God's sovereignty in Joh 1 thru 12

This is not the ony meaning of this. "lifted up" refers to the crucifixion, Christ defeating death and the grave, and the lifting up of His name through the great commision.

John's words do not woutweigh Christs'. He said "all men", and He meant "all men without exception", as He did not die only for the sins of believers...but "the whole world". Let Scripture interpret Scripture...correctly.

BTW, I take offense that you imply that those who do not agree with the "doctrines of grace", do not hold God as sovereign in salvation.

 

I agree that God is Sovereign and in His Sovereignity he created man and put before him a choice of good or evil. Unfortunately, man chose evil and brought death but by Jesus we can be restored with God and all this is according to His Sovereignty. peace :flower:

 

Absolutely. Let scripture interpret scripture correctly. Which means your interpretation MUST be incorrect.

The words "all men" can mean "all men without exception" or "all men without distinction". The "whole world" can mean "all men without exception" or "all men without distinction".

Since both of these phrases can mean either everyone, or a subset of everyone, then we have to look to other scriptures to find out which it is.

There are plenty of places to prove it is "all men without distinction" but we only need one. Remember, you can insist on a meaning with a mountain of verses, but if a single verse contradicts your meaning, your meaning must be wrong.

The phrase "a ransom for many" tells you without question that it must be "all men without distinction" not "all men without exception". If Jesus died for all men without exception, then the verse would have to say "a ransom for all". But that's not what it says. It says "a ransom for many".

While "all men" can mean "all men without distinction" and therefore mean the same thing as "many", "many" cannot possibly mean "all men without exception".

Let scripture interpret scripture correctly.

 

No it doesn't. "Many" is read as "all" in that text, and elsewhere (as the greek for "for", anti, should be translated "instead", making Christ the ransom instead of the many required of God. This makes Christ the ransom for "all". This is where you are incorrect in your Scripture interpreting Scripture, and the tendency to hold on to the english translation as the proof text.

I believe I did.

 

Preach it npetreley!!!!

 

1 Timothy 2:3-6 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

 

Hello webdog.

1SA 3:11 And the LORD said to Samuel: "See, I am about to do something in Israel that will make the ears of everyone who hears of it tingle. 12 At that time I will carry out against Eli everything I spoke against his family--from beginning to end. 13 For I told him that I would judge his family forever because of the sin he knew about; his sons made themselves contemptible, and he failed to restrain them. 14 Therefore, I swore to the house of Eli, `The guilt of Eli's house will never be atoned for by sacrifice or offering.' "
It is explicitly stated that Christ did not atone for Eli's household therefore Christ did not die for all men.

If Christ had died for all men then no charge can be brought against them as Jesus took the punishment for their sins.
...I swore to the house of Eli, `The guilt of Eli's house will never be atoned for by sacrifice or offering.' "

'Let scripture interpret scripture correctly.'

Have you included 1 Sam 3:14 in your interpretation webdog.

john.

 

We have been over "Eli" in the past, and you were shown where you were mistaken. I will not rehash that again, so yes, I have taken that into consideration.

 

You're just giving another example of "all". You have to apply the same rules to this "all" as to every other "all". Does it mean "all without distinction"? Or "all without exception"?

As I pointed out all it takes is ONE scripture reference that limits it to "all without distinction" to tell you how to interpret every other "all". It only takes ONE "many" to tell you that the rest of the occurrances of "all" cannot possibly mean "all without exception". Why? Because you cannot qualify "many" as "all without exception". But you CAN qualify "all" as "all without distinction", which is the same thing as saying "many".

Just to be precise, there are other cases where "all" means something other than "all without exception" or "all without distinction". It can mean things like "all of the elect" or "all Jews" or "all Gentiles". But I mention this only for the sake of accuracy. The free-will vs. election debate generally revolves around the "all" that can mean "alll without distinction" or "all without exception".

 

Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. :sleeping_2:

1 Timothy 4:10 For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

 

Why do they have to run all the way back to OT or Greek translation to get our of a rut?
And now it is blah blah blah blah.
And get praise for it.
(preach it nept) :laugh: :laugh:

 

Please post in non-Baptist forums

 

Hello Brother Bob.

With respect Bob, you do not believe in Sovereignty as I believe in Sovereignty. I believe that my definition of God's Sovereignty is the only definition that does the term justice. God is not another Sovereign, a Sovereign amongst sovereigns, choice itself is sovereignty, where choice resides so does sovereignty.

Anyway, God did not give Adam a choice He gave him a command, "Do not touch the tree..." And warned him of the consequences of disobedience, "...or you will die." But what choice has anyone, God is Sovereign, Adam had to do the will of God. For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all. (For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all. KJV.) Rom 11:32.

Adam and Eve were bound over to disobedience along with us all. :flower:

john.

 

I respectfully disagree for God did give Adam a choice. I don't know of too many who say Adam didn't have a choice to either eat or not eat of the tree of Knowledge of good and evil.
Also, God as he created Adam with a choice in His Sovereignity, in doing so created mankind with a choice and He alone was able to do that in His Sovereignity.

I believe in a just and loving God who created us all the same. I cannot read where He created two men but one. If He created Adam so he had a choice so do we.

 

Quote:
I agree that God is Sovereign and in His Sovereignity he created man and put before him a choice of good or evil. Unfortunately, man chose evil and brought death but by Jesus we can be restored with God and all this is according to His Sovereignty. peace :flower:

I agree.

Is there anyone on this board that does not believe God is Sovereign? Of course not, I assume.

The question is: How did the Sovereign God decide to provide salvation for man? I don't see how God being Sovereign has anything to do with the OSAS and freewill issue.

 

I start that again.

john.

 

Hello Blammo, good to meet you.

1 Timothy 2:3 This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4 who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.

Since you say that God wants all men saved , without exception, I would like to know why He created Hell? Seems not only that He does not know who will be saved, why should He want a person saved when He knows their destiny in advance, but that He wants a thing He knows by foreknowledge He cannot have? EPH 1:11 In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will...
This is a contradiction then. If He works out everything according to His will yet still wills another thing, that He knows cannot be, and doesn't get it, then it isn't worked out. If He desires all to be saved creating Hell was a big mistake. Regardless of any reasons the fact is that He knew He was creating many people that He knew would go to Hell, this is inescapable, since He did this then He cannot desire the whole race of men saved.

It's illogical, to my logic, He is the One who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will according to His plan, what is is because God planned it.

john.

 

Men will go to hell for rejecting Christ, not because God created them for hell. Also, God did not create hell for men. This verse tells you who hell was created for:

Matthew 25:41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: