The Called Of God

[_Steve]

Mark,

I am not sure what the scriptures you cited have to do with proving the limited atonement. I am also not really what you mean by playing the "only" card. Since you say you have never heard the only card refuted, and asked if we have, I would be interested in knowing exactly what this argument is that you are waiting to see refuted.

As for the question of Jesus dying for all, including those who reject Him, I wonder how you regard the state of those mentioned in 2 Peter 2:1, who "deny the Lord who bought them." Did this "buying" of them involve His atonement? If so, are those who deny Him among the elect? I have always wondered how Calvinists understand this, so here is your big chance to enlighten me on it. Thanks.

[Guest]

Mark,

It is good to see we finally agree on Romans 3:11!

Romans 3:11 (New American Standard Bible)

11.THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS,
THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD;

Literally this passage states that there is none who seeks God, yet in your response you said:

So to answer your assertion. Nowhere in scripture is it ever stated that Believers cannot seek God, but everywhere, it is asserted that unregenerate sinners cannot in and of themselves seek God.

So by your own admission, none in the passage cited does not mean none! It means only some, the unbelievers, while some others, believers, are completely excepted from the statement. Thus you take the statement in a non-literal sense! I agee the statement is non-literal! This text, a favorite of the Calvinists, proves nothing for the Calvinist cause. It ought to be obvious it is hyperbole.

(Typical Calvinist stuff; some means none, all men means some men, God commands men to do what they are unable to do, then holds them responsible and punishes them for not doing it, ad nauseum.)

You force the statement to fit your Calvinist paradigm; there is not one word in the passage that indicates some (believers) seek God while some others (unbelievers) can not. Both scripture and observation inform us that all sorts of unbelievers seek God, and can seek Him, they just do not know Him. It is our job to see that they find Him.

Consider:

Acts 17:23-28 (New American Standard Bible)

23. "For while I was passing through and examining the objects of your worship, I also found an altar with this inscription, 'TO AN UNKNOWN GOD ' Therefore what you worship in ignorance, this I proclaim to you.

24. "The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands;

25. nor is He served by human hands, as though He needed anything, since He Himself gives to all people life and breath and all things;

26. and He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation,

27. that they would seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us;

28. for in Him we live and move and exist, as even some of your own poets have said, 'For we also are His children.'

[Guest]

Mark,

It is good to see we finally agree on Romans 3:11! Wink

Romans 3:11 (New American Standard Bible)

11.THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS,
THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD;

Literally this passage states that there is none who seeks God, yet in your response you said:

Quote:
So to answer your assertion. Nowhere in scripture is it ever stated that Believers cannot seek God, but everywhere, it is asserted that unregenerate sinners cannot in and of themselves seek God.


So by your own admission, none in the passage cited does not mean none! It means only some, the unbelievers, while some others, believers, are completely excepted from the statement. Thus you take the statement in a non-literal sense! I agee the statement is non-literal! Very Happy This text, a favorite of the Calvinists, proves nothing for the Calvinist cause. It ought to be obvious it is hyperbole.

Oh man. Patience is needed here.

Here is the meaning of the passage without any spin, which you are very good at.
No fleshly man seeks God. No natural man seeks God.

All men born of Adam and in Adam do not seek God apart from the grace of God and His regenerating Work of the Spirit.

(Typical Calvinist stuff; some means none, all men means some men, God commands men to do what they are unable to do, then holds them responsible and punishes them for not doing it, ad nauseum.)

Homer, you are ignorant of God's Word and you pervert it.
You have no understanding regarding how to interpret scripture and obviously all of your Teachers suffer from this same condition.

You force the statement to fit your Calvinist paradigm; there is not one word in the passage that indicates some (believers) seek God while some others (unbelievers) can not. Both scripture and observation inform us that all sorts of unbelievers seek God, and can seek Him, they just do not know Him. It is our job to see that they find Him.

You pervert the Word of God and I will prove it yet again.
Jesus says that "NO MAN" can come to Him. Joh 6:44 and repeats it again in John 6:65.

As far as it being "our job" to see that sinners find Him, I find such a comment to be strange and unbiblical.
As believers we are certainly to be about the great Commission, but your statement sounds a wee bit odd.

So Homer, if Jesus clearly says that "NO MAN" can come to Him, what perversion of His Words will you offer in response?

All I have to do is prove that unbelievers cannot seek God and that Believers can seek God and this matter is settled.

Do you think I can prove such an assertion using Scripture alone without twisting it as you certainly seem to do?

You have to prove that all men including unbelievers can seek God. That you will never be able to prove from Scripture, unless of course you twist them to your traditions, which is exactly what you are doing, yet you have the audacity to charge me with the exact same thing.

But, I am just quoting the text and exegeting it in context and using valid hermeneutical principals.
I am consistent and you are not.

Also, your rhetoric about Calvinists twisting "some", "all" etc, is baseless and pathetic as a response.
Context determines word usage, and of course the original languages gives much indication as to meaning.

For example. The word "world" in John's writings is used in some 12/14 different ways!
Luk 2:1, Col 1:6, Joh 12:19. Three examples where "all" and "World" does not mean "all" as in everyone. There are scores of such passages Homer.
Mocking Calvinism does not support you, it only serves to expose your own lack of understanding regarding these issues.

Have you ever done a separate study on this matter?

Homer, I am actually trying hard to get you to stop, think and then speak!
Stop reading "ability" into passages when it is not there!

Consider:

Acts 17:23-28 (New American Standard Bible)

23. "For while I was passing through and examining the objects of your worship, I also found an altar with this inscription, 'TO AN UNKNOWN GOD ' Therefore what you worship in ignorance, this I proclaim to you.

24. "The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands;

25. nor is He served by human hands, as though He needed anything, since He Himself gives to all people life and breath and all things;

26. and He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation,

27. that they would seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us;

28. for in Him we live and move and exist, as even some of your own poets have said, 'For we also are His children.'

Can you please explain what your "exact" point is in mentioning these verses?

I am trying to see where these passages support the idea that "Unregenerate" men can seek and come to Jesus??

If you rip them apart from the entirety of Scripture, with no thought about other passages that actually hit the matter square on, then what you are doing is twisting the scriptures, and such is a dangerous path to take and there are warnings about twisting the scriptures are there not?

Regarding those passages that you twist to teach that man has "the ability" to seek God, which is nowhere stated in the text!
A few comments from M Henry.

Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary

17:22-31 Here we have a sermon to heathens, who worshipped false gods, and were without the true God in the world; and to them the scope of the discourse was different from what the apostle preached to the Jews. In the latter case, his business was to lead his hearers by prophecies and miracles to the knowledge of the Redeemer, and faith in him; in the former, it was to lead them, by the common works of providence, to know the Creator, and worship Him.

The apostle spoke of an altar he had seen, with the inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. This fact is stated by many writers. After multiplying their idols to the utmost, some at Athens thought there was another god of whom they had no knowledge. And are there not many now called Christians, who are zealous in their devotions, yet the great object of their worship is to them an unknown God? Observe what glorious things Paul here says of that God whom he served, and would have them to serve.

The Lord had long borne with idolatry, but the times of this ignorance were now ending, and by his servants he now commanded all men every where to repent of their idolatry. Each sect of the learned men would feel themselves powerfully affected by the apostle's discourse, which tended to show the emptiness or falsity of their doctrines.

Mark

[Guest]

Mark,

I am not sure what the scriptures you cited have to do with proving the limited atonement. I am also not really what you mean by playing the "only" card. Since you say you have never heard the only card refuted, and asked if we have, I would be interested in knowing exactly what this argument is that you are waiting to see refuted.

Sorry for the imprecise terminology..The "only" card is the teaching that Jesus died "only" for the elect, which is the truth.

Using the Biblical theology concerning Propitiation/atonement/intercession/Mediation etc, I see no way to reconcile a universal atonement in any meaningful sense from the scriptures. It cannot be done without turning scripture on it's head.

As for the question of Jesus dying for all, including those who reject Him, I wonder how you regard the state of those mentioned in 2 Peter 2:1, who "deny the Lord who bought them." Did this "buying" of them involve His atonement? If so, are those who deny Him among the elect? I have always wondered how Calvinists understand this, so here is your big chance to enlighten me on it. Thanks.

I am very happy to provide a reformed response to this passage. Many Baptists who are Calvinists will not share my view, due to a difference we have in Calvinism regarding the Nature of The New Covenant.

Reformed Baptists teach that all in the New Covenant are regenerate, which Covenant theology explains more fully with qualifications based upon Scripture.
I am old school reformed here, as in Covenant Theology.

The Visible Church in the here and now upon the Earth, is a group made up of believers and unbelievers. The Church has Wheat and Tares in it.
The Church Invisible, known only to God is made up of regenerate elect individuals, and these shall persevere in faith and never perish.

In the New Covenant, there are false professors who shall apostatize. These are the ones who had formerly entered the New Covenant, made a profession of faith and joined with the gathered Church community.
It is in this sense, that they had been bought, in that they were in the Visible Church and partakers of the promises therein.

This does not mean that they were elected nor does it mean that they were atoned for by the blood of Christ. Had they remained with us, they would be partakers of all of the promises which are all "yes and Amen" In Christ, but they went out from us, showing they never were "Of us".
That is my simple answer brother.

Mark

[Guest]

Hello Steve,

Quote: "As for the question of Jesus dying for all, including those who reject Him, I wonder how you regard the state of those mentioned in 2 Peter 2:1, who "deny the Lord who bought them." Did this "buying" of them involve His atonement? If so, are those who deny Him among the elect? I have always wondered how Calvinists understand this, so here is your big chance to enlighten me on it. Thanks."

A question for you Steve; Does the "universal offer" of salvation suggest
or even imply Christ made atonement for everyone that hears the Gospel,
or that God intends to save everyone?
Could it be that Peter was speaking from the perspective of these "false teachers" who claimed to be "saved" or "bought" by Christ, when in truth they were not?

In Him,
Bob

[_Steve]

Mark,

You wrote:

"In the New Covenant, there are false professors who shall apostatize. These are the ones who had formerly entered the New Covenant, made a profession of faith and joined with the gathered Church community.
It is in this sense, that they had been bought, in that they were in the Visible Church and partakers of the promises therein. This does not mean that they were elected nor does it mean that they were atoned for by the blood of Christ. "

I guess my questions would be, if these false teachers were "bought," but not by the blood of Christ, then 1) who bought them, and 2) at what price?


Bob,

You wrote:

"A question for you Steve; Does the 'universal offer' of salvation suggest or even imply Christ made atonement for everyone that hears the Gospel, or that God intends to save everyone?"

Yes.


You wrote:

"Could it be that Peter was speaking from the perspective of these 'false teachers' who claimed to be 'saved' or 'bought' by Christ, when in truth they were not?"

It is not the teachers who are claiming to have been bought. It is Peter's own statement about them.

[_Steve]

Mark,

You wrote to Homer:

"You pervert the Word of God and I will prove it yet again.
Jesus says that 'NO MAN' can come to Him. Joh 6:44 and repeats it again in John 6:65...So Homer, if Jesus clearly says that 'NO MAN' can come to Him, what perversion of His Words will you offer in response?"

Just curious. Why do you say that Jesus said no man can come to Him? The verses you cite indicate that some men come to Him, but only in response to the drawing of the Father. Therefore, some men do come to Him, but only because of God's drawing. That is stated in the verses you selected.

It is your assertion that the drawing of the Father is restricted to those who have been elected beforehand to be drawn, while others are not being drawn. It seems equally likely that all men are drawn (John 1:9; 12:32), and some actually come. The rest resist the drawing (John 3:19/ Matt.23:37/2 Thess.2:10). If all men are drawn, then any might come, according to your verses.

You also wrote:

"But, I am just quoting the text and exegeting it in context and using valid hermeneutical principals [sic]. I am consistent and you are not. "

Could you give an example of a text that you have exegeted in this thread, and identify which hermeneutical principles you employed?