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

[Proverbs3/5]

1. People are pre-destined to an eternal destiny;

This is a very easy concept to understand if one believes that God is omniscient. ALL humans are predestined to an eternal destiny, some to wrath and some to Glory. God predestined ALL humans according to His Foreknowledge before the foundation of the earth. God did NOT say to one "I choose you for wrath", and the other "I choose you for Heaven". But, God knew what path each and every person he created would take. Therefore, God based on Foreknowledge, destined those to wrath those that WOULD not believe in his son Jesus, and He destined those that believe to Glory. It is not that they COULD not believe, but that they WOULD not.

 

[Mike]

To anyone who has read my understanding of this in various threads, this will come as a surprise. Do you ever read something of the 1000th time in scripture, and it sticks out differently than it ever has? Most of us would say yes.

Yesterday, I was composing a thread on Jesus overcoming the world, and I cited John 17 among other verses.

*sigh*

John 17
1 After Jesus said this, he looked toward heaven and prayed: “Father, the hour has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you. 2 For you granted him authority over all people that he might give eternal life to all those you have given him. 3 Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. 4 I have brought you glory on earth by finishing the work you gave me to do. 5 And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began."

I've heard all the arguments for predestination, and I've always opposed them. I have to say, though, that these words have hung in my heart with me since I created that thread. They're still hanging there, and I'm praying through this.

"all those that you gave Him"

*sigh*

 

[mondar]

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.

I cut some of your comments because of repetition. I think the paragraph above is a part of the essence of what you are saying. By the way, I don't see the illustration of the computer as a good one. Let me change it to a Lion.

The Lion is pre-programmed by nature to kill. Lions kill people. Such a think is evil, and therefore Loins are predestined to evil. Nevertheless, humans will hold them responsible for their evil and kill them, or chase them off if they come to close to human habitat.
* In other words, the nature of a creature, or its "pre-programming, has nothing to do with its responsibility. The Lion may not have much of a choice, but it is still responsible for its behavior.
* In my state in the USA, we have laws for the mentally ill and criminal behavior. If someone is totally delusional and things the martians are invading our planet and they kill a few people because of their delusions, our state will convict them as "guilty but mentally ill." They are still responsibile even though it was a predestined part of their nature.

Lets go to Fred, Fred can be either predestined to fulfill his obligation, or not fulfill his obligation. I would agree that the command to evangelize had no impact on Fred's fulfillment of his responsibilities. Nevertheless, the command is absolutely necessary because without it, Fred has no responsibility to evangelize. Then it is meaningless whether he evangelizes or not. He has no responsibility. So then...
1--- If Fred is predestined not to evangelize and there is no command, he is not guilty because he has no responsibility.
2--- If Fred is predestined to evangelize, and there is no command, there is still no guilt.
3--- If Fred is predestined not to evangelize, but is commanded to evangelize, then he is guilty of disobeying even though he is predestined to rebellion.
4--- If Fred is predestined to evangelize and he is commanded to evangelize then he obeyed and has done something good.

Your objection has to do with #3. To you it seems irrational to condemn Fred for his disobedience when he is predestined to disobey. Yet then, is not your objection the same identical complaint found in Romans 9?

18 So then he hath mercy on whom he will, and whom he will be hardeneth.
19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he still find fault? For who withstandeth his will?
20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why didst thou make me thus?

It does not matter if you view Romans 9 as nations or as individuals. The nation or individual predestined to be "hardened" complains and says "why doth he still find fault? For who withstandeth his will?" That nation or person or people group or whatever you want to call it, complains about being predestined to resist the command of God.

So now, my question for you, is how is your question different then the hypothetical opponent of Paul?

Paul himself does not see predestination as a problem with Human Resonsibility.

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 disagree with your a priori assumption that ""responsibility" implicitly entails the belief that any agent who exercises responsibility has freedom of action." In fact, as I said above, I think one of the major passages of scripture that would support my view is Romans 9.

Not just what I mentioned.... Also with Pharaoh.... God chose not to have mercy on Pharaoh and he hardened his heart. Yet God held him accountable.

*** Drew, I think it is a dog trail to go down the path of saying that Pharaoh hardened his own heart. While this is true in Exodus, Paul does not mention that fact for a reason. Paul is looking at God hardening Pharaoh's heart. Generally the people that mention that Pharaoh hardened his own heart do not believe that God hardened his heart. Paul was aware of that fact in Exodus and chose not to mention the fact that Pharaoh hardened his own heart. Why did Paul skip that issue? That's because Paul was speaking of what God did. In Romans 9, God hardened Pharaoh's heart. And then judged him. Why? God did it for his own Glory.

17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, For this very purpose did I raise thee up, that I might show in thee my power, and that my name might be published abroad in all the earth.

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.

Drew, I certainly appreciate honesty and clarity of expression. You recognize the position you are articulating is that while God did not give up his attributes, he did "abdicate" his sovereignty in salvation, and man becomes sovereign. I recognize that you sincerely believe that to be true. Of course we disagree on that point. I obviously do not think God abdicated his sovereignty to man. God chooses first. God chooses to intervene into the rebellion of some of those spiritually dead and regenerate a new nature in them. He makes them alive. Only then will a man choose God. And so mans choice is 2ndary, based on Gods choice.

 

[mondar]

To anyone who has read my understanding of this in various threads, this will come as a surprise. Do you ever read something of the 1000th time in scripture, and it sticks out differently than it ever has? Most of us would say yes.

Yesterday, I was composing a thread on Jesus overcoming the world, and I cited John 17 among other verses.

*sigh*

John 17
1 After Jesus said this, he looked toward heaven and prayed: “Father, the hour has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you. 2 For you granted him authority over all people that he might give eternal life to all those you have given him. 3 Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. 4 I have brought you glory on earth by finishing the work you gave me to do. 5 And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began."

I've heard all the arguments for predestination, and I've always opposed them. I have to say, though, that these words have hung in my heart with me since I created that thread. They're still hanging there, and I'm praying through this.

"all those that you gave Him"

*sigh*

Hello Mike. I understand why people would argue against a high form of predestination. It is counter-intuitive. I, myself, wrestled against it until I saw it in scripture. Even then, I wrestled against it. It is one of he hardest biblical doctrines to believe. The problem is that the scriptures are so clear, so if you will excuse the pun, what choice does a Christian really have in the end. So I do not blame those who wrestle against the position. It would be much easier if Paul would not have put that word in the bible.

You have pointed to a verse in John 17. That whole "all those that you gave Him" was actually begun earlier in the Gospel of John. In John 6 it reads....
37 All that which the Father giveth me shall come unto me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
39 And this is the will of him that sent me, that of all that which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day.

In verse 37 it says "some that the Father gives me shall come to me." OOPS
"many that the Father gives me shall come to me" Still not right.
"most that the Father gives me shall come to me" Getting closer
"______ that the Father gives me shall come to me" It is just too hard to say.
**** How can it be that the giving of a group of people is so flawless? So irresistable? So pefect? Is Gods election really so powerful that it never fails?

Then comes verse 39.... "______ that which he have given me I shold lose __________.

 

[Drew]

"all those that you gave Him"

*sigh*

Preliminary observation: It is at least conceivable that "all those given" are given contingent on some free will decision made by those given. The text you provide is at least open to such a reading.

Now I know that mondar has just made an argument based on John 6. For many years now, I have been procrastinating on assembling a case to challenge the "pre-destination" take on John 6. The case is sound, albeit complex, and I hope to present it as soon as I can. I am confident that a solid plausibility case can be made for reading the famous John 6 passage without having to embrace pre-destination.

 

[francisdesales]

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.

It is quite interesting how you point out the two separate groups under scrutinty, the saved (us) and the world (everyone else) but it goes right over your head. The "answer" is yet again answered by the theological dictates of Jean Calvin, rather than proper exegesis...

Do you think that bringing up a terrible example means that we must now doubt the useage of the word in every OTHER verse of Scriptures and that "world" can no longer mean "universally applied"? Clearly, John makes the distinction that you yourself point out but do not see the implications.

Two points.

First, on Luke, it can be equally argued that the AUTHOR'S idea of the use of "world" means "universally applied". We are under no myths that the inspired writer was SPECIFICALLY CONSIDERING the Mayans or the Mongolians and his definition is in keeping with the cosmos. To the first century writer, there WERE NO MAYANS. There were no Mongolians. The INTENT of the author is that the "entire" KNOWN world, the Roman Empire, was subject to a census. To him, that WAS the world in the first century.

As to the second, with the above in mind, we clearly have two "cosmos" in 1 John. I am wondering what you think was in John's mind when he states "us" and "the world", who is the second group??? Unless you are accusing John of an amazing case of redundancy, John is clearly speaking of people who are NOT "of us", the saved. Thus, Jesus died for the saved and the unsaved. That is the clear exegesis of the Scriptures.

If you want more Scriptures, we can look at 2 Cor 4:1-4 next, focusing on verse 3-4 and note the universal extent of the "light" being sent out...

Or we can go back to my last post that you ignored on why Jesus is called the Second Adam, rather than the Second Abraham. Or why the Body of Christ intercedes for pagans, but the Christ Himself does not...And so forth.

"Alone" just cannot fit into the verses you previously cited because other verses will not allow it.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

This is a very easy concept to understand if one believes that God is omniscient. ALL humans are predestined to an eternal destiny, some to wrath and some to Glory. God predestined ALL humans according to His Foreknowledge before the foundation of the earth. God did NOT say to one "I choose you for wrath", and the other "I choose you for Heaven". But, God knew what path each and every person he created would take. Therefore, God based on Foreknowledge, destined those to wrath those that WOULD not believe in his son Jesus, and He destined those that believe to Glory. It is not that they COULD not believe, but that they WOULD not.

Exactly - otherwise, one is forced to hold that God creates sin while condemning man for doing something that God created that man to do.

Two Thess 2:10 and 2 Cor 4:3-4, for example, clearly show that God provides grace, but men reject that grace. It is not a matter of God selecting some people to be condemned sinners - and then a phony trial to "prove" this "god's" justice...

Regards

 

[mondar]

John 6? Did someone mention John 6?

John 6 is a very air tight passage. I am especially talking about 6:36-45.

The main idea of the passage is the repitition of the phrase "and I will raise him up on the last day."

39 And this is the will of him that sent me, that of all that which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day.
40 For this is the will of my Father, that every one that beholdeth the Son, and believeth on him, should have eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
44 No man can come to me, except the Father that sent me draw him: and I will raise him up in the last day.

It is also found in verse 54:
54 He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

Now that phrase "I will raise him up on the last day" cannot be a reference to a general resurrection. It speaks only of the resurrection of the saved. Notice in verse 40 how Christ speaks of "believeth" and "eternal life" and then the phrase "I will raise him up on the last day." The phrase speaks of a resurrection of the just, or a resurrection of the saved to eternal life.

The reason I mention the interpretation of this phrase is because of verse 44. Notice in your bible the phrase is found in verse 44. The resurrection in verse 44 speaks of the saved only. But notice the rest of verse 44. This saved person is saved why? -----------> Because he is drawn by the Father.
Verse 37 speaks of this same group. Notice in verse 37 the phrase "Come." How many "Come?" A few? many? Most? or "ALL" In verse 37, all those given by the Father come, in verse 44 all those drawn by the Holy Spirit are raised to eternal life.

How many of those drawn in verse 44 will be lost? Verse 39 gives the answer.
39 And this is the will of him that sent me, that of all that which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day.
He will loose non of them.

At the beginning of verse 44 the text tells us that "no one CAN come to me"
The word "CAN" is dunamai, and it speaks of "ability." No one has the ability to come Christ. No one can choose Christ. No one can have faith. The only way to faith is by the drawing of the Father (44).

Verse 44 is air tight. Salvation is totally the work of God, and there is no synergism possible, since no man can come to me.

One reason I enjoy the passage is because all of TULIP is found in that short passage.
T---total depravity----------- "no man can come to me" (VS 44)
U---unconditional election-- "all that the Father has given me, shall come to me" (37)
L---limited atonement ------ "except the Father who sent me drawn him" (44)
I---Irresistable Grace------- "except the Father who sent me draw him" (44)
P--Perserverance of the Saints-- "all that which he hath given me I should lose nothing," (39)

*** I wish to note that I think some of the terminology in TULIP is not the best terminology to understand Calvinism by. It leads to a lot of misunderstandings. Unfortunately because of the 5 points of the Remonstrants, Calvinists had to make 5 statements of denial and we are stuck with that phraseology. If I had to rephrase TULIP, I might choose terms others have used like...

T---Total inability of man to stop his own rebellion
E---Election based upon God's free choice and not on foreseen faith.
C---Christ died for individuals
R---Regeneration is a perfect work of God and regeneration occurs before faith.
S--- The saints will always continue in the faith.

Nevermind, TECRS just simply does not have a ring like TULIP.

 

[Drew]

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."

I want to revisit this line of argument. At least with respect to the "works do not make us part of the family of God" and "works do not make us a part of the commonwealth of Israel" points, you are, I suggest, settling for a "second best" explanation.

Yes, these things are true. But what is more to the point is this: while the content of the "therefore" passage is arguably consistent with reading verse 9 as a denial of salvation by "good works", the content of the "therefore" passage coheres much better with a "works of the Law of Moses" reading of verse 9. The "therefore" passage over and over again focuses on the fact that Gentiles have been integrated into the family of God. Yes one can argue that "good works" are in view in verse 9 since "good works" don't make us part of the family of Israel, and so on.

But, and this is the key point, a "works of the Law of Moses" reading makes much more sense of the content of the "therefore" passage. Here is the passage again:


11Therefore remember that (AE)formerly (AF)you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called "(AG)Uncircumcision" by the so-called "(AH)Circumcision," which is performed in the flesh by human hands-- 12remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, (AI)excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to (AJ)the covenants of promise, having (AK)no hope and (AL)without God in the world. 13But now in (AM)Christ Jesus you who (AN)formerly were (AO)far off have (AP)been brought near (AQ)by the blood of Christ. 14For He Himself is (AR)our peace, (AS)who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, 15by (AT)abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is (AU)the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might (AV)make the two into (AW)one new man, thus establishing (AX)peace, 16and might (AY)reconcile them both in (AZ)one body to God through the cross, by it having (BA)put to death the enmity. 17AND (BB)HE CAME AND PREACHED (BC)PEACE TO YOU WHO WERE (BD)FAR AWAY, AND PEACE TO THOSE WHO WERE (BE)NEAR; 18for through Him we both have (BF)our access in (BG)one Spirit to (BH)the Father.

The case basically makes itself - the clear emphasis is quite specific and pointed - Gentiles are now full members in God's family. So while it is obviously true that "good works" do not make a person a member of this family, a "good works" reading of verse 9 simply does not honour the strong emphasis, in the "therefore" text, on the breaking down of a barrier and the integration of two otherwise distinct peoples. More specifically, if one has just asserted that salvation is not by "good works", it simply does not logically follow that God has brought Gentile and Jew together - which is the patently obvious theme of the "therefore" text. Why not? Obviously because denial of salvation by good deeds can indeed work even if these two groups are not brought together.

On the other hand, if the author of Ephesians is indeed denying "salvation by doing the works of the Law of Moses" (in v 9), then one is forced to therefore conclude that Jew and Gentile are on the same footing, since if this were not the case, only Jews could be saved (since they are the only ones who do the Law of Moses).

 

[mondar]

This is a very easy concept to understand if one believes that God is omniscient. ALL humans are predestined to an eternal destiny, some to wrath and some to Glory. God predestined ALL humans according to His Foreknowledge before the foundation of the earth. God did NOT say to one "I choose you for wrath", and the other "I choose you for Heaven". But, God knew what path each and every person he created would take. Therefore, God based on Foreknowledge, destined those to wrath those that WOULD not believe in his son Jesus, and He destined those that believe to Glory. It is not that they COULD not believe, but that they WOULD not.

I got busy and missed a post.

The failure of this post is in the definition of "foreknowledge." The writer of the above post thinks foreknowledge is merely God looking into the future and seeing what a person will decide. While God certainly can look into the future, that is not the issue of the term "foreknowledge."

"Foreknowledge" is a term that the root word is "know." This knowledge is not a looking into a person, but rather it speaks of love. Just as Adam "knew" Eve. Adam had an intimate, person, loving knowledge of Eve.
So then, the concept of biblical foreknowledge is a "pre-existing, intimate love of a person even before their existance." The idea is then not that God looked into the future and saw faith, but it is God looking into the future and not seeing faith, and putting faith into our lives because he loved us with this intimate love.

 

[Drew]

John 6? Did someone mention John 6?

There is another way to read John 6 than the one you offer. I hope to provide it relatively soon. Then readers can choose for themselves which analysis is more plausible.

 

[mondar]

Exactly - otherwise, one is forced to hold that God creates sin while condemning man for doing something that God created that man to do.

Two Thess 2:10 and 2 Cor 4:3-4, for example, clearly show that God provides grace, but men reject that grace. It is not a matter of God selecting some people to be condemned sinners - and then a phony trial to "prove" this "god's" justice...

Regards

Your comments do not address the point of the passages you quote. Grace is always available, but Grace is not intended. If God were to choose to save an extra trillion people, Christ would not have to shed one more drop of blood for the extra trillion. It would still all be paid for.

I have often stated that the atonement is universal in its value. But that is not the issue of the "limited atonement." Christ shed blood is of infinite value. But God gave all that value to those of faith. The "intent" of the atonement was never to save the whole world, but only to save the elect. So then, Christ died for his sheep, his friends, he died for many, but the extent of the value of his death never was intended to be to all men without exception.

 

[mondar]

There is another way to read John 6 than the one you offer. I hope to provide it relatively soon. Then readers can choose for themselves which analysis is more plausible.

OK, save it for later... I have to go now. I may not be able to log on for a while. You could send me a private message when you are ready, I will respond, and then I will see your post.

 

[francisdesales]

Your comments do not address the point of the passages you quote. Grace is always available, but Grace is not intended. If God were to choose to save an extra trillion people, Christ would not have to shed one more drop of blood for the extra trillion. It would still all be paid for.

Read that again... Grace is available, but grace is not intended... What sort of tricks does your God play, Mondar? Perhaps you can understand my comments on your jello theology. This makes no sense - God's grace is made available - but men turn away from it. Not that God does not intend it. Yet again, you need to read the verses I suggested. Where do you find a hint of "God did not intend it"? God does not give with one hand and take away with the other.

Furthermore, God doesn't need to shed more blood, since the redemption of mankind has already been freely given.

I have often stated that the atonement is universal in its value. But that is not the issue of the "limited atonement." Christ shed blood is of infinite value. But God gave all that value to those of faith.

It is EFFICIENT to the saved, but it is indeed OFFERED to ALL. That's where your theology fails. It does not take into account the offering of redemption made to mankind. EVERYONE. And God is not to blame for the turning of men to evil.

The "intent" of the atonement was never to save the whole world, but only to save the elect.

You are going to have to prove that, rather than just assert it. I have yet to see any verse that makes that statement, and yet, I have plentiful verses that prove otherwise.

The intent of the Atonement is to undo the Original Sin. Doesn't Paul make that very clear in Romans 5? And if Original Sin is universal, so must the Atonement. Same with Jesus being the Mediator between God and mankind. Jesus became man and is mankind's mediator.

Regards

 

[Eventide]

False Teaching

One of the problems with Calvinism is that they are teaching and being taught that they are the elect. That's not biblical at all, because the Lord Jesus Christ alone is the elect of God and all are 'elected' or chosen IN HIM.

That's why the bible calls CHRISTians the elect of God, because they are IN CHRIST, members of HIS BODY.

You won't hear any Calvinist preaching that God chose them in light of the verses which say that if any man shall come after Me, let him DENY HIMSELF, take up his cross, and follow Me, for if ye shall seek to save your life ye shall lose it, and if you lose it for CHRIST and the gospel that ye shall save it.

It should be clear that God doesn't choose us at all, but rather that He chooses us IN CHRIST.. and Paul makes it clear when that happened.. it was AFTER we trusted in Christ, AFTER hearing the gospel, and AFTER we believed. Paul teaches us in Eph 2 that prior to being in Christ that we were dead and lost in trespasses and in sins and were by nature children of wrath just as others.

 

[Eventide]

The problem with Calvinists are that they are being taught that they are the elect, although the scriptures teach us that the Lord Jesus Christ is God's elect.

Did everyone suddenly forget that all in Adam (Flesh) are under the same condemnation, and that all may be justified freely IN CHRIST ?

 

[Mike]

I'm planting this again for anyone else who would like to give their impression of John 17:2. Mondar and Drew, thanks for your comments. I don't mean to pluck this one verse, but put in context with the rest of the subject surrounding it, how does one explain this verse? "...to all those that you have given him." I've always clung to free will. I agree that we are only able to come to faith but by the power of the Holy Spirit, and that the Lord had foreknowledge before time, and that is how I've always interpreted predestination.

I'm not going to take one verse in all of scripture and allow it to in effect, alter the rest of what I see. But, how do other people feel about verse 2? How else can you explain "all those you have given me"? To me, it almost seems necessary to hold with this that there must be some who aren't given to Him. And this understanding wouldn't fit with "foreknowledge".

 

[francisdesales]

I'm planting this again for anyone else who would like to give their impression of John 17:2. Mondar and Drew, thanks for your comments. I don't mean to pluck this one verse, but put in context with the rest of the subject surrounding it, how does one explain this verse? "...to all those that you have given him." I've always clung to free will. I agree that we are only able to come to faith but by the power of the Holy Spirit, and that the Lord had foreknowledge before time, and that is how I've always interpreted predestination.

I'm not going to take one verse in all of scripture and allow it to in effect, alter the rest of what I see. But, how do other people feel about verse 2? How else can you explain "all those you have given me"? To me, it almost seems necessary to hold with this that there must be some who aren't given to Him. And this understanding wouldn't fit with "foreknowledge".

Mike,

Here is the Haydock Commentary, an in-depth Commentary from the Catholic point of view written in the 19th century on that verse...:

Power over all flesh, that he may give life everlasting to all whom thou hast given him. He speaks of himself, as made man, and the Redeemer of mankind. If we ask, who are they, who in this sense are said to be given to Christ: it is true, only the elect, or the predestined, are given by a special and uncommon mercy. In this sense, St. Augustine (tract 111 p 779), "they are not said to be given, to whom he shall not give life everlasting". Yet not only the elect, but all believers, nay, all men whatsoever, may be said to be given to him, inasmuch as by his coming to redeem all men, sufficient help and means are offered to all men, whereby they may be saved: and inasmuch as Christ came, suffered, died, and offered up his death to all men. see 2 Cor v 15 (a typo left out the chapter...) Thou has given him power over all flesh; by this our Saviour shewed, that his preaching was directed, not to the Jews only, but to every nation on earth. Are then all saved? Christ has done sufficient for the salvation of all, and if they are not saved, it is the fault, not of him that speaketh, but of those that received not his word (St. Chrysostom, hom lxxix on John).

Note, the comment from two Doctors of the Church from the 5th century...

As mentioned by myself, Christ died for all men, giving sufficient help to all men, but some do not avail themselves to the light that shines upon the world, prefering darkness to light. See 2 Cor 4:1-4 and 2 Thess 2:10 for examples of men turning from God despite the aid offered.

Regards

 

[Eventide]

The "intent" of the atonement was never to save the whole world, but only to save the elect.

This statement doesn't make a lot of sense when we consider that the Lord Jesus Christ alone is the elect of God, the chosen one in whom He delights... and that's the root of the problem imo... that people are being led to believe that they are the elect of God..

But we're not the elect of God, Christ is. We are the elect of God IN CHRIST. God elects none in Adam and all in Christ, the last Adam. All are condemned in Adam and all are freely justified in Christ.

Root of the problem, too many people being taught that God chose them when He didn't.. in fact God says plainly that if we shall seek to save our life we shall lose it... that if any man comes after HIM that they must deny themselves, take up their cross and follow Christ... who is the chosen one in whom He delights.

 

[Alabaster]

This statement doesn't make a lot of sense when we consider that the Lord Jesus Christ alone is the elect of God, the chosen one in whom He delights... and that's the root of the problem imo... that people are being led to believe that they are the elect of God..

But we're not the elect of God, Christ is. We are the elect of God IN CHRIST. God elects none in Adam and all in Christ, the last Adam. All are condemned in Adam and all are freely justified in Christ.

Root of the problem, too many people being taught that God chose them when He didn't.. in fact God says plainly that if we shall seek to save our life we shall lose it... that if any man comes after HIM that they must deny themselves, take up their cross and follow Christ... who is the chosen one in whom He delights.

God has chosen believers. He knows us as individuals and chooses us from before the foundation of the world to be His very own. He delights in us, who have been reconciled to Him by the blood of the Lamb.