Does God want "all men" to be saved?

[5thKingdom]

I cant show a person anything if they dont have eyes to see. Paul used the OT scriptures to preach the Gospel under the New Covenant. That should be enough proof for a person who has any spiritual discernment.

So you think the Gospel PREACHED the Pre-Flood Saints
was the SAME as the Gospel PREACHED by Jewish Saints...
of course you don't, so WHY are you continuing to argue?


And you think the Gospel PREACHED by Jewish Saints
was the SAME as the Gospel PREACHED by the Christian church...
of course you don't, so WHY are you continuing to argue?


And you think the Gospel PREACHED by Great Tribulation Saints
(including the NAME of the Antichrist) is the same Gospel PREACHED
by the Saints in 100AD or 500AD or 1000AD or 1500AD or 2000AD...
of course you don't, so WHY are you continuing to argue?


You continue to PRETEND what HISTORY (reality) contradicts.
See Daniel 12:8-10 and Matthew 24:15, 33... your argument
is with the BIBLE and HISTORY (not with me)


Jim

 

[Clare73]

You don't think the NT revealing the meaning of the OT priesthood and mediatorship is a Biblical teaching?

You don't think the sacrifices of the OT concealing the NT human sacrifice of Jesus is a Biblical teaching?

Clare,

Please read post #48 again.

Okay. . .did that.

I still don't understand why the New Covenant's revealing of the Old Covenant's concealing in the Mosaic law is not Biblical teaching.

 

[5thKingdom]

Okay. . .did that.

I still don't understand why those are not Biblical teaching.

Clare, the question is NOT whether the Gospel of the church
revealed SOME of the mysteries of the Jewish Gospel... that
is a given. However, clearly the Gospel of the churches did
NOT reveal ALL of the OT Gospel... Daniel 12:8-10 proves that,
as does Matthew 24:15, 33.


For example, the OT Gospel talks about the person called the
"Little Horn" (commonly called the Antichrist) and the events
associated with his reign.


The Gospel preached in the church age does NOT reveal
WHO this person is or WHAT he does. So we can hardly say
the NT Gospel "reveals" these OT "mysteries".


But the Gospel of the Great Tribulation Saints DOES reveal
WHO this person is and WHAT he does... therefore "revealing"
Biblical mysteries NEVER PREACHED during the church age.


For example, the church has NEVER PREACHED the details of
the Holy Spirit being "taken out of the way" [see 2Thess 2:6-9]
and the details of the fulfillment of Great Tribulation prophecies...
however Jesus PROMISES these fact will be known and preached
by the Last Saints [Mat 24:15,33]


Therefore it is NOT correct to say the NT Gospel "reveals"
the OT Scriptures... (it does not "reveal" the "Man of Sin" which
2Thess 2 PROMISES the Last Saints shall see. The Gospel of the
NT only reveals SOME OT mysteries (but not others). Otherwise
Daniel 12:8-10 is simply a LIE... and neither you or I believe there
are LIES in Daniel 12:8-10.


Jim

 

[Clare73]

Okay. . .did that.

I still don't understand why the New Covenant's revealing of the Old Covenant's concealing in the Mosaic law is not Biblical teaching.

Clare, the question is NOT whether the Gospel of the church
revealed SOME of the mysteries of the Jewish Gospel... that
is a given. However, clearly the Gospel of the churches did
NOT reveal ALL of the OT Gospel... Daniel 12:8-10 proves that,
as does Matthew 24:15, 33.

Okay. . .thanks, guy.

It's a problem of communication.

When a Gentile refers to the NT revealing what the OT conceals, they are referring to the New Covenant in relation to the Old Covenant Mosaic Law, not to the whole OT.

And that relationship is Biblical teaching.

Carry on. . .

For example, the OT Gospel talks about the person called the
"Little Horn" (commonly called the Antichrist) and the events
associated with his reign.


The Gospel preached in the church age does NOT reveal
WHO this person is or WHAT he does. So we can hardly say
the NT Gospel "reveals" these OT "mysteries".


But the Gospel of the Great Tribulation Saints DOES reveal
WHO this person is and WHAT he does... therefore "revealing"
Biblical mysteries NEVER PREACHED during the church age.


For example, the church has NEVER PREACHED the details of
the Holy Spirit being "taken out of the way" [see 2Thess 2:6-9]
and the details of the fulfillment of Great Tribulation prophecies...
however Jesus PROMISES these fact will be known and preached
by the Last Saints [Mat 24:15,33]


Therefore it is NOT correct to say the NT Gospel "reveals"
the OT Scriptures... (it does not "reveal" the "Man of Sin" which
2Thess 2 PROMISES the Last Saints shall see. The Gospel of the
NT only reveals SOME OT mysteries (but not others). Otherwise
Daniel 12:8-10 is simply a LIE... and neither you or I believe there
are LIES in Daniel 12:8-10.


Jim

 

[fhansen]

.
The other day someone posted Romans 11:32 to make
the argument that God wants "all men" to become saved.


Rom 11:32
For God hath concluded them all in unbelief,
that he might have mercy upon all.


This a perfect example of the most common reason "Christians" teach
heresy. They take one or two verses and build a "doctrine" around them
without ensuring they have HARMONY with ALL RELATED Scriptures.


Any (good) heresy must harmonize with one or two Scriptures because
any (good) LIE must contain a little truth. However, building a "doctrine"
without harmony with ALL RELATED passages is, at best, only teaching
some PARTIAL-TRUTH (more commonly known as a LIE).


So, let's TEST the notion that God wants "all men" to be saved,
or if the CONTEXT of such statements is God wants "all the elect"
to become saved.


(1) First, let's establish a basic principle: Did Jesus teach that
ALL MEN can be saved, or did He teach ALL ELECT will be saved?
In John 6 Jesus taught that NO MAN can come to Him unless the
Father first "draws them" [v6:44] and ALL MEN the Father draws
"shall come" to Him and NONE of them would ever be lost [v6:37].
This most basic and essential Gospel Truth is then repeated [v6:39].


(2) Next, let's establish another basic principle: Some men were
NEVER MEANT to be saved. Jesus explains [Mark 4:12] that some
men were NEVER MEANT to "perceive" or "understand" the Gospel,
or to ever "be converted" or "have their sins forgiven". Clearly, those
who were NEVER MEANT to "have their sins forgiven" could never be
part of "His sheep" (the saved elect) that the Father "draws" to Christ.


Moreover, while the member cited Romans 11:32 to "prove" that God
wanted ALL MEN to be saved, we can see the CONTEXT of Romans 11
contradicts that assumption, demonstrating once again that the readers
of Scripture have no hope of understanding the MEANING of a passage
when they cannot discern the CONTEXT of that passage.


Rom 11:7-10
What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for;
but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded
(According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber,
eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear
unto this day. And David saith, Let their table be made a snare, and a
trap, and a stumblingblock, and a recompence unto them: Let their
eyes be darkened, that they may not see, and bow down their
back always.


So we see in #1 that ALL MEN God wants to be saved will be saved
and NONE will ever be lost. And then we see in #2 that some were
NEVER MEANT to "perceive" or "understand" or "see" or "hear"
or ever "be converted" or "have their sins forgiven". These men
were NEVER MEANT to be saved.


(3) This basic and essential Gospel Truth harmonizes with ALL RELATED
Scriptures (when the context is understood) and is taught in many other
passages. For example, in Romans 9:19-24 the Bible teaches that God
CREATED some men to be "vessels of honor" (saved) and He also
CREATED some men to be "vessels of dishonor" (unsaved).


This same Gospel principle is repeated, showing God CREATED some
men to be "vessels of mercy" (saved) and God CREATED other men
to be "vessels of wrath fitted for destruction" (unsaved)


Not only is this basic and essential Gospel Truth taught in John 6 and
Mark 4 and Romans 9 and Romans 11, it is taught throughout the Bible,
and it is DEMONSTRATED throughout all of recorded history (reality).


(4) When God destroyed the earth did He intend to save ALL the
men/women/children? Or did He intend to save ONLY Noah and family?
Clearly the notion that God wanted to save "all men" is proven false.


(5) When God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrha did He intend to
save ALL men/women/children? Or did He intend to save ONLY
Lot and family? Again, clearly the notion that God wanted to save
"all men" is proven false.


(6) During the Jewish "Kingdom of Heaven" [Mat 22:2 and 21:43]
did God intend to save ALL JEWS, or only some Jews? And did God
intend to save ANY GENTILES during that period, or only a very few?
Clearly the notion that God wanted to save "all men" is proven false.


(7) During the Christian "Kingdom of Heaven" [Mat 13, in 8 verses]
did God intend to save ANY unsaved "tares" in the church who were
SOWN by Satan, or ONLY the saved "wheat" in the church who were
SOWN by God? And, did God intend to save ANY of the lost souls who
were OUTSIDE the church, and rejecting both Jesus and the Gospel?


Mar 6:11-12
And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart
thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against
them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom
and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city. And they
went out, and preached that men should repent.


(8) During the Great Tribulation "Kingdom of Heaven" [Mat 25:1-13],
also shown as the 7-Headed Revelation Beast, did God intend to save
ANY of the "foolish virgins", or ONLY the "wise virgins"? Again we
see the Gospel does not teach that God intends "all men" to be saved.


Mat 25:10-13
And while they [foolish virgins] went to buy, the bridegroom [Jesus]
came; and they that were ready [wise virgins] went in with him
to the marriage: and the door was shut [after that Final Harvest].
Afterward came also the other [foolish] virgins, saying, Lord, Lord,
open to us. But he answered and said, Verily I say unto you,
I know you not. Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor
the hour wherein the Son of man cometh.


Of course there are MANY more passages teaching some men were
NEVER MEANT to be saved. Passages where Jesus calls people by
names like "serpents" and "children of hell" and "swine" and "dogs"
and "vipers" and "wolves in sheep's clothing" and "false prophets"
and "the blind" and "children of Satan"... but the limited examples
provided above (#1-#8) are sufficient to refute the heresy that God
wants "all men" to be saved.


The ONLY measure of Biblical Truth is harmony with ALL RELATED
Scriptures. Therefore, whenever a "doctrine" contradicts Scripture
we know absolutely that "doctrine" is not Biblical.


Jim

Would it bother you if, at the end of the day, you find out that you’re one of those who are not saved? Or would you just acknowledge God’ wisdom and sovereignty in everything?

 

[5thKingdom]

When a Gentile refers to the NT revealing what the OT conceals, they are referring to the New Covenant in relation to the Old Covenant Mosaic Law, not to the whole OT. And that relationship is Biblical teaching.

Of course I am not suggesting the NT does not "reveal" OT mysteries,
but that God reveals Biblical mysteries in a progressive manner. That
is why I cited Daniel 12:8-10 which promises some mysteries would
remain "closed-up" and "sealed" until the "time of the end", which is
also shown as the "Season and Time" of Daniel 7:11-12. And that
Jesus promises [Mat 24:15,33] mysteries on the Great Tribulation
and/or Revelation Beast would not be "revealed" (or preached) until
after the Holy Spirit has been "taken out of the way" [2Thess 2:6-9]
so that Satan could be "loosened" to rule during that time.

So, it is not really a matter of the NT "reveals" OT mysteries at all,
but that God "reveals" both OT and NT mysteries in a progressive
manner with the Last Saints being the MOST informed as they have
the "Man of Sin" revealed to them, the same person that was called
the "Little Horn" in the OT. The POINT being, this is information that
was never "revealed" to saints during the church age.

I find that many/most Christians think the OT is "revealed" in the NT
when they do not even understand the NT contains mysteries that
are not "revealed" until after the church age is finished, after the
last saint has been "sealed" [Rev 7:1-2] and after the Holy Spirit
has already been "taken out of the way" before the Great Tribulation.
This is an OT Biblical Truth which was not "revealed" in the NT church.
So, this is no small distinction and it's NOT a communication problem.

Jim (not "guy")

 

[5thKingdom]

Would it bother you if, at the end of the day, you find out that you’re one of those who are not saved? Or would you just acknowledge God’ wisdom and sovereignty in everything?

But I have already acknowledged God's wisdom and Sovereignty
in His election process. So your question is nonsensical.

May I tell you that one of the greatest comforts any saint can have
is knowing that God is Sovereign in election. We delight in knowing
we had no part in being chosen to be saved... because, if we did, we
would surely mess it up.

And may I remind you the Bible PROMISES those "indwelt" with the
Holy Spirit are given "evidence" of that - in several different ways,
so that any real saint will know he has already been justified and
"adopted" and we are only waiting to be glorified when we receive
our incorruptible spiritual bodies.

But, just to indulge your question from the standpoint of someone
following a synergistic "gospel", of course it must be disappointing
to discover you were one of the unsaved "tares" in the church,
sown by Satan, and not one of the saved "wheat" in the church
sown by God and destined to eternal life. This disappointment is
shown in Scripture in Matthew 7:21-23 and Matthew 25:10-13
and Luke 13:25-30 (which, like Matthew 25:10-13 occurs after
the "door was shut").

But remember, the Lord clearly told us that many/most of those
in the church, calling themselves "Christians" were really unsaved
"tares" so this is an issue any "Christian" should have been aware
of, to make their "calling and election sure". Having said that, this
is one of the biggest problems of synergism. If men can save
themselves by doing some (non-meritorious) "work", then how
can they ever have complete faith in the Grace of God?

Jim

 

[Clare73]

Of course I am not suggesting the NT does not "reveal" OT mysteries,
but that God reveals Biblical mysteries in a progressive manner.
That is why I cited Daniel 12:8-10 which promises some mysteries would
remain "closed-up" and "sealed" until the "time of the end", which is
also shown as the "Season and Time" of Daniel 7:11-12.

That was the answer to Daniel's question regarding when the events would occur, not when the events would be revealed to him, which they just had been, which is why he asked that question in the first place.

Jesus promises [Mat 24:15,33] mysteries on the Great Tribulation
and/or Revelation Beast would not be "revealed" (or preached) until
after the Holy Spirit has been "taken out of the way" [2Thess 2:6-9]
so that Satan could be "loosened" to rule during that time.

So, it is not really a matter of the NT "reveals" OT mysteries at all,
but that God "reveals" both OT and NT mysteries in a progressive
manner with the Last Saints being the MOST informed as they have
the "Man of Sin" revealed to them, the same person that was called
the "Little Horn" in the OT.

The POINT being, this is information that
was never "revealed" to saints during the church age.

I find that many/most Christians think the OT is "revealed" in the NT
when they do not even understand the NT contains mysteries that
are not "revealed" until after the church age is finished,

The Church Age has had the revelation of God's truth in the Book of Revelation since the time of John the Apostle, just as it has had the revelation of God's truth in all the other NT books.
And what is in that book must agree with all the other NT teaching.

after the
last saint has been "sealed" [Rev 7:1-2] and after the Holy Spirit
has already been "taken out of the way" before the Great Tribulation.
This is an OT Biblical Truth which was not "revealed" in the NT church.

To legitimize interpretations of prophecy in ways which disagree with NT teaching,
you introduce a distinction between the Word of God written revealed to the Church and
a Word of God written revealed in the Church (thereby rendering the NT writers ignorant of this coming revelation in the Church, in an attempt to neutralize any NT teaching which is not in agreement with those erroneous interpretations), which distinction is nowhere found in the NT and, therefore, has no standing.
"Do not go beyond what is written." (1Co 4:6).

All personal interpretation of unfulfilled prophecy must be in agreement with NT teaching,
so that the Bible is not set in contradiction to itself.

 

[Butterball1]

That's why I pointed out to you Paul's frequent usage of "all" to mean two things, both of which he uses in Ro 5:18.
a) all without exception (18a)
b) all without distinction (18b).

It's a parallel of imputation, not of application.

There are two applications of the word "all"--a) and b) above--to the one meaning of imputation
in Ro 5:18.

It is Ro 5:12-14 that explains the imputation of Adam's sin to all men.

Rom 5:
18(a) Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation;
18(b) even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

If (a) teaches all men are UNconditonally imputed Adam's sin, then (b) shows that same all men will be UNconditionally imputed justification and that creates Universalism. Yet Paul is not promoting either idea, the Bible does not teach original sin nor Universalism.

The phrase "all men" refers to the same group both times. It would not be consistant to have "all men" in (a) to literally mean "all without exception" yet "all men" in (b) to mean just "some" men. That is inserting theological bias into the verse.

The verse shows "all men" are on the receiving end of both condemnation and grace. As a consequence of Adam sinning "all men" have been condemned . As a consequence of Christ's righteousness grace has come to that same "all men" (Titus 2:11).

Again, the verse does NOT say all men are UNconditionally condemned nor that all men will UNconditionally receive grace......

Romans 5:17 "For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)"

If spiritual death reigned in Adam because all UNconditionally inherited his sin then that same all would UNconditionally inherit Christ's righteousness.

Are all men spiritually dead because Adam brought spiritual death into the world? No more than that are all men are spiritually alive because Christ brought spiritual life into the world. Again all men do not partake of the spiritual life UNconditionally, so neither do all men partake of the spiritual death UNconditionally.


"If Adam had introduced measles into the world, that
would not prove that all his descendants are born with the measles! But
people live in a sin-infested country, and sin is more contagious than
measles. To say that people are born subject to sin is far from saying that
people are born sinners. Adam was created subject to sin, and he sinned;
but that does not prove that he was created a sinner, nor even with a
depraved nature.

Paul speaks of the gift of righteousness; but if a person is not free
to accept or reject a thing, it cannot be properly called a gift. If we
merited it by the perfection of our works, it would not be a gift. It is a
righteousness to which we attain through the forgiveness of our sins. We
are made righteous by the cleansing power of the gospel of Christ. To
that plan of righteousness we must submit. Spiritual life and spiritual death are
both the results of our own choice. It is surprising that any one ever
thought that the personal righteousness of Christ is given to the believer. "
Whiteside - Book of Romans (my emp)

Therefore men face spiritual death due to following in the steps of Adam in choosing to sin as Adam choose to sin. Those that receive grace that was brought to man by Christ do so by choice in choosing to obey Christ (Hebrews 5:9; Luke 6:46).

Hence, all men are subject to condemnation (spiritual death) by choice in choosing to sin ** as all men have justification (spiritual life) made available to them and receive it by choosing to obey.

**Romans 5:12 "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:"

This verse does not end by saying "for that all have UNconditionally inherited Adam's sin".
But "for that all have sinned" shows personal culpability and choice in having chosen to sin.

 

[5thKingdom]

That was the answer to Daniel's question regarding when the events would occur, not when the events would be revealed to him, which they just had been, which is why he asked that question in the first place.

Clare, you could not be more wrong.
The EVENTS are NEVER revealed to Daniel (while on this earth)
because they remained "closed-up" and "sealed" to all saints until
they are "revealed" at the "time of the end"...
did Daniel live during the "time of the end"?


Here is the CONTEXT of what we are discussing.
Notice (1) the EVENTS being discussed are the "Little Horn"
ruling over the "holy people" for 3.5 "times" and (2) this is the
SAME EVENT shown in Daniel 7 as the "Little Horn" rules over
the "saints" for 3.5 "times". So, we are talking about EVENTS
during the period shown as 3.5 "times/years/days/watches".
As these EVENTS are shown in DOZENS of other passages.


Dan 12:7 And I heard the man clothed in linen, which was upon the waters of the river, when he held up his right hand and his left hand unto heaven, and sware by him that liveth for ever that it shall be for a time, times, and an half; and when he shall have accomplished to scatter the power of the holy people, all these things shall be finished.


Dan 7:24 And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise: and another shall rise after them; [the Little Horn]
and he [the Little Horn] shall be diverse from the first [ten Horns],
and he shall subdue three kings. Dan 7:25 And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.


Now, after being shown these EVENTS in Daniel 7 and Daniel 8
and Daniel 11 and Daniel 12.... Daniel then admits:


Dan 12:8 And I heard, but I understood not: then said I, O my Lord, what shall be the end of these things?


The Bible then PROMISES the understanding of these prophecies
would remain "closed-up" and "sealed" until the "time of the end"
(also shown as the "Season and Time" in Dan 7:11-12) and then
the Last Saints "shall understand"


Dan 12:9 And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are
closed up and sealed till the time of the end. Dan 12:10 Many
shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand.


And we see this promise that the Last Saints "shall understand"
was already given - only a few verses before:


Dan 12:4
But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book,
even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro,
and knowledge shall be increased.


So you "theory" is completely refuted by Scripture.
Daniel did not understand the EVENTS in Daniel 7 or Daniel 8
or Daniel 11 or Daniel 12... and he did not understand the period
of 3.5 "times" either. Except it was the "time of the end".

The Church Age has had the revelation of God's truth in the Book of Revelation since the time of John the Apostle, just as it has had the revelation of God's truth in all the other NT books.

But that is not the issue. The church (like Daniel) have not been
able to understand the fulfillment of Great Tribulation prophecies
(or prophecies of the Revelation Beast) as God PROMISED.


It is one thing to HAVE the TEXT (OT saints had Daniel's TEXT)
it is another thing altogether to UNDERSTAND the fulfillment of
those prophecies.


Now, JESUS PROMISED the Last Saints "shall see" the fulfillment
of Daniel's "Abomination of Desolation" [Mat 24:15] and He also
PROMISED they "shall see ALL OF THESE THINGS", referring to
all of the Great Tribulation prophecies [Mat 24:33]


The church HAD the text of Revelation and Matthew 24 and 25..
but NONE were ever able to "understand". And this is proven
immediately by the fact that NOBODY can tell the NAME of the
man called the "Little Horn" or the "False Prophet" or "Beast"
of Revelation or the "Man of Sin" of 2Thess 2.


However, 2Thess 2:6-9 PROMISES (again) the Saints that see
the Holy Spirit "taken out of the way" will be the same Saints
to which the "Man of Sin" is (wait for it.....) "revealed".


So, I do not mean to be rude or condescending to you (seriously)
but you do not have a CLUE what you are talking about with this
subject. As I said, there are (literally) DOZENS of other passages
talking about this SAME EVENT. You would have to harmonize
all of them before you could pretend to offer an "informed opinion".

"Do not go beyond what is written." (1Co 4:6).
.... the Bible is not set in contradiction to itself.

Which is the reason WHY you must accept what the BIBLE
says about these "mysteries" being "closed-up" and "sealed"
to all saints until they are "revealed" to the Last Saints during the
"time of the end" or the "Season and Time" or the period
when the Holy Spirit has been "taken out of the way" and the
"Man of Sin" has been "revealed" (to the Last Saints)


Of course, you can prove me wrong....
Just tell me the NAME of the person called the "Little Horn"
or "False Prophet" or "Man of Sin", commonly known as the
Antichrist. Based on your argument you MUST know the NAME
of the Antichrist. Otherwise, you have already PROVEN yourself
to be CLUELESS... and not able to offer an "informed opinion"
on this matter.


Although I am certain you can offer an "informed opinion"
on many other Scriptures. And I mean that sincerely.


Jim

 

[Butterball1]

Please tell me WHO is the CONTEXT of the verse you cite as "proof"?
Who is meant by "us"?


(1) the saved "wheat" in the church sown by God?
(2) the unsaved "tares" in the church sown by Satan?
(3) the lost souls OUTSIDE the church?


If you cannot discern the CONTEXT of 2Peter 3:9
then you have no hope of understanding the MEANING.


If God is "longsuffering to us", and the "us" represents the elect,
then "not willing that any shall perish" ALSO represents the elect,
and "all should come to repentance" ALSO represents the elect.


However, if you PRETEND the CONTEXT of "us" includes all the
unsaved "tares" in the church sown by Satan AND all the lost souls
OUTSIDE the church (also "children of Satan") then you teach
God is a miserable failure... because they NEVER can come to
"repentance" and they were always destined to "perish".


Again... when you cannot discern the CONTEXT of a passage
you cannot hope to find the MEANING of that passage... and
your theology will contradict many Scriptures... like passages
where Jesus explains some men were NEVER MEANT to be able
to "perceive" or "understand" or "be converted" or "have their
sins forgiven"... men cannot be saved when their sins are
NEVER MEANT to be "forgiven"


By selecting the verses you LIKE and intentionally rejecting
or ignoring the verses that contradict your theories, you are not
really following the Gospel of the Bible at all. Instead, you are only
designing your own personal "gospel".

2 Peter 3:9 "The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance."

--According to internet resouce Biblehub, the pronoun "any" is an indefinite pronoun, therefore it can refer to any person.

--I know of no rule of grammar that requires "any" to limit the "all" or they both must share the same antecedent "us-ward". There is no grammar rule that says indefinite pronouns must be limited by the antecedents of other pronouns in the immediate context. Note the pronoun "some" (indefinite pronoun) occurs in the immediare text of verse 9 but the antecendent of "some" men is all the way back up in verse 3 - "scoffers". Will you argue that the pronoun "some" (scoffers) are part of "us-ward", that is, should the verse read 'the Lord is not slack as some of us-ward count slackness'?

--since 'any' is an indefinite pronoun it does not need an explicit antecedent in the text therefore "any" does not HAVE to refer to the "us-ward".

--John Calvin did not see that "any" must refer to "us-ward"..."Not willing that any should perish. So wonderful is his love towards mankind, that he would have them all to be saved, and is of his own self prepared to bestow salvation on the lost." Calvin's Commentary on the Bible.

--from the verse, it is the "any" who may face perishing and the "all" who need to repent. Hence the "any" and "all" refers to unbelievers, those that are lost. Yet the "us-ward" refers to those who already believe, the saved. So a natural reading of the verse would show "all" refers to a much larger category than the "us-ward".......those who are already saved believers (us-ward) and ALL those in need of salvation, the ALL unbelievers facing perishing therefore ALL needing to repent.

 

[Clare73]

Rom 5:
18(a) Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation;
18(b) even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

If (a) teaches all men are UNconditonally imputed Adam's sin, then (b) shows that same all men will be UNconditionally imputed justification and that creates Universalism. Yet Paul is not promoting either idea, the Bible does not teach original sin nor Universalism.

The Bible teaches original sin in Ro 5:12-14.

The phrase "all men" refers to the same group both times. It would not be consistent to have "all men" in (a) to literally mean "all without exception" yet "all men" in (b) to mean just "some" men. That is inserting theological bias into the verse.

Not having "all men" to mean "all without exception" would be inconsistent with much of Paul's teaching elsewhere.

The verse shows "all men" are on the receiving end of both condemnation and grace. As a consequence of Adam sinning "all men" have been condemned .

That is what is meant by "original sin," which you deny.

As a consequence of Christ's righteousness grace has come to that same "all men" (Titus 2:11).

Okay. . ."has come" does not mean "applied to."

Again, the verse does NOT say all men are UNconditionally condemned nor that all men will UNconditionally receive grace......
Romans 5:17 "For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)"
If spiritual death reigned in Adam because all UNconditionally inherited his sin then that same all would UNconditionally inherit Christ's righteousness.

Not if you aren't going to set Paul against himself in much of his other teaching.

Are all men spiritually dead because Adam brought spiritual death into the world?

Yes, all men are born in spiritual death because of Adam's sin. That is what the new birth is all about, reborn into spiritual life through faith in the person and work of Jesus Christ (Jn 3:18, 36).

No more than that are all men are spiritually alive because Christ brought spiritual life into the world. Again all men do not partake of the spiritual life UNconditionally, so neither do all men partake of the spiritual death UNconditionally.

Jesus says all who would enter the Kingdom of God must be born again (Jn3:3,5) because they are spiritually dead, not just some, but all are spiritually dead, because all are born spiritually dead.

"If Adam had introduced measles into the world, that
would not prove that all his descendants are born with the measles! But
people live in a sin-infested country, and sin is more contagious than
measles. To say that people are born subject to sin is far from saying that
people are born sinners. Adam was created subject to sin, and he sinned;
but that does not prove that he was created a sinner, nor even with a
depraved nature.

Paul does not teach that Adam was created a sinner,
he teaches that Adam irrevocably became a sinner, when he rebelled.

Paul speaks of the gift of righteousness; but if a person is not free
to accept or reject a thing, it cannot be properly called a gift.

Those who want it accept it. . .many do not want it.

If we merited it by the perfection of our works, it would not be a gift. It is a
righteousness to which we attain through the forgiveness of our sins. We
are made righteous by the cleansing power of the gospel of Christ. To
that plan of righteousness we must submit. Spiritual life and spiritual death are
both the results of our own choice. It is surprising that any one ever
thought that the personal righteousness of Christ is given to the believer. "
Whiteside - Book of Romans (my emp)

Therefore men face spiritual death due to following in the steps of Adam in choosing to sin as Adam choose to sin.

Men are born in spiritual death. They face condemnation not just for Adam's sin, but also for their own which they have added to it.

Those that receive grace that was brought to man by Christ do so by choice in choosing to obey Christ (Hebrews 5:9; Luke 6:46).

Not quite. . .salvation is by grace through faith in the person and work of Jesus Christ (Eph 2:8) for the forgiveness of one's sin.

Hence, all men are subject to condemnation (spiritual death) by choice in choosing to sin ** as all men have justification (spiritual life) made available to them and receive it by choosing to obey.

It is by choosing to believe in the person and work of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of one's sin
that men receive justification.

**Romans 5:12 "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:"

This verse does not end by saying "for that all have UNconditionally inherited Adam's sin".
But "for that all have sinned" shows personal culpability and choice in having chosen to sin.

"Original sin" is shown in Ro 5:2-14.

And yes, our own sin, in addition to Adam's sin imputed to us, is why we are guilty.

 

[Clare73]

Clare, you could not be more wrong.
The EVENTS are NEVER revealed to Daniel (while on this earth)

The prophecy was revealed to Daniel, just as the prophecy is revealed to us in John's book.

"Revelation" to believers is the Word written itself.
To the prophets, Daniel and John, who received the revelation in visions, the meaning of the visions was not revealed to them, they know no more about its meaning than does the rest of the church.

However, we do know the meaning of NT teaching, and the true "meaning" of any prophecy will not contradict that teaching, because God does not contradict himself.

The system to which you subscribe has craftily neutralized the Word of God written in NT teaching, with its wrongly dividing of revelation into: to the Church and in the Church, a division found nowhere in the NT, and making it unauthorized for belief by the saints.
"Do not go beyond what is written." (1Co 4:6)

Our views must be Biblical (in agreement with NT teaching) to be true.

because they remained "closed-up" and "sealed" to all saints until
they are "revealed" at the "time of the end"...
did Daniel live during the "time of the end"?


Here is the CONTEXT of what we are discussing.
Notice (1) the EVENTS being discussed are the "Little Horn"
ruling over the "holy people" for 3.5 "times" and (2) this is the
SAME EVENT shown in Daniel 7 as the "Little Horn" rules over
the "saints" for 3.5 "times". So, we are talking about EVENTS
during the period shown as 3.5 "times/years/days/watches".
As these EVENTS are shown in DOZENS of other passages.


Dan 12:7 And I heard the man clothed in linen, which was upon the waters of the river, when he held up his right hand and his left hand unto heaven, and sware by him that liveth for ever that it shall be for a time, times, and an half; and when he shall have accomplished to scatter the power of the holy people, all these things shall be finished.


Dan 7:24 And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise: and another shall rise after them; [the Little Horn]
and he [the Little Horn] shall be diverse from the first [ten Horns],
and he shall subdue three kings. Dan 7:25 And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.


Now, after being shown these EVENTS in Daniel 7 and Daniel 8
and Daniel 11 and Daniel 12.... Daniel then admits:


Dan 12:8 And I heard, but I understood not: then said I, O my Lord, what shall be the end of these things?


The Bible then PROMISES the understanding of these prophecies
would remain "closed-up" and "sealed" until the "time of the end"
(also shown as the "Season and Time" in Dan 7:11-12) and then
the Last Saints "shall understand"


Dan 12:9 And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are
closed up and sealed till the time of the end. Dan 12:10 Many
shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand.


And we see this promise that the Last Saints "shall understand"
was already given - only a few verses before:


Dan 12:4
But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book,
even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro,
and knowledge shall be increased.


So you "theory" is completely refuted by Scripture.
Daniel did not understand the EVENTS in Daniel 7 or Daniel 8
or Daniel 11 or Daniel 12... and he did not understand the period
of 3.5 "times" either. Except it was the "time of the end".





But that is not the issue. The church (like Daniel) have not been
able to understand the fulfillment of Great Tribulation prophecies
(or prophecies of the Revelation Beast) as God PROMISED.


It is one thing to HAVE the TEXT (OT saints had Daniel's TEXT)
it is another thing altogether to UNDERSTAND the fulfillment of
those prophecies.


Now, JESUS PROMISED the Last Saints "shall see" the fulfillment
of Daniel's "Abomination of Desolation" [Mat 24:15] and He also
PROMISED they "shall see ALL OF THESE THINGS", referring to
all of the Great Tribulation prophecies [Mat 24:33]


The church HAD the text of Revelation and Matthew 24 and 25..
but NONE were ever able to "understand". And this is proven
immediately by the fact that NOBODY can tell the NAME of the
man called the "Little Horn" or the "False Prophet" or "Beast"
of Revelation or the "Man of Sin" of 2Thess 2.


However, 2Thess 2:6-9 PROMISES (again) the Saints that see
the Holy Spirit "taken out of the way" will be the same Saints
to which the "Man of Sin" is (wait for it.....) "revealed".


So, I do not mean to be rude or condescending to you (seriously)
but you do not have a CLUE what you are talking about with this
subject. As I said, there are (literally) DOZENS of other passages
talking about this SAME EVENT. You would have to harmonize
all of them before you could pretend to offer an "informed opinion".





Which is the reason WHY you must accept what the BIBLE
says about these "mysteries" being "closed-up" and "sealed"
to all saints until they are "revealed" to the Last Saints during the
"time of the end" or the "Season and Time" or the period
when the Holy Spirit has been "taken out of the way" and the
"Man of Sin" has been "revealed" (to the Last Saints)


Of course, you can prove me wrong....
Just tell me the NAME of the person called the "Little Horn"
or "False Prophet" or "Man of Sin", commonly known as the
Antichrist. Based on your argument you MUST know the NAME
of the Antichrist. Otherwise, you have already PROVEN yourself
to be CLUELESS... and not able to offer an "informed opinion"
on this matter.


Although I am certain you can offer an "informed opinion"
on many other Scriptures. And I mean that sincerely.


Jim

 

[Butterball1]

So you think Jesus was LYING when HE said that NO MAN
can come to Him unless the Father "draws them" and ALL MEN
the Father draws "shall come" to Him and He will lose NONE.


Either Jesus is a LIAR... or your "interpretation" is not Biblical,
which is it?


Do you also think Jesus was LYING when He explained that
some men were NEVER MEANT to "perceive" or "understand"
or "be converted" or "have their sins forgiven"?


Either Jesus is a LIAR... or your "interpretation" is not Biblical,
which is it?


Or... does your "gospel" teach that men can be SAVED without
"having their sins forgiven"? Is that what you teach?
Is that a Biblical teaching?

Jn 3:14 "And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:"
Jn 3:15 "That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life."
Jn 316 "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 see above where you even mentioned the above text.

Was it just "some" or "all" who were biten could go and look upon the bronze serpent? Of course ALL.
Therefore the analogy is ALL who were bitten could go and look upon the bronze serpent could find a cure, then likewise ALL who have been bitten by the poison of sin can go and look to the cross of Christ for a cure.


John 6:44 "No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day."
John 6:45 "It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me."


Verse 45 shows the drawing is done by God's word when men have been "taught" "heard" and "learned" then men of their free will "cometh unto Me"....simply put God draws, men come.

 

[Butterball1]

A good example of why you must harmonize ALL RELATED
Scriptures before you can even PRETEND to be able to offer
an "informed opinion".


Obviously we could do the same as above and discern WHO
is the context of the verse. But this time let us simply show
another ESSENTIAL principle in Bible study. Your "theory"
must HARMONIZE with all RELATED SCRIPTURES.


So... you say Romans 5:6 "does not say Christ died only
for the elect". I agree THAT VERSE does not say who is
included in "the ungodly"... but many OTHER VERSES do.


Joh 10:11
I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd
giveth his life for the sheep.


Joh 10:15
As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father:
and I lay down my life for the sheep.


Joh 10:16
And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold [the Jews]:
them [Christians] also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice;
and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.


Joh 10:27-29
My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck
them out of my Father's hand.


Notice three things:

(1) These teachings in John 10 provide the CONTEXT for Rom 5.
Some times you must harmonize other verses to find Biblical Truth.
If your "theory" contradicts a RELATED VERSE... your theory is wrong.

(2) This teaching is really no different than John 6 where Jesus says
NO MAN can come to Him unless the Father "draws them" and that
ALL MAN the Father draws "shall come" to Him and He loses NONE.

(3) The ONLY measure of Biblical Truth is harmony of ALL Scriptures.
Most HERESIES harmonize with one-or-two passages because any
good LIE must contain some truth. So you can BUILD a doctrine
based on Romans 5:6... but that means nothing unless/until you
can show how that doctrine harmonizes with ALL RELATED verses.

Romans 5:6 "For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly."

Ungodly does not refer to just "the elect" as Calvinist ASSUME. Nor did you provide any proof that "ungodly" applies only to the so called Calvinist "elect".


Furthermore, we are told in Romans 3:21 "For all have sinned" which means anyone and everyone who has sinned can be called "ungodly". Therefore Christ died for all who have sinned, the ungodly. It is not just the so called Calvinist "elect" who have sinned.

Paul spends Romans chapters 1 and 2 proving that all, both Jew and Gentile have sinned. In Romans 4 Paul uses a Gentile Abraham and a Jew David to make his point in how both men had "believeth on Him (God) that justifieth the ungodly". We know that neither Abraham nor David were perferctly sinless for both sinned hence both were ungodly men who were justified for having believed on God.

 

[Butterball1]

That is a true statement... now you only need to find the CONTEXT.
WHO is the verse talking to? Remember... we already have plenty
of verses that teach NO MAN can come to Jesus unless "drawn"
and ALL MEN that are drawn "shall come" and NONE are lost.
So your "theory" about Mat 11 must harmonize with that.

Matthew 11:28-30 "Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light."

You keep going back to John 6 and those whom Christ draws but that does not support your position.

Jesus in Matt 11:28-30 made an open invitation to all those who labour and heavy laden, those who have been burdened by sin. It is not just the so called Calvinists "elect" who have been burdened by sin and no one else.

You are misusing, abusing John 6 to try and modify the word "all" in Mt 11:28 to mean elect only as the only ones have been burdened by sin. Yet no verse supports such an unfounded assumption.

 

[fhansen]

But I have already acknowledged God's wisdom and Sovereignty
in His election process. So your question is nonsensical.

May I tell you that one of the greatest comforts any saint can have
is knowing that God is Sovereign in election. We delight in knowing
we had no part in being chosen to be saved... because, if we did, we
would surely mess it up.

And may I remind you the Bible PROMISES those "indwelt" with the
Holy Spirit are given "evidence" of that - in several different ways,
so that any real saint will know he has already been justified and
"adopted" and we are only waiting to be glorified when we receive
our incorruptible spiritual bodies.

Ok, so you acknowledge that in the case that you're wrong about your own status, which you could well be since none can predict their own perseverance for one thing, then you'd still be impressed with God's wisdom and sovereignty. Good.

But, just to indulge your question from the standpoint of someone
following a synergistic "gospel", of course it must be disappointing
to discover you were one of the unsaved "tares" in the church,
sown by Satan, and not one of the saved "wheat" in the church
sown by God and destined to eternal life. This disappointment is
shown in Scripture in Matthew 7:21-23 and Matthew 25:10-13
and Luke 13:25-30 (which, like Matthew 25:10-13 occurs after
the "door was shut").

That part has nothing to do with synergism vs monergism; those are simply two different understandings of how God saves and a believer with either view could be sincerely confident about their salvation-and be sincerely wrong.

But remember, the Lord clearly told us that many/most of those
in the church, calling themselves "Christians" were really unsaved
"tares" so this is an issue any "Christian" should have been aware
of, to make their "calling and election sure". Having said that, this
is one of the biggest problems of synergism. If men can save
themselves by doing some (non-meritorious) "work", then how
can they ever have complete faith in the Grace of God?

Jim

I suppose some synergist could think they've done enough-who knows? Anyway, I'd keep working on your calling and election J, as we all should.

 

[5thKingdom]

Ok, so you acknowledge that in the case that you're wrong about your own status, which you could well be since none can predict their own perseverance for one thing, then you'd still be impressed with God's wisdom and sovereignty. Good.

First, you ether skipped over the end of my response or you
do not believe what the Bible PROMISES to those who are
actually "indwelt". The Bible PROMISES we (real) saints will
absolutely be able to know we are "indwelt" as the result of
our "adoption". So your comment about "none can predict"
has NO Biblical support whatsoever... it is only a reflection
of your "feelings" and not what the Gospel PROMISES.


Secondly, yes, I can only be impressed on God's Wisdom
and mercy and Sovereignty since NONE of us deserve to have
Christ PAY for our sins (which required real SUFFERING, much
more then just the pain of a physical death, as He was PAYING
for an eternal death). That's an important reality few understand.

That part has nothing to do with synergism vs monergism; those are simply two different understandings of how God saves and a believer with either view could be sincerely confident about their salvation-and be sincerely wrong.

You could not be more wrong about being saved, and knowing
the "indwelling" spirit, has nothing to do with synergism or
monergism. There can only be ONE TRUE Gospel of salvation,
it cannot be BOTH synegism and monergism. They are NOT just
two different "understandings", they are two (very) different and
contradictory GOSPELS... only one can be the Gospel of the Bible,
the other MUST be a heresy from Satan.


This is a reality that many cannot bring themselves to accept but
it is not my "opinion" the Bible PROMISES those preaching false "gospels" are "accursed" and NO heretic (teacher of false "gospels")
can ever enter into the Kingdom. This is the MOST important issue
in Christianity... the BROAD WAY that leads many "Christians" into destruction or the narrow way that leads them into eternal life...
that FEW "Christians" find.


And the fact that synergists are "sincere" is of no consequence
whatsoever. Those in Matthew 7:21-23 and Matthew 25:10-13
and Luke 13:24-30 all "sincerely" thought they were following
Jesus (they called Him "Lord") and they "sincerely" thought they
were saved. Sincerity mans NOTHING when you are sincerely
under a "strong delusion".


Please remember, Jesus PROMISED the church consists of MANY
unsaved "tares" sown by Satan - and destined to the same fire
prepared for Satan, and relatively FEW saved "wheat" sown by
God and destined to eternal life. The fact that many/most of
the unsaved "tares" are SINCERE means absolutely nothing.
In fact, it is PART of the Gospel of the Bible. It's expected.


More than that, Jesus PROMISED we could tell the difference
between the saved "wheat" and unsaved "tares" by their "fruit".


While this relates to their behavior, it also (and primarily) relates
to their doctrines ("gospel"). There are plenty of Moslems and
Buddists and Hindus and Atheists and Agnostics and Humanists
that have great behavior.... but NONE that have the real Gospel.
Likewise, either the monergists or synergists show the "fruit" of
teaching the True Gospel and the other group shows the "fruit"
of teaching heresy. It is really as simple as that, we can know
a real saint (and a false Christian) by their "fruit" (doctrines).


If fact, it goes even farther than that. Real saints are COMMANDED
to (a) identify false Christians by their "fruit" of false doctrines and
(b) rebuke them - since some may be "babes in Christ" needing
much correction and (c) expel them from the church and separate
from them if they refuse to repent. THAT is how important showing
good "fruit" (doctrines/gospels) is, if we DARE to believe Scripture.


Jim

 

[5thKingdom]

You keep going back to John 6 and those whom Christ draws but that does not support your position.

You are COMPLAINING that I go back to Scripture to support truth?
That is pretty weird.


There can be NO CONTRADICTIONS in Scripture. If your "theory"
contradicts John 6 and Romans 9 (and other passages) then you
already know ABSOLUTELY that your "theory" is wrong.


Here is the DIFFERENCE between your "theories" and the
harmony of Scripture (the True Gospel). You cannot harmonize
your "theory" with John 6 or Romans 9 so you are forced to
intentionally reject and IGNORE Scripture to pretend your "theory"
has some merit. That is PROOF of a false "gospel", since there are
no contradictions in the True Gospel.


On the other hand, I can harmonize my Gospel with any/all
verses in the Bible. I will demonstrate on the example you
give below.

Jesus in Matt 11:28-30 made an open invitation to all those who labour and heavy laden, those who have been burdened by sin. It is not just the so called Calvinists "elect" who have been burdened by sin and no one else.

So, while you MUST reject or ignore John 6 and Romans 9
in order to present your "theory" about the meaning of Mat 11...
I can HARMONIZE all Scripture.


First some CONTEXT.
Not only does John 6 and Romans 9 say that ONLY those "elected"
can ever come to Christ.... Romans 3:10 (and OT verses) also
PROMISE that no un-regenerated man can ever "seek god",
No, not even one.


That is a BIG PROBLEM for your "theory"


So... when you read Matthew 11:28-30, which speaks of people
who "seek Christ" because they are "burdened" by their sins then
you should AUTOMATICALLY know that verse is ONLY DIRECTED
to those (elect) that God is "calling" to Christ.


Once again I am showing you that you cannot hope to ever
understand the MEANING of a passage when you cannot FIRST
discern the CONTEXT... who is the passage focused on (a) those
who will be the saved "wheat" in the church, sown by God or
(b) those who will be the unsaved "tares" in the church sown by
Satan or (c) the lost souls OUTSIDE the church... it must be
ONE of these groups.


The verse is certainly NOT directed to those who cannot ever
"seek God" and the verse is certainly NOT directed to those who
Jesus PROMISED were NEVER MEANT to "discern" or "understand"
the Gospel, or "be converted" or "have their sins forgiven".


Do you see what I just did?
I showed you HARMONY OF SCRIPTURE...


Because there are no contradictions in Scripture I do not need
to reject or ignore John 6 and Romans 9 and Romans 3 in order
to PRETEND Matthew 11:28-30 is directed to people JESUS SAID
were NEVER MEANT to "perceive" or "understand" the Gospel
or "be converted" or "have their sins forgiven".


But that is EXACTLY what your "theory" must do....
you must pretend Mat 11:28-30 was directed (the CONTEXT)
to people who were NEVER MEANT to be saved. You should
AUTOMATICALLY discern the CONTEXT of the passage is on those
who were MEANT to be saved... and ONLY those who were MEANT
to be saved.


Again, I have just shown you the ONLY WAY to find Biblical Truth.
You must ensure your "theory" harmonizes with ALL RELATED
Scripture. This is the FIRST RULE in Bible study.

You are misusing, abusing John 6 to try and modify the word "all" in Mt 11:28 to mean elect only as the only ones have been burdened by sin. Yet no verse supports such an unfounded assumption.

Remember, you must have HARMONY of ALL RELATED Scripture.
Your "theory" contradicts John 6 and Romans 9 and Romans 3...
as well as Mark 4:12 where JESUS PROMISES that some men
are NEVER MEANT to "perceive" or "understand" the Gospel
or "be converted" or "have their sins forgiven"


In your "theory" Matthew 11:28 has the CONTEXT that includes
those who were NEVER MEANT to "have their sins forgiven"
(be saved)... and that is just hilarious.


If you want to be taken seriously you cannot present "theories"
that contradict John 6 and Romans 9 and Romans 3 and Mark 4
(and many other passages). That is just the way it is...
that is the FIRST RULE in (good) Bible study.


Jim

 

[5thKingdom]

Therefore Christ died for all who have sinned, the ungodly. It is not just the so called Calvinist "elect" who have sinned.

You embarrass yourself when you pretend that Calvin invented
"the elect". The BIBLE talks about the "elect" and the "chosen"
and Jesus and the Apostles were TEACHING about these people
1500 years before Calvin was born.


Secondly, if Christ died for "all who sinned"... then tell me
how JESUS could say that some men were NEVER MEANT
to be saved?


Some men were NEVER MEANT to "perceive" or "understand"
the Gospel or "be converted" or "have their sins forgiven"
[Mark 4:11-12] While other WERE MEANT for salvation...
and Jesus will lose NONE of them [John 6 and Rom 9]


The problem is simple:
If you cannot discern the passages talking about the people
who God MEANT to save and the people NEVER MEANT
to "be converted" or "have their sins forgiven"...
then you can not hope to understand the
CONTEXT or MEANING of a passage.


Until you are able to discern the CONTEXT of a passage
you cannot hope to understand the MEANING of a passage.
I say this with all due respect and absolutely no malice whatsoever.
It is just a self-evident fact and a Bible Truth. Just because
nobody ever taught you this before does not mean
it is not a fact.


And, again, when your theory CONTRADICTS related Scripture
then you AUTOMATICALLY know your theory is not Biblical
because there are no contradictions in the Bible....
only in men's "interpretation" of the Bible.


Jim