Do all people hear the gospel?

[Wes Outwest]

Originally posted by jdcanady:
Bob

I have simply pointed out the context. Your conclusions are simply convoluted. "slippery marketing tactic"? That is just plain nonsense. I see you are not looking for a discussion, but an argument. That's not what I am looking for.

I agree with Bob because only a literalist would interpret these terms to be EXclusive instead of INclusive. Jesus was INclusive, in accordance with "His father's will".

God is ALL inclusive by sending Jesus to die in order to atone for ALL the sins of the world. After all Paul tells us, "For ALL have sinned and come short of the Glory of God". That is what Scriptures say! Calvinists believe that mankind is Totally depraved, and that is ALL inclusive. Calvinists believe that NOT ONE is righteous, that Is all inclusive. Since that is what Scriptures say, why would the atonement be for only a certain 'some' out of ALL, when Scriptures tell us that Jesus atoned for ALL the sins of the world? That just does not compute!

[ July 25, 2005, 05:53 PM: Message edited by: Wes, Outwest ]

 

[BobRyan]

Calvinism's bible - when it "tells the truth" would read "God so loved the ELECT that He gave His Son for them alone and calls them the FEW of Matt 7. God is willing that the ELECT ONLY be saved and so He accepts the sacrifice of His Son for the saving of the FEW of Matt 7 only. God's Son appeased Him in his WRATH toward the elect. For indeed God's Son appeases him for OUR SINS only - WE being the ELECT"

"Behold I open the door and let myself in that whosoever I happen to do this for might come to life and SEE Me holding them in fellowship and then become enabled to accept that I have done this for them".

"Christ so propitiated God for the elect that HE chose to Love them alone".

OH if ONLY this Calvinist Bible existed IN scripture rather than in the mind of Calvinism alone.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Jarthur001]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
Calvinism's bible - when it "tells the truth" would read "God so loved the ELECT that He gave His Son for them alone and calls them the FEW of Matt 7. God is willing that the ELECT ONLY be saved and so He accepts the sacrifice of His Son for the saving of the FEW of Matt 7 only. God's Son appeased Him in his WRATH toward the elect. For indeed God's Son appeases him for OUR SINS only - WE being the ELECT"

"Behold I open the door and let myself in that whosoever I happen to do this for might come to life and SEE Me holding them in fellowship and then become enabled to accept that I have done this for them".

"Christ so propitiated God for the elect that HE chose to Love them alone".

OH if ONLY this Calvinist Bible existed IN scripture rather than in the mind of Calvinism alone.

In Christ,

Bob

Bob...i'm a calvinist in some ways. does this mean i can only read the bible as you said all calvinist do? or can i add my thoughts?


just asking

 

[Baptist Believer]

NOTE: I have not read most of this thread, but I will recklessly venture to provide a response:

Originally posted by whetstone:
This is an important question to ask and it has devastating consequences for those with Arminian-like theology.

I don’t see anything “devastating” about it.

If all people HAVE heard the gospel, why are missionaries still feverishly translating the Bible into new languages that have never heard the name of Christ?

Because it is part of the work of the Kingdom. We are called to “make disciples” of all those in the world and to teach them how to live in the Kingdom of God. If Christ has clearly called us to do this work, shouldn’t we make this work a top priority?

If all people HAVEN'T heard the gospel, then all people haven't gotten the same chance to accept Christ.

I don’t recall any biblical passage teaching that everyone has “the same chance” to accept Christ, but certainly the creation itself, and the person’s own experience as a person made in the image of God, gives everyone enough information to know that there is a Supreme Being. On the basis of that simple evidence, the Holy Spirit can bring anyone to an active faith – even without a human missionary or scripture. (Abraham is the obvious example, and Paul makes it clear that the faith of Abraham is the prototype for New Testament people.)

If this is true- why couldn't God give all people an equal shot?

I don’t think you are framing the question properly. You seem to have assumed some things about those who do not embrace “Calvinism”.

However, everyone makes a choice to accept spiritual truth or reject it. Those who reject even general spiritual truth are not likely to accept specific spiritual truth. But in God’s providence and through the work of the Holy Spirit, some people eventually repent and embrace the truth that has been provided them.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
Calvinism's bible - when it "tells the truth" would read "God so loved the ELECT that He gave His Son for them alone and calls them the FEW of Matt 7. God is willing that the ELECT ONLY be saved and so He accepts the sacrifice of His Son for the saving of the FEW of Matt 7 only. God's Son appeased Him in his WRATH toward the elect. For indeed God's Son appeases him for OUR SINS only - WE being the ELECT"

"Behold I open the door and let myself in that whosoever I happen to do this for might come to life and SEE Me holding them in fellowship and then become enabled to accept that I have done this for them".

"Christ so propitiated God for the elect that HE chose to Love them alone".

OH if ONLY this Calvinist Bible existed IN scripture rather than in the mind of Calvinism alone.

Originally posted by Jarthur001:

Bob...i'm a calvinist in some ways. does this mean i can only read the bible as you said all calvinist do? or can i add my thoughts?

just asking

I am guessing that if you had an alternative you would have posted it.

WE all have the free will post as we choose regarding this doctrine so go ahead.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Jarthur001]

Originally posted by Jarthur001:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by BobRyan:
Calvinism's bible - when it "tells the truth" would read "God so loved the ELECT that He gave His Son for them alone and calls them the FEW of Matt 7. God is willing that the ELECT ONLY be saved and so He accepts the sacrifice of His Son for the saving of the FEW of Matt 7 only. God's Son appeased Him in his WRATH toward the elect. For indeed God's Son appeases him for OUR SINS only - WE being the ELECT"

"Behold I open the door and let myself in that whosoever I happen to do this for might come to life and SEE Me holding them in fellowship and then become enabled to accept that I have done this for them".

"Christ so propitiated God for the elect that HE chose to Love them alone".

OH if ONLY this Calvinist Bible existed IN scripture rather than in the mind of Calvinism alone.

In Christ,

Bob

Bob...i'm a calvinist in some ways. does this mean i can only read the bible as you said all calvinist do? or can i add my thoughts?


just asking </font>[/QUOTE]I'm a calvinist...
my Bible reads..God so loved the World...not as you claim it says
My bible says...whosoever will may come..not as you claim
My Bible says...Christ so propitiated God for mans SINs..not as you said.

so why am i calvinist? because that is what calvin teaches

God so love the world that he came...
Whosoever will...may come to Christ...
who comes? no one seeks after God...so no one comes
God choose to have the Holy Spirit give me understanding....
Now i see that Christ propitiated God fro my sins.
I am saved.

i know you do not like this word propitiated. Maybe there is a better word...but at the same time it works. I think it gives a better picture of the LAW and sin. If we are under the law then our sins must be dealt with. those sins...have a price...DEATH. propitiation pays the wage needed by Christ death. The law of the OT was just like this. The law focused on the deeds of man.

now...propitiation in itself does not save us...and maybe that is why you do not like it. But it is a good picture.

Atonement is a better picture...but still it does not paint the full picture. I think propitiated to God...and redeemed by Christ gives the best picture.

but anyway...that is what my Bible says...not what you posted

In Christ...james

BTW...
"Christ so propitiated God for the elect that HE chose to Love them alone".

what calvin bible did you read this? or did you just make this up?

 

[BobRyan]

I'm a calvinist...
my Bible reads..God so loved the World...not as you claim it says

So when "I claim" it says "God so loved the World... yes REALLY" is that what you object to in "not as you say"??

OR are you objecting to my point that to SPEAK to the subject of limited atonement (4 and 5 point Calvinism) and "God not caring for the lost" (Johnathan Edwards style) -- the John 3:16 statement in a truly "Calvinist-friendly" Bible would have to read ...God so loved the ELECT that He gave His Son for them alone and calls them the FEW of Matt 7. God is willing that the ELECT ONLY be saved and so He accepts the sacrifice of His Son for the saving of the FEW of Matt 7 only. God's Son appeased Him in his WRATH toward the elect. For indeed God's Son appeases him for OUR SINS only - WE being the ELECT"??

James said
My Bible says...Christ so propitiated God for mans SINs..not as you said.

My Bible says "Chris is the ATONING SACRIFICE for OUR SINS and NOT for OUR SINS only but for the sins of the WHOLE WORLD" 1John 2:2 NIV.

Maybe you should try a less translation that relies less on "appeasement" and "Greek-pagan-propitiation".

Did I forget to post the reasons for this from the HEBREW concept of Atonement that John would have been using?

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

the John 3:16 statement in a truly "Calvinist-friendly" Bible would have to read ..

What a great idea! Then Calvinists could simply read the Bible without having to redefine terms at every text.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Jarthur001]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
the John 3:16 statement in a truly "Calvinist-friendly" Bible would have to read ..

What a great idea! Then Calvinists could simply read the Bible without having to redefine terms at every text.

In Christ,

Bob

you are so right Bob

this is in my Bible..and i agree. Thanks for pointing this out. i do not redefine this verse...is this what you are saying i do? that is wrong Bob..WILL THE MISLEADING PLEASE STOP!!

thanks

In Christ..james

 

[Jarthur001]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
[QB]

I'm a calvinist...
my Bible reads..God so loved the World...not as you claim it says

So when "I claim" it says "God so loved the World... yes REALLY" is that what you object to in "not as you say"??
********************************

really bob...GOD SO LOVED THE WORLD!! really He dos.
thanks for asking this time
***********************************

OR are you objecting to my point that to SPEAK to the subject of limited atonement (4 and 5 point Calvinism) and "God not caring for the lost" (Johnathan Edwards style) -- the John 3:16 statement in a truly
*************************************
no bob...you said calvinist believe
"...blah blah blah 4 point ...5point+12 and take away 2 points from 4...and you have limited atonement because John edwards said so." big deal
I'm saying..I'm a calvinist...and maybe i do not


"Calvinist-friendly" Bible would have to read ...God so loved the ELECT that He gave His Son for them alone and calls them the FEW of Matt 7.
************************
what bible says this??????


God is willing that the ELECT ONLY be saved and so He accepts the sacrifice of His Son for the saving of the FEW of Matt 7 only.
*************************
and this??

God's Son appeased Him in his WRATH toward the elect.
*************************
ok..you do not like the KJV..no big deal. I said i like atonement too...but i couple it with redeem. but to attach one word changes NOTHING

For indeed God's Son appeases him for OUR SINS only - WE being the ELECT"
********************************
you mean the KJV? well it says appeases....but does it say..only for the elect?

James said
My Bible says...Christ so propitiated God for mans SINs..not as you said.

My Bible says "Christ is the ATONING SACRIFICE for OUR SINS and NOT for OUR SINS only but for the sins of the WHOLE WORLD" 1John 2:2 NIV.
*******************************
great Bob...it says the same thing as the KJV


Maybe you should try a less translation that relies less on "appeasement" and "Greek-pagan-propitiation".
*******************************
i use them all bob...but i do not change the meaning to something that fits my faith.

BTW...the NIV is good...but really not a word for word translation. try the NASV...or the ESV.


Did I forget to post the reasons for this from the HEBREW concept of Atonement that John would have been using?
******************
did you forget to read what i said about that?

bob i have read your little thing many times. you bring it up alot. Its about the same as wes on grace.

my point is...and others tell you this..
it changes NOTHING atonement with redeeming is the better picture...go with it if you wish


In Chrisy\t...James

 

[BobRyan]

For indeed God's Son appeases him for OUR SINS only - WE being the ELECT"

As I have pointed out repeatedly the reason that the Hebrew scriptures use "Atonement" instead of the Greek pagan notion of "appeasement" is because INSTEAD of "God is so angry that he must be appeased - - and only got APPEASED for the FEW of Matt 7 by the death of His son" -- Scripture puts it as "God SO LOVED that HE GAVE".

That is the exact opposite as the appeasement framework would view it.

But it is the Bible.

Which is why the Hilasmos use in Lev 16 "Day of Atonement" is a good call in 1John 2:2.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Did I forget to post the reasons for this from the HEBREW concept of Atonement that John would have been using?
******************

did you forget to read what i said about that?

bob i have read your little thing many times. you bring it up alot.

Good of you to read it.

How 'bout them "details"??!

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Jarthur001]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
For indeed God's Son appeases him for OUR SINS only - WE being the ELECT"

As I have pointed out repeatedly the reason that the Hebrew scriptures use "Atonement" instead of the Greek pagan notion of "appeasement" is because INSTEAD of "God is so angry that he must be appeased - - and only got APPEASED for the FEW of Matt 7 by the death of His son" -- Scripture puts it as "God SO LOVED that HE GAVE".

That is the exact opposite as the appeasement framework would view it.

But it is the Bible.

Which is why the Hilasmos use in Lev 16 "Day of Atonement" is a good call in 1John 2:2.

In Christ,

Bob </font>[/QUOTE]well bob...yes and no. you are crossing doctrine here a bit.

salvation is shown to us in many picture froms.

One picture is in the form of the LAW and guilt of sins. This is a ugly picture. Sin has a wage and the wage is death. Blood must be shed for this reason. Christ was the sacrifice...the lamb....the only worthy lamb. His death was in place of ourn death and now it is as if we never sinned...for our sins are covered


Another picture is of us and our sin nature. In sin nature we are slaves to sin. this is where.."no one seeks God" comes in. in the pits of sin. being in the pits of sin does not mean we are a great sinner. it has nothing to do with one sin. dead in our sins means, slaves to sin, in the darkness....not seeing the light. We are born in this sin nature. We must be removed from the slaves of sin. In salvation we now live to serve our Lord. This is done in the redemption story. as in hosea did with gomer. so...Just as hosea..Christ loved us so much, he paid a ransome, he gave his life for us, redeeming us from the slaves of our sin nature.

We still have this sin nature, but we are no long slaves to it.

other pictures are sonship...which is close to redeeming..but not the same.

anyway, as far as sin goes, the atonement for sins...and redeeming from our sin nature needs to be viewed together for both are pictured in the bible

atonement...for there is a law broken..and a wage to pay.

redeemed...for Christ loved us and gave his life

in redemption we now see the light. we now have understanding

in atonement..we are justified

Both good pictures


In Christ...James

 

[Jarthur001]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
Did I forget to post the reasons for this from the HEBREW concept of Atonement that John would have been using?
******************

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
did you forget to read what i said about that?

bob i have read your little thing many times. you bring it up alot.

Good of you to read it.

How 'bout them "details"??!

In Christ,

Bob </font>[/QUOTE]as i said before..change the word if you want. but do not change the context


In Christ...James

 

[BobRyan]

"The details" show why the pagan idea of appeasement does not work in Lev 16 where Hilasmos is found and also does not work in 1John 2:2.

"God so LOVED that He GAVE" is the opposite of "The SON so aPPEASED God that He agreed not to be angry".

Propitiation is for greek deities.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Bob said --
As I have pointed out repeatedly the reason that the Hebrew scriptures use "Atonement" instead of the Greek pagan notion of "appeasement" is because INSTEAD of "God is so angry that he must be appeased - - and only got APPEASED for the FEW of Matt 7 by the death of His son" -- Scripture puts it as "God SO LOVED that HE GAVE".

That is the exact opposite as the appeasement framework would view it.

But it is the Bible.

Which is why the Hilasmos use in Lev 16 "Day of Atonement" is a good call in 1John 2:2.

JAmes said --

well bob...yes and no. you are crossing doctrine here a bit.

salvation is shown to us in many picture froms.

Just not contradictory models where paganism is incorporated into the "God so LOVED" Gospel theme of salvation and atonement. The work of Christ is never described as "appeasing an angry God".

But it is described as a substitutionary atoning sacrifice given FOR US by the God who "SO LOVED THE WORLD that HE GAVE".

Trying to add to that - a contradictory pagan model does nothing to build up the Gospel. So Hilasmos in Lev 16 and Hilasmos in 1John 2:2 is perfectly "Consistent" with the Lev 16 use setting the direction for the word - long before 1John 2 was ever written.

No doubt John had the ability to read Leviticus in Greek.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Jarthur001]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />

Just not contradictory models where paganism is incorporated into the "God so LOVED" Gospel theme of salvation and atonement. The work of Christ is never described as "appeasing an angry God".

But it is described as a substitutionary atoning sacrifice given FOR US by the God who "SO LOVED THE WORLD that HE GAVE".

Trying to add to that - a contradictory pagan model does nothing to build up the Gospel. So Hilasmos in Lev 16 and Hilasmos in 1John 2:2 is perfectly "Consistent" with the Lev 16 use setting the direction for the word - long before 1John 2 was ever written.

No doubt John had the ability to read Leviticus in Greek.

In Christ,

Bob </font>[/QUOTE]Hi ya Bob,

Well..we need to cover all of the Bible..right? Both apply..and I will restate atonement tomorrow. Right now i have work to do.


Have a good night


In Christ...james

 

[yeshua4me2]

why do arminians skip this verse:

Rom 9:15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
Rom 9:16 So then it is not of him that WILLITH, nor of him that RUNNNETH (away by context), but of God that sheweth mercy.

these verses say that is has nothing to do with willingness, but only to do with God CHOOSING on whom he will have mercy


Rom 9:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to ELECTION might stand, not of works, BUT OF HIM THAT CALLETH
Rom 9:12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
Rom 9:13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.


these verses show that GOD's Predestined cannot be changed.

Rev 13:8 And all that dwell on the earth shall worship him, every one whose name hath not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb that hath been slain.


so if you're not written (in the Book)from the beginning, you're not in it.


and another thing what or Who are we saved from?


The Wrath of God.

thankyou and God Bless

 

[yeshua4me2]

and no all people do not get to hear the gospel...some were created to be vessels of wrath, who God is still loving enough to let live (and in relative peace at that).

Rom 9:20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why didst thou make me thus?
Rom 9:21 Or hath not the potter a right over the clay, from the same lump to make one part a vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor?
Rom 9:22 What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering vessels of wrath fitted unto destruction:
Rom 9:23 and that he might make known the riches of his glory upon vessels of mercy, which he afore prepared unto glory,


thank you and God Bless

 

[here now]

Yeshua4me2,