Acts 18:4

[heymikey80]

I think John 3:16 has already been dealt with. Verse 15 - Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so shall the son of man be, that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him.

No Israelite who was bitten by a snake was excluded from the OFFER of living by looking at the raised serpent. But it did require faith - ie belief in the proffered cure - one had to turn and look at the serpent.

Jesus makes an illustrative point, not a theological allegory. E.g. where is the requirement to believe in the brass serpent itself? Wasnt such reliance considered idolatry? Yet faith in Christ is a central tenet.

As an illustration it is a vivid image of Christ on the Cross.

Romans 5:15
But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!

Looks like you are unintentionally proving that not all men will die - just many.

Well, thank you. Now we need no longer assume "all" is universal, by what Paul said in the context at 5:12. Otherwise, you know the drill, that Paul certainly isn't being universal at this verse.

 

[janxharris]

Jesus makes an illustrative point, not a theological allegory.

?

You are dodging.
If v.16 is 'just as', then there is no room for limited atonement.

v.14 Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up,
v.15 that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him.”

E.g. where is the requirement to believe in the brass serpent itself? Wasn't such reliance considered idolatry? Yet faith in Christ is a central tenet.

Nobody was asked to 'believe in' the serpent itself - they were told to look at it. No idolatry.

As an illustration it is a vivid image of Christ on the Cross.

v.15 is explicit in its reference to 'everyone'. Nobody was excluded from looking at the bronze serpent and nobody is excluded from the benefits of Jesus being raised up...if they 'look' to him.

Well, thank you. Now we need no longer assume "all" is universal, by what Paul said in the context at 5:12. Otherwise, you know the drill, that Paul certainly isn't being universal at this verse.

I'm not following you.

12Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned— 13To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. 14Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come. 15But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!

'Many' must mean 'all' here, surely? That is my point.

 

[heymikey80]

If v.16 is 'just as', then there is no room for limited atonement.

v.14 Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up,
v.15 that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him.”

Nobody was asked to 'believe in' the serpent itself - they were told to look at it. No idolatry.

So no "just as" for faith.

You just said so yourself.

v.15 is explicit in its reference to 'everyone'. Nobody was excluded from looking at the bronze serpent and nobody is excluded from the benefits of Jesus being raised up...if they 'look' to him.

Not "believe in", though. And 15 and 16 are both "all believing"

I'm not following you.

12Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned— 13To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. 14Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come. 15But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!

'Many' must mean 'all' here, surely? That is my point.

Well clearly not. The word only means "many". You dont mean to force any word you want to mean everything, do you? If Paul wanted "all" to be universal, thisd be the time to use it. But he uses the word that is shy of the mark.

Rom 5:16 would then mean that there's no sin after Christ. Which isnt what Paul means.

I dont see how this can really be what Paul is saying. Head in this direction and 5:18-19 becomes universal salvation. I disagree. That is not where Paul is heading.

 

[janxharris]

So no "just as" for faith.

You just said so yourself.

I'm not following you.

Not "believe in", though. And 15 and 16 are both "all believing"

I'm not following you.

Well clearly not. The word only means "many". You dont mean to force any word you want to mean everything, do you? If Paul wanted "all" to be universal, thisd be the time to use it. But he uses the word that is shy of the mark.

Rom 5:16 would then mean that there's no sin after Christ. Which isnt what Paul means.

I dont see how this can really be what Paul is saying. Head in this direction and 5:18-19 becomes universal salvation. I disagree. That is not where Paul is heading.

Sorry, but 'many' is used to mean 'all' since Paul said that death came to all people.

You will accept, I'm sure, that death came to all, so when Paul says, 'if the many died by the trespass,' I ask you, how many? All or less than all?

Please answer that question.

 

[janxharris]

I dont see how this can really be what Paul is saying. Head in this direction and 5:18-19 becomes universal salvation. I disagree. That is not where Paul is heading.

Of course, faith is required, so it's not universalism.

 

[FreeGrace2]

They all say what "RT" says they say.

No they don't SAY what RT SAYS. RT simply thinks those verse MEAN what they claim. Big difference.

You just disagree to the point where you dismiss instead of engage.

Said the famous prevaricator!

I've directly engaged with every poster who disagrees with me.

My our theology leaves it's followers unable to see the big picture of passages, and has reduced itself to only being able to understand single verses without context. That's shallow.

That's the problem with "your our theology".

otoh, my theology is directly backed by Scripture that does SAY what I believe.

And until you're willing to jump into the theologically rich deep end of Calvinism, you'll never even try to understand.

I fully understand Calvinism, which is why I so strongly disagree with it. It can't defend itself against a whole range of questions, as easily demonstrated by all your prevaricating all over the place, not only with me, but other posters as well.

btw, I'm not looking for a theology with a "rich deep end". I look for a theology that is Bible backed and is the truth.

 

[FreeGrace2]

You cited it. I quoted it

Because these posts don't include more than one quote, context gets lost. So when making make on-liners, please include verse.

It is in the verse itself. As well as before and after.

Yes, in the verse, it says that Christ died for all. RT rejects that. RT claims He didn't die for all. Just the elect/etc.

And the context for "all" in v.9 is found in v.8, where it is used 3 times, all used in a global context, not any kind of limited context.

If the writer wanted to communicate that Jesud died only the the "many sons", he would have said that IN v.9. He didn't.

Your argument is weaker than a wet noodle.

So? They are all His sheep. And it is pretty clear therere those that are not His sheep.

How confused! No, they are NOT "all His sheep". He was very clear about that. There were "His sheep", there were "other sheep of His", and He died for THE sheep. And the unbelieving Jews were described as "not of My sheep".

It was all about sheep. And He died for all of them, not just His.

Even Paul didn't expect all.

Wow. How naive.

Plenty of people. Not all.

Matt 7:14,15 refutes your idea of "plenty of people". Compared to the entire world population, only a few get in. Yet the Bible tells us that He died for the masses, or "plenty of people". As well as Heb 2:9, that He died for all. Or John 10 where He died for the sheep, not just His.

He could have very easily made it clear that He would lay down His life just for His sheep, if that what His plan was. But He made no such statement.

What He said was very clear, but RT can't swallow it because it refutes their view.

 

[Hammster]

No they don't SAY what RT SAYS. RT simply thinks those verse MEAN what they claim. Big difference.


Said the famous prevaricator!

I've directly engaged with every poster who disagrees with me.


That's the problem with "your our theology".

otoh, my theology is directly backed by Scripture that does SAY what I believe.


I fully understand Calvinism, which is why I so strongly disagree with it. It can't defend itself against a whole range of questions, as easily demonstrated by all your prevaricating all over the place, not only with me, but other posters as well.

btw, I'm not looking for a theology with a "rich deep end". I look for a theology that is Bible backed and is the truth.

You should look for both. It's called Calvinism.

 

[heymikey80]

Because tthese posts don't include more than one quote, context gets lost. So when making make on-liners, please include verse.

I might. If at some point I notice your example of same.

Yes, in the verse, it says that Christ died for all. RT rejects that. RT claims He didn't die for all. Just the elect/etc.

What part of speech is "all"?

And the context for "all" in v.9 is found in v.8, where it is used 3 times, all used in a global context, not any kind of limited context.

If the writer waited to communicate that Jesud died only the the "many sons", he would have said that IN v.9. He didn't.

Your argument is weaker than a wet noodle.

Were that true the term would be "everything" in Heb 2:9, not "everyone". Grammatically however the terms do not refer to the same "all" so your argument here just wouldnt be made of the original

How confused! No, they are NOT "all His sheep". He was very clear about that. There were "His sheep", there were "other sheep of His", and He died for THE sheep. And the unbelieving Jews were described as "not of My sheep".

It was all about sheep. And He died for all of them, not just His.

Im sorry, but that is not what He said. He said He has sheep in one fold, and He has sheep in another fold. "I have (present tense btw) other sheep" means they are his sheep . "Have" is the verb of possession.

Matt 7:14,15 refutes your idea of "plenty of people". Compared to the entire world population, only a few get in. Yet the Bible tells us that He died for the masses, or "plenty of people". As well as Heb 2:9, that He died for all. Or John 10 where He died for the sheep, not just His.

You guys are the ones claiming the verses are referring to everyone of the world, not me. And it doesnt require the entire population of the world to be "many".

Which again is why Paul trading off uses is a factor. Paul's usage is pointing out, it isnt the big "all". It is limited by what the "all" refers to.

He could have very easily made it clear that He would lay down His life just for His sheep, if that what His plan was. But He made no such statement.

What He said was very clear, but RT can't swallow it because it refutes their view.

It is downright clear saving His sheep is His intent. You just quoted that Jesus knew the rest would not join them. Unless He intended to be a massive failure, He must have known and focused on saving those He did know would be saved by Him. "For the joy set before him" has more than one similar text. Failure to save does not sound like joy for God. Ya think?

I don't think God is big on chasing what He knows doesn't happen. Do you?

 

[FreeGrace2]

You should look for both. It's called Calvinism.

If Calvinism is the truth, how come there are no verses or passages that plainly SAYS what RT claims?

Here's a neat verse:

2 Corinthians 4:2
Rather, we have renounced secret and shameful ways; we do not use deception, nor do we distort the word of God. On the contrary, by setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God.

You see, I follow Paul's advise here. I look for the plain truth.

Pual's sets forth the truth plainly. That's what I look for, and have found.

If RT is the "plain truth", how come there are no verses that SAYS what RT claims?

That's a big problem.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I might. If at some point I notice your example of same.

Oh, I see. An "eye for an eye" kind of thing. Got it.

What part of speech is "all"?

The object. What is your point?

Were that true the term would be "everything" in Heb 2:9, not "everyone". Grammatically however the terms do not refer to the same "all" so your argument here just wouldnt be made of the original

Again, missing the point completely. It's the SCOPE of the "all" that is in play here. The context, actually. btw, out of 46 English translations, more than half actually translate "all" as either "everyone" or "every one". Go figure.

Im sorry, but that is not what He said. He said He has sheep in one fold, and He has sheep in another fold. "I have (present tense btw) other sheep" means they are his sheep . "Have" is the verb of possession.

Yes, being sorry for your error here. That is my point. Jesus indicated "His sheep", "other sheep of Mine", also His, the sheep, for which He would die, and "those not of My sheep". Please pay attention before you post erroneously.

You guys are the ones claiming the verses are referring to everyone of the world, not me. And it doesnt require the entire population of the world to be "many".

It isn't about what is "required". It's about comparing Scripture to Scripture and knowing that most pass through the wide gate but only a few through the narrow gate. Straight from Jesus' mouth. Want to argue with Him?

The word "many" generally means "the masses". That's who He died for.

If RT were correct, there should be a verse or two that SAYS that He died ONLY for the elect, or words to that effect, OR that He didn't die for everyone, or words to that effect.

Since there aren't any such verses, RT cannot be affirmed by Scripture.

Which again is why Paul trading off uses is a factor. Paul's usage is pointing out, it isnt the big "all". It is limited by what the "all" refers to.

This is amazing! Your response here is linked to my comment about Matt 7. Why bring up Paul here? What are you referring to??

It is downright clear saving His sheep is His intent.

Downright clear, huh??? He explicitly SAID that He would lay down His life for THE sheep. Not "My sheep". If He had just said that He would lay down His life for HIS sheep in that chapter, RT would be correct. Absolutely. But He didn't and RT isn't.

You just quoted that Jesus knew the rest would not join them. Unless He intended to be a massive failure, He must have known and focused on saving those He did know would be saved by Him.

Why do Calvinists continue the confused thinking that dying for those who will reject Him amounts to a "massive failure"?? Such thinking probably erroneously concludes that His death saves. His death removes the sin barrier, and propitates the Father, freeing His justice to save those who believe.

We know it pleases Him to save those who believe, because 1 Cor 1:21 plainly says so.

"For the joy set before him" has more than one similar text. Failure to save does not sound like joy for God. Ya think?

Christ never fails to save anyone who believes. Ya think?

I don't think God is big on chasing what He knows doesn't happen. Do you?

What in the world does that mean? Many of your comments seem extremely goofy. No context, no meaning. Where is the evidence that I or anyone else claimed or suggested that God was "big on chasing what He knows doesn't happen".

Such a statement is idiotic. No one would think that.

 

[Hammster]

If Calvinism is the truth, how come there are no verses or passages that plainly SAYS what RT claims?

Here's a neat verse:

2 Corinthians 4:2
Rather, we have renounced secret and shameful ways; we do not use deception, nor do we distort the word of God. On the contrary, by setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God.

You see, I follow Paul's advise here. I look for the plain truth.

Pual's sets forth the truth plainly. That's what I look for, and have found.

If RT is the "plain truth", how come there are no verses that SAYS what RT claims?

That's a big problem.

I've spent plenty of time exegeting Hebrews 9 and 10, and Leviticus 16. I know that you disagree with it, but please don't say that the evidence hasn't been given. That just comes off as childish.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I've spent plenty of time exegeting Hebrews 9 and 10, and Leviticus 16. I know that you disagree with it, but please don't say that the evidence hasn't been given. That just comes off as childish.

Does any of those thoses chapters plainly indicate that Christ didn't die for all, or that God chooses who will believe? I don't recall that being mentioned.

Lot's of people claim they exegete, but it's really eisegete usually.

 

[heymikey80]

Oh, I see. An "eye for an eye". Got it

No, but I have notice your debate technique of deflecting, and sandbagging. If you dont take your own advice, I certainly dont see it worth considering.

The object. What is your point?

Awfully indefinite object you have there. But no, "all" isnt an object unless you make it that way in substantive use.

What part of speech is "all"? Look it up. Then look up the Greek word. Identify its part of speech. Are they the same or different?

Again, missing the point completely. It's the SCOPE of the "all" that is in play here. The context, actually. btw, out of 46 English translations, more than half actually translate "all" as either "everyone" or "every one". Go figure.

Funny in Greek it is always the same word. Yes, go figure.

Yes, being sorry for your error here. That is my point. Jesus indicated "His sheep", "other sheep of Mine", also His, the sheep, for which He would die, and "those not of My sheep". Please pay attention before you post erroneously.

It is your mistake. And your error. But you will continue to maintain your forlorn error. "I have other sheep" does not point to them as "my sheep" you said. You are simply wrong there. And Jesus said He gave His life for His, the sheep.

So where does the shepherd intend to lay down his life for, "not my sheep"? Doesnt fit Jesus' illustration, does it.

It isn't about what is "required". It's about comparing Scripture to Scripture and knowing that most pass through the wide gate but only a few through the narrow gate. Straight from Jesus' mouth. Want to argue with Him?

Ymean like John 7:31? 2:23? 4:39? 4:41? 8:30? 10:42? Always fun to argue silliness with soneone who has never tackled language usage.

The word "many" generally means "the masses". That's who He died for.

And the masses believed in Him. Not quite what you were going for!

I will start limiting my responses, on the advice from Proverbs not to answer the questions but the problems I see.

 

[FreeGrace2]

No, but I have notice your debate technique of deflecting, and sandbagging.

That is frankly ridiculous.

Awfully indefinite object you have there. But no, "all" isnt an object unless you make it that way in substantive use.

So, what are you saying? And please don't sandbag or deflect.

What part of speech is "all"? Look it up. Then look up the Greek word. Identify its part of speech. Are they the same or different?

You're going to have to tell me. I gave my answer. If it's not correct, please correct.

Funny in Greek it is always the same word. Yes, go figure.

What's so funny? Review all the translations, and it is clear that the vast majority of them understood the writer to mean everyone, not "everyone in some special group".

It is your mistake. And your error. But you will continue to maintain your forlorn error. "I have other sheep" does not point to them as "my sheep" you said.

Oh, so when Jesus said He HAD other sheep, He didn't mean they were His??? Are you kidding!!? Of course they are His. Sheesh!

You are simply wrong there. And Jesus said He gave His life for His, the sheep.

More error. He did NOT say "My, the sheep". He SAID 'the sheep'. NOT "My sheep", as you'd prefer. Read it and weep.

So where does the shepherd intend to lay down his life for, "not my sheep"? Doesnt fit Jesus' illustration, does it.

This is more than confused. Jesus said this:

John 10:11
“I am the good shepherd; the good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep.

Then He said this:

John 10:14
“I am the good shepherd, and I know My own and My own know Me,

And then He immediately said this:

John 10:15
even as the Father knows Me and I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep.

Twice He said he would lay down His life for THE SHEEP. And in between those 2 claims He make a point that He knows His OWN (sheep).

One has to close their eyes to miss what Jesus said.

I said this:
It isn't about what is "required". It's about comparing Scripture to Scripture and knowing that most pass through the wide gate but only a few through the narrow gate. Straight from Jesus' mouth. Want to argue with Him?
Ymean like John 7:31? 2:23? 4:39? 4:41? 8:30? 10:42? Always fun to argue silliness with soneone who has never tackled language usage.[/QUOTE]
Your comment is irrelevant to my comment. My comment specifically referenced Matt 7:14,15.

And the masses believed in Him. Not quite what you were going for!

Again, wrong. Context clearly indicates how to use the word.

I will start limiting my responses, on the advice from Proverbs not to answer the questions but the problems I see.

You're free to do as you like.

Unless God predestined you to answer all of my questions and to listen to what I have to say.

 

[AndOne]

That is frankly ridiculous.


So, what are you saying? And please don't sandbag or deflect.


You're going to have to tell me. I gave my answer. If it's not correct, please correct.


What's so funny? Review all the translations, and it is clear that the vast majority of them understood the writer to mean everyone, not "everyone in some special group".


Oh, so when Jesus said He HAD other sheep, He didn't mean they were His??? Are you kidding!!? Of course they are His. Sheesh!


More error. He did NOT say "My, the sheep". He SAID 'the sheep'. NOT "My sheep", as you'd prefer. Read it and weep.


This is more than confused. Jesus said this:

John 10:11
“I am the good shepherd; the good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep.

Then He said this:

John 10:14
“I am the good shepherd, and I know My own and My own know Me,

And then He immediately said this:

John 10:15
even as the Father knows Me and I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep.

Twice He said he would lay down His life for THE SHEEP. And in between those 2 claims He make a point that He knows His OWN (sheep).

One has to close their eyes to miss what Jesus said.

I said this:
It isn't about what is "required". It's about comparing Scripture to Scripture and knowing that most pass through the wide gate but only a few through the narrow gate. Straight from Jesus' mouth. Want to argue with Him?
Ymean like John 7:31? 2:23? 4:39? 4:41? 8:30? 10:42? Always fun to argue silliness with soneone who has never tackled language usage.
Your comment is irrelevant to my comment. My comment specifically referenced Matt 7:14,15.


Again, wrong. Context clearly indicates how to use the word.


You're free to do as you like.

Unless God predestined you to answer all of my questions and to listen to what I have to say.

Sheep pass through the narrow gate - goats do not. There are more goats than sheep. Jesus did not lay down his life for the goats - hence proving that there are is a group whom salvation was never intended....

 

[janxharris]

Sheep pass through the narrow gate - goats do not. There are more goats than sheep. Jesus did not lay down his life for the goats - hence proving that there are is a group whom salvation was never intended....

In John 10 Jesus simply demonstrates his good shepherdship compared with that of the Pharisees. Indeed, Jesus' parable is actually intended for their ears:

6 Jesus used this figure of speech, but the Pharisees did not understand what he was telling them.

As proof of this good shepherdship, Jesus says that he will lay down his life for the sheep. In comparison, he describes the Pharisees as feckless hired hands:

11“I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. 12The hired hand is not the shepherd and does not own the sheep. So when he sees the wolf coming, he abandons the sheep and runs away. Then the wolf attacks the flock and scatters it. 13The man runs away because he is a hired hand and cares nothing for the sheep.

In claiming this demonstration of Jesus' sacrificial faithfulness to the sheep as proof of limited atonement you do damage to the text. Jesus is making no such point.

 

[AndOne]

In John 10 Jesus simply demonstrates his good shepherdship compared with that of the Pharisees. Indeed, Jesus' parable is actually intended for their ears:

6 Jesus used this figure of speech, but the Pharisees did not understand what he was telling them.

As proof of this good shepherdship, Jesus says that he will lay down his life for the sheep. In comparison, he describes the Pharisees as feckless hired hands:

11“I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. 12The hired hand is not the shepherd and does not own the sheep. So when he sees the wolf coming, he abandons the sheep and runs away. Then the wolf attacks the flock and scatters it. 13The man runs away because he is a hired hand and cares nothing for the sheep.

In claiming this demonstration of Jesus' sacrificial faithfulness to the sheep as proof of limited atonement you do damage to the text. Jesus is making no such point.

You missed my point - so no point in continuing the discussion...

 

[janxharris]

You missed my point - so no point in continuing the discussion...

What is this then:
Jesus did not lay down his life for the goats - hence proving that there are is a group whom salvation was never intended....

?

 

[AndOne]

What is this then:
Jesus did not lay down his life for the goats - hence proving that there are is a group whom salvation was never intended....

?

It means what it says