Isn't this a logical argument?

[cman77]

If there is something logically wrong with this argument then please point it out.

First of all unbelief is a sin, because it is a rejection of God's authority
Second, Christ's sacrifice is sufficient to Atone for all sin
Third, Christ died for all men

If Christ died for all men, and unbelief is a sin and is therefore covered by the Atonement, then there is none left to be condemned. we know this is not true and therefore must conclude that one of the three points is false. The negation of the first point would be that unbelief is not a sin. If that is true, then all religions and all world views are valid. This is false so the first point must be true. Next, the negation of the second point would be that Christ's sacrifice is not sufficient to atone for all sin. If this is true, then we are in big trouble because Christianity is false. We do not believe that Christianity is false so the second point must also be true. This leaves only point number three that can be false. Only by negating the third point can we reach a conclusion that lines up with what the bible says.

To sum up the argument: If Christ died for all men, then there is is no one left to be condemned. There is in fact people left that are condemned, therefore Christ did not die for all men

This is a valid argument by Modus Tollens

If p then q, not q therefore not p

 

[Iceman]

it's too simple to be illogical. But it also has to many axioms, presuppositions to be considered a cogent theological argument.

 

[cman77]

Well of course there are presuppositions and axioms, I am arguing from a Christian perspective. I am a Christian and therefore I consider certain facts, like the fact that there is God, to be self evident. And the other facts I gather from the word which that God gave us. If there is not a flaw in the argument, then the conclusion must be true. And as far as this argument being a convincing theological argument, keep in mind that our God is not a God of Chaos, but rather a God of Order and Logic.

 

[Iceman]

the presumptions made are not inherently christian. Adding the presumption that because you are taking God as a given that it proves the argument merely adds more presumptions. About the very nature of God. It also uses God as a tool to validate axioms that are not theologically consistent. Hence why it will never be a theologically cogent argument.

It may be logical. But it's not deep. It doesn't address any issues raised in universalism. It's merely opinion.

 

[Boanerges]

If there is something logically wrong with this argument then please point it out.

First of all unbelief is a sin, because it is a rejection of God's authority
Second, Christ's sacrifice is sufficient to Atone for all sin
Third, Christ died for all men

If Christ died for all men, and unbelief is a sin and is therefore covered by the Atonement, then there is none left to be condemned. we know this is not true and therefore must conclude that one of the three points is false. The negation of the first point would be that unbelief is not a sin. If that is true, then all religions and all world views are valid. This is false so the first point must be true. Next, the negation of the second point would be that Christ's sacrifice is not sufficient to atone for all sin. If this is true, then we are in big trouble because Christianity is false. We do not believe that Christianity is false so the second point must also be true. This leaves only point number three that can be false. Only by negating the third point can we reach a conclusion that lines up with what the bible says.

To sum up the argument: If Christ died for all men, then there is is no one left to be condemned. There is in fact people left that are condemned, therefore Christ did not die for all men

This is a valid argument by Modus Tollens

If p then q, not q therefore not p

Isa 66:4 I also will choose their delusions, and will bring their fears upon them; because when I called, none did answer; when I spake, they did not hear: but they did evil before mine eyes, and chose that in which I delighted not.

Christ indeed died for all but all will not avail themselves to His gift of mercy. In the end those who wish to be with Him will find Him. Those who hate Him and His presence will find themselves separated from Him and pay an awful price. The scripture above plainly demonstrates how man may reject the call of his God and that the consequences he
It is only those He foreknew (had knowlege of their choice to come to Christ) that He predestined to be conformed to Christ.

 

[cman77]

the presumptions made are not inherently christian. Adding the presumption that because you are taking God as a given that it proves the argument merely adds more presumptions. About the very nature of God. It also uses God as a tool to validate axioms that are not theologically consistent. Hence why it will never be a theologically cogent argument.

It may be logical. But it's not deep. It doesn't address any issues raised in universalism. It's merely opinion.

i am not arguing against universalism, I am arguing against Unlimited Atonement. the doctrine of Limited Atonement, which so many people hate with a passion, only limits the intention of the Atonement. the doctrine of Unlimited Atonement limits the power of the Atonement. Oh and I have a question that I was thinking about last night. when a Calvinist says that it doesn't matter what we do, what do you think is meant by it?

 

[Iceman]

i am not arguing against universalism, I am arguing against Unlimited Atonement. the doctrine of Limited Atonement, which so many people hate with a passion, only limits the intention of the Atonement. the doctrine of Unlimited Atonement limits the power of the Atonement. Oh and I have a question that I was thinking about last night. when a Calvinist says that it doesn't matter what we do, what do you think is meant by it?

I would say predestination is a load of bunk. Get over Calvin and look at some more modern theology.

You asked for a critique of your argument and I gave you one. But seeing as you seem to want a more theological response then I'll give you that.

It needs to be started by a re-addressing the history of the fundamentals of Christian faith. Sins are a specifically Old Testament idea that are carried forward into the New Testament. When someone says sins it usually conjures up dirty images. Feelings of guilt ect ect. ut the word sin means to paraphrase "missing the mark." Apply that to covenental nomism and you have not quite doing the Law. Now of course come to Christianity and we have re-interpreted the covenant and need to figure out what sin now is. Fortunately St. Paul has done that for us.

No longer sins, but Sin. A reality in and of itself. Sin becomes to mean this world in which we exist as humans, and the opposite is God's world in which we exist as Christians. There are of course principles of this in the Old Testament.

This leads to missiology.

Christianity isn't about getting into heaven, or getting out of hell. Explaining the Gospel in purely salvific terms does not do justice to it. Instead the task of the Church is to bring God's reality into this reality. To cause them to overlap.

The theology of this is that God is a God concerned with Creation, but does not impose will upon creation. God is not a disinterested God that allows people to cause evil without any effect on him. God is not a selective God that chooses people to be forced without choice into his reality and removes free will from them. God is a God that presents the option of which world you wish to live for.

To sum up the argument: If Christ died for all men, then there is is no one left to be condemned. There is in fact people left that are condemned, therefore Christ did not die for all men

Christ died for all men. But men may choose to reject God by choosing which reality they wish to participate in. The Atonement Model of salvation was rejected long before Calvin as part of I think the Anselm/Arius debate from memory. But depressingly that model is today very popular. It leaves no theological room of eschatology, missiology, christology, ecclesiology, or any engagement with scripture. It is a dead stop. "Jesus died for everything, nothing more to say." Which is the flawed reasoing which leads to your argument. There is more in play then the heaven/hell dualism and far more to commit to the argument.

 

[RJ]

If there is something logically wrong with this argument then please point it out.

First of all unbelief is a sin, because it is a rejection of God's authority
Second, Christ's sacrifice is sufficient to Atone for all sin
Third, Christ died for all men

If Christ died for all men, and unbelief is a sin and is therefore covered by the Atonement, then there is none left to be condemned. we know this is not true and therefore must conclude that one of the three points is false. The negation of the first point would be that unbelief is not a sin. If that is true, then all religions and all world views are valid. This is false so the first point must be true. Next, the negation of the second point would be that Christ's sacrifice is not sufficient to atone for all sin. If this is true, then we are in big trouble because Christianity is false. We do not believe that Christianity is false so the second point must also be true. This leaves only point number three that can be false. Only by negating the third point can we reach a conclusion that lines up with what the bible says.

To sum up the argument: If Christ died for all men, then there is is no one left to be condemned. There is in fact people left that are condemned, therefore Christ did not die for all men

This is a valid argument by Modus Tollens

If p then q, not q therefore not p

Jesus died for the sins of the world. He died for all and all sin. This in no way says that all are saved. His death was for sin and a precursor to salvation but the cross only forgives, it did not save.

Since sin is no longer a barrier or gap between God and man, then that allows for the resurrection to bring eternal life and salvation to those who choose and believe.

Although all are forgiven, only some choose and are saved, there is and will be plenty that are condemned.

 

[cman77]

First of all, nobody answered the question I asked at the end of my last post. Second, read Romans 9 if you think Predestination is a load of bunk. Thirdly, what is the difference between being forgiven and being saved. Sin is all that separates man from God as you said, so once our sin is forgiven we are no longer separated from God, that is the essence of Christianity. The whole point of Christ dying on the cross was to reconcile sinful men to God the Father. I am of the opinion that Christ and Christ alone is the Savior of man. I do not believe that salvation is a joint effort between God and man. Salvation is of the LORD, period. Soli Deo Gloria

 

[Iceman]

First of all, nobody answered the question I asked at the end of my last post.

Who cares what they mean by it. It's not relevant to say "well these people say this so nerrr"

Second, read Romans 9 if you think Predestination is a load of bunk.

Re-read it then just to make you happy Still bunk. If I stick my finger in my ear right now, then I've done it. Not God. Secondly the theology of predestination presents a God who is not good, but morally ambiguous at best. Can a God that creates humanity, only to literally force most of them to doom ever be considered good? No of course not. So the theology must be reworked to fit God, not God reworked to fit an outdated and under thought theology.

Thirdly, what is the difference between being forgiven and being saved. Sin is all that separates man from God as you said, so once our sin is forgiven we are no longer separated from God, that is the essence of Christianity. The whole point of Christ dying on the cross was to reconcile sinful men to God the Father. I am of the opinion that Christ and Christ alone is the Savior of man. I do not believe that salvation is a joint effort between God and man. Salvation is of the LORD, period. Soli Deo Gloria

Didn't say it was a joint effort between humanity and God, re read the post. Said the point of it wasn't just a dummed down and impotent "get into heaven" salvation model.

If you think you can seperate what it means to be Christian from salvation there are more holes in your theology then in your initial argument.

Being Christian DOESN'T mean get into heaven. Being Christian means DO the work required for the Kingdom.

The Kingdom of Heaven is now, not later.

Now will you actually engage with my previous post?

Discuss the nature of Sin. What it means to Sin. How does Christ relate to Sin.

Then once Sin is defined what effect does it have on humanity and God. What is the missiology that comes from that.

Ultimately what image of God do all those things provide, and is that image consistent with theology and scripture.

Look if you want a theology debate I can do that. So far I'm still trying to answer your first question.

The argument is logical yes. But completely inadequate as a theological argument. In defending it, you reveal just how lacking it really is as you need to go into more and more depth to deal with the issues.

 

[rojoloco]

Jesus died for the sins of the world. He died for all and all sin. This in no way says that all are saved. His death was for sin and a precursor to salvation but the cross only forgives, it did not save.

If one is forgiven, he has nothing left to be saved from.

 

[01redeemed]

If there is something logically wrong with this argument then please point it out.

First of all unbelief is a sin, because it is a rejection of God's authority
Second, Christ's sacrifice is sufficient to Atone for all sin
Third, Christ died for all men

If Christ died for all men, and unbelief is a sin and is therefore covered by the Atonement, then there is none left to be condemned. we know this is not true and therefore must conclude that one of the three points is false. The negation of the first point would be that unbelief is not a sin. If that is true, then all religions and all world views are valid. This is false so the first point must be true. Next, the negation of the second point would be that Christ's sacrifice is not sufficient to atone for all sin. If this is true, then we are in big trouble because Christianity is false. We do not believe that Christianity is false so the second point must also be true. This leaves only point number three that can be false. Only by negating the third point can we reach a conclusion that lines up with what the bible says.

To sum up the argument: If Christ died for all men, then there is is no one left to be condemned. There is in fact people left that are condemned, therefore Christ did not die for all men

This is a valid argument by Modus Tollens

If p then q, not q therefore not p

Ephesians 2:8
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

The only thing required of us if faith (belief). That is how we recieve the gift of salvation through faith. It is because of the grace of God that we are given salvation not because of anything we have done to earn it, we simply recieve it by faith and continue in that faith. Without faith (being in unbelief) although salvation is available to you because Christ paid the price for it to be made available you cannot recieve it. Faith is not a work which earns salvation it is trusting in Jesus as our Lord and savior. That His sacrifice is sufficient and His grace is enough.

John 3:18
He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Sin is paid for now the only thing that stands between us and God is unbelief. That is what condemns us now. Those who love darkness and will not come to Him will perish. Here are some other scriptures and a little more explaination.

You stated "First of all unbelief is a sin, because it is a rejection of God's authority" I agree that unbelief is a sin as it is shown to be in scripture.

Revelation 21:8
But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

Then you stated "Second, Christ's sacrifice is sufficient to Atone
for all sin" and once again I agree because scripture shows that to be true. But here is where you are getting caught up. You stated "Third,
Christ died for all men" and then proceeded to assume that by your logic one of these must be wrong. And that once again by your logic it must be that Christ did not die for all men. Here is my questions. first of all why must one of these be wrong? Could it not be that you simply do not understand how they all fit together? If what you stated about the atonement for all sin is true and all men are sinners then that must include all men.

We are told of the unpardonable sin in scripture...
<TABLE style="WIDTH: 100%; FONT-FAMILY: sans-serif; MARGIN-LEFT: auto; FONT-SIZE: 100%; MARGIN-RIGHT: auto" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=t_verse vAlign=top>Mark 3:28

</TD><TD style="WIDTH: 100%" class=t_text vAlign=top>Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme:</TD></TR><TR><TD class=t_verse vAlign=top>29</TD><TD style="WIDTH: 100%" class=t_text vAlign=top>But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation:</TD></TR><TR><TD class=t_verse vAlign=top>30</TD><TD style="WIDTH: 100%" class=t_text vAlign=top>Because they said, He hath an unclean spirit.

The only thing that cannot be forgiven is our unbelief...our rejection of God.Rejection of the atonement of Christ. It is not that Christ cannot handle or did not handle this sin (unbelief) as well because if He didn't then even if we did believe at some point we would still not be able to be forgiven for our previous unbelief if it also was not atoned for. Therefor you can conclude that it is only in our state of persistent unbelief in which we remain condemned. This is the hinge if you will. Our belief in Christ and who He is and what He has done for us is vital. This is the very point of the gospel. We need a savior. We cannot save ourselves. We have been given Jesus our atoning sacrifice. We need to believe and be saved. Otherwise you can take it like this... Christ died once for some. They then are saved at calvary. Belief or unbelief doesn't matter. Preaching of the gospel doesn't matter. And much of the scriptures teach falsely. This doesn't hold up.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

 

[jiggyfly]

If one is forgiven, he has nothing left to be saved from.

More importantly we are justified by God's work at the cross of Christ and that means we are found not guilty.

 

[RJ]

If one is forgiven, he has nothing left to be saved from.

No, except his rejection of the Holy Spirit.
In all of one's wisdom, nothing will save a person from the Blaspheme of the Holy Spirit, and this does not come from the cross but through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. The Cross forgives but only the Resurrection gives eternal life and your salvation.

 

[jiggyfly]

No, except his rejection of the Holy Spirit.
In all of one's wisdom, nothing will save a person from the Blaspheme of the Holy Spirit, and this does not come from the cross but through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. The Cross forgives but only the Resurrection gives eternal life and your salvation.

According to Paul, God's work at the cross of Christ does more than forgives us it justifies us.

 

[RJ]

More importantly we are justified by God's work at the cross of Christ and that means we are found not guilty.

Yes, but only those who receive the Resurrected Spirit of Jesus Christ, "Born Again", a Christian, are saved. All are forgiven at the cross, but
Faith, thus received and resting on Christ and his righteousness alone, is the alone instrument of Justification. You must be born anew of the spirit to be justified.

 

[rojoloco]

Yes, but only those who receive the Resurrected Spirit of Jesus Christ, "Born Again", a Christian, are saved. All are forgiven at the cross, but
Faith, thus received and resting on Christ and his righteousness alone, is the alone instrument of Justification. You must be born anew of the spirit to be justified.

As I said before, if one is forgiven, he has nothing left to be saved from. Can one be pardoned by the judge yet still go to prison? The wages of sin is death. We all deserve the wrath of God. We are separated from God because of this very sin. However, if we are all forgiven, as you say, then there is nothing left to be saved from. God has already pardoned us by the blood. If we have been pardoned, we no longer face condemnation. Forgiveness is synonymous with justification. We are only forgiven because of the work of the cross. Christ's blood does not merely forgive. It also cleanses. This means, if unlimited atonement is real, every single man and woman is cleansed. This would mean ever single man and woman is saved. However, we know this is not the case.

Your statement only limits the power of the atonement and renders it, in a sense, powerless unless a man activates it. I'm sorry but the blood of Christ is never powerless.

 

[RJ]

As I said before, if one is forgiven, he has nothing left to be saved from. Can one be pardoned by the judge yet still go to prison? The wages of sin is death. We all deserve the wrath of God. We are separated from God because of this very sin. However, if we are all forgiven, as you say, then there is nothing left to be saved from. God has already pardoned us by the blood. If we have been pardoned, we no longer face condemnation. Forgiveness is synonymous with justification. We are only forgiven because of the work of the cross. Christ's blood does not merely forgive. It also cleanses. This means, if unlimited atonement is real, every single man and woman is cleansed. This would mean ever single man and woman is saved. However, we know this is not the case.

Your statement only limits the power of the atonement and renders it, in a sense, powerless unless a man activates it. I'm sorry but the blood of Christ is never powerless.

I am sorry, but you call yourself a Preacher and a gifted teacher of the word? And you don't know that forgiveness and salvation are two different things!
I haven't heard you mention the resurrection yet. In your learning what was the significance of the resurrection?

 

[RJ]

More importantly we are justified by God's work at the cross of Christ and that means we are found not guilty.

Please, let's clarify here: the Christian is found not guilty because of the cross and saved by the resurrected life of Jesus Christ. The unbeliever has the opportunity because of the cross but if he remains in his unbelief, he is not justified and will be condemned.

 

[RJ]

According to Paul, God's work at the cross of Christ does more than forgives us it justifies us.

O.K. but your "us" is a "Born Again" Christian. A unbeliever can be forgiven because of the cross and he is not justified unless he changes course and receives the Holy Spirit and he too subsequently "Born Again"!