ECT Justification through faith in Christ's blood disproves limited atonement

[Sonnet]

Your quotation disproves the premise of this thread. Whom God hath set forth (who God chose, who God elected, etc.), Q. E. D. ,quod erat demonstrandum.

I think you have made a mistake - Christ is the subject:

24 and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25 God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished—
(NIV)

The 'whom' of the KJV is Christ and 'set forth' is equivalent to 'presented'.

 

[Saved.One.by.Grace]

I think you have made a mistake - Christ is the subject:

24 and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25 God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished—
(NIV)

The 'whom' of the KJV is Christ and 'set forth' is equivalent to 'presented'.

Jesus says in John 14:7- "If you really know me, you will know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him." (NIV)

You've made a claim that is false by the same scriptures you used. You can close the thread now.

 

[Sonnet]

Jesus says in John 14:7- "If you really know me, you will know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him." (NIV)

You've made a claim that is false by the same scriptures you used. You can close the thread now.

I have no idea what you are talking about and you didn't refute what I just posted.

 

[Saved.One.by.Grace]

I have no idea what you are talking about and you didn't refute what I just posted.

You claim Romans 3:25a says one thing when it really says the opposite. That is the same type of reasoning false teachers use. Paul's epistles preach a consistent message given to him by Jesus.

 

[Sonnet]

My point about free will there is that you are saying it is unfair not to tell us in scripture what is known by experience and conviction (but that most men reject) - that we are sinners by nature and ALL are "naturally" excluded. ALL are naturally under that judgment and condemnation. ALL have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Thus, while the message of salvation has been given to all, not all will be saved (at least as I read scripture, it seems that way). The only way the exclusion of some is in any sense "unfair" is if they "wanted" to be saved but were prevented from that salvation. In other words, their free will was to know God and God said "No". I don't believe that was the case and since your post seems to be directed at the Calvinist understanding of salvation, I say I don't know any Calvinist who believes that.

I think you are mixing up inability to fulfill the law and every man's ability to have faith. Romans 3 is clear on this.

I can't see how you have dealt with what I actually said: Nonetheless it is disingenuous. The right thing to do would be to make explicit that God excluded some men. It is telling that Paul and the apostles never did so.

Or do you believe that God's "hope" of Romans 8:20 was literally one born of not knowing how His plan would turn out?

For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,
Romans 8:20

I am not understanding you.

It seems God can (and does) do what He wants and doesn't need man's willingness to go along with it (even when His actions concern the creature itself - and his will). So unless you see God's subjection of man as resulting in universal salvation (Calvinism and certain forms of universalism differ mainly in numbers saved), I have to believe you think those poor souls who were ultimately lost were not treated fairly in having this futility thrust upon them. And did Jesus ever make a comment about this?

What has Romans 8:20 got to do with who is saved?

So your response is that because you believe a certain thing, you read the text a certain way? I'm asking what scripture is saying about who disposes. Proverbs 16:9 seems to say that God does the (effectual) disposing.

No mention of predetermination though.

I'm willing to accept that position (speculatory), but you quoted the passage in your OP as primary proof that you said very categorically that tasso is never translated as "ordained" in the NT. Are you willing, at least, to admit that that statement is not quite so solid? You seem to agree in some of the other verses I quote that the word refers to ordination or determination as opposed to "being disposed".

I concede your point - I should have said 'not ordained in the sense of predetermined'.

If your argument is simply trying to establish that common decency demands this, then you are judging God by man's standards.

So you follow Paul's example then? Knowing (in your mind) that Christ never poured out His blood for all you (let's assume you preach to lots of people for argument's sake) will invetibly tell one of those excluded from that blood to believe in that blood.

 

[Sonnet]

You claim Romans 3:25a says one thing when it really says the opposite. That is the same type of reasoning false teachers use. Paul's epistles preach a consistent message given to him by Jesus.

Then please refute the SPECIFICS of this:

I think you have made a mistake - Christ is the subject:

24 and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25 God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished—
(NIV)

The 'whom' of the KJV is Christ and 'set forth' is equivalent to 'presented'.

 

[Sonnet]

Followup - "common decency" and "fairness" imply some standard by which God can be said to meet man's expectations of what gives him (man, that is) a chance to meet God's demands. The problem is that there has never been a man alive (that I know of) that approached God on the basis of some such standard that has ever found approval on that basis. Everyone who approached the Savior in any way connected with fulfilling the law went away disappointed. They hadn't "gotten it" yet - that their own righteousness would never measure up and that God's "fair chances" extended to tolerating a few thousand years of moral failure after moral failure. Israel of old is an example to all of us and there need be no more examples given or explanatory warnings issued. We will either believe or we won't - and no amount of human reasoning, laying out of parameters or understanding what God is doing will change the response of the individual sinner. If he is inclined to charge God with being "unfair", he will do so and find some excuse so to do. That God has been unfathomably merciful and patient only requires a little reading. But if the gospel is hid, it is hid to those that are perishing.

Again, I believe you are confusing works with faith. Romans 10:1-9 is clear that faith is possible and that, yes, righteousness through works isn't. Same with Romans 9:30-32.

 

[Sonnet]

stification by Faith in Christ blood actually proves limited atonement, because Faith is only given[by New Birth] to those who have been Justified

by Christ's Blood/Death apart from Faith and solely by His Blood Rom 5:9

9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.

That verse does not mention what you suggest - that 'Faith is ONLY given to those who have been justified by Christ's blood'.

When Christ rose from the Grave, those for whom He died was then declared Justified before God

Rom 4:25

25 Who was delivered for[because of] our offences, and was raised again for[because of] our justification.

Again, no mention of what you add on: 'those for whom He died'

Now, This proves that their Justification was prior to their Faith. Which came first, Christ's resurrection or a believers Faith ? If a Person whom

Christ died for became a believer i n 1957, and Christ's Death Justified them in 33 ad as His Resurrection proved, then was he not Justified before

God before he believed ? The answer is Yes !

Now we know Christ's death did not Justify all men because the bible speaks of the unjust Matt 5:45

That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the

just and on the unjust.

2 Pet 2:9

The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished:

Rev 22:11

He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is

holy, let him be holy still.

So those Unjust people Christ could not have died for them, that proves limited atonement.

Well what about 1 Pet 3:18

For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by

the Spirit:

All sinners are unjust by nature, elect and non elect, so unjust here means sinful, but even the elect, as unjust sinful, they are still Just before God

based upon the Blood of Christ, whereas the unjust non elect are not !

So the one starting this thread , started it with a false premise which cannot be supported by scripture !

Not sure I need to deal with this since your additions to Romans 6:9 and 4:25 aren't found.

 

[Sonnet]

Paul says Israel didn't receive that which it sought for - but the elect did and the rest were blinded. I'm saying the unfairness of Romans 11 appears to be precisely what you call a lack of common decency. And I put it to you that God reserving to Himself 7,000 that have not bowed the knee to Ba'al goes to God keeping that faithful remnant for Himself. Not that the remnant were keeping themselves for Him. And in Romans 11:5, Paul calls it a remnant according to the election of grace. The same language used to distinguish between those that were blinded and those that were elect.

The election of Grace is a reference to those that exercised faith - in other words, the election is not based on works.

 

[Sonnet]

Since, according to Calvinists at least, faith in Christ's blood is not possible for those Christ did not shed His blood for (the Calvinist asserts that regeneration by God MUST occur first - it being THE sine qua non), then Paul preaching justification through faith in Christ's blood would be lying when he inevitably did so to someone whom Christ did not die for, wouldn't it?

 

[beloved57]

sonnet

Again, no mention of what you add on: 'those for whom He died'

Yes it does, It mentions those whose sins He was delivered for, thats the same thing. Rom 4:25

25 Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.

Now, He was delivered for the offences of everyone He died for ! And so He was raised for the Justification of everyone whose offences He was delivered for !

 

[Saved.One.by.Grace]

Then please refute the SPECIFICS of this:

I think you have made a mistake - Christ is the subject:

24 and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25 God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished—
(NIV)

The 'whom' of the KJV is Christ and 'set forth' is equivalent to 'presented'.

"Being justified fully by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood" (Romans 3:24-25).

Do you notice what extra word "Sonnet" added. It's the word "all". All does not appear in the original Greek and has been added by one of the translators of the version Sonnet quoted, or Sonnet added it to the Bible as false teachers sometimes do. Sonnet's house of cards is built upon a lie.

{Unsubscribe}

 

[Sonnet]

"Being justified fully by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood" (Romans 3:24-25).

Do you notice what extra word "Sonnet" added. It's the word "all". All does not appear in the original Greek and has been added by one of the translators of the version Sonnet quoted, or Sonnet added it to the Bible as false teachers sometimes do. Sonnet's house of cards is built upon a lie.

{Unsubscribe}

Let's stick to what you originally asserted:
Your quotation disproves the premise of this thread. Whom God hath set forth (who God chose, who God elected, etc.), Q. E. D., quod erat demonstrandum.

Since the subject is Christ, then fitting your words in to the KJV (v.24-25):

Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God chose to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

With your 'chose' replacing 'set forth', then I do not see how you are making any point against me.

Regarding the 'all' of v.24, perhaps it is a reference to the 'all' of v.23:
For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God;

 

[Sonnet]

sonnet



Yes it does, It mentions those whose sins He was delivered for, thats the same thing. Rom 4:25

25 Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.

Now, He was delivered for the offences of everyone He died for ! And so He was raised for the Justification of everyone whose offences He was delivered for !

'Who was delivered for our offences' does not say 'for our offences alone' and 'was raised again for our justification' does not say 'for only our justicification'.

Paul preached faith in Jesus' blood to whomever. If Paul believed that that blood was not shed for all and then he is lying isn't he? He'd need to tell those whom he preached to that Christ did not die for all. Paul never did this and there are no scriptures that say that Christ died for less than all.

 

[Sonnet]

It's entirely possible that that is the case. But as men, we aren't given to know the destinies of specific people.

So why not add the proviso that ensures that no one is misled?

If you preach to all and sundry that Christ was presented to be an atonement and that folk should exercise faith in that blood, then you have not made them aware that some men (even some whom you are at that very moment preaching to) have been excluded because no blood was shed for them. Let's not forget that their exclusion (per Calvinism) is unconditional.

How do you think such a message will be received?

 

[beloved57]

'Who was delivered for our offences' does not say 'for our offences alone' and 'was raised again for our justification' does not say 'for only our justicification'.

Paul preached faith in Jesus' blood to whomever. If Paul believed that that blood was not shed for all and then he is lying isn't he? He'd need to tell those whom he preached to that Christ did not die for all. Paul never did this and there are no scriptures that say that Christ died for less than all.

Whoever offences He was delivered for, the same whose Justification He was raised for ! Its just that simple ! Rom 4:25

25 Who was delivered for[because of] our offences, and was raised again for[because of] our justification.

You dont believe the Truth, you are in unbelief !

 

[Sonnet]

Whoever offences He was delivered for, the same whose Justification He was raised for ! Its just that simple ! Rom 4:25

25 Who was delivered for[because of] our offences, and was raised again for[because of] our justification.

You dont believe the Truth, you are in unbelief !

You didn't address what I wrote.

 

[Sonnet]

Whoever offences He was delivered for, the same whose Justification He was raised for ! Its just that simple ! Rom 4:25

25 Who was delivered for[because of] our offences, and was raised again for[because of] our justification.

You dont believe the Truth, you are in unbelief !

If you meant 'whoever offends He was delivered for' then that would be all men (Romans 3:23).

 

[beloved57]

You didn't address what I wrote.

Because you dont believe the Truth, this Truth condemns your false view. Now again, Those whose sins Christ was delivered for or because of, when He rose, He rose because of their Justification Rom 4:25

25 Who was delivered for[because of] our offences, and was raised again for[because of] our justification.


Everyone Christ died for, His Resurrection declared them Justified. Do you believe that ? Yes or No ?

 

[prefersinful]

God don't lie... !! have to trust in it...!!!