Father Forgive Them

[Jerome]

And when they were come to the place, which is called Calvary, there they crucified him, and the malefactors, one on the right hand, and the other on the left. Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.

For whom exactly was Christ interceding?

 

[TomVols]

The consensus is that he was interceding for those who were crucifying him out of sheer ignorance, yet not to be confused with an innocent ignorance.

By application, he may indeed be praying for us all. But the meaning of the text is that above.

Do you disagree with this consensus?

 

[Jerome]

I have been told by Calvinists that "Christ intercedes for his elect only".

So all those crucifying him in sheer ignorance became believers, is that right?

 

[TomVols]

Never heard that.

No basis to assume all his enemies he was addressing became converted.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I never heard that either

 

[Alive in Christ]

Christ could have had more the one group on his mind.

Those who condemned him.
Those who participated in the crucifiction
All people, from Adam and Eve up till today.

That doesnt of course mean that all are saved, for most will not place their faith in Christ alone.

But the scriptures are clear as a bell that "the sins of the whole world" have been forgiven. And that clearly means every...single...person.

:godisgood:
:jesus:

 

[Van]

Luke 23:34 seems to fulfill Isaiah 53:12, with Christ praying for those putting Him to death. Praying for our enemies is both commanded, Matthew 5:44, and is given as instruction here by example.

The risen Christ is our High Priest, He stands before God and intercedes on our behalf, Romans 8:34.

The question asked in post #3 is a good one. Hebrews 7:25 appears to indicate Christ intercedes for those who draw near to God "through Him." And these would not be lost sinners separated from God due to being in a spiritually dead state, but those who have been made alive, together with Christ - those whose faith God has credited as righteousness and spiritually placed "in Christ."

I think it would be a mistake to think Christ's intercession providing salvation, is meant by Christ praying for the lost. Apples and oranges. So while I think it is correct to say Christ only "intercedes" on behalf of the elect, as presented in Hebrews 7:25, it would be wrong to say Christ did not "intercede" on behalf of the lost when He laid down His life as a ransom for all.

 

[convicted1]

And when they were come to the place, which is called Calvary, there they crucified him, and the malefactors, one on the right hand, and the other on the left. Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.

For whom exactly was Christ interceding?

I believe that by what Jesus said, He was showing us that the Jews did not know that He was the Messiah that had been prophesied of for centuries. God blinded their eyes and dulled their hearing so that they would put Him to death by crucifixion. If they really knew that Jesus was the Messiah, they would not have crucified Him, therefore, the prophecies would have been left unfulfilled.

i am I AM's!!

Willis

 

[Jerome]

Calvinists comment on the OP scripture:

yes, He is praying, not for the world, but those who will believe in Him

Pastor P. G Mathew, "Last Words of Life: Living Words from the Dying Lord":

It was a prayer for the elect transgressors

Robert Alexander Webb, D.D., LL.D., Professor of Apologetics and Systematic Theology at the Presbyterian Theological Seminary of Kentucky, in Christian Salvation: Its Doctrine and Experience:

those selected by divine decree to be the instruments of the crucifixion were themselves elected to be the supremest beneficiaries of their own act. What greater trophy of grace than the red-handed murderers of our Lord around the throne

 

[TomVols]

1. Citations from odd sources.
2. Your point?
3. Have you consulted Calvin, Hendriksen, Boice, Gill, Broadus, etc., in seeking other Calvinistic commentator takes on these?

 

[Rippon]

It's a textual variant. In Comfort's book on the New Testament text he has a long entry about it. I'll just quote a fraction of what P.W.C. wrote.

"The omission of these words in early and diverse manuscripts (the earliest being P75) cannot be explained as a scribal blunder.

Contrary to the external evidence and good internal arguments,the words appear in the three Greek editions (TR WH NU) and in all English translations because they have become so much a part of the traditional gospel text that editors of Greek texts and Bible translators alike are not willing to excise this classic statement from their text.

Wh NU double-bracketed this text to show their strong doubts about its inclusion." (p.240)

 

[Robert Snow]

It's a textual variant. In Comfort's book on the New Testament text he has a long entry about it. I'll just quote a fraction of what P.W.C. wrote.

"The omission of these words in early and diverse manuscripts (the earliest being P75) cannot be explained as a scribal blunder.

Contrary to the external evidence and good internal arguments,the words appear in the three Greek editions (TR WH NU) and in all English translations because they have become so much a part of the traditional gospel text that editors of Greek texts and Bible translators alike are not willing to excise this classic statement from their text.

Wh NU double-bracketed this text to show their strong doubts about its inclusion." (p.240)

So, if the verses challenge Calvinism, they must be erroneous and not part of the original. Is this what you are saying?

 

[TomVols]

To say this challenges Calvinism or Arminianism is a theological leap worthy of Olympic gymnastics.

Honestly, people.....a hobby would do you a world of good.

 

[Robert Snow]

To say this challenges Calvinism or Arminianism is a theological leap worthy of Olympic gymnastics.

Honestly, people.....a hobby would do you a world of good.

Many verses and an honest reading to the Word of God challenges the very core of Calvinism. You have to cherry-pick verses and make up new definitions for Calvinism to be viable at all. The bible doesn't support this doctrine at all!

For instance, all cannot mean all for Calvinism to work, thus a new definition. I'm somewhat surprised that the Calvinist hasn't translated their own translation like some others have done.

 

[kyredneck]

Calvinists comment on the OP scripture:

Originally Posted by ReformedBaptist
yes, He is praying, not for the world, but those who will believe in Him

Well, yeah:

I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for those whom thou hast given me; for they are thine: Jn 17:9

 

[David Lamb]

Many verses and an honest reading to the Word of God challenges the very core of Calvinism. You have to cherry-pick verses and make up new definitions for Calvinism to be viable at all. The bible doesn't support this doctrine at all!

For instance, all cannot mean all for Calvinism to work, thus a new definition. I'm somewhat surprised that the Calvinist hasn't translated their own translation like some others have done.

It works the other way, too, Robert. Here's another version of your post:

Many verses and an honest reading of the Word of God challenges the very core of non-calvinism. You have to cherry-pick verses and make up new definitions for non-calvinism to be viable at all. The bible doesn't support this doctrine at all!

For instance, dead cannot mean dead (in Ephesians 2) and no one cannot mean no one (in John 6 )for non-calvinism to work, thus a new definition. I'm somewhat surprised that the non-calvinists haven't translated their own translation like some others have done.
​

 

[Jkdbuck76]

Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.

They didn't know what they did until Peter preached his sermon in Acts 2.
Wonderful how the Holy Spirit opens eyes.

 

[TomVols]

Many verses and an honest reading to the Word of God challenges the very core of Calvinism. You have to cherry-pick verses and make up new definitions for Calvinism to be viable at all. The bible doesn't support this doctrine at all!

For instance, all cannot mean all for Calvinism to work, thus a new definition. I'm somewhat surprised that the Calvinist hasn't translated their own translation like some others have done.

This is completely false, a misrepresentation, and a sweeping generalization. You know better. Or you should.

Now I remember why I don't come in here often. People will turn today's weather report into a reason for or against Calvinism, for or against dispensationalism, or whatever theological burr is under their particular saddle.

 

[Jkdbuck76]

This is completely false, a misrepresentation, and a sweeping generalization. You know better. Or you should.

Now I remember why I don't come in here often. People will turn today's weather report into a reason for or against Calvinism, for or against dispensationalism, or whatever theological burr is under their particular saddle.

I've always dreamed of the cops arresting all the gang member here in Cincy, locking them into the Bengals stadium and dropping machetes on them and to them and let them kill each other off so I don't have to deal with them anymore. Maybe the mods need to make an ultimate "C vs A Ultra Mega Thread" and all flaming gets sent there..... kind of like a mad cow quarantine.

 

[kyredneck]

I've always dreamed of the cops arresting all the gang member here in Cincy, locking them into the Bengals stadium and dropping machetes on them and to them and let them kill each other off so I don't have to deal with them anymore. Maybe the mods need to make an ultimate "C vs A Ultra Mega Thread" and all flaming gets sent there..... kind of like a mad cow quarantine.

This was before my time, but I believe the BB once had a forum devoted only to C vs A, and I can only imagine what a nightmare that became for the moderators, because it's so easy to cross over into that realm when discussing ANYTHING in the scriptures. I don't know if there is an easy solution to it.

[edit] But I have pondered this; a forum devoted ONLY to synergists and another devoted ONLY to monergists (I would love to be able to carry on a dialog with my Calvinist brethren without any outside interference). Each side could peek into what the other is saying but not comment; then meet in the middle. But that probably wouldn't work either. Just a dream world.

[edit again] For those 'undecided' whether they're synergists or monergists, they would be 'stuck in the middle' where they belong.