What is the Gospel?

[Ask Mr. Religion]

They believe in Apostolic succession, which Reformationists deny and discard, and they believe the Scripture literally regarding the Eucharist, as opposed to Reformationists who read symbolism into scriptures where there is no symbolism, and ignore that the whole Church from the start believed and taught the Real Presence of the Lord in the Eucharist, just as He said.

Firstly the Reformed affirm succession. You continue to demonstrate a lack of attention to what I have posted:
http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?126873-What-is-the-Gospel&p=5120529&viewfull=1#post5120529

Secondly, there is no warrant within Scripture that summons Our Lord back to earth to be re-crucified at the ringing of the bell at Rome's or the Eastern, Oriental, Assyrian, etc., Orthodox Mass.

[I've already told you it's personal and filial. I've not bobbed nor woven.

You cannot continue to be a cheerleader for Romanism as the one, truth, faith on the one hand, yet fail to covenant to it on the other. Either you are in her church, or you are not. Beware the double-minded man (James 1:8). Explain your personal and filial issues rather than use them as a shield from being examined.

AMR

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Nor did I advance that argument. It's still a fact that Orthodoxy and Catholicism trace all the way back to the first century, and everything else, not so much.
I think Catholicism's true---that Catholicism is Christianity itself---because of Scripture, and because Catholicism is most faithful to Scripture, among all the variety of options today. It just so happens Catholicism is also the oldest option. I'm not going to hold that against Catholicism, that it's the oldest.

You have no appreciation nor understanding of the history of the church militant. No one argues that the early church, up until the fifth century or so, was a catholic (universal) church. It was most certainly not the Roman Catholic church.

The rise of what would become the RCC began around the fifth century as Rome was collapsing under Barbarian invasions (Alaric the Visigoth, the Huns under Atilla). So we have a group that tyrannized the bodies of men (Rome) soon to be replaced by a group that would tyrannize the souls of men (RCC). Sigh.

The actual establishment of the political and ecclesiastical Rome owes its genesis to three popes: Hildebrand, Innocent III, and Boniface VIII.

With Innocent III the papacy was cemented as a controller of church and state. His Fourth Lateran Council defined RCC's seven sacraments, required confession, and made the penitential treadmill necessary as the only way to salvation. Finally Boniface's Unam Sanctum made submission to the Pope necessary for salvation.

By the thirteenth century the true church was in the wilderness existing in part among some within the RCC and the Waldenses. Justification by faith alone, the divine way of forgiveness and salvation had yet to be officially denounced and condemned at Trent. Lastly, the church had yet to declare that its interpretation of inspired Holy Writ was infallible and solely legitimate. So the true church was there, but, as noted, scattered in the wilderness wherein the elect did hear our Lord's voice above that of the false shepherds, much like the blind man heard Jesus as the Christ in John 9.

The Reformation was soon to come on the heels of men like Wyclif, Hus, Lyra, Valla, Erasmus, and Ockham. Those last four Renaissance minds of natural men were used by God to show the likes of Luther the true path. Yes, God ordains righteously what men do wickedly. At the time of the Reformation it was clear that the RCC had long since departed from the true church and it was necessary that they be called to return from their apostasy by the Reformers. That call to return continues even to this day.

Have you bothered to check the facts of history about church development from a few sources that are not tied to Rome?

http://www.amazon.com/Church-History-Volume-One-Pre-Reformation-ebook/dp/B00CW4VQ4Q/

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B008D30RKE

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00O7UPECI

http://www.amazon.com/Evangelical-Theological-Perspectives-Post-Vatican-Catholicism/dp/0820469556

http://www.amazon.com/Roman-Catholic-Theology-Practice-Evangelical/dp/1433501163

http://www.amazon.com/Gospel-According-Rome-James-McCarthy/dp/1565071077

Are you unwilling to put your confidence in Rome to the test by venturing outside its walls to honestly examine what others have to say?

If you avail yourself of some non-Rome historical studies, you will learn that in the ninth century Christendom was divided governmentally into five geographic regions, having heads in Jerusalem, Constantinople, Alexandria, Rome, and Antioch. Over the years Rome had started claiming more and more power and authority. The Bishop of Rome started claiming more and more right over the governance of all of Christendom, not just his own area. Schism with the East soon followed and Rome was on a downward spiral towards the full aspostacy it made clear at Trent.

Men like Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin were within their duty to come out from a church that had abandoned its Scriptural basis for being called "church". It is not schism to break away from an apostate church. It is a schism to remain in an apostate church, since to remain in an apostate church is to separate from the true church of Jesus Christ. Of course, per Vatican I we Protestants were all schismatics and heretics, but strangely by the time of Vatican II, we were merely "separated brethren". Yet another counter-example of claimed Roman monolithicity.

These are the unadulterated facts of the history of the church. You can deny them, but it does not change them.

AMR

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

A misquote of a rather “un”pleasant man circulates the internet... it is absolutely fabricated....

The real Quote is from a book known as “My Struggle” to the non-Germanic. It is Anti Jewish Propaganda and reads so...;

“In this they [the Jews] proceeded on the sound principle that the magnitude of a lie always contains a certain factor of credibility, since the great masses of the people in the very bottom of their hearts tend to be corrupted rather than consciously and purposely evil, and that, therefore, in view of the primitive simplicity of their minds, they more easily fall victim to a big lie than to a little one, since they themselves lie in little things, but would be ashamed of lies that were too big. Such a falsehood will never enter their heads, and they will not be able to believe in the possibility of such monstrous effrontery and infamous misrepresentation in others.…” (p. 231 of the Manheim translation)”

The point is clear... those who embrace little lies and maintain moral fiber have issue believing anyone could lie largely with impudence... and maintain a following.

MAD over divides to correct for Supersession...

While Reform Under-divides to compensate for their separation from the Universal Church.... and defense of Justin Martyrs scope on Supersession...

The victim in both counts are Christ’s words and Biblical context...

The Red letters are incontestable... as they are God speaking for God. That’s as unfiltered as TRUTH gets...

When the catechisms words from point 601 are contested...

“"He died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures"
601 The Scriptures had foretold this divine plan of salvation through the putting to death of "the righteous one, my Servant" as a mystery of universal redemption, that is, as the ransom that would free men from the slavery of sin.397 Citing a confession of faith that he himself had "received", St. Paul professes that "Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures."398 In particular Jesus' redemptive death fulfills Isaiah's prophecy of the suffering Servant.399 Indeed Jesus himself explained the meaning of his life and death in the light of God's suffering Servant.400 After his Resurrection he gave this interpretation of the Scriptures to the disciples at Emmaus, and then to the apostles.401”

The church is now in a state of enormous peril as it has believed the Largest Spiritual Lie of all...

That God is not utterly “Altruistic” and the very Personification of Agape Love...

In other words...

Satan prevails and the Character of God ... Which God traveled the Veil to Express... has been undermined through the large lie that “Jesus only died... for those that believe”.

The ultra retarded retort to this with... if Jesus died for all... then all would be saved and thus one who defends scriptures implication of all... must be a universalist...

Which is utter rubbish... because the universalist... like the LA teacher... believes they discern the very WILL of God.

The person that attests that Jesus died for all... supports scripture, the Goodness of God and the ultimate fate of mankind to be God’s alone.

One more way to put this...

If the total summation of a population is 144,000... and all 144,000 are thirsting to death...

And... “Bob” buys water to “Save” the population... “Bob” has two choices... plus a wild card...

Choice 1: Find out who will drink what he buys and only buy for them.

This makes Bob Limited in wealth and generosity... as Bob is the examples surname for the Creator... in this instance...

Choice two: Bob has an unlimited storehouse of water and only invites those who will drink to “live”... and says “F-orget” the rest...

This makes Bob an A$$H0Le That is the furthest thing from concerned about those that won’t drink.

Choice three aka... wild card: Bob has an unlimited storehouse of water and invites all 144,000 to drink and perpetually compels even those that refuse to drink... to drink out of 1 Corinthians 13 Love That is His perfect NATURE!

If anyone thinks “Bob” is “Limited” or an “A$$H0LE”... they have adopted the biggest lies of lies and thus Limit the Water to humanity in their proclamation of the Water Availability...

[MENTION=16283]Sonnet[/MENTION] is correct to note this matter and isn’t an agent of Division any more than He Who said... I came not for... but to bring DIVISION”...

The Sheep and the Goats... are divided by their indiscriminate offering or lack of offering of Love in deed to the very “Least”... and if you don’t remember what Christ did for “the least” and how far he took that... as recorded in the 4 Gospels... you’re probably hooked on a BIG LIE that misses the point... and invalidates your ability to see the simple truth of this thread...

John 5:39-40

Any Arse can save the savable... but only God leaves the fold to seek out that one lost sheep... and if you miss what this suggests and hang your hat on any point of TULIP to dismantle this truth... or Dispensational teaching to remove the Power behind the Power of the Cross... you... well...

You trample the blood as effectively as an “Unbeliever”... that says FULLY in his heart... that there is no God... and thus reading Romans 2:1-2 might be a good idea for you...

Can I get an Amen [MENTION=11892]blackbirdking[/MENTION] ?

Probably not... but...

Amen... So be it...

 

[Lon]

I am looking for truth Nihilo. Jesus appears to have a semblance of it but it's difficult to accept all of Scripture

This is essentially it for you. You have a lot of cognitive dissonance over the tenants of Christianity. I don't, and it is about how scripture describes it: Faith first, 'show' later. There are a lot of reasons why but for me, and it is a bit intuitive: Any 'proof' 1) is a demand from man's point-of-view. Even if the demand is deemed 'right' it is yet a hoop to jump through and it puts God in the subservient position. If we are going to come to the Creator of us, intuitively, it is going to have to be from the creature-position, not the driver's seat. Some accuse God of 'hiding' as such. They are guessing His motivation incorrectly. The Lord Jesus Christ did become a man, and willingly subservient, to death (yours and mine). While love is certainly reaching to us, it must not be presumed upon. It isn't that you are doing that, but at times, we are all 'me' centered and in our demands, elevating ourselves. 2) "Proof" and who could refuse? One day that will happen but something I've understood about God, is that His timing is 'humanly-lousy.' What I mean is, 'lousy' for us. Our condition is not made for patience and our expectations are rarely held off for 30 years. That is how long it took, when I started praying, for my father to come to the Lord Jesus Christ. For me? A 'lousy wait' because I hadn't the patience for it. I so longed for him to know God. Ecclesiastes 3:11. I am thinking about planting an Asian pear tree in the back yard. I'm told it will take 3 years before fruit shows and that it will not necessarily be edible the first year or two.

Back to 'proof.' God is not interested in the immediate proofs often demanded. Pharaoh, having immediate proofs, simply scoffed them off and worked on his own abilities to duplicate the same. I always wondered why Pharaoh didn't respond, how he could deny God was doing those things, and ESPECIALLY at the end with the death of his son, specifically his firstborn. If we are so stubborn and come up with exception and excuse after exception and excuse, like Pharaoh, our heart is hardened. In the end, and for you and I: Do we hope the story of Jesus is true? Or do we hope it is not true? Our treasure is where our heart lies. We chase after things 'we' greatly value.

and this thread is but one aspect of such perceived difficulties.

I believe, in this response, I'm hitting on the larger overall problem and need. The 'details' may be easier to address, but the larger is the more important: John 20:29 Psalm 19:1 Romans 1:19-22 I truly believe, your answers are in wrestling with these scriptures and figuring out if they are true or not.

I am looking for truth Nihilo. Jesus appears to have a semblance of it but it's difficult to accept all of Scripture

If Jesus only had a 'semblance' then your 'search' is over and you need not ask any more questions on TOL. If He is Not the Way, Truth, and Life, then your search is done. It doesn't matter what the world harps on about Him. They will creatively come up with about every problem they can dream up. I don't care about 'problems' I care if something is true and of value. John 20:29 I too have a good mind. I'll not allow a skeptic (not you) to assail it. It is 'my' mind and I will exercise it and be a faithful steward of it.

I did offer to shut down the thread but nobody said they wanted me to.

Some frustrations are over your responses and lack-there-of. Sometimes, details lose the overall objective. I 'think' I'm seeing your overall objective, but you, yourself, have to come to a crisis of faith. You are allowing your mind, imho, to be abused by unbelievers. There is no 'logic' problem and no cognitive dissonance in my faith in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord. "Meaning" is intangible to an unbeliever and skeptic. He/she will tell you that the world functions 'so it can continue to exist.' :nono: That is GIVING REASON to creation (evolution). They never see it. It is sad, the very thing they deny, is why they still choose to live, because things do matter, which again means purpose. The bits and particles in the universe cannot provide this nor is capable of explanation. Being created for a 'reason' is the only acceptable solution. Nothing from or to nothing, is nothing. No lesser thing can be greater than the sum of your and my parts. We are, as scripture says, incredibly made. Psalm 139:14

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

While love is certainly reaching to us, it must not be presumed upon. It isn't that you are doing that, but at times, we are all 'me' centered and in our demands, elevating ourselves. 2) "Proof" and who could refuse? One day that will happen but something I've understood about God, is that His timing is 'humanly-lousy.' What I mean is, 'lousy' for us. Our condition is not made for patience and our expectations are rarely held off for 30 years.

Matthew 24:36

36 "But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.



I don't see any mention of thirty years more or less in those words.

 

[Sonnet]

No, I'm suggesting that the process of languages getting confused is a normal process (probably a type of "language entropy", if you will), that naturally happens over time, and it happened quickly at the Tower of Babel, just like wine ages over time, but Jesus managed it quickly. These are both miracles of time (and material in the water-to-wine case). The miracle of Pentecost is a reversing of the effects at Babel, with the intent that we can re-unify under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Such reunification combined with language reconciliation seem to be the opposite of the Tower of Babel story.

The issue I have with such an understanding would be on how it impinges on man's freewill; the more it is reduced, the less we become accountable and the less God's creation appears worthwhile. The 'water to wine' miracle can be seen as a demonstration of Jesus's credibility (Acts2:22); it doesn't actually radically alter and impose upon those present. But your interpretation of Genesis 11 (and mine thus far) does appear to be so radical.

Skepticism of miracles has its place, but it can be abused, with very serious repercussions:

24 But when the Pharisees heard [it], they said, This [fellow] doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils. ... 31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy [against] the [Holy] Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. 32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the [world] to come. [Mat 12:24, 31-32 KJV]

I sense some of this attitude in you, that you are ok with Jesus when He meets with your approval, but are not willing to let the Holy Spirit tell you the truth about what His sacrifice meant for you (and in rejecting it, it won't mean that for you!). I pray you won't continue in such a state.

Protestants will no doubt claim that the HS is telling them that Jesus didn't die for all.

Indeed, and the efficacy was apparent only in those who looked. THE BRAZEN SNAKE WAS NOT "FOR" THOSE WHO DIDN'T LOOK ON IT. If you don't want to perish, you better look to the one that has been lifted up for you not to perish.

Not sure why you are denying that the brazen serpent wasn't for all - the text is clearly otherwise.

This conflict you see (and that is so hotly debated between different groups of Christians) might easily be viewed as one of those language dispersal acts, similar to Babel. Consider that after God brought the believers together with a unity of languages, they seemed unwilling to then go out to the nations (Gentiles). The effectiveness of the church was possibly being stifled. In that case God used persecution (as He often seems to do) to spread the believers out to the surrounding areas (see Acts 8:3-4), like Samaria (to reach the Samaritans), toward Gaza (to reach the Ethiopians through the eunuch), to places like Joppa (to reach the Gentile Cornelius), etc.

It's a shame, I do admit, that Christians are not always willing to discomfit themselves to break away from a fellowship they like to start one that might be beneficial to others, but is it possible that God allows such disagreements to occur in order to accomplish His desire to reach more people?

If so, wouldn't the miscommunication of such an issue as you bring up be a reasonable way for some believers to break away from some others in order to reach out for new converts?

And isn't it so very like the Tower of Babel story that some Christians would say that Christ only died for for those that believe, while others say Christ's death only benefits those that believe? And then they divide over it? But not to ill of the church, rather to benefit. I'm not advocating disunity here. But I can see that in the church, just like in Babel, it might be necessary to move people along to where they need to be.

I would have thought that clarity over the Gospel was sacrosanct. But is it possible that God exploited in a similar way man's natural sinful and prideful tendacy to disputation in the Babel story to spread huminty and thus bring about the language confusion?

What about if someone died for you, but you don't receive any benefit for it? Would that bother you? What if you don't receive any benefit from it because you refuse to do so after being told about it? Would that bother you? And what if, after you had refused to receive any benefit from it, someone told you it wasn't for you after all. Would that bother you less, or more, than someone who says Jesus only died for some, and we don't know who they are, so please come and make sure you are one that He died for?

I'd find it difficult to respond here without clarification. I still feel that Christendom's schism over the Gospel is just as the house divided that Jesus spoke of.

Which language works better for you? If Pentecost gives us any clue, there may be various ways to say the same thing, and some people will hear it one way ("in their own tongue") and others another way. But despite that, there were still some that rejected the gospel they heard in their own tongues. Don't be like them.

The language of clarity.

What if they did not say it, but still believed it? Many Calvinists don't promote the preaching of that doctrine (in fact the Westminster Confession discourages it) to unbelievers. Yet, it is easily found in this day of information exchange--they aren't trying to hide it.

I say preachers should tell it like it is else there's a danger of disingenuity.

What, then, is your solution for those of us that are saying it the "correct" way? What action should we take to force the "incorrect" believers into submission? And what if the "incorrect" believers are in the majority? would they not then be able to force the "correct" believers out? Then what kind of unity would the church have? A unity in error? Disagreement is not the same as disunity.

I guess as an unbeliever I have no right to say (even though I have done so in this thread).

I think you are wrong. And you and your thread are the best example I can offer. There are believers on both sides of the fence responding to your thread, that are telling you that while the issue is one we care deeply about, and argue fiercely about, it is not one we think is bad enough for us to break away from each other over (well, most of us).

Instead, you, one that is NOT united with believers, are trying to tell us that we NEED to divide over this. Are you not, then, an agent of disunity while you say you are questioning the unity of the church? If you want to argue about this, come into the church and argue. Don't throw stones at us from outside.

You have a point but there is disunity irrespective of myself and some Christians do consider those on the other side of the fence as not genuine Christians.

I think the debate has been interesting and nobody has taken up my offer to close the thread.

 

[Sonnet]

This is essentially it for you. You have a lot of cognitive dissonance over the tenants of Christianity. I don't, and it is about how scripture describes it: Faith first, 'show' later. There are a lot of reasons why but for me, and it is a bit intuitive: Any 'proof' 1) is a demand from man's point-of-view. Even if the demand is deemed 'right' it is yet a hoop to jump through and it puts God in the subservient position. If we are going to come to the Creator of us, intuitively, it is going to have to be from the creature-position, not the driver's seat. Some accuse God of 'hiding' as such. They are guessing His motivation incorrectly. The Lord Jesus Christ did become a man, and willingly subservient, to death (yours and mine). While love is certainly reaching to us, it must not be presumed upon. It isn't that you are doing that, but at times, we are all 'me' centered and in our demands, elevating ourselves. 2) "Proof" and who could refuse? One day that will happen but something I've understood about God, is that His timing is 'humanly-lousy.' What I mean is, 'lousy' for us. Our condition is not made for patience and our expectations are rarely held off for 30 years. That is how long it took, when I started praying, for my father to come to the Lord Jesus Christ. For me? A 'lousy wait' because I hadn't the patience for it. I so longed for him to know God. Ecclesiastes 3:11. I am thinking about planting an Asian pear tree in the back yard. I'm told it will take 3 years before fruit shows and that it will not necessarily be edible the first year or two.

Back to 'proof.' God is not interested in the immediate proofs often demanded. Pharaoh, having immediate proofs, simply scoffed them off and worked on his own abilities to duplicate the same. I always wondered why Pharaoh didn't respond, how he could deny God was doing those things, and ESPECIALLY at the end with the death of his son, specifically his firstborn. If we are so stubborn and come up with exception and excuse after exception and excuse, like Pharaoh, our heart is hardened. In the end, and for you and I: Do we hope the story of Jesus is true? Or do we hope it is not true? Our treasure is where our heart lies. We chase after things 'we' greatly value.


I believe, in this response, I'm hitting on the larger overall problem and need. The 'details' may be easier to address, but the larger is the more important: John 20:29 Psalm 19:1 Romans 1:19-22 I truly believe, your answers are in wrestling with these scriptures and figuring out if they are true or not. If Jesus only had a 'semblance' then your 'search' is over and you need not ask any more questions on TOL. If He is Not the Way, Truth, and Life, then your search is done. It doesn't matter what the world harps on about Him. They will creatively come up with about every problem they can dream up. I don't care about 'problems' I care if something is true and of value. John 20:29 I too have a good mind. I'll not allow a skeptic (not you) to assail it. It is 'my' mind and I will exercise it and be a faithful steward of it.


Some frustrations are over your responses and lack-there-of. Sometimes, details lose the overall objective. I 'think' I'm seeing your overall objective, but you, yourself, have to come to a crisis of faith. You are allowing your mind, imho, to be abused by unbelievers. There is no 'logic' problem and no cognitive dissonance in my faith in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord. "Meaning" is intangible to an unbeliever and skeptic. He/she will tell you that the world functions 'so it can continue to exist.' :nono: That is GIVING REASON to creation (evolution). They never see it. It is sad, the very thing they deny, is why they still choose to live, because things do matter, which again means purpose. The bits and particles in the universe cannot provide this nor is capable of explanation. Being created for a 'reason' is the only acceptable solution. Nothing from or to nothing, is nothing. No lesser thing can be greater than the sum of your and my parts. We are, as scripture says, incredibly made. Psalm 139:14

Thanks. Not sure if you specifically wanted me to respond?

 

[blackbirdking]

A misquote of a rather “un”pleasant man circulates the internet... it is absolutely fabricated....

The real Quote is from a book known as “My Struggle” to the non-Germanic. It is Anti Jewish Propaganda and reads so...;

“In this they [the Jews] proceeded on the sound principle that the magnitude of a lie always contains a certain factor of credibility, since the great masses of the people in the very bottom of their hearts tend to be corrupted rather than consciously and purposely evil, and that, therefore, in view of the primitive simplicity of their minds, they more easily fall victim to a big lie than to a little one, since they themselves lie in little things, but would be ashamed of lies that were too big. Such a falsehood will never enter their heads, and they will not be able to believe in the possibility of such monstrous effrontery and infamous misrepresentation in others.…” (p. 231 of the Manheim translation)”

The point is clear... those who embrace little lies and maintain moral fiber have issue believing anyone could lie largely with impudence... and maintain a following.

MAD over divides to correct for Supersession...

While Reform Under-divides to compensate for their separation from the Universal Church.... and defense of Justin Martyrs scope on Supersession...

The victim in both counts are Christ’s words and Biblical context...

The Red letters are incontestable... as they are God speaking for God. That’s as unfiltered as TRUTH gets...

When the catechisms words from point 601 are contested...

“"He died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures"
601 The Scriptures had foretold this divine plan of salvation through the putting to death of "the righteous one, my Servant" as a mystery of universal redemption, that is, as the ransom that would free men from the slavery of sin.397 Citing a confession of faith that he himself had "received", St. Paul professes that "Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures."398 In particular Jesus' redemptive death fulfills Isaiah's prophecy of the suffering Servant.399 Indeed Jesus himself explained the meaning of his life and death in the light of God's suffering Servant.400 After his Resurrection he gave this interpretation of the Scriptures to the disciples at Emmaus, and then to the apostles.401”

The church is now in a state of enormous peril as it has believed the Largest Spiritual Lie of all...

That God is not utterly “Altruistic” and the very Personification of Agape Love...

In other words...

Satan prevails and the Character of God ... Which God traveled the Veil to Express... has been undermined through the large lie that “Jesus only died... for those that believe”.

The ultra retarded retort to this with... if Jesus died for all... then all would be saved and thus one who defends scriptures implication of all... must be a universalist...

Which is utter rubbish... because the universalist... like the LA teacher... believes they discern the very WILL of God.

The person that attests that Jesus died for all... supports scripture, the Goodness of God and the ultimate fate of mankind to be God’s alone.

One more way to put this...

If the total summation of a population is 144,000... and all 144,000 are thirsting to death...

And... “Bob” buys water to “Save” the population... “Bob” has two choices... plus a wild card...

Choice 1: Find out who will drink what he buys and only buy for them.

This makes Bob Limited in wealth and generosity... as Bob is the examples surname for the Creator... in this instance...

Choice two: Bob has an unlimited storehouse of water and only invites those who will drink to “live”... and says “F-orget” the rest...

This makes Bob an A$$H0Le That is the furthest thing from concerned about those that won’t drink.

Choice three aka... wild card: Bob has an unlimited storehouse of water and invites all 144,000 to drink and perpetually compels even those that refuse to drink... to drink out of 1 Corinthians 13 Love That is His perfect NATURE!

If anyone thinks “Bob” is “Limited” or an “A$$H0LE”... they have adopted the biggest lies of lies and thus Limit the Water to humanity in their proclamation of the Water Availability...

[MENTION=16283]Sonnet[/MENTION] is correct to note this matter and isn’t an agent of Division any more than He Who said... I came not for... but to bring DIVISION”...

The Sheep and the Goats... are divided by their indiscriminate offering or lack of offering of Love in deed to the very “Least”... and if you don’t remember what Christ did for “the least” and how far he took that... as recorded in the 4 Gospels... you’re probably hooked on a BIG LIE that misses the point... and invalidates your ability to see the simple truth of this thread...

John 5:39-40

Any Arse can save the savable... but only God leaves the fold to seek out that one lost sheep... and if you miss what this suggests and hang your hat on any point of TULIP to dismantle this truth... or Dispensational teaching to remove the Power behind the Power of the Cross... you... well...

You trample the blood as effectively as an “Unbeliever”... that says FULLY in his heart... that there is no God... and thus reading Romans 2:1-2 might be a good idea for you...

Can I get an Amen [MENTION=11892]blackbirdking[/MENTION] ?

Probably not... but...

Amen... So be it...

Yea amen, and again I say AMEN!
I love you EE! And so does Jesus!

 

[Sonnet]

... but only God leaves the fold to seek out that one lost sheep...

... but only God leaves the fold to seek out that one lost sheep...

 

[Right Divider]

Which means that according to you the Church immediately plunged into darkness shortly after the Lord and His Apostles departed. Hurray for you and that cynical view of yours. I don't buy it. :down:

Paul certainly thought so...

2Tim 1:15 (AKJV/PCE)​

(1:15) This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me; of whom are Phygellus and Hermogenes.
​

If you're followinf your "Peterine Pope", then you're just like the ones that Paul was talking about.

Then so is your view utter nonsense.

Yours is; mine is not.

False doctrines like that the Church is to be overseen by overseers, bishops, or elders? :juggle:

Fallacious logic will get you nowhere. :yawn:

 

[Lon]

Matthew 24:36

36 "But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.



I don't see any mention of thirty years more or less in those words.

In His earthly body, "Omniscience" is beyond the content of the human mind. Without exploding, God becoming flesh, I think has limitation. It is not that He ceased to be in anywise God, but that He as Philippians 2:7 says: Willingly laying aside what is inherently His. I believe the Son, glorified once again, knows now. Again, not really the subject of this thread, but my encouragement is to keep reading your bible for 'unity' more than separations. Oneness is what separates Unitarians and Trinitarians. Modalists are closer to the reality of scripture because the unity of Father, Son and Spirit is much more unified than Arians tend to grasp. :e4e: -Lon

 

[musterion]

Very strange that someone would be so obsessed with what the Good News is, or isn't, when he doesn't even believe there's a God to have given it.

Carry on being trolled.

 

[Nihilo]

... but only God leaves the fold to seek out that one lost sheep...

... but only God leaves the fold to seek out that one lost sheep...

His sheep know the Shepherd. John 13:35 (KJV)

 

[glorydaz]

Yea amen, and again I say AMEN!
I love you EE! And so does Jesus!

... but only God leaves the fold to seek out that one lost sheep...

Very strange that someone would be so obsessed with what the Good News is, or isn't, when he doesn't even believe there's a God to have given it.

Carry on being trolled.

It's a requirement for being in the fan club.

 

[Lon]

The church is now in a state of enormous peril as it has believed the Largest Spiritual Lie of all...

To me, humanizing a bit in your understanding, thus the 'problem' or 'peril' is more your summation and what you have in mind than the actual. Any that hold to man-centered Salvation will agree with you. I used to agree with you. In my growing devotional opinion, I was only figuring things out within myself and neglecting to read scripture from God's perspective as the giver of truth. We are a bit apart on this, and it is okay. I do not believe frailties (either way) are capable of keeping us out of His hands and do believe that grace and love compensates for such as this.

That God is not utterly “Altruistic” and the very Personification of Agape Love...

"Appearance of" is not the actual. I'll show that this is short-sighted or incorrect...

The person that attests that Jesus died for all... supports scripture, the Goodness of God and the ultimate fate of mankind to be God’s alone.

It is the assertion. I believe Jesus died for all, but that in so doing, some were saved. You too, but you are basically arguing logical conclusions and calling those 'evil' or 'good' based on 'your' assumptions. If you want men saved according to 'your' assumptions rather than actuals? I want 'me' out of anyone's need to deal with their Savior. I do want to do the work of an evangelist BUT I don't want to be at all the Mediator between them and God. I REALLY have come to a position of "Point the way" and "Let the Only Mediator, Mediate." This wrestling for whom Christ died? He/she/they must come to the Lord Jesus Christ as I did: One on one.

One more way to put this...

If the total summation of a population is 144,000... and all 144,000 are thirsting to death...

And... “Bob” buys water to “Save” the population... “Bob” has two choices... plus a wild card...

Choice 1: Find out who will drink what he buys and only buy for them.

This makes Bob Limited in wealth and generosity... as Bob is the examples surname for the Creator... in this instance...

:nono: By the same token, a pagan will complain that He didn't do enough to save him/her at the Last Day. It is, imho, human emoting.
Bob is INCREDIBLY generous and not frivolously tossing money that can be spent elsewhere. God owns the cattle on a thousand hills, so this frivolity of wealth to buy MORE than enough for all, yet seeing some go to waste, isn't a terrible idea but let me put that question to you and directly: Does ANY of the precious blood of Christ go to waste? It is SO important that you answer this. If He shed His blood for all, MOST of it goes to waste. How precious is the blood of Christ? (I'm just asking questions to get you to think through your own theology, I had to do the same long ago (and will so again)

Choice two: Bob has an unlimited storehouse of water and only invites those who will drink to “live”... and says “F-orget” the rest...

Try to stay away from language, even implied. When discussing holy things, I think mundane is the definition of profanity, that is, fleshly things are dragged into holy discussion, thus profanes it. There is no 'forget' the rest. Sadness they do not come and drink deeply? Yes. Part of this is your open theism and resistance to God's Omniscience. It does NOT make Him out to be a bad guy. If your human reasoning is all we go off of, God has a desperately hard time being God BECAUSE of our human limitations and human sentiments put on Him.

Here is a huge crossroads I came to in my life and faith and I'll share it with you. For me it came to this: "IF" God looks bad, in 'my' mind, I HAVE to come to a point where I deny scripture and start making excuses for God, OR I have to change my opinionating about what "I" believe is right and wrong and adopt His. The O.T. caused me a crisis of faith. As I read it, I had to come to a point of whether my idea of right and wrong was infallible BECAUSE I was operating as if that were true - thus the crisis. For me, Job 13:15 was the answer. I had to answer: "Can I say that?"

This makes Bob an A$$H0Le That is the furthest thing from concerned about those that won’t drink.

:nono: Job 13:15 LEST I FORCE God, very God, into MY image. I'm not that audacious. :think:

Choice three aka... wild card: Bob has an unlimited storehouse of water and invites all 144,000 to drink and perpetually compels even those that refuse to drink... to drink out of 1 Corinthians 13 Love That is His perfect NATURE!

If anyone thinks “Bob” is “Limited” or an “A$$H0LE”... they have adopted the biggest lies of lies and thus Limit the Water to humanity in their proclamation of the Water Availability...

For me: An ultimatum of 'only my thoughts and logic over this matter, matter. The rest of you can get out.'
Which would YOU rather I do (serious question): Read you or read scripture? WHAT IF, it seems the scripture disagrees with E.E.??? Which do you advise we follow at that point?

@Sonnet is correct to note this matter and isn’t an agent of Division any more than He Who said... I came not for... but to bring DIVISION”...

Matthew 10:34 :think:

Any Arse can save the savable... but only God leaves the fold to seek out that one lost sheep... and if you miss what this suggests and hang your hat on any point of TULIP to dismantle this truth... or Dispensational teaching to remove the Power behind the Power of the Cross... you... well...

Careful, lest 'your opinion' become the measure of God rather than He being the measure of all things AND leaving you, as is, as you are now, in a state of moral perfection. THAT is always the danger with arguing with a Calvinist (or vise versa). Do you believe, for a second, that this Calvinist sees God as less than loving?

You trample the blood as effectively as an “Unbeliever”... that says FULLY in his heart... that there is no God... and thus reading Romans 2:1-2 might be a good idea for you...

ONLY isasmuch as your (perfect?) mind allows. If you are perfect in your understanding of such and infallible according to perception, I'd have to accept the gauntlet. You've stated it as 'if' such were unassailable and true. True? Championing God? Good thing. Championing our own ideals? Not so much. I have room to grow and rethink my theology. You?

 

[Nihilo]

Carry on being trolled.

:e4e:

The Power of Christ's Resurrection !

Phil 3:10

That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death;



What mans religion dont know about the Gospel resurrection of Christ is that it has power, life producing power for all whom Christ died. See when Christ died it wasn't as a private individual, but as a Surety and Representative, as was Adam His type, when he died it wasnt as a private person, but as a representative head, and so all Christ represented in His death for them, likewise did He in His Resurrection from the dead for them.

And its Power in the Resurrection of Christ, for it makes them alive or causes them to be born again 1 Pet 1:3

³ Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,

Now according to Peter how where they begotten again ? Answer " by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead"

The word by is the greek prep dia and means:

the ground or reason by which something is or is not done
by reason of
on account of
because of for this reason
therefore
on this account



They were begotten again on account of the resurrection of Christ from the dead.

The words begotten again in the original anagennaō is also translated born again as in 1 Pet 1:23

²³ Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

The ESV captures the truth of 1 Pet 1:3 quite well:

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,

of Christ !Simply this God caused us to be born again to a living hope through/on account of, the resurrection of Christ from the dead ! Thats an example of the Power of the Resurrection !

Easter is the Gospel. Like Beloved57 says, "for all whom Christ died." [MENTION=16283]Sonnet[/MENTION]

 

[Nihilo]

I also believe is succession, as do all Reformed believers.

Spoiler

Of course, by that I do not mean the Romish notion that its bishops and the Pope received their offices and charism in a direct line from the Apostles via some mystical ritual. :AMR1: For that matter, if we believe the popular Romish myth, we might think that there has been an unbroken succession of popes in Rome since Peter. But, there have been no fewer than forty-six “antipopes” in the history of the papacy, and in the early fifteenth century there were no fewer than three popes ruling simultaneously.

The historical truth is that the Roman communion is not an ancient church. She is a medieval church who consolidated her theology, piety, and practice during a twenty-year-long council in the sixteenth century (Trent). Her rituals, sacraments, canon law, and papacy are medieval. The unity and stability offered by Roman apologists are illusions. It is mythology.

Roman apologists sometimes seek to vindicate the Roman popes, as distinct from the Avignon popes and the Pisan popes, by describing the Avignon popes as if they were less fit for office than the former. That is, to put it mildly, a strange argument. If popes are as popes do, then we may shorten the list of popes quite radically. On that principle, Rome had no pope from 1471 to 1503, and arguably beyond. In that period, Sixtus IV (reigned 1471–84), in an attempt to raise funds, extended plenary indulgences to the dead. Innocent VIII (reigned 1484–92) fathered sixteen illegitimate sons, of whom he acknowledged eight. Alexander VI (reigned 1492–1503) fathered twelve children, openly kept mistresses in the Vatican, made his son Cesare a cardinal, and tried to ensure Cesare’s ascension to the papacy. Alexander’s daughter Lucretia has been alleged to be a notorious poisoner. We have not even considered Julius II (reigned 1503–13), who took up the sword and was so busy conducting military campaigns to improve papal control over the peninsula that he conducted Mass while wearing armor.

The existence of simultaneous popes in Rome, Avignon, and Pisa, each elected by papal electors and some later arbitrarily designated as antipopes, illustrates the problem of the notion of an unbroken Petrine succession claimed by Romanists. The post-Avignon papacy is an orphan who has no idea who his father was in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries.

More: https://heidelblog.net/2013/03/the-myth-of-the-papacy-2/

Nihilo, your fascination with Rome needs to be tempered with an actual grounding in its history. You have swallowed Rome's own mythological history without taking the time to study and learn more about it from those that are not apologists for Romanism.

Rather than this Popish succession myth, we Reformed reject any need of episcopal succession of Rome or the mere doctrinal succession of the Anabaptists.

Doctrinal succession is vital, but we also hold that Reformed elders must be lawfully called, thus properly ordained from the established church. Such ordination is traceable all the way back to the apostles, and recognizes exceptions under situations of unavoidable necessity, which legitimized the calls of some of the Reformers, such as when the institutional church is apostate. Case in point: the tyranny of Rome. That said, it should be known that the Reformers held that Rome's ordination was valid, applied in Reformed churches, therefore not requiring re-ordination. To dig deeper into this see:

http://www.apuritansmind.com/puritan-favorites/francis-turretin/the-call-of-the-first-reformers/

Thus, Reformed churches can trace their formal ordinations back to the apostles. For example, in the PCA and OPC churches, the Scottish Reformers were all ordained by the Roman Church of Scotland or the Anglican church: presbytery succession back to the medieval church and to the apostles. Finally, the Reformed warn folks about attending churches wherein the ministers therein are not lawfully called.

AMR

Firstly the Reformed affirm succession. You continue to demonstrate a lack of attention

Spoiler

to what I have posted:
http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?126873-What-is-the-Gospel&p=5120529&viewfull=1#post5120529

Secondly, there is no warrant within Scripture that summons Our Lord back to earth to be re-crucified at the ringing of the bell at Rome's or the Eastern, Oriental, Assyrian, etc., Orthodox Mass.


You cannot continue to be a cheerleader for Romanism as the one, truth, faith on the one hand, yet fail to covenant to it on the other. Either you are in her church, or you are not. Beware the double-minded man (James 1:8). Explain your personal and filial issues rather than use them as a shield from being examined.

AMR

You have no appreciation nor understanding of the history of the church militant.

Spoiler

No one argues that the early church, up until the fifth century or so, was a catholic (universal) church. It was most certainly not the Roman Catholic church.

The rise of what would become the RCC began around the fifth century as Rome was collapsing under Barbarian invasions (Alaric the Visigoth, the Huns under Atilla). So we have a group that tyrannized the bodies of men (Rome) soon to be replaced by a group that would tyrannize the souls of men (RCC). Sigh.

The actual establishment of the political and ecclesiastical Rome owes its genesis to three popes: Hildebrand, Innocent III, and Boniface VIII.

With Innocent III the papacy was cemented as a controller of church and state. His Fourth Lateran Council defined RCC's seven sacraments, required confession, and made the penitential treadmill necessary as the only way to salvation. Finally Boniface's Unam Sanctum made submission to the Pope necessary for salvation.

By the thirteenth century the true church was in the wilderness existing in part among some within the RCC and the Waldenses. Justification by faith alone, the divine way of forgiveness and salvation had yet to be officially denounced and condemned at Trent. Lastly, the church had yet to declare that its interpretation of inspired Holy Writ was infallible and solely legitimate. So the true church was there, but, as noted, scattered in the wilderness wherein the elect did hear our Lord's voice above that of the false shepherds, much like the blind man heard Jesus as the Christ in John 9.

The Reformation was soon to come on the heels of men like Wyclif, Hus, Lyra, Valla, Erasmus, and Ockham. Those last four Renaissance minds of natural men were used by God to show the likes of Luther the true path. Yes, God ordains righteously what men do wickedly. At the time of the Reformation it was clear that the RCC had long since departed from the true church and it was necessary that they be called to return from their apostasy by the Reformers. That call to return continues even to this day.

Have you bothered to check the facts of history about church development from a few sources that are not tied to Rome?

http://www.amazon.com/Church-History-Volume-One-Pre-Reformation-ebook/dp/B00CW4VQ4Q/

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B008D30RKE

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00O7UPECI

http://www.amazon.com/Evangelical-Theological-Perspectives-Post-Vatican-Catholicism/dp/0820469556

http://www.amazon.com/Roman-Catholic-Theology-Practice-Evangelical/dp/1433501163

http://www.amazon.com/Gospel-According-Rome-James-McCarthy/dp/1565071077

Are you unwilling to put your confidence in Rome to the test by venturing outside its walls to honestly examine what others have to say?

If you avail yourself of some non-Rome historical studies, you will learn that in the ninth century Christendom was divided governmentally into five geographic regions, having heads in Jerusalem, Constantinople, Alexandria, Rome, and Antioch. Over the years Rome had started claiming more and more power and authority. The Bishop of Rome started claiming more and more right over the governance of all of Christendom, not just his own area. Schism with the East soon followed and Rome was on a downward spiral towards the full aspostacy it made clear at Trent.

Men like Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin were within their duty to come out from a church that had abandoned its Scriptural basis for being called "church". It is not schism to break away from an apostate church. It is a schism to remain in an apostate church, since to remain in an apostate church is to separate from the true church of Jesus Christ. Of course, per Vatican I we Protestants were all schismatics and heretics, but strangely by the time of Vatican II, we were merely "separated brethren". Yet another counter-example of claimed Roman monolithicity.

These are the unadulterated facts of the history of the church. You can deny them, but it does not change them.

AMR

The very brief period of uncertainty wrt Peter's successorship (antipopes) ought to be viewed against the backdrop of all the Church's bishops, together as a unit. They decide which one of them is Peter's successor, just as they did for Pope Francis, and Benedict, and before him Pope St. John Paul. That college of bishops was instituted by Christ when He chose the Twelve, because His Apostles were the first bishops, and they went on to ordain other bishops, through the imposition of hands, which is continued to this day in the Church, when new bishops are consecrated. Bishops and overseers and elders and the laying on of hands are all right in the New Testament; in Acts, in Paul, and in Peter. This magisterium is who teaches the authorized verbal expression of the one Christian faith. It is only when they teach what the popes teach when the popes teach ex cathedra, when the bishops are teaching authoritatively.

Obviously, sometimes there is internal strain on the Church's bishops. In Acts, the Church's bishops convened a Church council, something they didn't need to do again until Nicaea, because of internal strain, and obviously again, over a brief period in Church history, there was internal strain and disagreement within the college of Church bishops during the antipope years. The popes are members of the college of bishops, and that college is who really administrates the Church. There are about 5000 of them today, and back in those antipope years probably far less, but still many many more than just the one successor of Peter.

As for personal reasons, first provide some questionable choices that you make, so that we can examine you publicly, to show me how to do that for you, by example.

 

[Derf]

The issue I have with such an understanding would be on how it impinges on man's freewill; the more it is reduced, the less we become accountable and the less God's creation appears worthwhile. The 'water to wine' miracle can be seen as a demonstration of Jesus's credibility (Acts 2:22); it doesn't actually radically alter and impose upon those present. But your interpretation of Genesis 11 (and mine thus far) does appear to be so radical.

I'm not sure how God's judgment on the people of Babel is any more of a restriction of freewill than anything else God might do with man. Like create him, for instance. Or give him the ability to speak. Or put him in a garden. Or kick him out of a garden. Or tell him what He expects of him. Or do something about it (punish) when he doesn't do what He expects of him.

If God can't alter their languages, then God can't do anything at all. Such removes God's free will, even to remove sin from His presence.

Protestants will no doubt claim that the HS is telling them that Jesus didn't die for all.



Not sure why you are denying that the brazen serpent wasn't for all - the text is clearly otherwise.

The text is very clear: The serpent was ONLY for those that had been bitten. Jesus was very clear: only the sick need a doctor--Mark 2:17. Jesus' message about doctors was given to those that were rejecting His message. Thus, if Jesus came to heal the spiritually sick, and someone didn't admit they were sick, Jesus' healing wasn't for them. I think they could still repent (else Jesus' message would be of no use to them), but they had to realize they were sick. But the point is that Jesus was saying His benefit, His good news, His GOSPEL was not for everyone--it was at least not for the just.

We are all like that! If we don't see ourselves as sick--as sinners--we won't see a need for a savior. The bible is clear that we are all sinners (Rom 3:23), that sin brings death (Rom 6:23a), and that Jesus' brought us the possibility of life eternal (Rom 6:23b), if we believe it (John 3:16). Don't stumble over the simplicity, looking for something more intellectually satisfying.

I would have thought that clarity over the Gospel was sacrosanct. But is it possible that God exploited in a similar way man's natural sinful and prideful tendacy to disputation in the Babel story to spread huminty and thus bring about the language confusion?

Could be. But it seems like you are saying the spreading cause the language confusion, rather than the language confusion causing the spreading. The Gen 11 story is pretty clear which came first.

I'd find it difficult to respond here without clarification. I still feel that Christendom's schism over the Gospel is just as the house divided that Jesus spoke of.

Please ask for any clarification you would like. I wish I could perfectly type out my thoughts, but I can't always.

The language of clarity.

Jesus didn't always offer clarity. He often spoke in parables, seeming to hide some of the truth from some folks. Luke 8:10. This bothers me sometimes. I'm not sure I understand why He would do such a thing. Although, the parables stick with you so very well, and Jesus was a master story teller. It's likely that He was doing it because many had closed their ears to the truth (that He was the Son of God, for instance), and wouldn't accept direct language--at that time. And maybe later, they would remember the stories, and then see how they applied to them..., and hopefully repent.

I say preachers should tell it like it is else there's a danger of disingenuity.

Jesus said, "[Mat 7:6 KJV]Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you." He was especially coy with His claims to be God's son,
because He knew what they would do with Him (and eventually did).

I guess as an unbeliever I have no right to say (even though I have done so in this thread).



You have a point but there is disunity irrespective of myself and some Christians do consider those on the other side of the fence as not genuine Christians.

I think the debate has been interesting and nobody has taken up my offer to close the thread.

The debate is a good one. I hope the thread has been informative. It has given me a chance to think through some things. I hope others have been thinking through this as well. Christians can easily mistake their personal assurance for correctness, but it isn't the best thing for us--we need correcting from time to time.

I think we can cause others to stumble with our disunity, and we can cause others to stumble when we don't follow God's word. Disunity in things that are wrong must be encouraged! Imagine if one church decided that murder was ok, and began to preach it. How long should the other churches sit by silently?

At the same time, I feel like you are using the disagreement as an excuse not to believe what you read in scripture. That excuse won't hold for long when you face your Creator.

 

[blackbirdking]

If Jesus' death being for you means that you are saved, but the bible clearly indicates that not all are saved, what can we say, but that Jesus' death was NOT for all?

Personally, I think He did die for all, but only some take advantage of it.

The end result is the same--those that do not believe are not benefited by His death, whatever the reason. What I don't understand is why Christians feel the need to argue about it so much. Apparently we are all still not fully sanctified and completed in the good work He has promised to do in us.

The end result the same? How so?
It's not about man.
It's about the character of God.

:e4e:

And that's the point. There is no difference. NONE. It's much ado about NOTHING.

To divide believers over a matter such as this is the height of hypocrisy.

Christ died for all, BUT not all are saved.

or

Christ died for all those who believe.

Yep, that's a reason to have tizzies and run around in circles. :chuckle:

Sorry GD, it's not about believers; it's about God. You can't see it; you believe God is not good.

I reminded you and you said that it was silly, not worth responding to. Why?

... It's your seeming claim that He is only Good that one might argue with. Is God only good? No, He is also Righteous, and He is also a God of Wrath. ...

...The rest of your post was just as silly as the above, so not worth responding to.

Right, the part about God being good.

It doesn't matter in the long and short. When I was young, it was 'all men' and everyone in my community knew it. It still did not produce all being saved. The guy that said "Okay, Christ died for me, I'm going my own way" didn't care one way or the other whether the Lord Jesus Christ did or didn't. It made no difference in his/her life. On the flip-side, I didn't really worry about that. All that I knew was that I should need grace and where it was from. All who thirst will find what they need or die of thirst. Here would be the real and ONLY travesty: That I want salvation, but He didn't die for me so I can't have it. Matthew 7:21-23; 25:31-46 That guy doesn't exist.

That's not the travesty at all:
The real travesty is that God ordained that men would be damned for His glory. Ah yes, "It doesn't matter in the long and short". And that is the final resting place of Calvinism; nothing really matters anyways, what will be, will be. Who Christ died for is really irrelevant, it doesn't matter; well said.

To say "It doesn't matter in the long and short." is simply a cop out.

'Some' versus 'all' is a direct reflection of the character of God; and, it does matter what a man believes about God.

It is not a matter of whether any body ever believes or if no body ever believes; it's about what God has already accomplished. The atonement for every man is either a reality now, due to what Christ has already accomplished, or it will never be so. It's either done, or it's not; Christ will never die again. To say that some will never be able to come to God, because that God ordained such, is to say something about the character of God. That's a man's own business to believe such, if he chooses, but then the implications of that belief cannot be denied.

God is good, always.

Here's the difference:
...Jesus died for all men so that all men might be saved. If He did, then all men are saved.
Jesus died ________ so that all men might be saved. If He did, then all men might be saved. ...

The blank implies 'not, for all men'.
So what did the death of Jesus do for some men?

You believe that Jesus only died for some, I have no qualms with that, as long as you admit it and follow where it takes you.

Most men won't admit it.

 

[Sonnet]

The text is very clear: The serpent was ONLY for those that had been bitten. Jesus was very clear: only the sick need a doctor--Mark 2:17. Jesus' message about doctors was given to those that were rejecting His message. Thus, if Jesus came to heal the spiritually sick, and someone didn't admit they were sick, Jesus' healing wasn't for them. I think they could still repent (else Jesus' message would be of no use to them), but they had to realize they were sick. But the point is that Jesus was saying His benefit, His good news, His GOSPEL was not for everyone--it was at least not for the just.

We are all like that! If we don't see ourselves as sick--as sinners--we won't see a need for a savior. The bible is clear that we are all sinners (Rom 3:23), that sin brings death (Rom 6:23a), and that Jesus' brought us the possibility of life eternal (Rom 6:23b), if we believe it (John 3:16). Don't stumble over the simplicity, looking for something more intellectually satisfying.

Of course, if someone decides that they are not 'sick' and have no need of Jesus then they will go on without Him. Nevertheless, and as you say, scripture has it that we are, de facto, 'sick' - so Jesus is there, raised up, for such people and for all without exception - there is no other way to interpret John 3:14-16. Any suggestion that even just one of the bitten Israelites was not able to do that which was offered to them - to look at the brazen serpent - makes God's offer disingenuous.

The Arminian must admit at this point that he is unable to explain how God remains in control if this is the case. The only response might be that God knows counterfactuals - 1 Samuel 23:7ff.