Calling Calvinists! (Of the 5 point variety!)

[Jon_S_1]

“18 Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men” Romans 5

You don’t believe all men are justified; do you?

Of course not

Actually Romans 5:18-19 is a perfect example of the catholic position.

Just as Adam’s sin lead to the fall of all men, so too does Christ’s sacrifice, the new Adam, lead to the justification of all men.

The problem is, many men reject this gift of justification.

That’s completely coherent with our position.

But if all men fell through Adam and all men are justified in Christ, how does that fit in the Calvinist position?

 

[Jon_S_1]

Romans 5:9 Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath through him!

1 Thessalonians 5:9 For God did not appoint us to suffer wrath but to receive salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ.

1 Thessalonians 1:9 … and how you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God, 10 and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come.

John 3:36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on him."

theologically speaking
Those in Hell are under the wrath of God;
therefore God’s wrath against them was not appeased (propitiation was not made)

Is there anyone in Hell whose sins were paid for by Christ?
I would say no one.
I think you would say everyone.

The doors of hell are locked from the inside. People there choose to be there by rejecting God in this life.

 

[alwayswill]

Actually Romans 5:18-19 is a perfect example of the catholic position.

Just as Adam’s sin lead to the fall of all men, so too does Christ’s sacrifice, the new Adam, lead to the justification of all men.

The problem is, many men reject this gift of justification.

That’s completely coherent with our position.

But if all men fell through Adam and all men are justified in Christ, how does that fit in the Calvinist position?

I am assuming you believe some people end up in Hell:
Are you saying that ALL men are justified?

Is the rejection of the gift of justification a sin?

 

[alwayswill]

The doors of hell are locked from the inside. People there choose to be there by rejecting God in this life.

is “rejecting God in this life” a sin?

If yes; was the sin of “rejecting God in this life” paid for by Christ on the Cross?

Lets say I rejected Christ for over 40 years and then came to belief:
Was my sin of unbelief paid for on the Cross?

Lets say I rejected Christ for my entire life and died rejecting Christ
Was my sin of unbelief paid for on the Cross?

 

[Jon_S_1]

is “rejecting God in this life” a sin?

If yes; was the sin of “rejecting God in this life” paid for by Christ on the Cross?

Lets say I rejected Christ for over 40 years and then came to belief:
Was my sin of unbelief paid for on the Cross?

Lets say I rejected Christ for my entire life and died rejecting Christ
Was my sin of unbelief paid for on the Cross?

I’ve already answered this.

But again this goes to the issue of eternal security. You refuse to answer it. Perhaps because there is no logical or biblical justification for it.

 

[alwayswill]

I’ve already answered this.

But again this goes to the issue of eternal security. You refuse to answer it. Perhaps because there is no logical or biblical justification for it.

(I really try to stay on-topic with the OP)
but it is your thread, so…
The elect are eternally secure…
If they were not eternally secure then they would not be the elect

 

[Jon_S_1]

(I really try to stay on-topic with the OP)
but it is your thread, so…
The elect are eternally secure…
If they were not eternally secure then they would not be the elect

So why can they not commit genocide?

 

[alwayswill]

I’ve already answered this.

.

found your anwser:

I asked
“Lets say I rejected Christ for my entire life and died rejecting Christ
Was my sin of unbelief paid for on the Cross?”

You answered :“yes”

then why do people end up in Hell under the wrath of God?

 

[alwayswill]

So why can they not commit genocide?

you’re right:
you win:
I am not going to answer why someone in-dwelt with the Holy Spirit , someone who is Christ, and Christ in them, will not go on a plan to systematically murder a whole group of people

.you have over 6000 posts and that is level of Apologetic discourse you are up to?

bye

 

[Jon_S_1]

you’re right:
you win:
I am not going to answer why someone in-dwelt with the Holy Spirit , someone who is Christ, and Christ in them, will not go on a plan to systematically murder a whole group of people

.you have over 6000 posts and that is level of Apologetic discourse you are up to?

bye

I’m sorry you won’t answer.

My point in this was simply to try and get you to draw a line of sins that are “acceptable” of the elect.

All are sinners. All sin, and yet this idea of election begs the question, if Gods grace is irresistible, how does that manifest in ones life and how great is Gods pardon if they commit something heinous.

There are a great many Calvinists who will say that no matter what you do, if you are elect, you will be saved.

You seem to condition that. Yes I used an extreme example. What about adultery, what about abortion, what about lying, what about taking advantage of people on and on.

How is it qualified ?
It seems the elect are either not sinners, or Gods sacrifice is for them no matter what they do.

Both are clearly wrong positions, but some middle ground undermines the doctrine.

 

[alwayswill]

I’m sorry you won’t answer.

My point in this was simply to try and get you to draw a line of sins that are “acceptable” of the elect.

All are sinners. All sin, and yet this idea of election begs the question, if Gods grace is irresistible, how does that manifest in ones life and how great is Gods pardon if they commit something heinous.

There are a great many Calvinists who will say that no matter what you do, if you are elect, you will be saved.

You seem to condition that. Yes I used an extreme example. What about adultery, what about abortion, what about lying, what about taking advantage of people on and on.

How is it qualified ?
It seems the elect are either not sinners, or Gods sacrifice is for them no matter what they do.

Both are clearly wrong positions, but some middle ground undermines the doctrine.

What is it that you want to discuss?

I jumped into this thread because the OP seemed to be about Limited Atonement
Then you wanted to discuss “Perseverance of the Saints” and your last post is about “Irresistible Grace.”

Consider reading this “relatively” short article
What We Believe About the Five Points of Calvinism
desiringgod.org/articles/what-we-believe-about-the-five-points-of-calvinism.

Each section has its own link
Here is the one for Limited Atonement (the OP)
desiringgod.org/articles/what-we-believe-about-the-five-points-of-calvinism#Atonement

I find it as a accurate summary of the whats and whys.

 

[Jon_S_1]

What is it that you want to discuss?

I jumped into this thread because the OP seemed to be about Limited Atonement
Then you wanted to discuss “Perseverance of the Saints” and your last post is about “Irresistible Grace.”

Consider reading this “relatively” short article
What We Believe About the Five Points of Calvinism
desiringgod.org/articles/what-we-believe-about-the-five-points-of-calvinism.

Each section has its own link
Here is the one for Limited Atonement (the OP)
desiringgod.org/articles/what-we-believe-about-the-five-points-of-calvinism#Atonement

I find it as a accurate summary of the whats and whys.

Thank you,

I will read through it. I realize I was operating on the extreme ends…I understand it is far more nuanced, but was operating in my perception of the logical ends practically speaking. I understand this was perhaps frustrating, but not my intention to frustrate.

I will review the resource and let you know if I have any questions.

 

[guanophore]

How is this analogy.
Catholic version: Christ’s work on the cross made a wide bridge that doesn’t go all the way to the other side.,.

Calvinist version Christ’s work on the cross made a narrow bridge that goes all the way to the other side.,.

It is an analogy based on a false premise, and represents a gross misunderstanding of Catholic theology.

  It comes down to this:

Either Christ actually saved people on the cross or Christ potentially saved people.

I say that not one drop of my Savior’s blood was wasted:

Christ redeemed people on the cross. Not all that were redeemed are saved.

Question: “What is hyper-Calvinism and is it biblical?”
gotquestions.org/hyper-calvinism.html

Answer: A simple definition is this: hyper-Calvinism is the belief that God saves the elect through His sovereign will with little or no use of the methods of bringing about salvation (such as evangelism, preaching, and prayer for the lost). To an unbiblical fault, the hyper-Calvinist over-emphasizes God’s sovereignty and under-emphasizes man’s responsibility in the work of salvation.
…

Hyper-Calvinism takes a biblical doctrine, God’s sovereignty, and pushes it to an unbiblical extreme. In doing so, the hyper-Calvinist downplays the love of God and the necessity of evangelism.

Are your sure you can claim that man has any responsibility in the work of salvation, and still claim to be a 5 point Calvanist?

If you say that he died for every human being in the same way, then you have to define the nature of the atonement very differently than you would if you believed that Christ, in some particular way, died for those who actually do believe.

Why? He paid the price for all. Not all take advantage of the redemption purchased.

  In the first case, you would believe that the death of Christ did not decisively secure the salvation of anyone; it only made all men savable so that something else would be decisive in saving them, namely their choice.

Yes, this is closer to a Catholic view. Redemption was made for all mankind. Not all choose to take advantage. It would not be accurate, however, to say that “something else would be decisive in saving.” We are only saved by His grace. This is made available to us through His blood shed on the cross. We access His blood through baptism, so that is the means by which we are saved.

Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ…1 Peter 3:2

In that case, the death of Christ did not actually remove the sentence of death and did not actually guarantee new life for anyone.

Why not? He still paid the bond/ransom, even if some refuse to use the get out of jail free card. Are you saying that some people do not choose to remain slaves of sin?

Rather it only created possibilities of salvation which could be actualized by people who provide the decisive cause, namely, their faith.

I think this is getting closer but still not quite hitting the mark. Jesus did provide the possibility for all to be saved, but the decisive factor is his grace. We access this through faith. I am not sure what you mean by “decisive cause”. Our faith mixes with His grace so that salvation results, but even our faith emanates from grace.

In this understanding of the atonement, faith and repentance are not blood-bought gifts of God for particular sinners, but are rather the acts of some sinners that make the blood work for them.

I can see how you got here, but it is a false conclusion. The atonement is a blood bought gift for everyone.Faith and repentance are the actions of particular sinners who respond to His saving grace. No human being can “make the blood work for them”. The nature of how the blood works cannot be changed by humankind.

2 But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God; 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. John 1

It is by His will, His blood and His power we become children. We receive Him.
desiringgod.org/articles/what-we-believe-about-the-five-points-of-calvinism#Atonement

Nope: strawman

Yeah. That wasn’t an improvement over your strawman.:nope:

 "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." Romans 10:13

And everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.’ Acts 2:21
If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. Romans 10:9
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. John 3:16

Do you think any of these statements (which were all written by, for, and about Catholics), “make the blood work for them”?

No one who wants to serve and follow Christ as their Lord and Savior through the power of the Holy Spirit will be turned away from salvation

Did you think Catholics believed otherwise? Or are you saying this to refute the accusation that the way is blocked for some?

 

[guanophore]

Calvinists hold that Christ actually saved people on the cross: not potentially saved…

The Reformed/Calvinism position on the scope of the Atonement is that
Christ died for everyone and anyone whoever did or whoever will believe in Him.
Christ did not die for those who did not or will not ever believe in Him

Yeah, this is a subtle but important shift away from the Apostolic teaching on the difference between redemption and salvation.

Well I don’t like the term: "Limited Atonement: but that is the term used to make the acrostic TULIP work. so be it

To the question : "Why does the Calvinist feel a need to limit Christ’s atonement? "

both schools of thought “limit” the Atonement: On side limits the scope ; the other side limits its power: IOW quantity vs quality.

. I limit the scope of the atonement, while saying that its power and effect is unlimited!

So you believe there are Christians who think that God has limited power to save?

"Let there be no misunderstanding at this point. The Arminian limits the atonement as certainly as does the Calvinist.
The Calvinist limits the extent of it in that he says it does not apply to all persons…
while the Arminian limits the power of it, for he says that in itself it does not actually save anybody.

I think this is a false conclusion. The fact that not everyone is saved does not mean that God’s power is limited in any way. On the contrary, His power is manifest in that he has given us a choice not to spend eternity with Him.

The Calvinist limits it quantitatively, but not qualitatively;
the Arminian limits it qualitatively, but not quantitatively.

Neither of these is consistent with what the Apsotles believed and taught. But I don’t think you are representing the Arminian position correctly.

For the Calvinist it is like a narrow bridge that goes all the way across the stream; for the Arminian it is like a great wide bridge that goes only half-way across.
As a matter of fact, the Arminian places more severe limitations on the work of Christ than does the Calvinist."
(Lorraine Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1932) p. 153.)
vintage.aomin.org/Was%20Anyone%20Saved.html

Ok, then it is really Boettner who is misrepresenting the Arminian position. Why didn’t I think of that?

"The question that needs a precise answer is this:
Did He or didn’t He? Did Christ actually make a substitutionary sacrifice for sins or didn’t He?

No.

If He did, then it was not for all the world, for then all the world would be saved.  (Palmer, The Five Points of Calvinism, p. 47.)

False, even if he did, which He did not.

You had me at Loraine Boettner, I can’t believe a thing by the man since his work on Catholicism is so erroneous and not scholarly.

I think this is wise, Jon. We have ample evidence that Boettner does not understand (at best) or deliberately misrepresents (at worst) Catholicism. This being the case, nothing he has written can be taken seriously. Maybe alwayswill can choose a more credible source?

 Anyway,

I do not see how the Catholics limit the power of the atonement. Without the atonement there is no salvation withoutChrist sacrifice. How is that limiting it? How is that a bridge halfway?

We say he builds the bridge all the way. We have to walk across but he builds it and is the only one who can build it.

AND HE is the only one that can sustain us with sufficient grace to walk the length of it.

the reality is that we are going to end up talking past each other because we do not hold to same doctrines on the what happened on the Cross.

This can, and does happen, but it need not. We could better understand each other’s views, so we do not misrepresent them (repent of the Boettner method). We can also look at where we have overlap in out theologies. Or, at the last, you could come to a more biblical view of salvation.

Catholics don't agree with  this

**
Vicarious atonement** is the idea that Jesus Christ took the place of mankind, suffering the penalty for sin.

True. This is not consistent with the biblical evidence. If His death was substitutionary, then He would take our penalty, which is an eternity in Hell. Does Calvin find the term “atonement” in the New Testament?

Atonement is term meaning “reconciliation” or “amends.”

In that case perhaps a more biblical word might be better?

1 John 2:2Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (RSVCE)

“… and he is the expiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.” I John 2:2

Vicarious means “done in place of or instead of someone else.”

This is why we refer to the successor of Peter as the Vicar of Christ. He shepherds the Church in the position of Christ. (not to replace Him, but to hold the place He has)

 

[guanophore]

So, in literal terms, the Christian concept of “vicarious atonement” is that Jesus was substituted for humanity and punished for our faults in order to pay for the sins we had committed and reconcile us to God. Vicarious atonement is also referred to as “substitutionary atonement” or “penal substitution.”
gotquestions.org/vicarious-atonement.html

Yes. We reject this because Jesus did not spend eternity in Hell (in addition to it being unbiblical and inconsistent with the Apsotolic teaching).

1 Peter 2:

24 He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed.

Indeed He bore our sins. But He did not become a substitute for our penalty. This is an imaginitive innovation that came from the mind of an attorney 1500 years after Christ.

2 Corinthians 5:

21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might
become the righteousness of God.

The Calvanistic understanding of this denies the doctrine of the divine perichoresis.

Isaiah 53:5
But he was pierced for our transgressions;
he was crushed for our iniquities;

Yes, but this was a temporal experience. He was not crushed for eternity.

Galatians 3:13
Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree”—

Again, how we understand this cannot violate the divine perichoresis. The curse did not separate Him from His divinity, which is the punishment that we deserve for our sins.

As it relates to this discussion:
On the Cross: did Jesus pay the penalty for…

Some of the sins for some of the people
Some of the sins for all of the people
All the sins for some of the people
All the sins for all the people?

Jesus’ death was not a “penal substitution”. This is a theological innovation created by an attorney during the Reformation.

Christ actually saved everyone. He extends the grace to everyone.

Some reject the gift he bought for them. That is their choice.

Jon, be cautious that you do not get sucked into using this language that twists what the Aposltes Believed and taught.

The Apostles taught that some aspects of our salvation occur at baptism, some we are working out throughout this life, and some that are not completed until the end of this life. None of them happen when Jesus died on the cross.

If I go before a judge and you are convicted of murder and I arrange with the judge to receive your punishment for you.  The judge accepts and sends me to the electric chair.

You come in the next day, and the judge says, “Good news, your sentence has been paid by Jon, you are free to go, and you reply back, I don’t accept that. I don’t believe he could do that, I want no part of it.” Do the judge sentences you to death.

Did I save you…actually. Yes I did.

Did you reject the gift and thus were punished as well making my death in vain. Yes.

But Jesus death is not in vain even if he only saves one soul.

You have the right concept about penal substitution, except that our penalty also involves hell - eternal separation from God. Jesus did not “substitute” for this. He bore our sins in His body on the cross, and provided for our redemption in such a way that is not “penal substitution”. This is a Reformation concept.

**
Is there anyone in Hell whose sins were paid for by Christ?**

I would say no one.
I think you would say everyone.

I think you are right. The Apostles taught that Jesus sacrifice was redemptive for the whole world. But not all those who have been purchased by His blood will acknowledge they owe their lives to Him because He paid their debt. Not all will leave the cell and follow Him.

 

[guanophore]

found your anwser:

I asked
“Lets say I rejected Christ for my entire life and died rejecting Christ
Was my sin of unbelief paid for on the Cross?”

You answered :“yes”

then why do people end up in Hell under the wrath of God?

Good job alwayswill. This is precisely why we see that idea of penal substitution an d"salvation from the cross" is not consistent with what the Apostles’s taught.

Also, people do not end up in hell “under the wrath of God”. They choose not to spend and eternity with God, and he loves them enough to allow them freedom to make that choice.

you’re right:
you win:
I am not going to answer why someone in-dwelt with the Holy Spirit , someone who is Christ, and Christ in them, will not go on a plan to systematically murder a whole group of people

.you have over 6000 posts and that is level of Apologetic discourse you are up to?

bye

It is a perfectly legitimate question, alwayswill. The Apostles taught that one could fall from grace. You read these parts of your NT and find another way to understand them, so that they will be consistent with the innovative theology through which you are reading.

 

[alwayswill]

Good job alwayswill. This is precisely why we see that idea of penal substitution an d"salvation from the cross" is not consistent with what the Apostles’s taught.

Also, people do not end up in hell “under the wrath of God”. They choose not to spend and eternity with God, and he loves them enough to allow them freedom to make that choice.

It is a perfectly legitimate question, alwayswill. The Apostles taught that one could fall from grace. You read these parts of your NT and find another way to understand them, so that they will be consistent with the innovative theology through which you are reading.

in multiple posts now : you keep repeating that Hell is the separation from God.
and multiple posts now are being very price in your language

So just to let you know: God in omnipresent:
Hell is not the separation from God.

The psalmist declares, “Where can I go from Your Spirit? Or where can I flee from Your presence? If I ascend into heaven, You are there; If I make my bed in hell, behold, You are there” (Ps. 139:7-8)

Hell is the absence of God love
Hell is the presence of God’s wrath.

God is there in His judgment.
God is there in His punitive wrath.
God is present in hell as the One who executes His justice on those who are there. Anyone who is in hell would most want God, more than anyone else, to leave.

“Yes, God is present even in hell. There is no place (or being) in which God is not present. God, the Creator of all things, maintains everything in existence and knows everything from all eternity”
catholicexchange.com/god-present-even-hell

And how did you reach the conclusion that the doctrine of Vicarious atonement, also referred to as “substitutionary atonement” or “penal substitution means that Jesus would spend eternity in Hell.

Please provide a source of that understanding.
Thank you

 

[alwayswill]

…

Also, people do not end up in hell “under the wrath of God”. They choose not to spend and eternity with God, and he loves them enough to allow them freedom to make that choice.
…
.

from the Catholic encyclopedia
newadvent.org/cathen/07207a.htm

The Holy Bible is quite explicit in teaching the eternity of the pains of hell. The torments of the damned shall last forever and ever (Revelation 14:11; 19:3; 20:10). They are everlasting just as are the joys of heaven (Matthew 25:46). Of Judas Christ says: “it were better for him, if that man had not been born” (Matthew 26:24). But this would not have been true if Judas was ever to be released from hell and admitted to eternal happiness. Again, God says of the damned: “Their worm shall not die, and their fire shall not be quenched” (Isaiah 66:24; Mark 9:43, 45, 47). The fire of hell is repeatedly called eternal and unquenchable. The wrath of God abideth on the damned (John 3:36); they are vessels of Divine wrath (Romans 9:22);

 

[guanophore]

nope: We agree Christ conquered death.
the issue is the the Catholic Church rejects the Substitutionary Atonement side of the Atonement

This is true, always. We do not see Christ eternally in hell, serving as our substitute for our just sentence for sin.

We are also not allowed to accept “a different gospel” an this is not part of the Gospel that was handed down to us from the Apostles.

Agreed: the blood of the Sacrifice Lamb actually accomplished exactly what was intended…
Being “covered by the blood” actually saved, not potentially saved.

Yes, this is very Catholic.

We just don’t believe that Jesus’ sacrifice, although completely sufficent and available to all, does not equal all being covered in blood. The aposltes taught that we are covered by His blood in baptism, and remain that way through the word of our testimony.

The first Christians were all Catholic, and this passage was applied to Christ by them. Of course we recognize that this is a messianic prophesy. We are not saying that His death was not for us, we just don’t accept the modern innovation of "penal substitution’.

 Nope:

All other men would be under the penalty for their own sins.
Only the “Lamb without blemish” can stand in the place of sinners.

Christ had no human father: therefore Christ was not under the “Federal Headship” of Adam

Romans 5
Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. 19 For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous.

Catholics do not use the innovative term of “Federal” (it is not part of the Apostolic “once for all” deposit of faith), but yes, we believe that through Adam we were all made sinners, and through Christ, we are all redeemed. We just don’t believe that all who are redeemed are saved. Christ’s sacrifice was sufficient for all, but not all choose to enter or remain in the house that has the blood on the lintel.

 The penalty of sin is death under the wrath of God

Jesus paid that penalty for whosoever will believe in Him…

What is your understanding of propitiation?

That while we are yet sinners, Christ died for us.

Unlike Calvin, the Apostles did not have a pre-occupation with the “wrath of God”, which is why they taugth that He died for us because He loves us.

According to Romans 5, Jesus died for “all men” The Calvinist would say “some men” .

How can this be reconciled?

I would like an answer on the eternal security issue. Are the elect unable to sin? Or are some sins ok but not others?

I think always already addressed this. A member of the elect no longer is oriented in such a way as to allow sins like genocide to occur. They are ontologically changed such that their hearts are oriented to please God.

“18 Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men” Romans 5

You don’t believe all men are justified; do you?

Of course not

Right. Jesus act of righteousness LEADS to justification. The act itself was redemptive, but each person must apply to blood that justifies individually.

Romans 5:9 Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath through him!

1 Thessalonians 5:9 For God did not appoint us to suffer wrath but to receive salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ.

1 Thessalonians 1:9 … and how you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God, 10 and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come.

John 3:36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on him."

theologically speaking
Those in Hell are under the wrath of God;
therefore God’s wrath against them was not appeased (propitiation was not made)

Is there anyone in Hell whose sins were paid for by Christ?
I would say no one.
I think you would say everyone.

That is because you are conflating redemption with salvation. Christ’s sacrifice was sufficient to pay for the sins of all, but not all enter into His sacrifice.All of the passages you cite are written by, for, and about Catholics. These are persons who have already been baptized, and have entered into salvation.

So propitiation was made for all, but not all take advantage of it.

 

[guanophore]

 I am assuming you believe some people end up in Hell:

Are you saying that ALL men are justified?

Is the rejection of the gift of justification a sin?

Insofar as sin = missing the mark I would certainly concede that rejecting the gift of justification is missing out on the gift.

No, we believe that all are redeemed, but not all become justified. The apostles taught that we are justified in baptism.

is "rejecting God in this life" a sin?

If yes; was the sin of “rejecting God in this life” paid for by Christ on the Cross?

Yes and Yes.

Lets say I rejected Christ for over 40 years and then came to belief:   Was my sin of unbelief paid for on the Cross?

Yes.

Lets say I rejected Christ for my entire life and died rejecting Christ Was my sin of unbelief paid for on the Cross?

Yes. You will not benefit, though, from the payment, since you did not receive it by grace, through faith.

But again this goes to the issue of eternal security. You refuse to answer it. Perhaps because there is no logical or biblical justification for it.

I disagree, she did answer it. But also, a logical biblical justification can be made for this view. One needs to exclude certain texts, and read the remaining texts through the Calvanistic lens, but it can be done.

in multiple posts now : you keep repeating that Hell is the separation from God.

and multiple posts now are being very price in your language

Did I say that? Will I get paid more for saying it?

And how did you reach the conclusion that the doctrine of Vicarious atonement, also referred to as “substitutionary atonement” or “penal substitution means that Jesus would spend eternity in Hell.

Please provide a source of that understanding.
Thank you

Because eternity in hell under the wrath of God is the just punishment for our sins.

from the Catholic encyclopedia
newadvent.org/cathen/07207a.htm

The Holy Bible is quite explicit in teaching the eternity of the pains of hell. The torments of the damned shall last forever and ever (Revelation 14:11; 19:3; 20:10). They are everlasting just as are the joys of heaven (Matthew 25:46). Of Judas Christ says: “it were better for him, if that man had not been born” (Matthew 26:24). But this would not have been true if Judas was ever to be released from hell and admitted to eternal happiness. Again, God says of the damned: “Their worm shall not die, and their fire shall not be quenched” (Isaiah 66:24; Mark 9:43, 45, 47). The fire of hell is repeatedly called eternal and unquenchable. The wrath of God abideth on the damned (John 3:36); they are vessels of Divine wrath (Romans 9:22);

While the Catholic dictionary is not always the best theological source for Catholic teaching, I don’t disagree with what is written her. My point is that people choose, and that God desires all to be saved, and come to the knowledge of the Truth, but not all decide to enter into life. Catholics do not believe in double predestination.