Beyond 2 Corinthians 5:14-15

Having seen from the passage in 2 Corinthians 5:14-15, that the language Paul uses clearly shows that "all" was not used for the "elect" only. Something no Calvinist on this board has been able to refute. I would like to move a little further down in this same chapter of this Epistle.

In Verse 19 Paul says: "to wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; but hath committed unto us the word of reconcilation"

Who does Paul refer to here by "world"? The Calvinist will respond, "not the human race", but only "the elect". But, from the context, is this use of the word allowable? The next verse clears up any misunderstanding here. Paul goes on to say: "Now the we are ambassadors of Christ, as though God did beseech by us: we plead in behalf of Christ, be ye reconciled to God". We need to ask here. if the "world" in verse 19 is only "the elect", then we have a problem with verse 20.

You see, that doctrine of Irresistible Grace is defined as follows:

"GRACE WHICH IS IRRESISTIBLE
The grace of God is irresistible. You understand what the term "irresistible'' emphasizes. Do not think that irresistible grace is some sort of blind force which simply drags the struggling, rebellious sinner into heaven against his will -- as a policeman might drag a rebellious prisoner to jail. The grace of God is not such a power that compels to enter into heaven those who would not.

That God's grace is irresistible emphasizes the idea that not only does grace bring His people to glory, but it prepares them for this glory and works within them the desire to enter into glory. Grace is irresistible in the sense that by it the knee is bent which otherwise would not bend; the heart is softened that otherwise is hard as stone. Nor is there anything which can prevent the accomplishment of that purpose of God to save His people by His grace.(http://www.prca.org/fivepoints/chapter4.html)

God, say the Calvinist, does not drag the sinner kicking and screaming into His Kingdom. But, the Holy Spirit, works in the heart of the Elect person, and softens their heart, so that they would not want to refuse His Salvation. If this is true, then the "elect" person would be more than willing to come to Jesus to obtain eternal life. Right? Then, how come Paul says in verse 20, that he "pleads" (where the word denotes, "to make an earnest supplication, to beg, implore")with these "elect" that they should be reconciled to Christ? If the "all" and "world" in this passage were only "the elect", then it must denote "all of the elect". Then, we see that Paul is "pleading" with all of the elect to be reconciled to God. Why is this? If the Holy Spirit so works in their hearts so that they would not want to refuse, why the need to "plead" with them? This language suggests that the "elect" might not want to come, even after the Holy Spirit works in them.

I see no other way in taking this entire passage, but to apply it to the whole human race. This alone makes any sense of the language used here. The offer through the Gospel is God, through His loving-kindness, and great mercy, "pleads" with man to be reconciled to Him through the death of the Redeemer, the Lord Jesus Christ. To limit the words in the passage to the "elect", makes nonsense of the so-called doctrine of "Irresistible Grace"

 

Larry, can we have your thoughts on this passage?

 

Larry, verse 19 shows where Jesus has done His "part" through His death on the cross. Verse 20 shows that we need to accept this finished work of Jesus. How else would you read it?

 

Because Reconciliation is a uniquely personal and individual act. No one can be reconciled by another, nor can one reconcile for another. </font>[/QUOTE]Wes, you have lost me here. can you explain?

 

Hi Mike, I agree with you on this. I am using the Calvinistic reasoning to show that they are wrong in this and Limited Atonement.

 

It is true that Calvinism would choke on the word "World" and try to "redefine it as being" the FEW of Matt 7 - "alone".

But there is another problem for Calvinism in 2Cor 5. The problem of "motivation" and the idea that "beseaching" would make any difference at all to the "elect" or to the "non-elect".

Is Salvation "God PLUS man's beseaching???" in Calvinism?

Why does Paul mention OUR act in beseaching AS if it meant something or had value or was significant to the way salvation is going to the lost?

In Christ,

Bob </font>[/QUOTE]Exactly my point in the OP. I notice that the Calvinists on this board have yet not been able to offer any answer, as in reality there is not one that they can give from their position. More an more we see from Scripture, that the system of Calvinism is not completely Scriptual

 

Larry, if you took the time to do a study (not just reading) of this passage in 2 Corinthians chapter 5, you will be able to see what Paul is here speaking about. He is not speaking is parables, but doing so to my mind, with clarity.

In one sense, the whole whorld has been "reconciled" to God theough the death of Jesus Christ. God, through the life and death of Jesus, has "provided" an Atonement for the sins of mankind (Romans 3:25 says: "set forth", that is, "offered"). It is up to each individual to "appropiate" this Atonement for themselves. God, fully knowing the severity of the fate that awaits the unbeliever (as Jesus did when He weeped over Jerusalem. Question here, was Jesus weeping for the whole city, or only for a few of the people that lived there?), has in His Compassion, "pleaded" with the lost to accept His offer of Salvation, so as to escape the certain future of damnation. This is why Jesus told Judas, that it would have been better if he had not been born. It is my contention, that the Bible shows a God Who is rich in mercy and compassion for the lost souls in this world, and, not just for some elite class which Calvinists would be. Calvinism, by rejecting the Atonement for the whole human race, does a great injustice to the goodness and mercy of God, Who is really does not take any pleasure in the death of the wicked, but would like to see them repent and come to a saving knowledge of the Blessed Redeemer.

 

Larry, as for your statement:

"Don't mistake the lack of interaction as lack of answers. It is more likely, if I am any indication, the result of a lack of time and a total lack of interest in these types of arguments that aren't based on real interest and real exegesis"

This is rather poor coming from you. This passage is very important to determine the heart of God in the Salvation of all men. To demean what I am saying, by saying that it is not based on real exegesis, is sad. Why don't you Calvinists then offer us what you think that whole passage is really saying. I think that truth of the matter is, that it causes more problems with Calvinism, so to avoid it is to admit that you can't answer it.

 

I am all ears to your "argument" for this great passage

 

Larry, it seem to me that you don't really have any answer to the point that I make in my OP. Why would God need to "plead" with the elect to accept His Salvation, since the Holy Spirit enables them to accept anyway?

Don't avoid the facts of this passage by dismissing it as something that I don't understand.

 

I see. From this do I conclude that you accept "Unlimited Atonement"?