My intention was not to make this a long post, but nevertheless it has become just that. Not because I wanted it to be, but because the Holy Spirit had much to comment on and correct.
Ybrown, I think you may be misunderstanding the good pastor here, as I am finding a few general logical errors in your arguments.
Saint, that’s your first mistake. You’re relying on logic and not on the Word of God, which is what all things pertaining to the Most High should be based upon. The search for logic will ALWAYS prove fruitless.
The term “whole world” is used in about 14 different scriptures. I would list each with explanation for “whole world” in each but that would make this post even longer than it already is.
Yes, in Romans 1:8, “whole world,” in its scriptural context is referring to the Roman Empire, but we’re not talking about Romans 1:8.
If you read 1 John 2:1-2, it says:
1 My little children, these things write I unto you that ye may not sin. And if ANY MAN sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: 2 and he is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the whole world.
In the above scripture, we know that the scripture is from the apostle perspective. He is saying it is not for us apostles that he has died, nor exclusively for the Jewish people, but \~peri olou tou\~ êïóìïõ, for the whole world, Gentiles as well as Jews, all the descendants of Adam. The apostle does not say that he died for any select part of the inhabitants of the earth, or for some out of every nation, tribe, or kindred; but for ALL MANKIND; and the attempt to limit this is a violent outrage against God and his word.
From this verse we learn that a poor backslider need not despair of again finding mercy; this passage holds out sufficient encouragement for his hope. There is scarcely another such in the Bible, and why? That sinners might not presume on the mercy of God. And why this one? That no backslider might utterly despair. Here, then, is a guard against presumption on the one hand, and despondency on the other.
In your Calvinist view, there is no hope for all of man. That seems outrageous and goes against the true nature of God.
The scary thing about your statement above is that the Calvinist philosophy (I hesitate to call it theology) is based primarily on these scriptures which actually do not uphold the Calvinist view. For our purposes, I will deconstruct John 6:37.
John 6:37 refers to all who shall be saved, none being excluded, so long as they truly come to Christ, that being the thrust of the second clause.
We also learn that those who come to Christ, and who will be saved, are given to Jesus by God. This is a fulfillment of God promise to Jesus that he should see of the travail of his soul--that is, "the fruit of his wearisome toil,” and should be satisfied, as its stated in Isaiah 53:11.
We must keep in mind that all men are sinners, and none have any claim to mercy. Additionally, all men of themselves are disposed to reject the gospel as stated in John 5:40.
The sinner comes to Jesus feeling that he is poor, and needy, and wretched, and casts himself on his mercy, believing that He alone can save him. This expression also proves that men are not compelled to believe on Christ.
God enables those who do believe to come unto Christ. He draws them to him by his Word and Spirit; he opens their hearts to understand the Scriptures (Acts 16:14); and he grants to them repentance, Acts 11:18; 2 Timothy 2:25.
So it is very clear that all those who become Christians may therefore be said to be given to Jesus as the reward of his sufferings, for his death was the price by which they were redeemed.
Paul says, in Ephesians 1:4,5 that, "he hath chosen us in him (that is, in Christ) before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love; having predestinated us unto the adoption of children to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will."
Even in looking at “Shall come to me,” this is an expression denoting that they would believe on him. To come to one implies our need of help, our confidence that he can aid us, and our readiness to trust to him.
No man is compelled to go to heaven against his will, and no man is compelled to go to hell against his will. The Spirit of God inclines the will of one, and he comes freely as a moral agent. The other chooses the way to death; and, though God is constantly using means to save him, yet he prefers the path that leads down to woe.
Let’s look even further at “Him that cometh.” Every one that comes--that is, every one that comes in a proper manner, feeling that he is a lost and ruined sinner. This invitation is wide, and full, and free. It shows the unbounded mercy of God; and it shows, also, that the reason, and the only reason, why men are not saved, is that they will not come to Christ.
Of any sinner it may be said that if he had been willing to come to Christ he might have come and been saved. As he chooses not to come, he cannot blame God because he saves ALL who are willing, no matter from what cause, and who thus are made partakers of everlasting life.
In your philosophy, God is not blameless.
Lastly, let’s examine, “In no wise,” which means in no manner, or at no time. The original is simply, "I will not cast out."
Cast out. Reject, or refuse to save. This expression does not refer to the doctrine of perseverance of the saints, but to the fact that Jesus will not reject or refuse ANY sinner who comes to him.
Now this is an example of circular logic. You’re saying since all aren’t saved, all weren’t meant to be saved. Again, you’re relying on your box-o-logic when all that’s required is the truth that resides in the Bible.
Hell exists because God gave man free will. That means God’ll allow us to do whatever we want, including going to Hell.
So are you saying God created some men in order for them to go on the express train to Hell? Why even give them life in the first place? This life is our only opportunity to accept Christ and this is where WE determine where we’ll spend all of eternity. Free will means we’re free to make the choice.
That free choice is based on the fact that Jesus paid the ransom, the entire ransom. Just because some men chose not to accept the freebie doesn’t mean it wasn’t paid. The stupidity of men should not negate the fact that the ransom was paid and the offer was made.
We know that Christ taught in parables and that the above scriptures are in response to the apostles asking Jesus why He taught in such riddles. He explains that the things of God were made more plain and easy to those willing to be taught, and at the same time more difficult and obscure to those who were willingly ignorant. The parable of the sower is plain. The seed sown is the word of God. The sower is our Lord Jesus Christ, by himself, or by his ministers.
The operative message lies in the willingness on the part of the sinner.
Again, your simplistic view that all men aren’t saved because Jesus didn’t die for them, I think is an abomination. The view of limited atonement puts all its emphasis on God’s grace (or lack thereof for some). It never considers the faith of man which allows him to be saved. We’re saved through a combination of grace and faith. Not just one or the other.
Limited atonement DOES NOT equal limited salvation.
In Romans 2:11, Paul declares, "For there is no respect of persons with God,” however, such is hard for man to realize, especially since man is often given to respect of persons. Nonetheless, the scriptures are emphatic and replete with teaching that presents God as not judging or treating man, any man, with respect of persons. In other words, God is just and equitable in his dealings with man.
In your view, God is not honoring His own Word because of his respect and Love for some and not others.
This statement you make doesn’t make sense because circular logic employs a use of reason in which the premises depends on or is equivalent to the conclusion. That is what you and this pastor are doing.
The both of you say that Christ didn’t die to save ALL men (premise) is equal to
all men aren’t saved because Christ didn’t die for them (conclusion). That is circular logic, my merely pointing it out is not.
Again, you’re looking for logic when God’s Word should suffice.
You’re alluding to the scripture that says Christ died for His sheep, His church, and His people. You are correct in that this verse does say state that Christ died for a certain group, but it does not state that He died for them exclusive of all others. Just the statement that Christ died for the elect does not prove your point. I’ll tell you why.
According to this logic, John 11:51 and Isaiah 53:8 teach that Christ died only for Israel, and Galatians 2:20 would prove that Christ died only for the Apostle Paul, for Paul declares, "who loved me, and gave himself for me." As well, one might say that Christ restricted His prayers to Peter, for Luke 22:32 says, "I have prayed for thee."
Again, the Word prevail where logic fails.
That statement hits at the very heart of His nature. How is this a good God that you preach?
We agree here, God is under no obligation to save anyone, but we disagree in whether or not God’s mercy is limited or limitless. Scripture tells me that in His boundless mercy, He sent His son to die so that EVERYONE has the opportunity to be saved.
How would your example above change if instead of talking about “10 people” or 10 strangers, you were talking about your “10 children,” your own that you brought into the world? I would think the meaning of your example would change.
The philosophy or doctrine of limited atonement is not a scriptural argument but rather an argument from reason, as you've demonstrated.
Oftentimes proponents of this philosophy use such words and phrases as, "It is reasonable to suppose" and "we can only suppose" because if the whole of scripture is taken into consideration, the conclusion of limited atonement cannot be come to.
Doctrines should not be founded upon reason but upon scripture in its totality, and this one is not.
Scripture says that Christ has a special love for His people, His church, and His elect. Your reasoning would say that He has not love for anyone else outside the Church. Jesus has a love for His people, His sheep because these have responded to His love and received Him as their personal Savior.
My question for you is before you were saved, before you became a part of Christ’s Church, do you think God loved you?
Your perception of God is one of the underlying reasons why people do not come to Him. Some people even hate God for various reasons. After a prayer goes unanswered, a family member dies or they get addicted to drugs, they turn away from Him and they “reason” that He doesn’t exist or that He never loved them in the first place. Would you then say to that person, “You’re right, He never did love you,” and then walk away?
Why then preach the Gospel to the world when it’s such a hit or miss? Ah, because scripture tells us to.
Lastly, it would be good for you to read 1 Timothy 2:1-6, which says:
1 I exhort therefore, first of all, that supplications, prayers, intercessions, thanksgivings, be made for all men;
2 for kings and all that are in high place; that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and gravity.
3 This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
4 who would have all men to be saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth.
5 For there is one God, one mediator also between God and men, [himself] man, Christ Jesus,
6 who gave himself a ransom for all; the testimony [to be borne] in its own times;
This scripture totally refutes the unscriptural nature of your view of limited atonement.
The key lies in verse 4 which says “Who will have all men to be saved.” Because he wills the salvation of all men; therefore, he wills that all men should be prayed for.
In the face of such a declaration, how can any Christian soul suppose that God ever unconditionally and eternally reprobated any man? Those who can believe so, one would suppose, can have little acquaintance either with the nature of GOD, or the bowels of Christ.
