The Myth of saying that Jesus Christ died for all men without exception !

[mlqurgw]

I have a question concerning this thread:

How can god have chosen all who will "be sheep" from the beginning, yet:

Romans 9:26 And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.

This verse sounds like there were people who were NOT "his people" at one time, then became so.

Verse 25 of Rom. 9 expalins very well what Paul was talking about. He is not speaking of a people who were not elect before the foundation of the world and then become elect he is speaking of the calling of the elect Gentiles. Paul is simply saying that not only Jews are elect.

 

[mondar]

mondar:



Do you believe that Christ died for them ?

I take the particular redemption view. No, Christ saved all those he died for.

My previous two posts were a little off topic, I was not speaking of the extent of the atonement when I mentioned Romans 9. While see no harm in using Romans 9, I would probably choose Hebrews 9 to speak of the extent of the atonement. Christ is the mediator of a New Covenant and is both High Priest and sacrifice under that Covenant. Who does Christ mediate the Covenant to? In the last verse Christ bore the sins of many. I think the word "many" is used in this text because the atonement is for a particular group.

How can one say that Christ went to the cross, shed his blood, became the mediator of his blood and offered it on a heavenly altar (new Covenant) and that moment when he completes his work, he stands back and says... "boy, I hope that blood I placed on the heavenly altar saves somebody." No, not one precious drop of his blood was wasted trying to save someone he could not. All his shed blood was totally efficient and saved those for whom it was shed.

 

[mondar]

I suspect that the underlying presupposition of those who oppose particular redemption is the assumption that God must love all men equally or he is not "fair."

For me, am glad God is not "fair." I know what my eternal destination would be if God were "fair." I, as would also you, would go to hell. We all deserve to go to hell. "Fair" takes the grace out of God and puts mankind in a place where grace might be necessary, but it is not sufficient. Salvation then is by grace and free will, and not by grace alone. For grace to be completely grace, it could not be "fair." For grace to be totally grace, it could not be of man.

 

[Elijah674]

Just part of Eze. 33
Ezek.33

[[11] Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?

[12] Therefore, thou son of man, say unto the children of thy people, The righteousness of the righteous shall not deliver him in the day of his transgression: as for the wickedness of the wicked, he shall not fall thereby in the day that he turneth from his wickedness; neither shall the righteous be able to live for his righteousness in the day that he sinneth.
....

[14] Again, when I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; if he turn from his sin, and do that which is lawful and right;
....

[16] None of his sins that he hath committed shall be mentioned unto him: he hath done that which is lawful and right; he shall surely live.

[17] Yet the children of thy people say, The way of the Lord is not equal: but as for them, their way is not equal.

[18] When the righteous turneth from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, he shall even die thereby.

[19] But if the wicked turn from his wickedness, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall live thereby.
[20] Yet ye say, The way of the Lord is not equal. O ye house of Israel, I will judge you every one after his ways.

In the forknowledge of the Godhead all that They knew who would finally be saved were who Christ died for!

--Elijah

 

[smaller]

I have a question concerning this thread:

How can god have chosen all who will "be sheep" from the beginning, yet:

Romans 9:26 And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.

This verse sounds like there were people who were NOT "his people" at one time, then became so.

Hey, yer not supposed to catch those scriptures!

 

[theLords]

I have a question concerning this thread:

How can god have chosen all who will "be sheep" from the beginning, yet:

Romans 9:26 And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.

This verse sounds like there were people who were NOT "his people" at one time, then became so.

Read the Book of Hosea

 

[smaller]

Romans 11 seems to remain a MYSTERY to the limited 'elect only' atonement positions. Having engaged with a few 'hundred' 'limited atonement' adherents I have yet to see ONE of them jump this hurdle:

25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.
26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.
28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the father's sakes.

Course wouldn't want to upset any pet doctrines, BUT...having held similar this particular scripture set FORCED me to 'rethink' my positions because my positions could NOT account for this matter. THEREFORE my positions had to be WRONG FOR THE SCRIPTURE TO BE RIGHT.

enjoy!

smaller

 

[Drew]

Romans 11 seems to remain a MYSTERY to the limited 'elect only' atonement positions. Having engaged with a few 'hundred' 'limited atonement' adherents I have yet to see ONE of them jump this hurdle:

25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.
26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.
28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the father's sakes.

Although I do not believe that the Bible teaches pre-destination, I do not think this text is actually a problem for those who do believe in pre-destination.

I happen to believe that "all Israel" in verse 26 is actually not a reference to ethnic Israel, but is instead a reference to the "Jew + Gentile" church. And, for reasons I will not get into in this present post, I believe that the "so" in verse 26 should be read as "in this way", and not read as "and then".

In any event, wouldn't the pre-destination supporter simply say "yes, Paul is saying that a certain category of persons will be saved, and these people are indeed part of the set of people who have been pre-destined to salvation from the beginning of time?

 

[Drew]

I suspect that the underlying presupposition of those who oppose particular redemption is the assumption that God must love all men equally or he is not "fair."

I am not sure that this question is important. I would put what Scripture actually teaches ahead of any other consideration, including my own sense of "what's fair".

And I see no scriptural evidence for the pre-destination position, and most certainly not in Romans 9.

 

[smaller]

Although I do not believe that the Bible teaches pre-destination, I do not think this text is actually a problem for those who do believe in pre-destination.

Few 'limited atonement' folks are that generous to enemies of the Gospel who are saved ANYWAY. In fact none that I remember. Most will try to twist the meaning to 'future' enemies, though the tense Paul uses is present tense 'are' enemies.

And you are right, it certainly DOES present problems to 'freewillers' even moreso. But that is outside of the thread topic.

In any event, wouldn't the pre-destination supporter simply say "yes, Paul is saying that a certain category of persons will be saved, and these people are indeed part of the set of people who have been pre-destined to salvation from the beginning of time?

Well, if ALL of Israel 'inclusive' of enemies of the Gospel, that might actually appear to be ALL. No twisting required.

There are the 'remnant/elect' and ALL the balance of Israel, the ENEMIES of the Gospel.

It is also quite easy to scroll up to vs. 8-9 and see WHY they couldn't believe.

God put a SPIRIT OF SLUMBER upon them so they COULDN'T.

enjoy!

smaller

 

[savedbygrace57]

mondar:

I take the particular redemption view. No, Christ saved all those he died for.

Thats what I believe too..

 

[mondar]

I am not sure that this question is important. I would put what Scripture actually teaches ahead of any other consideration, including my own sense of "what's fair".

And I see no scriptural evidence for the pre-destination position, and most certainly not in Romans 9.

Granted, the word "predestination" does not occur in Romans 9, it occurs in Chapter 8. But I did not use the term, you did.

However, I am surprised that you say you want to talk about the Scriptures or Romans 9 and suggest the concept of "fair" is not in that chapter. In fact it is a major part of that very chapter. In Romans 9, Paul has an imaginary foe challenging Paul with that very question "its not fair."

Rom 9:19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he still find fault? For who withstandeth his will?
*** There is really little difference between the question "why does he yet find fault" and the statement "its not fair." The question is a rhetorical question making the statement "its not fair." The rhetorical question preceeding verse 19 is what Paul's imaginary opponent is objecting to. The imaginary opponents is saying that "it is not fair" for God to make harden some men's hearts and show mercy to others.

I have always found it curious the way non-Calvinists read Chapter 9. They actually agree with Paul's imaginary opponent and say what Paul is saying in the Chapter "is not fair." They make the same identical objection the imaginary man does in verse 19.

 

[Nathan]

Eze 18:24 But when a righteous person turns away from his righteousness and does injustice and does the same abominations that the wicked person does, shall he live? None of the righteous deeds that he has done shall be remembered; for the treachery of which he is guilty and the sin he has committed, for them he shall die.


Eze 18:25 "Yet you say, 'The way of the Lord is not just.' Hear now, O house of Israel: Is my way not just? Is it not your ways that are not just?


Eze 18:26 When a righteous person turns away from his righteousness and does injustice, he shall die for it; for the injustice that he has done he shall die.


Eze 18:27 Again, when a wicked person turns away from the wickedness he has committed and does what is just and right, he shall save his life.


Eze 18:28 Because he considered and turned away from all the transgressions that he had committed, he shall surely live; he shall not die.


Eze 18:29 Yet the house of Israel says, 'The way of the Lord is not just.' O house of Israel, are my ways not just? Is it not your ways that are not just?


Eze 18:30 "Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways, declares the Lord God. Repent and turn from all your transgressions, lest iniquity be your ruin.


Eze 18:31 Cast away from you all the transgressions that you have committed, and make yourselves a new heart and a new spirit! Why will you die, O house of Israel?


Eze 18:32 For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Lord God; so turn, and live."




Seems that the topic of "Fairness" has come up before.......

 

[mondar]

Seems that the topic of "Fairness" has come up before.......

NH, I take it you think those verses have something to do with what I said. Do you want to explain what is on your mind?

 

[smaller]

Galatians 6:
6 Let him that is taught in the word communicate unto him that teacheth in all good things.
7 Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.
8 For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.

This is one of the most FUNDAMENTAL principles in the Bible.

It is assuredly NOT limited away from ANY man.

Righteousness has been FAVOURED by God in ANY in whom SO SOW.

Early church orthodoxy REMAINS on this very solid foundation.

enjoy!

smaller

 

[Elijah674]

Although I do not believe that the Bible teaches pre-destination, I do not think this text is actually a problem for those who do believe in pre-destination.

I happen to believe that "all Israel" in verse 26 is actually not a reference to ethnic Israel, but is instead a reference to the "Jew + Gentile" church. And, for reasons I will not get into in this present post, I believe that the "so" in verse 26 should be read as "in this way", and not read as "and then".

In any event, wouldn't the pre-destination supporter simply say "yes, Paul is saying that a certain category of persons will be saved, and these people are indeed part of the set of people who have been pre-destined to salvation from the beginning of time?

'i' agree, and the Rev. 7:9 verse surely includes these in this 'great multitude' as well. Rom. 2:28-29 seems to still find this very clear Inspiration a 'mystery' to some, as well as 'spiritual' Babylon's name? (all the babbyling ones of Rev. 17:1-5)

Yet, all the saved will be united in the Rev. 12:17 Truth at the final tally! '... which keep the Commandments of GOD, and have THE TESTIMONY OF JESUS.' (compare Isa, 8:20's seperating of the two)

--Elijah

 

[Nathan]

NH, I take it you think those verses have something to do with what I said. Do you want to explain what is on your mind?

Oh, not directly with what you said, but interestingly enough the context is the same. When you posted what you did it just made me think of that passage again is all.

It is funny, because Israel was making the point that the 'proverb' of the sins of the fathers being put onto the sons should be upheld. Why on earth they would want God to impute some sort of judgment because of sins committed by another is beyond me, but I am going to guess it has something to do with jealousy and envy. As if they were 'prideful' that they were the chosen people, and completely disregarded that their fathers sin also.

So God makes this point;

Eze 18:2-4 "What do you mean by repeating this proverb concerning the land of Israel, 'The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge'? As I live, declares the Lord God, this proverb shall no more be used by you in Israel. Behold, all souls are mine; the soul of the father as well as the soul of the son is mine: the soul who sins shall die."

Then God goes into a discourse about 'offspring'. He starts out with a 'righteous' man, who fathers an 'unrighteous' child, who then fathers a 'righteous' child. So the last child, who's father was unrighteous, does not make him unrighteous. And the unrighteous man, who's father was righteous, does not get his father's righteousness imputed on him.

In other words, physical lineage and race has nothing to do with anything. But rather the actions of the individual.

Eze 18:19-20 "Yet you say, 'Why should not the son suffer for the iniquity of the father?' When the son has done what is just and right, and has been careful to observe all my statutes, he shall surely live. The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself."

The question comes into mind, how does one have 'righteousness'? We know for a fact that;

“None is righteous, no, not one;
11 no one understands;
no one seeks for God.
12 All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;
no one does good,
not even one.â€
13 “Their throat is pan open grave;
they use their tongues to deceive.â€
“The venom of asps is under their lips.â€
14 “Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness.â€
15 “Their feet are swift to shed blood;
16 in their paths are ruin and misery,
17 and the way of peace they have not known.â€
18 “There is no fear of God before their eyes.â€

So then we conclude that righteousness is imparted by God, onto man. Man can do nothing in and of himself to earn or buy this righteousness. But yet, God through Ezekiel, states that if a 'righteous' person turns from his righteousness(which was given to him), then for his sin he will die.

But, if the wicked person turns from his ways and does what is just and right(faith and trust in Christ), then that wicked person will live.

The point is that Israel was saying "No way! You are not being fair God! WE are the chosen people. You, God, said that only those who are "Israel" have your forgiveness and blessing. None of those other people can have it."

And yet God is making the point that His grace and forgiveness and call stretches out to all mankind, not just Israel, and the fact that they are being hard hearted toward others is in fact showing their need for a new heart. He makes it abundantly clear in the last verses of chapter 18;


Eze 18:29 Yet the house of Israel says, 'The way of the Lord is not just.' O house of Israel, are my ways not just? Is it not your ways that are not just?


Eze 18:30 "Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways, declares the Lord God. Repent and turn from all your transgressions, lest iniquity be your ruin.


Eze 18:31 Cast away from you all the transgressions that you have committed, and make yourselves a new heart and a new spirit! Why will you die, O house of Israel?


Eze 18:32 For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Lord God; so turn, and live."

 

[savedbygrace57]

The Myth of teaching that God Loves all men without exception !

Romans 9:


13As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

How can it be sincerely taught that scripture teaches that God loves all men without exception, when it specifically says of Esau, God Hated ?

And I got news for you, He did not only hate Esau, but all the workers of iniquity. ps 5:


5The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity.

And they that work iniquity shall soon hear these words Matt 7:


23And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Yes, these and those in ps 5 5 are the very same !

 

[HisSheep]

Not likely. Yes we have some kind of a statement about pre-destination at the end of chapter 8. But there is a major "break" at what is the beginning of chapter 9 - a break that I believe is basically universally recognized by theologians. I suspect it would be hard to find a theologian who says that Romans 9 is a continuation of Romans 8. But maybe I am wrong.

Drew, thanks for your replies regarding Romans 8 and 9. C’mon, man… that’s not just “some kind of statement" about predestination (Romans 8:29-30). It is an explicit, redundant statement.

I wouldn’t word it as you do that, “Romans 9 is a continuation of Romans 8â€. I think starting at Romans 8:18 and continuing through Chapter 11 is a theme of election and God’s sovereignty. I like these verses which both tell us that the “children of God†aren’t being determined, but are being revealed. In other words: God already knows who they are:

Romans 8:
18 I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. 19 For the creation waits in eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed.

There is a transition at ch8 and 9 that shifts from a discussion of election to a discussion of Ethnic vs. Restoration Israel. But the whole discussion from Ch8-Ch11 is generally about God's sovereignty.

-HisSheep

 

[Drew]

C’mon, man… that’s not just “some kind of statement" about predestination (Romans 8:29-30). It is an explicit, redundant statement.

I am not sure what your point is here.

I wouldn’t word it as you do that, “Romans 9 is a continuation of Romans 8”. I think starting at Romans 8:18 and continuing through Chapter 11 is a theme of election and God’s sovereignty.

There really is a major break at the end of chapter 8. Chapter 8 is focused on what is true about the believer, Jew or Gentile. At the beginning of chapter 9, Paul turns to the important question of Israel. In a very broad sense, yes, this is all subsumed under issues of God's sovereignty and His making of choices.

But, and I cannot emphasize this enough" Paul tells us what the "choices" described in the first half of Romans 9 are about. And they are simply not choices about personal salvation. This should not really be a matter of debate, Paul is quite explicit: Esau was not elected to hell, he was elected to serve Jacob. Paul tells us this. Likewise, Jacob was not elected to heaven, he was elected to "dominate" Esau. Again, Paul tell us this.

Similarly for Moses (verse 15) and Pharoah - the "choices" that Paul is describing are clearly not choices about eternal destinies. If we are not willing to take Paul at his word about this, what do we really have to discuss. As I have said before, these examples could be used to then make an argument like this: just as God mades these (non-salvation) choices, so He also makes choices as to who gets saved.

I do not believe that Paul actually does this, but it is at least plausible. But unless and until people let Paul speak re what these choices, in the first half of Romans 9, are all about, we can make no progress.