Lurker wrote:
All the sheep. Sort of hard to read it any other way. But that's just me. I suppose there are those who don't know the difference between sheep and goats. Matthew 25:31ff.

Behold the wonders of the modern day gospel where preachers can tell immediately, because sinners have consented to their new gospel, that people are saved. Gone are the days of waiting to see the fruit of repentance and the evidence of changed lives. Broadening the way to increase the numbers of deluded who go to hell seems to satisfy these blind guides who see their new found theology as freedom from the shackles of a biblical theology.

John UK wrote:
"And that he died for all"
must of necessity be more than
"that they which live"
Paul is saying that not all will live, yet he died for all. "They which live" shows a limited number, less than "he died for all".
Now folks I am not saying I am correct, merely showing you what I believe and why, and how it is helping me to accept all of scripture without wresting a single verse, which many do.

John UK wrote:
I believe it is a picture of the atonement of Christ; it saves those who do what God says to do.
Gotta turn in, bro.

All Israelites were God's chosen people and therefore elect in typical teaching, so pressing your approach you have elect who do not believe and also elect who perish. Where does the fanciful footwork stop? I guess where ever your judgement determines, right?

B McCausland wrote:
Further more the atonement was available to gentiles also. See:
" .. in the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month, ye shall afflict your souls, and do no work at all,
whether it be one of your own country, or a stranger that sojourns among you"
Lev 16

John UK wrote:
Bonny, you are amazed that there is an universal atonement? This is easily proven from the OT Day of Atonement. Unless you actually believe that all the Jews were all saved, every last one.

Hebrews even tells us that "it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins" Heb 10.4 The pictures were not effectual. They pointed to something that would be.

Dr Tim

John UK wrote:
Besides which, my already decided doctrine is that Christ purposed to save a specific people and died specifically for them. That is what I believe.

Talking out of both sides of your mouth is quite the art you've perfected.

Kev US

John UK wrote:
I did read on to the two verses in mind, but Hodge, like many others, seeks to interpret the texts so that they conform to an already decided doctrine. That is how he words his comments. Ryle, on the other hand, has no such restrictions.

John UK wrote:
However, if this man has done an exposition of the text in question, I will read him and see what he has to say. Please link and when I get back from shopping, I'll have a read. Thank you. The text is 2 Corinthians 5:14.

John UK wrote:
Well, Bonny Scotland, you wouldn't accept C H Spurgeon's view on the matter, where he claimed the atonement was of unlimited value, simply because of the nature of the Lord Jesus Christ, so I thought I'd try Barnes, whose argument on this verse is not so easy to break down, or you would have done it yourself.
See what I mean?

John UK wrote:
The previous verse:
2 Corinthians 5:14 KJV
(14)  For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead:
Barnes says ..

Kev wrote:
People need to read the word of God and stop seeing the writers of old as infallible. God said He would teach His people I hope to be taugh by the word of God not writings of men and be in a teachable state.

"Of course, you are not such wiseacres as to think or say that you can expound Scripture without assistance from the works of divines and learned men who have laboured before you in the field of exposition. If you are of that opinion, pray remain so, for you are not worth the trouble of conversion, and like a little coterie who think with you, would resent the attempt as an insult to your infallibility.

8 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.

9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

Apparently the New Testament Christians were concerned to fulfil the law which some here treat with such derision. Maybe the scorners have it totally wrong?

Or maybe they think that the "second table" of the law is the only one that natters and that love to God can be done away?

Amazing that there is such ignorance when we have so much literature from those who went before us. Seems no one likes studying any more.

“It is my highest ambition to be clear of the blood of all men. I have preached God’s truth, so far as I know it, and I have not been ashamed of its peculiarities. That I might not stultify my testimony I have cut myself clear of those who err from the faith, and even from those who associate with them”

The downgrade in his day continues apace among those who still profess the Lord’s name and claim to love him. :’(

One poster even refers to BG as just a controversial figure. Either the person is wilfully ignorant or has an agenda.

B. McCausland wrote:
Yes, John, the fact that God's judgements are 'unsearchable' means that they cannot be traced back, or fathomed to their original essence.
This is why hyper-Calvinists end up writing some points of their theology by deductive reasoning to solve their own man-made conundrums; e.g, does God love or does not love every one so that the blood of Christ's atonement is not 'wasted', or is man justified being lost, when he believes, or from eternity?, as Gill ponders, etc & etc
Mike
Surely appearances fall away in the light of fruit examination, even when ministers of Satan disguise themselves as apostless of Christ, or ministers of *righteousness*

Logic that negates God's plain statements that he loves only those elected in Christ from eternity past must now be seen as godly? Or the plain statements of God's word that we must separate from false teachers can be ignored because it is Billy Graham?

We dare not suspect the devil in all this, because these proponents seem to themselves to have behaved better and congratulated themselves for it.