AssemblyBoard

I would like to examine the question "For whom did the Lord Jesus Christ die?" This is one of the few questions that I consider important enough to make me want to devote my time and energy to. Why do I consider it so important? Because it is an integral part of the doctrine of salvation, which is one of the most basic, fundamental and important doctrines of the Bible. What difference does it make if we get "headcoverings" right if we get the doctrine of salvation wrong? What happened to the house in Matthew 7:27 that was built on sand instead of a solid foundation? It doesn't matter how beautiful and perfect the house is if it's built on the wrong foundation. I believe that the doctrine of salvation is part of the foundation, and I am more interested in making sure that the foundation is the right one than in arguing over decorative details of the house.

This is an easy one.

John 3:16

Jesus died for "whosoever".

It's important because if they should believe in Him, they will not perish but have everlasting life.

Here are some questions for those who believe that the Lord Jesus Christ died for the sins of the entire human race:

1.   Does the last part of Isaiah 53:8 say "for the transgression of the entire human race was he stricken." Or does it say "for the transgression of MY PEOPLE was he stricken."?
2.   Does Matthew 20:28 say "Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for the entire human race." or does it say "Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for MANY."?
3.   Does Matthew 26:28 say "For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for the entire human race for the remission of sins." Or does it say "For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for MANY for the remission of sins."?
4.   Does Mark 10:45 say "For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for the entire human race." Or does it say "For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for MANY."?
5.   Does Mark 14:24 say "And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for the entire human race." Or does it say "And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for MANY."?
6.   Does Luke 22:20 say "Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for the entire human race." Or does it say "Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for YOU."?
7.   Does John 10:11 say "I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the entire human race." Or does it say "I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for THE SHEEP."?
8.   Does John 10:15 say "As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the entire human race." Or does it say "As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for THE SHEEP."?
9.   Does John 15:13 say "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for the entire human race." Or does it say "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for HIS FRIENDS."
10.   Does Romans 5:8 say "But God commendeth his love toward the entire human race, in that, while the entire human race were yet sinners, Christ died for the entire human race." or does it say "But God commendeth his love toward US, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for US."?

Here are some more questions:

11.   Does Romans 8:32 say "He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for the entire human race, how shall he not with him also freely give the entire human race all things?" or does it say "He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for US all, how shall he not with him also freely give US all things?"
12.   Does I Corinthians 5:7b say "For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for the entire human race" or does it say "For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for US"?
13.   Does 1 Corinthians 11:24 say "And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for the entire human race: this do in remembrance of me." or does it say "And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for YOU: this do in remembrance of me."?
14.   Does 1 Corinthians 15:3 say "For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for the sins of the entire human race according to the scriptures;" or does it say "For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for OUR sins according to the scriptures;"?
15.   Does 2 Corinthians 5:21 say "For he hath made him to be sin for the entire human race, who knew no sin; that the entire human race might be made the righteousness of God in him." Or does it say "For he hath made him to be sin for US, who knew no sin; that WE might be made the righteousness of God in him."?
16.   Does Galatians 1:3-4 say "Grace be to you and peace from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ, Who gave himself for the sins of the entire human race, that he might deliver the entire human race from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father:" or does it say "Grace be to you and peace from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ, Who gave himself for OUR sins, that he might deliver US from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father:"?
17.   Does Galatians 3:13 say "Christ hath redeemed the entire human race from the curse of the law, being made a curse for the entire human race: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:" or does it say "Christ hath redeemed US from the curse of the law, being made a curse for US: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:"?
18.   Does Ephesians 5:2 say "And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved the entire human race, and hath given himself for the entire human race an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweetsmelling savour." Or does it say "And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved US, and hath given himself for US an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweetsmelling savour."?
19.   Does Ephesians 5:25 say "Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the entire human race, and gave himself for the entire human race;" or does it say "Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved THE CHURCH, and gave himself for IT;"?
20.   Does 1 Thessalonians 5:9-10 say "For God hath not appointed the entire human race to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ, Who died for the entire human race, that, whether the entire human race wake or sleep, the entire human race should live together with him." Or does it say "For God hath not appointed US to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ, Who died for US, that, whether WE wake or sleep, WE should live together with him."?

And here are some more questions:

21.   Does Titus 2:13-14 say "Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; Who gave himself for the entire human race, that he might redeem the entire human race from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works." or does it say "Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; Who gave himself for US, that he might redeem US from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works."?
22.   Does Hebrews 1:3 say "Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged the sins of the entire human race, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;" or does it say "Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged OUR sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;"?
23.   Does Hebrews 9:28 say "So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of the entire human race; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation." Or does it say "So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of MANY; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation."?
24.   Does Hebrews 10:10 say "By the which will the entire human race is sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all." or does it say "By the which will WE are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all."?
25.   Does Hebrews 10:14 say "For by one offering he hath perfected for ever the entire human race." or does it say "For by one offering he hath perfected for ever THEM THAT ARE SANCTIFIED."?
26.   Does 1 Peter 1:18-20 say "Forasmuch as ye know that the entire human race was not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from their vain conversation received by tradition from their fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for the entire human race," or does it say "Forasmuch as ye know that YE were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for YOU,"?

And here are the rest of the questions (finally! I had to split them up because they didn't fit into one post):

27.   Does 1 Peter 2:21 say "For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for the entire human race, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:" or does it say "For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for US, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:"?
28.   Does 1 Peter 2:24 say "Who his own self bare the sins of the entire human race in his own body on the tree, that the entire human race, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes the entire human race was healed." or does it say "Who his own self bare OUR sins in his own body on the tree, that WE, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes YE were healed."?
29.   Does 1 Peter 4:1 say "Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for the entire human race in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin;" or does it say "Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for US in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin;"?
30.   Does 1 John 3:16 say "Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for the entire human race: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren." or does it say "Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for US: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren."?
31.   Does 1 John 4:9-10 say "In this was manifested the love of God toward the entire human race, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that the entire human race might live through him. Herein is love, not that the entire human race loved God, but that he loved the entire human race, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for the sins of the entire human race." or does it say "In this was manifested the love of God toward US, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that WE might live through him. Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved US, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for OUR sins."?
32.   Does Revelation 1:5 say "And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved the entire human race, and washed the entire human race from their sins in his own blood," or does it say "And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved US, and washed US from OUR sins in his own blood,"?
33.   Does Revelation 5:9 say "And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed the entire human race to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;" or does it say "And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed US to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;"?

(And now for the last part of my post:)

(Hint: The correct answer to the 33 questions I have just posted is ALWAYS the second alternative, NEVER the first alternative.)

If the Lord Jesus Christ really did die for the sins of "the entire human race," why did God ALWAYS choose the second alternative in these 33 examples, and NEVER the first alternative? I mean, here we have 33 passages from 16 different books of the Bible, ALL of which deal with the death of Christ, and yet NOT ONE of them SAYS that He died for the sins of "the entire human race." They DO SAY that He died for the sins of "MY PEOPLE," "MANY,"  "YOU" (=the disciples), "THE SHEEP," "HIS FRIENDS," "US/OUR/WE" (=believers), "THE CHURCH," "THEM THAT ARE SANCTIFIED." How much plainer could it be, dear friends? Wouldn't you think that if the Lord Jesus Christ really did die for the sins of "the entire human race," that God would have at least mentioned it once or twice in these 33 passages? Why is there NOT A SINGLE VERSE in the ENTIRE BIBLE that plainly SAYS that the Lord Jesus Christ died for the sins of "the entire human race"? Could it possibly be because it simply isn't true? Now, before you start saying "What about John 3:16? What about I John 2:2? What about ..." let me assure you that I am perfectly aware that there are a FEW verses which SEEM to provide some support for the idea. I mean, this idea probably wouldn't be so popular if there weren't at least a few "proof texts" which can be INTERPRETED to support it. But I don't believe that God contradicts Himself in His Word. I don't believe He would say one thing in these 33 passages, and then turn around and say something completely different in a few other places. I intend, Lord willing, to carefully examine John 3:16, I John 2:2 and other "proof texts" in future posts. Until then, I would just like to point out the FACT that NOT ONE of these "proof texts" actually SAYS that Christ died for the sins of "the entire human race." Many people INTERPRET them that way, but I hope to present evidence in future posts that that INTERPRETATION is not correct.

May the Lord open the eyes of all His true sheep!

(But I will still love them even if He doesn't!)

Love in Christ,
H

P.S. I am willing to answer sincere, polite questions, as time permits. I am NOT willing to respond to arrogant, rude, unkind, malicious attacks. I would also suggest that you wait with the questions until I have finished examining the "proof texts."

Dear H,

These arguments are good examples of why those who believe in a limited atonement have an uphill struggle.

Remember, you are arguing in the face of a verse that says, "...and He himself is the propitiation for aour sins; and NOT FOR OUR SINS ONLY, but ALSO for those of the WHOLE WORLD"  I John 2:2

This is supported by I Timothy 2:3-6  "This is good and acceptable in the sight of God and our savior, who desires ALL MEN to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.  For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom FOR ALL..."  (in the context, clearly all men)

As well as I Timothy 4:10  "...God, who is the savior of ALL MEN, especially of believers."

And of course we have II Peter 3:9 too.  "The Lord is not slow concerning his promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for ANY to perish but for ALL to come to repentence."

You have a problem here, and the usual way of dealing with these verses from your viewpoint is to try to weaken their force by interjecting words that are not in the text.  Do you have something different?

As to your mention of "many", I fail to see that this supports your assertion at all.   Many means more than one or two.  It could mean any amount, and only if there is a limiting context can you put a limit on this word. There are many eggs in a carton. (12) There are also many stars.  (about a billion trillion).

As to Jesus laying down his life for his friends, or for the sheep.  How does this limit the atonement?  A soldier can sacrifice his life for his friends, as well as for his country, which would include his enemies.   Christ could die for the sheep without dying ONLY for the sheep.  

These arguments lack force.  The real force behind them does not come from the verses themselves...the thrust of the limited atonement argument comes from the extreme Calvinists views on election.

God bless,
Thomas Maddux

Dear Karen,

Unfortunately, you do not get an "A" for that answer. You left out some very important words. He died for "whosoever BELIEVETH IN HIM"!

But I love you anyway!

Love in Christ,
H

As Tom stated, this is a very clear verse:

1 Timothy 2: 5  For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus,
6  who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time

As for "MY PEOPLE," "MANY,"  "YOU" (=the disciples), "THE SHEEP," "HIS FRIENDS," "US/OUR/WE" (=believers), "THE CHURCH," "THEM THAT ARE SANCTIFIED."

The dangerous implication is that "some" are not allowed to receive the gift of God and to thereby enter this category.  The gift is available to "ALL".

We have no right to tell God that He can not "call them My people, who were not My people, And her beloved, who was not beloved."

I think I covered that  (or at least I intended to) when I said, "IF they believe in Him..."

Fortunately for all of us, He loves us anyway. ;D

Those who believe that Jesus only died for SOME are sure lucky that they get to be part of the SOME.  Then again, how do we know that we are part of the some?

Lump of Clay

Matthew 13: 28b  The servants said to him, 'Do you want us then to go and gather them up?'
29  But he said, 'No, lest while you gather up the tares you also uproot the wheat with them.'

Who are we to tell the Lord what He can do?  When I was first saved I rejoiced that the Lord had taken me who was but tares, and by His grace transformed the "tares to wheat".

Jeremiah 18: 3  Then I went down to the potter’s house, and there he was, making something at the wheel.
4  And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter; so he made it again into another vessel, as it seemed good to the potter to make.

My Lord has "endured with much longsuffering" me, who was a "vessel of wrath prepared for destruction" and from the same lump has made a "vessel for honor."

Choose Life

I use to often take the teens camping at Illinois Beach State Park, "under the shadow of the nuclear power plant" in Zion.  I remember once sharing the following gospel:

To light up a room, I flip the light switch. I do not have to understand the intricacies of the interaction of quarks and lepton, nor how a single electron can apparently be traveling by every possible path both real and imaginary at the same time.  Neither do I have to understand how the power plant in Zion worked to generate the current.  

Yes, without those things the light bulb would never light.  But, from my perspective, I simply flipped the switch.  Very rarely have I seen the room lights turn on without someone flipping the switch.  That does not mean that I believe that there would have been light without the power plant in Zion.  Nor would it work without God's ordering of creation.

In the same way we do not have to understand the intricacies of the working of God to be saved.  God, in sending His Son, has done everything for our salvation.

Ephesians 2: 8  For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God,
9  not of works, lest anyone should boast.
10  For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.

Salvation is a free gift, my part is to receive it by faith.  Yes, even that faith is a gift from God.  

My question is always, "what about you?"  You have heard how Jesus Christ died for your sins. The Lord has given you the faith to believe.  Will you reject God's "gift of eternal life" or will you receive the risen Lord Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior?

The Lord has done all the work, your part is to choose to believe and receive.

Deuteronomy 30:19 I call heaven and earth as witnesses today against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both you and your seed may live;
20a  that you may love the LORD your God, that you may obey His voice, and that you may cling to Him, for He is your life

Karen,

The answer is, they don't.  They hope so, they believe so by looking for signs of grace.  But they can't know for sure until they die.

Tom M.

I'm not going to even enter into the fray with this discussion (I think it distracts from what this BB is attempting to do for those who are trying to heal and for those who are still in the assembly searching for answers.)

However, I think there are greater points to bring out re: Calvanism on this BB which deals with grace.  Salvation is of the Lord, the Lord is the one who saves people and brings them all the way to his blessed intention.  There is nothing we can do to add or take away from his work.  IT IS ALL OF GRACE!  This is the blessed truth of Calvanism.  It is liberating.  Now, I no longer have to strive to "enter in", but rely on the wonderful work of my savior on the cross to do all in my life that He has intended.  What a BLESSED TRUTH.  

Let's dialogue about these wonderful truths here, that those who are in bondage to the law can be delivered from their "striving" for the inheritance.  

I love you all. :)

Dear Tom and Bob,

Thank you for your courteous posts. Unfortunately, I don't have time to compose a detailed response to your posts right now, but I can point you to some material which may be helpful. I have no problems with I John 2:2, correctly understood. As a matter of fact, in my opinion, it is one of the easiest "proof texts" to deal with (there are others which I find much more difficult). Take a look at these pages:

http://www.ids.org/ids/limit.html
http://www.graceonlinelibrary.org/calvinism/full.asp?ID=272

Regarding I Tim. 2:4, you might want to take a look at this page:

http://www.graceonlinelibrary.org/calvinism/full.asp?ID=267

That's all I have time for now. May the Lord bless you richly!

Love in Christ,
H

Tom,  

    I remember hearing a true story of several whales that went upstream too far in the cold icy waters of the Peugot Sound (I think, but could be in Alaska before I get corrected).  Many people were trying to rescue them. The only solution was to cut holes in the ice so the whales could escape the icy waters and return to the ocean.  "Many" of the whales made it safely by coming up for air in the ice cutouts and returning out.  Not all did. Some perished and died. What was the difference between those that were saved and those that perished?  The whales that came up through the ice holes to breathe lived. They availed themselves of the opportunity given them.  Were the rescuers choosing which whales to save?  Of course not.

I have always likened that account to salvation. Receive the free gift (available to all, not to preselected) and you will live. Reject this offer and the only choice is death.

Tom, once again thanks for your thoughts in response to the questions raised.  :)

P.S.-  Can one of you chipheads out there give me a quick lesson.  I want my posts to fill up the whole page to the left and not just be in the middle. What do I need to adjust? Thanks, VPG

Add spaces after your commas

More specifically, go into your profile, and fix your signature with spaces after each comma.  It is currently reading your signature phrase as one long word.

Thanks to all you who helped me out. Next time, I will not break up the thread, but will instead e-mail someone to get an answer like that.

So, can we get another theological searching of the Scriptures going?  :P  How about forgiveness of sins?  What opened my eyes to the legalism and bondage I was involved with in my assy. experience was seeing I was totally forgiven when I believed.  I always knew God forgave and would forgive. I just never knew He did it all- already.  In other words, all my sins were in the future when Jesus died. Therefore, they are all forgiven- past present and future now. How could there be one out there not forgiven when the word says "Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness"?  We all would agree that Jesus is not shedding anymore blood. We gave that theology up long ago when we left the Catholic church.
So then, what is left for me?  Does this mean I can do whatever I please because I am forgiven? Seems to indicate that  until you see the whole gospel.  The first half deals with our sins at the cross. They were completely dealt with. That is why Jesus was able to honestly say "It is finished".  How could He if we still had to ask for forgiveness each and every sin-thats not finished.  The second half is truly the best news for us here and now though. The resurrection of Christ is what gives us Christ's Life living in and through us each day. The Spirit of God now has to be my controlling force. Not the LB's, the assy, or George. Now the key word is responsibility. I can do this or do that, but does it edify is the question. I now must walk in love because I am free to, not because I fear judgment from God if I don't.  This is the true reality of the New Covenant I never came close to seeing in the assembly.  Actually, when I did see it I was in the assembly.  As a result of seeing this revelation of God's grace and love however, I was thrown out of the assy. and told to say nothing about this to the saints- even in private conversations. Once you see, you don't need the assy. anymore. You have the Holy Spirit to control you.  What does everyone think? Any clarifications, hedges, if, ands, or buts to add?  God Bless- VPG  :)

I still don't have time to compose a detailed response to Tom and Bob, so I will just paste Arthur Pink's discussion of I John 2:2. He does a fairly thorough job of explaining it, and I believe his interpretation is correct. If any of you can see any errors in his reasoning, please point them out to me. I am willing to listen.

H


"5. "And He is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world." (1 John 2:2) This is the passage which, apparently, most favors the view we are now rebutting, and yet if it be considered attentively it will he seen that it does so only in appearance, and not in reality. Below we offer a number of conclusive proofs to show that this verse does not teach that Christ has propitiated God on behalf of all the sins of all men.

In the first place, the fact that this verse opens with "and" necessarily links it with what has gone before. We, therefore, give a literal, word for word translation of 1 John 2:1 from Bagster's Interlinear: "Little children my, these things I write to you, that ye may not sin; and if any one should sin, a Paraclete we have with the Father, Jesus Christ (the) righteous." It will thus be seen that the apostle John is here writing to and about the saints of God. His immediate purpose was two-fold: first, to communicate a message that would keep God's children from sinning; second, to supply comfort and assurance to those who might sin, and, in consequence, be cast down and fearful that the issue would prove fatal. He, therefore, makes known to them the provision which God has made for just such an emergency. This we find at the end of v. 1 and throughout v. 2. The ground of comfort is twofold: let the downcast and repentant believer (1 John 1:9) be assured that, first, he has an "Advocate with the Father"; second, that this Advocate is "the propitiation for our sins." Now believers only may take comfort from this, for they alone have an "Advocate," for them alone is Christ the propitiation, as is proven by linking the Propitiation ("and") with "the Advocate"!

In the second place, if other passages in the New Testament, which speak of "propitiation" be compared with 1 John 2:2, it will be found that it is strictly limited in its scope. For example, in Rom. 3:25 we read that God set forth Christ "a propitiation through faith in His blood." If Christ is a propitiation "through faith," then He is not a "propitiation" to those who have no faith! Again, in Heb. 2:17 we read, "To make propitiation for the sins of the people." (Heb. 2:17, R. V.)

In the third place, who are meant when John says, "He is the propitiation for our sins"? We answer, Jewish believers. Part of the proof on which we base this assertion we now submit to the careful attention of the reader.

In Gal. 2:9 we are told that John, together with James and Cephas, were apostles "unto the circumcision" (i. e. Israel). In keeping with this, the Epistle of James is addressed to "the twelve tribes, which are scattered abroad." (1:1) So, the first Epistle of Peter is addressed to "the elect who are sojourners of the Dispersion." (1 Peter 1:1, R. V.) And John also is writing to saved Israelites, but for saved Jews and saved Gentiles.

Evidences that John is writing to saved Jews are as follows. (a) In the opening verse he says of Christ, "Which we have seen with our eyes . . . and our hands have handled." How impossible it would have been for the apostle Paul to have commenced any of his epistles to Gentile saints with such language!

(b) "Brethren, I write no new commandment unto you, but an old commandment which ye had from the beginning." (1 John 2:7) The "beginning" here referred to is the beginning of the public manifestation of Christ-in proof compare 1:1; 2:13, etc. Now these believers the apostle tells us, had the "old commandment" from the beginning. This was true of Jewish believers, but it was not true of Gentile believers.

(c) "I write unto you, fathers, because ye have known Him from the beginning." (2:13) Here, again, it is evident that it is Jewish believers that are in view.

(d) "Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that Antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. They went out from us, but they were not of us." (2:18, 19) These brethren to whom John wrote had "heard" from Christ Himself that Antichrist should come (see Matt. 24). The "many antichrists" whom John declares "went out from us" were all Jews, for during the first century none but a Jew posed as the Messiah. Therefore, when John says "He is the propitiation for our sins," he can only mean for the sins of Jewish believers." [It is true that many things in John's Epistle apply equally to believing Jews and believing Gentiles. Christ is the Advocate of the one, as much as of the other. The same may be said of many things in the Epistle of James.]

In the fourth place, when John added, "And not for ours only, but also for the whole world," he signified that Christ was the propitiation for the sins of the Gentile believers too, for, as previously shown, "the world" is a term contrasted from Israel. This interpretation is unequivocally established by a careful comparison of 1 John 2:2 with John 11:51, 52, which is a strictly parallel passage: "And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation; And not for that nation only, but that also He should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad." Here Caiaphas, under inspiration, made known for whom Jesus should "die." Notice now the correspondency of his prophecy with this declaration of John's:

"He is the propitiation for our (believing Israelites) sins."
"He prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation."
"And not for ours only."
"And not for that nation only."
"But also for the whole world"- That is, Gentile believers scattered throughout the earth.
"He should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad."

In the fifth place, the above interpretation is confirmed by the fact that no other is consistent or intelligible. If the "whole world" signifies the whole human race, then the first clause and the "also" in the second clause are absolutely meaningless. It Christ be the propitiation for everybody, it would be idle tautology to say, first, "He is the propitiation for our sins and also for everybody." There could be no "also" if He be the propitiation for the entire human family. Had the apostle meant to affirm that Christ is a universal propitiation he had omitted the first clause of v. 2, and simply said, "He is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world."

In the sixth place, our definition of "the whole world" is in perfect accord with other passages in the New Testament. For example: "Whereof ye heard before in the word of the truth of the Gospel; which is come unto you, as it is in all the world." (Col. 1:5,6) Does "all the world" here mean, absolutely and unqualifiedly, all mankind? Had all the human family heard the Gospel? No; the apostle's obvious meaning is that the Gospel, instead of being confined to the land of Judea, had gone abroad, without restraint, into Gentile lands. So in Rom. 1:8: "First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world." The apostle is here referring to the faith of these Roman saints being spoken of in a way of commendation. But certainly all mankind did not so speak of their faith! It was the whole world of believers that he was referring to! In Rev. 12:9 we read of Satan "which deceiveth the whole world." But again this expression cannot he understood as a universal one, for Matt. 24:24 tells us that Satan does not and cannot "deceive" God's elect. Here it is "the whole world" of unbelievers.

In the seventh place, to insist that "the whole world" in 1 John 2:2 signifies the entire human race is to undermine the very foundations of our faith. If Christ be the propitiation for those that are lost equally as much as for those that are saved, then what assurance have we that believers too may not be lost? If Christ be the propitiation for those now in hell, what guarantee have I that I may not end in hell? The blood-shedding of the incarnate Son of God is the only thing which can keep any one out of hell, and if many for whom that precious blood made propitiation are now in the awful place of the damned, then may not that blood prove inefficacious for me! Away with such a God-dishonoring thought.

However men may quibble and wrest the Scriptures, one thing is certain: The Atonement is no failure. God will not allow that precious and costly sacrifice to fail in accomplishing, completely, that which it was designed to effect. Not a drop of that holy blood was shed in vain. In the last great Day there shall stand forth no disappointed and defeated Savior, but One who "shall see of the travail of His soul and be satisfied." (Isa. 53:11)"

H--

You haven't had any takers on your Reformed thread.  That doesn't mean that you're not right.

Aaron Cantrell

I can hear that ball and chain of Calvinsim clanging, so let's keep this simple.
The word "world" means the world and everyone in it. To say that it means anything less would be saying that His nail holes weren't deep enough; that there are some sins that were not covered at the cross. Jesus spent time in hell, separated from the Father. Can it get any worse than that? Could He have done anything more?  It was a finished work.
No one can give excuse that he was 'predestined' for eternal damnation before he even took his first breath, and can't help but sin.
God created man with a will, and even a gift has to be received. The unsaved, being fooled by the enemy, have chosen to reject the gift.  We receive salvation by grace thru faith, just as we continue the Christian walk by grace thru faith. We choose to avail ourselves of His grace, and  by His grace thru faith we walk in the steps that He prepared beforehand (Eph. 2:10) to our foreordained inheritance that is available to all believers, if they choose His ways.
'Even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive...'

Your reference to "that ball and chain of Calvinism clanging" gives me the impression that you have only been exposed to negative (legalistic) varieties of Calvinism. Keep in mind that there are many varieities of Calvinism and Calvinists, just as there are many varieties of Arminianism and Arminians. There are undoubtedly legalistic and obnoxious Calvinists, just like there are legalistic and obnoxious Arminians. Lumping all Calvinists into one group and judging them on the basis of your limited knowledge and experience of a few representatives is not really fair. Let me assure you, there are some nice Calvinists around! I know, because I have met some (not in my country, but in the USA and England).


Unfortunately, I have to disagree with you on this point. The word in the Greek is "kosmos", and if you look it up in "A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature" by W.F.Arndt and F.W.Gingrich, translated from Walter Bauer, you will discover that "kosmos" has at least 8 meanings, depending on the context. As a matter of fact, only rarely does it mean "the entire human race." If you don't believe me, go look it up yourself. Even in those places where “kosmos” refers to mankind, it doesn’t always refer to the entire human race. Let me just give you 2 examples. In 2 Pet. 2:5, “world” refers exclusively to unbelievers (“And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth [person], a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;”). God spared Noah and his family, so they are obviously not included in the “old world” and “the world of the ungodly”. In contrast, “world” in John 12 :19 refers exclusively to people who were “going after him (Jesus)” (“The Pharisees therefore said among themselves, Perceive ye how ye prevail nothing? behold, the world is gone after him.”). There is absolutely no way that you can make “world” in this verse refer to the entire human race. It refers to a large, indefinite group of people who shared a common characteristic, namely “going after Jesus.” I believe that the same concept applies in John 3:16 and I John 2:2. In John 3:16, I believe “world” refers to “whosever believeth” (i.e., all true believers, all the elect, not just Jewish believers), and in I John 2:2, I believe “world” refers to all true believers among the Gentiles (the “our” refers to Jewish believers, as Pink explains in the material in my previous post; by the way, have you read it? If you feel his reasoning is wrong, could you point out where he is mistaken?).


I agree that it was a finished work, sufficient for the entire human race, and there is nothing that can be added to it. That is not the issue. The issue is “FOR WHOM was this finished work INTENDED?” ALL the sins of those for whom it was intended were indeed paid for, which is precisely why it cannot have been intended for everybody, because not everybody will be saved. If ALL the sins of ALL men were paid for, then nobody would go to hell.


I agree that all the lost will be “without excuse” (Romans 1:20). They do have a will and they do choose to reject God. They will suffer the consequences.


I agree with this also! The question is, WHY do we “choose to avail ourselves of His grace”? I believe it is because He first chose us (Eph. 1:4-5)! How else can someone who is “dead in trespasses” suddenly come to life? Did Lazarus arise from his grave because he decided to come back to life, or was it because the Lord decided to raise him up from the dead?

That’s all for now. May the Lord richly bless you!

Love in Christ,
H

I love the writings of Arthur Pink but I could never accept a limited atonement teaching. To H I believe when the word US is used in many cases it means mankind--us--human beings. I've always believed(perhaps there is no biblical basis for this) that the BEST of something you can think of would represent the character of God. What is greater and better: a God who only died for "his own" leaving the rest to spend eternity in hell, or a God who died for ALL, giving EVERYONE a chance to be with him. Remember, the Bible says that the lake of fire was "reserved for the Devil and his angels" it doesn't say "reserved for the devil and his angels and all not atoned for". The Lake of fire is not meant for man, even though we know man will be there. To me the greater and best would be a God who died for ALL for it shows the greater love. "Behold, I stand at the door and knock, if ANYONE hear my voice and open the door, I will come into him and sup with him and he with me".  This was spoken to a church, Laodicea---but isn't Christ ALREADY inside a true believer? But he is asking ANYONE who hears his voice to open the door. To limit the atonement to me is to limit God himself.   --Joe

this is a rather meanspirited response. humiliation is a pretty lousy goal.

an open forum debate is only useful if the ones participating in it have the maturity not to resort to namecalling and personal attacks. if you disagree with something you read, simply present your side of the argument. writing posts like the one i quoted just ruins your credibility. if you are spoiling for an angry brawl you came to the wrong place.

In response to Joe Sperling's post, I would just like to quote an extract from Spurgeon (taken from this page:
http://www.graceonlinelibrary.org/calvinism/full.asp?ID=402

"Some persons love the doctrine of universal atonement because they say, "It is so beautiful. It is a lovely idea that Christ should have died for all men; it commends itself," they say, "to the instincts of humanity; there is something in it full of joy and beauty." I admit there is, but beauty may be often associated with falsehood. There is much which I might admire in the theory of universal redemption, but I will just show what the supposition necessarily involves. If Christ on His cross intended to save every man, then He intended to save those who were lost before He died. If the doctrine be true, that He died for all men, then He died for some who were in hell before He came into this world, for doubtless there were even then myriads there who had been cast away because of their sins.

Once again, if it was Christ’s intention to save all men, how deplorably has He been disappointed, for we have His own testimony that there is a lake which burneth with fire and brimstone, and into that pit of woe have been cast some of the very persons who, according to the theory of universal redemption, were bought with His blood. That seems to me a conception a thousand times more repulsive than any of those consequences which are said to be associated with the Calvinistic and Christian doctrine of special and particular redemption. To think that my Savior died for men who were or are in hell, seems a supposition too horrible for me to entertain. To imagine for a moment that He was the Substitute for all the sons of men, and that God, having first punished the Substitute, afterwards punished the sinners themselves, seems to conflict with all my ideas of divine justice. That Christ should offer an atonement and satisfaction for the sins of all men, and that afterwards some of those very men should be punished for the sins for which Christ had already atoned, appears to me to be the most monstrous iniquity that could ever have been imputed to Saturn, to Janus, to the goddess of the Thugs, or to the most diabolical heathen deities. God forbid that we should ever think thus of Jehovah, the just and wise and good!"

Love in Christ,
H

H----
Perhaps you are correct--I really don't know. According to Scripture No one is in the lake of fire at the present time---
they will only be cast there AFTER judgement day. Why should they spend an eternity in hell? I have always believed it is because they REJECTED an ETERNAL provision which could have kept them from entering there. If someone suffered death to provide you an outlet and you reject it, you have put yourself in the position of loss. If Christ did not die for those who wind up in hell, isn't it far more monstrous that God would never have even given them a CHANCE? To me that is far more monstrous of an idea--that God would create people, put them on earth, knowing they NEVER will have a chance to be saved and will be eternally DAMNED. It indeed is monstrous that Christ would die for people who wind up lost---that is why they will be ETERNALLY lost----they rejected an ETERNAL provision.  But thanks for your input H---This is one of those discussions, like pre-trib or post-trib etc. that we will really never know until that day when the Lord reveals all. take care,  Joe

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't a tare always a tare, and a wheat always a wheat.  They never change from one to the other.  A wheat seed sprouts up into a wheat plant when it matures.  A tare seed sprouts up into a tare plant when it matures.  God sowed the wheat.  The enemy sowed the tares. It is not apparent which is which until both mature.  Then we see the wheat producing valuable wheat germ, but the tare producing poison.  
From this parable, I think it is reasonable to conclude that if a person gets saved, then he always was a wheat seed, and now he is coming to full maturity.  Those who are tares, may look like wheat at one time, but in the end it is apparent that they never were wheat, only tares (hmm...like George?).  By their fruit you shall know them.  We are now finally seeing the fruit of George in the assembly.  
Maybe I'm looking at it wrong, but that's my take.


I think this passage is referring to the nation of Israel, who was already delivered out of Egypt.  They had sinned and so God was going to destroy them and build them back up again.  As he did by sending them off into captivity, then bringing them back into the land.  
I think the important distinction to note is that he did not throw the pot away.  He reformed the pot.  See the difference?  
No doubt the potter works with many clay pots.  God didn't throw away Israel.  He decided to reform her again.  I wonder if the potter threw away the others?  
I suppose one way to look at it is, you were never a vessel prepared for destruction.  If you were, he would have thrown you away into the fire.  Rather, you were one that he chose to have mercy on.  He remade you, perhaps this could be a spiritual analogy to being born again, and is forming you into a vessel of honor.  
That's just my take on it, am I wrong?
The only problem I have with what I just said is that, it is hard for me to believe that God has mercy on some and not on others.  He is so merciful...isn't it to all?

Very good points, Arthur! I completely agree with what you said about the wheat and the tares.

I think the same thing applies to the sheep and the goats. I don't believe that goats can turn into sheep. If someone is one of the Lord's sheep, then sooner or later they WILL hear His voice and believe in Him and follow Him (John 10:27). The goats never will (v.26), although they may pretend to, they may fool the sheep, they may even fool themselves, but they can't fool the Good Shepherd, because He KNOWS His sheep (v.14). The Good Shepherd will save ALL the sheep that the Father has given Him (v. 28-29) and which He has given His life for (v.11, 15).

As He said in John 6:37-39, "ALL that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of ALL which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day."

It ought to be fairly clear from this passage that the Father has GIVEN certain people to the Lord Jesus Christ, and that ALL of them will come to Him (sooner or later), and that NONE of them will be lost. Praise the Lord! These people are His sheep, the ones He said He would give His life for. Isn't it amazing to think that we, if we are His sheep, are a GIFT from God the Father to His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ? And the Lord Jesus Christ decided to accept this gift from His Father, even though He knew it would cost Him suffering and death! To think that the sinless, omnipotent, perfect Son of God would WILLINGLY lay down His life for someone as sinful and vile as myself!  "Love so amazing, so divine, demands my life, my soul, my all."

Love in Christ,
H

You are very right.  Genetically it is impossible.  But the unsaved that hang around his flock, can be saved.
Jerimiah 13:23  Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard its spots? Then may you also do good who are accustomed to do evil.

Isaiah 55:7  Let the wicked forsake his way, And the unrighteous man his thoughts; Let him return to the LORD, And He will have mercy on him; And to our God, For He will abundantly pardon.
8  "For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways," says the LORD.
9  "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways, And My thoughts than your thoughts.
. . .
13  Instead of the thorn shall come up the cypress tree, And instead of the brier shall come up the myrtle tree; And it shall be to the LORD for a name, For an everlasting sign that shall not be cut off."

Genetically it is impossible, that is why we are called a "new creation"
2 Corinthians 5:17  Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new.

We "had not obtained mercy" and "were not My people" before we were saved, it is "in Christ" that we become "a new creation".

Hosea 2:23b  And I will have mercy on her who had not obtained mercy; Then I will say to those who were not My people, ‘You are My people!’ And they shall say, ‘You are my God!’"

In the same way, "MY PEOPLE," "MANY,"  "YOU" (=the disciples), "THE SHEEP," "HIS FRIENDS," "US/OUR/WE" (=believers), "THE CHURCH," "THEM THAT ARE SANCTIFIED." can not refer to us before we are saved.

Ephesians 2:1 And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins,
2  in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience,
3  among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others.

Your reference to "that ball and chain of Calvinism clanging" gives me the impression that you have only been exposed to negative (legalistic) varieties of Calvinism. Keep in mind that there are many varieities of Calvinism and Calvinists, just as there are many varieties of Arminianism and Arminians. There are undoubtedly legalistic and obnoxious Calvinists, just like there are legalistic and obnoxious Arminians. Lumping all Calvinists into one group and judging them on the basis of your limited knowledge and experience of a few representatives is not really fair. Let me assure you, there are some nice Calvinists around! I know, because I have met some (not in my country, but in the USA and England).

H,
Yes! There are very nice Calvinists around, and I love them! This includes my relatives, family and friends. I grew up in a Calvinistic 'environment', church and school for 25 years, and was catechised in the Calvinist doctrine for years. We even had rooms and clubs named after John Calvin.   ::)

But I do know that the Calvinistic doctrine of predestination can leave one feeling helpless and wondering if they can ever please God, because they have been 'predestined' to be where they are, be it saved or damned. And what is the use, really, of worrying since you would have no choice in the matter, anyway? Clang, clang, ball and chain.

The teaching that people are 'predestined' to be lost, can also lead to the thought that some sins of believers have not been paid for at the cross.  After all, if salvation is beyond the reach of certain people doomed to the lake, then some sins (Which ones could they be? Did I commit one?) committed by believers may also be beyond the reach of the cross. Dreadful thought. Clunk, clunk, ball and chain.

We all have a chance for the prize! "I press toward the goal for the prize of the calling on high of God in Christ Jesus."
Phil. 4:14.
M

Tom and Bob felt that I Tim. 2:3-6 supports the idea that the Lord Jesus Christ died for the sins of the entire human race. But does it really? Their argument is based on their interpretation of the word "all" in v. 4 & 6. Does the word "all" ALWAYS refer to "every single individual, without exception"? Let's take a look at a few verses where the word "all" occurs and see if it ALWAYS refers to "every single individual, without exception."

Acts 22:15 says "For thou shalt be his witness unto ALL MEN of what thou hast seen and heard." Was Paul really going to be God's witness to every single human being, without exception? What about all the people that had already died before Paul was converted? What about all the people that he never met? What about all the people that never heard of him and never read anything that he wrote? It ought to be obvious that ALL MEN cannot mean "every single human being, without exception" in this verse. 2 Corinthians 3:2 says "Ye are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read of ALL MEN:" Were the believers in Corinth really "known and read of" the entire human race? I don't think so. Philippians 4:5 says "Let your moderation be known unto ALL MEN. The Lord is at hand." Did Paul really require the Philippians to make their moderation known to the entire human race? How could they possibly do that? 1 Thessalonians 2:15 says "Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to ALL MEN:" Were the Jews really contrary to the entire human race (including themselves)? It ought to be obvious from these verses that "all men" is sometimes used in a general sense and does not always mean "the entire human race, with no exceptions."

Now let's look at the context of I Tim. 2:3-6. The key to understanding v. 3-6 is found in v. 1-2. "I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for ALL MEN; For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty." Was Paul really saying that prayers should be made for the entire human race, without any exceptions? Even for the people that were already dead? I don't think so (I realize that Roman Catholics won't agree with me). In my opinion, the phrases "For kings, and for all that are in authority" which immediately follow the phrase "for ALL MEN" show that he meant "ALL KINDS OF MEN" not "the entire human race." We are not just to pray for people of our own nationality or social class, but for ALL KINDS OF MEN, including kings and others in authority.

Therefore, when we come to verse 4 ("Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth."), the question arises, does Paul mean that God "will have ALL MEN WITHOUT EXCEPTION to be saved" or does he mean that God "will have ALL KINDS OF MEN to be saved" (not just people of one nationality or social class, but from many nations and social classes)? Since a large part of the human race was already lost (those who had died in unbelief before this was written), and since "ALL MEN" in v. 1 obviously refers to "ALL KINDS OF MEN", I believe he meant the latter. In other words, God doesn't just want to save people of one nation (for example, Jews) or one social class (for example, the poor), He wants to save people from many nations and many social classes. I don't believe he could have meant the former, otherwise "ALL MEN WITHOUT EXCEPTION" would be saved. After all, God says in Isaiah 46:10 "My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:" If it really was God's "pleasure" to save "ALL MEN WITHOUT EXCEPTION", then He would do it. He is omnipotent and nobody can prevent Him from doing ALL His "pleasure."

So when we come to v. 6, what does Paul mean when he says "Who gave himself a ransom for all"? Does he really mean, as many believe, that Christ "gave himself a ransom for ALL MEN WITHOUT EXCEPTION"? If so, then "ALL MEN WITHOUT EXCEPTION" will be freed (from sin) and saved, because that is what is involved when "a ransom" has been paid. Since I don't believe that "ALL MEN WITHOUT EXCEPTION" will be freed from sin and saved, I don't believe Paul meant that, whatever it is that he really meant (whether "ALL KINDS OF MEN" or "ALL WHO WILL BE SAVED" or something else).

Well, I'll let this suffice for now. May the Lord bless ALL HIS PEOPLE!

H


   

That is exactly what I have been saying.  
Just as the Jews were "my beloved" and the gentiles "not beloved".

I am saying that God is able to "call them My people, who were not My people, And her beloved, who was not beloved."

As I said, "God's longsuffering is to change hearts."

The clear context of this passage is that My Lord has "endured with much longsuffering" (the gentiles), who were "vessels of wrath prepared for destruction" and from the same lump has made "vessels for honor."

Jeremiah 18: 3  Then I went down to the potter’s house, and there he was, making something at the wheel.
4  And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter; so he made it again into another vessel, as it seemed good to the potter to make.

In the same way we do not have to understand the intricacies of the working of God to be saved.  God, in sending His Son, has done everything for our salvation.

The "Good News" is that the ones who were "not the chosen" can receive "eternal life", not just to "live forever", but the very life of Christ.  Eternal life is not just "one direction," it is without beginning or end.  We go from being "the rejected", to being "chosen in Him from the foundation of the world".

Luke 14:21  "So that servant came and reported these things to his master. Then the master of the house, being angry, said to his servant, ‘Go out quickly into the streets and lanes of the city, and bring in here the poor and the maimed and the lame and the blind.’
22  "And the servant said, ‘Master, it is done as you commanded, and still there is room.’
23  "Then the master said to the servant, ‘Go out into the highways and hedges, and compel them to come in, that my house may be filled.
24  ‘For I say to you that none of those men who were invited shall taste my supper.’"

Not all that are invited will come.  But God's longsuffering is to change the "hardened heart". This is why we preach the gospel.

Rom 2:4  Or is it nothing to you that God had pity on you, waiting and putting up with you for so long, not seeing that in his pity God’s desire is to give you a change of heart?

Ezek 36:26  "I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.

"As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?"

Romans 9:13-24

That is exactly what I have been saying.  
Just as the Jews were "my beloved" and the gentiles "not beloved".

I am saying that God is able to "call them My people, who were not My people, And her beloved, who was not beloved."

As I said, "God's longsuffering is to change hearts."

The clear context of this passage is that My Lord has "endured with much longsuffering" (the gentiles), who were "vessels of wrath prepared for destruction" and from the same lump has made "vessels for honor."

Jeremiah 18: 3  Then I went down to the potter’s house, and there he was, making something at the wheel.
4  And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter; so he made it again into another vessel, as it seemed good to the potter to make.

In the same way we do not have to understand the intricacies of the working of God to be saved.  God, in sending His Son, has done everything for our salvation.

The "Good News" is that the ones who were "not the chosen" can receive "eternal life", not just to "live forever", but the very life of Christ.  Eternal life is not just "one direction," it is without beginning or end.  We go from being "the rejected", to being "chosen before the foundation of the earth".

Luke 14:21  "So that servant came and reported these things to his master. Then the master of the house, being angry, said to his servant, ‘Go out quickly into the streets and lanes of the city, and bring in here the poor and the maimed and the lame and the blind.’
22  "And the servant said, ‘Master, it is done as you commanded, and still there is room.’
23  "Then the master said to the servant, ‘Go out into the highways and hedges, and compel them to come in, that my house may be filled.
24  ‘For I say to you that none of those men who were invited shall taste my supper.’"

Not all that are invited will come.  But God's longsuffering is to change the "hardened heart". This is why we preach the gospel.

Rom 2:4  Or is it nothing to you that God had pity on you, waiting and putting up with you for so long, not seeing that in his pity God’s desire is to give you a change of heart?

Ezek 36:26  I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.

Here are some questions for you: If God really loves everybody and wants everybody to be saved, why does God say "Esau have I HATED" and why does Paul say "whom he will he HARDENETH"? Why would God want to "harden" someone if He really loved them and wanted them to be saved? And why did the Lord Jesus Christ say "I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast HID these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight." (Luke 10:21) If God really loved "the wise and prudent" and wanted them to be saved, why did He hide the truth from them? And why did the Lord Jesus Christ say "it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is NOT GIVEN" (Matt.13:11)? If God really loved "them" and wanted "them" to be saved, why didn't He also give "them" "to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven"?  I have more questions, but I will let these suffice for the time being. Look forward to seeing some answers. I really want to understand these passages correctly, so if anybody has some convincing explanations, I am willing to listen.

H

Taking Biblical passages to support a previously conceived viewpoint is dangerous. So is taking our entire worldview from the Bible. What are we to take literally and why should we take these things literally? For example, are we to take the Sermon on the Mount literally? Tolstoy believed so. Are we to take the passages in Acts literally, esp with regard to shring and giving up possesions? Are we to take the biblical mandate of a Jubilee Year literally-- where all debts are forgiven? Are we to take Jesus literally when he says that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom? Are we to take  literally Paul's command to present our bodies as a living sacrifice? Are we to take Song of Solomon literally? (talk about an oft-allegorized book basically praising the beauty and even eroticism of the human form) How and why do we take certain things literally? Jesus ate with tax collectors and sinners and outcasts-- what would it look like if we took those actions literally? I ask these things, not necessarily because we humans know the full answer, but that it is enormously difficult and complex to determine what one should and shouldn't take literally.
Thank you,
                     Nate

Here is an excerpt from chapter 3 of a book called "By Grace Alone" by Jim McClarty
(http://www.salvationbygrace.org/DofGChThree.htm):

So to summarize, Scripture tells us that, on the cross, Christ ---

1) Was the final substitutionary sacrifice for sin

2) Was the propitiation that satisfied the wrath of God

3) Paid the redemption price to purchase guilty sinners

4) Was the ransom price that was paid

5) Made reconciliation between God and man

6) Justified guilty sinners, satisfying God's Holy Justice

7) Sanctified those people, or set them apart as holy

8) Perfected forever those whom He bought, justified and sanctified.

And, by Christ's own declaration on the cross, "It is finished". He actually accomplished all these things in his death and resurrection.

With this in mind, let us again ask the question:

FOR WHOM DID CHRIST DIE?

If Christ died for the whole world - every person who ever lived, without distinction - then He also accomplished all the purposes of His death for every one of those people. Nowhere in Scripture do we find language to suggest that the attributes of Christ's atoning work are applied to different individuals in varying degrees. It's all or nothing at all.

Not only that, but the Bible does not suggest that Christ did all this work and then left it unapplied, waiting for someone to take advantage of it. When He said it was finished, it was finished. He had actually accomplished what He set out to do.

Nor do we find any hint that something needs to be added to Christ's work in order for it to be efficacious in a person's life. We don't add our faith, or our choice, or our decision, in order to make Christ's atonement active. He did it alone. He accomplished His purpose and He sat down at the position of authority - His father's right hand.

Given all this, we are forced to conclude that if Christ died for everyone, then surely everyone would be saved. But, we know from Scripture that this is not the case. Not everyone is saved. Some people end up eternally separated from God.

Revelation 20:13-15 - "And, the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. And, death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And, whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire."

Matthew 23:33 - "Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?"

But, how could men who have been reconciled, redeemed, justified, sanctified and perfected be put into the lake of fire and eternally punished by a Righteous God? If Christ paid the price of their sin, how could they be tried on their sinfulness?

The answer is - Christ was not their substitute. Their sins were not on Christ's shoulders when He bore the burden of guilt.

And so we plainly declare - Christ died as the substitute for the elect only.

As a result, the elect are already viewed by God as being purchased, reconciled, personally innocent, holy and complete in Christ. They can never be tried for their sins, because God has removed them as far from us as the East is from the West and they'll be remembered no more. (Ps.103:4) And, God will not pour out His wrath for sin on the elect, because He has once poured it out on His Son in their stead.

Hebrews 9:12 - "Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us."

Furthermore, the logical succession of these doctrines leads us to the conclusion that Christ did not die for all humanity. If, as we've concluded thus far, God elected certain individuals before the foundation of the world, and withheld that mercy from others, He would not have sent His Son intending to pardon those whom He positively foreknew would be lost.

"To represent God as earnestly striving to do what He knows He will not do is to represent Him as acting foolishly."

Christ, Himself, demonstrated this relationship - that the elect and the redeemed are the same people - when He prayed:

John 17:5-10 - "And, now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was. I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word. Now they have known that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are of thee. For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them and have known surely that I came out from thee; and they have believed that thou didst send me. I pray for them. I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine. And all mine are thine and thine are mine and I am glorified in them."

So, as Christ was preparing to die and return to His former glory, which He shared with God before the world began, He lists several attributes of the particular people that God gave to Him "out of the world":

1) They were God's, given to Christ

2) They kept God's word

3) They knew that whatever Christ had was from God

4) Christ gave them the words God gave Him

5) They received those words

6) They knew surely that Christ came from God

7) They had faith that God sent Christ

8) Jesus prayed to God exclusively for them, because they were God's. Notice the exact words, "I pray not for the world, but for them ..."

9) Christ was glorified in them.

Jesus then continued the prayer, asking His Father to bless and protect these people. Now, are we to assume that Christ would exclude members of the "world" from His prayer and then spill His precious blood with the intention of redeeming and perfecting those for whom He would not pray? Again, that's to say that He acted in a confused, or foolish, way. Don't miss the contrast Christ made between those that were His, and those for whom He would not pray. Our contention that He died for His elect exclusively simply follows the distinction that He Himself made.

"He is despised and rejected of men.....
And we hid, as it were, our faces from Him....
He was despised, and we did not esteem Him.
Surely He has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows;
Yet we esteemed Him sticken, smitten of God and aflicted.
BUT He was wounded for our transgressions
He was bruised for our iniquities....
ALL we like sheep have gone astray,
We have turned, everyone, to his own way
And the Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us ALL.
Isa. 53.

Looks to me like He was rejected by all and bore the iniquity of all.  He knew ahead of time and did it anyway, even for those who would never accept Him. That is true love.

I thought this quote from Dietrich Bonhoeffer may provide some clarity:

   Hasn't the individualistic question about personal salvation completely left us all? Aren't we really under the impression that there are more important things than that question? (perhaps not more important than the matter itself, but more important than the question?) I know it sounds pretty monstrous to say that. But fundamentally, isn't this in fact Biblical? Does the question about saving one's soul appear in the OT at all? Arent righteousness and the kingdom of god on earth the focus of everything, and isn't it true that Rom. 3:24ff is not an individualistic doctrine of salvation but the culmination of the view that God alone is righteous? It is not with the beyond that we are concerned, but with this world as created and preserved, subjected to laws, reconciled, and restored. What is above this world is, in the gospel, intended to exist for this world; I mean that, not in the anthropocentric sense of liberal mystic piety, ethical theology, but in the biblical sense of the creation and of the incarnation, crucifixtion, and ressurection of Jesus Christ."

thank you,
   Nate

Saints--You will be happy to discover that all of this has been discussed by two of God's greatest men.  

I recommend Luther's The Bondage of the Will
http://www.efn.org/~davidc/luther.html

For an added bonus, check out Jonathan Edwards's The Freedom of the Will.
http://members.aol.com/jonathanedw/Edwards.html

At the very least, reading these men will prevent wisecracks against others with whom we disagree.

Off the cuff reflections are a bit silly until we've read the best of both sides.

Aaron Cantrell

PS--Arthur, I would not say that John Malone defeated H's arguments.  I think he sidestepped them.

Huh? Did I say something?  I think you have me confused with someone else maybe.

Ah..it was the other knucklehead.  Yeah that guy is a knucklehead.

Greetings everyone! I'm back! Now where was I? I think I had more or less finished dealing with I John 2:2 and I Tim. 2:3-6, so I Timothy 4:10  is the next verse that Tom mentioned (in his post of January 25, 2003, 02:35:07 am). Regarding that verse, there is a web page that does a very thorough job of examining it, and I don't think I can improve upon it, so I'll just quote an extract and give the link to the web page. Here is an extract:

"The final phrase "specially of those that believe" clearly Indicates that the term is here given a twofold application. Of all men God is the Saviour, but of some men, namely, believers, He is the Saviour in a deeper, more glorious sense than He is of others.
     This clearly implies that when He Is called the Saviour of all men, this cannot mean that He imparts to all everlasting life, as He does to believers. The term "Saviour," then, must have a meaning which we today generally do not immediately attach to it. And that is exactly the cause of the difficulty. Often In the Old Testament, the term meant "to deliver — (verbal form) or deliverer (nominal form)" — both with reference to men and God (cf. Judg. 3:9; II Kings 13:5; Neh. 9:27; Ps. 25:5; 106:21). Also, in the New Testament, reference is made to the Old Testament where God delivered Israel from the oppression of Pharaoh for He had been the Saviour of all, but specially those who believed. With the latter, and with them alone, He was "well pleased" (I Cor. 10:5). All leave Egypt; not all enter Canaan." POINT: In both the Old and New Testaments the term "Saviour" is often used to speak of God's providential preservation or deliverance which extends to all men without exception. (Cf. Ps. 36:6; 145:9; Matt. 5:45; Luke 6:35; Acts 17:25, 28.) Moreover, God also causes His gospel of salvation to be earnestly proclaimed to all men without distinction; that is, to men from every race and nation (Matt. 28:19). Truly the kindness (providence or common grace) of God extends to all. But even the circle of those to whom the message of salvation is proclaimed is wider than those who receive it by a true saving faith.

B. Conclusion. A paraphrase of what Paul is teaching in I Timothy 4:10 is this: "We have our hope set on the living God, and in this hope we shall not be disappointed, for not only is He a kind God, hence the Saviour (i.e., preserver or deliverer in a providential, non-soteriological sense) of all men, showering blessings upon them, but He is, in a very special sense, the Saviour (in a soteriological sense) of those who by faith embrace Him and His promise, for to them He imparts salvation, everlasting life in all its fulness.

THE LIVING GOD IS THE PROVIDENTIAL PRESERVER OF ALL MEN; BUT HE IS ESPECIALLY SO FOR BELIEVERS, FOR HE NOT ONLY PHYSlCALLY AND TEMPORALLY DELIVERS THEM, BUT HE ALSO SPIRITUALLY AND ETERNALLY SAVES THEM."

Here is the link: http://www.the-highway.com/1Tim4.10.html (http://www.the-highway.com/1Tim4.10.html)

May the Living God richly bless you!

H

The next verse that Tom mentioned (in his post of January 25, 2003, 02:35:07 am) was II Peter 3:9. "The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." The main question that has to be answered in dealing with this verse is "who does the "any" and "all" refer to?" Most of you will probably immediately jump to the conclusion that it "obviously" refers to "any human being" and "all human beings." But does that interpretation really fit the immediate context of the passage, as well as the larger context of the rest of the Bible? First of all, Peter is writing this letter "to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ." (II Pet. 1:1). In other words, he is talking to believers. If we look at the verse itself, Peter says that God is "longsuffering to us-ward". He is talking about God's longsuffering (patience) towards "us" (believers, the elect), not the entire human race. So it seems to me that the "any" and "all" of the following phrase are referring back to "us" (believers, the elect). God is not willing that any of us (believers, the elect) should perish, but that all of us (believers, the elect) should come to repentance. This seems to me to fit the immediate context of the passage much better than "any human being" and "all human beings." It also fits much better with the rest of the Bible. The "any human being" and "all human beings" interpretation would seem to be contradicted by such verses as Exodus 4:21; 9:12; 10:1, 20, 27; 11:10; and 14:4, 8, all of which talk about the Lord hardening Pharaoh's heart;  Joshua 11:20 ("For it was of the Lord to harden their hearts, that they should come against Israel in battle, that He might utterly destroy them, and that they might receive no mercy, but that He might destroy them, as the Lord had commanded Moses." NKJV); I Samuel 2:25, which says that the sons of Eli "did not heed the voice of their father, because the Lord desired to kill them" (NKJV); Romans 9:18 ("Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens." NKJV); and II Thessalonians 2:11-12 ("And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness."), among other passages. If God really didn't want "any human being" to perish, but wanted "all human beings" to come to repentance, why did He harden the hearts of Pharaoh and others, why did He want to kill the sons of Eli, why will He send "strong delusion, that they should believe a lie"?

May the Lord reveal the truth to His people! (Matt. 11:25-26)

H  

 
 

a suggestion for all of you arminianists and calvinists. ,  THE FAITH OF GOD'S ELECT
by John f. Parkinson  available at jptbooks@powerlink.net
It is the very best I have ever read to clear up the confusion .  May I add that the reason most people misunderstand Romans 9 is because they don't understand the election in romans 1 thru 8. When you understand what God is saying about election in those 8 chapters then you will be ready for chapter 9.
             love to all , steve harris