jsjohnnt
New member
Why you say "Amen," white man?
ECT This should start a decent discussion: Universal Atonement
- Thread starter TFTn5280
- Start date
Arsenios
Well-known member
This is the third post in which I have written that the Life that is received WAS received by ALL the Old Testament Prophets, and each and every one of them received it APART FROM the Mystery of the Faith of Christ...
Here is Scripture:
John 7:37-9
In the last day, that great day of the Feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying:
"If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink.
He who is believing in Me, as the scripture hath said:
'Out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.'"
(But this spake He of the Spirit,
which they that are believing in Him should receive,
for the Holy Spirit was not yet given;
because Jesus was not yet Glorified.)
You can see that what is given is NOT what WAS given to the Prophets before Christ, yet is the SAME Holy Spirit...
Then:
John 20:22
And when He had said this,
He breathed on them,
and saith unto them,
"Receive ye the Holy Spirit:"
So here we have the Holy Spirit given and received, AFTER the Resurrection which Glorified Christ... Yet remember, this was given by Christ BREATHING ON them with His breath, which is the Sacrament, the Mystery, that you scorn with your understanding... And even WITH this, they STILL were weak until 50 days after His ascension, at Pentecost...
Then we have, following the Baptism of John from God, this extraordinary promise in Acts:
Acts 1:5
For John truly baptized with water;
but ye shall be baptized in the Holy Spirit
not many days hence.
Followed by:
Acts 1:8
But ye shall receive power, after the Holy Spirit has come upon you:
Can you see the difference? The difference between receiving the Holy Spirit by Christ breathing on them and the receiving of Power after the Holy Spirit "has come upon" them? The first is Sacramental by Christ, and later by Him through the hands of His Servants, and GIVES the Holy Spirit... The second is Spiritual, and is given directly by the Holy Spirit, bestowing Power to those who already HAVE been GIVEN the Holy Spirit, but are still weak...
Then we find Peter proclaiming to the Gentiles in Acts 2:38
Then Peter said unto them,
"Be ye repenting,
and be ye baptized,
every one of you,
in the name of Jesus Christ,
for the remission of sins,
and...
Ye shall receive the Gift
of the Holy Spirit. "
So we know what Baptism following repentance under the instruction of an Apostle of Christ does: Sins are remitted, and the Gift of the Holy Spirit is received. "Of God the Gift", remember? Not of works, lest any man boast... THIS is WHERE it is GIVEN... And this Gift of God is GIVEN by the Servants of Christ, the gift of the Holy Spirit, in a way that it was NOT given to the Holy Prophets of the Old Testament...
And it was this Gift that Simon the Sorcerer sought from Peter, for he misunderstood what it was, and he asked that it be given to him:
Acts 8:19
Saying,
"Give me also this Power,
that on whomsoever I lay hands,
he should receive the Holy Spirit."
So that it IS an Apostolically transmitted Gift...
But not on "whomsoever"...
But only on those to whom God directs the Gift be given...
And the Sacrament of Laying on of Hands is involved...
So that the Power of the Holy Spirit is not the Gift of the Holy Spirit...
The OT Prophets ALL had the Power...
None had the Gift...
Because the Gift is what creates the New Creation in Christ...
And we are Baptized INTO Christ...
And GIVEN the Gift of the Holy Spirit...
Arsenios
Last edited:
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Helm is worth a read on this topic (hypothetical universalism):
http://paulhelmsdeep.blogspot.com/2015/04/amyraut-one-more-time.html
AMR
http://paulhelmsdeep.blogspot.com/2015/04/amyraut-one-more-time.html
AMR
Arsenios
Well-known member
Nothing new about that at all...
That is the point exactly...
Christ did not incarnate to tell the Jews to be more obedient to the Levitical Law, but to fulfill it in Himself Who IS its fulfillment...
And their righteousness must exceed that of the Pharisees, and for this reason: They are cleaning the INSIDE of the cup, and the Law only pertains to what is observable on the OUTSIDE of the cup...
Arsenios
Just another funky music white boy!
Arsenios
Well-known member
TFTn5280
New member
Think for a moment the magnitude of the travesty to teach that the Father was about the business of rejecting his Son on the cross ~ that that was the way he chose to show us his love. What if at the moment of my son's greatest sorrow, when he needed me more than ever before, I turned my back on him ~ would you say, Wow, Thomas, what a great and wonderful demonstration of your love? NO, you would say, Dude, you need help; there's something wrong with you. Yet this is what we teach about our Father in heaven. When Jesus needed him most, he was no where to be found. This we call love. Only people with serious psychological baggage and deep emotional scars would believe something so egregious about their God and Father. Yet this is the shape of Western Christianity. Most Christians do. It thrills me deeply every time I meet one who doesn't! So again I say Rejoice!
Last edited:
TFTn5280
New member
TFTn5280
New member
Wrong topic, aMR. I learned Barth by reading Barth. Not by reading Schaeffer tell me about Barth. He couldn't have been more wrong. I suggest if you want to be informed as to universal atonement that you should do the same. All the same, welcome aboard.
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Er, no. It is the same topic, albeit dressed up a wee bit. What our Lord's active and passive obedience actually accomplished was not "effective for all" unless you want to waffle on what "effective" means soteriologically. :AMR:
AMR
Last edited:
why don't you waffle FOR us ! ! !
nothing personal, AMR, but why would i need to read what other folks have read AND WRITTEN ABOUT. maybe i should write a book. btw, i read the link, nothing i haven't thought before, with NOTHING BUT The Bible. links and "great" theologians are helpful, for confusion. Helm ? c'mon
Nang
TOL Subscriber
Helm is more helpful than MADists on theological subjects . . .
MADists are theologically crippled.
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Don't mind if I so. Thank you!
I suppose we could say people end up in eternity where they are due to the difference to how God acts in our lives, or in how we act in ourselves. I mean, would not the second option, "how we act in ourselves," relieve God of the oft-made charge of treating people differently? After all, in that case no one in Hell would then complain about being there.
That said, I think the first option, however, has more Scriptural merit. It means that some folks will actually wind up in Heaven since no lost person, given the state of their sin, would actually obey the Gospel call to repentance since spiritually dead people do not hear anything spiritual (Jer. 17:9; Mark 7:21-23; John 3:19; Rom. 3:10-12; Rom. 5:6; Eph. 2:1; Eph. 2:3; 1 Cor. 2:14; Rom. 6:16-20).
Also, if God is required to treat all the same, why does our Lord not pray for all people the same way in John 17:9? Does not confidently God affirm something very different (Romans 9:15)?
Lastly, if Our Lord atoned for all sins, for what exactly are the sinners in hell suffering?
Rather I think it is clear from Scripture that God owes man nothing save their damnation. What God chooses to give, outside of His retributive justice, is all of grace. In my opinion this means that God treats His chosen ones one way, and those not chosen another--all to our everlasting praise of His glory.
AMR
Last edited:
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
If you plan to write a book, you will first have to learn proper grammar and sentence construction. Unless you are e.e. cummings, that is.
Did you graduate from any schools? Just wondering how you pulled that off by not reading what other folks have read and written about?
Have you read any posts at TOL? There were also written by other folks on matters written about.
I could go on and on, but must resist taking your self-righteous "Just Me and My Bible" notion any more seriously.
AMR
TFTn5280
New member
I didn't learn Calvinism by listening to my Weslyan brethren. Nor are you going to learn Torrance by googling Turretin on Amyraut. IT just ain't gonna happen. Tell you what, you're a good and smart man ~ I've actually admired much about you on here. Why don't you read T.F. Torrance "The Mediation of Christ" and see if it doesn't expand (KABOOM!) the edges of your soteriology? If it doesn't, hey, at least you'll be googlin' a way to rightly critique him.
Last edited:
jsjohnnt
New member
Don't know what to think about Ask Mr. Religion, but, his questioning of your writing "style," is clearly confirmed with this comment (your comment above). My goodness - everything from anti-intellectualism to poor syntax and all that grammatical "stuff" between. Wow.
jsjohnnt
New member
Sometimes brevity is the most important aspect of a well written text. Great answer and I didn't have to stay up all night, tying to figure out what the heck you were talking about.
jsjohnnt
New member
One more thing: it is never about you and "just the Bible."
For starters, that book you call "The Bible" is the result of decades of very involved work as to its translation. Laugh and poke fun of the intellectual all you want --- whatever makes you feel good about yourself. Just know this: you would not have a Bible to read if not for the intellectuals you seem to abhor. Linguistics, etymologies, syntax, grammar, culture, all play important roles in the creation and study of the Bible. Even politics !! Oh yes. In some cases, within the Sacred Text, politics play a role in the translation process. That is why "baptism" is the English "translation" rather than "immersion," and "church" rather than "assembly." But, how would you know since "it is just you and the Bible?"
And what role does personal bias play in your understanding of any number of biblical dogma? No one is wholly objective, no one. To make matters worse, our biases amend themselves over the years, for better or worse, but, they never, ever, simply go away. Again, it is never about "just you and the Bible." When you sit down to study, you are always accompanied with your intellectual bias, your prejudice, your illogic, your lack of education and so on. Don't misunderstand, what I have just listed as your companions in study, are the companions of us all.
Finally, there is the silliness of the notion "that what is critical is what the Bible says." Sounds good, I know. But the truth of the matter is this: It is never as simple as "this is what the Bible says." Rather, the truth of the matter is this: it is always "this is what I believe the Bible says."
Once in a while "Barth" is mentioned, here on TOL. It was Barth who said, "All theologies are but human inventions." More true than you will ever admit, I am sure, but true, nonetheless.
Last edited:
i never said anything about barth. that's why i read the Bible many times before searching "theology". i'm glad, because i see so many confused folks like you here. i certainly agree with theologians i agree with. thanks -
atrol: