I saw that Wildboar "had a little Lutheran in him" and that Unhingedsquare is associated with the Missouri Synod Lutheran Church (MSLC); so if you two or anyone could answer my questions: What is the difference between someone like me- a double predestinarian supralapsarian and the MSLC? Does their Synod believe Christ died for the whole human race? Do they believe in double predestination? Do they hold to Amyraldianism? Are they supra or infralapsarian? Thanks.......KK
Just to keep the record straight. I'm still a supralapsarian who believes in a particular atonement. I just enjoy good Lutheran preaching which is often able to explain a passage and present the Gospel in simple language and the absence of rationalism. Reformed folk can at times spend too much time anathematizing the heretics. I am also sympathetic to the Lutheran view of the Lord's Supper (no, I don't agree with it) because of the strong Zwinglian tendency I see in the Reformed churches.
I don't think that Amyraldianism would fit as a label just because I don't believe that Lutherans would be thinking in those catagories. I do think that Lutherans generally would present an infra perspective. In their view Christ died for the human race. They teach single predestination.
When Lutherans see what appear to be contradictory teachings in Scripture there is a tendency to affirm both and acknowledge a mystery. Reformed theologians can often be guilty of explaining away passages to fit their system.
For whatever strength of arm he may have who swims in the open sea, yet in time he is carried away and sunk, mastered by the greatness of its waves. Need then there is that we be in the ship, that is, that we be carried in the wood, that we may be able to cross this sea. Now this Wood in which our weakness is carried is the Cross of the Lord, by which we are signed, and delivered from the dangerous tempests of this world.--St. Augustine
And of course Square is more than welcome to correct any erroneous statement I made. I'm just a visitor of Lutheranism from time to time.
For whatever strength of arm he may have who swims in the open sea, yet in time he is carried away and sunk, mastered by the greatness of its waves. Need then there is that we be in the ship, that is, that we be carried in the wood, that we may be able to cross this sea. Now this Wood in which our weakness is carried is the Cross of the Lord, by which we are signed, and delivered from the dangerous tempests of this world.--St. Augustine
Thank you Wildboar. Even though you are only a Lutheran "visitor"- might you or someone answer this: WB- you stated that the Missouri Synod states Christ died for the human race, but only believes in single predestination. If Christ died for the human race and there is only a single predestination: what about those who weren't included in the single predestination ( I'll call them "the rest" )- what did the atonement do for "the rest"? What does the Synod say about them? Is this the mystery they talk about? Thank ya' all!........KK
I would point out that Luther himself, although a teacher of double predestination, most often did not speak of an atonement only for the elect. I know of only one passage where it seems he may be teaching this. Calvin was not consistent in his statements on this issue and it really wasn't a debated issue at that time in church history. As you read through the church fathers there are stray comments here and there that hint at a particular atonement but no real group that contends for it. Gottschalk teaches a particular atonement but that's about it.
For the Lutheran view, I would highly recommend reading through Francis Pieper's Christian Dogmatics on the topic if you have access to a good theological library. The Lutheran view teaches that Christ reconciled all men objectively to God in the atonement but that only the elect become subjectively reconciled. They regard the particular view of the atonement as limiting the value of Christ's death. They believe that God's grace is universal.
I hold to a particular atonement because I believe that the Scriptures teach a particular atonement. I also believe that there is legitimacy in this teaching because of my view of church history. I believe that the church must not be stagnant or continually trying to recover some church which never really was but I believe in the doctrinal maturation of the church. Prior to the Reformation there was no group teaching justification by faith alone in any consistent way. But through maturation this doctrine was seen for the truth that it is. I believe that the same is true for a particular atonement. But I also believe that there were great Christian men who did not teach a limited atonement such as Calvin and Luther.
For whatever strength of arm he may have who swims in the open sea, yet in time he is carried away and sunk, mastered by the greatness of its waves. Need then there is that we be in the ship, that is, that we be carried in the wood, that we may be able to cross this sea. Now this Wood in which our weakness is carried is the Cross of the Lord, by which we are signed, and delivered from the dangerous tempests of this world.--St. Augustine
wb says:
You obviously feel comfortable saying that because these were supposedly great men, but the apostles, for example paul 1cor 15: 1-4 and peter acts 2 taught definite atonement, there is no gospel without it. Your faith appears to rest in the wisdom of men and not the scriptures !But I also believe that there were great Christian men who did not teach a limited atonement such as Calvin and Luther.10 Hours Ago 07:22 PM
KK not to be too much a cop out but here is a link to Synodically Adopted Statements: http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=523 In them you will find short summaries of the issues about which you ask.
There are always questions about why some believe and others do not. That question is attempted to be answered by double predestination and limited atonement. Those attempts are valiant but still leaves one with the question of "Why does God choose some and not others?" In addition when one is in the throes of losing battle with sin the question often arises "Am I one for whom Christ died?" And again if one is in possession of an adult child who has no time for God "Why did the Lord allow him to be born? Did He not have enough kindling for hell?" These are not potential issues but refer to real ones faced by myself and friends the Lord has given me to serve.
As far as mystery goes I am thankful to have a God whom I cannot figure out. I fear if I could understand Him it would mean I am God too. And believe me you would not like a god like I would be.
God's peace be with you. †
Wild you ol 27.65% luderan you!!!!Or is it 36.31%?
Arrogance cannot be avoided or true hope be present unless the judgment of condemnation is feared in every work. Martin Luther's Heidelberg Disputation, May 1518
UnhingedSquare: Those attempts are valiant but still leaves one with the question of "Why does God choose some and not others?"
God answers this completely in Rom. 8,9 especially; he both elects and damns to magnify his own love, power, glory, and wisdom.
In addition when one is in the throes of losing battle with sin the question often arises "Am I one for whom Christ died?"
Why does losing a battle with sin jeapordize the status of being one for whom Christ died? His spirit bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God! The battle with sin is not ours to lose or win--so we CANNOT take the credit for losing it! If we do, it also implies that we could take the credit for winning it.
And again if one is in possession of an adult child who has no time for God "Why did the Lord allow him to be born? Did He not have enough kindling for hell?" These are not potential issues but refer to real ones faced by myself and friends the Lord has given me to serve.
Are these God's issues that he has revealed in his word or our issues that our flesh improperly exalts? God has never asked us to face such matters because he has never stated that they are significant. His elect come to him in time; none of us should ever perceive our children (whether adult or young) as 'kindling for hell'--there is no Bible basis for that. There is no 'typical' age for God's regeneration miracle!
Many in the Bible had damned sons: Adam, Noah, Isaac, David, Eli, etc. In no way is that the fault of the parent, it is the responsibility of God alone in his election to reprobation.
Now see here how sleepy-headed all our opponents are, and how little it helps a man to rely on the ancient fathers, for all their repute down the course of the ages! Were they not all equally blind to, yes, and heeldess of, Paul's clearest and and plainest words?
--Martin Luther
My faith is in neither but in Christ. There is no explicit teaching of a definite atonement in the passages you mentioned. The passages are not addressing that issue. If all you get out of those passages when you read them is a definite atonement you are missing the point entirely.Originally Posted by Darryl
Someday denominationalism will be put to an end. Right now, the church of God is fragmented and due to that fragmentation those within certain branches of Christendom are not able to learn as well as they would otherwise be able to from those in other branches. In conservative Lutheranism I see both a Gospel-centeredness that I appreciate and which is not always present in the Reformed churches which can at times become predestinarian centered. I also see a liturgical superiority which is lost in much of Reformed Christianity. Unfortunately my view on the Lord's Supper is different from that of Lutheranism and so I could never become a member of a Lutheran church but I do like to visit there.
I find it much more profitable to read a particular author who has studied God's Word thoroughly and who has read the writings of the saints that has gone before him and who is conscious of the fact that he is a sinner and may have gotten some things wrong even if I disagree with him on some significant issues than it is to read the writings of someone who treats the Bible as if it were a book of prooftexts for the limited atonement and has no understanding of church history or the saints that have gone before him even if we both may be in agreement that the Bible teaches a particular atonement.
For whatever strength of arm he may have who swims in the open sea, yet in time he is carried away and sunk, mastered by the greatness of its waves. Need then there is that we be in the ship, that is, that we be carried in the wood, that we may be able to cross this sea. Now this Wood in which our weakness is carried is the Cross of the Lord, by which we are signed, and delivered from the dangerous tempests of this world.--St. Augustine
I would beg to differ, you place too much emphasis on church history !My faith is in neither but in Christ.
Then you must be blind out of one eye and can't see out the otherThere is no explicit teaching of a definite atonement in the passages you mentioned
Observe :
1Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
2By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
3For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 4And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
Our sins, denotes a definite people, paul is clearly saying that. Also, I recommend you listen to bobs speech on this passage in one of the conference videos this past may..
In the acts passage, peter addresses the house of israel :
acts vs 22Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:
vs 36Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ
39For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the LORD our God shall call.
Peter again is proclaiming a gospel that is aimed at an specific covenant people.
Also in acts 3
18But those things, which God before had shewed by the mouth of all his prophets, that Christ should suffer, he hath so fulfilled.
19Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord.
20And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:
21Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.
22For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you.
23And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.
24Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold of these days.
25Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed. 26Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.
Notice in this passage he connects the DBR of Christ with the fulfillment of the covenant and those who belong to the covenant of promise !
wb, I thought you were smarter than this, to throw in this lame argument ! Oft, times the bible or the writers elucidate truths while expounding on other topics. paul is merely , while in the process of talking about the resurrection, brings forth the content of the gospel message he proclaimed to them in the past !The passages are not addressing that issue.
1Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
Preached as in past tense. Every word , every scripture, is profitabe, in and out of season.
see how this apostle cared for and honored this gospel he had recieved, he introduced it at every opportunity...
No thats not all I got out of it, but its only some of what I got out of it, it's part of the whole. The problem I have with you however, is that all you obviously get out of it , does not include the content of the gospel he preached to the corinths in the past, how can you miss that man ?If all you get out of those passages when you read them is a definite atonement you are missing the point entirely.
Hog wash, I don't sympathize with apostate religon NOT AT ALL, my only hope is that God calls all of his elect out, before he returns so they won't partake of her plauges.Someday denominationalism will be put to an end. Right now, the church of God is fragmented and due to that fragmentation those within certain branches of Christendom are not able to learn as well as they would otherwise be able to from those in other branches. In conservative Lutheranism I see both a Gospel-centeredness that I appreciate and which is not always present in the Reformed churches which can at times become predestinarian centered. I also see a liturgical superiority which is lost in much of Reformed Christianity. Unfortunately my view on the Lord's Supper is different from that of Lutheranism and so I could never become a member of a Lutheran church but I do like to visit there.
wb, you may be one of Gods elect, I don't know , but I don't see evidence of it yet, because you compromise the true gospel, also it appears from some of your postings that you " cloaked" in religous garb, make faith a condition of salvation !
when I went to bible college , I took a class in church history, the text was by E Cairnes, christianity throughout the centuries, you heard of it ?I find it much more profitable to read a particular author who has studied God's Word thoroughly and who has read the writings of the saints that has gone before him and who is conscious of the fact that he is a sinner and may have gotten some things wrong even if I disagree with him on some significant issues than it is to read the writings of someone who treats the Bible as if it were a book of prooftexts for the limited atonement and has no understanding of church history or the saints that have gone before him even if we both may be in agreement that the Bible teaches a particular atonement.
Any way, it was informative, I could see Gods sovereign hand in history preserving his truth ! But the scriptures are the most reliable source of spiritual history !
The particular , definite atonement of Christ is one of the most vital truths of the true gospel , if not the most important, for it, like no other doctrine in writ, crowns my Lords death, victorious, and effectual ! It puts a capstone on the words matt 1: 21
21And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
Lk 19:10
10For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.
Last edited by beloved57; 09-09-2006 at 07:48 PM.
In conservative Lutheranism I see both a Gospel-centeredness that I appreciate and which is not always present in the Reformed churches which can at times become predestinarian centered.
Well, this is a dichotomy between the gospel and predestination! If predestinarian election in Christ is not a substantive part of the gospel, why not just go join Lutheranism?
Now see here how sleepy-headed all our opponents are, and how little it helps a man to rely on the ancient fathers, for all their repute down the course of the ages! Were they not all equally blind to, yes, and heeldess of, Paul's clearest and and plainest words?
--Martin Luther
WB and Square thank you for your input. I believe I understand what the Synod now believes even though I do not agree with this doctrine. I would side with Bob and others on this view: total submission to the scriptures ( apart from human reasoning- Proverbs 21:30 )- which CLEARLY teach double predestination. And Square I don't know WB's % of Lutheranism; but I can say I think he is 99.99 % Reformed! Thanks again.......KK
I'm not saying there is a true and necessary dichotomy between the two. I believe that predestination is certainly a part of the Gospel, but Christ and Him crucified is the emphasis of the Gospel in Scripture. At times I find that this emphasis is lost in Reformed theology. They certainly wouldn't deny that the death, birth, and resurrection are part of the content of the Gospel but the emphasis is different. We can get carried away at times with condemning this or that theological error and the Gospel can be lost. I think there are many who attend Reformed churches who would have difficulty sharing the Gospel with someone. They could have a debate over some doctrinal issue but would have a very difficult time sitting down with someone who has never heard of Christ and explaining the Gospel to them. On the other hand, I think it's possible to sit under a good deal of Lutheran preaching and be very able to share the Gospel with the person sitting next to you but never get beyond that.
Darryl:
1 Cor. says "our sins" but what is meant by "our sins" has to be determined from the context. A Lutheran could read the passage and say that "our sins" refers to the sins of mankind. Contextually the only thing that a person could be certain that "our" means would be Paul and the Corinthian church. I don't know of anyone who would want to limit salvation to members of the Corinthian church.
At any rate, the position you are trying to defend is that there is no Gospel unless the limited atonement is spoken of. So I guess that we have to conclude that through most of church history there was no Gospel. I guess we also have to conclude that whatever Paul preached on Mars Hill it was not the Gospel and that in fact most of the instances where we are given explicit information as to what was said in the context of the spread of the Gospel was not truly the Gospel. There is just no statement in Scripture that says that those who do not teach a limited atonement are not teaching the Gospel. There are a whole bunch of other teachings such as the denial of the deity of Christ, the teaching of works righteousness, the teaching that the resurrection has already passed, antinomianism, etc. that are said to be false Gospels but not teaching a limited atonement is not one of them.
In Acts 2, Peter says "men of Israel" because he was addressing the Jews. It was God's purpose that the Gospel should go first to the Jews and then to the Gentiles. I don't see how you are taking this passage to teach a limited atonement unless you are going to say it is limited to the Jews.
For whatever strength of arm he may have who swims in the open sea, yet in time he is carried away and sunk, mastered by the greatness of its waves. Need then there is that we be in the ship, that is, that we be carried in the wood, that we may be able to cross this sea. Now this Wood in which our weakness is carried is the Cross of the Lord, by which we are signed, and delivered from the dangerous tempests of this world.--St. Augustine
If you don't teach who christ is, and what his crucifixion accomplished, you have a gospel message that is palatable to 90 % of professing christiandom.The true gospel brings a sword. Plus you are not even considering the sermons in acts, they sure implied more than christ and him crucified. Paul went into debts when he preached about christ. see acts 20but Christ and Him crucified is the emphasis of the Gospel in Scripture.
24However, I consider my life worth nothing to me, if only I may finish the race and complete the task the Lord Jesus has given me—the task of testifying to the gospel of God's grace. HM, I wonder if paul mentioned that grace was sovereign ? HM, I wonder if he thought about Gods sovereign grace when it arrested him on the road to damascus ?
25"Now I know that none of you among whom I have gone about preaching the kingdom will ever see me again. 26Therefore, I declare to you today that I am innocent of the blood of all men. 27For I have not hesitated to proclaim to you the whole will of God.
28Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers.[a] Be shepherds of the church of God,[b] which he bought with his own blood.
You wb are continually finding excuse to accept arminanism and universal atonement. To say that christ died for sinners or that christ was crucified without giving the meaning , is pure universalism, which is condemned in scripture.
wb, you don't teach the same gospel paul preached , you preach another gospel, if you hold to your present mind. you are showing your doublemindness. In one breath you say, predestination is part of the gospel, but Its not emphasized ! Either predesination, election, and definite atonement are part of the gospel truths the elect believe as proof of their salvation or it is not. Which is it sir?
Whoopie, 99.9% of false religons would not deny that !They certainly wouldn't deny that the death, birth, and resurrection are part of the content of the Gospel but the emphasis is different
as part of the gospel ? Wow wb, whats the other part ?
Did not I just show you that paul did not deal with part of the gospel truthes ? Look again wb:
25And now, behold, I know that ye all, among whom I have gone preaching the kingdom of God, shall see my face no more.
26Wherefore I take you to record this day, that I am pure from the blood of all men. 27For I have not shunned to declare unto you all ( not partof)the counsel of God.
see thats what false preachers like yourself do... Trusting in the wisdom of mens words instead of the power of God.
The emphasis should be on the DBR of christ, the whole blessed story, who he is, where he came from, how he came, what his mission was in coming, the sucesful accomplishment of the mission, Is that too much to talk about wb ? Nah, you want to hold back and shun certain truthes don't you ? You and your great synods are wiser than God. When jesus was approached by the women, he should not have showed such a limited interest when he said, I only come for the lost sheep of israel ! Jesus you should not have said that ! I tell people today that christ came to save his elect, his chosen ones, and ll those will be saved. Now , that person may be brought to faith or they may not ! But if god is pleased to bring them to faith, they would have heard the true gospel, and they would have believe in definite effectual atonement, haleluia...
So what, God uses debate sometimes to win his elect ! look at some of the sermons in the acts, where paul diputed in the scriptures. I had a friendly debate the other day with a guy who approached me with some Jw literature. He did not believe Jesus was God, he challenged me to show him in scripture where jesus claimed from his own mouth that he was God.. Who knows, that JW may be an elect, but if he is , God will bring him to understand and believe in The deity of christ, owe yeah, and the other parts too !They could have a debate over some doctrinal issue but would have a very difficult time sitting down with someone who has never heard of Christ and explaining the Gospel to them.
By the way wb, are you implying that you can explain the gospel to someone and not mention, predestination, particuular atonement, sovereign grace, election ? So tell me, what did you really explain ?
HUHOn the other hand, I think it's possible to sit under a good deal of Lutheran preaching and be very able to share the Gospel with the person sitting next to you but never get beyond that.
Man I can`t believe this, the context gives you the meaning of our sins1 Cor. says "our sins" but what is meant by "our sins" has to be determined from the context. A Lutheran could read the passage and say that "our sins" refers to the sins of mankind. Contextually the only thing that a person could be certain that "our" means would be Paul and the Corinthian church. I don't know of anyone who would want to limit salvation to members of the Corinthian church.
when he says " according to scripture" Paul is refering back to what old testament scripture emphasized and prohesised. All the shadows and types of OT scripture as well emphasied whose sins it would be for whom he died. The prophets, especially Isa see 53, or jeremiah , when speaking about those under the new covenant. Again you place far too much emphasis on your beloved church traditions and men instead of the scriptures. So that little slogan you have fits you just right LOL
So your lutheran pals would be wrong to think our sins refer to mankind !
Contextually the only thing that a person could be certain that "our" means would be Paul and the Corinthian church. I don't know of anyone who would want to limit salvation to members of the Corinthian church.
If you take context back further still, you will find that paul was addressing:
1cor 1
1Paul called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother,
2Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints,with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both their's and our's:
I believe he had more than just the brethern at corinth in mind. Also these letters could have been circular...
so he was adressing the called out ones, the church, the children of God, those are the ones for whom the our sins refer to. Get it ?
9God is faithful, by whom ye were called unto the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord.
That is absolutely correct !At any rate, the position you are trying to defend is that there is no Gospel unless the limited atonement is spoken of.
You crack me up. Paul told you what he preached as the gospel in 1 cor 15:1-4. This is what was revealed to him from heaven read vsI guess we also have to conclude that whatever Paul preached on Mars Hill it was not the Gospel and that in fact most of the instances where we are given explicit information as to what was said in the context of the spread of the Gospel was not truly the Gospel. There is just no statement in Scripture that says that those who do not teach a limited atonement are not teaching the Gospel.
3For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
paul says in gal about the gospel he recieved, gal 1
12For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
In other words wb the gospel he preached in 1cor 15, was given him by direct revelation of christ ! It's content is found paul says in the 1cor 15: 1-4, also any other gospel that deviated from the gospel of that which he recieved and proclaimed, was not a gospel at all he says Gal
6I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
7Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. 8But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
again wb you place too much confidence in men and church history.
As far as the mars hill sermon, good grief man, even though it may not be recored, does not mean he did not emphasis it later. He tells you in 1 cor 15, what the basic truthes of the gospel he proclaimed.
also he preached jesus to those heathens :
18Then certain philosophers of the Epicureans, and of the Stoicks, encountered him. And some said, What will this babbler say? other some, He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods: because he preached unto them Jesus, and the resurrection.
19And they took him, and brought him unto Areopagus, saying, May we know what this new doctrine, whereof thou speakest, is?
20For thou bringest certain strange things to our ears: we would know therefore what these things mean.
al the above wb, indicates some discourse about the christ prior to paul taking the podium on mars hill. Also, if you just go by the bare facts recorded in the mars hill sermon, then where is the truth about the virgin birth mentioned ? Or the trinity ? Your reasoning is weak wb, very weak !
There are a whole bunch of other teachings such as the denial of the deity of Christ, the teaching of works righteousness, the teaching that the resurrection has already passed, antinomianism, etc. that are said to be false Gospels but not teaching a limited atonement is not one of them.
Thats not true, paul said if you preach any other gospel that was different from the one he preached THAT INCLUDED , PARTICULAR, ATONEMENT in its content, that it was a false gospel, and those who preach it our accursed.
again : gal 1,
8But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
9As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
2 Hours Ago 09:26 PMIn Acts 2, Peter says "men of Israel" because he was addressing the Jews. It was God's purpose that the Gospel should go first to the Jews and then to the Gentiles. I don't see how you are taking this passage to teach a limited atonement unless you are going to say it is limited to the Jews.
You are missing the point. He was speaking to the jews as it pertained to a covenant people, a people who would be recipents of covenant promises and blessings. Thats why he said the promise is unto you and to your children and so on..
acts 3: 25
25Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed.
Peter knew that christ blood shed was for the many. I`m sure they discussed it at the last supper, note:
26And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.
27And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; 28For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
Peter knew that it was only for a covenant people christ would die for.
28Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many
jn chapter 10, 17, and on and on..
It has been God dealings with the world since the beginning of time, God has always only dealt favorably with A definite particular people. And it has not changed.
We were born in a terrible time as it relates to spiritual truth. The gospel you believed in was not the true gospel wb, it was a counterfiet. I read one of your post from a while ago where you admitted that the particular atonement of christ was something you never heard when you first believed the gospel ! Well guess what ? You did not believe the gospel, but a lie. And now that you have been exposed to the truth of the gospel, you have not repented ( had a change of mind) but feel that you have grown in the truth, whereas, you never heard or believed the truth in the first place. You believed a diluted, perverted , form of the traditions of men . Thats why you compromise the truth in others, because its easy to say that one who has not recieved the truth of the gospel is just a babe in christ. you remind me of the pharisees jesus speaks about:
jn 9:
41Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.
Any way you look at it, christ atonement was and is for a particular people and it should be preached that way, or you preach a false gospel.
KK, I am not surprised you do not agree but you are a gentleman and are disagreeing in a respectful tone. Yes Wild is quite reformed!
Wild is correct in saying those scriptures say limited atonement if that is what you are looking for. The Gospel should never be proclaimed in such a way that one has also to figure out whether one is predestined or not. That requires effort on the part of the hearer and effort of sinners is not in the Gospel. Even when proclaiming the Gospel to those who have heard it many times it need be done purely with no addition:
1 Corinthians 2:1 And I, when I came to you, brothers, did not come proclaiming to you the testimony of God with lofty speech or wisdom. 2 For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. 3 And I was with you in weakness and in fear and much trembling, 4 and my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, 5 that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God. ESV
Christ and Him crucified is to be the central message of the Church. I am not sure that double predestination need be part of it. Sinners of all sorts need to hear the Gospel not necessarily a study on how to figure out if one is predestined to heaven or hell. God is the one Who will sort us when Jesus returns to put an end to all this foolishness.(Matthew 25) Each and everyday I need Christ and Him crucified and so do all of you.
God's peace. †
Arrogance cannot be avoided or true hope be present unless the judgment of condemnation is feared in every work. Martin Luther's Heidelberg Disputation, May 1518
Good day sir. I don't see how you come up with that conclusion. Christ and him crucified is preaching and teaching who christ is and what he has done. There is substance in preaching christ and him crucified. His Deity is certainly proclaimed when there is a explanation of the word christ, do you know how much gospel truth is in the name christ, what it means, his mission as the christ. These things are taught in the old teatament, observe what christ does for these followers of his:The Gospel should never be proclaimed in such a way that one has also to figure out whether one is predestined or not.
44 Then He said to them, “These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me.” 45 And He opened their understanding, that they might comprehend the Scriptures.
46 Then He said to them, “Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise[h] from the dead the third day, 47 and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. 48 And you are witnesses of these things. 49 Behold, I send the Promise of My Father upon you; but tarry in the city of Jerusalem[i] until you are endued with power from on high.”
Jesus here explains and expounds the meaning of his DBR, as it is foretold from the old testament scriptures, there is no difference today, when God calls a person to preach christ and him crucified, he gives us the ability to explain and elucidate the teachings of scriptures regarding him.
In acts 17,
1 Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews. 2 Then Paul, as his custom was, went in to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures, 3 explaining and demonstrating that the Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead, and saying, “This Jesus whom I preach to you is the Christ.” 4 And some of them were persuaded; and a great multitude of the devout Greeks, and not a few of the leading women, joined Paul and Silas.
Then the brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea. When they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so. 12 Therefore many of them believed
So you see preaching christ and him crucified is more than uttering the words christ and him crucified, Its explaining his death from scripture, giving of the proper sense and meaning of it. Showing how it was prohesied, and what it would accomplish, and for whom it was accomplished.
I agree, but as I have shown above that entails explaining !Christ and Him crucified is to be the central message of the Church.
Sure it does, so it appears more of grace. When the truth about who christ died for is presented and the truth about who he did not die for is presented, that tears down the bridge of self confidence and human decision being the reason why one is accepted by God. It causes us ( the elect) to only have hope in the sovereign electing Love and grace of God. we come to grips with the fact, that its nothing we can do, but only hope in his sovereign redemptive love for his people.. I believe the the publican was brought to this realization, when he utterd the words " Lord be propitous to me a sinner ! He knew that there was only one covenant God of Israel, who had a chosen people ! He knew that other peoples and nations were out side the covenant family of National Israel !I am not sure that double predestination need be part of it.
Double predestination causes Grace to shine forth my friend !
Nobody is calling people to figure out anything, The gospel is just being preached and some will believe it and some will not, God determines both!Sinners of all sorts need to hear the Gospel not necessarily a study on how to figure out if one is predestined to heaven or hell.
Sir this not foolishness to earnestly contend for the faith as in Jude 3God is the one Who will sort us when Jesus returns to put an end to all this foolishness.(Matthew 25) Each and everyday I need Christ and Him crucified and so do all of you.
3 Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.
also when jesus cracks the sky, and I will be so glad when he does, he will be looking for those who have Faith : as in lk 18
8I tell you that he will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?
This is very good stuff Darryl.
Isaiah 45:7: I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
Thanks Greg, may God be glorified and we abased...
4 H Square: Thanks for your kind words and input along w/WB. Along with the link you gave I now know what the Synod holds to. I call all who believe the true gospel ( salvation conditioned on Christ alone ) my brethren in Christ, knowing that God gives knowledge in different levels ( Mark 4:20 ). Where I attend, like you emphasized, the central message is Christ and Him crucified. But wether in the preaching services, or on TV ( where the preaching reaches almost 1 million homes ): it is not long before particular redemption and many of the high grace distinctives come out because they are part of the gospel. What sets Christ apart from all the false christs abounding in false religion today is the true doctrines of the true Christ revealed in His Word........KK
I certainly agree with Darryl and Greg that double predestination lies at the heart of the biblical gospel, which does not conflict with the message of Christ and him crucified. If Christ was crucified only for those whom he purposed to save, that is good news indeed for the conscience needing assurance! Otherwise, if it is proposed that Christ was crucified for those who ultimately go to damnation, there can be no assurance for anyone.
US: The Gospel should never be proclaimed in such a way that one has also to figure out whether one is predestined or not.
Then we can have no assurance of salvation. If we are not among the elect of God, there is no sacrifice for our sins but only an assurance of final reprobation. The doctrine of justification by faith IS the teaching that we can be assured of eternal election if God has created the sure and certain testimony of faith in the gospel in us--by the power of the Holy Spirit.
That requires effort on the part of the hearer and effort of sinners is not in the Gospel.
No, it doesn't. If His Spirit has assured our spirit that we are a child of God, there was no effort on our part involved in that event.
Now see here how sleepy-headed all our opponents are, and how little it helps a man to rely on the ancient fathers, for all their repute down the course of the ages! Were they not all equally blind to, yes, and heeldess of, Paul's clearest and and plainest words?
--Martin Luther
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks