PDA

View Full Version : Did Christ die for all men?



Pages : [1] 2

Sonnet
April 17th, 2016, 06:47 AM
John Piper is a Calvinist but listen to what he tells unbelievers from 4mins 40secs in on this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3psJWtT68WE&t=04m40s (The link takes you to 4.40)

"...embrace the gospel that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the righteous one, died for your sins..."

The antecedent of 'your' is unbelievers.

John Piper believes in particular redemption (also called 'limited atonement' or 'definite atonement') - so did he misspeak? Is his theology tripping him up?

(I posted a very similar OP to this on another Christian forum site (long time ago now) - but I'm still curious about what folks think).

meshak
April 17th, 2016, 06:56 AM
Christ died for all man's sins.

but our sins will not be forgiven if we don't accept Him as Lord and Savior.

salvation is conditional; to have faith in God and Jesus.

You should be reading His word to get the answers, friend.

the key to your question is this verse:

"for God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life"

Sonnet
April 17th, 2016, 06:58 AM
Christ died for all man's sins.

but our sins will not be forgiven if we don't accept Him as Lord and Savior.

salvation is conditional; to have faith in God and Jesus.

You should be reading His word to get the answers, friend.

the key to your question is this verse:

"for God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life"

This would be my interpretation of scripture too.

meshak
April 17th, 2016, 07:03 AM
This would be my interpretation of scripture too.

You don't seem to have confidence in Jesus' word, otherwise you will not be questioning such as this.

If you have questions regarding Christian faith, keep reading His word until you have confidence in His word.

Sonnet
April 17th, 2016, 07:07 AM
At stake is the very essence of the gospel of Jesus Christ - the 'good news'. If one's theology limits Christ's atonement to an 'elect', then is not the very Word eviscerated?

Romans 5:6-8
You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous person, though for a good person someone might possibly dare to die. But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

If someone has died for me then it demands a response. But if I am told that I may have been left out - that only certain individuals might be the beneficiaries, then the reaction will be quite different.

Sonnet
April 17th, 2016, 07:10 AM
You don't seem to have confidence in Jesus' word, otherwise you will not be questioning such as this.

If you have questions regarding Christian faith, keep reading His word until you have confidence in His word.

I don't take to faith easily. Faith is based on evidence, I'd say. Acts 2:22.

meshak
April 17th, 2016, 07:45 AM
I don't take to faith easily. Faith is based on evidence, I'd say. Acts 2:22.

Evidence is Jesus' word.

You still don't know what Christianity is all about.

Christians' name came from Jesus Christ.

they are Jesus' followers.

You cannot follow Him if you don't know what He teaches.

You need to get this simple fact strait, friend.

You seem to be seeking cheap salvation.

Christianity is all about Jesus' salvation.

You will not get salvation without knowing and practice what Jesus teaches or commands.

meshak
April 17th, 2016, 07:52 AM
Many so called "Christians" will tell you that you don't have to follow Jesus to be saved.

Isn't this kind of faith you are seeking for?

Sonnet
April 17th, 2016, 07:54 AM
Many so called "Christians" will tell you that you don't have to follow Jesus to be saved.

Isn't this kind of faith you are seeking for?

I am merely investigating. That is all.

meshak
April 17th, 2016, 07:56 AM
I am merely investigating. That is all.

If you really want the truth, you ought to be reading His word which you keep disregarding over and over.

meshak
April 17th, 2016, 07:58 AM
What you are doing is to select which ones are convenient for your desires.

meshak
April 17th, 2016, 07:59 AM
It is beginning of deceptive faith.

beameup
April 17th, 2016, 08:05 AM
I believe that Calvinists (John Calvin) believe that Christ died only for "the elect" (those who would come to Christ). Actually, Calvinism is a dominant theology in Christendom.

Sonnet
April 17th, 2016, 08:06 AM
If you really want the truth, you ought to be reading His word which you keep disregarding over and over.

I do read His word - as i have already said.

You make lots of assertions but I am perplexed as to why.

The OP is pretty specific so we are getting off topic.

meshak
April 17th, 2016, 08:07 AM
I believe that Calvinists (John Calvin) believe that Christ died only for "the elect" (those who would come to Christ). Actually, Calvinism is a dominant theology in Christendom.

that's true.

Sonnet
April 17th, 2016, 08:07 AM
I believe that Calvinists (John Calvin) believe that Christ died only for "the elect" (those who would come to Christ). Actually, Calvinism is a dominant theology in Christendom.

So Piper misspeaks in the video? 'Christ died for your sins' should not be preached to unbelievers?

meshak
April 17th, 2016, 08:11 AM
I do read His word - as i have already said.

You make lots of assertions but I am perplexed as to why.

.

It is not assertion, Your posts and questions are the fact that you don't have confidence in Jesus' word.

what you have been asking is plainly explained by Jesus.

You have read Jesus' word yet you need other's assurance about His word.

You are not committed to Jesus.

If you are committed, you will have confidence in His word.

Without commitment to Jesus, your knowledge is just empty spiritually.

meshak
April 17th, 2016, 08:13 AM
The Holy Spirit will not give you the Truth if you are not committed to Jesus.

meshak
April 17th, 2016, 08:16 AM
So Piper misspeaks in the video? 'Christ died for your sins' should not be preached to unbelievers?

where did you get the idea that Jesus' word should not be preached to the world?

Jesus died for the whole world.

Please don't make Jesus' simple good news so complicated. It is a grave sin to do that.

You get so easily confused because you are not committed to Jesus.

meshak
April 17th, 2016, 08:24 AM
Sonnet,

This is humongous site.

there are many people reading it.

When deceptive faith is spreading, it needs to be addressed.

Christianity is in a great confusion and a mess as a whole.

Your kind of faith is abundant and adding to more confusion.

meshak
April 17th, 2016, 08:26 AM
there are too many seeking cheap salvation.

Christianity is not popularity which many are seeking.

jamie
April 17th, 2016, 08:30 AM
"...embrace the gospel that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the righteous one, died for your sins..."

The antecedent of 'your' is unbelievers.


Jesus died for everyone, but his shed blood is for the firstborn. Unbelievers do not heed his shed blood.

Bociferous
April 17th, 2016, 08:46 AM
Piper may have been preaching from the position that there could be elect listening whom the Lord had not yet quickened, in which case God could use human preaching as a tool for hearing on the specific day that particular sinner is to be awakened. [I'm not defending Calvinism, only suggesting a possible reason he preached as he did that day.]

jamie
April 17th, 2016, 08:54 AM
Please don't make Jesus' simple good news so complicated. It is a grave sin to do that.


And grave sins will bury you. :rip:

Sonnet
April 17th, 2016, 09:13 AM
Piper may have been preaching from the position that there could be elect listening whom the Lord had not yet quickened, in which case God could use human preaching as a tool for hearing on the specific day that particular sinner is to be awakened. [I'm not defending Calvinism, only suggesting a possible reason he preached as he did that day.]

Ok - but Piper will still be telling those whom he considers not among the elect that Jesus died for their sins. That would be disingenuous.

Sonnet
April 17th, 2016, 09:14 AM
Jesus died for everyone, but his shed blood is for the firstborn. Unbelievers do not heed his shed blood.

Certainly scripture teachers that Jesus shed his blood for all.

meshak
April 17th, 2016, 09:24 AM
And grave sins will bury you. :rip:

Christianity is just a game for you.

Bociferous
April 17th, 2016, 09:29 AM
Ok - but Piper will still be telling those whom he considers not among the elect that Jesus died for their sins. That would be disingenuous.
I'm merely invoking the timeliness principle--people called at different points in time--in the parable at the beginning of Mat 2 as a possible explanation for Piper's preaching. I.e., none but God knows (from the Calvinist perspective, not mine)when or using what means He intends to awaken the elect in time. Preaching may, in this scenario, merely be the tool God uses to aid in the awakening of one or more of the elect. It's not disingenuous at all. Piper would likely assume that the non-elect wouldn't "hear" his preaching anyway, he preached in the event God might use his words to the benefit of those elected to be awakened at that particular point in time via that particular preaching. Do you see what I mean? Maybe I'm not properly representing the Calvinist position and a Calvinist will correct me here.

Sonnet
April 17th, 2016, 09:39 AM
I'm merely invoking the timeliness principle--people called at different points in time--in the parable at the beginning of Mat 2 as a possible explanation for Piper's preaching. I.e., none but God knows (from the Calvinist perspective, not mine)when or using what means He intends to awaken the elect in time. Preaching may, in this scenario, merely be the tool God uses to aid in the awakening of one or more of the elect. It's not disingenuous at all. Piper would likely assume that the non-elect wouldn't "hear" his preaching anyway, he preached in the event God might use his words to the benefit of those elected to be awakened at that particular point in time via that particular preaching. Do you see what I mean? Maybe I'm not properly representing the Calvinist position and a Calvinist will correct me here.

Mat 22?

But the so called non-elect not 'hearing' does not guard against them understanding what Piper is telling them - that Christ died for them - even though Piper believes that Christ did not die for all men.

Surely he (Piper) is tripping over the awkwardness of his own mistaken theology? And we are talking about the very essence of the saving work of Christ - the essence of the good news.

meshak
April 17th, 2016, 09:42 AM
the essence of the good news.

do you know why gospel is called a good news?

jamie
April 17th, 2016, 09:48 AM
Christianity is just a game for you.


Not really, it's just that some times you are so funny.

But you do need to quit judging the faith of others.

jamie
April 17th, 2016, 09:50 AM
Certainly scripture teachers that Jesus shed his blood for all.


So do all heed his shed blood? (Hint: the answer is no.)

meshak
April 17th, 2016, 09:51 AM
Not really, it's just that some times you are so funny.

But you do need to quit judging the faith of others.

Your position of pro-military says it all about your faith.

your faith is deceptive.

chrysostom
April 17th, 2016, 09:51 AM
do you know why gospel is called a good news?

yes - do you?

meshak
April 17th, 2016, 09:52 AM
yes - do you?

I asked first.

what is it?

jamie
April 17th, 2016, 09:54 AM
Your position of pro-military says it all about your faith.

your faith is deceptive.


"Who are you to judge another’s servant?" (Paul)

chrysostom
April 17th, 2016, 09:56 AM
I asked first.

what is it?

that we might be saved

meshak
April 17th, 2016, 09:56 AM
"Who are you to judge another’s servant?" (Paul)

when His word is spread falsely I will not hesitate to correct it.

We have responsibility to spread the whole truth, not half gospel.

meshak
April 17th, 2016, 09:58 AM
that we might be saved

to be more clear, God is giving all of us opportunity to be in His kingdom for eternity through Jesus Christ.

meshak
April 17th, 2016, 10:01 AM
to be more clear, God is giving all of us opportunity to be in His kingdom for eternity through Jesus Christ.

BTW, do you know you have asked this question to me tons of times?

Do you think I will change my word just because you repeat over and over?

No, friend. My answer will be always the same.

My faith in Jesus is solid.

this is to chris.

chrysostom
April 17th, 2016, 10:02 AM
to be more clear, God is giving all of us opportunity to be in His kingdom for eternity through Jesus Christ.

to be even clearer -
-we have this opportunity because Jesus suffered and died for us
-do you agree to that?

Sonnet
April 17th, 2016, 10:02 AM
So do all heed his shed blood? (Hint: the answer is no.)

Ok. But the point of the OP is whether Calvinists trip up on their own theology.

meshak
April 17th, 2016, 10:06 AM
to be even clearer -
-we have this opportunity because Jesus suffered and died for us
-do you agree to that?

Now you are going to nitpicking.

Of course I do. You seem to nitpicking and trying to find the lope hole to attack me.

It is not such godly thing or tood Christian thing to do since I have stated my faith over and over.

I trust every word that Jesus says in the New Testament.

Have you read Jesus' word?

Or your faith is coming from your leader, pope?

It seems that way. Your Lord is your Pope, not Jesus.

meshak
April 17th, 2016, 10:08 AM
Chris, Calvinists' Lord is Calvin.

Your Lord is your pope.

chrysostom
April 17th, 2016, 10:10 AM
Now you are going to nitpicking.

Of course I do.

is it a problem for you to answer that over and over again?

meshak
April 17th, 2016, 10:12 AM
is it a problem for you to answer that over and over again?

it seems you are just trying to irritate me since you already know my answer..

chrysostom
April 17th, 2016, 10:15 AM
it seems you are just trying to irritate me since you already know my answer..

why would that irritate you to say that we might be saved because Jesus suffered and died for us?
-over and over again
-it is the good news

ebenz47037
April 17th, 2016, 10:20 AM
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Hebrews 11:1.
I don't take to faith easily. Faith is based on evidence, I'd say. Acts 2:22.

Sonnet
April 17th, 2016, 10:27 AM
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Hebrews 11:1.

And, yes, there is evidence. I recognise that.

It remains rather troubling that believers in Christ can't agree on the gospel - as the OP highlights.

ebenz47037
April 17th, 2016, 10:43 AM
We are humans with our own opinions. That's why there are so many different denominations. Unlike some on TOL, I believe that all Christian denominations hold a piece of the truth. We won't find out how it all fits together until we sit at Christ's feet after His return.
And, yes, there is evidence. I recognise that.

It remains rather troubling that believers in Christ can't agree on the gospel - as the OP highlights.

Tambora
April 17th, 2016, 10:48 AM
So Piper misspeaks in the video? 'Christ died for your sins' should not be preached to unbelievers?I think the point is that Calvinism doesn't teach that Christ's death was for all men, but only the ones chosen.
So unless you specifically know that a person is one of the chosen, then you can't tell them Christ's death was for them.

It's as if a father had two children.
The father tells the children that if they do not eat supper, they will be punished.
The father then sets a plate of supper in front of one child to eat, but gives the other child nothing.
And then the father punishes the other for not eating supper.

Grosnick Marowbe
April 17th, 2016, 10:54 AM
I think the point is that Calvinism doesn't teach that Christ's death was for all men, but only the ones chosen.
So unless you specifically know that a person is one of the chosen, then you can't tell them Christ's death was for them.

It's as if a father had two children.
The father tells the children that if they do not eat supper, they will be punished.
The father then sets a plate of supper in front of one child to eat, but gives the other child nothing.
And then the father punishes the other for not eating supper.

Good analogy for the false doctrine of Calvinism.

jamie
April 17th, 2016, 11:08 AM
Ok. But the point of the OP is whether Calvinists trip up on their own theology.


Calvinistas are a good example of those who don't heed Jesus' shed blood. I suggest you ignore them.

jamie
April 17th, 2016, 11:11 AM
when His word is spread falsely I will not hesitate to correct it.

We have responsibility to spread the whole truth, not half gospel.


The problem is you don't know the whole truth.

Nick M
April 17th, 2016, 12:00 PM
Christ died for all man's sins.



What if I don't obey him? I cheat, I do wrong.

jamie
April 17th, 2016, 12:02 PM
What if I don't obey him? I cheat, I do wrong.


By what standard?

Nick M
April 17th, 2016, 12:49 PM
By what standard?

There is only one standard. Talk about your all time idiot questions that they thought was a trap...

Bociferous
April 17th, 2016, 04:14 PM
Mat 22?
Sorry, Mat 20:1-16.

But the so called non-elect not 'hearing' does not guard against them understanding what Piper is telling them - that Christ died for them - even though Piper believes that Christ did not die for all men.
1Cor 2:14 and etc. suggests otherwise. Again, although I'm a sovereign grace Christian I'm not a Calvinist, just offering a possible reason for why a Calvinist would preach as Piper did in the video. I don't see his preaching as necessarily violating Calvinist logic on the basis noted in previous posts. I'm not sure why a Calvinist has not stepped in to correct either of us, but there it is.


Surely he (Piper) is tripping over the awkwardness of his own mistaken theology? And we are talking about the very essence of the saving work of Christ - the essence of the good news.
Assuming you take the Arminian position I get your insistence on Piper's theological faux pas, I just don't see the same logical intrusion you do Sonnet.

jamie
April 17th, 2016, 08:46 PM
There is only one standard. Talk about your all time idiot questions that they thought was a trap...


Yes, there is one covenant for believers.

meshak
April 17th, 2016, 08:48 PM
The problem is you don't know the whole truth.

Sorry, your discernment is all warped. You don't even know you are working against Jesus with your practice.

This is your fruit. You don't know how to put into practice Jesus' word.

meshak
April 17th, 2016, 08:51 PM
why would that irritate you to say that we might be saved because Jesus suffered and died for us?
-over and over again
-it is the good news

You don't do that to others, it seems.

why is that?

am I the only one who needs to repeat the same over and over?

You can do that yourself but you don't.

Sonnet
April 17th, 2016, 10:42 PM
Sorry, Mat 20:1-16.

1Cor 2:14 and etc. suggests otherwise.

1 Cor 2:14 applies to mature believers - a message of wisdom from God (not the world's). In contrast - for the unbeliever - Paul came with the gospel (vv.1-5).


Again, although I'm a sovereign grace Christian I'm not a Calvinist, just offering a possible reason for why a Calvinist would preach as Piper did in the video. I don't see his preaching as necessarily violating Calvinist logic on the basis noted in previous posts. I'm not sure why a Calvinist has not stepped in to correct either of us, but there it is.

I would agree that God must be Sovereign.



Assuming you take the Arminian position I get your insistence on Piper's theological faux pas, I just don't see the same logical intrusion you do Sonnet.

Ok. I am somewhat of the Arminian persuasion, though it's difficult to pin down some of the definitions. I would rather see a reconciliation of the two positions.

chrysostom
April 18th, 2016, 02:02 AM
You don't do that to others, it seems.

why is that?

am I the only one who needs to repeat the same over and over?

You can do that yourself but you don't.

we all need to repeat it over and over
-it is the good news
-that we might be saved
-only because Jesus suffered and died for us
-the last part is important

Lon
April 18th, 2016, 04:23 AM
John Piper is a Calvinist but listen to what he tells unbelievers from 4mins 40secs in on this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3psJWtT68WE&t=04m40s (The link takes you to 4.40)

"...embrace the gospel that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the righteous one, died for your sins..."

The antecedent of 'your' is unbelievers.

John Piper believes in particular redemption (also called 'limited atonement' or 'definite atonement') - so did he misspeak? Is his theology tripping him up?

(I posted a very similar OP to this on another Christian forum site (long time ago now) - but I'm still curious about what folks think).

It is a universal or open call, I think, on Piper's part. I think we can get caught up on trying to figure out 'who' will respond to a call, but in this sense, whoever hears Piper is called to "...embrace the gospel that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the righteous one, died for your sins..."

After the response, we can all argue over who didn't come and why but Luke 15:10 Romans 10:10 Acts 2:21

Sonnet
April 18th, 2016, 04:28 AM
It is a universal call, I think, on Piper's part. I think we can get caught up on trying to figure out 'who' will respond to a call, but in this sense, whoever hears Piper is called to "...embrace the gospel that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the righteous one, died for your sins..."

After the response, we can all argue over who didn't come and why but Luke 15:10

Particular redemption has Christ not dying for some of those that will have watched Piper's video. Why not tell the audience like it is? Just tell them what it is that you (Piper in this case) believes.

I can't see it as anything other than a disingenuous appeal.

meshak
April 18th, 2016, 04:46 AM
we all need to repeat it over and over
-it is the good news
-that we might be saved
-only because Jesus suffered and died for us
-the last part is important

You need to add to read the gospel so they don't get half truth gospel like Jesus came down to give us permission or license to sin. Most churches are giving out the halt truth messages.

meshak
April 18th, 2016, 04:51 AM
I have been adding the half that most churches are disregarding to spread. That's why I get so much infliction from them. They don't want to spread the whole truth because it is not popular at all.

The churches know that world does not want to hear the whole truth.

they don't want to offend the world.

The whole truth is politically incorrect and unpopular.

In fact, the truth is becoming less and less as time get to closed.

Lon
April 18th, 2016, 12:57 PM
Particular redemption has Christ not dying for some of those that will have watched Piper's video. Why not tell the audience like it is? Just tell them what it is that you (Piper in this case) believes.

I can see it as anything other than a disingenuous appeal.
I think you meant "can't"? The problem isn't as stark as it looks. God knows 'who' will respond. For instance, Ford will advertise an open call knowing that they are only going to reach a nitch audience. The commercial is certainly open to all who are interested. Ford dealers have to pay a certain amount to reach an entire audience, but may be charged less by the television company, knowing that the audience is small. We are all okay with this kind of advertising and do not feel slighted even if we don't go buy a Ford.

I think, similarly, though I agree, with a few snags, this is all we are talking about regarding Calvinism. The stakes are higher, thus, so is the scrutiny. I do understand that as well.

Sonnet
April 18th, 2016, 01:55 PM
I think you meant "can't"? The problem isn't as stark as it looks. God knows 'who' will respond. For instance, Ford will advertise an open call knowing that they are only going to reach a nitch audience. The commercial is certainly open to all who are interested. Ford dealers have to pay a certain amount to reach an entire audience, but may be charged less by the television company, knowing that the audience is small. We are all okay with this kind of advertising and do not feel slighted even if we don't go buy a Ford.

I think, similarly, though I agree, with a few snags, this is all we are talking about regarding Calvinism. The stakes are higher, thus, so is the scrutiny. I do understand that as well.

Yes, sorry, 'can't' was meant.

I'm not following how your analogy is comparable. Piper, as a Calvinist, believes that all humans are so depraved that they cannot put their faith in Christ unless God chose them - and did so (chose them) for reasons only known to God. This entails Christ only dying for such individuals. To then proceed to tell...whomever (as in this video)...that Christ died for their sins is woefully disingenuous. Integrity demands that you tell them the (Piper's) truth. The gospel according to Piper is something very different to Paul's gospel - 1 Corinthians 15:3b-5.

Let's not forget, Piper views humanity as totally depraved - pretty much all as bad as one another. No one (he thinks) is chosen, by God, because of any foreseen faith. Incontrovertibly - it becomes a lottery.

Lon
April 18th, 2016, 05:10 PM
Yes, sorry, 'can't' was meant.

I'm not following how your analogy is comparable. Piper, as a Calvinist, believes that all humans are so depraved that they cannot put their faith in Christ unless God chose them - and did so (chose them) for reasons only known to God. This entails Christ only dying for such individuals. To then proceed to tell...whomever (as in this video)...that Christ died for their sins is woefully disingenuous. Integrity demands that you tell them the (Piper's) truth. The gospel according to Piper is something very different to Paul's gospel - 1 Corinthians 15:3b-5.

Let's not forget, Piper views humanity as totally depraved - pretty much all as bad as one another. No one (he thinks) is chosen, by God, because of any foreseen faith. Incontrovertibly - it becomes a lottery.

I think it best to forgo Piper for the moment, not because Calvinism isn't important, but for me, simply because I think I can answer without it. This is a little guided, not to dumb it down, but that you will be able to forget about me and John Piper for a moment. I nor he can be but planters and waterers. First 4 verses then a question:
2 Peter 3:8-9 But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day. 9The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.

Acts 17:30 In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent.
1 Timothy 2:3 This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

Acts 17:30 In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent.
1 Timothy 2:3 This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

John 3:16a For God so loved those in the world, that...

Question #1: From what you can tell, does God want anyone to perish?

You can probably second guess me and come up with my next questions after this...

Sonnet
April 18th, 2016, 09:36 PM
I think it best to forgo Piper for the moment, not because Calvinism isn't important, but for me, simply because I think I can answer without it. This is a little guided, not to dumb it down, but that you will be able to forget about me and John Piper for a moment. I nor he can be but planters and waterers. First 4 verses then a question:
2 Peter 3:8-9 But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day. 9The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.

Acts 17:30 In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent.
1 Timothy 2:3 This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

Acts 17:30 In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent.
1 Timothy 2:3 This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

John 3:16a For God so loved those in the world, that...

Question #1: From what you can tell, does God want anyone to perish?

You can probably second guess me and come up with my next questions after this...

Question #1: God does not want anyone to perish.
Question #2: Anyone may have eternal life through belief in him.

Would still appreciate a response to my last post - since it goes to the heart of the gospel message.

Lon
April 18th, 2016, 10:58 PM
Question #1: God does not want anyone to perish.
Well, that was pretty much my question. My answer is "no."

Question #2: Anyone may have eternal life through belief in him.
I'd give a 'qualified' yes but 'anyone' is a bit broad and vague. I try to use terms better suited or word-for-word scripture quotes. Again, I don't want you hung up on Calvinism.


Would still appreciate a response to my last post - since it goes to the heart of the gospel message.
Realize you didn't ask even one question so I'm not sure what you mean (unless you are referring to a different post than your last).
I can 'comment' on your statements, but just realize you didn't ask anything. Generally Q&A sets up responses. I think you are asking me to comment on your "incontrovertible lottery." First of all, if it is incontrovertible, by definition I "can't" argue or respond. You've disallowed it, whether I think it is contestable or not, no? Second, I feel I've done this already with the given verse. In a nutshell, I never try to argue a theological position against scripture, just deal with scripture. It is certainly clear that God is unwilling that any should perish. No position other than scripture can undo or contest a scripture passage. Basically, you need only pay attention to the scripture because often enough, the rest of us don't describe as well or convey as well as a given scripture.

I like James Hilston's expiation of God's Decretive and Prescriptive will (http://www.jameshilston.com/writings/2014/5/25/the-difference-between-gods-decrees-and-gods-will). Knight also ran a thread (http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?32160-God-s-prescriptive-will-and-His-decretive-will&p=1216980&viewfull=1#post1216980)on it here too. Do a quick overview of these if you have time, because this is where I am headed from here. -Lon

Sonnet
April 19th, 2016, 12:10 AM
Well, that was pretty much my question. My answer is "no."

I'd give a 'qualified' yes but 'anyone' is a bit broad and vague. I try to use terms better suited or word-for-word scripture quotes. Again, I don't want you hung up on Calvinism.


Realize you didn't ask even one question so I'm not sure what you mean (unless you are referring to a different post than your last).
I can 'comment' on your statements, but just realize you didn't ask anything. Generally Q&A sets up responses. I think you are asking me to comment on your "incontrovertible lottery." First of all, if it is incontrovertible, by definition I "can't" argue or respond. You've disallowed it, whether I think it is contestable or not, no? Second, I feel I've done this already with the given verse. In a nutshell, I never try to argue a theological position against scripture, just deal with scripture. It is certainly clear that God is unwilling that any should perish. No position other than scripture can undo or contest a scripture passage. Basically, you need only pay attention to the scripture because often enough, the rest of us don't describe as well or convey as well as a given scripture.

I like James Hilston's expiation of God's Decretive and Prescriptive will (http://www.jameshilston.com/writings/2014/5/25/the-difference-between-gods-decrees-and-gods-will). Knight also ran a thread (http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?32160-God-s-prescriptive-will-and-His-decretive-will&p=1216980&viewfull=1#post1216980)on it here too. Do a quick overview of these if you have time, because this is where I am headed from here. -Lon

There are questions in the OP and most of my posts challenge the Calvinist's position on the Gospel. I don't see that anyone has specifically addressed them.

I'll have a look at your links if I get a chance.

I don't see that you have addressed what I consider to be an incontrovertible lottery. God picking out who will be saved is at odds with the notion that He does not want anyone to perish.

csuguy
April 19th, 2016, 01:06 AM
Yea, Calvinism just doesn't mesh with the scriptures. Scripture says that God desires for all to be saved, that Christ died for all - but they must deny this. The scripture says that there is always an escape from sin and that we are fully capable of fulfilling the law - they say you are completely fallen and can do no good of your own volition. Indeed - I've seen them even go so far as to say that sin is the will of God! Utter blasphemy.

1 Timothy 2:4 [God] desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

1 Cor 15:21-22 For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, so also in [h]Christ all will be made alive.

Romans 5:18 So then as through one transgression [m]there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness [n]there resulted justification of life to all men.

1 John 2:1-2 My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an [a]Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; 2 and He Himself is the [b]propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.

beloved57
April 19th, 2016, 01:06 AM
Christ died for all man's sins.

but our sins will not be forgiven if we don't accept Him as Lord and Savior.

salvation is conditional; to have faith in God and Jesus.

You should be reading His word to get the answers, friend.

the key to your question is this verse:

"for God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life"

False statements, those Christ died for are reconciled to God by His Death while they are enemies Rom 5:10, they did not have to accept anything, they were rebellious enemies.

Sonnet
April 19th, 2016, 01:27 AM
Yea, Calvinism just doesn't mesh with the scriptures. Scripture says that God desires for all to be saved, that Christ died for all - but they must deny this. The scripture says that there is always an escape from sin and that we are fully capable of fulfilling the law - they say you are completely fallen and can do no good of your own volition. Indeed - I've seen them even go so far as to say that sin is the will of God! Utter blasphemy.

1 Timothy 2:4 [God] desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

1 Cor 15:21-22 For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, so also in [h]Christ all will be made alive.

Romans 5:18 So then as through one transgression [m]there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness [n]there resulted justification of life to all men.

1 John 2:1-2 My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an [a]Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; 2 and He Himself is the [b]propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.

Capable of fulfilling the law? Surely, only in Christ?

csuguy
April 19th, 2016, 01:43 AM
Capable of fulfilling the law? Surely, only in Christ?



Deutoronomy 30:6-20 “Moreover the Lord your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your [f]descendants, to love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, so that you may live. 7 The Lord your God will [g]inflict all these curses on your enemies and on those who hate you, who persecuted you. 8 And you shall again [h]obey the Lord, and observe all His commandments which I command you today. 9 Then the Lord your God will [i]prosper you abundantly in all the work of your hand, in the [j]offspring of your [k]body and in the [l]offspring of your cattle and in the [m]produce of your ground, for the Lord will again rejoice over you for good, just as He rejoiced over your fathers; 10 [n]if you [o]obey the Lord your God to keep His commandments and His statutes which are written in this book of the law, [p]if you turn to the Lord your God with all your heart and soul.

“Moreover the Lord your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your [f]descendants, to love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, so that you may live. 7 The Lord your God will [g]inflict all these curses on your enemies and on those who hate you, who persecuted you. 8 And you shall again [h]obey the Lord, and observe all His commandments which I command you today. 9 Then the Lord your God will [i]prosper you abundantly in all the work of your hand, in the [j]offspring of your [k]body and in the [l]offspring of your cattle and in the [m]produce of your ground, for the Lord will again rejoice over you for good, just as He rejoiced over your fathers; 10 [n]if you [o]obey the Lord your God to keep His commandments and His statutes which are written in this book of the law, [p]if you turn to the Lord your God with all your heart and soul.

11 “For this commandment which I command you today is not too difficult for you, nor is it [q]out of reach. 12 It is not in heaven, [r]that you should say, ‘Who will go up to heaven for us to get it for us and make us hear it, that we may observe it?’ 13 Nor is it beyond the sea, [s]that you should say, ‘Who will cross the sea for us to get it for us and make us hear it, that we may observe it?’ 14 But the word is very near you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may observe it.

15 “See, I have set before you today life and [t]prosperity, and death and [u]adversity; 16 in that I command you today to love the Lord your God, to walk in His ways and to keep His commandments and His statutes and His judgments, that you may live and multiply, and that the Lord your God may bless you in the land where you are entering to possess it. 17 But if your heart turns away and you will not obey, but are drawn away and worship other gods and serve them, 18 I declare to you today that you shall surely perish. You will not prolong your days in the land where you are crossing the Jordan to enter [v]and possess it. 19 I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. So choose life in order that you may live, you and your [w]descendants, 20 by loving the Lord your God, by obeying His voice, and by holding fast to Him; for [x]this is your life and the length of your days, [y]that you may live in the land which the Lord swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to give them.


From the very beginning man has been capable of fulfilling the Law. The Law is, at its core, love. If you love God and your fellow man, truly - not just in word but in deed - then you fulfill the Law. This is a matter of the heart. If one's heart and mind are set on God and doing what is right, such a one is fully capable of pleasing God. However, one who sets their hearts and mind on worldly desires - it is impossible for them to please God.


Romans 8:5-8 For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. 6 For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, 7 because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, 8 and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

But yes - it is in Christ that we find the fulfillment of the Law, the embodiment of God's Love.

Sonnet
April 19th, 2016, 01:51 AM
Deutoronomy 30:6-20 “Moreover the Lord your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your [f]descendants, to love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, so that you may live. 7 The Lord your God will [g]inflict all these curses on your enemies and on those who hate you, who persecuted you. 8 And you shall again [h]obey the Lord, and observe all His commandments which I command you today. 9 Then the Lord your God will [i]prosper you abundantly in all the work of your hand, in the [j]offspring of your [k]body and in the [l]offspring of your cattle and in the [m]produce of your ground, for the Lord will again rejoice over you for good, just as He rejoiced over your fathers; 10 [n]if you [o]obey the Lord your God to keep His commandments and His statutes which are written in this book of the law, [p]if you turn to the Lord your God with all your heart and soul.

“Moreover the Lord your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your [f]descendants, to love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, so that you may live. 7 The Lord your God will [g]inflict all these curses on your enemies and on those who hate you, who persecuted you. 8 And you shall again [h]obey the Lord, and observe all His commandments which I command you today. 9 Then the Lord your God will [i]prosper you abundantly in all the work of your hand, in the [j]offspring of your [k]body and in the [l]offspring of your cattle and in the [m]produce of your ground, for the Lord will again rejoice over you for good, just as He rejoiced over your fathers; 10 [n]if you [o]obey the Lord your God to keep His commandments and His statutes which are written in this book of the law, [p]if you turn to the Lord your God with all your heart and soul.

11 “For this commandment which I command you today is not too difficult for you, nor is it [q]out of reach. 12 It is not in heaven, [r]that you should say, ‘Who will go up to heaven for us to get it for us and make us hear it, that we may observe it?’ 13 Nor is it beyond the sea, [s]that you should say, ‘Who will cross the sea for us to get it for us and make us hear it, that we may observe it?’ 14 But the word is very near you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may observe it.

15 “See, I have set before you today life and [t]prosperity, and death and [u]adversity; 16 in that I command you today to love the Lord your God, to walk in His ways and to keep His commandments and His statutes and His judgments, that you may live and multiply, and that the Lord your God may bless you in the land where you are entering to possess it. 17 But if your heart turns away and you will not obey, but are drawn away and worship other gods and serve them, 18 I declare to you today that you shall surely perish. You will not prolong your days in the land where you are crossing the Jordan to enter [v]and possess it. 19 I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. So choose life in order that you may live, you and your [w]descendants, 20 by loving the Lord your God, by obeying His voice, and by holding fast to Him; for [x]this is your life and the length of your days, [y]that you may live in the land which the Lord swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to give them.


From the very beginning man has been capable of fulfilling the Law. The Law is, at its core, love. If you love God and your fellow man, truly - not just in word but in deed - then you fulfill the Law. This is a matter of the heart. If one's heart and mind are set on God and doing what is right, such a one is fully capable of pleasing God. However, one who sets their hearts and mind on worldly desires - it is impossible for them to please God.


Romans 8:5-8 For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. 6 For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, 7 because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, 8 and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

But yes - it is in Christ that we find the fulfillment of the Law, the embodiment of God's Love.

Thanks.

Indeed, Paul refers to Deuteronomy 30:11-14 in Romans 10, as I am sure you know. Paul explicitly states that righteousness is through faith, not through fulfilling the law oneself. He points out the ignorance (lack of knowledge) of his brethren (the Israelites) in their attempts to 'establish their own righteousness'.

Sonnet
April 19th, 2016, 02:00 AM
Here's Jesus on the self-righteous: Matthew 23.

'Strain at a gnat but swallow a camel' is a reference to the law of not eating creeping things - so they would strain out such creatures.

csuguy
April 19th, 2016, 02:03 AM
Thanks.

Indeed, Paul refers to Deuteronomy 30:11-14 in Romans 10, as I am sure you know. Paul explicitly states that righteousness is through faith, not through fulfilling the law oneself. He points out the ignorance (lack of knowledge) of his brethren (the Israelites) in their attempts to 'establish their own righteousness'.

As Paul states in Romans 10, the problem with the jews was not their zeal for God, but their lack of understanding, lack of knowledge of the righteousness of God. They created their own righteousness. Christ is the end/goal of the law of righteousness. Christ's life served as a model for us to live by - to give our lives fully to God's will, to become servants, to help those in need, and - if need be - to lose our lives. Indeed - one must lose their life to save it.

In Christ we find the knowledge of the righteousness of God, in him we find the fulfillment of the Law (love) - and we are called to follow his example. By doing so we are equipped to fulfill the Law. And this is a requirement on our part - for while we find forgiveness in Christ, eternal life is a reward for good deeds. Our salvation is dependent upon what we do/don't do. Hence Christ teaches that only those who do the will of the Lord will be saved.

Sonnet
April 19th, 2016, 02:07 AM
As Paul states in Romans 10, the problem with the jews was not their zeal for God, but their lack of understanding, lack of knowledge of the righteousness of God. They created their own righteousness. Christ is the end/goal of the law of righteousness. Christ's life served as a model for us to live by - to give our lives fully to God's will, to become servants, to help those in need, and - if need be - to lose our lives. Indeed - one must lose their life to save it.

In Christ we find the knowledge of the righteousness of God, in him we find the fulfillment of the Law (love) - and we are called to follow his example. By doing so we are equipped to fulfill the Law. And this is a requirement on our part - for while we find forgiveness in Christ, eternal life is a reward for good deeds. Our salvation is dependent upon what we do/don't do. Hence Christ teaches that only those who do the will of the Lord will be saved.

Because it (such good deeds) proves that their faith is real?

csuguy
April 19th, 2016, 02:16 AM
Because it (such good deeds) proves that their faith is real?

Actions do demonstrate one's faith, but it is more than that.


James 2:14-17 What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can [n]that faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, [o]be warmed and be filled,” and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that? 17 Even so faith, if it has no works, is [p]dead, being by itself.

James teaches that faith without works is dead. Similarly, in the parable at the end of Matthew 7, Christ points out that it is not enough to hear his words- they must be acted upon to save you. For what use is it if he tells you to build on the rock and then you turn around and build on sand? Even if you believe he is correct - if you do not act on that belief it does you no good.

And this is what so many miss about the importance of beliefs: the belief in of itself does you no good. Beliefs are important because they guide your actions - but if you do not act on them, then you are no better off than if you didn't believe. Ultimately, God does not judge you on whether you held doctrines X, Y, and Z. What you are judged on is your actions: how did you live your life? How did you treat the least of these? Hence in parables like the sheep and the goats in Matthew 25 - there is no mention of doctrine.


Romans 2:6-11 [God] will render to each person according to his deeds: 7 to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life; 8 but to those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, wrath and indignation. 9 There will be tribulation and distress [e]for every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek, 10 but glory and honor and peace to everyone who does good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. 11 For there is no partiality with God.

Sonnet
April 19th, 2016, 02:19 AM
Actions do demonstrate one's faith, but it is more than that.


James 2:14-17 What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can [n]that faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, [o]be warmed and be filled,” and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that? 17 Even so faith, if it has no works, is [p]dead, being by itself.

James teaches that faith without works is dead. Similarly, in the parable at the end of Matthew 7, Christ points out that it is not enough to hear his words- they must be acted upon to save you. For what use is it if he tells you to build on the rock and then you turn around and build on sand? Even if you believe he is correct - if you do not act on that belief it does you no good.

And this is what so many miss about the importance of beliefs: the belief in of itself does you no good. Beliefs are important because they guide your actions - but if you do not act on them, then you are no better off than if you didn't believe. Ultimately, God does not judge you on whether you held doctrines X, Y, and Z. What you are judged on is your actions: how did you live your life? How did you treat the least of these? Hence in parables like the sheep and the goats in Matthew 25 - there is no mention of doctrine.


Romans 2:6-11 [God] will render to each person according to his deeds: 7 to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life; 8 but to those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, wrath and indignation. 9 There will be tribulation and distress [e]for every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek, 10 but glory and honor and peace to everyone who does good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. 11 For there is no partiality with God.

I think we are on the same page, so to speak.

Sonnet
April 19th, 2016, 04:30 AM
So did Piper misspeak or not? Is he tripping over a theology that is in error? If he isn't, why not? For what could be more important than giving the gospel as scripture defined it?

Galatians 1:9b
If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse!

1 Corinthians 15:1-5
Now, brothers and sisters, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,

That which Paul received he passed on. He is reminding them of what he said when he first preached to them.

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures

Sonnet
April 19th, 2016, 04:33 AM
I say that Piper is tripping over his own mistaken theology. He misleads his audience. It's disingenuous.

Sonnet
April 19th, 2016, 05:00 AM
Paul (in 1 Cor 15) cements the fact that Christ died for all men's sins in verse 11.
Whether, then, it is I or they, this is what we preach, and this is what you believed.

Paul (if his theology equated to Calvinism) could have carefully precluded the possibility that anyone might misunderstand his meaning by explicitly saying that the words 'Christ died for our sins' should never be preached to unbelievers. Instead he just declares that 'this is what we preach'. The pronoun 'this' refers to vv.3b-5.

Tambora
April 19th, 2016, 08:59 AM
Romans 5 KJV

(18) Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

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


One (Christ).
Not two (you plus Christ).

If you are relying on any of your own obedience and righteousness, you are relying on the wrong one.

Grosnick Marowbe
April 19th, 2016, 09:03 AM
If you really want the truth, you ought to be reading His word which you keep disregarding over and over.

Sort of like you do when you believe in Matthew through John and reject the rest of the Bible.

Lon
April 19th, 2016, 05:01 PM
There are questions in the OP and most of my posts challenge the Calvinist's position on the Gospel. I don't see that anyone has specifically addressed them.

I'll have a look at your links if I get a chance.

I don't see that you have addressed what I consider to be an incontrovertible lottery. God picking out who will be saved is at odds with the notion that He does not want anyone to perish.

If it is "incontrovertible" then what? For instance, if a Calvinist is wrong, does that keep you from Christianity? What is the outcome if it is incontrovertible?

I said my answer would be the difference between God's decretive and prescriptive will. Some do no believe but that God has a decretive will, including some Calvinists. God declares somethings to be, but also has determined what to do in the event of sin which is how He chose/chooses to act regarding sin. When Jesus Christ was planned from the creation of the world, such displays His prescription/remedy. God's decrees (decretive) happen without fail. I 'think' a cosmic lottery is most often surmised regarding God's decretive will, rather than recognizing it is His prescriptive will and response.

Sonnet
April 19th, 2016, 11:23 PM
If it is "incontrovertible" then what? For instance, if a Calvinist is wrong, does that keep you from Christianity? What is the outcome if it is incontrovertible?

I said my answer would be the difference between God's decretive and prescriptive will. Some do no believe but that God has a decretive will, including some Calvinists. God declares somethings to be, but also has determined what to do in the event of sin which is how He chose/chooses to act regarding sin. When Jesus Christ was planned from the creation of the world, such displays His prescription/remedy. God's decrees (decretive) happen without fail. I 'think' a cosmic lottery is most often surmised regarding God's decretive will, rather than recognizing it is His prescriptive will and response.

Okay - I shouldn't have used the word incontrovertible - since it seems as if I am talking objectively. Sorry.

Here's why it seems to be a lottery, to me. The Canons of Dort (from which TULIP was formulated) says:

God’s Eternal Decree
The fact that some receive from God the gift of faith within time, and that others do not, stems from his eternal decree. For “all his works are known to God from eternity” (Acts 15:18; Eph. 1:11). In accordance with this decree God graciously softens the hearts, however hard, of the elect and inclines them to believe, but by a just judgement God leaves in their wickedness and hardness of heart those who have not been chosen. And in this especially is disclosed to us God’s act—unfathomable, and as merciful as it is just—of distinguishing between people equally lost. This is the well-known decree of election and reprobation revealed in God’s Word. The wicked, impure, and unstable distort this decree to their own ruin, but it provides holy and godly souls with comfort beyond words.

Election
Election is God’s unchangeable purpose by which he did the following:
Before the foundation of the world, by sheer grace, according to the free good pleasure of his will, God chose in Christ to salvation a definite number of particular people out of the entire human race, which had fallen by its own fault from its original innocence into sin and ruin. Those chosen were neither better nor more deserving than the others, but lay with them in the common misery. God did this in Christ, whom he also appointed from eternity to be the mediator, the head of all those chosen, and the foundation of their salvation.
And so God decreed to give to Christ those chosen for salvation, and to call and draw them effectively into Christ’s fellowship through the Word and Spirit. In other words, God decreed to grant them true faith in Christ, to justify them, to sanctify them, and finally, after powerfully preserving them in the fellowship of the Son, to glorify them.
God did all this in order to demonstrate his mercy, to the praise of the riches of God’s glorious grace.
As Scripture says, “God chose us in Christ, before the foundation of the world, so that we should be holy and blameless before him with love; he predestined us whom he adopted as his children through Jesus Christ, in himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, by which he freely made us pleasing to himself in his beloved” (Eph. 1:4-6). And elsewhere, “Those whom he predestined, he also called; and those whom he called, he also justified; and those whom he justified, he also glorified” (Rom. 8:30).

Election Not Based on Foreseen Faith
This same election took place, not on the basis of foreseen faith, of the obedience of faith, of holiness, or of any other good quality and disposition, as though it were based on a prerequisite cause or condition in the person to be chosen, but rather for the purpose of faith, of the obedience of faith, of holiness, and so on. Accordingly, election is the source of every saving good. Faith, holiness, and the other saving gifts, and at last eternal life itself, flow forth from election as its fruits and effects. As the apostle says, “He chose us” (not because we were, but) “so that we should be holy and blameless before him in love” (Eph. 1:4).

So, following from these assertions, Christ's atonement is limited to the elect.

The Saving Effectiveness of Christ’s Death
For it was the entirely free plan and very gracious will and intention of God the Father that the enlivening and saving effectiveness of his Son’s costly death should work itself out in all the elect, in order that God might grant justifying faith to them only and thereby lead them without fail to salvation. In other words, it was God’s will that Christ through the blood of the cross (by which he confirmed the new covenant) should effectively redeem from every people, tribe, nation, and language all those and only those who were chosen from eternity to salvation and given to him by the Father; that Christ should grant them faith (which, like the Holy Spirit’s other saving gifts, he acquired for them by his death). It was also God’s will that Christ should cleanse them by his blood from all their sins, both original and actual, whether committed before or after their coming to faith; that he should faithfully preserve them to the very end; and that he should finally present them to himself, a glorious people, without spot or wrinkle.

Piper new full well that some of those that would watch his video would be those whom (in his view) were not of the elect. Yet, he still tells them 'Christ died for your sins'.

He deceived them. He hasn't revealed to them the actual tenets of what he believes scripture teaches. For me, this is the crux of why Calvinism trips up - it comes against the very essence of the gospel itself.

Sonnet
April 19th, 2016, 11:24 PM
......

Lon
April 20th, 2016, 12:25 AM
Okay - I shouldn't have used the word incontrovertible - since it seems as if I am talking objectively. Sorry. I didn't mean to convey a need for apology, just that it seemed unassailable and so I was perplexed how to traverse such a wall. Thanks.


Here's why it seems to be a lottery, to me. The Canons of Dort (from which TULIP was formulated) says:

God’s Eternal Decree
The fact that some receive from God the gift of faith within time, and that others do not, stems from his eternal decree. For “all his works are known to God from eternity” (Acts 15:18; Eph. 1:11). In accordance with this decree God graciously softens the hearts, however hard, of the elect and inclines them to believe, but by a just judgement God leaves in their wickedness and hardness of heart those who have not been chosen. And in this especially is disclosed to us God’s act—unfathomable, and as merciful as it is just—of distinguishing between people equally lost. This is the well-known decree of election and reprobation revealed in God’s Word. The wicked, impure, and unstable distort this decree to their own ruin, but it provides holy and godly souls with comfort beyond words.

Election
Election is God’s unchangeable purpose by which he did the following:
Before the foundation of the world, by sheer grace, according to the free good pleasure of his will, God chose in Christ to salvation a definite number of particular people out of the entire human race, which had fallen by its own fault from its original innocence into sin and ruin. Those chosen were neither better nor more deserving than the others, but lay with them in the common misery. God did this in Christ, whom he also appointed from eternity to be the mediator, the head of all those chosen, and the foundation of their salvation.
And so God decreed to give to Christ those chosen for salvation, and to call and draw them effectively into Christ’s fellowship through the Word and Spirit. In other words, God decreed to grant them true faith in Christ, to justify them, to sanctify them, and finally, after powerfully preserving them in the fellowship of the Son, to glorify them.
God did all this in order to demonstrate his mercy, to the praise of the riches of God’s glorious grace.
As Scripture says, “God chose us in Christ, before the foundation of the world, so that we should be holy and blameless before him with love; he predestined us whom he adopted as his children through Jesus Christ, in himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, by which he freely made us pleasing to himself in his beloved” (Eph. 1:4-6). And elsewhere, “Those whom he predestined, he also called; and those whom he called, he also justified; and those whom he justified, he also glorified” (Rom. 8:30).

Election Not Based on Foreseen Faith
This same election took place, not on the basis of foreseen faith, of the obedience of faith, of holiness, or of any other good quality and disposition, as though it were based on a prerequisite cause or condition in the person to be chosen, but rather for the purpose of faith, of the obedience of faith, of holiness, and so on. Accordingly, election is the source of every saving good. Faith, holiness, and the other saving gifts, and at last eternal life itself, flow forth from election as its fruits and effects. As the apostle says, “He chose us” (not because we were, but) “so that we should be holy and blameless before him in love” (Eph. 1:4).

So, following from these assertions, Christ's atonement is limited to the elect.

The Saving Effectiveness of Christ’s Death
For it was the entirely free plan and very gracious will and intention of God the Father that the enlivening and saving effectiveness of his Son’s costly death should work itself out in all the elect, in order that God might grant justifying faith to them only and thereby lead them without fail to salvation. In other words, it was God’s will that Christ through the blood of the cross (by which he confirmed the new covenant) should effectively redeem from every people, tribe, nation, and language all those and only those who were chosen from eternity to salvation and given to him by the Father; that Christ should grant them faith (which, like the Holy Spirit’s other saving gifts, he acquired for them by his death). It was also God’s will that Christ should cleanse them by his blood from all their sins, both original and actual, whether committed before or after their coming to faith; that he should faithfully preserve them to the very end; and that he should finally present them to himself, a glorious people, without spot or wrinkle.

Piper new full well that some of those that would watch his video would be those whom (in his view) were not of the elect. Yet, he still tells them 'Christ died for your sins'.

He deceived them. He hasn't revealed to them the actual tenets of what he believes scripture teaches. For me, this is the crux of why Calvinism trips up - it comes against the very essence of the gospel itself.
First, I've wrestled similarly, so you aren't alone, nor is it just the two of us. Here is something puzzling me a little though: Why did this make you agnostic? I'd think I'd simply stop being a Calvinist at that point, and go toward Amyraldian, Arminian, or other. Why has it done worse for you?

As far as Dort, I've read a bit on this and other Reformed councils. If my disagreements have me no longer within Calvinist walls, I'm not too overtly concerned. There is a difference between a particular systematic theology and faith and trust in Christ in God. In the realm of Christianity, we hold tentatively to certain systematics as they make the most sense to us, but the most of us adhere to the essential doctrines that cannot be debated without losing the distinction of Christianity and our position in Christ. So for me, I see this as an issue, though 'about' salvation, not really an issue 'of' salvation. So, I often try to answer most salvation questions with scriptures alone, such as "all who call upon the name of the Lord will be saved." Remember the parable of the men in the vineyard with some who worked less than others? Some complained and the master asked what that was to them. In John, some of the Disciples asked about the one that Jesus Loved and they were told the same "What is that to you?" I 'think' this one too, might fall into that category. Salvation really is only between us and God. I pray for my family, loved ones, and other friends, but really, the business of their salvation has not a lot to do with me, other than praying for them in love and trying to water and plant, in love. Did Piper lie or make a mistake? I don't know. It may look like that, but Love covers mistakes and a multitude of sins. I'd hope you'd not 'fall' because of a sin of mine, but 'grace me' because of a sin of mine as I ever endeavor to make it right AND refrain from doing it again. Heaven help me if I make a mistake and am never forgiven or graced for it again :( I pray my words grace you and replant seeds of faith and hope in the Lord Jesus Christ. -Lon

Sonnet
April 20th, 2016, 12:43 AM
I didn't mean to convey a need for apology, just that it seemed unassailable and so I was perplexed how to traverse such a wall. Thanks.

:)


First, I've wrestled similarly, so you aren't alone, nor is it just the two of us. Here is something puzzling me a little though: Why did this make you agnostic? I'd think I'd simply stop being a Calvinist at that point, and go toward Amyraldian, Arminian, or other. Why has it done worse for you?


The possibility that Calvinism is the truth together with various other seeming anomalies in scripture came against my previous faith.



As far as Dort, I've read a bit on this and other Reformed councils. If my disagreements have me no longer within Calvinist walls, I'm not too overtly concerned. There is a difference between a particular systematic theology and faith and trust in Christ in God. In the realm of Christianity, we hold tentatively to certain systematics as they make the most sense to us, but the most of us adhere to the essential doctrines that cannot be debated without losing the distinction of Christianity and our position in Christ. So for me, I see this as an issue, though 'about' salvation, not really an issue 'of' salvation. So, I often try to answer most salvation questions with scriptures alone, such as "all who call upon the name of the Lord will be saved." Remember the parable of the men in the vineyard with some who worked less than others? Some complained and the master asked what that was to them. In John, some of the Disciples asked about the one that Jesus Loved and they were told the same "What is that to you?" I 'think' this one too, might fall into that category. Salvation really is only between us and God. I pray for my family, loved ones, and other friends, but really, the business of their salvation has not a lot to do with me, other than praying for them in love and trying to water and plant, in love. Did Piper lie or make a mistake? I don't know. It may look like that, but Love covers mistakes and a multitude of sins. I'd hope you'd not 'fall' because of a sin of mine, but 'grace me' because of a sin of mine as I ever endeavor to make it right AND refrain from doing it again. Heaven help me if I make a mistake and am never forgiven or graced for it again :( I pray my words grace you and replant seeds of faith and hope in the Lord Jesus Christ. -Lon

Thanks. I guess, for me, I can see no possible explanation why the God Calvinism describes would be worth spending an eternity in heaven with.

Arminianism has the problem of explaining how God remains sovereign and in control if men are able to turn to God in faith. Arminians cannot do so (explain it), but I'd rather have this problem than the Calvinist's.

Lon
April 20th, 2016, 01:11 AM
:)
The possibility that Calvinism is the truth together with various other seeming anomalies in scripture came against my previous faith. Again, just realize these are ways of trying to understand and assemble scriptures coherently. I don't think one has to chuck his faith, simply because they don't like one particular human's take on an aspect.

Thanks. I guess, for me, I can see no possible explanation why the God Calvinism describes would be worth spending an eternity in heaven with.
One of the things I came to was 1) God loves even my wife and kids, more than I do. 2) God is more concerned about their eternity, I think, by virtue of being God. 3) My morality comes from God, so I think He necessarily has to be better than me. After that, Sonnet, for me, it was a matter of trying to find what seemed to make the most sense in light of those assumptions. In the end, I'm not the writer of truth, just the distributer and it unchanged. I'm not even going to do much but add my commentary on this website rather than your Bible side-margins. Here is the first reason I'm a Calvinist (I think): I realized the three things above and realized God is more committed to another's salvation in being unwilling that any should perish. It necessarily (logically) meant for me, that God does, in fact, care very deeply that the unbeliever doesn't come to Him. He really isn't willing that any should perish. I was greatly encouraged that God went so far as to strike Saul blind to save Him. God's business is saving people.

Arminianism has the problem of explaining how God remains sovereign and in control if men are able to turn to God in faith. Arminians cannot do so (explain it), but I'd rather have this problem than the Calvinist's.
That's why I didn't understand your crisis of faith. For me, I'd just say "well this group got it wrong (probably)." I believe God exists, regardless if Calvinists or Arminians or Open Theists have it wrong.

Sonnet
April 20th, 2016, 01:43 AM
Again, just realize these are ways of trying to understand and assemble scriptures coherently. I don't think one has to chuck his faith, simply because they don't like one particular human's take on an aspect.

Polygamy, Calvinism, 1 Tim 2:11-15 remain problematic.

Darwinian evolution remains a serious challenge to scripture.


One of the things I came to was 1) God loves even my wife and kids, more than I do. 2) God is more concerned about their eternity, I think, by virtue of being God. 3) My morality comes from God, so I think He necessarily has to be better than me. After that, Sonnet, for me, it was a matter of trying to find what seemed to make the most sense in light of those assumptions. In the end, I'm not the writer of truth, just the distributer and it unchanged. I'm not even going to do much but add my commentary on this website rather than your Bible side-margins.

:)


Here is the first reason I'm a Calvinist (I think): I realized the three things above and realized God is more committed to another's salvation in being unwilling that any should perish. It necessarily (logically) meant for me, that God does, in fact, care very deeply that the unbeliever doesn't come to Him. He really isn't willing that any should perish. I was greatly encouraged that God went so far as to strike Saul blind to save Him. God's business is saving people.

You sound more like an Arminian than a Calvinist.



That's why I didn't understand your crisis of faith. For me, I'd just say "well this group got it wrong (probably)." I believe God exists, regardless if Calvinists or Arminians or Open Theists have it wrong.

As I said, it's more than just such theologies.

Sonnet
April 20th, 2016, 01:46 AM
I didn't mean to convey a need for apology, just that it seemed unassailable and so I was perplexed how to traverse such a wall. Thanks.

First, I've wrestled similarly, so you aren't alone, nor is it just the two of us. Here is something puzzling me a little though: Why did this make you agnostic? I'd think I'd simply stop being a Calvinist at that point, and go toward Amyraldian, Arminian, or other. Why has it done worse for you?

As far as Dort, I've read a bit on this and other Reformed councils. If my disagreements have me no longer within Calvinist walls, I'm not too overtly concerned. There is a difference between a particular systematic theology and faith and trust in Christ in God. In the realm of Christianity, we hold tentatively to certain systematics as they make the most sense to us, but the most of us adhere to the essential doctrines that cannot be debated without losing the distinction of Christianity and our position in Christ. So for me, I see this as an issue, though 'about' salvation, not really an issue 'of' salvation. So, I often try to answer most salvation questions with scriptures alone, such as "all who call upon the name of the Lord will be saved." Remember the parable of the men in the vineyard with some who worked less than others? Some complained and the master asked what that was to them. In John, some of the Disciples asked about the one that Jesus Loved and they were told the same "What is that to you?" I 'think' this one too, might fall into that category. Salvation really is only between us and God. I pray for my family, loved ones, and other friends, but really, the business of their salvation has not a lot to do with me, other than praying for them in love and trying to water and plant, in love. Did Piper lie or make a mistake? I don't know. It may look like that, but Love covers mistakes and a multitude of sins. I'd hope you'd not 'fall' because of a sin of mine, but 'grace me' because of a sin of mine as I ever endeavor to make it right AND refrain from doing it again. Heaven help me if I make a mistake and am never forgiven or graced for it again :( I pray my words grace you and replant seeds of faith and hope in the Lord Jesus Christ. -Lon

Do you / would you tell unbelievers - the entire world of unbelievers if it came to it - that Christ died for your (i.e. their) sins?

As a Calvinist, have in mind, as you begin to say the words (above), your emphatic assertion that Christ did not atone for all men.

Lon
April 20th, 2016, 02:12 AM
Polygamy, Calvinism, 1 Tim 2:11-15 remain problematic.
We are looking quite a way back in history. I remember a story of a slave owner prior to the civil war, that bought slaves to set them free. So, we could look poorly on his 'buying slaves' but if we didn't understand a greater context, we'd only have been judgmental. I do not understand everything in scripture like polygamy BUT I do know enough not to be hung up any more when I don't know the answer or something at least 'looks' wrong. I also am not a Jew. They had the 'low bar.' It is kind of like the Olympics, men were barely clearing 6 foot at one time. Now that's pretty much just high school. IOW, if they had laws, ours certainly supersede them. Jesus said the man that loves, fulfills the law and said that ALL of the law and prophets were fulfilled by loving one another, and loving God. For me, the loss of faith crisis was averted. I pray the same for you.


Darwinian evolution remains a serious challenge to scripture.
My daughter has been getting A's in science and has no problems. I 'think' we YEC'ers and Fundamentalists, and others, can avert those crises too. Some Christians long ago 'assumed' by deduction a flat earth. For me, I made a separation in my mind between Christian deduction and biblical induction. I've no idea how man's footprints are fossilized in a dinosaurs. It 'looks' like dinosaurs lived during Job's life with leviathan and behemoth. There are just some things that we have to figure out as we go. So, on this too, science wasn't a huge faith-breaker for me. Granted I've had some incredible interactions with God that floor me, but I didn't disbelieve others who had them long before I had experienced them myself. For me, it just didn't seem reasonable to doubt other's genuine encounter stories. Some are a bit beyond the pale, but I'm talking about sincere people who I'd been in close contact with and had no reason to doubt. I did have a crisis of faith, but all God had to do was remind me what He'd done for me. I also couldn't shake a confidence that the account of the Lord Jesus Christ was too logically written and my expectation of how God would deal with our sins and communicate with us given our plight. I don't think anybody can take that away from me.



:)
You sound more like an Arminian than a Calvinist.
I get that a lot. I'm most concerned with what is biblical. We all disagree on things that are not issues of salvation. In the end, it doesn't matter if I think something, God doesn't seek my counsel or seek my input. Since man's fall, His every interaction with us is to save us. It is, I think, His pressing business and that all of history up until Christ was geared toward redemption "that if any man believeth in Him, should not perish, but have everlasting life." Every Calvinist I know of prays for his/her lost family and loved ones with fervor. Some have said that isn't very Calvinistic to me, also. Either we are misunderstood or we are wrong or some combination of both. I do see the problems in Calvinist doctrine. If I'm not a Calvinist because of some of my disagreements, or if I am, I've not been one long enough to know and I'm not sure I'd get thrown out anyway. While I have a few disagreements, even with Calvin, it seems the best definition to start with. I'm not as caught up on labels, but it helps everyone at least know what direction we are coming from. Theology is such a large set of discussions that labels, even if they don't completely define us, at least help one with a starting point on how to figure the other guy out. Then, at least, you can ask them questions from any particular known perspective. "Nondenominational Christian" is a bit TOO broad yet, I think. We have those on TOL, but I'm still trying to figure out what some of them actually believe.




As I said, it's more than just such theologies. Thanks for answering.

Lon
April 20th, 2016, 02:30 AM
Do you / would you tell unbelievers - the entire world of unbelievers if it came to it - that Christ died for your (i.e. their) sins?

As a Calvinist, have in mind, as you begin to say the words (above), your emphatic assertion that Christ did not atone for all men.
Some Calvinists would/could say it and mean it. I'm not sure how they embrace limited atonement at that point.

I tend to quote scriptures rather than try to summarize or rephrase them. There are a couple of reasons for this. 1) God has only promised that His word will accomplish His goals. 2) If I'm going to speak for Him, I feel a need to not misquote Him and I've a little less confidence (okay a LOT less) when I'm using my own words instead of His. Also, I think scripture has a way of reaching past my particular take on theology.

I think you are correct that I don't sound always like a Calvinist, but quoting scriptures doesn't cast me easily as an Arminian either. The down-side of labels even though they can help peg us, is they also can get in the way, especially with any preconceived notion or hang-up. "I'm a Calvinist, I however disagree with a few Calvinist points and come to some of the other points a bit differently than other Calvinists."

I'd say "For God so loved people (the world), that He gave His only Begotten Son, that whosoever should believe in Him, should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3:16

journey
April 20th, 2016, 02:34 AM
First, I am not a Calvinist. I firmly believe that Jesus Christ died on the cross for the sins of the entire world, thus making the free gift of Salvation possible.

Romans 6:23 KJV For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

The gift of God is offered to all men, but many will reject it. The gift is offered by God's Grace - through faith in Jesus Christ: that He died on the Cross for our sins, that He was buried, and that He arose from the dead on the third day. We can do nothing to earn or deserve Salvation, so all of the glory goes to God.

1 John 2:1-2 KJV My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: 2. And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

I have many friends and some family members who are Calvinists. I disagree with them, but I know that they are Saved. So, we are brothers and sisters in Christ with doctrinal differences. I and my Calvinist friends are all purchased possessions of the same Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, regardless of our differences. There is nothing in God's Word that mandates one be a Calvinist or an Arminian to be Saved.

Sonnet
April 20th, 2016, 02:39 AM
We are looking quite a way back in history. I remember a story of a slave owner prior to the civil war, that bought slaves to set them free. So, we could look poorly on his 'buying slaves' but if we didn't understand a greater context, we'd only have been judgemental. I do not understand everything in scripture like polygamy BUT I do know enough not to be hung up any more when I don't know the answer or something at least 'looks' wrong. I also am not a Jew. They had the 'low bar.' It is kind of like the Olympics, men were barely clearing 6 foot at one time. Now that's pretty much just high school. IOW, if they had laws, ours certainly supersede them. Jesus said the man that loves, fulfils the law and said that ALL of the law and prophets were fulfilled by loving one another, and loving God. For me, the loss of faith crisis was averted. I pray the same for you.

Thanks.

It is certainly possible that polygamy was permitted as the least worst solution to a problem of an excess of women (due wars killing more men and higher birth rate of women) who were vulnerable and uneducated.

And yet it amounts to adultery...Romans 7:1ff


My daughter has been getting A's in science and has no problems. I 'think' we YEC'ers and Fundamentalists, and others, can avert those crises too. Some Christians long ago 'assumed' by deduction a flat earth. For me, I made a separation in my mind between Christian deduction and biblical induction. I've no idea how man's footprints are fossilized in a dinosaurs. It 'looks' like dinosaurs lived during Job's life with leviathan and behemoth. There are just some things that we have to figure out as we go. So, on this too, science wasn't a huge faith-breaker for me. Granted I've had some incredible interactions with God that floor me, but I didn't disbelieve others who had them long before I had experienced them myself. For me, it just didn't seem reasonable to doubt other's genuine encounter stories. Some are a bit beyond the pale, but I'm talking about sincere people who I'd been in close contact with and had no reason to doubt. I did have a crisis of faith, but all God had to do was remind me what He'd done for me. I also couldn't shake a confidence that the account of the Lord Jesus Christ was too logically written and my expectation of how God would deal with our sins and communicate with us given our plight. I don't think anybody can take that away from me.

The evidence from the rock layers is completely at odds with a world wide Noachian flood. Many Christian geologist...Woodward, Cuviert etc felt they could not uphold the catastrophism that scripture implies.

I do not, however, deny the possibility that the flood took place as described in Genesis 6ff



I get that a lot. I'm most concerned with what is biblical. We all disagree on things that are not issues of salvation. In the end, it doesn't matter if I think something, God doesn't seek my counsel or seek my input. Since man's fall, His every interaction with us is to save us. It is, I think, His pressing business and that all of history up until Christ was geared toward redemption "that if any man believeth in Him, should not perish, but have everlasting life." Every Calvinist I know of prays for his/her lost family and loved ones with fervor. Some have said that isn't very Calvinistic to me, also. Either we are misunderstood or we are wrong or some combination of both. I do see the problems in Calvinist doctrine. If I'm not a Calvinist because of some of my disagreements, or if I am, I've not been one long enough to know and I'm not sure I'd get thrown out anyway. While I have a few disagreements, even with Calvin, it seems the best definition to start with. I'm not as caught up on labels, but it helps everyone at least know what direction we are coming from. Theology is such a large set of discussions that labels, even if they don't completely define us, at least help one with a starting point on how to figure the other guy out. Then, at least, you can ask them questions from any particular known perspective. "Nondenominational Christian" is a bit TOO broad yet, I think. We have those on TOL, but I'm still trying to figure out what some of them actually believe.



Thanks for answering.

:)

Sonnet
April 20th, 2016, 02:44 AM
First, I am not a Calvinist. I firmly believe that Jesus Christ died on the cross for the sins of the entire world, thus making the free gift of Salvation possible.

Romans 6:23 KJV For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

The gift of God is offered to all men, but many will reject it. The gift is offered by God's Grace - through faith in Jesus Christ: that He died on the Cross for our sins, that He was buried, and that He arose from the dead on the third day. We can do nothing to earn or deserve Salvation, so all of the glory goes to God.

1 John 2:1-2 KJV My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: 2. And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

I have many friends and some family members who are Calvinists. I disagree with them, but I know that they are Saved. So, we are brothers and sisters in Christ with doctrinal differences. I and my Calvinist friends are all purchased possessions of the same Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, regardless of our differences. There is nothing in God's Word that mandates one be a Calvinist or an Arminian to be Saved.

Thanks. I agree with your thoughts.

Would your Calvinist friends hesitate to tell unbelievers that Christ died for them? Would they accept that it would only be right to tell the unsaved that, in their view, Christ has not provided for all men?

How can God remain in control if man may choose, under prevenient grace, to put their faith in Christ. God's lost control hasn't He?

Sonnet
April 20th, 2016, 02:52 AM
Some Calvinists would/could say it and mean it. I'm not sure how they embrace limited atonement at that point.

An honest answer. Thanks.


I tend to quote scriptures rather than try to summarize or rephrase them. There are a couple of reasons for this. 1) God has only promised that His word will accomplish His goals. 2) If I'm going to speak for Him, I feel a need to not misquote Him and I've a little less confidence (okay a LOT less) when I'm using my own words instead of His. Also, I think scripture has a way of reaching past my particular take on theology.

Good point.



I think you are correct that I don't sound always like a Calvinist, but quoting scriptures doesn't cast me easily as an Arminian either. The down-side of labels even though they can help peg us, is they also can get in the way, especially with any preconceived notion or hang-up. "I'm a Calvinist, I however disagree with a few Calvinist points and come to some of the other points a bit differently than other Calvinists."

I'd say "For God so loved people (the world), that He gave His only Begotten Son, that whosoever should believe in Him, should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3:16

Nice words.

I also like the analogy Jesus uses just before 3:16.

Just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness so shall the Son of Man be lifted up so that everyone who believes may have eternal life in Him.


It's curious that no other Calvinists have posted a refutation of this thread.

Lon
April 20th, 2016, 11:25 AM
An honest answer. Thanks.

Good point.


Nice words.

I also like the analogy Jesus uses just before 3:16.

Just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness so shall the Son of Man be lifted up so that everyone who believes may have eternal life in Him.
Not much to say with so much agreement. I pray you'd see past the planters and waterers to the God behind it all.

It's curious that no other Calvinists have posted a refutation of this thread.
There are a LOT of 'ask a Calvinist' threads and have been many of them in the past. Try a 'bump' post in a few weeks or in a month or two. Don't be discouraged.
Thanks.

It is certainly possible that polygamy was permitted as the least worst solution to a problem of an excess of women (due wars killing more men and higher birth rate of women) who were vulnerable and uneducated.

And yet it amounts to adultery...Romans 7:1ff
They didn't have Romans. Remember the OT is the low-bar (imho and estimation) and the NT is the high-bar.
Love covers a multitude of sin. I think monogamy the best model and polygamy would overtly stress love's intent.
I'm not meaning to say it is utilitarian, but rather that all the Law and Prophets are about either/and loving God and loving man.

Most of the time, this is how I reconcile all of Scriptures. If Jesus said it is all about Love of God and man, it seems that must be the reconciliation of all points of Scripture. I admittedly have a hard time reading all the OT being able to personally reconcile according to that model, but I don't doubt the Lord Jesus Christ. I chalk it up to just not being the know-it-all I sometimes think I am.
.

The evidence from the rock layers is completely at odds with a world wide Noachian flood. Many Christian geologist...Woodward, Cuviert etc felt they could not uphold the catastrophism that scripture implies. I question science as much as I question my understanding of scripture. In both, we are at the mercies of deduction and interpretation. On this one, plate tectonic theory doesn't seem to play as an important of a role either in science denying a flood, or Biblical scholars not including it in their understanding of scriptural considerations. Sorry, rambling, the point is we are left at the mercies of interpretation both from science and bible reading deductions. At one time, I'd have tentatively held to a flat earth, likely. Bad? No, I don't 'think' it either hindered science nor spirituality. In a nutshell, I think we 'can' afford to be wrong on some things without dire consequences. If it really does ruin your faith, I could be wrong, but I don't think it has to end up there. To me, this isn't a deal-breaker. For others, perhaps it is, but I'm not understanding why it becomes an essential issue of spirituality at that point. Many today 'try' to make it that, but I'm still not quite grasping the connection. It seems 'hype' to me (not at all pointed at any one in particular nor you).


I do not, however, deny the possibility that the flood took place as described in Genesis 6ff
My response to skeptics: "Look, the epic of Gilgamesh contains things we find incredulous along with other cultures that recorded a global flood among harder to imagine story-lines. Though that looks like a deal-breaker, it actually substantiates the flood story archeologically.
We have every reason to think that a commonality of a recorded flood, is in fact observation by these cultures of a cataclysmic event, not doubt it." Again, we are ever at the mercies of other's interpretations. Just because a scientist, or even a few of them think that a global flood is impossible, it doesn't make historical sense to deny that ancient peoples separate from one another, 1) Made it a matter of great import to record something of it, but 2) that they corroborate something. Scientists aren't really that broad in their focus, but I'd think they should be, more often than not. Science is a job, not a narrow-focused way of life. They shouldn't even read the paper if they truly believed science was the only source of reliable information (they don't, but sometimes, like denying historical record, a few of them go 'beyond' their area of expertise. Like religion as a subject, especially Christianity, science too can get myopic, at least from my observation and summation.

-Lon

heir
April 20th, 2016, 11:36 AM
Did Christ die for all men?Yes, to be testified in due time.

1 Timothy 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

1 Timothy 2:6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

journey
April 20th, 2016, 03:00 PM
Thanks. I agree with your thoughts.

Would your Calvinist friends hesitate to tell unbelievers that Christ died for them? Would they accept that it would only be right to tell the unsaved that, in their view, Christ has not provided for all men?

How can God remain in control if man may choose, under prevenient grace, to put their faith in Christ. God's lost control hasn't He?

I think that some would and some would not. I really can't speak for them. God could have made all of us like robots - programmed to fulfill His every wish. However, we know that God didn't do that. God wants our love and worship because we want to, not because He forced us to.

Nanja
April 20th, 2016, 05:22 PM
Scripture declares that God's Grace is given only to His Elect chosen in Union with Christ before the world began 2 Tim. 1:9; Eph. 1:4-7, His Saints, but never said to be offered or made available, for that kind of thinking can only proceed from the mind of man!

~~~~~

Bright Raven
April 20th, 2016, 05:57 PM
Scripture declares that God's Grace is given only to His Elect chosen in Union with Christ before the world began 2 Tim. 1:9; Eph. 1:4-7, His Saints, but never said to be offered or made available, for that kind of thinking can only proceed from the mind of man!

~~~~~

Those who call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved Romans 10:13.

beloved57
April 20th, 2016, 07:35 PM
Scripture declares that God's Grace is given only to His Elect chosen in Union with Christ before the world began 2 Tim. 1:9; Eph. 1:4-7, His Saints, but never said to be offered or made available, for that kind of thinking can only proceed from the mind of man!

~~~~~

Amen Sister!

Ask Mr. Religion
April 20th, 2016, 07:43 PM
No union with Our Lord until one is regenerated from above.

Hopefully and prayerfully, the discerning will reject the hyper-calvinist notions of eternal justification argued by beloved57 and Nanja.

http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?115439-Eternal-Security-!&p=4643308&viewfull=1#post4643308

AMR

Ask Mr. Religion
April 20th, 2016, 07:56 PM
Would your Calvinist friends hesitate to tell unbelievers that Christ died for them?
No properly instructed Reformed person would expect to hear a preacher or anyone saying to a specific person that Our Lord died for that specific person. How can we presume to know the secret will of God to make such a statement?

Our Lord died for all those given to Him , else His death was in vain and a mere potential salvation, not an actual one for those God the Father gave to Him.

What we should be saying is that all who call upon the name of the Lord will be saved and not lost to Him.

The tearful altar calls to the sound of "Just As I Am" were the invention of the Pelagian Charles Finney (http://www.bible-researcher.com/sproul1.html).

AMR

heir
April 20th, 2016, 09:23 PM
No union with Our Lord until one is regenerated from above.

Hopefully and prayerfully, the discerning will reject the hyper-calvinist notions of eternal justification argued by beloved57 and Nanja.

http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?115439-Eternal-Security-!&p=4643308&viewfull=1#post4643308

AMRThe regeneration is the Lord's shed on us, not our regeneration!

Titus 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

Titus 3:6 Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;

Nang
April 20th, 2016, 10:22 PM
The regeneration is the Lord's shed on us, not our regeneration!

Titus 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

Titus 3:6 Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;

"Regeneration" is the miracle of new life brought upon those sinners, for whom Jesus Christ died, when they are spiritually born again by the resurrection power of the Holy Spirit of Christ . . As described by John in John 3:6-8 and Paul in Acts 26:18.

I believe this is the "first resurrection". Revelation 20:6

Sonnet
April 20th, 2016, 10:49 PM
Scripture declares that God's Grace is given only to His Elect chosen in Union with Christ before the world began 2 Tim. 1:9; Eph. 1:4-7, His Saints, but never said to be offered or made available, for that kind of thinking can only proceed from the mind of man!

~~~~~

He has saved us and called us to a holy life—not because of anything we have done but because of his own purpose and grace. This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time,

God chose, before the foundation of the world, to save through the provision of Jesus.

For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us for adoption to sonship through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will— to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves. In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God’s grace

God chose to provide redemption through Jesus Christ before the foundation of the world. Those in him would be blameless and adopted as sons. All this was predetermined.

The OP makes a very specific point which I would appreciate you addressing. Thanks.

Sonnet
April 20th, 2016, 10:50 PM
Amen Sister!

So your answer to the OP is?

Sonnet
April 20th, 2016, 10:51 PM
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Lon
April 20th, 2016, 10:55 PM
The regeneration is the Lord's shed on us, not our regeneration!

Titus 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

Titus 3:6 Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;
Not sure if you were agreeing or disagreeing. Ephesians 2:10 2 Corinthians 5:17?

Sonnet
April 20th, 2016, 11:19 PM
No properly instructed Reformed person would expect to hear a preacher or anyone saying to a specific person that Our Lord died for that specific person.

Saint Paul did.

1 Corinthians 15:11
Whether, then it is I or they (the apostles) this is what we preach and this is what you believed.

What is 'this'? Verses 1-7:

Now, brothers and sisters, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

Paul explicitly says (in the quoted v.11) - 'this is what you believed' - the Corinthians believed 'this' when he first came to them. Nothing in Paul's words guards against this understanding - that Christ died for all.

Paul preached this gospel. Yours is different.

Tell a man that someone has died for them - and, indeed, for all men - then it will/must make an impact. Tell a man that someone may have not died for you - that, rather, he died for a select few - then the reaction will be quite different.

Paul also said:
As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse!

Sonnet
April 20th, 2016, 11:30 PM
How curious that Christianity does not even agree on the very essence of the message of the 'good news'.

Ask Mr. Religion
April 20th, 2016, 11:35 PM
You answered your own question with the verses you appeal to, none of which conflict with what I have posted if you actually read them carefully...


1 Corinthians 15:11
Whether, then it is I or they (the apostles) this is what we preach and this is what you believed.

What is 'this'? Verses 1-7:

Now, brothers and sisters...Get it? :AMR:

Why would I tell you (or another person) Our Lord may not have died for you? How exactly would I know this? What I do know is that there are some now in Hell and more arriving daily, so I am confident Our Lord did not die for these folks, else they would not be undergoing eternal punishment for sins that have been atoned for by Our Lord.

So, please do not put words in my mouth. Tell a person what you really have warrant to know, that the wages of sin are death, all have sinned, God in his mercy has made provision for sin, Jesus Christ has died and rose again, and all who call upon His name shall be saved.

Did you even take the time to carefully review the link (http://goo.gl/L86VF9) previously given?
AMR

Lon
April 20th, 2016, 11:52 PM
How curious that Christianity does not even agree on the very essence of the message of the 'good news'.

Are you sure it is 'essence?' It looks rather like 'who,' that is debated. Only those in Christ are 'in Christ.' How they got there may be debated until the cows come home, as far as I can tell. Those not in Christ, are not 'in Christ.' How they remain their might be debated as well. I don't believe another's fate removes or should distract from our own encounter with God. To me, this is kind of like picking my friends 'only' on the basis of what one of my friends says about someone. "I won't be his friend." Well, what does that have to do with me? If they won't be my friend either....all on them. To me, it looks like being called "a friend of God" is a good thing. I'm bothered but not crying for their decision. They made it. Their loss? Yes. And I would continue to do as much as I can to ensure they don't continue to reject something wonderful. That's when they tend to avoid us for being so adamant about their plight. I try to be creative in how many different ways I can say "You are going the wrong way!!!" Regardless, we all come to Christ the same way. Standing on deck from a Coast Guard rescue, we may all argue 'how' we got on deck, but once on deck, arguing about it doesn't stop us from being on deck. Now if someone would push me back in, that's not going to be cool....

Sonnet
April 20th, 2016, 11:59 PM
You answered your own question with these verses, which do not conflict with what I have posted...

1 Corinthians 15:11
Whether, then it is I or they (the apostles) this is what we preach and this is what you believed.

What is 'this'? Verses 1-7:

Now, brothers and sisters...

Get it?

AMR

Paul is reminding them of what he preached to them when he first came to them. It's same as what he preaches (in the present).

1 Now, brothers and sisters, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you

Are you suggesting that the gospel comes in two versions?

Sonnet
April 21st, 2016, 12:13 AM
Are you sure it is 'essence?' It looks rather like 'who,' that is debated. Only those in Christ are 'in Christ.' How they got there may be debated until the cows come home, as far as I can tell. Those not in Christ, are not 'in Christ.' How they remain their might be debated as well. I don't believe another's fate removes or should distract from our own encounter with God. To me, this is kind of like picking my friends 'only' on the basis of what one of my friends says about someone. "I won't be his friend." Well, what does that have to do with me? If they won't be my friend either....all on them. To me, it looks like being called "a friend of God" is a good thing. I'm bothered but not crying for their decision. They made it. Their loss? Yes. And I would continue to do as much as I can to ensure they don't continue to reject something wonderful. That's when they tend to avoid us for being so adamant about their plight. I try to be creative in how many different ways I can say "You are going the wrong way!!!" Regardless, we all come to Christ the same way. Standing on deck from a Coast Guard rescue, we may all argue 'how' we got on deck, but once on deck, arguing about it doesn't stop us from being on deck. Now if someone would push me back in, that's not going to be cool....

But my point was about what the gospel is - what form of words constitutes a correct summation of what Christ did.

Lon
April 21st, 2016, 12:23 AM
But my point was about what the gospel is - what form of words constitutes a correct summation of what Christ did.
Romans seems like a good book for that answer to me. Romans 3:23; 5:8; 6:23; 10:9-10

After that, more questions I'm sure, but more time in God's word and asking Him. He must increase in your life, I/we must decrease. John 3:30

Ask Mr. Religion
April 21st, 2016, 12:29 AM
Paul is reminding them of what he preached to them when he first came to them. It's same as what he preaches (in the present).

1 Now, brothers and sisters, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you

Are you suggesting that the gospel comes in two versions?
You are trying to make these verses say more than what they say. Paul is speaking to brothers and sisters, so of course he would say Jesus died for our sins. When someone professes the faith even at this site, I would say the same thing. That is the context, and it is always the context when you find Scripture using similar words, as in "you", "us", "we" related to the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Did you read the link (http://goo.gl/L86VF9) previously given?

AMR

Ask Mr. Religion
April 21st, 2016, 12:45 AM
How curious that Christianity does not even agree on the very essence of the message of the 'good news'.

The essence of the Gospel revolves around the answer to four basic questions:

1)Who made us, and to whom are we accountable?
2) What is our problem? In other words, are we in trouble and why?
3) What is God's solution to that problem? How has He acted to save us from it?
4) How do I, right here, right now, come to be included in that salvation? What makes this good news for me and not just for someone else?

AMR

Sonnet
April 21st, 2016, 01:38 AM
You are trying to make these verses say more than what they say. Paul is speaking to brothers and sisters, so of course he would say Jesus died for our sins. When someone professes the faith even at this site, I would say the same thing. That is the context, and it is always the context when you find Scripture using similar words, as in "you", "us", "we" related to the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.


You are correct that Paul addresses the Corinthian church, but Paul reminds them of what he said when initially came them, when they were not believers. Indeed, Paul's ambition was to preach to the unsaved (Romans 15:20).

Paul also speaks of the possibility of those in the church that might not be true believers (v.2 - By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain). Paul reminds such folk of what was preached, including the fact that 'Christ died for our sins.'

Nowhere is Paul careful to distinguish to whom he says such words.



Did you read the link (http://goo.gl/L86VF9) previously given?

AMR

Thanks. I'll have a look.

Sonnet
April 21st, 2016, 01:42 AM
The essence of the Gospel revolves around the answer to four basic questions:

1)Who made us, and to whom are we accountable?
2) What is our problem? In other words, are we in trouble and why?
3) What is God's solution to that problem? How has He acted to save us from it?
4) How do I, right here, right now, come to be included in that salvation? What makes this good news for me and not just for someone else?

AMR

Honesty demands that you tell unbelievers that (you think) the good news is that Christ only came to save those chosen - and not the rest. Do you?

Sonnet
April 21st, 2016, 01:47 AM
You are trying to make these verses say more than what they say. Paul is speaking to brothers and sisters, so of course he would say Jesus died for our sins. When someone professes the faith even at this site, I would say the same thing. That is the context, and it is always the context when you find Scripture using similar words, as in "you", "us", "we" related to the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Did you read the link (http://goo.gl/L86VF9) previously given?

AMR

According to your interpretation, v.11 ('this is what we preach') is not the same as vv.3b-5. You miss out the most important bit don't you? Why? I assume you are fine with the 'buried', 'risen' and 'observed' elements of the gospel?

Sonnet
April 21st, 2016, 02:08 AM
Did you read the link (http://goo.gl/L86VF9) previously given?

AMR


I have now. Very interesting thanks.

Sonnet
April 21st, 2016, 02:26 AM
the link (http://goo.gl/L86VF9)

Faith is not a work of righteousness. If it were, Paul could not speak as he does in Romans 4:1-5.

He would be contradicting himself.

Sonnet
April 21st, 2016, 02:29 AM
Add to this Romans 10:1-13.

Sonnet
April 21st, 2016, 02:31 AM
Romans 9:30-32

Sonnet
April 21st, 2016, 02:52 AM
Romans seems like a good book for that answer to me. Romans 3:23; 5:8; 6:23; 10:9-10

After that, more questions I'm sure, but more time in God's word and asking Him. He must increase in your life, I/we must decrease. John 3:30

Good verses.

Sonnet
April 21st, 2016, 03:26 AM
Luke 22:20-22
In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you. But the hand of him who is going to betray me is with mine on the table. The Son of Man will go as it has been decreed. But woe to that man who betrays him!”

Jesus' blood would be poured out for Judas. That is what Jesus says. No attempt is made to exclude Judas from that which Jesus' shed blood would achieve.

Paul merely follows Jesus' example and told unbelievers what Christ did for them. He preached Christ crucified. 1 Cor 2:1-2.

1 John 2:2.

Sonnet
April 21st, 2016, 03:35 AM
Works of righteousness and choosing to believe in Christ are mutually exclusive events.

Faith is morally neutral.

chrysostom
April 21st, 2016, 03:46 AM
Works of righteousness and choosing to believe in Christ are mutually exclusive events.

you are what you do and that should reflect what you believe

Sonnet
April 21st, 2016, 03:55 AM
you are what you do and that should reflect what you believe

Okay - but in the context of what an unsaved person must do to be saved, Jesus was explicit - we must believe the one he (God) has sent. The fruits follow and confirm that the faith was real.

chrysostom
April 21st, 2016, 03:59 AM
Okay - but in the context of what an unsaved person must do to be saved, Jesus was explicit - we must believe the one he (God) has sent. The fruits follow and confirm that the faith was real.

what if the fruits don't follow?

Sonnet
April 21st, 2016, 04:03 AM
what if the fruits don't follow?

James 2:17

Samie
April 21st, 2016, 04:29 AM
Did Christ die for all men?

My answer is Yes:2 Corinthians 5:14, 15

14 For the love of Christ compels us, because we judge thus: that if One died for all, then all died;

15 and He died for all, that those who live should live no longer for themselves, but for Him who died for them and rose again.If only believers were the ones who died with Him, then it follows that only believers were fashioned into His Body on the cross. But because there was yet no believer (Ephesian, Corinthian, nor even Paul himself) when the One New Man was created on the cross, then the One New Man on the cross has a Head BUT without a Body. But this is not the case.

The Father through the Son created a One New Man on the cross (Eph 2:11-19): Christ the Head; humanity (Jews & Gentiles) the Body. When the Head died, the Body of course likewise died. It was in His Body where Jesus carried the sin of humanity on the tree (1 Pet 2:24). And rightly so, because humanity was His Body on the cross! And He is the Lamb that takes away the sin not only of the believers but the sin of the world (John 1:29).

Christ's death on the cross was first represented by the first death of an animal on the very same day Adam fell into sin, as well as with subsequent animal sacrifices in the old covenant. Instead of man dying to pay for his sin, another died for him, so man can have another shot at life eternal. True, Adam, by his own death that same day he sinned, could have paid for his sin, but that would be the eternal end for him. He could have paid for his sin God hates, but God would have eternally lost the sinner He loves. But God was not caught unaware. He had already devised a plan where man could not only pay for his own sin but at the same time have another shot at eternal life. So, on that very same day man sinned, God implemented the plan of redemption He devised before the foundation of the world, before the beginning of time (2 Tim 1:8-10). No wonder, Christ is called the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world!!!

The plan of redemption portrayed by the first death of an animal in Eden, found fulfillment in the life, death and resurrection of our Lord, and covered all of Adam's race, no one exempted nor left out. Fashioned into His Body on the cross, we are In Christ. When He - the Head - died, we - His Body - died. When He resurrected, we were made alive TOGETHER with Him (Eph 2:4-6; Col 2:13), born again into a living hope of life eternal (1 Pet 2:24). Being part of the Body of Christ Who is our Strength (Phil 4:13), and given faith (Rom 12:3) so that we can please God (Heb 11:6) and gain victory over the world (1 John 5:4), we have His Power (Rom 8:37) to overcome evil with good (Rom 12:21). And overcomers will NOT be blotted out from the book of life (Rev 3:5).KJV Revelation 3:21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.Sadly, if at the end of one's journey in life, one is found to be overcome of evil, instead of him overcoming evil with good, he has no one else to blame but himself, for having been empowered - being part of the Body of Christ, it is NOT a question of INABILITY, but one of REFUSAL to overcome evil with good. His name will be blotted out from the book of life, expelled from membership in the family of God, detached from being part of the Body of Christ.

Revelation assures us that all whose names are found written in the Book of Life will be allowed entry into the heavenly portals (Rev 21:27), but those whose names are not found there, will be cast into the lake of fire (Rev 20:15).

Samie
April 21st, 2016, 07:34 AM
Sadly, if at the end of one's journey in life, one is found to be overcome of evil, instead of him overcoming evil with good, he has no one else to blame but himself, for having been empowered - being part of the Body of Christ, it is NOT a question of INABILITY, but one of REFUSAL to overcome evil with good. His name will be blotted out from the book of life, expelled from membership in the family of God, detached from being part of the Body of Christ.

Revelation assures us that all whose names are found written in the Book of Life will be allowed entry into the heavenly portals (Rev 21:27), but those whose names are not found there, will be cast into the lake of fire (Rev 20:15).So who finally decides whether one is an overcomer or not? It's no other than the Father Himself through the Son. And that means we're in good hands.

NKJ John 5:22 "For the Father judges no one, but has committed all judgment to the Son,

NKJ Acts 17:30-31 30 "Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent, 31 "because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead."

NKJ 2 Corinthians 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive the things done in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad.

heir
April 21st, 2016, 10:01 AM
How curious that Christianity does not even agree on the very essence of the message of the 'good news'.There is more than one piece of "good news" in the Bible. The gospel of YOUR salvation (ours) is 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 KJV.

heir
April 21st, 2016, 10:07 AM
"Regeneration" is the miracle of new life brought upon those sinners, for whom Jesus Christ died, when they are spiritually born again by the resurrection power of the Holy Spirit of Christ . . As described by John in John 3:6-8 and Paul in Acts 26:18. Don't be spoiled (Colossians 2:8 KJV). Those who trust the Lord today after hearing and believing the word of truth, the gospel of our salvation are not "born again", but a new creature 2 Corinthians 5:17 KJV. The washing of regeneration is the Lord's shed on us (Titus 3:5 KJV).

Sonnet
April 21st, 2016, 12:55 PM
There is more than one piece of "good news" in the Bible. The gospel of YOUR salvation (ours) is 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 KJV.

So there is only one gospel of salvation?

Sonnet
April 21st, 2016, 01:01 PM
How many Gospels of salvation are there?

Bright Raven
April 21st, 2016, 01:08 PM
How many Gospels of salvation are there?

One

Sonnet
April 21st, 2016, 01:44 PM
One

Is 1 Corinthians 15:3b-5 the Gospel?

Bright Raven
April 21st, 2016, 01:57 PM
Is 1 Corinthians 15:3b-5 the Gospel?

Better to quote 1 Corinthians 15:1-4. Yes it is the gospel.

1 Corinthians 15:1-4New American Standard Bible (NASB)

The Fact of Christ’s Resurrection
1 Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand,
2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain.
3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,
4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,

Sonnet
April 21st, 2016, 02:01 PM
Better to quote 1 Corinthians 15:1-4. Yes it is the gospel.

1 Corinthians 15:1-4New American Standard Bible (NASB)

The Fact of Christ’s Resurrection
1 Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand,
2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain.
3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,
4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,

Thanks.
So, there is one Gospel and Paul defines it in 1 Corinthians 15:3-4.
Did Paul preach the Gospel to the unsaved?

Bright Raven
April 21st, 2016, 02:03 PM
Thanks.
So, there is one Gospel and Paul defines it in 1 Corinthians 15:3-4.
Did Paul preach the Gospel to the unsaved?

To whoever would listen.

Sonnet
April 21st, 2016, 02:08 PM
To whoever would listen.

Indeed - Romans 15:20.

1. There is one Gospel
2. 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 is the Gospel
3. Paul preached the Gospel to unbelievers
4. Therefore Paul told unbelievers 'Christ died for our sins'.

And we conclude that Christ died for all men without exception.

Sonnet
April 21st, 2016, 03:17 PM
There is one Gospel.
1 Corinthians 15:3-4 is the Gospel.
Paul preached the Gospel to unbelievers (Romans 15:20).
Therefore Paul told unbelievers, 'Christ died for our sins'.

And we conclude that Christ died for all men without exception.

Nang
April 21st, 2016, 03:41 PM
To whoever would listen.

The problem is, sinners can listen to the gospel, but unless and until God grants them new spiritual "ears to hear" (through the miracle of regeneration) they will not respond to the message.

Faith comes by new ability to hear the gospel message, and being given a "new heart" with which to believe the good news.

Sinners cannot change their hearts or grow spiritual ears . . Only the power of God can raise a sinner to new life and give them these abilities. Faith only comes from God. Faith is not inherent nor natural to the being of any sinner.

One must be inwardly changed, and that occurs only when the Holy Spirit moves to regenerate & resurrect a soul from darkness to light; from death to life.

John 3:6-8

Samie
April 21st, 2016, 03:53 PM
The problem is, sinners can listen to the gospel, but unless and until God grants them new spiritual "ears to hear" (through the miracle of regeneration) they will not respond to the message.

Faith comes by new ability to hear the gospel message, and being given a "new heart" with which to believe the good news.

Sinners cannot change their hearts or grow spiritual ears . . Only the power of God can raise a sinner to new life and give them these abilities. Faith only comes from God. Faith is not inherent nor natural to the being of any sinner.

One must be inwardly changed, and that occurs only when the Holy Spirit moves to regenerate & resurrect a soul from darkness to light; from death to life.

John 3:6-8Christ's life, death and resurrection is the one miracle that caused all people to be born spiritually alive. But only overcomers will finally make it to life eternal.

Robert Pate
April 21st, 2016, 04:54 PM
John 3:16-21. Proves that Jesus died for the sins of the world.

Ask Mr. Religion
April 21st, 2016, 06:14 PM
Honesty demands that you tell unbelievers that (you think) the good news is that Christ only came to save those chosen - and not the rest. Do you?
Honesty demands we obey the command to preach the good news promiscuously. Importing the secret will of God into the command to preach to all persons is not commanded, and actually is forbidden (Deut. 29:29). I have described the four key aspects of the good news. Your desire to go beyond that is noted. If someone asks me pointedly, "Did Jesus Christ die for me specifically?" my answer is simple, "I do not know the secret will of God, but I do know His revealed will, that if you call upon the name of the Lord and you will be saved...and have your answer."

AMR

Ask Mr. Religion
April 21st, 2016, 06:28 PM
There is one Gospel.
1 Corinthians 15:3-4 is the Gospel.
Paul preached the Gospel to unbelievers (Romans 15:20).
Therefore Paul told unbelievers, 'Christ died for our sins'.

And we conclude that Christ died for all men without exception.
You move the goal posts and try another verse. Yet nothing therein supports your "therefore" conclusion that Paul told unbelievers "Christ died for our sins." You import what Paul was saying to the saints at Corinth into some generalization without warrant.

AMR

csuguy
April 21st, 2016, 06:30 PM
There is one Gospel.
1 Corinthians 15:3-4 is the Gospel.
Paul preached the Gospel to unbelievers (Romans 15:20).
Therefore Paul told unbelievers, 'Christ died for our sins'.

And we conclude that Christ died for all men without exception.

Yep - one Gospel. The Dispys want to insist on two+ gospels, but they are clearly in error and in contradiction with the scriptures.

Sonnet
April 21st, 2016, 07:48 PM
You move the goal posts and try another verse.


I don't see how citing Romans 15:20 damages my argument. Please explain why?


Yet nothing therein supports your "therefore" conclusion that Paul told unbelievers "Christ died for our sins." You import what Paul was saying to the saints at Corinth into some generalization without warrant.

AMR

That is an assertion without proof. Which of the following statements do you disagree with?

There is one Gospel.
1 Corinthians 15:3-4 is the Gospel.
Paul preached the Gospel to unbelievers (Romans 15:20).

I note that you have also not responded to:
#126 (http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?117475-Did-Christ-die-for-all-men&p=4681904&viewfull=1#post4681904), #128 (http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?117475-Did-Christ-die-for-all-men&p=4681911&viewfull=1#post4681911) and #130 (http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?117475-Did-Christ-die-for-all-men&p=4681927&viewfull=1#post4681927)

Also:
Luke 22:20-22
In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you. But the hand of him who is going to betray me is with mine on the table. The Son of Man will go as it has been decreed. But woe to that man who betrays him!”

Jesus' blood would be poured out for Judas. That is what Jesus says. No attempt is made to exclude Judas from that which Jesus' shed blood would achieve.

Paul merely follows Jesus' example and told unbelievers what Christ did for them. He preached Christ crucified. 1 Cor 2:1-2.

1 John 2:2.

Sonnet
April 21st, 2016, 07:54 PM
Yep - one Gospel. The Dispys want to insist on two+ gospels, but they are clearly in error and in contradiction with the scriptures.

Would you explain this please?

heir
April 21st, 2016, 08:04 PM
So there is only one gospel of salvation?

There is only one gospel of YOUR salvation!

heir
April 21st, 2016, 08:06 PM
Yep - one Gospel. The Dispys want to insist on two+ gospels, but they are clearly in error and in contradiction with the scriptures.There is more than one gospel in the Bible. Anyone who can walk through the forest without bumping into the trees can see that!

heir
April 21st, 2016, 08:08 PM
The problem is, sinners can listen to the gospel, but unless and until God grants them new spiritual "ears to hear" (through the miracle of regeneration) they will not respond to the message.What a load of bull. God wills all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth (1 Timothy 2:4-6 KJV). Therefore, salvation is available to all men (Titus 2:11 KJV) to hear and trust the Lord believing (1 Corinthians 15:1-4 KJV, Ephesians 1:13-14 KJV)!

Sonnet
April 21st, 2016, 08:10 PM
There is only one gospel of YOUR salvation!

I would agree - however it seems that some will not speak the same Gospel that they would declared to believers when speaking to unbelievers.

heir
April 21st, 2016, 08:13 PM
I would agree - however it seems that some will not speak the same Gospel that is declared to believers when speaking to unbelievers.Yes, sadly there are many who preach an other gospel than that which Paul preached (Galatians 1:8-9 KJV). It's usually a hijacked gospel of the kingdom which is a time past and ages to come message to and through Israel. It was never to any of us.

Sonnet
April 21st, 2016, 08:15 PM
Yes, sadly there are many who preach an other gospel than that which Paul preached (Galatians 1:8-9 KJV).

Imdeed - strong words from Paul.



It's usually a hijacked gospel of the kingdom which is a time past and ages to come message to and through Israel. It was never to any of us.

Could you explain this please?

Nang
April 21st, 2016, 08:22 PM
What a load of bull. God wills all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth (1 Timothy 2:4-6 KJV). Therefore, salvation is available to all men (Titus 2:11 KJV) to hear and trust the Lord believing (Ephesians 1:13-14 KJV)!

"Load of bull?" How unladylike of you . . .

And you are very wrong.

God wills all kinds of men & women be saved; but these verses that do not support universal atonement.

If God indeed willed that ALL men universally be saved, then ALL men would repent of their sins and convert to faith in Jesus Christ.

There would be no warnings of judgment and hell left to proclaim, at all!

But rather, God has willed that all kinds of sinners, out of all nationalities and genders, be saved . . poor as well as rich, female as well as male, kings as well as commoners, slaves as well as free, etc. etc.

Not a word of Holy Scripture interprets this global will of God to save men of all nationalities as being universal salvation of 100% of mankind.

Universal atonement and/or Universal Salvation is biblicly untenable, and morphs into a false gospel message . . in all its various versions and formulas.

Sonnet
April 21st, 2016, 08:26 PM
"Load of bull?" How unladylike of you . . .

And you are very wrong.

God wills all kinds of men & women be saved; but these verses that do not support universal atonement.

If God indeed willed that ALL men universally be saved, then ALL men would repent of their sins and convert to faith in Jesus Christ.

There would be no warnings of judgment and hell left to proclaim, at all!

But rather, God has willed that all kinds of sinners, out of all nationalities and genders, be saved . . poor as well as rich, female as well as male, kings as well as commoners, slaves as well as free, etc. etc.

Not a word of Holy Scripture interprets this global will of God to save men of all nationalities as being universal salvation of 100% of mankind.

Universal atonement and/or Universal Salvation in biblicly untenable, and morphs into a false gospel message . . in all its various versions and formulas.

Which of the following statements do you disagree with and why?

There is one Gospel
1 Corinthians 15:3-4 is the Gospel
Paul preached the Gospel to unbelievers
Therefore Paul told unbelievers 'Christ died for our sins'.

csuguy
April 21st, 2016, 08:31 PM
Would you explain this please?

Dispys= Dispensationalists.They believe that God gave one Gospel through Christ and his disciples to the Jews. Paul, at some point (different versions of Dispensationalism say assert this occurred at different times) is supposed to have received through revelation a new Gospel, a Gospel for the gentiles. They use this division to take anything they don't like - like being required to do the Lord's will to be saved - and they assert that was purely intended for the Jews under their Gospel. Meanwhile the Gentiles get the easy life where nothing is really required of them. Naturally all Dispys would themselves fall under the easy Gospel.

It's really quite silly - they try to divide Christians from Israel, but Christians are part of Israel. It is through our connection with Israel, having been grafted on, that we share in their blessings and promises.

Furthermore, Dispensationalism makes God entirely unjust - showing partiality to the Gentiles, who have little to no requirements on them for their salvation, whereas everything is demanded from the Jews. This is sinful and unscriptural.

Sonnet
April 21st, 2016, 08:36 PM
Dispys= Dispensationalists.They believe that God gave one Gospel through Christ and his disciples to the Jews. Paul, at some point (different versions of Dispensationalism say assert this occurred at different times) is supposed to have received through revelation a new Gospel, a Gospel for the gentiles. They use this division to take anything they don't like - like being required to do the Lord's will to be saved - and they assert that was purely intended for the Jews under their Gospel. Meanwhile the Gentiles get the easy life where nothing is really required of them. Naturally all Dispys would themselves fall under the easy Gospel.


Thanks. I didn't know this.


It's really quite silly - they try to divide Christians from Israel, but Christians are part of Israel. It is through our connection with Israel, having been grafted on, that we share in their blessings and promises.

Romans 11


Furthermore, Dispensationalism makes God entirely unjust - showing partiality to the Gentiles, who have little to no requirements on them for their salvation, whereas everything is demanded from the Jews. This is sinful and unscriptural.

Perhaps someone will respond to this.

csuguy
April 21st, 2016, 08:37 PM
There is more than one gospel in the Bible. Anyone who can walk through the forest without bumping into the trees can see that!

The scriptures never assert such a thing - you've simply fabricated non-existent distinctions between the Gospel of Christ and the Gospel of Paul. You forget that the gentiles have been grafted onto Israel.


Romans 11:17-24 But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive, were grafted in among them and became partaker with them of the [h]rich root of the olive tree, 18 do not be arrogant toward the branches; but if you are arrogant, remember that it is not you who supports the root, but the root supports you. 19 You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.” 20 Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith. Do not be conceited, but fear; 21 for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either. 22 Behold then the kindness and severity of God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God’s kindness, if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off. 23 And they also, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. 24 For if you were cut off from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these who are the natural branches be grafted into their own olive tree?

You have become arrogant with regards to Israel

Sonnet
April 21st, 2016, 08:44 PM
Dispys= Dispensationalists.They believe that God gave one Gospel through Christ and his disciples to the Jews. Paul, at some point (different versions of Dispensationalism say assert this occurred at different times) is supposed to have received through revelation a new Gospel, a Gospel for the gentiles. They use this division to take anything they don't like - like being required to do the Lord's will to be saved - and they assert that was purely intended for the Jews under their Gospel. Meanwhile the Gentiles get the easy life where nothing is really required of them. Naturally all Dispys would themselves fall under the easy Gospel.



Romans 10:1ff

Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved. For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge. For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth. For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them. But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above: ) Or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.) But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach; That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Sonnet
April 21st, 2016, 08:49 PM
Romans 9:30-33
What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith. But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. Therefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone; As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

Lon
April 21st, 2016, 08:53 PM
Perhaps someone will respond to this.
CS is basically a kid with a lot of heresies and a high opinion of his theology. He may balk at this, but in a nutshell, I think this is important background for context when reading him because he feigns some kind of authority, yet pretty much goes off on his own with interpretation of both scripture and his 'ideas' about things like Dispensationalism. Dispensationalism is a complex systematic theology. His one-sentence reviews aren't very helpful. I'm not a dispensationalist, just know enough to say the one line is his opinion. Acts 15:29 and Galatians among other passages does imply that Jews and gentiles observing Christianity wasn't the same.

Sonnet
April 21st, 2016, 08:55 PM
Romans 11:25
For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

Matthew 23:39 (Jesus to Jerusalem)
For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.

Nang
April 21st, 2016, 09:02 PM
Which of the following statements do you disagree with and why?

There is one Gospel

Agreed.



1 Corinthians 15:3-4 is the Gospel

I Cor. 15:1-4 is one expression of the gospel message, but not the exhaustive gospel message. The entire bible is the Gospel revealed by God.


Paul preached the Gospel to unbelievers

Agreed. Paul also preached the Gospel to saved souls . . . so?



Therefore Paul told unbelievers 'Christ died for our sins'.

Who is "our" in your estimation?

Was not all the church of Jesus Christ unbelieving before being born again?

Sonnet
April 21st, 2016, 09:12 PM
Agreed.

I Cor. 15:1-4 is one expression of the gospel message, but not the exhaustive gospel message. The entire bible is the Gospel revealed by God.

Okay - but the essence of the Gospel may be summed up in 1 Cor 15:3-4.


Agreed. Paul also preached the Gospel to saved souls . . . so?

Just establishing that Paul did preach the Gospel to unbelievers. I have spoken to Christians that deny this.


Who is "our" in your estimation?

Well, since Paul preached 1 Cor 15:3-4 to unbelievers, his audience would understand that he is telling each of them that Christ died for their sins.

After all, it's that very fact that makes it good news. If one is told that someone has died for you then it demands a response. One might reject it, but it is, nonetheless, a powerful assertion.

Romans 5:6-8
For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die. But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

It is the ultimate act of love is it not?

Ask Mr. Religion
April 21st, 2016, 09:18 PM
I don't see how citing Romans 15:20 damages my argument. Please explain why?
That is an assertion without proof. Which of the following statements do you disagree with?
I have answered you and you continue to return to the same position. You seem to ignore any answer you disagree with.


Also:
Luke 22:20-22
In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you. But the hand of him who is going to betray me is with mine on the table. The Son of Man will go as it has been decreed. But woe to that man who betrays him!”

Jesus' blood would be poured out for Judas. That is what Jesus says. No attempt is made to exclude Judas from that which Jesus' shed blood would achieve.

The passage is an institution of the Supper, hence cup-blood. Who celebrates the Supper? I think you know. Again, you are playing hermeneutical hopscotch hoping to make an argument that is simply not possible.

AMR

Sonnet
April 21st, 2016, 09:18 PM
Was not all the church of Jesus Christ unbelieving before being born again?

Sure.

csuguy
April 21st, 2016, 09:19 PM
CS is basically a kid with a lot of heresies and a high opinion of his theology. He may balk at this, but in a nutshell, I think this is important background for context when reading him because he feigns some kind of authority, yet pretty much goes off on his own with interpretation of both scripture and his 'ideas' about things like Dispensationalism. Dispensationalism is a complex systematic theology. His one-sentence reviews aren't very helpful. I'm not a dispensationalist, just know enough to say the one line is his opinion. Acts 15:29 and Galatians among other passages does imply that Jews and gentiles observing Christianity wasn't the same.

I don't claim any authority in of myself. I've studied a lot, but I don't demand people agree with me because of it - unlike Lon here who will always assert his authority over others and dismisses them by calling them 'kids' and the like (I'm 27 and will have my Masters in Computer Science next month). Me and Lon here are always at odds because of this - I base my arguments upon the scriptures and logic, and demand the same in return. Lon bases his arguments upon his degrees. Even if you yourself have degrees (I have a BA in Religious Studies) he will simply assert his degree (also a bachelors) is simply superior. If that isn't good enough he'll cite this theologian or that to attempt to further build up his appeal to authority. Of course, this is a logical fallacy. I refuse to acknowledge his supposed authority, and he refuses to rely upon the scriptures and logic as the basis for his arguments. As such, most of our discussions don't go very far.

I run into similar problems with AMR, and as a result we tend not to have many discussions with one another - though he does love to follow me around and post things about me. He apparently likes to document people on the forum.

At the end of the day - you should judge me for yourself, look at what I say verses the evidence. In some respects I am quite traditional - I am strongly rooted in the scriptures, and I also study the early church fathers. In other respects, many would consider me heretical - for example, though I was raised a Trinitarian, I am no longer one. It's simply not scriptural nor is it THE historic position of the church as they like to assert - it took hundreds of years to develop the Trinity, and then it was established through complex politics, bloodshed, and the like. Perhaps a topic for another thread.

Sonnet
April 21st, 2016, 09:29 PM
I have answered you and you continue to return to the same position. You seem to ignore any answer you disagree with.

We are disagreeing with each other, yes.

It does seem that you have a slightly altered version of the Gospel for unbelievers compared to that which is delivered to believers. Paul makes no such distinction and simply declares 'this is what we preach'.



The passage is an institution of the Supper, hence cup-blood. Who celebrates the Supper? I think you know. Again, you are playing hermeneutical hopscotch hoping to make an argument that is simply not possible.

AMR

Rather, Judas is at the table whilst Jesus declares that his blood is poured out for 'you'.

That Christ died for all men, as scripture states over and over, is the good news and is why it is so powerful.

Christ dying for a select few is something quite different. It is a different Gospel.

Sonnet
April 21st, 2016, 09:45 PM
I have answered you and you continue to return to the same position. You seem to ignore any answer you disagree with.
AMR

It shouldn't be difficult to respond to the question about how many Gospels there are.

Ask Mr. Religion
April 21st, 2016, 09:51 PM
That Christ died for all men, as scripture states over and over, is the good news and is why it is so powerful.

Scripture does not so state over and over. You only want it to state that. Our Lord's atonement was exactly that...actual atonement (http://goo.gl/of1y5Z). Not potential, awaiting feeble man's wise decision-making (http://goo.gl/L86VF9) to "accept Jesus into my heart" thereby making God a debtor to their wise choice, while their neighbor was apparently too stupid to choose wisely.

AMR

Sonnet
April 21st, 2016, 09:58 PM
Scripture does not so state over and over. You only want it to state that. Our Lord's atonement was exactly that...actual atonement (http://goo.gl/of1y5Z). Not potential, awaiting feeble man's wise decision-making (http://goo.gl/L86VF9) to "accept Jesus into my heart" thereby making God a debtor to their wise choice, while their neighbor was apparently too stupid to choose wisely.

AMR

But AMR, you are making assertions.
I accept that God is sovereign.

Ben Masada
April 21st, 2016, 10:13 PM
Romans 11:25
For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

Matthew 23:39 (Jesus to Jerusalem)
For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.

The Hellenist who wrote the gospel applied to Matthew was that day taken by the Pauline spirit to convert the Jews when he added one more motif to cause more and more trouble to the Jews: To blame the Jews for the too long a time, no matter how
long it would take for Jesus to return. It has been 2000 years and instead of blaming those who predicted Jesus' return, they chose to blame the Jews and keep on with the waiting.

Ask Mr. Religion
April 21st, 2016, 10:30 PM
It shouldn't be difficult to respond to the question about how many Gospels there are.
There is only one gospel, and every page of the Bible speaks to the Gospel, for each page tells the truth about God, about man, about Christ, and about salvation--these truths we call the Gospel.

So if you are looking for that gospel, and not some pithy statement that fits on a pledge card, or a few sentences open to all manner of interpretation, here then are Scripture's teachings about that which we call the gospel:

Q. 1. What is thy only comfort in life and death?
A. That I with body and soul, both in life and death, (a) am not my own, (b) but belong unto my faithful Saviour Jesus Christ; (c) who, with his precious blood, has fully satisfied for all my sins, (d) and delivered me from all the power of the devil; (e) and so preserves me (f) that without the will of my heavenly Father, not a hair can fall from my head; (g) yea, that all things must be subservient to my salvation, (h) and therefore, by his Holy Spirit, He also assures me of eternal life, (i) and makes me sincerely willing and ready, henceforth, to live unto him. (j)

(a) Rom.14:7,8. (b) 1 Cor.6:19. (c) 1 Cor.3:23; Tit.2:14. (d) 1 Pet.1:18,19; 1 John 1:7; 1 John 2:2,12. (e) Heb.2:14; 1 John 3:8; John 8:34-36. (f) John 6:39;John 10:28; 2 Thess.3:3; 1 Pet.1:5. (g) Matt.10:29-31; Luke 21:18. (h) Rom.8:28. (i) 2 Cor.1:20-22; 2 Cor.5:5; Eph.1:13,14; Rom.8:16. (j) Rom.8:14; 1 John 3:3.

Q. 2. How many things are necessary for thee to know, that thou, enjoying this comfort, mayest live and die happily?
A. Three; (a) the first, how great my sins and miseries are; (b) the second, how I may be delivered from all my sins and miseries; (c) the third, how I shall express my gratitude to God for such deliverance. (d)

(a) Matt.11:28-30; Luke 24:46-48; 1 Cor.6:11; Tit.3:3-7. (b) John 9:41; John 15:22. (c) John 17:3; Acts 4:12; Acts 10:43. (d) Eph.5:8-11; 1 Pet.2:9,10;Rom.6:1,2,12,13.

Q. 3. Whence knowest thou thy misery?
A. Out of the law of God. (a)

(a) Rom.3:20.

Q. 4. What does the law of God require of us?
A. Christ teaches us that briefly, Matt. 22:37-40, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength. This is the first and the great commandment; and the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." (a)

(a) Deut.6:5; Lev.19:18; Mark 12:30; Luke 10:27.

Q. 5. Canst thou keep all these things perfectly?
A. In no wise; (a) for I am prone by nature to hate God and my neighbour.(b)

(a) Rom.3:10,20,23; 1 John 1:8,10. (b) Rom.8:7; Eph.2:3; Tit.3:3; Gen.6:5; Gen.8:21; Jer.17:9; Rom.7:23.

Q. 6. Did God then create man so wicked and perverse?
A. By no means; but God created man good, (a) and after his own image, (b) in true righteousness and holiness, that he might rightly know God his Creator, heartily love him and live with him in eternal happiness to glorify and praise him. (c)

(a) Gen.1:31. (b) Gen.1:26,27. (c) Col.3:9,10; Eph.4:23,24; 2 Cor.3:18.

Q. 7. Whence then proceeds this depravity of human nature?
A. From the fall and disobedience of our first parents, Adam and Eve, in Paradise; (a) hence our nature is become so corrupt, that we are all conceived and born in sin. (b)

(a) Gen.3; Rom.5:12,18,19. (b) Ps.51:5; Gen.5:3.

Q. 8. Are we then so corrupt that we are wholly incapable of doing any good, and inclined to all wickedness?
A. Indeed we are; (a) except we are regenerated by the Spirit of God. (b)

(a) Gen.8:21; John 3:6; Gen.6:5; Job 14:4; Job 15:14,16,36; Isa.53:6. (b) John 3:3,5; 1 Cor.12:3; 2 Cor.3:5.

Q. 9. Does not God then do injustice to man, by requiring from him in his law, that which he cannot perform?
A. Not at all; (a) for God made man capable of performing it; but man, by the instigation of the devil, (b) and his own wilful disobedience, (c) deprived himself and all his posterity of those divine gifts.

(a) Eph.4:24; Eccl.7:29. (b) John 8:44; 2 Cor.11:3; Gen.3:4. (c) Gen.3:6; Rom.5:12; Gen.3:13; 1 Tim.2:13,14.

Q. 10. Will God suffer such disobedience and rebellion to go unpunished?
A. By no means; but is terribly displeased (a) with our original as well as actual sins; and will punish them in his just judgment temporally and eternally, (b) as he has declared, "Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things, which are written in the book of the law, to do them." (c)

(a) Gen.2:17; Rom.5:12. (b) Ps.5:5; Ps.50:21; Nah.1:2; Exod.20:5; Exod.34:7; Rom.1:18; Eph.5:6; Heb.9:27. (c) Deut.27:26; Gal.3:10.

Q. 11. Is not God then also merciful?
A. God is indeed merciful, (a) but also just; (b) therefore his justice requires, that sin which is committed against the most high majesty of God, be also punished with extreme, that is, with everlasting punishment of body and soul.

(a) Exod.34:6,7; Exod.20:6. (b) Ps.7:9; Exod.20:5; Exod.23:7; Exod.34:7; Ps.5:5,6; Nah.1:2,3.

Q. 12. Since then, by the righteous judgment of God, we deserve temporal and eternal punishment, is there no way by which we may escape that punishment, and be again received into favour?
A. God will have his justice satisfied: (a) and therefore we must make this full satisfaction, either by ourselves, or by another. (b)

(a) Gen.2:17; Exod.20:5; Exod.23:7; Ezek.18:4; Matt.5:26; 2 Thess.1:6; Luke 16:2. (b) Rom.8:3,4.

Q. 13. Can we ourselves then make this satisfaction?
A. By no means; but on the contrary we daily increase our debt. (a)

(a). Job 9:2,3; Job 15:15,16; Job 4:18,19; Ps.130:3; Matt.6:12; Matt.18:25; Matt.16:26.

Q. 14. Can there be found anywhere, one, who is a mere creature, able to satisfy for us?
A. None; for, first, God will not punish any other creature for the sin which man has committed; (a) and further, no mere creature can sustain the burden of God's eternal wrath against sin, so as to deliver others from it. (b)

(a) Ezek.18:4; Gen.3:17; Heb.2:14-17. (b) Nah.1:6; Ps.130:3.

Q. 15. What sort of a mediator and deliverer then must we seek for?
A. For one who is very man, and perfectly (a) righteous; (b) and yet more powerful than all creatures; that is, one who is also very God. (c)

(a) 1 Cor.15:21; Jer.33:16; Isa.53:9; 2 Cor.5:21. (b) Heb.7:16,26. (c) Isa.7:14; Isa.9:6; Rom.9:5; Jer.23:5,6; Jer.23:6; Luke 11:22.

Q. 16. Why must he be very man, and also perfectly righteous?
A. Because the justice of God requires that the same human nature which has sinned, should likewise make satisfaction for sin; (a) and one, who is himself a sinner, cannot satisfy for others. (b)

(a) Ezek.18:4,20; Rom.5:12,15,18; 1 Cor.15:21; Heb.2:14-16; 1
Pet.3:18; Isa.53:3-5,10,11. (b) Heb.7:26,27; Ps.49:7,8; 1 Pet.3:18.

Q. 17. Why must he in one person be also very God?
A. That he might, by the power of his Godhead (a) sustain in his human nature, (b) the burden of God's wrath; (c) and might obtain for, and restore to us, righteousness and life. (d)

(a) Isa.9:6; Isa.63:3. (b) Isa.53:4,11. (c) Deut.4:24; Nah.1:6; Ps.130:3. (d) Isa.53:5,11; Acts 2:24; 1 Pet.3:18; John 3:16; Acts 20:28; John 1:4.

Q. 18. Who then is that Mediator, who is in one person both very God, (a) and a real (b) righteous man? (c)
A. Our Lord Jesus Christ: (d) "who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption." (e)

(a) 1 John 5:20; Rom.9:5; Rom.8:3; Gal.4:4; Isa.9:6; Jer.23:6; Mal.3:1. (b) Luke 1:42; Luke 2:6,7; Rom.1:3; Rom.9:5; Philip.2:7; Heb.2:14,16,17; Heb.4:15. (c)Isa.53:9,11; Jer.23:5; Luke 1:35; John 8:46; Heb.4:15; Heb.7:26; 1 Pet.1:19; 1 Pet.2:22; 1 Pet.3:18. (d) 1 Tim.2:5; Heb.2:9; Matt.1:23; 1 Tim.3:16; Luke 2:11. (e) 1 Cor.1:30.

Q. 19. Whence knowest thou this?
A. From the holy gospel, which God himself first revealed in Paradise; (a) and afterwards published by the patriarchs (b) and prophets, (c) and represented by the sacrifices and other ceremonies of the law; (d) and lastly, has fulfilled it by his only begotten Son. (e)

(a) Gen.3:15. (b) Gen.22:18; Gen.12:3; Gen.49:10,11. (c) Isa.53; Isa.42:1-4; Isa.43:25; Isa.49:5,6,22,23; Jer.23:5,6; Jer.31:32,33; Jer.32:39-41; Mic.7:18-20;Acts 10:43; Rom.1:2; Heb.1:1; Acts 3:22-24; Acts 10:43; John 5:46. (d) Heb.10:1,7; Col.2:7; John 5:46. (e) Rom.10:4; Gal.4:4,5; Gal.3:24; Col.2:17.

Q. 20. Are all men then, as they perished in Adam, saved by Christ?
A. No; (a) only those who are ingrafted into him, and, receive all his benefits, by a true faith. (b)

(a) Matt.7:14; Matt.22:14. (b) Mark 16:16; John 1:12; John 3:16,18,36; Isa.53:11; Ps.2:12; Rom.11:17,19,20; Rom.3:22; Heb.4:2,3; Heb.5:9; Heb.10:39;Heb.11:6.

Q. 21. What is true faith?
A. True faith is not only a certain knowledge, whereby I hold for truth all that God has revealed to us in his word, (a) but also an assured confidence, (b) which the Holy Ghost (c) works by the gospel in my heart; (d) that not only to others, but to me also, remission of sin, everlasting righteousness and salvation, (e) are freely given by God, merely of grace, only for the sake of Christ's merits. (f)

(a) James 2:19. (b) 2 Cor.4:13; Eph.2:7-9; Eph.3:12; Gal.2:16; Heb.11:1,7-10; Heb.4:16; James 1:6; Matt.16:17; Philip.1:19; Rom.4:16-21; Rom.5:1;Rom.1:16; Rom.10:10,17; Rom.3:24.25. (c) Gal.5:22; Matt.16:17; 2 Cor.4:13; John 6:29; Eph.2:8; Philip.1:19; Acts 16:14. (d) Rom.1:16; Rom.10:17; 1 Cor.1:21; Acts 10:44; Acts 16:14. (e) Rom.1:17; Gal.3:11; Heb.10:10,38; Gal.2:16. (f) Eph.2:8; Rom.3:24; Rom.5:19; Luke 1:77,78.

Q. 22. What is then necessary for a christian to believe?
A. All things promised us in the gospel, (a) which the articles of our catholic undoubted christian faith briefly teach us.

(a) John 20:31; Matt.28:19; Mark 1:15.

Q. 23. What are these articles?
A. 1. I believe in God the Father, Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth: 2. And in Jesus Christ, his only begotten Son, our Lord: 3. Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary: 4. Suffered under Pontius Pilate; was crucified, dead, and buried: He descended into hell: 5. The third day he rose again from the dead: 6. He ascended into heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of God the Father Almighty: 7. From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead: 8. I believe in the Holy Ghost: 9. I believe a holy catholic church: the communion of saints: 10. The forgiveness of sins: 11. The resurrection of the body: 12. And the life everlasting.


AMR

Ben Masada
April 21st, 2016, 10:30 PM
Romans 9:30-33
What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith. But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. Therefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone; As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

Sonnet, the Law of righteousness was not given to attend a certain aim and say, "I am done." The Law was given as a way of life so that we can live in peace with each other.

Lon
April 21st, 2016, 10:31 PM
I don't claim any authority in of myself. I've studied a lot, but I don't demand people agree with me because of it - unlike Lon here who will always assert his authority over others and dismisses them by calling them 'kids' and the like (I'm 27 and will have my Masters in Computer Science next month).
Er, he didn't 'ask' for feedback about me. He asked for another to weigh in on you and your theology. You didn't wonder why that is? :think:


Me and Lon here are always at odds because of this - I base my arguments upon the scriptures and logic, and demand the same in return. Lon bases his arguments upon his degrees.

Even if you yourself have degrees (I have a BA in Religious Studies) he will simply assert his degree (also a bachelors) is simply superior. If that isn't good enough he'll cite this theologian or that to attempt to further build up his appeal to authority.
Not really a problem to this point. I don't think you nearly as 'logical' as you seem to think you are, but as far as the rest, fine. Again, however, he asked about your view on Dispensational theology and/or about you. He didn't ask you about me. It doesn't need a lot more than what was said.


IOf course, this is a logical fallacy. I refuse to acknowledge his supposed authority, and he refuses to rely upon the scriptures and logic as the basis for his arguments. As such, most of our discussions don't go very far.
See, I chalk this up to your inability to 'logic' well nor see correctly. You have a cultists myopia, delusion. This has been said by a lot more than myself. Find anyone but a cultist who has the same view you have of me. :nono: Won't find one. Why do you suppose? :think: It will all be evident BUT to a cultist/heretic/maverick. Something in your psyche doesn't work quite right. Dialogue in this case is good. He can see our conversation and pick up the bits and pieces he needs. If he had need to know a bit more about me, this confrontation provides that as well.


II run into similar problems with AMR, and as a result we tend not to have many discussions with one another - though he does love to follow me around and post things about me. He apparently likes to document people on the forum.
Yowsa, no! He has a few positions all paid in theology and some of that for research, relates to dialogue. He did give some good information from one or two of your theology professors. Again, the same thing is said about you by others. What you are saying about me? Er, just cultists. It makes sense when you think about it. :think:


At the end of the day - you should judge me for yourself, look at what I say verses the evidence.
I think he can, but asking someone else to weigh in is no poor request. He'll STILL judge afterwards, somewhat regarding both of us, as to how to take us and interact, but better? With an informed understanding. If he didn't want to know about me, it'll either be superfluous or added bonus.


In some respects I am quite traditional - I am strongly rooted in the scriptures, and I also study the early church fathers. In other respects, many would consider me heretical - for example, though I was raised a Trinitarian, I am no longer one. It's simply not scriptural nor is it THE historic position of the church as they like to assert - it took hundreds of years to develop the Trinity, and then it was established through complex politics, bloodshed, and the like. Perhaps a topic for another thread.
Now you are telling on yourself. I think you 'think' you are traditional, but I've seen a few more issues where you go against the theological flow. Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons have 'traditional views.' It is when they go against orthodoxy that they aren't. I think cultists/heretics would like to be seen as orthodox, but that's weird. You can't go against orthodoxy (not O) and then turn around and want to be a part. It is a little too "accept me on my own terms." One hallmark of Christianity is our call to a body and accountability. A lone-Christian is an odd thing. It doesn't fit the Biblical model and it really would be about being ineffective.

This is a bit further than I think Sonnet wanted to go. All I 'think' he needed to know was 1) whether your view of Dispensationalism was well-informed and accurate (I don't believe it is), and 2) perhaps a bit about your perspective so he could place it in context. I'm not sure if anything else is helpful to him, but I do think it a bit beyond the necessary need. He had your opinion about Dispensationalism and was questioning whether it was accurate.

heir
April 21st, 2016, 10:51 PM
Imdeed - strong words from Paul.




Could you explain this please?They are behind pulpits all over the world and right here on TOL (2 Corinthians 11:13-15 KJV). They claim we play a part in saving ourselves when the truth of our salvation is Ephesians 2:4-9 KJV, Titus 3:5-7 KJV. They hang their hat on a gospel and doctrine that was preached in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, by Peter in Acts, and Hebrews through Revelation and it is not written TO any of us!

journey
April 21st, 2016, 10:51 PM
Yep - one Gospel. The Dispys want to insist on two+ gospels, but they are clearly in error and in contradiction with the scriptures.

You are clearly in error and are most of the time.

Galatians 2:7-9 KJV But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; 8. (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles 9. And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

Lon
April 21st, 2016, 10:55 PM
Christ dying for a select few is something quite different. It is a different Gospel.
Just "Christ died for sinners." I don't believe He died for all sinners past, prior to His death burial, and resurrection. The good new is that Jesus Christ died to save sinners and then "all who call on the name of the Lord will be saved." Is it true to tell someone: "Christ died, specifically to 'save you!'" ? Even from your perspective, is that 100% true? I don't think it is necessary to say that. Simply "Christ died to save sinners like you and I," and "all who call on the name of the Lord will be saved."

heir
April 21st, 2016, 11:03 PM
"Load of bull?" How unladylike of you . . .Would you like to go back to talking about my eyebrows to show everyone how ladylike you are.


And you are very wrong.No, of the two of us, you are the wrong divider (2 Timothy 2:15 KJV).


God wills all kinds of men & women be saved; but these verses that do not support universal atonement.All means all. The ransom was paid for all (1 Timothy 2:4-6 KJV) and therefore the righteousness of God by the faith of Jesus Christ is unto all(Romans 3:21-22 KJV).


If God indeed willed that ALL men universally be saved, then ALL men would repent of their sins and convert to faith in Jesus Christ.God wills that all men be saved not jump through your religious made up requirements on how to be.


There would be no warnings of judgment and hell left to proclaim, at all!Ridiculous. Salvation is from the wrath to come (Romans5:9 KJV). Those who believe not, will not be saved from it (2 Thessalonians 2:10-12 KJV).


But rather, God has willed that all kinds of sinners, out of all nationalities and genders, be saved . . poor as well as rich, female as well as male, kings as well as commoners, slaves as well as free, etc. etc.made up


Not a word of Holy Scripture interprets this global will of God to save men of all nationalities as being universal salvation of 100% of mankind.No one has stated universal salvation here. Rather, world reconciliation (2 Corinthians 5:19-21 KJV) manifesting God's will of a due time when all men can be saved (1 Timothy 2:4-6 KJV, 2 Timothy 1:9-10 KJV, Titus 2:11 KJV)!


Universal atonement and/or Universal Salvation is biblicly untenable, and morphs into a false gospel message . . in all its various versions and formulas.Again, the atonement was made by the cross. Salvation is available to all (Romans 3:21-22 KJV) by the gospel (1 Corinthians 15:1-4 KJV, Ephesians 3:6 KJV).

Getty up!

heir
April 21st, 2016, 11:05 PM
Dispys= Dispensationalists.They believe that God gave one Gospel through Christ and his disciples to the Jews. Paul, at some point (different versions of Dispensationalism say assert this occurred at different times) is supposed to have received through revelation a new Gospel, a Gospel for the gentiles.
There is, but one Body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:13 KJV, Ephesians 3:6 KJV, Ephesians 4:4 KJV), but there are two bodies of believers in the so called NT.

One is a royal priesthood, an holy nation (1 Peter 2:9 KJV) made up of kings and priests /from the 12 Tribes that James wrote to (James 1:1 KJV) who will become that holy nation that Peter talked about, to whom Hebrews is written and to whom John wrote 1, 2, 3 John and Revelation (Revelation 1:6 KJV, Revelation 5:10 KJV). The doctrine of Peter, James and John has to do with Christ's second coming/ His earthly rule and reign. There are Gentiles wo inherit this kingdom (the kingdom of heaven)(Matthew 25:34 KJV), but they are there as a result of their blessing Israel during the Great Tribulation (Matthew 25:31-46 KJV).

None of the above describes the one Body, the church, which is His Body (Ephesians 1:22-23 KJV) that the saved are in today, nor our gospel (1 Corinthians 15:1-4 KJV), standing (Romans 4:25 KJV,1 Corinthians 6:11 KJV, Galatians 2:16 KJV, Ephesians 2:4-9 KJV, Colossians 2:10-13 KJV), position (Colossians 3:11 KJV) or inheritance (Ephesians 2:6 KJV, Philippians 3:20-21 KJV, Colossians 3:1-2 KJV).

Instead of following the religious system that has been confusing and mixing it up from the getgo why not 2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

heir
April 21st, 2016, 11:10 PM
They use this division to take anything they don't like - like being required to do the Lord's will to be saved - and they assert that was purely intended for the Jews under their Gospel. Meanwhile the Gentiles get the easy life where nothing is really required of them. Naturally all Dispys would themselves fall under the easy Gospel.You are a deceitful worker (2 Corinthians 11:13-15 KJV). The only requirement for salvation today is to trust the Lord believing 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 KJV, but that cannot be said of those in Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, preached to by Peter in Acts or Hebrews through Revelation! No, they had to: Repent, and believe the gospel (Mark 1:4 KJV) by baptism of repentance for the remission of sins (Mark 1:4 KJV, Mark 16:16 KJV, Acts 2:38 KJV), keep the commandments (John 14:15 KJV, Matthew 23:2-3 KJV, John 15:5-10 KJV), endure to the end to be saved (Matthew 10:22 KJV) looking forward that their sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord (which is at what many refer to as the second coming of the Lord (Acts 3:19-21 KJV).

Ben Masada
April 21st, 2016, 11:10 PM
Did Christ Die for all Men?

No, he didn't. Not even for a single one he did. Jesus was a Jew and he would not contradict the
Prophets of the Most High who say that no one can die for the sins of another. That every one shall die for his own iniquity. (Jeremiah 31:30; Ezekiel 18:20) Jesus died as a result of the stupidity of his own disciples acclaiming him king of the Jews in Jerusalem. That's how the Romans punished acts of insurrection. (Luke 19:37-40) Not that Jesus was the one committing the insurrection but by taking the "king" the Romans were certain that they would be taking the cause. Hence, Jesus' verdict on the top of his cross: INRI.

heir
April 21st, 2016, 11:11 PM
It's really quite silly - they try to divide Christians from Israel, but Christians are part of Israel. It is through our connection with Israel, having been grafted on, that we share in their blessings and promises. We are not Israel. We are not graffed into Israel and we do not share in their blessings and promises!

heir
April 21st, 2016, 11:13 PM
Furthermore, Dispensationalism makes God entirely unjust - showing partiality to the Gentiles, who have little to no requirements on them for their salvation, whereas everything is demanded from the Jews. This is sinful and unscriptural.All who are saved today are saved by Paul's gospel (1 Corinthians 15:1-4 KJV, Ephesians 1:13-14 KJV).

heir
April 21st, 2016, 11:35 PM
Did Christ Die for all Men?

No, he didn't. Not even for a single one he did. Jesus was a Jew and he would not contradict the
Prophets of the Most High who say that no one can die for the sins of another.Romans 4:25 KJV, 2 Corinthians 5:21 KJV

Why are you on a Christian board when you hate the very God who bought you?

Sonnet
April 22nd, 2016, 12:41 AM
The Hellenist who wrote the gospel applied to Matthew was that day taken by the Pauline spirit to convert the Jews when he added one more motif to cause more and more trouble to the Jews: To blame the Jews for the too long a time, no matter how
long it would take for Jesus to return. It has been 2000 years and instead of blaming those who predicted Jesus' return, they chose to blame the Jews and keep on with the waiting.

I don't understand what you are saying here Ben.

Sonnet
April 22nd, 2016, 12:52 AM
There is only one gospel, and every page of the Bible speaks to the Gospel, for each page tells the truth about God, about man, about Christ, and about salvation--these truths we call the Gospel.

So if you are looking for that gospel, and not some pithy statement that fits on a pledge card, or a few sentences open to all manner of interpretation, here then are Scripture's teachings about that which we call the gospel:


I agree that there is one Gospel, but I don't agree with your view that it cannot be represented in short form since Paul himself says:

Now, brothers and sisters, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance : that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born. For I am the least of the apostles and do not even deserve to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace to me was not without effect. No, I worked harder than all of them—yet not I, but the grace of God that was with me. Whether, then, it is I or they, this is what we preach, and this is what you believed.

Sonnet
April 22nd, 2016, 12:57 AM
Sonnet, the Law of righteousness was not given to attend a certain aim and say, "I am done." The Law was given as a way of life so that we can live in peace with each other.

Nonetheless, Paul states that his brethren, on the whole - including the leadership, sought to attain their own righteousness through works of the law.

Sonnet
April 22nd, 2016, 01:28 AM
They are behind pulpits all over the world and right here on TOL (2 Corinthians 11:13-15 KJV). They claim we play a part in saving ourselves when the truth of our salvation is Ephesians 2:4-9 KJV, Titus 3:5-7 KJV. They hang their hat on a gospel and doctrine that was preached in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, by Peter in Acts, and Hebrews through Revelation and it is not written TO any of us!

Certainly Jesus came to the Jews but his words are for gentiles as well.

Sonnet
April 22nd, 2016, 01:30 AM
You are clearly in error and are most of the time.

Galatians 2:7-9 KJV But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; 8. (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles 9. And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

Romans 10. Paul gives the gospel to all but focuses on his brethren. There is one gospel.

Sonnet
April 22nd, 2016, 01:34 AM
Just "Christ died for sinners." I don't believe He died for all sinners past, prior to His death burial, and resurrection. The good new is that Jesus Christ died to save sinners and then "all who call on the name of the Lord will be saved." Is it true to tell someone: "Christ died, specifically to 'save you!'" ? Even from your perspective, is that 100% true? I don't think it is necessary to say that. Simply "Christ died to save sinners like you and I," and "all who call on the name of the Lord will be saved."

There is but one Gospel.
1 Corinthians 15:3-4 is the Gospel.
Paul preached the Gospel to the unsaved.
Therefore Paul told unbelievers that 'Christ died for our sins'.

Sonnet
April 22nd, 2016, 01:50 AM
We are not Israel. We are not graffed into Israel and we do not share in their blessings and promises!

Romans 11.

Sonnet
April 22nd, 2016, 01:54 AM
All who are saved today are saved by Paul's gospel (1 Corinthians 15:1-4 KJV, Ephesians 1:13-14 KJV).

Acts 13:4-5
The two of them, sent on their way by the Holy Spirit, went down to Seleucia and sailed from there to Cyprus. When they arrived at Salamis, they proclaimed the word of God in the Jewish synagogues. John was with them as their helper.

Sonnet
April 22nd, 2016, 02:03 AM
Acts 13:26-32
“Fellow children of Abraham and you God-fearing Gentiles, it is to us that this message of salvation has been sent. The people of Jerusalem and their rulers did not recognize Jesus, yet in condemning him they fulfilled the words of the prophets that are read every Sabbath. Though they found no proper ground for a death sentence, they asked Pilate to have him executed. When they had carried out all that was written about him, they took him down from the cross and laid him in a tomb. But God raised him from the dead, and for many days he was seen by those who had travelled with him from Galilee to Jerusalem. They are now his witnesses to our people. “We tell you the good news: What God promised our ancestors he has fulfilled for us, their children, by raising up Jesus.

heir
April 22nd, 2016, 02:12 AM
Certainly Jesus came to the Jews but his words are for gentiles as well.His earthly ministry was to: Matthew 15:24 KJV, Romans 15:8 KJV. Believe what saith the scripture.

heir
April 22nd, 2016, 02:13 AM
Certainly Jesus came to the Jews but his words are for gentiles as well.

All of the Bible is FOR us, but it's not all TO us.

heir
April 22nd, 2016, 02:14 AM
Romans 11.Not us

heir
April 22nd, 2016, 02:15 AM
Acts 13:26-32
“Fellow children of Abraham and you God-fearing Gentiles, it is to us that this message of salvation has been sent. The people of Jerusalem and their rulers did not recognize Jesus, yet in condemning him they fulfilled the words of the prophets that are read every Sabbath. Though they found no proper ground for a death sentence, they asked Pilate to have him executed. When they had carried out all that was written about him, they took him down from the cross and laid him in a tomb. But God raised him from the dead, and for many days he was seen by those who had travelled with him from Galilee to Jerusalem. They are now his witnesses to our people. “We tell you the good news: What God promised our ancestors he has fulfilled for us, their children, by raising up Jesus.Those were to whom Paul was first sent out of Israel and associated with them. They are still not considered the Israel of God as Israel had fallen (Romans 11:11 KJV) and BTW, has a future Romans 11:26-27 KJV). That's not us. This is us in time past Ephesians 2:11-12 KJV

Sonnet
April 22nd, 2016, 02:17 AM
His earthly ministry was to: Matthew 15:24 KJV, Romans 15:8 KJV. Believe what saith the scripture.

I don't disagree that he came to them. What reasons will you give why his words do not apply, by extension, to gentiles?

Sonnet
April 22nd, 2016, 02:20 AM
Not us

Gentiles grafted in to the olive tree.

Sonnet
April 22nd, 2016, 02:21 AM
That's not us. This is us in time past Ephesians 2:11-12 KJV

I'm not following you.

Paul preached the same gospel to Jews and gentiles. His focus was on the gentiles. But his ambition was Romans 15:20.

heir
April 22nd, 2016, 02:30 AM
I don't disagree that he came to them. What reasons will you give why his words do not apply, by extension, to gentiles?Why would I want to read someone else's mail and apply it TO myself? That's bad theology at the least.

heir
April 22nd, 2016, 02:33 AM
Gentiles grafted in to the olive tree.There were Gentiles graffed in to the olive tree. That still doesn't make it us. They were already in that position when Paul wrote his letter to the Romans. Where does it say we are graffed in? It doesn't. Another way to know that isn't us is that the Gentiles who held that position could be cut off. Not one member of the Body of Christ can be.

Sonnet
April 22nd, 2016, 02:33 AM
Why would I want to read someone else's mail and apply it TO myself? That's bad theology at the least.

John 3:16. Matthew 21:33ff. The sermon on the mount....

Perhaps I am not understanding you correctly.

Sonnet
April 22nd, 2016, 02:36 AM
Those were to whom Paul was first sent out of Israel and associated with them. They are still not considered the Israel of God as Israel had fallen (Romans 11:11 KJV) and BTW, has a future Romans 11:26-27 KJV). That's not us. This is us in time past Ephesians 2:11-12 KJV

Certainly the 'baton' has been taken from them and given to the true church.

Sorry, I'm still not quite with you.

heir
April 22nd, 2016, 02:37 AM
I'm not following you.

Paul preached the same gospel to Jews and gentiles. His focus was on the gentiles. But his ambition was Romans 15:20.It's not Jews and Gentiles and that's it. There are two groups in the one Body of Christ. There are Gentiles in both groups. The first were in the promise (Galatians 3:29 KJV), but we are likened to the you gentiles like that of the Ephesians to whom Paul wrote the letter: aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise )Ephesians 2:11-12 KJV).

Sonnet
April 22nd, 2016, 02:37 AM
There were Gentiles graffed in to the olive tree. That still doesn't make it us. They were already in that position when Paul wrote his letter to the Romans. Where does it say we are graffed in? It doesn't. Another way to know that isn't us is that the Gentiles who held that position could be cut off. Not one member of the Body of Christ can be.

? I must be missing something.

Us? Sorry, what do you mean?

Sonnet
April 22nd, 2016, 02:40 AM
It's not Jews and Gentiles and that's it. There are two groups in the one Body of Christ. There are Gentiles in both groups. The first were in the promise (Galatians 3:29 KJV), but we are likened to the you gentiles like that of the Ephesians to whom Paul wrote the letter: aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise )Ephesians 2:11-12 KJV).

Again - I'm really not following your logic.

I'm not saying you are wrong.

heir
April 22nd, 2016, 02:40 AM
Certainly the 'baton' has been taken from them and given to the true church.

Sorry, I'm still not quite with you.No. The Body of Christ does not replace Israel. If that's what you mean. They have a future Hebrews 8:8-12 KJV

heir
April 22nd, 2016, 02:42 AM
Again - I'm really not following your logic.

I'm not saying you are wrong.We're not Israel or graffed in. We are a new creature in Christ not a born again nation of priests!

heir
April 22nd, 2016, 02:43 AM
? I must be missing something.

Us? Sorry, what do you mean?Us as in we members of the church which is His Body, the Body of Christ.

Sonnet
April 22nd, 2016, 02:49 AM
No. The Body of Christ does not replace Israel. If that's what you mean. They have a future Hebrews 8:8-12 KJV

Indeed - as you said Romans 11:25

heir
April 22nd, 2016, 02:52 AM
Indeed - as you said Romans 11:25Right. We cannot be Israel when they look forward to the blotting out of sins (Acts 3:19-21 KJV) while we in the Body of Christ look back to the cross having already received the atonement (Romans 5:11 KJV). Things that are different are not the same!

heir
April 22nd, 2016, 02:53 AM
will have to pick this up later...

Sonnet
April 22nd, 2016, 02:55 AM
Us as in we members of the church which is His Body, the Body of Christ.

Which includes Jews.

Ben Masada
April 22nd, 2016, 03:04 AM
Acts 13:26-32
“Fellow children of Abraham and you God-fearing Gentiles, it is to us that this message of salvation has been sent. The people of Jerusalem and their rulers did not recognize Jesus, yet in condemning him they fulfilled the words of the prophets that are read every Sabbath. Though they found no proper ground for a death sentence, they asked Pilate to have him executed. When they had carried out all that was written about him, they took him down from the cross and laid him in a tomb. But God raised him from the dead, and for many days he was seen by those who had travelled with him from Galilee to Jerusalem. They are now his witnesses to our people. “We tell you the good news: What God promised our ancestors he has fulfilled for us, their children, by raising up Jesus.

Now, Sonnet, would you be so kind as to share with me a quote from the Prophets where they speak about Jesus and asked Pilate to crucify Jesus? I'll be honored if you comply with my request. Since you can't I apologize for having asked you for what you cannot provide. At least, it will serve you good not to mention what you cannot provide.

Sonnet
April 22nd, 2016, 03:13 AM
Right. We cannot be Israel when they look forward to the blotting out of sins (Acts 3:19-21 KJV) while we in the Body of Christ look back to the cross having already received the atonement (Romans 5:11 KJV). Things that are different are not the same!

? Peter is talking to unbelievers.

Also, Acts 26:20
First to those in Damascus, then to those in Jerusalem and in all Judea, and then to the Gentiles, I preached that they should repent and turn to God and demonstrate their repentance by their deeds.

Sonnet
April 22nd, 2016, 03:15 AM
Now, Sonnet, would you be so kind as to share with me a quote from the Prophets where they speak about Jesus and asked Pilate to crucify Jesus? I'll be honored if you comply with my request. Since you can't I apologize for having asked you for what you cannot provide. At least, it will serve you good not to mention what you cannot provide.

Zechariah 12:10ff
Isaiah 53

Sonnet
April 22nd, 2016, 03:16 AM
will have to pick this up later...

:)

Sonnet
April 22nd, 2016, 03:54 AM
Right. We cannot be Israel when they look forward to the blotting out of sins (Acts 3:19-21 KJV) while we in the Body of Christ look back to the cross having already received the atonement (Romans 5:11 KJV). Things that are different are not the same!

Romans 3:27-30
Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. Because of what law? The law that requires works? No, because of the law that requires faith. For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law. Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith.

Sonnet
April 22nd, 2016, 03:56 AM
Galatians 3:28
There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Ben Masada
April 22nd, 2016, 04:07 AM
Zechariah 12:10ff
Isaiah 53

I read both of them. They don't have any thing to do with Jesus. Please, don't forget this very important note. You come from outside of the Tanach claiming what you see in the Tanach about Jesus. I am from inside the Tanach saying that I don't find any thing at all about Jesus in the Tanach. For this single reason only, you need to show nominal evidences. You can't. Who is wrong of the two of us? This is no different from the Buddhist who comes in between us and say, "Both are wrong. It is neither Jesus or Israel; it is Buddha. Would you say he was right? No. That's the point I am making here.

The point with Zechariah 12:10 happened when the Jews returned from their 70 years exile in Babylon and stopped by Jerusalem and the Lord let upon them the Spirit of grace and they were reminded of the Ten Tribes that had to be rejected in an endless sacrifice so that those of Judah be the happy Tribe of the 12 now back home while Israel out that forever in Assyria.

Isaiah 53 is about the Suffering Servant Israel aka the Ten Tribes when it was rejected by the Lord according to Psalm 78:67-69 so that Judah remained as the happy ones in the whole Land of Israel. If you read Isaiah 41:8,9 and 44:1,2,21 Israel is identified as the Suffering Servant. Then, if you read Psalm 44:11-24, whatever in Isaiah 53 is in the singular as in "he", it is in the plural in that Psalm to prove that Isaiah is talking about Israel.

Now, if you want to break down the verses in Isaiah 53 and ask me any thing by the verses you choose, I'll tell you what it is talking about.

Sonnet
April 22nd, 2016, 04:13 AM
I read both of them. They don't have any thing to do with Jesus. Please, don't forget very important note. You come from outside of the Tanach claiming what you see in the Tanach about Jesus. I am from inside the Tanach saying that I don't find any thing at all about Jesus in the Tanach. For this single reason only, you need to show nominal evidences. You can't. Who is wrong of the two of us? This is no different from the Buddhist who comes in between us and say, "Both are wrong. It is neither Jesus or Israel; it is Buddha. Would you say he was right? No. That's the point I am making here.

The point with Zechariah 12:10 happened when the Jews returned from their 70 years exile and stopped by Jerusalem and the Lord let upon them the Spirit of grace and they looked upon the Ten Tribes that had to be rejected in an endless sacrifice so that Judah be the happy People then and Israel Israel out that forever
in Assyria.

Isaiah 53 is about the Suffering Servant Israel aka the Ten Tribes when it was rejected by the Lord according to Psalm 78:67-69 so that Judah remained as the only Kingdom in the whole Land of Israel. If you read Isaiah 41:8,9 and 44:1,2,21 Israel is identified as the Suffering Servant. Then, if you read Psalm 44:11-24, whatever in Isaiah 53 is in the singular as in "he", in the plural to prove that Isaiah is talking about Israel.

Now, if you want to break down the verses and ask me any thing by the verse you choose, I'll tell you what it is talking about.

Thanks. Will come back to you.

Ben Masada
April 22nd, 2016, 04:25 AM
Galatians 3:28
There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

That's the same as to say: There is neither Jew nor Gentiles but Christians. That's too convenient. Is is called Replacement Theology. Then who decided this, Paul? Nice try! At least Jesus decided something else when he even forbade his disciples to take the gospel of salvation to the Gentiles. (Matthew 10:5,6)

Sonnet
April 22nd, 2016, 04:30 AM
That's the same as to say: There is neither Jew nor Gentiles but Christians. That's too convenient. Is is called Replacement Theology. Then who decided this, Paul? Nice try! At least Jesus decided something else when he even forbade his disciples to take the gospel of salvation to the Gentiles. (Matthew 10:5,6)

I do not subscribe to replacement theology. Romans 11:25.

csuguy
April 22nd, 2016, 05:22 AM
Er, he didn't 'ask' for feedback about me. He asked for another to weigh in on you and your theology. You didn't wonder why that is? :think:

As always, your reading comprehension needs work Lon. Sonnet wasn't asking personal questions about me, she asked people to respond to what I had asserted:


Furthermore, Dispensationalism makes God entirely unjust - showing partiality to the Gentiles, who have little to no requirements on them for their salvation, whereas everything is demanded from the Jews. This is sinful and unscriptural.

If you'd like to respond to what Sonnet was actually querying about, feel free to reply to the topic rather than continue making personal attacks.


Not really a problem to this point. I don't think you nearly as 'logical' as you seem to think you are, but as far as the rest, fine. Again, however, he asked about your view on Dispensational theology and/or about you. He didn't ask you about me. It doesn't need a lot more than what was said.

First off - see above. You jumped the gun making personal attacks on me without reason - Sonnet never questioned who I was or my background.

Second off - given your unwarranted personal attacks, I was perfectly in line responding to those attacks and giving Sonnet a more balanced view of the personal dynamics on the board between you and I.

Thirdly - you are quite sensitive about being talked about for one who just gave a random, unwarranted post attacking my character. If you don't like it, then consider not rushing in to attack me so that I don't need to expound upon our personal dynamics.



See, I chalk this up to your inability to 'logic' well nor see correctly. You have a cultists myopia, delusion. This has been said by a lot more than myself. Find anyone but a cultist who has the same view you have of me. :nono: Won't find one. Why do you suppose? :think: It will all be evident BUT to a cultist/heretic/maverick. Something in your psyche doesn't work quite right. Dialogue in this case is good. He can see our conversation and pick up the bits and pieces he needs. If he had need to know a bit more about me, this confrontation provides that as well.

More random personal attacks. For anyone following this: we see here another common tactic from Lon. Rather than bolster his own authority or his position through the authority of others, he instead seeks to diminish the other person - often referring to them as cultists and then attacking them as if that's what they were. A strawman tactic in essence. I am no cultist, and have only attended your standard Trinitarian churches. But because I break from what Lon considers essential, I must therefore have been raised in a cult.



Yowsa, no! He has a few positions all paid in theology and some of that for research, relates to dialogue. He did give some good information from one or two of your theology professors. Again, the same thing is said about you by others. What you are saying about me? Er, just cultists. It makes sense when you think about it. :think:

Uh - when he goes emailing my professors and then holding onto said emails for years so that he can pull them out at any time to attack me - usually when I'm speaking with someone else - yes that is pretty creepy, stalker-esque activity right there. But you enjoy the personal attacks against me, so you jump on the band-wagon without a second thought.



I think he can, but asking someone else to weigh in is no poor request. He'll STILL judge afterwards, somewhat regarding both of us, as to how to take us and interact, but better? With an informed understanding. If he didn't want to know about me, it'll either be superfluous or added bonus.

One will better judge a person by listening to what they have to say rather than listening to the constant, random, and often senseless personal attacks from their enemies - as we see in your post here. Furthermore, Sonnet didn't request personal information about me either - yet that doesn't stop you from taking the opportunity to attack me.



Now you are telling on yourself. I think you 'think' you are traditional, but I've seen a few more issues where you go against the theological flow. Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons have 'traditional views.' It is when they go against orthodoxy that they aren't. I think cultists/heretics would like to be seen as orthodox, but that's weird. You can't go against orthodoxy (not O) and then turn around and want to be a part. It is a little too "accept me on my own terms." One hallmark of Christianity is our call to a body and accountability. A lone-Christian is an odd thing. It doesn't fit the Biblical model and it really would be about being ineffective.

I'm no more unorthodox than you Lon - last time I checked you were a Protestant. And Protestants started off as individuals standing up to corruption in Catholicism. Furthermore, if you are following a given path simply to follow others - chances are you are in error. You are on the wide path.


This is a bit further than I think Sonnet wanted to go. All I 'think' he needed to know was 1) whether your view of Dispensationalism was well-informed and accurate (I don't believe it is), and 2) perhaps a bit about your perspective so he could place it in context. I'm not sure if anything else is helpful to him, but I do think it a bit beyond the necessary need. He had your opinion about Dispensationalism and was questioning whether it was accurate.

Neither of which you really addressed beyond saying you don't know much about the topic.

csuguy
April 22nd, 2016, 05:36 AM
You are clearly in error and are most of the time.

Galatians 2:7-9 KJV But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; 8. (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles 9. And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

First off, you should look at how other translations render this verse, as that will help you understand what is being said better. KJV-onlyists always find themselves in these kinds of errors. Here is the NASB translation of those verses:


But on the contrary, seeing that I had been entrusted with the gospel [d]to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been [e]to the circumcised 8 (for He who effectually worked for Peter in his apostleship [f]to the circumcised effectually worked for me also to the Gentiles), 9 and recognizing the grace that had been given to me, [g]James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right [h]hand of fellowship, so that we might go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.

"I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been [entrusted with the gospel] to the circumcised" - the rendering correctly communicates that there is a single Gospel. If you doubt this better, modern translation - then go look at the Greek.

Furthermore, both Peter and Paul shared the gospel to both the circumcised and uncircumcised. In every city he went to, Paul's habit was to first go to the synagogues and preach to the Jews. Only after they rejected him did he then go out to the gentiles. And while Peter and the disciples primarily went to the Jews, they also recognized - even before Paul came along - that the Gospel was intended for the Gentile as well.


Acts 10:45-48 And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. 46 For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God. Then Peter answered, 47 “Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” 48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then they asked him to stay a few days.

Acts 15:7-9 ... Peter rose up and said to them: “Men and brethren, you know that a good while ago God chose among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8 So God, who knows the heart, acknowledged them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He did to us, 9 and made no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.

chrysostom
April 22nd, 2016, 05:41 AM
"I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been [entrusted with the gospel] to the circumcised" - the rendering correctly communicates that there is a single Gospel. If you doubt this better, modern translation - then go look at the Greek.


common sense should lead you to the same conclusion

csuguy
April 22nd, 2016, 05:45 AM
Why would I want to read someone else's mail and apply it TO myself? That's bad theology at the least.

Because Paul wrote to YOU a personal set of letters?

It is fundamental to Jewish and Christian theology that we study what was said and written in the past concerning other people that aren't physically around anymore, and studying it to help us today. Some of it is directly applicable, other things are more abstract, and some of it may genuinely not be applicable. But you can't make that call until you sufficiently study it. If you've done this then you should be equipped to explain why something doesn't apply to you.

csuguy
April 22nd, 2016, 05:50 AM
common sense should lead you to the same conclusion

Indeed - for even with the KJV rendering there is never a divide made between the "Gospel of the uncircumcised" versus the "Gospel of the circumcised" as it renders that passage. Especially when you factor in the fact that both Paul and Peter shared the Gospel to both the circumcised and uncircumcised.


1 Cor 1:10-14 Now I plead with you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. 11 For it has been declared to me concerning you, my brethren, by those of Chloe’s household, that there are contentions among you. 12 Now I say this, that each of you says, “I am of Paul,” or “I am of Apollos,” or “I am of Cephas,” or “I am of Christ.” 13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?

14 I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 lest anyone should say that I had baptized in my own name.

chrysostom
April 22nd, 2016, 05:54 AM
Especially when you factor in the fact that both Paul and Peter shared the Gospel to both the circumcised and uncircumcised.

they also ended up at the same place

heir
April 22nd, 2016, 06:06 AM
Which includes Jews.And? So?

heir
April 22nd, 2016, 06:08 AM
John 3:16. Matthew 21:33ff. The sermon on the mount....

Perhaps I am not understanding you correctly.What about it? It's for you, but it's not TO you.

heir
April 22nd, 2016, 06:14 AM
? Peter is talking to unbelievers. Acts 3:19-21 KJV does not equal Romans 5:11 KJV. Peter preached water baptism for the remission of sins (just as John the B) looking forward to the blotting out of sins! Paul preached we have NOW received the atonement.


Also, Acts 26:20
First to those in Damascus, then to those in Jerusalem and in all Judea, and then to the Gentiles, I preached that they should repent and turn to God and demonstrate their repentance by their deeds.

What about it?

heir
April 22nd, 2016, 06:19 AM
Romans 3:27-30
Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. Because of what law? The law that requires works? No, because of the law that requires faith. For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law. Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith.LOL It doesn't say "same faith". corrupted versions corrupt minds. And what are you trying to show me?

heir
April 22nd, 2016, 06:28 AM
Galatians 3:28
There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

Galatians 3:29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

^^^^^^Those to whom Paul was first sent. They were in the promise. They had a hope.

and

Ephesians 2:11 Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;

Ephesians 2:12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:

^^^^^^^^^^They were aliens and strangers, had no hope in time past

Both are in the one Body of Christ.

The first group gathered OUT of Israel into the Body (remnannt according to the election of grace which God foreknew (Romans 11:1-6 KJV)

The second fellowheirs and of the same Body though never having anything to do with Israel/partakers by the gospel (Ephesians 3:6 KJV).

So what is it that you think you have shown? What are you trying to prove?

heir
April 22nd, 2016, 06:33 AM
I read both of them. They don't have any thing to do with Jesus. Please, don't forget this very important note. You come from outside of the Tanach claiming what you see in the Tanach about Jesus. I am from inside the Tanach saying that I don't find any thing at all about Jesus in the Tanach. For this single reason only, you need to show nominal evidences. You can't. Who is wrong of the two of us? This is no different from the Buddhist who comes in between us and say, "Both are wrong. It is neither Jesus or Israel; it is Buddha. Would you say he was right? No. That's the point I am making here.

The point with Zechariah 12:10 happened when the Jews returned from their 70 years exile in Babylon and stopped by Jerusalem and the Lord let upon them the Spirit of grace and they were reminded of the Ten Tribes that had to be rejected in an endless sacrifice so that those of Judah be the happy Tribe of the 12 now back home while Israel out that forever in Assyria.

Isaiah 53 is about the Suffering Servant Israel aka the Ten Tribes when it was rejected by the Lord according to Psalm 78:67-69 so that Judah remained as the happy ones in the whole Land of Israel. If you read Isaiah 41:8,9 and 44:1,2,21 Israel is identified as the Suffering Servant. Then, if you read Psalm 44:11-24, whatever in Isaiah 53 is in the singular as in "he", it is in the plural in that Psalm to prove that Isaiah is talking about Israel.

Now, if you want to break down the verses in Isaiah 53 and ask me any thing by the verses you choose, I'll tell you what it is talking about.Is. 53 is about the Lord Jesus Christ, you Christ rejecting blasphemer