Did Christ Die Only for the Elect

Has not the potter control over the clay, to make one of honor and another of dishonor?

 

So do you believe that God's will can be thwarted?

But isn't that referring to all kinds of men, as in men from all nations? Remember the context is about Greeks wanting to see Jesus, and Jesus refusing them for the moment.

 

Well, well ,still dancing around the very truth of the Bible.

 

I agree in principle on the point you are making that God is sovereign and does as He pleases. I also agree wholeheartedly with the fact that he loved Jacob and hated Esau. EVEN BEFORE THEY WERE BORN.

I still concede that you have misunderstood the passage in Hebrews 12 to be talking about spiritual repentance, however, when it is not. REGARDLESS of the version used.

 

Since He wills that all come to repentance, and some don't, what do you think? God permits sin, yet it is not His will that we sin, correct? Are we thwarting God's will when we sin?

 

Correction, GOD chose to love Jacob and not Esau.

 

He tried, why wasn't he successful?

 

Biblically no one knows, but I think it was because of the same reason that Cain's sacrifice wasn't accepted. Lack of faith.

 

Exactly. That is why theologians describe two wills of God, his moral will and his decreed will.

 

Thanks, Jerome!

Not sure how this is being used by the person who first referenced this to support his view. I guess I've forgotten his point by now.

 

All can be saved as in they might all be saved, but some rather remain in darkness.

 

REad your Bible. It tells you in Genesis 27.

The blessing had been given to Jacob already through deceit, and there was only one primary blessing. Esau received a secondary blessing. Thus, he could not get the birthright back or the blessing. A deal was a deal.

The Bible never tells us what Esau spiritually repented (or that he did not). You don't seek for spiritual repentance and then fail to find it. The point of HEbrews 12 is that Esau made evil choices and no amount of tears could change those choices.

 

Maybe because he was repentant about giving away his birthright, but not repentant because he was disobedient or deceptive. We know his repentance was insufficient or superficial, otherwise, God would not have said what He did about Esau.

 

It is not "of", the preposition is "to", as they are led. One being led by the Spirit is TO honour, the other is led by the flesh TO dishonour. Follow the context and remove the preconceptions of calvinism and you'll know what the Scripture really means.

 

Do you believe all things are according to the will of God? Like, say, abortion?

He came unto His own and they received him not. Jesus was first sent to Israel and as the prophecy was fulfilled, he turned from them unto the strangers.

 

And those theologians pit God against himself by advocating he has two opposing wills.:sleep:

 

Quote: And those theologians pit God against himself by advocating he has two opposing wills.
--------------------------------------

Where do you get two opposing wills? Everything happens under the absolute sovereignty of God. Then we fit man under that one will,,,in a human classification we call His permissive will, but still under His sovereign will.........He says thus far and no further, as demonstrated with Jonah,,remember Jonah? How else can one explain Jonah operating in disobedience to God yet under God. Eventually God reined Jonah into obedience.

The opposing view has man with an absolutely free will and this renders God helpless. There you have two wills. Fits in well with the big bang theory of evolution. God created the universe and then let it progess on its own.

Cheers,

Jim

 

Keyword is the Elect

> (‘Particular’ because in their view Christ died only for the elect)

What they believed as who the elect were is beyond me. However throughout the Bible the word translated into elect is "bachiyr" in Hebrew and "ekloge" or "eklektos" in the Greek. It simply is a word meaning chosen which is vary similar in Greek, "eklegomai".
It is apparent that the "elect" is something of a metaphor theologists have latched onto creating nearly a religion around.
I invite you to read the parable of the houseman hiring workers in Matthew 20 and the parable of the wedding Matthew 22. Both passages refer to the Master who chose few and called to others. It is a beautiful reflection of the Jews' rejection that permitted the grafting in of the Gentiles. And the grafting in of the Jews again at the end times.
In John 6:70 Jesus chose the twelve. John the Baptist was chosen as well as being prophetic fulfillment.

However to answer your question outright:
1John 2:1 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: 2 And He is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
John 3:17-18 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

 

His decreed will, yes. All things are not according to God's moral will.

That is irrelevant here.

Not at all. God's moral will teaches that murder is wrong. God's decreed will was that his son be murdered.

 

In all reality if sticking your hand out first constitutes being born, then you could say Esau was first born. Otherwise, the whole issue of Esau being rightful birthright heir is moot.