Yeah, God knew in advance how many people would believe Noah's warning willingly come aboard, so he was able to designe the ark accordingly.

That's what you meant, right?

 

Yeah, Noah kept on preaching righteousness for the hundred and twenty years that it took him to build the ark, but thankfully no one repented, or the designs God gave him would have had to have been modified...

 

You would think of it that way. ;~)
How do you know there wasn't empty space? HMMMM?

 

Rose - I -am hopelessly sold out to what I believe to be true. lol.

The bible doesn't mention any empty space, but it does say that God gave Noah the measurements (decades) before the flood actually came - indicating that God knew beforehand who would be on the ark.

Only those who were in the ark were actually saved from the flood, and God only had Noah build the ark big enough for the passengers it would carry.

Funny that, no? :P

 

Daniel, I think it was fairly obvious that only Noah and his family would be saved. He was the only one that found grace in the eyes of God.

It would have been quite easy to throw a few more bodies in that big boat, but as we understand the N.T. we realize that the number of saved, being eight, represented resurrection.

This was definitely a picture of the Church and its ability to rise above the world and its destruction.

However, let's please be careful not to prejudge the size of the current "ark" as if we know who and how many will be saved.

God's foreknowledge is perfect as will our hindsight be one day.

God bless,
Jim

 

Daniel,
Good point. Noah's external call did no good and God give but a handful the effectual call.

 

I saw the inspirational poster and I just couldn't resist.

Visit my blog for more details...

 

Jim, your appeal to extra-biblical numerology (8 = resurrection) although likely borrowed or inherited from somewhere or someone you respect - it is nevertheless rather "contrived" and extra-biblical, making it okay for speculation and table talk, but not something I would teach (or accept) as doctrine.

I am certain that it would have been quite easy to throw a few more bodies in the ark - but that didn't happen, and God knew beforehand that it wouldn't happen - that is why the ark wasn't big enough to hold every "possible" convert - because although everyone who heard Noah preach righteousness could "possibly" have been saved, none of them were going to be, and God knew that when he gave the design specifications to Noah. Had God told Noah to build the ark big enough to house and feed everyone who was on the earth at that time, I would take the word "Limited" out of the poster. ;-)

No becomes elect on their own dime. Christ didn't take everyone's sins to the cross - but only the sins of those whom He Himself quickened - which scripture teaches us were the very people whom God elected before Adam was ever made.

Our current ark - Christ, was sent as a propitiatory sacrifice to redeem the elect, and only for the elect. No one is in Christ whom God, before creation was ever created, hasn't chosen to be there.

"Atonement Confusion" only results when we imagine that we are in some way responsible for our own election.

The ark pictures Christ, and the inhabitants of the ark picture the elect - that is, the church. Not that the church has any ability to "rise above the world" in and of itself - just as all those who perished outside the ark had no power in and of themselves to "rise above the world" - so Noah and his family were equally powerless to do so - except that they were in the ark.

If the church has power to rise above the world, it isn't something innate or self generated - it is something external and consequential to their being in Christ.

I personally hadn't ever imagined the ark floating on the waters that destroyed the world as picturing the church (in Christ) "rising above the world" - rather I tend to think of the water as God's wrath, and the ark as Christ, and those who were in the ark as being saved from God's wrath which destroyed absolutely everything that wasn't in the ark. The ark was floating above a world that no longer existed, was utterly washed away by God's wrath - and when it came to rest, it came to rest upon a thoroughly "clean" earth - a "new" earth in the same sense as when we are baptised by God's spirit - the old passes away, and the new comes. The ark was the only vehicle that could transport you from the one to the other.

DM ~ glad to see you back, I can't look at your graphic until later on today, I am currently behind a firewall that blocks content from certain servers. I will check it out when I can.

 

Daniel, I am not promoting numerology as a science, but am merely pointing out that the Bible uses numbers quite often in connection with certain things.

I think the crux of your arguments rest upon this statement..."Christ didn't take everyone's sins to the cross"...

Excuse my ignorance but do you have a verse or verses that say this explicitly?

I find your objective Biblical observations have become slightly colored at times when you defend the structure of TULIP.

God bless,
Jim

 

Jim, there is an expression used throughout the new testament, I am certain you have heard it, but I wonder if its significance hasn't slipped past you. The phrase is "in Christ."

You see, Romans six teaches that believers were "in Christ" on the cross, and that God punished those believers who were "in Christ" on the cross. God wasn't punishing Jesus, that would be unjust. God was punishing those who were "in Jesus" - who were in "the Christ."

The price was paid in full for our sins - not generically by Christ dying, but specifically through the death of everyone who was united with Christ in His death on the cross. Only those who have been united in His death can expect to be united in His resurrection - why? Because God is not going to overlook even one sin - every sin that was ever committed will be punished thoroughly, but only once. If anyone is "in Christ" then God has dealt with their sins already, anyone who is not in Christ has absolutely no claim to their sins being dealt with already, and when they find themselves outside the ark on judgment day there will be wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth.

Only those whom God has elected before hand come to Christ - therefore it should become obvious (perhaps after some reflection?) that only the sins of the elect were taken to the cross "in Christ."

Let me know if you understand this or not. There is no point quoting dozens of passages in the NT if you don't understand up front their signficance.

 

Daniel, I definitely know that there is room for me to better understand the reality of "in Christ".

I see your logic and it makes good sense. However, I don't really agree that having a pre-understanding of this significance is necessary to properly read the NT. Should not these specific NT verses enlighten my understanding by revealing to me the exact definition of "in Christ" as you have described.

Could you give me at least one verse to chew on and ponder in relation to your explanation here?

 

Could you give me at least one verse to chew on and ponder in relation to your explanation here?

I will give you a few to start with.

Romans 8:1 says, There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. [ESV]

Who is no longer condemned?

1 Thessalonians 4:16 says, For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. [ESV]

Is being in Christ a "state of mind" or is it a literal truth - that is, do I stop being in Christ when I fall asleep or die, or do I continue to be in Christ because it is an actual, albeit spiritual, "union" that cannot be broken by mere consciousness or assent?


Ephesians 3:11 says, This was according to the eternal purpose that he has realized in Christ Jesus our Lord, [ESV]

Was God's eternal purpose realized in Me personally, or do I experience it via my union with Christ?

Romans 6:11 says, So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus. [ESV]

Why am I dead to sin in Christ Jesus and not simply dead to sin? What is it about my union with Christ that allows me to be dead to sin?

Romans 3:24 says, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, [ESV]

Why is the redemption described as "in Christ?"

What I hope you begin to see is that when scripture describes being "in Christ" it is speaking about our union with Christ, not only on the cross, but also in the grave and in the resurrection. Sometimes we imagine that "in Christ" is nothing more than a Christian expression tossed around to give a nice religious flavor to various sentiments expressed in scripture.

 

Thanks for the verses Daniel. I believe I have a fairly good grasp on what it means to be in Christ.

I'm sorry but I was not very clear in which verses I was requesting. I guess specifically I would like to see a verse or verses that relate exactly to your statement..."Christ didn't take everyone's sins to the cross"...

To be in Christ is truly a profound thought, and I don't know if any of us fully grasp the awesomeness of our association with Christ in His suffering, death, and resurrection. I fully agree that only those in Christ are free from the condemnation and wrath of God. We also have the power and ability to live an overcoming life by the power of Christ, simply by virtue of our being (actively) in Him.

I trust this conversation is moving in a positive direction.

 

Jim, I also trust that not only this conversation, but all conversations on this blog not only begin, but continue in a positive direction.

You said, I guess specifically I would like to see a verse or verses that relate exactly to your statement..."Christ didn't take everyone's sins to the cross"...

If we answer the question "How do sins get on the cross" - with the only biblical answer, "through the union of the believer with Christ" then we are really demonstrating that Christ didn't take everyone's sins to the cross.

It isn't like there is a verse that says "Christ didn't take everyone's sins to the cross" - Good gravy! Paul understood that when God gave the command about oxen treading the grain, that the truth revealed there was valid everywhere and in every applicable circumstance. If we follows Paul's example of how to rightly divide the word, we wouldn't neglect a truth just because we cannot find a verse that plainly states that truth in a way that we like.

If you believe that it is the union with Christ that puts sins on the cross, then you are left with only one conclusion - that only the sins of those who are actually on the cross with Christ - only their sins were there.

The concept is simple enough I think - if a person is not in Christ on the cross, his sins aren't there either. The only reason our sins are in Christ is because we are. God didn't surgically remove our sins from us and put them into Christ without us - Scripture teaches first that -we- are in Christ, our sins are only there as a consequence of us being there.

let me know if you see it yet.

 

Daniel, I understand where you are coming from.

Perhaps we are simply approaching the subject from different angles but I think I now understand what you and others are trying to say about the atonement.

It is indeed limited in the sense that only those who are in Christ will experience His forgiveness, His righteousness, etc.

Just as the ark was a picture of God's redemption and only those inside the ark were saved, so too only those that are in Christ are saved from the wrath of God that will be revealed upon all unrighteousness.

Let me ponder this a bit more, I need to find the right words to describe what I am thinking.

God bless,
Jim

 

How about a little old fashioned logic? Why does a person go to hell? If I am not mistaken, it is because of his sins. Why does a saved person not go to hell? I beleive it is because Jesus Christ paid the penalty for his sins. If those two assumptions are correct, then if Jesus Christ died for everyone's sins, then no one can go to hell because everyone's sin debt has been payed! Too simple?

 

John Owen would say no, St.Lee, not too simple...

 

I have to admit that's probably the best argumetn for LA I've ever heard!

 

St. Lee - I find that whatever I believe in scripture tends to make perfect sense logically, even the Trinity - yet I find that logic, in and of itself, is no substitute. I would radically scrutinize any doctrine that defied plain and simple logic - and I would be very hard pressed to accept such a doctrine as being rightly divided truth, yet I would not apply to logic to prove or even support a doctrine (if that makes any sense).

It is true that logic itself teaches us that the atonement was limited - but even so, if there is any authority in our opinion, it isn't because it is logical, but because it is biblical.

I am sure you know all that, so I am not trying to teach you anything new - just making a point for the general readership.

Dan

 

HKF - Good to see you around again.

 

Daniel, you say that you wouldn't argue a doctrine from logic. Is that even possible? Logic is based on truth. God is the source of all truth. Ever notice that the "Word" as Jesus is called in John 1 is from the greek logos? Same root we get the word logic from. You might say Jesus is the ultimate logic! I think everything in the bible is logical. Where we get in trouble is when we base false doctrines on faulty logic. I agree with you that I would trust the bible over my own logic, but I would argue that the fault lies in my faulty logic, not that the bible is illogical. Just some thoughts, and not original with me.
By the way Daniel, I have been following your blog since this spring, and it has been a great blessing to me. Thanks and may God bless you!

 

St. Lee - It is nice to make your aquaintance!

The word logic actually comes from the middle English word logik, which in turn comes (by way of Anglo-French) from the latin logica which in turn came from the classical Greek word logikos. While the word logos can be found in the etymology of the word logikos (logikos is translated as "reasonable" in Romans 12:1), we do ourselves something of an injustice if we take an English word from today's dictionary (logic) and suggest that it is more or less synonymous with an etymological reference from an entirely different Greek word that has passed through four languages before getting into our modern English vocabulary. That is, I wouldn't say that when Jesus is called the word "Logos" in John 1 it reflects in any way upon the English word "logic" except as perhaps a curious etymological footnoot.

Not that I pretend to be a scholar on such matters, only that having read Carlson's wonderful work entitled "Exegetical Fallacies" I well aware of the common error of reading back into the Greek text a meaning that did not exist until hundreds of years later, a meaning that has been shaped over the centuries and through four languages into something that could not have been anticipated at the time its ancestor was being used.

For that reason I cannot conclude along with you that Jesus is the "ultimate logic" - at least not on the grammatical premise you suggest. Certainly Christ is the be-all-end-all of truth and consequently I don't think anyone is going to deny that He is entirely logical, rational, reasonable, consistent, etc. I just wouldn't claim that Jesus is the ultimate logic by citing a loose etymological connection between the Greek word logos and the English cognate "logic" given what seems to me a significant grammatical chasm between the two.

If that makes any sense? I am not trying to correct you, and forgive me if it comes across that way - I am just trying to keep the record straight in my own head ;-)

You are certainly right in identifying a common way in which people tend to go astray - when they give heed to false doctrines that are supported by false logic. We need to be on our guard.

Grace and peace

Dan.

 

st. lee-

How about a little old fashioned logic? Why does a person go to hell? If I am not mistaken, it is because of his sins. Why does a saved person not go to hell? I beleive it is because Jesus Christ paid the penalty for his sins. If those two assumptions are correct, then if Jesus Christ died for everyone's sins, then no one can go to hell because everyone's sin debt has been payed!

Congratulations on reducing the entire redemptive work of God in the world to a mathematical equation.

Your assumptions, unfortunately, miss the bigger issues involved in reconcilation. A person 'going to hell' is not an ultimate issue- rather, it is more a symptom of something greater- that is, being out of relationship with and out of the life of God.

Along the same lines, the ultimate issue is not if someone is not going to hell, but if they are in relationsip with and in the life of God. Your assumption of unconditional reconcilatory efficacy (in relation to Jesus "paying for our sins")completely misses the movement of what reconcilation is. It is relational before it is forensic.

Logic is based on truth.

Actually, logic seems to be based more upon the presumption of linear causality.

You might say Jesus is the ultimate logic! I think everything in the bible is logical. Where we get in trouble is when we base false doctrines on faulty logic.

How does one determine what faulty logic is? With logic?

I agree with you that I would trust the bible over my own logic, but I would argue that the fault lies in my faulty logic, not that the bible is illogical.

But isn't your interpretation of the bible mediated through your logic?

 

I started a new thread for the discussion on logic.

I thought it was worthy of its own post, and would rather the discussion here stayed focused on the atonement (if that is okay?)

 

Daniel. I have never looked at the story of Noah in such a way. Very cool.

 

Candy - On the road to Emmaus Jesus opened the old testament scriptures to the men with whom He walked showing them all the things therein concerning Himself. I think this would have been one of them.