Jesus Christ died for the elect

[Skala]

Actually, it's NOT "debatable". Because the Bible DOES teach that one is chosen "through belief in the truth". 2 Thess 2:13
But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and (kai=even) belief of the truth.

You're terrible at language.

It says that God chose them to be saved through or via the means of belief in the truth and sacntification of the Spirit.

It doesn't even come close to saying that God chose them because of their belief in the truth.

You're twisting the Bible sooooo much.

 

[FreeGrace2]

It says that God chose them to be saved through or via the means of belief in the truth and sacntification of the Spirit.

It doesn't even come close to saying that God chose them because of their belief in the truth.

OK, I'll try to make it more clear for you. It DOES say that God chooses through the means of belief. This verse does NOT teach that God chooses who will believe. If you believe that, I'd say that "you're twisting the Bible soooooo much.

You're twisting the Bible sooooo much.

Yeah, right.

 

[Hammster]

OK, I'll try to make it more clear for you. It DOES say that God chooses through the means of belief. This verse does NOT teach that God chooses who will believe. If you believe that, I'd say that "you're twisting the Bible soooooo much.


Yeah, right.

Where did Skala offer up that verse as proof that God chooses those who believe?

 

[RisingSpirit]

...Believe what the Bible SAYS. 2 Thess 2:13...

The Calvinist view is that we don't
'come to Christ'.

He comes to us !

"God has chosen you from
the beginning for salvation"
(2 Thessalonians 2:13 NASB)

"You did not choose me, but
I chose you" (John 15:16a
NIV)

This through regeneration ("I will
give them a heart to know Me"
Jeremiah 24:7a NASB, NIV, NKJ).

The only means the Holy Spirit
utilizes being Sacred Scripture.

"Faith comes from hearing,
and hearing by the word of
Christ" (Romans 10:17 NASB)

Our natural will "is the devil's prisoner
and slave" (Bondage of the Will; Ch. 2,
Sec. 9; Luther).

We cannot 'come to Christ' ! He must
come to us.

Billions listen to God's Word ...and die
in unbelief.

"The Reformers taught not
only that regeneration does
precede faith but also that
it must precede faith"
(Willing to Believe; Intro;
Sproul)

Only those whom the Most High has
monergistically, supernaturally, and
without means regenerated can have
genuine faith.

And, that faith a gifted faith !

"You made me trust in You"
(Psalm 22:9 NIV)

"God has allotted to each a
measure of faith" (Romans
12:3 NASB)

"None can believe Christ save those
to whom it has been given" (Institutes;
Bk. 3, Ch. 2, Sec. 33; Calvin).


"The Bible alone teaches all that
is necessary for our salvation"
(Cambridge Declaration; Thesis
One)

Romans 10:17 = Scripture alone.

 

[FreeGrace2]

The Calvinist view is that we don't
'come to Christ'.

He comes to us !

"God has chosen you from
the beginning for salvation"
(2 Thessalonians 2:13 NASB)

My view is the same as the Bible's; we believe in Christ for eternal life. And God's choosing doesn't mean "coming".

"You did not choose me, but
I chose you" (John 15:16a
NIV)

Jesus said the same thing to Judas. John 6:70 That choosing was NOT for salvation. Nor was the choosing in 15:16a

This through regeneration ("I will
give them a heart to know Me"
Jeremiah 24:7a NASB, NIV, NKJ).

This verse doesn't teach regeneration before faith, as you assume. The new heart IS regeneration, to be sure. But "to know" is far different that "to believe". Paul's entire thrust in his epistles was so that his audience of believers would KNOW Christ more fully. They were already saved.

Our natural will "is the devil's prisoner
and slave" (Bondage of the Will; Ch. 2,
Sec. 9; Luther).

How interesting! You quote from Luther, after saying this:

The only means the Holy Spirit
utilizes being Sacred Scripture.

It would appear as though you have elevated Luther's writings to the same level as Sacred Scripture. Why?

We cannot 'come to Christ' ! He must
come to us.

Maybe you need to pay better attention to what our Lord actually SAID:
Matt 11:28-30

28“Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest. 29“Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. 30“For My yoke is easy and My burden is light.”

"The Reformers taught not
only that regeneration does
precede faith but also that
it must precede faith"
(Willing to Believe; Intro;
Sproul)

Oh, so now you've gone and elevated Sproul to the same level as Sacred Scriptures, huh. In fact, the reformers got a lot of things wrong. Nothing you've bolded here is taught in Scripture. Zero. Nada

"None can believe Christ save those
to whom it has been given" (Institutes;
Bk. 3, Ch. 2, Sec. 33; Calvin).

Ah, yes, the master hisself. Way to go! You've elevated 3 fallen creatures to the same level as Sacred Scripture.

I would suggest you quit reading what fallen man has written, and read Sacred Scriptures, which was writen by men inspired by the Holy Spirit. Neither Luther, Sproul nor Calvin were inspired in their writings. They are only commentaries, and not very good ones.

Romans 10:17 = Scripture alone.

Then why did you waste your time quoting from Luther, Sproul, and Calvin, then?

 

[RisingSpirit]

...Then why did you waste your time quoting from Luther, Sproul, and Calvin, then?

"We only use the term 'Calvinism' for shortness. That doctrine which is called 'Calvinism' did not spring from Calvin; we believe that it sprang from the great founder of all truth. Perhaps Calvin himself derived it mainly from the writings of Augustine. Augustine obtained his views, without doubt, through of the Spirit of God, from the diligent study of the writings of Paul, and Paul received them of the Holy Ghost, from Jesus Christ, the great founder of the Christian dispensation. We use the term then, not because we impute any extraordinary importance to Calvin's having taught these doctrines. We would be just as willing to call them by any other name, if we could find one which would be better understood, and which on the whole world would be as consistent with fact."
~ Charles Haddon Spurgeon

 

[RisingSpirit]

"We care very little about the name Calvinism. We are not ashamed of it; but we are not bound to it. Some opponents seem to harbor the ridiculous notion that this set of doctrines was the new invention of the Frenchman John Calvin. They would represent us as in this thing followers of him instead of followers of the Bible. This is a stupid historical error. John Calvin no more invented these doctrines than he invented this world which God had created six thousand years before. We believe that he was a very gifted, learned, and, in the main, godly man, who still had his faults. He found substantially this system of doctrines just where we find them, in the faithful study of the Bible, Where we see them taught by all the prophets, apostles, and the Messiah himself, from Genesis to Revelation."
—The Five Points of Calvinism, Robert L. Dabney

 

[RisingSpirit]

“Salvation is of the Lord.” [Jonah 2:9.] That is just an epitome of Calvinism; it is the sum and substance of it. If anyone should ask me what I mean by a Calvinist, I should reply, “He is one who says, Salvation is of the Lord.” I cannot find in Scripture any other doctrine than this. It is the essence of the Bible. “He only is my rock and my salvation.” Tell me anything contrary to this truth, and it will be a heresy; tell me a heresy, and I shall find its essence here, that it has departed from this great, this fundamental, this rock truth, “God is my rock and my salvation.” ~ Charles Haddon Spurgeon

 

[FreeGrace2]

"We only use the term 'Calvinism' for shortness. That doctrine which is called 'Calvinism' did not spring from Calvin; we believe that it sprang from the great founder of all truth. Perhaps Calvin himself derived it mainly from the writings of Augustine. Augustine obtained his views, without doubt, through of the Spirit of God, from the diligent study of the writings of Paul, and Paul received them of the Holy Ghost, from Jesus Christ, the great founder of the Christian dispensation. We use the term then, not because we impute any extraordinary importance to Calvin's having taught these doctrines. We would be just as willing to call them by any other name, if we could find one which would be better understood, and which on the whole world would be as consistent with fact."
~ Charles Haddon Spurgeon

Yer just trying to justify all that quotin' that's going on.

What I believe comes straight from the Bible. I have verses that actually SAY what I believe. Where are yours, regarding Christ dying ONLY for the elect?

Or that God chooses who will believe, which is foundational to your doctrine of election?

 

[FreeGrace2]

“Salvation is of the Lord.” [Jonah 2:9.] That is just an epitome of Calvinism; it is the sum and substance of it. If anyone should ask me what I mean by a Calvinist, I should reply, “He is one who says, Salvation is of the Lord.” I cannot find in Scripture any other doctrine than this. It is the essence of the Bible. “He only is my rock and my salvation.” Tell me anything contrary to this truth, and it will be a heresy; tell me a heresy, and I shall find its essence here, that it has departed from this great, this fundamental, this rock truth, “God is my rock and my salvation.” ~ Charles Haddon Spurgeon

Sure. Just keep quoting from Dabney and Spurgeon and anyone else you'd like to quote from. So what? Where are those verses to back up your doctrine of limited atonement and that God chooses who will believe?

 

[RisingSpirit]

Yer just trying to justify all that quotin' that's going on.

What I believe comes straight from the Bible. I have verses that actually SAY what I believe. Where are yours, regarding Christ dying ONLY for the elect?

Or that God chooses who will believe, which is foundational to your doctrine of election?

[SIZE=+1]Our job as Christians is only to present the
Gospel Truth.

God the Holy Spirit changes hearts.



Until a person either dies in their sins, or dies
converted to Christ, we don't know if they were
Elect or not.

Nor do we know now what effect our truth-telling
will have months or years down the road after the
person has been regenerated. ( If they ever are. )

The Calvinist simply proclaim the Gospel of Grace
and leave the rest to the Spirit of God.



A lot of folks believe the Doctrine of Election is an
impediment to evangelism. Actually, however, it
explains why salvation is in God's hands instead
of our's.

Christians ought never get disappointed over their
failure to save someone. We don't save anybody !

[ Except for Billy Graham. He had a page on his
Web site titled: "Saved by Billy Graham" where
people were supposed to relate how Graham had
saved 'em ! ][/SIZE]

 

[RisingSpirit]

Sure. Just keep quoting from Dabney and Spurgeon and anyone else you'd like to quote from. So what? Where are those verses to back up your doctrine of limited atonement and that God chooses who will believe?

What's the big deal about limited atonement,
anyhow ? Why bother to argue the point ?


Well, first, the doctrine of Limited Atonement
is a Scriptural doctrine. Therefore it has
intrinsic importance simply because it's a
doctrine of the Lord ! If there were no other
reasons (and there are) to insist on Limited
Atonement, this one reason would -in itself-
suffice.


Secondly, the false doctrine of universal
atonement denies the efficacy of Christ's
substitutionary sacrifice. It supposes He
died to save those who are going to Hell
regardless. This being an intolerable
denigration of Christ's salvific power.


Third, universal atonement represents a
prelude and starting point for the
semi-Pelagian heresy that the Elect elect
themselves by their "coming to God" and
"decision for Christ". If Jesus died for
everybody, it's just one small further leap
of logic to suppose that anybody can
save themselves merely by a choice they
make.

[ While we don't deny faith as the
instrumentality of salvation, we do
utterly disavow the notion of Saving
Faith without prior regeneration ! ]


Fourth, universal atonement takes the
Atonement of our Lord Jesus and turns
it into something conditional and
provisional rather than actual. If persons
who are atoned for can go to Hell anyway,
the Atonement ceases being really atoning !


Lastly, universal atonement makes the
Lord's method of salvation look ridiculous
by having Christ die for everybody then
haphazardly failing to ensure everybody
hears the Gospel.

It's a ludicrous scheme in which all people
throughout history are atoned for, yet
nevertheless BILLIONS die without ever
hearing the very Gospel which offers them
redemption !



None of this nullifies the General Calling.
The reprobate are made a sincere offer
of salvation. That they're constitutionally
incapable of acting upon it in no way
detracts from the offer itself !

The purpose of the general Gospel call
(vis-a-vis the reprobate) ISN'T their
redemption. To those not elected unto
salvation, the General Calling: a.) silences
their complaint of 'unfairness' in never
having been given an opportunity to
save themselves, b.) establishes the
necessity of prior regeneration, and
demonstrates the preterit nature of
reprobation, as well as c.) increases
their condemnation because they had an
opportunity for faith in Christ yet refused
it.

That they [the reprobate] weren't atoned
for isn't relevant as God in His omniscience
foreknows they wouldn't use it if they had
it !


Important Point:

The idea behind the General Calling ain't
saving the reprobate.

They're reprobate !



Nor is any of this hyper-Calvinism.

The hyper-Calvinists repudiate the whole
idea of a "general call" made to those who
are not Elect.

We orthodox, historical Calvinists affirm
the General Calling ! We uphold doctrines
of BOTH a limited atonement and a
broad proclamation of the Gospel to
everyone willing to listen.


But ...for God-haters who love sin, self,
and Satan... the Gospel isn't "Good News"
...it's bad news.

This being all of us until (and if) we
are regenerated by the instantaneous,
supernatural, and monergistic acting
of the Holy Spirit.

 

[FreeGrace2]

[SIZE=+1]Our job as Christians is only to present the Gospel Truth.

Right. So you don't have to quote all those guys.

God the Holy Spirit changes hearts.

Correct. Only Him.

Until a person either dies in their sins, or dies
converted to Christ, we don't know if they were Elect or not.

There's no way for us to know who has died in their sins vs were saved. All we can to is listen to what they say.

Nor do we know now what effect our truth-telling
will have months or years down the road after the
person has been regenerated. ( If they ever are. )

Correct. Not our responsibility to know.

The Calvinist simply proclaim the Gospel of Grace
and leave the rest to the Spirit of God.

Jesus commands His disciples to preach the gospel TO every creature. To preach the gospel to what you consider someone who Christ didn't die for is basically dishonest. The gospel is the good news of eternal life. But your idea of those Christ didn't die for CAN'T have eternal life, so sharing the gospel with them is lying!!!!!!!!!!

And I don't CARE that you "can't know who the elect are". That's not an excuse for lying when you share with every creature. We CAN know who the elect are. The ones who respond to the gospel message and believe it.

A lot of folks believe the Doctrine of Election is an
impediment to evangelism. Actually, however, it
explains why salvation is in God's hands instead of our's.

Sure, it's in God's hands, but that doctrine has NOTHING to do with salvation, and everything to do with WHY God chose each of the 6 categories of election, none of which were chosen for salvation.

Christians ought never get disappointed over their
failure to save someone. We don't save anybody !

Correct.

[ Except for Billy Graham. He had a page on his
Web site titled: "Saved by Billy Graham" where
people were supposed to relate how Graham had
saved 'em ! ]

[/SIZE]

[/QUOTE]
I believe prudent people will understand what he meant.

Just as how prudent people understand what Jesus meant by His phrase, "by your faith you have been saved".

 

[crimsonleaf]

Jesus commands His disciples to preach the gospel TO every creature. To preach the gospel to what you consider someone who Christ didn't die for is basically dishonest. The gospel is the good news of eternal life. But your idea of those Christ didn't die for CAN'T have eternal life, so sharing the gospel with them is lying!!!!!!!!!!

And I don't CARE that you "can't know who the elect are". That's not an excuse for lying when you share with every creature. We CAN know who the elect are. The ones who respond to the gospel message and believe it.

At last you've put yourself in a position where you prove beyond doubt that a) you don't understand Calvinism, and b) that you do not have a full grasp of the Gospel message.

The Gospel isn't just "the good news of eternal life", it's "the good news of eternal life for those who believe". You may think it a moot point but it's crucial in the presentation of the Gospel. Without the qualifier it's the wrong message.

Walking up to a stranger and saying "Jesus died for you" is potentially a lie, but I guess that must be how you mistakenly evengelize. If you really want to amuse an atheist, tell him Jesus died for him. He'll laugh you out of town.

However, walking up to a stranger and saying "Jesus died for those who believe; do you believe?" is honest, fits perfectly with the whole Gospel message as encapsulated in John 3:16 and starts conversations. It's also the way Calvinists evangelize; biblically, truthfully, frequently.

How do you convince the atheist who turns around and says "Jesus didn't die for me," and then tells you he'll never believe, ever? And then the atheist goes on to ask what dying for him means in tangible terms?

It means absolutely nothing. He's still going to hell. But Christ died for him anyway.

It's a nonsense.

You prefer to build up the straw man of the lying Calvinist and knock him down. Sadly, it's you who are doing the lying.

As for knowing who the Elect are because of their fruits, again, not necessarily. When Jesus spoke of the wheat and the tares he was speaking of the Church. There will be many who give the appearance of belief but who are not on our side. It's a brave man who points at someone else and definitively states the condition of their faith, and not a call I'd make without knowing their minds. I can believe someone is saved, but never know. That's down to God.

 

[FreeGrace2]

At last you've put yourself in a position where you prove beyond doubt that a) you don't understand Calvinism, and b) that you do not have a full grasp of the Gospel message.

We'll see about that.

The Gospel isn't just "the good news of eternal life", it's "the good news of eternal life for those who believe". You may think it a moot point but it's crucial in the presentation of the Gospel. Without the qualifier it's the wrong message.

Most people would have already understood that the good news is to be PREACHED to everyone, and given to those who believe. iow, the good news of eternal life is FOR everyone.

Walking up to a stranger and saying "Jesus died for you" is potentially a lie

See, that's where Calvinism has driven off a very high cliff. It is NOT a lie, though you have proven by your comment that, to you, it "is potentially a lie". Yet, Jesus commands His disciples to preach the gospel TO every creature. So, I guess, to you, He commands His disciples to lie when presenting it to your so-called non-elect. Sheesh!

but I guess that must be how you mistakenly evengelize. If you really want to amuse an atheist, tell him Jesus died for him. He'll laugh you out of town.

Who CARES how ANYONE reacts to the gospel message? Is that you are afraid of, "potentially lying" or being laughed at? LOL for sure.

However, walking up to a stranger and saying "Jesus died for those who believe; do you believe?" is honest

Actually THAT is a lie, for He died for everyone, which you reject. So I guess you will be lying either way.

fits perfectly with the whole Gospel message as encapsulated in John 3:16 and starts conversations. It's also the way Calvinists evangelize; biblically, truthfully, frequently.

Well, from your own words, and lying as well.

Jn 3:16 isn't about Christ dying for ONLY believers, but saving ONLY believers. Really sad that you don't understand that.

[QUTOE]How do you convince the atheist who turns around and says "Jesus didn't die for me," and then tells you he'll never believe, ever? And then the atheist goes on to ask what dying for him means in tangible terms?[/QUOTE]
That's a great question. First, I don't convince anyone. That's the ministry of the Holy Spirit. Didn't you know that? John 17:8-9

Second, the "tangible terms" is very easy: Jesus died for YOU to pay YOUR sin debt in full, so YOU don't have to, AND He purchased eternal life for YOU so that you will be able to live with God for eternity. That is Biblically true. What he does with that offer of the free gift is between him and God. Not my issue. My issue is to provide the message clearly and accurately. And I don't lie.

It means absolutely nothing. He's still going to hell. But Christ died for him anyway.

He goes there without any excuse. Your theology gives him the excuse that Christ didn't die for him.

It's a nonsense.

"Interesting" sentence.

You prefer to build up the straw man of the lying Calvinist and knock him down. Sadly, it's you who are doing the lying.

Scuze me, but you admitted that preaching to everyone is potentially lying, so don't go and charge me with lying.

As for knowing who the Elect are because of their fruits, again, not necessarily.

Nonsense. And irrelevant. Your view of the elect isn't Biblical. God didn't choose who would believe, which is the foundation for your doctrine of election.

When Jesus spoke of the wheat and the tares he was speaking of the Church. There will be many who give the appearance of belief but who are not on our side.

Nope. He was speaking of the saved and the lost. Period. When He was speaking, the Church hadn't even begun. That occurred after His resurrection. Most believers understand that. You gots some catching up to do.

It's a brave man who points at someone else and definitively states the condition of their faith, and not a call I'd make without knowing their minds.

You kidding me? It's a very stupid man who would point at someone else and "definitely" state anything about their faith. Unless that man was omniscient, which none of us are. Very stupid indeed.

And you are right, "without knowing their minds", not a call you should make.

 

[RisingSpirit]

....Right. So you don't have to quote all those guys. ....

[SIZE=+1]Well, Freegrace, the "Holy Scriptures fully contain the
will of God, and that whatsoever man ought to
believe unto salvation is sufficiently taught therein"
(Belgic Confession, Article-7).

But that very quote is not directly from the Bible,
but from the Belgic Confession.



Rome's religion isn't flawed because they used other
material. It's flawed because that material contradicts
the Sacred Scriptures.

So, it's both permissible and wise to have systematic
creeds and confession which agree with Scripture,
summarizes it, and draw together under one heading
doctrines found diversely throughout the Bible.

It's extra-scriptural non denominational doctrines
which are the problem.

[/SIZE]

[SIZE=+1]

[/SIZE]
​

 

[Hammster]

I see hypocrisy from those who decry the uses of extra-biblical teachings, all while "teaching" us using extra-biblical language.

 

[crimsonleaf]

Wasting my time.

 

[RisingSpirit]

...Scuze me, but you admitted that preaching to everyone is potentially lying, so don't go and charge me with lying....

[SIZE=+1]The Christians tells people like
Freegrace: The Gospel means "Good
News". But that we save ourselves
by our own obedience,
merit, or deservedness is bad news !


Ephesians 2:8-9 and Romans 4:4-8
sufficiently refute all doctrines of
works-salvation.

[/SIZE]

[SIZE=+1]Do not boast[/SIZE]
​

[SIZE=+1]
[/SIZE]

[SIZE=+1]

[/SIZE]
​

 

[FreeGrace2]

[SIZE=+1]Well, Freegrace, the "Holy Scriptures fully contain the
will of God, and that whatsoever man ought to
believe unto salvation is sufficiently taught therein"

I believe that because the Scriptures SAY so, not because the "Belgic Confession" says so.

Rome's religion isn't flawed because they used other
material. It's flawed because that material contradicts
the Sacred Scriptures.

Sure. Any system that contradicts what Scripture says is flawed. Absolutely. The RCC is included.

So, it's both permissible and wise to have systematic
creeds and confession which agree with Scripture,
summarizes it, and draw together under one heading
doctrines found diversely throughout the Bible.

It's extra-scriptural non denominational doctrines
which are the problem.[/QUOTE]
And how do you sort through all that?

It's much safer to stick with what the Bible very CLEARY SAYS, and advance from there. Using the Bible, not confessions, creeds, or others' opinions.