No answers for problem of evil

[atpollard]

To all engaged in the “question of evil” discussion:

My comments on Limited Atonement and Monergism vs Synergism may have seemed completely off topic. However, I have only responded to issues already raised by others and I wish to contribute to the discussion by stating that Monergism and Synergism are central to the answer of the origin of evil that you will embrace.

Synergism believes that man has God given free will to do good or evil and God has yielded His absolute sovereignty (like allowing men to reject God’s will). From this worldview, Evil is the result of the free will decisions of men ... Men do evil actions and evil actions have evil consequences.

Monergism believes that the will of all mankind is enslaved to sin and that men are incapable of WANTING to obey God. From this, God is fully Sovereign over everything, both good and evil, because God pronounced the original curse and God uses both good and evil for His purposes and His glory. So from a Monergistic worldview, God is Alpha and Omega (the beginning and the end and everything in between) and evil exists because it serves God’s purposes to allow it and even to send it into our lives.


“I have learned to kiss the waves that throw me up against the Rock of Ages”
― Charles H. Spurgeon

 

[OzSpen]

Sorry, but to directly answer your question about 1 John 2:2 strays too far off topic for my comfort and involves a direct discussion/debate on Calvinism vs Arminianism with full court scripture pong and a discussion of Systematic Theology. While I am not opposed to such a discussion, I believe that directly debating Calvinism vs Arminianism is forbidden by the latest rules of the board. While I will not deny my sotierology for the sake of ecumenicalism, I am trying to respect the rules of the board.

Their house, their rules.

atp,

My understanding of the new rules is that it is forbidden to debate OSAS vs OSNAS. I didn't think the moderators were meaning to cut off all debate of Arminianism vs Calvinism.

If I'm wrong, would a moderator please point out the new rule? We have been discussing Unconditional Election vs Conditional Election, and Limited Atonement vs Unlimited Atonement, so the new forum rules do not rule out most of the discussions of theological topics in the Calvinism vs Arminianism debate. Only one is excluded.

Oz

 

[atpollard]

atp,

My understanding of the new rules is that it is forbidden to debate OSAS vs OSNAS. I didn't think the moderators were meaning to cut off all debate of Arminianism vs Calvinism.

If I'm wrong, would a moderator please point out the new rule? We have been discussing Unconditional Election vs Conditional Election, and Limited Atonement vs Unlimited Atonement, so the new forum rules do not rule out most of the discussions of theological topics in the Calvinism vs Arminianism debate. Only one is excluded.

Oz

I am not a moderator and welcome official clarification as well, but THIS is what I was basing my opinion on:

osas-vx-osnas

“This subject of OSAS is no longer allowed to be argued, debated or even discussed.
Since way too many rescources are being used by this one subject we have to cut it off completely.
Too many people are losing their composure when discussing this topic. So in the interest of all, any debate of Calvinism vx Arminianism tenants of faith are no longer going to be allowed to be discussed” [emphasis added]

 

[OzSpen]

I am not a moderator and welcome official clarification as well, but THIS is what I was basing my opinion on:

osas-vx-osnas

“This subject of OSAS is no longer allowed to be argued, debated or even discussed.
Since way too many rescources are being used by this one subject we have to cut it off completely.
Too many people are losing their composure when discussing this topic. So in the interest of all, any debate of Calvinism vx Arminianism tenants of faith are no longer going to be allowed to be discussed” [emphasis added]

Thanks atp. That means any discussion of any topic relating to Calvinism vs Arminianism is forbidden.

Therefore, our discussion of Unconditional Election and Limited Atonement in this thread should have been stopped as it went against the rules of the forum.

Oz

 

[JLB]

Never said that man can't do it but even the most depraved men and still do good doesn't mean you'd want them to have your friends Hitler comes to mind

I didn’t realize the discussion was about who we would choose to be our friend.




JLB

 

[JLB]

I am not a moderator and welcome official clarification as well, but THIS is what I was basing my opinion on:

osas-vx-osnas

“This subject of OSAS is no longer allowed to be argued, debated or even discussed.
Since way too many rescources are being used by this one subject we have to cut it off completely.
Too many people are losing their composure when discussing this topic. So in the interest of all, any debate of Calvinism vx Arminianism tenants of faith are no longer going to be allowed to be discussed” [emphasis added]

This certainly isn’t a debate, nor is it about OSAS, or Calvinism vs Arminianism.


The thread topic is -

No answers for problem of evil.



JLB

 

[for_his_glory]

Rules God choose to make up.Is God obliged to save ,onlidged meaning he has no,choice.

Before creation was God lonely ?does he need,anyine to love ,to be able to love ,?
Is he lacking anything ?no.he choose to create ,he didn't have too at all.something eternal prior to creation in,the trinity ,it was there forever no time ,no,beginning or end ,how lonely was he?

He simply wasn't .he out of mercy choose to save man ,he choose not to with angels who aren't eternal but a created being Satan isn't older the the trinity .though the bible doesn't say exactly when but no angel has the attribute of eternal existence ,not even dying ,

The idea of destroy both body and spirit must include the power of eternal destruction.while i hold the idea of eternal damnation in a prison of torture ,the word destroy includes both something beyond physical destruction of a body .and must include satan can be destroyed and uncreated.no creating being outside of the trinity is eternal ,undying without said allowance from God.

God is not obligated to any of us, but we need to be obligated to Him. It repented God that He even created man as the imagination of man's heart became evil and God was about to destroy man in the days of Noah, but found grace in Noah and spared him and his family from the flood that destroyed sinful man, Genesis 6:6-8.

After the flood sin was once again brought into the world by that of Noah's son Ham and his son Canaan who was cursed by Noah as they disgraced him as he laid naked in the privacy of his own tent after he became drunk on wine, Genesis 9:20-27.

 

[for_his_glory]

Which is it ... everyone that comes to him, or everyone without exception? Does the blood heal us of sin or does it not.

I honestly don’t care what answer you choose, but you should be consistent with yourself. You are claiming that the Physician healed even those that did not come to him, and they refused to take the medicine (Which is not the same as healing everyone that comes to you.)

Apparently you did not understand the comparison I made between a physician and Jesus. They both have the method to heal us, but it's up to us to come to them and receive that which makes us whole again.

Luke 5:31 And Jesus answering said unto them, They that are whole need not a physician; but they that are sick. 32 I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

Luke 19: 10 For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.

Jesus came to seek and save the lost as the righteous are already His own. Those who are not His own are those of unrighteousness who need to receive that free gift of God's grace through faith that is Christ Jesus that they too may have eternal life with the Father, John 3:16.

 

[for_his_glory]

Calvinism vs Arminianism is forbidden by the latest rules of the board.

Discussing this or even debating this is not against the ToS as only OSAS vs OSNAS will no longer be discussed. I would suggest you start a new thread on this in the Theology forum if you want a debate or have a discussion on this, but mind to keep it civil and in the unity of love as everyone gives their view points.

 

[GodsGrace]

wondering,

No, the tree in the Garden did not have knowledge in it. Like the Lord's Supper where the bread and the wine are symbols of the body and blood of Jesus (contra RCC), the tree in Eden was put there as a symbol to test A & E.

They were created by God to obey the laws to obey God but that had not been tested. To test A & E's obedience or disobedience to God, they were tested to determine if they were free moral agents.

This one symbol (tree) in the Garden presented A & E with the opportunity to obey God. Instead, they chose an act of outright rebellion against Him.

There was no evil content in the tree. The tree was an emblem to test the first 2 human beings. The test was basic: Will you choose to obey or disobey God's commands?

This test demonstrated who was Lord of the universe and showed that the first and consequent human beings possessed freedoms - given by God.



I cannot accept your doctrine of Original Sin (OS) as OS always existing. Doesn't that come out of your presupposition that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil had the stuff of evil in it?

Rom 5:12-14, 18 (NIV) contradicts your view:

12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned –​

​

13 To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. 14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come....​

​

18 Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people.​

We don't have to quote Augustine to gain an understanding of OS. Rom 5 clearly teaches that sin (OS) entered the world through the sin of one man and the consequences (death) came to all people.

When was the Law given? At Mt Sinai (see Ex 20). Sin was in the world before then because of Adam's sin.

This one OS by Adam resulted in sin being passed on to the whole human race.



I consider I've been providing answers to your conclusion, 'There is no solution to the problem of evil', but you are not open to consider them.

Oz

I agree with all of the above except regarding the tree of the KNOWLEDGE of good and evil. The knowledge of evil was in the tree. Evil already existed when A and E were placed in the Garden...this was my only point.

As to Original Sin,,,,agreed...I was just explaining Augustine's view...not mine. I don't agree with him at all.

Oh, and re the testing of Adam and Eve.
God had to test them?
Didn't He already KNOW how they'd choose??

 

[GodsGrace]

Previous to the 400 years, there were no Bibles printed in the vernacular language and available to the masses of Christianity to read for themselves. For most of that time, only the elite of the Roman Catholic Church read Latin and had access to the Bible to even ask the question. Those that disagreed with the Official position were burned as heretics. That is not an environment open to honest conversation on the issue.

If you go all the way back to about 30 AD, there certainly were written letters which later became the N.T. together with the gospels. It was not the Roman Catholic Church yet,,but it was The Way, (as in Acts) or Christianity, which was first given this title in Antioch, soon after Jesus' death.

I agree with the rest of your statement, but put it further along since it was the actual Christians that were being persecuted in the beginning few hundred years until 325 AD. It was not until much later that the church began to go down the sad road which you speak of above.

Unconditional Election as a formal theological dogma was created at Dort as a direct result of the challenge by the Remonstrances that demanded that the Dutch, Danish and German churches change their statements of belief from the long held orthodox views that Jesus died to forgive the sins of the saved to the proposed view of Arminius that Jesus died for the sins of all men without exception.

I'm not very well versed with Dort, I do know that UE was pronounced a doctrine at this time...and I do know that UE was the belief of the Early Christians.

The view of “Limited Atonement” is the historic, orthodox view dating back to St.Augustine and his battle against the Pelagian heresy.

What about before Augustine? Does Christianity start with him?
The ECFs believed Jesus' sacrifice was for everyone...for ALL MEN...
History BEFORE Augustine is very important to know.

Patristic Teaching Through the Fifth Century

The heart of early Ante-Nicene theology on this subject of unlimited atonement is expressed well in the teaching of Irenaeus (140-202), Hippolytus (170-235) and Clement of Alexandria (150-212). Irenaeus, in his “Proof of Apostolic Preaching” and “Against Heresies,” teaches that, as a result of the disobedience of Adam and Eve in the Garden, every human being suffers from the consequences of original sin—estrangement from God, death and the threat of eternal corruption.

However, through Christ’s obedience in the work of recapitulation, salvation is made possible for “all men.”8 He states, “God recapitulated in Himself the ancient formation of man, that He might kill sin, deprive death of its power, and vivify man.”9 However, while Christ’s redemptive work is intended for all, humanity has free will to resist the call of the Holy Spirit to salvation, reject God’s grace in Christ, follow false teaching, and experience God’s final judgment of sin.

In his treatise “On Christ and the Antichrist,” Hippolytus speaks of the Son of God as one who enlightens the saints, teaches the ignorant, corrects the erring, acknowledges the poor, and “does not hate the female on account of the woman’s act of disobedience in the beginning, nor does he reject the male on account of man’s transgression, but he seeks all, and desires to save all, wishing to make all the children of God.”

10 Hippolytus then identifies God’s desire to save all men and women as the motivation for Christ’s incarnation and “sufferings on the cross.”11 Clement of Alexandria, in his “Exhortation to the Heathen,” proclaims God’s intention to make redemption possible e for every person

8Irenaeus, “Against Heresies,” trans. Alexander Roberts and William Rambaut, Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, eds. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1885), 3.18.1. 9Irenaeus, “Against Heresies,” 3.18.7. 10Hippolytus, “On Christ and the Antichrist,” trans, J. H. MacMahon, AnteNicene Fathers, vol. 5, eds. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1886), 3. 11Ibid., 4. The Scope of the Atonement in the Early Church Fathers 9 Wesleyan Theological Journal, Vol. 47 No. 2, Fall 2012 through the Son

source: http://evangelicalarminians.org/wp-...the-Atonement-in-the-Early-Church-Fathers.pdf

It was the championing of semi-Pelagianism by the Bishops and Church of Rome (against the other bishops of Africa and Asia) that led to the rise of the RCC’s synergistic “works based salvation” and the modern “free will” Theology. Arminius was attempting to apply semi-Pelagian synergism to the Protestant churches and prompted a Reformed affirmation of orthodox doctrines.

Please go back before Augustine, Arminius and Pelagius....I really dislike discussing these persons when the bible is available to us and when the Early Church Fathers, who were taught by the Apostles, or those in the 2nd line, wrote sufficiently for us to know what the early Christians believed.

Free will (libertarian) was always a part of the church,,,from the beginning.

Stephen accused the Jews of resisting the Holy Spirit...this means that grace is not irresistible and free will (libertarian) is indeed the free will God gave us and not a free will that is forced upon us by Him (compatible).
Acts 7:51
"You men who are stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears are always resisting the Holy Spirit; you are doing just as your fathers did."

So the term “Limited Atonement” is modern, but the concept is ancient and was traditionally just called “orthodox” theology.

This is incorrect A.
The early Christians believed Jesus died for ALL MEN, as even the bible states.

John 3:16
Revelation 3:20
John 3:36
2 Peter 3:9 and so many more...

John 5:24
24“Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life. "

 

[GodsGrace]

Sorry, but to directly answer your question about 1 John 2:2 strays too far off topic for my comfort and involves a direct discussion/debate on Calvinism vs Arminianism with full court scripture pong and a discussion of Systematic Theology. While I am not opposed to such a discussion, I believe that directly debating Calvinism vs Arminianism is forbidden by the latest rules of the board. While I will not deny my sotierology for the sake of ecumenicalism, I am trying to respect the rules of the board.

Their house, their rules.

A,
WHY does it have to be a debate on Calvinism vs Arminianism??
Isn't the bible enough for us?

1 John 2:2 clearly states that Jesus died for ALL MEN...
for THE WHOLE WORLD.

How would you explain this?

 

[atpollard]

If you go all the way back to about 30 AD, there certainly were written letters which later became the N.T. together with the gospels. It was not the Roman Catholic Church yet,,but it was The Way, (as in Acts) or Christianity, which was first given this title in Antioch, soon after Jesus' death.

I agree with the rest of your statement, but put it further along since it was the actual Christians that were being persecuted in the beginning few hundred years until 325 AD. It was not until much later that the church began to go down the sad road which you speak of above.


I'm not very well versed with Dort, I do know that UE was pronounced a doctrine at this time...and I do know that UE was the belief of the Early Christians.


What about before Augustine? Does Christianity start with him?
The ECFs believed Jesus' sacrifice was for everyone...for ALL MEN...
History BEFORE Augustine is very important to know.

Patristic Teaching Through the Fifth Century

The heart of early Ante-Nicene theology on this subject of unlimited atonement is expressed well in the teaching of Irenaeus (140-202), Hippolytus (170-235) and Clement of Alexandria (150-212). Irenaeus, in his “Proof of Apostolic Preaching” and “Against Heresies,” teaches that, as a result of the disobedience of Adam and Eve in the Garden, every human being suffers from the consequences of original sin—estrangement from God, death and the threat of eternal corruption.

However, through Christ’s obedience in the work of recapitulation, salvation is made possible for “all men.”8 He states, “God recapitulated in Himself the ancient formation of man, that He might kill sin, deprive death of its power, and vivify man.”9 However, while Christ’s redemptive work is intended for all, humanity has free will to resist the call of the Holy Spirit to salvation, reject God’s grace in Christ, follow false teaching, and experience God’s final judgment of sin.

In his treatise “On Christ and the Antichrist,” Hippolytus speaks of the Son of God as one who enlightens the saints, teaches the ignorant, corrects the erring, acknowledges the poor, and “does not hate the female on account of the woman’s act of disobedience in the beginning, nor does he reject the male on account of man’s transgression, but he seeks all, and desires to save all, wishing to make all the children of God.”

10 Hippolytus then identifies God’s desire to save all men and women as the motivation for Christ’s incarnation and “sufferings on the cross.”11 Clement of Alexandria, in his “Exhortation to the Heathen,” proclaims God’s intention to make redemption possible e for every person

8Irenaeus, “Against Heresies,” trans. Alexander Roberts and William Rambaut, Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, eds. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1885), 3.18.1. 9Irenaeus, “Against Heresies,” 3.18.7. 10Hippolytus, “On Christ and the Antichrist,” trans, J. H. MacMahon, AnteNicene Fathers, vol. 5, eds. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1886), 3. 11Ibid., 4. The Scope of the Atonement in the Early Church Fathers 9 Wesleyan Theological Journal, Vol. 47 No. 2, Fall 2012 through the Son

source: http://evangelicalarminians.org/wp-...the-Atonement-in-the-Early-Church-Fathers.pdf


Please go back before Augustine, Arminius and Pelagius....I really dislike discussing these persons when the bible is available to us and when the Early Church Fathers, who were taught by the Apostles, or those in the 2nd line, wrote sufficiently for us to know what the early Christians believed.

Free will (libertarian) was always a part of the church,,,from the beginning.

Stephen accused the Jews of resisting the Holy Spirit...this means that grace is not irresistible and free will (libertarian) is indeed the free will God gave us and not a free will that is forced upon us by Him (compatible).
Acts 7:51
"You men who are stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears are always resisting the Holy Spirit; you are doing just as your fathers did."



This is incorrect A.
The early Christians believed Jesus died for ALL MEN, as even the bible states.

John 3:16
Revelation 3:20
John 3:36
2 Peter 3:9 and so many more...

John 5:24
24“Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life. "

Simply put, you keep conflating the different points of T.U.L.I.P. by pronouncing ”Unlimited Atonement” was taught by the ECF and then presenting quotes that say nothing about who Christ died for, but refute the doctrine of Predestination.

 

[atpollard]

A,
WHY does it have to be a debate on Calvinism vs Arminianism??
Isn't the bible enough for us?

1 John 2:2 clearly states that Jesus died for ALL MEN...
for THE WHOLE WORLD.

How would you explain this?

I would point to the balance of scripture and use Systematic Theology to show that not all men had their sins forgiven, believed Jesus, were His sheep, were drawn by the Father, will be raised on the last day, and are safe in the God’s hands ... therefore, the death of Jesus was not the “propitiation” (sacrifice that provides forgiveness of sins) for ALL MEN WITHOUT EXCEPTION. All men without exception are not saved, so all men without exception were not forgiven. Even if all men without exception might have had an opportunity to believe and have their sins paid by Jesus death, it is clear that the sins of all men without exception were not forgiven by Jesus on the Cross. That would be UNIVERSALISM.

The issue is really one of Synergism vs Monergism with the ECF, who sided against Pelagius and the teaching that Man chooses to obey God because he has not been corrupted by Original Sin and rendered incapable of saving himself. Free Will is “semi-Pelegianism“ with a fresh coat of paint and runs contrary to Monergism (aka. Orthodox Christianity as restored by the Reformation and affirmed by the Synod of Dort).

 

[for_his_glory]

I would say the whole issue is in not believing that which is already written that was given orally by God who gave Jesus what to speak and teach all of us through God's Holy Spirit. Do we believe the various socially acceptable teachings of man with their theories and doctrines who can not agree with each other as they cause division or do we believe that which is already written.

 

[for_his_glory]

The Bible gives us the answer for the problem of evil and also gives the solution for it.

 

[OzSpen]

I would point to the balance of scripture and use Systematic Theology to show that not all men had their sins forgiven, believed Jesus, were His sheep, were drawn by the Father, will be raised on the last day, and are safe in the God’s hands ... therefore, the death of Jesus was not the “propitiation” (sacrifice that provides forgiveness of sins) for ALL MEN WITHOUT EXCEPTION. All men without exception are not saved, so all men without exception were not forgiven. Even if all men without exception might have had an opportunity to believe and have their sins paid by Jesus death, it is clear that the sins of all men without exception were not forgiven by Jesus on the Cross. That would be UNIVERSALISM.

Could your presuppositions be muddying the theological water here? Jesus' dying for all human beings will not lead to universalism if you accept one fundamental theological point?

What is that point? What did Paul and Silas say to the Philippian jailer when he asked: 'Sirs, what must I do to be saved?'

29 The jailer called for lights, rushed in and fell trembling before Paul and Silas. 30 He then brought them out and asked, ‘Sirs, what must I do to be saved?’​

​

31 They replied, ‘Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved – you and your household.’ 32 Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all the others in his house. 33 At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his household were baptised (Acts 16:29-33 NIV).​

They didn't say: 'Do nothing. You have been unconditionally elected. God will elect you to salvation or damnation. Leave it up to God to decide'. Paul and Silas had a more profound answer than unconditonal election.

The key theological content is in v. 31: 'They replied, ‘[You] believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved – you and your household.’

This is a command to the jailer and his household (It's a Greek imperative verb): 'You believe'.

Jesus died for the whole world but that does not lead to universalism. It does mean choice or no-choice to believe. People are not dragged kicking and screaming into the kingdom.

The issue is really one of Synergism vs Monergism with the ECF, who sided against Pelagius and the teaching that Man chooses to obey God because he has not been corrupted by Original Sin and rendered incapable of saving himself. Free Will is “semi-Pelegianism“ with a fresh coat of paint and runs contrary to Monergism (aka. Orthodox Christianity as restored by the Reformation and affirmed by the Synod of Dort).

Free will is not semi-Pelagianism. That's a false claim that is meant to muddy the waters of Classical/Reformed Arminianism. See: American Christianity and Semi-Pelagianism
and Why Arminian theology is neither Pelagian nor Semi-Pelagian.

The Synod of Dort was a Kangaroo Court. It could not come up with other than TULIP theology because all of those examining the doctrines were TULIP Calvinists. They could not give a fair hearing to the Remonstants who were opposing TULIP.

Oz

 

[GodsGrace]

Simply put, you keep conflating the different points of T.U.L.I.P. by pronouncing ”Unlimited Atonement” was taught by the ECF and then presenting quotes that say nothing about who Christ died for, but refute the doctrine of Predestination.

A, YOU keep bringing up _Augustine and Pelagius and Arminius without ever posting any of their writings...

The different atonement theories presented in scripture have been studied by theologians and we know which are believed by the early church and which came up as part of the reformation...for example the Penal Substitution Theory is one from the reformation.

I'll post something from S.D. Morrison regarding early Christianity and the Moral Influence Theory and the Ransom Theory. Could YOU also post something that states the Penal Substitution Theory was accepted in the early church? Pre 325 AD, that would be.

#1 The Moral Influence Theory
One of the earliest theories for the atonement is the Moral Influence theory, which simply taught that Jesus Christ came and died in order to bring about a positive change to humanity. This moral change comes through the teachings of Jesus alongside His example and actions. The most notable name here is that of Augustine from the 4th century, whose influence has almost single-handedly had the greatest impact upon Western Christianity. He affirmed the Moral Influence theory as the main theory of the Atonement (alongside the Ransom theory as well).

#2 The Ransom Theory
The Ransom Theory of the Atonement is one of the first major theories for the Atonement. It is often held alongside the Moral Influence Theory, and usually deals more with the actual death of Jesus Christ, what it actually means and the effect it has upon humanity. This theory finds its roots in the Early Church, particularly in Origen from the 3rd century. This theory essentially teaches that Jesus Christ died as a ransom sacrifice, paid either to Satan (the most dominate view), or to God the Father. Jesus’ death then acts as a payment to satisfy the debt on the souls of the human race, the same debt we inherited from Adam’s original sin.

source: from Dr. C. Baxter Kruger, Jesus and the Undoing of Adam
Synopsis: http://www.sdmorrison.org/7-theories-of-the-atonement-summarized/

Predestination was also not accepted in the early church and Augustine certainly did not believe in double predestination. Even HE said that one must decide for salvation. You said I've posted something regarding this so I won't do this again here.

TULIP does run into itself doesn't it? One doctrine could not exist without the others...so I do apologize if I run one into the other at times.

 

[GodsGrace]

I would point to the balance of scripture and use Systematic Theology to show that not all men had their sins forgiven, believed Jesus, were His sheep, were drawn by the Father, will be raised on the last day, and are safe in the God’s hands ... therefore, the death of Jesus was not the “propitiation” (sacrifice that provides forgiveness of sins) for ALL MEN WITHOUT EXCEPTION. All men without exception are not saved, so all men without exception were not forgiven. Even if all men without exception might have had an opportunity to believe and have their sins paid by Jesus death, it is clear that the sins of all men without exception were not forgiven by Jesus on the Cross. That would be UNIVERSALISM.

The bible does not teach universalism and taking it at its word does not mean that all men are saved, but that all men have the possibility of being saved.

I can wrap 100 gifts for ALL the members of a club. But ONLY the members that pick up their gift will actually receive it and be able to make use of it. The others will not be able to use the gift.

IF the bible had no conditions for salvation...then it would be universalism,,,but since we are taught from scripture that we must accept God's conditions in order to be saved then universalism really is not a valid excuse for believing in a limited atonement.

1 John 2:2 states that Jesus died not only for our (the believer) sins, but the sins of the whole world (everyone who ever lived).

But the N.T. also states that we are to be saved by faith and by believing.
Romans 10:9-11
9that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;
10for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.
11For the Scripture says, “WHOEVER BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED.”

Romans 3:23 states that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Since all have sinned, who will accept is justified through the redemption of Christ, Romans 3:24

This God displayed publicly as a propitiation in HIS blood THROUGH FAITH...this was to show God's righteousness.
Romans 3:25

The gift of the atonement is available to all...Christ paid for the sins of everyone and also for the sin that entered the world.

The issue is really one of Synergism vs Monergism with the ECF, who sided against Pelagius and the teaching that Man chooses to obey God because he has not been corrupted by Original Sin and rendered incapable of saving himself. Free Will is “semi-Pelegianism“ with a fresh coat of paint and runs contrary to Monergism (aka. Orthodox Christianity as restored by the Reformation and affirmed by the Synod of Dort).

Then why not discuss synergism vs monergism?
Free will (libertarian) has been the belief of Christianity from the beginning. This can be proven both biblically and by the beliefs of the Apostolic and ECFs.

You continue to bring up Augustine because he was the first in the church to think of predestination...which is refuted even by the church to which he belonged: Today it is the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[GodsGrace]

I would say the whole issue is in not believing that which is already written that was given orally by God who gave Jesus what to speak and teach all of us through God's Holy Spirit. Do we believe the various socially acceptable teachings of man with their theories and doctrines who can not agree with each other as they cause division or do we believe that which is already written.

I just want to say that the ECFs DID believe in what was written.
There is no discrepancy.