Limited redeemed, not Limited redemption.

[Silverhair]

I'm reading from the same Bible that you are, my friend.
You understand it one way, and I understand it another...

Completely 180 degrees out when it comes to how and why someone is saved.

With that, I find that further discussion will be of no profit for either of us.
For can two walk together unless they are agreed ( Amos 3:3 )?
No.

At any rate, I wish you well... and may the Lord bless you in many ways.

Dave I will pray that you do come to a true understanding of scripture. I have shown you a number of verses that show that your understanding is wrong yet you refuse to accept them.

 

[AustinC]

Dave I will pray that you do come to a true understanding of scripture. I have shown you a number of verses that show that your understanding is wrong yet you refuse to accept them.

You continue to be disingenuous, sir.

 

[Silverhair]

You continue to be disingenuous, sir.

What is disingenuous about what I said. Just because you are that does not mean all are.

 

[atpollard]

notice that verse doesn't actually say Christ died for the many. You wrote that into it.

“to give his life a ransom for many” seems to say exactly that … just not verbatim in your chosen words.

How else can “to give his life” be read except “Christ died”?
How else can “a ransom for many” be read except “for many”?
Did Christ not die for many (according to Matthew 20:28)?

 

[Reformed1689]

Not i

“to give his life a ransom for many” seems to say exactly that … just not verbatim in your chosen words.

How else can “to give his life” be read except “Christ died”?
How else can “a ransom for many” be read except “for many”?
Did Christ not die for many (according to Matthew 20:28)?

No, not in the verse we were discussing.

 

[Reformed1689]

Did Christ not die for many (according to Matthew 20:28)?

And yes, of course Christ died for many, many elect. Not all human beings.

 

[Silverhair]

And yes, of course Christ died for many, many elect. Not all human beings.

So which view are you going to hold to:
God loves the world, all people, and wants all to come to Him or
God only loves some, your elect, and has condemned the rest to hell with no chance of salvation. Which would make Him quite unloving don't you think
The bible supports one of those views, hint it is not he one that you are putting forward.

 

[agedman]

So which view are you going to hold to:
God loves the world, all people, and wants all to come to Him or
God only loves some, your elect, and has condemned the rest to hell with no chance of salvation. Which would make Him quite unloving don't you think
The bible supports one of those views, hint it is not he one that you are putting forward.

Isn’t it improper to place a verse against a verse? For God loving the world does not oblige His death and resurrection allowing every to be saved. In that same passage does the Scripture not state that folks are condemned already? God doesn’t have to condemn anyone, all are already condemned.

Therefore, when the Lord said that His death was for the many, then it follows His death was not for the all. He was acknowledging the truth that human kind desire to rebel against God. Clearly shown in the Revelation

Where I’m known to differ with others in this matter is concerning the blood. I take the statement by John as factual, that His blood (the blood sacrifice) was for the redeemed (us, he states) and for the whole world, everybody.

No one goes to hell from a lack of sufficient blood, rather from a lack of having their name in the book of life.


Now the real problem is we’re in the Scriptures does it state when names were placed in the book of life and is there any reference to names added or deleted.

If one were faithful (no matter the doctrinal theory) to the Scripture principle as shown above, there would be a lot less contentious over minor things such as freedom.

 

[Reformed1689]

wo

So which view are you going to hold to:
God loves the world, all people, and wants all to come to Him or
God only loves some, your elect, and has condemned the rest to hell with no chance of salvation. Which would make Him quite unloving don't you think
The bible supports one of those views, hint it is not he one that you are putting forward.

World does not equal all individuals

 

[Silverhair]

wo

World does not equal all individuals

Amazing how you avoid the scriptures and yet claim to go by them.

 

[Reformed1689]

Amazing how you avoid the scriptures and yet claim to go by them.

And what have I avoided? Nothing.

 

[agedman]

Amazing how you avoid the scriptures and yet claim to go by them.

Some of the reformed take John’s use of world as limited to the world of the elect, or the nations from which the elect are gathered.

I do not, for as I shared in a couple posts above, there is never a contradiction in Scripture, and John never used World in any capacity other than the total of creation.

 

[Reformed1689]

Some of the reformed take John’s use of world as limited to the world of the elect, or the nations from which the elect are gathered.

I do not, for as I shared in a couple posts above, there is contradiction in Scripture, and John never used World in any capacity other than the total of creation.

This is patently false if you actually do a study of every time John used the word World in his Gospel.

 

[Dave G]

You continue to be disingenuous, sir.

I don't see him as being disingenuous at all, Austin.

I see him being very sincere in his beliefs and understanding of what he sees in the Scriptures.
He thinks I am wrong, and I, in turn, believe him to be in error.

To me there's nothing at all insincere ( disingenuous ) about anything that he has stated.

In addition, I was taught that position from the age of 12 in Independent Baptist churches after I first heard the word of God in 1978...
I am very familiar with the doctrines taught, and the Scriptures from which they originate.

As an example, he believes that God loves everyone equally and has made salvation available to all, with the requirement that they believe on His Son.
As I have shown in prior posts, I believe that God loves His elect, the vessels of mercy, the righteous who are justified by Christ's blood ( which is why they are righteous in God's sight )...
and hates ( with a perfect and righteous hatred that has its basis in His perfect holiness ) the "non-elect", the vessels of wrath, the wicked, those that He has not justified by the blood of His Son.
Based on what I see, salvation is therefore not available to all, but that His purposes according to election will stand...not of works, but "of" Him that calls ( Romans 9:11 ).
Salvation is a sure thing for His people, and the "requirement" of belief is in reality, one of many evidences that His children exhibit.

Simply put, I understand the position intimately... and I know him to be speaking honestly.

 

[agedman]

This is patently false if you actually do a study of every time John used the word World in his Gospel.

I have, more then once.

John uses the word “world” ten times.

The ONLY time used as an exaggeration when used by John when quoting the over exuberant alarmed Priests as they sought a way to stop Jesus.

All other uses of the word “world” is used in the context of the whole creation or as systems of the world.

Even in John 3:17, it is the whole world of peoples without Christ.

in John 17, in the Lord mentions the world, again meaning the whole creation except believers.

The clincher is really the expression of 1 John 2:2 where John clearly states that Christ was not merely the blood shed “for us” for believers, but the whole creation, the “kosmos.”

Now, I realize this presents a problem to the typical hard nosed Calvist, but it is never the less true.

The OT atonement sprinkling of blood is the pattern, it covered all the people in the land, not just Jews, but sojourners, slaves… whether folks believed or not.

However, you and I both know that the sacrifice was not a matter of salvation for that has always been of Grace. It was a picture a forth telling of a more excellent and lasting sacrifice.

 

[Silverhair]

wo

World does not equal all individuals

In your theology. You just have to start reading things in context. The should help you correct the errors in Calvinism. Well it should if you are willing to let the scriptures be your guide.

 

[agedman]

Too often folks lump atonement into one ball of wax (so to speak).

But remember the picture from the OT. It was not just the sprinkling of blood, but others items that together worked in the whole of the atonement.

Each part was important and completed by the Lord Jesus Christ. From the purity of the sacrifice to the leaving the scapegoat in the wilderness, each part including, bowl, Hysop, garments, rope, bells,… all were important aspects of the accomplishment of the OT atonement and pictured some aspect of the Christ’s mission of redemption.

 

[Reformed1689]

In your theology. You just have to start reading things in context. The should help you correct the errors in Calvinism. Well it should if you are willing to let the scriptures be your guide.

I do read things in context, that's how I know world does not always mean every individual.

 

[Reformed1689]

I have, more then once.

John uses the word “world” ten times.

The ONLY time used as an exaggeration when used by John when quoting the over exuberant alarmed Priests as they sought a way to stop Jesus.

All other uses of the word “world” is used in the context of the whole creation or as systems of the world.

Even in John 3:17, it is the whole world of peoples without Christ.

in John 17, in the Lord mentions the world, again meaning the whole creation except believers.

The clincher is really the expression of 1 John 2:2 where John clearly states that Christ was not merely the blood shed “for us” for believers, but the whole creation, the “kosmos.”

Now, I realize this presents a problem to the typical hard nosed Calvist, but it is never the less true.

The OT atonement sprinkling of blood is the pattern, it covered all the people in the land, not just Jews, but sojourners, slaves… whether folks believed or not.

However, you and I both know that the sacrifice was not a matter of salvation for that has always been of Grace. It was a picture a forth telling of a more excellent and lasting sacrifice.

Sure, when I get off work, I'll go through John and show you this is not correct.

 

[agedman]

I do read things in context, that's how I know world does not always mean every individual.

Sorry posted this before I saw your response so I edited it.

be safe at work.


More and more Calvinists are recognizing this fact concerning the writing of John, and as I have shown are making proper adjustments to their view of atonement.