Sonnet
New member
Perhaps you provided the wrong link?
Last edited:
Did Christ die for all men?
- Thread starter Sonnet
- Start date
Perhaps you provided the wrong link?
Sonnet
New member
Jesus said: Just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the desert, so shall the Son of Man be lifted up so that whoever believes may have eternal life in Him.
The bitten Israelites had to do something for the cure (the raised serpent) to became effective. All of the affected Israelites were provided for. Only those who turned and looked were cured.
Jesus' crucifixion is JUST AS the source of the analogy - the OT Moses story (Numbers 21:4ff).
Last edited:
A Sermon Delivered On Sunday Evening, By C. H. Spurgeon, At The Metropolitan Tabernacle, Newington. *12/30/2012
God our Saviour; who will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth. [1Ti 2:3,4]
1. May God the Holy Spirit guide our meditations to the best practical result this evening, so that sinners may be saved and saints stirred up to diligence.
2. I do not intend to treat my text controversially. It is like the stone which makes the corner of a building, and it looks towards a different side of the gospel from what is mostly before us. Two sides of the building of truth meet here. In many a village there is a corner where the idle and the quarrelsome gather together; and theology has such corners. It would be very easy indeed to set ourselves in battle array, and during the next half-hour to carry on a very fierce attack against those who differ from us in opinion upon points which could be raised from this text. I do not see that any good would come of it, and, since we have very little time to spare, and life is short, we had better spend it upon something that may better tend to our edification. May the good Spirit preserve us from a contentious spirit, and help us really to profit by his word.
3. It is quite certain that when we read that God will have all men to be saved it does not mean that he wills it with the force of a decree or a divine purpose, for, if he did, then all men would be saved. He willed to make the world, and the world was made: he does not so will the salvation of all men, for we know that all men will not be saved. Terrible as the truth is, yet it is certain from holy writ that there are men who, as a consequence of their sin and their rejection of the Saviour, will go away into everlasting punishment, where there shall be weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth. There will at the last be goats upon the left hand as well as sheep on the right, tares to be burned as well as wheat to be garnered, chaff to be blown away as well as grain to be preserved. There will be a dreadful hell as well as a glorious heaven, and there is no decree to the contrary.
4. What then? Shall we try to put another meaning into the text than what it fairly bears? I do not think so. You must, most of you, be acquainted with the general method in which our older Calvinistic friends deal with this text. “All men,” they say, — “that is, some men”: as if the Holy Spirit could not have said “some men” if he had meant some men. “All men,” they say; “that is, some of all kinds of men”: as if the Lord could not have said “all kinds of men” if he had meant that. The Holy Spirit by the apostle has written “all men,” and unquestionably he means all men. I know how to get rid of the force of the “alls” according to that critical method which some time ago was very popular, but I do not see how it can be applied here with due regard to truth. I was reading just now the exposition of a very able doctor who explains the text so as to explain it away; he applies grammatical gunpowder to it, and explodes it by way of expounding it. I thought when I read his exposition that it would have been a very capital comment upon the text if it had read, “Who will not have all men to be saved, nor come to a knowledge of the truth.” Had such been the inspired language every remark of the learned doctor would have been most proper, but since it happens to say, “Who will have all men to be saved,” his observations are more than a little out of place. My love for consistency with my own doctrinal views is not great enough to allow me knowingly to alter a single text of Scripture. I have great respect for orthodoxy, but my reverence for inspiration is far greater. I would sooner a hundred times over appear to be inconsistent with myself than be inconsistent with the word of God. I never thought it to be any very great crime to seem to be inconsistent with myself; for who am I that I should everlastingly be consistent? But I do think it is a great crime to be so inconsistent with the word of God that I should want to lop away a bough or even a twig from so much as a single tree of the forest of Scripture. God forbid that I should cut or shape, even in the least degree, any divine expression. So runs the text, and so we must read it, “God our Saviour; who will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth.”
God our Saviour; who will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth. [1Ti 2:3,4]
1. May God the Holy Spirit guide our meditations to the best practical result this evening, so that sinners may be saved and saints stirred up to diligence.
2. I do not intend to treat my text controversially. It is like the stone which makes the corner of a building, and it looks towards a different side of the gospel from what is mostly before us. Two sides of the building of truth meet here. In many a village there is a corner where the idle and the quarrelsome gather together; and theology has such corners. It would be very easy indeed to set ourselves in battle array, and during the next half-hour to carry on a very fierce attack against those who differ from us in opinion upon points which could be raised from this text. I do not see that any good would come of it, and, since we have very little time to spare, and life is short, we had better spend it upon something that may better tend to our edification. May the good Spirit preserve us from a contentious spirit, and help us really to profit by his word.
3. It is quite certain that when we read that God will have all men to be saved it does not mean that he wills it with the force of a decree or a divine purpose, for, if he did, then all men would be saved. He willed to make the world, and the world was made: he does not so will the salvation of all men, for we know that all men will not be saved. Terrible as the truth is, yet it is certain from holy writ that there are men who, as a consequence of their sin and their rejection of the Saviour, will go away into everlasting punishment, where there shall be weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth. There will at the last be goats upon the left hand as well as sheep on the right, tares to be burned as well as wheat to be garnered, chaff to be blown away as well as grain to be preserved. There will be a dreadful hell as well as a glorious heaven, and there is no decree to the contrary.
4. What then? Shall we try to put another meaning into the text than what it fairly bears? I do not think so. You must, most of you, be acquainted with the general method in which our older Calvinistic friends deal with this text. “All men,” they say, — “that is, some men”: as if the Holy Spirit could not have said “some men” if he had meant some men. “All men,” they say; “that is, some of all kinds of men”: as if the Lord could not have said “all kinds of men” if he had meant that. The Holy Spirit by the apostle has written “all men,” and unquestionably he means all men. I know how to get rid of the force of the “alls” according to that critical method which some time ago was very popular, but I do not see how it can be applied here with due regard to truth. I was reading just now the exposition of a very able doctor who explains the text so as to explain it away; he applies grammatical gunpowder to it, and explodes it by way of expounding it. I thought when I read his exposition that it would have been a very capital comment upon the text if it had read, “Who will not have all men to be saved, nor come to a knowledge of the truth.” Had such been the inspired language every remark of the learned doctor would have been most proper, but since it happens to say, “Who will have all men to be saved,” his observations are more than a little out of place. My love for consistency with my own doctrinal views is not great enough to allow me knowingly to alter a single text of Scripture. I have great respect for orthodoxy, but my reverence for inspiration is far greater. I would sooner a hundred times over appear to be inconsistent with myself than be inconsistent with the word of God. I never thought it to be any very great crime to seem to be inconsistent with myself; for who am I that I should everlastingly be consistent? But I do think it is a great crime to be so inconsistent with the word of God that I should want to lop away a bough or even a twig from so much as a single tree of the forest of Scripture. God forbid that I should cut or shape, even in the least degree, any divine expression. So runs the text, and so we must read it, “God our Saviour; who will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth.”
Last edited:
Sonnet
New member
Thanks. I have read this before. Certainly, if Christ hasn't died for all then Paul's assertion would be impossible.
dodge
New member
I believe Jesus told them "why" He was going to die.
Mat 26:26
¶
And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.
Mat 26:27
And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
Mat 26:28
For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
Peace
Sonnet
New member
Luke 22:20-22
In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you. But the hand of him who is going to betray me is with mine on the table. The Son of Man will go as it has been decreed. But woe to that man who betrays him!”
beloved57
Well-known member
This passage does not say that Christ died for them that will be lost.
Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk
Sonnet
New member
Christ's blood is poured out for Judas.
beloved57
Well-known member
beloved57
Well-known member
You must believe that Christ blood can be shed for someone and it not save them ? Is that right?
Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk
Sonnet
New member
Yes.
beloved57
Well-known member
Then you don't believe in Jesus Christ the Saviour of His people. Matt1:21! You are a unbeliever.
Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk
Sonnet
New member
Jesus came to the Jews and indeed provided salvation. Only those that believed would be saved John 3:14-16.
Jesus models his provision on that of the serpent that Moses raised up in the wilderness.
beloved57
Well-known member
You teach that those Christ died for are lost, denying that His Death alone saved them He died for.
You teach that salvation depends on what a person does. That's a denial that it depends on Christ alone.
Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk
Lon
Well-known member
So my salvation depends now, solely upon me? Partly? Which part. In the end, how you or I answer these kinds of questions leave us in one theological camp or another. Somewhere between "I chose Christ" and "Christ chose me" you and I are found.
Cross Reference
New member
That isn't what Piper teaches (Mt 18:14). :dizzy: Jesus is for anyone who would believe (Jn 3:16). You must be born again (Jn 3:7). You'll know you've been born again when the Spirit testifies with your spirit that you are his (Ro 8:16). :straight:
Lon
Well-known member
"... and this not of yourselves, it is a gift from God, not of works, so no man 'can' boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them." Ephesians 2:8b-10
It continues the discussion of where you and I fall on the issue of 'not of ourselves.'