Did Christ Die Only for the Elect

Sal,

I'm a little confused here. Are you saying Yes Chist died for only the elect, or that he died for all?

 

I highlighted the bold to show you how one's theology can be used to interpret Scripture. It doesn't say what you stated, it says those who believed not were condemned already. For someone not to believe something takes refusal of the object not believed in.

 

No, it actually depends on what you mean by "for." Do you mean "in the place of"? Do you mean something along the lines of sufficiency? Effectuality? What exactly do you mean by for? This is the key word.

Not at all. It might mean someone has never heard of the object and therefore doesn't believe because they don't know it exists. It might mean tacit refusal rather than explicit refusal.

 

What you describe is not unbelief.

Unbelief \Un`be*lief"\, n. [Pref. un- not + belief: cf. AS.
ungele['a]fa.]
1. The withholding of belief; doubt; incredulity; skepticism.

 

He's talking about Hebrews 12:16-17, which is talking about repentance with his earthly father, Isaac.

KJV
Heb 12:16 Lest there be any fornicator, or profane person, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright.
Heb 12:17 For ye know how that afterward, when he would have inherited the blessing, he was rejected: for he found no place of repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears.

ESV
Heb 12:16 that no one is sexually immoral or unholy like Esau, who sold his birthright for a single meal.
Heb 12:17 For you know that afterward, when he desired to inherit the blessing, he was rejected, for he found no chance to repent, though he sought it with tears.

ASV
Heb 12:16 lest there be any fornicator, or profane person, as Esau, who for one mess of meat sold his own birthright.
Heb 12:17 For ye know that even when he afterward desired to inherit the blessing, he was rejected; for he found no place for a change of mind in his father, though he sought is diligently with tears.

 

..which doesnt' support his claim in the least

 

Thanks, Webdog.

I agree, this does not support his claim. Clearly Esau was not truly repentant. He just wanted the inheritance back.

 

I like your above post!:thumbsup:

 

three different times in the books of the Bible, GOD said that Jacob have I loved and Esau have I hated. Three different times should be a good testimony.
When the apostiles (?) ask Jesus about Judas, he told them that that wasn't any concern to them. Judas was of the Devil in the choosing the twelve to follow him. I think Judas was chosen for the work of betraying our savior.

Even so the Father raises the dead and quickeneth them, I quickeneth whomsoevcer I will. May not be word for word but................................
Has not the potter the power over the clay to make one of good and the other be shaped as he will.

 

Hebrews Ch. 12;16,17

 

Lets see how this would work: You think that you are in charge of getting yourself saved and you feel very content.
Now let's say that GOD does all the work for your Salvation, and all of a sudden, you are worried. WHY, you think that man must do something to obtain eternal life.
IF I am saved, it will be only by the grace of GOD. Where are the holes in that exclamination?

 

The other versions you have quoted from takes away the true words of the KJV and makes it a muddy mess. I once looked in a bible of the Jehovah Witness and the shortest verse in the Bible is, "JESUS wept," made perfect sense, but in their Bible the verse read, "JESUS gave away to tears." Mighty confusing meaning. Did it mean that JESUS just gave into Mary, the sister on Lazereth because she was crying?

 

Unbelief is the absence (un) of belief. It is someone who does not believe. It does not address the reason they don't believe.

Here you can check it out: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=unbelief

 

Where is the passage where the apostles ask about Judas and where Jesus tells them it wasn't their concern? I'm not finding it.

 

I sure hope this is not the passage being referenced:

John 21:20-24
Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; which also leaned on his breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee? Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do? Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me. Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.

 

Jacob and Esau came from the same womb. Just what makes the difference that GOD chose to love Esau.

 

The Bible doesn't stress that. It says that Esau sought REPENDANCE CAREFULLY< WITH TEARS.

 

Yes, but it doesn't stress spiritual repentance. He tried to change his mind and get his inheritance back.

 

As for the word "might", it was God's will for ALL to be saved, and He provided a way for all to be saved. However, He also knew that not all would be saved. It's true that no one can come to God unless the Holy Spirit draws them, but we're told in John 12:32, "And I, if I be lifted up from the earth (crucified), will draw all men unto me." "All" not just some.

Some take that to mean that everyone will be saved, but all it means is that He died for all and offers His forgiveness to all. So no one has the excuse that God rejected them or didn't die for them.

The only way I believe in "limited atonement" is that it is limited to those who believe since God will not save unrepentant sinners. His atonement is limited to those who come to Him for forgiveness.