« Guidelines for Posting | Main | The Heart of the Gospel »

2006.09.19

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

volfan007

very good insight. why cant the five pointers see this? peter, you used to be a five pointer if i understood you right. why did you not see this back then? this could help shed light on this for me and others.

volfan007

peter

VolFan,

One of the great influences in my earlier days was R. C. Sproul. I have read most of his books and listened to, more than once, many of his tape series from Ligioner.

Needless to say, Sproul is a master teacher and someone whom I still very much both admire and respect as a scholar, theologian and godly Christian.

Yet, other literary mentors have also played a part in my development as believer. Norm Geisler--the bane of modern Calvinists, for his dare to publish a book James White disagreed with--is one. He assisted me in wading through ethical relativism in both university and seminary. In addition, he not only is an erudite ethicist, he also stands tall as as philosopher-theologian--as tall as Sproul, in my own view.

And, all know of his departure with Sproul on what Geisler views as "extreme Calvinsim." Geisler himself self-identifies as a Calvinist,albeit the moderate type. He has influenced me alot.

Perhaps most of all has been Francis Schaeffer, who was a born & breed Calvinist believer, yet one would never really notice it from his many writings for the simple reason he did not wear his Calvinism to bed. Moreover, he believed very much in free will, which, of course, does not qualify him to be a "real" Calvinist according to our brothers over at Founders.

With these influences, along with a host of questions about Calvinism's historic answers that left me dissatisfied and which questions I never really could expose as a Pastor (from my perspective, what questions I possessed, I had no right as a Pastor to God's Flock to impose those questions on them, creating doubt or fear, etc), I simply placed them all on hold, leaving them dangling in theological purgatory.

Over the last several years, my ministry took a new turn. This left me with a great freedom to pose questions to my own belief system. For me, it has been liberating. I no longer am joined at the hip with systematic Calvinism. The questions I bring toward Calvinism are not new for me. I have possessed most of them even as far back as my self-authentication as a bona fide Full-Grown Five Point Calvinist.

Perhaps the three biggest questions I could never get straight answers about were:

1) Eternal Unconditional Election to Reprobation--God creates a whole race of humans for the specific purpose of damning them to Hell (all for His glory, mind you)


2) Limiting Jesus' Atonement for a specific group only, when countless times Scripture says He atoned for the world. Reading "world" like Calvinists necessarily must do in order to avoid the force of their impact, never, ever satisfied me at all, though admittedly I memorized the mantra for those other poor souls who objected.

3) Aggressive Calvinist "evangelists" who think the Great Commission is converting all other evangelicals to 5Pism. This atmosphere never goes away. Indeed it cannot. When Calvinism itself equates the "faith once for all given to the saints" with historic 5Pism, what else could one conclude?

That is a summary, VolFan, of my journey from Calvinism to non-Calvinism. Thank you for allowing me a time to share it.

With that, I trust you will have a peaceful evening. I am...

Peter

Timotheos

Hello Peter,

Stopped by this afternoon to see what's happening down here in blogatory :~), and read your interesting observations on I John 2. Perhaps you will address this question in the next blog installment, and if so, I'll wait till then.

In our Lord's atonement, do you understand Him to be actually removing the guilt of transgression and satisfying the wrath due said guilt for each human who has ever lived, or ever will live?

I know you are familiar with the question, since you have been through something of a theological pilgrimage yourself. If I have stated the question clearly enough, you know I am asking what was actually done in His atonement, what was actually finished?

I pray you are well, my friend. Grace and peace,

Timotheos

volfan007

the brass snake that moses had put up on a pole could have healed anyone in the camp, but only those who looked at it were healed. enough was there to heal whoever...to heal everyone in the israelite camp...only the ones who looked in faith were healed. this illustration is the very ill. that the Lord uses to describe His death on the cross. His death was sufficient to cover everyone....only those who would look in faith would be healed.

volfan007

ps. peter, thanks for answering my question in such a wonderful and insightful way. i knew i could count on you to answer in a very sound and sensible way.

Christopher Redman

Peter,

I was just wondering if 1 John 2:2 was all by itself or if 1 John 2:1 has any bearing? I was also wondering if John's jewish audience sheds any light on the subject.

And BTW, please help all of us Arminians who don't believe Eternal Security to know how you can possibly believe such a horid doctrine in light of John 15:6. After all doesn't this verse prove that eternal security is a farce?

And, while you are at it, please explain to us Campbelites why Baptism is not essential to salvation based on Acts 2, when Peter said, "Repent and be baptized and you will recieve the gift of the Holy Spirit."

I'm sure you get the point. BTW, the sarcasm is just my weak attempt at humor.

Chris

Timotheos

I dunno, Volfan - the illustration seems more concerned with indicating the object of one's faith and how a person can be delivered from death. It seems more prescriptive of how one is delivered (by believing) rather than descriptive of the accomplishments of His atoning work. Isaiah 53 seems more descriptive in that regard. I John 2:2 is the New Testament analog to Isaiah 45:22, but it does not describe what the Lord has achieved in His passion.

I have trouble thinking that the Lord would suffer the penalty of another's sins, but still condemn them for the sin of unbelief. It is certainly true that men die in their sins for unbelief, as is clear in the Scripture, but I am left with the serious and perplexing question of why the atonement does not cover this sin, when it is declared by so many to cover all of the sins of everyone for ever. Does Jesus actually pay for sin that will in the end somehow still condemn a mTimotheosan, or is His atonement only theoretical? Is sin paid for on the cross, or is payment for sin not accomplished until or unless the debt is cashed in by the debtee? For what then did Christ pay? I think He suffered real penalty and real wrath, and so remitted real guilt and sin, and if He did, upon what basis is the penalty of sin still required at the hand of another?

If I pay a debt for my son, then he is free of the debt, whether or not he knows it or believes it. As far as the debtor is concerned, the debt is remitted - it cannot lawfully be collected again. Universal atonement seems ill-suited to answer this dilemma.

In the end, I will rest in the knowledge that..."he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed...Yet it was the LORD's will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the LORD makes his life a guilt offering, he will see his offspring and prolong his days, and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand...After the suffering of his soul, he will see the light of life and be satisfied; by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their iniquities." He got it done on the cross.

Because of the nature of His atonement, He could joyfully and confidently declare, "All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away." A universal, all-inclusive understanding of the nature of the atonement makes this statement suspect.

Grace and peace,

Timotheos

Timotheos

Don't know where that typo snuck in the second paragraph, but it should read, " Does Jesus actually pay for sin that will in the end somehow still condemn a MAN,"

Oh, well...

Troy

Peter,

In the past year, I have had a similar journey reading White, Sproul, Calvin, and Packer. (And some Geisler and Witherington.

I have carefully studied, prayed, and wrestled with the exegesis of the Scriptures about Calvinism. Your first 2 points in response to volfan have been the ones I most wrestle with. The first one I believe is influenced by who we think God is (according to the Word) and the second about what actually happened at the cross.

Troy

peter

CR,

As for 1Jn2.2 standing "all by itself", it does not. It is the end of a larger section beginning with perhaps 1.5.

The Jewish destination theory moved most notably by John Gill and seconded by Arthur Pink, while an interesting background proposal which sets up nicely Gill's retranslation of V.2 into "He is not only the propitiation for our [Jewish Christian] sins, but also for the sins of the whole [Gentile Christian] world", unfortunately has been thoroughly overturned by modern scholarship.

It's intriging to me how even some of the greatest minds can produce curious solutions when their system becomes threatened.

Princeton's Warfield threw his entire intellectual weight against John's simple statement here by suggesting what no other person had ever "thunk up."

He said John was not an "each and every universailst" but an "eschatological universalist". That is, Jesus was the propitiation not only for the elect's sins, but for the sins of the whole millenial world, connecting the verse to Christ's second advent when He hands the whole, Gospel subdued world over to the Father. (Shorter Works, I, ch.23).

Well, you cannot ever accuse a Calvinist for failing to try.

Shalom for today. With that, I am...

Peter

peter

Troy,

Welcome, my brother and fellow sojourner. I am confident that God, in His good wisdom, will guide us all as we sincerely look for Him.

I think you are essentially correct that eternal unconditional reprobation of non-elect people made in God's image to damnation in hell very much rests on Who God is.

Interestingly, while Jacob Arminius is accused of bringing humanistic freewillism into Reformed theology, it was this very issue that was the theological straw that broke his back.

Arminius simply could not accept that the God revealed in the Scripture he knew teased out His sovereignity in such a way. For him, it sliced away a fat chunk of the very character of God as an all-loving God.

Whether or not Arminius was correct, for him, the issue was not primarily free will; free will was incidential.

Rather, Beza's scholastic Calvinism, from Arminius's view, attacked God's character. Arminius saw himself defending it.

May your day be graced. With that, I am...

Peter

Christopher Redman

Peter,

Again we shall simply disagree. 1 John 2:1 "...And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous." And then the text of verse 2 of which you write in this post.

The interpretive process must include verse 1 as the foundation for the statement in verse 2. If John intended to make Jesus the propitiation for the universal population of the world, then he must have also revealed that Jesus is an advocate for the universal population of the world. And if Jesus propitiated the sins of the entire world, universally, then why do multitudes go to hell for their sins? Further, why has Jesus' ministry as an advocate, an intercessor been so shamefully unsuccessful?

Well is Jesus the advocate for the universal world? Does the Bible indicate that Jesus is the advocate for the universal population of humanity? Has He failed? Does the omnipotent, sovereign God refuse the prayers of His only Son when He pleads for the "universal population" of humanity? Oh, I know what the solution is: man is sovereign and God is impotent?

Again, Jesus as Advocate for the universal world; John 17:9 and Rom 8:34 indicate otherwise.

I agree with Gill's assessment and the reason is Gill takes into account the whole of revelation and does not cherry pick a verse and rip it out of context and build a theological mountain from it. The context of any verse is the both the immediate context and the context of the Bible itself.

Further, I find it amazing that some, like Dr. Reynolds, have strained the meaning of wine in the NT to the enth degree and called into account scholarly investigations of the culture in the NT to validate his extreme tee-total abstinance position, but considering the recipients of John's letter and their understanding of the text in their day and culture is invalid? Is this really consistent scholarship?

The god that must fit within your "system" is far too impotent.

I'm not expecting to convince you my friend. I suppose I'm just registering my different take on the subject.

And peace and blessings to you always,

Chris

peter

CR,

I must say, you are beginning to forge a very predictable pattern, my Brother. Emotive tones invariably produce poor logic. Unfortunately, for you, my Brother CR, it would have been better to have thought a little more about this before you shot your pistol.

The reason Advocate necessarily parallels, at least in your mind, CR, with atoning sacrifice, is because you must have a solution to the threat John's proposition holds toward your already other-wise convinced position. That may be what all the other questions are about.

Since you feel you have a thorough grasp about what atonement is supposed to be, you bring all the equipment with you to John. So far so good.

But rather than allowing John to perhaps correct something you may have not considered about what you know of Atonement, you use what you think you know apparently attempting to make John say something other than he actually says.

You write :"If John intended to make Jesus the propitiation for the universal population of the world, then he must have also revealed that Jesus is an advocate for the universal population of the world."

Here you simply try to push, in John's mouth, words he definitively did not pen.

He said "We" have an Advocate, he definitively did not write "they" [the world] have an Advocate.

On the other hand, John did write Jesus is "our" propitiation and also "their" [the world's] propitiation. What about this is not understandable, CR? John says clearly We have an Advocate; then he states we have a propitiation and they have a propitiation.

To say John "must also have revealed" anything, for me, is dangerous to no end. It is the typical "eisgesis" that Calvinists so often speak of loathing. Whatever happened to Scripture's sufficiency?

As for the implication that I "cherry pick[ed] a verse and rip[ped] it out of context and build [built] a theological mountain from it.", I will let others judge that. What is humorous is, I have not even written my observations on it yet.

In addition, I assure you, general redemption is built on much more than one lone verse "cherry-picked" and "ripped out of context". Calvinism is the system that is losing theologians/bible scholars to general redemption, not the other way around.

Finally, to continually depend on good old John Gill for scholarship, is fine with me. You have my express permission :)

Peace. I am...

Peter

Christopher Redman

Okay. Without emotional overtones...but, :-)

What did Christ propitiate? Or maybe the proper question is what does propitiate mean in connection to universal atonement? How is substitutionary atonement and propitiation connected in the context of universal redemption?

Chris

peter

Chris,

From my understanding, Jesus, thru His vicarious, sacrifical death, provided for sins' just requirement of banishment from our Righteous God. Thus, He is our propitiation bearing our sins, giving us life, reconciling us to our God.

The "universal" aspect of the atonement is not in "atonement" per se. Rather, it's in John's insistence that it is not our's alone but also the "whole world".

Consequently, Christ's death constituted provision for the sins of the whole world.

I am...

Peter

Christopher Redman

Peter,

I really do need to take a break from blogging. I may be actually emotional and not just sounding emotional. I’m taking four classes at BCF, leading my church into new ministries that include weekly evangelism outreach and training and preparation for a fall block party. Also, I am preparing to preach a revival outside of Louisville in October.

The truth is my plate is too full and I’m not thinking clearly and indeed, reacting quickly. I apologize if I crossed a line in emotional or accusatory overtones. I’m going to take a short breath.

Persevere, we both know the truth is out there...

Chris

Scott

Peter,

Would you explain what you mean by "provided for sins' just requirement of banishment from our Righteous God"?

Scott

Scott

Peter,

I chuckled at your comment "Calvinism is the system that is losing theologians/bible scholars to general redemption, not the other way around." Such a statement is of course quite difficult to prove. Perhaps it was predestined to happen.

More seriously, I think most Calvinists would agree that "limited atonement" or "particular redemption" are the most difficult of the so-called 5 points (as volfan loves to say, even though to be historically accurate we should call Arminians 5 pointers) to defend or support. What concerns me is that by starting with this particular point (excuse the pun), you establish a straw man of sorts. That is, if you can demonstrate that this point is flawed, then one should assume that the other four points are flawed.

Of course, you haven't said that yet, but it would be beneficial for all if instead of telling us what you don't believe, or what weaknesses you see in the Calvinist position, you actually shared with us what you believe.

Grace,
Scott

volfan007

everyone...whosoever will...could look at the snake and be healed. anyone and everyone could have been healed. i dont think there is any doubt about that, nor could you argue against that(except maybe a five pointer trying to make it all fit into his five point box). only those who looked in faith were healed, but that does not mean that the other ones could not have been healed. the invitation was for all of them to look. but,only those who looked were healed.

it's the same with the death of Jesus. and, no matter how much you try to nitpick it to death and try to philosophize it to the point of absurdim; it's still just true. Jesus' death on the cross was sufficient to really cover the sins of the entire world, but only those who look in faith to His death to heal thier hearts of the sin problem that exists are saved.

boy, some people and some groups have a way of making something plain and simple very difficult.


volfan007

peter

Chris,

I know exactly how you feel, my friend. Some do not realize the absolute inner drain the pastoral role demands. I heard more than once when I was a Pastor, "I thought all you do is preach on Sundays."

And, I learned a long time ago, while there may be small churches, there are no small pastoral roles, no bi-vocational roles, and, in your case, no part-student, part-pastor role. Everything is always all...

I pastored a church in South Louisville for almost 7 years after I completed my first effort at SBTS. What city will you be in?

Shalom. I am...

Peter

Scott

Volfan,

Thanks for your insight. I do think that few people, even staunch Calvinists would disagree with anything you said in your last post.

Thanks,
Scott

P.S. Who's up next for the vols?

peter

Scott,

Welcome. I suppose I meant nothing more or less than the "wages of sin is death".

As for your chuckle, I am grateful to our Sovereign I could positively contribute :) And you're, right, Scott, it would be hard to prove...were it not for the long line of Calvinist dissenters who did not buy the Limited Atonement product from old Beza and company, though they insisted on the TU_IP.

More recently, we could cite Ryle, Strong, Hovey, Schaff, Mullins, Carroll, Lightner, Geisler, and most famous of all recent Baptists, Millard Erikson--all Calvinists, most Baptists, none LAers. That's the punchline of my joke, my Brother Scott.

You write these words: "What concerns me is that by starting with this particular point...you establish a straw man of sorts. That is, if you can demonstrate that this point is flawed, then one should assume that the other four points are flawed."

Laying aside my purpose for starting with the center petal of the flower, how is it supposed to follow that, were it the case that I purposely started with the weakest link in the allegedly unbreakable "golden chain of salvation", that a straw man is being built? What you call a straw man, Scott, others may call a darn good strategy. Why spend time hacking the strongest link when one can easily pop the chain by beginning with the weakest?

Great Scot, Scott! You've assisted me more than you know! For so many of my Calvinist Brothers consider, as you indicate, all five points stand together or fall together. If one goes, the other theological dominoes go as well...:-)

Finally, I fear you you just have to wait and see what next comes up on this blog. There is a time for everything, the wise old King said. Sometimes it's to plow up; sometimes it's to plant.

I guess of late, I've just been more in the plowing mood :)

Grace for this evening, Faith for tomorrow, Scott. With that, I am...

Peter

Scott

Peter,

Thank you for responding to my post. I apologize for not being clearer. I disagree that Calvinism hinges on limited atonement. As you have noted, it appears that even Calvin himself did not hold this view. Second, many of the men you listed as having abandoned limited atonement, would still say they are Calvinistic in their soteriology as opposed to Arminian. So my point was that even if one concedes this point, he need not concede the other four. Actually, most Calvinistic theologians would say that the unconditional election is the cornerstone of their view.

Scott

A correction to my last post if I may: Many disagree as to whether Calvin himself held to limited atonement.

Scott

peter

Scott,

Correction noted. Calvin is a theological greased pig sometimes. Unfortunately for LAers, no point in his theology seems more conflicting, especially reading his commentaries on the relevant texts.

I cannot produce it now, but there is a quote somewhere, from Calvin's last will and testament, interestingly enough, that speaks of his final belief that Christ died "for the human race".

I'll try to remember where I read that thing.

Faith for today, Love for Eternity. With that, I am...
Peter

peter

All,

Summarizing a particular position in only one proposition, especially when it is as complex as either Calvinism or non-Calvinism's view of the death of Christ, is, as always, a risky thing. It almost inevitably bears oversimplfication.

At any rate, I still will offer this summary:

Typically, Calvinists argue that Christ died not to make possible salvation to all; rather He died to make salvation certain for some--those whom were predestined to believe.

Typically, non-Calvinists (including Arminians and non-Arminians)argue it is not an either/or matter. Rather it is a both/and matter. That is, Christ not only died to make possible salvation for all, His death made salvation certain to some--those whom He knew--via foreknowledge-- would believe(Arminians)/those whom He predestined to believe (moderate, "4P" Calvinists)

Have a great evening, all. With that, I am...

Peter

Keith Schooley

I notice that little of this discussion actually deals with Peter's post. There's derision for focusing on a single verse; attempts to rebut exegetically the interpretation of that verse, even though Peter hasn't yet gotten to the examination of that text; and accusations regarding the supposed deficiencies of Peter's supposed theology.

Perhaps I missed something, but it appears that no one has interacted with Peter's contentions that the church
Fathers and writers prior to and even within the Reformation did not appear to hold to Limited Atonement, and that the only way that Reformed writers tend to interact with the "whole world" passages at all is as obstacles to be overcome.

Scott

Keith,

The post was titled " A Short Study in 1 John 2:2. I believe some have in fact interacted with Peter's view of this verse.

I for one am not interested in debating the meaning of a single proof text when there are many texts that deal with this particular topic. That doesn't mean I agree or disagree with Peter. This applies to virtually any highly debated doctrine. Godly men and women have different views on these issues largely because there are proof texts that appear to support one position against another. Each camp can trot out their favorite verses. The opponents can pick it apart and then we can trot out another verse, and so on. Blogs seem particularly well suited for this as they are limited in how they can systematically treat certain key doctrines. That is why I am looking forward to Peter's next post.

Scott

P.S. Peter makes some good points regarding the church fathers view on this issue. I recall seeing something quite similar in Geisler's Chosen But Free. Of course, where the church fathers stood on an issue, while important, is certainly not compelling. Just ask our dispensationalist brethren :).

Keith Schooley

I am looking forward to Peter's next post.

As am I. Cool, something we can agree on!

[W]here the church fathers stood on an issue, while important, is certainly not compelling.

Absolutely true.

Keith Schooley

Err, I guess I can't use HTML tags in these comments. Sorry. The first and third paragraphs of my comment just above were supposed to be italicized. They are quotes from Scott's comment, just above.

-jk

Peter,

Here is the quote from Calvin's will:

"...I suppliantly beg of Him, that He may be pleased so to wash and purify me in the blood which my Sovereign Redeemer has shed for the sins of the human race..."

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc8.iv.xviii.ii.html

Keep up the good writing!

Scott

The comment from Calvin's will is interesting:

"...I suppliantly beg of Him, that He may be pleased so to wash and purify me in the blood which my Sovereign Redeemer has shed for the sins of the human race..."

I guess this means that Calvin wasn't assured of his salvation or held to salvation by works? :)

I haven't read his will or even all of his Institutes of the Christian Religion, but this example should remind us of some of the pitfalls to be avoided in interpreting Scripture.


Scott

volfan07

the extremes of theology tend to lead one to doubt thier salvation. the extremes lead to a lot of other negative things as well. pride is one thing that comes to mind...pride with a false humility.


volfan007

peter

JK,

Thank you! I knew I had somewhere read that little diamond. At minimun, it seems to validate reservations many scholars possess that Calvin's view on both the Atonement's design and extent remains a debatable phenomenon.

As for the Church Fathers' view of any one issue being determinative for our view, surely it is correct to say emphatically not. However, the Church Fathers--as well as any historical era of the writing Church--certainly may assist us when we encounter a position that suggests IT ALONE is the obvious reading of Scripture.

From my view, strict Calvinists appear to say just that when speaking of Limited Atonement. Unhappily for Calvinists, the History of the Church says otherwise.

Thanks to all for your very good engagement. With that, I am...

Peter

Tim Cook

Excellent post, and also good discussion. Peter, I have read some of your comments over on Wade Burleson's blog, and I very much appreciate your insight. I am not "reformed" theologically, and in fact would probably consider myself an Arminian of the Wesleyan variety (with a few qualifiers). Still, I am powerfully interested in all things Amrinian/Calvinist. I am sure I have a lot to learn. I look forward to reading your blog as part of that learning process.

Also, I sympathize with the "not fitting in" feeling I have seen you describe...I would love for you to drop by my blog sometime (not as scholarly as yours, but I hope it is sometimes worth the read)

In Christ,
Tim Cook

Scott

There is an interesting article at Christianity Today about the resurgence of Calvinism in Baptist circles today. I guess not all theologians and Bible scholars have abandoned yet! :)

You can read it here: www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/009/42.32.html

Wayne Smith

Peter,
“Just, and the justifier of him which believeth.”
- Rom_3:26
Being justified by faith, we have peace with God. Conscience accuses no longer. Judgment now decides for the sinner instead of against him. Memory looks back upon past sins, with deep sorrow for the sin, but yet with no dread of any penalty to come; for Christ has paid the debt of his people to the last jot and tittle, and received the divine receipt; and unless God can be so unjust as to demand double payment for one debt, no soul for whom Jesus died as a substitute can ever be cast into hell. It seems to be one of the very principles of our enlightened nature to believe that God is just; we feel that it must be so, and this gives us our terror at first; but is it not marvellous that this very same belief that God is just, becomes afterwards the pillar of our confidence and peace! If God be just, I, a sinner, alone and without a substitute, must be punished; but Jesus stands in my stead and is punished for me; and now, if God be just, I, a sinner, standing in Christ, can never be punished. God must change his nature before one soul, for whom Jesus was a substitute, can ever by any possibility suffer the lash of the law. Therefore, Jesus having taken the place of the believer-having rendered a full equivalent to divine wrath for all that his people ought to have suffered as the result of sin, the believer can shout with glorious triumph, “Who shall lay anything to the charge of God's elect?” Not God, for he hath justified; not Christ, for he hath died, “yea rather hath risen again.” My hope lives not because I am not a sinner, but because I am a sinner for whom Christ died; my trust is not that I am holy, but that being unholy, he is my righteousness. My faith rests not upon what I am, or shall be, or feel, or know, but in what Christ is, in what he has done, and in what he is now doing for me. On the lion of justice the fair maid of hope rides like a queen.

peter

Wayne, My Brother,

Glad you stopped by. I fear you simply did not at all taste the Apostle John's food about the "Sacrifice that atones". Rather, you brought to the table a dish you prepared elsewhere.

And, unfortunately, at least from my view, what you said Wayne, seems to contradict the very words of the Apostle.

You write: "...no soul for whom Jesus died as a substitute can ever be cast into hell." Unless you are prepared to argue that John's inspired words he wrote--"and not for our sins only, but also for the sins of all the world"--have another meaning than the face value meaning, I am afraid what needs to be done, my Brother Wayne, is to allow the Apostle John to correct your apparent misreading of the Apostle Paul.

Have a great afternoon. With that, I am...

Peter

Wayne Smith

Brother Peter,

Please read my post on the
Decrees of God and let me know what you think.

http://smithwe.wordpress.com/

A Brother In His Name

Wayne Smith In His Name

Peter,
Only the Elect/Chosen People who were given to Christ by the God the Father(God). The Other Sinners(Not Chosen) could have been redeemed if the were chosen

peter

Brother Wayne,

You are not dealing with the explicit words of John in 1John 2.2, my Brother Wayne. One may define who the Elect is and whether or not they were given to the Father, ad infinitum. But the text explicitly says Christ atoned "not only for our sins but also for the whole world."

With that, I am...

Peter

Wayne Smith In His Name

Peter,
The Jehovah Witnesses use one versus of the Bible to prove their points and they are a cult. What you say.

Did you read my post at

http://smithwe.wordpress.com/

peter

Wayne,

So, my Brother, are you comparing those who take John's word at face value with Jehovah's Witnesses?

With that, i am...

Peter

Wayne Smith In His Name

Peter,
The answer is no to what 1st John says. What other Bible verses do you have to disclaim the fact that God did before the foundation of the world ( Predestinate, Elect or Chose certain people for salvation when they except Christ after Pentecost .

Did you read the decrees of God on my Blog at
http://smithwe.wordpress.com/

peter

Wayne,

Wayne, it is not about other Bible verses. Rather my post was dealing with the text of 1 John 2.2. What, Wayne, does John say in 1 John 2.2 about the atoning sacrifice? Did John say it for the sins of the whole world or was it not?

And, I haven't the faintest idea what you mean by "The answer is no to what 1st John says".

I fear, Wayne, that to just
post your disagreement about what a Bible verse says without also demonstrating exactly why the other person is misguided in his interpretion is, to say the least, ineffective--not to mention unconvincing-- in geniune dialogue.

Peace. Wit hthat, I am...

Peter

The comments to this entry are closed.