Nang
TOL Subscriber
The efficacy of God's Gospel is not contingent upon human belief.
Atonement can be limited to temporal purposes . . Christ's atonement on the cross proved to be eternal through
his resurrection.
How the Gospel Works
- Thread starter Robert Pate
- Start date
The efficacy of God's Gospel is not contingent upon human belief.
Atonement can be limited to temporal purposes . . Christ's atonement on the cross proved to be eternal through
his resurrection.
The kind of good news that says that whatever man believes at any given point is exactly what he is supposed to believe per GOD's sovereign will.
It leaves nothing but a negative helpless feeling that you can do nothing but wait to see if you are one of the lucky lotto numbers that GOD chooses.
Nang
TOL Subscriber
IOW's you must be in control, in order to feel good about your fate?
Oh, so there was nothing Adam could believe for salvation.
Hmmm, bummer for Adam.
Kinda flushes this down the toilet as something that Adam needed to believe to be saved, since he was just a human and his salvation would not be contingent upon his belief ....
| Salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, through the word of God alone, to the glory of God alone. |
That's what we are talking about, Christ's atonement on the cross.
Or is that not included in ....
| Salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, through the word of God alone, to the glory of God alone. |
Believing something does not put anyone in control of what they believe.
And besides, who in their right mind would ever feel good about being told they are fated by GOD for the lake of fire with no hope at all of that fate ever changing????
Nang
TOL Subscriber
Careful . . Not what I said. I said the efficacy of the Gospel is not contingent upon man's belief. However, man's salvation is contingent upon his belief in God's Gospel promises.
Don't go intellectually dishonest here, Tam!
Sorry. Thought you were talking about the blood covering provided to
A&E as a type as being salvific. Were you not?
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
aBrakel:
Objection:
"There is no proof that Adam and Eve were saved by Christ. The very opposite appears to be true in Heb 11:4, where Abel is presented as the first believer, as well as in Matt 23:35 where he is presented as the first righteous man."
Answer:
First, Abel is indeed mentioned in these texts, but not as the first righteous man, neither as the first believer. Thus, Adam is no more excluded there than when Abraham is called the father of the faithful—as if that were to exclude all believers before him. Secondly, in these texts Abel is placed in contrast to the ungodly, since there is reference to the superiority of his sacrifice over Cain's and he was the first martyr. Thirdly, that Adam believed in the promised seed is proven...
(1) by virtue of the established covenant which could not exist without there being a partaker of this covenant. If Adam had not been a partaker of this covenant, it would have been without a partaker until Abel and Seth, who was born 130 years after Adam's creation. When God established a covenant with Abraham, he was himself included. Would God establish the covenant of grace, referring to the seed of the woman which would bruise the head of the serpent, and not include Adam and Eve in this covenant? Would this covenant then not be efficacious for so many years in the absence of partakers of this covenant? Would God have made announcement to Adam and Eve concerning the covenant of grace, and then have excluded them from it?
(2) It is evident from the enmity between man and the serpent, for wherever there is enmity with the devil there is peace with God.
(3) Eve immediately focused upon the promise after she bore Cain, saying, “I have gotten a man from the Lord” (Gen 4:1).
(4) Add to this the godly upbringing and faithful instruction of Adam's children, which was the means whereby Abel received faith.
AMR
Objection:
"There is no proof that Adam and Eve were saved by Christ. The very opposite appears to be true in Heb 11:4, where Abel is presented as the first believer, as well as in Matt 23:35 where he is presented as the first righteous man."
Answer:
First, Abel is indeed mentioned in these texts, but not as the first righteous man, neither as the first believer. Thus, Adam is no more excluded there than when Abraham is called the father of the faithful—as if that were to exclude all believers before him. Secondly, in these texts Abel is placed in contrast to the ungodly, since there is reference to the superiority of his sacrifice over Cain's and he was the first martyr. Thirdly, that Adam believed in the promised seed is proven...
(1) by virtue of the established covenant which could not exist without there being a partaker of this covenant. If Adam had not been a partaker of this covenant, it would have been without a partaker until Abel and Seth, who was born 130 years after Adam's creation. When God established a covenant with Abraham, he was himself included. Would God establish the covenant of grace, referring to the seed of the woman which would bruise the head of the serpent, and not include Adam and Eve in this covenant? Would this covenant then not be efficacious for so many years in the absence of partakers of this covenant? Would God have made announcement to Adam and Eve concerning the covenant of grace, and then have excluded them from it?
(2) It is evident from the enmity between man and the serpent, for wherever there is enmity with the devil there is peace with God.
(3) Eve immediately focused upon the promise after she bore Cain, saying, “I have gotten a man from the Lord” (Gen 4:1).
(4) Add to this the godly upbringing and faithful instruction of Adam's children, which was the means whereby Abel received faith.
AMR
Nang
TOL Subscriber
Those who do not feel a control through believing in Sovereign God, or who feel bad about the revealed determinations of Sovereign God, will simply choose to not believe the word of Sovereign God.
That is how they cope.
There's that free will again, rearing it's ugly head
Lon
Well-known member
First, I agree with you, have heard this said. So, off to my rebuttal 1) "No, at the worst, you could say I am wrong or illogical. You should know that I am a small group. Most believe you, whoever you are, can be born again calling upon God. Me? I believe God wants to draw all men. The fact that all men are not drawn does not mean, to me, that God fails. He will save all He can. So let me ask you (hypothetical unsaved), is there even a desire? If there is a good and loving God, who has gone to great pains to save you, even the sacrifice of His Son, does this motivate you? Is there any value to you, in A being loving you enough to have done such a great thing?" Right now, "your" response determines who you are. Romans 10:20,21 Hebrews 3:15
"None of us can save the whole world, and in fact cannot save ourselves or even one other. Romans 3:23 All of us have sinned. All of us fall short. The only thing you can do, is come to God, on His terms, yourself, by what He has done. There can be no blame, today, if you hear the good news, that He cares. That He did something to ensure salvation of all who desire it. Jeremiah 29:13 Everyone has to take care of themselves, it isn't me or you that saves anybody. We cannot. Only God saves. Your concern for another is commendable, but if you use it as an excuse to dictate terms of something, rather than seeing your specific need in sin, it is a choice against the very thing He died to save you from. Again, what does genuine grace, demand that you or I should do? What motivates you in your life? Grace, love and mercy as well as incredible compassion, motivate me. What would God 'have' to do, that He hasn't already done? You need, I think, to ask yourself what has kept you from Him until now. What exactly is it, that would have anybody spurn grace?"
Love either is accepted or spurned. When proposing, I've been spurned by a girl or two. She was, I suppose, looking for something 'better.' 1 John 1:5 God is light, in Him there is no darkness. 1 John 4:8 God is Love. Not just an idea of love, the very fact of Love, the definition of it. Without God, there is no love. Can we spurn Him so easily? What is left if we spurn such a great love? Mark 8:36 Hebrews 2:3
[/QUOTE]
I have heard it on TOL, however, I never give them the excuse. The above is important toward that conversation. It doesn't matter 'what I think' but rather what God says. Never let someone draw you into a conversation over excuses of not responding to the gospel a certain way. It always is "I don't want to" and neglecting so great a Salvation and Love. "Today, if you (unsaved) hear His voice, do not harden your hearts. What does grace and the definition of Love in the universe, call you to do?"
glorydaz
Well-known member
But they won't find that out if they listen to you, will they? You can only tell them they might be one of the elect....otherwise not even believing the Gospel will save them.
glorydaz
Well-known member
Grace
Cross Reference
New member
That is all so much gobble-dee-goop! Who can understand it?
Cross Reference
New member
No man can forsake his way [overcome as Jesus did] without being born again. The new birth from above is the enablement for understanding and disposition for putting into practice the law of God. If one is of Calvin, he is blinded to that fact, the fact of the necessity of discipleship now restored by Jesus Christ and built upon Redemption as the foundation for learning the ways of God [His reason for His command given to Adam]. Those of Calvin make no distinction between initial salvation and the new birth nor the need to. Consider this, though of a promise to be redeemed given in the OT, Nicodemus was saved before he ever met with Jesus, before he was ever born again.
And if it could be understood that Jesus, the son of man, "held in trust" the whole Godhead until His glorification, do you believe that would be a violation/distortion of the gospel? If no violation then what might be expected of the one who is born again?
And if it could be understood that Jesus, the son of man, "held in trust" the whole Godhead until His glorification, do you believe that would be a violation/distortion of the gospel
musterion
Well-known member
Yep. I've told the story before of how as a baby Christian my foolish first pastor infected me with 5 point Calvinism and all the doubts that go with it by encouraging me to read THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD by A.W. Pink, as if that would take care of questions he was totally not equipped to answer. I doubt there's a worse book you could give to a new Christian who already didn't have the Gospel explained all that clearly to him. It took years of agony before I finally got the wreckage of that blasphemy washed out of my mind for good.
So I can just imagine (actually I don't have to imagine, they're right here on TOL) how unbelievers hear the "Good News" when they also hear there's a better than 50% chance that they're reprobates and that Christ's blood wasn't shed for them (Limited Atonement), so they're on the way to the Lake of Fire no matter what they believe or don't believe:
"So what your saying is, it's good news IF I'm elect...but no one can know if they're elect...so there's better than even odds I could believe everything you're telling me but end up in Hell anyway and there's no way I can be 100% sure which bucket I'm in until after I'm dead, at which point my fate is just as sealed as it always was anyway.
"Because YOU don't know and I don't know if I'm one of God's reprobates, what you want me to believe is Good News is more likely than not a sentence of doom to Hell that I can't do anything about...and you know it.
"That is not good news."
musterion
Well-known member
DAMMIT, LON, are you even listening to what you're saying?
You are dancing all around the point in order to justify asking people to believe something that more likely than not DOES NOT APPLY TO THEM ACCORDING TO TULIP.
Even if they don't know that, YOU know it. That knowledge has to inform you that, with at least a 50/50 chance, you're preaching a lie because, if reprobate, they cannot be saved by the very message you're telling them can save them!
If they DO know about Limited Atonement, they're rightly going to be insulted and look at you like you are a fool, per my last post.
Christ cannot be trusted 100% if there's only a 50% chance He died to save me.
Is that a blasphemous thought? It sure is, and it's entirely the fault of the Calvinism that YOU are defending.
The ONLY way the Gospel of the grace of God is truly Good News for ALL -- which you keep insisting it is -- is if the Gospel is completely decoupled from every last shred of Calvinism, which limits its scope to an imaginary "elect." And not just decoupled in preaching and doctrine but actually decoupled in BELIEF. In other words, by renouncing Calvinism and Reformed de-theology ENTIRELY.
Last edited:
God's Truth
New member
Calvinists and faith aloners misunderstand Paul about grace; see 2 Peter 3:16, 17, and James 2:14,17, 20, 22, and 24.
Grace is that no one has to give animal sacrifices anymore...animal sacrifices that have been given since the recorded better sacrifice of Abel.
No one has to sacrifice an animal anymore; but, we still have to obey God.
Grace is that God does not accept animal sacrifices anymore, but He will always accept a person after His own heart. A person after God's own heart is a person who is set on obeying anything that God says to do.
musterion
Well-known member
Catholic.
Cross Reference
New member
LOL!! I like that! 'You shall know them by their replies'.
God's Truth
New member
Catholics do not obey Jesus. Jesus says do not ___. Catholics do the do not.
We have to obey. I preach obedience to Christ. How do you get that is what Catholics do?
Jesus says call no one 'father'.
God says not to bow to statues.
You are like a Catholic in that you believe the three are distinct and together and separately call themselves one.