Jesus did not die to make men savable

[~candice~]

Actually Shiloh, I think he was highlighting the difference between calvinist limited atonement and arminian limited atonement concepts. At least that's how I read it.

[nebula]

I'm still trying to make sense of what is meant by "make men savable."

Let me as it this way, if Jesus' death was to "make men savable," what would that mean?

(Maybe then I can understand why he said this is not what Jesus did.)

What I get from the comment in its context, is that Jesus did not die to make us worthy of salvation at a future time. He died to save us.

Salvation is something we have NOW, is his point. Unlike somem who teach that our salvation depends on God weighing our lives in the balance later to see if our good outweighs our bad, or something like that, Spurgeon is telling us that Jesus came to make salvation available immediately. We can be saved now. We can know today that we have eternal life. Spurgeon said, "Believers may know that when Jesus died they were delivered from the claims of law, and when he rose again their justification was secured."

Whereas other religions (and at least one denom in Christianity) teach that we cannot know if we are really saved on this side of the grave. Spurgeon correctly assures us that we can know.

I'm still trying to make sense of what is meant by "make men savable."

Let me as it this way, if Jesus' death was to "make men savable," what would that mean?

(Maybe then I can understand why he said this is not what Jesus did.)

I think maybe we are over thinking this. He is probably addressing the false idea that men need to be 'prepared' to be saved or that we can do something good to make us deserve salvation or that if we come to faith it is because we are good people ready to be saved, when in reality we can do nothing every good thought every idea that is inclined toward God is from God alone, not from our own devices there is nothing we can do beyond surrender to what He has already done.

I think his quote makes sense.

OK, thanks! Now I get it.

[nebula]

Actually Shiloh, I think he was highlighting the difference between calvinist limited atonement and arminian limited atonement concepts. At least that's how I read it.

Uh-oh . . . back to this debate.

[~candice~]

Actually Shiloh, I think he was highlighting the difference between calvinist limited atonement and arminian limited atonement concepts. At least that's how I read it.

Uh-oh . . . back to this debate.

I can't believe it hasn't come up til now .

[nebula]

No, our justification is found fully in His blood. But the resurrection is not meaningless, it is our confidence and encouragement, so that He would be the first born from the dead, and we would be encouraged that we would rise as He did. So the fulness of Christ's work is not on the cross, because His work was more than just redemption, but redemption is found fully in His death.

Beg pardon, but I disagree!

Jesus' resurrection life is OUR life!

It is far, far more than just "confidence and encouragement".

It is Jesus-in-me that gives me LIFE.

And if Jesus is NOT in me then I do not have life because He IS llife. I remain of my father the devil and in an eternal state of continuous dying. "Dying you will die" as Genesis puts it.

Nothing she said denies or contradicts that. You are trying to manufacture a problem that doesn't exist.

Or just stuck in terminology/concept hang-ups. Sometimes our theological problems stem from communication problems. Our attempts to explain concepts don't always translate.

[other one]

I have Spurgeon quotes on my FB, and here is today's:

He did not die to make men savable, but to save them.

What say ye?

I will withhold my opinion for the moment.

I believe he is simply saying that Jesus didn't come to make us sinless, but to pay the price for our sins. He died when it was not required for he was sinless, and it's his sinless death that payed the price for our sins and reconciled us to the Father. It's his righteousness that makes it possible for us to be reconciled to the father not ours.