Limited atonement !

[crossnote]

In John 10, Jesus teaches that He, the good shepherd, died for His sheep: “I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep” (11); “I lay down my life for the sheep” (15). Just as every earthly shepherd has his “own sheep” (3, 4), Christ refers to His “fold” or flock (16) as “my sheep” (14, 26, 27). Later, the Lord told some people that they were not His sheep and that this was the reason why they did not believe: “But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep” (26).

Only problem in vss 14,26,27 Jesus never says anything like “I lay down my life for MY sheep”, only ‘the’ sheep ( v.11)


John 10:14 KJV
[14] I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine.


John 10:26-27 KJV
[26] But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.
[27] My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:

 

[JLB]

World simply means not only jews. Particularly His Elect/Sheep/Church.

The context plainly indicates the world of those who need eternal life.


For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.
John 3:16

Jesus died on the cross so the people of the world could be saved; receive eternal life.

Your claim that Jesus was sacrificed on the cross for people who are already saved, is an unfounded theory not found in scripture.

God loves the world, and because He loves the world, He sent His only begotten Son to die for the sins of the world.

World means lost people; ie people without salvation.



JLB

 

[brightfame52]

Only problem in vss 14,26,27 Jesus never says anything like “I lay down my life for MY sheep”, only ‘the’ sheep ( v.11)


John 10:14 KJV
[14] I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine.


John 10:26-27 KJV
[26] But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.
[27] My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:

Jesus words imply only the Sheep, and for anyone to go beyond that scope, its speculation and not grounded on the words of Christ.

 

[brightfame52]

The context plainly indicates the world of those who need eternal life.


For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.
John 3:16

Jesus died on the cross so the people of the world could be saved; receive eternal life.

Your claim that Jesus was sacrificed on the cross for people who are already saved, is an unfounded theory not found in scripture.

God loves the world, and because He loves the world, He sent His only begotten Son to die for the sins of the world.

World means lost people; ie people without salvation.



JLB

Again, world in every case when speaking in the context of redemption, it means , not only jews, but also gentiles.

 

[JLB]

Again, world in every case when speaking in the context of redemption, it means , not only jews, but also gentiles.

World refers to the unsaved, which includes Jews and Gentiles.

World does not refer to people who are saved.

World does not refer to the elect.


For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.
John 3:16

Jesus died on the cross so the people of the world could be saved; receive eternal life.

Your claim that Jesus was sacrificed on the cross for people who are already saved, is an unfounded theory not found in scripture.

God loves the world, and because He loves the world, He sent His only begotten Son to die for the sins of the world.

World means lost people; ie people without salvation.






JLB

 

[JLB]

Jesus words imply only the Sheep, and for anyone to go beyond that scope, its speculation and not grounded on the words of Christ.

Hows does a person go from being lost to becoming one of His sheep?

 

[crossnote]

Jesus words imply only the Sheep, and for anyone to go beyond that scope, its speculation and not grounded on the words of Christ.

Likewise I find the speculation on the part of those who infer ‘my’ sheep when it says ‘the’ sheep.

 

[brightfame52]

World refers to the unsaved, which includes Jews and Gentiles.

World does not refer to people who are saved.

World does not refer to the elect.


For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.
John 3:16

Jesus died on the cross so the people of the world could be saved; receive eternal life.

Your claim that Jesus was sacrificed on the cross for people who are already saved, is an unfounded theory not found in scripture.

God loves the world, and because He loves the world, He sent His only begotten Son to die for the sins of the world.

World means lost people; ie people without salvation.






JLB

World in the context of Salvation/Redemption refers to jew and gentile.

 

[brightfame52]

Hows does a person go from being lost to becoming one of His sheep?

That question doesnt make sense to me. Who does Jesus specifically say He died for here Jn 10:11,15 ?

 

[brightfame52]

Likewise I find the speculation on the part of those who infer ‘my’ sheep when it says ‘the’ sheep.

Well Jesus is very specific, who does He say He laid down His life for ? Jn 10:11,15 ?

 

[brightfame52]

John 17 Teaches Particular Redemption

In His high priestly prayer in John 17, Jesus states, “I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine” (9). The “world” here is the world of the reprobate or non-elect for whom the incarnate Son of God does not pray, as opposed to the elect (“them which thou hast given me”).

If the Lord did not do the lesser thing (pray for the reprobate world), did He really do the greater thing (die for the reprobate world)? Intercession is one of the two main aspects of Christ’s priestly work. If Jesus did not pray for the world (one aspect of His priestly work), is it possible that He died for the world (the other aspect of His priestly work)? This would destroy the unity of Christ’s priestly office, for He would be dying for those for whom He did not (and does not) intercede. Furthermore, the Saviour prays on the basis of His finished work of redemption (Isa. 53:12; Rom. 8:34; Heb. 7:25-27; 9:24-26). Therefore, if He did not pray for the world, it is because He did not die for the world.

In John 17, Jesus is praying just hours before the cross and with a view to His sacrificial death, for He says, “Father, the hour is come” (1). Throughout John 17, Christ’s prayers and, therefore, His redeeming work are particular, only for the elect, those whom the Father gave Him (2, 6, 9, 11, 12, 24). Our Lord’s prayers that the Father keep (11-16), sanctify (17-19), unite (20-23) and glorify (24-26) “as many as thou hast given him” (2) are powerfully answered, for we are granted “eternal life” (2-3).

Jesus says, “And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified” (19). Christ’s sanctifying Himself is His consecrating and dedicating Himself to do the will of Him who sent Him. Our Lord especially set Himself apart as our willing sacrifice on the cross. This, He tells us, was “for their sakes,” for those whom the Father gave Him, the elect. Thus Christ’s prayers and sacrifice are not only particular—”for them which thou hast given me” (9)—but also exclusive, “not for the world” (9). By AS 3

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Jesus words imply only the Sheep, and for anyone to go beyond that scope, its speculation and not grounded on the words of Christ.

So God only loved his own, never those who were not yet his own nor those who would choose to be his enemies or those who choose to ignore Him altogether. He is so small minded as to only love his own children. The world, as evil as we are, knows that a man who loves children who are not his own as well as his own, is a very good man indeed. This kind of loving heart you do not grant to God.

This is the main problem I have with Calvinism, it accuses God of being incapable or unwilling to love those from whom he gains nothing. This would be the warning I would give to anyone considering Reformed Theology...take a good look at the Being these believers worship...a Being who loves his own and only his own and never "strangers."

 

[brightfame52]

dorthymae

So God only loved his own,

Exactly Jn 13:1

Now before the feast of the passover, when Jesus knew that his hour was come that he should depart out of this world unto the Father, having loved his own which were in the world, he loved them unto the end.

 

[crossnote]

a Being who loves his own and only his own and never "strangers."

Define 'love', because technically the Father loves the Son and then those who honor the Son...

Matthew 17:5 (NASB) While he was still speaking, a bright cloud overshadowed them, and behold, a voice out of the cloud said, "This is My beloved Son, with whom I am well-pleased; listen to Him!"

John 5:22-23 (NASB) "For not even the Father judges anyone, but He has given all judgment to the Son, so that all will honor the Son even as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Define 'love', because technically the Father loves the Son and then those who honor the Son...

Matthew 17:5 (NASB) While he was still speaking, a bright cloud overshadowed them, and behold, a voice out of the cloud said, "This is My beloved Son, with whom I am well-pleased; listen to Him!"

John 5:22-23 (NASB) "For not even the Father judges anyone, but He has given all judgment to the Son, so that all will honor the Son even as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him.

My definition of love doesn't matter, God's does. I will discuss that in a minute. Those verse do not say what you said in your own words. Honor the Son? yes. Love those who honor the Son? Well it does not say that.

A little warning before you proceed...I am in a kind of funny mood and so am poking fun. This is not sarcasm per se and it is not that caustic, but it is poking some ideas that well, need to be poked so edit out the words that are not straight forward but if you do not like that bit, but realize that the below paragraph is not commonly taught in the churches and that causes me sadness because my brethren wonder where God is in their lives and are not taught why they do not detect his presence. Scripture, by the way, also uses this kind of poking. Back to the subject...

But you are not far off although the scripture sets the bar higher than merely honor or love. Scripture does not describe those who love God as those who have tender feelings of warmth well up when they sing songs of what God has given them but those who love God obey the teachings of Jesus. "He who keeps my teaching loves me." And then, oh man is this not at all popular, "and my Father will love him and we will come to him and make our abode in him." Where is the Spirit of God? In those who obey his commands. What? God is not democratic in how he gives the Holy Spirit?? We cannot just claim we are filled with the Holy Spirit because some scripture says, "you have His Spirit within you" and so we needn't obey a single uncomfortable command of God. We claim we have his Spirit by faith.

So if I go with the original position you alluded to, that God only loves His own, it would be closer to the truth (although not it) if you were to shift to saying God loves those who keep His commandments to them. This is actually what Jesus said more or less and I could not counter it completely. If the Calvinists would switch to God loves those who keep Jesus' teaching, the ground they stand upon would be firmer. That, of course, has a catch, it means they have to keep his teaching to fulfill the conditions of those God loves. That is not at all what the theology intends to promise the believers so that is not likely to be acceptable, I know.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

dorthymae


Exactly Jn 13:1

Now before the feast of the passover, when Jesus knew that his hour was come that he should depart out of this world unto the Father, having loved his own which were in the world, he loved them unto the end.

You know, that does not include you. You were not there before the end. So that let's you out, Mate.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

That question doesnt make sense to me. Who does Jesus specifically say He died for here Jn 10:11,15 ?

Did he die for those who already were his sheep, those who were not yet his sheep but were reprobate at that point in time?

A problem in discussing these matters with adherents to Calvinism, is the elephant of time is avoided at all costs. The fact that people change and go from one state juxtaposition to their Creator to another sometimes radically changing from what it was to what it is later. In every conversation, the assumption is that there is no time and no time change. All who Jesus died for, a limited atonement, assumes all were already saved before being born even. And if they were alive at the time, they also were already saved even if they were murdering believers. There seems to be no concept of change over time for the calvinists I have talked to. You do not understand the question because it acknowledges change over time. Change over time does not enter into this theology, apparently. This is what I perceive from reading what all of your write.

 

[crossnote]

A little warning before you proceed...I am in a kind of funny mood and so am poking fun. This is not sarcasm per se and it is not that caustic, but it is poking some ideas that well, need to be poked so edit out the words that are not straight forward but if you do not like that bit, but realize that the below paragraph is not commonly taught in the churches and that causes me sadness because my brethren wonder where God is in their lives and are not taught why they do not detect his presence. Scripture, by the way, also uses this kind of poking.

Caustic or not, it's a bit of confusing.

But you are not far off although the scripture sets the bar higher than merely honor or love. Scripture does not describe those who love God as those who have tender feelings of warmth well up when they sing songs of what God has given them but those who love God obey the teachings of Jesus. "He who keeps my teaching loves me." And then, oh man is this not at all popular, "and my Father will love him and we will come to him and make our abode in him." Where is the Spirit of God? In those who obey his commands. What? God is not democratic in how he gives the Holy Spirit?? We cannot just claim we are filled with the Holy Spirit because some scripture says, "you have His Spirit within you" and so we needn't obey a single uncomfortable command of God. We claim we have his Spirit by faith.

The point of my statement was in response to your comment, "a Being who loves his own and only his own and never "strangers.".
I was simply trying to give an example in Scripture showing that the Father's love for the Son is pre-eminent above all other 'loves' and upon which all other 'lovings' are dependent.

So if I go with the original position you alluded to, that God only loves His own, it would be closer to the truth (although not it) if you were to shift to saying God loves those who keep His commandments to them. This is actually what Jesus said more or less and I could not counter it completely. If the Calvinists would switch to God loves those who keep Jesus' teaching, the ground they stand upon would be firmer. That, of course, has a catch, it means they have to keep his teaching to fulfill the conditions of those God loves. That is not at all what the theology intends to promise the believers so that is not likely to be acceptable, I know.

I'll stick with God honors those who honor the Son, because the Father's love for the Son is pre-eminent above all others'.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Caustic or not, it's a bit of confusing.


The point of my statement was in response to your comment, "a Being who loves his own and only his own and never "strangers.".
I was simply trying to give an example in Scripture showing that the Father's love for the Son is pre-eminent above all other 'loves' and upon which all other 'lovings' are dependent.

There’s no scripture that supports that God’s love for the son is pre-eminent above all others. Most parents don’t like their love for their children being ranked and one as pre-eminent above other children. But it does say that God loves those who obey Him and Jesus did it 100%, something none of us can say.

The fact that those who love the Son ARE loving the Father is in scripture.

I'll stick with God honors those who honor the Son, because the Father's love for the Son is pre-eminent above all others'.

Honoring the son is honoring God. Otherwise I think it’s better to say the Father loves the Son because he is obedient rather than pre-eminent. Puts some responsibility upon us rather than a fait accompli.

 

[brightfame52]

You know, that does not include you. You were not there before the end. So that let's you out, Mate.

It includes all who are His Own. Christs Love is from everlasting. Jer 31:3

3 The Lord hath appeared of old unto me, saying, Yea, I have loved thee with an everlasting love: therefore with lovingkindness have I drawn thee.

I believe its irresponsible to conclude that all for whom Jesus loved, lived and died for were not on His Heart during His Pilgrimage here on earth.