Do You Believe In The Doctrines of Grace?

Allan,

There is a ton of stuff to address here. Please allow me to have some fun with this.

You said...

His death was about slavation...was it not? He laid down His life for his friends...why?

Because they were about to get killed? no.
onlt one reason that He died. So SAVE sinners.

and who did He do it for? does not the text say...His frineds? What more would you like to add to the text?

You said..

indeed. Therefore i rest my case. Salvation is a relationship (active present tense). No?

you said...

are you saying that Jesus had no relationship with others after this point? I happen to know that He has one with me. Christ died for all of His friends, not just those at that moment. Now...to limit His death to His friends, which it is clear this is what the passage says, then His none friends...did He die for them also?

You said...

again you make my case..
the world...the non-believer does not abide "in Christ". Who is "in Christ" anyway? Is it not those with the vine? Is it not those that follow Him? Is it not those called the elect? Is it not those He Calls his bride? Is it not those He calls friends?

And what pray tell does He do for His friends? He lays down His life for His friends.

Going to church...i'll be back.

 

The problem you have is proving this is given to more than the twelve.

A sinner who is at enmity with God, never seeking, but hating God CAN NOT be a servant of God. But Jesus said "I no longer call you servants but friends". It was a CHANGE in their relationship WITH CHRIST. They were already SAVED!! But were coming into a New Covenant with a different relationship with God.

And then you will have a hard time proving that scirpture is incorrect when it states that we are enimies NOT Friends of God before salvation.

Oh and another thing - Christ came to die FOR SINNERS



What I am saying is they WERE ALREADY IN a relationship with Christ not about to be or soon afterwards but "IN".
Everyone else is a sinner and NOT in a relationship with Him, and it is not until He dies that man is reconsiled to God but STILL is NOT in a right relationship with much less to be called a servant of God.

 

You missed the point of this verse altogether. They still are servants. Christ does not call some of the elect friends and some not. One cannot rise to a “friend” class in salvation.

We indeed are servants of Christ…(read Paul on this). The point Christ is making is that He does not treat us as servants as most masters would treat a servant. Christ threats then as friends, though they still are servants…(see Paul on this)....by laying down His life for them. What master …"earthly master" would do this? Servants are to serve the master. And we still are to serve the master....but the point is Christ love as the Head Master, is greater then any other master and therefore His love does not act as other masters. In that He laid down His life for His servants, that He calls friends.

You said..

Indeed..and this statement “Christ came to die for sinners is true even if it was toward only the 12. So…whoever Christ died for, being that we are are sinners…this verse works.
Now…also we need to add….Christ laid down his life for His friends.

Who are His friends? This passage tells us…does it not? Those that are in Christ.

Who is "in Christ" anyway? Is it not those with the vine? Is it not those that follow Him? Is it not those are called the elect? Is it not those He Calls his bride? Is it not those He calls friends?

And what pray tell does He do for His friends? He lays down His life for His friends.

So this passage limits the sinners. Hey…its not me…it’s the Bible.

As does this passage.
Hebrews 12:6
For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.

Does the Lord chasten all men? No…He chasteneth whom He loves. Which means there are some He does not chasten….for this is the point of the passage. If this be the case, what is this saying about those He does not chasten?

and what did the angel say at His birth? Find this statement and it limits the sinners again.

 

Just a note: Jesus called Judas His friend, yet most believe he was not saved.

 

Ouch......

 

You ok webdog? What was it...

That?

john.

 

Indeed you are right. And this is the point Christ was making in john 17...is it not?


and here you have it... Psalm 109

speaking of john 17..what else do we find here?

Why does not Christ pray for the world? Any ideas?

Now you can read the rest of 17...and see why psalm 109 is posted above.

 

We have things for bumps, boo boos and ouches...

Its call the gospel truth Band-Aid.

 

And have you not read Psa 49

 

sure...

Psa 41:9 is all about Judas...is it not?

in whom I trusted,
It was Judas with the bag and the money in it, both for his own family, the apostles, and for the poor...back to John 12:6

which did eat of my bread;
Judas was given the bread and who seems to have eaten of the bread in the Lord's supper...same guy as in john 17 and psa 109

hath lifted up his heel against me;
Judas was the one that did this... betraying him into the hands of his enemies.

 

I have not missed the point, but you seem to be dodging like a hunted rabbit.
The verse by itself can be made to mean anyting a person wants to expounding to it. It is the context which gives it defintion and scope. And the context says absolutely nothing in accordance to you opinion.

First, you still have not proven that Jesus is speaking to anyone OTHER THAN specifically His 12 (or eleven) in context.

Secondly, you still have not addressed the fact that Jesus placed a condition on being His 'friend'. Therefore there IS NO releationship until the condition is met.

Though Jesus is speaking to the 12, it is this verse which precludes Judus from the intent of the discorse though Judas himself is called a servant (I will no longer call you servants...).
This is about a relationship that is already established and enjoyed by Himself and the Disciples. You are applying the relationship that we WILL have at a later time into the text, but it does not support you opinion, since we have no relationship to or with God until our salvation. We are His enemies until that transforming moment.

In light of that, You still did not deal with the fact they were ALREADY servants and therefore ALREADY IN a relationship with Christ. Though they were IN a relationship ALREADY it was NOT in the NT sense (for He had not yet died whereby we are made SONS) but under the OT. (servants and possible friends).

These OT saints are called Gods servants and some even given the the blessed title of "friends of God" but we of the NEW Covenant are called His children/sons and NEVER referenced as friends like those under the OT Covenant.

Christ came to fulfil the OT covenant and thereby bring into fruition the NT Covenant.

I can show where God calls the differing OT saint 'friends' albeit even them it is a title reserved only for those who obeyed God with their lives unto death. I guess that is why says you are my friends IF you keep my..." ANyway, I can not find one place where the NT saint is ever refered to as "a friend" or "friend of God".
I may be wrong and open to see such verses if they are there.

I would love to see Paul on this. Please show me the verses where Paul says this.
Paul states we are both servants of God (yes I agree to that half of truth) though we are also and indeed Children of God (not friends).

However your wording is correct in that Jesus treated them (the apostles) as friends being they were still under the OT covenant and not yet brought into the NT Covenant. The one had to be fulfilled before the other could effectively come into fruition. The title 'friends' (as I stated previously) is a seldom used title for those who lived their lives in faith as a servant of God. Niether Abraham nor Moses (friends of God) was called such until AFTER they acted toward God in obedience to His command. ButiIn either covenant we are consistantly refered to as servants because of the work God has prepared for each person to fulfil. Yet we are identified differently according to intimacy of relationship.
OT = enemy/servant-friend ----------- NT = enemy/Son-servant

An Earthly Master says "I'll do, IF you do" So what is Jesus is saying here:

James... A servant does what he is told to do by his master and his mission or job is not explained nor does it need to be. A servant obeys.
A friend is given more information showing a closeness and trust but still obedience is required to maintain that relationship as shown in the verse above.

Imagine the postion of a Child in contrast to a friend. :thumbs:

Jesus came to save sinners, and is why scripture says He died FOR sinners. Actually we see Jesus stating Mankind has no greater display of affection than giving his life for those he holds dear. He said "greater love no MAN has than this... That is true for Paul says that

Not that while we were yet servants CHrist died but sinners and out right haters of God.
Christ did not die only for a few, because that is what MAN would do. Die only for righteous (as God knows whom He calls righteous in Him) or those to whom He ordained to walk in good works. But He died for the WHOLE WORLD.
WHy else does Jesus continue to tell His disciple REPEATEDLY to Love each Him AND each other. Jesus Love which Jesus acted upon was greater than the love a MAN but the Love of God toward His enemies. A man does not typically care about those who he does not know and even then will hesitate to give his life for one who is of great importance to him. God is not man that His Love is so bound but actaully commands His followers to be like Him. To love our enemies, and provide for them in their need, to pray for them.
This is why John knowing the full meaning of his own words that were inspired by the Holy Spirit we see His understanding of the phrase Whole World.

The consistancy with which James used the phrase "Whole World" is only magnified by the context, which is - all of mankind.

Christ is the propitiation for the sins of the Whole World (all sinful man)

 

I think I lost track of this convo...

What part of John 17 are you refrencing?

 

Who don't believe in the doctrine of "Grace". It is just how we believe we recieve that "Grace" is the question. As far as Judas, it would of been better if he had of never been born. If he was "saved" then regardless of what happened to him, it would be worth it to go to Heaven. He was a devil from the beginning. Jesus also called the one who came to the wedding without the wedding garment "friend", but said bind him and cast him into outer darkness. At least that is how I see it, but that is just me.

 

John 17:14 I have given them your word and the world has hated them, for they are not of the world any more than I am of the world. 15 My prayer is not that you take them out of the world but that you protect them from the evil one. 16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of it. 17 Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth. 18 As you sent me into the world, I have sent them into the world. 19 For them I sanctify myself, that they too may be truly sanctified.

We are not of the world.

john.

 

Not any longer once we are in Christ, but we WERE 'of the World'

It sounds to me like scripture states we WERE 'of the World' but NOW are of His Kingdom.

We were never OF HIM, until we BECAME OF HIM.

I think that is what you are saying, right??

 

Allan , it's been almost 5 months . You have not supplied any quotes or sources for your contention that the following believed in universal atonement .

You said the following did not believe in particular redemption : Henry Bullinger , Hugh Latimer , Myles Coverdale , Thomas Cranmer , Wolfgang Musculus .

I am not familiar with other names you had mentioned such as Benedict Aretius , Thomas Becon and David Paraeus . However , since you say these men also favor your view of the atonement -- please document that .

 

Count me in as one of those scum bag, low life, no better than a worm sinners that Jesus saved, particularly. If LA is a heresy then what are those who teach it but heretics? I believe the doctrine of particular redemption to be the doctrine of Scripture. But I would prefer to discuss calmly when in controversy, and I don't prefer controversy at all.

 

Our conversation will not continue until you seek repentence and a true reconciliation from me as I have stated before.

But I will show this:

 

This and will be no controversy between me and Rippon again.
If you will notice this thread stopped being posted on back in April of this year.

However I am curious who said anything about a those who hold to LA is a scum bag, low life??

I believe 100% in Particular Redemption as have ALL born-again beleivers throughout Church History.

However Limited Atonement is another matter.

 

Allan , are you coming down with dementia or something ? We just dialogued the other day on the thread called " The Notable Dr. Gill ".

When you mention me by name about 14 times a day something tells me you are out of it .

The 8 men I mentioned are still unaccounted for . You must have posted your Ron Rhoades-aided list about 8 times or so . Yet you have never provided any documentation -- no sources -- and no quotes from any of those 8 men . You merely list them as believing in unlimited atonement thinking that is sufficient . Well , it's not . Why you believe it is fine and dandy is a mystery . Don't just throw names on a wall and hope some stick .

In your post#53 you quoted Jerome Zanchius' "Confession Of The Christian Faith" . It's there where you get the so-called offer of the gospel confused with the grace of redemption and salvation "which is not communicated but to the elect who are made one with Christ ."

You say that Zwingli and Bucer agreed with the previously mentioned Confession -- yet you do not quote anything from their own words to back up your claim .

Get with the program .