Particular Redemption/Limited Atonement

[DivineNames]

Sorry, it doesn't work that way. The Bible makes it clear that Christ's death takes away sins. If He died for the whole world, then the sins of the whole world would be taken away. That was the purpose for Christ's death. What you propose is still limited atonement you just limit the power of Christ's death to save, I limited the scoop.

Peace

That you have put it as, "you just limit the power of Christ's death to save", could be considered as misleading. It could be argued that Christ's death has the power to save everyone, but it depends on the free choice of individuals how much of that "power" is actually realized. So it may not be considered as a significant limit on the power of the sacrifice of Jesus.

With regard to what the Bible teaches, you could be right that this theory isn't supported.

Does anyone know any verses which would suggest that you have to accept Jesus to have your sins forgiven? For the sacrifice to work for the person?

 

[Vic C.]

Rom 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
Rom 10:10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

 

[Drew]

The following texts seem to run counter to the "limited atonement" doctrine.

Matthew 11:28
Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest.

John 1:29
The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, "Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!

John 3:18
Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son

1 John 2:2
He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.

I echo DN's question:

Couldn't you have a theory where Jesus gets sacrificed for everyone, but the sacrifice only works for a person where they have chosen to accept Jesus as their saviour?

That way, Jesus may have died even for the sin of unbelief, but those who don't believe will not get any benefit and it doesn't result in UR

 

[JM]

The following texts seem to run counter to the "limited atonement" doctrine.

Matthew 11:28
Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest.

You're assuming ability, Jesus said no one can come unto me UNLESS the Father draws him and Paul who wrote there is no God seeker. We must look at each passage as it is within the Bible

John 1:29
The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, "Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!

What is the context? How did Christ take away the sins of the 'world?' If world means the entire mass of mankind then all mankind would be saved. This idea denys a purpose for hell, it also deny's Christ words in the Lord's Supper where we are told this is the blood of the new testament which was shed for MANY (not all). see Propitiation, Atonement, and Reconciliation the meanings of these worlds can not support your idea.

John 3:18
Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son

Who are the whosoever that WILL believe? I've shown you have to be drawn by the Father, and how Paul tells us no one seeks God. What about Lydia in Acts 16 that didn't believe until God first perform a work on her heart and changed it, regenerated the dead sinners heart so she could be believe.

1 John 2:2
He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.

I guess every single person, non believer and believer alike will make it into heaven. Or, the word "world" could be used (as the Jews did 2000 years ago) as an inclusive term.


Your understanding runs counter to the very meaning of the words.

Peace

 

[Drew]

If God did not die for all, but only for some, then we are naturally inclined to ask "On what basis did He choose the elect?, what was his basis for selecting Fred but not Joe" It is commonly claimed that God did not take any account whatsoever of the attributes of Fred or Joe. And yet it is also argued that his choice was not purely random or arbitrary - he did not "pick Fred's name out of a hat". So, some claim that God chose Fred (but not Joe) in such a manner as to not take into account any of Fred's "attributes" or "properties", and yet the choice was not arbitrary.

This does not seem like a viable position to hold.

Presumably even God has to "represent" both Fred and Joe in his own mind - He must be able to distinguish between them. I suggest that we simply cannot make sense of the idea that God's choice had nothing to do with the particularities of Joe and Fred. The only way that any entity (man or God) can distunguish people is based on one or more of their atttributes. When you take away all of Fred's attributes, there is simply nothing else left. If God is looking at Fred and Joe and chooses to utterly ignore all their attributes, God will simply see Fred and Joe as identical, and any choice He would make would necessarily be arbitrary (random).

The way the world is put together simply makes it impossible for God to distinguish Fred from Joe, except in terms of distinguishing attributes.

You may think I am playing word games here. I do not think that I am. The world is made up of objects and objects have properties that inhere in them (the object is constituted by its properties). What makes Fred "Fred" and Joe "Joe" are their respective properties. Fred and Joe cannot be represented in anyone's mind (even God's) except in terms of these properties. The only reason we do not see the world as a huge undifferentiated blob, is that we can break the world down into objects. And if we think carefully, it is the properties that effectively "make the object an object" for us.

We cannot sensibly talk about selection that is not based on properties - the structure of the world has not left that option open, even for God.

 

[mutzrein]

I thought it might be helpful to get a perspective on the first passover, and Jesus, the lamb of God & what his atonement has achieved for those who are born of Him. This is taken from a friend's document that I collaborated with him on.

To fully understand the purpose for the death and resurrection of Jesus we need to focus on the spiritual perspective and find out why Jesus was referred to as the ‘Lamb of God’ and what was the significance of this to the Passover.

First of all, the Passover was not a sacrifice of payment. rather a sacrifice of atonement by which God’s chosen people were covered by the blood and kept safe from the angel of death resulting in freedom from bondage and slavery that was an affliction of circumstance for the Israelites at that time in history.

Now to look at Jesus as being the Passover lamb for the establishment of the new covenant, we would do well to look at the parallels of Gods requirements of the Passover lamb pertaining to the Passover.
The lamb that was to be offered must be a year old male without defect. Defect in spiritual terms is anything that carries the contamination of sin through the genealogy of the blood being inherited from the first Adam, the man of the flesh.

Hence the necessity, for God to send His own son, born of the Holy Spirit, bypassing the genealogy of sin that would have otherwise been inherited from the first Adam.

Matthew writes concerning the birth of Jesus:
‘This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit . . . now an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, “Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.
She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.â€Â
All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: “The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel†- which means, “God with us.â€Â’

And so now it is made clear that Jesus, having been born of the seed of the Holy Spirit was without spot or blemish as was the natural lamb without spot or blemish, the requirement for the atoning sacrifice of the Passover.

It is much more than a passing coincidence that history records at both the Passover and at Jesus death, time stood still. As the Lord said to Moses and Aaron in Egypt, “This month is to be for you the first month the first month of your year.â€Â

And as Jesus hung on the cross from the sixth to the ninth hour, darkness came over all the land and Jesus cried out in a loud voice, Father into your hands I commit my spirit. And a new era began, and to this day we refer to a BC and an AD era.

The Lord instructed Moses to tell the people of Israel, after the Passover lamb has been slaughtered the elders are to take a bunch of hyssop, dip it into the blood in the basin and put some of the blood on the top and both sides of the doorframe. Not one of you shall go out the door of his house until morning. When the Lord goes through the land to strike down the Egyptians he will see the blood on the top and sides of the doorframe and will Passover that doorway and he will not permit the destroyer to enter and strike them down. The blood will be a sign for you on the houses where you are and when I see the blood I will Passover you. No destructive plague will touch you when I strike Egypt.

The Israelites were given strict instruction not to go out the door of his house until morning and they must remain under the covering of the blood so that the destroyer would not be able to enter their house and strike them down.

In the same way as this instruction was given to the Israelites, Jesus has instructed us to remain in Him. It is written, “If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit. Apart from me he can do nothing. If anyone does not remain in me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers. Such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned.†In both cases God cannot intervene if we do not remain under the covering of the blood.

That same night they are to eat the meat roasted over the fire, along with bitter herbs and bread made without yeast. Do not eat the meat raw or cooked in water but roasted over the fire. Head legs and inner parts. Do not leave any of it till morning. If some is left till morning you must burn it. This is how you are to eat it, with your cloak tucked into your belt, your sandals on your feet and your staff in hand. Eat it in haste. It is the Lord’s Passover.

This was because they were called to move into a land that was unknown and they would be totally reliant on Gods provision for their mere existence. In other words to a 100% walk of faith, not looking back nor wandering left or right but focusing on the promise of a land flowing with milk and honey.

In the same way as the Israelites were to eat the meat, with cloaks tucked in, sandals on their feet, staff in hand, Jesus gave directive to the disciples and said, “eat of my body and drink of my blood. Unless you eat of my body and drink of my blood there be no life in you.â€Â

In making this statement, Jesus was not referring to the physical body and blood as we would interpret the creation of the first Adam but rather to walk in the Spirit, remaining totally reliant on Gods provision in the same way as the Israelites were called to a walk of faith, with the promise of a home, not yet seen.

However the road they were to travel was wrought with danger and obstacles that could only be overcome by the power of Gods hand and the physical presence of God’s power so by day the Lord went ahead of them in a pillar of cloud to guide them on their way and by night a pillar of fire to give them light so they could travel by day or night. Neither the pillar of cloud by day nor the pillar of fire by night left its place in front of the people.

In the same way that God encapsulated the Israelites with power and glory when he brought them out of the land of Egypt he has made it possible for us who have been born again to be encapsulated by His power and glory by living in His spirit, made possible through the body and blood of Jesus.

 

[JM]

Rom 3:23-25 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

Propitiation means:

• Satisfactory
  To satisfy; to appease.
  Satisfaction; appeasement

If God is appeased by Christ's offer and that offer is made for the whole world, then no one will be punished. As AV has stated before, propitiated sins CAN NOT be punished. Look into the meaning of the words. You're changing the meaning of the very words of Scripture, what's next, a fancy new Bible translation?

Peace,

JM :wink:
PS: Where's your Scripture to back it up?

 

[DivineNames]

propitiated sins CAN NOT be punished.

Well lets assume that the sins of the whole world have been taken away. Why couldn't the unbelievers still be punished?

What are you going to say? Are you going to claim it would be unjust, or wouldn't make much sense?

In which case, I would point out that your own position is blatantly unjust and doesn't make much sense. If you want to talk about justice, as the article you quoted did indeed do, your position gets smashed to bits for the kind of reason that Drew has mentioned.

(Unless you can answer that point, which I am guessing that you can't...)

 

[DivineNames]

John 1:29
The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, "Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!

What is the context? How did Christ take away the sins of the 'world?' If world means the entire mass of mankind then all mankind would be saved.

Not necessarily, for the reason I have given.

 

[JM]

Once again, no Scripture just empty words.

 

[JM]

propitiated sins CAN NOT be punished.

Well lets assume that the sins of the whole world have been taken away. Why couldn't the unbelievers still be punished?

What are you going to say? Are you going to claim it would be unjust, or wouldn't make much sense?

In which case, I would point out that your own position is blatantly unjust and doesn't make much sense. If you want to talk about justice, as the article you quoted did indeed do, your position gets smashed to bits for the kind of reason that Drew has mentioned.

(Unless you can answer that point, which I am guessing that you can't...)

If God's justice has been appeased (which means: To bring peace, quiet, or calm to; soothe. To satisfy or relieve: appease one's thirst. To pacify or attempt to pacify (an enemy) by granting concessions, often at the expense of principle) and God has granted the concession, then it wouldn't make sense to punish the sinner...now would it.

Christ made one sacrifice (Heb 10:12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God) for the sins the world and this sacrifice (Heb 10:14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.) results in the perfection for whom that sacrifice was offered, the whole of humanity will in fact be saved.

Once again, if the Father draws all men, then all men must AS A FACT be raised up on the last day. (Joh 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. ) That's what Scripture tells us.

The problem with the Arminian view (Drew included), the lack of Scripture is clear, no exegesis is even attempted. The classic Arimian argument can't be grounded in Scripture exegesis but in rationalism...which isn't Scriptural!

Arminian Logical Fallacies: http://www.smallings.com/LitEng/Essays/armin.html

Arminian Errors: http://www.reformed.org/calvinism/misc/ ... ospel.html

Where's your Scirpture? Let look at'em and offer a proper exegesis of them.

 

[Drew]

Hello JM:

I think that the Arminian position is indeed consistent with the Scriptures, although I certainly would not claim that the Scriptures are easy to understand.

Let me try to address some of the points that you have raised. You quote John 6:44:

"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day."

This text, at least as it stands on its own, is not sufficiently strong to warrant the conclusion that God only draws some. As with many texts, this text, considered on its own, can be consistent with more than one position.

To be more specific: the John 6:44 is entirely consistent with a view wherein God draws all men and not all men respond. You seem to have argued that if God did indeed draw all men, then all men would be saved and we know this incorrect. I agree with you that it is clearly incorrect to believe that all men will be saved.

However, an Arminian can still say that the "him" in "I will raise him up..." is precisely that particular "him" who has, by free will choice, chosen to accept the gift of salvation. I submit that a legitimate reading of this text is as follows:

"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him (who chooses to answer the call) up at the last day."

You might claim that I am "adding" to this verse. Well what about John 3:16:

"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life".

This text says absolutely nothing about God drawing people and I could claim that you are "adding" to the text by adding in a requirement for men to be "drawn". You would understandably respond by saying "Yes, but we have other texts that show that the person must be drawn". And I could not argue this point. I would have to admit that "one verse does not the Arminian case make".

However, by the very same token, you cannot use John 6:44 in isolation to argue that if "every man is drawn, every man will be raised" (and thereby expose the weakness of the Arminian position). You cannot rule out the hypothesis that there is an implied qualifier about "choosing to accept", any more than I can rule out the hypothesis that there is an implied qualifier about "needing to be drawn" in respect to John 3:16

This is only one of the points I wish to make. I hope to post more.

 

[Drew]

Charles H. Spurgeon had these words to say about limited atonement (from his sermon, "The Mission of the Son of Man"):

.
"There is much which I might well admire in the theory of 'universal redemption' but let me just tell you what this supposition necessarily involves. If Christ on His cross intended to save every man, then He intended to save those who were damned before He died; because if this doctrine (that He died for all men) is true, He died for some that were in hell before He came into this world, for doubtless there were myriads there that had been cast away. "

I think that compelling arguments have been made in other threads that there are presently no people in hell (or in heaven for that matter). I see no compelling evidence at all in the Scriptures for the idea of an immortal soul or spirit that goes to heaven or hell immediately after physical death. I think that the dead (all of them) are presently "sleeping in their graves", awaiting a physical resurrection. This is not a trivial argument to make, nor is it the immediate subject of this thread.

Either way, if Spurgeon were right about people being in hell before the advent of Christ, then he might have a point. But I think he is wrong on this point.

 

[Drew]

Spurgeon's logic fails in believing that many were cast into a tormenting hell before Christ. It doesn't make any sense for man to be condemned and suffering before Christ pays the price.

And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. AV 1611

and all who dwell on earth will worship it, everyone whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb that was slain. ESV

Revelation 13:8

This scripture does not counter guibox's assertion. Before I give my specific reasons for this claim, I want to make the very general claim that "arguing by verse" has a very significant weakness - namely, the same verse can often be made to work with radically different positions. This is because it is often simply impossible, in a verse of 10 or 20 or 30 words, to make a completely tight unambiguous statement. To understand almost any single verse (or small segment of Biblical text), one necessarily must use other items of doctrine - a single verse is often inherently ambiguous.

Now to turn to Rev 13:8. While it is true that this verse is consistent with a Calvinist reading, I believe it is also consistent with an Arminian one. And the Arminian interpretation is rather easy to explain: God has foreknowledge of who will be saved, but does not pre-destine the salvation of these people, He does not "elect" them. It is logically possible for God to have fore-knowledge of the results of the free will acts of people in the future without "pre-ordaining" those acts. So this text can simply mean that God knows who will be saved in advance.

To imply that it can only mean that the people who will be saved has been "fixed" from the foundation of time, is to bring an idea to this text. The text itself does not demand such an interpretation.

Of course, I am not saying that the Calvinist interpretation is wrong - I am simply saying that this is not a good way to make the Calvinist case.

 

[JM]

I see as we peel the onion the issues are deeper then what is covered in the op.

However, an Arminian can still say that the "him" in "I will raise him up..." is precisely that particular "him" who has, by free will choice, chosen to accept the gift of salvation. I submit that a legitimate reading of this text is as follows:

"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him (who chooses to answer the call) up at the last day."

The scripture still stands. Without you adding into the text the meaning you're suggesting can't be had. If we read the text, "no one can come" (keeping in mind Paul's words found in Romans which, in the literal state "there is no God seeker", no one can come or no one is able), this speaks of ability. And then, "I will raise him" (who is the him? the one that is drawn) up at the last day." No fancy foot work is needed and I didn't have to add anything about ability to make it fit what I believe. Logic demands that those who are drawn are raised up on the last day.

 

[JM]

This scripture does not counter guibox's assertion. Before I give my specific reasons for this claim, I want to make the very general claim that "arguing by verse" has a very significant weakness - namely, the same verse can often be made to work with radically different positions. This is because it is often simply impossible, in a verse of 10 or 20 or 30 words, to make a completely tight unambiguous statement. To understand almost any single verse (or small segment of Biblical text), one necessarily must use other items of doctrine - a single verse is often inherently ambiguous.

This scripture was posted to show how the plan of redemption is draw out. The lamb slain, was slain with a purpose in mind, and that purpose should be found in scriptures that speak of the reason for the slain lamb.

Now to turn to Rev 13:8. While it is true that this verse is consistent with a Calvinist reading, I believe it is also consistent with an Arminian one. And the Arminian interpretation is rather easy to explain: God has foreknowledge of who will be saved, but does not pre-destine the salvation of these people, He does not "elect" them. It is logically possible for God to have fore-knowledge of the results of the free will acts of people in the future without "pre-ordaining" those acts. So this text can simply mean that God knows who will be saved in advance.

This is false and makes scripture meaningless. If the Bible teaches truth then truth can be found and it's not subjective. This argument is based upon logic, once again, and not scripture.

To imply that it can only mean that the people who will be saved has been "fixed" from the foundation of time, is to bring an idea to this text. The text itself does not demand such an interpretation.

I agree, as I explained already. The text speaks of the lamb slain, so we look to other scriptures to see why the lamb was slain. What did it accomplish? Did Christ's death accomplish anything? Was the death of Christ powerful enough to save or just make salvation possible? If it's just possible, if it's like AMway (a plan to work) then man can boast in his salvation because when it all comes down to it...it was his will that determined his salvation. That's exactly what you're saying. Man's freewill determines his salvation.

Of course, I am not saying that the Calvinist interpretation is wrong - I am simply saying that this is not a good way to make the Calvinist case.

Peace,

j

 

[Drew]

I see as we peel the onion the issues are deeper then what is covered in the op.

However, an Arminian can still say that the "him" in "I will raise him up..." is precisely that particular "him" who has, by free will choice, chosen to accept the gift of salvation. I submit that a legitimate reading of this text is as follows:

"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him (who chooses to answer the call) up at the last day."

The scripture still stands. Without you adding into the text, the meaning you're suggesting can't be had. If we read the text, "no one can come" (keeping in mind Paul's words found in Romans which, in the literal state "there is no God seeker", no one can come or no one is able), this speaks of ability. And then, "I will raise him" (who is the him? the one that is drawn) up at the last day." No fancy foot work is needed and I didn't have to add anything about ability to make it fit what I believe. Logic demands that those who are drawn are raised up on the last day.

This does not address my objection and I will explain why. In the blue material that follows I will use your style of argument to argue that John 3:16 supports an Arminian view. Based on all that you have said, I believe that it is fair to conclude that you would say a "correct" reading of John 3:16 is as follows (correct me if I am wrong):

"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever (is fore-ordained to) believe in him shall not perish but have eternal life".

The scripture still stands. Without you adding into the text the meaning you're suggesting can't be had. If we read the text, "whoever believes in him", this speaks of an act of belief, a pro-active free-will decision to accept the gift . No fancy foot work is needed and I didn't have to add anything about being fore-ordained to make it fit what I believe.

I have used your argument to defend an Arminian point of view. I believe that you are "accusing" me of adding material to the John 6:44 text. But you are effectively doing the same thing by implicitly adding a requirement for being "fore-ordained" to John 3:16. I could equally well counter "You have added material to John 3:16 that isn't there".

 

[Drew]

Now to turn to Rev 13:8. While it is true that this verse is consistent with a Calvinist reading, I believe it is also consistent with an Arminian one. And the Arminian interpretation is rather easy to explain: God has foreknowledge of who will be saved, but does not pre-destine the salvation of these people, He does not "elect" them. It is logically possible for God to have fore-knowledge of the results of the free will acts of people in the future without "pre-ordaining" those acts. So this text can simply mean that God knows who will be saved in advance.

This is false and makes scripture meaningless. If the Bible teaches truth then truth can be found and it's not subjective. This argument is based upon logic, once again, and not scripture.

This is simply a claim that my argument is false. I have shown how an Arminian interpretation is plausible. All I have claimed to do is make a "plausibility case" - a proposal for interpreting Rev 13:8 that seems workable and should be explored. You cannot simply claim that I am wrong - you need to explain how it is that I am wrong. I want to be clear - I do not believe that I have ever claimed to have provided a strong Scriptural case for the Arminian position (although I think that this could be done). I have focussed on pointing out that the case for Calvinism (made in this thread) is not that convincing, since the case as presented does not rule out an Arminian position.

In order to be intelligible or useful to anyone, any argument, even a Scriptural one, needs to conform to principles of logic. Besides, you have simply claimed that my argument is not based on Scripture. It is true that I did not list any scriptures to support the free will choice argument, but I could have. How about Matthew 23:37 for starters:

"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing"

Bottom Line: In order to make a Scriptural case for Calvinism, it is not sufficient to list texts that can be interpreted a la Calvin - one needs to show how an Arminiam position is not also possible for those same texts.

So, for example, can you explain to me why Rev 13:8 demands fore-ordaiment?

 

[JM]

Matt. 23:37 "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!"

Who is ‘Jerusalem’ in the context of this passage? Some folks believe Jerusalem to be in reference to individual Jews, but this can’t be. Starting at the beginning of Matthew 23 we find our Lord speaking of the leaders of Jerusalem, the Scribes and Pharisee, those who killed the prophets:

v. 2 “...Pharisees sit in Moses sit...â€Â
v. 6 “...chief seats in the synagogues...â€Â
v. 7 “...Rabbi, Rabbi...â€Â
v. 13 “But woe unto you, Scribes and Pharisees...â€Â
v. 14 “Woe unto you, Scribes and Pharisees...â€Â
v. 15 “Woe unto you, Scribes and Pharisees...â€Â
v. 16 “Woe unto you, ye blind guides...â€Â
etc, etc. I think you get the picture.

Another look at Matt. 23:37, “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!†Jesus isn’t calling the leaders to gather He is calling the ‘children’ or believers, ‘Jerusalem’ or the leaders and rulers of Jerusalem are not being called to gather at all. The leaders wouldn’t allow the faithful of God to come together, God wasn’t seeking to bring together those who ‘killest the prophets’ but the faithful. The unwillingness comes from not allowing the faithful to come together, not rejecting an offer of salvation.

Those Christ would gather are not represented as being unwilling, but not allowed by the ruling class in Jerusalem to come together.

So, for example, can you explain to me why Rev 13:8 demands fore-ordaiment?

Christ is the lamb.

Heb 10:12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
Heb 10:14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.

The sacrifice offered for sins was made once, and that sacrifice results in the perfection or sanctification of those for whom that sacrifice was made. If the sacrifice was made for all mankind, then mankind will be sanctified by that sacrifice.

I have already shown at least in three different passages what the death of Christ accomplished. Please consider the work of A. W. Pink: "Kosmos" is used of the Universe as a whole: Acts 17: 24 - "God that made the world and all things therein seeing that He is Lord of heaven and earth." is used of the Universe as a whole: Acts 17: 24 - "God that made the world and all things therein seeing that He is Lord of heaven and earth."

"Kosmos" is used of the earth: John 13:1; Eph. 1:4, etc., etc.- "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." "Depart out of this world" signifies, leave this earth. "According as He hath chosen us in Him before the foundation of the world." This expression signifies, before the earth was foundedâ€â€compare Job 38:4 etc.

"Kosmos" is used of the world-system: John 12:31 etc. "Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the Prince of this world be cast out" compare Matt. 4:8 and I John 5:19, R. V.

"Kosmos" is used of the whole human race: Rom. 3: 19, etc.â€â€"Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God."

"Kosmos" is used of humanity minus believers: John 15:18; Rom. 3:6 "If the world hate you, ye know that it hated Me before it hated you." Believers do not "hate" Christ, so that "the world" here must signify the world of unbelievers in contrast from believers who love Christ. "God forbid: for then how shall God judge the world." Here is another passage where "the world" cannot mean "you, me, and everybody," for believers will not be "judged" by God, see John 5:24. So that here, too, it must be the world of unbelievers which is in view. is used of humanity minus believers: John 15:18; Rom. 3:6 "If the world hate you, ye know that it hated Me before it hated you." Believers do not "hate" Christ, so that "the world" here must signify the world of unbelievers in contrast from believers who love Christ. "God forbid: for then how shall God judge the world." Here is another passage where "the world" cannot mean "you, me, and everybody," for believers will not be "judged" by God, see John 5:24. So that here, too, it must be the world of unbelievers which is in view.

"Kosmos" is used of Gentiles in contrast from Jews: Rom. 11:12 etc. "Now if the fall of them (Israel) be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them (Israel) the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their (Israel’s) fulness." Note how the first clause in italics is defined by the latter clause placed in italics. Here, again, "the world" cannot signify all humanity for it excludes Israel!

"Kosmos" is used of believers only: John 1:29; 3:16, 17; 6:33; 12;47; I Cor. 4:9; 2 Cor. 5:19. We leave our readers to turn to these passages, asking them to note, carefully, exactly what is said and predicated of "the world" in each place. is used of believers only: John 1:29; 3:16, 17; 6:33; 12;47; I Cor. 4:9; 2 Cor. 5:19. We leave our readers to turn to these passages, asking them to note, carefully, exactly what is said and predicated of "the world" in each place. http://www.pbministries.org/books/pink/ ... kosmos.htm

Rom 3:11 no one understands; no one seeks for God. and Rom 8:5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. Rom 8:7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

The fallen man does not seek God, the man without the Spirit has his mind set on the flesh and the carnal/unregenerated mind is at enmity (which means hostile) toward God. What did it accomplish? Did Christ's death accomplish anything? Was the death of Christ powerful enough to save or just make salvation possible? If it's just possible, if it's like AMway (a plan to work) then man can boast in his salvation because when it all comes down to it...it was his will that determined his salvation. That's exactly what you're saying. Man's freewill determines his salvation.

 

[Drew]

Hello JM:

I am not sure I understand much of your recent post. Let my try to summarize where I am coming from and perhaps you can respond. I also ask for your input on certain things.

1. What is your specific case that Christ only died for some (I assume that you believe this)? I am hoping that you post scriptures and then explain in your own words, how the scripture that you post "proves" that Christ did not die for all.

2. You seem to argue that if Christ died for all, then all would be saved and since we know that not all will be saved, then Christ could not have died for all. However, this argument (as I have expressed it) is open to following counter-argument: You have assumed that Christ's death is fully sufficient for human salvation - no free will act of "acceptance" on the part of the person is needed. You need to justify this assumption (see point 3 for a related question). I believe that your justification is based on the argument that man cannot do any kind of "work" that contributes to his salvation, even a simple act of acceptance, since this would cause man to be a "determining agent" in his salvation - the "lest any man should boast" argument. I do not think this argument works as I will argue in point 3.

3 I know that you have argued that any "free will act" puts man in a position where he can "boast" of his salvation. I have never found this argument to be convincing. It seems to be the same kind of argument as if I said the following. "Fred was drowning and Joe threw him a rope. Fred grabbed the rope and Joe dragged Fred out of the water. Fred is responsible for saving himself from drowning" Strictly speaking, it is true that if Fred had not grabbed the rope he would have drowned. So it is true that Fred's fate did depend on Fred's actions.

However, I would claim that any common sense interpretation of this drowning account would lead one to conclude that it is Joe that is responsible for the salvation of Fred, not Fred himself. Fred has no basis to boast. To argue that Fred was "responsible" for his own salvation is to press technicalities to the point of absurdity. I need to flesh this argument out a bit more, I admit. Hopefully in a later post.

4. What do you make of texts like 2 Peter 3:9: "The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance."

5. A "technical" point about the nature of making a case. When anyone cites verse "X" in defence of position "A" and only A, they need to realize that it is not enough to show that X supports A - they need to show how X cannot be consistent with position "B". Please state whether you agree with this general principle.