Did Christ died for all men or just some men?

This will add somewhat to your OP concerning the historical thought of 'limited or specific atonement from the early Christian Fathers and even those of the Reformed Faith.
Please Note the following:

 

Christ was obediant unto death and died for whom his Father sent him to die.

Jn 3:16 said his Father so loved the "WORLD". What some don't realize in the doctrine of the elect, the elect were the Jews who were God's chosen people.

 

The elect does not refer to the Jews only . The elect are His chosen ones from among all nations tribes and tongues .

Allan , good quotes . I'll have to research them at a later time .

Regarding Calvin -- He first wrote the institues at 26 years of age . I think the last time he revised it he was about 50 and it was 5 times the size of the original . So this business of Calvin developing his thoughts to a more mature direction -- i.e. not so predestinarian as in his earleir life is bogus .

 

I didn't say that, All I did was quote him.
But if he changed his veiws by the time he wrote his commentaries from that of his institutes then I am not saying he changed he did. He didn't change his whole view just that most identifiably on 'limited or specific' Atonement.

I agree though as he matured just as we do our understanding of scriptures and God heart in them our direction can alter (whether a little or alot) as our understanding of scriptures become even more clear.

 

I think that depends on where you are reading. The concept of the elect began in the OT and at that time it was referring to the Jews. Then we see it in the Gospels but we know the Gospels were primarily regarding the Jews. You also have to consider the version in which you are reading the word.

If by your statement you mean anyone can become one of the elect then I agree. If you have the Calvinistic view that there are elect chosen unto salvation then I very much disagree.

 

Being moderately--mostly dispensational, I think that "elect" depends upon the context. Why should a simple term like "elect" always refer to the same individual/group?

 

I'm kind of a simple guy, so I look at this probably too simplistically; but I think the answer to the original question lies in the first verse quoted:

"That whosoever believeth on Him should not perish but have everlasting life."

Scripture also shows us people like King Agrippa, who said, "Almost thou persuadest me."

God would love for the whole world to be saved, and gave His Son so that the whole world could be saved; but there are those that refuse to be saved, that reject God.

Will those that reject the outstretched hand be saved anyway?

 

Just wondering, do you believe that God, in His sovereignty is capable of changing the fallen wills of every individual? If so, why doesn't He? He appeared to Saul on the road to Damascus in a bright light and a loud voice. Do you think there was any good chance that Saul was going to reject Christ in this encounter? Why does God not give everyone the same revelation? Who could reject Christ if He Himself spoke from heaven in bright light?

 

I had to laugh (loudly) on this one.
When I read it and saw the 'no comment', I looked back and noticed it speaking of angels and it even cause me to do a mental stutter-step. :laugh:

 

I did intend to inject an island of humor in this one part.

 

I'm not Don nor will I speak for Don...but if I may?...
God does not change every person because God Sovereignly decreed that man is resposible for what he does with truth. Accept or reject it...those who believe will be saved.

And Yes Paul 'could' have said 'No thanks or beat it' however we do find some things in his conversation that tell us alittle more about that encounter. Paul didn't know who it was that appeared before him but he did call that being Lord, which to the Pharasee is a title ascribed only unto the Lord God and they would give it to no other. Another thing is we do not see Paul actually converted here though possible and most likely probable. But we do see a symbolism of his salvation when he goes to Barnabas's house and the scales fall from his eyes (were he once was blind and now he can see)

Who could reject Christ (or God for that matter) if He Himslef spoke heaven or a bright light? Cain did this, Isreel did this many time. The point is that it has happened over and again.

 

You reminded me of a good story the Lord used to demonstrate this. I never thought of this before but I like your response...

Luke 16:27 Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house:
28 For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.
29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.
30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.
31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

Notice the response was not they are not on the list, he says they must accept or reject the invitation via the preacher...

 

Here you state Israel is God's "elect", but then refer to the "elect" as believers (jew and gentile, I assume). Titus mentions the faith OF the elect, so the "elect" cannot be both jew and gentile here, but believing jews...the same referenced back in 2 Timothy.

 

Here are a couple of scripture passages that Calvinists cite to demonstrate particular redemption:

Isaiah 53:8-11. Key verse "he shall see the travail of his soul and be satisfied.."

In this Messianic prophecy, "he" is God, "his soul" is that of the Messiah, Jesus, referring to the crucifixion. It tells us that God's justice, which demands that every sin be paid for, has been satisfied by Jesus travail on the cross. Since some go to hell, it cannot mean that every sin has been paid for, else they would not go to hell.

One is faced then with interpreting this passage to mean universal salvation, or that Jesus travail atoned for the sins of the elect only.

Matthew 1:21 "He shall save HIS people from their sins..." His people, those who are already his, those whom God has given him.

 

Not quite brother.
He (God) shall see the travail of His (Jesus - the sin offering - vs 10) soul and be satisfied... IF in redemption you mean that only certain (that being those believing) are the only ones actaully redeemed, then with question or argument I agree.

If you are referning to atonement being limited then you have a much larger problem with these verses. As Only those who believe are saved by the justifying Blood of Christ as vs 11 in Isa 53 states but you must take into account the WHOLE of the sacrificial aspect to understand the OFFER'ing (couldn't resist :laugh.

One of the main reasons it HAS to be this way for specific atonment is that not one drop of the blood of Christ would be wasted on one who would not come to Him.
Yet in the first place there is not one peice of scriptural support for this. However there is scriptural support for the converse of this. That Christs blood though applied to some will be discarded and trampled upon by others. The atonment is NOT about the AMOUNT of blood but that that it was pleasing and acceptable to God. Let us Look back at Lev 4 concerning the sin offering to which Isaiah 53:10 equates Christ Jesus.

The priests were to kill a young bullock and of the blood - dip his finger in the blood and sprinkle it 7 times before the veil, and place some on the tips of the horns of the Altar of Incence. VS 6 and 7a - This shows that Man can now come to into Gods presence and that God will now hear mans prayers. But what about the rest (the larger portion) of the blood remaining. What was the priest to do with this. Vs 7b - He was to pour it out at the base of the alter. This is where the people came up to altar and Priests walked around. The larger portion of that blood was poured on the ground to be walked on or better trampled under dirty or unclean feet as though it was unholy. Remember this cause I'll come back to it...

Now, granted these verses deal with PERSONAL sacrifice for atonment but look a few verses over in the same chapter (vs 13) if ALL the people... Now it is in reference to EVERYONE of Israel and we see it is the exact same thing. Now WILL EVERYONE in Israel be atoned for?? What about those Israelites who are worshipping false gods or idols or even living in sin when this atoning sacrifice is made. Will they be atoned for as well??? NOPE! The application of this atonment is based on whether the individual accepts this sacrifice on their behalf because they know they have NEED of it. It is Then that the atonment is applied to person though it is OFFERED to and for ALL of Israel.
However, it is specifically referencing the absoluteness and perfection of this sacrifice given to God on behalf of ISRAEL in the literal sense. The phrase "my people" (vs 8) needs to be remembered in context as the "my" is the prophet Isaiah NOT God.

Remember that trampling of the blood at the foot of the altar I mentioned earlier. This is why the blood was poured out and that which was poured was the larger portion of the blood that was used to make atonement. It was all good enough to make atonment but much of it was going to be trampled upon by those who don't think they are in NEED of that sacrifice for them.
If you look at Heb 10:29 we can see a shadowing of this of this same thing as the writter of Hebrews speaks of UNBELIEF when he states:
How much sorer punishment, suppose ye,shall he be thought worthy who hath TRODDEN UNDER FOOT the Son of God, and hath counted the BLOOD OF THE COVENANT, wherewith he was sanctified and UNHOLY thing and hath done despite unto the Spirit of Grace.

Grace allows the Sin Offering to not only be made but made to all who will partake as it did with the Sin offering of Israel. God be praised He knows ALL who will but He also knows ALL who will not. Therefore due to that Atonment sacrifice being applied to those who see their lack and error and acknowledge their need THEY being "the Many" (as described in context of sacrifice in question within Isa 53:11) are Justified Fully. Yet those NOT justified by the application of thereof but who trample it instead...what sorer punishment do you think awaits them. For as the scripture continues in Heb 10 "it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the Living God" Something they in their despite to His 'hoped' was not true.

So, Yes - His suffering was for ALL who will believe (the Chosen or Elect) as He is their sacrifice that appeases the judgment of God to their justification. BUT - the sacrifice was offered up for ALL Men who were willing to accept it. This is important in understand the sacrifices and why the sacrifices were given; that we might understand the foreshadowing of what they mean of, in, about, and through Christ.

IMO of course.

PS>
Your Mat verse - It is about Israel in context and not All those who will be saved. Though it can be used to show the allusion toward the same. Much like Jesus came to seek and save that which was lost - Is a direct reference to Israel and not the Church. But we see Jesus even make that allusion here as He states I have other sheep NOT OF THIS fold. The fold in which He at that moment was seeking out.

 

What Allen said. Could God make all of us accept Him? Of course.

But that necessarily leads to the question: Why didn't He in the first place, with Adam and Eve?

We have plenty of scriptural evidence of those that didn't accept Him.

And we have the parable of the rich man indicating what awaits for those that reject Him.

Christ died for all those that believe on Him; those that don't believe will not have everlasting life, but have the wrath of God upon them, are condemned, and shall perish (John 3:16, 18, 36).

 

Allan, again I've shortened your response, but the whole thing is on post #17, for all who want to see context.

You are, of course, stating the popular view that Christ's atonement was sufficient for all, but efficient only for those who believe, the elect.

Regarding the OT sacrifice analogy you cited (see post #17) I note that the sacrifice was not for all people, but only for the children of Irael. It was limited to a particular people over whom God set his love.

Regarding the other sheep not of this fold, are we agreed that this refers to Gentiles? Do you find it interesting, as I do, that Jesus called them sheep, even though they were not yet believers? This is not on point, just an interesting observation.

But to the point, right before that, in John 10:15, Jesus said "...I lay down my life for the sheep." Sounds to me like the atonement was only for the sheep.

 

Scripture

When the devil braught scripture to Jesus, Jesus didn't dispute the scripure, but presented other scripture.

We can't live on little pieces of God's word even in a little context, but on every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.

The devil will deceive you by little pieces of bread, but keep your focus on Jesus and He will not disappoint you.