Who did Christ die for?

[webdog]

OK...



Each and every person of the earth was not talking about the Rome believers, but everywhere Paul went, people asked about Rome believers.

1000 years before this time people were not talking about the believers of Rome. How could they? Were they not part of the whole world?

Today some do not even know God, and have never read the Bible, do you feel they talk about the Rome believers of Pauls day?

The faith of believers WASN'T spoken of throughout the whole world, is that what you are implying? Scripture says it was...you say it wasn't. Hmmmm..

For such a hardline stance on the word "hate", you sure are more liberal with "whole world"

 

[Allan]

Again, again!

Back by popular demand, or at least by webdog's :laugh: -
Yet since I have done this earlier in the thread with James regarding 'Pink's misunderstanding of the usage of the term 'whole world' , I'll just requote it.

Unfortunately for Pink (great man just greatly mistaken) it does not undermind the foundation of faith just Calvinistic faith. If we are to understand the usage of the phrase 'whole world' by John we must see how 'he' defines it, and not what some theology wants it to be.
Lets look shall we:

1Jo 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for [the sins of] the whole world.

1Jo 5:19 [And] we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness.

So in the same book he uses this term twice. Once to show that Christ propitiation was not for a particualar group ONLY but that it extends far beyond to the whole world. The next time he uses it only a few chapters later it he uses it to mean all the ungodly - for they lie in wickedness. It does not mean ALL men since the redeemed do not lie in wickedness thus we have at least one definition. John uses this phrase twice more, so lets see them to and see if maybe he uses another defintion.

Rev 12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

Rev 16:14 For they are the spirits of devils, working miracles, [which] go forth unto the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty.

The 'whole world' in 12:9 are those decieved by Satan, which again is not believers but all ungodly. Maybe it is the next verse. NOPE! It to speaks of all the ungodly who come together to do battle with Christ.

John seems pretty consistant with how he views the phrase 'whole world'. And so it seems that propitiation not for ours only but the sins of the 'whole world' can be replaced with "all the ungodly".

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1111784&postcount=131

 

[npetreley]

To All:

If you have little experience dealing with the type of Calvinists you are reading at this board, you are getting a valuable lesson.

The Calvinist will reject any interpretation of Scripture that does not validate their Calvinistic theology. They filter and view the Bible through their Calvinistic (TULIP) presuppositions.

“And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.”

This is why when, for example, you post 1 John 2:2 with its meaning clear, and it devastation of the Limited Atonement, the verse must be reinterpreted and twisted out of shape to keep Calvinism's Limited Atonement in tact.

If an article/book is not supportive Calvinism it and the writer must be discredited. This is why they cry foul over George Zeller’s articles. Those articles expose the dangers of Calvinistic theology and the Calvinists here don’t like it.

You will read these men crying, "you don't understand us, you can't understand Calvinism, you are creating a straw man." If you will not agree with them and dare to publicly object to their Calvinistic views, you will have your academics and ability to learn questioned. Some of these Calvinists are on a crusade to spread their view and they will not tolerate a challenge.

No one is born again as a Calvinist, it has to be introduced and it is often introduced incrementally. Most believers, if they are introduced to the 5 points just as they are, will reject them because they are inconsistent with Scripture. Even new believers will inherently recognize there is something odd about the five points. There is much twisting and reinterpretation of Scripture that has to be done to come to the conclusions of Calvinism.

Many who are Calvinistic in their theology reject one or more of the five points. That is especially true of the Limited Atonement. Therefore, the five pointers will say of these who reject LA that they are not true Calvinists.

Regrettably in recent years there has been a resurgence of Calvinism. The debate over Calvinism is never going to be settled this side of Heaven. While we wait for that day it is best to proclaim the truth and protect the Church from the spread and dangers of Calvinistic theology.

The Dangers of Reformed Theology are real and these articles are a must read for any one with genuine concerns about Calvinism. Don’t listen to the Calvinist who cries foul. If they had access to the teaching, such as you will find in those articles, they might not have succumbed to Calvinistic teaching.


LM

Here's something you should read before you read anything by Lou or any of his links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alarmist

The article really should add the fact that one of the reasons people love to be alarmists is because it helps sell their books (cough, cough).

.

 

[reformedbeliever]

Thanks for being transparent. Makes my point, "Reason over the revelation of Scripture."

What does the Bible say? "And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world," (1 John 2:2).

Only a theologian with an axe to grind would suggest that clear, unambiguous verse does not refute and disprove Calvinism's Limited Atonement.


LM

What? Are you a universalist? Would you say that Christ's blood paid the price... was the substitute for sin for every individual that has ever lived or will ever live? If so .... you are a universalist.

I doubt that anyone on this BB believes that Christ paid the sin debt of every individual that has ever lived. If He did.... then everyone will be saved.... regardless.

I suppose everyone... except universalist... limit the attonement.

 

[Isaiah40:28]

What? Are you a universalist? Would you say that Christ's blood paid the price... was the substitute for sin for every individual that has ever lived or will ever live? If so .... you are a universalist.

I doubt that anyone on this BB believes that Christ paid the sin debt of every individual that has ever lived. If He did.... then everyone will be saved.... regardless.

I suppose everyone... except universalist... limit the attonement.

RB,
You've got to argue better than that.
They're gonna jump all over you.
You're assuming that your understanding of Christ's atonement is that same as theirs.
It's not.

And if you ask, they'll tell you and then you will see how much we disagree over.
It's a lot.

 

[Dred]

What? Are you a universalist? Would you say that Christ's blood paid the price... was the substitute for sin for every individual that has ever lived or will ever live? If so .... you are a universalist.

I doubt that anyone on this BB believes that Christ paid the sin debt of every individual that has ever lived. If He did.... then everyone will be saved.... regardless.

I suppose everyone... except universalist... limit the attonement.

I want to follow this into a certain interesting line of thought.

Assuming the most common view of the atonement as some kind of justice payment for the debt of sin, we have a good reason that the one sacrificed had to be God Himself. Specifically, an infinite being could pay for so many sins, even infinitely many sins, in a finite period of time. Most Christians, even among those who hold to limited atonement, would probably agree that Christ *could have* paid for the sins of many others without another sacrifice. Essentially, since God Himself was sacrificed, we have a sacrifice of infinite value--an infinite checking account, so to speak, though the checks may be written for finitely many people.

Then the question arises, why not pay for the sins of everyone? Hypothetically, if He had paid for the sins of everyone (and surely He was able), what would happen then? If salvation only involves having this payment made, then everyone would be saved, would they not? Is there something wrong with this picture, perhaps another problem to be dealt with?

Ed

 

[npetreley]

Then the question arises, why not pay for the sins of everyone? Hypothetically, if He had paid for the sins of everyone (and surely He was able), what would happen then? If salvation only involves having this payment made, then everyone would be saved, would they not? Is there something wrong with this picture, perhaps another problem to be dealt with?

It depends on your soteriology. I think I see where you're going with this, but it doesn't pose a problem for limited atonement. I think you're trying to get to a point where someone says "The benefits must be appropriated by faith", etc., etc.

However -- if Jesus died for His sheep, and ONLY for His sheep, then His sheep WILL come to Him, and they WILL appropriate it by faith. There's nothing left to chance, and there will be no unmet conditions.

 

[Jarthur001]

:laugh: I noticed James you had to quickly take the verse which Lou used to substitute you own.

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
This post was not to lou, but I answered webdog

So how about? Would you care to post every time John used the term 'whole world' so we can see how he consistantly used it
Or should I do it AGAIN.

Reread Allan....stay on track

 

[Jarthur001]

To All:

If you have little experience dealing with the type of Calvinists you are reading at this board, you are getting a valuable lesson.

The Calvinist will reject any interpretation of Scripture that does not validate their Calvinistic theology. They filter and view the Bible through their Calvinistic (TULIP) presuppositions.

“And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.”

This is why when, for example, you post 1 John 2:2 with its meaning clear, and it devastation of the Limited Atonement, the verse must be reinterpreted and twisted out of shape to keep Calvinism's Limited Atonement in tact.

If an article/book is not supportive Calvinism it and the writer must be discredited. This is why they cry foul over George Zeller’s articles. Those articles expose the dangers of Calvinistic theology and the Calvinists here don’t like it.

You will read these men crying, "you don't understand us, you can't understand Calvinism, you are creating a straw man." If you will not agree with them and dare to publicly object to their Calvinistic views, you will have your academics and ability to learn questioned. Some of these Calvinists are on a crusade to spread their view and they will not tolerate a challenge.

No one is born again as a Calvinist, it has to be introduced and it is often introduced incrementally. Most believers, if they are introduced to the 5 points just as they are, will reject them because they are inconsistent with Scripture. Even new believers will inherently recognize there is something odd about the five points. There is much twisting and reinterpretation of Scripture that has to be done to come to the conclusions of Calvinism.

Many who are Calvinistic in their theology reject one or more of the five points. That is especially true of the Limited Atonement. Therefore, the five pointers will say of these who reject LA that they are not true Calvinists.

Regrettably in recent years there has been a resurgence of Calvinism. The debate over Calvinism is never going to be settled this side of Heaven. While we wait for that day it is best to proclaim the truth and protect the Church from the spread and dangers of Calvinistic theology.

The Dangers of Reformed Theology are real and these articles are a must read for any one with genuine concerns about Calvinism. Don’t listen to the Calvinist who cries foul. If they had access to the teaching, such as you will find in those articles, they might not have succumbed to Calvinistic teaching.


LM

I'll take that as a no.

Am I good or what?

 

[Jarthur001]

It pertained to all of them in general, since your general question was about God's love, and does it end, and what about those God's hates, et.. So yeah, I guess you did miss it.

I did not say it, YOU did, and as incorrectly as you ever do.
I did not once declare in any manner of imagination, that once Gods love has been fixated upon a person, and the person stopped loving God, that God would abandon them. You were not asking about loosing ones salvation, but does God stop loving (or start) and why?

And I have set forth my answer already.


God only saves those who will believe and if they will not, He gives them over, not gives up (as if they bested Him). But again, this is typical.

wrong again Allan....please read not only my post, but read your own.

You said..."The fixation of His love is determinded by man acceptance of God and His truth,"

If I stop love God....He will stop loving me?
If I no longer want to be saved...God will let me go???

Allan, I know you do not believe this....so why say it? Man actions do not change Gods love.

Gods love does not change. Its not based on or determinded by man...that is pure wogwash. God loved us before we love Him.

If Gods love does not change...

How does God Hate Esau?

 

[Jarthur001]

So how about? Would you care to post every time John used the term 'whole world' so we can see how he consistantly used it
Or should I do it AGAIN.

go for it...

 

[Jarthur001]

Back by popular demand, or at least by webdog's :laugh: -
Yet since I have done this earlier in the thread with James regarding 'Pink's misunderstanding of the usage of the term 'whole world' , I'll just requote it.


http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1111784&postcount=131

and as back then....you fail to prove anything.
nor could you ever. The fact is, one can read it either way.

I just will not base my doctrine on one verse, when 300 other verse it has clear meaning.

Therefore this verse is clear to me.

 

[Jarthur001]

Notice though all of this....those same verses were never addressed.

Please show where any one addressed this....

Quote:
If it be true that God loves every member of the human family, then why did our Lord tell His disciples

"He that hath My commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth Me: and he that loveth Me shall be loved of My Father ... If a man love Me, he will keep My words: and My Father will love him." (John 14:21,23)?

Why say "he that loveth Me shall be loved of My Father"? If the Father loves everybody?

nothing yet.

And where did any one address this...

Quote:
Proverbs 8:17 I love them that love me; and those that seek me early shall find me.

What about those that do not love God?

Or is this just vain words?

nothing on this verse...

Quote:
Psalm 5

4For thou art not a God that hath pleasure in wickedness: neither shall evil dwell with thee.

5The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity.

Now notice this if you will.

This verse kinda shots wholes in all the "loves the sinner, but hates the sin"...does it not?

It is the WORKERS not the WORK that is hated. The work would never happen if the worker had not worked.

NOPE


And this....

Quote:
This is to show that the God of the OT is the same in the NT. I have heard some say other wise.


Quote:
John 3:36
36He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him
.

What does the words "wrath of God" mean to you?

On the other hand we have....

Quote:
Quote:
4 Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up; 5 does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil; 6 does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth; 7 bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
8 Love never fails. But whether there are prophecies, they will fail; whether there are tongues, they will cease; whether there is knowledge, it will vanish away.

Heb 12..

Quote:
"For whom the
Quote:

Quote:
Lord loveth He chasteneth

, and scourgeth every son whom He receiveth."

 

[Jarthur001]

The faith of believers WASN'T spoken of throughout the whole world, is that what you are implying? Scripture says it was...you say it wasn't. Hmmmm..

For such a hardline stance on the word "hate", you sure are more liberal with "whole world"

faith of the believers in ROME...lets get it right.

There is no record that Cain talked about the believers in ROME. Can you prove he did?

I rest my case.

 

[webdog]

faith of the believers in ROME...lets get it right.

There is no record that Cain talked about the believers in ROME. Can you prove he did?

I rest my case.

Now the "whole world" is Rome? :laugh:

Did Christ pay for your sins since He paid for the sins of Rome only? Are you a roman citizen?

 

[webdog]

and as back then....you fail to prove anything.
nor could you ever. The fact is, one can read it either way.

...talk about blindness...

 

[psalms109:31]

Paul's plea

They missunderstood Paul teaching back then to, It doesn't surprise me that they still do today.

Paul made a plea in his letter that God wants all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth and Paul had to tell them he wasn't lying.

Why would Paul had to say that he wasn't lying about God wanting all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth, it is because they didn't believe him.

 

[Jarthur001]

Now the "whole world" is Rome? :laugh:

Did Christ pay for your sins since He paid for the sins of Rome only? Are you a roman citizen?

again another no nothing post

lost your way again?

As it turns out Paul was speaking of the believers in ROME.

Let me help you out a little bit there friend.

Quote:

Originally Posted by webdog
I would like for someone to show where "whole world" can EVER mean a limited group of people.

OK...

Quote:
Rom 1:8 First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world.

Each and every person of the earth was not talking about the Rome believers, but everywhere Paul went, people asked about Rome believers.

1000 years before this time people were not talking about the believers of Rome. How could they? Were they not part of the whole world?

Today some do not even know God, and have never read the Bible, do you feel they talk about the Rome believers of Pauls day?

:laugh:

Try to keep on track.

Still no answer...just another dodge

 

[Jarthur001]

...talk about blindness...

one lines with no support you are well known for.

facts....you are not known for


As most of the time...that one-liner says nothing toward the verse.

Time to back your claims

 

[Jarthur001]

lets post some more verses....

“And after all this, if you do not obey Me, but walk contrary to Me, then I also will walk contrary to you in fury; and I, even I, will chastise you seven times for your sins. You shall eat the flesh of your sons, and you shall eat the flesh of your daughters. I will destroy your high places, cut down your incense altars, and cast your carcasses on the lifeless forms of your idols; and My soul shall abhor you.” (Leviticus 26:27-30, NKJV)

Do you believe this? Who will change the meaning of this word..."abhor"?