• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.

So who did Christ die for?

Discussion in 'Salvation (Soteriology)' started by ScottEmerson, May 23, 2002.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. ScottEmerson

    ScottEmerson I Like Traffic Lights

    366
    +0
    Christian
    Christ's death was a means to justify those who had faith. Great! But where does it say that he did NOT die for those who don't have faith - we can agree that those who don't have faith are not justified, but you're presupposing still that all who Christ died for will be saved. The verse reads such only with such a presupposition.
     
  2. LouisBooth

    LouisBooth Well-Known Member

    +62
    Christian
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    "But where does it say that he did NOT die for those who don't have "

    Umm...Goes right along with what I said... "For those God forewknew he also predetined to be conformed to the likness of his son." Those are who Christ died for as it says in my above posts and the quoted verses. YOu can also look at 8:32 and the "us all" in that context is those described in this verse..the elect. Christ was given to death for the elect, no one else.
     
  3. HITR

    HITR Hand Crafted

    97
    +3
    Non-Denom
    Married
    US-Republican
    Nah, no need for that. The problem I have is when a comment is made about all believers, and that is prefaced with something like, 'Everyone falls in one of these (x/#) no matter what they think/say'...that sort of thing. Unless, o'course, we're talking some clear-cut issue, such as salvation is only through believing in Christ Jesus by faith, and not by works. **grin/nods**

    To what end? What exactly is the ultimatum for you if you disagree with a statement by someone you don't think knows what they're talking about. No, it was my opinion, pure and simple.

    To what end? In this instance, by being made to be a part of the problem. That was the ultimatum of sorts in this case. I disagreed with that narrowed list, and I became a part of some problem lookin' ya in the face. :wave: So it seemed, anyway. **shrug** But perhaps you misunderstood what I was saying, so let me try that again. The ultimatum was that every Christian falls into one of x/# of categories, and that's it. No matter what they say or think. Bottom line. The actual 'or else' was left open-ended, but nonetheless the ultimatum wasn't mine. Did that make better sense? So, I would still stand on the statement that it's not merely opinion. But that's just my pov, for what it's worth.

    But, please tell me why you think...

    Alright, since ya asked me so nicely...heh heh heh **grin** Looking at what you wrote,

    Now, as I've said before, there can only be three camps on this. You can word it different but every view will fall into one of these catagories: [then post proceeds to three views, which do not cover all views - including my own pov]

    It's pretty clear that this was not merely opinion. I've accentuated the areas that show that you believe quite steadfast that your opinion is actually factual. Yet I am not one of the every one that falls into one of the three camps outlined here. I must be certain that I am not the only one (I'd submit that there are several out there that hold very similar views, and likewise don't identify with any of the three camps). So yes, I still think that it was inaccurate at best, because it was exclusive of some, and those are not the only three positions. Seriously, though, if you disagree with this, then you've gotta :help: me see where I've misread your posts, because this was a pretty adament claim. Honestly, Reformationist, I don't know if the 'more widely accepted viewpoints' fall into these three. I don't really study up a whole lot on the various theological views of many men regarding this view (either side).

    Gee, Reformationist, I hope that you don't find this too offensive, but I'd like to clear the air and say that all the bolded imo's and iyo's will get pretty old pretty quick. Can we try to avoid all subtle negativity and just talk? Alright? :)

    Sorry but I didn't just 'come up' with this doctrine.

    Did I imply that?! Sorry 'bout that if I did. I didn't know whether it came from you personally, or if it had been adopted from some highly esteemed theologian (or any other number of possibilities). All I could truly tell was that it was an inclusive list of three items, and though it was stated that all would fall under these, I found that to be untrue. That's all I was talking about. But forgive me, it seems that you were offended. :sorry:

    ...but not offer alternatives. It's a very safe position.

    Okay, I'll wait for your comments on what I previously posted. That sound good? Take your time, and I'll be talking with ya. I saved the following for last, because of the responses I needed to give to the things you posed in your last post. Didn't want to extend a hand of forgiveness just to have to bring it up two minutes later in order to respond. Defeats the point, doncha think?!

    It was uncalled for. I apologize. :sorry:

    We've all been here, and I'm definately no exception! **sigh** Any offense is forgiven and forgotten, so onto bigger and better things, deal?! **extends hand with a grin**

    Peace in Christ, HITR
     
  4. ScottEmerson

    ScottEmerson I Like Traffic Lights

    366
    +0
    Christian
    You're still jumping a step here, Louis. Even if we assume that God specifically knew who was going to be saved, we can't just escape "CHrist died for all." If he were indeed to mean us all in the other passage, he would have included a plural personal pronoun. I'll even agree that in this passage he did say that Christ died for us - "Christ died for Christians." Now if we say, "Christ died for Christians and non-Christians alike," there is no contradiction there - the latter verse is said with the words, "Christ died for all."

    Let's face it. We can assume that only a select few will be saved. We can assume that the Holy Spirit only quickens the heart of those that will be saved. We can assume all four of the five points, but there is still not enough BIblical evidence to prove that Christ died only for the elect. Augustine didn't think so, Calvin didn't think so - that only came when the Synod of Dort came about, as a response to Arminius.
     
  5. Reformationist

    Reformationist Non nobis domine sed tuo nomine da gloriam

    +412
    United States
    Christian
    Single
    Okay. I see your point. I do think prefacing it would take some of the sting out of it though:

    In my opinion, there can only be three camps on this. People can word their position differently but I believe it to be semantical window dressing for a view that will still fall into one of the three catagories.

    Again, I see your point and it seems like the addition of the few bolded words definitely changes the tone of my statement. At this point the contrary view will, more or less, be "I don't agree with your opinion."

    So, in other words, an issue that you believe to be "clear-cut?" (This was a joke, not a malicious jab) :D

    Sorry, they were two unrelated statements. I wasn't saying if you don't agree with me you are part of the problem. I was saying that if you do nothing more than say you disagree and then don't post your own rebuttal it's not really conducive to, if nothing more, the mutual gain of understanding the other's postion.

    I still don't see the "or else." "Or else" what? You better agree with me "or else" you disagree with me? That's not much of an ultimatum. Again, it might be easier to swallow if I said, "In my opinion, every Christian falls into one of x/# of categories, and that's it. No matter how they define their belief I still think it will fall into one of these catagories. It might not be neat and precise but the premise of their belief will be clear-cut."

    Okay, with regard to who Christ died for, what is your view and we can see if my theory works.

    Do you think if I said, "there is no such thing as gravity, and that's a fact" that it would be true? Even if I said, "and that's a fact" it's still my opinion. So, unless I can persuade you that my opinion is the truth then it doesn't really matter if I say "There are only three catagories" or "My opinion is that there are only three catagories." They are both my opinion. With regard to the things of God I can only post what I believe God has revealed to me through my studies. Nothing is "clear-cut" regarding God. That's why so much of it is faith, or believing in that which we have not seen. If it was, evangelists would do much better when ministering to "tangibility based people."

    Again I ask, "would it make you feel better if I said, hey, here's my opinion but I don't really think it's the truth?" To me, that's about as silly as someone saying, "I believe in God, but that's it. I don't want to hear or be involved in any of that religion stuff. Too many rules."

    I think the issue is not so much that I think my opinion is factual as that maybe you find that kind of steadfast confidence arrogant. Personally, I prefer to discuss differences in theological viewpoints with someone who believes they are right and has studied enough to support that view scriptually. I don't care to debate with someone who believes a certain way because "their pastor told them" or "that's what their parents believe." If that's all it is for someone then most likely they haven't really studied the Word themselves and cannot intelligently discuss the different possibilities.

    Agreed. However, "subtle negativity" is never my intent. I only do that to facilitate a better understanding of the point I'm relaying. Outward sarcasm, yes, subtle negativity, never. :p

    Sounds good. And I will go back and try and address any points you brought up that I have an opinion on. :)

    Thanks.

    God bless.
     
  6. LouisBooth

    LouisBooth Well-Known Member

    +62
    Christian
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    "Even if we assume that God specifically knew who was going to be saved, we can't just escape "CHrist died for all." "

    We can if we look at the context of the statements. I have shown you the audience Paul is talking to and an real example to show you that the word all doesn't mean everyone in the whole world if you look at the context. The same rule applies. If you would like to grab another verse to look at we can, but until then we really have nothing further to discuss if you want to just dig your heels in and say no. that's your opinion and you're entitled to it. :)
     
  7. ScottEmerson

    ScottEmerson I Like Traffic Lights

    366
    +0
    Christian
    Let's look at your comments, Louis to see the train of thought:

    This state your a priori.

    I had given you four.

    More a priori.

    THis is non-sequitur here, and this may be the example that you're trying to show, but it doesnt' follow. You've got people becoming righteous, but it doesn't say anything abuot specifying that a death was for everyone! If we take verse 18 and 19 together, we see that his death brings about justification for all men, but righteousness for many. What can we conclude from this? Is there a contradiction? If we conclude that many is many, what do we do with the fact that Adam only resulted in "many" becoming sinners, and not all?


    Note by SE: There is nothing here about John 3:16 that I have seen, and I've presented a HUGE amount of literature that shows that world does NOT mean elect.

    I then said, "Yes. Let's look at the verse in its complete context. The gift came upon all men and many will become saved. It seems looking at the entire context and using both verses that not all who are offered the free gift are made righteous - only the ones who accept the gift receive it."

    So if I'm talking to a group of people at my church and say, "All men need oxygen to breathe," I'm only meaning the people I'm talking to? I'm only meaning Christians? If this was specifically to the church, how do we know it counts for us? Paul is specific about the things that are specifically for the church - "Now concerning the things you wrote me about," and when he's writing universally. Let us also remember that there were unsaved people in the church he was writing to - check out some of the ends of his letters. So did Christ die for those people who were members of the church but not the Church?

    More circular reasoning.

    ""showing Scripturally that Christ's death HAS to equal salvation. "

    Hmm..okay, I get ya. So you think that Christ's death (ie sacrifice) is not for the remission of sins? Have you read the book of hebrews? Try romans too. If you don't know where ask I'll point you to a specific verse...time to shine can ya find it?"

    Ignoring the idea that we have to choose? YOu haven't addressed that yet.

    A priori

    Still more a priori, assuming that death = salvation, with no scripture to back it up. In every passage you bring up, there is no exclusion, saying that Christ could not have died for every human - just that Christ's death can lead to salvation, but not necessarily so.

    SO those who are saved, God foreknew. Still nothing about death=salvation. Still relying on a priori assumptions.

    And we get to the last post. You showed me the audience, and now I've shown you that the audience isn't as specific as you make it out to be. What real example are you talking about? Asking if all the people like you? Does Paul's writings apply to members of the church who weren't members of the Church?

    Here's four - my original four, by the way:

    (2 Pet. 3:9) The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.

    (1 Tim. 2:4) (God) desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

    (1 Jn. 2:2*) He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.

    (1 Tim. 4:10) 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.
     
  8. LouisBooth

    LouisBooth Well-Known Member

    +62
    Christian
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    "If we conclude that many is many, what do we do with the fact that Adam only resulted in "many" becoming sinners, and not all? "

    YOu didn't bother to check the greek did you?

    "Ignoring the idea that we have to choose? YOu haven't addressed that yet. "

    So what is christ's death for then? hmm? you're assumption seems to be its not for justification which it clearly says in the scriptures that it is. I have answered every verse you have given showing you the context. If you don't believe the scriptures, that's fine. You're entitled to your opinion. Its really sad to me you dismiss them with a wave of your wand though. I don't need that context you're assuming a priori *waves wand*

    Now let us look at your verses. The ONLY one NOT written to a christian audience is the ..nope, all of them were. That should be your first clue scott. Now we can break them down further and look at the passage's context.

    2 pet 3:9 This says nothing at all about who Christ's death was for, only that God is waiting for all those he has planned to accept to accept him. Read romans 8:29-30 If you look at 3:2 it further shows he was writting to CHRISTIANS by the statement, "given by OUR Lord and Savior..."

    Okay 1 tim 2:4 Nothing here about who Christ's sacrifice was for either. God desired Adam not to sin, but he did anyway. God holds back his desires out of love, or he would force us to do things and become lustful. Stil no evideince for your claim though.

    1 John 2:2 ahh..the first really seemingly verse for your claim. Okay, lets look at the context shall we? The we is very clearly christians..so who is this "the world"? Look at verse 7 "...and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin." The people in context are the people that God has predestined but have not accepted yet. Sin is not paid for twice ya know.

    1 tim 4:10 Just one quesiton in this verse, since you dont wanna look at context again I'm sure because it would prove you, again wrong. Does God save all men? Nope, he doesn't so again if he is the savior of all men and not all men are saved, then you have a conflict in the bible and someone is lying. There is no conflict if you look at the context you see that, again, he is talking about people that have not accepted yet, such as Israel.
     
  9. ScottEmerson

    ScottEmerson I Like Traffic Lights

    366
    +0
    Christian


    Yep. The Greek is polus, meaning many, large, or much. The Greek is very clear, and this is the only translation we can have. (The tense is polloi, BTW)

    Christ's death was for all. His death allows us to be justified through him, yet it requires a choice to for us to have that gift. Your "context" proofs are very week indeed, especially since Paul is specific with the use of "all" and "us all." THere are way too many instances where he says "us all" for us to assume that he meant "us all" when he only uses "all." It's not a dismissal at all. I'm just choosing to read the passages for what they're worth.

    That's a very handy way to explain away these passages; however, it's not the one that the majority of scholars use. Using the Greek, we can see a difference in the word "all" and "you all," you all of course having the second person plural. The other uses of all do not have such. Interesting, huh?

    Hmmm... pantas - third person plural! That means all them, not all us!

    The idea that context dictates it only means believers can be discounted in this way:

    "All have sinned and come short of the glory of God."

    Hmm... That must mean only the people Paul is writing to. Where does that place everyone else?

    The verse before: Rom 3:22 Even the righteousness of God [which is] by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:"

    Look at that! Paul specifies who the "all" is referring to!

    Rom 4:11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which [he had yet] being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:

    He specifies the all.


    Rom 4:16 Therefore [it is] of faith, that [it might be] by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,

    "us all!" Wow! Paul is good at specifying who the all refers to!

    Rom 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:

    Ooh... Hmmm... Is this all believers or all men? It seems to say all men, and there doesn't seem to be any qualifiers! So who is it?

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

    So now we have our first problem! Who are the "all" we're talking about? We can either do two things (maybe more - I don't want to limit anyone, right BH?) Either the all's change meaning or there's something deeper there!

    It is interesting to note that the words "the free gift" is not in the original Greek. What does justification mean? It means embued righteousness, correct? I think we can look at the previous verse to explain this. Death reigned for people who chose to sin, so Christ brings life for people who choose to follow him. (That received, or lambano, takes the present active participle, so they're the ones doing the taking. If it was present passive, there would be the idea of receiving - the active shows that they're doing the action of taking. Greek is cool, huh?)

    Rom 8:32 He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?

    Paul is very specific about using "us all." Note that he doesn't say, "us and only us."

    Rom 9:5 Whose [are] the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ [came], who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.

    Is he only over Christians?


    Rom 10:12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.

    Is He Lord over all or Lord over only Christians. Notice the second "all" - he adds the "all who call upon him." Again, an active tense and a specifier.

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

    So are just Christians concluded to disbelief? Are we changing the meaning of all to suit theology here? Does the "all" change?

    Rom 12:17 Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men.
    Rom 12:18 If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.

    Only Christians or Non-Christians, too?

    Rom 15:11 And again, Praise the Lord, all ye Gentiles; and laud him, all ye people.

    Not the specifiers - Are these gentile Christians or everyone?

    Rom 16:24 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ [be] with you all. Amen.

    Hmmm - another addition of the second person plural!

    *******

    IMPORTANT!

    I hope you realize after viewing all these instances of the word all that Paul is extremely specific with his use of qualifiers. There's a big difference between humon pas and pantas - between you all and all people. In your view, there is no consistency - it would seem that you pick and choose what to ascribe to the word pas or pantas, because I'm sure you'd agree that all men everywhere have sinned; however, you don't believe that Christ died for all.

    It is my hope that other people have read this far and see the same thing. We can go through the other books of Paul to examine the use of all when dealing with people if you'd like.

    *********

    Timothy 2:3-6 This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus. who gave himself as a ransom for all men--the testimony given in its proper time.

    But wait! I thought God's will was effectual? If God desired it, it came true. If he desired Adam not to sin, how did Adam sin? Hmmm... perhaps Adam did have a choice...

    Second, it says very specifically who Christ's sacrifice was - he gave himself as a ranson FOR ALL MEN!!!!! Yep - panton = masculine genitive plural.

    Again, you assume that man doesn't have a choice. If he does, it makes perfect sense. God died not only for "us" (Christians) but the entire world (total world, in which the entire list of Greek-English lexicons will not translate as elect.) The sins of "us" have been purified. Makes perfect sense, especially as it is John writing.

    No, it says that Christ is the Savior - it is his title and he is Lord and Savior of all. To the people who believe, he is their personal saviour. That's like saying that Christ is Lord of all. He's the Lord of all whether they like it or not, and one day everyone will bow, but he's the LORD of those of us who are saved - a personal LORD. Why else would he use the word maliota (or especially) when describing how much more he is saviour for those who do believe? Maliota is neuter plural of the superlative of an apparently primary adverb - in other words, to those who believe he is THE Saviour, and there is no need for another.

    I hope you can see in the explanation of the uses of the word all in Romans that crying "context" is simply a logical fallacy, since Paul is specific in his specifiers and tenses when he uses the word "all." (or pas).
     
  10. LouisBooth

    LouisBooth Well-Known Member

    +62
    Christian
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    "Yep. The Greek is polus, meaning many, large, or much. "

    *chuckles, in other words there are some left out..thanks :) Much or large isn't ALL.

    "That's a very handy way to explain away these passages"

    *sigh* audience is one of the MAIN things to use when interpreting ANY passage of scripture. Ask around ;)

    I've answered every one of your objections. I've shown you the context that show that christ's sacrifice is for you yet you still don't wanna believe the bible and what it says. That's okay, you have a right to your own opinon, just answer this...I just ask you one question. If Christ's justification is for all do you think everyone will be saved? Yes or no will suffice.
     
  11. LouisBooth

    LouisBooth Well-Known Member

    +62
    Christian
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    "Again, you assume that man doesn't have a choice. If he does, it makes perfect sense. "

    Sinful man can't choose God can he? its says very clearly in romans that he can't.
     
  12. ScottEmerson

    ScottEmerson I Like Traffic Lights

    366
    +0
    Christian


    And here's the context:

    "If we conclude that many is many, what do we do with the fact that Adam only resulted in "many" becoming sinners, and not all? "

    YOu didn't bother to check the greek did you?


    Yep. The Greek is polus, meaning many, large, or much. The Greek is very clear, and this is the only translation we can have. (The tense is polloi, BTW)[/quote]

    The response was to many, much, large becoming sinners. WHat do you think of that?

    And I've gone through all this trouble to show you that in the case of Romans, ALL is NOT defined by the audience, unless we somehow use Biblical or theological gymnastics.

    You have?

    Let's see...

    1."All have sinned and come short of the glory of God."

    Hmm... That must mean only the people Paul is writing to. Where does that place everyone else?

    Result: Not answered.

    2. Rom 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:

    Ooh... Hmmm... Is this all believers or all men? It seems to say all men, and there doesn't seem to be any qualifiers! So who is it?

    Result: Not answered.

    3. Rom 9:5 Whose [are] the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ [came], who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.

    Is he only over Christians?

    Result: Not answered.

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

    So are just Christians concluded to disbelief? Are we changing the meaning of all to suit theology here? Does the "all" change?

    Result: Not answered.


    5. IMPORTANT!

    I hope you realize after viewing all these instances of the word all that Paul is extremely specific with his use of qualifiers. There's a big difference between humon pas and pantas - between you all and all people. In your view, there is no consistency - it would seem that you pick and choose what to ascribe to the word pas or pantas, because I'm sure you'd agree that all men everywhere have sinned; however, you don't believe that Christ died for all.

    It is my hope that other people have read this far and see the same thing. We can go through the other books of Paul to examine the use of all when dealing with people if you'd like.

    Result: Not answered.


    6. I hope you can see in the explanation of the uses of the word all in Romans that crying "context" is simply a logical fallacy, since Paul is specific in his specifiers and tenses when he uses the word "all." (or pas).

    Result: Passed over, with a standard, "you still don't wanna believe the bible and what it says." Disengenious.

    And I've shown you that the context argument in light of Paul's use of pas is malarkey and cannot stand the test of Scripture, literary criticism, logic and reasoning, and ESPECIALLY grammatical analysis and hermeneutics.

    No.

    Only those who accept that gift, (lambano in 5:17) - I answered this question in the previous post.

    But God can draw him near. I'd love to see the Scripture that says man can't CHOOSE the free gift, since it's so "clearly" stated.

    John 12:32 "But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself." (And if we examine the "context" as you say, you'll see that he was speaking to a huge crowd, filled with believers and unbelievers alike. - note verse 37!)

    Your context argument, as has been shown in great detail, is flawed as what you state as happening, where all means only the audience to which Paul writes, is not in at least 8 verses where "all" is used. In every other instance that Paul uses "all" to refer to the people of the Church, he uses "us all" or "you all." Why is that? At least you could answer that question.
     
  13. Messenger

    Messenger Simplicity of Life

    +37
    Christian
    Christ died so that all might be saved.
    Love and God Bless.
     
  14. LouisBooth

    LouisBooth Well-Known Member

    +62
    Christian
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    "But God can draw him near. "

    *chuckles* so? God chooses man, not the other way around.

    Well let me just ask you, who saves you? Check James 4:12 for the answer ;)
     
  15. LouisBooth

    LouisBooth Well-Known Member

    +62
    Christian
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    here is another one

    "Eph 2:5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)

    Eph 2:6 And hath raised [us] up together, and made [us] sit together in heavenly [places] in Christ Jesus:
    "

    ;)
     
  16. ScottEmerson

    ScottEmerson I Like Traffic Lights

    366
    +0
    Christian
    James 4:12 says that, "There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the one who is able to save and destroy. But you--who are you to judge your neighbor?"" God is able to save and destroy, but the verse isn't exclusive at all.

    God draws all near. Again, I'd love to see the Scripture that says man can't CHOOSE the free gift, since it's so "clearly" stated.

    John 12:32 "But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself." (And if we examine the "context" as you say, you'll see that he was speaking to a huge crowd, filled with believers and unbelievers alike. - note verse 37!)

    Again, this is not an exclusive passage. It says that God saved people who were dead in their sins by grace. I'm not arguing that in the least.

    Sad to say, but you've answered nothing in my last post - the whole Romans context argument has been soundly refuted, with notsomuch as a peep arguing it.

    Again, to repeat myself: Your context argument, as has been shown in great detail, is flawed as what you state as happening, where all means only the audience to which Paul writes, is not in at least 8 verses where "all" is used. In every other instance that Paul uses "all" to refer to the people of the Church, he uses "us all" or "you all." Why is that? At least you could answer that question.
     
  17. LouisBooth

    LouisBooth Well-Known Member

    +62
    Christian
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    "God is able to save and destroy, but the verse isn't exclusive at all. "

    First of all, let me tell you a little something I learned..the word "but" is a negator word. It says to the reader everything I said before this word is now negated. Now....did you wanna reword that sentence?

    "I'd love to see the Scripture that says man can't CHOOSE the free gift"

    Well since it is one of the points of calvinism (I'm not a calivist though) you can go here http://www.prca.org/fivepoints/chapter1.html
    to read up on it.

    you can also read about it in Ephesians 2:1 it says that we Christians were all once "dead in trespasses and sins." The point of deadness is that we were incapable of any life with God. Our hearts were like a stone toward God (Ephesians 4:18; Ezekiel 36:26). Dead people can't do ANYTING. God is the one that saves us. Not us.


    "It says that God saved people who were dead in their sins by grace. I'm not arguing that in the least. "

    Then you don't realize the impact of that verse. God saved us. Not us and him. He EXCLUSIVILY did it. All of it.

    You've shown no flaw in any verse I've shown you.
     
  18. LouisBooth

    LouisBooth Well-Known Member

    +62
    Christian
    Married
    US-Libertarian
  19. ScottEmerson

    ScottEmerson I Like Traffic Lights

    366
    +0
    Christian


    God is able to save and destroy, and the verse isn't exclusive at all. I used the word "but" in this sense, from the American Heritage Dictionary "Contrary to expectation; yet: She organized her work but accomplished very little. He is tired but happy.

    Oh, I've read the "five points." I've also read the Institutes, and I know some of the disparities between the two, one of which I mentioned on the Calvin's limited atonement thread. It is through the reading and understanding of it (I was a five pointer until I read the documents plus the Bible more closely) that I moved away from Calvinism.

    PERFECT! In Ephesians 2:1, "has quickened us" is not in the original Greek text! You're missing the point and trying to go off in another direction. I agree that God and God alone has the capacity to save - but it is man who has the choice. The verses say nothing about the times when God initiates the invitation and man declines the gift.

    I love the Ezekial 36:26, especially in the "context" of the book. He said that he would soften the hard hearts of all Israel. This is speaking, of course, to a future we have not yet been too, and he's speaking specifically of the Jewish people.

    As for Ephesians 4:18. check out a couple of verses later:

    "if indeed you have heard Him and have been taught in Him, just as truth is in Jesus, that, in reference to your former manner of life, you lay aside the old self, which is being corrupted in accordance with the lusts of deceit, and that you be renewed in the spirit of your mind, and put on the new self, which in the likeness of God has been created in righteousness and holiness of the truth."

    Wow! How powerful that is! If we choose to "lay aside out old self" AFTER we have "heard Himand were taught in Him, " we can "put on the new self!" Verse 19 in the same chapter says that they "gave themselves" over to sin - there was even a choice for that!

    [quopte]It says that God saved people who were dead in their sins by grace. I'm not arguing that in the least. "

    Then you don't realize the impact of that verse. God saved us. Not us and him. He EXCLUSIVILY did it. All of it.

    You've shown no flaw in any verse I've shown you.
    [/QUOTE]

    Again, I agree completely that it is God alone who saves us. He exclusively saves us. However, you still have never shown that we do not have a choice, and the Holy Spirit is somehow forced on us.

    Question: Does the Holy Spirit visit everyone or only the Elect?

    God draws all near. Again, I'd love to see the Scripture that says man can't CHOOSE the free gift, since it's so "clearly" stated.

    John 12:32 "But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself." (And if we examine the "context" as you say, you'll see that he was speaking to a huge crowd, filled with believers and unbelievers alike. - note verse 37!)

    Again, to repeat myself: Your context argument, as has been shown in great detail, is flawed as what you state as happening, where all means only the audience to which Paul writes, is not in at least 8 verses where "all" is used. In every other instance that Paul uses "all" to refer to the people of the Church, he uses "us all" or "you all." Why is that? At least you could answer that question.

    If you cannot, will you at least concede that point?
     
  20. Julie

    Julie ONLY JESUS CHRIST SAVES

    +4
    Christian
    1 Timothy 1:15
    This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners ; of whom I am chief.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...