ECT Grace is unconditional but not universal

[Nang]

Here's a link to an expose on the Lutheran position, that represents Unlimited Atonement with Limited Election (in contrast to both Calvinism and Arminianism).

http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/10/10-4/BETS_10_4_179-187_Scaer.pdf

This is why I am not a Lutheran.

Within the Reformed circles, the same opinion exists, and we call it "Amyraldianism."

Those of us who staunchly hold to all five points of the Doctrines of Grace, believe this kind of denial of Limited Atonement, affects all the other four teachings, which develops into quite a lengthy discussion of "double predestination" and "absolute Sovereignty."

Please note that the thread speaks to God's saving grace as not being (quantitatively) universal; even though Reformers believe Christ's work of Atonement was (qualitatively) sufficient; being nothing less than the divine offering for sin provided by Jesus Christ.

This atonement totally satisfied the legal purpose and holy justice of God, including the destruction of those souls for whom it was not intended. Romans 9:22-23

Unfortunately, the Lutheran and Amyraldian views tend to neglect factoring in the necessary forensics of the cross, in their attempt to make the scriptural Gospel more palatable, and salve the humanistic lack of truly understanding the purity of God's Law.

 

[Cross Reference]

Hard in terms of 'all have sinned' - not in terms of inability to exercise faith.

"All have sinned" refers to us being of Adam's race they we have inherited his penalty by virtue of being his progeny. It was indelibly imposed upon us by our blood relation to him, blood being the one universal body fluid God designed to either propagate salvation or condemnation upon all mankind in an instant.. i.e, Adam's disobedience unto our death or the Obedence of Jesus Christ unto our life.

Indeed - Judas chose his path and God foreknew. Even so, Jesus poured out his blood for him (Luke 22:20-21).

Judas made himself to be beyond the reach of the effectiveness of the Blood of Jesus. God had already turned him over to reprobation.

 

[Nang]

Missed it, then banned for a week.

BTW, welcome back!

You were missed . . .

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

This is why I am not a Lutheran.

Within the Reformed circles, the same opinion exists, and we call it "Amyraldianism."

Those of us who staunchly hold to all five points of the Doctrines of Grace, believe this kind of denial of Limited Atonement, affects all the other four teachings, which develops into quite a lengthy discussion of "double predestination" and "absolute Sovereignty."

Please note that the thread speaks to God's saving grace as not being (quantitatively) universal; even though Reformers believe Christ's work of Atonement was (qualitatively) sufficient; being nothing less than the divine offering for sin provided by Jesus Christ.

This atonement totally satisfied the legal purpose and holy justice of God, including the destruction of those souls for whom it was not intended. Romans 9:22-23

Unfortunately, the Lutheran and Amyraldian views tend to neglect factoring in the necessary forensics of the cross, in their attempt to make the scriptural Gospel more palatable, and salve the humanistic lack of truly understanding the purity of God's Law.

My intent was to see if it would help Sonnet see there's a "middle ground" that thwarts binary-based false dichotomies, even if it's couched in paradox.

In reality, Atonement and Election cannot be understood apart from being acquainted with Greek noun constructs relative to Hamartiology, etc.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

This is why I am not a Lutheran.

Within the Reformed circles, the same opinion exists, and we call it "Amyraldianism."

Those of us who staunchly hold to all five points of the Doctrines of Grace, believe this kind of denial of Limited Atonement, affects all the other four teachings, which develops into quite a lengthy discussion of "double predestination" and "absolute Sovereignty."

Please note that the thread speaks to God's saving grace as not being (quantitatively) universal; even though Reformers believe Christ's work of Atonement was (qualitatively) sufficient; being nothing less than the divine offering for sin provided by Jesus Christ.

This atonement totally satisfied the legal purpose and holy justice of God, including the destruction of those souls for whom it was not intended. Romans 9:22-23

Unfortunately, the Lutheran and Amyraldian views tend to neglect factoring in the necessary forensics of the cross, in their attempt to make the scriptural Gospel more palatable, and salve the humanistic lack of truly understanding the purity of God's Law.

BTW, I'm very familiar with all facets of the various Atonement models, having made my way out of Arminianism with a pitstop at Amyraldianism on the way to full Supralapsarian Calvinism; all before realizing they all needed to be reconciled to the singular central objective truth.

Understanding poieo helps immensely. Maybe that would be a profitable sidebar.

 

[patrick jane]

Understanding poieo helps immensely. Maybe that would be a profitable sidebar.

By all means, share with us.

 

[Sonnet]

The passage we've been addressing at length.

Where?

 

[Sonnet]

Scriptures that teach Universalism: Zero.

Scriptures that teach God would be just to destroy all men, but shows saving grace to spare many: The entire Bible.

Are you going to respond to these?

http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...ot-universal&p=4714874&viewfull=1#post4714874

http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...ot-universal&p=4716201&viewfull=1#post4716201

http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...ot-universal&p=4716377&viewfull=1#post4716377

http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...ot-universal&p=4716389&viewfull=1#post4716389

http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...ot-universal&p=4716399&viewfull=1#post4716399

http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...ot-universal&p=4716420&viewfull=1#post4716420

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Having forgotten the original aim, Sonnet redoubles efforts - i.e., fanaticism

Having forgotten the original aim, Sonnet redoubles efforts - i.e., fanaticism

Are you going to respond to these?

http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...ot-universal&p=4714874&viewfull=1#post4714874

Since Paul claims that we die both because we sin (Rom. 5:12) and because Adam sinned (Rom 5:18), we must blend these two together: We all sinned when Adam sinned. As the representative of the human race, Adam’s sin is at the same time the sin of every other human being who ever lives.

In Rom. 5:18-19 Paul returns to the idea of Rom. 5:12 and completes it. Because of Adam’s sin, “the many” were “appointed to” or “inaugurated into” a state of sinfulness; and because of Christ’s obedience, the many “were appointed to” a status of righteousness (i.e., they were justified).

Romans 5: 18-19 is a text often cited by adherents of universalism. For does not Paul here assert that just as “all people” were condemned as a result of Adam’s trespass, so “all people” will be made alive in Christ? No. As indicated by the Greek verb used in both places (kathistemi) of Rom. 5:18-19, notes the forensic aspect. We must also take all of Scripture's teachings into account. Paul teaches us here that as “all who are in Adam” die, so “all who are in Christ” will live (cf. 1 Cor. 15: 22). All people are in Adam, and so all people die. But only those who “receive the gift” (Romans 5:17) are in Christ, and so only they will live.

http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...ot-universal&p=4716201&viewfull=1#post4716201

The wooing, drawing of John 12:32 is actually a forceful dragging.
Lazarus was dead, not wounded, hence your notion of physical healing is nonsense.
Feeding upon the Lord is directed to the duty of all to believe, and once so, their continued walk of faith.
Revisit 1 Cor 2:13-14 and disabuse yourself of the notion of it being wisdom for the mature. It is a plain teaching of the moral inability of anyone to seek God's righteousness unless God first acts decisively.

http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...ot-universal&p=4716377&viewfull=1#post4716377

You now seem to go off in some dispensational direction with the Jesus came to the Jews rhetoric. Our Lord's sheep are those given to Him by the Father, and only for those did He come to atone, else Our Lord's High Priestly Prayer in the Garden is an error.
If Judas was not saved, then God did not so choose to save him. He was born in the sin of Adam, and therefore deserved no mercy from God, only justice. God may dispose of His creatures as He sees fit to do and no man can call Him into account. God's hardening of the heart is a withdrawal of His restraint upon a person already locked in moral inability to choose wisely such that said person's moral depravity is made even more manifest for the glory of God.

http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...ot-universal&p=4716389&viewfull=1#post4716389

Asked and answered above.

http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...ot-universal&p=4716399&viewfull=1#post4716399

Here our Lord heaps coals upon the heads of those that refuse to believe even in the presence of the works of Our Lord. It is not at all about validating your error that man possesses the moral ability to choose wisely without first God acting in them.

http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?117756-Grace-is-unconditional-but-not-universal&p=4716420&viewfull=1#post4716420

God sets His preference upon others for nothing but His own good counsel, not by any perceived merit in that person, such as seeing that person believing sometime in the future. Such a view as yours would make God a debtor to man.

You have been answered many times, yet you will just take the answers, wave them off, and press onwards with pointers to yet another verse or pericope that you think supports your position. You really do not understand what you are talking about. If you did, you would know that each and every "yea, but..." you raise in hopes of supporting your view has been answered time and again by those that have come before us.

AMR

 

[Sonnet]

Here our Lord heaps coals upon the heads of those that refuse to believe even in the presence of the works of Our Lord.

Nothing here that actually addresses what I wrote. Jesus enjoins those he describes as not his sheep - indeed, those who seek to kill him - to believe Him through belief in His miracles. For Jesus to do so, if it is the case that they are unable (the sine qua non being regeneration but these weren't chosen) would be an act of disingenuity without parallel.

When are you going to deal with that uncomfortable fact?

There's no mention of 'heaping coals' in John 10 so it's unclear why you do. You speak of 'those that refuse to believe' - to refuse implies the ability to accept else it becomes something quite different - more a predetermined response. Perhaps you used the wrong word?

It is not at all about validating your error that man possesses the moral ability to choose wisely without first God acting in them.

Two straw men in one sentence. Faith is defined as not being a work of righteousness, so it's not about morality, and synergism isn't about man acting without God acting first. That the Holy Spirit draws all men is not only found in John 12:32 but also in Acts 7:51.

 

[Sonnet]

God sets His preference upon others for nothing but His own good counsel, not by any perceived merit in that person, such as seeing that person believing sometime in the future. Such a view as yours would make God a debtor to man.

So God hated Esau because God decided to? - an utter desecration of God's good character and grist for the atheist's mill.

And you consider yourself a preacher of the good news?

Paul is clearly talking about choosing the line through whom Jesus would come - the context being that the attaining of righteousness would not be through physical descent or works.

 

[intojoy]

Meaning chose Jacob and rejected Esau

Not hated in literal sense


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[Sonnet]

You now seem to go off in some dispensational direction with the Jesus came to the Jews rhetoric. Our Lord's sheep are those given to Him by the Father, and only for those did He come to atone, else Our Lord's High Priestly Prayer in the Garden is an error.

Assertion.

If Judas was not saved, then God did not so choose to save him. He was born in the sin of Adam, and therefore deserved no mercy from God, only justice. God may dispose of His creatures as He sees fit to do and no man can call Him into account. God's hardening of the heart is a withdrawal of His restraint upon a person already locked in moral inability to choose wisely such that said person's moral depravity is made even more manifest for the glory of God.

This being part of your Gospel - but it is mere assertion.

 

[Sonnet]

The wooing, drawing of John 12:32 is actually a forceful dragging.

Ok.

Lazarus was dead, not wounded, hence your notion of physical healing is nonsense.

I responded to Nang's claim regarding John 5:21:

One must first be born again and changed by the Holy Spirit, before he can respond to the Gospel message.
This is the work of Triune God: John 3:3-8; 5:21

The context of 5:21 is not spiritual rebirth.

Feeding upon the Lord is directed to the duty of all to believe, and once so, their continued walk of faith.

?

 

[Sonnet]

Revisit 1 Cor 2:13-14 and disabuse yourself of the notion of it being wisdom for the mature. It is a plain teaching of the moral inability of anyone to seek God's righteousness unless God first acts decisively.

Who is Paul spealing to:
We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature

Is Paul talking about believers:
these are the things God has revealed to us by his Spirit

What we have received is not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may understand what God has freely given us.

But we have the mind of Christ.

Does Paul contrast such wisdom with a simpler message for unbelievers:
And so it was with me, brothers and sisters. When I came to you, I did not come with eloquence or human wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God. For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. I came to you in weakness with great fear and trembling. My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power, so that your faith might not rest on human wisdom, but on God’s power.

 

[Cross Reference]

Since Paul claims that we die both because we sin (Rom. 5:12) and because Adam sinned (Rom 5:18), we must blend these two together: We all sinned when Adam sinned. As the representative of the human race, Adam’s sin is at the same time the sin of every other human being who ever lives.

This is where you miss the mark with your understanding insofar as we don't need to blend the to sinful 'deeds' together.

Indeed, we all sinned by Adam's transgression unto separation from God irrespective of man's otherwise righteousness that found/finds favor with God. It could not redeem him because Adam's transgression needed to be canceled out. If you will, man's blood was indelibly dirty because of it. Enter Jesus Christ, Who made the way possible for man, by faith, to have it cleaned.

Having said that, redemption must not be looked upon as being salvation but the enablement for it to happen by faith in the account of the cross; what it accomplished. By it was the promise fulfilled. "I know my redeemer liveth" . .Job, who would one day realize his reconciliation to God..

Depravity, you say? If man rejected God, how is that depravity and not simply, rebellion against something he possessed?

 

[TulipBee]

So God hated Esau because God decided to? - an utter desecration of God's good character and grist for the atheist's mill.

And you consider yourself a preacher of the good news?

Paul is clearly talking about choosing the line through whom Jesus would come - the context being that the attaining of righteousness would not be through physical descent or works.

Ouch ! Thats a stab at God ! You ought not to be poking Him.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Where?

Sigh. Romans 5.

Since you don't want to entertain the reality of what I've shared regarding the distinction between Greek articular and anarthrous nouns, maybe you'd like to tell me/us what the difference is.

What is the difference between articular "all" (pas) and anarthrous "all" (pas)? And what is the significance of "many" being articular?

I've begun to see that it's unlikely you want to learn the truth, rather than just contend for man to be the arbiter of his own salvation.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

This is where you miss the mark with your understanding insofar as we don't need to blend the to sinful 'deeds' together.

Indeed, we all sinned by Adam's transgression unto separation from God irrespective of man's otherwise righteousness that found/finds favor with God. It could not redeem him because Adam's transgression needed to be canceled out. If you will, man's blood was indelibly dirty because of it. Enter Jesus Christ, Who made the way possible for man, by faith, to have it cleaned.

Having said that, redemption must not be looked upon as being salvation but the enablement for it to happen by faith in the account of the cross; what it accomplished. By it was the promise fulfilled. "I know my redeemer liveth" . .Job, who would one day realize his reconciliation to God..

Depravity, you say? If man rejected God, how is that depravity and not simply, rebellion against something he possessed?

Unlike you Job repented, because like you, he erroneously thought he could contend for his case with God.

You might want to ask yourself why Job repented.

Ooops that means you would have to see, God.

Why haven't you?

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Sigh. Romans 5.

Since you don't want to entertain the reality of what I've shared regarding the distinction between Greek articular and anarthrous nouns, maybe you'd like to tell me/us what the difference is.

What is the difference between articular "all" (pas) and anarthrous "all" (pas)? And what is the significance of "many" being articular?

I've begun to see that it's unlikely you want to learn the truth, rather than just contend for man to be the arbiter of his own salvation.

He does seem to be tenaciously clinging there.