Is There One Blueprint for the Church?
Apr 15
This is more of an inquiry than a specific position on something. The question is this, is there a specific blueprint for the church scattered?
I ask this in light of a conversation I had the other day on Facebook. A dear brother brought up the fact that in the midst of the conversation we had missed what was most important that is the fact that Christ designed His church and wanted it to function a certain way. Much like in the OT God was to be worshipped a certain way and to go against that blueprint lead to some very dire consequences for those in charge of the worship and for others who took God’s holiness lightly.
So again I ask, is there a specific blueprint. I am going to attempt to share what I think in light of all I have understood and read, my experiences and ultimately what the New Testament says itself.
I went from being raised in a Baptist church, to being saved in an Apostolic Pentecostal church, to then being rededicated in a Seventh Day Adventist Apostolic Holiness Church (yep), to becoming a 5 percenter/Pseudo Muslim, back to some type of Christian/Deist to a rededication in a Word of Faith church to embracing Neo-Calvinism, to a Simple/House Church ecclesiology to where I am today (which I have no dedicated label 
).
This journey has taken me over an array of backgrounds. Socially, Economically, Theologically, and Ecclesiologically. Each group was just as diverse as the one before. Each group had its hobby horse, each group (well minus the Muslim thing) felt they had God’s blueprint for the church and theology nailed down and each group was entirely different yet unified that Jesus had raised from the dead. Now again, what each though about faith, Christology, Soteriology, Eschatology and so forth were light years apart but one thing I can say is that each group was fueled and fill with passion and each group as far as I can tell really loved Jesus.
None of them interpreted the bible the same, each would come to the same text and I would most likely come with 5 different interpretations. Each thought different about leadership in the church, each thought differently about what women were allowed to do, each thought different on giving, shoot for the most part they didn’t agree on much, but again the resurrection seemed to be one unifying point.
I can be honest and say that I am sum product of their beliefs and while I was passionate and fully convinced each were right while I was involved I can see that there were areas they missed or at least I think they missed. Something that is funny is that each points the finger at the next and says how wrong each one is (maybe I should try Catholicism next???). The passion burning in each to do this thing right because it was there life’s commitment is actually to be applauded though again I will say such passion blinds, I am glad to see people passionate about Jesus.
That leads me to the New Testament. I want to say this humbly but I want to say it. As I scour the horizon of what is labeled the New Testament, I come away with one surety that is that the New Testament itself does not have one unifying position on what the church should look like. There are elements that I see in common but even within the churches planted by the Apostle Paul I would believe there was huge diversity. I believe in some areas women were probably heavily involved and others were not. I believe in some there were multiple leaders in some maybe one. I also believe that Jesus left us with such ambiguity. I believe there is a purpose to this.
In John 3, Jesus talks about how God will no longer be worshipped in a place. “Not this mountain or any other mountain” He tells the young woman who is face to face with God. The locale and details were becoming irrelevant. Worship should have always been a purpose and the temporary Temple in Israel was to show our utter inability to earn God’s favor or even to worship Him, unless of course He reduces Himself and allows access.
The plan of God was the same plan when He created the earth and us. His plan was to walk with us, not us come to Him. Not for us to make special places of worship but make a person (Himself) special to be worshipped. We see that the Jews quickly became more interested in the location and not the person. The temple itself became important not the glory that filled the temple when God arrived. But even with that God never intended to come and leave, come and leave, I believe the Earth was going to be place where He dwelled in harmony with His creation but as we know sin interrupted that.
I say all of that to say this. Where and how may not be as important as we think. The who is the only thing worth something. God has not taken residence in each of us so our humble obedience to His voice is now our compass of worship. This means that we have liberty to erect nice buildings for many of us to come together, or a few of us to meet in a coffee shop. This means that two families are perfectly fine to be considered a church or the mega-church which seats 30,ooo is just as sufficient. This is because the location and method was never important the person was. We easily and quickly lose focus when method is pushed up and if you don’t believe me we only need to look at the constant and perpetual divide over the last 2000 years.
Spirit and truth are the only. And that spirit has been given to us and truth is a person not a list of principles. We have been set free from the law and the new law is love and Jesus says “love God and love your neighbor” this is the New Covenant law. Not rules and list and principles but a person who loves us enough to take residence in us to help us understand Him more.
I am often embarrassed by my past actions and sharp division and constant bickering when all I should have been focusing on is a person. Thanks for reading if you have made it this far.
I know of one blogsite, where someone outright claimed that I wasn’t truly saved, or saved at all (this is what they said), simply because I didn’t believe in Calvinism (this site, and one other, is always claiming that tongues, and spiritual gifts have ceased, or very limited without a purpose), or limited atonement and irresistible grace. You are familiar with this particular blogsite, because you use to post on it, and just because you haven’t experienced it, read it, or heard it, don’t mean it’s not out there.
This particular site’s mod really gets off on the fact that Jesus only died for a few, so much so to where it’s sickening.
Furthermore, I even read on MacArthur’s blog, according to MacArthur-that someone can be classified as being a heretic, if they don’t believe in the sovereignty of God, the way your side puts it out there. However, to his credit, he did modify his position, and state that those who are arminian, or those who aren’t arminian, per se, but don’t believe in limited atonement and irresistible grace-are still brothers and sisters in Christ.
As far as the Satan thing:
If only folks on my side of the aisle, and those who aren’t completely in my aisle (e.g. folks who believe in unlimited atonement, resistible grace, and eternal security)-would come to that revelation, and recognize Satan’s hand in the teachings of limited atonement and resistible grace.
To say that Satan’s hands aren’t in it is being nice and diplomatic. I say Satan’s hands are all in it (you know I’m right on this one), but even despite that fact, many Calvinists are saved, despite a perverted belief system, and in spite of themselves, and their agenda.
Yes God is sovereign, but his sovereignty is an aspect of who he is, not his ESSENCE, which is LOVE.
Jon Paden, I’m going to ignore you, and will deal with you, when I’m finish dealing with Lionel, on the topic we’re dealing with. I feel that dealing with your sophist unscriptural position, will be a distraction from the main theme that really needs to be addressed, as it relates to the two competing and primary pillars of contomporary theology. (Once when I was arguing with Lionel over this very point, on his other site, you took my side, while throwing in the face of Lionel, why hell is non-existent. You tend to switch sides of the aisle, based on who’s recently offended you, and how ornery you’re feeling at the moment. Some folks are sucked into your vortex, whereas others aren’t. You’re not fooling me Jon, for I truly have your number.)
Furthermore, seeing as how Lionel and I would both disagree with you, as it relates to the issue of Hell and so forth, engaging you at this time will be meaningless. It will be similar to me casting pearls before swine, while allowing that swine to distract me from my main purpose, which is what the swine does in this case.
I don’t mean to be mean, or callous, and despite how it sounds, I too hope that you don’t view this as an attack on you, or for that matter, you take great offense, for I’m moving on.
Seekerman,
You stated:
“You tend to switch sides of the aisle, based on who’s recently offended you, and how ornery you’re feeling at the moment. Some folks are sucked into your vortex, whereas others aren’t. You’re not fooling me Jon, for I truly have your number.)”
My response:
No, I just try to stay impartial. To me truth is truth no matter what source it comes from.
I will leave it there. There is no need to respond to any of your other comments.
Seeker,
Let me also add that I do not believe in total predestination. I think you may be arguing with the wrong person. I believe God can and does direct affairs from a predestined perspective (Pharoah) but many times He is moving in real time history (His plan to destroy Israel before Moses interceded). So I don’t believe election and human choice to be contradictory because they are mutually exclusive.
But again you either one believe that Jesus died for those who He saw choose them or His death could have saved no one, since you reject limited atonement. Even men who reject the Calvinistic view believe that Jesus died for those whom He knew would choose Him. Your perspective says Jesus could have died in vain that I don’t believe has any biblical merit, especially when Jesus Himself says “I lay down my life for my sheep” what did He mean?
Lionel said:
“Seeker,
I would also say it is funny that you say “I don’t have to work this out on this side of eternity” but you have worked it out on this side of eternity”
My response:
It’s all about context bruh. Now come on bruh. My statement was in response to this question of yours: ” Did Jesus die for those he knew would accept Him.”
Seeker,
I am in context at one point you say you don’t have to work out the extent of the atonement on this side of eternity yet you have worked out by calling those who disagree with your perspective “satanic”.
I am sure this will be a never ending debate, and I am excited to see you stand your ground on this issue. I believe personally that not one drop of Jesus’ blood will be wasted. The scripture says “Jesus makes propitiation” by His blood, if God’s wrath has been proptiated by Jesus’ death that means that all are saved and Jon’s perspective on unlimited atonement (literally because to atone means to pay for) is correct. I don’t see a different option. The scriptures doesn’t say that Jesus’ blood makes propitiation possible, but effecacious. Check 1 John 2:2 and 1 John 4:10, that proptiation word is a strong statement and if Jesus did propitiate for the sins of the whole world then you agree with Jon.
Big L,
I just want to compliment you on the grace that you are able to show in these debates/discussions. I have to stay out of them because I don’t have that level of maturity that you are showing. Keep up the G(o)od work!
BLD,
All you guys have helped me greatly in dialouging with others. Thanks for the words of encouragement.
-Seeker,
Let me also add that I do not believe in total predestination.
*Explain.
- I think you may be arguing with the wrong person.
*Lionel, you’re the one arguing with my belief that God doesn’t preordain folks to heaven, or hell.
-I believe God can and does direct affairs from a predestined perspective (Pharoah) but many times He is moving in real time history (His plan to destroy Israel before Moses interceded).
*I can agree with that.
- So I don’t believe election and human choice to be contradictory because they are mutually exclusive.
*They can be mutually exclusive, only if I accept your premise that a loving God preordains people to hell and eternal destruction.
-But again you either one believe that Jesus died for those who He saw choose them or His death could have saved no one, since you reject limited atonement.
*I don’t understand your syntax. I think I know what you’re attempting to say, but I guess you will elaborate further on down.
-Even men who reject the Calvinistic view believe that Jesus died for those whom He knew would choose Him.
*God is omniscient, and he foreknows, not preordains someone to hell and destruction. This is similar to me preparing food for a bunch of homeless folk in the park, just knowing that many will eat, whereas others will not. Of course I prepared the food for those folk who ate, even though I provided for those who wouldn’t eat as well, because of their own choice, for whatever nefarious reason.
-Your perspective says Jesus could have died in vain that I don’t believe has any biblical merit,
*Jesus did not die in vain, seeing as how there are folks who will receive him. Your side of the aisle feels that if everyone’s not saved, then Jesus is a failure, therefore you concoct the position-in order to help Jesus-that he only died for a select few.
In other words, you misunderstand Jesus being vindicated, just as the members of the Sanhedrin court misunderstood Jesus highlighting his future vindication, when he referred to himself as the Son of Man, and the clouds reference. He was referring to their destruction, whereas all they could see was a man who blasphemed, who they were about to deliver to the Romans for death. In their finite minds, they won, but from an eternal perspective-Jesus won overall, especially in the short view, as it concerned the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, along with the Jewish religious center: the temple.
Similarly, Jesus will be vindicated in the end, in that he will be victorious, with, or without your help. Those that come to Christ will rejoice in eternal life, and immortality, whereas those who chose not to will wind up in the place they chose for eternity.
Either way, Jesus will be vindicated in the end, neither was his death in vain.
-Jesus Himself says “I lay down my life for my sheep” what did
He mean?
*He meant that those who choose to follow him are his “sheep,” are his “elect.” It’s like me providing scholarship funds for “my homies,” with the subtext being that those who accept my gift, are “my homies,” because my proclamation is “whosoever come, let him come,” not “whosoever I choose before hand to come, let them come.”
You interpret scripture in light of clearer scripture(s), and place it into proper context, so that there’s scriptural synergy. What’s the proper context?
Well let’s take a look at these few verses, and synergize them with your verse:
John 1:29 (ESV)
29 The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the WORLD (not just “the chosen few”)
John 3:16 (ESV)
16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever (not the chosen few) believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
Timothy 2:1–6 (ESV)
2 First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for ALL (not the chosen few) people, 2 for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. 3 This is good, and it is pleasing in
John 2:2 (ESV)
2 He is the propitiation for our (the elect who chose salvation) sins, and not for ours only (hmmm…then who else, pray tell) but also for the sins of the whole world (not just “the chosen few”)
Corinthians 5:18–21 (ESV)
18 All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; 19 that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world (not just “the chosen few”)
to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation
I can go on, and on, and on, and on, but whether you agree with me, or like what I’m saying-you get the picture…
Seeker,
1. Your propitation comment hurts you very much. Please define propitiation for us here on this blog. In its full meaning.
2. NO MONERGIST believes God preordains people to hell, why do you keep saying that?
3. Let me ask you something in the parallel. When God sent the death angel to Egypt did He “preordain” the death of all the firstborn of Egypt, or did He send the death angel and preordain that some would be saved from the death angel?
4. My next question is when God sent the flood did He preordain the death of elderly, women, children, pregnant women, male, animal or did He spare some from His wrath?
How do you get around the election of Noah’s family and the election of the firstborn of Israel? The same God who elected them is the same God we say elects today. We do not believe that God preordains people to hell, He just chooses to spare some while allowing others to go their own way.
-Seeker,
I am in context at one point you say you don’t have to work out the extent of the atonement on this side of eternity yet you have worked out by calling those who disagree with your perspective “satanic”.
*No you’re not. You’re asking me a hypothetical about people not accepting Christ’s sacrifice on the cross, and what would happen as a result, well, on this side of eternity, that’s not for me to waste time with-because I’m not the one who saves souls, Jesus does.
Having said that, God knows, just as I would know, that if he died, there would be those who will come to faith in Christ, just like I would know that some folks, or many folks, will come and accept the free money that I’m giving away, if I were to give it away.
So what’s your point?
-I am sure this will be a never ending debate, and I am excited to see you stand your ground on this issue.
*Okay?
-I believe personally that not one drop of Jesus’ blood will be wasted.
*And it hasn’t been wasted. Folks rejecting Christ don’t mean that Christ’s blood was wasted, seeing as how there are plenty of folks who have accepted him, and will accept him, as their Lord and Savior. Again, you look at victory from a short-sighted carnal perspective, as oppose to an eternal perspective.
Simply put those who don’t accept Christ as their savior-ARE THE LOSERS-not God.
-The scripture says “Jesus makes propitiation” by His blood,
*Of course it does, for within the context of “propitiation”, is a salvation that folks can freely choose to accept. Yes the scripture says what you claim it says, but elsewhere scriptures elaborate further, and illuminate this verse of scripture.
- if God’s wrath has been proptiated by Jesus’ death
*Uh-huh..
-that means that all are saved and Jon’s perspective on unlimited atonement (literally because to atone means to pay for) is correct.
*No it does not. Simply put, you’ve been reading too much literature from your side of the aisle, whereas you haven’t read enough of the literature from the other side of the aisle.
Furthermore, if you were to read your Bible without your theological presuppositions, you’d realize that Jesus died for all humanity, offering them a way out of hell and destruction, if they so choose that path.
It’s like someone rejecting the exoneration a judge has given them, due to their (the judge) innocent son, friend, or whoever, stepping in, and taking the punishment on behalf of the guilty party, only for that guilty party to reject the exoneration being offered. I mean, if the guilty party sincerely wants to go to jail-then that’s on them, but they can never say exoneration wasn’t offered to them.
Likewise, it’s the same with Jesus and salvation.
And no, John’s position isn’t correct, nor is it my position. I believe that God offers unlimited atonement, in that anyone can choose to come to Christ. He (Jon) believes that unlimited atonement means that everyone will come to Christ, which is not what I believe, nor do other arminians believe-so why state a falsehood about our beliefs on the matter?
-I don’t see a different option.
*And you’re not God either, so what you can, or cannot see, makes little relevance on the matter. Again, you’re so absorbed in the literature backing your views, to where you’ve become blinded by what the other side believes, because you’re interpreting what you believe to be true, within the prism of your own theological presuppositions.
- The scriptures doesn’t say that Jesus’ blood makes propitiation possible, but effecacious. Check 1 John 2:2 and 1 John 4:10, that proptiation word is a strong statement and if Jesus did propitiate for the sins of the whole world then you agree with Jon.
*No, again Lionel, despite your jedi mind tricks, I don’t agree with Jon. I’ve made several distinctions between me and Jon, similar to how you’ve made distinctions between you and the crazies on your side of the aisle. Simply put, it’s arrogant to tell me what I believe, and how I believe, when I’m pinpointing in a precise and articulate way, what I believe.
So again, why the falsehood about what I believe? You sound like a Fox News Commentator with that one.
Seeker,
Can you show me every reference to the word “propitiation”? For example on the Day of Atonment the animals offered “propitiated” the sins of Israel, did this make propitation possible or effecacious? When the New Testament writers use Propitiation tell me what it means? If it means anything other than God’s wrath being satisfied can you please show me that instance?
Seeker,
May I also ask how you know what God knows, but I don’t? Read your comment, at one point you say “God knows just as I would know” then when I say I know something you say “You are not God”. So you can make a theological statement and say God validates your point, but I can’t? I don’t get it.
Seeker,
LOL!!!!!!!!!! Hey man, why do you tell Jon that he hijacks a post, but then every chance you get you take a stab at the doctrines of grace man. You funny dude! LOL!!!!
Seeker,
*Yeah what’s up?
-1. Your propitation comment hurts you very much. Please define propitiation for us here on this blog. In its full meaning.
*Why don’t you define it for me, if you think I’m so wrong, or do you truly believe me to be wrong?
-2. NO MONERGIST believes God preordains people to hell, why do you keep saying that?
*That’s not true, because you haven’t met or ran across every monergist on the block, and just because you don’t believe, or align your beliefs with the hyper Calvinists who’ve told me to my face, that folks are preordained to heaven or to hell, isn’t telling me much about your judgment. Right now you’re in public relations mode, trying to place a good spin on things.
Your side believes that God is sovereign (which we all believe, but not in the way you believe), and that this sovereignty entails that Jesus only died for a select few, whereas he didn’t die for others. Your belief is that those folks whom he died for can’t resist his grace, and must come on board, and the fact that he didn’t die for other folks, who aren’t blessed with this irresistible grace, means that those folks are preordained to hell-for their most certainly not going to heaven. Or do you know something that I don’t know?
In other words, if Jesus only died for a few folks, whom he draws in with irresistible grace, then he must know that the folks he didn’t die for, who don’t have a chance at salvation, are going to the place he prepared for them, right? And which place is this? HELL. Therefore, according to monergist, whether they are politically correct like you, or hardcore-od ultimately preordain folks to heaven, and/or to hell.
I’m sorry, but that’s the net effect of only dying for a few folks like yourself…
-3. Let me ask you something in the parallel.
*Yeah shoot.
-When God sent the death angel to Egypt
*Uh-huh?
- did He “preordain” the death of all the firstborn of Egypt, or did He send the death angel and preordain that some would be saved from the death angel?
4. My next question is when God sent the flood did He preordain the death of elderly, women, children, pregnant women, male, animal or did He spare some from His wrath?
How do you get around the election of Noah’s family and the election of the firstborn of Israel? The same God who elected them is the same God we say elects today.
* As it relates to the “death angel” thing- come on bruh. Did not God preordain the firstborn of every Egyptian household to die, and preordain that the houses that were covered by the blood-namely the homes of the Israelites- have their firstborn spared? Weren’t those the instructions? Of course they were, so what are you talking about?
And as far as Noah, of course God allowed or preordained the destruction of the old world, including those that you mention, for his own glory, in starting anew, so what’s your point?
Simply put, God can indeed preordain, based on his sovereign will, and according to his glory, HOWEVER, this doesn’t mean he works that way all the time throughout the rest of scripture, in any given situation. When he dealt with the nation of Israel, as it concerned his relationship with them, he always gave them a choice. That has been the pattern of God all throughout scripture, as it relates to folks he’s in relationship (free will and choice) with-not to folks, worlds, or nations he’s going to destroy in the Old Covenant.
(He determined to destroy Nineveh, and would have destroyed Nineveh, if they hadn’t repented. In this case, he allowed the Ninevites to crawl out of the hole they were in, with acts of repentence, which got Jonah’s ire.)
-We do not believe that God preordains people to hell,
*Yes you do, because the net effect of your belief is rooted on preordaining folks to hell,
-He just chooses to spare some while allowing others to go their own way.
*In your view, he “chooses to spare some while” providing a place for those who don’t choose him, thus preordaining them, by default-TO HELL. Who created hell, and who was it created for, besides the devil and his angels?
I’m sorry, but it’s so wide, you can’t get around it; so low, you can’t get under it; and so high, you can’t get over it. Truth be told, that’s the seamier and uglier side of CALVINISM.
-Seeker,
Can you show me every reference to the word “propitiation”? For example on the Day of Atonment the animals offered “propitiated” the sins of Israel, did this make propitation possible or effecacious?
When the New Testament writers use Propitiation tell me what it means? If it means anything other than God’s wrath being satisfied can you please show me that instance?
*Lionel, are you that foolish, or do you think that I’m that stupid in your arrogance, to believe that I don’t know the difference between the Old Covenant, and the atonement that the animals propitiated for the sins of Israel, and the New Covenant? Now you’re mixing apples and oranges.
The Old Testament “Day of Atonement” where “the animals offered” propitiation for the sins of Israel, it was efficacious, in that God’s wrath was turned away, for a season. But now we live under a better covenant, in that yes, Jesus being offered as the propitiation (you love this word, do you?) for our sins, is efficacious, in turning away the wrath of God-ONLY FOR THOSE WHO ACCEPT HIS FREE GIFT OFFERING OF SALVATION, which is evident in the scriptures I posted up, which you refused to deal with.
So uh, Lionel my man, er..huh-what’s your point?
Obviously you thought you were saying something.
Simply put, Jesus sacrifice on the cross was for everyone. Only Satan would want you to STRONGLY believe otherwise.
And remember in 1 John 2:2, it says concerning propitiation:
“2 He is the propitiation for our (those who are saved, therefore the elect) sins, and not for (those who are saved, therefore the elect) ours only but also for the sins of the whole world (all of humanity, if they were to reach out and accept). ”
So yes Lionel, that scripture is powerful, and it doesn’t say what you want it to say, unfortunately for your side of the aisle.
Seeker,
Do you ever read your own comments? BTW the definition means to appease, this means that wrath has been satisifed. 1 John says Jesus has satisfied God’s wrath for the whole world. If God’s wrath is satisfied, that means He is no longer angry. Everytime God’s wrath was propitiated that means that someone or something died to satisfy it.
So again you have no option if you are using 1 John in your defense then Jesus has satisified God’s wrath with His blood for the entire world and Jon is right.
Next it is funny that you can say that God chose Noah, chose Israel but yet today He doesn’t choose. The fact that God in the Old Testament only revealed His will to a select few only defends election. Every year the lamb was sacrificed it was only for Israel, God purposely ignored the rest of the nations around Him, but you say today He no longer does that, based off of what. I have evidence in the Old and New Testament that is how He operated, you only acknowledge the old.
Finally, what is your problem with those who acknowledge the Doctrines of Grace (I don’t believe in total predestination so please stop projecting your disgust on me). I believe the scriptures teach this. I believe God is gracious to spare any. You believe that a man can conjure up His own faith thus you are the one who is arrogant not me. I am humbled by God’s choosing of me, not exalted. I understand that if it were not for the Holy Spirit freeing my will I would have been left in sin. I didn’t buckle down, dig deep and find the little spark of faith, I was set on fire by the Holy Spirit, a fire that melted the chains of death and destruction and gave me faith to turn to the Lord Jesus. Whats so arrogant about that?
Seeker,
Also it doesn’t say “to those who reach out” where do you find that in that text?
Seeker,
Satan has me man, pray for me please. Pray that the Spirit would bind Satan and give me the freedom you have.
Seeker,
*Yeah what’s up?
-May I also ask how you know what God knows, but I don’t?
*Uh, Lionel, I think too much Calvinism has made you fall off the deep end. Please explain yourself…
-Read your comment,
*Okay I will…What comment?
-at one point
*Uh-huh
- you say “God knows just as I would know” then when I say I know something you say “You are not God”. So you can make a theological statement and say God validates your point, but I can’t? I don’t get it.
*In your arrogance, your judgment and discernment has been clouded. When I said “God knows, just as I would know”, what was I referring to?
Seeing as how you’re prone to playing games, and is by nature a mind hustler, let me put up the full quote of mine that is in question, for proper context:
You said:
“Seeker,
I am in context at one point you say you don’t have to work out the extent of the atonement on this side of eternity yet you have worked out by calling those who disagree with your perspective “satanic”.”
My response:
“No you’re not. You’re asking me a hypothetical about people not accepting Christ’s sacrifice on the cross, and what would happen as a result, well, on this side of eternity, that’s not for me to waste time with-because I’m not the one who saves souls, Jesus does.
Having said that, GOD KNOWS, JUST AS I WOULD KNOW, that if he died, there would be those who will come to faith in Christ, just like I would know that some folks, or many folks, will come and accept the free money that I’m giving away, if I were to give it away.”
Now, are you telling me that God doesn’t know that folks will come to salvation, and accept Christ’s free offering of salvation?
This is what I was saying about what God knows, and what I know. Just because I know what God knows, in regards to what’s put forth in scripture, it doesn’t means I’m claiming some type of special revelation, with the implication that I have some type of God complex? If you thought that, you’re more blinded than I thought.
I also used God what knows, in sync with what I know, and that is-if I were giving out free money, some would accept it, and some wouldn’t.
So again, context, context, context, or you will land into a pretext.
Now, when I said you weren’t God, uh-WAS I LYING?
I said that you weren’t God, based on this remark of yours:
“that means that all are saved and Jon’s perspective on unlimited atonement (literally because to atone means to pay for) is correct.I don’t see a different option.”
What was my response?
Here it is in full glory:
*And you’re not God either, so what you can, or cannot see, makes little relevance on the matter. Again, you’re so absorbed in the literature backing your views, to where you’ve become blinded by what the other side believes, because you’re interpreting what you believe to be true, within the prism of your own theological presuppositions.”
Need I say more, or do I need to break where I’m coming from further down, to where a fool can’t miss it?
Seekerman,
Let me ask you a question. Why did you choose Jesus over the person who doesn’t? Are you smarter or just morally better?
Seeker,
Do you ever read your own comments?
*Of course I do, and what are you trying to prove by asking me such a foolish question?
-BTW the definition means to appease, this means that wrath has been satisifed.
*I know this already, and I’m way ahead of you, which is evidenced in that I read and responded to, in a post where you mentioned this word.
-1 John says Jesus has satisfied God’s wrath for the whole world.
*I know, it says the WHOLE WORLD, and?
-If God’s wrath is satisfied,
*Uh-huh…
- that means He is no longer angry.
*I know. That means he is no longer angry at the folks who
freely come to accept the sacrifice that Jesus made on the cross for ALL HUMANITY. But that doesn’t mean all humanity will be saved, or that all humanity will be beneficiaries of not having
God’s wrath, because even in your doctrine-there are folks who will face the wrath of God, seeing as how they will ultimately be sent to hell, because of how God preordained it: which is the net effect of your side of the aisle’s view.
- Everytime God’s wrath was propitiated that means that someone or something died to satisfy it.
*I know this already, and what’s your point?
-So again you have no option if you are using 1 John in your defense then Jesus has satisified God’s wrath with His blood for the entire world and Jon is right.
*No, only your blindness, and arrogance, which is steeped in your theological presuppositions, will make you think Jon is right. Simply put, Jesus offered a net of protection from the Father’s wrath, if folks will freely come to Jesus, and accept the sacrifice he made for them on the cross, which is backed up by other scriptures very plainly, outside of the 1 John scripture you’re hanging onto for dear life.
-Next it is funny
*Yeah what’s that?
-that you can say that God chose Noah, chose Israel but yet today He doesn’t choose.
*I never said that God doesn’t choose today, according to his will, in certain situations, what I did say, is that as it relates to salvation, and God working with those he have a relationship with-he allows them the choice to reach out to him, by way of the grace he’s extended to them, due to the fact that we are under a better covenant, a new covenant. In this covenant, he’s no longer mandating that a nation has to follow him (they really didn’t follow him completely, even after he mandated it, truth be told), but rather that all men and women, from various nations, by their own choosing, via his grace-can come to him, and choose the Lord Jesus Christ as their savior, which is again, contrary to what you want to believe-backed up by scripture; even in those verses I put up previously.
-The fact that God in the Old Testament only revealed His will to a select few only defends election.
*No it doesn’t, but rather it explains how God was working with a nation of people, in order to bring his essence and Son into this world, which birthed the New Covenant, which is a better covenant, than the Old Covenant. There are a lot of things done in the Old Covenant, that is null and void in the better covenant, which is the New Covenant-salvation of humanity is one of them.
- Every year the lamb was sacrificed it was only for Israel,
*I know this Lionel, so what’s your point?
-God purposely ignored the rest of the nations around Him,
*I know he did, but he no longer is that exclusive to a location, a place, a nation of people, or a certain few people, regardless of where they’re located; this is why he says in the New Covenant, “whosoever will come, let him come.”
-but you say today He no longer does that, based off of what. I have evidence in the Old and New Testament that is how He operated, you only acknowledge the old.
*Oh really? I just acknowledge the Old? Pray tell, where did you get this information/lie from?
I get my information based on what the scriptures that says:
Acts 2:21: “And everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”
Luke 19:10: “For the Son of Man came to seek and to save what was lost.” (The “lost” seems to refer to the entire world of lost humanity, not just the lost elect.)
John 3:16: “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”
John 4:42: “They said to the woman, ‘We no longer believe just because of what you said; now we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this man really is the Savior of the world.’”
2 Corinthians 5:14-15: “For Christ’s love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for ALL, and therefore all died. And he died for ALL, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again.”
1 Timothy 2:3-4: “This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants ALL men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.”
1 Timothy 2:5-6: “For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for ALL men–the testimony given in its proper time.”
Timothy 4:10: “We have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of ALL men, and especially of those who believe.”
Titus 2:11: “For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to ALL men.” (Here it says that God’s grace appears to all men, but do all men accept?)
Hebrews 2:9: “But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.” (It didn’t say only a few, but EVERYONE.)
1 John 4:14: “And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the WORLD (not for a few in the world).”
Romans 5:18 says: “Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for ALL men.”
John 3:17 says: “For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.”
Acts 17:30: “In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands ALL people everywhere to repent.”
2 Peter 3:9 says: “The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.”
Oh man, like I said at an earlier time, I can go on, and on, and on, for there are clouds of scriptures that I can use as a solid witness, to buttress my claim that the New Covenant allows all humanity to be allowed to taste salvation, and not only a select few, which is what your side of the aisle erroneously teaches.
But yet you lie and claim that I’m only stuck in the Old Testament? If anything, you’re more so drenched in the Old Testament, and what you think it says, in regards to patterns, than me.
In none of the scriptures I quoted, was there anything resembling the Old Testament, so again, why engage in lies, deceit and jedi mind tricks, so as to win an argument, as opposed to being truthful?
-Finally,
*Yeah what’s up?
-what is your problem with those who acknowledge the Doctrines of Grace (I don’t believe in total predestination so please stop projecting your disgust on me).
*I believe in Grace, but I don’t believe in the package that you guys testify to. Furthermore, I’ve already given you my list of grievances, so why ask a question that was already answered by yours truly?
And you may not believe in total predestination, but many in your camp do, as well as believe in the Satan inspired belief that Jesus only died for a few, and preordained the rest of humanity to hell, because they weren’t provided for in the atonement.
Regardless of how you try and spin this one-this is, again, the net effect of what you believe and teach.
-I believe the scriptures teach this.
*Yeah, what do you believe the scriptures teach?
-I believe God is gracious to spare any.
*I agree with that, for we all deserve hell, but thank God, through Jesus Christ, human beings have an escape mechanism that allows them to avoid the wrath of the Father. And that escape mechanism is Jesus Christ, and his sacrifice on the cross.
-You believe that a man can conjure up His own faith thus you are the one who is arrogant not me.
*No, I believe that God will extend his grace to fallen humanity, and it is up to the humanity, or individual humans to respond, which is similar to me cooking food for a bunch of hungry folks who have no access to food. These hungry folks didn’t “conjure” up their own food, rather, I provided the food, and compelled them to eat, whereas some ate, and others, well-they didn’t eat.
Only an arrogant person would get off on the fact that I would prepare food only for them, while leaving the rest of their brethren hungry, which is how Calvinists, at their very core, view fallen humanity, and salvation that comes from God.
No my friend, despite how politically correct you are, in that you try to represent the lighter side of Calvinism-this is what you represent, so own it, and live with it.
- I am humbled by God’s choosing of me, not exalted.
*You are humbled in that God chose you, but your humility is a false humility, because it appears as if your humble feeling is based on the fact that others have been preordained to hell, whereas you, and others of the chosen few, haven’t.
This is core foundation of it all.
-I understand that if it were not for the Holy Spirit freeing my will I would have been left in sin. I didn’t buckle down, dig deep and find the little spark of faith, I was set on fire by the Holy Spirit, a fire that melted the chains of death and destruction and gave me faith to turn to the Lord Jesus. Whats so arrogant about that?
*The arrogance lies in the fact that again, you can only feel good about your salvation, with the belief that others weren’t “set on fire”, or were given the chance to be set on fire, because it makes you feel “special” and “humble” in a carnal way. I can’t speak for everyone who holds your view, but I am speaking of you.
I believe that God’s grace extends to humanity, and at times he may bear that grace down on others more strongly than he will other human beings, because of his ultimate plan for their lives, and his glory, but nonetheless, the grace that he extends isn’t irresistible, but can be resisted. If it’s resisted, it’s not God’s fault, but the person rejecting the love that’s being offered.
No one is saved, without God drawing them in. The question is, will the person, or persons being drawn in, open up the door and let Jesus in: some will, some won’t.
This is the pure New Covenant position on accepting Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior.
I’ll be back tomorrow. I gotsta go for today. It’s been fun.
I guess I can answer this one quick question, then I’m truly out for today:
Lionel said:
“Seekerman,
Let me ask you a question. Why did you choose Jesus over the person who doesn’t? Are you smarter or just morally better?”
*A person who chooses to come to God, isn’t necessarily smart, or morally better, for if was based on that alone-HARDLY NO ONE WOULD COME TO GOD, based on that criteria.
I came to God because I did, and as long as God is satisfied with that, then so am I. It’s not up for me to determine why others came to God, or don’t come to God; but rather it is my responsibility to come to God, for every man and woman must make an account of themselves.
Besides, I’ve already addressed this same question of yours, over on your other site. If I can, I’ll pull up that whole response and argument from your side-tomorrow.
There-I said it.
Seeker,
Why do you keep saying “there-I said it”?
Big L, (My comments are only directed to you. I have agreed not to address your opponent unless he addresses me.)
As you know, I don’t believe that the Gospel is an offer of any kind. I believe it is a command with a promise. An announcement versus an invitation. The Gospel is described as “the power of God unto salvation” not “the offer of God for anyone desiring to be saved and willing to repent and turn to Christ”. In this debate/discussion, you are correct to point out the need to define terms and their contextual usage. It is there that the “blinders of tradition” are revealed in any of us. Words like “world”, “atonement”, “propitiation”, “intercession/intercede”, etc. all must be fleshed out.
BLD,
I think you should also include a restudy of the words aion/aionios.
A question to be answered:
Is it God’s wil/desire for all of humanity to be saved?
If yes, then how can God fail to have His will on His clay?
If no, then it would seem that God is a respector of persons and the bible would appear to contradict itself.
Jon,
As always, I wish for once you could stick to the discussion. I also wish that you could read. Why? Because I clearly stated that I was speaking only to Lionel. Thank you for keeping your comments directed to those addressing you, namely, NOT ME!
BLD,
You stated:
“As always, I wish for once you could stick to the discussion”
My response:
Have you been reading the last 15 or so comments between Lionel and Seekerman and your added input?
So how am I off what is currently being discussed?
And just because you were speaking to Lionel, doesn’t mean that someone can’t address you. Afterall, you don’t have to respond. You seem to have a serious problem with me. I have no ought against you even though you have treated me with disrespect on several occassions. But since you have requested that I not speak to you I will no longer address you.
Jon,
My problem with you is that you interject your “hobby horse” into 99% (as I’m sure there’s at least one or two posts that you haven’t) of all posts that Lionel makes (here and on his other blogs). Others and I have asked you not to do it because it distracts from the subject matter. You refuse to do it. That immaturity is irritating and nauseating. So no, I don’t have any respect for a person that would continually do that after being asked repeatedly to stop. So, if as you say, I have treated you with disrepect on several occasions, it is because I don’t respect you. Thanks.
In order to love your neighbor as Chist commands, you must have some sort of respect for them to begin with. Even if you disagree with them.
Lionel, I will be praying for you.
I can say much more-for I feel that my position will be vindicated in the end- but I’ll use discretion, unless someone places a quarter in the jukebox…