What is first? Life or Faith?

[DHK]

Rather, the whole book of Genesis is about God choosing one person over the other. Abel over Cain, Abraham over other heathen, Isaac over Ishmael, Jacob over Esau, Joseph over his brothers, Ephraim over Manasseh, One nation (Israel) over another (Egypt, etc.). "All the families of the earth" means "all races" not "all humans without exception."

The term "world" in soteriological passages NEVER means "every human being ever born." It is generally used by Jews writing to or speaking to other Jews and means that God's plan of salvation extends beyond the Jewish world to the world of "all families of the earth" meaning all races, nations, genders, and classes of people as that is from whom the elect are called.

God knows his elect but we don't. How we find out who they are is to preach the gospel to all we come in contact with and the elect will manifest themselves through repentance and faith in the gospel.

You are confused. Rather just the opposite is true.
For example: When God destroyed the world with a Flood, did he save just a few or destroy just a few? What was the "world" that he destroyed? "The elect"?

In John 3:16 Christ died for the world. All the world. The verse does not indicate that all the world will be saved but only those that are in the world that believe in Christ will be saved.

Did he die for both elect and unelect? Of course he did. He died for the sins of the world. He made a propitiation not for us only but for the sins of the whole world--the world of all ages. All the people.

Here is a verse you would have to answer to:
2Pe 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.
--Here are false teachers that bring damnable heresies bringing upon themselves swift destruction. Which is the one major doctrine, that one outstanding doctrine that is called a damnable heresy that these false teachers are spreading.
First, they are not saved; they are not regenerated.
These unsaved teachers teach: "The has NOT purchased us."
IOW, They deny that the Lord paid for the sins of ALL mankind.
They believe in a Limited Atonement, and that is what they teach.

Peter says that such are false teachers, teaching damnable heresies and headed for swift destruction. He points out just one doctrine--the doctrine of Limited Atonement--a damnable heresy. Why? Christ died for all.

 

[The Biblicist]

You are confused. Rather just the opposite is true.

How so? He consistenly chose the underserving over the deserving. The rightful firstborn was rejected consistently. As far as revelation is concerned Esau was far more deserving in character than Jacob who was a scandral.

For example: When God destroyed the world with a Flood, did he save just a few or destroy just a few? What was the "world" that he destroyed? "The elect"?

Perhaps I am missing your point as I see no point at all of your "for example"? He destroyed the physical world and everything in it but a few chosen.

In John 3:16 Christ died for the world. All the world. The verse does not indicate that all the world will be saved but only those that are in the world that believe in Christ will be saved.

Contextualization! He is speaking to a Jew who believed salvation was restricted to the Jews period! What did the term "world" mean to such a Jew in a soteriological context? It meant all races, classes, genders in addition to the Jews. He would never understand it to mean every last human being from Adam to his present day.

Did he die for both elect and unelect? Of course he did. He died for the sins of the world. He made a propitiation not for us only but for the sins of the whole world--the world of all ages. All the people.

He died for all mankind, but he did not die for the non-elect in the same sense he did the elect. The non-elect benefit from the redemption of the elect in many ways (temporal salvation, benefits), but not soteriologically.

Here is a verse you would have to answer to:
2Pe 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.
--Here are false teachers that bring damnable heresies bringing upon themselves swift destruction. Which is the one major doctrine, that one outstanding doctrine that is called a damnable heresy that these false teachers are spreading.
First, they are not saved; they are not regenerated.
These unsaved teachers teach: "The has NOT purchased us."
IOW, They deny that the Lord paid for the sins of ALL mankind.
They believe in a Limited Atonement, and that is what they teach.

Admittedly, this is probably the best text for the universal atonement position. I admit that redemption involves more than salvation of the elect, as it also provides the right of the Second Adam over the non-elect to do with them as he wills. Note that the term "Lord" is not the soteriological name for Christ in the Greek Text but the name used by a slave owner. The atonement has purchased the right of the Second Adam over them, not to free them from their enslavery from sin but to do with them as He wills because of their devotion to sin. However, it is evident they are not true Christians but Christians by false profession and thus they are denying the Lord by their own profession which bought them rather than were actually bought by him.

Peter says that such are false teachers, teaching damnable heresies and headed for swift destruction. He points out just one doctrine--the doctrine of Limited Atonement--a damnable heresy. Why? Christ died for all.

If you believe he is referring to the doctrine of limited atonement, then first, you are admitting to a first century apostolic origin of that doctrine, rather than Augustine or Calvin. However, you are misreading and misinterpreting the text. The doctrine he is condemning as a damnable doctrine is denial of the person of Christ, most likely in regard to who he is - the gnostic heresy, not denial of a general atonement doctrine.

 

[DHK]

How so? He consistenly chose the underserving over the deserving. The rightful firstborn was rejected consistently. As far as revelation is concerned Esau was far more deserving in character than Jacob who was a scandral.

Neither one was "deserving." None of us are "deserving." Salvation is not based on merit.
The entire passage on Esau and Jacob ironically has nothing to do with Esau and Jacob. Paul is quoting from the book of Genesis.

Gen 25:22 And the children struggled together within her; and she said, If it be so, why am I thus? And she went to enquire of the LORD.
Gen 25:23 And the LORD said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger.
--The Lord is referring to nations, not individuals. Rebekkah knew this from before her children were born, from the time that they were in her womb. This is what Paul refers to, not the children themselves. Esau is also referred to as "Edom" in the Bible which became one of the enemies of Israel.

One of the Psalms refers to Edom (Esau) this way:
Psalms 108:9 Moab is my washpot; over Edom will I cast out my shoe; over Philistia will I triumph.
--These are not complimentary statements. Spurgeon says of Edom here:

Over Edom will I cast out my shoe. It shall be as the floor upon which the bather throws his sandals, it shall lie beneath his foot, subject to his will and altogether his own. Edom was proud, but David throws his slipper at it; its capital was high, but he casts his sandal over it; it was strong, but he hurls his shoe at it as the gage of battle. He had not entered yet into its rock built fortresses, but since the Lord was with him he felt sure that he would do so....

Thus it is not "Esau" but rather his descendants that became the nation of Edom that were despised before God.

Perhaps I am missing your point as I see no point at all of your "for example"? He destroyed the physical world and everything in it but a few chosen.

The physical "world" also contained all the inhabitants of the world. Both were destroyed in the Flood. You can't separate one from another here. God destroyed them all, and why?
Genesis 6:5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
--It wasn't the trees and the mountains that were evil!

Contextualization! He is speaking to a Jew who believed salvation was restricted to the Jews period! What did the term "world" mean to such a Jew in a soteriological context? It meant all races, classes, genders in addition to the Jews. He would never understand it to mean every last human being from Adam to his present day.

We just had a discussion on this passage. When I said, "Nicodemus would have no idea of such concepts that you are bringing forth," you dismissed it. Now you are using this precise argument against me. Shall I cry out: "Contextualization!" and edit into a previous post?

World means world. One cannot read the meaning of world into the mind of Nicodemus. Barnes says this:

The world. All mankind. It does not mean any particular part of the world, but man as man--the race that had rebelled and that deserved to die. See Joh 6:33; 17:21. His love for the world, or for all mankind, in giving his Son, was shown by these circumstances:

1st. All the world was in ruin, and exposed to the wrath of God.

2nd. All men were in a hopeless condition.

3rd. God gave his Son. Man had no claim on him; it was a gift--an undeserved gift.

4th. He gave him up to extreme sufferings, even the bitter pains of death on the cross.

5th. It was for all the world. He tasted "death for every man," Heb 2:9. He "died for all," 2Co 5:15. "He is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world," 1Jo 2:2.

That he gave. It was a free and unmerited gift. Man had no claim; and when there was no eye to pity or arm to save, it pleased God to give his Son into the hands of men to die in their stead, Ga 1:4; Ro 8:32; Lu 22:19. It was the mere movement of love; the expression of eternal compassion,

He died for all mankind, but he did not die for the non-elect in the same sense he did the elect. The non-elect benefit from the redemption of the elect in many ways, but not soteriologically.

He died for all in the same sense. He shed his blood to make an atonement for sin--not for "sins" of one group of people. What do you suggest? Was his blood divided: part for the elect and part for the non-elect? Or was all his blood shed for all the SIN of all man-kind?
It was for all. But out of the all there will only be some that will appropriate that sacrifice unto themselves, that is will believe and accept it as a gift to make the payment for their sins. The sacrifice was still made. There is only one sacrifice. It is equal for all.

Admittedly, this is probably the best text for the universal atonement position. I admit that redemption involves more than salvation of the elect, as it also provides the right of the Second Adam over the non-elect to do with them as he wills. Note that the term "Lord" is not the soteriological name for Christ in the Greek Text.

His sacrifice is universal in that it is universal offer.
It is not universal in that not all will accept it.
"The Lord that bought you" is definitely soteriological, and is used that way many times. This is the Greek not the Hebrew that we are considering .

 

[DHK]

If you believe he is referring to the doctrine of limited atonement, then first, you are admitting to a first century apostolic origin of that doctrine, rather than Augustine or Calvin. However, you are misreading and misinterpreting the text. The doctrine he is condemning as a damnable doctrine is denial of the person of Christ, most likely in regard to who he is - the gnostic heresy, not denial of a general atonement doctrine.

2 Peter 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

They not only deny the Lord. They deny the Lord that bought them.
The words are perfectly clear. They are as applicable to today's "heresies" as they were to the heresies that were floating around at that time and era. They need not to be collated under the same collective name. This heresy may be found under many different names, but it exists. If it exists under the name of Calvinism or Augustinianism, then so be it. People need to repent of it.
Christ died for all. To assert that he died for a select few is wrong. And Peter denounced this L of TULIP in no uncertain terms.

 

[The Biblicist]

2 Peter 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

They not only deny the Lord. They deny the Lord that bought them.
The words are perfectly clear. .

You are simply wrong. "that bought them" merely modifies "the Lord" distinguishing him from other lords. This phrase does not describe a doctrine. If it did, then this forum is violating its own rules by even allowing those who teach definite atonement to be even on this forum.

 

[The Biblicist]

Neither one was "deserving." None of us are "deserving." Salvation is not based on merit.

I never said it was based upon merit. I simply pointed out the obvious. The position of firstborn is what is taken from the one who merited it by birth and taken and given to one who did not merit it by birth. In other words, it was not the literal "first" born that God gave the "first" born right of inheritance unto.

Gen 25:22 And the children struggled together within her; and she said, If it be so, why am I thus? And she went to enquire of the LORD.
Gen 25:23 And the LORD said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger.
--The Lord is referring to nations, not individuals. Rebekkah knew this from before her children were born, from the time that they were in her womb. This is what Paul refers to, not the children themselves. Esau is also referred to as "Edom" in the Bible which became one of the enemies of Israel.

He is referring to both individuals and nations that come from those individuals. Without reference to the individuals there are no nations produced.

Moreover, this creates a greater problem for your position. Instead of merely hating an individual in regard to redemption, he hates a whole nation of individuals in regard to redemption. Take a look at scripture and you will see that God's individual redemptive work did not occur in Edom.

The physical "world" also contained all the inhabitants of the world. Both were destroyed in the Flood. You can't separate one from another here. God destroyed them all, and why?
Genesis 6:5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
--It wasn't the trees and the mountains that were evil!

I do not know who you are arguing against or what argument you are arguing against? Certainly not me or my position. As you said no man merits salvation, and neither did Noah or his sons as his later actions show. They were chosen by God to be saved through the ark. It was a physical destruction and physical salvation but neverthless they were they were chosen to be physically saved.

We just had a discussion on this passage. When I said, "Nicodemus would have no idea of such concepts that you are bringing forth," you dismissed it. Now you are using this precise argument against me. Shall I cry out: "Contextualization!" and edit into a previous post?

You are confusing destruction of a physical world and all of its inhabitants with the new birth of individuals. In the context of new birth and individual salvation the term "world" to Nicodemus would NEVER mean all humans from Adam to the present. You have no evidence for that and you have given no evidence from that. Nowhere in this text does Christ even mention the flood to Nicodemus as it would not apply to the subject at hand. He is referring to spiritual salvation not physical salvation from natural elements.

World means world.

Does it? Let's see if you hold fast to that one single concept. Jesus said "I pray not for the world" so does world mean world? John said "love not the world" and anyone who does love the world has not the love of the Father in him and yet Jesus said, "God so loved the world" - so does world simply mean the very same thing every time we find "world" in the Bible? You are better Bible scholar than to make this mistake.

He died for all in the same sense. He shed his blood to make an atonement for sin--not for "sins" of one group of people. What do you suggest? Was his blood divided: part for the elect and part for the non-elect? Or was all his blood shed for all the SIN of all man-kind?

Well the angels were misinformed then when they announced his name - "for his shall save HIS PEOPLE from THEIR SINS"! If the atonement was universal and equal to all then this certainly is a misleading statement to assert there is some people in regard to redemption called "his people" when redemption is universal without qualifications and equal for all! Neither should he had ever said "I lay down my life for my sheep" if he laid down his life universally without distinction but equal for all??

"The Lord that bought you" is definitely soteriological, and is used that way many times. This is the Greek not the Hebrew that we are considering .

You ignored my explanation. The unique term translated "Lord" that has to do with slave relationship with an owner, rather than freedom from slavery. That as the Second Adam he is the legitimately owner of all creation and can do with the wicked as he pleases. That they were evidently false Christians and thus their doctrines deny the very profession of their redemption.

 

[DHK]

You ignored my explanation. The unique term translated "Lord" that has to do with slave relationship with an owner, rather than freedom from slavery. That as the Second Adam he is the legitimately owner of all creation and can do with the wicked as he pleases. That they were evidently false Christians and thus their doctrines deny the very profession of their redemption.

The unsaved cannot say: "Our Father who art in heaven..."
There is no relationship. However the Lord, God, King, Creator of Heaven and earth, did purchase them. And that is what that verse says.

The same word, lord, despotes, is used in the following verses:

Luk 2:29 Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, according to thy word:

Act 4:24 And when they heard that, they lifted up their voice to God with one accord, and said, Lord, thou art God, which hast made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all that in them is:

2Ti 2:21 If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master's use, and prepared unto every good work.

Jud 1:4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

Rev 6:10 And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?

O Lord, holy and true, is the same Lord that purchased us all with his blood, the same who is coming again.

 

[The Biblicist]

The unsaved cannot say: "Our Father who art in heaven

1.1 billion Catholics say it every week among the millions within cults. All false teachers claim he is their Lord and everyone of them by profession claim they were bought by him.

And this is a context of false teachers and false professors and so you should expect them to deny the very Lord they profess to have bought them.

 

[DHK]

1.1 billion Catholics say it every week among the millions within cults. All false teachers claim he is their Lord and everyone of them by profession claim they were bought by him.

And this is a context of false teachers and false professors and so you should expect them to deny the very Lord they profess to have bought them.

These false teachers CONFESS (as you say) our Father in Heaven. They don't deny it.
The false teachers Peter refers to DENY Christ bought them, when he actually did.

The RCC confesses the trinity (to use another example)
These other false teachers would deny the trinity.
The false teachers of Peter's day were denying orthodox doctrine. They denied "the Lord that bought them."

 

[The Biblicist]

These false teachers CONFESS (as you say) our Father in Heaven. They don't deny it.
The false teachers Peter refers to DENY Christ bought them, when he actually did.

No, they profess to be Christians, as they are "among you" but it is their doctrine that denies the Lord they profess that bought them. Most likely they embraced gnosticism which denied the humanity of Christ, especially his humanity upon the cross as our atonement. Isn't that the primary denial of first century "Christian" gnosticism? The denial that Christ came in the "flesh" and a denial that he was the "Christ" while on the cross???

 

[Darrell C]

Just wanted to throw this in for consideration:



2 Peter 2

King James Version (KJV)

1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.




Deuteronomy 32:5-7

King James Version (KJV)

5 They have corrupted themselves, their spot is not the spot of his children: they are a perverse and crooked generation.

6 Do ye thus requite the Lord, O foolish people and unwise? is not he thy father that hath bought thee? hath he not made thee, and established thee?

7 Remember the days of old, consider the years of many generations: ask thy father, and he will shew thee; thy elders, and they will tell thee.


For both the false prophet and the false teacher, I would suggest that in view is the opportunity afforded by God, rather than a salvific experience that brings a context of born again believers losing their salvation. We do not ascribe eternal salvation to those in the Wilderness, specifically stated by the writer of Hebrews even as Peter describes false teachers here...rejecting the truth they have been provided by God.

In both passages is, I believe, a context of sinners in need of repentance. They know the truth but have rejected it.


God bless.

 

[The Biblicist]

Just wanted to throw this in for consideration:



2 Peter 2

King James Version (KJV)

1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

They profess to be Christians, as they are "among you" but it is their doctrine that denies the Lord they profess that by false profession bought them. Most likely they embraced gnosticism which denied the humanity of Christ, especially his humanity upon the cross as our atonement. Isn't that the primary denial of first century "Christian" gnosticism? The denial that Christ came in the "flesh" and a denial that he was the "Christ" while on the cross???

Deuteronomy 32:5-7

King James Version (KJV)

5 They have corrupted themselves, their spot is not the spot of his children: they are a perverse and crooked generation.

6 Do ye thus requite the Lord, O foolish people and unwise? is not he thy father that hath bought thee? hath he not made thee, and established thee?

7 Remember the days of old, consider the years of many generations: ask thy father, and he will shew thee; thy elders, and they will tell thee.

For both the false prophet and the false teacher, I would suggest that in view is the opportunity afforded by God, rather than a salvific experience that brings a context of born again believers losing their salvation. We do not ascribe eternal salvation to those in the Wilderness, specifically stated by the writer of Hebrews even as Peter describes false teachers here...rejecting the truth they have been provided by God.

In both passages is, I believe, a context of sinners in need of repentance. They know the truth but have rejected it.


God bless.

We have dealt with this in the previous page. These are FALSE PROFESSORS in context. By profession they claimed to be redeemed children of God. Their profession is false and their doctrine and actions prove it to be false. They turn against the very Lord they claimed to have been redeemed by.

 

[Darrell C]

They profess to be Christians, as they are "among you" but it is their doctrine that denies the Lord they profess that by false profession bought them.

Hence the title "false teachers." Good to note they are contrasted with false prophets, I think, distinguishing the difference in title between the two.

Most likely they embraced gnosticism which denied the humanity of Christ, especially his humanity upon the cross as our atonement. Isn't that the primary denial of first century "Christian" gnosticism? The denial that Christ came in the "flesh" and a denial that he was the "Christ" while on the cross???

Possibly, but we cannot forget that they mingle with Christians which suggests their doctrine sounds plausible in large part.


2 Peter 2

King James Version (KJV)

1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

2 And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.


The damnable heresies are directly linked to their view of Christ, which we can see in certain groups such as Mormons, JWs, and other groups that take a non-biblical view of Christ.

It is also linked to their lifestyles, it seems, which causes others, presumably other non-believers, to cat aspersion on Christ and Christianity. As you say here...

We have dealt with this in the previous page. These are FALSE PROFESSORS in context. By profession they claimed to be redeemed children of God. Their profession is false and their doctrine and actions prove it to be false. They turn against the very Lord they claimed to have been redeemed by.

It was dealt with partly, but the statement "...the Lord that bought them" is often used by those advocating loss of salvation as meaning they were born again believers.

That is the aspect I hoped to focus on. The quote from Deuteronomy links the false teacher with the false prophet of old, or at least the Old Covenant Economy. Among the Hebrews were those that had. like these false teachers, received the truth in full understanding (at least in the capacity they had to understand) yet turned from it. They too were considered "bought," so the thing to consider in this passage would be what we determine this to mean.

This again, I believe, indicates the universality of the provision of God regardless of the actual condition of those in view. Or in other words, that salvation has been made available to everyone yet it is the response to the provision which determines the fate of the one in view.

These false teachers are considered bought yet Peter makes the parallel to the Wilderness rejecter, which does not ascribe a connotation of salvation on the part of the false teacher as many loss of salvation advocates credit them with.


God bless.

 

[Yeshua1]

I agree with this in large part, yet it may not clarify for those who have fallen into the Calvinist/Arminian debate how exactly one spiritually dead and separated from God comes to place faith in Christ. What leads to regeneration and justification.

What would tell them?


God bless.

The work of the holy spirit is to enable lost sinners to be able to receive jesus thru faith that He grants thjem, and they will respond by receiving jesus thru faith...

I see this as happening at the same time in how we would tend to see it, as a sinner would be under the power of the Spirit to be quickened and convicted to tuen to jesus, and will indeed complete that by receing him thru the faith God granted unto them!

 

[Darrell C]

The work of the holy spirit is to enable lost sinners to be able to receive jesus thru faith that He grants thjem, and they will respond by receiving jesus thru faith...

I would agree for the most part but clarify, for my own position, that it is not just a matter of the Holy Spirit providing faith to an individual, but through enlightenment of the truth bringing that individual to an understanding by which he/she can understand, believe, with the prospective result of faith itself.

There are many who are quite willing to acknowledge Christ for Who He is, yet refuse to turn to Him. An example might be that someone might understand fully a 30' extension ladder is designed to hold the weight of the person who has set it up and attempts to climb it, however, that does not mean the person on the ladder has very much faith in the ladder. There is an initial faith which is strengthened by reason of use. A man having climbed ladders for 20 years as opposed to the person first climbing it stand in stark contrast one with the other. So too with those who respond favorably to the "wooing" of the Comforter there is that initial faith, however, the one thing we have to remember is that no man can exert faith in something they do not understand, and more importantly...believe.

The Comforter is the source of belief through His ministry to the world, specifically the unbelieving. He enlightens men by which they come to believe, at which point the response is either positive (believing to the saving of the soul (person)) or negative (kicking against the goads).

I see this as happening at the same time in how we would tend to see it, as a sinner would be under the power of the Spirit to be quickened and convicted to tuen to jesus, and will indeed complete that by receing him thru the faith God granted unto them!

To be quickened is the result of saving faith, not a part of the process of coming to a saving faith. One is not made alive except they turn to Christ in faith, which is the result of the Comforter's Ministry. I see it in this order:

1. Enlightenment (being brought by the Comforter to a point where we understand our condition and God's righteousness, and the great gulf betwixt the two);

2. Belief (believing that Christ's death was specifically due to man's inability to save himself and that His death was for the purpose of taking our sin, and the penalty, upon Himself);

3. Repentance (the heart-felt desire to escape our current condition and turn from sin to Christ);

4. Faith (acknowledging that the Word of God means what it says in regards to the Gospel of Christ; that Christ did what He is said to have done, and embracing that acknowledging Christ as the Savior, the only means by which man can be saved).

All of these responses are completely lacking in the natural man. It is just as necessary for the Comforter to enlighten men to this knowledge as it is for school children to be enlightened to the alphabet.


God bless.

 

[Iconoclast]

You are confused. Rather just the opposite is true.
For example: When God destroyed the world with a Flood, did he save just a few or destroy just a few? What was the "world" that he destroyed? "The elect"?

As usual it is you who error DHK....The bible tells us which world was destroyed DHK...no need for you to inflict your falsehoods upon us..
Look here ;
5 And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;

Notice he makes a distiction between the Holy {elect remnant} and the WORLD OF THE UNGODLY. So once again you are offtrack completely.

In John 3:16 Christ died for the world. All the world. The verse does not indicate that all the world will be saved but only those that are in the world that believe in Christ will be saved.

Yes and in the end that is only the elect:thumbsup:

Did he die for both elect and unelect?

No...he died a Covenant death for those given to Him by the father...He tells us that.

These unsaved teachers teach: "The has NOT purchased us."
IOW, They deny that the Lord paid for the sins of ALL mankind.
They believe in a Limited Atonement, and that is what they teach.

Your falsehoods and delusions have you offer this nonsense...very sad.

Peter says that such are false teachers, teaching damnable heresies and headed for swift destruction. He points out just one doctrine--the doctrine of Limited Atonement--a damnable heresy. Why? Christ died for all.

This is pathetic and your agenda is clearly exposed by this foul post.