Five Point or Four Point

[Tinstar]

Thanks for the comments. I have read Boettner and others who explain that the truck load of verses don't mean what they are actually saying (all world etc). I have believed that for years but now I wonder if I haven't listened to men rather than the Word says. How can it be??

For me it all this explaining away reminds of the old days when the indy fundy baptist used to explain away verses on lordship and repentence. Red flags pop up when we use much ink to do away with those verses that don't fit our theology.

Now below is a simpletons thought, can this work?? Is this thought possible???:

Christ died for the elect and secured their salvation to the uttermost. But don't stop there. He also paid for all sin but of course the benefit will not be applied to the non elect because they did not repent and believe. No doubt God has a special love for his people. But he made a way for everyman that all mouths might be stopped. His death as the supreme being could pay for the sins of a thousand worlds of humans.

PS the judas comment: Christ called Judas friend. I lay down my life for my friends. It doesn't bother me if Jesus died for all sins including Judas sin. Yet he like all non elect will be judged and receieve wrath because his death did not apply.

Heb 2:9 but we do see Jesus crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death was made a little less than the angels, so that by the grace of God He might taste of death for all.

Tinstar

 

[cygnusx1]

Thanks for the comments. I have read Boettner and others who explain that the truck load of verses don't mean what they are actually saying (all world etc). I have believed that for years but now I wonder if I haven't listened to men rather than the Word says. How can it be??

For me it all this explaining away reminds of the old days when the indy fundy baptist used to explain away verses on lordship and repentence. Red flags pop up when we use much ink to do away with those verses that don't fit our theology.

Now below is a simpletons thought, can this work?? Is this thought possible???:

Christ died for the elect and secured their salvation to the uttermost. But don't stop there. He also paid for all sin but of course the benefit will not be applied to the non elect because they did not repent and believe. No doubt God has a special love for his people. But he made a way for everyman that all mouths might be stopped. His death as the supreme being could pay for the sins of a thousand worlds of humans.

This view is not new , it is the old Amyraldian view.

PS the judas comment: Christ called Judas friend. I lay down my life for my friends. It doesn't bother me if Jesus died for all sins including Judas sin. Yet he like all non elect will be judged and receieve wrath because his death did not apply.

I wouldn't think a doctrine can be built on simply Christ calling Judas "friend" , if you accept that Judas was not only going to hell , but was destined to betray Christ , then what exactly would be the point of dying for Judas ? I mean the death of Christ must have meaning.


To examine the Amyraldian view ;

According to B. B. Warfield, "it is a logically inconsistent and therefore unstable form of Calvinism. For another more important reason, it turns away from a substitutionary atonement, which is as precious to the Calvinist as his particularism," (Plan, p. 98).

http://www.reformationtheology.com/2006/11/the_amyraldian_view_undone.php

 

[heymikey80]

Thanks for the comments. I have read Boettner and others who explain that the truck load of verses don't mean what they are actually saying (all world etc). I have believed that for years but now I wonder if I haven't listened to men rather than the Word says. How can it be??

I know exactly the feeling. I get it often. And so I go back to the verses to see exactly what they really are saying.

The problem I've observed (and rechecked again and again) is that the verses being used to oppose Particular Redemption are arranged to be relevant to one another. You find 1 John 2:2 combined with 1 Tim 2:4, for instance, so that one is being used to explain the other. To me this arrangement is at best neglectful of the words an context involved. They're written by two different people, and the critical nouns and verbs are quite different. Mixing them together is the bane of prooftexting, to me.

1 John 2:2 for instance welcomes two different versions of interpretation that allow for Particular Redemption. The first is that "the world" doesn't necessarily mean "all human beings". It's wider than that. The whole universe would fit nicely into the term "cosmos". So Christ being the propitiation of the whole world, especially those who believe, points to a universality -- but not that He intends to save all those who believe.

John's use of the word "world" at 1 John 2:15ff shows he's using this wider meaning.

The other interpretation points out is that Christ's role here is in noun form: He is "the propitiation" for sins. That can be understood as a role -- indeed, it must be understood as a role! If Christ really propitiated all sins, then universalism results directly from this verse. There's no "if they believe" here, the wording is "especially for those who believe". So if "the propitiation" is not a role, but an action, then Christ would be propitiating -- that is, turning aside God's wrath -- for unbelievers. The end result would inevitably be their salvation.

Christ died for the elect and secured their salvation to the uttermost. But don't stop there. He also paid for all sin but of course the benefit will not be applied to the non elect because they did not repent and believe. No doubt God has a special love for his people. But he made a way for everyman that all mouths might be stopped. His death as the supreme being could pay for the sins of a thousand worlds of humans.

It's not a horrible conclusion, no. I hold to something similar -- that Christ's sacrifice gave Him the right of rule over every existence in all creation. But He also secured the salvation of those who believed.

If you mean to pull in "hypothetical universalism", that tends to drag along so much theology for me, and it makes a number of verses problematic: they seem to create anxiety for me, yet they seem to be written for the comfort of the readers. I might run through Ephesians, 1 Thessalonians and Philippians to see how many would be impacted. Again, that's a collection of perplexing verses for the view. It's not a total exclusion.

I think you've got a good direction to go in, too. The tough part is trying to comprehend why the "problem passages" exist and not to simply discard them from the Bible. They're communicating something, often substantial. It's just that in Calvinism they're not communicating what other theologies are asserting they must mean. And sometimes Calvinism has multiple possible ideas what a particular verse means.

 

[cygnusx1]

Heb 2:9 but we do see Jesus crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death was made a little less than the angels, so that by the grace of God He might taste of death for all.

Tinstar

"Christ “tasted death for every” ( Hebrews 2:9): there is no word for “man” in the Greek text here, and the next verse shows it is “every” son ."

 

[cygnusx1]

PS the judas comment: Christ called Judas friend. I lay down my life for my friends. It doesn't bother me if Jesus died for all sins including Judas sin. Yet he like all non elect will be judged and receieve wrath because his death did not apply.

I remember seeing that same point elsewhere a few Months ago , but instead of going by the sound of scripture we ought to go by the sense of it .
Jesus calling Judas "friend" has no more relevance than that His disciples are predicted to be called "transgressors" ........... for such was the purpose of the instruction to buy a sword. It does not follow that they were in fact "transgressors".

see ; Luke 22

35 And he said unto them, When I sent you without apurse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing.

36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

37 For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the atransgressors: for the things concerning me have an end.

38 And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.

 

[AndOne]

I can think of two very prominent/famous four point Calvinists or Amyraldites, They are Rev. Richard Baxter of (Reformed Pastor fame) and SR's own Dr. Steve.

I guess you can be a Four-pointer. I think it is inconsistent, but lots of folks brighter than I am have disagreed with me on that point.

In Christ,
Kenith

I hope Dr. Steve isn't a doctor in theology then....

 

[Tinstar]

everybody thanks, and especially Heymikey thanks, I am in a fix with not being settled on this. I am trying to figure out the truth. I have no formal training but am intrusted to preach the gospel to the lost everyweek.

When a calvanist preaches to remain in his box he cannot give out true glad tidings: "Perhaps Christ died for you." "Maybe God so loved you." "Christ shed His blood for you, perhaps." "Salvation has been provided for you, maybe." (qoutes taken from a online article) nevertheless I have found myself being careful to same the same to the lost. I don't rememember Paul saying things like this.

I too saw that the calvinistic commentators don't agree on the excuses they use to discard some of these verses.

PS let me add this to this kinda off the path Judas thought:
2Pe 2:1 But false prophets were also among the people, as also false teachers will be among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, and denying the Master who has bought them, bringing swift destruction on themselves.
Heb 10:29 how much worse punishment do you think will be thought worthy to receive, the one trampling the Son of God, and having counted common the blood of the covenant in which he was sanctified, and having insulted the Spirit of Grace?

 

[cygnusx1]

everybody thanks, and especially Heymikey thanks, I am in a fix with not being settled on this. I am trying to figure out the truth. I have no formal training but am intrusted to preach the gospel to the lost everyweek.

When a calvanist preaches to remain in his box he cannot give out true glad tidings: "Perhaps Christ died for you." "Maybe God so loved you." "Christ shed His blood for you, perhaps." "Salvation has been provided for you, maybe." (qoutes taken from a online article) nevertheless I have found myself being careful to same the same to the lost. I don't rememember Paul saying things like this.

I too saw that the calvinistic commentators don't agree on the excuses they use to discard some of these verses.

PS let me add this to this kinda off the path Judas thought:
2Pe 2:1 But false prophets were also among the people, as also false teachers will be among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, and denying the Master who has bought them, bringing swift destruction on themselves.
Heb 10:29 how much worse punishment do you think will be thought worthy to receive, the one trampling the Son of God, and having counted common the blood of the covenant in which he was sanctified, and having insulted the Spirit of Grace?

Spurgeon was a Calvinist through and through , he believed in Limited , that is definite Atonement , yet never could Spurgeon be described as boxed in , or denied a full vocal invitation to call all sinners to come to Christ for eternal life.

Nowhere , in any part of the Bible do we read "Jesus died for you so now believe on him" ........ not even the Apostles spoke like that!

We preach Christ died for sinners in accordance with the scriptures , 'God commands you to place your faith in Christ , to place your faith in His atoning work on the cross , and to repent from your sins.'

take your time to read Spurgeon , these are not at all difficult sermons to understand , you will only gain by being better equipped with solid foundation.


http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0181.htm


http://members.aol.com/gregscv/die2.htm


also Gary Long is excellent.


An Exegetical Study of 1Timothy 2:4 by Dr. Gary D. Long
An Exegetical Study of 1Timothy 4:10 by Dr. Gary D. Long
An Exegetical Study of Titus 2:11 by Dr. Gary D. Long
Redemption II Peter 2:1 by Dr. Gary D. Long
Propitiation I John 2:2 by Dr. Gary D. Long

 

[Iosias]

The
CAUSE OF GOD AND TRUTH.
Part 1
Section 45—1 Timothy 2:4.​

Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

These words are often used to oppose God’s decree of reprobation, and in favor of universal redemption; but with what success will be seen when it is observed,

1. That the salvation which God here wills that all men should enjoy, is not a mere possibility of salvation for all,[1] nor putting all men into a salvable state, nor an offer of salvation to all, nor a proposal of sufficient means of it to all in his word; but a real, certain, and actual salvation, which he has determined they shall have, has provided and occurred in the covenant of his grace, sent his Son into this world to effect, which is fully effected by him.

2. That the will of God, that all men should be saved, is not a conditional will,[2] or will that depends upon the will of man, or anything to be performed by him: for if this was the case, none might be saved; and if any should, salvation would be of him that willeth, and of him that runneth,and not of God that sheweth mercy,contrary to the express words of scripture (Rom. 9:16) but this will of God, respecting the salvation of men, is absolute and unconditional, and what infallibly secures and produces it: nor is it such a will as is distinguishable into antecedent and ill consequent: with the former of which it is said, God wills the salvation of all men, as they are his creatures, and the work of his hands; with the latter he wills or not wills it, according to their future conduct and behavior: but the will of God, concerning man’s salvation, is one entire, invariable, unalterable, and unchangeable will; He is in one mind; and who can turn him? and what his soul desireth even that he doth (Job 23:13). Nor is it merely his will of approbation or complacency, being only expressive of what is grateful and well pleasing to him; but it is his ordaining, purposing, and determining will, which is never frustrated, but is always fulfilled. I know it is observed by some, that it is not said that God will sw~sai salvos facere,save all men, as implying what he would do; but that he would have all men swqh~nai salvos fieri, to be saved, as signifying their duty to seek after salvation, and use all means for the obtaining of it, which, when effected, is well pleasing to him. But the other sense is to be abundantly preferred.

3. That the all men whom God would have to be saved, are such whom he would also have to come to the knowledge of the truth;that is, not a mere nominal, but experimental knowledge of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as the way, the truth, and the life,or of the true way of life and salvation by him; and all those whom God saves, they are brought by his Spirit and grace to an acquaintance with these things, which is an act of his sovereign will, and an instance of his distinguishing favor; for whilst he hides these things from the wise and prudent, he reveals them to babes: even so, Father, says Christ, for so it seemed good in thy sight (Matthew 11:25, 26). Hence,

4. By all men whom God would have to be saved, we are not to understand every individual, of mankind, since it is not the will of God that all men, in this large sense, should be saved; for it is his will that some men should be damned, and that very justly, for their sins and transgressions; ungodly men, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation (Jude 1:4); and to whom it will be said, go, ye cursed, into everlasting fire.Moreover, if it was the will of God that every individual of mankind should be saved, then every one would be saved; for who hath resisted his will?or can do it? Does he not do according to His will in the armies of the heavens, and among the inhabitants of the earth? (Rom. 9:19; Dan. 4:35; Eph. 1:11). Nay, does he not work all things after the counsel of his own will?and it is certain that all men, in this large sense, are not saved, for some will go away into everlasting punishment, when the righteous shall go into eternal life (Matthew 25:46). Besides, the same persons God would have saved he would have come to the knowledge of the truth;but this is not his will with respect to every individual of mankind; were it his will, he would, no doubt, ,give to every man the means of it, which he has not done, nor does he; for many hundred years he suffered all nations to walk in their ways, and overlooked the times of their ignorance. He showed his word unto Jacob, his statutes and his judgments unto Israel; he hath not dealt so with any nation: and as for his judgments, they have not known them (Acts 14:16; 17:30; Ps.147:19, 20). From many to whom the Gospel does come, it is hid; some are given up to strong delusions to believe a lie, and few are savingly and experimentally acquainted with the truth as it is in Jesus.

5. There are indeed[3] many things urged in favor of this large sense of the phrase all men.As,

1. The exhortation of the apostle, in verse 1, that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men.But surely by all men,is not meant every in, individual man, that has been, is, or shall be, in the world; millions of men are dead and gone, for whom prayer is not to he made; many in hell, to whom it would be of no service; and many in heaven, who stand in no need of it; nor should we pray for such who have sinned the sin unto death (1 John 5:16) .Besides giving of thanks, as well as prayers, were to be made for all men; but surely the apostle’s meaning is not that the saints should give thanks for wicked men, and persecutors, and particularly for a persecuting Nero; nor for heretics or false teachers, such as Hymeneus and Alexander, whom he had delivered to Satan; the phrase is therefore to be taken in a limited and restrained sense, for some only, as appears from verse 2, for kings and for all in authority;that is, for men of the highest, as well as of the lowest rank and quality.

2. This sense is contended for, from the reason given in verse 5, for there is one God,"who is the God of all, the common Father and Creator of all men." Now, "it is said, thus he is the God of all men in particular; and so this argument must show, he would have all men in particular to be saved." To which may be replied, that God is the God of all men, as the God of nature and providence, but not as the God of grace, or in a covenant way, for then it would he no distinguishing favor or happiness to any people, that the Lord is their God; he is indeed the one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all,meaning believers, to whom the apostle writes (Eph. 4:6; Rom. 10:12); the same Lord is rich unto all,but then it is to them that call upon him.

3. This is argued for from the one Mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus;but it should be observed, that he is not said to be the Mediator between God and all men, and much less every individual man; and since he is expressly called, the Mediator of the new covenant (Heb. 12:24), he only can be a Mediator for those who are in that covenant; and it is plain, that he has not performed the several branches of his meditorial office, the oblation of himself on the cross, and his intercession in heaven, for every man; and though the nature he assumed common to all men, was endued with the best of human affections, and subject to the common law of humanity; yet, since it was assumed with a peculiar view to the elect of God, the seed of Abraham, they share all the peculiar blessings and favors arising from the assumption of such a nature.​

 

[Iosias]

4. It is observed that Christ is said, in verse 6, to give himself a ransom for all,which is understood of all men in particular; but it should be observed also, that this ransom is ajnti>lutron uJper pa>ntwn, a vicarious ransom substituted in the room and stead of all, whereby a full price was paid for all, and a plenary satisfaction made for the sins of all, which cannot be true of every individual man, for then no man could be justly condemned and punished. The sense of these words is best understood by what Christ himself has said, The Son of Man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and give his life a ransom for many (Matthew 20:28). So the Hebrew word lk, all,to which this answers, signifies sometimes many,a multitude; and sometimes only a part of a multitude, as Kimchi[4] has observed. Wherefore,

5. It is better by all men to understand some of all sorts, as Austin[5] did long ago, and is the sense in which the word all is to be taken in many places; as in Genesis 7:14; Matthew 4:23, 24; Joel 2:28; and is the meaning of it in verse 1, and well agrees with the matter of fact; since Christ has redeemed some of all nations, some out of every kindred, tongue, and people; and God saves and calls some of every rank and quality, as kings and peasants: of every state and condition, as rich and poor, bond and free; of every sex, male and female; of every age, young and old; and all sorts of sinners, greater and less. It is[6] indeed said, that, according to this limitation and sense of the words, God is willing some of all kindred and people should be saved;it may more truly and properly be said, that God would have all men to be damned, and that Christ died for none; since they for whom he died are none, according to this doctrine, comparatively to the greater number for whom he died not. To which I answer, it does not become us to say what might be more truly and properly said by God, or an inspired writer. However, this is certain, that as there is a whole world that lies in wickedness (1 John 5:19), so there is a world that shall be damned; which agrees with what the apostle Paul says in so many words, that the world shall be condemned, We are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned or damned with the world (1 Cor. 11:32). Moreover, though they for whom Christ died are but few comparatively, yet they cannot be said, in a comparative sense, or in any sense at all, to be none; and indeed, when considered by themselves, are a number which no man can number. But,

6. I rather think that by all men are meant the Gentiles, who are sometimes called the world, the whole world, and every creature (Rom. 11:12, 15; 1 John 2:2; Mark 16:15); which is the sense, I apprehend, in which it is used in verse
1, where the apostle exhorts, that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving thanks, be made for all men; for kings, and for all in authority;which was contrary to a notion that obtained among the Jews, of whom there were many in the primitive churches, that they should not pray for heathens and heathen magistrates.[7] The apostle enforces this exhortation from the advantage which would accrue to themselves; that we may lead a peaceable and quiet life, in all godliness and honesty;besides, says he, This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who will have all men,Gentiles, as well as Jews, to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth,and therefore has sent his ministers to preach the gospel among them; and the doctrine of the grace of God has appeared to these, all men,in order to bring them to it; for there is one God of Jews and Gentiles,who, by his gospel, has taken out of the latter a people for his name and glory; and there is one Mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus,who, not like Moses, who was the Mediator for the Jews only, but is for the Gentiles also; and is become our peace, that hath made both one, reconciled both in one body on the cross; preached peace to them that were afar off, and to them that were nigh; through whom, as the mediator, both have an access by one Spirit to the Father; who also gave himself a ransom for all (Eph. 2:14-18), to redeem the Gentiles as well as Jews; which was to be testified in due time to them, as it was by the apostle, who adds, Whereunto I am ordained a preacher and an apostle (I speak the truth in Christ, I lie not,) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity;and then concludes, I will therefore that men pray everywhere,and not be confined to the temple for public prayer, another Jewish notion and practice, lifting up holy hands without wrath and doubting.Seeing then there are some Jewish notions pointed at in the context, and the whole is adapted to the state and case of the Gentiles, under the Gospel dispensation, there is a good deal of reason to conclude that they are designed here; whereby another principle of the Jews is confuted, which is, that the Gentiles should receive no benefit by the Messiah when he came; and is the true reason of most, if not of all, those universal expressions, relating to the death of Christ, we meet with in Scripture. From the whole, since these words cannot be understood of every individual man, they cannot be thought to militate against God’s righteous decree of reprobation, nor to maintain and support universal redemption.
ENDNOTES:
[1] Vorst in loc.
[2] Ibid. et Amica Collat. cum Piscator, p. 8, 13, 28; Curcell. Relig. Christ. Instit. 50:6, c. 5, sect, 7, p. 366.
[3] Whitby. p. 120, 121; ed. 2. 117, 118.
[4] In lib. Shorash rad. llk
[5] Enchirid. e. 103.
[6] Whitby, p. 114; ed. 2. 111. To the same purpose, Curcellaeus, p. 365, and Limborch, p. 332
[7] See Lightfoot, vol. 1. p. 301.

Source: http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part 1/section_45.htm

 

[Iosias]

From The Cause of God and Truth
1. http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part 2/chapter3/chap3_intro.htm
2. http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part 2/chapter3/chap3_section01.htm
3. http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part 2/chapter3/chap3_section02.htm
4. http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part 2/chapter3/chap3_section03.htm
5. http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part 2/chapter3/chap3_section04.htm
6. http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part 2/chapter3/chap3_section05.htm
7. http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part 2/chapter3/chap3_section06.htm
8. http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part 2/chapter3/chap3_section07.htm
9. 1 John 2:2
10. 2 Peter 2:1
11. Hebrews 10:29

 

[HamletsChoice]

Thanks for the comments. I have read Boettner and others who explain that the truck load of verses don't mean what they are actually saying (all world etc). I have believed that for years but now I wonder if I haven't listened to men rather than the Word says. How can it be??

For me it all this explaining away reminds of the old days when the indy fundy baptist used to explain away verses on lordship and repentence. Red flags pop up when we use much ink to do away with those verses that don't fit our theology.

Tinstar,

I'm not trying to "explain away all those verses" nor am I trying to "say they don't mean what they are saying." I am only suggesting that you read them to discover what they indeed are really saying.

You must admit that when the Holy Spirit uses the word "World" to mean evil people only, the Roman Empire only, the lost only, numerous people of a small region only, Gentiles only, saved Gentiles only and then uses the word "all men" to mean men and women from Israel only, every man from Israel only, a great number of people only, men from every station of life only, every man only and every single man and woman, that when you read the words "World" and "all men" in Scripture you should be careful not to immediately presuppose and conclude them to mean every single person who has, is or will be living on planet Earth.

Don't you agree?

 

[bradfordl]

everybody thanks, and especially Heymikey thanks, I am in a fix with not being settled on this. I am trying to figure out the truth. I have no formal training but am intrusted to preach the gospel to the lost everyweek.

No formal training. Unsettled as to what is salvation. Not sure as to what theology is true and what is not. Who is entrusting you to preach to anyone? Less biblically literate folk who are impressed with how many scriptures you can spout? That does not constitute being qualified. If you are the most mature christian in whatever group is entrusting you to preach to the lost, do you think you owe them the admission that you are not qualified to do this and to encourage them to find someone who is? If that offends you, it may be that you see this position as your personal glory rather than service to the Lord. That might be worse than being an unqualified shepherd.

James 3:1 Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness.

 

[erin74]

I think that every preacher/leader is entitled to work out their theology. I know my dh (and our friends) found that theological college did not give them the answers, but helped them to know how to go about finding them. No minister is required to have all the answers, and I feel sorry for those who might feel that they do. I also hope that no congregation would feel that a pastor was unqualified to teach because they hadn't worked everything out yet.

It's not like he's the first person to struggle over L.

 

[cygnusx1]

I think that every preacher/leader is entitled to work out their theology. I know my dh (and our friends) found that theological college did not give them the answers, but helped them to know how to go about finding them. No minister is required to have all the answers, and I feel sorry for those who might feel that they do. I also hope that no congregation would feel that a pastor was unqualified to teach because they hadn't worked everything out yet.

It's not like he's the first person to struggle over L.

Quite true Erin , no-one should be too quick to take a view without serious study , it took me three years to decide for myself , and even now , I can see why many argue for a universal atonement .

For me , it came down to two sides .
1. The side that used scriptures with "world" and "all" in them .
2. The side that speaks of what the Atonement actually is , ie, the nature of the atonement.

Eventually I had time to see how scripture uses that word "world" , and seldom , if ever is that word used to mean everyone. Also , the word "all" is always to be looked at in the immediate context , otherwise contradictions abound (see Romans 5)

I also noticed several times Christ is said to "take away , the sin of the world" ...the word "world" didn't bother me , the words "take away" did.

At last I accepted the atonement as an event which guarantees the salvation of sinners , secures redemption and truly saves ........ this view was grounded on such Biblical words as "Expiation" "satisfaction" "Reconciliation" "propitiation" etc .... all of which speak of something accomplished , not waiting to be completed by such things as faith.

If God's wrath is placated then it is placated for all or some or none......... to suggest God is placated for all sinners and then preach Hell is impossible , unless God can change , but He cannot.

 

[heymikey80]

everybody thanks, and especially Heymikey thanks, I am in a fix with not being settled on this. I am trying to figure out the truth. I have no formal training but am intrusted to preach the gospel to the lost everyweek.

When a calvanist preaches to remain in his box he cannot give out true glad tidings: "Perhaps Christ died for you." "Maybe God so loved you." "Christ shed His blood for you, perhaps." "Salvation has been provided for you, maybe." (qoutes taken from a online article) nevertheless I have found myself being careful to same the same to the lost. I don't rememember Paul saying things like this.

Right. He didn't. In point of fact we have only a few records of Paul's evangelistic addresses. They're often in Acts. I normally remember them through the Athens sermon.

It presents a number of things: monotheism; the judgement of God on everyone; and the fact that both this judgement and salvation from it are proved through the Resurrection of Jesus.

Something it might be said is more similar to modern preaching appears in Peter's Acts 2 sermon, but it also has some interesting distinctions. It has a direct accusation of the people. It holds out a direct, personal plea to them to be saved. And Peter asserts, "This promise is to you and your children, and all who are afar off ...."

So inasmuch as "who died for whom," I don't think there's a direct answer. But in terms of making a personal plea, I think there's a direct answer. I do not know but I think 2 Corinthians 5:17-21 could also be considered a direct, personal plea. And there are others like it.

All without saying, "Jesus died for you." Instead, the closest it comes is the more accusatory, "Jesus, whom you crucified." (Btw, this can also be found in Hebrews 6:4-6, "seeing that they've recrucified [Jesus]").

I too saw that the calvinistic commentators don't agree on the excuses they use to discard some of these verses.

Disagreement, though, doesn't indicate a mistake. It indicates that Scripture offers a variety of answers, many of which may well be valid.

PS let me add this to this kinda off the path Judas thought:
2Pe 2:1 But false prophets were also among the people, as also false teachers will be among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, and denying the Master who has bought them, bringing swift destruction on themselves.

Yes, Jesus owns and rules the entire universe, including false prophets.

Heb 10:29 how much worse punishment do you think will be thought worthy to receive, the one trampling the Son of God, and having counted common the blood of the covenant in which he was sanctified, and having insulted the Spirit of Grace?

This one's more interesting, but if you pull in the patterning verse immediately prior, then it's more clear.

Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses.
​

The Apostle's use of a national law in Moses indicates visible membership in a community, not limited to some inner group of "true believers."

To me this is important to understanding the verse. The Apostle's gone through picture after picture of Moses, showing the correspondence between Moses and the greater covenant, the New Covenant of Christ. Prior to this he points out Moses sprinkled all the people with blood, sanctifying them to the Old Covenant.

Something of this is expected to correspond to "the blood of the covenant that sanctified him." Is it figurative language, and thus he's talking about inner sanctification of a believer? I have to ask, where does that correspond with the Apostle's argument about Moses (10:28)?

To me, it doesn't.

The Apostle's talking about membership in a covenant, here. And that quite clearly includes people who are not chosen (cf. Romans 9, or by example the ancient nation of Israel itself). The Apostle is corresponding the two covenants -- those who were "set apart" (Greek: "sanctified") as Christians by being members of the Church of Christ. They've signed up to the New Covenant. They're involved, even at a spiritual level (cf Heb 6:4-6). Yet they don't rely on Christ.

Just as an aside, I was also thinking it may be that "blood of the covenant" is alluding to the Lord's Supper, "this is My blood of the covenant" Mt 26:28 Again, another explanation that seems viable to me.

 

[Tinstar]

Thanks all for much good advice. I am resting on the notion that it's not so important that I believe or disbelieve in one of Dort's point but to believe what the bible says.

Hamlet I see your reasoning.

Bradford: if you would have comprenhended what I said and not answered before hearing the whole matter "I preach to the lost" maybe you not have been so quick to show your pride. It's evangelism that I was talking about. The lost I preach to didn't choose me or entrust me but God has given me this work. I have preached many messages to the lost and churchfolk. No formal training is required by God. Right John, Peter, Matthew etc? Pauls summed up his formal training to be dung. Jesus even sent out a healed demoniac to preach. The places I preach you would probably be scared to be in. I doubt you would want to leave your secure man made pulpit (pulpit not in scriptures) there would be no profit $ in it for you. You reek of professionalism that thing which even Llyod Jones who was a paid chruchman detested. What you have said is exactly what the pharisees said about those fishermen who were going around preaching the gospel.

Heymikey great! I wished you lived next door it would be a blessing to sit and talk with you on these things.

Originally Posted by Tinstar
PS let me add this to this kinda off the path Judas thought:
2Pe 2:1 But false prophets were also among the people, as also false teachers will be among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, and denying the Master who has bought them, bringing swift destruction on themselves.


Yes, Jesus owns and rules the entire universe, including false prophets.

Yes Mikey but it says bought not rules...

 

[HamletsChoice]

Thanks all for much good advice. I am resting on the notion that it's not so important that I believe or disbelieve in one of Dort's point but to believe what the bible says.

Hamlet I see your reasoning.

Originally Posted by Tinstar
PS let me add this to this kinda off the path Judas thought:
2Pe 2:1 But false prophets were also among the people, as also false teachers will be among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, and denying the Master who has bought them, bringing swift destruction on themselves.


Yes, Jesus owns and rules the entire universe, including false prophets.

Yes Mikey but it says bought not rules...

The best interpretation I have ever read on 2 Peter 2:1 is from John Owen's Death of Death in the Death of Christ. Pls see the following extract from this work on 2 Peter 2:1. Tinstar, I highly recommend you read this entire book and see if you have any doubts regarding limited atonement when you finish.

This is the best book I have ever read, even though it's subject is limited atonement it convinced me of the truth's of Calvinism a long time ago.

The next place is much insisted on, — namely, 2 Pet. ii. 1, “There shall be false teachers, denying the Lord that bought them, and bringing upon themselves swift destruction.” All things here, as to any proof of the business in hand, are exceedingly dark, uncertain, and doubtful.

Uncertain, that by the Lord is meant the Lord Christ, the word in the original being Δεσπότης, seldom or never ascribed to him; uncertain, whether the purchase or buying of these false teachers refer to the eternal redemption by the blood of Christ, or a deliverance by God’s goodness from the defilement of the world in idolatry, or the like, by the knowledge of the truth, — which last the text expressly affirms; uncertain, whether the apostle speaketh of this purchase according to the reality of the thing, or according to their apprehension and their profession.

On the other side, it is most certain, — First, That there are no spiritual distinguishing fruits of redemption ascribed to these false teachers, but only common gifts of light and knowledge, which Christ hath purchased for many for whom he did not make his soul a ransom. Secondly, That, according to our adversaries, the redemption of any by the blood of Christ cannot be a peculiar aggravatior of the sins of any, because they say he died for all; and yet this buying of the false teachers is held out as an aggravation of their sin in particular.

Of the former uncertainties, whereon our adversaries build their inference of universal redemption (which yet can by no means be wire-drawn thence, were they most certain in their sense), I shall give a brief account, and then speak something as to the proper intendment of the place.

For the first, It is most uncertain whether Christ, as mediator, be here intended by Lord or no. There is not any thing in the text to enforce us so to conceive, nay, the contrary seems apparent,

— First, Because in the following verses, God only, as God, with his dealings towards such as these, is mentioned; of Christ not a word. Secondly, The name Δεσπότης, properly “Herus,” attended by dominion and sovereignty, is not usually, if at all, given to our Saviour in the New Testament; he is everywhere called Κύριος, nowhere clearly Δεσπότης, as is the Father, Luke ii. 29, Acts iv.24, and in divers other places. Besides, if it should appear that this name were given our Saviour in any one place, doth it therefore follow that it must be so here? nay, is the name proper for our Saviour, in the work of redemption? Δεσπότης is such a Lord or Master as refers to servants and subjection; the end of Christ’s purchasing any by his blood being in the Scripture always and constantly expressed in other terms, of more endearment. It is, then, most uncertain that Christ should be here understood by the word Lord.

— Secondly, But suppose he should, it is most uncertain that by buying of these false teachers is meant his purchasing of them with the ransom of his blood; for,

— First, The apostle insisteth on a comparison with the times of the Old Testament, and the false prophets that were then amongst the people, backing his assertion with divers examples out of the Old Testament in the whole chapter following. Now, the word ἀγοράζω, here used, signifieth primarily the buying of things; translatitiously, the redemption of persons; — and the word פָּדָה in the Old Testament, answering thereunto, signifieth any deliverance, as Deut. vii. 8, xv. 15, Jer. xv. 21, with innumerable other places: and, therefore, some such deliverance is here only intimated.

Secondly, Because here is no mention of blood, death, price, or offering of Jesus Christ, as in other places, where proper redemption is treated on; especially, some such expression is added where the word ἀγοράζω is used to express it, as 1 Cor. vi. 20, Rev. v. 9, which otherwise holds out of itself deliverance in common from any trouble.

Thirdly, The apostle setting forth at large the deliverance they had had, and the means thereof, verse 20, affirms it to consist in the “escaping of the pollutions of the world,” as idolatry, false worship, and the like, “through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ;” plainly declaring that their buying was only in respect of this separation from the world, in respect of the enjoyment of the knowledge of the truth; but of washing in the blood of the Lamb, he is wholly silent. Plainly, there is no purchase mentioned of these false teachers, but a deliverance, by God’s dispensations towards them, from the blindness of Judaism or Paganism, by the knowledge of the gospel; whereby the Lord bought them to be servants to him, as their supreme head. So that our adversaries’ argument from this place is this:— “God the Lord, by imparting the knowledge of the gospel, and working them to a professed acknowledgment of it and subjection unto it, separated and delivered from the world divers that were saints in show, — really wolves and hypocrites, of old ordained to condemnation: therefore, Jesus Christ shed his blood for the redemption and salvation of all reprobates and damned persons in the whole world.” Who would not admire our adversaries’ chemistry?

— Thirdly, Neither is it more certain that the apostle speaketh of the purchase of the wolves and hypocrites, in respect of the reality of the purchase, and not rather in respect of that estimation which others had of them, — and, by reason of their outward seeming profession, ought to have had, — and of the profession that themselves made to be purchased by him whom they pretended to preach to others; as the Scripture saith [of Ahaz], “The gods of Damascus smote him,” because he himself so imagined and professed, 2 Chron. xxviii. 23. The latter hath this also to render it probable, — namely, that it is the perpetual course of the Scripture, to ascribe all those things to every one that is in the fellowship of the church which are proper to them only who are true spiritual members of the same; as to be saints, elect, redeemed, etc. Now, the truth is, from this their profession, that they were bought by Christ, might the apostle justly, and that according to the opinion of our adversaries, press these false teachers, by the way of aggravating their sin. For the thing itself, their being bought, it could be no more urged to them than to heathens and infidels that never heard of the name of the Lord Jesus.

Now, after all this, if our adversaries can prove universal redemption from this text, let them never despair of success in any thing they undertake, be it never so absurd, fond, or foolish. But when they have wrought up the work already cut out for them, and proved, — first, That by the Lord is meant Christ as mediator; secondly, That by buying is meant spiritual redemption by the blood of the Lamb; thirdly, That these false teachers were really and effectually so redeemed, and not only so accounted because of the church; fourthly, That those who are so redeemed may perish, contrary to the express Scripture, Rev. xiv. 4; fifthly, Manifest the strength of this inference, “Some in the church who have acknowledged Christ to be their purchaser, fall away to blaspheme him, and perish forever: therefore, Christ bought and redeemed all that ever did or shall perish;” sixthly, That that which is common to all is a peculiar aggravation to the sin of any one more than others; — I will assure them they shall have more work provided for them, which themselves know for a good part already where to find.

 

[Iosias]

Tinstar, I highly recommend you read this entire book and see if you have any doubts regarding limited atonement when you finish.

It can be found online here.