Did Christ die for all men?

[Sonnet]

As Paul states in Romans 10, the problem with the jews was not their zeal for God, but their lack of understanding, lack of knowledge of the righteousness of God. They created their own righteousness. Christ is the end/goal of the law of righteousness. Christ's life served as a model for us to live by - to give our lives fully to God's will, to become servants, to help those in need, and - if need be - to lose our lives. Indeed - one must lose their life to save it.

In Christ we find the knowledge of the righteousness of God, in him we find the fulfillment of the Law (love) - and we are called to follow his example. By doing so we are equipped to fulfill the Law. And this is a requirement on our part - for while we find forgiveness in Christ, eternal life is a reward for good deeds. Our salvation is dependent upon what we do/don't do. Hence Christ teaches that only those who do the will of the Lord will be saved.

Because it (such good deeds) proves that their faith is real?

 

[csuguy]

Because it (such good deeds) proves that their faith is real?

Actions do demonstrate one's faith, but it is more than that.

James 2:14-17 What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can [n]that faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, [o]be warmed and be filled,” and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that? 17 Even so faith, if it has no works, is [p]dead, being by itself.​

James teaches that faith without works is dead. Similarly, in the parable at the end of Matthew 7, Christ points out that it is not enough to hear his words- they must be acted upon to save you. For what use is it if he tells you to build on the rock and then you turn around and build on sand? Even if you believe he is correct - if you do not act on that belief it does you no good.

And this is what so many miss about the importance of beliefs: the belief in of itself does you no good. Beliefs are important because they guide your actions - but if you do not act on them, then you are no better off than if you didn't believe. Ultimately, God does not judge you on whether you held doctrines X, Y, and Z. What you are judged on is your actions: how did you live your life? How did you treat the least of these? Hence in parables like the sheep and the goats in Matthew 25 - there is no mention of doctrine.

Romans 2:6-11 [God] will render to each person according to his deeds: 7 to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life; 8 but to those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, wrath and indignation. 9 There will be tribulation and distress [e]for every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek, 10 but glory and honor and peace to everyone who does good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. 11 For there is no partiality with God.​

 

[Sonnet]

Actions do demonstrate one's faith, but it is more than that.

James 2:14-17 What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can [n]that faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, [o]be warmed and be filled,” and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that? 17 Even so faith, if it has no works, is [p]dead, being by itself.​

James teaches that faith without works is dead. Similarly, in the parable at the end of Matthew 7, Christ points out that it is not enough to hear his words- they must be acted upon to save you. For what use is it if he tells you to build on the rock and then you turn around and build on sand? Even if you believe he is correct - if you do not act on that belief it does you no good.

And this is what so many miss about the importance of beliefs: the belief in of itself does you no good. Beliefs are important because they guide your actions - but if you do not act on them, then you are no better off than if you didn't believe. Ultimately, God does not judge you on whether you held doctrines X, Y, and Z. What you are judged on is your actions: how did you live your life? How did you treat the least of these? Hence in parables like the sheep and the goats in Matthew 25 - there is no mention of doctrine.

Romans 2:6-11 [God] will render to each person according to his deeds: 7 to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life; 8 but to those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, wrath and indignation. 9 There will be tribulation and distress [e]for every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek, 10 but glory and honor and peace to everyone who does good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. 11 For there is no partiality with God.​

I think we are on the same page, so to speak.

 

[Sonnet]

So did Piper misspeak or not? Is he tripping over a theology that is in error? If he isn't, why not? For what could be more important than giving the gospel as scripture defined it?

Galatians 1:9b
If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse!

1 Corinthians 15:1-5
Now, brothers and sisters, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,

That which Paul received he passed on. He is reminding them of what he said when he first preached to them.

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures

 

[Sonnet]

I say that Piper is tripping over his own mistaken theology. He misleads his audience. It's disingenuous.

 

[Sonnet]

Paul (in 1 Cor 15) cements the fact that Christ died for all men's sins in verse 11.
Whether, then, it is I or they, this is what we preach, and this is what you believed.

Paul (if his theology equated to Calvinism) could have carefully precluded the possibility that anyone might misunderstand his meaning by explicitly saying that the words 'Christ died for our sins' should never be preached to unbelievers. Instead he just declares that 'this is what we preach'. The pronoun 'this' refers to vv.3b-5.

 

[Tambora]

Romans 5 KJV​

(18) Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.​

(19) For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.​

One (Christ).
Not two (you plus Christ).

If you are relying on any of your own obedience and righteousness, you are relying on the wrong one.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

If you really want the truth, you ought to be reading His word which you keep disregarding over and over.

Sort of like you do when you believe in Matthew through John and reject the rest of the Bible.

 

[Lon]

There are questions in the OP and most of my posts challenge the Calvinist's position on the Gospel. I don't see that anyone has specifically addressed them.

I'll have a look at your links if I get a chance.

I don't see that you have addressed what I consider to be an incontrovertible lottery. God picking out who will be saved is at odds with the notion that He does not want anyone to perish.

If it is "incontrovertible" then what? For instance, if a Calvinist is wrong, does that keep you from Christianity? What is the outcome if it is incontrovertible?

I said my answer would be the difference between God's decretive and prescriptive will. Some do no believe but that God has a decretive will, including some Calvinists. God declares somethings to be, but also has determined what to do in the event of sin which is how He chose/chooses to act regarding sin. When Jesus Christ was planned from the creation of the world, such displays His prescription/remedy. God's decrees (decretive) happen without fail. I 'think' a cosmic lottery is most often surmised regarding God's decretive will, rather than recognizing it is His prescriptive will and response.

 

[Sonnet]

If it is "incontrovertible" then what? For instance, if a Calvinist is wrong, does that keep you from Christianity? What is the outcome if it is incontrovertible?

I said my answer would be the difference between God's decretive and prescriptive will. Some do no believe but that God has a decretive will, including some Calvinists. God declares somethings to be, but also has determined what to do in the event of sin which is how He chose/chooses to act regarding sin. When Jesus Christ was planned from the creation of the world, such displays His prescription/remedy. God's decrees (decretive) happen without fail. I 'think' a cosmic lottery is most often surmised regarding God's decretive will, rather than recognizing it is His prescriptive will and response.

Okay - I shouldn't have used the word incontrovertible - since it seems as if I am talking objectively. Sorry.

Here's why it seems to be a lottery, to me. The Canons of Dort (from which TULIP was formulated) says:

God’s Eternal Decree
The fact that some receive from God the gift of faith within time, and that others do not, stems from his eternal decree. For “all his works are known to God from eternity” (Acts 15:18; Eph. 1:11). In accordance with this decree God graciously softens the hearts, however hard, of the elect and inclines them to believe, but by a just judgement God leaves in their wickedness and hardness of heart those who have not been chosen. And in this especially is disclosed to us God’s act—unfathomable, and as merciful as it is just—of distinguishing between people equally lost. This is the well-known decree of election and reprobation revealed in God’s Word. The wicked, impure, and unstable distort this decree to their own ruin, but it provides holy and godly souls with comfort beyond words.

Election
Election is God’s unchangeable purpose by which he did the following:
Before the foundation of the world, by sheer grace, according to the free good pleasure of his will, God chose in Christ to salvation a definite number of particular people out of the entire human race, which had fallen by its own fault from its original innocence into sin and ruin. Those chosen were neither better nor more deserving than the others, but lay with them in the common misery. God did this in Christ, whom he also appointed from eternity to be the mediator, the head of all those chosen, and the foundation of their salvation.
And so God decreed to give to Christ those chosen for salvation, and to call and draw them effectively into Christ’s fellowship through the Word and Spirit. In other words, God decreed to grant them true faith in Christ, to justify them, to sanctify them, and finally, after powerfully preserving them in the fellowship of the Son, to glorify them.
God did all this in order to demonstrate his mercy, to the praise of the riches of God’s glorious grace.
As Scripture says, “God chose us in Christ, before the foundation of the world, so that we should be holy and blameless before him with love; he predestined us whom he adopted as his children through Jesus Christ, in himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, by which he freely made us pleasing to himself in his beloved” (Eph. 1:4-6). And elsewhere, “Those whom he predestined, he also called; and those whom he called, he also justified; and those whom he justified, he also glorified” (Rom. 8:30).

Election Not Based on Foreseen Faith
This same election took place, not on the basis of foreseen faith, of the obedience of faith, of holiness, or of any other good quality and disposition, as though it were based on a prerequisite cause or condition in the person to be chosen, but rather for the purpose of faith, of the obedience of faith, of holiness, and so on. Accordingly, election is the source of every saving good. Faith, holiness, and the other saving gifts, and at last eternal life itself, flow forth from election as its fruits and effects. As the apostle says, “He chose us” (not because we were, but) “so that we should be holy and blameless before him in love” (Eph. 1:4).

So, following from these assertions, Christ's atonement is limited to the elect.

The Saving Effectiveness of Christ’s Death
For it was the entirely free plan and very gracious will and intention of God the Father that the enlivening and saving effectiveness of his Son’s costly death should work itself out in all the elect, in order that God might grant justifying faith to them only and thereby lead them without fail to salvation. In other words, it was God’s will that Christ through the blood of the cross (by which he confirmed the new covenant) should effectively redeem from every people, tribe, nation, and language all those and only those who were chosen from eternity to salvation and given to him by the Father; that Christ should grant them faith (which, like the Holy Spirit’s other saving gifts, he acquired for them by his death). It was also God’s will that Christ should cleanse them by his blood from all their sins, both original and actual, whether committed before or after their coming to faith; that he should faithfully preserve them to the very end; and that he should finally present them to himself, a glorious people, without spot or wrinkle.

Piper new full well that some of those that would watch his video would be those whom (in his view) were not of the elect. Yet, he still tells them 'Christ died for your sins'.

He deceived them. He hasn't revealed to them the actual tenets of what he believes scripture teaches. For me, this is the crux of why Calvinism trips up - it comes against the very essence of the gospel itself.

 

[Sonnet]

......

 

[Lon]

Okay - I shouldn't have used the word incontrovertible - since it seems as if I am talking objectively. Sorry.

I didn't mean to convey a need for apology, just that it seemed unassailable and so I was perplexed how to traverse such a wall. Thanks.

Spoiler

Here's why it seems to be a lottery, to me. The Canons of Dort (from which TULIP was formulated) says:

God’s Eternal Decree
The fact that some receive from God the gift of faith within time, and that others do not, stems from his eternal decree. For “all his works are known to God from eternity” (Acts 15:18; Eph. 1:11). In accordance with this decree God graciously softens the hearts, however hard, of the elect and inclines them to believe, but by a just judgement God leaves in their wickedness and hardness of heart those who have not been chosen. And in this especially is disclosed to us God’s act—unfathomable, and as merciful as it is just—of distinguishing between people equally lost. This is the well-known decree of election and reprobation revealed in God’s Word. The wicked, impure, and unstable distort this decree to their own ruin, but it provides holy and godly souls with comfort beyond words.

Election
Election is God’s unchangeable purpose by which he did the following:
Before the foundation of the world, by sheer grace, according to the free good pleasure of his will, God chose in Christ to salvation a definite number of particular people out of the entire human race, which had fallen by its own fault from its original innocence into sin and ruin. Those chosen were neither better nor more deserving than the others, but lay with them in the common misery. God did this in Christ, whom he also appointed from eternity to be the mediator, the head of all those chosen, and the foundation of their salvation.
And so God decreed to give to Christ those chosen for salvation, and to call and draw them effectively into Christ’s fellowship through the Word and Spirit. In other words, God decreed to grant them true faith in Christ, to justify them, to sanctify them, and finally, after powerfully preserving them in the fellowship of the Son, to glorify them.
God did all this in order to demonstrate his mercy, to the praise of the riches of God’s glorious grace.
As Scripture says, “God chose us in Christ, before the foundation of the world, so that we should be holy and blameless before him with love; he predestined us whom he adopted as his children through Jesus Christ, in himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, by which he freely made us pleasing to himself in his beloved” (Eph. 1:4-6). And elsewhere, “Those whom he predestined, he also called; and those whom he called, he also justified; and those whom he justified, he also glorified” (Rom. 8:30).

Election Not Based on Foreseen Faith
This same election took place, not on the basis of foreseen faith, of the obedience of faith, of holiness, or of any other good quality and disposition, as though it were based on a prerequisite cause or condition in the person to be chosen, but rather for the purpose of faith, of the obedience of faith, of holiness, and so on. Accordingly, election is the source of every saving good. Faith, holiness, and the other saving gifts, and at last eternal life itself, flow forth from election as its fruits and effects. As the apostle says, “He chose us” (not because we were, but) “so that we should be holy and blameless before him in love” (Eph. 1:4).

So, following from these assertions, Christ's atonement is limited to the elect.

The Saving Effectiveness of Christ’s Death
For it was the entirely free plan and very gracious will and intention of God the Father that the enlivening and saving effectiveness of his Son’s costly death should work itself out in all the elect, in order that God might grant justifying faith to them only and thereby lead them without fail to salvation. In other words, it was God’s will that Christ through the blood of the cross (by which he confirmed the new covenant) should effectively redeem from every people, tribe, nation, and language all those and only those who were chosen from eternity to salvation and given to him by the Father; that Christ should grant them faith (which, like the Holy Spirit’s other saving gifts, he acquired for them by his death). It was also God’s will that Christ should cleanse them by his blood from all their sins, both original and actual, whether committed before or after their coming to faith; that he should faithfully preserve them to the very end; and that he should finally present them to himself, a glorious people, without spot or wrinkle.

Piper new full well that some of those that would watch his video would be those whom (in his view) were not of the elect. Yet, he still tells them 'Christ died for your sins'.

He deceived them. He hasn't revealed to them the actual tenets of what he believes scripture teaches. For me, this is the crux of why Calvinism trips up - it comes against the very essence of the gospel itself.

First, I've wrestled similarly, so you aren't alone, nor is it just the two of us. Here is something puzzling me a little though: Why did this make you agnostic? I'd think I'd simply stop being a Calvinist at that point, and go toward Amyraldian, Arminian, or other. Why has it done worse for you?

As far as Dort, I've read a bit on this and other Reformed councils. If my disagreements have me no longer within Calvinist walls, I'm not too overtly concerned. There is a difference between a particular systematic theology and faith and trust in Christ in God. In the realm of Christianity, we hold tentatively to certain systematics as they make the most sense to us, but the most of us adhere to the essential doctrines that cannot be debated without losing the distinction of Christianity and our position in Christ. So for me, I see this as an issue, though 'about' salvation, not really an issue 'of' salvation. So, I often try to answer most salvation questions with scriptures alone, such as "all who call upon the name of the Lord will be saved." Remember the parable of the men in the vineyard with some who worked less than others? Some complained and the master asked what that was to them. In John, some of the Disciples asked about the one that Jesus Loved and they were told the same "What is that to you?" I 'think' this one too, might fall into that category. Salvation really is only between us and God. I pray for my family, loved ones, and other friends, but really, the business of their salvation has not a lot to do with me, other than praying for them in love and trying to water and plant, in love. Did Piper lie or make a mistake? I don't know. It may look like that, but Love covers mistakes and a multitude of sins. I'd hope you'd not 'fall' because of a sin of mine, but 'grace me' because of a sin of mine as I ever endeavor to make it right AND refrain from doing it again. Heaven help me if I make a mistake and am never forgiven or graced for it again I pray my words grace you and replant seeds of faith and hope in the Lord Jesus Christ. -Lon

 

[Sonnet]

I didn't mean to convey a need for apology, just that it seemed unassailable and so I was perplexed how to traverse such a wall. Thanks.

First, I've wrestled similarly, so you aren't alone, nor is it just the two of us. Here is something puzzling me a little though: Why did this make you agnostic? I'd think I'd simply stop being a Calvinist at that point, and go toward Amyraldian, Arminian, or other. Why has it done worse for you?

The possibility that Calvinism is the truth together with various other seeming anomalies in scripture came against my previous faith.

As far as Dort, I've read a bit on this and other Reformed councils. If my disagreements have me no longer within Calvinist walls, I'm not too overtly concerned. There is a difference between a particular systematic theology and faith and trust in Christ in God. In the realm of Christianity, we hold tentatively to certain systematics as they make the most sense to us, but the most of us adhere to the essential doctrines that cannot be debated without losing the distinction of Christianity and our position in Christ. So for me, I see this as an issue, though 'about' salvation, not really an issue 'of' salvation. So, I often try to answer most salvation questions with scriptures alone, such as "all who call upon the name of the Lord will be saved." Remember the parable of the men in the vineyard with some who worked less than others? Some complained and the master asked what that was to them. In John, some of the Disciples asked about the one that Jesus Loved and they were told the same "What is that to you?" I 'think' this one too, might fall into that category. Salvation really is only between us and God. I pray for my family, loved ones, and other friends, but really, the business of their salvation has not a lot to do with me, other than praying for them in love and trying to water and plant, in love. Did Piper lie or make a mistake? I don't know. It may look like that, but Love covers mistakes and a multitude of sins. I'd hope you'd not 'fall' because of a sin of mine, but 'grace me' because of a sin of mine as I ever endeavor to make it right AND refrain from doing it again. Heaven help me if I make a mistake and am never forgiven or graced for it again I pray my words grace you and replant seeds of faith and hope in the Lord Jesus Christ. -Lon

Thanks. I guess, for me, I can see no possible explanation why the God Calvinism describes would be worth spending an eternity in heaven with.

Arminianism has the problem of explaining how God remains sovereign and in control if men are able to turn to God in faith. Arminians cannot do so (explain it), but I'd rather have this problem than the Calvinist's.

 

[Lon]

The possibility that Calvinism is the truth together with various other seeming anomalies in scripture came against my previous faith.

Again, just realize these are ways of trying to understand and assemble scriptures coherently. I don't think one has to chuck his faith, simply because they don't like one particular human's take on an aspect.

Thanks. I guess, for me, I can see no possible explanation why the God Calvinism describes would be worth spending an eternity in heaven with.

One of the things I came to was 1) God loves even my wife and kids, more than I do. 2) God is more concerned about their eternity, I think, by virtue of being God. 3) My morality comes from God, so I think He necessarily has to be better than me. After that, Sonnet, for me, it was a matter of trying to find what seemed to make the most sense in light of those assumptions. In the end, I'm not the writer of truth, just the distributer and it unchanged. I'm not even going to do much but add my commentary on this website rather than your Bible side-margins. Here is the first reason I'm a Calvinist (I think): I realized the three things above and realized God is more committed to another's salvation in being unwilling that any should perish. It necessarily (logically) meant for me, that God does, in fact, care very deeply that the unbeliever doesn't come to Him. He really isn't willing that any should perish. I was greatly encouraged that God went so far as to strike Saul blind to save Him. God's business is saving people.

Arminianism has the problem of explaining how God remains sovereign and in control if men are able to turn to God in faith. Arminians cannot do so (explain it), but I'd rather have this problem than the Calvinist's.

That's why I didn't understand your crisis of faith. For me, I'd just say "well this group got it wrong (probably)." I believe God exists, regardless if Calvinists or Arminians or Open Theists have it wrong.

 

[Sonnet]

Again, just realize these are ways of trying to understand and assemble scriptures coherently. I don't think one has to chuck his faith, simply because they don't like one particular human's take on an aspect.

Polygamy, Calvinism, 1 Tim 2:11-15 remain problematic.

Darwinian evolution remains a serious challenge to scripture.

One of the things I came to was 1) God loves even my wife and kids, more than I do. 2) God is more concerned about their eternity, I think, by virtue of being God. 3) My morality comes from God, so I think He necessarily has to be better than me. After that, Sonnet, for me, it was a matter of trying to find what seemed to make the most sense in light of those assumptions. In the end, I'm not the writer of truth, just the distributer and it unchanged. I'm not even going to do much but add my commentary on this website rather than your Bible side-margins.

Here is the first reason I'm a Calvinist (I think): I realized the three things above and realized God is more committed to another's salvation in being unwilling that any should perish. It necessarily (logically) meant for me, that God does, in fact, care very deeply that the unbeliever doesn't come to Him. He really isn't willing that any should perish. I was greatly encouraged that God went so far as to strike Saul blind to save Him. God's business is saving people.

You sound more like an Arminian than a Calvinist.

That's why I didn't understand your crisis of faith. For me, I'd just say "well this group got it wrong (probably)." I believe God exists, regardless if Calvinists or Arminians or Open Theists have it wrong.

As I said, it's more than just such theologies.

 

[Sonnet]

I didn't mean to convey a need for apology, just that it seemed unassailable and so I was perplexed how to traverse such a wall. Thanks.

First, I've wrestled similarly, so you aren't alone, nor is it just the two of us. Here is something puzzling me a little though: Why did this make you agnostic? I'd think I'd simply stop being a Calvinist at that point, and go toward Amyraldian, Arminian, or other. Why has it done worse for you?

As far as Dort, I've read a bit on this and other Reformed councils. If my disagreements have me no longer within Calvinist walls, I'm not too overtly concerned. There is a difference between a particular systematic theology and faith and trust in Christ in God. In the realm of Christianity, we hold tentatively to certain systematics as they make the most sense to us, but the most of us adhere to the essential doctrines that cannot be debated without losing the distinction of Christianity and our position in Christ. So for me, I see this as an issue, though 'about' salvation, not really an issue 'of' salvation. So, I often try to answer most salvation questions with scriptures alone, such as "all who call upon the name of the Lord will be saved." Remember the parable of the men in the vineyard with some who worked less than others? Some complained and the master asked what that was to them. In John, some of the Disciples asked about the one that Jesus Loved and they were told the same "What is that to you?" I 'think' this one too, might fall into that category. Salvation really is only between us and God. I pray for my family, loved ones, and other friends, but really, the business of their salvation has not a lot to do with me, other than praying for them in love and trying to water and plant, in love. Did Piper lie or make a mistake? I don't know. It may look like that, but Love covers mistakes and a multitude of sins. I'd hope you'd not 'fall' because of a sin of mine, but 'grace me' because of a sin of mine as I ever endeavor to make it right AND refrain from doing it again. Heaven help me if I make a mistake and am never forgiven or graced for it again I pray my words grace you and replant seeds of faith and hope in the Lord Jesus Christ. -Lon

Do you / would you tell unbelievers - the entire world of unbelievers if it came to it - that Christ died for your (i.e. their) sins?

As a Calvinist, have in mind, as you begin to say the words (above), your emphatic assertion that Christ did not atone for all men.

 

[Lon]

Polygamy, Calvinism, 1 Tim 2:11-15 remain problematic.

We are looking quite a way back in history. I remember a story of a slave owner prior to the civil war, that bought slaves to set them free. So, we could look poorly on his 'buying slaves' but if we didn't understand a greater context, we'd only have been judgmental. I do not understand everything in scripture like polygamy BUT I do know enough not to be hung up any more when I don't know the answer or something at least 'looks' wrong. I also am not a Jew. They had the 'low bar.' It is kind of like the Olympics, men were barely clearing 6 foot at one time. Now that's pretty much just high school. IOW, if they had laws, ours certainly supersede them. Jesus said the man that loves, fulfills the law and said that ALL of the law and prophets were fulfilled by loving one another, and loving God. For me, the loss of faith crisis was averted. I pray the same for you.

Darwinian evolution remains a serious challenge to scripture.

My daughter has been getting A's in science and has no problems. I 'think' we YEC'ers and Fundamentalists, and others, can avert those crises too. Some Christians long ago 'assumed' by deduction a flat earth. For me, I made a separation in my mind between Christian deduction and biblical induction. I've no idea how man's footprints are fossilized in a dinosaurs. It 'looks' like dinosaurs lived during Job's life with leviathan and behemoth. There are just some things that we have to figure out as we go. So, on this too, science wasn't a huge faith-breaker for me. Granted I've had some incredible interactions with God that floor me, but I didn't disbelieve others who had them long before I had experienced them myself. For me, it just didn't seem reasonable to doubt other's genuine encounter stories. Some are a bit beyond the pale, but I'm talking about sincere people who I'd been in close contact with and had no reason to doubt. I did have a crisis of faith, but all God had to do was remind me what He'd done for me. I also couldn't shake a confidence that the account of the Lord Jesus Christ was too logically written and my expectation of how God would deal with our sins and communicate with us given our plight. I don't think anybody can take that away from me.

You sound more like an Arminian than a Calvinist.

I get that a lot. I'm most concerned with what is biblical. We all disagree on things that are not issues of salvation. In the end, it doesn't matter if I think something, God doesn't seek my counsel or seek my input. Since man's fall, His every interaction with us is to save us. It is, I think, His pressing business and that all of history up until Christ was geared toward redemption "that if any man believeth in Him, should not perish, but have everlasting life." Every Calvinist I know of prays for his/her lost family and loved ones with fervor. Some have said that isn't very Calvinistic to me, also. Either we are misunderstood or we are wrong or some combination of both. I do see the problems in Calvinist doctrine. If I'm not a Calvinist because of some of my disagreements, or if I am, I've not been one long enough to know and I'm not sure I'd get thrown out anyway. While I have a few disagreements, even with Calvin, it seems the best definition to start with. I'm not as caught up on labels, but it helps everyone at least know what direction we are coming from. Theology is such a large set of discussions that labels, even if they don't completely define us, at least help one with a starting point on how to figure the other guy out. Then, at least, you can ask them questions from any particular known perspective. "Nondenominational Christian" is a bit TOO broad yet, I think. We have those on TOL, but I'm still trying to figure out what some of them actually believe.

As I said, it's more than just such theologies.

Thanks for answering.

 

[Lon]

Do you / would you tell unbelievers - the entire world of unbelievers if it came to it - that Christ died for your (i.e. their) sins?

As a Calvinist, have in mind, as you begin to say the words (above), your emphatic assertion that Christ did not atone for all men.

Some Calvinists would/could say it and mean it. I'm not sure how they embrace limited atonement at that point.

I tend to quote scriptures rather than try to summarize or rephrase them. There are a couple of reasons for this. 1) God has only promised that His word will accomplish His goals. 2) If I'm going to speak for Him, I feel a need to not misquote Him and I've a little less confidence (okay a LOT less) when I'm using my own words instead of His. Also, I think scripture has a way of reaching past my particular take on theology.

I think you are correct that I don't sound always like a Calvinist, but quoting scriptures doesn't cast me easily as an Arminian either. The down-side of labels even though they can help peg us, is they also can get in the way, especially with any preconceived notion or hang-up. "I'm a Calvinist, I however disagree with a few Calvinist points and come to some of the other points a bit differently than other Calvinists."

I'd say "For God so loved people (the world), that He gave His only Begotten Son, that whosoever should believe in Him, should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3:16

 

[journey]

First, I am not a Calvinist. I firmly believe that Jesus Christ died on the cross for the sins of the entire world, thus making the free gift of Salvation possible.

Romans 6:23 KJV For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

The gift of God is offered to all men, but many will reject it. The gift is offered by God's Grace - through faith in Jesus Christ: that He died on the Cross for our sins, that He was buried, and that He arose from the dead on the third day. We can do nothing to earn or deserve Salvation, so all of the glory goes to God.

1 John 2:1-2 KJV My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: 2. And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

I have many friends and some family members who are Calvinists. I disagree with them, but I know that they are Saved. So, we are brothers and sisters in Christ with doctrinal differences. I and my Calvinist friends are all purchased possessions of the same Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, regardless of our differences. There is nothing in God's Word that mandates one be a Calvinist or an Arminian to be Saved.

 

[Sonnet]

We are looking quite a way back in history. I remember a story of a slave owner prior to the civil war, that bought slaves to set them free. So, we could look poorly on his 'buying slaves' but if we didn't understand a greater context, we'd only have been judgemental. I do not understand everything in scripture like polygamy BUT I do know enough not to be hung up any more when I don't know the answer or something at least 'looks' wrong. I also am not a Jew. They had the 'low bar.' It is kind of like the Olympics, men were barely clearing 6 foot at one time. Now that's pretty much just high school. IOW, if they had laws, ours certainly supersede them. Jesus said the man that loves, fulfils the law and said that ALL of the law and prophets were fulfilled by loving one another, and loving God. For me, the loss of faith crisis was averted. I pray the same for you.

Thanks.

It is certainly possible that polygamy was permitted as the least worst solution to a problem of an excess of women (due wars killing more men and higher birth rate of women) who were vulnerable and uneducated.

And yet it amounts to adultery...Romans 7:1ff

My daughter has been getting A's in science and has no problems. I 'think' we YEC'ers and Fundamentalists, and others, can avert those crises too. Some Christians long ago 'assumed' by deduction a flat earth. For me, I made a separation in my mind between Christian deduction and biblical induction. I've no idea how man's footprints are fossilized in a dinosaurs. It 'looks' like dinosaurs lived during Job's life with leviathan and behemoth. There are just some things that we have to figure out as we go. So, on this too, science wasn't a huge faith-breaker for me. Granted I've had some incredible interactions with God that floor me, but I didn't disbelieve others who had them long before I had experienced them myself. For me, it just didn't seem reasonable to doubt other's genuine encounter stories. Some are a bit beyond the pale, but I'm talking about sincere people who I'd been in close contact with and had no reason to doubt. I did have a crisis of faith, but all God had to do was remind me what He'd done for me. I also couldn't shake a confidence that the account of the Lord Jesus Christ was too logically written and my expectation of how God would deal with our sins and communicate with us given our plight. I don't think anybody can take that away from me.

The evidence from the rock layers is completely at odds with a world wide Noachian flood. Many Christian geologist...Woodward, Cuviert etc felt they could not uphold the catastrophism that scripture implies.

I do not, however, deny the possibility that the flood took place as described in Genesis 6ff

I get that a lot. I'm most concerned with what is biblical. We all disagree on things that are not issues of salvation. In the end, it doesn't matter if I think something, God doesn't seek my counsel or seek my input. Since man's fall, His every interaction with us is to save us. It is, I think, His pressing business and that all of history up until Christ was geared toward redemption "that if any man believeth in Him, should not perish, but have everlasting life." Every Calvinist I know of prays for his/her lost family and loved ones with fervor. Some have said that isn't very Calvinistic to me, also. Either we are misunderstood or we are wrong or some combination of both. I do see the problems in Calvinist doctrine. If I'm not a Calvinist because of some of my disagreements, or if I am, I've not been one long enough to know and I'm not sure I'd get thrown out anyway. While I have a few disagreements, even with Calvin, it seems the best definition to start with. I'm not as caught up on labels, but it helps everyone at least know what direction we are coming from. Theology is such a large set of discussions that labels, even if they don't completely define us, at least help one with a starting point on how to figure the other guy out. Then, at least, you can ask them questions from any particular known perspective. "Nondenominational Christian" is a bit TOO broad yet, I think. We have those on TOL, but I'm still trying to figure out what some of them actually believe.



Thanks for answering.