Those "Other Sheep"

[Tom Butler]

No question that God knows the future and knows who will accept the Gospel and who will reject.

But God still "convicts the World" of sin righteousness and judgment and as John 12:32 says He "DRAWS ALL mankind unto Him".

2Cor 5 "in Christ reconciling the WORLD to Himsef".

1John 4:14 "Sent His Son to be the Savior of the WORLD".

2Peter 3 "God is not willing that ANY should perish but that ALL should come to repentance".

This is not describing a God who "merely so-loved just the Jews for 4000 years and then later decided to start so-loving the World" as some might be thinking.

If by "world" you mean every person without exception, you can't use II Cor 5:19 as one of your proof texts.

"To wit, that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses to them...."

Since some are never reconciled to God in Christ, "world" can't mean everybody. And, since in Christ, God is not imputing their sins to them, "world" must refer to those to whom God is not imputing their sins.

Although I know you won't agree, II Peter 3:9 doesn't refer to all without exception, but to the "us-ward" (believers to whom Peter wrote) in the text.

There are instances, then, where "all" doesn't mean everybody, and neither does"world."

If the contention is that God loves everybody the same, then there are some whom he loved that he did not send the gospel so they would hear it and be saved.

 

[Allan]

If by "world" you mean every person without exception, you can't use II Cor 5:19 as one of your proof texts.

"To wit, that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses to them...."

Since some are never reconciled to God in Christ, "world" can't mean everybody. And, since in Christ, God is not imputing their sins to them, "world" must refer to those to whom God is not imputing their sins.

Although I know you won't agree, II Peter 3:9 doesn't refer to all without exception, but to the "us-ward" (believers to whom Peter wrote) in the text.

There are instances, then, where "all" doesn't mean everybody, and neither does"world."

If the contention is that God loves everybody the same, then there are some whom he loved that he did not send the gospel so they would hear it and be saved.

Paul said that Christ came to save sinners, of whom I am chief.

Does this equate to two different types of sinners to.

Your new definition of the term 'world' does not fit contextual analysis. World is not ONCE EVER used as a reference for Gods people.
We are not to be of the world
He chose us OUT OF the world
The world hated Him
The whole world lies in wickedness
We are not to be friends with the world

So you are accerting that God says all the above and then uses the same word for the EXACT opposite meaning. That makes NO sense Tom.

Notice also that in verse 19 of 2 Cor 5:
God was in Christ 'reconciling' (continuing present tense)
the world (all sinful and wicked men)
to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them (since the reconciling is a continuing work of God, this 'imputing' refers to those who are now reconciled (past tense) - see verse 18 of 2 Cor 5).

You are right about whom the imputing regards, but not about the reconciling of the world. This is speaking about the work of God among the sinful man FROM WHOM He is calling to Himself a people of faith.


I do agree there are instances where all mean all of a whole or all of a portion of the whole. And that world does not always mean all mankind, but it never is a reference toward believers. And you are right about 2 Pet 3:9 is concerning believers, but you have a problem with:

1Ti 2:3 For this [is] good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
1Ti 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

Even Spurgeon acknowledges this all means 'every man'.

 

[Brother Bob]

Paul said that Christ came to save sinners, of whom I am chief.

Paul is plainly saying that he was the chief of sinners of the lost, or unsaved. According to this passage, if Paul meant he was the cheif of sinners present time, then he was still lost, for this passage is speaking of "saving sinners".

Knowing that I am in the minority, but there is no where in the scripture that Paul was "chief of sinners" after he was converted.

If you read the passage closely, it says "came to save sinners", of whom he was chief, in other words the lost. For Paul to say he was the chief of the lost, it would of had to be before he was converted. In no way does it say that Paul is the chief sinners of the saved. It says he "was chief of sinners of the lost"!!!

To use this scripture to justify sin is a copout to the truth.

Once again, Paul plainly said he was the chief of sinners of the unsaved. READ IT!!!

Paul never said at anytime that he was chief of sinners of the saved, but of the lost. No doubt when he persecuted the church of God.

The misrepresentation of this scripture is why churches today believe that the saved can commit adultery, killing, stealing and all unrighteous, of which scripture teaches, such shall never enter the "Kingdom of God".

BBob,

 

[Allan]

Paul is plainly saying that he was the cheif of sinners of the lost, or unsaved. According to this passage, if Paul meant he was the cheif of sinners present time, then he was still lost, for this passage is speaking of "saving sinners".

Of course it is speaking of saving sinners

Knowing that I am in the minority, but there is no where in the scripture that Paul was "cheif of sinners" after he was converted.

He isn't stating he is continuing to live in a lifestyle of sin.

If you read the passage closely, it says "came to save sinners", of whom he was cheif, in other words the lost. For Paul to say he was the cheif of the lost, it would of had to be before he was converted. In no way does it say that Paul is the cheif sinners of the saved. It says he "was cheif of sinners of the lost"!!!

I would encourage you to re-read that passage again. You have re-worded it.

1Ti 1:15 This [is] a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.

Notice the word 'am' is not the same as your rendering 'was'.
But you have misunderstood my intition and the verses as well. He is still a man in sinful flesh and falls to that flesh just like other believers do. He is no better or more accurately he is not any more special or worthy than any other sinner (those NOT worthy of Gods love which in fact none of us, even the saved are). And knowing himself as only he does (with the exception for God) he declares I am chief of sinners because He knows he does not do those things he should and does those things he shouldn't. As a child of God when I do even the smallest sin (in my eyes) I feel more retched than any sinner because I KNOW what it is and that I have offended my Heavenly Father, the Most Holy God. I to declare, as Paul - Oh wretched man that I am, who shall save me from this body of sin. I feel like I am the chief of sinners and in fact to myself I am!

Once again, Paul plainly said he was the cheif of sinners of the unsaved. READ IT!!!

No he didn't.

He said 'I am'--not merely, "I was chief" ( 1Cr 15:9 Eph 3:8 ; compare Luk 18:13 ).
The sins of each believer are always before us, as long as we live, and is greater than those sins of others (at least to us for we see the offence to God in our own), which he never can know others sins as he can know his own. He only knows they ARE sinners but he knows the depth of his own sins.

Paul never said at anytime that he was cheif of sinners of the saved, but of the lost. No doubt when he persecuted the church of God.

Then you didn't understand the verse. He wasn't saying he was the greastest sinning Christian alive.

The misrepresentation of this scripture is why churches today believe that the saved can commit adultery, killing, stealing and all unrighteous, of which scripture teaches, such shall never enter the "Kingdom of God".

No one is talking about a lifestyle to which those who will not inherit are so spoken of. They live in their sinfulness without repentence.

 

[Tom Butler]

Your new definition of the term 'world' does not fit contextual analysis. World is not ONCE EVER used as a reference for Gods people.
We are not to be of the world
He chose us OUT OF the world
The world hated Him
The whole world lies in wickedness
We are not to be friends with the world

So you are accerting that God says all the above and then uses the same word for the EXACT opposite meaning. That makes NO sense Tom.

Notice also that in verse 19 of 2 Cor 5:
God was in Christ 'reconciling' (continuing present tense)
the world (all sinful and wicked men)
to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them (since the reconciling is a continuing work of God, this 'imputing' refers to those who are now reconciled (past tense) - see verse 18 of 2 Cor 5).

In verse 18, Paul refers speaks of God, "who hath reconciled us to himself," which seems to be a completed act. In verse 19, those whom God was reconciling and those whom God is not imputing their trespasses are the same people. Paul also defines those people as "the world." I recognize that this is the only place I'm aware of that world refers to God's people.

I do agree that there is room for your view that God is reconciling his own OUT OF the world.

My original point was simply that in v. 19 world can't mean everybody.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Brother Bob: Knowing that I am in the minority, but there is no where in the scripture that Paul was "chief of sinners" after he was converted.

HP: That makes at least two of us in the minority:thumbs:

 

[webdog]

...and truly the minority, as Paul emphatically stated at the time of penning his letter "I am...".

 

[BobRyan]

If by "world" you mean every person without exception, you can't use II Cor 5:19 as one of your proof texts.

"To wit, that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses to them...."

Since some are never reconciled to God in Christ, "world" can't mean everybody. And, since in Christ, God is not imputing their sins to them, "world" must refer to those to whom God is not imputing their sins.

If you limit the cross to those people that Christ was interacting with while dying on the cross -- then only the thief was being reconciled by God.

But if you consider the cross to be a "first cause" act of God in creating the context and conditions of reconciliation - then ALL are being reconciled for "He gave His son to be the atoning sacrifice for OUR sins and NOT for OUR sins only but for the sins of the WHOLE world". 1John 2:2.

Tom said
Although I know you won't agree, II Peter 3:9 doesn't refer to all without exception, but to the "us-ward" (believers to whom Peter wrote) in the text.

Peter states that God is wanting to fulfill the promise of His coming but he is not coming now (and has not come already) BECAUSE He is waiting "not wanting ANY to perish". IF Peter were trying to make the argument "God is waiting for those people who are now saints and are now reading this letter to become Christian" THEN the argument would have been "SO NOW the second coming is taking place".

Clearly that "just people who happen to be reading this letternow" context is not there in the text.

I am sure you will agree.

Tom
If the contention is that God loves everybody the same, then there are some whom he loved that he did not send the gospel so they would hear it and be saved.

This is a point that HP keeps trying to make -- but in Romans 10 the point is addressed explicitly "SURELY they have never heard have they?? INDEED THEY HAVE!" and of course the proof Paul gives is the witness of Nature in Ps 19.

When you follow Paul's "proof" for "INDEED THEY HAVE heard" it is the all pervasive witness in nature.

Christ who says He "DRAWS ALL" is the one who "STANDS at the door and knocks" to such an extent that "IF ANYONE hears His voice AND OPENS the door" He will come in and fellowship for He "DRAWS ALL".



in Christ,

Bob

 

[Brother Bob]

...and truly the minority, as Paul emphatically stated at the time of penning his letter "I am...".

Yea, but you fail to read the context of who he is talking about, "the ones who Christ came to save", the lost. Paul was speaking of himself concerning the ones who Christ came to save, "the lost".

BBob,

 

[Brother Bob]

Of course it is speaking of saving sinners


He isn't stating he is continuing to live in a lifestyle of sin.

I would encourage you to re-read that passage again. You have re-worded it.

Notice the word 'am' is not the same as your rendering 'was'.
But you have misunderstood my intition and the verses as well. He is still a man in sinful flesh and falls to that flesh just like other believers do. He is no better or more accurately he is not any more special or worthy than any other sinner (those NOT worthy of Gods love which in fact none of us, even the saved are). And knowing himself as only he does (with the exception for God) he declares I am chief of sinners because He knows he does not do those things he should and does those things he shouldn't. As a child of God when I do even the smallest sin (in my eyes) I feel more retched than any sinner because I KNOW what it is and that I have offended my Heavenly Father, the Most Holy God. I to declare, as Paul - Oh wretched man that I am, who shall save me from this body of sin. I feel like I am the chief of sinners and in fact to myself I am!


No he didn't.

He said 'I am'--not merely, "I was chief" ( 1Cr 15:9 Eph 3:8 ; compare Luk 18:13 ).
The sins of each believer are always before us, as long as we live, and is greater than those sins of others (at least to us for we see the offence to God in our own), which he never can know others sins as he can know his own. He only knows they ARE sinners but he knows the depth of his own sins.

Then you didn't understand the verse. He wasn't saying he was the greastest sinning Christian alive.


No one is talking about a lifestyle to which those who will not inherit are so spoken of. They live in their sinfulness without repentence.

Allen, I use the word "was" to tie Paul with who the passage was speaking of, "the lost". I shouldn't have changed the word, for it takes us away from the answer of the passage. I agree with most of what you are saying. I think, sometimes I have a hard time understanding just what you are saying, I read it over and over and the more I read it, the more I see we agree. So I apologize for my lacking, but changed the word to put the emphasis on who Christ came to save, and that is who Paul said he was chief of. He was not saying he was still the greatest sinner of the world, but was taking his whole life into the saying "of whom I am chief".



This pretty well explains what I believe about Tim: 1:15

Paul felt the exceeding sinfulness of his sin. He classifies himself as the chief or first or foremost of all sinners. When you stop to look at Paul prior to his conversion you don't see a drunk, or a fornicator. You see a religious man, with strict adherence to the law. Phil. 3:4-6 enumerates some of his character (as an unregenerate man) and frankly he would be called a "good man" according to the standards of his day. (see also Acts 26:4-5) Concerning his morals, he was a straight arrow. But the Lord Jesus Christ changed his life. After realizing what he had done to the Christians, he hangs his head and remembers the persecution, injury and destruction he placed upon men and women of the faith. He then calls himself "chief" of all the sinners in the world that Christ came to die for.


http://bhardecker.blogspot.com/

http://www.mtziononline.org/



BBob,

 

[Tom Butler]

If you limit the cross to those people that Christ was interacting with while dying on the cross -- then only the thief was being reconciled by God.

But if you consider the cross to be a "first cause" act of God in creating the context and conditions of reconciliation - then ALL are being reconciled for "He gave His son to be the atoning sacrifice for OUR sins and NOT for OUR sins only but for the sins of the WHOLE world". 1John 2:2.

If the passage has said God was "trying to reconcile," or "makiing it possible to reconcile," then I would buy your argument. But the passage says "was reconciling," something that actually happening. The "not imputing their sins to them" was not "trying not to impute," or "making it possible for God not to impute." God was not imputing, something that he accomplishes only in believers.

Peter states that God is wanting to fulfill the promise of His coming but he is not coming now (and has not come already) BECAUSE He is waiting "not wanting ANY to perish". IF Peter were trying to make the argument "God is waiting for those people who are now saints and are now reading this letter to become Christian" THEN the argument would have been "SO NOW the second coming is taking place".

Clearly that "just people who happen to be reading this letternow" context is not there in the text.

I am sure you will agree.

I might, except for this little phrase in 3:9 "he is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish...."

 

[BobRyan]

So if "US" is just the people of Peter's day reading the letter -- what about "US today" and all the "US" that were pagans at the time the letter was being read that would later become Christians? And what about "the US" in the church reading the letter that were not actually saved? You know -- "in church but not actually saved"?

And if you ever find yourself defining "US" as all the saved people today PLUS all the unsaved pagans today that someday in the future will be saved -- THEN what about the fact that 1John 2 says "and NOT for OUR sins only but for the sins of the WHOLE world"

 

[BobRyan]

If the passage has said God was "trying to reconcile," or "makiing it possible to reconcile," then I would buy your argument. But the passage says "was reconciling,"

But you narrow the scope from "Reconciling the WORLD to Himself" down to "not reconciling those people who were not actually accepting Christ" at the cross.

The problem is -- we only see the THEIF doing that "accepting" while Christ is on the cross.

So that "world" becomes --- one person using that rule for "reducing World".

The act "reconciling" vs "God RECONCILED the world" as you seem to be revising it -- appears to be the area of difference.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Tom Butler]

In II Peter 1, Peter identifies those to whom he wrote the letter, that is, believers.

In chapter three, he calls them "beloved."

Those are the "usward" later in chapter 3.

And regarding our differences on "reconciled," the fact remains that not all have been or are being reconciled.

 

[BobRyan]

There is no question that Peter is writing to church members -- but never does Peter say "God is not willing that any of US should perish so He has waited to this very moment -- when all of us are now saved - reading this letter -- tomorrow is the 2nd coming".

Rather Peter is telling the Church that they are waiting because the Church as it is IS NOT what God wants -- rather "He is NOT willing that ANY should perish but that ALL should come to repentance" and that is a reference to PAGANS that are NOT now part of the church -- if it is JUST a reference to the saved church reading Peter's letter then the 2nd coming would have happened 2000 years ago!

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Sgt. Fury]

Was there any assurance of forgiveness of sin apart from being in agreement to the laws of the covenant?

Pilgrim,

During the time of the Mosaic Law (which was only offered to the nation of Israel - Gen 19:3-8), the Gentiles could still worship God according to the Patriarchal system. We might notice in Ex 18, Moses' father in law Jethro was "the priest of Midian" under the Patriarchal system, and yet, before the Law was given to Israel, he departed from them (18:27).

Both the Patriarchal and the Mosaic systems looked forward to the coming of a perfect Sacrifice. God determined to bring that Sacrifice through the nation of Israel.

On the other hand, as has been mentioned, it seems as though the Gentile world did not long maintain the God-ordained pattern given to them, and fell off into idolatry with all of it's corruption, etc.

Sgt. Fury

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Sgt Fury: During the time of the Mosaic Law .....

.

HP: Interesting points. Then what do we conclude? Was the Mosaic system simply one of two options for those wishing to find communion and restoration of fellowship with God? Was the partaking of the sacrificial system, including circumcision, simply one possible way to partake of the Divine nature through forgiveness of sins?

One finds themselves asking just when did the Patriarchal system you speak of cease, or has it? Is there any sign whatsoever of it throughout the OT as existing alongside of or in opposition to the Mosaic system?

 

[TCGreek]

Maybe some will react with a DUH ! to the following remark . Not all Gentiles , but FROM AMONG the Gentiles would be a better way of expressing it .

Because of the context, I must agree with you, Rippon. :thumbs:

 

[trustitl]

Those othe sheep

HP: That makes at least two of us in the minority:thumbs:

I'll be third in line. :thumbs: