Who is Paul referring to here?

Discussion in '2005 Archive' started by icthus, Mar 22, 2005.

  1. icthus

    icthus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,114
    Likes Received:
    0
    I read in 2 Corinthians 5:20 the words:

    "Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us: we implore you on Christ’s behalf, be reconciled to God" (NKJV)

    Ardnt and Gingrich, in their Greek lexicon render the Greek for "pleading", by: "I beg of you".

    My question here is. With whom is Paul pleading with to be reconciled to God? Surely it is not the elect? There is no indication in the passage that he was writing to believers who had strayed from the Way. The whole tenor of the passage deals with the preaching of the Gospel, and the Salvation of the lost. Why would God need to "plead" with the "elect" to be reconciled to Him, seeing that this is bound to happen, since indeed they are the elect? Surely, this is a very clear statement that the Good Lord "desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth" ( 1 Timothy 2:4). I really can't see any other way in taking the passage in 2 Corinthians. It can only be a plea to the whole world, that is everyone without exception, to accept the offer of Salvationm, that is through Jesus Christ alone!
     
  2. ILUVLIGHT

    ILUVLIGHT
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Hi Icthus;
    Good post A-men
    May Christ Shine His Light On Us all;
    Mike [​IMG]
     
  3. icthus

    icthus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,114
    Likes Received:
    0
    I note that the Calvinist's are silent here, as they are probably stuck for any answers!
     
  4. whatever

    whatever
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2004
    Messages:
    2,088
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, the Calvinists are wondering why you think a Calvinist would disagree with you. God knows who the elect are. We don't. So we preach to everyone, calling everyone to repent and believe.

    Do yourself a favor. Go to www.spurgeon.org and read a while, and see how a Calvinist really preaches.
     
  5. Wes Outwest

    Wes Outwest
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2004
    Messages:
    3,400
    Likes Received:
    0
    Whatever, that too is an answer expected from a Calvinist!

    The truth is the opening question is valid, and no Calvinist has correctly responded.
     
  6. icthus

    icthus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,114
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, the Calvinists are wondering why you think a Calvinist would disagree with you. God knows who the elect are. We don't. So we preach to everyone, calling everyone to repent and believe.

    Do yourself a favor. Go to www.spurgeon.org and read a while, and see how a Calvinist really preaches.
    </font>[/QUOTE]Whatever, typical Calvinistic answer, which is to avoid the facts!

    Why would God have to plead with an elect person to come to Him? Surely you are not saying that the elect person may not want to come to the Lord? But this is clearly what it says here. The language shows that God is through the preaching of the gospel, seeking to enourage all to come to Him, not the elect who according you your system, will come anyway!
     
  7. ILUVLIGHT

    ILUVLIGHT
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Hi Whatever;
    Why don't you know? When He told us who the elect are.

    Maybe you don't understand, what we have been elected to. Are we chosen for Salvation or to take out the garbage? The latter doesn't count it's just sarcasm.
    We all believe don't we that Election is for Salvation to be conformed to the likeness of Christ. This is what Salvation is all about isn't it? If so we already know that the descendants of Jacob are elect these are trully Israel. All that's left are gentiles who think they are Jews and the rest of the Gentiles. Paul answered this question of who is elect. No where does scripture say that only some are elect this is not scriptural. Paul said;
    Rom 11:11 I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.
    We already know that true Israel are elect and now so are the Gentiles. It doesn't say some but refers to the whole of them.
    May Christ Shine His Light On Us all;
    Mike [​IMG]
     
  8. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Why not? The elect have to be reconciled to God as well.
     
  9. ILUVLIGHT

    ILUVLIGHT
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Hi Larry;
    Why do they have to be?. This is your notion not Biblical fact. If I'm wrong show me.
    May Christ Shine His Light On Us all;
    Mike [​IMG]
     
  10. rc

    rc
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    1,068
    Likes Received:
    0
    Larry... it's Ben all over again !!
     
  11. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Because they are sinners.

    The Bible says that all men are sinners. Since "elect" are part of "all men," then the elect are sinners.

    Were you serious with that question? Or just ribbing me?
     
  12. RodnStaff

    RodnStaff
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2005
    Messages:
    27
    Likes Received:
    0
    Larry, last post, once again I am confused (assuming you are a Calvinist). The Bible says all men are sinners. The Bible says God desires all men to be saved. You say "all men are sinners" really means all men, but "all men" that God wills to be saved only refer to the elect. This seems a precarious position to juggle with limited atonement (I know that's not the topic of this thread, but it makes me wonder, anyway, how the Calvinist can reconcile this). So either 1. God cannot save all those he wishes to be saved; 2. Peter or Paul or someone was in grave error, or 3. God, in His sovereignty, gave us the choice in regards to either following Him or the world.
     
  13. rc

    rc
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    1,068
    Likes Received:
    0
    Rodnstaff,

    2 Peter doesn't say ALL MEN in the history of the world to come to repentance does it?...

    It says 2 Peter 3:9 but is patient toward YOU.

    Why the 1st personal pronoun? Who's you? In verses 4 and 5 he uses 3rd person?

    In 3:1 Peter says He is writing a second time to YOU, BELOVED.

    Go to the 1 Peter. Who is he writing to?

    1 Peter 1:1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To THOSE WHO ARE ELECT.

    1ST PERSON PRONOUNS REFER to those written to.

    In context: the judgment of God in His second coming (for THEM) is being delayed... why?
    To fulfill his promise...

    What promise? ... that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.

    God will not allow any of His elect to perish, but He is waiting for His plan to be fulfilled. That ALL of His elect will repent.

    Does not the Shepard leave the flock to go after the one sheep? ... He will not come back till the "number of the gentiles" be complete.

    Thus Peter is saying, God's plan is for "X" to be saved. He will not come back at "x - 1". The x is the elect.
     
  14. icthus

    icthus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,114
    Likes Received:
    0
    Because they are sinners.

    The Bible says that all men are sinners. Since "elect" are part of "all men," then the elect are sinners.

    Were you serious with that question? Or just ribbing me?
    </font>[/QUOTE]Pastor Larry, Is Calvinism based on what the Bible says, or the system of some who hope the Bible agrees with what they believe?

    You say that the Bible teaches that "all men are sinners", and so it is. The Bible also saya: "This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief" (1 Timothy 1:15). Now, if Jesus came to save "sinners", and the Bible says that "all men are sinners", that is, the entire human race, then surely it is Biblical to conclude that Jesus died for all men, and not just for the elect? Or, are you saying that the elect are not to regarded by the "sinners" that Paul here speaks of, or is it the non-elect who are not included? Do you Calvinists actually see the complete nonsense of your own beliefs?
     
  15. ILUVLIGHT

    ILUVLIGHT
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Larry;
    I believe all men are created for righteousness it is there sin that takes them the other way.
    I believe all men have there names written in the book of life. There rejection of Christ is what causes there name to be stricken from that book
    Where would the new testament say only some men are elected? And No I wasn't just ribbing you I'd really like to know.
    If election is for Salvation what is it in election that insures Salvation? If it is in fact assurance of us being saved then we were saved by that election.
    May Christ Shine His Light On Us All;
    Mike [​IMG]
     
  16. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes.

    Yes.

    Yes (but notice how that is not what I agreed to above; you slyly changed words).

    No, not really, but like you say that's not the topic here.

    Why are those the only options? How about we arrange it this way: God can save all the he wishes to be saved; but he has chosen not to. God will save all that he has decreed to save. God, in sovereignty, gave man the choice to follow knowing that in every single case, man will choose to reject. God elects individuals to salvation, and allows the rest to continue in rejection of their own free will. God does not desire that people go to hell ... he does not take pleasure in the death of the wicked.

    Your three points are your attempt to force a system on Scripture, rather than pursuing the statements of Scripture itself.
     
  17. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    It is based on what the Bible says.

    I wouldn't argue for that, and neither would most calvinists, depending on what you mean by "for."

    The elect are certainly regarded as sinners for whom Christ came to save. In fact, in the second letter written to Timothy, Paul tells us that the elect need to be saved (2:10). Why? Because they are sinners.

    There are some Calvinists who believe nonsense, but your question is really irrelevant here since we are talking about calvinistic soteriology, and you asked about nonsense, which is something completely different. Calvinists believe what the Bible teaches about salvation; some Calvinist also believe nonsense about other things.
     
  18. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Um ... I wouldn't argue greatly with that.

    The Bible teaches no such thing that I am aware of. Do you have any biblical support for this?

    All through it, where the "elect" are the ones saved, and the rest are not. If everyone is elected, then no one would go to hell. Clearly, there are those who go to hell. In fact, Rom 9 teaches that some are not elect when it says "not all Israel is true Israel." His point is that not all of physical Israel is spiritual Israel. Some Israelites are not elect.

    God's decreed will is shown in election and his will cannot be tharted (to which fact many places testify in Scripture).

    False conclusion. The fact that you receive a gift certificate for a meal at a local restaurant does not mean that you have eaten that meal. In fact, you have assurance of a meal that you have not eaten. Consider our own political elections as a similar thing. A person may be elected to office in November, and thus be assured of that office. But they are not actually in the office until January (or whenever the particular inauguration is). In election to salvation, the elect are not yet saved, as 2 Tim 2:10 clearly says. The elect must still be saved.

    Once again, having theology that is rigorously judged by Scripture will answer these questions for you.

    He did ... and in fact, every single question you asked me to answer could have been answered on your own by using the light he has given us and you would have gotten the same answers I gave.

    The problem is your logic you are forcing on Scripture. You say "if election is assurance then election is salvation." Whether right or wrong, it is not Scripture; it is logic. Logic is fine, but logic must be scripturally judged. Our goal is not a consistent logical system (although the biblical system is just that, when we know it all). Our goal is to be scriptural.
     
  19. johnp.

    johnp.
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2004
    Messages:
    3,231
    Likes Received:
    0
    icthus.

    Enter the Man Eli I think! :cool:

    Now, if Jesus came to save "sinners", and the Bible says that "all men are sinners"... So that is agreed? All men ever born are sinners. But not Christ 'a'?
    that is, the entire human race, But not Christ 'a'? Not 'all' men? :cool:

    then surely it is Biblical to conclude that Jesus died for all men... There is an infinity of worth in the death of Christ.

    ...and not just for the elect?
    I can't see it from your point of view, that He should have died for everyone when in His foreknowledge, as I see you might see it, in His foreknowledge He knows who will believe in Him. Why does it go to His glory to die for everyone when He knows not everyone will have accepted Him. Why does the fact, as you see it, that Christ died for everyone bring Him glory because doing something you don't have a need to do is stupid! :cool: That's by the way by the way. The thing I want you to answer is why did Jesus die for Eli's house when He had already said that He would not? 1 Sam 3:14 Therefore, I swore to the house of Eli, `The guilt of Eli's house will never be atoned for by sacrifice or offering.' "

    Since He swore on oath that He would not atone for Eli's house why then should He plead with them?

    1 Sam 3:14 Therefore, I swore to the house of Eli, `The guilt of Eli's house will never be atoned for by sacrifice or offering.' "
    That is limited atonement right in your face. You either accept God's word or you oppose Him.
    It can only be a plea to the whole world, that is everyone without exception, to accept the offer of Salvationm, that is through Jesus Christ alone![/quote]
    Wrong ain't you? :cool: It was not for Eli's house was it?

    What you think? :cool:

    johnp.
     
  20. icthus

    icthus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,114
    Likes Received:
    0
    Enter the Man Eli I think! :cool:

    Now, if Jesus came to save "sinners", and the Bible says that "all men are sinners"... So that is agreed? All men ever born are sinners. But not Christ 'a'?
    that is, the entire human race, But not Christ 'a'? Not 'all' men? :cool:

    then surely it is Biblical to conclude that Jesus died for all men... There is an infinity of worth in the death of Christ.

    ...and not just for the elect?
    I can't see it from your point of view, that He should have died for everyone when in His foreknowledge, as I see you might see it, in His foreknowledge He knows who will believe in Him. Why does it go to His glory to die for everyone when He knows not everyone will have accepted Him. Why does the fact, as you see it, that Christ died for everyone bring Him glory because doing something you don't have a need to do is stupid! :cool: That's by the way by the way. The thing I want you to answer is why did Jesus die for Eli's house when He had already said that He would not? 1 Sam 3:14 Therefore, I swore to the house of Eli, `The guilt of Eli's house will never be atoned for by sacrifice or offering.' "

    Since He swore on oath that He would not atone for Eli's house why then should He plead with them?

    1 Sam 3:14 Therefore, I swore to the house of Eli, `The guilt of Eli's house will never be atoned for by sacrifice or offering.' "
    That is limited atonement right in your face. You either accept God's word or you oppose Him.
    It can only be a plea to the whole world, that is everyone without exception, to accept the offer of Salvationm, that is through Jesus Christ alone!</font>[/QUOTE]Wrong ain't you? :cool: It was not for Eli's house was it?

    What you think? :cool:

    johnp.
    [/QUOTE]

    Your argumet of the house of eli does not hold any weight in the doctrine of the atonement. You forget that Jesus Himself says that every sin will ber forgiven, except the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, which is exactly what the house of eli is guilty of!

    You simply cannot argue for a single text, and suppose that it can be use for doctrine. The fact that Jesus indeed died for all mankind, regardless of what Calvinism teaches, is exactly that, and unlimited atonement!
     

Share This Page

Loading...