AssemblyBoard

I would like to put forth 5 questions and then begin to answer them:

1. What did the Old Testament teach about the extent of the atonement?
2. What did the Lord Jesus Christ teach about the extent of the atonement in the Gospels ?
3. What did the Apostles teach about the extent of the atonement in the Book of Acts ?
4. What did the Apostle Paul teach about the extent of the atonement in his epistles ?
5. What did the writers of the rest of the New Testament teach about the extent of the atonement?

1. What did the Old Testament teach about the extent of the atonement?

There is not a whole lot of material about the extent of the atonement in the OT. As a matter of fact, the only passage that comes to mind is Isaiah 53. But before discussing that passage, I would like to say a few words about the concept of atonement in the OT.
 
According to the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (Harris, R. L., Archer, G. L. Jr., and Waltke, B. K., eds.), the Hebrew word that is translated "to make atonement" in the KJV means "to atone by offering a substitute." "The verb is always used in connection with the removal of sin or defilement, except for Gen. 32:20; Prov. 16:14; and Isa. 28:18 where the related meaning of "appease by a gift" may be observed."  In the OT, when atonement was made for someone, their sin was forgiven and/or their defilement was cleansed.  For example, in Lev. 4:20 it says "and the priest shall make an atonement for them, and it shall be forgiven them" and in Lev. 4:26 it says "and the priest shall make an atonement for him as concerning his sin, and it shall be forgiven him."  Further examples can be found in Lev. 4:31, 35; 5:10, 13, 16, 18; 6:7. I am not aware of a single instance in the OT where atonement was made for someone whose sin was not forgiven or whose defilement was not cleansed.  There is, however, an interesting passage where God Himself says that the iniquity of certain individuals would never be atoned for, 1 Samuel 3:14.  ("And therefore I have sworn unto the house of Eli, that the iniquity of Eli's house shall not be purged with sacrifice nor offering for ever.").  The Hebrew word that is translated "shall ... be purged" in this passage is the same verb that is translated "shall make an atonement" in Leviticus.  Why would God say that the iniquity of the house of Eli would not be atoned for for ever if He was (supposedly) planning on sending the Lord Jesus Christ to atone for that iniquity (according to the doctrine of "unlimited atonement")?  In conclusion, an "atonement" that does not result in the forgiveness of the sins and/or the cleansing of the defilement of the person(s) on whose behalf the atonement is made is a concept that is not found in the OT (to the best of my knowledge).

Now let's take a look at Isaiah 53. Isaiah 53:5-6 says:  "But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all."  These verses clearly teach that the Messiah would be "wounded for our transgressions, ... bruised for our iniquities" and that the LORD would lay on Him "the iniquity of us all." Who does the "our" and "us all" refer to? It seems clear from the context that they refer to God's people, believers (note especially the phrases "our peace" and "we are healed", which indicates that they have received peace from God and have been healed by Him, which would not apply to unbelievers). This interpretation is confirmed by the last part of verse 8, which clearly states: "for the transgression of my people was he stricken." It is further confirmed by the last part of verse 11, which states that the Messiah would "justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities."  (in other words, He will bear the iniquities of the many that He will justify, the elect).  Thus Isaiah 53 clearly teaches that the Messiah would be "wounded ... bruised ... stricken" for the "transgressions" and "iniquities" of God's people (believers, the elect).  

I cannot recall any passage in the OT which clearly teaches that the Messiah would be "wounded ... bruised ... stricken" for the "transgressions" and "iniquities" of the entire human race. If Tom or anyone else knows of such a passage, please point it out to me.  I would appreciate it if those who respond to this post would kindly confine themselves to discussing the OT passages on the atonement.  Please refrain from mentioning or discussing Calvin or Calvinism on this thread (I would suggest the "Calvin and Calvinism" thread for that). Thanks! And may the Lord bless alll of you!

H   

Quick question - Do you intend this to mean the set of all Man following (in terms of the time period of their existence) Jesus? Or "the entire Human race" meaning every Man to ever exist?

--
lucas

A: "the entire Human race" = every Man to ever exist.

Ok, my reason for that question will become evident later, but here is my quick input on this first question:

Well, God had an electing grace for His people, and this "calling" required a response of faith/trust demonstrated through obedience.  Adherence to this kept the Israelites within God's covenantal blessing and showed the expectation of God that His people live in accordance to His holy character.
 
Now, in terms of atonement: the Old Testament clearly recognizes that offerings in themselves do not atone for sin, it is only through the grace of God.

--
lucas

Now with spellCheck!  ;)

2. What did the Lord Jesus Christ teach about the extent of the atonement in the Gospels ?

Before looking at what the Lord Jesus Christ taught about the extent of the atonement in the Gospels, I would like to make a few preliminary remarks. First of all, Matthew 1:21 says: "And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins." Notice that it doesn't say that He will save the entire human race from their sins, but "HIS PEOPLE". This agrees with what we saw in Isaiah 53 in the previous section. I think it is helpful to keep in mind that the OT was the only Scripture that the Lord Jesus Christ and His disciples had during His time on earth. So if someone had asked Him "What do the Scriptures teach about the extent of the Atonement?", it seems to me that the only Scriptural answer He could have given would have been something like "Isaiah clearly teaches that the Messiah will suffer for the sins of God's people." If someone had further asked "Do the Scriptures teach that the Messiah will suffer for the sins of the entire human race?", the only Scriptural answer He could have given would have been "No."

In Matthew 7:23, Jesus said: "And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." Notice that He did NOT say that He loved them and died for their sins, but since they did not accept Him as their Savior, they unfortunately had to go to hell. If Jesus loved these people and died for their sins, why will He say that He NEVER knew them? Sounds to me like He didn't love them and didn't die for their sins.

Another very interesting passage is Matthew 12:31-32: "Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come."  Mark 3:29 and Luke 12:10 contain similar statements. If Jesus was supposedly going to die for ALL the sins of the entire human race, why did He very emphatically say that "blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven"? Sounds to me like He was not planning on dying for that sin (or for those who commit it).

In John 10:11, the Lord Jesus Christ clearly and explicitly revealed the extent of His atonement.  He said: "I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep." He did it again in v. 15: "As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep." He was obviously not talking about literal sheep, but was referring to God's people, the elect, true believers. Note that He did NOT say that He would lay down (give) His life for "the sheep and the goats" or for "the entire human race."  He explicitly and clearly said that He would lay down (give) His life for "the sheep."  Period. In John 10:26, the Lord made it quite clear that not all are His sheep:  "But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you."  Notice that He did not say "you are not my sheep because you do not believe in me" but rather "ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep."  In Matthew 20:28 & 26:28 and Mark 10:45 & 14:24 He revealed that His sheep would be "many".  In these 4 verses, He talked of giving His life as a ransom and shedding His blood for the forgiveness of sins, and He NEVER used words like "all", "everyone" or "the entire human race", but always the word "many".  In Luke 22:19-20, He said that His body would be given and His blood would be shed for "you" (the disciples). In John 15:13, He said "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends." In summary, the Lord Jesus Christ clearly taught that He would give His life for His many sheep (disciples, friends). He NEVER taught that He would give His life for the entire human race.  

I have a question, related to this point, and that is, why is the doctrine of limited atonement so important to reformists?  It is the one point where I've seen the most heated discussions.

Almost all Christians will agree that not all will be saved.  This is clear from the numerous contrasts in scripture, such as sheep and goats, heaven and hell, the redeemed and the lost, and so on.

The practical outworking of this, is that when the gospel is preached, not all will respond.  Why, then, do we spend so much effort debating and discussing the mechanics of the efficacy of Christ's blood for the lost.

I have a problem with refomed teaching (as well as so-called Armenian teaching) in that it makes absolute declarations about things that not only does the scripture not present in quite such clarity, it doesn't even present this issues as those of utmost importance.

Predestination/free-will: I think, more important than the philosophical discussion is what choices am I to make.  Whether it is illusion, or reality, I must still chose what I will do.  Scriptures speak much of wisdom.

Scope of atonement: regardless, we are called to share.  Whosoever will.  These two issues are very related to one another.

As far as the verses quoted by H.  These are good verses, but they do not make the points you claim they do.  One of these has been brought up before: a statement about part does not exclude the whole.  Another is that you cannot argue from what is not stated, or the negative of what is inferred is not implied.  The third is that the issue of what individuals are covered by the atonment and what sins are covered are independent.  In fact, this verse seems to indicate that these individuals will have their other sins forgiven, just not the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost.

There is a teaching (I do not know the name of it), based on Matt 12:31-32 that teaches that Christ died for all sins, except for this specific blasphemy, which is equated to rejecting Christ as savior.  I don't think this is supported by other scriptures, or really even the context in Matt 12, but the doctrine is certainly compatible with single statement about this blasphemy.

As for limited atonment is that, although there are several verses that seem to me to clearly state the opposite, I have yet to see a verse that even suggests this doctrine.

Verne, I love you, I especially love your use of the english languange.  But PLEEEEEEEEEEEASE ::).  "trying to explain this to anyone who does not INTUITIVELY GRASP (emphasis mine) it is generally a fruitless exercise" ??????????????

What I INTUITIVELY GRASP from the debate that is going back and forth, brings me back to my assembly days.  I know for those of you who are engaging in this debate it is interesting/thought provoking etc.  But FOR ME, it is what was done in the assembly and I am just not interested.

I really don't care whether there is a "limited atonement" or what not.  What I care about is treating others the way I want to be treated and learning how to LOVE, like my savior.  

The fruitless exercise is not because I don't "intuitively grasp" the argument (almost calling into question my intelligence), it is fruitless because I DON'T CARE! ;D

Verne,

Regarding arguments based on the concept of "God's honor".

What is actually being done in this argument is that the person making it decides what seems "dishonorable" to himself, and then argues on the basis of God feeling exactly the same way.

The argument that God "would not permit" carniverous activity before the fall is another argument of this type.

Actually, the argument is based on the feelings of the person making it.  Not on revealed truth about God.

God bless,

Thomas Maddux

Yah Kimberly!

And another thing, the assembly taught that we choose our own poison, that we are beggars and useless and would love to eat with pigs in our natural state.  Personally, I disagree.  ABSOLUTELY.
I survived.   I know many survivors who survived worse.   Why?  because we, as autonomous human beings and inborn intelligence (created that way, I guess) have also a will to live. A WILL to LIVE!  Get it?  That means, we want to survive, regardless of how we're treated, we adapt for survival like many of God's creatures.  

And how are we lovin' one another?  I too would like to see more talk about that.  A lot of what's on this cite is like reading other people's mail, head knowledge as George would say.  Untwist what he said and some of it makes a whole lot of sense.  So my question: How you lovin'?  

Delila

Delila,
I'm not meaning in the least to support George's way of looking at things, but could he have meant that we as natural men would pick what in God's eyes is rubbish? The Bible even says that any good we do is as filthy rags. There are unsaved people who have lived lives as kind, loving and generous people, but won't be in heaven because they rejected the One who died for them.

I'm a survivor, too, but I wouldn't be if I hadn't believed that there was Someone who thought that I was worth something. I had a will to live, too, but I'd be eating with the pigs of society today, even the wealthy ones. But there are a lot of people who have lost their will to live, because they've been so beaten down.

It seems to me that the men on these boards love the Lord and His people. The points that they are arguing just bring out more scripture and help anyone else to think about what God's character is like and what He intends for man. Some of these points can be important in how someone views the life God wants us to live and how we look at other people. It's not necessarily just "head knowledge" for these men. I don't believe that it was just "head knowledge" for John Calvin, either, and he is the one whose ideas are being discussed here.  There are people who will argue things (how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?) and there is no reality of Christ in their life, but I don't think that includes the men on this board. Their lives aren't written on this board, just SOME of their thoughts.
 :)

Dear Kimberley,

sorry to hear that this discussion reminds you of what was done in the assembly, that was certainly not my intention when I started this thread! I must confess I am somewhat puzzled by that, since the things that I have been posting are quite different from what George and his servants taught.  I am also somewhat disappointed that you don't care about this subject which I care so much about, but I didn't care either 20 years ago, so I understand, and I think just as highly of you as if you did care. Each of us is a unique individual with our own personal interests, and it just so happens that my main interest is currently the extent of the atonement, so that is what I want to write about. Maybe one of the reasons why I have a desire to write about this topic on the BB is that reading books by Calvinists played a major role in opening my eyes to the fact that GG wasn't the "super-enlightened" spiritual giant that he thought he was. Becoming convinced that the doctrine of "limited atonement" (or "particular redemption") is true was one of the main things that the Lord used to deliver me from GG's influence. And I originally started writing on this topic on the BB about a year ago in the hope that the Lord might use what I write to deliver others. Once I finally finish "getting it off my chest" I will probably start writing about something else. In the meantime, I hope you will humor me, or at least bear with me. I do completely agree with you (1000%!) that learning to LOVE is the most important thing by far!

Love in Christ,
H

H:

One of the problems with the BB is the "dryness" of the interaction.  One of the things I enjoyed when I came out of the assembly was a bible study at the church we found that allowed for this same kind of dialogue - more a question and answer session and not a dogmatic, my way is the right way, stupid, kind of attitude (not intimating that that is the attitude on this bb.)  ;)

I think I shy away from debate/argument now because I'm in the baby stages of just trying to enjoy the renewed love of my savior.  Debating about the intricacies of this doctrine or that doctrine just doesn't interest me (and is what I think turns many non-believers away from the simplicity of the gospel.)  The simplicity of the gospel message is just that....simple.

It was the prideful attitude we held in the assembly, "we STUDIED the scriptures......" and look how far off we got.  I understand the nobel berean stuff.......I just need to keep it simple right now.

Moonflower:

That's just it: I don't think we are pigs or that the people of the world are pigs.  I've stepped down considerably and humbled myself since leaving the assembly.  Jesus didn't dine with pigs did he?  Did he call them pigs or treat them like pigs?  Than how can I presume that 'they' are pigs?
Delila

3. What did the Apostles teach about the extent of the atonement in the Book of Acts ?

The short answer to this question is "Not much." It is an interesting fact that the Apostles never said "God loves you" or "Jesus died for your sins" or "Jesus died for the sins of the entire human race" in any of the sermons recorded in the Book of Acts. The Apostles preached Jesus as the Messiah (Christ) and Lord, crucified and resurrected, but they never explicitly said anything about whom He died for. They did explicitly say things like: "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." (Acts 2:38) "Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out ..." (Acts 3:19) "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house." (Acts 16:31) They emphasized "repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ." (Acts 20:21) The only verse in Acts that touches on the extent of the atonement is Acts 20:28, where Paul says to the elders of the church of Ephesus: "Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood." In this verse, Paul clearly taught that the Lord Jesus Christ purchased the Church of God with His blood. Nowhere in Acts does it say that He purchased the entire human race with His blood or died for the entire human race.

H,

In these examples, as well as in the post you made today, you frequently make a logical error.  I will illustrate by quoting one of your illustrations.

You said, "Acts 20:28, where Paul says to the elders of the church of Ephesus: "Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood." In this verse, Paul clearly taught that the Lord Jesus Christ purchased the Church of God with His blood. Nowhere in Acts does it say that He purchased the entire human race with His blood or died for the entire human race.
 
You are definitely correct in saying that the verse says that the Lord Jesus Christ purchased Church of God with His blood.

H, did you ever purchas a car with your own money?  If so, does it logically follow that you purchased nothing else with your own money?

Essentially, that is the argument you are making.  You are actually slipping in a hidden premise.

Premise 1. Jesus purchased the church with his blood.
Premise 2. Jesus purchased only the church with his blood.
Conclusion: Jesus blood was shed only for the Church

Since premise 2 is only your conlcusion restated in other words, you are committing the fallacy of petitio principii, or "begging the question'.

This type of argument could be used to conclude that Christ died only for the apostle Paul.  In Gal 2:20 Paul said, "...the Son of God, who loved me and delivered himself up for me."

Did Christ only love Paul?  Did Christ only die for Paul.  Nowhere in this verse does it say that Christ died for anyone else, or loved anyone else for that matter.

That conclusion is false, of course, since the logic is fallacious.

Just like yours.

God bless,

Thomas Maddux

Sorry to have to disagree with you once again, Tom, but I do not believe that I made any logical errors in my posts. The statements I made (such as "In summary, the Lord Jesus Christ clearly taught that He would give His life for His many sheep (disciples, friends). He NEVER taught that He would give His life for the entire human race." and "Nowhere in Acts does it say that He purchased the entire human race with His blood or died for the entire human race.") are not conclusions based on logical reasoning but are simply statements of fact based on empirical observation. I have read the Gospels many times and I can not remember ever coming across a verse where the Lord Jesus Christ clearly taught that He would give His life for the entire human race. If you could show me a single verse where He clearly taught that, then I would retract my statement. I have also read the Book of Acts many times and can not remember ever coming across a verse that says that He purchased the entire human race with His blood or died for the entire human race. Again, if you could show me a single verse in the Book of Acts that says that, then I would retract my statement.
 
Lord bless!
H

Actually, both H and Tom are correct.  H is probably true in his observation that there is no Biblical statement that says Jesus died for every single person who ever existed or ever will exist.  Tom is correct in that the assertion that "Christ shed his blood for the church" does not preclude the possibility that Christ shed his blood for others as well.

I think it all comes back to the conflict where Calvinists, by the logical necessity to keep their theological model consistent with itself, demands that Christ only died for the elect.  In other words God the Father and God the Son, from the beginning of time, had no other intention in view.  This premise is held in tension with the fact that God spoke universal invitations as well as universal exhortations to repentance and Bible writers have expressed God's apparent desire to see all men saved.  Why would God invite, exhort to repent or desire to see saved those who don’t have a snowball's chance in hell because he knows Christ didn't die for him in the first place?

R.C. Sproul, in his book "Chosen By God", a popular defense of Calvinism, mentions this doctrine of limited atonement in an appendix.  He says that the doctrine is very complicated and that he could devote a whole book to it, then he doesn't say very much about it.

I think J.I. Packard, a reformed theologian, deals with it the best in his book "Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God" because he actually admits that there is a problem and deals with it forthrightly.

H,

Now you are committing another logical fallacy by arguing against a straw man.

I am not aware of any statement in the Bible where Christ, or anyone else, said in so many words, that he would or would not give his life for the sins of the whole world.

I am also not aware of any passage that says there is one God who subsists in three persons.   Nevertheless, after reading the whole of scripture, and after applying some good sound logic, the early church concluded exactly that.

So, H, since your purpose in these posts is to establish that Jesus did not die for the sins of the whole world, what you are doing is to make claims like, "Jesus never said" in order to establish that the teaching of limited atonement is true.

Otherwise, why do it?  Jesus never said, "I am not a turtle".  Does it follow that he therefore is a turtle?

If you merely are stating that Jesus, or Paul, never said this or that in so many words, fine.  But if you are trying to base a conclusion on this, you are committing the logical fallacy I referred to (petitio principii).

Your entire line of reasoning violates the basic interpretive principle that scripture means what the original writers meant it to mean.

John has recorded that Jesus spoke the words of John 3:16-17 to a Jewish Pharisee.  To argue that the term "world" used in these verses was understood by Nicodemus in the context of Reformed Theology, which was hammered out 1500 years later, is ludicrous.

God bless,

Thomas Maddux

Dave,

As I have shown, even Calvin didn't accept this teaching.  

It is, as you said, based on the desire to keep the Reformed system internally consistent.

Look at one of the verses H has quoted, Acts 2:38-39.

"And Peter said to them, "repent, and let each of you be baptized int the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
For the promise is to you and your children, and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God shall call to Himself."

A Reformed theologian reads this, and thinks "Oh, only those who have been elected to life are being spoken of here.  So, the words "as many as the Lord our God shall call to himself" means only an elect company out of mankind".

However, since the hearers of this message had NEVER EVEN HEARD of Augustin of Hippo or the Synod of Dort, much less the Westminster Confession, it is absurd to argue this.

These folks believed that God was the God of the whole earth, and of his people Israel in particular. It is clear that Peter was urging them to do something that they were capable of doing...otherwise why would he, "...with many other words he...kept on exhorting them"?  

So, this comes down, in part, to an issue of hermeneutics.

God bless,

Thomas Maddux

     It is a struggle for me to absorb all the contentions of this thread.  (I have been described as "not the sharpest knife in the drawer.")  But it seems to me that Verne, after stating, "It is hard for me to understand why both sides of this debate insist that the other perspective is wrong," goes on to do that very thing...

     Here's what keeps me from accepting the limited atonement as an inevitable conclusion:  If God offered salvation to every soul on earth-- past, present & future-- through the blood of Christ, that does not necessitate that He expected the whole world to receive the gift.  Allowing for free will, God may have made the offer to all, fully knowing that some would refuse, so that none could say, when judged, that he had no choice.  In other words, perhaps the blood of Christ was shed for all who would accept it.    
     Nothing in this scenerio mandates that we "must limit the atonment in either its efficacy or its extent."  Because God opened the door to all, it does not have to follow that He willed for any or all to enter or not, but may have allowed for us to choose.  Those who the Father gives to the Son may be those who made the right choice.  I am no scholar, but I do not see why God's having "called," "chosen," & "predestinated" cannot fit into such a plan.

     In any case, one would seem to be in greater danger of dishonoring God by insistently taking sides in such debate, than in rendering the point of limited or unlimited atonement moot insofar as concerns us in this life.  What is is, and nothing we do or say can change it.  As Verne aptly points out, no position on this matter excuses anyone from the great commission, nor from any other scriptural instruction to believers.
     To insist upon reducing the dimension of the atonement to being understandable to us seems to offer the greatest opportunity and danger of dishonoring God.  It is like saying, "Of course I'll obey you, Lord-- just as soon as you explain why I should in a way that I can fully understand."

     My apology if my thoughts seem too simplistic.  I have never struggled with the concept of God's creating a rock to heavy for Him to lift because it seems a foolish idea, and because the wisdom of God is foolishness to men, I have no problem believing that in the realm of His thoughts and works it may be a perfectly reasonable reality.
     I see no harm in conjecture, and studying to learn more is good, but is this really a matter to be insisted upon?  For if there is an absolute "right," it follows that there must be a "wrong," and do we really want to walk beside those who hold fast (for one side is as insistent as the other) to wrong beliefs?  This brings us close back to one of the great errors of assemblyism.

     Can't we all humbly wait to learn the full truth in the Lord's good time, and meanwhile be about our Father's business?

Amen Al!  And you said it without ruffling anyone's feathers (I wouldn't have been so gracious.) ;D

     I'm sorry, but I just don't see that.  If Christ's precious blood was shed for any and all who will believe, its effectiveness is not limited.



     I agree that arguments over this are irrelevant, and propose that the reason scripture does not settle the matter for us may be that the truth of it may also be irrelevant to us for the present.  Speculation is not useless if it complements one's faith, but it is surely not adequate grounds upon which to establish doctrine.


     ...and the condemnation is based upon men's choosing darkness over the Light, no?  The vessels described in Romans9 are spoken of speculatively, i.e. in a sense of "what if...?"   But even if you choose to take it more literally, nothing about the passage precludes the involvement of man's free will.  Second Timothy2 likewise speaks figuratively and any conclusions beyond the parameters of the illustration are speculation.  (Even Jesus no doubt used a chamber pot)  It is our choices as God's vessels that determine our use to Him. (1Thessalonians4:4)

 
     I ask in all sincerity:  What is the point?  What is the fundamental question?


     Thinking about it and still sincere:  knowing and not doing/not knowing what, exactly?


     Certainly my intelligence fails to see the obviousness of it.


     Agreed, to this point...


     As I see it, Christ's death makes available to all the forgiveness of sin/sins.  This takes effect upon acceptance/receipt of the gift by you, me or anyone.  It does not apply to any who will not have it by their own choice, nor was it intended to.  God's graciousness is all-reaching, but His purpose is not frustrated.


     Indeed!  What right, what need, have we to conclude?  At all?

     I hope that these, my more recent expressions clarify some of my thinking to you.
     I do not criticize your position, Verne.  If believing as you do is a contributing factor in making you the man of God you wish to be, it can only be a good thing, to my thinking.  I simply am not convinced to accept your viewpoint as wholly correct or as necessary to my own walk with Christ.
     Neither am I hard-selling my own suppositions as the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.  What I have inadequately tried to express is what I presently understand.  I am, and intend to remain open to correction, as I hope we all do.  
     As far as where we "ultimately owe" our salvation, it is not to our own choice, but to the God Whose grace enabled our choice.  Again, I believe that His enabling is available ot all who will accept and utilize it.  That this concept is a mobius strip of consideration is not problematic for me nor, I think, for God.


     To be perfectly honest, Verne, there was a time when I thought everything was all about theology to you.  That was some time ago.  You have shown yourself to me personally as a brother and a friend, for whom I am grateful to God.
     It is that I have been wrong about you and so much else that reminds me to keep myself humble, reprovable, teachable...

Thank you and God bless us all,
al

Call me a fool for Christ but I saw you guys having so much fun back and forth and back and forth it was like a tennis match. Hope the score ends in "love all".

Anyway I don't know what I am in doctrine but I figure this is worth saying. I believe God will save all who call on Him and makes it possible for them to know if they want and to respond if they want. This is the grace of God that He would even have anything to do with His fallen creation in the first place and to love us enough to let us speak on our own behalf and even to have the audacity to challenge Him to His face. This is real love. As Jesus said on the Cross. Father forgive them for they don't know what they are doing.

Anyway here goes nothing.

Romans 11:

17 But some of these branches from Abraham's tree, some of the Jews, have been broken off. And you Gentiles, who were branches from a wild olive tree, were grafted in. So now you also receive the blessing God has promised Abraham and his children, sharing in God's rich nourishment of his special olive tree.
18 But you must be careful not to brag about being grafted in to replace the branches that were broken off. Remember, you are just a branch, not the root.
19 "Well," you may say, "those branches were broken off to make room for me."
20 Yes, but remember – those branches, the Jews, were broken off because they didn't believe God, and you are there because you do believe. Don't think highly of yourself, but fear what could happen.
21 For if God did not spare the branches he put there in the first place, he won't spare you either.
22 Notice how God is both kind and severe. He is severe to those who disobeyed, but kind to you as you continue to trust in his kindness. But if you stop trusting, you also will be cut off.
23 And if the Jews turn from their unbelief, God will graft them back into the tree again. He has the power to do it.
24 For if God was willing to take you who were, by nature, branches from a wild olive tree and graft you into his own good tree – a very unusual thing to do – he will be far more eager to graft the Jews back into the tree where they belong.
25 I want you to understand this mystery, dear brothers and sisters,  so that you will not feel proud and start bragging. Some of the Jews have hard hearts, but this will last only until the complete number of Gentiles comes to Christ.
26 And so all Israel will be saved. Do you remember what the prophets said about this? "A Deliverer will come from Jerusalem, and he will turn Israel from all ungodliness.
27 And then I will keep my covenant with them and take away their sins."
28 Many of the Jews are now enemies of the Good News. But this has been to your benefit, for God has given his gifts to you Gentiles. Yet the Jews are still his chosen people because of his promises to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
29 For God's gifts and his call can never be withdrawn.
30 Once, you Gentiles were rebels against God, but when the Jews refused his mercy, God was merciful to you instead.
31 And now, in the same way, the Jews are the rebels, and God's mercy has come to you. But someday they, too, will share in God's mercy.
32 For God has imprisoned all people in their own disobedience so he could have mercy on everyone.

Abraham obeyed God and his offspring inherited a blessing. Paul says this is a mystery why do we know more than Paul. Israel lost out their privilege because of lacked action in regards to faith. As a consequence of their unbelief us Gentiles got a chance. We are here by God’s mercy and God can reverse the favour if we don’t act in faith. He says in verse 26 all Israel will be saved and verse 31 the Jews will share in God’s mercy. In verse 32 God imprisoned all in their disobedience to show that it is His mercy that is extended to all. The all is everyone like the all in Romans 3:23 All have sinned. It is like John 3:16 the whoever will and ;

1 Timothy 2:
3 This is good and pleases God our Savior,
4 for he wants everyone to be saved and to understand the truth.
5 For there is only one God and one Mediator who can reconcile God and people. He is the man Christ Jesus.
6 He gave his life to purchase freedom for everyone. This is the message that God gave to the world at the proper time.  
My conclusion is that everyone is allowed to respond and those who respond are chosen and can be part of the elect.
And Paul writing to the Ephesians, believers by faith.

Ephesians 1:1 This letter is from Paul, chosen by God to be an apostle of Christ Jesus. It is written to God's holy people in Ephesus, who are faithful followers of Christ Jesus.
2 May grace and peace be yours, sent to you from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord.
3 How we praise God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly realms because we belong to Christ.
4 Long ago, even before he made the world, God loved us and chose us in Christ to be holy and without fault in his eyes.
5 His unchanging plan has always been to adopt us into his own family by bringing us to himself through Jesus Christ. And this gave him great pleasure.
6 So we praise God for the wonderful kindness he has poured out on us because we belong to his dearly loved Son.
7 He is so rich in kindness that he purchased our freedom through the blood of his Son, and our sins are forgiven.

In verse 4 he is talking to the Ephesians and says I chose you before I made the World and does this mean He decided who would be saved or that He could see ahead that they would respond. I choose the latter that He could see their choice rather than He made the choice for them.

It makes no sense to me to have God create people to go to hell when elsewhere in Thessalonians he says God has not destined us for wrath again speaking to believers but this would contradict God’s own desire for man to have free will if our will has no consequence in us accepting Him and deciding to change course. This is a problem area for some because then people say it is a work not based on grace. But I believe that grace came first to open the option. Then through the Word and miracles God gave us faith as a gift. So even if someone repents and believes on the gospel as the gospel says it was God that was drawing, enabling and working throughout their “conversion” from one state as a lost hopeless sinner to one who has inheritance with the saints.

Lord bless

Hugh  :o

Verne,
     Since you rest your case, I shall rest mine.  Let me say in closing that I perceive your favoring of one side of an equation over the other whereas I do not see the opposites as being mutually exclusive.  I am with you as a work in progress, and believe that to be the characteristic of fellowship:  fellows in the same boat. :D  I enjoyed immensewly Becky Weiser's recent posting on another thread of Ruth Bell Graham's intended epitaph:  "End ofConstruction.  Thank You for Your Patience."

Hugh,
     I am so glad you posted your photo.  I have a print of it above my monitor & enjoy glancing at it as I read your posts.  I agree with Verne re: your latest on this thread:  wonderful.
     All I have to look at when I read Verne is a recently posted photo of his posterior as he dives into the ocean.  I suppose I should be grateful that he's wearing trunks ???!!!

 ;)al

Hugh - What version of the bible are you using?

I now know why GG had us use the King James Bible.  What I read below in your post was so easily understandable.  The King James english, always made us have to stretch for the meaning, didn't it?  I can just imagine how plain other verses of the bible would be with the translation you used and I can only imagine how many people would have fled when in PLAIN ENGLISH it said one thing, and GG and the Boys were preaching ANOTHER GOSPEL!  

Eye opening!  :o

Verne I am no theologian but here again is my take.

This is a question for Hugh but anyone may feel free to comment.
I agree with most everything Hugh said in his wonderful presentation of the gopsel message and have a question or two. This does not imply that I disagree with his stated viewpoint in the above quote but I am generally interested in his view on a few verses in the Bible.
Question 1.
What is your understanding, in view of your above statemnet, of the teaching of the following verses in Romans?

 
Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy,

I cannot be forced to agree to others terms I am God and have no hidden motives if I say it I know the end from the beginning and have thought out the best way to handle it fairly.

and whom he will he hardeneth.

Classic examples are Pharaoh and Esau who both made deliberate choices after seeing God enough to make the proper choice. Hardening means strengthening as in hardening a steel blade. They made their choice God as in Romans says gave them over and so to speak might have said “…fine lets not wait you have it your way.” God did not force them they already chose He just gave them what they wanted in their heart. He again knows that the person will or won’t change because He sees the beginning from the end. Like the pot of ground “He is looking for fruit” He is merciful and will wait but if the response is the same they are stalling for time He will end it.

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:
Romans 9:18-22

God knows what He is doing we cannot argue with Him because if He says it He is all knowing and has thought out all the angles beforehand and has decided this one will repent and this one won’t so I will act accordingly and you have no say in it because you have already chosen yourself not to repent and God has an answer based on that choice which is irrevocable.

Question 2:

I agree that the following verse does not logically warrant the assumption that there are some the Father does not draw. It also does not logically warrant the assumtion that there are none whom He does not draw.
It does logically warrant the conclusion that if the Father does not draw them, they will not, indeed cannot come.
What do you think this verse means, and why did the Lord Jesus make this statement?
Do you believe this verse teaches that the Father draws everyone to Christ, and that therefore some do not come to Him although drawn by the Father?

No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
John 6:44  

The Father gives everyone the Word and a measure of faith. If we respond to that we are drawn. Like an ad in the newspaper, it appeals to some and they respond to that but those who don’t are left alone. If I respond to the ad I may receive more flyers in the mail because I have shown interest. I have been ‘successfully’ drawn to the product that is what I believe is implied in that verse. Everyone hears but not all are drawn to respond based on their own heart condition at the time of the message. The Father and the Son work in that life that responds.

Finally, who do you think the following verses refer to?

But he answered and said, Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up.
Matthew 15:13  

The planting of the Lord is an analogy to explain when one has responded they are the Lord’s and anyone who is not the Lord’s will be cast into Hell at the judgement. They have a choice they made the right or wrong one based on sufficient knowledge. The grace and love of God was demonstrated in that while we were sinners Christ died for us and the judgement is that they chose darkness rather than light after seeing all this.

Hugh :D

The New Living Translation  is my translation I use here. It is easily understood and has a good sense to it. Some may be more literal and possibly more accurate but I like this because it is understandable.

Hugh ;D

Good answer Verne

 I left that one open. Hopefully I can explain it. God has to be fair in the judgement. When all are brought before Him even the so called atheist is without excuse because the creation proves there is a creator because nothing is existing in our world without first having someone who made it, and secondly made it for a reason. Romans 3: 30 says “faith” is necessary to receive God’s forgiveness. Again if I see creation I believe a creator exists Ps 19 says so.

I may not know who He is or why He created me but I cannot deny His existence and I have a measure of faith. People who say it is not so are incapable of basic truth about themselves. They are not aware that they have faith or may call it another name but they are without excuse. If they are curious enough after hearing the gospel they can do as we are doing here, investigate its claims. God says if they seek they will find, and Jeremiah says seek with all your heart and you will be heard.

Romans 3:30 There is only one God, and there is only one way of being accepted by him. He makes people right with himself only by faith, whether they are Jews or Gentiles.

Definitions for Hearing and Listening. A careful distinction has to be made to understand my point.


Hearing is perceiving sound.

Listening requires attention to because you are looking for something or expecting to receive understanding.

1. To make an effort to hear something: listen to the radio; listening for the bell.
2. To pay attention; heed: “She encouraged me to listen carefully to what country people called mother wit” (Maya Angelou).
Faith comes to those who make an effort to hear something who pay attention who are careful to ‘listen’ to God’s Word.

Romans 10:17 Yet faith comes from listening to this message of good news – the Good News about Christ.

And again those who have made up their minds and refuse to listen the faith God shows to them about His creation and any other proofs they had at this point in their existence makes the faith useless because it is rejected. This is so incredible but we all I am sure are guilty of not listening to truth when it doesn’t say what we want or expect it to say.

Math 13:10 His disciples came and asked him, "Why do you always tell stories when you talk to the people?" 11 Then he explained to them, "You have been permitted to understand the secrets of the Kingdom of Heaven, but others have not. 12 To those who are open to my teaching, more understanding will be given, and they will have an abundance of knowledge. But to those who are not listening, even what they have will be taken away from them. 13 That is why I tell these stories, because people see what I do, but they don't really see. They hear what I say, but they don't really hear, and they don't understand. 14 This fulfills the prophecy of Isaiah, which says: 'You will hear my words, but you will not understand; you will see what I do, but you will not perceive its meaning. 15 For the hearts of these people are hardened, and their ears cannot hear, and they have closed their eyes – so their eyes cannot see, and their ears cannot hear, and their hearts cannot understand, and they cannot turn to me and let me heal them.'

So I conclude they had faith and rejected it out of hand because it was illogical or unacceptable in some way intellectually or morally and they shut their eyes and ears to God's clearly revealed truth that He existed and was requiring them to seek Him.

Lord bless you Verne

Hugh ;D

     I confess that when this thread began I was leery of the direction it might take.  But I'm lovin' it more every day!

     No matter which side of the coin you look at, the magnificence of our God, of His grace, mercy, love, kindness, is extolled.

     To think that within each of us lay the ability to turn away from all that He is to and for us, and yet He has enabled and encouraged us to resist that damning pull and to call upon Him and be saved.  And we have not yet seen or heard, nor has it entered into our hearts the things that He has prepared for us who He has enabled to love Him!

     Tell on, Brothers & Sisters!  Tell on...

4. What did the Apostle Paul teach about the extent of the atonement in his epistles ?  (Part 1)

In stark contrast to the almost total silence of the Apostles in the Book of Acts on
the subject, the Apostle Paul provided us with numerous references in his epistles.
So many, in fact, that it has taken me much longer to answer this question than it
did to answer the first 3. And the answer is so long that it won't fit in a single
post, so I've decided to break it up into smaller pieces.

In the book of Romans, Paul clearly taught that the Lord Jesus Christ died "for us"
(believers, the elect). For example, in Romans 4:25 he said "Who was delivered for
OUR offences, and was raised again for OUR justification." In Romans 5:8-11 he said
"But God commendeth his love toward US, in that, while WE were yet sinners, Christ
died for US. Much more then, being now justified by his blood, WE shall be saved
from wrath through him. For if, when WE were enemies, WE were reconciled to God by
the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, WE shall be saved by his life.
And not only so, but WE also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom WE
have now received the atonement." And in Romans 8:32 he said "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" Notice that he said that we were "reconciled to God by the death of
his Son" "when we were enemies" (Rom. 5:10). If the Lord Jesus Christ died for the
entire human race, then the entire human race has been reconciled to God and will be
saved. There are actually people who believe this is the case (universalists), but
this is not a Biblical belief, in my opinion. But at least these people consistently
apply their belief in "unlimited atonement." Logically, "unlimited atonement" should
result in "unlimited salvation" (universalism). Notice also what Paul said in Romans
8:32. If God really "delivered him up for" the entire human race, then "how shall he
not with him also freely give ... all things" to the entire human race (including
repentance, faith, forgiveness, eternal life, etc.)? Why would God supposedly give
someone the most precious gift (His Son) and yet withhold lesser gifts (such as
repentace, faith, forgiveness, eternal life, etc.)? Paul also clearly taught that
Christ died for the elect in Romans 8:33-34: "Who shall lay any thing to the charge
of God's ELECT? It is God that justifieth." (i.e, the ELECT) "Who is he that
condemneth? It is Christ that died," (i.e., for the ELECT) "yea rather, that is
risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for
us." (i.e., the ELECT). By the way, speaking of "making intercession", in John 17:9,
the Lord Jesus Christ said "I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast
given me". If He (supposedly) was going to die for the entire human race, why did He
only pray for those whom the Father had given Him (and NOT for the world)? I believe
that He died for the same people that He prayed for, those whom the Father had given
Him, the elect. I haven't been able to find any verses in Romans where Paul said
that the Lord Jesus Christ died for the entire human race.

4. What did the Apostle Paul teach about the extent of the atonement in his epistles ?  (Part 2)

Paul also clearly taught that the Lord Jesus Christ died "for us" (believers, the
elect) in 1 Corinthians. For example, in 1 Corinthians 5:7b he said "For even Christ
our passover is sacrificed for US" In 1 Corinthians 15:3 he said "For I delivered
unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for OUR sins
according to the scriptures;" This passage is especially significant. Here Paul was
defining the Gospel. If the Gospel is really about Christ dying for the sins of the
entire human race, as so many believe, why didn't Paul say so in this passage? Could
it be that he didn't say so because it isn't true? I haven't been able to find any
verses in 1 Corinthians where Paul said that the Lord Jesus Christ died for the
entire human race.

In 2 Corinthians, we finally encounter verses which some people try to use to teach
that Christ died for the entire human race. In chapter 5, Paul said "For the love of
Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were
all dead: And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live
unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again." (5:14-15).
Notice, however, that Paul did not say that Christ died for "all men" but simply for
"all". Who was Paul referring to? The interpretation that "all" refers to the entire
human race does not seem to me to fit the immediate context of the passage nor the
larger context of the rest of the Bible. The interpretation that "all" refers to all
true believers, all the elect, seems to me to fit the immediate context of the
passage as well as the larger context of the rest of the Bible. (By the way, when I
have to choose between 2 alternative interpretations of a passage, one of which
agrees with what the rest of the Bible teaches and one of which doesn't, I tend to
choose the one that agrees with the rest of the Bible.) John Gill's excellent
discussion of this passage in his book "The Cause of God and Truth" is quite
convincing, in my opinion. I'm tempted to quote him at length, but to save space,
I'll just give a link
(http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%201/section_39.htm).
In a similar manner, the interpretation that "world" in verse 19 of the same chapter
("To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing
their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.")
refers to the entire human race does not seem to me to fit as well as the
interpretation that it refers to all the elect, both Jews and Gentiles. Otherwise,
if "world" referred to the entire human race, then this verse would be teaching that
the entire human race has been reconciled to God and will be saved, which would
contradict other passages of Scripture. Again, John Gill's discussion of this
passage is excellent
(http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%201/section_40.htm).
In the immediate context of this passage, Paul taught that God has "reconciled US to
himself by Jesus Christ" (5:18) and "made him to be sin for US, who knew no sin;
that WE might be made the righteousness of God in him." (5:21), clearly referring to
believers. Thus Paul clearly taught in 2 Corinthians that Christ died for believers
(the elect).

4. What did the Apostle Paul teach about the extent of the atonement in his epistles ?  (Part 3)

He taught the same thing (that Christ died for believers (the elect)) in Galatians.
In 1:3-4 he said "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:" In 2:20 he said
"I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me:
and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God,
who loved ME, and gave himself for ME." In 3:13  he said "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:" And in 4:4-5 he said "But when the fulness of
the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
To redeem them that were under the law, that WE might receive the adoption of
sons." I haven't been able to find any verses in Galatians where Paul said that the
Lord Jesus Christ gave Himself for the entire human race or redeemed the entire
human race.

In Ephesians, Paul clearly taught that the Lord Jesus Christ loved the elect
(believers) and gave himself for them. In 5:2 he said "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" and in 5:25 he said "Husbands, love your wives, even as
Christ also loved THE CHURCH, and gave himself for IT". I haven't been able to find
any verses in Ephesians (or any of his other epistles) where Paul said that Christ
loved the entire human race and gave himself for the entire human race. He did,
however clearly teach election and predestination in this epistle ("Blessed be the
God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed US with all spiritual
blessings in heavenly places in Christ: According as he hath CHOSEN US in him before
the foundation of the world, that WE should be holy and without blame before him in
love: Having PREDESTINATED US unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to
himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, To the praise of the glory of
his grace, wherein he hath made US accepted in the beloved. In whom WE have
redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of
his grace; Wherein he hath abounded toward US in all wisdom and prudence; Having
made known unto US the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he
hath purposed in himself: That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might
gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are
on earth; even in him: In whom also WE have obtained an inheritance, being
PREDESTINATED according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the
counsel of his own will: That WE should be to the praise of his glory, who first
trusted in Christ." - 1:3-12).

4. What did the Apostle Paul teach about the extent of the atonement in his epistles ?  (Part 4)

I have not been able to find anything on the extent of the atonement in Philippians,
but in Colossians (1:12-14), Paul taught that believers have been redeemed by the
blood of Christ ("Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made US meet to be
partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light: Who hath delivered US from the
power of darkness, and hath translated US into the kingdom of his dear Son: In whom
WE have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins"). In the same
chapter (1:20-22), he also taught that believers have have been reconciled to God by
the death of Christ ("And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him
to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in
earth, or things in heaven. And YOU, that were sometime alienated and enemies in
your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled In the body of his flesh
through death, to present YOU holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight").
(By the way, whatever Paul meant by "to reconcile all things unto himself" (and I
have seen a number of different interpretations of that phrase), he didn't say that
Christ died for the entire human race in this passage.) In Colossians 2:13-14, Paul
also mentions benefits which believers derive from the death of Christ ("And YOU,
being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened
together with him, having forgiven YOU all trespasses; Blotting out the handwriting
of ordinances that was against US, which was contrary to US, and took it out of the
way, nailing it to his cross"). I haven't been able to find any verses in Colossians
where Paul said that the Lord Jesus Christ died for the entire human race or
redeemed the entire human race.
 
In 1 Thessalonians (5:9-10), Paul clearly taught that the Lord Jesus Christ died for
believers (the elect), whom God has appointed to obtain salvation ("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."). I
haven't been able to find any verses in 1 Thessalonians where Paul said that the
Lord Jesus Christ died for the entire human race. (Can anybody besides me see a
pattern here?)

I haven't been able to find any verses on the extent of the atonement in 2
Thessalonians, but there are some very interesting verses in chapter 2 that I would
like to comment on briefly. In 2:11-12, Paul said "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." If God really
loves the entire human race and sent His Son to die for the sins of the entire human
race, why will He send some of them "strong delusion, that they should believe a
lie: That they all might be damned"? Sounds to me like He doesn't love these people
(at least not in the same way and to the same extent as He loves the elect) and
didn't send His Son to die for them. What a contrast is found in verse 13! There
Paul said "But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for YOU, brethren beloved of
the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen YOU to salvation through
sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth". Believers (the elect) are
"beloved of the Lord" and "from the beginning chosen ... to salvation".

4. What did the Apostle Paul teach about the extent of the atonement in his epistles ?  (Part 5)

In 1 Timothy, we again encounter verses which some people try to use to teach that
Christ died for the entire human race. In 2:5-6, Paul said "For there is one God,
and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a
ransom for all, to be testified in due time." I posted a discussion of 1 Tim. 2:3-6
on the "Discuss Doctrine/The Bible/Re:For whom did the Lord Jesus Christ die? (And
why is it important?)" thread over a year ago (Feb. 01, 2003). I started by
discussing Acts 22:15, 2 Corinthians 3:2, Philippians 4:5 and 1 Thessalonians 2:15
and showed that the words "all men" is sometimes used in a general sense and does
not always mean "the entire human race, with no exceptions." I then pointed out that
the words "all men" is used in the immediate context (1 Tim. 2:1-2) to mean "ALL
KINDS OF MEN" not "the entire human race", and explained why I believe it has the
same meaning in v. 4 ("Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the
knowledge of the truth"). I concluded with these comments on v. 6: "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)." John Gill's discussion of 1
Tim. 2:4 is also worth consulting
(http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%201/section_45.htm),
where he makes the following comment on v. 6: "It is observed that Christ is said,
in verse 6, to give himself a ransom for all, which is understood of all men in
particular; but it should be observed also, that this ransom is antilutron uper
pantwn, a vicarious ransom substituted in the room and stead of all, whereby a full
price was paid for all, and a plenary satisfaction made for the sins of all, which
cannot be true of every individual man, for then no man could be justly condemned
and punished."  

I haven't been able to find any verses on the extent of the atonement in 2 Timothy,
but there are some interesting verses that I would like to point out briefly. In
1:9, Paul said that God has saved us "NOT according to OUR WORKS, BUT according to
HIS OWN PURPOSE and GRACE" and that this was "GIVEN US in Christ Jesus BEFORE THE
WORLD BEGAN". In 2:10, Paul said "Therefore I endure all things for THE ELECT'S
sakes, that THEY may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal
glory."  

In Titus (2:13-14), Paul clearly taught that the Lord Jesus Christ gave Himself for
US (believers, His people, the elect) and redeemed US ("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."). I haven't been able to find any
verses in Titus where Paul said that the Lord Jesus Christ gave Himself for the
entire human race or redeemed the entire human race.
 
I haven't been able to find any verses on the extent of the atonement in Philemon.
Although there are some who believe that Paul wrote Hebrews, since the author does
not identify himself, I am going to deal with Hebrews in the answer to question 5.

In summary, in most of his epistles, Paul clearly taught that the Lord Jesus Christ
died for US (believers, the elect, the Church). I have not been able to find a
single verse in any of Paul's epistles where he clearly SAID that the Lord Jesus
Christ died for the entire human race, even though there are a few verses (in 2
Corinthians and 1 Timothy) which some people INTERPRET (incorrectly, in my opinion)
in that way.    

     Before all else, let me recognize the extent of H's study to present his case.  The labor, while surely one of love, has been extensive.  May it bear much fruit to the glory of our Lord.

     If anything has been presented with abundant clarity, it is that the oft-emphasized WE & US, along with certain other less-frequent pronouns in the many references cited, pertain to the Elect, the Church, the Redeemed of the Lord.  Along with this is the fact that H found no place in all of Paul's writings that clearly justifies without doubt the claim that Christ died for the entire historic world's population of mankind.  H asks us whether anyone besides himself sees a pattern in this study.

     Certainly a pattern is evident, at least in part.  It may also be stated that no verse of Paul's indisputably states that Christ did not lay down His life on behalf of that same population in its entirety, regardless of the intensity with which such may be argued.  It remains a point of view, a matter of interpretation, rather than a clear fact.

     That the efficacy of the Redemtion is only to the Elect is indisputable.  The question lies in the nature of the election:  What, exactly is it that makes the Elect elect?  We will surely all agree that the election is God's choosing; the Elect those whom He has chosen in Christ before the world began.  But upon what basis are they chosen?
     We should recognize that, because of His indisputable sovereignty, God owes us no explanation of His ways.  He may freely choose whatever, whyever and however He will, without challenge.  That He would desire to share such knowledge with us should amaze and thrill us beyond measure, because there is nothing in us that could demand or deserve it.  So the reason for God's electing only some from among all is not subject to our evaluation or approval, but should surely inspire our immense interest.

     Is there any doubt that none of us could respond to the grace of God except by the grace of God?  Of His fulness have we all received, and grace for grace.  That is to say, it takes God's grace to receive God's grace.  How great is His faithfulness to us, how beyond finding out are His ways!

     Now let us suppose that God did love every soul that ever would live, and Jesus Christ laid down His life so that every one of us would have equal opportunity to receive eternal life through believing in Him, and that the Spirit of God provides to every person a measure of grace sufficient to enable them to accept the gift of His sacrifice.  None of this precludes a limited atonement nor makes the blood of Christ ineffectual because while the gift of God is offered unto all, it only functions for those who receive it, and the receiving of it is an act, not of the flesh, but in response to grace, and enabled by grace.  All of this is, of course, foreknown (foreordained, if you will) by God in eternity, but does nothing to negate the free will of humanity-- the enablement is given; the choice is offered.
     If I should pay the required price to buy a slave's freedom, but that slave, afterward, knowingly chooses to stay with his master, have we not both made legitimate choices?  My ransom was not without merit, for it actually redeemed that person.  That the person in question refused the gift and returned willingly to bondage merely refuses, but cannot erase the effectiveness of the price paid.
     On the night of the passover, if a Hebrew partook of the sacrificed lamb but failed to splash its blood upon the lintels of the house, what would the result have been?  The price was paid when the lamb was slain, and failure to apply the blood could not negate that, but certainly would prevent one's participation in the benefit thereof.
     So, in the scenerio suggested above, the Elect, the WE/US of all H's epistlary citations, would consist of those, chosen before time, who respond in time, by grace, to the gift of God.  The election, thus defined, is still entirely a matter of God's choosing and entirely according to God's grace, in spite of the inclusion of man's free will.

     I am not saying that I believe this, nor that I disbelieve H's presentation.  I appreciate the merits of both viewpoints, but remain unconvinced of either.  I am not unwilling to accept a clearcut concept, but I am not certain one is available (or necessary) at present, because I have yet to see one that impresses me as being such.  I do believe, however, that if it is crucial to my faith, to my spiritual walk, to my worship or service to Christ (i.e., if it is important to Him at any point in time), that I will see the truth of this matter because I am willing and desirous, and He is able to deliver me.

al