Calvinism and its Secret Universalism

[zoidar]

Well, you did said there were exceptions.... : ) .... that would be me and other reformed guys in this place. I doubt you would get many reformed guys here (maybe even none) to agree that "the atonement is applied by faith." Reformed people see faith as a part of the atonement and not the cause of the atonement being applied. This is actually the crux of the matter. This is the actual issue. Everything else discussed is just bobbles.

Let me explain further. Reformed people would agree that justification is by faith alone... absolutely!!! Justification by faith alone is a hill for reformed people to die on. The doctrine of Justification by faith alone is in every reformed creed. However, Reformed people do not equate the word "atonement" as equal with justification. The atonement, or shed blood of Christ did far more than justify. We see the benefits of the atonement before and after justification. Before the justification there is "prevenient grace" or "regeneration." The reformed community sees faith as the result of regeneration, not the result of sinful and rebellious man, who is in Adam and is "by nature a child of wrath" (Ephesians 2:3), and suppresses the knowledge of God (Romans 1:18). Without the work of the Holy Spirit in regeneration, there would be no faith. Faith is caused by regeneration (1 John 5:1) or being born again and is a the result of the atonement and not the cause of it being applied.

This also has to do with "original sin" or what Calvinists call "total depravity." Since Calvinists or Reformed doctrine states that no man can come to Christ (see John 6:44). Therefore, no one can have faith. Due to original sin, we are born into a rebellion against God and the human race only suppresses the truth about God and redemption (Romans 1:18). Faith is not something that is possible for sinful men to achieve, it is a gift (Philippians 1:29; Ephesians 2:8-9) of the Holy Spirit.



There are different understandings among Calvinists or Reformed people. This might produce some inter-Reformed discussion, but here goes!! There are some who might merely point out that John 3:16 does not actually say that the atonement is for all men, but they would agree that God loves all men. I am not one of them. I do not believe that God loves all men in a redemptive way. I would be OK with the idea God loves all men because they are his creation, because he gives them common grace. I would disagree that this is what John 3:16 is saying. John 3:16 is not speaking of common grace or loving people because the are his creation. The context is about his redemptive love. Another context about Gods redemptive love would be Romans 9:13. In that verse he hated Esau. How can God love the world (each and every person who ever lived) redemptively if he hated Esau? Would you agree that both contexts speak of God's redemptive love? If you do, then do you not have a problem? This is not a problem for me because I see limitations upon the term "world" in John 3:16. The term world can have many many different meanings in scripture. John Owen, in his book "the death of death in the death of Christ" listed quite a large group of different meanings for the term.

Now to the context of John 3:16 itself. First, it is impossible to understand the phrase "that whoever believes in him" in any universal way. It is impossible due to the grammar. When some approach the term "whoever" or "whosoever" they fail to see the limits on the term. In greek, when you have a participle following the word "all" (pas), the participle always limits the term "all." In John 3:16 the term all does not show up because it is translated by the english term "whosoever." The term "whosoever" must be understood in a limited sense. Let me illustrate. If I were to say to a room full of 10 people "whoever wants an ice cream cone come with me," we understand that there is context and a limit to the use of the term "whoever." I am not offering an ice cream cone to everyone in the world that ever lived. I am only offering an ice cream cone to the world inside the room of 10 people. That illustration only shows how the term "whosoever" can have a limited context. The greek grammar in John 3:16 requires a that we understand that the term "whosoever" be limited only to those who believe. So then, God gave his only begotten son (atonement) for the purpose of saving only those who believe.
* Also note that there is a way in greek to express the english term "whosoever" in an indefinite way that could include the whole world in the sense of it being each an every person. That would be if the particle "an" was in the sentence. Such an example is found in John 4:14. In John 4:14 the word "whosoever" is very different from the same english word in John 3:16.
* One might ask why Christ used a limited clause in John 3:16 and used the indefinite particle in John 4:14. Of course the answer is "context." In John 3:16 there is a redemptive context, and in John 4:14 Christ is making a gospel offer, but not speaking of redemption.

The idea of a redemptive world also occurs in verse 17. The world is saved (I recognize it is a conditional clause). Then in verse 18, Christ says that unbelievers are judged already! Why the term "already?" (hdh)? Because they did not believe, and faith is a part of the atonement.


This is confusing. I think you are agreeing with me that Hebrews 9:28 requires a limit to the extent to the atonement?


This gets back to something I wrote about before. You are equating two unequal covenants. In the Old Covenant, the priest had to go into the Holy of Holy's every year. Why? The same sins needed atoned for repeatedly. If the covenants were equal, Christ would need to die every year (Hebrews 9:26). Of course under the New Covenant, the true Christ died once and for all (Hebrews 9:28).

Also, more importantly, I do not think confessing the iniquities results in salvation. I would take the plural (iniquities) as referring to individual sins. While I agree that we should confess our sins (1 John 1:9, I do not see sorrow or the confession of individual sins as the same thing as faith and repentance.

I am guessing you do not see the people under the atonement of Lev 16 as saved anyway since you formerly agreed that not all Israel was saved.

I really have to stay away from this site, I have other things to do. I will be shutting it down. Maybe tomorrow I will come back.

Would hate (does hate really mean hate here?) to see you go before we are done with this discussion. I know it takes time to reply. Hopefully we are learning something from it. I'll be responding soon, probably tomorrow.

 

[zoidar]

Well, you did said there were exceptions.... : ) .... that would be me and other reformed guys in this place. I doubt you would get many reformed guys here (maybe even none) to agree that "the atonement is applied by faith." Reformed people see faith as a part of the atonement and not the cause of the atonement being applied. This is actually the crux of the matter. This is the actual issue. Everything else discussed is just bobbles.

Let me explain further. Reformed people would agree that justification is by faith alone... absolutely!!! Justification by faith alone is a hill for reformed people to die on. The doctrine of Justification by faith alone is in every reformed creed. However, Reformed people do not equate the word "atonement" as equal with justification. The atonement, or shed blood of Christ did far more than justify. We see the benefits of the atonement before and after justification. Before the justification there is "prevenient grace" or "regeneration." The reformed community sees faith as the result of regeneration, not the result of sinful and rebellious man, who is in Adam and is "by nature a child of wrath" (Ephesians 2:3), and suppresses the knowledge of God (Romans 1:18). Without the work of the Holy Spirit in regeneration, there would be no faith. Faith is caused by regeneration (1 John 5:1) or being born again and is a the result of the atonement and not the cause of it being applied.

Ok, the interesting thing is that you say that the sins of the elect were punished on the cross and you say we are justified by faith. If our sins have already been punished why do we need to be justified to be saved? Why isn't it enough that Jesus has taken the punishment for our sins? Why do we need justification for salvation?

All I will say is that I don't share your view on regeneration. First we confess Christ as Lord and then we receive the Holy Spirit and are saved/regenerated.

There are different understandings among Calvinists or Reformed people. This might produce some inter-Reformed discussion, but here goes!! There are some who might merely point out that John 3:16 does not actually say that the atonement is for all men, but they would agree that God loves all men. I am not one of them. I do not believe that God loves all men in a redemptive way. I would be OK with the idea God loves all men because they are his creation, because he gives them common grace. I would disagree that this is what John 3:16 is saying. John 3:16 is not speaking of common grace or loving people because the are his creation. The context is about his redemptive love. Another context about Gods redemptive love would be Romans 9:13. In that verse he hated Esau. How can God love the world (each and every person who ever lived) redemptively if he hated Esau? Would you agree that both contexts speak of God's redemptive love? If you do, then do you not have a problem? This is not a problem for me because I see limitations upon the term "world" in John 3:16. The term world can have many many different meanings in scripture. John Owen, in his book "the death of death in the death of Christ" listed quite a large group of different meanings for the term.

No I don't agree that Romans 9:13 is about redemptive love. I believe it is about who's family line the Messiah would come from. Hate here means "chose not" (see Luke 14:26)

Now to the context of John 3:16 itself. First, it is impossible to understand the phrase "that whoever believes in him" in any universal way. It is impossible due to the grammar. When some approach the term "whoever" or "whosoever" they fail to see the limits on the term. In greek, when you have a participle following the word "all" (pas), the participle always limits the term "all." In John 3:16 the term all does not show up because it is translated by the english term "whosoever." The term "whosoever" must be understood in a limited sense. Let me illustrate. If I were to say to a room full of 10 people "whoever wants an ice cream cone come with me," we understand that there is context and a limit to the use of the term "whoever." I am not offering an ice cream cone to everyone in the world that ever lived. I am only offering an ice cream cone to the world inside the room of 10 people. That illustration only shows how the term "whosoever" can have a limited context. The greek grammar in John 3:16 requires a that we understand that the term "whosoever" be limited only to those who believe. So then, God gave his only begotten son (atonement) for the purpose of saving only those who believe.

* Also note that there is a way in greek to express the english term "whosoever" in an indefinite way that could include the whole world in the sense of it being each an every person. That would be if the particle "an" was in the sentence. Such an example is found in John 4:14. In John 4:14 the word "whosoever" is very different from the same english word in John 3:16.

* One might ask why Christ used a limited clause in John 3:16 and used the indefinite particle in John 4:14. Of course the answer is "context." In John 3:16 there is a redemptive context, and in John 4:14 Christ is making a gospel offer, but not speaking of redemption.

The idea of a redemptive world also occurs in verse 17. The world is saved (I recognize it is a conditional clause). Then in verse 18, Christ says that unbelievers are judged already! Why the term "already?" (hdh)? Because they did not believe, and faith is a part of the atonement.

I will quote from Bill Mounce :

"Correct, the indefinite relative pronoun ὅστις does not occur in John 3:16, but language is not so monolithic that there is only one way to say something. In fact, whenever a commentary argues that if the author had meant to say one thing, he would have said it "this way," you should be suspicious. That's a naive approach to language.

For example, "But I say to you that whoever looks at (πᾶς ὁ βλέπων) a woman to lust after her has already committed adultery with her in his heart" (Matt 5:28). Isn't Jesus saying this is a generic statement, true of all who look with the intent of lusting? Of course it is."

Does John 3:16 Say "Whoever"? | billmounce.com

Now look at John 12.

I have come as Light into the world, so that everyone who believes in Me will not remain in darkness. If anyone hears My sayings and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world. He who rejects Me and does not receive My sayings, has one who judges him; the word I spoke is what will judge him at the last day.
— John 12:46-48

Was there someone in the world that Jesus didn't come as a light to? No, Jesus is a light for every person in the world. If anyone in the world doesn't keep Jesus sayings, he doesn't judge him, because he didn't come to judge but to save everyone that believes in him (John 12:44). But he who doesn't believe has already been judged by Jesus' words (compare with John 3:28).

Looking now at John 3:16-17.

“For God so loved the world (every person in the world), that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever (everyone in the world who) believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world (those that don't believe John 12:47), but that the world (those that do believe) might be saved through Him.
— John 3:16-17

I also want bring John 3:14-15 to attention.

As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up; so that whoever believes will in Him have eternal life.
— John 3:14-15

Was the serpent lifted up only for those that would look at it or for all the people? But to whom did it have effect? To those that did look at it. Similarly Jesus sacrifice was for every person in the world, but only when a person repents and believes it has an effect.

This is confusing. I think you are agreeing with me that Hebrews 9:28 requires a limit to the extent to the atonement?

Yes, but the word atonement is not in the NT. As I see it, there is no atonement the way you understand it. There is only an atoning sacrifice that atones our sins when we come to faith. Jesus didn't bear your sins until you were saved. First then was there an atonement happening.

This gets back to something I wrote about before. You are equating two unequal covenants. In the Old Covenant, the priest had to go into the Holy of Holy's every year. Why? The same sins needed atoned for repeatedly. If the covenants were equal, Christ would need to die every year (Hebrews 9:26). Of course under the New Covenant, the true Christ died once and for all (Hebrews 9:28).

Also, more importantly, I do not think confessing the iniquities results in salvation. I would take the plural (iniquities) as referring to individual sins. While I agree that we should confess our sins (1 John 1:9, I do not see sorrow or the confession of individual sins as the same thing as faith and repentance.

I know the OT sacrifice was a symbol of the coming true sacrifice. But we can see parallells.

Yes, I also see the plural as our individual sins, but they are first borne (away) when we believe.

I think I'll stop here. I have written quite much already.

Christ love!

 

[John Mullally]

I do not see the concept of any forgiveness of sin for unbelievers in scripture. When the scriptures talk about the atonement, it addresses the elect, or Christians.
1 Cor 6:20 For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body.
1 Cor 7:23 You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men.
Paul exorts Christian behavior based upon Christians being bought by the blood, but not unbelievers.

Reformed and Arminian Evangelicals agree that the forgiveness of sins brought about by Christ’s atonement is only available to believers. Reformed believe that Christ’s atonement was made only for the elect; whereas Arminian Evangelicals believe it is made for all men but only received by believers through faith.

The Reformed do not believe that God desires all men to be saved. Whereas Arminian Evangelicals believe that God desires that all men be saved per 1 Timothy 2:4 and 2 Peter 3:9. 2 Peter 3:9 indicates that God's “not wanting anyone to perish” is contingent upon man’s “coming to repentance”. If everything works out according to God’s desire, as the Reformed believe, then according to 2 Peter 3:9 the God who does not want any to perish, would necessarily cause all men to repent - but that is not evidenced.

2 Peter 3:8 But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. 9 The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance. NKJV​

An argument can be made that even the terms "anyone" and "everyone" in 2 Peter 3:9 is limited to the ones Peter is specifically writing to - I believe if that was the case in the Greek those terms would have been translated as "you". Look at other translations.

In Timothy 2:1-6 we see that Paul is addressing all men in verses 1 & 2 before he declares “God our savior, who desires all men to be saved” in verse 4. Continuing on to verse 6 Paul says that Christ “gave himself a ransom for all”. That lines up with 1 John 2:2.

1 Timothy 2:2 Therefore I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men, 2 for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence. 3 For 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. 5 For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time, NKJV
​

2 Peter 2:1 confirms the "ransom for all" in 1 Timothy 2:6 was even paid for the enemies of Christ.

2 Peter 2:1 But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves.​

 

[Don Maurer]

Ok, the interesting thing is that you say that the sins of the elect were punished on the cross and you say we are justified by faith. If our sins have already been punished why do we need to be justified to be saved? Why isn't it enough that Jesus has taken the punishment for our sins? Why do we need justification for salvation?

Yes, the sins of the elect were punished on the cross. Yes, we are justified by faith alone. I suspect you are thinking in terms of time. The cross was long before I lived. They payment was made at the time of the cross, but we were not justified until the human requirement of faith was fulfilled. These two separate events are taught in scripture. In Romans 5:8 it says...
But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
Then immediately in the next verse Paul says:
Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him.
Pauls speaks of a past event in the crucifixion but when using the term "justification" he uses the term "now."

This is no problem for me, but if it were, it would also be a problem for you? Right?

All I will say is that I don't share your view on regeneration. First we confess Christ as Lord and then we receive the Holy Spirit and are saved/regenerated.

This is the core, the crux, the most important part of the discussion. This is the central issue, it is the real difference. Upon this hangs all 5 doctrines of grace (or 5 points of Calvin). It seems to me that far more should be said and the scriptures addressed rather than just a quick dismissal. Could you quote scripture to demonstrate that faith is the cause of regeneration?

No I don't agree that Romans 9:13 is about redemptive love. I believe it is about who's family line the Messiah would come from. Hate here means "chose not" (see Luke 14:26)

zoidar, would you agree that each term has a semantic range of meaning and the meaning of each term should be determined by its context? When you read Romans 9:3
For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh,
This verse is in the context and it is tough to put spin on this verse and show that it is not related to redemption in any way.

Then in 9:6 Paul writes
But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel;
Neither is Messiahship the issue of this verse. The question being raised concerns salvation. The question concerns the descendants of Israel. If they are not saved, then the promises, covenants and adoption as sons would lead one to think that "the word of God has failed." There is no danger of the word of God failing if the issue is Messiahship in verse 13.

The illustrations of Jacob and Esau, and also Isaac in the verses before are completely about election and redemption.

Also, in the verses after verse 13, the text speaks of lumps of clay, one made for glory and one for dishonor. (see verses 21-23).

Then on top of all this Chapter 10:1 says.
Brethren, my heart’s desire and my prayer to God for them is for their salvation.

Going back to Romans 9:17, would you say that is about Pharaoh being raised up to be Messiah? Or a complaint that Pharaoh is not the Messiah.

The doctrine of the remnant is in Romans 9:27!! This fits with Romans 9:6 that not all Israel is saved Israel.

The immediate context is massively redemptive. Why does the passage say "God hated Esau?"

I will quote from Bill Mounce :

"Correct, the indefinite relative pronoun ὅστις does not occur in John 3:16, but language is not so monolithic that there is only one way to say something. In fact, whenever a commentary argues that if the author had meant to say one thing, he would have said it "this way," you should be suspicious. That's a naive approach to language.

For example, "But I say to you that whoever looks at (πᾶς ὁ βλέπων) a woman to lust after her has already committed adultery with her in his heart" (Matt 5:28). Isn't Jesus saying this is a generic statement, true of all who look with the intent of lusting? Of course it is."

Does John 3:16 Say "Whoever"? | billmounce.com

I will grant you this, Bill Mounce is an Arminian, a great grammarian and scholar. He would be a good Arminian source. Nevertheless, even though I am no greek scholar (just a student), I do not see the possibility that John 3:16 could be translated in an indefinite manner. Literally, it could be read...

Pas --- All or everyone.
O PISTEUWN The ones who believe.
or All the believing ones.

More on this below.

Now look at John 12.

I have come as Light into the world, so that everyone who believes in Me will not remain in darkness. If anyone hears My sayings and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world. He who rejects Me and does not receive My sayings, has one who judges him; the word I spoke is what will judge him at the last day.
— John 12:46-48

Was there someone in the world that Jesus didn't come as a light to? No, Jesus is a light for every person in the world. If anyone in the world doesn't keep Jesus sayings, he doesn't judge him, because he didn't come to judge but to save everyone that believes in him (John 12:44). But he who doesn't believe has already been judged by Jesus' words (compare with John 3:28).

Some reformed people might agree with you that Jesus is a light (not providing atonement) to each and every man that ever lived. I am not one of those reformed people.

I would see the lighting of the world as parallel with the one does does not remain in darkness. So then, all those in the light are saved. If Jesus provided light to all men, why are some still in darkness in that text? Again, you assume that the term "world" means each and every person that ever lived. The term "world" can mean all kinds of people from every tribe, tongue and language; and not all men without exception. It can also mean thinks like the Roman world (Caesar said that "all the world" should be taxed). The term world has many and varied usages. Can you demonstrate from the context that the term "world" must mean all people without exception?

.............I think I'll stop here. I have written quite much already.

Christ love!

Agreed, and thanks for the mercy as my time is limited. Also, let me say that I appreciate your many courtesies as your write. I deleted the last part of your post as I think answering could end up being redundant.

 

[zoidar]

Before I reply to anything I like to point out that I haven't yet settled with one theory of atonement. There are reasons for that I'm not going into here. Possibly penal substitution is correct. If it is I like to hold that view.

Yes, the sins of the elect were punished on the cross. Yes, we are justified by faith alone. I suspect you are thinking in terms of time. The cross was long before I lived. They payment was made at the time of the cross, but we were not justified until the human requirement of faith was fulfilled. These two separate events are taught in scripture. In Romans 5:8 it says...

I started a thread about this. How could Jesus have borne and be punished for future sins not yet committed? From the human perspective something seems illogical with that. Here is the link if you like to check it out:

How can Jesus have born future sins?

But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

It says Jesus died for us, not that he was punished for us - while still being sinners,

Then immediately in the next verse Paul says:

Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him.

Pauls speaks of a past event in the crucifixion but when using the term "justification" he uses the term "now."

I understand it this way: "having now been justified - through faith - by his blood." We are not justified until we have faith right?

This is no problem for me, but if it were, it would also be a problem for you? Right?

Not necessarily. If we don't look at Jesus' sacrifice as payment for our sins, but instead as a remedy for our sins there is no logical problem. The medicine provided doesn't make us well, we need to take the medicine. A payment for a crime on the other hand doesn't need to be received. If it's paid we are already free.

This is the core, the crux, the most important part of the discussion. This is the central issue, it is the real difference. Upon this hangs all 5 doctrines of grace (or 5 points of Calvin). It seems to me that far more should be said and the scriptures addressed rather than just a quick dismissal. Could you quote scripture to demonstrate that faith is the cause of regeneration?

I had no idea this was that important for upholding the 5 points.

Actually I would say receiving the Holy Spirit and being regenerated is the same thing. So when do we receive the Holy Spirit? I don't think it's the same for everyone. For me I first believed the gospel, then gave my life to Jesus, and then I received the Holy Spirit and was regenerated. But I have also heard testimonies of people receiving the Holy Spirit when been prayed for, or just from reading the Bible. I would also say we receive saving faith, simultaneously as receiving the Holy Spirit and simultaneously as being regenerated. So saving faith isn't the cause of regeneration, but faith/belief normally precedes regeneration.

that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.
— Romans 10:9-10

zoidar, would you agree that each term has a semantic range of meaning and the meaning of each term should be determined by its context? When you read Romans 9:3

For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh,

This verse is in the context and it is tough to put spin on this verse and show that it is not related to redemption in any way.

Then in 9:6 Paul writes

But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel;

Neither is Messiahship the issue of this verse. The question being raised concerns salvation. The question concerns the descendants of Israel. If they are not saved, then the promises, covenants and adoption as sons would lead one to think that "the word of God has failed." There is no danger of the word of God failing if the issue is Messiahship in verse 13.

The illustrations of Jacob and Esau, and also Isaac in the verses before are completely about election and redemption.

Also, in the verses after verse 13, the text speaks of lumps of clay, one made for glory and one for dishonor. (see verses 21-23).

Then on top of all this Chapter 10:1 says.

Brethren, my heart’s desire and my prayer to God for them is for their salvation.

Going back to Romans 9:17, would you say that is about Pharaoh being raised up to be Messiah? Or a complaint that Pharaoh is not the Messiah.

The doctrine of the remnant is in Romans 9:27!! This fits with Romans 9:6 that not all Israel is saved Israel.

The immediate context is massively redemptive. Why does the passage say "God hated Esau?"

I agree that context is very important to get the right understanding. A word can mean many things.

I might disappoint you, but I haven't studied Romans 9 enough to give you any good comments. I can say though, that I am going to look into the chapter more. I have a 2 hour long lecture on it waiting to be seen.

I will grant you this, Bill Mounce is an Arminian, a great grammarian and scholar. He would be a good Arminian source. Nevertheless, even though I am no greek scholar (just a student), I do not see the possibility that John 3:16 could be translated in an indefinite manner. Literally, it could be read...

Pas --- All or everyone.

O PISTEUWN The ones who believe.

or All the believing ones.

In the link I posted, Bill Mounce calls himself Reformed. I quess that can mean different things. I don't know very much about him or about his theological views.

Some reformed people might agree with you that Jesus is a light (not providing atonement) to each and every man that ever lived. I am not one of those reformed people.

I would see the lighting of the world as parallel with the one does does not remain in darkness. So then, all those in the light are saved. If Jesus provided light to all men, why are some still in darkness in that text? Again, you assume that the term "world" means each and every person that ever lived. The term "world" can mean all kinds of people from every tribe, tongue and language; and not all men without exception. It can also mean thinks like the Roman world (Caesar said that "all the world" should be taxed). The term world has many and varied usages. Can you demonstrate from the context that the term "world" must mean all people without exception?

Demonstrate that the term "world" must mean all people without exception? I don't think I can do that. We see though looking at John 3:17 and John 12:47 that those not believing in Jesus are included in the word "world".

For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.
— John 3:17

If anyone hears My sayings and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world.
— John 12:47

Agreed, and thanks for the mercy as my time is limited. Also, let me say that I appreciate your many courtesies as your write. I deleted the last part of your post as I think answering could end up being redundant.

Thanks for your kindness! I think you had many chances to attack me and be aggressive, but you didn't and weren't. I appreciate that. God bless!

 

[Don Maurer]

Before I reply to anything I like to point out that I haven't yet settled with one theory of atonement. There are reasons for that I'm not going into here. Possibly penal substitution is correct. If it is I like to hold that view.

Oh! I did not see that one coming.

Also, I am going to need to add reminders for myself on the context of the conversation. They will be added to your comments but will be in blue.

I started a thread about this. How could Jesus have borne and be punished for future sins not yet committed? From the human perspective something seems illogical with that. Here is the link if you like to check it out:

How can Jesus have born future sins?

My apologies for not pursuing the thread you mention. I really do not want to be involved in more at this time.

(** inserted by Don to remember context of conversation--> In reference to Romans 5:8 "But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.")

It says Jesus died for us, not that he was punished for us - while still being sinners,

Romans 5:8
But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
I would lean toward understanding this verse as having punishment in the preposition UPER (for). When combined with the genitive pronoun that follows the preposition the preposition can have the translation "In behalf of" or "instead of." I would admit that verse 8 in isolation from verse 9 could be understood in a non penal way, verse 9 supplies the penal aspect. Let me add verse 9
Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him.
If the blood saves us from wrath, how can the atonement not be penal?

I understand it this way: "having now been justified - through faith - by his blood." We are not justified until we have faith right?
(**adding another context comment by Don--> The issue here is that Christ shed his blood in history, but justification occurs during the "now." )

Agreed, we are justified now even though the basis of the atonement was supplied in history.

Not necessarily. If we don't look at Jesus' sacrifice as payment for our sins, but instead as a remedy for our sins there is no logical problem. The medicine provided doesn't make us well, we need to take the medicine. A payment for a crime on the other hand doesn't need to be received. If it's paid we are already free.

I am skipping this because I lost context of the comments... and also it seems to be covered above.

I had no idea this was that important for upholding the 5 points. (my statement regarded the idea of regeneration as the cause of faith and this concept being the key concept of the 5 points)

The idea of regeneration as the cause of faith is in the background, but it is there with all 5 points. I do want to mention that if you look at the history of the 5 points, they are mere responses to the points made by
Total Depravity--- Includes the idea that due to being in Adam and in rebellion against God by our own nature, we cannot come to faith. Regeneration is that which changes Total Depravity so that we come running to God.
Unconditional Election--- In Conditional Election, God looks down the corridors of time and sees who will have faith and elects them. In Unconditional Election, God chooses some to regenerate and give the gift of faith.
Limited Atonement--- There is no limit to the value or the power of the atonement. If God wanted to save trillions and trillions of people more, Christ would not have to suffer more. The shed blood of Christ is infinite in value. The Atonement is limited not in value, but in its intent. God intends to save some, and let others perish. Christ shed blood is so that those he wishes to be his own will be regenerated.
Irresistible Grace--- Once a person is regenerate, he will come running to God. Reformed people believe Grace will always be resisted by the unregenerate, but once there is regeneration, faith follows. Also, remember, that in reformed theology, regeneration is not connected to baptism, but to faith.
Perseverance of the Saints---This is the doctrine most closely associated with regeneration as the cause of faith. Regeneration is also the cause of righteousness and sanctification (I do accept a synergism of wills in sanctification but would still see our sanctification as God's grace because regeneration changes our will so that we can cooperate in sanctification.)
** Without the concept of regeneration as the cause of faith and righteousness, the 5 points are easily misunderstood. I frequently hear of 2 or 3 or 4 point Calvinists. In fact at one time, I claimed that I was a 3 or 4 point Calvinists. What changed my mind was the concept of regeneration as the cause of faith. Then I saw that the 5 points are not divisible. Also, reading about the "Remonstrance" helped. Reformed people frequently call them the 5 doctrines of grace. Regeneration is that "grace." Regeneration is the work of God in man, and not in any way the result of mans work for God or faith in God. Thus the concept of "grace."

Actually I would say receiving the Holy Spirit and being regenerated is the same thing. So when do we receive the Holy Spirit? I don't think it's the same for everyone. For me I first believed the gospel, then gave my life to Jesus, and then I received the Holy Spirit and was regenerated. But I have also heard testimonies of people receiving the Holy Spirit when been prayed for, or just from reading the Bible. I would also say we receive saving faith, simultaneously as receiving the Holy Spirit and simultaneously as being regenerated. So saving faith isn't the cause of regeneration, but faith/belief normally precedes regeneration.

that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.
— Romans 10:9-10

I would certainly grant to you that receiving the Spirit is done by faith (Galatians 3:2). Where we would differ is equating that with a different ministry of the Spirit that is called regeneration.

The term "Regeneration" is a bit unfortunate. It is used for the doctrine only once in scripture in Titus 3:5 (other instances are not related to the doctrine). The more frequent term is "born again." This is a term mainly used by John, the apostle. The phrase "born" of him is used mainly (but not exclusively) in 1 John. Once again, the greek construction is important.
1 John 2:29 "...everyone also who practices righteousness is born of Him."
BORN--- The word "born" is a 3ird person perfect tense verb. The perfect tense relates to a past event with present consequences. The past event is the new birth or regeneration. The present tense consequence is found in the present tense participle ("the one who practices righteousness" or "the ones who do"). So then, we have a past event, "born again" and the present tense consequence of practicing righteousness (remember "perseverance of the saints?).
* The important thing here is to recognize the order of the grammar. Being born again (Regeneration) is the cause of righteousness. To reverse this in any way would be salvation by works. The grammatical order is necessary.

1 John 5:1 "Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God..."
The important thing here is that the grammatical construction is identical to 2:29. You have a perfect tense verb (actually, the word, the tense, the person--- it is the same identical word in every way to 2:29). It is also fascinating that a present tense participle (and accompanying phrase) is also present. The phrase is at the beginning of the verse... "All the ones who believe that Jesus is the Christ"
Now if you follow the point about righteousness being the result of being born again in 2:29, then you must also admit that faith is the result of being born again. The grammar is identical in both verses.

To say that regeneration occurs after faith, leaves one with a required interpretation of works salvation in 2:29 to be consistent. Few non-reformed christians would interpret the 2:29 passage as requiring righteousness to be born again and I am glad. I am glad that non-reformed people treat nearly identical passages (2:29 and 5:1) with inconsistency because if they were consistent, and understood righteousness to be required before being born again, that would of course be a works salvation.

**I am going to skip the bottom parts of your last post. Time to move to other things no related to this web site.

 

[zoidar]

Oh! I did not see that one coming.

Also, I am going to need to add reminders for myself on the context of the conversation. They will be added to your comments but will be in blue.

My apologies for not pursuing the thread you mention. I really do not want to be involved in more at this time.

Romans 5:8
But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
I would lean toward understanding this verse as having punishment in the preposition UPER (for). When combined with the genitive pronoun that follows the preposition the preposition can have the translation "In behalf of" or "instead of." I would admit that verse 8 in isolation from verse 9 could be understood in a non penal way, verse 9 supplies the penal aspect. Let me add verse 9
Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him.
If the blood saves us from wrath, how can the atonement not be penal?

Sure, Jesus died instead of (or in behalf of) us. He took the death we had coming for our sins. But I don't understand why that must be understood as penal.

The idea of regeneration as the cause of faith is in the background, but it is there with all 5 points. I do want to mention that if you look at the history of the 5 points, they are mere responses to the points made by
Total Depravity--- Includes the idea that due to being in Adam and in rebellion against God by our own nature, we cannot come to faith. Regeneration is that which changes Total Depravity so that we come running to God.
Unconditional Election--- In Conditional Election, God looks down the corridors of time and sees who will have faith and elects them. In Unconditional Election, God chooses some to regenerate and give the gift of faith.
Limited Atonement--- There is no limit to the value or the power of the atonement. If God wanted to save trillions and trillions of people more, Christ would not have to suffer more. The shed blood of Christ is infinite in value. The Atonement is limited not in value, but in its intent. God intends to save some, and let others perish. Christ shed blood is so that those he wishes to be his own will be regenerated.
Irresistible Grace--- Once a person is regenerate, he will come running to God. Reformed people believe Grace will always be resisted by the unregenerate, but once there is regeneration, faith follows. Also, remember, that in reformed theology, regeneration is not connected to baptism, but to faith.
Perseverance of the Saints---This is the doctrine most closely associated with regeneration as the cause of faith. Regeneration is also the cause of righteousness and sanctification (I do accept a synergism of wills in sanctification but would still see our sanctification as God's grace because regeneration changes our will so that we can cooperate in sanctification.)
** Without the concept of regeneration as the cause of faith and righteousness, the 5 points are easily misunderstood. I frequently hear of 2 or 3 or 4 point Calvinists. In fact at one time, I claimed that I was a 3 or 4 point Calvinists. What changed my mind was the concept of regeneration as the cause of faith. Then I saw that the 5 points are not divisible. Also, reading about the "Remonstrance" helped. Reformed people frequently call them the 5 doctrines of grace. Regeneration is that "grace." Regeneration is the work of God in man, and not in any way the result of mans work for God or faith in God. Thus the concept of "grace."

To me this sounds like a lot of unnecessary theology. Jesus message was simple: "Repent and believe."

I would certainly grant to you that receiving the Spirit is done by faith (Galatians 3:2). Where we would differ is equating that with a different ministry of the Spirit that is called regeneration.

The term "Regeneration" is a bit unfortunate. It is used for the doctrine only once in scripture in Titus 3:5 (other instances are not related to the doctrine). The more frequent term is "born again." This is a term mainly used by John, the apostle. The phrase "born" of him is used mainly (but not exclusively) in 1 John. Once again, the greek construction is important.
1 John 2:29 "...everyone also who practices righteousness is born of Him."
BORN--- The word "born" is a 3ird person perfect tense verb. The perfect tense relates to a past event with present consequences. The past event is the new birth or regeneration. The present tense consequence is found in the present tense participle ("the one who practices righteousness" or "the ones who do"). So then, we have a past event, "born again" and the present tense consequence of practicing righteousness (remember "perseverance of the saints?).
* The important thing here is to recognize the order of the grammar. Being born again (Regeneration) is the cause of righteousness. To reverse this in any way would be salvation by works. The grammatical order is necessary.

1 John 5:1 "Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God..."
The important thing here is that the grammatical construction is identical to 2:29. You have a perfect tense verb (actually, the word, the tense, the person--- it is the same identical word in every way to 2:29). It is also fascinating that a present tense participle (and accompanying phrase) is also present. The phrase is at the beginning of the verse... "All the ones who believe that Jesus is the Christ"
Now if you follow the point about righteousness being the result of being born again in 2:29, then you must also admit that faith is the result of being born again. The grammar is identical in both verses.

To say that regeneration occurs after faith, leaves one with a required interpretation of works salvation in 2:29 to be consistent. Few non-reformed christians would interpret the 2:29 passage as requiring righteousness to be born again and I am glad. I am glad that non-reformed people treat nearly identical passages (2:29 and 5:1) with inconsistency because if they were consistent, and understood righteousness to be required before being born again, that would of course be a works salvation.

I had a bit of a hard time to follow your reasoning here. I wish I knew Greek, now I just have to rely on others that do.

 

[zoidar]

I will grant you this, Bill Mounce is an Arminian, a great grammarian and scholar. He would be a good Arminian source. Nevertheless, even though I am no greek scholar (just a student), I do not see the possibility that John 3:16 could be translated in an indefinite manner. Literally, it could be read...

Pas --- All or everyone.
O PISTEUWN The ones who believe.
or All the believing ones.

One thing that I forgot to say regarding John 3:16. If we look at Bible translations, half of them use "whoever". I find it hard to believe that all these translators have made a simple grammatical error.

John 3:16 Parallel: For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

 

[Don Maurer]

One thing that I forgot to say regarding John 3:16. If we look at Bible translations, half of them use "whoever". I find it hard to believe that all these translators have made a simple grammatical error.

John 3:16 Parallel: For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

I did not say it was a grammatical error. Neither is it a translation error. The error is in the way people understand the translation.

The lexical definition of "pas" is generally translated "all" or "every". I am not disputing that it can be translated with the english term "whosoever" but I continue to disagree with the idea that the term should be understood in an indefinite sense. I still continue to think that an indefinite particle is needed to make "whosoever" have an indefinite force.

My wonderful wife will give breakfast to whosoever is in my family. <-- If you came to our family breakfast, do you think you would be included in that "whosoever?" Is the use of the term "whosoever" really indefinite in the context above?
Whosoever has legal residency in Alaska in 2020 receives a tax rebate due to crude oil sales. <-- I live in Pennsylvania, do you think I can get a tax rebate check because the word "whosoever" in the above sentence is the word "whosoever" indefinite and it could actually be anyone at any time in anyplace?

If the greek word "tis" or "an" John 3:16 would require an indefinite force.

It always disappointing to me that when non-reformed preachers quote John 3:16 that they stop at the word "whosoever." They do not quote the rest of the verse. "whosoever believes" is not indefinite. The term speaks only of believers. There are no unbelievers or possible unbelievers in the term "whosoever."

 

[zoidar]

I did not say it was a grammatical error. Neither is it a translation error. The error is in the way people understand the translation.

The lexical definition of "pas" is generally translated "all" or "every". I am not disputing that it can be translated with the english term "whosoever" but I continue to disagree with the idea that the term should be understood in an indefinite sense. I still continue to think that an indefinite particle is needed to make "whosoever" have an indefinite force.

My wonderful wife will give breakfast to whosoever is in my family. <-- If you came to our family breakfast, do you think you would be included in that "whosoever?" Is the use of the term "whosoever" really indefinite in the context above?
Whosoever has legal residency in Alaska in 2020 receives a tax rebate due to crude oil sales. <-- I live in Pennsylvania, do you think I can get a tax rebate check because the word "whosoever" in the above sentence is the word "whosoever" indefinite and it could actually be anyone at any time in anyplace?

If the greek word "tis" or "an" John 3:16 would require an indefinite force.

It always disappointing to me that when non-reformed preachers quote John 3:16 that they stop at the word "whosoever." They do not quote the rest of the verse. "whosoever believes" is not indefinite. The term speaks only of believers. There are no unbelievers or possible unbelievers in the term "whosoever."

I agree with you that whoever doesn't necessarily have to mean everyone in the whole world. But what do you do with v. 17.

For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.
— John 3:17

Do you agree that those of the world God didn't send Jesus to judge, are the unbelievers? So if unbelievers are included in the "world' in v. 17, they might also be included in the "world" in v. 16, wouldn't you say?

 

[Hammster]

I agree with you that whoever doesn't necessarly have to mean anyone in the whole world. But what do you do with v. 17.

For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.
— John 3:17

Do we agree that those of the world God didn't send Jesus to judge, are the unbelievers? So if unbelievers are part of the "world' in v. 17, they might also be part of the "world" in v. 16, wouldn't you say?

Let’s say that just before Christ returns, the vast majority of the world is saved. Would you say that the world was saved?

 

[zoidar]

Let’s say that just before Christ returns, the vast majority of the world is saved. Would you say that the world was saved?

Probably. I have no idea what you are getting at.... you have to be more clear than so.

I'm not that bright, you know.

 

[JM]

Let’s say that just before Christ returns, the vast majority of the world is saved. Would you say that the world was saved?

Love that biblical optimism.

#postmillennialism

 

[zoidar]

I did not say it was a grammatical error. Neither is it a translation error. The error is in the way people understand the translation.

The lexical definition of "pas" is generally translated "all" or "every". I am not disputing that it can be translated with the english term "whosoever" but I continue to disagree with the idea that the term should be understood in an indefinite sense. I still continue to think that an indefinite particle is needed to make "whosoever" have an indefinite force.

My wonderful wife will give breakfast to whosoever is in my family. <-- If you came to our family breakfast, do you think you would be included in that "whosoever?" Is the use of the term "whosoever" really indefinite in the context above?
Whosoever has legal residency in Alaska in 2020 receives a tax rebate due to crude oil sales. <-- I live in Pennsylvania, do you think I can get a tax rebate check because the word "whosoever" in the above sentence is the word "whosoever" indefinite and it could actually be anyone at any time in anyplace?

If the greek word "tis" or "an" John 3:16 would require an indefinite force.

It always disappointing to me that when non-reformed preachers quote John 3:16 that they stop at the word "whosoever." They do not quote the rest of the verse. "whosoever believes" is not indefinite. The term speaks only of believers. There are no unbelievers or possible unbelievers in the term "whosoever."

I might be repeating myself, but do you make the same conclusion of "whosoever" in Matthew 5:28 that it's not to be understood in a indefinite sense?

"But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart"

 

[Don Maurer]

I might be repeating myself, but do you make the same conclusion of "whosoever" in Matthew 5:28 that it's not to be understood in a indefinite sense?

"But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart"

Yes, I would still understand the word "whosoever" to be limited to the participle that follows. In the other hand, I would prefer to use the NASB. The NASB uses a very literal style of translation. The translation committee worked hard at a word for word parallel. Can we use the NASB translation?
but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
The word "everyone" includes all the ones who look at a woman with lust.

The NASB is consistent. The same identical construction occurs in verse 32. Again, the term "everyone" is used instead of whosoever.

It is obvious that the indefinite particle "an" does occur in verse 31.
“It was said, ‘WHOEVER SENDS HIS WIFE AWAY, LET HIM GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE’;
I recognize this is a quote from Deuteronomy 24:1. I was trained in Hebrew but lost the language and cannot work in it. I could get an LXX but I am too lazy. In the English Bible I do not see the word "whosoever" in Deut 24:1. I am assuming that Christ supplied that word in Matthew 5:31 to represent the Pharisaical understanding of Matthew 5:31. In verse 32, Christ gives his own reading of Deuteronomy 24:1. His reading is far more definite and so Christ drops the indefinite particle (an) and puts in place the word "everyone." (pas with a participle).

I am aware that you can quote Mounce to support your position. On the other hand, there is evidence in an entire translation, the NASB, that they see a difference between the indefinite particle in verse 31 and the use of the word "pas" in verses 28 and 32.

You can look at the NASB, or the older American Standard. The ESV has a similar reading.

On the other hand, the NIV is a little closer to the KJV in that it translates both the phrases the same, but uses the term "anyone." The NIV is the translation that seems to most favor your point of view and the Mounce point of view. The term "anyone" sounds far more indefinite than the other translations.

ILLUSTRATION for fun:
I guess whosoever looks at this issue is free to pick their favorite translation, and grammarian. On the other hand, whosoever does this will insert their own presuppositions.
* In the above two sentences, I use the term "whosoever" in two different ways. The 1st use, the blue "whosoever" could be indefinite. On the other hand, the 2nd whosoever in red is definite. The first "whosoever" is indefinite and could be anyone. The 2nd "whosoever" in red is definite and refers only to the ones who actually pick their favorite translation. The 2nd "whosoever" cannot refer to those who do not pick their own translation and so it is definite. While these distinctions can only be seen in English by the context, in Greek, I think the language itself distinguishes the difference with the words "pas" and "an."
* Also, I think the illustration above demonstrates that the same term, can be used in two different ways in the same context.

 

[zoidar]

Yes, I would still understand the word "whosoever" to be limited to the participle that follows. In the other hand, I would prefer to use the NASB. The NASB uses a very literal style of translation. The translation committee worked hard at a word for word parallel. Can we use the NASB translation?
but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
The word "everyone" includes all the ones who look at a woman with lust.

I have no problem with using the word "everyone". I just think it's the wrong conclusion that the statement "everyone that looks has already commited adultery" only is valid for those that look.

If you tell your family that everyone that comes with you to the movie is welcome. Does that mean that only the one who came with you was welcome?

 

[Don Maurer]

I have no problem with using the word "everyone". I just think it's the wrong conclusion that the statement "everyone that looks has already commited adultery" only is valid for those that look.

I am not sure how you are looking at the verse. In this verse, in your understanding, does the statement "committed adultery" apply also to those that do not look?
(I recognize that there are other ways to commit adultery, but I am speaking of this sentence only.)
(Also, I must to admit to scratching my head here. To me, it seems painfully obvious that the term "committed adultery" applies to all the ones who "looked." The ones who looked are a definite group.

If you tell your family that everyone that comes with you to the movie is welcome. Does that mean that only the one who came with you was welcome?

No, it would mean that all of my family is welcome to come to the movie since those words were spoken to my family. That would be a definite group... my family. If it were indefinite, it would include no specific group. Out of the definite group (family members) that came with me, they would all be welcome.

To make the phrase indefinite in your illustration, you would need to say "everyone (spoken to no one in particular) who wants to come with me to the movies is welcome." Then there would be no definite group that the that the phrase "who comes with me" is spoken to. Then in greek, I would expect the author to use an indefinite particle, such as "an."

In your verse... Matthew 5:28 it says... "But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart."
The phrase in red limits the group only to those who look at a woman with lustful intent. That phrase is definite in that it is speaking only to those who look at a woman with lust. That phrase is not saying that anyone can look at a woman with lust (even though that would be true). That phrase is speaking of a specific group of people, men who look at a woman with lust; then Christ continues by expressing that this specific group of men that lust are committing adultery.

If you go back to the understanding of Mounce, to make a parallel with your illustration. You would have to understand that phrase "everyone who looks" as stressing the possibility that anyone can look. While it is true that any man can look, that is not Christs point in that passage. Christ is speaking about a specific and definite group of people, "the lookers." He is saying that "the lookers" are committing adultery. Christs point has to do with adultery, not the possibility that any man can be a looker.

 

[zoidar]

I am not sure how you are looking at the verse. In this verse, in your understanding, does the statement "committed adultery" apply also to those that do not look?
(I recognize that there are other ways to commit adultery, but I am speaking of this sentence only.)
(Also, I must to admit to scratching my head here. To me, it seems painfully obvious that the term "committed adultery" applies to all the ones who "looked." The ones who looked are a definite group.


No, it would mean that all of my family is welcome to come to the movie since those words were spoken to my family. That would be a definite group... my family. If it were indefinite, it would include no specific group. Out of the definite group (family members) that came with me, they would all be welcome.

To make the phrase indefinite in your illustration, you would need to say "everyone (spoken to no one in particular) who wants to come with me to the movies is welcome." Then there would be no definite group that the that the phrase "who comes with me" is spoken to. Then in greek, I would expect the author to use an indefinite particle, such as "an."

In your verse... Matthew 5:28 it says... "But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart."
The phrase in red limits the group only to those who look at a woman with lustful intent. That phrase is definite in that it is speaking only to those who look at a woman with lust. That phrase is not saying that anyone can look at a woman with lust (even though that would be true). That phrase is speaking of a specific group of people, men who look at a woman with lust; then Christ continues by expressing that this specific group of men that lust are committing adultery.

If you go back to the understanding of Mounce, to make a parallel with your illustration. You would have to understand that phrase "everyone who looks" as stressing the possibility that anyone can look. While it is true that any man can look, that is not Christs point in that passage. Christ is speaking about a specific and definite group of people, "the lookers." He is saying that "the lookers" are committing adultery. Christs point has to do with adultery, not the possibility that any man can be a looker.

Of course it's applied only to those that look. I just say the same rule is equally in force to every person in the world. IOW It doesn't matter if they look or don't, the rule is still there for every single person in the world. That's the meaning with Jesus' words.

That's also how I see John 3:16.

 

[John Mullally]

Reformed and Arminian Evangelicals agree that the forgiveness of sins brought about by Christ’s atonement is only available to believers. Reformed believe that Christ’s atonement was made only for the elect; whereas Arminian Evangelicals believe it is made for all men but only received by believers through faith.

The Reformed do not believe that God desires all men to be saved. Whereas Arminian Evangelicals believe that God desires that all men be saved per 1 Timothy 2:4 and 2 Peter 3:9. 2 Peter 3:9 indicates that God's “not wanting anyone to perish” is contingent upon man’s “coming to repentance”. If everything works out according to God’s desire, as the Reformed believe, then according to 2 Peter 3:9 the God who does not want any to perish, would necessarily cause all men to repent - but that is not evidenced.

2 Peter 3:8 But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. 9 The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance. NKJV​

An argument can be made that even the terms "anyone" and "everyone" in 2 Peter 3:9 is limited to the ones Peter is specifically writing to - I believe if that was the case in the Greek those terms would have been translated as "you". Look at other translations.

In Timothy 2:1-6 we see that Paul is addressing all men in verses 1 & 2 before he declares “God our savior, who desires all men to be saved” in verse 4. Continuing on to verse 6 Paul says that Christ “gave himself a ransom for all”. That lines up with 1 John 2:2.

1 Timothy 2:2 Therefore I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men, 2 for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence. 3 For 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. 5 For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time, NKJV
​

2 Peter 2:1 confirms the "ransom for all" in 1 Timothy 2:6 was even paid for the enemies of Christ.

2 Peter 2:1 But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves.​

No response to this post yet. The biggest difficulty for Reformed theology is that NT writers (Peter & Paul) declare that God wants all people to be saved - as I have explained. Reformed theology hinges on the belief that everything God desires takes place - yet we know that not all saved.

Psalms 115:16 The heaven, even the heavens, are the LORD’s; But the earth He has given to the children of men.​

 

[Hammster]

No response to this post yet. The biggest difficulty for Reformed theology is that NT writers (Peter & Paul) declare that God wants all people to be saved - as I have explained. Reformed theology hinges on the belief that everything God desires takes place - yet we know that not all saved.

Psalms 115:16 The heaven, even the heavens, are the LORD’s; But the earth He has given to the children of men.​

It’s not a problem for Reformed Theology that synergists take verses out of context to make scripture say things that aren’t true.