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

[Alabaster]

You the one proclaiming a God who fails of His Purpose, and Counts his creatures will just as Sovereign as his own. Thats your God not mine. Thats why He has failed.

God never fails. His word endures forever.

It is a blessing to be considered as one with a sovereign will like God---we are created in His image. We need to revel in that knowledge, rather than spurn it.

My God, Jehovah Tsidkenu, is the only God and you have a god you have created in your mind. Good luck with that.

Zephaniah 3:5
But the Lord is still there in the city,
and he does no wrong.
Day by day he hands down justice,
and he does not fail.
But the wicked know no shame.

 

[mlqurgw]

The failure is in your inability to grasp that God never fails. He has provided the Way to salvation and life, but the failure is in people's rejection of that free gift.

God has given every human being a sovereign will that has the right to choose Him or reject Him. He will never violate that will.

So I guess that He didn't violate Pharoah's will? What about Dathan and Abiram? What you have said here is that God must bow to the will of men because man is sovereign. You have effectively put man on the throne of God.

 

[savedbygrace57]

ala:

It is a blessing to be considered as one with a sovereign will like God---

Blasphemy to the Highest Heavens, Dan 4:

35And all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?

This guys philosophy is what Paul is Talking about Here in 2 thess 2:

Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

4Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

He thinks men should be as God, to be worshipped as God, that God is not the Only Sovereign ! That Mans Will should be as Sovereign as Gods, that is what Satan has always wanted for Himself, and Gods creatures to think !

Isa 14:


12How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

13For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:
14I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.

Gen 3:

5For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.


The sad thing is, most religious people believe exactly what this guy is proclaiming, but not as blatant, but nevertheless, when its all said and done, this is what mans freewill is saying, exactly what alabaster is saying.

So there you have it folks, alabaster fits the mode of thinking that is condemned by God, and that which He shall shortly destroy at the brightness of His Coming..

 

[Deavonreye]

deavon:



Is everyone without exception made righteous ?

Let me repost the question slightly reworded.

I'm curious, sbg, you are saying that the "many be made righteous" does not mean "without exception", in other words "not everyone is wanted by god"? Does that mean that the "many were made sinners" logically show that NOT everyone that ever lived were actually "sinners"? Is the "many", in both sentences, the same word in translation?

But in a way, I think I have to agree with you. From history, it seems clear that most people were never "in god's will" to be saved. And if there really IS a "predestination", that does seem like only those "predestined" were even wanted.

 

[stovebolts]

Let's all have a little less opinion toward one another and a bit more exegetical meat to our posts... or I'll lock the thread(s) and end the discussions per our TOS.

It's ok to ask questions, but it's not ok to slander as slander serves no purpose other than deterring from the hard work of exegesis, which is where truth will be found.

For example, if one wishes to speak about ones opinion in the matter of, lest say Pharaoh, then one should reference a particular portion of scripture... do a good exegesis on the matter and then after proper exegesis on supporting verses that may support ones doctrines, only then can a proper redaction occur.

To not do the hard work of exegesis is to succumb to banter and slander so the question is, will you put the effort in, or not? That will determine the life of these types of threads moving forward.

Grace and Peace.

 

[savedbygrace57]

Let's all have a little less opinion and a bit more exegetical meat to our posts... or I'll lock the thread(s) and end the discussions per our TOS.

Please see post 396

 

[savedbygrace57]

deav:

I'm curious, sbg, you are saying that the "many be made righteous" does not mean "without exception",

I am not saying anything, Gods word says it. You should be able to make a reasonable deduction. Now if Gods word says that by the obedience of one, many shall be made righteous, and we know that all without exception are not made righteous, then His obedience must not have been for everyone without exception.

 

[Deavonreye]

deav:



I am not saying anything, Gods word says it. You should be able to make a reasonable deduction. Now if Gods word says that by the obedience of one, many shall be made righteous, and we know that all without exception are not made righteous, then His obedience must not have been for everyone without exception.

I'm confused. The verse doesn't say that "all" were made unrighteous, but "many", due to the "first adam". In turn, "many be made righteous", due to the "second adam", [as per the OP] would then match.

So, if the "many" doesn't mean "all people that ever lived", and the "second Adam" only died for "many" [those who were wanted], then the "first adam's sin" didn't effect "all people that ever lived".

 

[stovebolts]

Please see post 396

Yes, I saw that sbg.

While I don't agree with your means of exegesis, it was exactly the way an argument should be laid out and is a great example as how to lay out scripture. For that I commend you and I would hope that others would pick up that style and respond accordingly.

Thus, a proper response would be to take the same verses that you've used in verse 396 and do ones own exegesis on those scriptures with commentary and present that as a rebuttal.

Ohh, but it's so much easier to just start the banter... because exegesis is time consuming and leads to truth, and bantar is so much more filling to the flesh...

I really don't want to start locking threads, but when the bantar and slander occurs.. well.. it just always goes down hill from there and that's not good for anyone.

 

[Deavonreye]

Also, were those "called to be a sheep" ever unrighteous? Just wanting to clear this up.

 

[savedbygrace57]

All that He rose for shall be made alive !

1 cor 15:

21For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.

Just as by Man [ Adam] came death, which is separation from God, and physical death, and this without mans freewill or choice, for Adams choice determined their death, so likewise, by Man [ The Man Christ Jesus] comes the resurrection from the dead, both spiritual and physical, and that as well without the freewill of man or mans choice, for Christ obedience unto death and resurrection determined that.

Thats why it is written of the elect of God , those chosen in Christ before the foundation, these words:

eph 2:

1And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;

5Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved)

Even while being DEAD in sin spiritually, we are made to receive resurrection from the dead, we are made alive, begotten again, not by freewill, but as peter writes by the resurrection of Jesus Christ 1 pet 1:

3Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again [from the dead] unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,

Jesus was the Firstborn and firstfruit from the dead of many brethren ! col 1:

And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

rom 8:29

For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

That is His resurrection ensured the resurrection from the dead, both spiritual dead and physical dead of all He died for and rose again.

When one is born again, that means Jesus died and rose in their behalf, its proof of the power of His resurrection phil 3:10

That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection,

He rose as the Great Shepherd of the Sheep according to heb 13:


20Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant,

This ensures that all His dead sheep, both spiritually and physically shall be brought from the dead.

Thats why Jesus can say with certainty, My Sheep hear my voice and follow me Jn 10:


27My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:

28And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.

This is because they are first made alive spiritually by the power of Their Shepherds resurrection [ 1 pet 1:3] hence they can hear His voice spiritually and walk by Faith, this is thanks to the Resurrection of Christ, and not the Freewill of Man..

The Lord Jesus Christ saves all whom He died and rose for. They shall be made alive !

 

[savedbygrace57]

Also, were those "called to be a sheep" ever unrighteous? Just wanting to clear this up.

By Nature they are unrighteous.

 

[savedbygrace57]

I'm confused. The verse doesn't say that "all" were made unrighteous, but "many", due to the "first adam". In turn, "many be made righteous", due to the "second adam", [as per the OP] would then match.

So, if the "many" doesn't mean "all people that ever lived", and the "second Adam" only died for "many" [those who were wanted], then the "first adam's sin" didn't effect "all people that ever lived".

The many that Christ was obedient for, are the ones who shall be made righteous, do you agree with that or no ?

 

[Deavonreye]

The many that Christ was obedient for, are the ones who shall be made righteous, do you agree with that or no ?

I'm not sure if I can agree with that statement. A few questions. Christ/Jesus was obedient to who? Is Jesus also "one with god", or does Jesus have a will apart from god?

 

[savedbygrace57]

deav:

I'm not sure if I can agree with that statement.

Ok, all i can do is show you the Truth, cant make you believe it.

 

[Deavonreye]

deav:

Ok, all i can do is show you the Truth, cant make you believe it.

If it is actually "the Truth", then I'm sure I will agree, . . . but I'm not certain it is. I've seen to many on here [christians as well] who cannot agree.

But, I ask again, . . . Christ/Jesus was obedient to who? Is Jesus also "one with god", or does Jesus have a will apart from god?

 

[savedbygrace57]

deav:

If it is actually "the Truth", then I'm sure I will agree

Its actually the word of Truth rom 5:

19For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

And since you do not accept the Truth, I am wasting my time with you. If you were receptive to the Truth, i would labor more to show you things, but since your not, I am threw with you.

 

[Deavonreye]

deav:



Its actually the word of Truth rom 5:

19For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

And since you do not accept the Truth, I am wasting my time with you. If you were receptive to the Truth, i would labor more to show you things, but since your not, I am threw with you.

You don't seem to understand. What you have stated as "truth", others have disagreed with your interpretation of it [as with the OP]. So, as a person looking for the truth, yet other christians say that THEY are right and not you [I'm not stating who actually IS], then who am I suppose to believe DOES have "the truth"? There is a big difference between "not accepting the Truth" and "not accepting someones BELIEF in what they see as 'true'".

Since the verse is qualified with "For as", there IS a problem with the "many". The word is used for both "adams", . . .. . "many made sinners", . . ."many made righteous". Who are those who the "first adam" DIDN'T "make sinners"?

 

[mondar]

Yes, I saw that sbg.

While I don't agree with your means of exegesis, it was exactly the way an argument should be laid out and is a great example as how to lay out scripture. For that I commend you and I would hope that others would pick up that style and respond accordingly.

Thus, a proper response would be to take the same verses that you've used in verse 396 and do ones own exegesis on those scriptures with commentary and present that as a rebuttal.

Ohh, but it's so much easier to just start the banter... because exegesis is time consuming and leads to truth, and bantar is so much more filling to the flesh...

I really don't want to start locking threads, but when the bantar and slander occurs.. well.. it just always goes down hill from there and that's not good for anyone.

Steve, I am curious what you mean by the phrase I highlighted above. What do you mean by the terms "means of exegesis?" Are you referring to some hermeneutical principle, or you are just saying that you think that SBG made exegetical or contextual mistakes. Also, what passage are you referring to?

 

[stovebolts]

Steve, I am curious what you mean by the phrase I highlighted above. What do you mean by the terms "means of exegesis?" Are you referring to some hermeneutical principle, or you are just saying that you think that SBG made exegetical or contextual mistakes. Also, what passage are you referring to?

Hi mondar,
I can't believe you called me steve...

Perhaps I could have worded that better... By 'means of exegesis', I meant ones theological view which is made up by the many lenses we have available to view scripture through. An example might be a historical lens, or even the textual criticism lens, archeological lens etc etc etc. The more lenses one can view scripture through, the better ones hermeneutics become due to a unified redaction of said exegesis.

As far as which commentary I've disagreed with, it really doesn't matter at the moment as I'm not going to engage in this argument... I'm just trying to get the thread back on track and end the mud slinging.

Grace and Peace.