a few questions

[~JM~]

I posted these in another thread:

Quote:
1. If God loves all men, including those who receive eternal life and those who suffer eternal damnation, what does the love of God have to do with anyone’s salvation?

2. If God wills for all men to be saved, including those who receive eternal life and those who suffer eternal damnation, what does the will of God have to do with anyone’s salvation?

3. If Christ shed His precious blood for all men, including those who receive eternal life and those who suffer eternal damnation, what does the work of Christ on the cross have to do with anyone’s salvation?

 

[reformedbeliever]

I posted these in another thread:

Quote:
1. If God loves all men, including those who receive eternal life and those who suffer eternal damnation, what does the love of God have to do with anyone’s salvation?

2. If God wills for all men to be saved, including those who receive eternal life and those who suffer eternal damnation, what does the will of God have to do with anyone’s salvation?

3. If Christ shed His precious blood for all men, including those who receive eternal life and those who suffer eternal damnation, what does the work of Christ on the cross have to do with anyone’s salvation?

1. He doesn't. Psalms 5 and others
2. He doesn't Matt 11: 21. Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works, which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.
3. He died for whosoever will.

 

[webdog]

1. If God loves all men, including those who receive eternal life and those who suffer eternal damnation, what does the love of God have to do with anyone’s salvation?

John 3:16 state for God so loved the kosmos...universe. If you draw a big circle and call it the universe, anything within that circle God loves. If any human being lives within this circle...you get the picture.

2. If God wills for all men to be saved, including those who receive eternal life and those who suffer eternal damnation, what does the will of God have to do with anyone’s salvation?

2 Peter 3:9 is either true or it isn't. Are you referring to God's permissive will or declarative will? Jesus lamenting over Jerusalem is the perfect backdrop for this...

3. If Christ shed His precious blood for all men, including those who receive eternal life and those who suffer eternal damnation, what does the work of Christ on the cross have to do with anyone’s salvation?

Is Hebrews 2:9 a lie then? Did He taste death for EVERY man or not?

 

[~JM~]

1. If God loves all men, including those who receive eternal life and those who suffer eternal damnation, what does the love of God have to do with anyone’s salvation?

2. If God wills for all men to be saved, including those who receive eternal life and those who suffer eternal damnation, what does the will of God have to do with anyone’s salvation?

3. If Christ shed His precious blood for all men, including those who receive eternal life and those who suffer eternal damnation, what does the work of Christ on the cross have to do with anyone’s salvation?

The answers so far:

1. God's love has nothing to do with salvation
2. God's will has nothing to do with salvation.
3. Christ dying on the cross and shedding His blood has nothing to do with salvation.

Thanks for your opinions.

 

[webdog]

The answers so far:

1. God's love has nothing to do with salvation
2. God's will has nothing to do with salvation.
3. Christ dying on the cross and shedding His blood has nothing to do with salvation.

Thanks for your opinions.

1. Nobody said that.
2. Nobody said that.
3. Nobody said that.

I really don't know what answers you are reading...

 

[reformedbeliever]

The answers so far:

1. God's love has nothing to do with salvation
2. God's will has nothing to do with salvation.
3. Christ dying on the cross and shedding His blood has nothing to do with salvation.

Thanks for your opinions.

Ok, then let me rephrase my answers. Seems as if I only answered part of the questions.
1. God's love for His chosen Saints and the provision for their sins saves them.
2. God's will to save His own saves them also.
3. Christ's sacrifice for the Saints is effectual for the Saints.

 

[reformedbeliever]

1. Nobody said that.
2. Nobody said that.
3. Nobody said that.

I really don't know what answers you are reading...

I agree............

 

[~JM~]

I don't have a lot of time, so I'll deal with one point.

Jesus lamenting over Jerusalem is the perfect backdrop for this...

Who is ‘Jerusalem’ in the context of this passage? Some folks believe Jerusalem to be in reference to individual Jews, but this can’t be. Starting at the beginning of Matthew 23 we find our Lord speaking of the leaders of Jerusalem, the Scribes and Pharisee, those who killed the prophets:

v. 2 “...Pharisees sit in Moses sit...”
v. 6 “...chief seats in the synagogues...”
v. 7 “...Rabbi, Rabbi...”
v. 13 “But woe unto you, Scribes and Pharisees...”
v. 14 “Woe unto you, Scribes and Pharisees...”
v. 15 “Woe unto you, Scribes and Pharisees...”
v. 16 “Woe unto you, ye blind guides...”
etc, etc. I think you get the picture.

Another look at both passages Matt. 23:37, “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!”

Luk 13:34 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not!

Jesus isn’t calling the leaders to gather He is calling the ‘children’ or believers, ‘Jerusalem’ or the leaders and rulers of Jerusalem are not being called to gather at all. The leaders wouldn’t allow the faithful of God to come together, God wasn’t seeking to bring together those who ‘killest the prophets’ but the faithful. The unwillingness comes from not allowing the faithful to come together, not rejecting an offer of salvation.

Those Christ would gather are not represented as being unwilling, but not allowed by the ruling class in Jerusalem to come together.

I hope this was of use...keeping in mind I could be wrong and often am, but Dr. James White in "Potter's Freedom" does a good job with this passage as it's one of the big 3 Arminian passages.

Ok, then let me rephrase my answers. Seems as if I only answered part of the questions.
1. God's love for His chosen Saints and the provision for their sins saves them.
2. God's will to save His own saves them also.
3. Christ's sacrifice for the Saints is effectual for the Saints.

I agree with the above.

j

 

[Jkdbuck76]

God saves us with His grace.

Not His love. However, His love is what
probably prompted Him to send Jesus, but
again, we are saved by grace.

 

[webdog]

Sure seems like an awful lot of dancing around the passage to come to the conclusion...

Those Christ would gather are not represented as being unwilling, but not allowed by the ruling class in Jerusalem to come together.

This exegesis is in direct contradiction to the passage, that is presented so plainly
Luk 13:34 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not!

 

[~JM~]

Sure seems like an awful lot of dancing around the passage to come to the conclusion...

This exegesis is in direct contradiction to the passage, that is presented so plainly
Luk 13:34 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not!

:laugh:

Jerusalem = religious leaders
thy children = believers

Nice try.

 

[webdog]

Jerusalem = Beef jerkey
Thy children = fire ants

Anybody can just substitute any word or meaning to make a theology work.

 

[~JM~]

O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets,

Jerusalem killed the prophets

and stonest them that are sent unto thee;

and stoned those sent to them

how often would I have gathered thy children together,

Jesus would gather their children

as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings,

in a loving and caring way

and ye would not!

the "ye" is Jerusalem who prevented them from gathering.

Web, just face the facts.

:sleeping_2:

 

[Sober_Baptist]

He doesn't, doesn't, didn't.

 

[webdog]

23:37 Jerusalem, Jerusalem, [thou] that killest the prophets. The intense feeling that spoke in this utterance comes out first in the redoubling of the word Jerusalem; next in the picture of the sins of the city which he draws--a city so wicked that it was not content with rejecting the messengers of God, but even slew them. I know of nothing more touching than this apostrophe.

How often would I have gathered thy children. Not only had the city been warned again and again by the prophets, but the Lord had visited it at least six or seven times, and had for months taught in its streets. Nor did his solicitude end with the cross. His long suffering, patience and love are shown by his charge in the commission to the apostles: To preach repentance and remission in his name among all nations, 'beginning at Jerusalem' (Lu 24:47).

Ye would not! Would not explains the cause of the rejection of the gospel. It is not because God in Christ is not ready: he would gather them. It is not because men cannot come, but because they will not come. Christ wished that salvation of Jerusalem; his will was for them to be saved: he sought to influence their wills to make a choice of salvation, but they would not. So God still is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance (2Pe 3:9), but there are many who will not come to Christ that they might have life (Joh 5:40). While God wills the salvation of men, he does not destroy free agency by coercing the human will, but says: Whosoever will, let him come (Re 22:17). - PNT

 

[npetreley]

You're quoting notes from the People's New Testament? Wow, that carries a lot of weight.

By the way, I've found several errors in the notes of the highly respected Zondervan NIV Study Bible, too. Some are actually funny. Ryrie spouted some nonsense in his notes, too, but they aren't funny like the errors in the NIV notes. I'd quote you one of the errors but I tossed my 2 copies years ago.

Edit to add: By errors, I mean errors everyone would recognize, not just my own opinion. Like "this appears nowhere else in the Bible" and 2 pages later it's repeated in the next book.

 

[webdog]

You're quoting notes from the People's New Testament? Wow, that carries a lot of weight.

the only resource I have at work. It explains it sufficiently, though.

By the way, I've found several errors in the notes of the highly respected Zondervan NIV Study Bible, too. Some are actually funny. Ryrie spouted some nonsense in his notes, too, but they aren't funny like the errors in the NIV notes. I'd quote you one of the errors but I tossed my 2 copies years ago.

Wow. I'm glad you are such a great theologian that you can just toss the work of Ryrie and others if they don't agree with you.

You threw out 2 Bibles? :tear:

 

[npetreley]

You threw out 2 Bibles? :tear:

Well, technically I left them in a box I didn't take with me when I moved. But the point was to abandon them because I didn't like them. (Them = 2 identical copies, so it's just one version.) I don't think they'll used, though. Last time I was in contact, the people who had them prefer the WFV (Warm and Fuzzy Version). It's similar to the PNT, but it substitutes most of the unpleasant verses of the Bible with lines from children's vacation Bible school songs.