Draw all men to myself

Hey Blammo. I'm kinda new to the exegesis thing too. I have a book that I have found extreemly helpful. It was my textbook for my class on hermeneutics. It is paper back and inexpensive. You can find it at about any book store. It is "How to Read Your Bible for All its Worth." The authors are Fee and Stewart. Hope this helps you brother. I know I have found it a treasure.

 

You guys need to go back and look at my first (basic) exegete of the passage which was pathetic and horribly out of context verses my second one. If any of my professors saw that first one - they would strip me of any grade they gave me then. :laugh: *cough* not funny.

I think that pie needs to shared, I want some to... :thumbsup:

Blammo the Book Reformed is speaking of is a good one, as I have it too.

 

Blammo, I appreciate your good spirit and am glad we're back to square one

When I first joined the board, I assumed that everybody had a thick skin like mine. I usually don't respond to jabs and pricks, but it didn't take me long to realize that some folks have quick triggers and thin skins.

My experience on this board is that I need to pick my battlegrounds. There are some subjects I just need to avoid. It's easy for me to get in over my head with posters who really know their stuff. And as gently as possible, they will hand you your head on a platter if you're not prepared. I speak from experience.

I've also learned that some posters have a style which comes across as in-your-face. You've already run across some of them. They're good folks, it's just how they communicate. Don't let 'em get under your skin.

By the way, there are some things that simply cannot be said without seeming to be contentious. It's hard to tell someone he's wrong, or mistaken, of off his rocker or out of line in a gentle tone. But a little good-humored jab is not out of line. Just remember, they can't see that smile on your face when you deliver the punch.

By the way you handle yourself quite well. It's obvious you know your Bible.

 

Just a bump up and reposting a previously editted post of mine to see about continuing conversation. If not... Then Good night as we lay this thread to rest. :sleep:

What I gave in all actuality was not a proper exegete as I had seriously done the scripture a bad rendering (I didn’t do a double check on what I wrote and I apologize). It was wrong, though right in the general wrong even still. Sorry about that, it was my mistake.

The verb tense (active participle) was correct with regard to reconciling. However what is being stated is something much different than what I wrote. Actually Ted, it was an error of yours that caused me to look again at what I said. You stated God IS in Christ (present tense) when in fact scripture states God WAS in Christ (past tense). This verse is written not as flat statement (maybe I just didn’t get what you meant by it) but a reminder that Christ came not to judge but to save. Note the verse 18

Two things are stated here; 1. Who reconciled (past tense here) us by Jesus, and 2. Now we have that same ministry of reconciliation.
Then it goes to verse 19:

Now we see that God was in Christ or actively apart of what He (Christ) was doing and that being when Christ was here (earthly ministry) He was reconciling the world to himself. What or who is this world??? Here is what scripture says in relation to Christ’s ministry and the world.

Jesus is the light that lights (illuminate or reveals to) every man that cometh into the WORLD, and this same world that was made by Him and whom He was amongst did not know Him. Who is it, it is every man (person) that comes into the world (as in World). It was this reconciling that God desired and not imputing (casting judgment upon) their trespasses. We see this also in John 3

Now you may wonder why I placed the Moses lifting up the serpent along with the other verses that show Christ not condemning or Judging the world yet but seeking to save or reconcile them to Himself. The story of Moses and the Serpent is pertinent because anyone who was afflicted could simply look to this symbol of sin (acknowledging their sin and needing Gods salvation) And God would THEN take away their reproach or trespass, forgive and restore them to life.
Did God only choose certain ones who were afflicted and in sin to acknowledge their sin and make the others not do so??
Was there only a statement made by God that anyone could do this but that it was only for certain people in reality??
That is not what the scriptures states nor does it insinuate anything close that. So too, Jesus is lifted up for any who will acknowledge and receive Him.

It is for this reason we are ambassadors for Christ and in His stead that 2 Cor 5:20 states we pray (urge or plead) that you be reconciled unto God through Christ Jesus the Lord!
And finally before theses verses look if you will to verse 15

Which shows if He died for all then all those who live (not are made alive) should live for Him who has made the reconciling possible if you will but believe

 

Allan, I was sloppy as well in not catching the tense of "reconciling." I don't the mistake changed the essence of my position.

I go back to what I wrote earlier about Ro 5:19. God was doing two things. Reconciling and not imputing trespasses to those with whom he was reconciling. We have two choices. Assume that world means everybody, therefore everybody's sins will not be imputed to them, thus universalism; or, that world means something less--that is, only those whose sins are not imputed are the reconciled.

Using other scriptures referring to the "world" can be helpful in shedding light on other "world" scriptures, but I don't think they are in this case.

 

[It is 2 Cor 5:19] In order to understand who the 'world' is in reference to (specifically here and dealing with reconciling) we need to let scripture show us who it is refering to. Verse 19 clues us in as it shows . Thus my posting this as well...

But I will add one more that denotes specifically who this world is with regard to this same reconciling:

As we know Jesus ministry was of two parts -1. to the Jewish Nation -temporarily blinded due to unbelief (first) and 2. (then to) to the world both Jew and Gentile (as indivuals and not a people). Israel as a nation will be brought the reconciliation (as the versse above shows) but for this time period (dispensation of grace) the reconcilition is to the world of whom the Church (Jew and Gentile) come from. And this is why verse 20 states they (the saved) pray (plead or urge) others to be reconciled being that we LIKE Christ are given the ministry of reconciliation to the WORLD.

BTW: There is one event taking place in verse 19 and not two. It is not being reconciled AND THEN not having their trespasses imputed. But the reconciliation IS not having their trespasses imputed to them (or better having their trespasses Judged). We are the reason there is still time and night is not yet come. But there is coming a time when Night comes and the ministry will be at an end. Then comes the Judgment of the World! - and the reconciling of Israel as spoken of in Rom 11:15

 

==You left out John 6:37 and 65.

==John 12:32, isolated from the rest of Scripture and from its context, would teach universalism. That is why Scripture must be taken in context and not in isolation. Many popular evangelicals take John 12:32 out of context. They don't believe/teach universalism but that is only because they are inconsistant.

==But the Father does not draw all mankind. Only those He draws can come to Jesus and not everyone can come (Jn 6:65). People come to Jesus because the Father has given them to Him, that is why the elect are drawn to Jesus.

Another problem here is that, again, you are leaning towards universalism. If the Father draws all then, and we must be consistant with the whole verse, then all are raised up to life on the last day (Jn 6:40,44). Why? Notice what Jesus said:

"No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day" -Jn 6:44

Those the Father draws to Jesus are raised by Jesus on the last day.

Again...

"All that the Father gives Me will come to Me...that of all lthat He has given Me I lose nothing but raise it up on the last day" -Jn 6:37a,39b

I have only quoted those parts because I realize that we agree on the security aspect. Please notice, however, that those the Father gives to the Son are the ones who come to the Son and the Son raises them up on the last day.

And again...

"For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son adn believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day" -Jn 6:40

It is believers who are raised up, in this context, on the last day. Those mentioned in verses 37a,39b are believers, those mentioned in verse 44 are believers as well. Those who are drawn to the Son, as in John 6:44, are those the Father has given to the Son and those whom the Son will raise up on the last day.

Therefore we can't say, as you have, that everyone is drawn. Since everyone is not given to Jesus, and therefore everyone does not come to Jesus, then we must know that not everyone is drawn to Jesus (see Jn 6:65). John 12:32 must be understood as refering to the general offer of the Gospel. Through the Gospel message the whole world is drawn to Jesus. However only the elect are drawn to Jesus in a saving way.

==Well first please notice who the verse is talking to. The Lord is patient towards who? "You", who is "you" in this verse? It is "those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ" (vs1). Peter is talking about the elect. God is patient not willing that any of the elect should perish but that all of them should come to repentance. This agrees with John 6:37 which says all of the elect will come to Christ. This agrees with John 6:39 and 10:28-29 which says that none of Christ's sheep will ever perish. 2Peter 3:9 is not refering to all men in general.

A verse that does, however, refer to all men in general is 1Timothy 2:4. God desires that all men would be saved. After all Scripture is clear that God is love and does not take joy in the punishment of the wicked (see 1Jn 4:8, Ez 18:23, Jn 3:16). However God has not willed that every person be saved, nor has He elected every person to be saved. Why not? I have no clue (Rom 11:33-36). I just know that Scripture is clear on both points.

 

Allan, forgive me, I am dense. In your post #102, I can't figure out your definition of "world" in II Cor 5:19. I'm sure it's there, I just don't see it. Can you enlighten me?

Also, you described the reconciling and not imputing trespasses as one event, not two. Makes sense to me. Sorta like repentance and faith. Two sides of the same coin.

 

But Martin, is this word for all inclusive? I'm not sure because the same word is used later in 1 Tim. 6:10 to say that "the love of money is the root of all sorts of evil. Is the word the same as "all sorts of"? If so then 1 Tim. 2:4 is saying all sorts of men, not all inclusively.

 

World is a general term refering to every type or kind of person within the human race and not a specific or particular people, as in Israel.

When we (non-calvinists) state 'world', we like the Calvinists have two applications for it. Specific as to every indiviual of Mans race is included and equally apart of the context, and general as in those OUT OF the World specific. The connotation of the world is still maintained (ie. all people) but the identifier has changed from specifically each person to 'those' of each type or kind of people from the whole world.

Which is why I stated in most posting this:
As we know Jesus ministry was of two parts -1. to the Jewish Nation -temporarily blinded due to unbelief (first) and 2. (then to) to the world both Jew and Gentile (as indivuals and not a people). Israel as a nation will be brought the reconciliation (as the versse above shows) but for this time period (dispensation of grace) the reconcilition is to the world of whom the Church (Jew and Gentile) come from. And this is why verse 20 states they (the saved) pray (plead or urge) others to be reconciled being that we LIKE Christ are given the ministry of reconciliation to the WORLD.

BTW: There is one event taking place in verse 19 and not two. It is not being reconciled AND THEN not having their trespasses imputed. But the reconciliation IS not having their trespasses imputed to them (or better having their trespasses Judged). We are the reason there is still time and night is not yet come. But there is coming a time when Night comes and the ministry will be at an end. Then comes the Judgment of the World! - and the reconciling of Israel as spoken of in Rom 11:15

Is it clear as mud or is the dirt settling somewhat??

 

I''m getting there, thanks. I'm a Calvinist, and I do agree that the context determines the application of the word "world."

In the case of IICor 5:19 "world" equates to those who were being reconciled--the redeemed ones. Uh, sorry I have to say this--the elect. But the redeemed ones were all kinds of folks from everywhere.

My view, of course, should take the steam out of the argument for a general atonement based on II Cor 5:14 "...if one died for all, then were all dead..."

Thanks for fleshing out things for me. I't's a pleasure discussing a topic with someone who values civility as much as I do.

 

Thak you, I appreciate that and also thank you as well
However, with regard to your II Cor 5:14 - Actually it doesn't let any steam out.

This deals with the application of the atonement of Christ to the believer and how he is to view himself in relation to Christ. We see this in the next verse of; "He died for all (believers) that we should ..." However this DOES NOT signifiy that His death was ONLY for the Elect (I like the word for us believers so don't be afraid to use it) We see this in scriptures like:

Any rendering of this verse apart from Christ being the Saviour to all men (mankind) but specifically to those who believe, is simply false. It shows that this attonement is potentially for all but effective to those who will believe (those God foreknew in either C or Non-C sense). Another scripture to this is:

The Attonement is something that anyone (sinner) CAN partake of (unlimited) but not everyone will.

The application of attonement is spoken of there (back to II Cor 5:18) but as the scripture continues Paul gives the view of the attonement in relation of Gods and reconciliation is offered to the world (potentially) but is (as we see above) applied only to those who believe.

Here is an excert from Jameison-Fausset & Brown and is commentaried from a Calvinistic view (no secret there) but it is interesting what they state here on this issue of Reconciliation and the "world".

 

bumpidy, bumpidy, bumpidy, bumpidy, bump, ba
bumpidy, bumpidy, buddy, buddy, bump-idy, bumpidy, bump, bump, ba
Bump, bump, ba, - Bump, bump, ba, - Bump, bump, bump bump, ba - buddyba.

bumpidy, bumpidy, bumpidy, bumpidy, bump, ba
bumpidy, bumpidy, buddy, buddy, bump-idy, bumpidy, bump, bump, ba!!

(tune to Bonaza) - Note: it works great for putting kids to sleep when lightly boucing them on you knee laid back against you.

And its a bump :laugh:

 

Allan, maybe you will give this a shot? Does all mean all inclusively in this verse?

 

2Cr 5:14 For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead:
2Cr 5:15 And [that] he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again
Allen on the passage above:

Allan said about this passage:

This deals with the application of the atonement of Christ to the believer and how he is to view himself in relation to Christ. We see this in the next verse of; "He died for all (believers) that we should ..."

Allan, I agree with your comments on this verse, up to a point, of course.
I'm glad to see that you and I agree that context helps in determining the meaning of a passage. In this case, I'm glad to see someone who is not a Calvinist agree that "all" doesn't mean every person without exception. "All" is limited to believers--the elect.

This gives me hope that others will follow your example and consider the possibility that the same might apply in other instances of "all" and "the world."

It's a lot easier, isn't it, to let the scripture drive our exegesis, rather than trying to make a passage fit our beliefs.

 

[/B]

Well, lets see. (I'll give most anything a try at least once. :tongue3: )

In looking at this verse in its context I see no reason it should be 'all kinds' as it does not convey the intent of the writer.

The "love" of money is the key to the "all" in this scripture.
The verse preceding this one states that some will go after riches, which by intent is simply saying the desire for more money is what will drive "those" individuals and they will fall and be snared.

Then next verse:

This verse declares why this will happen and the very cause of this falling. It is the "love of money" this is a dirivitive of 'loving money' which directly refers to coveting and is why the verse says they covet. To covet is about selfishness, about it being about you and is this not the 'root of [all] evil' and not just all kinds of evil. If the verse were speaking just about money or even 'only' about loving money then, yes it would by context be able to states all kinds of but not specifically all evil. But the construction of the verse and the subject it is speaking of is the "love of - covetness' and this makes us able to state 'all' inclusively. The use of money in conjuction with 'love of' is merely used to personify by example the magnitude of the truth being revealed. What is that truth, well it was those thing just previously stated but also these things after this verse:

and then

The Truth, it is not about you, but all about Him. So live like it is all about Him and not about you.

 

Tom,
Hey, context is context, and yes in 'that' verse it is limited to believers.
But if the contexual analysis I gave is correct as to the what and the why the 'all' applies to here then it must follow through and show that the reconciling to the 'world' means 'ALL' of the world or ALL the people of the world. If the analysis is correct in the first half it will also be correct at the latter end since.

I think you misunderstand 'some' who state 'all' means 'all' for it does in every instance and you agree to this as in context of who the 'all' is.

Though what is stated is that some those 'verses' Calvinism uses to state God is only refering to ALL of a portion (ie...believers) we state the context shows is 'some' cases this not true but it refers to everyone as in 'ALL'. No one denies the word 'all' is defined by context as everyone or all of a portion.

NOTE: "all" can have differing meanings in context but 'World' means 'World' as in ALL people of all groups of all kinds (king or pauper)

 

*peeking out from around the corner*

- all is quiet -

* He steps cautiously from the sheltered corner and takes a deep breath and shouts *

*"BUMP~!"*

* Spinning quickly he dives back behind the corner * [though slightly shaken, he is not stirred]

- all is still quiet -

* Peeking again around the corner but with great quivering anxiouty *