The Myth of saying that Jesus Christ died for all men without exception !

[Epoisses]

Jesus died for all men without exception. He then chooses a group of elect saints (Jews and Gentiles) by his perfect divine foreknowledge to believe in and receive this atonement. Scripture presents a tension between God's election according to grace and man's responsibility to believe which it does not try to resolve. Both truths need to be accepted as one harmonious whole.

 

[jsanford108]

Jesus died for all men without exception. He then chooses a group of elect saints (Jews and Gentiles) by his perfect divine foreknowledge to believe in and receive this atonement. Scripture presents a tension between God's election according to grace and man's responsibility to believe which it does not try to resolve. Both truths need to be accepted as one harmonious whole.

So He chooses for all others to go to Hell? And, there is nothing that they could ever do to save them. Even believing in Christ.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[Epoisses]

So He chooses for all others to go to Hell? And, there is nothing that they could ever do to save them. Even believing in Christ.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

Whenever an election according to grace is presented some focus solely of God's choice while others focus on God's foreknowledge. Whenever election is presented in the scriptures it is always predicated by God's foreknowledge. God's choice in not arbitrary it is with a perfect knowledge of the past, present and future. Whenever we make choices they are always based on our past and present experience and a big question mark when it comes to the future. God actually knows the future in minute detail and bible prophecy is God's foreknowledge written down.

 

[rstrats]

Epoisses,
re: "God's choice in not arbitrary it is with a perfect knowledge of the...future.

Does He know before He creates a person if He will eventually be tossing the person into the lake of fire?

 

[jsanford108]

Whenever an election according to grace is presented some focus solely of God's choice while others focus on God's foreknowledge. Whenever election is presented in the scriptures it is always predicated by God's foreknowledge. God's choice in not arbitrary it is with a perfect knowledge of the past, present and future. Whenever we make choices they are always based on our past and present experience and a big question mark when it comes to the future. God actually knows the future in minute detail and bible prophecy is God's foreknowledge written down.

So yes, God damns people to Hell before they are born. That is what you are saying?

And if Scripture is just God's foreknowledge written down, why is there only one book on the future? Seems kind of wasteful. And why not just go ahead and list all those who will be saved and just say "Hell with the rest"?

Your doctrine also eliminates the necessity of the crucifixion and resurrection. If God was already predestining people for heaven or hell, why send Jesus at all? It would be a needless sacrifice since no actions can be taken to receive salvation or avoid damnation.

See all the errors your doctrine presents? It creates a homicidal God, damning people before they can even reason, rendering Easter useless, and removing any and all responsibility for one's actions. Not to mention direct contradictions in Scripture.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[Epoisses]

So yes, God damns people to Hell before they are born. That is what you are saying?

And if Scripture is just God's foreknowledge written down, why is there only one book on the future? Seems kind of wasteful. And why not just go ahead and list all those who will be saved and just say "Hell with the rest"?

Your doctrine also eliminates the necessity of the crucifixion and resurrection. If God was already predestining people for heaven or hell, why send Jesus at all? It would be a needless sacrifice since no actions can be taken to receive salvation or avoid damnation.

See all the errors your doctrine presents? It creates a homicidal God, damning people before they can even reason, rendering Easter useless, and removing any and all responsibility for one's actions. Not to mention direct contradictions in Scripture.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

The typical view of someone who has never read Romans 8-11. Election of all Protestant beliefs does completely away with the works of man. You don't have a say in the matter so all you can do is hold your hand out like the beggar you are. When Adam sinned the whole world was lost so everything we receive now is a welfare program from heaven.

 

[Epoisses]

Epoisses,
re: "God's choice in not arbitrary it is with a perfect knowledge of the...future.

Does He know before He creates a person if He will eventually be tossing the person into the lake of fire?

Of course. When he created Adam he knew that he would sin against him and created him anyway.

 

[jsanford108]

The typical view of someone who has never read Romans 8-11. Election of all Protestant beliefs does completely away with the works of man. You don't have a say in the matter so all you can do is hold your hand out like the beggar you are. When Adam sinned the whole world was lost so everything we receive now is a welfare program from heaven.

Romans 8-11, when in context with the whole letter, does not demonstrate Calvinistic Doctrine. The entirety of the Gospels disagree with Calvin's doctrine.

Election does do away with all works. This is true. But those works also include the works of every person to have existed. Including Adam and Eve. Including Moses. And even Christ, Himself.

Of course you say the "typical view," in reference to my logical challenge to your doctrine. Please illustrate how I am wrong in concluding that Calvinistic doctrine renders God into condemning God, absent of mercy. How Christ is relevant with this doctrine. How life even has a purpose since we are all destined, without choice or chance, to heaven or hell.

I assure you, there is no biblical or logical defense for such doctrine.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[Prynnesess]

The typical view of someone who has never read Romans 8-11. Election of all Protestant beliefs does completely away with the works of man. You don't have a say in the matter so all you can do is hold your hand out like the beggar you are. When Adam sinned the whole world was lost so everything we receive now is a welfare program from heaven.

Tsk. Tsk. Silly Calvinist-GRACE is for SINNERS!


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[Epoisses]

Romans 8-11, when in context with the whole letter, does not demonstrate Calvinistic Doctrine. The entirety of the Gospels disagree with Calvin's doctrine.

Election does do away with all works. This is true. But those works also include the works of every person to have existed. Including Adam and Eve. Including Moses. And even Christ, Himself.

Of course you say the "typical view," in reference to my logical challenge to your doctrine. Please illustrate how I am wrong in concluding that Calvinistic doctrine renders God into condemning God, absent of mercy. How Christ is relevant with this doctrine. How life even has a purpose since we are all destined, without choice or chance, to heaven or hell.

I assure you, there is no biblical or logical defense for such doctrine.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

Election is not a Calvinist doctrine it is a Calvinist perversion. Lutherans also believe in election and their views are far closer to Romans than Calvin. God does choose an elect group of saints (Jews and Gentiles) and it is solely his choice. There is no way to sugar-coat that.

 

[Epoisses]

Tsk. Tsk. Silly Calvinist-GRACE is for SINNERS!


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

I'm not Calvinist I was raised Lutheran. I never appreciated my upbringing until I went out into the world and saw all the messed up religions that are out there. All Christian religions can be grouped into two categories. The true - where God thru Christ does all of the saving. And the false - where Christ does some of the saving and I have to do the rest with some laundry list of do's and don'ts.

 

[jsanford108]

I'm not Calvinist I was raised Lutheran. I never appreciated my upbringing until I went out into the world and saw all the messed up religions that are out there. All Christian religions can be grouped into two categories. The true - where God thru Christ does all of the saving. And the false - where Christ does some of the saving and I have to do the rest with some laundry list of do's and don'ts.

I will address both of your replies, if that is okay.

Predestination is in the Bible. However, I think than all those who hold "predestination doctrines," absent of free-will, are perversions.

My theory: the elect that are referenced are those who hold key positions in Scripture and in the history of the world (from inception to end). Such examples are Moses, Elijah, David, Mary, Joseph, Peter, even Judas, etc. These are cases of extraordinary circumstances, in which they were needed for an eternal and divine plan.

However, doctrines of "election" tend to call those going to heaven "the elect." Claiming that they were chosen by God for Heaven before time. Which doesn't make logical sense. There is no evidence of this. As I stated before. All the charges and factors against such doctrine have not been addressed. You simply say "that's how it is. There's no sugar coating it," rather than provide evidence to support your doctrine.

As for your second response on the two categories of Christian religion: those who have faith/works together have much more biblical evidence than those that negate either faith or works. Yet, it makes sense for a "predestination doctrine" subscriber to have a faith only doctrine, because it is the only one that could work with predestination/election. They see the contradictory nature and how faith/works destroys their idea of election. Thus, they ignore all Scripture that demonstrates the necessity of faith with works.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[Epoisses]

I don't believe in free-will. The one requirement in the bible for Salvation is belief in Christ and even faith is spoken of as the gift of God. So at the end of the day all the glory goes back to God. We are saved by grace thru faith and not of ourselves it is the gift of God. There are two generally accepted views of the gospel being 'faith alone' and 'faith plus works'. Those who uphold the 'faith alone' gospel will produce works of the Spirit or works of love. While those who uphold the 'faith plus works' gospel always produce works of the flesh or works of the law which are never acceptable to God. The Catholic church being the best example of the 'faith plus works' gospel where Christ is robbed of his power to save sinners to the uttermost. Souls that are won to Christ under the corrupted 'faith plus works' gospel often enter a lukewarm state and are only partially if ever fully converted.

 

[jsanford108]

I don't believe in free-will. The one requirement in the bible for Salvation is belief in Christ and even faith is spoken of as the gift of God. So at the end of the day all the glory goes back to God. We are saved by grace thru faith and not of ourselves it is the gift of God. There are two generally accepted views of the gospel being 'faith alone' and 'faith plus works'. Those who uphold the 'faith alone' gospel will produce works of the Spirit or works of love. While those who uphold the 'faith plus works' gospel always produce works of the flesh or works of the law which are never acceptable to God. The Catholic church being the best example of the 'faith plus works' gospel where Christ is robbed of his power to save sinners to the uttermost. Souls that are won to Christ under the corrupted 'faith plus works' gospel often enter a lukewarm state and are only partially if ever fully converted.

Friend, I am going to assume you are highly educated in some capacity. Please permit me to break down your response.

"I don't believe in free-will:" obviously. Ascribing to a doctrine of election demands a disbelief in free-will. Such doctrines however are steeped in hypocrisy and paradoxes. One of the most popular quoted passages, beginning with John 3:16, is about free-will. How can any claim to be "sola Scriptura" and maintain a doctrine of election when they blatantly ignore such a passage?

Furthermore, logically, what is the purpose of Christ if all are destined before time, for heaven or hell? Please provide an answer.

Add on to this, what is the purpose of witnessing? If the person is already destined, there is nothing that witnessing can possible do for them.

"at the end of the day all the glory goes back to God. We are saved by grace thru faith and not of ourselves it is the gift of God:" I agree. The belief in free-will in no way degrades this statement. Rather, it adds to it. Salvation relies solely on the Grace of God. Faith itself is a grace and a blessing.

"The Catholic church being the best example of the 'faith plus works' gospel where Christ is robbed of his power to save sinners to the uttermost:" How can this be? I am jovial that someone realizes that Catholics hold a faith+works doctrine. That is more than most people on TOL (or the world for that matter) realize or grasp. But, how is Christ robbed of His ability to save sinners? It is only through Him any can have hope and salvation. Saying that a person has to work with their faith is not robbing Christ of anything, rather, it is glorifying to Him. Are we not known by our works? In the letter by James we read that faith without works is dead.

I disagree entirely with your point of "Those who uphold the 'faith alone' gospel will produce works of the Spirit or works of love. While those who uphold the 'faith plus works' gospel always produce works of the flesh or works of the law which are never acceptable to God." I find a significant lack of evidence for this, and even more often, the opposite is true.

"Souls that are won to Christ under the corrupted 'faith plus works' gospel often enter a lukewarm state and are only partially if ever fully converted:" Once again, there is no evidence of this. Not in Scripture, nor in our daily lives. As I said before, I find that most those who show no good works and "works of the flesh" tend to be "faith alone" ascribers (which makes sense since they think works are useless and never affect anything on a metaphysical level). Both doctrines have lukewarm Christians. So saying one is the cause really can only be determined from a theological perspective, evident by the actions of those studied or used as examples. Since we are having discussion in this environment of anonymity, we must rely on logic and reason alone, backed up by theological arguments.

In closing, I feel that you are intelligent. I do think that you argue from a bias and doctrinal standpoint, which leads to contradictions in your beliefs. I did it once, as well. (I was once a partial Calvinist. Baptist since birth) I can only ask that you read Scripture simply as it is written. No bias. Derive doctrine from it. Don't try and make it fit within the confines of currently held doctrines/beliefs. That is truly how one grows in the Knowledge of God/Christ.

Peace friend.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[Epoisses]

Friend, I am going to assume you are highly educated in some capacity. Please permit me to break down your response.

"I don't believe in free-will:" obviously. Ascribing to a doctrine of election demands a disbelief in free-will. Such doctrines however are steeped in hypocrisy and paradoxes. One of the most popular quoted passages, beginning with John 3:16, is about free-will. How can any claim to be "sola Scriptura" and maintain a doctrine of election when they blatantly ignore such a passage?

Furthermore, logically, what is the purpose of Christ if all are destined before time, for heaven or hell? Please provide an answer.

Add on to this, what is the purpose of witnessing? If the person is already destined, there is nothing that witnessing can possible do for them.

"at the end of the day all the glory goes back to God. We are saved by grace thru faith and not of ourselves it is the gift of God:" I agree. The belief in free-will in no way degrades this statement. Rather, it adds to it. Salvation relies solely on the Grace of God. Faith itself is a grace and a blessing.

"The Catholic church being the best example of the 'faith plus works' gospel where Christ is robbed of his power to save sinners to the uttermost:" How can this be? I am jovial that someone realizes that Catholics hold a faith+works doctrine. That is more than most people on TOL (or the world for that matter) realize or grasp. But, how is Christ robbed of His ability to save sinners? It is only through Him any can have hope and salvation. Saying that a person has to work with their faith is not robbing Christ of anything, rather, it is glorifying to Him. Are we not known by our works? In the letter by James we read that faith without works is dead.

I disagree entirely with your point of "Those who uphold the 'faith alone' gospel will produce works of the Spirit or works of love. While those who uphold the 'faith plus works' gospel always produce works of the flesh or works of the law which are never acceptable to God." I find a significant lack of evidence for this, and even more often, the opposite is true.

"Souls that are won to Christ under the corrupted 'faith plus works' gospel often enter a lukewarm state and are only partially if ever fully converted:" Once again, there is no evidence of this. Not in Scripture, nor in our daily lives. As I said before, I find that most those who show no good works and "works of the flesh" tend to be "faith alone" ascribers (which makes sense since they think works are useless and never affect anything on a metaphysical level). Both doctrines have lukewarm Christians. So saying one is the cause really can only be determined from a theological perspective, evident by the actions of those studied or used as examples. Since we are having discussion in this environment of anonymity, we must rely on logic and reason alone, backed up by theological arguments.

In closing, I feel that you are intelligent. I do think that you argue from a bias and doctrinal standpoint, which leads to contradictions in your beliefs. I did it once, as well. (I was once a partial Calvinist. Baptist since birth) I can only ask that you read Scripture simply as it is written. No bias. Derive doctrine from it. Don't try and make it fit within the confines of currently held doctrines/beliefs. That is truly how one grows in the Knowledge of God/Christ.

Peace friend.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

You are very subtly adding works to the gospel which means you reject the 'faith alone' gospel. The only works that are accepted by Christ are the works that are produced by Christ via the Holy Spirit in and thru us. If you believe you play a role in your own Salvation in any way you are basically saying you have the power to save yourself which is the lie as old as time. Salvation is all of Christ and nothing of you. You can't do anything except believe and even faith is a gift from God.

 

[jsanford108]

You are very subtly adding works to the gospel which means you reject the 'faith alone' gospel. The only works that are accepted by Christ are the works that are produced by Christ via the Holy Spirit in and thru us. If you believe you play a role in your own Salvation in any way you are basically saying you have the power to save yourself which is the lie as old as time. Salvation is all of Christ and nothing of you. You can't do anything except believe and even faith is a gift from God.

I assure you, my beliefs are not subtle. I do reject "faith alone" doctrines. Because they are in direct contradiction with Scriptures.

In no way does faith/works demonstrate a belief in self-salvation. Rather, the opposite. As indicated in James. (How do you interpret James 2:24, for instance?)

Furthermore, works are a command of Christ. If we truly have faith, we will inevitably have works as means of faith. These are evident of true faith in Christ.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[Epoisses]

I assure you, my beliefs are not subtle. I do reject "faith alone" doctrines. Because they are in direct contradiction with Scriptures.

In no way does faith/works demonstrate a belief in self-salvation. Rather, the opposite. As indicated in James. (How do you interpret James 2:24, for instance?)

Furthermore, works are a command of Christ. If we truly have faith, we will inevitably have works as means of faith. These are evident of true faith in Christ.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

You like most others are totally ignorant of the Protestant doctrine of Justification by faith alone. Justification by faith alone excludes all human works as a means of attaining to or apprehending justification, it does not mean that believers produce no works at all. The believers works are produced by Christ via the Holy Spirit in and thru us. So Paul who spoke of 'faith alone' as the only way to be justified and James who spoke of works of love as the fruit of justification were both correct. Genuine faith in Christ always produces works of the Spirit or works of love. James even spoke of love as the royal law of scripture.

 

[jsanford108]

You like most others are totally ignorant of the Protestant doctrine of Justification by faith alone.

So Paul who spoke of 'faith alone' as the only way to be justified and James who spoke of works of love as the fruit of justification were both correct. Genuine faith in Christ always produces works of the Spirit or works of love. James even spoke of love as the royal law of scripture.

First, I was a Protestant my entire life. So I assure you, once again, I know about the doctrines of Protestants.

Second, you realize you defense, which I quoted, beginning with "Paul who spoke of...." Is a solid defense of faith+works? See the mental gymnastics you go through, filled with contradictions, to justify your doctrines? You argue from your doctrine, attempting to fit Scripture within it, to demonstrate its "biblical founding." I promise, I understand.

I am not trying to be condescending. My impression of you is that your are intelligent. If you just read the Bible, free of doctrinal bias, you would reach the same conclusions I did. (If you want to discuss such things or are curious of my "spiritual journey," please feel free to message me)

I do admire how you have maintained the discussion and topic, without changing it to some other issue, doctrine, or debate. Thank you, brother. (I am assuming brother, my apologies if I am incorrect)


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[Epoisses]

First, I was a Protestant my entire life. So I assure you, once again, I know about the doctrines of Protestants.

Second, you realize you defense, which I quoted, beginning with "Paul who spoke of...." Is a solid defense of faith+works? See the mental gymnastics you go through, filled with contradictions, to justify your doctrines? You argue from your doctrine, attempting to fit Scripture within it, to demonstrate its "biblical founding." I promise, I understand.

I am not trying to be condescending. My impression of you is that your are intelligent. If you just read the Bible, free of doctrinal bias, you would reach the same conclusions I did. (If you want to discuss such things or are curious of my "spiritual journey," please feel free to message me)

I do admire how you have maintained the discussion and topic, without changing it to some other issue, doctrine, or debate. Thank you, brother. (I am assuming brother, my apologies if I am incorrect)


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

Protestants live by faith alone so you may have been a pretending protestant but not a real one. Works are for the Catholics and carnal Christians are you seeing where I am going with this?

 

[jsanford108]

Protestants live by faith alone so you may have been a pretending protestant but not a real one. Works are for the Catholics and carnal Christians are you seeing where I am going with this?

I see what you mean, however works are a part of salvation. To try and say "works are a product of faith," is not promoting faith alone. In such a presentation, faith + works = salvation, by saying works are a product of faith, you alter the equation, faith=salvation + works. Logically, this doesn't make sense. Or, you ignore part of the equation, rendering faith=salvation. But in doing this, you are ignoring biblical evidence that specifically states that faith alone is false (James 2, and the entirety of James for that matter).

So to say that works are for Catholics and carnal Christians is a false application. Since they are adhering to faith+works, which is biblically supported.

As for the personal aspect, I was a Calvinistic Baptist. There was no "pretending." The difference was, in college, I truly read and studied the Bible (since it was the highest authority on earth) as it was, free of doctrinal bias. Deriving doctrine from the Scriptures led me to where I am today. (Reading the Bible made me Catholic). I know this is irrelevant to the topic, but I wanted to have the full disclosure, so that you would know my understanding of both Protestant and Catholic doctrines and interpretations.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL