God wants all men to be saved

[Saved-By-Grace]

The blood was splattered from the garden (representing sin in Eden), through the temple (representing the religious), the palace (representing the political), the streets (the common and economy), and upon the spearhead (representing the military might). The wood of the cross would have some blood as the body would raise itself up to exhale, reopening the wounds of the scourging. So the shedding of blood for the remission (forgiveness) of sin was all sin of all types, of all peoples, of every walk of living, in every institutional setting. From the creation to eternity, the blood set aside the sin issue that Paul could rightly offer reconciliation to all humankind.

The death was not by lack or loss of blood, but the determination of the Lord Jesus who willed Himself at the appointed moment to commend His Spirit to the Father. “Finished, completed” was the word. The power over death was transferred to the Christ, who would also have the authority of resurrection to life and hell in the resurrection. Where, before Satan had to be told he could not take a life, such authority, by the virtue of the determined death of the Christ, was ripped from that evil and given into the conquering Savior. Does not He say, “All authority has been given to me,” and in another, “He holds the keys...”.

Now there is much more that is involved, and for brevity I did not place Scriptures in this post that it not become burdensome and tediously tombed. I figured you seem smart enough for me not to have to document what you already know as truthful.

For such an important doctrine, Scripture is essential. I can see nothing in the New Testament to suggest there is any division between the "death" of Jesus Christ, and His "blood" shed on the cross. I am aware that people like John MacArthur seem to try something here, but it really amounts to nothing! Jesus Christ death on the cross, and the blood that He shed because of this death, is not only "sufficient" for the sins of the entire human race, but also "available" to "everyone without exception". Only "theology" would try to show any difference or limitations.

 

[Mr. Davis]

Jesus Christ death on the cross, and the blood that He shed because of this death, is not only "sufficient" for the sins of the entire human race, but also "available" to "everyone without exception". Only "theology" would try to show any difference or limitations.

TCassidy, as I have said before, is a Baptist who believes in "particular redemption."
The Atonement was sufficient for all, but efficient only for some (the elect).
The alternative that you're presenting, means Universal Salvation for all, including the wicked and the Devil!

 

[agedman]

For such an important doctrine, Scripture is essential. I can see nothing in the New Testament to suggest there is any division between the "death" of Jesus Christ, and His "blood" shed on the cross. I am aware that people like John MacArthur seem to try something here, but it really amounts to nothing! Jesus Christ death on the cross, and the blood that He shed because of this death, is not only "sufficient" for the sins of the entire human race, but also "available" to "everyone without exception". Only "theology" would try to show any difference or limitations.

two points:

1) That you “can see nothing” is not a condition which one may base a determination. My wife often says I don’t see what she sees, and history has shown her consistently right and I was oblivious.

2) I pointed out a far greater shedding of blood that took place then the extremely little done on the cross. Too often people make like the blood was all pouring out saturating the wood and ground and any who came too close.

Roman crucifixion was specifically design to be both the most tortuous and cause the least blood loss, The Roman desire was that the person literally fight to the last strength to prolong the death. Did you not remember the legs being broken so the death would be hastened. Leg muscles last much longer then arm muscles pulling the body up to exhale.

The Scriptures do separate the death and the blood. The blood is specific in the propitiation, for without shed blood there is no forgiveness and no covenant agreement can be made.

The death was purposed and not a result of anything of earthly and heavenly cause.

The crucifixion was not just the cross, but from the time of submission prayer in the Garden to the stone rolled away from the door of the tomb.

Isaiah doesn’t mention a cross, but the wounds of tortuous expressed by humankind thinking they were being righteous in such grievous harm.

The blood had its purpose, the death its purpose, and the resurrection its purpose.

So, please braoden your vision that you “see” both more clearly and more inclusive as to the aspects of this great Gift from the Father to the creation.

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

TCassidy, as I have said before, is a Baptist who believes in "particular redemption."
The Atonement was sufficient for all, but efficient only for some (the elect).
The alternative that you're presenting, means Universal Salvation for all, including the wicked and the Devil!

Not so! As I have shown more than once, Jesus died also for Judas as per Luke 22, he was not the elect nor saved!

 

[Jerome]

TCassidy, as I have said before, is a Baptist who believes in "particular redemption."
The Atonement was sufficient for all, but efficient only for some (the elect).
The alternative that you're presenting, means Universal Salvation for all, including the wicked and the Devil!

For your instruction:

Just because someone rejects the calvinistic understanding of "limited atonement" does not mean he is a universalist. I can understand and appreciate the non-calvinist, non-universalist position

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

TCassidy, as I have said before, is a Baptist who believes in "particular redemption."
The Atonement was sufficient for all, but efficient only for some (the elect).
The alternative that you're presenting, means Universal Salvation for all, including the wicked and the Devil!

can you remember last November/December, when I posted from Luke that Judas part took of the Lord's Supper, and that Jesus told him that He was to die for him? If I remember correctly, you asked TCassidy if this were true, that Judas took the Lord's Supper, and he said yes?

 

[Reformed]

My issue with the atonement being sufficient for all but effectual only for the elect is that it injects an unnecessary qualification into the discussion. If Christ died to atone for the sins of the Elect, what does it matter if the atonement is sufficient for all? The only groups that are concerned about that sort of qualification are those in the free will camp or Universalists. If the atonement is definite (which I believe), then it was intended only for the Elect, a group that only God can number.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

My issue with the atonement being sufficient for all but effectual only for the elect is that it injects an unnecessary qualification into the discussion. If Christ died to atone for the sins of the Elect, what does it matter if the atonement is sufficient for all? The only groups that are concerned about sort of qualification are those in the free will camp or Universalists. If the atonement is definite (which I believe), then it was intended only for the Elect, a group that only God can number.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

Here we go... Then what about the fact, that in Luke chapter 22, the Lord Jesus tells Judas, as He does the other 11, "this is my blood, shed for YOU"? John Gill, Matthew Henry and the Greek scholar, A T Robertson agree that Judas did actually take part in the Lord's Supper. If Jesus' death were not for those lost in hell, like Judas, then surely He would have waited for Judas to have left the room, and then spoke these words! The fact of Jesus' timing, to INCLUDE Judas, can be without any doubt to show that He died for "everyone without exception", a phrase John Calvin uses on John 3:16!

 

[Reformed]

Here we go... Then what about the fact, that in Luke chapter 22, the Lord Jesus tells Judas, as He does the other 11, "this is my blood, shed for YOU"? John Gill, Matthew Henry and the Greek scholar, A T Robertson agree that Judas did actually take part in the Lord's Supper. If Jesus' death were not for those lost in hell, like Judas, then surely He would have waited for Judas to have left the room, and then spoke these words! The fact of Jesus' timing, to INCLUDE Judas, can be without any doubt to show that He died for "everyone without exception", a phrase John Calvin uses on John 3:16!

Was Jesus' blood actually she'd for the son of perdition? I do not believe it was.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

[Mr. Davis]

can you remember last November/December, when I posted from Luke that Judas part took of the Lord's Supper, and that Jesus told him that He was to die for him? If I remember correctly, you asked TCassidy if this were true, that Judas took the Lord's Supper, and he said yes?

You DON'T recall correctly.
TC agreed with me that the Passover in John 13 was the Lord's Supper and that according to John's account, Judas departed before it began! PM TC!!

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

Was Jesus' blood actually she'd for the son of perdition? I do not believe it was.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

My friend, it is not I who said this, but God Incarnate! Read the account in Luke 22, then look this up in Henry and Gill, and you will see that Jesus did indeed tell Judas, "My blood shed for YOU". Was He not telling the truth here?

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

You DON'T recall correctly.
TC agreed with me that the Passover in John 13 was the Lord's Supper and that according to John's account, Judas departed before it began! PM TC!!

Never mind, he is well wrong on John chapter 13, is it is the Passover meal and not the Lord's Supper. the fact that Luke records Judas as taking the Lord's Supper, and Jesus saying to him, "My blood shed for YOU", cannot be denied. John Gill and Matthew Henry agree that Judas did take the Lord's Supper! There is no escaping this fact!

 

[Mr. Davis]

My friend, it is not I who said this, but God Incarnate! Read the account in Luke 22, then look this up in Henry and Gill, and you will see that Jesus did indeed tell Judas, "My blood shed for YOU". Was He not telling the truth here?

Read my earlier post! John's account answers the question!
There are No contradictions in the Bible; only in men's minds!
Matthew Henry contradicts himself when he says the elect are both eternally saved and can lose their
salvation!

 

[TCassidy]

If I remember correctly, you asked TCassidy if this were true, that Judas took the Lord's Supper, and he said yes?

You have already been corrected on this. Please stop posting falsehoods about what I believe or what I said.

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

Read my earlier post! John's account answers the question!
There are No contradictions in the Bible; only in men's minds!

So Luke, who was a first-class historian, was WRONG? Explain Luke's account. Here is what John Gill, Matthew Henry, two very strong Calvinists, and Dr A T Robertson, the Greek scholar say:

"From Luke's account it appears most clearly, that Judas was not only at the passover, but at the Lord's supper, since this was said when both were over" (John Gill)

"it seems plain that Judas did receive the Lord's supper, did eat of that bread and drink of that cup; for, after the solemnity was over, Christ said, Behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table. There have been those that have eaten bread with Christ and yet have betrayed him" (Matthew Henry)

"That betrayeth (tou paradidontos). Present active participle, actually engaged in doing it. The hand of Judas was resting on the table at the moment. It should be noted that Luke narrates the institution of the Lord's Supper before the exposure of Judas as the traitor while Mark and Matthew reverse this order." ( A T Robertson)

These are FACTS!

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

You have already been corrected on this. Please stop posting falsehoods about what I believe or what I said.

pity you deleted the post on this after you blocked my account!

 

[agedman]

Not so! As I have shown more than once, Jesus died also for Judas as per Luke 22, he was not the elect nor saved!

Here you blend death and blood inappropriately.

The blood was that propitiation for sin of all people. but the death was particular for redemption

Hebrews 13:

11For the bodies of those animals whose blood is brought into the holy place by the high priest as an offering for sin, are burned outside the camp. 12Therefore Jesus also, that He might sanctify the people through His own blood, suffered outside the gate. 13So, let us go out to Him outside the camp, bearing His reproach. 14For here we do not have a lasting city, but we are seeking the city which is to come.​

blood for all.

Redemption for a few.

 

[TCassidy]

Never mind, he is well wrong on John chapter 13, is it is the Passover meal and not the Lord's Supper.

That's the point! Judas was present for the Passover meal but left before they celebrated the Lord's Supper!

John Gill and Matthew Henry

Man following again? (And both are strong Calvinists. Will you accept their commentary on that subject as final?)

 

[TCassidy]

pity you deleted the post on this after you blocked my account!

What in the world are you talking about?

 

[Wesley Briggman]

The King James Version, and some others have got this verse wrong. The ESV is quite right here:

"The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance"

Instead of the reading "ἡμᾶς" (us), which some take to mean only believers, and have tried to limit it to the "elect"; the far stronger and older textual reading is, "ὑμᾶς" (you). The difference is very important. With the reading "you", it is to be understood Peter as addressing the "mockers and scoffers" in verses 3+, which is very clear that he says that God is not willing that any of THEM perish, and was long-suffering towards THEM. This is also the language used by the Apostle Paul in Romans 9:22, "What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction". God is here seen as "long-suffering" towards those who are lost and hell-bound. Paul does not say that God "κατηρτισμένα" (fitted) them to their "destruction". It is evident from 2 Peter 3:9, and other places, that the sinner by rejecting the Gospel, so "fits themselves", which is also seen from Acts 13:46-48, where we read of the Jews rejecting the Gospel, and thereby "consider themselves (not God) unworthy of eternal life", and then the same Message is taken to the Gentiles, who gladly receive it, and thereby "τεταγμένοι", "arrange themselves" (so the Greek to be taken in the middle voice, contextually) on God's side!

If possible, please provide the Greek word translated "you" in: "...but is patient toward you...".