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

[francisdesales]

I guess your question makes me realize that I was wrong in how I represented Reformed theology. I skipped over mans responsibility. God is sovereign not only over salvation, but also over man's responsibility, and I should have balanced the sovereignty of God with the responsibility of man. In other words, we do not preach the gospel to all men because we do not "we do not know who the elect are" but because we have been commanded to preach the gospel to all men. It is an issue of human responsibility.

I would also raise the same question you presented me to non-Calvinists. Is God free to save whomever he wants? Or does he need a preacher to save Fred? Of course if God needs the preacher because of mans free will, then how is God really sovereign?

An interesting revelation...

I would suggest that your idea of "God's sovereignty" does not take into account God's freedom to give man free will, the desire to respond to His Love. In addition, God has revealed, throughout the entire Bible, that He chooses to work through men to bring His salvation to us.

The analogy I find helpful is the "sovereignty" of the loving mother baking cookies with her 2 year old daughter. She can make the cookies alone, she can completely do everything and let the kid watch, or she can help the child mix the batter or put the dough on a pan. And when the father comes home and the child exclaims "Look, I made some cookies", does the mother say "how dare you take away my sovereignty and glory"???

This is how Love works, how God works. He lets us "help" Him, beginning with Gen 1:26.

Regards

 

[Drew]

I will have to express my support for what TG said. Verses 11-12 do not refer to Judiazers. It simply refers to the Jews themselves. But that is not the point. Even if the verses actually do refer to the Judiazers, the principle that salvation is not by the cooperation of human works and divine righteousness is a correct reading of the verses. It applies do Judiazers, Gentiles, Jews, and everyone.

No. The context simply does not allow this. Note the "therefore" paragaph that follows Ephesians 2:10 - it is clear beyond doubt that the issue on Paul's mind is the Jew-Gentile division, not the matter of "human co-operation" in the salvation process":

11Therefore remember that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called "Uncircumcision" by the so-called "Circumcision," which is performed in the flesh by human hands-- 12remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. 14For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, 15by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace, 16and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity. 17AND HE CAME AND PREACHED PEACE TO YOU WHO WERE FAR AWAY, AND PEACE TO THOSE WHO WERE NEAR; 18for through Him we both have (BF)our access in (BG)one Spirit to (BH)the Father. 19So then you are no longer (BI)strangers and aliens, but you are (BJ)fellow citizens with the saints, and are of (BK)God's household,

The Jew-Gentile division, and more specifically an argument that Gentiles are now equal partners with Jews in God's family is all over this text. Paul is not talking about "salvation by good works" - he is talking about the integration of Gentiles into the family of God. And because of the "therefore" in verse 11, we know this is an amplification of what he has just said in verse 8-10.

And, of course, such an amplification only makes sense if the "works" that do not justify - the works in verse 9 - are precisely those work which would otherwise set the Jew above the Gentile.

And these works are the works of the Law of Moses.

 

[mondar]

An interesting revelation...

I would suggest that your idea of "God's sovereignty" does not take into account God's freedom to give man free will, the desire to respond to His Love. In addition, God has revealed, throughout the entire Bible, that He chooses to work through men to bring His salvation to us.

Francis, your off base on your comments. I don't think you are properly grasping the conversation between Drew and I.

Nevertheless concerning the different issue you raise, there is a huge difference between what God "can" do, and what he "did" do. God certainly has absolute freedom and can obviously limit his attributes of sovereignty by giving up his own free will in choosing who will be saved. Christ limited the use of his attributes when he was incarnate on earth. Do not misunderstand, Christ did not give up his attributes, but limited their use while he was in flesh. The question is not "can" God limit his sovereignty, but "did" he limit his sovereignty in salvation. Of course the overwhelming weight of scripture demonstrates that God did choose man, and man's choice was totally 2ndary. Man only chooses God because he is chosen by God to chose him. I of course do not see that God gave up his sovereignty over any aspect of salvation, including election.

Your second sentence does not properly represent what I said. You seem to have missed that I mentioned to Drew that there is "human responsibility." Possibly you misunderstand my statement that human responsibility is due to the decree of God.

The analogy I find helpful is the "sovereignty" of the loving mother baking cookies with her 2 year old daughter. She can make the cookies alone, she can completely do everything and let the kid watch, or she can help the child mix the batter or put the dough on a pan. And when the father comes home and the child exclaims "Look, I made some cookies", does the mother say "how dare you take away my sovereignty and glory"???

This is how Love works, how God works. He lets us "help" Him, beginning with Gen 1:26.

Regards

Well, I think the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man is far more complex then what can be found in any simple illustration. Take for instance Jonah. He preached to the Ninevites. God ordered him to go and Jonah refused and ran away. Of course the issue was not Jonah's choice, but God's sovereignty. Jonah can choose whatever he chooses, but in the end, it has nothing to do with Jonah's choice, but God's choice.

Of course the illustration I give has to do with direct revelation to a prophet. It is different with us because we are not ordered to preach the gospel to just Ninevah, but to the uttermost parts of the world.

 

[mondar]

No. The context simply does not allow this. Note the "therefore" paragaph that follows Ephesians 2:10 - it is clear beyond doubt that the issue on Paul's mind is the Jew-Gentile division, not the matter of "human co-operation" in the salvation process":

11Therefore remember that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called "Uncircumcision" by the so-called "Circumcision," which is performed in the flesh by human hands-- 12remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. 14For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, 15by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace, 16and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity. 17AND HE CAME AND PREACHED PEACE TO YOU WHO WERE FAR AWAY, AND PEACE TO THOSE WHO WERE NEAR; 18for through Him we both have (BF)our access in (BG)one Spirit to (BH)the Father. 19So then you are no longer (BI)strangers and aliens, but you are (BJ)fellow citizens with the saints, and are of (BK)God's household,

The Jew-Gentile division, and more specifically an argument that Gentiles are now equal partners with Jews in God's family is all over this text. Paul is not talking about "salvation by good works" - he is talking about the integration of Gentiles into the family of God. And because of the "therefore" in verse 11, we know this is an amplification of what he has just said in verse 8-10.

And, of course, such an amplification only makes sense if the "works" that do not justify - the works in verse 9 - are precisely those work which would otherwise set the Jew above the Gentile.

And these works are the works of the Law of Moses.

Drew, I do not agree with your understanding of Ephesians. Certainly the book of Ephesians mentions the Jew/Gentile division, and it is prominent in the later parts of Ephesians 2. But not in the sence you seem to be suggesting. The Jews and Gentiles are not merely and only equal in some "God's family." (please note that I am saying there is a family issue, but there is much more----- The family issues are a part of a larger issue of the grace and sovereignty of God.)

Jews and Gentiles do share alike in salvation. We are both a part of the blessings of God because he broke down the "middle wall of partition" and we now share in the "commonwealth of Israel." Of course my point is that this is not the cause of Grace, but rather it is the result of Grace. That is why Paul uses the word "therefore" (as your already noticed the word.) I think you are working backwards in Ephesians. It is not that the issue you are mentioning is not present at all in the text, but you see the term Grace in verse 8 as defined by the later part of the chapter, rather the the later part of the chapter being a discription of the grace mentioned in 2:8.

The concept in 2:8 of grace is not limited to the issues found in the later part of Chapter 2. The grace of Ephesians 2:8 is also found in the sovereignty of God in Chapter 1. The grace of Ephesians 2:8 is also found in the earler part of Chapter 2...... when the christian is taken from being "dead in sins and trespasses" and he is "made alive with Christ." That too is by Grace. This is why Paul uses the term even in 2:5. The concept of being made alive, while we were dead, is grace.

So then, the works of 2:8-9 are not limited merely to the Mosaic Law. It is much more. Works do not "make us alive." Works do not make us a part of the family of God. Works do not make us a part of the commonwealth of Israel. Works to not make us "elect from the foundations of the earth." Works do not make us "predestined to the adoption of sons."

The point being this... there is no back door where you can say that works can accomplish all that is mentioned in Ephesians. You cannot say, well, we make ourselves alive in Christ by works because verse 8 speaks only of the Mosaic Law. You cannot say we were chosen from the foundation of the earth by our own works because 2:8 only speaks of the Mosaic Law. You cannot say that predestination is something by our own works because 2:8 only speaks of the Mosaic Law.

2:8 is much more. It is the real theme that unites all parts of the book. Just go though Chapters 1 and 2 and notice the frequency of the word "grace." Pauls point in 2:8, is that Grace, is not works. Those two things cannot be combined. If there is any human works at all, then grace is not completely grace.

 

[mondar]

Again, a priori addition of "ONLY". Conducting an exegesis of this passage does not necessitate inserting "only", does it...?

We DO have a variety of verses that say that Christ's death was for the sake of redemption of all of mankind. Thus, to remain true to the analogy of the faith, the entire Scriptures, we cannot add words to passages and ignore others when conducting theology.

Regards

Francis, I understand what you are saying, but disagree. You are saying that the essence of any verses that mention a limited extent to the crosswork of Christ don't mean anything because some other verse says that the extent of the cross work of Christ is for the whole world.

I have often discussed these objections, and believe some of them were presented previously in this thread. No one has yet attempted to produce a counter exegesis to what I have presented.

The concept of a universal extent to the cross work of Christ is based upon a faulty understanding of works like "all" "world" and "whosoever."

FOLLOW THIS PLAY IN WORDS IF YOU CAN
Hey, even in english we misrepresent the term "all"..... and we do it "all" the time. (no we dont---it was just the use of a universal term in a limited context--- I don't spend 100% of my time every day in misrepresenting the term all--- I also sleep). I can excuse the misuse of the term "all" because the "whole world" does it. (actually they don't, in fact the whole world does not even speak english). Yet in any langauge they do it in their own language "all" the time. (well, even then it is not true, they actually use sentences without the word "all" in it.)
--------If you follow this play on words with the term "All" and "whole world" you can see that the terms do not assume a universal extent of all men without exception.

When you see words like "all" or "whole world" you assume a certain meaning. This meaning is not based upon the context, but is based upon a presupposition of your own. I would challenge you to provide one verse that demonstrates that the crosswork of Christ is for all men without exception. When you do, I will provide an exegesis of that passage which demonstrates how the author intended that word to be used in a limited sense and not of all men without exception.

 

[Proverbs3/5]

After reading the first few pages and not having the time to read 46 of them (who does?), I will offer my .02 (not sure it is even worth that much, but here goes
Jesus Christ died for all without exception. That fact has been proven by the Word of God (the first few pages of this thread have more than enough Scripture presented). The WHOLE of Scripture (and especially the four Gospels) testify to this fact. God did NOT create robots. He created humans with FREE WILL (Love does not exist without free will). Robots do not have free will. He gave Adam a choice, and he made the wrong one. We are children of Adam, and we inherited the sin nature, and ALL need a savior (the same ALL that Christ died for). I will offer this analogy: God put a free gift (his one and only son:Jesus) on the table (all of humanity). Only when we accept the gift and take it from the table (receive it by faith), do we have everlasting life. Someone can choose (free will) to not accept that gift and just leave it on the table (non believer). The fact remains that the gift is there for ALL, but sadly not all choose to accept it. Also, God knew (he is omniscient) before the foundation of the earth those that would, and those who would not take the gift from the table.

 

[Drew]

Drew, I do not agree with your understanding of Ephesians. Certainly the book of Ephesians mentions the Jew/Gentile division, and it is prominent in the later parts of Ephesians 2. But not in the sence you seem to be suggesting. The Jews and Gentiles are not merely and only equal in some "God's family." (please note that I am saying there is a family issue, but there is much more----- The family issues are a part of a larger issue of the grace and sovereignty of God.)

All true but I think it is quite clear that in the "therefore" paragraph that follows the famous "you are not saved by works" statement, the particular matter on Paul's mind is clearly the integration of Gentiles into God's true family.

And this is precisely the kind of account one would expect after an assertion of the form "a person is not saved by doing the works of the Law of Moses, something only the Jew can do.

And the content of the "therefore" statement in no way sustains this notion that Paul has just said "you are not saved by good works".

Jews and Gentiles do share alike in salvation. We are both a part of the blessings of God because he broke down the "middle wall of partition" and we now share in the "commonwealth of Israel." Of course my point is that this is not the cause of Grace, but rather it is the result of Grace.

All true, but none of this changes the fact that the "therefore" paragraph is precisely the kind of elaboration one would would expect from someone who has just asserted "you are not saved by doing the works of the Law of Moses".

And if you are suggesting that "salvation by grace" is inconsistent with an affirmation of final salvation by good works - which Pual affirms in Romans 2 and elsewhere - such a position has an Achilles heel. And it is this: to the extent that the Holy Spirit, given on the basis of grace alone, produces saving works, there is no incoherence in embracing both "salvation by grace" and "salvation by good works".

That is why Paul uses the word "therefore" (as your already noticed the word.) I think you are working backwards in Ephesians. It is not that the issue you are mentioning is not present at all in the text, but you see the term Grace in verse 8 as defined by the later part of the chapter, rather the the later part of the chapter being a discription of the grace mentioned in 2:8.

I see no force at all to this critique. The "therefore" text is what it is - a clear treatment of the integation of the Gentile into the family of God. And let's not pretend that this is not precisely the kind of thing a coherent writer would assert to qualify an assertion that one is not saved by doing the works of the Law of Moses.

I see nothing later in chapter 2 that subverts the force of my position. What, specifically do you see that is problematic for me?

JThe concept in 2:8 of grace is not limited to the issues found in the later part of Chapter 2. The grace of Ephesians 2:8 is also found in the sovereignty of God in Chapter 1. The grace of Ephesians 2:8 is also found in the earler part of Chapter 2...... when the christian is taken from being "dead in sins and trespasses" and he is "made alive with Christ." That too is by Grace.

True enough, but irrelevant. There is no incompatibility with embracing the notion of being "made alive in Christ" and also the agreeing with Paul in Romans 2 that one is ultimately saved by "persistence in doing good". I have already explained why above.

Hopefully, more later. I think that I will be successfully make the case that the widely held belief that "being saved through what Christ did on the cross" is incompatible with "final salvation by good works" is based on two errors:

1. A fundamentally question-begging assumption that "salvation" is a "one-time" event;

2. Screening out texts which clearly support final salvation by good deeds, such as Romans 2:6-7 and 2 Corinthians 5.

 

[mondar]

True enough, but irrelevant. There is no incompatibility with embracing the notion of being "made alive in Christ" and also the agreeing with Paul in Romans 2 that one is ultimately saved by "persistence in doing good". I have already explained why above.

Hopefully, more later. I think that I will be successfully make the case that the widely held belief that "being saved through what Christ did on the cross" is incompatible with "final salvation by good works" is based on two errors:

1. A fundamentally question-begging assumption that "salvation" is a "one-time" event;

2. Screening out texts which clearly support final salvation by good deeds, such as Romans 2:6-7 and 2 Corinthians 5.

Drew, let me ask you to do something here. Lets take the word "grace." Count and see how many times the word "Grace" appears before the "therefore" in verse 11, and then count how many times it occurs after the term "therefore" in verse 11.

Now ask yourself the question if the Grace/works statement in verse 8 is related more to the section of scripture before verse 11 or more to the section after verse 11. It is used 4 times in a chapter and 1/2.

Also notice the word "works" is used in verse 10. Now if you make verse 8 to be the works of the Mosaic Law, what about verse 10? If you be consistent, verse 10 is closer to the "therefore" then what verse 8 is. So then if you be consistent, you would have to say that we were created to do the "works of the Law of Moses in Christ" in verse 10.

There is no consistency to what you are saying. Yes, the issue of the Family of God, and the commonwealth of Israel is found in the later parts of Chapter 2, but that is no exegetical reason to make the word "works" in verse 8 refer to the Mosaic Law.

Just compare Ephesians with Galatians. In Galatians the issue is the Law of Moses. It is obvious and clear that the issue in Galatians is the Law. Paul uses the term "Law" in Galatians 2:16, 19, 21; 3:2, 5 and on and on.

Compare what Paul does in Galatians 2 and 3 where the issue is the law, with Ephesians. In Ephesians 2 there is only once that the term "law" is used. That is in 2:15. In that passage, the law is not discussed with reference to salvation or grace, but it is a simple statement that the law is nullified by the flesh of Jesus Christ during his crusifixion. The law in verse 15 is spoken of in relation to the destruction of the barrier or partition, and not with reference to Grace or salvation.

The idea of Galatians 2:8 is that we are saved by grace through faith and not any kind of works.

Then in 2:11 the idea is that "therefore" or because this is true, there is unity between Jew and Gentile.

You are still reading the passage backwards. That is the ony way you can insert the Mosaic Law into verse 8.

 

[Drew]

Drew, let me ask you to do something here. Lets take the word "grace." Count and see how many times the word "Grace" appears before the "therefore" in verse 11, and then count how many times it occurs after the term "therefore" in verse 11.

It doesn't matter how many times it appear. It perhaps would matter if "salvation by grace" were inconsistent with "salvation by good deeds". But Paul crafts a model of salvation that embraces both concepts.

Now ask yourself the question if the Grace/works statement in verse 8 is related more to the section of scripture before verse 11 or more to the section after verse 11.

Not the point. The fact that verse 11 begins with a "therefore" shows that what he is about to say constitutes an elaboration of the consequences of what he has just said. There should therefore be no doubt - the para beginning at verse 11 can and should be read as resolving any ambiguity in the verse 8 to 10 block.

Again, you must surely realize how repeatedly and persistently Paul focuses specifically on the Jew-Gentile distinction in his "therefore" paragraph. The case makes itself:

You are not saved by grace, not works.....therefore the Gentile is now in the family of God, along with the Jew....

To the open-minded exegete - who is willing to consider both the following possibilities:

1. "works" means good works;

2. "works" means the works of the Law of Moses

....the answer is clear - option 2 fits much better with the actual content of the "therefore" paragraph.

Also notice the word "works" is used in verse 10. Now if you make verse 8 to be the works of the Mosaic Law, what about verse 10? If you be consistent, verse 10 is closer to the "therefore" then what verse 8 is. So then if you be consistent, you would have to say that we were created to do the "works of the Law of Moses in Christ" in verse 10.

I am not forced to do any such thing to be consistent. I agree that the "works" in verse 10 are indeed "good works" with no Jew-Gentile distinction. But the actual content of the "therefore" paragraph show is precisely the kind of elaboration that one would put forward if one has just something along the lines of "salvation is not for the Jew only". And the statement "you are not saved by works" is precisely such a statement, if we are willing to read "works" as "works of the Law of Moses", an entirely legitimate reading. And more to the point, one that is no less a possibility than reading "works" as "good works".

You have to deny the obvious to salvage your position - the very content of the 'therefore' paragraph clearly elaborates on some kind of statement denying Jewish privelege over the Gentle. And this is exactly what a statement of the form "you are not saved by the works of the Law of Moses" would assert. So the fact that the "good works" statement is "closer" to the "therefore' paragraph is not the point - what is the point is how beautifully well the content of the 'therefore' paragraph follows from a putative claim that salvation is not for Jews only. And that is why we should read "works" in verse 9 as the works of the Law of Moses.

There is no sense at all in which a treatment about how Gentiles have brought into the family of God functions to elaborate on the statement that we are all - both Jew and Gentile - created to do good works (verse 10). On the other hand, this treatment is precisely the kind of thing that would modify an assertion that one is not saved by doing the "Jew-only" works of the Law of Moses.

You are trying to leverage an overly simplistic assumption that "the last works referred to before the 'therefore' is what must be thing that is qualified in the 'therefore' paragraph. This is simply not so - the logic of the text "trumps" any consideration of "proximity".

There is no consistency to what you are saying. Yes, the issue of the Family of God, and the commonwealth of Israel is found in the later parts of Chapter 2, but that is no exegetical reason to make the word "works" in verse 8 refer to the Mosaic Law.

I am being perfectly consistent. Your view simply cannot accomodate what is clear - the 'therefore' paragraph is about as perfect an elaboration one could expect if Paul has just denied that salvation is for Jews only.

And what is the characteristic of the Jew? They, and not the Gentile, do the works, yes, of the Law of Moses.

 

[francisdesales]

The question is not "can" God limit his sovereignty, but "did" he limit his sovereignty in salvation. Of course the overwhelming weight of scripture demonstrates that God did choose man

You are confusing sovereignty with freedom. One can freely give to another and remain sovereign. Limiting oneself does not imply giving away one's sovereignty.

God chose MANKIND. There is no "overwhelming weight of Scriptures" that God chose any individual without that man's inevitable free will "yes, Lord, let it be done to me as you say". Even Jonah was not dragged to the Ninevites. Just because God WOULD choose an individual doesn't mean that He ALSO does NOT await on that man's response.

and man's choice was totally 2ndary.

The very fact that it exists defeats your presumption. It is no longer "alone", no longer God doing everything.

Man only chooses God because he is chosen by God to chose him.

You JUST GOT DONE writing that man's choice, albeit secondary, exists... Now, there is no choice, just a passive echo... I am not asking you where the primary locus of this decision comes from, what is the catalyst, Who is behind the mysterious musings in the man's heart that has the man seeking God. I am asking "WHO IS SEEKING GOD"? God is pleased with those who seek out God, correct? God leads men to seek, but who is seeking in this passage? Now, I presume God is not dealing in sophistry when He inspires the Sacred writers to write that to the Hebrews.

I of course do not see that God gave up his sovereignty over any aspect of salvation, including election.

Well, neither do I - as my first sentence states! And why would God NEED to give up anything???

My "story" does not mean that the mother gave up any sovereignty, either. Does the child now think she is in charge and can do whatever she wants? Has the mother lost her sovereignty by asking her daughter "so, would you like to stir the batter or put the dough on the pan"???

I fear you see "sovereignty" as "lording it over others", rather than an act of service, as our Lord and Savior amply demonstrated to readers of the Gospels... Thus, if God was to "give up" anything to man, God has given up Power. He is reduced and man is increased.

Apparently, God must keep humans in their place and make sures that everyone sees the shiny crown. The Magnanimous One doesn't need to do such things. That is how ancient kings of old acted, and exactly what the Bible refers to when it speaks of a "kingly people" set apart for works of humble service. It is only the one who doubts their power or must feed their ego that must resort to such "lording".

Your second sentence does not properly represent what I said. You seem to have missed that I mentioned to Drew that there is "human responsibility." Possibly you misunderstand my statement that human responsibility is due to the decree of God.

Human responsibility is just that. Human responsibility. Not God's responsibility. A command is ONLY given to those who can fulfill it, EVEN IF the Commanding One gives ALL of the tools to execute that command. It remains that person's responsibility. A responsibility to utilize what has been given.

Recall the parable of the talents. All were given a gift they could not possibly conjure for themselves. The master did not give up his sovereignty! And when he returns, he rightfully expects "interest" on what he has given. Our "interest" is the good works that we freely choose to do after being moved by God's Spirit. We "bury" those talents when we freely refuse to serve or love.

Regards

 

[Drew]

I want to re-emphasize the fundamental logic of Ephesians 2:

1. In verse 11, we have a "therefore" statement which is followed by a lengthy treatment of how the Gentile has now been incorporated into the family of God together with Jew. This theme is repeated over and over again. There is no doubt - Paul, in the "therefore" para clearly believes he has just asserted something that would lead to the conclusions that Gentiles are now full members of God's family. He is not talking about "good works" in this "therefore" para - he is talking about the ingathering of the Gentiles.

2. Given this, we should, of course, look at what he has just said and see if any part of it can be read as some kind of statement subverting any notion of Jewish privilege over the Gentile - only such a statement would logically precede an extended 'therefore' treatment about how Gentiles are on the same footing.

3. It is easy to find such a statment and it is this "You are not saved by doing the works of the Law of Moses....." This is an entirely legitimate way of reading "works" in verse 9. Remember - Paul does not use the phrase "good works" in verse 9, he uses the phrase 'works' (unqualified).

 

[francisdesales]

Francis, I understand what you are saying, but disagree. You are saying that the essence of any verses that mention a limited extent to the crosswork of Christ don't mean anything because some other verse says that the extent of the cross work of Christ is for the whole world.

In essence, I am saying that you have not given ample proof that we must ADD the word "alone" to any of your passages. We read the Scriptures and begin basing theology upon what we read, not beginning with a theology and adding words to make it fit better.

I have often discussed these objections, and believe some of them were presented previously in this thread. No one has yet attempted to produce a counter exegesis to what I have presented.

You are responding to one example of many of those attempts. Why did you add alone in any of those verses?

The concept of a universal extent to the cross work of Christ is based upon a faulty understanding of works like "all" "world" and "whosoever."

That is your opinion - one that disagrees with Paul (unless you think that the sin of Adam only effected PART of the human race...)

FOLLOW THIS PLAY IN WORDS IF YOU CAN

The context does not demand "alone", but you feel free to add it, so please don't give lectures. In the case where we are uncertain of whether "all" is universal, we go elsewhere. Now, where do you find support for Christ's work on the cross being limited to only some randomly selected humans strictly from the text?

Regards

 

[mondar]

You are confusing sovereignty with freedom. One can freely give to another and remain sovereign. Limiting oneself does not imply giving away one's sovereignty.

God chose MANKIND. There is no "overwhelming weight of Scriptures" that God chose any individual without that man's inevitable free will "yes, Lord, let it be done to me as you say". Even Jonah was not dragged to the Ninevites. Just because God WOULD choose an individual doesn't mean that He ALSO does NOT await on that man's response.



The very fact that it exists defeats your presumption. It is no longer "alone", no longer God doing everything.



You JUST GOT DONE writing that man's choice, albeit secondary, exists... Now, there is no choice, just a passive echo... I am not asking you where the primary locus of this decision comes from, what is the catalyst, Who is behind the mysterious musings in the man's heart that has the man seeking God. I am asking "WHO IS SEEKING GOD"? God is pleased with those who seek out God, correct? God leads men to seek, but who is seeking in this passage? Now, I presume God is not dealing in sophistry when He inspires the Sacred writers to write that to the Hebrews.



Well, neither do I - as my first sentence states! And why would God NEED to give up anything???

My "story" does not mean that the mother gave up any sovereignty, either. Does the child now think she is in charge and can do whatever she wants? Has the mother lost her sovereignty by asking her daughter "so, would you like to stir the batter or put the dough on the pan"???

I fear you see "sovereignty" as "lording it over others", rather than an act of service, as our Lord and Savior amply demonstrated to readers of the Gospels... Thus, if God was to "give up" anything to man, God has given up Power. He is reduced and man is increased.

Apparently, God must keep humans in their place and make sures that everyone sees the shiny crown. The Magnanimous One doesn't need to do such things. That is how ancient kings of old acted, and exactly what the Bible refers to when it speaks of a "kingly people" set apart for works of humble service. It is only the one who doubts their power or must feed their ego that must resort to such "lording".



Human responsibility is just that. Human responsibility. Not God's responsibility. A command is ONLY given to those who can fulfill it, EVEN IF the Commanding One gives ALL of the tools to execute that command. It remains that person's responsibility. A responsibility to utilize what has been given.

Recall the parable of the talents. All were given a gift they could not possibly conjure for themselves. The master did not give up his sovereignty! And when he returns, he rightfully expects "interest" on what he has given. Our "interest" is the good works that we freely choose to do after being moved by God's Spirit. We "bury" those talents when we freely refuse to serve or love.

Regards

Francis, at this point we are way off base on my original comment to Drew that you responded to. Because of this, we are now on your agenda and not the original issue. But it is not a problem, I can go with the flow and go where ever you lead.

First, I am not confusing sovereignty with freedom. If God is sovereign, we are not free. If we are free, then God is not sovereign where we are free. There are no shades of grey, but only back and white.

In your illustration of a mother and daughter... sure, you can say the daughter contributed, but the whole illustration is not related to scripture properly. Faith is not partly the work of God and partly the work of man, it is wholly the work of God in one way, and wholy the work of man in a way. God is the one who creates the new nature in man by "regeneration." Man has no part in this. Man, being dead, has no desire for anything but to rebel and reject God. Man has no part in regeneration other then to passively to receive it. Man cannot regenerate himself. After this new nature, faith is the work of man. Of course even then, man cannot claim that he did anything great, it was totally the work of God in man that cause faith. Nevertheless, the faith is mans.

If you wish a text, let me know. I can defend all this scripturally.

Nevertheless, in this way, God chooses man. God regenerates those he has chosen. He does not put the new nature in all men without exception, but only those elected from the foundation of the earth. This is what I meant by God's choice being primary, or first. When Man chooses God, or has faith in God, it is completely secondary because man already has the new nature placed in him. Mans faith is then only the irresistible and natural response to God's work in regeneration.

So then, man is not free. We are bound by nature to rebel because of our sin nature. We are "in Adam." If we are free, we are free only to sin and rebel against God. God chooses to regenerate some, and then we irresistibly come running to God. We do this freely because it is our nature to trust the promises of the Almighty.

Is there human responsibility (not the kind I was speaking of with Drew) in salvation? Certainly. We are all responsible for our rebellion. But God is responsible for our salvation, he changed our nature, and we merely responded with faith (1 John 5:1). We are responsible to have faith, but without the drawing of God, no man can come to Christ (John 6:44).

By the way, when I spoke to Drew, we were speaking of human responsibility in evangelism with reference to the sovereignty of God. This of course would pertain only to someone who is already a Christian. Drew's question related to the question of God's sovereignty and human responsibility in evangelism. I think you never grasped what was originally being said.

 

[mondar]

In essence, I am saying that you have not given ample proof that we must ADD the word "alone" to any of your passages. We read the Scriptures and begin basing theology upon what we read, not beginning with a theology and adding words to make it fit better.

There is no need to add any words. If we have a bucket of 10 red balls. If you get all the balls out of the bucket and they are all red, then there are red balls "alone" in that bucket.

Francis, I have seen that argument before. It holds no water. It is based upon a false assumption that certain words must occur in the passage for something to be true. I have seen RCC people do the same thing in the sola fide issue. The argument holds not water. The world "alone" does not have to occur in the passage. If the scriptures speak of Christ dieing for the sheep, his friends, the elect, the Church, there is no reason to understand it as also meaning the whole world. The burden of proof is upon you to show that Christ died for more then just the sheep.

Now you think there are texts using the term "world" or "all" or "whosoever" that demonstrate that Christ died for all men without exception. I can tell you where those texts are if you need some help, but that would be a little weird. Why should I have to help you find your tets? Nevertheless, the common texts are 1 Tim 2:4; 2 Peter 3:9; 1 John 2:2; John 12:32; and a few others... There are a few other minor ones in Hebrew 2 and Ezekiel, but I have been to all of them already. Where would you like to go?

You are responding to one example of many of those attempts. Why did you add alone in any of those verses?



That is your opinion - one that disagrees with Paul (unless you think that the sin of Adam only effected PART of the human race...)

Your comment here was based on the fact that the word "All" "whole" and "world" does not always mean every man without exception. Actually, the meaning and nuance of each word must be based upon the context.

Its not merely my opinion, but the opinion of any and every grammarian. I am sure that Paul would agree with my understanding of language.

And of course the sin of Adam effects the entire human race, but not eternally. We are all under death, and thus we are all in adam, but we will not all die eternally because some of us have life in Christ.

The context does not demand "alone", but you feel free to add it, so please don't give lectures. In the case where we are uncertain of whether "all" is universal, we go elsewhere. Now, where do you find support for Christ's work on the cross being limited to only some randomly selected humans strictly from the text?

Regards

When the scriptures has no text that states that Christ died for the whole world, then yes, the world alone can be understood to be a part of the passage. If a bucket has 10 red balls, and no balls of any other color.... then it has red balls alone. If the scriptures has 10 passages that speak of the extent of the atonement, and all of them speak of the sheep, the elect, his friends, the Church, many, then Christ's cross work is limited to each of those groups and no more. Again, if you say otherwise, the burden of proof is upon you. I do not have to show the word "alone" in any context, you merely have to show universal application of the cross work of Christ in any context to disprove what I am saying. I dont see you offering any proof, all you are doing is mentioning that the word "alone' does not occur.

 

[mondar]

I want to re-emphasize the fundamental logic of Ephesians 2:

1. In verse 11, we have a "therefore" statement which is followed by a lengthy treatment of how the Gentile has now been incorporated into the family of God together with Jew. This theme is repeated over and over again. There is no doubt - Paul, in the "therefore" para clearly believes he has just asserted something that would lead to the conclusions that Gentiles are now full members of God's family. He is not talking about "good works" in this "therefore" para - he is talking about the ingathering of the Gentiles.

2. Given this, we should, of course, look at what he has just said and see if any part of it can be read as some kind of statement subverting any notion of Jewish privilege over the Gentile - only such a statement would logically precede an extended 'therefore' treatment about how Gentiles are on the same footing.

3. It is easy to find such a statment and it is this "You are not saved by doing the works of the Law of Moses....." This is an entirely legitimate way of reading "works" in verse 9. Remember - Paul does not use the phrase "good works" in verse 9, he uses the phrase 'works' (unqualified).

Drew, did you even bother to contrast the way Paul actually speaks of the works of the law in Galatians with the way he does not use the term law in Ephesians. I am not talking about the mere counting of the term (even though I did say something like that).

Galatians 2:15 “We who are Jews by birth and not sinful Gentiles 16 know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ."
**** Paul is clear that he is speaking of the works of the Mosiac Law. He states the issue directly.

Galatians 2:16 "So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified."
**** The Pauline phrase is "works of the law."

Galatians 2:21 "I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!â€
**** Notice here the way Paul adresses the issue of the law... now the word "works" is not present in this text, but that is an important point. Paul never uses the term "works" without the term "Law" in Galatians. Also, notice when Paul wants to express that Grace (The term is used in this verse) is not of the works of the law, he does not use the term "works," but he uses the term "law."

Of course the term "works of the law" is used in Chapter 3 of Galatians.

Now lets compare the vocabulary style of the author of Ephesians.
Do you know who many times Paul speaks of the "works of the law?" hint-----> 0

Even when Paul uses the term "Law" it is in a local context in Eph 2:15 which is in a context that is not about its relationship to Grace. It is merely a comment that the law was set aside. It is related only to the breaking down of the middle wall of partition.

Certainly Ephesians 2 is about the family of God, the commonwealth of Israel, but even in those passages in Ephesians 2 that talk about those things, those passages are not about the "works of the law." In fact, in Ephesians is not about the "works of the law" anywhere from Chapter 1-6.

The issue, and the danger of the Jews teaching that the Gentiles must keep the law is in Galatians. The vocabulary substantiates that assertion. That same issue is not the issue of Ephesians. That can easily be seen by comparing the material in ephesians with the material in Galatians.

Drew, read Galatians 2-3 and then read Ephesians 1 and 2. After you read them, can you honestly tell me that the topical content of those chapters is the same?

So then, since the "works of the law" is not an issue anywhere in Ephesians, then Paul is not talking about it in 2:8. Also, this does not mean I am denying that Paul is talking about the Family of God, or the commonwealth of Israel.

Drew, LOL, your a very persistent person. I admire your persistence.. But I think what you are doing is you are seeing concepts like "commonwealth of Israel" and then jumping to "Mosaic Covenant" and then jumping to "Works of the Law." In 2:15 Paul is not even talking about the "works of the Law." By no means is the idea in 2:15 even related to the "works of the Law." Remember, the "works of the Law" was never a concept that was related to the actual "Mosaic Covenant" and the national Law of Israel. Verse 15 is not about the "works of the Law, but about discontinuance of the Mosaic Covenant as a cermonial and ethical regulation. That law was discontinued in the death of Christ. When Paul uses the phrase "works of the Law" in Galatians, he is not talking about the Mosaic Law, but a wrong Pharisaical view of the Law. Moses never intended that view to happen for the Law. So then, when Galatians uses the term "works of the Law" it is referring to a wrong reading of Moses. When Ephesians speaks of the Law in 2:15 it is speaking of the true ordinances and laws that Moses gave and a correct use of them. Even the correct use of the Law was done away with in the flesh of Christ when he was on the cross.

The concepts of the Mosiac Law, and the works of the Law are not the same thing. You are jumping from concept to concept until you get to making 2:8 not to be simply works... any works.... all works.... but only the works of the Law.

 

[francisdesales]

First, I am not confusing sovereignty with freedom. If God is sovereign, we are not free. If we are free, then God is not sovereign where we are free. There are no shades of grey, but only back and white.

You are still pitting sovereignty against free will. What I said totally went over your head. God can sovereignly grant freedom to man while maintaining that sovereignty. One does not need to cancel out the other.

In your illustration of a mother and daughter... sure, you can say the daughter contributed, but the whole illustration is not related to scripture properly. Faith is not partly the work of God and partly the work of man, it is wholly the work of God in one way, and wholy the work of man in a way. God is the one who creates the new nature in man by "regeneration." Man has no part in this. Man, being dead, has no desire for anything but to rebel and reject God. Man has no part in regeneration other then to passively to receive it. Man cannot regenerate himself. After this new nature, faith is the work of man. Of course even then, man cannot claim that he did anything great, it was totally the work of God in man that cause faith. Nevertheless, the faith is mans.

I guess I am speaking large scale, while you have chosen to divide the work of God into veritable dispensations that vary. Whether it is bringing us to original faith or to regeneration or to sanctification, I don't see the distinction - we are all works of God, nonetheless, no matter what stage we are in our walk. And at each phase, we interact at some level.

And to say that my story is not Scripturally related because of... is again begging the question, presuming that God does "x" without man's response.

We are responsible to have faith, but without the drawing of God, no man can come to Christ (John 6:44).

I am CERTAIN that I have never said anything contrary to that. Who do you think you are preaching to? Shall I call you a Pelagian, now, because I like to type that word?

By the way, when I spoke to Drew, we were speaking of human responsibility in evangelism with reference to the sovereignty of God. This of course would pertain only to someone who is already a Christian. Drew's question related to the question of God's sovereignty and human responsibility in evangelism. I think you never grasped what was originally being said.

Evangelism doesn't pertain only to someone who is Christian. I understand what is being said, but so as not to confuse you with two different directions, I'll let Drew continue without another topic going on here, since he started first. You don't need to respond to this post.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

There is no need to add any words. If we have a bucket of 10 red balls. If you get all the balls out of the bucket and they are all red, then there are red balls "alone" in that bucket.

That is a very poor example. You have given a set of KNOWN attributes to the contents of the bucket. Your citations of Scriptures do not possess such naming of any limitations in any way. You are still dodging the assertion that you are approaching the Scriptures with preconceived notions, rather than taking the Scriptures and recognizing other optional readings. You cannot even recognize that there are alternative readings of these passages???

Francis, I have seen that argument before. It holds no water. It is based upon a false assumption that certain words must occur in the passage for something to be true.

Mondar, I am not making that argument! No, I am not saying that "Trinity" must be in the Bible. I am saying that the NOTION of LIMITATION must be within the context. It doesn't require the exact word. There is no sense that one must read "alone" in any of those citations you make. I am not just speaking of the word "alone", but the sense, a synonym, a clause that can be taken to mean "only these".

Proper exegesis would demand such a contextual phrase or word. Otherwise, the interpretation is OPEN. It can mean EITHER or more. Thus, we must go elsewhere, and your "proof texts" are of little value in ascertaining theology. They are only of use to one who approaches the Scriptures with their minds made up.

I have seen RCC people do the same thing in the sola fide issue. The argument holds not water.

You are again mistaken. The same exact argument can be applied to this subject - we have other Scriptures that demolish the idea, in this case, since we have alternative ways of authoritatively learning the faith, rather than just the Scriptura. Verses such as Eph 4:12-13 or 2 Thess 2:15 directly contradict the idea. Verses brought to the fray to defend "sola scriptura" can be taken to mean other things - but they CERTAINLY do not mean that "all we are to know and believe is found in the Bible". There is just no verse that states that, either literally or by summarization or by conjecture.

The world "alone" does not have to occur in the passage. If the scriptures speak of Christ dieing for the sheep, his friends, the elect, the Church, there is no reason to understand it as also meaning the whole world. The burden of proof is upon you to show that Christ died for more then just the sheep.

No, I think it is up to you to show that the Church's understanding of what the Church wrote is incorrect. The same author wrote that Jesus died for the sin of the world. We have an actual word, "the world", vs. you lack of any concept of limitation in yours. I think it is up to you to show that the concept "alone" belongs in your verses, since the Scripture verses do not state that idea.

Your comment here was based on the fact that the word "All" "whole" and "world" does not always mean every man without exception. Actually, the meaning and nuance of each word must be based upon the context.

Its not merely my opinion, but the opinion of any and every grammarian. I am sure that Paul would agree with my understanding of language.

It sounds like you are echoing back what I said to you last post. So why don't you take that advice to heart? I already have told you that, why do you feel the need to repeat it back to me?

And of course the sin of Adam effects the entire human race, but not eternally. We are all under death, and thus we are all in adam, but we will not all die eternally because some of us have life in Christ.

Jesus didn't suffer the punishment of eternal death, so this is a moot point that Paul doesn't even address. Paul uses an "If x, then so y is even greater". It would be foolish to say that Adam's sin, universally applied (reserving the right to maintain unique exceptions), is of a greater spectrum and implication than the sacrifice of Jesus. Paul notes that grace is more powerful - except in this case??? He has defeated his own argument, by your interpretation of the limited action on the cross. Adam's act surpasses Christ's work, according to you!!!

When the scriptures has no text that states that Christ died for the whole world, then yes, the world alone can be understood to be a part of the passage. If a bucket has 10 red balls, and no balls of any other color.... then it has red balls alone. If the scriptures has 10 passages that speak of the extent of the atonement, and all of them speak of the sheep, the elect, his friends, the Church, many, then Christ's cross work is limited to each of those groups and no more.

Unfortunately for you, the "bucket" contains something other than "sacrifice only for the elect". The "white balls" are clearly there, when it says "sin of the world".

Again, if you say otherwise, the burden of proof is upon you. I do not have to show the word "alone" in any context,

You don't have to do anything, Mondar. But this argument isn't going to convince anyone that the burden is upon me. First, you speak about exegesis, praise its value, pretend to give me a lecture, then you tell me you aren't required to show a concept in context??? You aren't required to provide exegesis... ?

Are you related to B.O.?

I have again and again cited my argument based on Romans 5 (which is not all-inclusive), but you ignore it and move on to other arguments.

The verses you cite are open to interpretation, none of them requiring a limit on the work of Christ. Thus, you are going to have to show why Adam's universal work is inferior to Christ's limited work on the cross. Adam represents all of mankind and Jesus is the representative of ALL of mankind as the Second Adam. Otherwise, how can one call Jesus the Second Adam if His representation is not universal?

If so, He should have been called the Second Abraham as the New Father of the Promised People. Paul chose Adam for a reason, Mondar. Adam means "man" - mankind. Adam is refered to as a universal sign in Scriptures, from which the sin of ALL men stem. It is sophistry to ignore those implications while calling Jesus the Second Adam...

Paul also notes this when He calls Jesus the Mediator between God and man. Again, a universal position. The context clearly does not allow "man" to mean a select few, since Paul speaks of even praying for pagan rulers, governors, etc. If we intercede for people OUTSIDE of the Church, it follows that Christ does the same thing in His intercessionary work at the right hand of the Father.

ALL MEN.

Regards

 

[Scotth1960]

There is no need to add any words. If we have a bucket of 10 red balls. If you get all the balls out of the bucket and they are all red, then there are red balls "alone" in that bucket.

Francis, I have seen that argument before. It holds no water. It is based upon a false assumption that certain words must occur in the passage for something to be true. I have seen RCC people do the same thing in the sola fide issue. The argument holds not water. The world "alone" does not have to occur in the passage. If the scriptures speak of Christ dieing for the sheep, his friends, the elect, the Church, there is no reason to understand it as also meaning the whole world. The burden of proof is upon you to show that Christ died for more then just the sheep.

Now you think there are texts using the term "world" or "all" or "whosoever" that demonstrate that Christ died for all men without exception. I can tell you where those texts are if you need some help, but that would be a little weird. Why should I have to help you find your tets? Nevertheless, the common texts are 1 Tim 2:4; 2 Peter 3:9; 1 John 2:2; John 12:32; and a few others... There are a few other minor ones in Hebrew 2 and Ezekiel, but I have been to all of them already. Where would you like to go?



Your comment here was based on the fact that the word "All" "whole" and "world" does not always mean every man without exception. Actually, the meaning and nuance of each word must be based upon the context.

Its not merely my opinion, but the opinion of any and every grammarian. I am sure that Paul would agree with my understanding of language.

And of course the sin of Adam effects the entire human race, but not eternally. We are all under death, and thus we are all in adam, but we will not all die eternally because some of us have life in Christ.





When the scriptures has no text that states that Christ died for the whole world, then yes, the world alone can be understood to be a part of the passage. If a bucket has 10 red balls, and no balls of any other color.... then it has red balls alone. If the scriptures has 10 passages that speak of the extent of the atonement, and all of them speak of the sheep, the elect, his friends, the Church, many, then Christ's cross work is limited to each of those groups and no more. Again, if you say otherwise, the burden of proof is upon you. I do not have to show the word "alone" in any context, you merely have to show universal application of the cross work of Christ in any context to disprove what I am saying. I dont see you offering any proof, all you are doing is mentioning that the word "alone' does not occur.

Dear mondar, How can any Calvinist ignore something that is written in the NT?
The NT (New Testament) says in I John 2:2 ONT (Orthodox New Testament): "And He Himself is the expiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the whole world." FOR THE WHOLE WORLD, mondar, not just for the sheep and for the elect. What could be clearer from 1 John 2:2 that the atonement is unlimited atonement, and thus the "L" point of the Calvinist "T-U-L-I-P", and as someone has said, if any one point of the 5 points of Calvinism can be shown to be false, all five points of Calvinism collapse and the whole TULIP is shown to be false. In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington

 

[mondar]

Dear mondar, How can any Calvinist ignore something that is written in the NT?
The NT (New Testament) says in I John 2:2 ONT (Orthodox New Testament): "And He Himself is the expiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the whole world." FOR THE WHOLE WORLD, mondar, not just for the sheep and for the elect. What could be clearer from 1 John 2:2 that the atonement is unlimited atonement, and thus the "L" point of the Calvinist "T-U-L-I-P", and as someone has said, if any one point of the 5 points of Calvinism can be shown to be false, all five points of Calvinism collapse and the whole TULIP is shown to be false. In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington

I will let this serve as a reply to both Scotth1960 and Francisdesales. They are both expressing the same identical opinion. Since Francis is not using scripture and Scotth is using scripture, I am choosing this post. The text chosen is 1 John 2:2.

Let me first quote the verse in several translations.

NIV-----2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.
ASV----2 and he is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the whole world.
KJV---- 2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

And for any students of the NT Greek:
WH-----2 και αυτος ιλασμος εστιν περι των αμαρτιων ημων ου περι των ημετερων δε μονον αλλα και περι ολου του κοσμου

The key of course is the term ιλασμος. The usual translation is a propitiation. Of course propitiation is a $20 word itself. A propitiation is of course the "gift that turns away wrath."

The term propitiation is also used in Romans 3.
25 whom God set forth to be a propitiation, through faith, in his blood, to show his righteousness because of the passing over of the sins done aforetime, in the forbearance of God;

PROPITIATION
I don't see how the propitiation of Christs blood fails to turn away wrath. The usual assumption is "but you have to believe." That would be correct, but the fact still stands that there is in fact no propitiation for those who do not believe. At this point, one could say that there are two kinds of propitiations, an actual one for those who believe, and a kind of theoretical possibility of propitiation for unbelievers. While there is some truth to this in the fact that the value of Christs blood is infinite and could possibly cover all men that ever lived and far more. His blood is of infinite worth. But his blood in now way turns away wrath for unbelievers and 1 John does not speak of 2 different kinds of propitiation (and actual one for believers and a theoretical one for unbelievers). 1 John only speaks of an actual propitiation. After the propitation of 1 John 2:2, there is simply no wrath.

OUR SINS, AND THE SINS OF THE WORLD
John speaks of two groups that will never experience the wrath of God because their sins are propitiated.
1--- First is "our sins." In this, John speaks of himself and the readers who are Christians. We will not suffer the wrath of God because Christs blood stands between us and God's wrath.
2--- The sins of the "whole world." Here is question must be raised does the term "whole world" always speak of all men without exception. The answer of course is no. Assumptions are made by Catholics and Arminians that the term has to mean "all men without exception." In Luke, a decree went out that all the world should be taxed. Yet that is not true, the whole world was not taxed. How much taxes did the Mongolians pay to Rome? How much did the Yucatans pay? We use the term "world" to speak of simly a large group of people. We might say that On december 25th the whole world celebrates Christmas. ***But no they dont. Jehovah Witnesses do not, Muslims and Jews do not. I have read poetry of "the whole world sleeps in silence" *** Actually that is a lie if you take the phrase to mean all men without exception. On the other side of the world, people are awake. The point here is that the term "world" does not always mean "all men without exception.

In fact right in the context, we see yet another meaning for the term "world"
15 Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.
* Did Christ die for this same world and tell us not to love that world? of course not, the term in this verse is speaking of an evil cosmos.

If one takes the term "world" to mean all men without exception, the we have a doctrine common called "universalism."

In conclusion, there are only two possibilities. Either the unversalists are correct and Christ blood propitiates the wrath of God away from all men without exception, or Calvinists are correct, and Christ shed blood does not propitiate the wrath of God away from unbelievers. There is no middle ground that can be exegetically substantiated in 1 John 2:2. If there is, please provide an exegetical rebuttal.

The common exegetical rebuttal that is attempted is that there are two kinds of propitiations... an active one for those of faith, and a theoretical possibility for the rest of the world. I see no such distinction in the text. Either there is only a possibility of salvation by the blood, or it is actual. As for me, I beleive God saved me to the uttermost.

 

[Drew]

You also accurately represent that God can decree the means. Fred will be saved when the messenger is sent. You question seems related to means. If God decreed that Fred will be saved, and then decreed that a certain preacher will witness to Fred, then why the command to preach to the all men everywhere.

This is not quite my point. My point was about the incoherence of instructing Fred to tell the gospel to Joe in a world where Fred is pre-destined to tell Joe the gospel. Why instruct human beings to do something that is otherwise guaranteed to occur? Such an instruction is entirely superfluous and that should indeed raise alarm bells. It is no more necessary for God to instruct Fred to preach the gospel to Joe, in a circumstance where Fred is otherwise pre-destined to do this, than it is necessary for God to "instruct" a rock to fall down a mountainside in a world governed by physical law.

This seems very suspicious and should cause us to question the coherence of holding both the following positions:

1. People are pre-destined to an eternal destiny;
2. We are instructed to preach the gospel.

Of course the answer is again in the decree of God, God decreed human responsibility. So then, you have the sovereignty of God correct in the illustration, but your question assumes that God did not decree human responsibility. In fact your question does not seem to allow for God to decree human responsibility. This of course is in opposition to Romans 10. How can they hear without a preacher.

You are not understanding my point. I fully understand that, in the world that God has made, human beings are the means for communicating the gospel. I have no problem with this. The point is the superfluousness of instructing a human being to perform an act that is otherwise pre-destined to occur.

In other words, we do not preach the gospel to all men because we do not "we do not know who the elect are" but because we have been commanded to preach the gospel to all men. It is an issue of human responsibility.

Fair enough, but this statement misses the point of my argument. My argument has everything to do with the superfluousness of instructing an agent to do something when it has otherwise been pre-destined to happen.

Let's say I program a computer to turn on the lights of the buiding at 5 PM. It is entirely un-necessary for me to then provide a second "instruction" to the computer to turn on the lights at 5 PM - the act of turning on the lights has already been guaranteed to happen.

This is the problem you face - why does God issue entirely superfluous instructions? I suspect you will say that I need to remember human responsibility. Well, by the force of my argument, and by your assumption that all are pre-destined to an eternal destiny, that "responsibility" is effectively a charade - Fred has no degree of freedom to "take responsibility" for telling the gospel since, on your view, he has been pre-destined to do so.

So I politely suggest you have another problem - you deploy the notion of human responsibility in a framework (i.e. the one you appear to embrace) where that notion is entirely devoid of content. The concept of "responsibility" implicitly entails the belief that any agent who exercises responsibility has freedom of action. But if those actions are pre-destined, there simply is no such freedom.

I would also raise the same question you presented me to non-Calvinists. Is God free to save whomever he wants? Or does he need a preacher to save Fred? Of course if God needs the preacher because of mans free will, then how is God really sovereign?

I believe the Biblical answer is, no, God is not free to save whomever he wants. God made certain commitment in creating His world and one of them was "abdication" of 100 % sovereignty.