Tasted Death for every Man !

[rogerg]

We have to read ever passage within the context in which it was written.

Hey Butch5

Per your point regarding the overriding context as the nation of Israel, Israel did not exist when these verses were originally penned (hope I not confusing your points). There aren't three belief modes only two: a faith domain, a non- faith domain, but no unknowing domain(sounds like you're a data base administrator - a null value). God hated Esau even before he was born so how then could God have hated him while yet unborn and not having faith in Christ -- he was unknowing, unless God's election was the dividing line? Why? Because God hates everyone of the non-elect whose sin is not covered in/by Christ's sacrifice: those whose name were not written into the Lamb's book of life. Were none elected, then God would hate everyone (from a salvation standpoint). How does the Lamb's book of life play into your understanding of
I think more about it and reply further as time permits.

[Rom 9:11 - 16 KJV]
11 (For [the children] being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;) ...
13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
14 What shall we say then? [Is there] unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
16 So then [it is] not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will [have mercy], and whom he will he hardeneth.

[Jhn
1:9 KJV] 9 [That] was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

Possibly the Bible doesn't use the word "man" as you think it does?

There is no way around that. What that means is, if one finds other passages that seem to indicated differently, It's one's understanding of those passage that is at issue. They are misunderstanding that particular passage. S

Well, how do you determine which understanding is in error - could be the original one, right?

 

[jaybo]

Hi Dan,
I like the NASB. It seems to me to be very well translated and with no ax to grind.
But I have a lot of versions that I only use when learning a new verse/idea to see what a verse means.
I dislike using commentaries unless it's absolutely necessary.
The reason is because each commentator has their own personal opinion --- so how to know which one is correct!
What about you?

A good commenter (commentator?) should base their comments on sound academic principles, not on their own personal opinion. There are those of course who base their opinions on ... their personal opinions. But they won't stand up to close examination.

Incidentally, I really like the NET Bible, v 2.1 There are more than 60,000 comments that accompany the Biblical text, based on sound research. You can have a look at biblegateway.com for the NET, as well as just about every other translation, commentaries of all sorts, dictionaries, etc.

 

[Butch5]

Hey Butch5

Per your point regarding the overriding context as the nation of Israel, Israel did not exist when these verses were originally penned (hope I not confusing your points). There aren't three belief modes only two: a faith domain, a non- faith domain, but no unknowing domain(sounds like you're a data base administrator - a null value). God hated Esau even before he was born so how then could God have hated him while yet unborn and not having faith in Christ -- he was unknowing, unless God's election was the dividing line? Why? Because God hates everyone of the non-elect whose sin is not covered in/by Christ's sacrifice: those whose name were not written into the Lamb's book of life. Were none elected, then God would hate everyone (from a salvation standpoint). How does the Lamb's book of life play into your understanding of
I think more about it and reply further as time permits.

[Rom 9:11 - 16 KJV]
11 (For [the children] being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;) ...
13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
14 What shall we say then? [Is there] unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
16 So then [it is] not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will [have mercy], and whom he will he hardeneth.

[Jhn
1:9 KJV] 9 [That] was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

Possibly the Bible doesn't use the word "man" is not as you think it does?



Well, how do you determine which understanding is in error - could be the original one, right?

Hi Roger,

Israel did exist when Jesus made those statements.

Once again, we need to look at the context. Paul's statement about Esau and Jacob was addressing the Jewish believers in the church at Rome. He's talking about Israel. Paul points out that God chose Jacob over Esau. But, that wasn't to be saved. It was that the elder shall serve the younger. He's referring back to a prophecy from God.

And the LORD said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger. (Gen. 25:23 KJV)

Paul doesn't say God hated Esau before he was born, he said God chose Jacob before they were born. He says God hated Esau to show that God chose Jacob over Esau. If you want to know why God hated Esau read Obadiah, it's only one chapter. Here's a little snippet.

9 And thy mighty men, O Teman, shall be dismayed, to the end that every one of the mount of Esau may be cut off by slaughter.
10 For thy violence against thy brother Jacob shame shall cover thee, and thou shalt be cut off for ever.
11 In the day that thou stoodest on the other side, in the day that the strangers carried away captive his forces, and foreigners entered into his gates, and cast lots upon Jerusalem, even thou wast as one of them. (Obad. 1:9-11 KJV)

Paul's point in saying all of this isn't to show who is saved. He is making an argument to show that God's promises haven't failed.

I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost,
2 That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart.
3 For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:
4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;
5 Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.
6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.
9 For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sara shall have a son.
10 And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;
11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)
12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. (Rom. 9:1-13 KJV)

We see from this Paul is making the argument that God's promise hasn't failed. He points out the God had told Rebecca that two nations were in her womb. This was the Israelites and the Edomites. God told her the elder would serve the younger. That's what we see. To prove this, Paul points out how through his life God favored Jacob and rejected Esau. This isn't about God choosing who is and isn't saved. That's not Paul's argument. His argument is that the promises God made to Abraham have not failed. To take this passage and claim it's about being saved is taking it out of context.

The Bible is using the word as I said. It's the word anthropos. It means a human being or person. John uses the singular number in that passage indicating, every person. It's a passage that absolutely shows that all can believe. It's grammatically valid and sound. There's no way around it.

The one that is valid, sound, and logical, is the correct one. If something doesn't agree with that it is incorrect.

 

[rogerg]

The one that is valid, sound, and logical, is the correct one. If something doesn't agree with that it is incorrect.

Hi Butch5

Just a quick reply for now -- more later. From where in the Bible did your rules for biblical interpretation originate? I've reviewed the Bible multiple times expressly to try to acquaint myself with its instructions for such. I may have missed them (probably did), but did not/do not find in it any of the kind you propose. However, I've noticed that the Bible does provide instruction's for its interpretation and explains (in a sense) how God wrote it(among other of its rules) But, as far as I can determine, the ones you describe don't seem to be included (at least not on its face).
When you can, please let me know where they can be found as reading them might help me catch up to were you are- thx

 

[Butch5]

Hi Butch5

Just a quick reply for now -- more later. From where in the Bible did your rules for biblical interpretation originate? I've reviewed the Bible multiple times expressly to try to acquaint myself with its instructions for such. I may have missed them (probably did), but did not/do not find in it any of the kind you propose. However, I've noticed that the Bible does provide instruction's for its interpretation and explains (in a sense) how God wrote it(among other of its rules) But, as far as I can determine, the ones you describe don't seem to be included (at least not on its face).
When you can, please let me know where they can be found as reading them might help me catch up to were you are- thx

The Bible doesn't' give rules of interpretation per se. I use what is called the Historical Grammatical method of hermeneutics. Basically that means understanding the text in its historical setting the way the original hearers would understand it. For instance, Those listening to Jesus preach were Jews. As such their perspective would be Jewish. That's the perspective that we should understand His words by. When we try to interpret His words from a modern western perspective we're bound to get off base. Likewise, the grammar is also very important. When Paul says you are a temple of the Holy Sprit, is he using you in a singular or plural sense? It makes a difference. If he uses it singularly he is saying they are individually a temple of the Holy Spirit, if he's using it plurally he means their church body is a temple of the Holy Spirit. That's why we have to be careful and pay attention to the grammar.

In the instance we're discussion, John uses the singular for anthropos meaning the individual person. He says every person.

 

[brightfame52]

I covered that. He died to redeem mankind. I'll touch on your argument again. If, as you say, Jesus only died for His sheep, why wasn't all of Israel saved? If He died for the sheep and Israel are the sheep, then they should all be saved according to what you've claimed.

And I uncovered it, since its still most relevant and true. Who did Christ state He specifically died for Jn 10:11,15 ?

 

[brightfame52]

Brightfame...
You just don't seem to believe very clear verses in the New Testament.
1 John 2:2 states that Jesus died for everyone.
John spent years with Jesus.
He knew what Jesus believed and taught.
Jesus' sacrifice was so great that it was enough to pay for everyone's sins.
However, a gift must be ACCEPTED.

And elect just means chosen.
What means does God use to "choose" persons to be saved?

Christ tasted death for all the Sheep Jn 10:11,15 ! God accepted Christs Death for them, thats all that mattered !

 

[brightfame52]

We here on this forum believe John the Apostle and Paul over you.

1 John 2:2
1My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous;
2and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.


Hebrews 2:9
9But we do see Him who was made for a little while lower than the angels, namely, Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, so that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone.


I know calvinists have had to change the meaning of words in order to maintain their incorrect soteriological beliefs,
however,

the whole world means the whole world and everyone means everyone.

You should believe Jesus words as to who He specifically tasted death for Jn 10:11,15 ! He should know correct ?

 

[Butch5]

And I uncovered it, since its still most relevant and true. Who did Christ state He specifically died for Jn 10:11,15 ?

As I said, saying He died for His sheep doesn't exclude others. Context. Just because in the context of that discussion he said He died for His sheep, doesnt mean He didn't die for others. This is why Reformed theology is wrong. It takes passage out of context. You're trying to impose a larger context on the statement that it was spoken in.

If we take you interpretation, then only those Jews would be saved.

 

[Butch5]

And I uncovered it, since its still most relevant and true. Who did Christ state He specifically died for Jn 10:11,15 ?

Who did Paul say Jesus specifically died for?

2Co 5:15
And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again.

 

[brightfame52]

As I said, saying He died for His sheep doesn't exclude others. Context. Just because in the context of that discussion he said He died for His sheep, doesnt mean He didn't die for others. This is why Reformed theology is wrong. It takes passage out of context. You're trying to impose a larger context on the statement that it was spoken in.

If we take you interpretation, then only those Jews would be saved.

For you to go beyond what Christ specifically said is mere conjecture and not reliance upon His Word. Is that what you want to do ? Believe in conjecture ?

 

[brightfame52]

Who did Paul say Jesus specifically died for?

2Co 5:15
And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again.

Thats simple, its all the Sheep !

 

[Butch5]

For you to go beyond what Christ specifically said is mere conjecture and not reliance upon His Word. Is that what you want to do ? Believe in conjecture ?

It's you that is going beyond what Christ said. He said that to and about a specific group of people. You're taking that and applying beyond what Jesus did. As I said, using that statement alone all you can argue is that the Jews would be saved.

 

[Butch5]

Thats simple, its all the Sheep !

Paul didn't say sheep. You're adding words to make it fit what you want to believe.

 

[brightfame52]

It's you that is going beyond what Christ said. He said that to and about a specific group of people. You're taking that and applying beyond what Jesus did. As I said, using that statement alone all you can argue is that the Jews would be saved.

So you believe in conjecture regarding who Christ died for.

 

[brightfame52]

Paul didn't say sheep. You're adding words to make it fit what you want to believe.

Paul didnt say they werent the Sheep, so you adding words to make it fit your cojecture. Paul received His Gospel from Christ, and Christ specified who He died for. Jn 10:11,15

 

[for_his_glory]

Hey for_his_glory

So what ever became of those who came out of the graves into the earthly Jerusalem (holy city) after Christ's death? Hanging loose there without much to do awaiting the end of the world (sorry weird sense of humor, no offense intended.)?
I'll try to reply to the others a few at a time (there were a lot of them)

They would have eventually died and returned back to their graves. Did Lazarus live forever? Like I said as I believe they were raised to show others that Jesus was the Messiah they were waiting on as showing them the "I Am".

 

[GodsGrace]

[Jhn 3:17 KJV] 17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
Wait - I don't understand, --isn't this saying Jesus was not to condemn? Both worlds are in view in verse:
the "condemn the world": is this world
"world through him might be saved": the world to come
had not Christ come into this world, and successfully completed His offering, then the world to come could never either have been brought into existence, or if it had been, it would be governed by law of sin and death as this one is.
Unsure about which of them it is

Hi Roger,
I'm falling behind...as usual. Sorry.
Re John 3:17
God did not send His Son to condemn the world, but to save the world.
It's the same world Roger. Our world is already condemned by the action of Adam...it does not require Jesus to condemn it.
God sent His Son to save this world...It needs saving (not condemning).
It is only ONE world that is being spoken of in this verse.

No, that's an impossibility. Had Christ died for everyone's sins then everyone MUST be saved, which, we know they haven't been. Only those names written into the Lamb's book of life at the foundation of the world, will be saved.
The "our" in 2:2 pertains only applies to those saved and to no one else:

[Phl 4:3 KJV] 3 And I intreat thee also, true yokefellow, help those women which laboured with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and [with] other my fellowlabourers, whose names [are] in the book of life.

[Rev 21:27 KJV] 27 And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither [whatsoever] worketh abomination, or [maketh] a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life.l

It's not an impossibility that Christ died for the sins of the entire world: past, present and future. Future in the sense of those that haven't been born yet. NOT the New Jerusalem --- which I'll call the new earth, as does the N.T.

As to those that are written in the Lamb's Book of Life...
yes, God knew from the beginning who would be written in the Lamb's Book of Life.
However, this does not make their being written there permanent...their names could also be erased from the Book:
Jesus said this to John the Apostle:

Revelation 3:5
‘He who overcomes shall thus be clothed in white garments; and I will not erase his name from the book of life, and I will confess his name before My Father, and before His angels."

Our name could be erased...it's just that God knows who will remain till the end.

If John 3:17 states that God sent His Son to SAVE THE WORLD....doesn't this tell you that Christ's sacrifice is sufficient to save everyone?
The world means everyone in it.

Does this mean that everyone in it will be saved?
No.
Because not everyone in it will accept the free gift of God which is salvation.
John 3:16 states WHOEVER believes will be saved...it does not say EVERYONE will be saved.
Just those that accept the free gift.
Otherwise we would be believers of universalism and this is not a biblical belief.

If the world to come is saved, then by the same means, are also those who are to inhabit it saved, and visa versa. All because of Christ alone -- without His offering, the salvation of neither could have happened: one offering for both.

Of course the world to come will be saved.
ONLY those that are saved will inhabit it.
I see no conflict.

Can't help that, But, everything, everything I state can be traced back to, and has originated from one basic and overriding tenet/doctrine: that Jesus Christ alone is Savior

Agreed.

Christ's sacrifice as the Lamb of God, actually occurred in heaven, not earth. The Holiest of All is in heaven not on earth (which only Christ was able to enter into, thereby becoming high priest). As high priest in heaven, He became the mediator between those saved and God
Christ's offering to the Father occurred on the cross on earth which completed it, but unsure what you have
in mind with the "taken care of"? What are the implications of that - sorry I don't follow?

This is what I said about "taken care of" in the previous post:

Of course nothing unclean will enter into heaven.
But this is taken care of in THIS world.
Those that believe now...will be the residents of the new earth.


I don't know what you mean by Christ's sacrifice occurring in heaven. I think you're getting two different worlds mixed up. Or, at least, THIS WORLD and the NEW WORLD which is to come at the end of time.
I've never heard this before, about the sacrifice occurring in heaven.
What happened is that after Jesus died on the cross, the gates of heaven were opened to those that were waiting for this event in the Bossom of Abraham....(Luke 16:19-31).

In THIS WORLD will be decided who enters in to heaven and who does not.

"not there"? sorry, not sure what you mean by that statement either ? please clarify which are not there - thanks
Depends what you mean by "personal"? were it left up to us, no one would become saved:

[Act 28:27 KJV] 27 For the heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with [their] eyes, and hear with [their] ears, and understand with [their] heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

I mean that salvation is a personal issue.
Each one of us, personally, must decide if we wish to follow Jesus to heaven after death,
or be slaves of the prince of the air here and end up with him.

If salvation is not left up to us personally,
then who is it left up to??

Respectfully, I think you misunderstand my point. I do not believe the granting of salvation is world-wide, period. I believe solely that God grants it to whomever He has chosen to, but it can, and must, only come to them from God, and not as a work of our own. I think what you may have misunderstood, is that salvation, or judgment depending, is manifested based upon which law one is under: the law of the spirit of life in Christ, or, the law of sin and death. Christ's offering placed those whom He had chosen to save under the law of life in Christ(basically for those, removing them from under the law that causes sin and death - thereby granting them life everlasting). All others, having been born under the law of sin and death, will remain there until the end, for judgment.

You're sounding calvinistic.
If you're reformed in faith, then state so plainly.
Why?
Because I know what you believe and it would have saved me a lot of typing and time.

I also do not believe salvation is world-wide.
I can't explain better my soteriology than I already have...which, BTW, is how the N.T. explains it.
I rather trust the writers of the N.T. instead of John Calvin.
Christ chose no one on His own.
God's choice of us is based on whether or not we follow His wishes in order to be saved.
His salvation, His sacrifice is open to all.
John 3:16 states this plainly....WHOEVER means anyone that wants to.

Please, wondering, read the below verses carefully - thx

[Rom 5:12-13
12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

[Rom 10:4 KJV]
4 For Christ [is] the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

Without the law, there can be no sin as it cannot be imputed. Without sin there can be no judgment

[1Co 15:56 KJV]
56 The sting of death [is] sin; and the strength of sin [is] the law.



[Col 2:13-14 KJV] 13
And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;

14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

Then again, I may be wrong about all of this.

I know the above verses well.
What do YOU think they mean?
HOW do YOU think persons get saved?

I don't dislike calvinists...there is one member here that won't even speak to me.
However, let it be clear that calvinism is heretical, being based on gnosticism of the early centuries of the church,
and I'll be happy to post with you about whatever you wish, but it will always be against calvinism.

 

[GodsGrace]

[Isa 65:17 KJV]
17 For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.

I'm not sure why you posted this for me.
There is an earth NOW
and there will be a NEW EARTH when this one ends...which is stated above clearly.

THE FORMER shall not be remembered.
When we get the NEW EARTH,,,,THIS ONE (the former one) will no longer be remembered.

I know we're not understanding each other about something...
but I'm not sure what it is.

This is the New Earth...we could call it the New Jerusalem:




When we're in the New Earth....this one will be gone, ended, destroyed, etc.

 

[Butch5]

Paul didnt say they werent the Sheep, so you adding words to make it fit your cojecture. Paul received His Gospel from Christ, and Christ specified who He died for. Jn 10:11,15

So now you're going to make the same argument that you're arguing against. In the quote from Jesus you argue that it's only the sheep because no one else is mentioned. Now here with Paul's statement you argue the exact opposite. You argue that it's the sheep even though Paul says nothing about sheep. You're being inconsistent which is illogical. You're contradicting yourself which shows that you're argument is not valid or sound. You're just saying whatever is necessary to defend your belief.