Eternal Justification !

[Red Baker]

And I think your main focus is on Gal 4:23 right? Still doesn't mean in Abraham's real life he couldn't have shown restraint and not have went in and had relations with Hagar. He could have chosen to let it be through Sarah from the start. I think from the way you're saying words you're implying he never could have done that as that would be a spiritual choice. All can make a spiritual choice today for God has the gospel being preached to ALL

Brother, (I refuse to judge a man's salvation from sin and condemnation based upon his understanding of such truths) No, my main focus is not on those things ~ my main focus, would be Abraham's two sons at that time, were a perfect allegory of the two covenants. Please consider............

Galatians 4:21-31~"Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law? For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband. Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now. Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman. So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free."

Galatians 4:21 Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?​

Paul used Ishmael and Isaac to defend his doctrine of pure grace in free justification of life. Note again the singular theme of the book ~ opposition to false teachers promoting the works of the flesh in our nature state apart from the Spirit of God. Paul now appealed directly to the source document of the Law ~ the Bible’s Old Testament. If they desire to be under works of Law so much as a means of bering acceptable unto God, then he will use the Law to overthrow them!

v22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.​

For it is written is Paul’s new argument based on the history of Genesis recorded by Moses.

Abraham, the father of the faithful and the illustrious hero of Jews, had two principal sons. Paul ignored Keturah’s six sons, for they did not affect his argument, thus teaching a lesson that verses must be used carefully for other than their primary intent (Gen 25:1-6). These words are not written exactly, but generally in two places (Genesis 16:1-16; 21:1-8). Hagar was a slave concubine, a bondmaid, and Abraham named her son Ishmael. Sarah was a free wife from Abraham’s relatives, and Abraham named her son Isaac.

v23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.

Both children were born of physical flesh, as far as delivery from their mothers’ womb, but Paul is going after a much more important point than merely pregnancy, delivery, and birth.

Ishmael was born of a carnal, fleshly, and foolish plan by Abraham and Sarah to help God out and build their seed outside the promises and power and revelation of God.

Isaac was born by the spiritual power of God according to the covenant promise of God.

The difference between these two sons is enormous ~ one merely a product of the flesh without any relation to the covenant promises of God, and the other the direct result thereof.

The “souls saved” by human means and decisional regeneration are as fleshly as Ishmael.

​

v24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.​

These two women and their sons are an allegory of the two competing covenants of God. An allegory is a lengthy metaphor, where one thing is explained by using another thing. God revealed to Paul by the Holy Spirit that an allegory could be taken from this history.

The two covenants are the covenant of grace in Abraham and the one of works of Moses.

Hagar is to be understood as representing Mt. Sinai and the Law of Moses, for that covenant holds men in bondage, just as Hagar was a bondservant concubine of Abraham.

25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.​

Paul confirmed that Hagar represents Mt. Sinai in Arabia, where God gave Israel the Law. But he then added that she further represented the then-existing Jerusalem with its temple worship according to the Law, which religious system held its devotees in legalistic bondage.

Since the Jerusalem in our day may not even be a distant cousin to the Jerusalem that was in Paul’s day, Paul separates present Jews in Jerusalem even farther from Gentile believers in Christ!

The bondage here is not the Roman rule, which was true, but spiritual bondage by context! Anyone who traced his religious worship to Jerusalem was in bondage (John 4:20-24).

v26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.​

The heavenly spiritual Jerusalem, the kingdom of Jesus Christ, is free like Sarah was a freewoman. And it is that heavenly city that is the uniting place of all believers – both Jews and Gentiles. Abraham sought this city and believers of every race have come unto it, for it is the heavenly Jerusalem of spiritual significance, the Zion of Christ (Hebrews 11:10; 12:22-24; 13:14)!

​

v27 For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband.​

This glorious application of Isaiah 54:1-5 to Gentile conversions is by the Holy Spirit of God. Those who accuse us of “replacement theology” or “Augustinian allegorization” can eat their hearts out, because we have the apostle Paul who was a Jews by nature applying this verse to New Testament saints!

The gospel kingdom of Jesus Christ did not have God as her husband for 1500 years, while God was the husband of earthly Jerusalem; but now the barren city has many more than the married one – the heavenly Jerusalem has many more children than the earthly city of Israel. The Gentiles did not have God as their husband for 1500 years, while God was the husband of the Jews; but now the Gentiles through faith in Christ far outnumber Jews under the Law!

​

v28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.​

Leaving the two mothers, Paul argued that Gentile Galatians were to be compared to Isaac! Is where our focus should be. Believers in Jesus Christ are the children of promise by the evidence of their faith in Christ. How do we prove ourselves to be like Isaac? By faith and baptism in the Lord Jesus Christ.

​

v29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.​

There is a further aspect of comparison – the flesh hates the Spirit and saints even as then. Ishmael persecuted Isaac by envy, and so the Jews persecuted the Christians in Paul’s day. Armenians to so to God's elect in our day The false teachers out of Jerusalem ridiculed those who trusted Christ without the works of our flesh as we are by nature at enmity against God.

v30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.

What is the comforting lesson of the allegory? God rejected Ishmael to receive Isaac! Glory! Paul again appealed to the Jewish scriptures to reinforce the power and validity of his point. Though grievous to Abraham, God did not want Ishmael around any of the great inheritance.

​

v31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.​

Ho, you Gentiles! Rejoice! In God’s sight we are not second-class children like Hagar and Ishmael! We are the heirs of God as the children of the freewoman Sarah by promise! It is the Jews in Jerusalem serving the temple with their ordinances that are like unto Ishmael. It is the Gentiles in Galatia with simple faith in God’s promises in Christ that are like Isaac by not rusting in the works of their flesh.

Salvation if free based on two immutable acts of God...his promises through Christ's faith and obedience, and his holy oath in keeeping those promises.

 

[Red Baker]

So don't you see that you don't have regeneration as being a part of the promise of grace?

Sir, please explain clearly what you mean with that statement so I will not misunderstand you. Are you saying that one does not need to be first regenerated, or/and regeneration is not part of the New covenant~or both?

 

[Rockson]

Beside, my friend, I just have not slipped into the sad delusion of Calvinism ~ first of all, since I'm not a Calvinist in the true sense of Calvinism; also, Unconditional election of grace has been around long before John Calvin....

Sure. When I speak of Calvinism and I think most do as well we're not referring exactly to the writings of John Calvin precisely but the whole paradigm way of thinking has been deemed as Calvinsim.....to define the basics of what the person is believing.

Secondly, I have held to this doctrine since my mid twenties when I first came to Christ, and begin to search the scriptures while attending a armenian church who taught free will, etc. I soon found myself without a church with my small family of four from the age of six and under~that was fifty years ago!

And it's been about 50 years for me as well when I came not to believe in a Calvinistic way of thinking about the scriptures.

Well, yes for a few reasons. 1. So did Paul~in Galatians it was as simple, just eating with the Gentiles which Peter did, until some of the men who believe in Christ yet still cling to Moses' law of.... "this do and live sin and die" ~which is basically the sum of God's law.

Sorry but you've micro focused this down to the most basic thing of choosing to accept and believe God something of which Paul exhorted people everywhere to do. He told people they had the capacity to be reconciled to God and encouraged them and not only encouraged them but pleaded with them to do so.

We implore you on behalf of Christ: Be reconciled to God. 2 Cor 5:20

It seems to me if he was of the opinion that this would all be automatic anyway he wouldn't have said words like implore, or beseech and one translation even states he pleaded with them to be reconciled to God. Does that really sound like grace is irresistible as Calvinists teach?

 

[Red Baker]

And salvation is for all mankind without exception, all the world for which Christ made atonement- 1 John 2:2. Gods grace through Christa atonement is for everyone.

Greetings civic~

Salvation is not for all men without an exception, that would go against so many scriptures and deny Christ atonement. While we agree the salvation of God is for all without distinction~Jews, as well as for the Gentiles; bond and free, rich and poor....

Romans 1:14​

“I am debtor both to the Greeks, and to the Barbarians; both to the wise, and to the unwise.”

Yet among all these, God has an elect people who ordained to eternal life by Him before the foundation of the world.

Acts 13:47,48~"For so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth. And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.

1st John 2:2~"And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world."

John the apostles was a minister to the Jews Galatians 2:9~Paul and others to the Gentiles. Understanding this, the world in 1st John 2:2 could only mean, all without distinction...........God made a very clear distinction in the OT, none can deny, or, refute. It cannot mean all without exceptions, for other reasons........ one being, if Jesus paid for the redemption of all men, then all must be acquitted, God is more righteous in his laws than man is, and even men have the law of double jeopardy.

Titus 2:11
For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men

The same sense must be applied here as well. Going from the OT to the time of reformation in the NT, this truth had to be applied........... God was no longer the God of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles.

Romans 3:29~"Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also:"

See also Romans 9:24; 10:9-13, etc.

I'll come back if need to, I have a meeting I must attend. RB

 

[Rockson]

Sir, please explain clearly what you mean with that statement so I will not misunderstand you. Are you saying that one does not need to be first regenerated, or/and regeneration is not part of the New covenant~or both?

Sure I'll explain, you said this below,

Yes, believers flee for refuge to lay hold of God's promises of grace, after God shows his power in us, by regenerating us according to his mighty power and mercy

So you talked about sinners laying hold of the promises of grace. But you insist that God must regenerate them first. So now they can lay hold of the promises of grace. So really you've taken regeneration outside of the promise of grace as something that takes before hand.

 

[civic]

Greetings civic~

Salvation is not for all men without an exception, that would go against so many scriptures and deny Christ atonement. While we agree the salvation of God is for all without distinction~Jews, as well as for the Gentiles; bond and free, rich and poor....

Yet among all these, God has an elect people who ordained to eternal life by Him before the foundation of the world.


John the apostles was a minister to the Jews Galatians 2:9~Paul and others to the Gentiles. Understanding this, the world in 1st John 2:2 could only mean, all without distinction...........God made a very clear distinction in the OT, none can deny, or, refute. It cannot mean all without exceptions, for other reasons........ one being, if Jesus paid for the redemption of all men, then all must be acquitted, God is more righteous in his laws than man is, and even men have the law of double jeopardy.

The same sense must be applied here as well. Going from the OT to the time of reformation in the NT, this truth had to be applied........... God was no longer the God of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles.

See also Romans 9:24; 10:9-13, etc.

I'll come back if need to, I have a meeting I must attend. RB

John 1:29
The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!

Hebrews 2:9
But we do see Jesus, who was made lower than the angels for a little while, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.

Titus 2:11
For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men,

Titus 3:4
But when the kindness and the love of mankind of God our Savior appeared

John 3:16
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

1 Timothy 2:4
Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

2 Peter 3:9
The Lord does not delay his promise, as some regard “delay,” but he is patient with you, not wishing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.

1 John 2:2
He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.

2 Corinthians 5:14
For Christ’s love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died.

In the past two decades have witnessed a resurgence of Calvinism among American evangelicals. This resurgence is especially evident within the Southern Baptist Convention, which historically has been and still is divided over the issue. However, it has also made its presence felt in Pentecostal denominations such as the Assemblies of God, which do not have historic ties to Calvinism.


By Calvinism, I mean specifically the doctrine of salvation that is commonly explained by means of the acronym, TULIP:

• T = Total depravity
• U = Unconditional election
• L = Limited atonement
• I = Irresistible grace
• P = Perseverance of the saints

In the seventeenth century, Jacob Arminius—a Dutch Reformed theologian—set forth a different understanding of salvation that has been called Arminianism after him. It is sometimes explained by means of the acronym, FACTS:

• F = Freed by grace to believe
• A = Atonement for all
• C = Conditional election
• T = Total depravity
• S = Security in Christ

In Does God Love Everyone? Jerry L. Walls—an evangelical philosopher—outlines an argument against Calvinism and for Arminianism. Its strength is that it focuses on the central point of the disagreement between them. Walls writes:


The deepest issue that divides Arminians and Calvinists is not the sovereignty of God, predestination, or the authority of the Bible. The deepest difference pertains to how we understand the character of God. Is God good in the sense that he deeply and sincerely loves all people?


According to Walls, the answer of Arminianism is “Yes.” The answer of Calvinism is “No.” As Calvinist author Arthur W. Pink put it in The Sovereignty of God: “When we say that God is sovereign in the exercise of His love, we mean that He loves whom he chooses. God does not love everybody…” Walls argues that Pink’s statement is characteristic of Calvinism, even if it’s stated with a bluntness uncharacteristic of most Calvinists.

A god who can save all but chooses not to is not the God whom the Bible reveals.

To see why this is so, consider the argument Walls makes:

1. God truly loves all persons.
2. Not all persons will be saved.
3. Truly to love someone is to desire their well-being and to promote their true flourishing as much as you properly can.
4. The well-being and true flourishing of all persons is to be found in a right relationship with God, a saving relationship in which we love and obey him.
5. God could give all persons “irresistible grace” and thereby determine all persons to freely accept a right relationship with himself and be saved.
6. Therefore, all persons will be saved.

Clearly, this set of propositions contains a contradiction between 2 and 6. Both Calvinists and Arminians affirm 2, however. They’re not universalists, in other words. Similarly, both affirm 4.


So, how do they resolve the contradiction? Arminians do so by denying 5. They deny, in other words, that grace is irresistible.


Irresistible grace is part and parcel of Calvinism, however. It’s the I in TULIP. That means Calvinists must deny either 1 or 3. That is, they must deny either that “God truly loves all persons” or that “Truly to love someone is to desire their well-being and to promote their true flourishing as much as you properly can.” As noted above, Arthur W. Pink clearly denied 1. (Walls quotes Calvin himself to similar effect.)


Contemporary Calvinists rarely deny 1, however. Instead, they affirm that God truly loves all persons. For example, D. A. Carson affirms that God loves everyone in the sense that He exercises “providential love over all that he has made” and adopts a “salvific stance toward his fallen world.” However, Carson denies that God gives everyone the “particular, effective, selecting love toward his elect.” It’s hard to square this “love” for “all persons” with the definition of love in 3. A God who could but chooses not to bestow “particular, effective, selecting love” on everyone does not “truly” love them because He does not seek their eternal “well-being” and “true flourishing.”


Walls suggests one further wrinkle when he discusses John Piper, probably the best known Baptist Calvinist. Walls argues that Piper denies 5, not by ditching “irresistible grace” but by suggesting that God has a “greater value” than salvation. Such as what? Piper writes, “The answer the Reformed give is that the greater value is the manifestation of the full range of God’s glory in wrath and mercy (Rom. 9:21–23) and the humbling of man so he enjoys giving all credit to God for his salvation (1 Cor. 1:29).” Because of this “greater value,” it seems that Piper denies God “could give all persons ‘irresistible grace’ [to be saved].” Some evidently must be condemned for God’s glory.

In order to maintain God’s sovereignty in election then, or to promote God’s glory, Calvinism denies that God loves everyone in the truest sense. Like Walls, I find this denial difficult to swallow. A god who can save all but chooses not to is not the God whom the Bible reveals, a God who is love (1 John 4:8).

Walls’ book is a brief outline of a much larger argument. Those looking for a more detailed argument should pick up his Why I Am Not a Calvinist, coauthored with Joseph R. Dongell. But that argument, even in outline form here, is difficult to rebut, as far as I am concerned.

Book Reviewed: Jerry L. Walls, Does God Love Everyone? The Heart of What Is Wrong with Calvinism (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2016).

Hate defined
Original Word: μισέω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: miseó
Phonetic Spelling: (mis-eh'-o)
Definition: to hate
Usage: I hate, detest, love less, esteem less.

Barnes

Have I hated - This does not mean any positive hatred; but that he had preferred Jacob, and had withheld from Esau those privileges and blessings which he had conferred on the posterity of Jacob. This is explained in Malachi 1:3," And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness;" compare Jeremiah 49:17-18; Ezekiel 35:6. It was common among the Hebrews to use the terms "love" and "hatred" in this comparative sense, where the former implied strong positive attachment, and the latter, not positive hatred, but merely a less love, or the withholding of the expressions of affection; compare Genesis 29:30-31; Proverbs 13:24, "He that spareth his rod hateth his son; but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes;" Matthew 6:24, "No man can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other," etc.; Luke 14:26, "if any man come to me, and hate not his father and mother, etc."


hated] Cp. Genesis 29:33; Genesis 29:30, for proof that this word, in contrast with love, need not imply positive hatred, but the absence of love, or even less love. One verse there tells us that Jacob “hated” Leah, the other that he “loved Rachel more.” See too Matthew 10:37; Luke 14:26; John 12:25. Cambridge

BDAG..

to be disinclined to, disfavor, disregard in contrast to preferential treatment (Gn 29:31; Dt 21:15, 16) Mt 6:24; Lk 16:13. τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ J 12:25 or ἑαυτοῦ Lk 14:26 (cp. the formulation Plut, Mor. 556d οὐδʼ ἐμίσουν ἑαυτούς; on the theme cp. Tyrtaeus [VII B.C.] 8, 5 D.3). Ro 9:13

William Arndt et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 653.

John says hate is indifference with a brother below

1 John 3
We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love each other. Anyone who does not love remains in death. 15 Anyone who hates a brother or sister is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life residing in him.16 This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers and sisters. 17 If anyone has material possessions and sees a brother or sister in need but has no pity on them, how can the love of God be in that person? 18 Dear children, let us not love with words or speech but with actions and in truth.

 

[civic]

continued:

BDAG.

② to be disinclined to, disfavor, disregard in contrast to preferential treatment (Gn 29:31; Dt 21:15, 16) Mt 6:24; Lk 16:13. τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ J 12:25 or ἑαυτοῦ Lk 14:26 (cp. the formulation Plut, Mor. 556d οὐδʼ ἐμίσουν ἑαυτούς; on the theme cp. Tyrtaeus [VII B.C.] 8, 5 D.3). Ro 9:13 (Mal 1:2f). Perh. 2 Cl 6:6 (s. 1b). (JDenney, The Word ‘Hate’ in Lk 14:26: ET 21, 1910, 41f; WBleibtreu, Paradoxe Aussprüche Jesu: Theol. Arbeiten aus d. wissensch. Prediger-Verein d. Rheinprovinz, new ser. 20, 24, 15–35; RSockman, The Paradoxes of J. ’36).—ACarr, The Mng. of ‘Hatred’ in the NT: Exp. 6th ser., 12, 1905, 153–60.—DELG. M-M. EDNT. TW.

William Arndt et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 653.

And here is a Greek Scholar/Teacher Robert Mounce

I loved, but Esau I hated” (Mal 1:2–3). This should not be interpreted to mean that God actually hated Esau. The strong contrast is a Semitic idiom that heightens the comparison by stating it in absolute terms. 17

Robert H. Mounce, Romans, vol. 27, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1995), 198–199.

Berkeley softens the contrast translating, “To Jacob I was drawn, but Esau I repudiated” (the NRSV has “chose” and “rejected”). In discussing the “hatred” of God, Michel comments that it “is not so much an emotion as a rejection in will and deed” (TDNT 4.687).

Robert H. Mounce, Romans, vol. 27, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1995).
Esau I hated. I.e., “loved less,” according to an ancient Near Eastern hyperbole. It expresses the lack of gratuitous election of Esau and the Edomites (Idumaeans). See Gen 29:30–31: “he loved Rachel more than Leah …; when the Lord saw that Leah was hated …”; cf. Deut 21:15–17; compare Luke 14:26 (“hate”) with Matt 10:37 (“love more”). There is no hint here of predestination to “grace” or “glory” of an individual; it is an expression of the choice of corporate Israel over corporate Edom.

Joseph A. Fitzmyer S.J., Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, vol. 33, Anchor Yale Bible (New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 2008), 563.

13. Characteristically Paul backs up his argument with a quotation from Scripture, this one from Malachi 1:2–3: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” Two questions are important here: Is Paul referring to nations or individuals? and What is meant by hated? As to the first, we have just seen that the Genesis passage refers primarily to nations and we would expect that to continue here. That this is the case seems clear from what Malachi writes about Esau: “Esau I have hated, and I have turned his mountains into a wasteland and left his inheritance to the desert jackals” (Mal. 1:3). Both in Genesis and Malachi the reference is clearly to nations, and we should accept this as Paul’s meaning accordingly.

The meaning of hated is a different kind of problem. There is a difficulty in that Scripture speaks of a love of God for the whole world (John 3:16) and the meaning of “God is love” (1 John 4:8, 16) is surely that God loves, quite irrespective of merit or demerit in the beloved. Specifically he is said to love sinners (Rom. 5:8). It is also true that in Scripture there are cases where “hate” seems clearly to mean “love less” (e.g., Gen. 29:31, 33; Deut. 21:15; Matt. 6:24; Luke 14:26; John 12:25). Many find this an acceptable solution here: God loved Esau (and the nation Edom) less than he loved Jacob (and Israel). But it is perhaps more likely that like Calvin we should understand the expression in the sense “reject” over against “accept”. He explains the passage thus: “I chose Jacob and rejected Esau, induced to this course by my mercy alone, and not by any worthiness in his works.… I had rejected the Edomites.…” This accords with the stress throughout this passage on the thought of election for service. God chose Israel for this role; he did not so choose Edom.


Leon Morris, The Epistle to the Romans, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; Leicester, England: W.B. Eerdmans; Inter-Varsity Press, 1988), 356–357.

Well there are some obvious principles if one can look past their theological bias. Several calvinists disagreed with the following principles to defend God hated/despised esau.

1- God loves sinners, God loves the world meaning all people, everyone.
2- So when its says God hates we must examine what/who is the recipient of the hate and why. Why God would detest something/someone vs love less.
3- We use the lexicons to help us determine how the word is being used in various contexts/passages.
4- We use other scriptures to compare the word/verse with to get an idea how its used
5- We for example can learn about the " idioms" from the original people, places and times
6- With hate we learn it is an Jewish idiom being used in conjunction with love as a comparison

hope this helps !!!

 

[civic]

There are so many misnomers running around about God and His love and what that looks like in regard to mankind. If anyone wants to know what God is like and what He thinks we need to look no further than Jesus and His teachings since He is the Eternal God who became man.

1- Jesus taught us to love our enemies and pray for them
2- Jesus lived among sinners, ate with them and loved them, had compassion on them.
3- Jesus loves sinners, not hates them
4- Jesus on the cross said please forgive them Father for they know not what they do- His enemies who hated Him at the time.
5- Jesus came to seek and save the lost, the sinner
6- Jesus showed us what love looks like, acts like, talks like, lives like and how it treats people.
7- Jesus told us all the law and commandments are wrapped up/fulfilled in loving God with all our being( heart, mind,soul ) and your neighbor as you do yourself.
8- Jesus said if you really love Him you will do what He has commanded
9- Love is described perfectly in 1 Corinthians 13- If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 3 If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing.4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.8 Love never fails.
10- Love in action in Galatians 5- But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. 24 Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. 25 Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. 26 Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other.

I could list another 10 points to this list but this should be plenty to get the point across. The wrath, anger, hatred about God towards us misunderstood by many. Gods wrath always falls upon the reprobate, apostate, those hardened against God, those who are wicked and rebellious that reject Gods provision for their sins by Jesus sacrifice. God loves all mankind and Christ died for all.

conclusion: because God is Love and Jesus is God we can see to perfection that 1 Cor 13 and the fruit of the spirit in Gal 5:22-23 describes Jesus to a tee . He is love incarnate since God is love we see Him in action described in the gospels and where the Bible defines love.

hope this helps !!!

 

[civic]

Calvin Institutes 3:21:5 - All are not created on equal terms ,but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of these ends, we say that he has been predestinated to life or to death.

According to Calvinist theory God hates most of humanity and is actively working to make sure they all end up in hell. That is a level of evil you should only attribute to Satan himself.

Billions of people are in hell because:

(1) they are not part of those who were Unconditionally Elected

(2) they were not granted Irresistible Grace

(3) because of sin that God unchangeably ordained by God for them to commit.

(4) because Jesus did not die for their sins.
People go to hell because of something God didn't do in them, not of anything they could have done.

Calvin teaches:

1. God wants people in hell

2. Humans can only go to hell if they have sin.

3. God decrees for people to sin and they cannot refrain

4. Conclusion: Therefore sin is something good that results in God’s pleasure.

If God has decreed to dam a person forever in eternity and God is the only one who can act on their behalf to change their plight, then God's choosing them for destruction is the first cause of their destruction, not sin. Sin is just the gun God uses to destroy the sinner.

hope this helps !!!

 

[civic]

And made propitiation for the whole world !

The Golden Rule of Interpretation

“When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense; therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in the light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths, indicate clearly otherwise.”–Dr. David L. Cooper (1886-1965),founder of The Biblical Research Society


Thayers

Cosmos: the inhabitants of the

5. world: θέατρον ἐγενήθημεν τῷ κόσμῳ καί ἀγγέλοις καί ἀνθρώποις, 1 Corinthians 4:9 (Winers Grammar, 127 (121)); particularly the inhabitants of the earth, men, the human race (first so in Sap. (e. g. )): Matthew 13:38; Matthew 18:7; Mark 14:9; John 1:10, 29 ( L in brackets); ; Romans 3:6, 19; 1 Corinthians 1:27f (cf. Winer's Grammar, 189 (178)); ; 2 Corinthians 5:19; James 2:5 (cf. Winer's Grammar, as above); 1 John 2:2 (cf. Winer's Grammar, 577 (536)); ἀρχαῖος κόσμος, of the antediluvians, 2 Peter 2:5; γέννασθαι εἰς τόν κόσμον, John 16:21; ἔρχεσθαι εἰς τόν κόσμον (John 9:39) and εἰς τόν κόσμον τοῦτον, to make its appearance or come into existence among men, spoken of the light which in Christ shone upon men, John 1:9; John 3:19, cf. 12:46; of the Messiah, John 6:14; John 11:27; of Jesus as the Messiah, John 9:39; John 16:28; John 18:37; 1 Timothy 1:15; also ἐισέρχεσθαι εἰς τόν κόσμον, Hebrews 10:5; of false teachers, 2 John 1:7(yet here L T Tr WH ἐξέρχεσθαι εἰς τόν κόσμον; (so all texts in 1 John 4:1)); to invade, of evils coming into existence among men and beginning to exert their power: of sin and death, Romans 5:12 (of death, Wis. 2:24; Clement of Rome, 1 Cor. 3, 4 [ET]; of idolatry, Wis. 14:14). ἀποστέλλειν τινα εἰς τόν κόσμον, John 3:17; John 10:36; John 17:18; 1 John 4:9; φῶς τοῦ κόσμου, Matthew 5:14; John 8:12; John 9:5; σωτήρ τοῦ κόσμου, John 4:42; 1 John 4:14 (σωτηρία τοῦ κόσμου Wis. 6:26 (25); ἐλπίς τοῦ κόσμου, Wis. 14:6; πρωτόπλαστος πατήρ τοῦ κόσμου, of Adam, Wis. 10:1); στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου (see στοιχεῖον, 3 and 4); ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ, among men, John 16:33; John 17:13; Ephesians 2:12; ἐν κόσμῳ (see Winer's Grammar, 123 (117)), 1 Timothy 3:16; εἶναι ἐν τῷ κόσμου, to dwell among men, John 1:10; John 9:5; John 17:11, 12 R G; 1 John 4:3; εἶναι ἐν κόσμῳ, to be present, Romans 5:13; ἐξελθεῖν, ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου, to withdraw from human society and seek an abode outside of it, 1 Corinthians 5:10; ἀναστρέφεσθαι ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ, to behave oneself, 2 Corinthians 1:12; likewise εἶναι ἐν τῷ κόσμου τούτῳ, 1 John 4:17.



6. "the ungodly multitude; the whole mass of men alienated from God, and therefore hostile to the cause of Christ" (cf. Winer's Grammar, 26): John 7:7; John 14:27 (); ; 1 Corinthians 1:21; 1 Corinthians 6:2; 1 Corinthians 11:32; 2 Corinthians 7:10; James 1:27; 1 Peter 5:9; 2 Peter 1:4; 2 Peter 2:20; 1 John 3:1, 13; 1 John 4:5; 1 John 5:19; of the aggregate of ungodly and wicked men in O. T. times, Hebrews 11:38; in Noah's time, ibid. 7; with οὗτος added, Ephesians 2:2 (on which see αἰών, 3); εἶναι ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου and ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου τούτου (see εἰμί, V. 3rd.), John 8:23; John 15:19; John 17:14, 16; 1 John 4:5;λαλεῖν ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου, to speak in accordance with the world's character and mode of thinking, 1 John 4:5; ὁ ἄρχων τοῦ κόσμου τούτου, i. e. the devil, John 12:31; John 14:30; John 16:11; ὁ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ he that is operative in the world (also of the devil), 1 John 4:4; τό πνεῦμα τοῦ κόσμου

b. of all mankind, but especially of believers, as the object of God’s love J 3:16, 17c; 6:33, 51; 12:47.

William Arndt et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature : A Translation and Adaption of the Fourth Revised and Augmented Edition of Walter Bauer’s Griechisch-Deutsches Worterbuch Zu Den Schrift En Des Neuen Testaments Und Der Ubrigen Urchristlichen Literatur (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979), 446.


1 John 2:2-He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.

1 John 2:15-17-Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, love for the Father is not in them. 16 For everything in the world—the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life—comes not from the Father but from the world. 17 The world and its desires pass away, but whoever does the will of God lives forever.

1 John 4:3-6- but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.4 You, dear children, are from God and have overcome them, because the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world. 5 They are from the worldand therefore speak from the viewpoint of the world, and the world listens to them. 6 We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit of truth and the spirit of falsehood.

1 John 4:14- And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world

1 John 5:19- We know that we are from God, and the whole world lies in the power of the evil one.


Now its very clear from the Lexicon definition and in 1 John that the cosmos/world does not mean Gods elect (that is Calvinism) not what John means in his epistle. It clearly means everyone not exceptions in this world, all of its inhabitants who make up the ungodly multitude. It is clearly all inclusive of everyone, all, the entire world that lies under the evil one in opposition to God from the context of 1 John.

Only someone with a closed mind trapped in their dogma/doctrine would argue otherwise resulting in eisegesis( reading their own ideas into the text) rather than exegesis ( letting the text dictate ones ideas ).

We see above that the whole world lies under the evil one and its that same identical whole world in 1 John 2:2 that Jesus made PROPITIATION for which is clear from the CONTEXT in 1 John.

So if the above truth from 1 John 2:2 which is clear as to the biblical meaning is all inclusive not exclusive ( Gods elect Jew/Gentiles) which comes from ones dogma/doctrine ( calvinism) and not Scripture and specifically in 1 John makes me a non calvinist then I'm here to official renounce my association with that group.

I'm all about the TRUTH never dogma, never the doctrines of men, never to win friends, but to only uphold the Truth in Gods word from its context. And the context here is in clear opposition to the teaching of many .

In 1 John. World NEVER means Jew/Gentiles in the epistle but means all of the inhabitants of the world /cosmos who are ungodly , where the lust of the flesh, the pride of life and the lust of the eyes come from and the god of this world the evil one the spirit of antichrist , the spirit of falsehoods rules and reigns in all of those inhabitants in opposition to God.

Its that world whom Christ made propitiation.

hope this helps !!!

 

[civic]

This is my FINAL ANSWER from the BIBLE

1 Timothy 2:1-6

I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people— 2 for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. 3 This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4 who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all people. This has now been witnessed to at the proper time.

As we see above the Apostle Paul says we are to pray for " ALL " people everywhere even for the " kings in authority" and then uses the same word in the same context of " ALL " people with Jesus giving His life as a ransom for all. All does not mean Jew/Gentiles as some falsely teach. It means all men, all mankind, everyone ALL PEOPLE EVERYWHERE.

You cannot have ALL mean two different things in the context of the passage. That is once again being dishonest with the text and reading ones doctrine into the passage which is eisegesis

As seen in my posts I have plenty to say from scripture that opposes Calvinism. I should know since I believed it and taught it for over 4 decades and all the calvinists affirmed what I said during those years.

hope this helps !!!

 

[Rockson]

Paul used Ishmael and Isaac to defend his doctrine of pure grace in free justification of life. Note again the singular theme of the book ~ opposition to false teachers promoting the works of the flesh in our nature state apart from the Spirit of God. Paul now appealed directly to the source document of the Law ~ the Bible’s Old Testament. If they desire to be under works of Law so much as a means of bering acceptable unto God, then he will use the Law to overthrow them!

Of course. Nobody here I think denies what Galatians actually says. But does it actually say the things you're implying in your other posts? I think not.

Ishmael was born of a carnal, fleshly, and foolish plan by Abraham and Sarah to help God out and build their seed outside the promises and power and revelation of God.

Sure. I agree. But Abraham could have made a different choice and yielded to the grace of God to bring the promised offspring about. The way you seem to arguing is that no way he could have made this choice to do that. My point is if he would have chose differently it would have been his choice not God imparting within him an irresistible force in causing him to do it.

 

[Rockson]

The “souls saved” by human means and decisional regeneration are as fleshly as Ishmael.

​

​

I'll say this in the most simple way. If someone is seeking to be saved by just being a nice person I would say that's seeking to be saved by humans means. Somebody choosing to receive the grace of God and without having had imparted what you call something irresistible that is not seeking to be saved by human means. They are simply believing the gospel.

But here's the major thing. If you're going to hold to a person can't decide to receive the grace of God and that grace then regenerates them then what you're really saying is those who call upon the name of the Lord won't be saved when the bible says they will. Rm 10:13 Look the sinner wants Jesus. They hear what Jesus did on the cross for them which inspires them to believe for righteousness. (found in Rm 10:9.10) They then confess the Lordship of Christ......but you say they can do all that and have no right to have any confidence that God would do what he said he would do?

Quite frankly If I were you I'd readjust my way of thinking about this.

 

[Red Baker]

Sure. When I speak of Calvinism and I think most do as well we're not referring exactly to the writings of John Calvin precisely but the whole paradigm way of thinking has been deemed as Calvinsim.....to define the basics of what the person is believing.

Thanks for answering my question.

I will only respond back with this: Before, Calvin, there was Martin Luther a little before Calvin, (actually contemporaries) who taught the very same teaching concerning Soteriology, that was preached by Calvin and before both of them we have several men who taught the same, men like: Peter Waldo, John Wycliffe and Jan Hus. Before them The Waldenses back around 1000 a.d. before them Augustine was part of the most important debates in church history was that between Pelagianism and Augustinianism. As you might have guessed, these labels represent two figures: Pelagius and Augustine, both of whom lived in the fourth and fifth centuries. The debate was complex and, much like an onion, had layer upon layer. But its main facets concerned the nature of man and the necessity of divine grace. This battle is still on going to this day where Pelagianism has taken control of the churches in this world for the most part, a very sad commentary to say the least~but prophesied by Christ in Matthew 24 if the chapter is truly understood in the context which Christ spoke his last sermon before departing out of this world~yet prophesied by Jude to help narrow some of their corrupt teachings down even more. When Jude the apostle said:

Jude 1:4~"For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ."

Peter added:

2nd Peter 2:1~"But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction."

I ask: "In what sense do the latter day false prophets deny the Lord that bought them?" There's only one answer that will answer that question, unless you have a better answer, which I do not think you do, in all respect to you sir.

The word of God makes it very clear that Jesus Christ came into this world to secure eternal redemption for those given to him by his Father ~ he finished the work given to him, in that not one was, or will ever be lost.

False prophets teach that Christ did not secure eternal redemption for anyone, but he only at best, made salvation possible upon the sinner accepting his offer. I could elaborate much on this one point, but for brevity, I will only say this for now.

I will ask, this is your teaching and also most others from the biggest whore in Rome to the little backroads churches in the middle of nowhere? I now this is so~the mega churches in this world hate unconditional election by grace more than any truth believed by God's chidden. As much as they desire to build mega churches, they despise folks like myself and would not allow us to even mention just a devish doctrine as they think election of grace is. That's the world we now live in and it is only going to get worse and worse until Jesus comes again.

I see I have many posts to answer, maybe in the morning.

 

[Rockson]

But its main facets concerned the nature of man and the necessity of divine grace. This battle is still on going to this day where Pelagianism has taken control of the churches in this world for the most part, a very sad commentary to say the least~

And RB I always keep coming back to asking this question from time to time. So if you believe the basic Calvinistic thought why is this a sad thing to you? If you truly believe everything is ordained and is in God's will why should you not therefore rejoice? Are you therefore saying it's a sad thing that God does it this way or wants it this way? I want to believe the best of you. You believe some things are sad things because you know they are sad things and can't be the will of God. Therefore consider maybe a good reason to leave Calvinism?

 

[Rockson]

I ask: "In what sense do the latter day false prophets deny the Lord that bought them?" There's only one answer that will answer that question, unless you have a better answer, which I do not think you do, in all respect to you sir.

I believe that I do have a better answer but I do appreciate your respectful tone

This and I'd say SURELY could never apply to a Non Calvinist if anything it connects more to Calvinists Here's why. We Non Calvinists believe the Lord has brought redemption to the human race and we don't deny the Lord has purchased this benefit for all.....if all will receive his grace. If anything it's you Calvinists which deny the Lord bought the benefit for all. I mean that's the central plank of your position.....God DID NOT provide salvation for all.

I now this is so~the mega churches in this world

So let's stop there for a second. For the reason a gathering of believers might be large you should not assume their doctrine is unsound.

hate unconditional election by grace more than any truth believed by God's chidden.

And you do appreciate right that they might have very strong reservations towards it because they do not view it as the true grace spoken of in the Bible.

As much as they desire to build mega churches,

Being honorable gentlemen can we just set aside bringing into the argument of just how big some churches are or would like to be . How about we just stay with the topic at hand?

they despise folks like myself and would not allow us to even mention just a devish doctrine as they think election of grace is.

Sorry RB but I don't believe either that what you call election of grace is a doctrine of God. I believe as all Christians that the Bible does teach on the word election......it also teaches about grace but the meanings you impose upon these words as a Calvinist in my estimation are not valid.

That's the world we now live in and it is only going to get worse and worse until Jesus comes again.

Depend on how you look at it. If Calvinism is becoming diminished in the hearts and minds of the saints I'd say the Lord is building and developing his church into having a sound foundation of belief.

 

[Red Baker]

And RB I always keep coming back to asking this question from time to time. So if you believe the basic Calvinistic thought why is this a sad thing to you? If you truly believe everything is ordained and is in God's will why should you not therefore rejoice? Are you therefore saying it's a sad thing that God does it this way or wants it this way? I want to believe the best of you. You believe some things are sad things because you know they are sad things and can't be the will of God. Therefore consider maybe a good reason to leave Calvinism?

Sir, While I firmly believe in predestination concerning many things, but I also teach from the word of God, that the deeds of both the righteous, and the wicked, are their own deeds, and will be righteously judged and rewarded accordingly. Maybe later we can elaborate on this position.

Brother, there is not a remote possibility of leaving the true doctrines of grace, (God being my helper) more on this in my next post to you.

I was neither taught this by man, since I started out in a church that did not teach the doctrines of free grace, but a system of works, but only stay within that group two years, or so. Ever heard of Oliver B. Greene, the gospel hour from Greenville, S.C. and Harold B. Sightler, Tabernacle Baptist Church? Fundamental, Independent Baptist Churches, that's where I go started right on the very buckle of the Bible Belt.

I'm very grateful God opened my eyes to their errors~were they themselves good men? No doubt they were very godly, I sat under Mr. Sighter and have spoken to him personally, a very godly man as far as his personal life went.

I will not say the same concerning men in some of these mega operations of our day, I have listened to many of them several times over, not just forty or fifty times, up into the hundreds of times~by way of TV.........SBN, mainly, Kenneth Copeland, and a few others.

Friend, we both know there's a day coming when God shall judge the secrets of men's heart by Jesus Christ, that day is soon coming. I'll leave it there.

 

[Red Baker]

but I do appreciate your respectful tone

Same here~young believers have more trouble showing respect being lifted up with pride, and because of their lack of knowledge, they resort to attacking the person being frustrated mainly because of being unskillful in the scriptures to defend their doctrine they have been taught against those who have truth, or even a measure of truth, that they themselves do not have.

Men who know the truth should be able to calmly have a respectful discourse, the only manner whereby profitable discourse will bring results, if results can be had.

This and I'd say SURELY could never apply to a Non Calvinist if anything it connects more to Calvinists Here's why. We Non Calvinists believe the Lord has brought redemption to the human race and we don't deny the Lord has purchased this benefit for all.....if all will receive his grace. If anything it's you Calvinists which deny the Lord bought the benefit for all. I mean that's the central plank of your position.....God DID NOT provide salvation for all.

There's a problem with your understanding. Listen to Peter and Jude:

2nd Peter 2:1~"But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

You said:

We Non Calvinists believe the Lord has brought redemption to the human race and we don't deny the Lord has purchased this benefit for all.....if all will receive his grace

Emphasis are mine for discussions.

Peter's word of warning can only be applied to those men who teach redemption was provided for all, "if" all will receive his grace.

Why do I say this? Peter plainly said that the false prophets will deny the Lord that bought them. The scriptures clearly teach that Jesus came to save his people from their sins. He came as their surety before God's law, every single person Christ stood as a surety for their sins were fully paid for by their surety. To not teach this truth is to deny the Lord that bought the church with his own blood. Christ did not leave our redemption up to our power to receive it, or not received it, that was the very purpose of him coming, to SECURE redemption for his people. Consider:

Biblical and Theological Support for Definite Atonement​

Biblical terms, tenses, and testimonies make a sure case for definite atonement. Consider the following.

Biblical terms. The Bible vividly describes what Christ did on the cross: he made a sacrifice; he made propitiation; he reconciled his people to God; he guaranteed the redemption of his own; he gave his life a ransom for many (but not all); he bore the curse of those for whom he died.

But do the biblical concepts of sacrifice, propitiation, reconciliation, redemption, ransom, and curse-bearing support Calvinism’s assertion that Christ secured salvation, or do they support the Arminian notion that Christ made salvation possible through his death?

Arminianism does injustice to the basic biblical concept of redemption, which has its roots in the deliverance of the people of God out of Egypt. Redemption did not merely make their release from Egyptian bondage possible, it brought them out of bondage into the place of God’s appointment. Likewise, with propitiation, God’s wrath is satisfied by the offering up of sacrifice, and once his wrath is satisfied, it turns away. A ransom releases the one for whom it is paid. Therefore, the onus is on anyone who says that Christ’s death did not actually secure the salvation of a defined group of people to show that his view does justice to these biblical terms. Arminianism does not do that.

Biblical tenses. The very nature of Christ’s work is reconciliation. Hebrews 9 tells us that he has obtained redemption for us. Romans 8:29-30 speaks of Christ’s work with such certainty that Paul can use the aorist tense for all of his main verbs, speaking as if even glorification is already accomplished. Ephesians 5:25-27 tells us that Christ so loved the church that he gave Himself for it, Clearly, the intent of his death was nothing less than the completed salvation of every one of those for whom he died. Titus 2:14 says he ‘gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.’

Biblical testimonies. The definiteness of the atonement of Christ can be affirmed irrevocably from biblical testimonies. The Bible speaks clearly of Jesus laying down his life for his sheep (John 10:11-13). In that context, he says of certain people, ‘Ye are not of my sheep’ (v. 26). Scripture also speaks of Christ laying down his life for the children of God (John 11:51-52); dying for his church (Eph. 5:25-27, Acts 20:28); saving his people (Matthew 1:28); giving his life a ransom for many (Matt. 20:28); seeing his seed (Isaiah 53:10, Psalms 22); and redeeming his own from iniquity (Titus 2:14) – all as having already happened (Revelation 5:9).

In sum, Christ died to satisfy the justice of God for his people’s sins. He saved a definite number of people whom he refers to as his people, his sheep, and his elect (Matthew 1:21, John 10:11-15, Romans 8:28-39). As with God’s election and the Spirit’s calling, Christ’s atonement is efficacious. His sacrifice of his life saves the life of his sheep. This precious life is not laid down in vain for just any sheep (John 10:10). Jesus did not die to make salvation possible for all; he died to make salvation of his sheep certain. He is the Good Shepherd who knows his sheep and gives ‘his life for the sheep'(John 10:11). This little word ‘for’ indicates a direct exchange; a definite one for a definite many. Not one part of the sacrifice was in vain. Here, surely, is the glorious truth of a certain, though limited, atonement, for Jesus also bluntly declares to some unbelieving Israelites, ‘Ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep’ (John 10:26).

The doctrine of limited atonement does not mean that Christ’s death is limited in power. A. W. Pink said, ‘The only limitation in the atonement arises from pure sovereignty; it is a limitation not of value and virtue, but of design and application.’ Christ died for the people whom God the Father elected and for whom Christ himself intercedes. John 17:9 says Christ intercedes specifically and exclusively for those people: "I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine."

I'll come back and finished the rest of your post~I did not want your point to go half answer.

 

[Rockson]

Sir, While I firmly believe in predestination concerning many things, but I also teach from the word of God, that the deeds of both the righteous, and the wicked, are their own deeds, and will be righteously judged and rewarded accordingly.

The question is then is that a truly credible valid thing to believe. Let's examine it more closely. You're believing God ordains through predestination every thought and action of men ....before they do them. If I asked you did they have any option not to commit certain acts after God ordained them I'm sure you would say no. How about before he ordained them? You would probably say YES. So what you therefore have is the puppet scenario. If we took this out of the religious setting and think you'd find it more easier to come to a new type of realization. Now I appeal to you to take the time to read the below and give it some thought.

Analogy eg. An individual in plants some computer chip in the brain of numbers of people. It's a control chip. Everything they do, think and act is in response to what the first individual has ordained. They really have no choice in doing anything different. All these people then go out and commit horrendous criminal acts. They're arrested and then they're put on trial. The truth then comes out. They've actually been under the influence and control of another.

Analogy Continued :They had no choice but to do what the other implanted in them to do. So what's the verdict? Are they to be punished? No. With the chip taken out or the ordaining deactivated there's no proof the persons would have committed acts A, B or C. In other words what are they REALLY in the truest sense of the law? They've VICTIMS themselves! They're just as much victims as the ones who have been the recipients of their evil deeds. Who therefore is the REAL guilty party? I think you KNOW who that would be.

Analogy Continued : It would be the one who implanted the chip or the one who did the ordaining. I'll go as far to say (wanting to believe the best of you) that if you were the judge in the trial you would be telling the officers, FAST, QUICK AND BOLDLY, to go out and arrest the real guilty party. You would not be interested in making these victims ALL OF THEM victimized a second time over by now punishing them? Never in a million years! At least that's what I'd like to think a nice kind individual like you would do. If you were to say I'm wrong in that assessment well I'd feel that would be most unfortunate. Give it some thought though and God Bless!

 

[brightfame52]

@TomL

One is in Christ when they believe

Ephesians 1:13 (KJV 1900) — 13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,

Yes, when they believed, they had already been in Christ, they were already members of His Body for which He died. They had been chosen in Christ before the foundation Eph 1:4-13

So if a person isnt previously in Christ by election, they will never believe because they didnt belong to Him.