Tasted Death for every Man !

[Butch5]

So you believe in conjecture regarding who Christ died for.

As I said, you're the one who is using conjecture. You're applying Christ's words outside of the context in which they were made. That is taking Him out of context, thus, what you say is conjecture.

 

[rogerg]

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,

Hi Butch5

Have to disagree with you on this. The Bible does give us directions for its interpretation, directly and indirectly. Otherwise , everyone could, (even) inadvertently, be influenced by their own suppositions and spiritual prejudices, which might be supportive of, and lead to (in some way) what they have already come to believe, instead of what the Bible teaches. It could also preclude having a common standard of measurement and assessment. The Bible, being completely self-contained, among other things, is its own dictionary, glossary of terms, cross reference, and user manual. Any attempt to impose our own methodologies, no matter how reasonable they may seem on the surface, should be avoided. Instead, we should seek every opportunity to turn the Bible back upon itself. To do otherwise, even to the slightest degree, would be to leaven the pure bread of the Gospel. Obviously, no one can do it perfectly, and it definitely isn't easy, nevertheless, we should always keep it in mind, and to the degree we can, try to follow it.
Please observe:
[2Ti 3:16-17 KJV]
16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

please look closely at the "thoroughly furnished". That means to furnish perfectly. The Bible alone is able to
furnish perfectly its reader (but probably only those born again - but that's for a different discussion)

 

[rogerg]

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.

Hi wondering,
No problem re the timing of your reply - always happy to hear what you think, Anyway ,I'm not entirely certain of what you mean? You state that "God did not send His Son to condemn the world". I agree - why would God send His son to condemn that which is already condemned? Makes sense to me. As you say, was already condemned (from Adam and Eve when they transgressed God's commandment - my comment). So then, by your statement that "God sent His son to save it", you're saying that everyone who ever lived upon this earth shall be saved ? The word "world" I would think, by definition, has to include everyone, right? If not, then this world hasn't been saved because its inhabitants haven't been saved, and they're a part of it - don't forget it was Adam and Eve (people) who caused its fall, and since Christ came to save that which was lost, all its inhabitants must be part of it. In other words, according to your explanation, everyone saved by Christ, has to be part of this "one world", since, as you've defined it, there is only one.
I know we've had this discussion before, but I definitely DON'T think that one world is in view in the verse. With a "world to come" interpretation, the next one can be saved along with those under its auspices, without everyone who ever lived being saved. We know, biblically speaking, that not everyone is to be saved.
As always, and as the Bible informs, no prophecy of scripture is of any private interpretation. So, in addition to this verse, we need to consider others to come to a correct interpretation
To me the Bible is extremely clear about this.

Please observe:

[Luk 19:9-10 KJV]
9 And Jesus said unto him, This day is salvation come to this house, forsomuch as he also is a son of Abraham.
10 For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.

Anyway, I'll await your reply to this before proceeding - thx

 

[rogerg]

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".

Don't think that's possible:
[Heb 9:27 KJV]
27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

A second death would violate this verse.
From what I can see, the Bible doesn't tell us specifically what happened with them... but what we do know, (I think) is that they couldn't be sent back to death. So, I think either they have to be in (or have been in) the new holy city, or still in this world. My vote is for the new holy city

 

[Fastfredy0]

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.

This is a typical non-reformed misinterpretation of the bible. You assign meaning to the words ALL that is fit your theology. It is obvious from other verses that the word ALL does not mean everyone without exception. Examples:
Romans 5:18 Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. (according to your interpretation of ALL, everyone without exception has been justified)
Romans 8:32 He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things?; That he doth not give all things to all people is self-evident
That it is nowhere affirmed in the Scripture that Christ died for all men, or gave himself a ransom for all men, much less for all and every man, we have before declared. That he "gave himself a ransom for all" is expressly affirmed, 1 Timothy 2:6. But now, who this “all” should be:

1. whether all people, or
2. all the elect, or
3. some of all sorts, or
4. all of every sort (without distinction), is in debate

If Christ died for all without exception, He died in vain for most people.
Faith saves, faith cometh by hearing, Christ knew many would never hear the gospel .... therefore, to die for all (everyone without exception) would be God's purpose thwarted

 

[rogerg]

'm not sure why you posted this for me.

Maybe I misunderstood, but I thought you were saying Christ came to save this world, Is my understanding incorrect? I so, sorry

 

[rogerg]

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.

Hi wondering,

This is what I replied to:

"God sent His Son to save this world...It needs saving (not condemning)". I'm still a little confused myself - guess the old brain doesn't work too well anymore

 

[brightfame52]

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.

You started it ! You should be able to back it up !

 

[brightfame52]

As I said, you're the one who is using conjecture. You're applying Christ's words outside of the context in which they were made. That is taking Him out of context, thus, what you say is conjecture.

Does Christ saying specifically who He died for in Jn 10:11,15 conjecture to you ?

 

[Hopeful]

If Christ died for all without exception, He died in vain for most people.

That is the sad truth of it.
But for those who will be saved, His graciousness will be told of and rejoiced in forever.

 

[GodsGrace]

Hi Roger,

As I pointed out, the word dissolve is a poor translation. The word means to be loosed or set free. Paul said that the creation was going to be delivered or loosed into the hands of the children of God. The creation is Jesus' inheritance.

4 He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision.
5 Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure.
6 Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion.
7 I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.
8 Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession. (Ps. 2:4-8 KJV)

God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; (Heb. 1:1-3 KJV)

Paul said that Jesus is the heir of all things. The creation is His inheritance. Surely God is not going to destroy it.

God also promised the land to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Christ.

14 And the LORD said unto Abram, after that Lot was separated from him, Lift up now thine eyes, and look from the place where thou art northward, and southward, and eastward, and westward:
15 For all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed for ever. (Gen. 13:14-15 KJV)

The land was promised to Abraham. He never received it. The only way he can receive it is through the Resurrection. Luke records these words from Stephen.

2 And he said, Men, brethren, and fathers, hearken; The God of glory appeared unto our father Abraham, when he was in Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in Charran,
3 And said unto him, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and come into the land which I shall shew thee.
4 Then came he out of the land of the Chaldaeans, and dwelt in Charran: and from thence, when his father was dead, he removed him into this land, wherein ye now dwell.
5 And he gave him none inheritance in it, no, not so much as to set his foot on: yet he promised that he would give it to him for a possession, and to his seed after him, when as yet he had no child. (Acts 7:2-5 KJV)

Stephen tells us that God promised Abraham an inheritance in that land, yet He never gave it to Abraham. That means either Abraham gets it in the Resurrection or God doesn't fulfill the promise. The Bible tells us that God's promises are certain, that can only leave Abraham receiving that land in the Resurrection. However, Abraham can't receive that land if it is totally destroyed.

And there was a famine in the land, beside the first famine that was in the days of Abraham. And Isaac went unto Abimelech king of the Philistines unto Gerar.
2 And the LORD appeared unto him, and said, Go not down into Egypt; dwell in the land which I shall tell thee of:
3 Sojourn in this land, and I will be with thee, and will bless thee; for unto thee, and unto thy seed, I will give all these countries, and I will perform the oath which I sware unto Abraham thy father; (Gen. 26:1-3 KJV)

Here God promises the land to Isaac.

10 And Jacob went out from Beersheba, and went toward Haran.
11 And he lighted upon a certain place, and tarried there all night, because the sun was set; and he took of the stones of that place, and put them for his pillows, and lay down in that place to sleep.
12 And he dreamed, and behold a ladder set up on the earth, and the top of it reached to heaven: and behold the angels of God ascending and descending on it.
13 And, behold, the LORD stood above it, and said, I am the LORD God of Abraham thy father, and the God of Isaac: the land whereon thou liest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed; (Gen. 28:10-13 KJV)

Here the land is promised to Jacob.

16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. (Gal. 3:16 KJV)

Here, Paul tells us that the land that was promised to Abraham and his seed, the See was Christ.

Surely God didn't go and promise this land to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Jesus, and believers who are joint heirs with Christ, if the whole plan was to ultimately destroy it. Especially seeing the none of them have yet inherited it.

Great post. Complete.

This world "system" will be destroyed....
This earth will be made new.

 

[GodsGrace]

Hi wondering

Would you mind reposting what you're referring to? I'm not sure where it's located. thx

Sorry Roger....I went back a few conversations and can't find it.
You had stated that you think that God was "thinking something" or other.
My comment was that we can't know what God was/is thinking...and we should stick to scripture.

 

[jaybo]

Does Christ saying specifically who He died for in Jn 10:11,15 conjecture to you ?

Why do you continue to omit verse 16, "I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd."

It's obvious that you're trying to be selective to prove a point, but you're not succeeding. Never mind "conjecture"; how about truth?

 

[Butch5]

You started it ! You should be able to back it up !

Started what? I backed up everything I said. You're flip flopping. You say my argument is no good and then you use the very same argument and say it is good. Sorry guy, an argument is either good or bad. It's not a bad argument when I use it and a good argument when you use it.

You're inconstant. You're contradicting yourself which proves you're wrong.

 

[Butch5]

Why do you continue to omit verse 16, "I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd."

It's obvious that you're trying to be selective to prove a point, but you're not succeeding. Never mind "conjecture"; how about truth?

He's cherry picking which is a logical fallacy.

 

[GodsGrace]

wondering, I'm continuing




Hmmm have never started/hosted a thread before. Seems like too much responsibility for someone like me,
but I'd bet you'd be good at it

I think that to understand Romans 5 8 - 10, we first have to go back to Romans 1 and understand who the audience is Paul was addressing. :

[Rom 1:5-8 KJV]
5 By whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all nations, for his name:

Those who have become saved first received grace from God unto faith, not the reverse

6 Among whom are ye also the called of Jesus Christ:

7 To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called [to be] saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.

8 First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world.

"Christ died for sinners...not for saved persons."

That's what saved(s) them

"God loves everyone created...even sinners, enough to send His only begotten Son to die as the final sacrifice."

Respectfully, I don't think so. Jesus(God) did not pray for the "world", only for those whom the Father gave Him:

[Jhn 17:9 KJV]
9 I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.

"God wishes that none should perish...but alas, not everyone will accept His love for them."

[Rom 9:21 KJV]
21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

[Rom 9:22-24 KJV]
22 [What] if God, willing to shew [his] wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,
24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

Question: if everybody/anybody can be saved by their own choice, then how did the names of those to be saved become written into the Lamb's book of life after Christ' offering but before their birth (for those not yet born)?
[


Respectfully, I believe the whole point of aroist tense is that it is used when the translator cannot determine tense. I don't think that should be ignored because it could have very great affect on the verse's interpretation. At the very lease, we should keep in mind that we know that we don't know



[1Ti 2:4-5 KJV]
4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
5 For [there is] one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

[Psa 115:3 KJV] 3 But our God [is] in the heavens: he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased.
So, if God wants someone saved, they will be saved.

I'm familiar with 1 Timothy 4 & 5.

Okay, and this won't be easy to explain, but as I posted previously, we have to keep in mind that, among other things, no verse of scripture is of any private interpretation. God uses many symbols in the Bible which are often defined elsewhere in the Bible. To understand the symbol "man" and "beast", we need to look to see how God put's values to them. Often the Bible uses a symbolic of "man", "men", ETC as a representation of Christians, He also uses "beast" or "beasts" ETC as a representation of the unsaved. Please observe:

[1Co 15:32 KJV] 32 If after the manner of men I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what advantageth it me, if the dead rise not? let us eat and drink; for to morrow we die.
Above, Paul links "men" to Christians, and "beasts" to the the unsaved. We can understand this since "beast" isn't a literal animal as Paul had "fought" them over the issue of whether the dead will rise, the way a Christian would - a spiritual battle, not a physical one.

Further:
[Psa 49:12, 20 KJV]
12 Nevertheless man [being] in honour abideth not: he is like the beasts [that] perish. ...
20 Man [that is] in honour, and understandeth not, is like the beasts [that] perish.

So, in Tim 4& 5, by the term "men", we can see that God is informing that all whom He has chosen for salvation, will become saved. Otherwise there would be a contradiction with:

[Eph 1:4 KJV] 4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

We are informed that all who are to become saved were chosen before the foundation of the world. Hence, the question I posed to you about the Lamb's book of life - how can names be written into it before some of the people weren't even born, if God didn't choose them first?

I'll reply to the most important two ideas above...
I won't address the aorist tense since I think it's useless and
of course I agree about the usage of men and beasts as in 1 Cor 15:32.

The problems you present are this:

1. You ask how names can be written in the Lamb's Book of Life if the people were not born yet.
I've already replied to this in a different post.
GOD KNOWS EVERYTHING....past, present and future.

But this does not mean that God chose the names.
Because God knows something, does not mean He caused it to happen.
Knowledge is not causation.


2. You bring up Ephesians 1:4
4just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love
5He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will,
6to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved.


Notice what it says above and what has been believed throughout Christendom until Luther, Calvin, Knox and the others came along in the 1,500's AD.

1. God chose us to be IN CHRIST from the beginning.

2. God chose that those who would believe in Christ would be holy and blameless before Him.

3. God predestined us to be adopted as sons THROUGH JESUS CHRIST.

4. Grace....God's love for humankind and why we are saved...because of God's loving grace toward us.

 

[GodsGrace]

Thanks! LOL!

BTW, my daughter and grandchildren live in Firenze.

Lovely city.
Have a dear friend on Via Tavanti.
A bit to city for me, but I love it there.

As to the other member....
what can I say?
Some accept the N.T. and others accept what teacher they are following.

 

[Fastfredy0]

Why do you continue to omit verse 16, "I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen.

John 10:16 I have other sheep [beside these] that are not of this fold. I must bring those also, and they will listen to My voice and pay attention to My call, and they will become one flock with one Shepherd.
Could refer to Gentiles, future Christians, the people in the next town ... I assume you assume it refers to everyone without exception. This is contrary to:

1. the contents of the verse that point out the characteristics of the sheep ... they pay attention to Christ's call. If everyone without exception were Christ's sheep Christ says they will follow Him. Since everyone without exception does not follow Christ, logic dictates that not everyone is a sheep.
2. In the Gospel of Luke, the parable is as follows: He told them this parable. "Which of you men, if you had one hundred sheep, and lost one of them, wouldn't leave the ninety-nine in the wilderness, and go after the one that was lost, until he found it? When he has found it, he carries it on his shoulders, rejoicing. Notice, the Shepherd: wouldn't leave the ninety-nine in the wilderness, and go after the one that was lost, until he found it?

There are billions of people that are dead and never heard the gospel which is needed to be believed to be saved. It is abundantly clear that 'everyone without exception' is among Christ's sheep for it is abundantly clear that Christ wouldn't leave the ninety-nine in the wilderness, and go after the one [BILLIONS] that was lost, until he found it?


The idea that everyone without exception are Christ's sheep contradicts Matthew 25:31-46 where Christ separates the sheep from the goats.
Premise 1: Some people are referred to as sheep
Premise 2: Some people are referred to as goats
Conclusion: Everyone without exception cannot be Christ's sheep

 

[GodsGrace]

I have considered the King James the standard by which I compare all other versions. I guess because it is what I grew up on and seemingly, Strong's Concordance is closely complementary to it. I am not "set in stone" on the KJV though and will certainly look into the NASB.
I too like to explore verses on my own (with the help of the Holy Spirit) to see what I think first on a verse and then compare what I think to commentaries. A Red-Letter edition convinced me of post-trib for instance.

The red-letter edition is tops. So easy to see Jesus' words.

As to the KJV,,,I have that version too.
Whatever works for a person is OK.
But some verses are slightly different in several versions and you're doing the right thing to find out which is correct.
I also believe in the post-trib, which to me means that Jesus is coming back at t he end of the world. ONE TIME, not two times---one before and one after.

 

[GodsGrace]

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.

Thanks Jaybo, I know this.
As to commentators....some personal opinion colors academic principles.
That can't be helped....this is why it's a good idea to read through the bible FIRST and see what you come up with.
Then study is needed from different sources.
I like to know what the Early Church Fathers believed when I have a conflict.
They learned from the Apostles that knew Jesus and what He taught.

I've heard about the NET bible but don't know about it.
Bibles that translate an idea instead of words is ok for some...personally, I don't care for them too much because, as you've stated, the translation is too personal.