it is godly to say that good comes from evil, you condemnation is just. Woe to you for respecting and making evil the means of good, instead of hating evil, there can be no justice if you confuse good and evil. Your ideas are unjust, and unrighteous, they are ungodly, they are against scripture, but they conform precisely to Paganism and Greek mythology.

As just demonstrated from this very small sampling of literally thousands of other teachings that support the exact same message, I get my understanding from God’s word.

So,,, where do you get your definition for what evil is?

About Christ's work at the cross, I said
Here is what I think you fail to understand. God never holds someone else responsible for someone else’s actions. Just as you and I do all the time, if someone did something especially good or bad, we attribute that to them, not someone else!
and then you said
Are you saying that Christ dreamed this whole Atonement thing up all by Himself and God had nothing to do with planning or causing the event of the crucifixion?

Didn't Christ himself say "I come to do thy will, O God" and "the Son of Man must suffer, and be rejected, and be killed, and after three days rise again" and that the reason these things must necessarily happen is in order that "the scripture be fulfilled"???
Your not listening to what I am saying. God planned to sacrifice, not just bruise Jesus a long time before it ever happened, but that makes God, including Jesus, responsible for the most loving and righteous act ever. God "responded" against sin and evil, by His work of redemption at the cross, and it is ALWAYS good to righteously respond against evil, so God did not evil in planning the loving sacrifice of His Son. The people who hated God and His righteousness, they were the one's who killed Jesus, they were the ones who were guilty of shedding innocent blood. And God is not culpable in their ability to do evil either just because He created a world with free will moral agents, because it would be unloving and unjust for God to force everyone and everything to love or to hate Him, to do good or to do evil. To be that controlling is sick in the highest degree, it's like a guy making a puppet and saying, your my wife and you will always do everything that I ask you to do. Also, such egotistical desire to control others is found in all the most wicked criminals, like the murderers and kidnapers, and rapists, they all have an unhealthy desire to control other people's lives, even to end their life if they want them to stop living. God is nothing like that, He is healthy and wise and loving, love and respect and trust is a two way street, we love God because He first loved us, God rejects those who reject Him, it's always a two way street.

So it's not that God had nothing to do with volunteering to die for us, God did not make Jesus do it, He did it voluntarily. You said
So why does God get a pass from you, when He could easily have prevented them from doing any evil towards you, and didn't?
It's not from me, God establishes absolute right and wrong, and that He is right and good because He does right and does no evil. It is good to promote loving righteous relationships, and it is good and right and just to oppose evil and unrighteous people.

If you love someone, maybe you are even considering to marry them, but you are not sure if their love for you is true love, when the time is right, if you let them go the way that they will, and they stay, you have won their love, but if they leave, you know the truth of the matter, that their love for someone or something else was stronger than their love for you. True agape is not selfish, true love desires the best for the other person, but will not and can not force the other person to love and respect you. It is foolishness to think that you can force someone's love, let alone respect and caring and trust, these are all two way streets. It's risky business, hoping for love, or trust, or respect, because often we are rejected, and that hurts, but it would be selfish and unjust to force others to do everything we want them to do.

If the evil and unrighteous want to rebel and reject God, ok, that will make the righteous and the godly that much more appreciated, then so be it, God is a healthy righteous and just God, He never forces anyone to love and respect Himself.

I'm not in a bad mood, your more than welcome to call. (Oh and if my mood is completely controlled by God, then how dare you not approve? It's not a bad mood, it's a good mood, you should always say, nothing bad happens, only good things.) I had responded quickly to your request to talk to me, I sent you a message and told you when you could get ahold of me so that you could get ahold of me at your earliest convenience. If you don't want to talk to me after the fact, then don't blame me.
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Originally posted by jobeth

That may all be so, but you haven't answered my 2 specific questions nor my 1 objection.

Question 1: How can God reject people for lacking knowledge if they never had it?
Question 2: And how can people reject knowledge if they never had it?
Objection 1: It seems to me that God considers it a way of punishment, not mercy, when He withholds knowledge. Am I wrong about that?

Does not compute. God is just and fair and judges according to the light/opportunity they have. Gen. 18:25 "Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?"

Logically, one cannot reject knowledge they never had. Your thought does not compute. Your interpretation, not the verse, is in error?

God can withhold light if people reject the light they have. John's Gospel teaches to believe and you will see, rather than our thinking 'see and I will believe'. Lack of further knowledge and light is also a punishment for grieving/quenching the work of the Spirit (it is secondary that God does not give more light to a hard heart that would result in greater condemnation..this seems to be an act of mercy and justice).

Try looking at your verses in another translation and peruse some non-Calvinistic commentaries. Your concerns seem to be based on a misunderstanding of the verses in context.
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Originally posted by jobeth

Does God give truth and light universally to everyone and then show wrath to people based on their rejection of that truth and light?
Or does God show mercy to some as a judicial hardening or withholding of further light, lest their condemnation would be greater?

I ask because you affirmed both things, and I don't see how that can be so.
Either God gives truth and light to everyone or He doesn't. So which of these is the case?

If you seek Him, you will find Him. Draw near to Him, and He will draw near to you (both Bible concepts). If you ignore general and specific revelation (creation; Word) you will be without excuse (Romans 1; Ps. 19).

The sun melts wax, but hardens clay. The Son gives truth to all men, but softens some and hardens others depending on the heart disposition (brokenness, repentance, humility vs pride, selfishness, rebellion).

God strives with all men, but men have varying degrees of openess or responsiveness to His persuasion. He does not predestine this since He is just and loving. It is clear what happens with those who respond to or reject the Gospel (Jn. 1-3). Those who did not receive as much knowledge (remote tribe) are still condemned, but will be judged according to the light they had (Rom. 1-3).

If you are Calvinistic, and I support free will, we will view things differently. This is probably the root difference in our assumptions on this topic.
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Originally posted by Z Man

But what about perfect Justice?

:think:

It maybe that way in our terms, but would God be selfish if He deceided to "harden" a person's heart to declare and show His glory to many more people, so that they may be saved through the hardness of one person's heart?

If God's glory was never displayed through His wrath on others, how would we ever come to know Him?

Or, put it this way: If Christ never took the wrath of God upon Himself, and displayed His great glory, how would we ever come to know Him?

And another thing, who ever said that God creates men to torment them for sport? That's sick... No one that I know has ever believed in something like that.

Ok, in that paragraph, you stated:

[God] does not need to be appeased like the pagan gods demanding sacrifices.

But then you turn right around and say:

[God] is the Moral Governor of the universe and cannot wisely or justly forgive without dealing with sin, penalities, continued rebellion, etc. Hence, the conditions of repentance, faith, continuance in addition to His grace and atonement.

I interpret that to mean that you are saying God cannot simply just "forgive" people of their sins without somehow dealing with their sins first. And that's true, but our sins were taken care of on the cross!

You said that in order for a person to be forgiven, they must meet the required conditions of repentance, faith, and endurance in His grace. It sounds to me that those conditions are a way to appease God, like those who try to appease pagan gods through sacrifices; as if we do those good things, then and only then will God save us! As if salvation depends upon man!!! God help us if it ever did depend upon us!!! :shocked:

God already took care of our sins on the cross. We don't have to do anything for God to save us; it's already been done! What could we do anyways to acquire God's mercies? Nothing!

Those who believe and confess that Christ is Lord are those whom Christ died for and saved.

I made some points and you responded. I did not think there was a need to respond to your responses ad infinitum. We disagree on the nature of the atonement and what conditions of salvation refer to. God could forgive people's sins unconditionally, but it would not be for the highest good. Confidence in His rule, justice, holiness, love would be undermined. The fact that there was an atonement shows that their were problems faced by a holy, loving God to reconcile sinful man to Himself. The conditions of salvation are not an appeasment (your misunderstanding) nor a work; they are wise requirements that uphold the moral law of God making it wise for God to freely forgive. They result in transformation and a salvation from sin, not in sin or despite of our sin.

There is much emphasis on holiness, love, trust, obedience for our sanctification. Salvation is not all of God. Relationship involves two parties.
 
Last edited:
Top