What do the Scriptures teach about the extent of the atonement?

[H]

Sorry to have to disagree with you once again, Tom, but I do not believe that I made any logical errors in my posts. The statements I made (such as "In summary, the Lord Jesus Christ clearly taught that He would give His life for His many sheep (disciples, friends). He NEVER taught that He would give His life for the entire human race." and "Nowhere in Acts does it say that He purchased the entire human race with His blood or died for the entire human race.") are not conclusions based on logical reasoning but are simply statements of fact based on empirical observation. I have read the Gospels many times and I can not remember ever coming across a verse where the Lord Jesus Christ clearly taught that He would give His life for the entire human race. If you could show me a single verse where He clearly taught that, then I would retract my statement. I have also read the Book of Acts many times and can not remember ever coming across a verse that says that He purchased the entire human race with His blood or died for the entire human race. Again, if you could show me a single verse in the Book of Acts that says that, then I would retract my statement.
 
Lord bless!
H

[outdeep]

Actually, both H and Tom are correct.  H is probably true in his observation that there is no Biblical statement that says Jesus died for every single person who ever existed or ever will exist.  Tom is correct in that the assertion that "Christ shed his blood for the church" does not preclude the possibility that Christ shed his blood for others as well.

I think it all comes back to the conflict where Calvinists, by the logical necessity to keep their theological model consistent with itself, demands that Christ only died for the elect.  In other words God the Father and God the Son, from the beginning of time, had no other intention in view.  This premise is held in tension with the fact that God spoke universal invitations as well as universal exhortations to repentance and Bible writers have expressed God's apparent desire to see all men saved.  Why would God invite, exhort to repent or desire to see saved those who don’t have a snowball's chance in hell because he knows Christ didn't die for him in the first place?

R.C. Sproul, in his book "Chosen By God", a popular defense of Calvinism, mentions this doctrine of limited atonement in an appendix.  He says that the doctrine is very complicated and that he could devote a whole book to it, then he doesn't say very much about it.

I think J.I. Packard, a reformed theologian, deals with it the best in his book "Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God" because he actually admits that there is a problem and deals with it forthrightly.

[Oscar]

Sorry to have to disagree with you once again, Tom, but I do not believe that I made any logical errors in my posts. The statements I made (such as "In summary, the Lord Jesus Christ clearly taught that He would give His life for His many sheep (disciples, friends). He NEVER taught that He would give His life for the entire human race." and "Nowhere in Acts does it say that He purchased the entire human race with His blood or died for the entire human race.") are not conclusions based on logical reasoning but are simply statements of fact based on empirical observation. I have read the Gospels many times and I can not remember ever coming across a verse where the Lord Jesus Christ clearly taught that He would give His life for the entire human race. If you could show me a single verse where He clearly taught that, then I would retract my statement. I have also read the Book of Acts many times and can not remember ever coming across a verse that says that He purchased the entire human race with His blood or died for the entire human race. Again, if you could show me a single verse in the Book of Acts that says that, then I would retract my statement.
 
Lord bless!
H

H,

Now you are committing another logical fallacy by arguing against a straw man.

I am not aware of any statement in the Bible where Christ, or anyone else, said in so many words, that he would or would not give his life for the sins of the whole world.

I am also not aware of any passage that says there is one God who subsists in three persons.   Nevertheless, after reading the whole of scripture, and after applying some good sound logic, the early church concluded exactly that.

So, H, since your purpose in these posts is to establish that Jesus did not die for the sins of the whole world, what you are doing is to make claims like, "Jesus never said" in order to establish that the teaching of limited atonement is true.

Otherwise, why do it?  Jesus never said, "I am not a turtle".  Does it follow that he therefore is a turtle?

If you merely are stating that Jesus, or Paul, never said this or that in so many words, fine.  But if you are trying to base a conclusion on this, you are committing the logical fallacy I referred to (petitio principii).

Your entire line of reasoning violates the basic interpretive principle that scripture means what the original writers meant it to mean.

John has recorded that Jesus spoke the words of John 3:16-17 to a Jewish Pharisee.  To argue that the term "world" used in these verses was understood by Nicodemus in the context of Reformed Theology, which was hammered out 1500 years later, is ludicrous.

God bless,

Thomas Maddux

[Oscar]

Actually, both H and Tom are correct.  H is probably true in his observation that there is no Biblical statement that says Jesus died for every single person who ever existed or ever will exist.  Tom is correct in that the assertion that "Christ shed his blood for the church" does not preclude the possibility that Christ shed his blood for others as well.

I think it all comes back to the conflict where Calvinists, by the logical necessity to keep their theological model consistent with itself, demands that Christ only died for the elect.  In other words God the Father and God the Son, from the beginning of time, had no other intention in view.  This premise is held in tension with the fact that God spoke universal invitations as well as universal exhortations to repentance and Bible writers have expressed God's apparent desire to see all men saved.  Why would God invite, exhort to repent or desire to see saved those who don’t have a snowballs chance in hell because he knows Christ didn't die for him in the first place?

R.C. Sproul, in his book "Chosen By God", a popular defense of Calvinism, mentions this doctrine of limited atonement in an appendix.  He says that the doctrine is very complicated and that he could devote a whole book to it, then he doesn't say very much about it.

I think J.I. Packard, a reformed theologian, deals with it the best in his book "Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God" because he actually admits that there is a problem and deals with it forthrightly.

Dave,

As I have shown, even Calvin didn't accept this teaching.  

It is, as you said, based on the desire to keep the Reformed system internally consistent.

Look at one of the verses H has quoted, Acts 2:38-39.

"And Peter said to them, "repent, and let each of you be baptized int the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
For the promise is to you and your children, and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God shall call to Himself."

A Reformed theologian reads this, and thinks "Oh, only those who have been elected to life are being spoken of here.  So, the words "as many as the Lord our God shall call to himself" means only an elect company out of mankind".

However, since the hearers of this message had NEVER EVEN HEARD of Augustin of Hippo or the Synod of Dort, much less the Westminster Confession, it is absurd to argue this.

These folks believed that God was the God of the whole earth, and of his people Israel in particular. It is clear that Peter was urging them to do something that they were capable of doing...otherwise why would he, "...with many other words he...kept on exhorting them"?  

So, this comes down, in part, to an issue of hermeneutics.

God bless,

Thomas Maddux

[al Hartman]

The person insisting that the atonement is not limited is guilty of obviously flawed reasoning. As has been pointed out repeatedly you must limit the atonment in either its efficacy or its extent. Some of us choose to limits its extent because that view is most consistent with what the Bible teaches elsewhere about God's character.
There is no logical way to argue that God is omnipotent in the truest sense of the word in that what He wills comes to pass, and that men he intended to be redeemed will ultimately perish. We simply cannot have it both ways.
If you take the position that the atonement is not limited in its extent but rather  limited in its efficacy (thus failing to atone for the one sin of unbelief in some) you should be required to explain that position in light of what Scritprue teaches about the nature of Christ's sacrifice. The fact of the matter is that this  presents formidable theological difficulties. It would suggest that the atonement was not equal to the sin of unbelief in those who perish.
Verne

     It is a struggle for me to absorb all the contentions of this thread.  (I have been described as "not the sharpest knife in the drawer.")  But it seems to me that Verne, after stating, "It is hard for me to understand why both sides of this debate insist that the other perspective is wrong," goes on to do that very thing...

     Here's what keeps me from accepting the limited atonement as an inevitable conclusion:  If God offered salvation to every soul on earth-- past, present & future-- through the blood of Christ, that does not necessitate that He expected the whole world to receive the gift.  Allowing for free will, God may have made the offer to all, fully knowing that some would refuse, so that none could say, when judged, that he had no choice.  In other words, perhaps the blood of Christ was shed for all who would accept it.    
     Nothing in this scenerio mandates that we "must limit the atonment in either its efficacy or its extent."  Because God opened the door to all, it does not have to follow that He willed for any or all to enter or not, but may have allowed for us to choose.  Those who the Father gives to the Son may be those who made the right choice.  I am no scholar, but I do not see why God's having "called," "chosen," & "predestinated" cannot fit into such a plan.

     In any case, one would seem to be in greater danger of dishonoring God by insistently taking sides in such debate, than in rendering the point of limited or unlimited atonement moot insofar as concerns us in this life.  What is is, and nothing we do or say can change it.  As Verne aptly points out, no position on this matter excuses anyone from the great commission, nor from any other scriptural instruction to believers.
     To insist upon reducing the dimension of the atonement to being understandable to us seems to offer the greatest opportunity and danger of dishonoring God.  It is like saying, "Of course I'll obey you, Lord-- just as soon as you explain why I should in a way that I can fully understand."

     My apology if my thoughts seem too simplistic.  I have never struggled with the concept of God's creating a rock to heavy for Him to lift because it seems a foolish idea, and because the wisdom of God is foolishness to men, I have no problem believing that in the realm of His thoughts and works it may be a perfectly reasonable reality.
     I see no harm in conjecture, and studying to learn more is good, but is this really a matter to be insisted upon?  For if there is an absolute "right," it follows that there must be a "wrong," and do we really want to walk beside those who hold fast (for one side is as insistent as the other) to wrong beliefs?  This brings us close back to one of the great errors of assemblyism.

     Can't we all humbly wait to learn the full truth in the Lord's good time, and meanwhile be about our Father's business?

[Kimberley Tobin]

Amen Al!  And you said it without ruffling anyone's feathers (I wouldn't have been so gracious.)

[al Hartman]

You raise a fair point Al. The question is much simpler than the way you framed it though and that I think is part of the problem. The reason for the confusion is that so many fail to see that everyone limits the atonement. The argument you presented in no way changes that. If you agree that some will perish, you stipulate that the atonement is indeed limited. It is a quite simple point really.

     I'm sorry, but I just don't see that.  If Christ's precious blood was shed for any and all who will believe, its effectiveness is not limited.

Arguments about whether the blood of Christ would have been efficacious for those who rejected Him are completely irrelevant and nothing but useless specualation for there is no way to prove this, not does Scripture teach us that this is true.

     I agree that arguments over this are irrelevant, and propose that the reason scripture does not settle the matter for us may be that the truth of it may also be irrelevant to us for the present.  Speculation is not useless if it complements one's faith, but it is surely not adequate grounds upon which to establish doctrine.

Those condmened are descrbed as vessels of wrath, fashioned by the same potter who made you and me.

     ...and the condemnation is based upon men's choosing darkness over the Light, no?  The vessels described in Romans9 are spoken of speculatively, i.e. in a sense of "what if...?"   But even if you choose to take it more literally, nothing about the passage precludes the involvement of man's free will.  Second Timothy2 likewise speaks figuratively and any conclusions beyond the parameters of the illustration are speculation.  (Even Jesus no doubt used a chamber pot)  It is our choices as God's vessels that determine our use to Him. (1Thessalonians4:4)

 

Such speculation has absolutely no bearing on the point under consideration and really only obscures the fundamental quesiton.

     I ask in all sincerity:  What is the point?  What is the fundamental question?

In this I thnk Plato was on to something when is said knowing and not doing is the same as not knowing. Think about it.

     Thinking about it and still sincere:  knowing and not doing/not knowing what, exactly?

Having the possibility of receiving Christ and not doing so, and not having the possibility of receving Him is ultimately, functionally  the same thing. I am really amazed at how something so obvious seems to be loss on so many otherwise reasonably intelligent folk.

     Certainly my intelligence fails to see the obviousness of it.

One simply has to ask the question:
"Why did Christ die?"
The answer is of course that He died for for our sin.
In your case and mine Al, that includes among our innumerable transgressions, the sin of our former unbelief.
Unbelief is sin.

     Agreed, to this point...

Please explain to me how in the case of the sinner condemned to hell because of his unbelief, that Christ died for it?

     As I see it, Christ's death makes available to all the forgiveness of sin/sins.  This takes effect upon acceptance/receipt of the gift by you, me or anyone.  It does not apply to any who will not have it by their own choice, nor was it intended to.  God's graciousness is all-reaching, but His purpose is not frustrated.

The only evidence you have for concluding that Christ died for any sinner, is the evidence of the sinner's repentance!

What right do we have to conclude otherwise?

     Indeed!  What right, what need, have we to conclude?  At all?

The reference to the contention which sometimes attend those engaged in this conversation  has to do with how doctrine should practically affect us. In this we are all agreed that Scripture authorizes us to present the gosple to all!
The point I was trying to make Al is that those who crtiticise us for limiting the atonemnet in its extent, generally compeltely fail to recognize that their position then necessarily limits the atomenent in it's  efficacy.
Again your previous comments failed to grasp this. I love you in Christ brother but I have so much difficulty understanding why so many just don't seem to get this simple truth:

BOTH SIDES OF THE ARGUMENT LIMIT THE ATONEMENT!!

Nothing in this scenerio mandates that we "must limit the atonment in either its efficacy or its extent."  Because God opened the door to all, it does not have to follow that He willed for any or all to enter or not, but may have allowed for us to choose.

If this be the case, then I ultimately owe my salvation to my own choice. Here is where we shall never agree. I contend that the only reason I love Him, is that he first loved me. The evidence that He first loved me, is that I now love Him...  

God bless.
Verne

     I hope that these, my more recent expressions clarify some of my thinking to you.
     I do not criticize your position, Verne.  If believing as you do is a contributing factor in making you the man of God you wish to be, it can only be a good thing, to my thinking.  I simply am not convinced to accept your viewpoint as wholly correct or as necessary to my own walk with Christ.
     Neither am I hard-selling my own suppositions as the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.  What I have inadequately tried to express is what I presently understand.  I am, and intend to remain open to correction, as I hope we all do.  
     As far as where we "ultimately owe" our salvation, it is not to our own choice, but to the God Whose grace enabled our choice.  Again, I believe that His enabling is available ot all who will accept and utilize it.  That this concept is a mobius strip of consideration is not problematic for me nor, I think, for God.

p.s. Oh a personal note Al, this discussion has never been just about theology for me. The Biblical teaching of the vessel of wrath is in my view the only satisfactory explanation, from a human standpoint,  for why God permits unchecked evil in His creation.
It is to me a supremely practical matter!

     To be perfectly honest, Verne, there was a time when I thought everything was all about theology to you.  That was some time ago.  You have shown yourself to me personally as a brother and a friend, for whom I am grateful to God.
     It is that I have been wrong about you and so much else that reminds me to keep myself humble, reprovable, teachable...

Thank you and God bless us all,
al

[Recovering Saint]

Call me a fool for Christ but I saw you guys having so much fun back and forth and back and forth it was like a tennis match. Hope the score ends in "love all".

Anyway I don't know what I am in doctrine but I figure this is worth saying. I believe God will save all who call on Him and makes it possible for them to know if they want and to respond if they want. This is the grace of God that He would even have anything to do with His fallen creation in the first place and to love us enough to let us speak on our own behalf and even to have the audacity to challenge Him to His face. This is real love. As Jesus said on the Cross. Father forgive them for they don't know what they are doing.

Anyway here goes nothing.

Romans 11:

17 But some of these branches from Abraham's tree, some of the Jews, have been broken off. And you Gentiles, who were branches from a wild olive tree, were grafted in. So now you also receive the blessing God has promised Abraham and his children, sharing in God's rich nourishment of his special olive tree.
18 But you must be careful not to brag about being grafted in to replace the branches that were broken off. Remember, you are just a branch, not the root.
19 "Well," you may say, "those branches were broken off to make room for me."
20 Yes, but remember – those branches, the Jews, were broken off because they didn't believe God, and you are there because you do believe. Don't think highly of yourself, but fear what could happen.
21 For if God did not spare the branches he put there in the first place, he won't spare you either.
22 Notice how God is both kind and severe. He is severe to those who disobeyed, but kind to you as you continue to trust in his kindness. But if you stop trusting, you also will be cut off.
23 And if the Jews turn from their unbelief, God will graft them back into the tree again. He has the power to do it.
24 For if God was willing to take you who were, by nature, branches from a wild olive tree and graft you into his own good tree – a very unusual thing to do – he will be far more eager to graft the Jews back into the tree where they belong.
25 I want you to understand this mystery, dear brothers and sisters,  so that you will not feel proud and start bragging. Some of the Jews have hard hearts, but this will last only until the complete number of Gentiles comes to Christ.
26 And so all Israel will be saved. Do you remember what the prophets said about this? "A Deliverer will come from Jerusalem, and he will turn Israel from all ungodliness.
27 And then I will keep my covenant with them and take away their sins."
28 Many of the Jews are now enemies of the Good News. But this has been to your benefit, for God has given his gifts to you Gentiles. Yet the Jews are still his chosen people because of his promises to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
29 For God's gifts and his call can never be withdrawn.
30 Once, you Gentiles were rebels against God, but when the Jews refused his mercy, God was merciful to you instead.
31 And now, in the same way, the Jews are the rebels, and God's mercy has come to you. But someday they, too, will share in God's mercy.
32 For God has imprisoned all people in their own disobedience so he could have mercy on everyone.

Abraham obeyed God and his offspring inherited a blessing. Paul says this is a mystery why do we know more than Paul. Israel lost out their privilege because of lacked action in regards to faith. As a consequence of their unbelief us Gentiles got a chance. We are here by God’s mercy and God can reverse the favour if we don’t act in faith. He says in verse 26 all Israel will be saved and verse 31 the Jews will share in God’s mercy. In verse 32 God imprisoned all in their disobedience to show that it is His mercy that is extended to all. The all is everyone like the all in Romans 3:23 All have sinned. It is like John 3:16 the whoever will and ;

1 Timothy 2:
3 This is good and pleases God our Savior,
4 for he wants everyone to be saved and to understand the truth.
5 For there is only one God and one Mediator who can reconcile God and people. He is the man Christ Jesus.
6 He gave his life to purchase freedom for everyone. This is the message that God gave to the world at the proper time.  
My conclusion is that everyone is allowed to respond and those who respond are chosen and can be part of the elect.
And Paul writing to the Ephesians, believers by faith.

Ephesians 1:1 This letter is from Paul, chosen by God to be an apostle of Christ Jesus. It is written to God's holy people in Ephesus, who are faithful followers of Christ Jesus.
2 May grace and peace be yours, sent to you from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord.
3 How we praise God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly realms because we belong to Christ.
4 Long ago, even before he made the world, God loved us and chose us in Christ to be holy and without fault in his eyes.
5 His unchanging plan has always been to adopt us into his own family by bringing us to himself through Jesus Christ. And this gave him great pleasure.
6 So we praise God for the wonderful kindness he has poured out on us because we belong to his dearly loved Son.
7 He is so rich in kindness that he purchased our freedom through the blood of his Son, and our sins are forgiven.

In verse 4 he is talking to the Ephesians and says I chose you before I made the World and does this mean He decided who would be saved or that He could see ahead that they would respond. I choose the latter that He could see their choice rather than He made the choice for them.

It makes no sense to me to have God create people to go to hell when elsewhere in Thessalonians he says God has not destined us for wrath again speaking to believers but this would contradict God’s own desire for man to have free will if our will has no consequence in us accepting Him and deciding to change course. This is a problem area for some because then people say it is a work not based on grace. But I believe that grace came first to open the option. Then through the Word and miracles God gave us faith as a gift. So even if someone repents and believes on the gospel as the gospel says it was God that was drawing, enabling and working throughout their “conversion” from one state as a lost hopeless sinner to one who has inheritance with the saints.

Lord bless

Hugh  

[al Hartman]

Verne,
     Since you rest your case, I shall rest mine.  Let me say in closing that I perceive your favoring of one side of an equation over the other whereas I do not see the opposites as being mutually exclusive.  I am with you as a work in progress, and believe that to be the characteristic of fellowship:  fellows in the same boat.  I enjoyed immensewly Becky Weiser's recent posting on another thread of Ruth Bell Graham's intended epitaph:  "End ofConstruction.  Thank You for Your Patience."

Hugh,
     I am so glad you posted your photo.  I have a print of it above my monitor & enjoy glancing at it as I read your posts.  I agree with Verne re: your latest on this thread:  wonderful.
     All I have to look at when I read Verne is a recently posted photo of his posterior as he dives into the ocean.  I suppose I should be grateful that he's wearing trunks !!!

 ;)al

[Kimberley Tobin]

Hugh - What version of the bible are you using?

I now know why GG had us use the King James Bible.  What I read below in your post was so easily understandable.  The King James english, always made us have to stretch for the meaning, didn't it?  I can just imagine how plain other verses of the bible would be with the translation you used and I can only imagine how many people would have fled when in PLAIN ENGLISH it said one thing, and GG and the Boys were preaching ANOTHER GOSPEL!  

Eye opening!  

[Recovering Saint]

Verne I am no theologian but here again is my take.

This is a question for Hugh but anyone may feel free to comment.
I agree with most everything Hugh said in his wonderful presentation of the gopsel message and have a question or two. This does not imply that I disagree with his stated viewpoint in the above quote but I am generally interested in his view on a few verses in the Bible.
Question 1.
What is your understanding, in view of your above statemnet, of the teaching of the following verses in Romans?

 
Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy,

I cannot be forced to agree to others terms I am God and have no hidden motives if I say it I know the end from the beginning and have thought out the best way to handle it fairly.

and whom he will he hardeneth.

Classic examples are Pharaoh and Esau who both made deliberate choices after seeing God enough to make the proper choice. Hardening means strengthening as in hardening a steel blade. They made their choice God as in Romans says gave them over and so to speak might have said “…fine lets not wait you have it your way.” God did not force them they already chose He just gave them what they wanted in their heart. He again knows that the person will or won’t change because He sees the beginning from the end. Like the pot of ground “He is looking for fruit” He is merciful and will wait but if the response is the same they are stalling for time He will end it.

Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?  Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
Romans 9:18-22

God knows what He is doing we cannot argue with Him because if He says it He is all knowing and has thought out all the angles beforehand and has decided this one will repent and this one won’t so I will act accordingly and you have no say in it because you have already chosen yourself not to repent and God has an answer based on that choice which is irrevocable.

Question 2:

I agree that the following verse does not logically warrant the assumption that there are some the Father does not draw. It also does not logically warrant the assumtion that there are none whom He does not draw.
It does logically warrant the conclusion that if the Father does not draw them, they will not, indeed cannot come.
What do you think this verse means, and why did the Lord Jesus make this statement?
Do you believe this verse teaches that the Father draws everyone to Christ, and that therefore some do not come to Him although drawn by the Father?

No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
John 6:44  

The Father gives everyone the Word and a measure of faith. If we respond to that we are drawn. Like an ad in the newspaper, it appeals to some and they respond to that but those who don’t are left alone. If I respond to the ad I may receive more flyers in the mail because I have shown interest. I have been ‘successfully’ drawn to the product that is what I believe is implied in that verse. Everyone hears but not all are drawn to respond based on their own heart condition at the time of the message. The Father and the Son work in that life that responds.

Finally, who do you think the following verses refer to?

But he answered and said, Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up.
Matthew 15:13  

The planting of the Lord is an analogy to explain when one has responded they are the Lord’s and anyone who is not the Lord’s will be cast into Hell at the judgement. They have a choice they made the right or wrong one based on sufficient knowledge. The grace and love of God was demonstrated in that while we were sinners Christ died for us and the judgement is that they chose darkness rather than light after seeing all this.

Hugh

[Recovering Saint]

Hugh - What version of the bible are you using?

I now know why GG had us use the King James Bible.  What I read below in your post was so easily understandable.  The King James english, always made us have to stretch for the meaning, didn't it?  I can just imagine how plain other verses of the bible would be with the translation you used and I can only imagine how many people would have fled when in PLAIN ENGLISH it said one thing, and GG and the Boys were preaching ANOTHER GOSPEL!  

Eye opening!  

The New Living Translation  is my translation I use here. It is easily understood and has a good sense to it. Some may be more literal and possibly more accurate but I like this because it is understandable.

Hugh

[Recovering Saint]

Verne I am no theologian but here again is my take.
The Father gives everyone the Word and a measure of faith.

Hugh

Thanks Hugh. Thoughtful, and thought-provoking responses.
I am not sure I agee that God gives a measure of faith as you put it to everyone. It would seem to me that a state of continued unbelief would in and of itself be evidence of an absence of faith.

For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.
Hebrews 4:2  

Verne
p.s. Isn't great to be able to talk about the Bible withoug getting all lathered up? hee! hee! Debate is good! We did not have too much of that in geftakysland! Of course that is entirely understandable since he knew it all!...NOT!  

Good answer Verne

 I left that one open. Hopefully I can explain it. God has to be fair in the judgement. When all are brought before Him even the so called atheist is without excuse because the creation proves there is a creator because nothing is existing in our world without first having someone who made it, and secondly made it for a reason. Romans 3: 30 says “faith” is necessary to receive God’s forgiveness. Again if I see creation I believe a creator exists Ps 19 says so.

I may not know who He is or why He created me but I cannot deny His existence and I have a measure of faith. People who say it is not so are incapable of basic truth about themselves. They are not aware that they have faith or may call it another name but they are without excuse. If they are curious enough after hearing the gospel they can do as we are doing here, investigate its claims. God says if they seek they will find, and Jeremiah says seek with all your heart and you will be heard.

Romans 3:30 There is only one God, and there is only one way of being accepted by him. He makes people right with himself only by faith, whether they are Jews or Gentiles.

Definitions for Hearing and Listening. A careful distinction has to be made to understand my point.


Hearing is perceiving sound.

Listening requires attention to because you are looking for something or expecting to receive understanding.

1. To make an effort to hear something: listen to the radio; listening for the bell.
2. To pay attention; heed: “She encouraged me to listen carefully to what country people called mother wit” (Maya Angelou).
Faith comes to those who make an effort to hear something who pay attention who are careful to ‘listen’ to God’s Word.

Romans 10:17 Yet faith comes from listening to this message of good news – the Good News about Christ.

And again those who have made up their minds and refuse to listen the faith God shows to them about His creation and any other proofs they had at this point in their existence makes the faith useless because it is rejected. This is so incredible but we all I am sure are guilty of not listening to truth when it doesn’t say what we want or expect it to say.

Math 13:10 His disciples came and asked him, "Why do you always tell stories when you talk to the people?" 11 Then he explained to them, "You have been permitted to understand the secrets of the Kingdom of Heaven, but others have not. 12 To those who are open to my teaching, more understanding will be given, and they will have an abundance of knowledge. But to those who are not listening, even what they have will be taken away from them. 13 That is why I tell these stories, because people see what I do, but they don't really see. They hear what I say, but they don't really hear, and they don't understand. 14 This fulfills the prophecy of Isaiah, which says: 'You will hear my words, but you will not understand; you will see what I do, but you will not perceive its meaning. 15 For the hearts of these people are hardened, and their ears cannot hear, and they have closed their eyes – so their eyes cannot see, and their ears cannot hear, and their hearts cannot understand, and they cannot turn to me and let me heal them.'

So I conclude they had faith and rejected it out of hand because it was illogical or unacceptable in some way intellectually or morally and they shut their eyes and ears to God's clearly revealed truth that He existed and was requiring them to seek Him.

Lord bless you Verne

Hugh

[al Hartman]

     I confess that when this thread began I was leery of the direction it might take.  But I'm lovin' it more every day!

     No matter which side of the coin you look at, the magnificence of our God, of His grace, mercy, love, kindness, is extolled.

     To think that within each of us lay the ability to turn away from all that He is to and for us, and yet He has enabled and encouraged us to resist that damning pull and to call upon Him and be saved.  And we have not yet seen or heard, nor has it entered into our hearts the things that He has prepared for us who He has enabled to love Him!

     Tell on, Brothers & Sisters!  Tell on...

[H]

4. What did the Apostle Paul teach about the extent of the atonement in his epistles ?  (Part 1)

In stark contrast to the almost total silence of the Apostles in the Book of Acts on
the subject, the Apostle Paul provided us with numerous references in his epistles.
So many, in fact, that it has taken me much longer to answer this question than it
did to answer the first 3. And the answer is so long that it won't fit in a single
post, so I've decided to break it up into smaller pieces.

In the book of Romans, Paul clearly taught that the Lord Jesus Christ died "for us"
(believers, the elect). For example, in Romans 4:25 he said "Who was delivered for
OUR offences, and was raised again for OUR justification." In Romans 5:8-11 he said
"But God commendeth his love toward US, in that, while WE were yet sinners, Christ
died for US. Much more then, being now justified by his blood, WE shall be saved
from wrath through him. For if, when WE were enemies, WE were reconciled to God by
the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, WE shall be saved by his life.
And not only so, but WE also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom WE
have now received the atonement." And in Romans 8:32 he said "He that spared not his
own Son, but delivered him up for US all, how shall he not with him also freely give
US all things" Notice that he said that we were "reconciled to God by the death of
his Son" "when we were enemies" (Rom. 5:10). If the Lord Jesus Christ died for the
entire human race, then the entire human race has been reconciled to God and will be
saved. There are actually people who believe this is the case (universalists), but
this is not a Biblical belief, in my opinion. But at least these people consistently
apply their belief in "unlimited atonement." Logically, "unlimited atonement" should
result in "unlimited salvation" (universalism). Notice also what Paul said in Romans
8:32. If God really "delivered him up for" the entire human race, then "how shall he
not with him also freely give ... all things" to the entire human race (including
repentance, faith, forgiveness, eternal life, etc.)? Why would God supposedly give
someone the most precious gift (His Son) and yet withhold lesser gifts (such as
repentace, faith, forgiveness, eternal life, etc.)? Paul also clearly taught that
Christ died for the elect in Romans 8:33-34: "Who shall lay any thing to the charge
of God's ELECT? It is God that justifieth." (i.e, the ELECT) "Who is he that
condemneth? It is Christ that died," (i.e., for the ELECT) "yea rather, that is
risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for
us." (i.e., the ELECT). By the way, speaking of "making intercession", in John 17:9,
the Lord Jesus Christ said "I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast
given me". If He (supposedly) was going to die for the entire human race, why did He
only pray for those whom the Father had given Him (and NOT for the world)? I believe
that He died for the same people that He prayed for, those whom the Father had given
Him, the elect. I haven't been able to find any verses in Romans where Paul said
that the Lord Jesus Christ died for the entire human race.