Saved Or Predestined ???
- Thread starter Pianoworldstage
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
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!
Ransom payment is not for you to accept, because you are the one being redeemed. This had been apparently your problem with the figures used in scriptures.
Tong
R0456
Every Christian would say yes. So yes. How about you? Would you say you are one of them? I am sure you would.
Tong
R0457
Last edited:
That doesn't fit with what scripture tells us.
"also for the sins of the whole world - The phrase "the sins of" is not in the original, but is not improperly supplied, for the connection demands it. This is one of the expressions occurring in the New Testament which demonstrate that the atonement was made for all people, and which cannot be reconciled with any other opinion. If he had died only for a part of the race, this language could not have been used. The phrase, "the whole world," is one which naturally embraces all people; is such as would be used if it be supposed that the apostle meant to teach that Christ died for all people; and is such as cannot be explained on any other supposition. If he died only for the elect, it is not true that he is the "propitiation for the sins of the whole world" in any proper sense, nor would it be possible then to assign a sense in which it could be true."
(Barnes notes)
1 John 1:7
7 But if we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin.
Amen Jesus!
7 But if we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin.
Amen Jesus!
It fits scriptures but not your view.
You must learn to understand scriptures in the light of clear truths in scriptures, such as scriptures that relates to our discussion here. We have scriptures that clearly tells us that Jesus Christ gives His life for His sheep, that He was sent to save His people, that He purchased the church with His own blood. Then we have scriptures say that He is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world, that He gave up His life as a ransom for all. How do you take all these scriptures? Needless to say, we take such scriptures as not to contradict each other. And doing so, leads me to take the view that the "all" and the "whole world" could not refer to each and every man who had ever lived and will yet come to existence.
You said "If he died only for the elect,...." It is not "if he died only for the elect", for it is clear that not all men are saved, and that Jesus Christ clearly refers to His church, His people, His sheep, for whom He gave His life to save them.
You said "If he died only for the elect, it is not true that he is the "propitiation for the sins of the whole world" in any proper sense, nor would it be possible then to assign a sense in which it could be true."" That's your take on that. But taking "whole world" to refer to to each and very man that was, is, and will be, would render it contradicting scriptures. Jesus Christ dying for His people, His sheep, His church, does not make false the scriptures in 1 John 2:2. Scriptures must always be understood, first, in their immediate context and in the larger context of the rest of scriptures.
Tong
R0458
And John is telling that to the believers in the name of the Son of God (1 John 5:13).
Tong
R0459
I'd say the emphasis really is life, unblemished life, Jesus' most precious perfect holy life.
Tong
R0460
That's nonsense. Saying he died for his sheep does not cancel out the many scriptures saying he died for all. Where's the contradiction? There isn't one. It's like saying I will pay the rent for everyone in the building, but only if they show up and take the check from me.
Apparently nonsense for you.
Try to see even into your own statement "Saying he died for his sheep does not cancel out the many scriptures saying he died for all.", what it necessarily makes of the "all" to mean, if not, all His sheep and not all men. So, of course, the truth that Jesus Christ, the Good Shepherd, died for His sheep, or died for His people, or died for the church, does not cancel out scriptures saying he died for all.
You asked "Where's the contradiction?" If the "all" refers to each and very man that was, is, and will be, that would render Jesus Christ having redeemed all men as He had paid ransom for "all", which obviously is contrary to the truth that not all men were redeemed.
Your analogy is not applicable my friend. So don't try to force it. Scriptures have given the analogies. So, why do you keep inventing other analogies and not be content with the scriptural analogies, even when you know that the analogies in scriptures are more than sufficient and are for certain correct?
Tong
R0461
Uh, no, it's not contrary at all when you consider the hundreds of verses that confirm we are responsible to respond to what he has done. You don't just get to change the meaning of " all" because you apparently want to be among a privileged group.
You are not looking at the contradiction Renniks, but just explain it away there, but this time with another argument, that is, responding to what He had done. And such argument is far from being an argument that refutes what I said, that is, "If the "all" refers to each and very man that was, is, and will be, that would render Jesus Christ having redeemed all men as He had paid ransom for "all", which obviously is contrary to the truth that not all men were redeemed."
You said "You don't just get to change the meaning of " all" because you apparently want to be among a privileged group." I did not change any meaning sir. Rather, I told you the meaning of "all" in its proper context. On the other hand, what meaning you want it to have is it's common meaning, yet out of context.
Tong
R0462
Why? Something universal can obviously apply to some. The only way it could be a contradiction is if redemption was limited but all received it.
All received redemption? But if what you meant by that, is that all were redeemed, then that is not what scriptures says.
Tong
R0463
Last edited:
I don't know if you really can't see it, or you are just playing dumb. If it's offered to all, but only some receive it, there's no contradiction in some verse saying it's for his sheep and some saying it's for all men because both are equally true. If it's only offered to those who receive it, then there's a glaring contradiction, because many verses say it was offered to the whole world and to all people.
Sir, you just keep insisting your case but not proving it. And you never had refuted the following statements I made and I quote:
1. And the very moment that He died, the ransom was paid in full for them. It was a done deed. Ransom had been paid.
2. Ransom payment is not for you to accept, because you are the one being redeemed.
3. If the "all" refers to each and very man that was, is, and will be, that would render Jesus Christ having redeemed all men as He had paid ransom for "all", which obviously is contrary to the truth that not all men were redeemed.
So, if you will just disagree with those statements or keep insisting that they are wrong, and could not refute them, I will just be repeating myself. Refute, if you must, if you can. Else, then I think that settles this discussion.
Tong
R0464
Lol, it settles nothing, when you continue to deny what the Bible says.
." Ransom payment is not for you to accept, because you are the one being redeemed."
" As many as received him." Look it up!
You are just making unsubstantiated statements, and claiming they are true, then asking me to refute what you've never proven.
Similar threads
