This Quote Sums Up My Concerns

voicecrying said:
It doesn't have to be about Calvinism:

Romans 5:10
10 For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life.

Enemies are those not reconciled.
Unbelievers are not reconciled.
Unbelievers are enemies of God.

Of course, we are told to love our enemies, not hate them.
Click to expand...
Matthew 5:44: ““But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;”

I can’t imagine God truly viewing the non-saved as enemies, at least not in the context we use the word today.
 
Bruh said:
I’m tired of both sides saying……yeah but look at them.

My children did the same thing when they were 3 years old, but dad he did it too.
Click to expand...

Thankfully none of your children were murdered.
 
DrHuk&Duck said:
Matthew 5:44: ““But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;”

I can’t imagine God truly viewing the non-saved as enemies, at least not in the context we use the word today.
Click to expand...
The same word for enemy in Romans 5 & Matthew 5 is the same word here:

Matthew 13:39
39 and the enemy who sowed them is the devil. The harvest is the end of the age, and the reapers are angels.
 
Ransom said:
In WWII, the Germans were "the enemy." Did the Allies desire the death of every German?



That, too, is a questionable premise. Did Jesus die "for all"? He was functioning as the Great High Priest. Did the sacrficies made by Aaron and the Levitical priests atone for the sins of, say, the Philistines or the Amalekites? No. They were intended for the people of Israel--those for whom the priests interceded. They weren't intended for the nations that were enemies of God's covenant people, and therefore the enemies of God himself. Just as the Levites interceded for their people, the ones in the Old Covenant, Christ in his priestly role atoned and intercedes for his people--for Christians, participants in the New Covenant.

Why deny communion to non-believers? Because it's not for them--because what it symbolizes was also not for them.

And so there are people who are God's enemies, who are so by choice, and unlike those in the church, will never be reconciled to God and become his friends. They have a different purpose in redemptive history. Pharaoh's purpose in the Exodus was not to become a vessel of God's mercy, but an object of his wrath and his power (Rom. 9:17,22).
Click to expand...
I have never heard it presented in that way before. But even in the Old Testament a provision was made for the Gentiles to come to God by becoming Jewish proselytes. That was the purpose of Israel being a covenant nation, to be a witness to the rest of the world. I can see the logic of what you are saying but why go to the level that the blood of Christ wasn’t sufficient for the sins of the whole world? In 2 Peter 2:1 he is very clear that there were false teachers who brought in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them. The rest of the chapter goes on and likens these unbelievers as dogs that go back to their vomit and the sow that was washed to her wallowing to the mire.

Aren’t you taking an analogy to put forth a teaching that seemingly contradicts what Peter says in plain language? Many good men have honestly tried to understand the sovereignty of God and the responsibility man but is seems to be a paradox that can’t be fully grasped. Down to the basic level, I don’t see that much of a gap in Calvinists and non-Calvinists in that both believe that repentance and faith in what Christ did on the cross is the only way to heaven and when a non-Calvinist sins what does he do? He repents of that sin. What does a Calvinist do? He repents of that sin. They both turn from that sin. In other words because of being born again God brings conviction to those who are truly saved and they don’t have a desire to continue sinning and wallowing in the mire like the world does. 1 John 2:2 says, “And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.”
 
voicecrying said:
The same word for enemy in Romans 5 & Matthew 5 is the same word here:

Matthew 13:39
39 and the enemy who sowed them is the devil. The harvest is the end of the age, and the reapers are angels.
Click to expand...
Probably not a good opening starter sentence for winning someone to the Lord: “You are an enemy of God…”
 
biscuit1953 said:
It was a sincere question.
Click to expand...

When answering the question requires me to accept a false premise, it's not a sincere question. It's a loaded question. And that's where I stopped reading. No point in continuing with a screed that wasn't based in reality.
 
Ransom said:
When answering the question requires me to accept a false premise, it's not a sincere question. It's a loaded question. And that's where I stopped reading. No point in continuing with a screed that wasn't based in reality.
Click to expand...
My question was why wasn’t Jesus’ sacrifice sufficient for the whole world? How is that a loaded question? What is the false premise? I wasn't attacking Calvinism, I was asking a sincere question.
 
Last edited:
biscuit1953 said:
My question was why wasn’t Jesus’ sacrifice sufficient for the whole world?
Click to expand...

No, it was why I would go to the level of saying it wasn't.

Of course, I said nothing of the kind.

biscuit1953 said:
How is that a loaded question?
Click to expand...

It assumes I said something I didn't.

biscuit1953 said:
What is the false premise?
Click to expand...

That I asserted Jesus's sacrifice was not sufficient for the whole world.

biscuit1953 said:
I wasn't attacking Calvinism, I was asking a sincere question.
Click to expand...

I question your sincerity.
 
Ransom said:
No, it was why I would go to the level of saying it wasn't.

Of course, I said nothing of the kind.



It assumes I said something I didn't.



That I asserted Jesus's sacrifice was not sufficient for the whole world.



I question your sincerity.
Click to expand...
I must apologize if I took for granted that you believed that. I have always without exception heard 5 point Calvinists deny the sufficiency of Christ's sacrifice for the whole world. I consider myself more of a Calvinist than an Arminian now, in part thanks to some of your posts in the past defending Calvinism. I'm not attacking Calvinism, just asking about that one point that I thought all 5 point Calvinists believed. I don't even believe it is a critical doctrinal belief. Your explanation of the Old Testament sacrifice only for the nation of Israel being carried over to the New Covenant and the sacrifice Christ made is the first time I have heard that and I found it interesting.
 
biscuit1953 said:
I must apologize if I took for granted that you believed that. I have always without exception heard 5 point Calvinists deny the sufficiency of Christ's sacrifice for the whole world. I consider myself more of a Calvinist than an Arminian now, in part thanks to some of your posts in the past defending Calvinism. I'm not attacking Calvinism, just asking about that one point that I thought all 5 point Calvinists believed. I don't even believe it is a critical doctrinal belief. Your explanation of the Old Testament sacrifice only for the nation of Israel being carried over to the New Covenant and the sacrifice Christ made is the first time I have heard that and I found it interesting.
Click to expand...
Most thinking calvinists would claim that the blood was sufficient, but not efficient. See this conversation here.
 
ALAYMAN said:
Most thinking calvinists would claim that the blood was sufficient, but not efficient. See this conversation here.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the link. I see what the thinking is now but I still can’t get past James 2:1 and 1 John 2:2 where it says, “And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.” I won’t argue the point though.
 
biscuit1953 said:
Thanks for the link. I see what the thinking is now but I still can’t get past James 2:1 and 1 John 2:2 where it says, “And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.” I won’t argue the point though.
Click to expand...

By the definition of "propitiation," has the whole world in fact been propitiated?

Perhaps 1 John 2:2 doesn't mean what you assume it does.
 
Ransom said:
By the definition of "propitiation," has the whole world in fact been propitiated?

Perhaps 1 John 2:2 doesn't mean what you assume it does.
Click to expand...
I am much more in line with what you believe than you may realize. I have John MacArthur's Study Bible and agree with his explanation of Romans 9 concerning God fitting some vessels for wrath and others for mercy and I also believe we were chosen from the foundation of the world (Eph 2:4-5). I don't see the need to argue about the point of the sufficiency of Christ's atonement as opposed to the effeciency of it. 2 Peter 2:1 seems pretty straightforward to my understanding. The main thing that clouds everything up is trying to reconcile the sovereignty of God with the responsibility of man. I think I see your point though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top