Are you a monergist or a synergist?
- Thread starter decipher
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Actually, it says faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God. If it came just by hearing, everyone who hears it would receive faith.
Romans 10:17 explicitly says faith comes by hearing, meaning God provides the message( and hearing by the word of God) and the human heart responds;
If you are going to accuse me of something at least post all of what I said.
Are you saying this is wrong?
He Himself is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours
but also for the sins of the whole world.
1 John 2:2
I believe that God indeed orchestrates what is going to happen but not necessarily with a specific person. God ordered Elijah to anoint King Jehu as King but refused and then later God had Elisha fulfill it. There's several examples in the Bible like this.
Had Jonah not repented there's nothing that states God would have still made Jonah do it or just pick someone else.
If you would work through the question I asked, you would see why Jonah, in fact, did go
Where does God's foreknowledge come from?
This is so very insightful, I love it. Ill wait for the answer before I pipe in if thats ok?
It was this statement that got my attention, "Where does God's foreknowledge come from?"
I imagined being a film maker.
He writes the script, films all the scenes, then has the ability to view any part of the film at once. He knows the outcome because he wrote the script. He knows how people react and are going to react because he has seen the whole movie play out.
But that is the true gospel and your interpretation of the gospel is false, because you believe the lie (which your Arminian denomination) teaches, that Jesus died for those whom He will cast into the lake of fire.
That makes God a liar. God doesn't save a person, only to cast them into the lake of fire if they fail to achieve sinless perfection in this life.
Your Arminian version of the gospel is not supported by the Bible, the true gospel exposes it and reveals that it's a false version.
None of the verses you appealed to say that God is trying to save every single person in the world. If they were saying that, then it would mean that God failed to save those He tried to save. You can believe in a god who fails, but the Bible reveals that God doesn't fail in anything.
Your entire objection rests on redefining the gospel into your system rather than letting Scripture define it, and that’s why your accusation collapses: the apostles never preached “Christ died only for the elect” as the gospel — they preached Christ crucified for sinners, raised, and offered to all, with salvation applied to those who believe.
You say universal atonement makes God a liar, but Scripture itself says Christ died for the world, all, sinners, and the ungodly; none of those categories mean “only the elect,” and you cannot shrink them without rewriting the text.
You also accuse Arminians of teaching that God “saves people only to cast them into the lake of fire if they fail to achieve sinless perfection,” but no Arminian theologian teaches salvation by perfection — they teach perseverance in faith, exactly what Jesus, Paul, Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation teach.
Your argument that universal atonement means God “fails” assumes that atonement equals automatic salvation, but Scripture never equates the provision of atonement with the application of salvation; Christ’s death is sufficient for all, effective for believers, and God’s desire that “all be saved” (1 Tim 2:4) and “none perish” (2 Pet 3:9) is not failure — it is His revealed will, which humans can resist. You’re free to defend limited atonement as your interpretation, but you cannot call it “the true gospel” when the apostles never defined the gospel that way; the gospel is Christ’s death, burial, resurrection, and the universal command to repent and believe, not a metaphysical restriction on whom He died for.
Brother, calling documented church history “lies” doesn’t make your system biblical; it only shows that when the facts contradict your theology, you attack the facts instead of re‑examining the theology.
The development of limited atonement is not a secret — it is traceable, it is documented, and it is acknowledged by Reformed historians themselves; it did not exist in the early church, it did not exist in the first millennium, it did not exist in the second, and it did not appear in confessional form until the Reformed scholastics systematized it.
That is not “strong delusion”; that is simply the historical record.
And your accusation that pointing out this history is “delusion” is not an argument — it is a refusal to engage.
If you want to prove your claim, then do what you said: look up the history of your system and show where the apostles, the early fathers, or the pre‑Reformation church ever defined the gospel as “Christ died only for the elect.” You won’t find it, because it isn’t there. You can defend limited atonement as your interpretation, but you cannot rewrite Scripture or history to make it the gospel the apostles preached.
I urge you to take your own advice, and test what you have chosen to believe. But you don't believe that it's necessary to translate or interpret the Bible, so how are you going to test anything.
Your own advice is useless, and hypocritical if you don't apply to yourself.
I'm not saying that 1 John 2:2 is wrong, but I am saying that your interpretation of it is wrong. Because if it was right, then God would be a liar.
My "system" is not my "system". I have no system, I follow the Lord Jesus and His system. His theology is systematic, He also taught "limited atonement".
Here's what the Lord Jesus taught about "limited atonement" or "definite atonement" or "particular redemption"— He taught that His death on the cross was specifically designed by God to effectively secure the salvation of the elect alone.
John 10:15: Jesus says, "I lay down my life for the sheep". This reveals that "the sheep" are a specific, definite group of believers rather than every single human being.
Ephesians 5:25: Paul writes, "Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her". This verse reveals that Christ died for a specific bride (the church), which restricts the intent of the cross to believers.
John 11:51–52: The high priest prophesied that Jesus would die for the Jewish nation, "and not for the nation only, but also to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad". This points to a distinct group ("the children of God") gathered by His death.
Acts 20:28: Paul tells church leaders to care for "the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood." The purchase price of His blood applies directly to the church.
John 17:9: Jesus prays, "I am praying for them. I am not praying for the world but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours." Christ's high-priestly prayer refers to His atoning sacrifice, noting His focus is on the elect.
You’re not following “Jesus’ system”; you’re lifting a handful of atonement texts out of their context and treating them as if they overturn the dozens of places where Scripture explicitly universalizes the scope of Christ’s death.
John 10:15 says Jesus lays down His life for the sheep — amen — but it does not say He lays down His life only for the sheep; the text identifies the beneficiaries, not the boundaries.
Ephesians 5:25 says Christ loved the church and gave Himself for her — amen — but Paul is describing the application of atonement to the church, not the extent of atonement to the world.
John 11:51–52 says Jesus dies to gather the children of God — amen — but John has already said Christ is the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world (John 1:29), and “children of God” is the result of His work, not the pre‑existing limit of His intent.
Acts 20:28 says Christ purchased the church — amen — but purchase language describes the effect on believers, not the exclusion of unbelievers.
John 17:9 is a prayer text, not an atonement text; Jesus prays for His own, but in the same chapter He says His mission is “that the world may believe” (17:21) and “that the world may know” (17:23).
None of your citations say what you claim — not one of them says Christ died only for the elect, and none of them overturn the explicit universal statements:
Christ died for the world (John 3:16–17),
for all (1 Tim 2:6; 2 Cor 5:14–15),
for sinners (Rom 5:6–8),
for the ungodly.
You can defend limited atonement as your interpretation, but you cannot call it “Jesus’ theology” when Jesus Himself repeatedly universalizes the scope of His mission.