Featured Not commonly understood.

SALUS ELECTORUM, SANGUIS JESU; OR,

THE DEATH OF DEATH IN THE DEATH OF CHRIST:
by John Owen 1647

A TREATISE OF THE REDEMPTION AND RECONCILIATION
THAT IS IN THE BLOOD OF CHRIST;

THE MERIT OF IT, AND THE SATISFACTION WORKED BY IT:
IN WHICH
THE PROPER END OF THE DEATH OF CHRIST IS ASSERTED;

THE IMMEDIATE EFFECTS AND FRUITS OF IT ARE ASSIGNED,
WITH THEIR EXTENT IN RESPECT TO ITS OBJECT;

And The Whole Controversy About Universal Redemption Fully Discussed.

 

Title is longer than your posts

 

Hahaha. Love ya Alan! You sure get a lot of grief on here man

 

Logos is a name for the Second Person of the Trinity. In English Logos is translated as "Word."

Certainly the Second Person of the Trinity has always existed, including before anything was created. So, Logos was not a man, God incarnate, before He was God incarnate, John 1:14.

Since Logos is 100% God, He has in some sense, remained "not a man." So rather than twice, Logos has always been "not only a man."

People, too full of themselves, speculate that Logos remains incarnate, as the bodily resurrected Jesus, and does not operate as a Spirit capable of omnipresence. All these assertions are long of invention and short on biblical support. For sure, we see as through a glass darkly.

 

Please define “twice not a man”.

 

what are you on about?

 

Jesus Christ still has His "Human Nature", and is The God-Man, as after His Incarnation

"For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily" Colossians 2:9

The Greek verb, "katoikei", is in the present, continuance tense, "continues to dwell".

Then we have "sōmatikōs", which means, "corporeally", that is, "a real BODY and not spiritual"

Acts 1:11 tells us

"who also said, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will so come in like manner as you saw Him go into heaven.”

The SAME Jesus Christ Who entered Heaven at His Ascension, as God-Man, with a real human Body, will Come back in exactly the SAME way!

Jesus' Human Nature did not "dissolve" after His Resurrection, His Body did "transform"...

 

"What does Owen say about Luke 22:19-21
where Jesus includes Judas in His atonement?"

The main significance of John Owen's thoughts were on:

"The Cross Ratifies a New Covenant.

On the cross, Jesus completed the work He was sent to do.

He was faithful to the very end.

He set His face like a flint for Jerusalem (Luke 9:51),
anticipating the death that awaited Him.

He went to the cross knowing that His blood would be poured out
and ratify the New Covenant (Luke 22:20)."

How John Owen Would Run an Accountability Group

Check this out.

Here is what John Owen said on Luke 22:20-23;
Notice that which is in red. Interesting.

Looks like a great Commentary to have.

"Likewise also the cup after supper, saying,
l This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you."

I 1 Co. 10 : 16.

Likewise, i. e. having offered thanks to God (Matthew and Mark),
and holding it in his hand to give to his disciples.

New testament or new covenant.

Matt. 26 : 28. The same word is employed here as in Heb. 8:8.

It signifies a covenant or promise on the part of God to His people,
sanctioned with the blood of victims (see Exod. 24 : 3-12; Deut. 5 : 2),
and depending upon certain stipulated conditions.

It is here called the new covenant, in contradistinction
rather from the Mosaic than from the Abrahamic covenant
(Gen. 15:1-18; 17 : 1-19 ; Gal. 3 : 17),

which in its most enlarged sense embraced all the blessings
and provisions of the new covenant, in the promise that in
"His seed all the nations of the earth should be blessed"
(Gen. 22 : 18).

This new testament, unlike the old covenant,
which was ratified by the blood of bulls, and goats, and calves,
was ratified by the blood of Christ,

"who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God,
to purge the conscience from dead works to serve the living God ;

"for which cause he is the mediator of the new testament,
that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions
that were under the first testament,

"they which are called
might receive the promise of eternal inheritance."
Heb. 9 : 14, 15.

The cup of the new testament was so called, because the wine was emblematical of its ratification by the blood of Jesus Christ. See Heb. 9:11-28.

Which is shed, &c. This grammatically refers to cup,
but in reality to blood, as will be seen
by a reference to the parallel passage in Matthew and Mark.

The wine, expressed from the bruised and trodden grapes,
and poured forth into the cup, becomes an apt
and striking emblem of the blood of Christ shed
or poured out for the sins of men.

For you, i. e. in behalf of you.
An expiatory or vicarious shedding of blood
is clearly taught in this form of expression.

21 "But, behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me
is with me on the table."

Ps. 41, Mat. 26: 21,23; Ma. 14: 13; John 13 : 21, 26.
Matt. 26 : 21 ; Mark 14 : 18.

According to the order of events in Luke,
it would appear that Judas partook of the Eucharist.

But we have seen in this evangelist so many instances
of a departure from the strict order of events,
that we should hesitate very much in taking this as conclusive evidence
that such was the real fact.

Matthew and Mark both represent the incident referred to here by Luke,
as taking place while they were eating the passover,
and before the establishment of the Lord's supper.

No one who compares the order of these two evangelists
with John 13 : 21-35, can well avoid the conclusion
that Judas left the table on his dark and traitorous errand,
before the establishment of the institution of the Lord's supper.

The hand, &c. An Oriental mode of expression,
to denote that a person was reclining at the same table with another.

The odiousness of his act is also strongly set forth
in the violation of all the laws and rites of hospitality,
which was evinced in this betrayal of one with whom
he had been on intimate terms of intercourse.

That betrayeth me has in all the Evangelists the participial form
in the present tense, which gives the sense that is betraying me.

His mind was filled with his traitorous plans,
and although the overt act had been only in part performed
(see vs. 3-6),

yet as he reclined at the table,
his thoughts were busy in devising and maturing the means
of effecting his promise made to the chief priests and Pharisees.

22 "And truly the Son of man goeth, ° as it was determined:
but woe unto that man by whom he is betrayed!"

Mat. 26: 24. o Ac. 2 : 23; & 4 : 28, Mark 14: 21.

Luke's as it was determined,
is in Matthew and Mark, as it is written of him.

The literal signification is according to that which has been
accurately defined or bounded off in the plan or determination of God.

The idea is that the whole transaction, including not only the main
or principal event, but all its accessories, was in accordance
with the sovereign purpose and foreknowledge of God.

Hence his betrayal by Judas was a part of this divine plan,
and yet such is the liberty of human choice and purpose,
so free was Judas in all that he did to have done otherwise,
had he chosen thus to do, that his guilt was the same
as though his deed of betrayal
had never been contemplated in the divine mind.

Compare Acts 2 : 23, where it is expressly declared that Jesus
was delivered to be crucified, by the determinate counsel
and foreknowledge of God, and yet that it was with wicked hands
that he was crucified and slain by his enemies.

23 "And they began to inquire among themselves,
which of them it was that should do this thing."

Mat. 26 . 22 ; John 13 : 22, 25.

It was no excuse for their atrocious deed,
that the Lamb without blemish and without spot
was foreordained before the foundation of the world
to be slain for the redemption of man (1 Pet. 1:18-21).

They acted as free moral agents. They planned, counselled,
purposed, executed, just as men do in all the concerns of life,
freely and without constraint.

Yet the great truth is here revealed that the wrath of man,
in this most awful act ever performed on earth, was praising God
(Ps. 76 : 10),
in the carrying out of his purpose that His Son Jesus Christ
should die for the sins of men,
and by precisely the same death
which was inflicted upon Him on Calvary
(Ps. 22:16).
...

Calvin doubles down on those whom he says
would have 'salvation provided',
to the extent that it could save Satan.

Calvin. In his commentary on 1 John: "I pass by the dotages of fanatics,
who under this pretense extend salvation to all the reprobate,
and therefore to Satan himself.

Such a monstrous thing deserves no refutation . . . .

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."

HOW TO HANDLE SO-CALLED PROBLEM PASSAGES ON THE EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT by Curtis I. Crenshaw
...

 

No matter what, I don't see:

".... Luke 22:19-21 where Jesus includes Judas in His atonement."

Jesus wanted to Institute
His Divine church Ordinance of The Lord's Supper.

15 "And he said unto them, With desire I have desired
to eat this passover with you before I suffer:"

Who Jesus was talking to and talking about, here,
who specifically would eat again with Him
when it was fulfilled in the kingdom of God, isn't stated in so many words.

We need to go ahead and consent to the fact that Judas
was not being included in these words of Jesus' future Promise
that He was going to be eating again thereof,
once it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.

16 "For I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof,
until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God."

Jesus took the cup and all that was involved here was symbolic.

17 "And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said,
Take this, and divide it among yourselves:

Again, Jesus is Promising WHO, when He said
that He would be drinking the fruit of the vine with "you"?,

...again, once the kingdom of God was come?

Judas?

That wasn't going to happen and Jesus knew that.

18 "For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine,
until the kingdom of God shall come."

"This is My body", of course, speaking of the bread
as symbolic of His body that He would be giving.

19 "And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it,
and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you:
this do in remembrance of me.

And this cup was only representative of Jesus' blood He would shed.

Jesus was Omnipotent and therefore fully capable of speaking to,
and referring to, exactly who He intended to be referencing, when He said,
this is "My blood which is shed for you".

Is it His real blood? No.

Did He absolutely speak to Judas with these words? Jesus knows for sure.
Doesn't make sense that He would have been.

Does speaking to a group and saying "you"
never preclude the presence of any exclusion? No.

Where else would we come up with the common expression,
"Present company excluded"?

"Of course".

20 "Likewise also the cup after supper, saying,
This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you."

Jesus already knew enough to know Judas would not be the recipient
of the saving efficacy of His Atoning blood.

21 "But, behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me
is with me on the table."

22 "And truly the Son of man goeth, as it was determined:
but woe unto that man by whom he is betrayed!"

Now, did Judas hear these following words spoken by Jesus?

28 "Ye are they which have continued with me in my temptations.

Was Judas appointed to "a kingdom",
as Jesus' Father had appointed Him?

29 "And I appoint unto you a kingdom,
as my Father hath appointed unto me;

If Judas heard these words, where they fulfilled?

30 "That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom,
and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel."

Did Judas "eat and drink at Jesus' table in His kingdom,
and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel?

If not, then certainly to suggest Jesus intended to be addressing Judas
in His Promises He spoke to the other Apostles, regarding the Saving Value
of His Atoning death, burial, and resurrection, need not to be advanced.

 

I notice that you "reformed" guys, do pick and choose only those "reformed" theologians that support what you believe, and omit those that don't!

Here is what Matthew Henry and John Gill and John Calvin have to say

On Luke's Account

Matthew Henry,

"By placing this after the institution of the Lord’s supper, though in Matthew and Mark it is placed before it, it seems plain that Judas did receive the Lord’s supper, did eat of that bread and drink of that cup; for, after the solemnity was over, Christ said, Behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table."

John Gill

"From Luke's account it appears most clearly, that Judas was not only at the passover, but at the Lord's supper, since this was said when both were over"

Then we have John Calvin on Mark 14:24, which is the Lord's Supper, where it is clear that Calvin believed that Jesus Christ also Died for Judas

"Which is shed for many. By the word many he means not a part of the world only, but the whole human race; for he contrasts many with one; as if he had said, that he will not be the Redeemer of one man only, but will die in order to deliver many from the condemnation of the curse."

It is clear from Calvin’s comments on this verse, that Judas is included in the word “many”.

Note that Calvin says that MANY here is not only the ELECT, but, THE WHOLE HUMAN RACE!

 

While there is not one hair of a "reformed" anything in my Pedigree,
as you may have noticed, I will reference a Ruckmanite,
or maybe even one of whatever you are,
if they have some good research that is right
and God can be Worshipped and Adored and Glorified from it.

You have a predisposed bias against someone "reformed"
across the board, or something?

What possible difference could it make, in Heaven or on Earth,
if Judas took four billion Lord's Suppers,
STRAIGHT FROM THE HANDS OF JESUS CHRIST,
THE SAVIOR AND ETERNAL SON OF GOD???

AND ALONG WITH ALL THAT GREAT BIG ASTONISHING DEVELOPMENT
EVERYTHING ABOUT THE ENTIRE SUBJECT STILL AMOUNTS TO ZERO.

Who is the author of these words, "By the word many he means"?

Who would ever say that "many" means "the whole human race"?

Did John Calvin say that?

Not that it matters any more than the price of eggs in China,
but it just doesn't sound too swift me.

How much infestation would have to go into a thesis like that?

Is someone trying to to deduce that "many" means "the whole human race",
BECAUSE, or "for he contrasts many with one"?

John Calvin "contrasts many" with "one"?

"Many" is the "opposite of one"?

So, therefore, "many" equals "the whole human race"?

That's it?

That's your theory?

And who the world is this "as if he said" advisor?

Anyone particular in the whole human race?

"as if he had said, that he will not be the Redeemer of one man only,
but will die in order to deliver many from the condemnation of the curse"...

For anyone to say, Jesus "will not be the Redeemer of one man only,
but will die in order to deliver many from the condemnation of the curse"
is a theologically sound Doctrinal position, Biblically speaking.

Is that your new position?

You changed it up in the middle of a
Godly Men of God serving God Hit-Piece?

Either way, this conclusion is far from "clear".

Maybe you should have used the word "explicit".

Judas wasn't even privy to the conversation of Jesus with His Apostles,
other than as an interloper, imposter, eavesdropper.

I hate to tell you this, but Mark 14:24 is in my Bible, too.

"And He said unto them,
This is My blood of the new testament,
which is shed for many."

If there is anywhere else that teaches Jesus Promised
that He would shed His Blood for "many",
I don't know where it would be,
except maybe in your own writings in your own posts.

You know why?

Because Mark 14:24 says,
"...He said unto them,
This is My blood of the new testament,
which is shed for many."

How's that?

Pretty rock solid theologically sound Doctrinal position, Biblically speaking.

I like it.

I thank you, for it.

I'm sorry you put things into words like the last six, above.

Horror.

Half of this one cleared the net.

Truism: "Note that Calvin says that MANY here is not only the ELECT,"

Yeah, you better believe it, Amen. Biblical, man.

My position, again.

Good job.

Rock solid theologically sound Doctrinal position, Biblically speaking.

Then, there's this travesty:
One More Falsity Galore: "but, THE WHOLE HUMAN RACE!"

"The Elect" are "THE WHOLE HUMAN RACE"......

Ah, no. They aren't equals. Nice try, though. 50% that go round.
Not the worst ever known to Mankind.

 

Judas took the bread and wine that represents the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ shed on the cross for him!

You can't refute the Infallible Word of God

 

1) Which verses refer to Christ's "human nature" other than being incarnate?

2) Yes, Christ was in bodily form from birth, including His days of ministry, suffering and death. The grammar does not address Christ being limited to only bodily form after His ascension.

3) The fact Logos took bodily (human) form is not in dispute.

4) The fact Christ will return in bodily form is not in dispute.

5) No one said or suggested Christ could not manifest Himself in bodily form after His ascension..

 

I’m just not concerned about Judas.

He made a bad choice, but it’s done.

 

Not for our sins but for the whole world.

 

This is the world!... Brother Glen

1 John 4: 7 Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God.

8 He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.

9 In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.

10 Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.

If God is not the purpose and source of love, where did you get it?

Btw... I'm talking about agape love, spiritual not physical!

 

Yep. The bread and wine represents the Boby and Blood of Jesus. They are symbolic of of the Death, Burial, and Resurrection of Jesus by which Jesus Obtained Eternal Salvation for the chosen one God had given Him.

That symbol doesn't save just any old body that partakes of it.

Jesus hadn't shed His Blood yet and Judas was dead and in Hell before He did.

Nothing indicates anything otherwise than that Judas was a devil from the beginning and any presumption that Jesus was saying, "this means you, too, Judas" as opposed His simply meaning of what He said to those He intended to, to the exclusion of one present company, Judas, is eisegesis.

And not eisegesis that is friendly towards God, or His Son.

I'll be glad if you do see a nickel's worth of something in the Word of God, every six months or better.