The Myth of saying that Jesus Christ died for all men without exception !

[Tong2020]

No, not quite. The complete exchange goes something like this. The will of the Father was to make peace with mankind and reconcile the world to himself. This act came at a cost. The Father proposed to demonstrate (vindicate) his righteousness by allowing the religious and political authorities to put his son to death on a cross. (the cost) After three days and three nights, he raised his son from the dead, thus vindicating his word, giving substantial evidence that he is fully willing and able to keep his other promises: to take away the sins of the world; to raise up the fathers and bless them with eternal life; to tabernacle among the people; to rule over them as king; to protect them from his enemies and much more (that slips my mind at the moment.)

In exchange for Jesus' voluntary submission to the authorities to be crucified, the Father gave his son all authority to choose disciples; to forgive sins; to lead his church; to rule over the entire world as king; to act as high priest on behalf of his followers and all believers throughout history. All this and much more.

The purchase price did not buy disciples as such; the purchase price did not pay for sins that were already forgiven. With regard to his church, the "purchase price" qualified Jesus to enter heaven to intercede on behalf of his church according to the order of Melchizedek. The purchase price also qualified Jesus to serve as the Messiah, Romans 1:4, the king who would rule not only over Israel, but over the entire world. (The scope of Jesus' sacrifice and the Father's efforts are worldwide, which is why the Bible talks about the cross in terms of a propitiation for the sins of the world.)

In this regard, King David pictured his Lord sitting at the right hand of the Father, until the Father makes his enemies a footstool for his feet. Psalms 110. Because Jesus was obedient unto death, the Father has put all things under his feet and over time, as we experience it, the Son conquers in the name of the Father and with the Father's help. Ephesians 4, 1 Corinthians 15:20-28, Hebrews 2:8

Finally, in his epistle to the Ephesians, Paul paints the above picture symbolically. During the time of writing, the kings of old would enter the capital city preceded by the prisoners he captured during the war. The prisoners were sold or given to the people as servants. In like manner, the Father is like the victorious king, having taken captives and giving these men as gifts to the church. The Father is giving his son men in the role of apostle, prophet, preacher, evangelist, preachers and teachers to edify his church.

All of this because Jesus voluntarily allow himself to be arrested and put to death on a cross, in order to allow the Father to demonstrate his righteousness (and all that entails).

Well, the following scriptures are clear and we cannot explain away what they say.

1 Corinthians 6:20
For you were bought at a price; therefore glorify God in your body and in your spirit, which are God’s.

1 Corinthians 7:23
You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men.

2 Peter 2:1 But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction.

Acts 20:28 Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.

To say and insist that we were not bought at a price, that we were not bought by the Lord Jesus Christ, that the church of God was not purchased by Jesus Christ with His own blood, is going against the scriptures I quoted above. But if you will, you can take each of those verses and explain to us what the writer meant when he said that they were “ bought” or that the church was “purchased” with His own blood.

As far as I am concerned, the Lord Jesus Christ owns me, together with the rest of His own sheep, His flock. I am the Lord’s. Aren’t you?

Tong
R4852

 

[CadyandZoe]

Paul wrote "you have been bought with a price" (1 Corinthians 6:20) about us disciples.

Yes, but not directly. If I am allowed to speak crudely, he didn't buy the hamburgers, he bought the franchise.

Yes, the Bible speaks about God's people as his "possessions." But his people belong to him as a wife belongs to a husband. For instance, if Zoe were to ask someone about me, she would say something like, "he is my husband." I belong to her; that is, out of all the men in the world, she chose me personally to be her husband. I'm not her property, in that sense. She didn't "buy" me as if I were a slave. She married me, and I belong to her because I promised to remain faithful to her, protect her, and honor her above all other women.

Those who follow Jesus, those whom the Father gave to Jesus, are his "possession" in like manner. We are his because he promised to bless us, and grant us eternal life as a husband would his wife. Ephesians 1:13-14, Ephesians 5:22-24

 

[CadyandZoe]

In your heart you conjured a new meaning for the word ἐδουλώθητε
(edoulōthēte, Strong's #1402 douloó: to enslave, bring under subjection) in Romans 6:18.

Thus, you most certainly lie and lied.

I can see that you have no idea how language works to communicate ideas. I'm trying to help you. But since you refuse, then I can't. Sorry.

But consider this, words have NO meaning outside of context. A dictionary isn't giving you the single meaning of a word. The dictionary gives you a broad range of possible connotations. In order for an author to communicate effectively, the author must help the reader to know which of the various possible connotations is intended. Please consider this in your own studies as you sort through the Biblical text.

You hate me and despise me and for this reason it is hard to discuss this with you. I pray that we can continue the dialogue in an atmosphere of mutual respect. You're call.

 

[CadyandZoe]

continued from post #2435



Scripture shows the definition of redemption, and hence redeem, so to scripture:

29 If, however, an ox was previously in the habit of goring and its owner has been warned, yet he does not confine it and it kills a man or a woman, the ox shall be stoned and its owner also shall be put to death.
30 If a ransom is demanded of him, then he shall give for the redemption of his life whatever is demanded of him.
31 Whether it gores a son or a daughter, it shall be done to him according to the same rule.
Exodus 21:29-31

• "ransom" and "redemption" literally appear in this passage.
• ransom shows "demand for payment" placed upon the "him"/"owner".
• redemption shows "unencumbered ownership". The ox owner no longer "owns" his life being under judgment of death, but if the owner pays the ransom then the ox owner "owns" his life; therefore, the ox owner bought/redeemed "his life".

I see it differently. The passage speaks about a nuanced form of capital punishment, which is based on God's declaration that the blood of man shall be required of those who kill another man. In the case of murder, there can be no ransom payment. Numbers 25:31 But this passage speaks about another form of homicide: negligent homicide, where the law prescribes the death penalty as an option, but also allows the ox owner to pay a ransom to the victim's family for the redemption of his life. Nowhere in the passage does it say that once the ransom is paid, the victim takes possession of the ox owner. The purpose of ransom is freedom.

For instance, consider Numbers 3:45-51, wherein we read that the Lord decided to take the Levites in exchange for all the first born sons of Israel. Apparently there were not enough Levites to account for all the first born sons. In fact, there were 273 more first born sons than Levites at the time. So the Lord commanded that the additional sons were to be "ransomed" for 5 shekels each. In this way, all of the first born sons were released (freed) from obligation to serve at the temple.

Jesus was also "redeemed" after he was born. Refer to Luke 2:22-24

Now, moving on to Christ's sayings:

the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many
Matthew 20:28

• "ransom" literally appears in this passage.
• ransom means "demand for payment", and Lord Jesus means ransom when Lord Jesus says ransom.
• redemption means "payment for recovery, unencumbered ownership, reconcilliation", and the phrase "to give His life" shows redemption.

Nothing in the passage to indicate that the ransom is payment for a slave. If a parallel exists between Matthew 20:28 and Exodus 21:29-31, the point of intersection is the release of the prisoner, slated for execution.

I am the good shepherd, and I know My own and My own know Me
John 10:14

• neither "ransom" nor "redemption" literally appears in this passage.
• Christ's ownership of His disciples literally appears here with "My own".

Yes, Christ "owns" his disciples in the same way that my wife "owns" me. The relationship isn't one of slave/slave owner; the relationship is one of husband/wife. Just as my wife is "my wife" because I owe my loyalty to her exclusively, Jesus considers his disciples to be his "own" in that they are loyal to him exclusively.

Christ's disciples repent by God's working in Christ's disciples, for the Christ of us Christians says:

"I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to babes" (Matthew 11:25)

AND the apostles and elders glorified God, saying, "Well then, God has granted to the Gentiles also the repentance that leads to life" (Acts 11:18)

SO, clearly, Jesus' words in Matthew 11:25 state that God causes man to think differently after an encounter with God (repent means to think differently afterward).

Of course, I never said otherwise. But have you never read?

Romans 1:18-20
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

From this we see that salvation isn't so much a matter of knowledge, but a matter of the will. Mankind has all the evidence it needs to discover and accept the existence of the one true God. God has made himself evident to us. The fatal error of unbelief is the suppression of the truth. We are not being judged for the knowledge we don't know or the ideas we can't seem to believe. Rather, we are being judged for the truth that we DO believe but willfully and unjustly suppress. Belief is a matter of the will.

Then, later in Romans Paul brings all humankind under judgement repeating OT passages such as the following,
Romans 3:11-12
There is none righteous, not even one; There is none who understands, There is none who seeks for God; All have turned aside, together they have become useless; There is none who does good, There is not even one.

Hopefully you see that the process of salvation begins with a "heart transplant" of a sort, a transformation of the will, a repair of what is broken. We aren't saved because we suddenly came to knowledge or understood the gospel. Salvation doesn't involve convincing someone of the truth of the gospel. No. Salvation takes place when God take a man, dedicated to the suppression of the truth, transforms his will, and makes him into a man who loves, acknowledges and affirms the truth. In other words, God took a will in bondage, and set it free. This is why we say that those who affirm the gospel are making a free-will choice.

Now, please accept my arguments or don't accept them. But making accusations isn't helpful to others. Or do you now allow them the freedom to make up their own mind? Romans 14:5

 

[CadyandZoe]

Well, the following scriptures are clear and we cannot explain away what they say.

1 Corinthians 6:20
For you were bought at a price; therefore glorify God in your body and in your spirit, which are God’s.

1 Corinthians 7:23
You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men.

2 Peter 2:1 But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction.

Acts 20:28 Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.

To say and insist that we were not bought at a price, that we were not bought by the Lord Jesus Christ, that the church of God was not purchased by Jesus Christ with His own blood, is going against the scriptures I quoted above. But if you will, you can take each of those verses and explain to us what the writer meant when he said that they were “ bought” or that the church was “purchased” with His own blood.

As far as I am concerned, the Lord Jesus Christ owns me, together with the rest of His own sheep, His flock. I am the Lord’s. Aren’t you?

Tong
R4852

But you quote them out of context, both the immediate context and the context of the entire Bible. I constantly fight against the claim that I am ignoring the "plain meaning" of the text, when I know that the plain meaning of any text is the one with which we are familiar.

As I explained before, the act of redemption involves the purchase of a slave for the sole purpose of giving the slave his freedom. I say this with a saddened heart because I would NEVER do this; but, hypothetically speaking, if I were to attend a slave market and pay the asking price for a slave, I have two choices. I can take the slave home and compel him to serve me, or I can send him away, giving him his freedom.

If I send him away, giving the slave his freedom, the word we use for that event is "redemption." To redeem a slave is to purchase him and let him go. When Peter and Paul say that we are "bought" with a price, they are speaking in terms of redeeming a slave. The good news is that Jesus redeemed us, setting us free of sin, which was our task master. And this comes up in the context of an exhortation to live a holy life. Logically, if we appreciate being set free of sin, at a costly price, then we will strive to avoid sin and lead a holy life with all our mind, soul, and strength.

 

[Tong2020]

Tong2020 said: ↑
Well, the following scriptures are clear and we cannot explain away what they say.

1 Corinthians 6:20
For you were bought at a price; therefore glorify God in your body and in your spirit, which are God’s.

1 Corinthians 7:23
You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men.

2 Peter 2:1 But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction.

Acts 20:28 Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.

To say and insist that we were not bought at a price, that we were not bought by the Lord Jesus Christ, that the church of God was not purchased by Jesus Christ with His own blood, is going against the scriptures I quoted above. But if you will, you can take each of those verses and explain to us what the writer meant when he said that they were “ bought” or that the church was “purchased” with His own blood.

As far as I am concerned, the Lord Jesus Christ owns me, together with the rest of His own sheep, His flock. I am the Lord’s. Aren’t you?

But you quote them out of context, both the immediate context and the context of the entire Bible. I constantly fight against the claim that I am ignoring the "plain meaning" of the text, when I know that the plain meaning of any text is the one with which we are familiar.

Of course, every verse must be taken in context. When a verse is quoted, needless to point out, the context is understood to be taken into consideration. It would be impractical to quote a whole chapter or more, not to mention the whole Bible, isn’t it?

As I explained before, the act of redemption involves the purchase of a slave for the sole purpose of giving the slave his freedom. I say this with a saddened heart because I would NEVER do this; but, hypothetically speaking, if I were to attend a slave market and pay the asking price for a slave, I have two choices. I can take the slave home and compel him to serve me, or I can send him away, giving him his freedom.

If I send him away, giving the slave his freedom, the word we use for that event is "redemption." To redeem a slave is to purchase him and let him go. When Peter and Paul say that we are "bought" with a price, they are speaking in terms of redeeming a slave. The good news is that Jesus redeemed us, setting us free of sin, which was our task master. And this comes up in the context of an exhortation to live a holy life. Logically, if we appreciate being set free of sin, at a costly price, then we will strive to avoid sin and lead a holy life with all our mind, soul, and strength.

What I was requesting of you is to deal with the scriptures I gave you, explaining to us what the writer meant when he said that they were “ bought” or that the church was “purchased” with His own blood. In context of course.

<<<When Peter and Paul say that we are "bought" with a price, they are speaking in terms of redeeming a slave. The good news is that Jesus redeemed us, setting us free of sin, which was our task master.>>>

Speaking of redemption, there is a price paid. In the case of slaves, the price is paid to the master of the slave, is that right? To whom then did Jesus pay the price for redemption? Can you explain that to us?

Tong
R4853

 

[CadyandZoe]

Of course, every verse must be taken in context. When a verse is quoted, needless to point out, the context is understood to be taken into consideration. It would be impractical to quote a whole chapter or more, not to mention the whole Bible, isn’t it?



What I was requesting of you is to deal with the scriptures I gave you, explaining to us what the writer meant when he said that they were “ bought” or that the church was “purchased” with His own blood. In context of course.

<<<When Peter and Paul say that we are "bought" with a price, they are speaking in terms of redeeming a slave. The good news is that Jesus redeemed us, setting us free of sin, which was our task master.>>>

Speaking of redemption, there is a price paid. In the case of slaves, the price is paid to the master of the slave, is that right? To whom then did Jesus pay the price for redemption? Can you explain that to us?

Tong
R4853

I think I explained everything. Did you have any questions?

 

[Kermos]

Yes, but not directly. If I am allowed to speak crudely, he didn't buy the hamburgers, he bought the franchise.

That which you just wrote does not match Paul's writing of "you have been bought with a price" (1 Corinthians 6:20) about us disciples.

Both in aggregate and individually, Christ bought His disciples with His precious Blood.

Yes, the Bible speaks about God's people as his "possessions." But his people belong to him as a wife belongs to a husband. For instance, if Zoe were to ask someone about me, she would say something like, "he is my husband." I belong to her; that is, out of all the men in the world, she chose me personally to be her husband. I'm not her property, in that sense. She didn't "buy" me as if I were a slave. She married me, and I belong to her because I promised to remain faithful to her, protect her, and honor her above all other women.

It sounds to me that you are unfamiliar with the "dowry".

A dowry is a gift of substantial monetary value given from either the bride or groom to their future spouse upon marriage.

That's a modern definition of dowry, but dowry goes back to ancient times.

The husband owns the wife.

A husband is to love his wife.

Here is a picture of Paul's writing of "you have been bought with a price" (1 Corinthians 6:20) about us disciples.

Those who follow Jesus, those whom the Father gave to Jesus, are his "possession" in like manner. We are his because he promised to bless us, and grant us eternal life as a husband would his wife. Ephesians 1:13-14, Ephesians 5:22-24

You convey that you are unowned by Christ.

In effect, you disavow you being in "My own" when the Word of God says "I am the good shepherd, and I know My own and My own know Me" (John 10:14); moreover, the Christ expresses His possession and His ownership (see the word "own" as in "ownership" in Christ's phrasing of "My own"!

In effect, you exclude yourself from being among the "you" in Paul's writing of "you have been bought with a price" (1 Corinthians 6:20) about us disciples.

 

[Tong2020]

Tong2020 said: ↑
Of course, every verse must be taken in context. When a verse is quoted, needless to point out, the context is understood to be taken into consideration. It would be impractical to quote a whole chapter or more, not to mention the whole Bible, isn’t it?



What I was requesting of you is to deal with the scriptures I gave you, explaining to us what the writer meant when he said that they were “ bought” or that the church was “purchased” with His own blood. In context of course.

<<<When Peter and Paul say that we are "bought" with a price, they are speaking in terms of redeeming a slave. The good news is that Jesus redeemed us, setting us free of sin, which was our task master.>>>

Speaking of redemption, there is a price paid. In the case of slaves, the price is paid to the master of the slave, is that right? To whom then did Jesus pay the price for redemption? Can you explain that to us?

I think I explained everything. Did you have any questions?

Not anymore I think, if that’s the case.

Tong
R4854

 

[Kermos]

I can see that you have no idea how language works to communicate ideas. I'm trying to help you. But since you refuse, then I can't. Sorry.

But consider this, words have NO meaning outside of context. A dictionary isn't giving you the single meaning of a word. The dictionary gives you a broad range of possible connotations. In order for an author to communicate effectively, the author must help the reader to know which of the various possible connotations is intended. Please consider this in your own studies as you sort through the Biblical text.

You hate me and despise me and for this reason it is hard to discuss this with you. I pray that we can continue the dialogue in an atmosphere of mutual respect. You're call.

A distinct word exists in the Greek language that matches the English word "servants", and another distinct word in Greek matches the English word "slaves".

Each word is fully applicable and activated in the life Christians, and here are examples:

SERVANTS

The Greek word διακόνους (diakonous, Strong's #1249 - servant, waiter, minister) meaning the English word "servants" appears in this passage by Paul "Not that we are adequate in ourselves to consider anything as coming from ourselves, but our adequacy is from God, who also made us adequate as servants of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life" (2 Corinthians 3:5-6).

According to biblehub.com/greek/1249.htm, the definition for Strong's 1249 is:

1249 diákonos (from 1223 /diá, "thoroughly" and konis, "dust") – properly, "thoroughly raise up dust by moving in a hurry, and so to minister" (WP, 1, 162); ministry(sacred service).
1249 /diákonos ("ministry") in the NT usually refers to the Lord inspiring His servants to carry out His plan for His people – i.e. as His "minister" (like a deacon serving Him in a local church).

[A. T. Robertson, "1249 (diákonos) properly means 'to kick up dust,' as one running an errand." 1249(diákonos) is the root of the English terms, "diaconate, deacon."

This root (diakon-) is "probably connected with the verb diōkō, 'to hasten after, pursue' (perhaps originally said of a runner)" (Vine, Unger, White, NT, 147).]
​

SLAVES

The Greek word is ἐδουλώθητε
(edoulōthēte, Strong's #1402 douloó: to enslave, bring under subjection) meaning the English word "slaves" appears in this passage by Paul "having been freed from sin, you became slaves of righteousness" (Romans 6:18).

According to biblehub.com/greek/1402.htm, the definition for Strong's 1402 is:

Cognate: 1402 doulóō – enslave(passive, "become enslaved"), focusing on the status of being a bond-slave. In contrast to the other verb-form of the same root (1398/douleúō), 1402 (doulóō) stresses the results (effects) of enslavement. That is, what automatically goes with belonging to another. See 1401(doulos).
​

LANGUAGE

Since there are individual words to distinguish "slaves" independently from "servants", then Paul had at his disposal precisely the word "slaves" that God inspired Paul to use in "having been freed from sin, you became slaves of righteousness" (Romans 6:18).

When you change "slaves" (ἐδουλώθητε) into the word "servants" (διακόνους) in Romans 6:18, then you declare "the word of @CadyandZoe" supersedes the God inspired words of Paul.

CONTEXT

The Apostle Paul clearly indicates that God transfers man from being a "slave to sin" into being a "slave to righteousness" in "having been freed from sin, you became slaves of righteousness" (Romans 6:18).

Your foolishly illegitimate redefinition and nonexistent context subtracts out the true spiritual meaning of Paul's writing by applying your free-will precepts of men that leads to worship in vain (Matthew 15:9); therefore, you eliminate yourself from being among God's own (John 10:14).

I don't hate you, @CadyandZoe, yet I do hate the way you nullify the Word of God (Mark 7:13). God has me emphatically shining the Light (John 1:4) on your additions to scripture and your subtractions from scripture exposing that the altered scripture in your thoughts is not the Word of God, and God has me here proclaiming the Truth (John 14:6) to you.

 

[Kermos]

I see it differently. The passage speaks about a nuanced form of capital punishment, which is based on God's declaration that the blood of man shall be required of those who kill another man. In the case of murder, there can be no ransom payment. Numbers 25:31 But this passage speaks about another form of homicide: negligent homicide, where the law prescribes the death penalty as an option, but also allows the ox owner to pay a ransom to the victim's family for the redemption of his life. Nowhere in the passage does it say that once the ransom is paid, the victim takes possession of the ox owner. The purpose of ransom is freedom.

You see (perceive) it dead wrong.

In Exodus 21:30, "his life", this is the ox owner's life, "his life" is redeemed by paying the ransom thus the ox owner recovers unencumbered ownership of "his life" for it is written "If a ransom is demanded of him, then he shall give for the redemption of his life" (Exodus 21:30).

For instance, consider Numbers 3:45-51, wherein we read that the Lord decided to take the Levites in exchange for all the first born sons of Israel. Apparently there were not enough Levites to account for all the first born sons. In fact, there were 273 more first born sons than Levites at the time. So the Lord commanded that the additional sons were to be "ransomed" for 5 shekels each. In this way, all of the first born sons were released (freed) from obligation to serve at the temple.

God owns "the 273 of the firstborn of the sons of Israel who are in excess beyond the Levites" (Numbers 3:46) because God says the firstborn are God's meaning the firstborn's lives are not owned by the firstborn (Exodus 13:2).

The ransom payment amount of "five shekels apiece" (Numbers 3:47) is the established redemption value for the firstborn to gain ownership of their lives.

Moses, "from the firstborn of the sons of Israel he took the money" (Numbers 3:50), so the 273 firstborn redeemed themselves.

Ownership of the firstborn's lives does not cease to exist, like in your "freed" thing, when the ransom is paid, but rather "ownership" of the firstborn's lives transfers from God to the firstborn.

A firstborn bought ownership of his life from God by paying the 5 shekel ransom.

Jesus was also "redeemed" after he was born. Refer to Luke 2:22-24

Nothing in the passage to indicate that the ransom is payment for a slave. If a parallel exists between Matthew 20:28 and Exodus 21:29-31, the point of intersection is the release of the prisoner, slated for execution.

Exodus 21:29-31 includes scriptural definition of "ransom" as payment for ownership - the ox owner's life is encumbered to ownership unto death for another person's goring death.

Exodus 21:29-31 includes scriptural definition of "redemption" as the ox owner's recovered unencumbered ownership of "his life" - the ox owner buys (bought/redeems) his life.

God had me present this passage for this purpose.

"Ransom" exists as a parallel between Matthew 20:28 and Exodus 21:29-31 as previously shown.

"Redemption" exists as a parallel between Matthew 20:28 and Exodus 21:29-31 as previously shown.

Yes, Christ "owns" his disciples in the same way that my wife "owns" me. The relationship isn't one of slave/slave owner; the relationship is one of husband/wife. Just as my wife is "my wife" because I owe my loyalty to her exclusively, Jesus considers his disciples to be his "own" in that they are loyal to him exclusively.

God pronounced to the woman "he will rule over you" (Genesis 3:16) of Adam, so a wife is owned by her husband.

The dowry is relevant to a husband owning and loving his wife (as this post in this thread shows).

The intimate ownership that Christ expresses in "I am the good shepherd, and I know My own and My own know Me" (John 10:14) entirely eclipses your thoughts.

Christ's owns His disciples thus His disciples are "slaves of righteousness".

Of course, I never said otherwise.

But you conveyed that man free-will repents, and further down in your post you do it again.

But have you never read?

Romans 1:18-20
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

From this we see that salvation isn't so much a matter of knowledge, but a matter of the will.

"Will" is mentioned zero times in Romans 1:18-20, so your heart effectively adds will into Romans 1:18-20.

The Apostle Paul identifies every man starts out as a natural man with "the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual" (1 Corinthians 15:46).

The Apostle Paul explains that the commands of God are foolishness to man with a "natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised" (1 Corinthians 2:14)

The Apostle Paul declares that man's flesh opposes the Spirit of God with "the flesh desires against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh. For these are opposed to one another" (Galatians 5:17).

The natural man, the first state of man, "suppress the truth in unrighteousness" for that is what the natural man does thus the natural man is without excuse for being under the wrath of God.

CadyandZoe, you suppress the truth in unrighteousness.

Mankind has all the evidence it needs to discover and accept the existence of the one true God. God has made himself evident to us. The fatal error of unbelief is the suppression of the truth. We are not being judged for the knowledge we don't know or the ideas we can't seem to believe. Rather, we are being judged for the truth that we DO believe but willfully and unjustly suppress. Belief is a matter of the will.

Then, later in Romans Paul brings all humankind under judgement repeating OT passages such as the following,
Romans 3:11-12
There is none righteous, not even one; There is none who understands, There is none who seeks for God; All have turned aside, together they have become useless; There is none who does good, There is not even one.

Hopefully you see that the process of salvation begins with a "heart transplant" of a sort, a transformation of the will, a repair of what is broken. We aren't saved because we suddenly came to knowledge or understood the gospel. Salvation doesn't involve convincing someone of the truth of the gospel. No. Salvation takes place when God take a man, dedicated to the suppression of the truth, transforms his will, and makes him into a man who loves, acknowledges and affirms the truth. In other words, God took a will in bondage, and set it free. This is why we say that those who affirm the gospel are making a free-will choice.

Now, please accept my arguments or don't accept them. But making accusations isn't helpful to others. Or do you now allow them the freedom to make up their own mind? Romans 14:5

When you wrote "...transforms his will...", then you state man controls man's "will" after being born of God, yet the Apostle Paul wrote that person's will and person's work is the work of God in Christ's disciples with "it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for [His] good pleasure" (Philippians 2:13).

You thoroughly oppose the Holy Spirit inspired writing of Paul.

See that you claim a person thinks differently after (repents) by a "free-will choice" (your words) caused autonomously by man, so you oppose apostolic teaching of "God has granted to the Gentiles also the repentance that leads to life" (Acts 11:18).

When you wrote "This is why we say that those who affirm the gospel are making a free-will choice" then you nullify the Word of God (Mark 7:13) such as shown in the next paragraph.

The Word of God says there is no level that a person can choose Lord Jesus because He says "you did not choose Me, but I chose you" (John 15:16) as well as "I chose you out of the world" (John 15:19, includes salvation) - Jesus, being God, did not provide any exception for choosing toward Jesus. Lord Jesus speaks to all believers in all time because He also said "I do not ask on behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word" (John 17:20)! All these words of Jesus are at the same supper! All glory is God's! With man, salvation is impossible (Matthew 19:25-26)! All glory in the salvation of man is God's (John 15:5, Isaiah 42:8, Psalm 3:8)!

 

[reformed1689]

No. You are simply TWISTING Scripture. Regarding John 1:29, I have already posted John Calvin's commentary on that verse in the thread titled Calvinism vs Arminianism, and Calvin himself had to admit that this verse talks about THE SINS OF THE WHOLE WORLD. The human race. All human beings without exception.

So go ahead, read Calvin's commentary, and then weep for yourself and all those who have been deceived by Calvin (later on). Even though Calvin knew exactly what was in Scripture (and not just here) he chose to pervert the Gospel. Just as you have chosen to come on board in order to pervert the Gospel. Which is an extremely serious matter.

Calvin in his commentary speaks of people groups, Jew vs. Gentile, not indiviudals.

 

[brightfame52]

2 Cor 5:21 tells us who Christ died for !

2 Cor 5:21

21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

Those Christ died for, or was made sin for, as in made a sin offering for them when He died for them Isa 53:10

10 Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand.

It was not for all without exception as per false teachers tell us, but He die for all , was made sin or sin offering for all whom because of it, are made the Righteousness of God in Him. Thats what 2 Cor 5:21 means, it makes clear the purpose of His Death.

For instance, all those Christ died for or tasted death for Heb 2:9, its the same thing, as a consequence of it, they are made the Righteousness of God in Him ! All or the every man of Heb 2:9 are made the Righteousness of God in Christ, now does that apply to all without exception ? By no means, many are unjust still Rev 22:11

He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.

 

[Enoch111]

Calvin in his commentary speaks of people groups, Jew vs. Gentile, not indiviudals.

Kindly check his actual commentary. He says "the whole human race" or words to that effect.

 

[CadyandZoe]

You see (perceive) it dead wrong.

In Exodus 21:30, "his life", this is the ox owner's life, "his life" is redeemed by paying the ransom thus the ox owner recovers unencumbered ownership of "his life" for it is written "If a ransom is demanded of him, then he shall give for the redemption of his life" (Exodus 21:30).

What you say doesn't make any sense to me. There are three parties here: 1) the victim, 2) relative of the victim, and 3) the ox owner. The supposition is that the ox owner's ox gored the victim. After a trial judge decides the guilt of the ox owner, the victim's relative decides the sentence: either 1) death penalty, or 2) ransom. If the relative decides to accept ransom, then the ox owner pays the ransom to the relative. Once the ox owner pays the ransom, he is free to go about his life. Ransom = freedom.

The ransom payment amount of "five shekels apiece" (Numbers 3:47) is the established redemption value for the firstborn to gain ownership of their lives.

No. You have it backwards. God already obligated the first born sons of Israel to serve him. The shekels were paid to FREE the first born of his obligation to serve God.

 

[Pythagorean12]

Another popular Myth in the religious world today, is the Jesus Christ died or gave His Life for everyone in the world without exception, but the problem with that, is there is not one shred of scripture evidence that states that.

The scripture however does say that He died for His Sheep or His Church as per Jn 10:11,15

11I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.

15As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.

Eph 5:25

25Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

His People Isa 53:8

8He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken. cp Matt 1:21

Now, are all without exception His Sheep ? No

Are all without exception His Church ? No

Are all without exception His People ? No

For surely the seed of the serpent Gen 3:15 cannot be of His Sheep, His Church, or His People.

So why does the religous world proclaim that Jesus Christ died for all men without exception, when they have no scripture proof ? Because it is a Myth.

Marx called religion the opium of the masses. And for good reason.

 

[reformed1689]

Kindly check his actual commentary. He says "the whole human race" or words to that effect.

I did check his commentary before I posted. You need to read it again, you missed his point.

 

[Pythagorean12]

Romans 11 Calvin's Commentaries

 

[brightfame52]

He Redeemed the Chosen in Him !

Did Christ die for all without exception ? No, thats the biggest lie ever told, but Christ died for all whom by His Death it effected their redemption. Peter wrote:

1 Pet 1:18-20

18 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;1031

19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:

20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

Paul writes Rom 3:24

24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:

Redemption is solely by His Blood Eph 1:7

7 In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;

Who are the We here ? Yes its Believers, but more importantly the We are those Chosen in Christ before the foundation Eph 1:4

4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

Yes, the Us here is the We in Eph 1:7 and that's whom Christ died for, shed His Blood for and redeemed !

Its also these Rev 5:9

9 And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;

 

[Kermos]

Hello @CadyandZoe,

The Apostle Peter proclaimed "the things which God announced beforehand by the mouth of all the prophets, that His Christ would suffer, He has thus fulfilled" (Acts 3:18) and Peter immediately commanded "repent therefore and overturn to the wiping away of your sins" (Acts 3:19), so Christ wipes away the sins of us disciples by His redemptive work on the cross for us disciples with His precious Blood.

When you wrote "the purpose of the cross was not the expiation of sins" (your writing quoted in post #2436), then you disavow and reject that Christ suffered on the cross wiping away your sins thus you retain your sins upon yourself - you contradict/deny Peter's words recorded in Acts 3:18-19.

The Apostle Paul wrote "you have been bought with a price" (1 Corinthians 6:20) about us disciples, so Christ bought us disciples by His redemptive work on the cross for us disciples with His precious Blood.

When you wrote "Yes, but not directly. If I am allowed to speak crudely, he didn't buy the hamburgers, he bought the franchise" (your writing quoted in post #2448), then something is quite manifest about you.

In effect, you wrote that "Christ bought the Assembly of God, but Christ bought not the Assembly of God".

Your doctrine holds that two mutually exclusive things are true simultaneously.

By definition logically and linguistically, two mutually exclusive premises can not be true simultaneously.

Your doctrine, the thoughts of your heart, are confusion; on the other hand, "God is not a God of confusion but of peace" (1 Corinthians 14:33).

Notice the contra-juxtaposition of peace against confusion/war.

You go around saying peace, peace, but there is no peace (Jeremiah 6:14) for you currently with the Lord Jesus based on the treasure of your heart (Matthew 15:18).

Since you are not at peace with the Word of God, then you are at war with the Lord (Matthew 12:30).