Who did Christ die for?

[Jarthur001]

Matthew 7:23 "And then I will profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."

You might be thinking what in the world does this verse have to do with God's love or hate? The word "knew" in that verse means affection or love.

wow...

 

[Jarthur001]

Allan, you and web will love this one..

No...I mean LOVE IT!!


Passage...

1Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus:

2Grace be to you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

3Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:

4According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

5Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

6To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.

The "beloved" is Christ..right?

Verse 1 says "to the saints ..." so in other words it is not universal.

ok...now who are the saints? in this passage it uses the phrase "in Christ" for most of the passage to show what applies to the saints. right?

Now you may have missed one word I did not bold.

Ok so we pick it up in 3......Christ who blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: according as He has chosen us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love having predestinated us unto the adoption of children unto Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will".

All blessings are "in Christ"...the quotes are for webdog.

This includes the love of God. wow....good stuff

 

[webdog]

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

One liners...like these?

Why not stick with the kind of posts you are infamous for

"Did Jesus die on the cross?" "Is Jesus God?" "Did Jesus have arms?" "Do you like milk?"

 

[webdog]

Allan, you and web will love this one..

No...I mean LOVE IT!!


Passage...


The "beloved" is Christ..right?

Verse 1 says "to the saints ..." so in other words it is not universal.

ok...now who are the saints? in this passage it uses the phrase "in Christ" for most of the passage to show what applies to the saints. right?

Now you may have missed one word I did not bold.

Ok so we pick it up in 3......Christ who blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: according as He has chosen us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love having predestinated us unto the adoption of children unto Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will".

All blessings are "in Christ"...the quotes are for webdog.

This includes the love of God. wow....good stuff

I really feel for those you teach...because I can hardly understand anything you are trying to get at. I hope your teaching style is a lot more straightforward than your posts on the BB...

 

[psalms109:31]

chosen

I do have to pray for those who have chosen them selves and made their selves the elect of God.

When Jesus says' I never knew you and they will reply I did this in your name and that in your name and He simple replies go away you evil doer.

He has chosen the saved before even the foundation of the world and I will never argue with scripture.

One scripture will never delete another scripture.

If it does you have simple missunderstood the scripture.

That is why we must live by every word that comes from the mouth of God.

Like we are not to suffer a witch to live, but ye without sin cast the first stone.

When God say's that He loved the world that He sent His Son you better believe Him over your own understanding or He say's He wants all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth, you better believe God over your own understand.

I also believe He has chosen them before the foundation of the world. That is where forknowledge comes in, but men have twisted that word to thier own understanding to.

Anybody can twist the scripture to thier own understanding but to believe God and His word the way it stands well that is precious.

Your trust in Jesus is what makes your election sure, because Jesus said that whosoever believes in Him shall not be condemned but have eternal life

 

[npetreley]

I do have to pray for those who have chosen them selves and made their selves the elect of God.

Pray for those who have chosen themselves and made themselves the president elect of the USA.

Oh, right, that's not what it means to be elect.

 

[Rippon]

What Calvinists have claimed to have chosen themselves ? Which of our number have tried to make themselves the elect of God ? That's just foolishness Ps. Get a grip . All true Christians are elect . Calvinists are not the only sheep . The non-Cals have denied many scriptural doctrines , but if they are really His own -- they are His elect .

Try a more honorable approach next time . But that is just as likely as a grammatically correct sentence issuing from your keyboard .

 

[Allan]

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.

No James. The FACT is, you can 'presume' one thing or another but you CAN NOT faithfully read it 'either way'. John set forth his understanding in specific detail regarding his usage of the phrase 'whole world'. He used the same phrase in the same book twice and twice more in Revelation and ALL mean the same thing. And if you concoction of the meaning is true, then John is no better than a lunitic. In one portion you contend whole world depicts all the saved, and then just a few pages over when John uses the same term is regards all those who lie in wickedness.

Tell me something James,
Did God call you out of the world to be in the world?
Does the world hate you James, because you are in the world?

Your flipping back and forth between your made up defintion of what world 'can' mean if you look at it in the right view point as well as against those meanings which are already established in the OT of the scripture to finally be able to state, NOW it lines up with my theology!

I simply use this 'one verse' which contradicts your greatly misinformed amount of erroneous number of texts which you contend are stating for ONLY a limited version of atonement. If ONE verse contradicts your fundamental doctrine of Limited Atonement then that is ALL THAT IS NEEDFUL to show you are either incorrect in a portion of that doctrine or ALL of that doctrine. I believe it is the former and not the later with you.

The word of God does not contradict itself James, and indeed Can Not. So now you must determine whether you will believe the authors own usage and intent of the meaning for 'whole world', or blindly cling to your version of it.

You can not explain away the text nor the authors own understanding regarding his usage of the words. It is there but sadly torn apart to appease a theology and not to determine it.

 

[Allan]

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.

Npet: I'll tell you what, though I have studied Limited atonement and found it biblically lacking (IMO), if you can show me the verse or verses where Christ or the Apostles state that Jesus death was 'ONLY' for His sheep - then I will seriously reconsider my opinion.

OR even that He died for the saints/beleivers 'ONLY'.

We agree that Christ died for believers just not believers 'ONLY'.

 

[Allan]

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

Who said it is 'determined by man' but God determined Himself upon whom and why He would love them. So just for kicks, let look at your own verses and see why God chooses to love these: Ready - :wavey:

"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)?

Mans obedience to the truth displays the mans love toward God. Yet the verses does not say 'these are already loved of My Father" but instead says 'shall be loved of my Father - hmmm....I wonder why?

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

God loves them that love Him. Why does it not state that God 'loved' them (or loved them already) who love Him?

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.

Hmmm... 'worker of inquity' meaning a person who is continuing in lawlessness. To be considered one who is continuing in this 'lawlessness' one must first have knowledge of the truth he has rejected in order to not ONLY do it but TO CONTINUE in it. So God's love is not set upon one who will not obey and love him. Interesting James. They must reject truth so as to be given over to their lawlessness (I do believe that is what Rom 1 is about don't you?)

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

So man must believe or man will never be saved, and God judgment against unbelief or rejection of Gods truth is damnation. Yep, that is pretty consistant with all the rest of scripture.

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.

So I assume you believe there is only one type of love.
I take it you love your wife the same way you love God, and your neighbor, and even your enemy. That IS what you are espousing James is it not?

Here is the funny part about your contention regarding God and your version of Love - "does not seek its own"
Does God NOT seek His own way, James?
James? You try SO HARD to put God into you little box.
There is more than one type of Love. Though God is love James, it means He is the epitome of Love thus love itself in manifested form. But there are distinctions IN love which scriptures identifies but are all based in the same root but with different aspects.
:

"For whom the Lord loveth He chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom He receiveth."

Yep, everyone that obeys God loves and keeps them in His love for them.
But then all these things are done in time as the Love of the Father is set upon them, but outside of time they were foreknown and chosen to be loved by God. God loved us first based upon His own cousil and wisdom. But from what the scriptures tell us, is that we who are chosen are those who will obey by and in faith. Can this not be part of God's decision to chose us? Is God forbidden not to do such? And since scripture is specific (including the very ones you give) that God's love is set upon those of faith or who obey, then it 'appears' or can be presummed this IS an aspect regarding God's choosing of us.

However, Gods knowlegde and His decision James is something you can pretend to know and understand but the FACT IS THIS - YOU NEVER WILL this side of Heaven and even then I'm not so sure. You are exalting yourself up to God status to pretend you know what God knew and WHY God determinded what God determinded.
All we know is that God DID know and God DID determine but it gives no order in scripture, and to go beyond that is potentially dangerous on our part to presume to know the mind of God or even worse to base a principle doctrine upon a man made falasy of figuring it out.

Yes, we can presume a potential or hypothetical order in relation to how/why we are elected/chosen for cohessivenes of our understanding but to place that as FACT and doctrine is beyond our knowledge (wich is based on speculation and presumption) since we can not know the Mind of God and why He did and chose as He did.

 

[Allan]

Allan, you and web will love this one..

No...I mean LOVE IT!!


Passage...


The "beloved" is Christ..right?

Verse 1 says "to the saints ..." so in other words it is not universal.

ok...now who are the saints? in this passage it uses the phrase "in Christ" for most of the passage to show what applies to the saints. right?

Now you may have missed one word I did not bold.

Ok so we pick it up in 3......Christ who blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: according as He has chosen us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love having predestinated us unto the adoption of children unto Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will".

All blessings are "in Christ"...the quotes are for webdog.

This includes the love of God. wow....good stuff

Wow...That IS good stuff.

It declares that all that we have or will have is from and in Christ. Even His choosing of us was that we were to be 'in Christ' thus His predestining of us to the adoption as His children.

This does not speak of how or why but that it is because He desired it to be so.

I don't disagree with anything in here.

 

[Jarthur001]

..because I can hardly understand anything you are trying to get at. .

yes I know.

 

[Lou Martuneac]

yes I know.

Good example of the arrogance and elitism of some in the Calvinism camp. "God resisteth the proud," (James 4:6)


LM

 

[Jarthur001]

[

QUOTE=Allan]No James. The FACT is, you can 'presume' one thing or another but you CAN NOT faithfully read it 'either way'. John set forth his understanding in specific detail regarding his usage of the phrase 'whole world'. He used the same phrase in the same book twice and twice more in Revelation and ALL mean the same thing. And if you concoction of the meaning is true, then John is no better than a lunitic. In one portion you contend whole world depicts all the saved, and then just a few pages over when John uses the same term is regards all those who lie in wickedness.

We shall see.

Tell me something James,
Did God call you out of the world to be in the world?
Does the world hate you James, because you are in the world?

Not that it matters, for it is off point...but...you asked
God called me "out of the world" spiritually...and in some ways bodily.

Also believers are to be IN THE WORLD but not of the world. Have you ever heard that before?

On the other hand...the world hates me because i'm of God.

But in each of those cases the word world means a sinful world system. In some cases it means sinners and haters of God in that system. But does WORLD in any of these cases mean all mankind? I say NO!!
You are "in the world". You are of the race of mankind. Do you hate me? Do other believers hate me because I am of God? They too are "of this world".

So once again, world does not mean all of mankind. And that is the point.

It seems you make my point for me.

Your flipping back and forth between your made up defintion of what world 'can' mean if you look at it in the right view point as well as against those meanings which are already established in the OT of the scripture to finally be able to state, NOW it lines up with my theology!

I have shown with many verse now...WORLD does not always mean ALL OF MAN KIND. That is not flipping.

I simply use this 'one verse' which contradicts your greatly misinformed amount of erroneous number of texts which you contend are stating for ONLY a limited version of atonement. If ONE verse contradicts your fundamental doctrine of Limited Atonement then that is ALL THAT IS NEEDFUL to show you are either incorrect in a portion of that doctrine or ALL of that doctrine. I believe it is the former and not the later with you.

All my text you skip over and never address. You use one verse...but still have proved nothing. World does not always mean "all of mankind". Ask Web...he said it too.

yet another case in point...

J

ohn 1:10
He was in the world (earth), and the world(earth and all that is in it. Or creation) was made by him, and the world (mainly speaking of mankind) knew him not.

Now you may want to point to your two verses in 1 John again. The same writer...using the same phrase idea. Well because it was off subject I past it over as you know. Sometimes this is mistaking for I have nothing to say on it. Let me show you something it is clear you have overlooked.

18We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not.

19And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness.

What we have been asking is...does the word WORLD mean all of mankind. You say whole world always will. But notice same author...same book...disagrees. In this case the whole world only means the non elect. You have those that are of God and 2nd you have the whole world of wickedness. If you read verse 18 it becomes very clear.


Now back in 1 John we have the same thing. Whole world does not mean all of mankind, but the whole of all races. How easy and plain can it get?

The word of God does not contradict itself James, and indeed Can Not.

I agree...therefore I rest my case.

So now you must determine whether you will believe the authors own usage and intent of the meaning for 'whole world', or blindly cling to your version of it.

it seems now this is on you. World does not always mean all of mankind. Nor does "whole world". so will you cling to your blindly version????

You can not explain away the text nor the authors own understanding regarding his usage of the words. It is there but sadly torn apart to appease a theology and not to determine it.

No need for me to explain away. It is clear. read it.

 

[Jarthur001]

Good example of the arrogance and elitism of some in the Calvinism camp. "God resisteth the proud," (James 4:6)

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 doctrine of election is taught in Scripture. Calvinism’s UNCONDITIONAL Election, however, is not.

It might be helpful for all readers to review some of the articles in this series by George Zeller.

Visit- The Dangers of Reformed Theology

Of special interest read The Danger of Teaching That Christ Died Only for the Elect

I link guests at my blog to Zeller’s work in this area.

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.

The Calvinist embraces a rationalistic fatalism rather than biblical faith in his approach to theology. This is how he arrives at the conclusions found in Calvinism.

Rationalistic fatalism is understandable in light of dictionary usage. According to Franklin's Dictionary & Thesaurus, “rationalistic” is literally: “reliance on reason as the basis for the establishment of religious truth,” and “fatalism” is the “belief that fate determines events.” Of course “fate” is a cause beyond human control to determine.

Looking at the statement in this light demonstrates that those referred to rely on reason rather than revelation as the basis for their theological moorings. The “circle logic” of five-point Calvinism is just that for the whole system crumbles when a single link in the chain is broken.

One must approach the system with reason rather than faith. This of course leads to the fatalism just mentioned, which holds that God has predetermined the destiny of all human souls, whether to Heaven or to Hell, and that all the witnessing, praying, and missionary effort in the world will not change the outcome.

The “circle logic” is why these men cannot and will not say why they might reject Calvinism's Limited Atonement.

The Calvinist arrives at his conclusions by filtering and viewing Scripture through the lens of Calvinism's five points. If the plain teaching of Scripture cannot be made consistent with the five points then Scripture is reinterpreted to fit the five points. That is how they arrive at extra-biblical positions such as regeneration before faith.

The men here have to come back, NOT with an answer, but with questions to misdirect the focus away from the five points. Concede one point and the whole thing crumbles.

LM

Good example of the arrogance and elitism of some in the Free-will camp.
"God resisteth the proud," (James 4:6)


Mean time.....

Any idea when we will get a answer on all those verses?

 

[Allan]

[
We shall see.


Not that it matters, for it is off point...but...you asked
God called me "out of the world" spiritually...and in some ways bodily.

Also believers are to be IN THE WORLD but not of the world. Have you ever heard that before?

On the other hand...the world hates me because i'm of God.

But in each of those cases the word world means a sinful world system. In some cases it means sinners and haters of God in that system. But does WORLD in any of these cases mean all mankind? I say NO!!
You are "in the world". You are of the race of mankind. Do you hate me? Do other believers hate me because I am of God? They too are "of this world".

So once again, world does not mean all of mankind. And that is the point.

It seems you make my point for me.



I have shown with many verse now...WORLD does not always mean ALL OF MAN KIND. That is not flipping.


All my text you skip over and never address. You use one verse...but still have proved nothing. World does not always mean "all of mankind". Ask Web...he said it too.

yet another case in point...

J

Now you may want to point to your two verses in 1 John again. The same writer...using the same phrase idea. Well because it was off subject I past it over as you know. Sometimes this is mistaking for I have nothing to say on it. Let me show you something it is clear you have overlooked.



What we have been asking is...does the word WORLD mean all of mankind. You say whole world always will. But notice same author...same book...disagrees. In this case the whole world only means the non elect. You have those that are of God and 2nd you have the whole world of wickedness. If you read verse 18 it becomes very clear.


Now back in 1 John we have the same thing. Whole world does not mean all of mankind, but the whole of all races. How easy and plain can it get?



I agree...therefore I rest my case.



it seems now this is on you. World does not always mean all of mankind. Nor does "whole world". so will you cling to your blindly version????


No need for me to explain away. It is clear. read it.

Your ENTIRE post is pointless, Jame. I HAVE NEVER espoused the world always means all people - and YOU know it, though you might have forgotten, but we have spoke in the threads regarding the term 'world'.

Another thing, you STILL have not addressed (and apparently wont touch with a ten foot pole) is what I have addressed, which is NOT the term 'world' but the phrase 'whole world' and the authors OWN usage and defintion set forth in his own writtings.

On an aside: I have always said the term 'world' doesn't mean all mankind - but regarding men - it is all ungodly and wicked men).

I also per you apparent inability to read my post NEVER espoused the phrase 'Whole World' means ALL mankind. Where did you get that in ANY of my posts. Go back and re-read my post regarding the phrase 'whole world' and the AUTHORS definition of it, NOT Pinks, Bunyon, Calvin, Gill, Spurgeon, Piper or anyone elses - just the good ol' Apostle John

 

[Allan]

Good example of the arrogance and elitism of some in the Free-will camp.
"God resisteth the proud," (James 4:6)

Ok, Now that IS funny :laugh:

Talk about mirror images (inverted) :laugh:

No disrespect meant to either of you.

 

[Jarthur001]

Another thing, you STILL have not addressed (and apparently wont touch with a ten foot pole) is what I have addressed, which is NOT the term 'world' but the phrase 'whole world' and the authors OWN usage and defintion set forth in his own writtings.

On an aside: I have always said the term 'world' doesn't mean all mankind - but regarding men - it is all ungodly and wicked men).

no need to say i'm sorry.....just reread my post.

I did address it. I have nothing to run from.

 

[Allan]

no need to say i'm sorry.....just reread my post.

I did address it. I have nothing to run from.

You did not address it, you addressed the term world and I am narrowing the field for a specific purpose. To find out what the phrase whole world means so we can better understand Johns usage of it regarding Christ's propitiation for our sins, and not our only, but the sins of the WHOLE WORLD.

So how about it :

We both agree the term world has 3 root meanings and of those meaning there are slight variations of each.
1. the Universe or planet
2. A geographical area (ie. Roman world)
3. All ungodly and wicked (which would include their system)

Did you note that in NONE of those the phrase 'all mankind' appeared.

These are all established definitions via the OT and so the NT authors will mirror and not add to their already determinded meanings.
But let us get one thing straight because you STILL have yet to understand as shown in your post you asked me to re-read:

So once again, world does not mean all of mankind. And that is the point.

I have shown with many verse now...WORLD does not always mean ALL OF MAN KIND...

All my text you skip over and never address. You use one verse...but still have proved nothing. World does not always mean "all of mankind".

What we have been asking is...does the word WORLD mean all of mankind. You say whole world always will. But notice same author...same book...disagrees. In this case the whole world only means the non elect.

Now back in 1 John we have the same thing. Whole world does not mean all of mankind, but the whole of all races. How easy and plain can it get?

it seems now this is on you. World does not always mean all of mankind. Nor does "whole world".

But I have ALWAYS contended otherwise:

On an aside: I have always said the term 'world' doesn't mean all mankind - but regarding men - it is all ungodly and wicked men).

All ungodly do not include the saved, James - thus it CAN NOT mean all mankind.

I have NEVER contended what you are 'assuming' I'm am arguing, this is why I know you did not read my post.

 

[Jarthur001]

no need to say i'm sorry.....just reread my post.

I did address it. I have nothing to run from.

on that note....

I'm off to work.

Start a new thread after they close this one. I'll be back tomorrow..i hope