If faith is a gift from God...

[FreeGrace2]

Where do you get this stuff? The term "all the people" is Israel.

Verse 15 says that the atonement is for the transgressions of the children of Israel.

See hammster's post #344. He was real clear.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Circular reasoning. The "community" is the covenantal community.

You severely err sir. You guys are really desperate to make the bible say what you want it to say.

No, boxer, we aren't desperate. We BELIEVE what the Bible says. It is reformed theology that has the problem of finding verses that clearly says what reformed theology claims.

 

[Jack Terrence]

John 3:16 has nothing in the context for kosmos to mean less than the entirety of humanity. Can you show from context that it doesn't mean everyone? You haven't yet.

The Father had not revealed to Jesus that the Gentiles would later be included. How could Jesus have understood the term "kosmos" to include the Gentiles when God had not showed Him that? He was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. It has been noted that you totally ignored this.

Here's some verses that telll us who He came to save:
For whom did Jesus come to save? Thesick, the lost, the poor, the unrighteous, the ungodly, and sinners.

Matt 9:12
On hearing this, Jesus said, it is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. Are just the elect “sick”?

Luke 19:10to save what was lost. Are just the elect “lost”?
For the Son of Man came to seek and
Luke 4:18
The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, because He has anointed Me to preach good news to the poor. Are just the elect poor?

1 Peter 3:18
For Christ died for sins once FOR ALL, the righteous (Christ) for the unrighteous (humanity, all of them), to bring you to God. Are just the elect unrighteous?

Rom 5:6
You see, just at the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died forthe ungodly. Are just the elect ungodly?

Mark 2:17
On hearing this, Jesus said to them, it is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners. Are just the elect sinners?

Isa 61:1
The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me; because the Lord hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound;

If Christ died for just the elect, then reformed theology leads to universalism, because of these verses. That means the non elect are neither sick, lost, poor, unrighteous, ungodly, or sinners. So they don’t need salvation. And Christ wouldn’t need to die for any of them.

Tell us why Jesus NEVER preached to a Gentile nor healed a Gentile. I will tell you why. Because God had sent Him not to the Gentiles, but only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Therefore, the term "kosmos" to Him was Israel. The word was not expanded to include Gentiles until Paul.

Revelation was progressive sir. So John 3:16 cannot be used as a "proof text" for the universal atonement doctrine because it referred to Israel only at the time Jesus used it.

This is linear logic.

 

[Jack Terrence]

And you haven't shown that any aliens in the land were excluded from the atonement.

The old covenant atoning sacrifices were for sins against the ceremonial law. There was no sacrifice for sins against the moral law. Those who sinned against the moral law were to be put to death.

Aliens were NOT under the ceremonial law UNTIL they became a part of Israel through circumcision. Ergo....

 

[Jack Terrence]

See hammster's post #344. He was real clear.

I ask for bread and you give me a stone.

 

[Jack Terrence]

No, boxer, we aren't desperate. We BELIEVE what the Bible says. It is reformed theology that has the problem of finding verses that clearly says what reformed theology claims.

Come on! You know that you were brought up to think that the term "kosmos" means every human being and that you impose that definition upon the bible.

 

[janxharris]

The Father had not revealed to Jesus that the Gentiles would later be included. How could Jesus have understood the term "kosmos" to include the Gentiles when God had not showed Him that? He was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. It has been noted that you totally ignored this.

Tell us why Jesus NEVER preached to a Gentile nor healed a Gentile. I will tell you why. Because God had sent Him not to the Gentiles, but only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Therefore, the term "kosmos" to Him was Israel. The word was not expanded to include Gentiles until Paul.

Revelation was progressive sir. So John 3:16 cannot be used as a "proof text" for the universal atonement doctrine because it referred to Israel only at the time Jesus used it.

This is linear logic.

John 1
v.4
In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.

vv.6,7
There was a man sent from God whose name was John. He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all might believe.

v.9
The true light that gives light to everyone was coming into the world.

 

[Jack Terrence]

Yes, exactly. Atonement for the aliens.

Nope! Verse 19 says that the sins of the children of Israel were transferred upon the goat's head and the goat was then sent away. therefore, only the sins of the children of Israel were sent away.

Yet, you [Hammster] said this in the previous post:

Thanks for showing that the aliens were included in the atonement.

Hammster botched that up real good.

Brackets mine

 

[janxharris]

Circular reasoning. The "community" is the covenantal community.

Why?

First, it literally says, "the sins of all the people of the congregation." That would be the congregation of the children of Israel (19:2).

'all the members of the community' in no way excludes aliens. It is an inclusive statement.

Second, I have shown that the sins of the children of Israel were put on the head of the goat (vs. 19). There is no mention of the sins of foreigners being put on the goat's head. So it is the covenantal community that is in view. You cannot make it otherwise. Sorry.

vv. 29 and 33 includes aliens.

Third, the atoning sacrifices were for sins against the ceremonial law because there was no sacrifice for sins against the moral law. Those who sinned against the moral law were to be put to death.

Only Israel was under the ceremonial law. Therefore, the atoning sacrifices were for them alone. Only foreigners who became a part of Israel through the rite of circumcision were included because they had become a member of Israel.

You severely err sir. You guys are really desperate to make the bible say what you want it to say.

So you are arguing that all non-Israelites, whether aliens in Israel or Gentiles throughout the world, had no access to atonement. They were without recourse to salvation?

What does this mean?
Matthew 11:23,24
For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day. But I tell you that it will be more bearable for Sodom on the day of judgement than for you.”

 

[Jack Terrence]

John 1
v.4
In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.

vv.6,7
There was a man sent from God whose name was John. He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all might believe.

v.9
The true light that gives light to everyone was coming into the world.

You did NOT answer why Jesus was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. How could He have been light to every human being if He was not sent to every human being?

Therefore, "all men" in John 1 refers to Israel. Why are you so commited to ignoring the line upon line principle? Verse 11 says that He came "UNTO HIS OWN."

I will send you a bottle of Bic's White Out so you can white out verse 11 from your bible.

 

[OzSpen]

Do you realize that if I replaced "limited atonement" with "universal atonement" and "Calvinists" with "Arminian" (and other references), it would make the same argument against you?

Just thought I'd point that out. I'm sure it's some sort of logical fallacy, though.

Yours is a non-argument. It provides no answers to the issues raised. It seems as though you love being contrary.

 

[OzSpen]

We see the same kind of illogical reasoning in 1 Tim 4:10 as well:
For it is for this we labor and strive, because we have fixed our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of believers.

Apparently the reformed read this as "Savior of all believers, especially of believers". Which makes no sense.

You hit the theological nail on the head. Both 1 John 2:2 and 1 Tim 4:10 make it very clear two groups of people are being spoken of for whom Christ's unlimited atonement is provided:

(1) In 1 John 2:2, they are (a) 'our sins' (sins of those who are now believers), and (b) 'and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world' - the rest of humanity, besides the believers.

(2) In 1Tim 4:10, they are (a) 'Savior of all people', and (b) 'especially of those who believe' - Christians.

Both verses put it in black and white: Christ provides salvation/propitiation for believers and the whole of the world. It would be illogical to make both verses say that Christ provides salvation/propitiation for believers AND believers.

I hope you realise that this kind of thing happens when one is promoting a position that conflicts with Scripture.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Do you realize that if I replaced "limited atonement" with "universal atonement" and "Calvinists" with "Arminian" (and other references), it would make the same argument against you?

Just thought I'd point that out. I'm sure it's some sort of logical fallacy, though.

You engage in the deconstruction of words as good as any postmodern deconstructionist I have read with your constantly making world = part of the world; world does not mean everyone; everyone = some; all = many; you're not taking the context into consideration, etc.

There is no way in the world that replacing Calvinist with Arminian would make the same argument because you are the one deconstructing language to make it fit your presuppositions. See the examples I have just given.

 

[Jack Terrence]

'all the members of the community' in no way excludes aliens. It is an inclusive statement.

Verse 19 excludes them. It says that the sins of "children of Israel" were put on the head of the goat. Then the goat was sent away carrying the sins of the children of Israel.

vv. 29 and 33 includes aliens.

Aliens were excluded in verse 19.

So you are arguing that all non-Israelites, whether aliens in Israel or Gentiles throughout the world, had no access to atonement. They were without recourse to salvation?

The old testament sacrifices were NOT about salvation. If they were, then why was it necessary for Christ to die?

 

[OzSpen]

No, boxer, we aren't desperate. We BELIEVE what the Bible says. It is reformed theology that has the problem of finding verses that clearly says what reformed theology claims.

 

[janxharris]

You did NOT answer why Jesus was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. How could He have been light to every human being if He was not sent to every human being?

It is true that Jesus came to the Jews for it fulfils prophecy. Indeed, he will come back to them. Even so, that does not prevent a universal understanding of John 1:4.

Therefore, "all men" in John 1 refers to Israel. Why are you so commited to ignoring the line upon line principle? Verse 11 says that He came "UNTO HIS OWN."

I will send you a case of Bic's White Out so you can white out verse 11 from your bible.

I would say that John 1 includes verses that talk about the unlimited scope of his ministry. Verse 11 does seem to refer to Israel.

 

[janxharris]

Verse 19 excludes them. It says that the sins of "children of Israel" were put on the head of the goat. Then the goat was sent away carrying the sins of the children of Israel.

Aliens were excluded in verse 19.

...and included in verse 29 & 33.

The old testament sacrifices were NOT about salvation. If they were, then why was it necessary for Christ to die?

Agreed.

 

[Jack Terrence]

You hit the theological nail on the head. Both 1 John 2:2 and 1 Tim 4:10 make it very clear two groups of people are being spoken of for whom Christ's unlimited atonement is provided:

(1) In 1 John 2:2, they are (a) 'our sins' (sins of those who are now believers), and (b) 'and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world' - the rest of humanity, besides the believers.

Nope! (a) 'our sins' (sins of us Jews), and (b) Gentiles too.

(2) In 1Tim 4:10, they are (a) 'Savior of all people', and (b) 'especially of those who believe' - Christians.

Your syntax is off here. The preceding verse indicates that the term "all men" are those who HAVE the promise of eternal life. The expression "especially to those who believe" identifies the condition by which God IS their Savior.

The plain fact is that God is NOT Savior to the unbelieving. He is judge to them.

Both verses put it in black and white: Christ provides salvation/propitiation for believers and the whole of the world. It would be illogical to make both verses say that Christ provides salvation/propitiation for believers AND believers.

It does NOT say that God provides salvation. You cleverly slipped the word "provides" into the text. It says that He IS the Savior of all men, that is, those who have eternal life through faith. God is NOT Savior to the unbelieving. He is their judge.

You have abandoned common sense.

 

[OzSpen]

The Father had not revealed to Jesus that the Gentiles would later be included. How could Jesus have understood the term "kosmos" to include the Gentiles when God had not showed Him that? He was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. It has been noted that you totally ignored this.

Tell us why Jesus NEVER preached to a Gentile nor healed a Gentile. I will tell you why. Because God had sent Him not to the Gentiles, but only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Therefore, the term "kosmos" to Him was Israel. The word was not expanded to include Gentiles until Paul.

Revelation was progressive sir. So John 3:16 cannot be used as a "proof text" for the universal atonement doctrine because it referred to Israel only at the time Jesus used it.

This is linear logic.

Jesus had a word for you, Boxer:
Matthew 22:29, 'But Jesus answered them, “You are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God"' (ESV).

You are in error about Jesus NEVER healing a Gentile. The Scriptures refute your false statement:

Matthew 8:5-13,
5 When he entered Capernaum, a centurion came forward to him, appealing to him, 6 “Lord, my servant is lying paralysed at home, suffering terribly.” 7 And he said to him, “I will come and heal him.” 8 But the centurion replied, “Lord, I am not worthy to have you come under my roof, but only say the word, and my servant will be healed. 9 For I too am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. And I say to one, ‘Go’, and he goes, and to another, ‘Come’, and he comes, and to my servant, ‘Do this’, and he does it.” 10 When Jesus heard this, he marvelled and said to those who followed him, “Truly, I tell you, with no one in Israel have I found such faith. 11 I tell you, many will come from east and west and recline at table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, 12 while the sons of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” 13 And to the centurion Jesus said, “Go; let it be done for you as you have believed.” And the servant was healed at that very moment (ESV).

AND

Mark 7:25-30,
25 But immediately a woman whose little daughter had an unclean spirit heard of him and came and fell down at his feet. 26 Now the woman was a Gentile, a Syrophoenician by birth. And she begged him to cast the demon out of her daughter. 27 And he said to her, “Let the children be fed first, for it is not right to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs.” 28 But she answered him, “Yes, Lord; yet even the dogs under the table eat the children's crumbs.” 29 And he said to her, “For this statement you may go your way; the demon has left your daughter.” 30 And she went home and found the child lying in bed and the demon gone (ESV).

Those verses refute your false theological statement.


Oz

 

[Jack Terrence]

...and included in verse 29 & 33.

Nope.! The expression "all the people of the congregation" refers to the assembly of Israel (19:2).

Agreed.

Then you don't need to make atonement for aliens. Atonement was for breaking the ceremonial law. Aliens were not under the ceremonial law.