Spurgeon taught that God wants everyone to be saved

[Hammster]

I didn't mention Scripture. No different than reformed theology NOT quoting Scripture for their beliefs.

But it's very easy to connect the dots, so to speak. On the cross, Jesus said "it is finished" (tetelestai). He said that while physically alive.

If His physical death was what paid for our sins, He lied, plain and simple. He would have had to die physically BEFORE He could make that claim.

After He said that, John tells us that He dismissed His spirit.

So no scripture. Thanks for admitting that.

 

[nobdysfool]

There are no dots to connect. Sin required physical death as payment. Jesus' physical death satisfied that requirement of the Law. He was innocent, and never sinned. When He said "it is finished", He indicated that the transaction was completed, and He was free to go. He had more to do, including rising from the Dead, for our justification. He died physically but He never died spiritually. He was our Savior, not just another one of us.

 

[FreeGrace2]

So no scripture. Thanks for admitting that.

And thanks for ignoring what I posted after that. So, here it is again:

I didn't mention Scripture. No different than reformed theology NOT quoting Scripture for their beliefs.

But it's very easy to connect the dots, so to speak. On the cross, Jesus said "it is finished" (tetelestai). He said that while physically alive.

If His physical death was what paid for our sins, He lied, plain and simple. He would have had to die physically BEFORE He could make that claim.

After He said that, John tells us that He dismissed His spirit.

Are you able to refute any of what I've said?

If you believe that Jesus' physical death was what paid for the sins of the whole world, HOW could He have said "tetelestai" BEFORE He died physically? Please answer this question.

The Greek word is in the perfect tense, indicative mood. I'm sure you know what that indicates. But to help you, I'll quote Wallace from "Greek Grammar: Beyond the Basics", on page 572-3, "Thus perfect and pluperfect speak of an event accomplished in the past (in the indicative mood, that is) with results existing afterwards - the perfect speaking of results exisitng in the present, the pluperfect speaking of results existring in the past."

So, Wallace refutes your view. End of discussion. Jesus' death couldn't have been physical, or He would have been lying. Plain and simple.

 

[FreeGrace2]

There are no dots to connect. Sin required physical death as payment. Jesus' physical death satisfied that requirement of the Law. He was innocent, and never sinned. When He said "it is finished", He indicated that the transaction was completed, and He was free to go. He had more to do, including rising from the Dead, for our justification. He died physically but He never died spiritually. He was our Savior, not just another one of us.

I have already refuted your view (and hammster's) by quoting from Wallace regarding the perfect tense indicative mood of "tetelestai".

To claim that the death of Jesus for sin was physical is to call Him a liar.

 

[nobdysfool]

Jesus' death couldn't have been physical, or He would have been lying. Plain and simple.

And yet, Jesus DID physically die.....So who's lying now?

 

[crimsonleaf]

Neither. I've already explained what He did. And John described it quite clearly in John 19:30.

Two other gospels say he breathed his last. But if you believe that neither the man Jesus nor the God Jesus died when he gave up his spirit or breathed his last then he didn't die. If he didn't die then he wasn't resurrected. Your pedantry seems to have driven you into a heretical corner.

Obviously you totally misunderstand what free will is. It doesn't "work". It has no power to "work".

To illustrate, please tell me how an opportunity "works". Like, what does it do, how much power does it have. That sort of thing.

An opportunity has the power to change lives, providing somebody does something with it. But that's common English usage, something you seem to be telling us you're a stranger to.

If an opportunity has no power then neither does the "offer" of eternal life. But maybe you're right - an offer and an opportunity are sometimes analogous. Still we both know that the power of an offer requires the potential recipient to DO something don't we? Just like an opportunity.

Unfortunately, your inability to understand what a verb is has got you into (currently unaddressed) trouble before.

 

[Hammster]

And thanks for ignoring what I posted after that. So, here it is again:

Are you able to refute any of what I've said?

If you believe that Jesus' physical death was what paid for the sins of the whole world, HOW could He have said "tetelestai" BEFORE He died physically? Please answer this question.

The Greek word is in the perfect tense, indicative mood. I'm sure you know what that indicates. But to help you, I'll quote Wallace from "Greek Grammar: Beyond the Basics", on page 572-3, "Thus perfect and pluperfect speak of an event accomplished in the past (in the indicative mood, that is) with results existing afterwards - the perfect speaking of results exisitng in the present, the pluperfect speaking of results existring in the past."

So, Wallace refutes your view. End of discussion. Jesus' death couldn't have been physical, or He would have been lying. Plain and simple.

I don't believe Jesus' physical death paid for the sins of the whole world. Scripture says His physical death atoned for the sins of His people.

The Father sent the Son to die for the sins of the people. You keep trying to squeeze your strange view of things into scripture. Nobody who read John, particularly the Jews (and John himself) would come up with the crazy notion that you have.

Why didn't He say "it is finished" after He died? That should be obvious.

Now, if you can find supporting scripture that backs your claim, we'll talk.

 

[Skala]

Of course it's very inconsistent to affirm 1 Tim 2:4. Given the reformed doctrine of election, it's VERY inconsistent.


Not the Biblical doctrine of election, but certainly for the reformed rendition.


And the reformed are contradictory to believe that, since their view is that God only chose some for salvation. Since it's all about who got chosen, how can you guys believe that God desires that everyone be saved? It doesn't make any sense.

Doesn't God ALWAYS get what he wills/desires? That's certainly a reformed claim. So you are being totally inconsistent to believe that God wants everyone to be saved. If He did, in your system, we would have universalism.


Sounds exactly as though God is rather conflicted, huh. Well, that doesn't make any sense either.


Which is why I reject both systems. Salvation is NEVER "up to man's free will", but according to God's very clear plan. People have the freedom to go to heaven or to hell. So free will can't be the issue, since it operates in both directions. Try again.


Got it. God is internally conflicted. And who knew?

You didn't even interact with my post/argument in a meaningful way. Just a bunch of assertions that what I said is false.

I say "it's not inconsistent." and you say "YES IT IS!"

The way you argued doesn't accomplish anything for your own position, in fact it undermines it. In your view, God is desperate trying to save everyone, but for some reason, he created people he knew would never be saved.

Why did he create them? Why did he create them knowing full well they will end up in hell, then act surprised when they don't obey the gospel? Isn't he all wise? If he's all wise, couldn't he foresee this dilemma? Couldn't he figure out how to not set himself up for failure? After he created them, why does he try to save them, as if he doesn't know they will never give in to his wishes?

Why did he create them in the first place knowing that if he creates them, they will end up in hell? He could have simply chosen to not create those people he knew if, he created them, would rebel and end up in hell.

Your view has ZERO answers to these questions. they are the big elephant in the room that makes your soteriology ridiculous and full of holes. You ignore them, pretending they aren't there.

You preach "God is trying to save everyone and wants everyone saved!" even though in the back of your mind you know that God created people he knew for certain would end up in hell. Why did he bother creating them, then? So he creates them knowing full well that if he creates them, they will, without fail, end up in hell, then has you preach that He is trying to save them? That's nonsensical. If God can foreknow who would cooperate and who wouldn't, he could have simply created those people he foreknew would cooperate, and have 100 % of humanity in heaven, and zero people in hell. Isn't that his ultimate wish and goal? Why can't he accomplish it?

Good thing the reformed understands that "God is trying to save you" is not mentioned one single time in the Bible. Instead, we have Christ's testimony that he will not fail to save all those the Father gave him.

Such statements by Christ have no place in your theology. It makes me wonder what you do with all those parts of the Bible that speak of election and Christ's saving a particular people. Do you ignore them? Do you pass over them? Do you cover them up with white out?

 

[FreeGrace2]

You didn't even interact with my post/argument in a meaningful way. Just a bunch of assertions that what I said is false.

Because that was true.

I say "it's not inconsistent." and you say "YES IT IS!"

OK. And?

Here's something to think about. I have provided verses that actually SAY what I believe. Calvinism cannot do that concerning limited atonement, your meaning of depravity (man cannot believe), all saints will persevere in the faith, etc. So, your assertions ARE false.

The way you argued doesn't accomplish anything for your own position, in fact it undermines it. In your view, God is desperate trying to save everyone, but for some reason, he created people he knew would never be saved.

Your statement here doesn't represent my view at all. So you have demonstrated your MISunderstanding of my view. How does that help your own position, if you can't even understand the position of the one you want to debate? Impossible! In my view, God is NEVER "desperate" for anything. So your claim is a great BIG false assertion, and you don't understand my view.

Why not review all my posts in all the threads, figure out what I actually believe and say, and then come back with whatever you want to argue about. So far, all you've done is bring up a very weak straw man. You haven't understood my view.

Why did he create them? Why did he create them knowing full well they will end up in hell, then act surprised when they don't obey the gospel? Isn't he all wise? If he's all wise, couldn't he foresee this dilemma? Couldn't he figure out how to not set himself up for failure? After he created them, why does he try to save them, as if he doesn't know they will never give in to his wishes?

OK, 6 very silly questions, but I'l answer them just to show you how silly they are and how they don't come close to representing anything about my view.

#1 Apparently to teach angels some principles. From 1 Pet 1:12
#2 God never acts surprised. That denies His omniscience, clearly NOT even close to my view.
#3 Yes, God is omniscient.
#4 Yes, He knows full well all who will and will not believe.
#5 He didn't "set Himself up for failure". You, otoh, did that by your gross MISunderstanding of my view.
#6 God never "tries" to do anything. That is a false concept, and NOT part of my view. Again, you MISunderstand. God already HAS done everything necessary for humanity to know He exists, He created humanity to seek Him, and He provides the gift of eternal life for everyone. All anyone can do is receive the gift through faith. All that IS Biblical, which you cannot refute.

Why did he create them in the first place knowing that if he creates them, they will end up in hell?

Because He allows mankind to exercise freedom of choice.

He could have simply chosen to not create those people he knew if, he created them, would rebel and end up in hell.

I don't care a bit about any "could've" or "what if's". They are worthless. I just deal with what Scripture SAYS. Or, the "what is's".

Your view has ZERO answers to these questions.

How 'bout that! You are wrong again. I just answered ALL of your questions. Maybe you will understand them, or maybe not. Can't help you there.

they are the big elephant in the room that makes your soteriology ridiculous and full of holes. You ignore them, pretending they aren't there.

Your claim here is patently untrue, as I've just ANSWERED ALL 6 of your questions, including the follow up one.

You preach "God is trying to save everyone and wants everyone saved!" even though in the back of your mind you know that God created people he knew for certain would end up in hell.

As I said, I've NEVER preached that God "tries" anything. Those are your phony words. Not my words. Please don't put your phony words in my mouth. That is being dishonest, and misrepresents my view.

Again, God already HAS DONE everything necessary for man to be saved. All man can do is receive the free gift. That IS BIblical, and you cannot refute that. So you come up with all these strawman and phony claims regarding my view.

[QUTOE] Why did he bother creating them, then?

Go back and review my answers. It HAS been answered.

So he creates them knowing full well that if he creates them, they will, without fail, end up in hell, then has you preach that He is trying to save them? That's nonsensical.

In fact, your MISunderstanding of my view is what is nonsensical. Your entire post is a waste, because you posted that of which you know nothing at all.

[QUTOE] If God can foreknow who would cooperate and who wouldn't, he could have simply created those people he foreknew would cooperate, and have 100 % of humanity in heaven, and zero people in hell.

There you go with your worthless "could've". I deal only with "what is"; never with "what if". You should too.

Isn't that his ultimate wish and goal?

No, it's not. His ultimate goal is His own glory, which is manifested when people are either saved or condemned. Either way, He's glorified.

Why can't he accomplish it?

Who said He isn't? Is that your view? Well, you're very wrong. God's goal is always accomplished.

Your questions only reveal how poorly you MISunderstand my view.

Good thing the reformed understands that "God is trying to save you" is not mentioned one single time in the Bible. Instead, we have Christ's testimony that he will not fail to save all those the Father gave him.

As if that negates my view? And you don't even have a clue as to what my view even is, given all your silly and meaningless questions, that I have answered completely.

Such statements by Christ have no place in your theology.

Since you have no idea what my view even is, your statement here is meaningless.

It makes me wonder what you do with all those parts of the Bible that speak of election and Christ's saving a particular people. Do you ignore them?

No, I fully understand the Biblical doctrine of election. But you don't. Are you aware of the 6 different categories of election, and none of them refer to salvation. Check it out:

#1 Jesus Christ Isa 42:1
#2 ethnic Jews in the OT Amos 3:2
#3 angels 1 Tim 5:21
#4 NT believers Eph 1:4
#5 12 disciples, one of which was Judas, a "devil" Jn 6:70
#6 Paul, chosen to minister the gospel to Gentiles Acts 9:15

Do you pass over them? Do you cover them up with white out?

Did you check out the 6 categories?

 

[stenerson]

Spurgeon gave the best sermon I've heard on election. He attacks both Armenianism and hyperCalvinism. He also says the friction and sectarianism from hard headed men has served a good purpose of bringing deep study into these doctrines.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buxdFfnWiDI

He also had one of my favorite sermons on man's inability.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sokeURb_iGM

He was by no means on the fence concerning this.

He did understand that the Gospel was God's power and means of bringing salvation and missed no chance in any sermon to proclaim the gospel

 

[BBAS 64]

It seems to me if we are going to talk about a person and his view of and the extent of the attonment we should at least use a swermon where the issue is dircetly addressed.

http://www.eternallifeministries.org/tulip-3.pdf

I disagree with his view of the single verse quoted by the Op but do indeed agree with his view that Calvinism is the biblical gospel we are called to proclaim.

"The old truth that Calvin preached, that Augustine preached, that Paul preached, is the truth that I must preach to-day, or else be false to my conscience and my God. I cannot shape the truth; I know of no such thing as paring off the rough edges of a doctrine. John Knox's gospel is my gospel. That which thundered through Scotland must thunder through England again."

—C. H. Spurgeon

In Him,

Bill

 

[stenerson]

Why are you not understanding anything I've said and explained?

The "death" that Peter was referring to was His spiritual death. The godless men put Him on a cross so He could die for sins, which is a spiritual, not a physical, death. But it seems that none of you Calvinists actually understand that He died spiritually on the cross.

So, I guess there's no need for further discussion. Kinda like you can't talk algebra if you don't know arithmetic.

So you're saying that Peter actually meant "godless men spiritually killed Jesus" and that's how they "put Him to death." ??
If you don't understand the importance of Jesus coming in the flesh and physically dying and resurrecting then you really need a primer on the basics of the gospel. Even most Arminians understand these basic tenets of the faith.

 

[stenerson]

No. But His death did nothing for man's salvation. If you disagree, please show me your evidence to the contrary.

Huh? Are you a Christian or a Gnostic?

 

[FreeGrace2]

I said:
Originally Posted by FreeGrace2
No. But His death did nothing for man's salvation. If you disagree, please show me your evidence to the contrary.

Huh? Are you a Christian or a Gnostic?

I'm obviously a Christian. Obviously my post is being misunderstood.

So, I'll be clear. Christ's death is obviously the basis for our salvation. But His death doesn't save us. Is that more clear? God saves us. And the "us" are believers. 1 Cor 1:21.

If Christ's death saves people, then all are saved apart from faith, and universalism is true. But it isn't, because His death doesn't save anyone.

His death paid the sin penalty. That's not salvation. It's the removal of the debt. But people still go to hell. Why? They didn't receive the free gift of eternal life, which is through faith in Christ.

 

[stenerson]

I said:
Originally Posted by FreeGrace2
No. But His death did nothing for man's salvation. If you disagree, please show me your evidence to the contrary.


I'm obviously a Christian. Obviously my post is being misunderstood.

So, I'll be clear. Christ's death is obviously the basis for our salvation. But His death doesn't save us. Is that more clear? God saves us. And the "us" are believers. 1 Cor 1:21.

If Christ's death saves people, then all are saved apart from faith, and universalism is true. But it isn't, because His death doesn't save anyone.

His death paid the sin penalty. That's not salvation. It's the removal of the debt. But people still go to hell. Why? They didn't receive the free gift of eternal life, which is through faith in Christ.

Oh I get it. Christ precious blood has no power or worth in saving apart from man's almighty free will. Wow! His death and blood for the most part, according to that doctrine, a wasted effort.

 

[stenerson]

I said:
Originally Posted by FreeGrace2
No. But His death did nothing for man's salvation. If you disagree, please show me your evidence to the contrary.


I'm obviously a Christian. Obviously my post is being misunderstood.

So, I'll be clear. Christ's death is obviously the basis for our salvation. But His death doesn't save us. Is that more clear? God saves us. And the "us" are believers. 1 Cor 1:21.

If Christ's death saves people, then all are saved apart from faith, and universalism is true. But it isn't, because His death doesn't save anyone.

His death paid the sin penalty. That's not salvation. It's the removal of the debt. But people still go to hell. Why? They didn't receive the free gift of eternal life, which is through faith in Christ.

Oh I get it. Christ precious blood has no power or worth in saving apart from man's almighty free will. Wow! His death and blood for the most part, according to that doctrine, a wasted effort.
The most hideous doctrine in the world

 

[FreeGrace2]

Oh I get it. Christ precious blood has no power or worth in saving apart from man's almighty free will. Wow!

Well, once again you've completely missed the entire point. Christ's blood actually PAID FULLY FOR THE ENTIRE SIN DEBT FOR MANKIND. How is that having "no power or worth"?

However, I also made very clear that God ONLY saves those who believe in Him for eternal life. The very fact that God saves anyone is because Christ died for everyone. His death satisfied the perfect justice of God regarding man's sin, and from this, God's justice is free to grant grace and mercy to those who believe in Christ. This really isn't all that difficult to understand.

His death and blood for the most part, according to that doctrine, a wasted effort.

No. The wasted effort here seems to be in trying to make my view clear. Or maybe there is no real interest in actually understanding my view, but rather, just to demonize what you don't agree with. Or understand. Whatever.

 

[stenerson]

Well, once again you've completely missed the entire point. Christ's blood actually PAID FULLY FOR THE ENTIRE SIN DEBT FOR MANKIND. How is that having "no
No. The wasted effort here seems to be in trying to make my view clear. Or maybe there is no real interest in actually understanding my view, but rather, just to demonize what you don't agree with. Or understand. Whatever.

I don't mean to demonize, I know most that hold that view mean well. They believe they are defending the Triune God by insisting that God the Father has set His love upon all and sent His Son to save all. And that Christ did His best by living a perfect life and being made sin for all. And that the Holy Spirit is trying His very best to convict, convince and woo all.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I don't mean to demonize, I know most that hold that view mean well. They believe they are defending the Triune God by insisting that God the Father has set His love upon all and sent His Son to save all. And that Christ did His best by living a perfect life and being made sin for all. And that the Holy Spirit is trying His very best to convict, convince and woo all.

Yet, no one is able to refute any of this from Scripture. And these points can be, easily. There are verses that actually say what these people claim.

And the only reason for anyone insisting on these points is because the Bible actually says these things.

Where in Scripture does one find the idea that Christ didn't die for everyone?

Where in Scripture does one find the idea that God ultimately chooses who will believe? (logical conclusion of Calvinist election)

These aren't taught anywhere in Scripture. They have been admitted to be "inferred doctrines". Oh, that's convenient.

So, if that is true, please direct me to any passage where these 2 Calvinist points are inferred. I'd really love to see them.

btw, my question was ignored:
Well, once again you've completely missed the entire point. Christ's blood actually PAID FULLY FOR THE ENTIRE SIN DEBT FOR MANKIND. How is that having "no power or worth"?

Please explain your view.

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

I said:
Well, once again you've completely missed the entire point. Christ's blood actually PAID FULLY FOR THE ENTIRE SIN DEBT FOR MANKIND. How is that having "no power or worth"?

So...the entire sin debt for mankind has been paid for, but people who reject Christ still have to pay the price of their sin through Hell, which means that the same sin gets paid for twice. I hope they at least get a lagniappe for that.