Poll: For whom did Christ die?

[asterisktom]

Spurgeon, on the shenanigans some Calvinism enthusiasts undertake when the pesky Scripture just doesn't line up with their "grand theory":

[I Tim. 2:4]

"What then? Shall we try to put another meaning into the text than that which it fairly bears? I trow not. You must, most of you, be acquainted with the general method in which our older Calvinistic friends deal with this text. "All men," say they, —"that is, some men": as if the Holy Ghost could not have said "some men" if he had meant some men. "All men," say they; "that is, some of all sorts of men": as if the Lord could not have said "all sorts of men" if he had meant that. The Holy Ghost by the apostle has written "all men," and unquestionably he means all men. I know how to get rid of the force of the "alls" according to that critical method which some time ago was very current, but I do not see how it can be applied here with due regard to truth. I was reading just now the exposition of a very able doctor who explains the text so as to explain it away; he applies grammatical gunpowder to it, and explodes it by way of expounding it. I thought when I read his exposition that it would have been a very capital comment upon the text if it had read, "Who will not have all men to be saved, nor come to a knowledge of the truth." Had such been the inspired language every remark of the learned doctor would have been exactly in keeping, but as it happens to say, "Who will have all men to be saved," his observations are more than a little out of place. My love of consistency with my own doctrinal views is not great enough to allow me knowingly to alter a single text of Scripture. I have great respect for orthodoxy, but my reverence for inspiration is far greater. I would sooner a hundred times over appear to be inconsistent with myself than be inconsistent with the word of God. I never thought it to be any very great crime to seem to be inconsistent with myself, for who am I that I should everlastingly be consistent? But I do think it a great crime to be so inconsistent with the word of God that I should want to lop away a bough or even a twig from so much as a single tree of the forest of Scripture. God forbid that I should cut or shape, even in the least degree, any divine expression. So runs the text, and so we must read it, "God our Saviour; who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth."" —Salvation By Knowing the Truth

Good man that Spurgeon is, he is just in error here. Consider this:

1. The immediate context gives a hint as to Paul's intention. He wanted Timothy to not only pray for those types of people "likely" to be saved (the poor, the servants, the oppressed, etc.) but also "for kings and all who are in authority". IOW, Timothy is not to think that God's Spirit is not also at work in those sorts of people.

2. Even in these pastoral epistles we find uses of limited "all's": Paul tells Titus, for instance, that

"the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men." Titus 2:11

Now I don't believe anyone here would agree - I hope not - that God's grace has indeed appeared to all men. Bear in mind that the next verses (12 and 13) further describe the evidences of this apparent-to-all grace: A teaching minnistry of denil of sin and self, sobriety, righteousness, patient and victorious waiting for the Lord's parousia.

Has this grace appeared to all men? Of course not. But this grace has appeared to all types of men. This is Paul's point and intended usage, both here and in 1 Timothy 2:4.

3. If Spurgeon were right on his interpretation then we would have a contradiction in the purpose and will of God when this verse is compared to 2 Tim. 2:25.

"in humility correcting those who are in opposition, if God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth."

In 1 Tim. 2:4 His willingness for salvation of all men is taken for granted.
In 2 Tim.2:25 His willingness is now - inconsistently - called into question. ("If God perhaps will grant repentance.")

These things need to be carefully studied on our own. We dare not overvalue the conclusions of any (Spurgeon, Calvin, Hunt, etc.). We must each do our own Bible study.

 

[Winman]

Well, the thing is, Spurgeon could be very inconsistent. At times he seemed to hold to consistent Calvinistic theology, and in another sermon he would disagree as was shown by the sermon posted. When it came to Titus 2:11 he agreed with the Calvinist view.

'The whole world is gone after him.' Did all the world go after Christ? 'Then went all Judea, and were baptized of him in Jordan.' Was all Judea, or all Jerusalem baptized in Jordan? 'Ye are of God, little children', and 'the whole world lieth in the wicked one.' Does 'the whole world' there mean everybody? If so, how was it, then, that there were some who were 'of God?' The words 'world' and 'all' are used in some seven or eight senses in Scripture; and it is very rarely that 'all' means all persons, taken individually. The words are generally used to signify that Christ has redeemed some of all sorts—some Jews, some Gentiles, some rich, some poor, and has not restricted his redemption to either Jew or Gentile." (Charles H. Spurgeon, Particular Redemption, A Sermon, 28 Feb

The problem with this kind of argument is that it makes men appear much wiser than God, as if God was not capable of expressing himself properly. You have God saying "all men" when he really only meant "the elect". Now, why couldn't God have said "the elect" instead of "all men"? I could do that, and so could you. Most kids could do that. Why are men necessary to explain God's many misleading statements? Why did God use so many misleading words and statements?

You Cals believe God is sovereign, but you do not have much faith in his choice of words in scripture and feel you have to correct him, or at least explain when God mistakingly used misleading language.

 

[Rippon]

When it came to Titus 2:11 he agreed with the Calvinist view.



The problem with this kind of argument is that it makes men appear much wiser than God, as if God was not capable of expressing himself properly. You have God saying "all men" when he really only meant "the elect". Now, why couldn't God have said "the elect" instead of "all men"? I could do that, and so could you. Most kids could do that. Why are men necessary to explain God's many misleading statements? Why did God use so many misleading words and statements?

You Cals believe God is sovereign, but you do not have much faith in his choice of words in scripture and feel you have to correct him, or at least explain when God mistakingly used misleading language.

So do you deny that the word "world" has some seven or eight different senses in Scripture? Do you also deny that it rarely means every single person -- head-for-head?

 

[psalms109:31]

chosen

Matthew 22:

The Parable of the Wedding Banquet
1Jesus spoke to them again in parables, saying: 2"The kingdom of heaven is like a king who prepared a wedding banquet for his son. 3He sent his servants to those who had been invited to the banquet to tell them to come, but they refused to come.

4"Then he sent some more servants and said, 'Tell those who have been invited that I have prepared my dinner: My oxen and fattened cattle have been butchered, and everything is ready. Come to the wedding banquet.'

5"But they paid no attention and went off—one to his field, another to his business. 6The rest seized his servants, mistreated them and killed them. 7The king was enraged. He sent his army and destroyed those murderers and burned their city.

8"Then he said to his servants, 'The wedding banquet is ready, but those I invited did not deserve to come. 9Go to the street corners and invite to the banquet anyone you find.' 10So the servants went out into the streets and gathered all the people they could find, both good and bad, and the wedding hall was filled with guests.

11"But when the king came in to see the guests, he noticed a man there who was not wearing wedding clothes. 12'Friend,' he asked, 'how did you get in here without wedding clothes?' The man was speechless.

13"Then the king told the attendants, 'Tie him hand and foot, and throw him outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.'

14"For many are invited, but few are chosen."

God was pretty angry with the elect at this time because of their unbelief. So if you want to look at it that way then He was talking about other than the elect. He was cutting them out for unbelief, He was only keeping those who were meek and humble who trusted in the Lord.

Only those who are dressed for the banquet those who are in Christ will be chosen.

If God is calling you please come no matter what men may say. They are not fighting you they are fighting God and Jesus will in no wise cast you out.

 

[rbell]

You have God saying "all men" when he really only meant "the elect". Now, why couldn't God have said "the elect" instead of "all men"? I could do that, and so could you. Most kids could do that. Why are men necessary to explain God's many misleading statements? Why did God use so many "misleading" words and statements?

With this part of your quote, I agree completeley. Calvinists have to work overtime in "well, this is what God really meant" mode to handle limited atonement.

It involves taking a simple verse and obfuscating it. Not so much with the other tenets of calvinism, IMO...but you have to do a ton of it with regards to limited atonement.

 

[Winman]

So do you deny that the word "world" has some seven or eight different senses in Scripture? Do you also deny that it rarely means every single person -- head-for-head?

No, I do not deny that some words can have a different meaning when taken in context. But when it comes to the question of whether Jesus died for all men, or for the elect only, you have many, many verses that show it means all of mankind, including the lost, and not the elect only.

Isa 53:6 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.

There isn't a Calvinist under the sun who would deny that the first "all" in this verse means all of mankind, but then they will try to say the second "all" does not. Foolishness.

2 Pet 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

This verse speaks of lost men, heretics who are bringing swift destruction upon themselves, yet this verse says Jesus "bought them". Calvinists go to ridiculous extremes and try to argue that "Lord" in this verse does not mean Jesus. Again, pure foolishness.

Did you know that even Calvin admitted late in his life that Jesus died for all men? He did.

In later days Calvin wrote in his Commentary on <620202>1 John 2:2 — “he is the propitiation for our sins and not for ours only, but also for the whole world.” Calvin goes on to say, “Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world, and in the goodness of God is offered unto all men without distinction, his blood being shed not for a part of the world only, but for the whole human race. For although in the world nothing is found worthy of the favor of God, yet he holds out the propitiation to the whole world, since without exception he summons all to the faith of Christ, which is nothing else than the door unto hope.”

So, even Calvin himself modified his view late in life. So, you are not really a Calvinist if you believe in Limited Atonement.

 

[asterisktom]

Isa 53:6 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.

There isn't a Calvinist under the sun who would deny that the first "all" in this verse means all of mankind, but then they will try to say the second "all" does not. Foolishness.

Foolishness indeed - if anyone should take winman as an expert on what all Calvinists believe.

I was going to type a longer response to this old chestnut of Arminian proof, Isa. 53;6, but I saw this link that pretty much says what I would have.
http://theworldfrommywindow.blogspot.com/2007/03/message-for-all-non-five-pointers.html

Short answer: The first "all" is not universal. Neither, consequently, is the second.

 

[Rippon]

Isa 53:6 All we(all of 'us') like sheep have gone astray; we ('us')have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us ( the same group -- a subset of every single person who has and shall live)all.

2 Pet 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

Redemption is not in view in this passage.

Did you know that even Calvin admitted late in his life that Jesus died for all men? He did.

No, he did not.

So, even Calvin himself modified his view late in life.

Here is a snip of what he said in his commentary:

...the design of John was no other than to make this benefit common to the whole church. Then under the word all or whole, he does not include the reprobate, but designates those who should believe as well as those who were then scattered through various parts of the world. For then is really made evident, as is meet, the grace of Christ, when it is declared to be the only true salvation of the world."

So, you are not really a Calvinist if you believe in Limited Atonement.

Nonsense. Of course believing in particular redemption or definite atonement is a central doctrine of Calvinism.

 

[psalms109:31]

Elect

God had to start off with an election because all have gone astray. He chose them from what He said He will keep the meek and humble who trust in the name of the Lord.

Through this remnant God will reach the whole world.
This is how it's going.

John 15
The Vine and the Branches
1"I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener. 2He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes[The Greek for prunes also means cleans.] so that it will be even more fruitful. 3You are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you. 4Remain in me, and I will remain in you. No branch can bear fruit by itself; it must remain in the vine. Neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in me.

5"I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. 6If anyone does not remain in me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned. 7If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be given you. 8This is to my Father's glory, that you bear much fruit, showing yourselves to be my disciples.

Through this elect God is going to also going to include those who hear the Gospel of their salvation having believed.

Ephesians 1:13
And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit,14who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God's possession—to the praise of his glory.

We see here Paul saying this.

1 Timothy 2:
1I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone— 2for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness.

Then Paul continually talking about everyone those in the above scripture

3This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. 5For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6who gave himself as a ransom for all men—the testimony given in its proper time.

Then apparently people didn't believe him either and then say's

7And for this purpose I was appointed a herald and an apostle—I am telling the truth, I am not lying—and a teacher of the true faith to the Gentiles.

I will not deny the elect, but also I will not deny the world the hope it has through Jesus either. This unnecessary quarreling is over two sides of the same coin.

 

[RAdam]

Well, the thing is, Spurgeon could be very inconsistent. At times he seemed to hold to consistent Calvinistic theology, and in another sermon he would disagree as was shown by the sermon posted. When it came to Titus 2:11 he agreed with the Calvinist view.



The problem with this kind of argument is that it makes men appear much wiser than God, as if God was not capable of expressing himself properly. You have God saying "all men" when he really only meant "the elect". Now, why couldn't God have said "the elect" instead of "all men"? I could do that, and so could you. Most kids could do that. Why are men necessary to explain God's many misleading statements? Why did God use so many misleading words and statements?

You Cals believe God is sovereign, but you do not have much faith in his choice of words in scripture and feel you have to correct him, or at least explain when God mistakingly used misleading language.

No, the problem is modern man refuses to take into account the context of the times in which scripture was written. The new testament was written with this basic context: Up until that time the Jews had been pretty much the sole possessors of true worship. Unto them were committed the oracles of God, while the gentiles were left in spiritual darkness. The Jews took this fact and twisted it in their minds to believe they were better than the Gentiles, and that the benefits of the Messiah was to be to them only. Racism was alive and well way back then. The new testament affirms over and over again that there isn't a single bit of difference in man naturally, that all (Jew and Gentile alike) are under sin, needing salvation. The new testament then explains repeatedly that salvation is given the same way to all men, be they Jew or Gentile. Then the new testament says that believers among both Jews and Gentiles are to be brought into the gospel church in the same standing. This was a radical idea at the time, offensive particularly to the Jews. Consider the council in Jerusalem: it wasn't until Peter stood up pointed to what God had earlier taught him and openly displayed thereby that the people there at Jerusalem quit arguing about this and saw that God was treating the believing Gentiles the same as them.

It is in this context that many times the new testament will refer to all men, the world, and the whole world.

 

[RAdam]

"There isn't a Calvinist under the sun who would deny that the first "all" in this verse means all of mankind, but then they will try to say the second "all" does not. Foolishness."

You would call me a "calvinist" (though really I'm not a follower of Calvin, simply one who believes in the doctine of grace, which was believed in long before Calvin was born) and I'll readily tell you I don't believe the first "all" is universal. I believe the first all and the second all are the elect, the sheep, for whom Christ died, and in His death really saved. These are they given Him of the Father, who shall come to Him, whom He will not cast out. These are they whom He sanctified by the offering of His body, whom He hath perfected forever, whom He is not ashamed to call His brethren. These are the ones He justifies because He bore their iniquities. You see, that's the problem with universtal atonement. It denies the power of the death of Jesus Christ. After all, if He died for people already in hell, and people that would end up in hell, what did His death really do? But the scriptures teach that the death of Jesus was efficacious, that is really and truly accomplished something. That is what I, and all true believers in the doctrine of grace, affirm. We say that when Christ died He was victorious. He was the victor over death, hell, sin, Satan, and the grave, and He hath given us the victory that we shall be with Him praising His wonderful salvation forever.

 

[psalms109:31]

Going against the church

Well, the thing is, Spurgeon could be very inconsistent. At times he seemed to hold to consistent Calvinistic theology, and in another sermon he would disagree as was shown by the sermon posted. When it came to Titus 2:11 he agreed with the Calvinist view.

In Spurgeon day, if you went against the "church" at that time you would be murdered by the "church".

He went through one verse and in his notes he writes shout this point "that those who come to Christ He will in no wise cast out" . Another time said that it doesn't matter if you think you are an elect or not or that you are not good enough or you have other things to do, you come to Jesus and He will no wise cast you out.

Spurgeon in those days with all the opposition did a good job reaching the world for Christ.

 

[fixit3546]

I have a question for my learned fellows.

I am new at this, pretty much just starting out. Tell me I pray...

Should I Evangelize?
Does it matter?
How do I recognize the elect so that I don't waste my time on the others?
I have run from this calling for at least 8 years. Should I quit again?
Is it pointless to tell of Grace and Christ's Love?

 

[Rippon]

I have a question for my learned fellows.

I am new at this, pretty much just starting out. Tell me I pray...

Should I Evangelize?

Of course. It's a command of our Lord.

Does it matter?

Yesiree, a command of the Lord is to be taken seriously.

How do I recognize the elect so that I don't waste my time on the others?

Some of the elect are curently saved, others will be. By their fruit you show know them. But we don't know with certainty,only the Lord does.

Since there is no identifying mark on the reprobate -- no, you are not wasting your time on anyone. There is a purpose worked out by the Lord for you to share the law/gospel with those whose destiny is everlasting perdition.

I have run from this calling for at least 8 years. Should I quit again?

What calling? Are you taliking about obeying the Great Commission, or not obeying it?

Is it pointless to tell of Grace and Christ's Love?

Of course not. That's a silly question.

Welcome to the BB.

 

[Rippon]

In Spurgeon's day, if you went against the "church" at that time you would be murdered by the "church".

What in the world are you talking about? Many of your "sayings" are very mysterious. I have no idea what you are addressing.

He went through one verse and in his notes he writes shout this point "that those who come to Christ He will in no wise cast out" . Another time said that it doesn't matter if you think you are an elect or not or that you are not good enough or you have other things to do, you come to Jesus and He will no wise cast you out.

Those the Father brings to Jesus will (in KJV-speak) in no wise be cast out.

Spurgeon in those days with all the opposition did a good job reaching the world for Christ.

A lot of fellow Baptists were against him -- hence what he called the downgrade movement.

 

[psalms109:31]

Who

The real question is who the Father will give to Christ.

What does the scripture say. That He will keep those who are meek and humble who trust in the name of the Lord, and this also

John 6:

45It is written in the Prophets: 'They will all be taught by God.'[Isaiah 54:13] Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me.

We know that God does things for a reason and just don't choose random people from beginning of the creation. He choose those who are in Christ so from the foundation it is Jesus and those who are in Him.

2 Chronicles 16:9
For the eyes of the LORD range throughout the earth to strengthen those whose hearts are fully committed to him. You have done a foolish thing, and from now on you will be at war."

This war needs to end

 

[psalms109:31]

Sorry forgot to put this in there

John 14:24
He who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me.

 

[psalms109:31]

Book

Spurgeon v. Hyper-Calvinism: The Battle for Gospel Preaching
~ Iain H. Murray

This is pretty good book that explains his opposition

 

[Rippon]

The real question is who the Father will give to Christ.

The ones who chooses to have mercy upon. He mercies some, and hardens others.

We know that God does things for a reason and just don't choose random people from beginning of the creation.

The only ones speaking of God doing anything by random are non-Cals charging Calvinists with such nonsense.

This war needs to end

What war? Be specific.

 

[Rippon]

John 14:24
He who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me.

All of those who the Father brings to Jesus are enemies of God. We (the elect) were at enmity with God.

But we're getting a little far afield of the OP.