11 I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.
12 But he that is an hireling, and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth: and the wolf catcheth them, and scattereth the sheep.
13 The hireling fleeth, because he is an hireling, and careth not for the sheep.
14 I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine.
15 As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.
16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold (viz..of the Gentiles): them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

Unequivocal statements by the Lord Jesus himself that his death was for the sheep, who hear their shepherd and known him.

But on this forum we witness the rank unbelief of those who are hirelings (abandoning the sheep) and wolves (sowing confusion to destroy the faith of the sheep) preaching as they do that the Lord Jesus loves the goats and died for them too. These are the ones who bring the unregenerate into the churches to destroy them and who admire Graham who even sent his converts to Roman Catholic churches. Would a true under shepherd do that?

So having provided an opportunity for all he secures it only for the elect.

What happened? Which member of the Trinity was out of sync?

The father we know gave Christ a people. The Holy Spirit secures the salvation of just those people, and even though Christ affirmed that he came to save those that the Father gave him he went rogue and decided that he would provide for everyone just in case?

Mike wrote:
He upbraided the Jews for their unbelief, not their election status. Ever wonder why he lamented over Jerusalem? (Mt23:37; Luke 13:34)
.....Unbelief is the real perversion, the reason man is held accountable, the reason hell awaits.

Strategy noted.

I hope that readers will note the unbelief being displayed in the plainest statements of the Bible viz.

Romans 3:11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.

Romans 8:7 .... the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

Romans 9. 18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

John 6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

John 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

Mike wrote:
John 5:40
........ What did he say was missing in them?

Consider this comment by the great expositor John Gill:

“These words are so far from being expressive of the power and liberty of the will of man to come to Christ, that they rather declare the perverseness and stubbornness of it; that man has no desire, inclination, or will, to go Christ for life; but had rather go any where else, or trust to any thing else, than to him. Man is stout-hearted, and far from the righteousness of Christ, and submission to it; is not subject to the law of God, nor the Gospel of Christ; nor can he be, till God works in him both to will and to do of his good pleasure; or until he is made willing in the day of his power. No one can come to Christ, except the Father draw him"

Do you see how perverse the reasoning is, when the verse is set in the context of a will enslaved to seek anything but Christ?

Mike wrote:
John 5:40
"And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life."
One thing should be plainly obvious here. The Lord did not say ye cannot come to me. Now go back to 5:31, and finish the chapter, and ask yourself why was Jesus upbraiding the Jews? What did he say was missing in them?

You can interpret it any way you like, but as long as your take contradicts other clear scriptures your specious philosophising to empty the verse of meaning should be evident to those who understand the verse.

John 6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

John 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

What does this last verse suggest to your mind if not impossibility of their coming of their own accord? Of course they will not come, because their unregenerate carnal minds are at enmity with God:

Romans 8:7 .... the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

Mike wrote:
Of course, Paul understood the meaning of the potter and the clay metaphor from Jeremiah 18.

By your interpretation you have just vacated any meaning in Romans 9.

The whole point of the chapter is to show that God is faithful to the promises he made to the Jews in the OT despite appearances. The reason was that the promises were not made to all the lineal descendants (Jews outwardly) but to those who were Jews inwardly.

He illustrates that even in the OT it never applied to all the descendants of Abraham - so Isaac was chosen over Ishmael, likewise Jacob over Esau. This is ELECTION. But more importantly, verse 11 says

For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth

IOW - what they did doesn't matter. God chose Isaac and Jacob before they were even born. This is further explained in v18 that God will have mercy on whom he will have mercy and hardens others.

Hence the complaint of the verses that follow, which English Lad quotes viz. In that case why does he still find fault with those he hardens?

Christopher00 wrote:
We should be wiping the nervous sweat from our brow, and in great humility, and thankfulness, counting our blessings that, for whatever reason, He chose to set us apart.

Had to say that, interrupting my posts, because it was so well said.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Let's read about our High Priest. Was he High Priest for every single individual in the world? He would need to have been if his oblation was meant for them.

Hebrews 10:21
And having an high priest over the house of God;

Oh, dear. this shoots down the notion that he represented anyone other than those who are in the household of God.

But surely, the typological conclusion that John UK draws is that he died for everyone's sins. Hmmm.. again his ignorance of the scriptures shows through.

Hebrews 2:17
Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.

Galatians 3:8
And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.

Here we see that in the promise to bless the nations was the specific promise of justifying the heathen (non-Jews) through faith, not some airy fairy Christ died for everyone rubbish.

So when Christ came to fulfil the new covenant promised in Jeremiah 31, we read in Matthew 1.21 "…..thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins." That was the intent (not merely the application that BMc ignorantly likes to go on about).

As if to confirm his mission the Lord repeatedly makes statements like the following:

John 10:11
I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.

John 10:15
As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.

What? Not the goats? Surely he died for everyone? NO NOT SO!

Well, let's come briefly to the atonement (or reconciliation - same word). Was the imagery of the atonement meant to cover every single individual?

So in the next few posts I shall endeavour to lay out the actual teaching of the Bible.

We have to start with how the Jews thought both in the OT and NT and especially concerning their own status as a nation. The sense of Jewish superiority because God had chosen them was palpable even among the disciples of Christ, such that Christ spends a great deal of his time trying to dispel the notion. Even so, with Peter it wasn't until the incident with Cornelius that it finally sank in that the gospel was intended for the whole world and not just for the Jews.

So with this in mind, let's examine what the Scriptures say.

Genesis 18:18
.......Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him?


Here it is clear that through Abraham all the nations of the earth would be blessed. IOW the whole world (not Jews only), but, as I shall show, not every single individual.

What was the specific blessing that was expected in that promise?

Unprofitable Servant wrote:
You would probably say in your studies of Scripture that the Bible teaches the Covenant of Works, Redemption and Grace. I would say these are nowhere in Scripture but man made doctrine. We are both using the same Bible and depending upon the same Holy Spirit. Our understanding is colored by the teaching we received and accepted as truth. The problem isn’t in the Bible, it is in our understanding of what the Bible teaches and how we interpret it.

Unprofitable Servant wrote:
Sure, not all interpretations of Scripture are equal...Ultimately Calvinist or Arminian are interpretations of Bible doctrine. ..I need to concentrate on by God’s grace is being a doer of the Word and not a hearer only....

I agree that we should all be doers of the word. However, since our actions flow from what we believe (hence the epistles first start with doctrine before exhorting on certain behavior flowing from the doctrine) getting doctrine right is important.

You say that not all interpretation is equal. I am not sure what you mean. That sentence would only make sense if there are shades of right meaning, not if there was truth and falsehood. But, whatever you meant by it, what concerns me is that having said that not all interpretation is equal, you provide no means to know which is superior. Are we all left to our own devices? Do we need an inspired prophet to tell us?

John UK wrote:
Yom Kippur - The Day of Atonement (Leviticus 16). The whole day was devoted to providing the whole group of people with a blood atonement. This was for everybody, but not everybody had faith in it, so the atonement did not avail for them. But it was there FOR them. There was no lack in what God told them to do.

How does that help your case for an atonement for every person who has ever lived when the majority of the then existing world was outside of this visible community? Hmmm....

Ladybug

Unprofitable Servant wrote:
Never said any of what you said and you seem to be. unwilling to admit that the Canons of Dordt are not the same as the Bible. Have a good day.

The above said, I do believe that the Synod of Dortrecht were consistent with the Scriptures and the Remonstrants deviated from its teachings. More plainly the Synod interpreted the meaning of God's word correctly and the Remonstrants got it wrong. Did the Synod get everything right? No I don't believe so.

Hope that this clarifies the issue, but if not, I am sure you'll get back to me.

Unprofitable Servant wrote:
But if the Canons of Dordt says it then it must be true? They are no more inspired than Spurgeon. Both are man’s interpretation of what is found in the Bible. (not addressing their accuracy) The term “limited atonement” (not talking about the concept of it) is just like the terms depravity, irresistible, and unconditional, not found in Scripture. (Since you indicated that to be crucial)
If you do a search right here on SermonAudio for particular redemption it brings up 393 different sermons and three different series.
You appear to be are swallowing a gnat and straining a camel as both terms refer to the fact that Christ loved the church and gave Himself for it just to tenuously cling to the wording of mere men.

John UK wrote:
Yes indeed, sister. It is a wonderful thing when you can go anywhere in scripture and not have to wrest individual verses to make it fit a particular doctrine. When the Bible is accepted, it is its own doctrine-maker.

That Christ died for every single soul?

If he died for every single soul, why is every single soul not saved?

Can we now all give up the pretence that anyone is actually in danger of hellfire?

John UK wrote:
It all promotes the love of God by action, not words.It all promotes the love of God by action, not words.

John UK wrote:
"When we are giving the invitations of the gospel that we find in the Scriptures, we never think of limiting them. Though we believe the special purpose of Christ’s atonement was the redemption of his Church, yet we know that his sacrifice was infinite in value, and therefore we set the wicket gate as wide open as we can, and we repeat Christ’s own invitation, 'Whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.' " CHS

John UK wrote:
Personally, I think the expression 'limited atonement' is misleading and inadequate. Whereas the phrase 'particular redemption' says it all.

But, as I asked before, of what practical value is it to know that Christ's atonement is of infinite value, if the trinity has determined that it will only be efficacious for the elect?

John UK wrote:
Yes indeed brother!
Whichever way you look at it:-
If you trust Him, you’re elect, and if you don’t, you’re not.
or
If you're elect, you will trust Him, and if you don't, you're not.

NeedHim wrote:
Randy Smith; First, I must share the Gospel with passion. Yet when it comes to conversion I need to leave the matter in God’s hands because that is a work that only He can accomplish.
Second, my responsibility is not to save people, but rather my responsibility is to faithfully share the “good news.” Therefore, I don’t need to resort to gimmicks or manipulation, but rather prayer and trust in God’s sovereignty. It is not the skill of the proclaimer, the packaging of the message or the techniques used to proclaim it, but the unadulterated Word and trust in the Holy Spirit. We need clarity, not cleverness. Third, I can be at peace regarding the eternal outcome of souls and am I thankful for that!