• 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!

Why? or Why Not?

KenH

Well-Known Member
Calvin believed all men should hear the gospel, Gill didn't.

Did some quick research, and I found this in John Gill's A Body of Doctrinal Divinity, in the section entitled, "Of the Gospel":

"It is called, from the objects of it, the gospel of the circumcision, and the gospel of the uncircumcision ( Galatians 2:7 ) , not that the gospel of the one is different from that of the other; it is the same gospel, only dispensed to different persons, the circumcised Jews and the uncircumcised Gentiles; it was first ordered to be preached to the Jews, and to them only, in Christ's lifetime; after his death and resurrection he enlarged the commission of his disciples, and sent them forth to preach the gospel to every creature, both Jews and Gentiles."

(emphasis mine)
 

KenH

Well-Known Member
This view often denies the appropriateness of offering the gospel message universally to all, especially to those who have not shown signs of being among the elect.

John Gill did not have that view. And that view is nonsensical. God's elect don't have a flashing sign on top of their heads so that a preacher of the gospel would know who the elect are to be preached to, before they believe the gospel of the finished work of Christ and look to Him and Him alone for salvation.
 

Charlie24

Well-Known Member
John Gill did not have that view. And that view is nonsensical. God's elect don't have a flashing sign on top of their heads so that a preacher of the gospel would know who the elect are to be preached to, before they believe the gospel of the finished work of Christ and look to Him and Him alone for salvation.

I guess you are Hyper after all.
 

Charlie24

Well-Known Member
I see being saved as the result of the born-again experience.

We are saved from what the Scripture tells we are saved from, "the wrath of God to come."

Now that deserves an explanation.

The wrath of God is on man through his sin, so the wrath is because of man's sin.

So you can say we are saved from our sin against God and His wrath on that sin.
 

kyredneck

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Romans 5:9, Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.

Romans Chapter 5

9​

Much more then, being now justified by his blood, shall we be saved from the wrath of God through him.

10​

For if, while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, shall we be saved by his life;

Hebrews Chapter 7

25​

Wherefore also he is able to save to the uttermost them that draw near unto God through him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.
 

37818

Well-Known Member
Romans Chapter 5

9​

Much more then, being now justified by his blood, shall we be saved from the wrath of God through him.

10​

For if, while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, shall we be saved by his life;

Hebrews Chapter 7

25​

Wherefore also he is able to save to the uttermost them that draw near unto God through him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.
The atonement was completed prior to His physical death.
John 19:28, Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, . . .
So His physical death was for His resurrection to His immortal life.
 

kyredneck

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
The atonement was completed prior to His physical death.

Disagree.

John 19:28, Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, . . .

When the fulfillment of scripture was accomplished.

John Chapter 19

24​

They said therefore one to another, Let us not rend it, but cast lots for it, whose it shall be: that the scripture might be fulfilled, which saith, They parted my garments among them, And upon my vesture did they cast lots.

28​

After this Jesus, knowing that all things are now finished, that the scripture might be accomplished, saith, I thirst.

30​

When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up his spirit.

Psalms Chapter 69

21​

They gave me also gall for my food; And in my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink.

John Chapter 13

18​

I speak not of you all: I know whom I have chosen: but that the scripture may be fulfilled: He that eateth my bread lifted up his heel against me.

John Chapter 17

12​

While I was with them, I kept them in thy name which thou hast given me: and I guarded them, and not one of them perished, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.
 

Ben1445

Well-Known Member
"and not for ours only; but for the sins of Old Testament saints, and of those who shall hereafter believe in Christ, and of the Gentiles also, signified in the next clause:
but also for the sins of the whole world; the Syriac version renders it, "not for us only, but also for the whole world"; that is, not for the Jews only, for John was a Jew, and so were those he wrote unto, but for the Gentiles also.
...
this phrase, "all the world", or "the whole world", in Scripture, unless when it signifies the whole universe, or the habitable earth, is always used in a limited sense, either for the Roman empire, or the churches of Christ in the world, or believers, or the present inhabitants of the world, or a part of them only, Luke 2:1; and so it is in this epistle, 1 John 5:19; where the whole world lying in wickedness is manifestly distinguished from the saints, who are of God, and belong not to the world; and therefore cannot be understood of all the individuals in the world; and the like distinction is in this text itself, for "the sins of the whole world" are opposed to "our sins", the sins of the apostle and others to whom he joins himself; who therefore belonged not to, nor were a part of the whole world, for whose sins Christ is a propitiation as for theirs: so that this passage cannot furnish out any argument for universal redemption; for besides these things, it may be further observed, that for whose sins Christ is a propitiation, their sins are atoned for and pardoned, and their persons justified from all sin, and so shall certainly be glorified, which is not true of the whole world, and every man and woman in it; moreover, Christ is a propitiation through faith in his blood, the benefit of his propitiatory sacrifice is only received and enjoyed through faith; so that in the event it appears that Christ is a propitiation only for believers, a character which does not agree with all mankind; add to this, that for whom Christ is a propitiation he is also an advocate, 1 John 2:1; but he is not an advocate for every individual person in the world; yea, there is a world he will not pray for John 17:9, and consequently is not a propitiation for them. Once more, the design of the apostle in these words is to comfort his "little children" with the advocacy and propitiatory sacrifice of Christ, who might fall into sin through weakness and inadvertency; but what comfort would it yield to a distressed mind, to be told that Christ was a propitiation not only for the sins of the apostles and other saints, but for the sins of every individual in the world, even of these that are in hell? Would it not be natural for persons in such circumstances to argue rather against, than for themselves, and conclude that seeing persons might be damned notwithstanding the propitiatory sacrifice of Christ, that this might, and would be their case."

- except from John Gill's Bible commentary on 1 John 2:2
Funny thing…
When God said the whole world, I assumed He meant the whole world.
Why do you use the Word if you don’t have the faith to believe what it says?
And Gill, who I also read, is wrong on this and a lot of other things.
I would like to know why you think that the Blood of Jesus is insufficient to answer for the sins of the whole world. (In the literal sense)
 

37818

Well-Known Member
???

30​

When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up his spirit.
Jesus saying, "It is finished." He was referring to, "Jesus knowing that all things that were accomplished." Per verse 28.
 

kyredneck

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jesus saying, "It is finished." He was referring to, "Jesus knowing that all things that were accomplished." Per verse 28.

Is your point still that the atonement was accomplished while He yet lived?

And in your mind, which atonement theory does this hypothesis support? Which atonement theory are you arguing for, or against?
 
Last edited:

percho

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
The blood, of Christ (wherein is the soul of the flesh) is what the Father gave, for the atonement of the soul, ie of all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.
 

37818

Well-Known Member
Is your point still that the atonement was accomplished while He yet lived?
Yes.
And in your mind, which atonement theory does this hypothesis support? Which atonement theory are you arguing for, or against?
I hold it, His recieving the death of His soul, was the payment.
Isaiah 5312, because he hath poured out his soul unto death: . . . .
So He consciously did this.
In His resurrection the payment was already had been completed, so His soul was no longer dead. (Prior to Hades, Acts 2:27.)
 
Last edited:
Top