Reformed1689
Well-Known Member
BDAG, not a commentary. And it doesn't matter if you buy it or not, scholars much smarter than you or I have said that.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Who Is Drawn by the Father?
- Thread starter Reformed1689
- Start date
- Status
Of course. Not everyone follows Christ. He is h priesti
Just where does scripture say that.he died only for the elect?
MB
Just because someone is smarter or educated more than anyone else does not make them right.What makes a person right is truth. If a man has the truth of Christ he is righteous
MB
Reformed1689
Well-Known Member
Dave G
Well-Known Member
Only for believers?
You will never find one, all-encompassing Scripture that states He died "only" for His sheep.
But Matthew 1:21, if taken literally, seemed to help me.
Also, John 10:11, if taken literally, also helped me a lot.
Then it was Isaiah 53:8 and Ephesians 5:25.
The subject of who Christ actually died for, and atoned, is one of the most debated subjects in all of recent history.
The answer can only be arrived at through context, and this is probably the most difficult to establish of all the doctrines of salvation... because it requires a thorough study and understanding of not only God's word, but everything that is related to why Christ died and who it affected.
This could fill up pages, as I see it, and gets very detailed.
I also confess to not fully agreeing with it until about 2-3 years ago...it kind of "crept up on me".
Read the arguments both for and against, found here:
Limited atonement-is it biblical?
What are the main arguments against limited atonement?
Is the atonement of Christ unlimited?
A long time ago I was in favor of "Unlimited".
What changed my mind was that I began to see not only that God does the choosing of people to salvation ( election ), I also began to see that many of the verses being used to support "General Atonement" were further defined by context...they applied to believers ( the elect ), not unbelievers.
After my list of verses that appeared to support it got whittled down to 2 or 3, I stopped fighting against "Limited Atonement".
Why?
I knew, based on my reading, that context was my problem all along, and I could see that context gradually becoming clearer and clearer.
Last edited:
Dave G
Well-Known Member
What then "sealed the deal", is that I saw what actually happened on the cross, and for whom it happened:
Colossians 2:13-14 <---- All trespasses forgiven the believer, the Law nailed to His cross.
Ephesians 5:25-27. <----Christ loved the church and gave Himself for it, so that He might sanctify and cleanse it.
Romans 5:8-10. <--------God commended His love towards believers. While they were yet sinners, Christ died for them, they were justified by His blood, and were reconciled to God by the death of His Son.
1 Corinthians 6:11. <-----Believers are washed, sanctified and justified, not unbelievers.
2 Corinthians 5:19. <----"World" cannot mean everyone, otherwise all men are actually reconciled and God has not imputed their trespasses to them.
The key to my understanding "world" as people out of every tongue, tribe and nation ( Revelation 5:9, Revelation 7:9 )?
2 Corinthians 5:19 and Romans 11:12-15...."world" means "Gentiles" in most cases, both Jews and Gentiles in others.
Actually redeemed, actually reconciled, actually washed, actually cleansed, actually "quickened", actually justified...not "potentially".
Then I started seeing the arguments:
If all trespasses were forgiven the unbeliever at the cross, then there are millions of people in Hell that God actually reconciled, etc., to Himself.
Millions of people who were actually forgiven of their trespasses at the cross, sins actually paid for.
How can they then be judged according to their works out of the books ( Revelation 20:11-15 )?
Ultimately it's up to you to decide, MB.
But when many of us state that Christ died for His sheep, we see it according to the details unfolding in God's word...not one "verse" or even 3.
There's a lot more to the what "world", "all", and "every man" mean, and they are defined by context.
Simply quoting one thing that God has to say, in many cases, is not enough to give a fully educated statement about many subjects.
For example, I could walk up to anyone, point at 1 John 2:2 and about 7 others, and say, "See? Christ died for everyone!"
That fooled me for a long time.
May God bless you with many good and praise-worthy gifts.
Colossians 2:13-14 <---- All trespasses forgiven the believer, the Law nailed to His cross.
Ephesians 5:25-27. <----Christ loved the church and gave Himself for it, so that He might sanctify and cleanse it.
Romans 5:8-10. <--------God commended His love towards believers. While they were yet sinners, Christ died for them, they were justified by His blood, and were reconciled to God by the death of His Son.
1 Corinthians 6:11. <-----Believers are washed, sanctified and justified, not unbelievers.
2 Corinthians 5:19. <----"World" cannot mean everyone, otherwise all men are actually reconciled and God has not imputed their trespasses to them.
The key to my understanding "world" as people out of every tongue, tribe and nation ( Revelation 5:9, Revelation 7:9 )?
2 Corinthians 5:19 and Romans 11:12-15...."world" means "Gentiles" in most cases, both Jews and Gentiles in others.
Actually redeemed, actually reconciled, actually washed, actually cleansed, actually "quickened", actually justified...not "potentially".
Then I started seeing the arguments:
If all trespasses were forgiven the unbeliever at the cross, then there are millions of people in Hell that God actually reconciled, etc., to Himself.
Millions of people who were actually forgiven of their trespasses at the cross, sins actually paid for.
How can they then be judged according to their works out of the books ( Revelation 20:11-15 )?
Ultimately it's up to you to decide, MB.
But when many of us state that Christ died for His sheep, we see it according to the details unfolding in God's word...not one "verse" or even 3.
There's a lot more to the what "world", "all", and "every man" mean, and they are defined by context.
Simply quoting one thing that God has to say, in many cases, is not enough to give a fully educated statement about many subjects.
For example, I could walk up to anyone, point at 1 John 2:2 and about 7 others, and say, "See? Christ died for everyone!"
That fooled me for a long time.
May God bless you with many good and praise-worthy gifts.
You do know that there are scholars who disagree.....right? Or are you going to stick with your logical fallacy of appealing to authority?
Thank your for the honesty about your doctrine. It is rather refreshing.
From my limited experience @Dave Gilbert is honest, and I also find this very refreshing.
It goes to show you that not all Calvinists have "drank the koolaide". Some have honest disagreements but know that their understanding is their understanding. I wish that there were more of his caliber on this forum (not that there are not others, but sometimes the most vocal are the worst of the bunch).
Reformed1689
Well-Known Member
Of course I realize this, but they are in the minority. Not to mention it doesn't fit with the rest of Scripture.
Reformed1689
Well-Known Member
You can roll your eyes all you want, but that's because you don't have an argument.Uh, sure.
What is it that you think I should have an argument for? You have said practically nothing. The hubris displayed in your statements about the value of your own posts is astounding. You need a reality check.
Last edited by a moderator:
Reformed1689
Well-Known Member
Do not call me bub. You don't know me. You don't get to call me things like that. You may call me sir or David and those alone. Your rudeness is about at its limit. I'm tired of being talked down to by you. You are arrogant and snide.
I am? The pot calling the apple black., posts# 3; 31; 38; 49; 73; 80; 103; 114; 121......
Reformed1689
Well-Known Member
I can see how post 3 might have been thought as such, but I was dead serious. Post 31 does not fall into any of those categories. Post 38 does not fall into those categories, it was a true statement. Post 49, another statement of fact. Post 73, another statement of fact. I can see how post 80 might be construed that way but that was not the intent. Post 103 statement of fact. Post 114 is not rude or arrogant in any way. Nor is post 121.
It seems you are reading my posts with biased eyes and aren't able to be objective. None of them have been such derogatory comments as talking down to someone by using terms such as "bub" and "son" which is what you do. So I reject your notion that the pot is calling the Apple black. Ridiculous. Check yourself.
Six Hour Warning
This thread will be closed sometime after 4:20 AM Pacific.
This thread will be closed sometime after 4:20 AM Pacific.
Rockson
Active Member
David you were talking to Rev, but I think I'd relax a little from being upset about someone calling you Bub. Some places it's considered as a sign of endearment or affection. Others use it as a form of "dude" as in "Hey Guy". I hardly think one using it deserves the charge as being what you claimed above.
- Status