1 Timothy 2:1-6 Another all?

[padredurand]

Originally posted by johnp.:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />How could any human action diminish the Cross?

They cannot.

That is not to the point. The point is that it has been said that Jesus atoned for all sin. This case proves that belief wrong does it not?

Yes or no?

johnp. </font>[/QUOTE]Short answer: NO!

Long answer: There are two parties involved here. The work of the Cross is complete, full and undiminished. "It is finished." The human agent remains the unanswered party. The Cross has spoken.

Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God says, “Jesus is accursed”; and no one can say, “Jesus is Lord,” except by the Holy Spirit. 1 Corinthians 12:3

"But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart”—that is, the word of faith which we are preaching, that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.Romans 10:8-10

 

[padredurand]

I shall not bandy words with you over sugar. It is heresy to sweeten tea.

Don't let one of those Southerners hear you saying that. They pronounce it tay and it ain't tay unless you can stand a spoon in it.

The answer resides in the will of God.

Then Esau's actions have no consequences? He would've been hated even if he was a "good boy"? Being flippant about his birthright had no consequence? Marrying Ishmael's daughter meant nothing?

God responded to the negative actions of Eli and his sons. Wouldn't He respond to Esau's misdeeds?

 

[whatever]

Originally posted by padredurand:
Why did God hate Esau?

"in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of his call"

 

[padredurand]

"He chose the Jewish people from all others, and revealed himself to them. Thus they were the elect, and all the nations of mankind reprobate. When the fullness of the time came he revealed himself also to the Gentiles, who gladly received the Gospel: and the Jews rejecting it, were cast off. Thus the elect became reprobate, and the reprobate, elect." Adam Clarke Commentary on Romans 9

 

[johnp.]

Hello whatever! Pleased to meet you.


padredurand. Pleased to meet you as well.

Then Esau's actions have no consequences?

If it had not been for the Lord we would all be like Sodom.

Wouldn't He respond to Esau's misdeeds?

Oh He does respond to all misdeeds. But the misdeeds just show us what we are, sinners. The condemnation followed one offence.
As bad as Hitler was He? How comes Hitler had such a run if misdeeds were not fulfilling the Lord's will? He takes them out when it pleases Him.
But why should He respond to misdeeds when you say that Jesus atoned for their misdeeds? Answer required.

My God is so big so strong and so mighty there nothing that He cannot do! That's a kids song over here. Have you heard it. We teach our kids aright.

Wouldn't He respond to Esau's misdeeds?

Does He to yours? Are you righteous?

Now I have three notepads open answering you. This is going to run for a while.

Tea and crumpets anyone?

Don't let one of those Southerners hear you saying that. They pronounce it tay and it ain't tay unless you can stand a spoon in it.

Is that 'all' Southerners?

johnp.

 

[johnp.]

padredurand.

Thanks for the answer.

I shall get on and study the relevant texts. This could take sometime. We have to go back into Exodus!
Eli was a Levite was he not? That was his family? The geneologies now come into play.

Therefore I have sworn to the house of Eli that the iniquity of Eli’s house shall not be atoned for by sacrifice or offering forever.”

My word stands. I said I'd answer you if you answered me. I did not expect such an answer as this;
God said that Eli's house shall not be atoned for by sacrifice or offering forever.
I said, The point is that it has been said that Jesus atoned for all sin. This case proves that belief wrong does it not?
To which you replied, "No."
God said that there would be no atonement you say Jesus atoned! (Just making sure I have it correct)

Anyway I've made something of a start.

1 Sam 2:6 "The LORD brings death and makes alive; he brings down to the grave and raises up.
A message from my sponsor! The Lord gives and the Lord takes away 'a'? Praise Him.

Now look at this.
1 Sam 2:25 If a man sins against another man, God may mediate for him; but if a man sins against the LORD, who will intercede for him?"...
Eli said that.
...His sons, however, did not listen to their father's rebuke,
Why not?
...for it was the LORD's will to put them to death.

Now the sons of Eli were worthless men; they did not know the LORD and the custom of the priests with the people. 1 Samuel 2:12-13a

So what? You said their sins had been atoned for.

It jars against logic.

Romans 10:8-10

Yes but that is just what happens, it says nothing about the motivating force applied to the will of man by God does it?
It is the same argument used all the time, again all means all, to assert that God does not give people choices unless people are able to make choices. This is a false assumption because back in Exodus there Moses gave the Israelites the law. God gave it to Moses and told him that the Israelites were to obey it were they not? The choice was theirs. To the right and live, to the left and die. Can any man keep the ten commandments?

1 Sam 2:6 "The LORD brings death and makes alive; he brings down to the grave and raises up.

Questions.
Why do we need intercession when all sin has been atoned for?
Why do we need intercession when all sin has been atoned for and it's down to our faith?
Why did God not leave them alive until they were better disposed towards Him, surely taking them out was against their will. What did they do, sin? But you say, in God's face, that their sins had been atoned for!
Can any man keep the ten commandments?
Israelites were to obey it were they not? The choice was theirs was it not.
Can any man keep the law?
Wouldn't He respond to Esau's misdeeds? Why should He? Were their sins not atoned for?
If Jesus had atoned for their sins then that is double jeopardy. He paid for their sins once.

Answers required.
johnp.

 

[johnp.]

"He chose the Jewish people from all others, and revealed himself to them. Thus they were the elect, and all the nations of mankind reprobate. When the fullness of the time came he revealed himself also to the Gentiles, who gladly received the Gospel: and the Jews rejecting it, were cast off. Thus the elect became reprobate, and the reprobate, elect." Adam Clarke Commentary on Romans 9

Thus the elect became reprobate, and the reprobate, elect...

You have just said that God chooses who is reprobate and who is elect.HaHa!

I win.

I'm off to bed. Good night Upstate NY .

 

[padredurand]

But why should He respond to misdeeds when you say that Jesus atoned for their misdeeds? Answer required. johnp

johnp, we're one word apart. Take out the word their. To quote the eminent Wes, Outwest:

The divine truth is that it is not for the sinful persons that Christ died. It is instead for the purpose of removing sin as a factor in man's salvation so that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have EVERLASTING LIFE. Wes, Outwest

The atonement for their comes at the point of convergence, "Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost." 1 Corinthians 12:3
I don't really think most Arminians believe in a universal salvation. A universal invitation to salvation and a universal granting are not the same thing. The Arminian "all" is no more all inclusive than the Calvinistic "all".

Does He to yours? Are you righteous?

If I answer that, we'll have to start another thread on Entire Sanctification and end up bashing/praising Warfield, Wesley and Clarke.

Is that 'all' Southerners?

Ask whatever. He's from Chattanooga. The only thing NY is south of is Quebec.

 

[padredurand]

You have just said that God chooses who is reprobate and who is elect.HaHa! I win. I'm off to bed. Good night Upstate NY .

Adam Clarke said it. You lose.

Go get some sleep. What's in the South in England? Ever hear of an old troublemaker from Wales named Roger Williams?

 

[johnp.]

padredurand.

What's in the South in England?

Cars. Little sign of any other life form. They park on the pavements cause there is no room on the roads.
Roger Williams was born in London. Rhode Island? Is that him? Why? Related?
A university, a zoo, a medical centre, busy wasn't he? He moved south and had tea with his sugar?

You have just said that God chooses who is reprobate and who is elect.HaHa! I win.

Adam Clarke said it.

You better watch it pad, someone is signing in as you!

Good night.

johnp.

 

[whatever]

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Is that 'all' Southerners?

Ask whatever. He's from Chattanooga. The only thing NY is south of is Quebec.</font>[/QUOTE]Yes, as in the elect Southerners.

 

[johnp.]

padredurand.

Good morning.

Ray said.
posted 14 December, 2004 03:29

Jesus died and made a blood atonement for every sinner. [I John 2:2]

Wes said.
posted 06 December, 2004 22:11

The divine truth is that it is not for the sinful persons that Christ died. It is instead for the purpose of removing sin as a factor in man's salvation so that whosoever beleiveth in him should not perish but have EVERLASTING LIFE.
If the penalty had not been paid once for all, NO MAN COULD HAVE EVERLASTING LIFE, no matter how much one believes.

So Jesus paid the penalty for all sin and no sinner will go to Hell because of 'their sin' but because of unbelief, which is not a sin. That is what has been said.
If He paid the penalty for all sin then, included in that, He paid the penalty for the sins of Eli's sons.

Therefore I have sworn to the house of Eli that the iniquity of Eli’s house shall not be atoned for by sacrifice or offering forever.”

Wes said, If the penalty had not been paid once for all, NO MAN COULD HAVE EVERLASTING LIFE, so Eli's sons had 'their' sins paid for.
This has nothing to do with application but has everything to do with 'paid for'.
A person that was sent to a debtors prison would not be released unless he paid the debt. He had no choice in the matter. If the debt was paid in full by another, regardless of who that person was, the prisoner would be released. Again the prisoner had no choice. He could not refuse that payment in his stead. He was released.

If the penalty had not been paid once for all, NO MAN COULD HAVE EVERLASTING LIFE

Since Jesus was the one to pay for all sin as you claim then all men are released from the penalty for sin therefore your argument about, "johnp, we're one word apart. Take out the word their. To quote the eminent Wes, Outwest:'", falls to the ground.
If I take out the word 'theirs' then you are left with the fact that Jesus did not make a blood atonement for all sin.

There is a contradiction being preached. There is a confusion.

johnp.

 

[rc]

HE (and you) are contradicting yourself. If God does not FORCE His will on you, if He can't change man's will to serve Him out of His own pleasure and purpose than He deffinately will not FORCE His will for man to do it then... OR consider this...

If He Does have the power and the will to change the heart of man, and he ONLY has that ability, than He also has the abibility to do it then.. THAT is consistant and biblical.

 

[padredurand]

Originally posted by rc:
HE (and you) are contradicting yourself. If God does not FORCE His will on you, if He can't change man's will to serve Him out of His own pleasure and purpose than He deffinately will not FORCE His will for man to do it then... OR consider this...

If He Does have the power and the will to change the heart of man, and he ONLY has that ability, than He also has the abibility to do it then.. THAT is consistant and biblical.

Could you clarify this a bit more?

 

[padredurand]

Since Jesus was the one to pay for all sin as you claim then all men are released from the penalty for sin therefore your argument about, "johnp, we're one word apart. Take out the word their. To quote the eminent Wes, Outwest:'", falls to the ground. If I take out the word 'theirs' then you are left with the fact that Jesus did not make a blood atonement for all sin.

What then? If some did not believe, their unbelief will not nullify the faithfulness of God, will it? May it never be! Rather, let God be found true, though every man be found a liar, as it is written,“THAT YOU MAY BE JUSTIFIED IN YOUR WORDS, AND PREVAIL WHEN YOU ARE JUDGED.”Romans 3:3-4

Unbelief cannot and will not nullify the Cross. A man in debtor's prison, to use your analogy, would remain in prison -even with his debt paid in full - if he does not respond to the good news, "Your debt is paid, and you are free to go." The debtor's failure to respond does not nullify the debt being paid. He, the debtor, failed or refused to believe the report. What would convince him to go?

There is a contradiction being preached. There is a confusion.

1 Samuel 2:33 ‘Yet I will not cut off every man of yours from My altar so that your eyes will fail from weeping and your soul grieve, and all the increase of your house will die in the prime of life.

1 Samuel 3:14 “Therefore I have sworn to the house of Eli that the iniquity of Eli’s house shall not be atoned for by sacrifice or offering forever.”

Now that I find confusing!! Will or will not God cut off the house of Eli??

I don't really think most Arminians believe in a universal salvation. A universal invitation to salvation and a universal granting are not the same thing. The Arminian "all" is no more all-inclusive than the Calvinistic "all".

I await your well-reasoned and typically brilliant response.

BTW: I'm a 14th generation descendant of the dear Mr. Williams. In nearly 400 years, there have only been two preachers in the family - Roger and me. We've had a lot of soldiers and horse thieves but only two preachers.

Sidebar: My grandmother used to tell us not to lean back in chairs because it was not only dangerous but it said not to in the Bible. What did she cite? 1 Samuel 4:18 When he mentioned the ark of God, Eli fell off the seat backward beside the gate, and his neck was broken and he died, for he was old and heavy. Thus he judged Israel forty years.

 

[johnp.]

I await your well-reasoned and typically brilliant response.

You won't catch me again. Who do you address man?

johnp.

 

[padredurand]

Originally posted by johnp.:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I await your well-reasoned and typically brilliant response.

You won't catch me again. Who do you address man?

johnp. </font>[/QUOTE]Who else but you, my learned friend from across the pond? I think everybody else has been stunned into silence by our razor-sharp battle of the wits; though I come unarmed.

 

[Ray Berrian]

Jesus came to earth to die for the sins of humankind and to show people in Biblical times that indeed He is God. We learn of it vicariously through the Word of God.

My understanding of Hebrews 2:17 tells me that He not only died for sins, but identifies whose sins He has died for on this planet. There is a union between the sins and the people.

His death on the Cross was and remains for all lost souls. [John 1:7; 1:29 & I John 2:2; 5:19 Revelation 22:17f,g] The Apostle John and John the Baptist concur in St. John and we never even expect that John the Apostle will change his mind in the first epistle of John and the Book of Revelation.

It kind of grinds into powder Augustine's myopic view of God's great love for lost ones. Almighty God is not the 'cherry picking' kind of God that some have made Him out to be.

 

[padredurand]

Now, the next question is a different one: Why did God hate Esau? I am not going to mix this question up with the other, they are entirely distinct, and I intend to keep them so, one answer will not do for two questions, they must be taken separately, and then can be answered satisfactorily. Why does God hate any man? I defy anyone to give any answer but this, because that man deserves it; no reply but that can ever be true. There are some who answer, divine sovereignty; but I challenge them to look that doctrine in the face. Do you believe that God created man and arbitrarily, sovereignly—it is the same thing—created that man, with no other intention, than that of damning him? Made him, and yet, for no other reason than that of destroying him for ever? Well, if you can believe it, I pity you, that is all I can say: you deserve pity, that you should think so meanly of God, whose mercy endureth for ever. You are quite right when you say the reason why God loves a man, is because God does do so; there is no reason in the man. But do not give the same answer as to why God hates a man. If God deals with any man severely, it is because that man deserves all he gets. In hell there will not be a solitary soul that will say to God, O Lord, thou hast treated me worse than I deserve! But every lost spirit will be made to feel that he has got his deserts, that his destruction lies at his own door and not at the door of God; that God had nothing to do with his condemnation, except as the Judge condemns the criminal, but that he himself brought damnation upon his own head, as the result of his own evil works. Justice is that which damns a man; it is mercy, it is free grace, that saves; sovereignty holds the scale of love; it is justice holds the other scale. Who can put that into the hand of sovereignty? That were to libel God and to dishonour him.

Thank you, Mr. Spurgeon

A must read here: Why God Hates Esau - Charles H. Spurgeon

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by padredurand:
I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; 2 For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. 3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; 4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; 6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time. 1 Timothy 2:1-6

I'm not the sharpest pencil in the crayon box but it appears we have as much trouble with the word all as a certain former president had with the word is. Sometimes it means all or maybe just some of all or all of you but none of them...

What happens if we modified these verses with phrasing for less than all?

I exhort therefore, that, first of most of the time...

I would say, what if we clarified the verses?

I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men without distinction - for example 2 For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. 3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; 4 Who will have all men without distinction, from kings to paupers to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; 6 Who gave himself a ransom for all men without distinction, to be testified in due time. 1 Timothy 2:1-6

There's a difference between "all without distinction" and "all without exception". The fact that this passage makes the distinction of kings and those in authority tells me he was talking about all without distinction, so that people would not exclude those in power.