Did Jesus Die For All Humanity?

[Alaska]

It simply goes into our account because the One GIVING the inheritance has already done all the necessary work, and since this inheritance is ours because it is GIVEN by His grace, through His gift of faith, we simply receive all the benefits of salvation without any work at all to help save ourselves. We don't want to confuse obedience that comes after salvation with salvation by grace alone.

This is the way it must be because the GIVER of this great inheritance insists that His gift is of His grace alone, otherwise it will not be of His grace, but of debt.

Are not repentance and prayer acts done before the person is "saved"?

Accepting the Gospel message of repentance and prayer but not yet doing these acts gets a person saved?

So acts are necessary.

Your misunderstanding of what you think the Giver insists on is derived from Paul's writings which were written to those having a foundational understanding. If I was to use the phrase "I arrived in the U.S. by air" to someone without the foundational understanding concerning airplanes; this person may imagine something very much not of the truth.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alaska
A gospel not encouraging yielding to God's grace and hence living a godly life; a gospel not associating 'saved' with 'changed' is a false gospel and a false grace worthy of the most scathing condemnation.


You agreed with this. Yet a person has to repent before experiencing change. Self denial is a prerequisite to be a Christian.

In James we see 'justified' and 'saved' used synonymously.

James 2:
14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?

After going to great lengths to carefully expound on this, he concludes:

24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

The analogy of the inheritance is very fitting. No one in their right mind giving this inheritance would object or see it as somehow inappropriate to require a response and act of acceptance before giving it. Our reasonable signing the deal is our baptism in water. When asked what must be done to be saved, Peter told them.

Like if someone asked, what must they do to get the inheritance, and they are told their signature is required.

Even believing is a work.
So do you mean "saved... not by works" except believing and repentance and prayer?

So Yes, Jesus did die for all of humanity and it is available to all who believe and because they believe they will do what is required to obtain that which is promised. 'Grace though faith', like 'into the room through the door'. The door comes first before the room. Faith comes first before grace when speaking of Eph. 2:8-10. Grace is the power to obey, hence we are saved by grace because it is by grace that we obey which is required for salvation.

The free gift of salvation, like a large inheritance, is GIVEN to our account but we don't have to do anything to receive the inheritance.

I think you are talking circles around yourself.

Don't make the mistake of confusing salvation and obedience.

Salvation is insepartable from obedience like the body is inseparable from the spirit as long as the body is alive.

James 2:
26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

[RogerW]

Hi Roger, are you talking about the faith all have or or the often misinterpreted Eph 2:8 faith that people think is the gift? It says 'through faith' (the means by which) we obtain the gift grace/salvation.

Greetings Sirus,

The design of the passage (Eph 2:8) is to understand the word "that" as referring not to faith only, but to salvation by grace. The word "that," does not refer particularly to faith, as being the gift of God, but to salvation by grace through faith, it is all the gift of God.

God cannot believe for us. We must believe, or we shall be damned. Still this does not conflict at all with the opinion, that if we exercise faith, the inclination to do it is to be traced to the working of God on the heart.

Ro 4:16 Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,

2Ti 1:9 Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,

Salvation by grace through faith that is not our own is His gift. It is not of merit; it is wholly by favour.

To answer the thread question, yes, of course Jesus died for all.

I agree that humanity will be redeemed, however that is not to say that Jesus died; e.g. made Himself an atonement (reconcilliation, exchange) for every man. If Christ's atoning death is applied to every man then every man must be saved.

Many Blessings,
RW

[grit]

Oh c'mon guys. Are we "right fighting" here? John 3:16 settles it. "For God so loved the world (mankind) that He gave His only Son the whosoever (anyone who chooses to follow Him) believes in Him (God) should not perish but have everlasting life". God made the offer, man must accept it or it doesn't do him any good and he will be lost. It's that simple. One's salvation does not depend on another's interpretation of Scripture. As long as the above criteria is met one is saved.

Oh, c'mon guys. Are we [s]"right fighting"[/s] facilitating enriching perspectives here? John 17:6-10 * settles it:

"I have manifested your name to the people whom you gave me out of the world. Yours they were, and you gave them to me, and they have kept your word. Now they know that everything that you have given me is from you. For I have given them the words that you gave me, and they have received them and have come to know in truth that I came from you; and they have believed that you sent me. I am praying for them. I am not praying for the world but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours. All mine are yours, and yours are mine, and I am glorified in them." (um... no need for embelishments from this end )

One's salvation does not depend on another's interpretation of Scripture. As long as the above criteria is met one is saved.


*plus, hee hee, John 17 comes after John 3, so it proves Jesus was correcting any misconceptions previously garnered by "whosoever" (hee hee, not really).

[embankmentlb]

I agree that humanity will be redeemed, however that is not to say that Jesus died; e.g. made Himself an atonement (reconcilliation, exchange) for every man. If Christ's atoning death is applied to every man then every man must be saved.

RW

The Bible says he was the atonement for every man. Yet it's not eternal salvation because every man has not excepted Jesus. If you know Jesus, you know the Father. If you don't then God doe's not know you.
It's all about who you know!

[Alaska]

If Christ's atoning death is applied to every man then every man must be saved.

His death was performed for every man, but applicable, as far as granting forgiveness, to those who would believe and respond as required to partake of the offered benefit.

Eph. 2:8-10 is the context. To quote verse 8 and somehow have a right meaning is bizarre.
Like,
I acquired ownership of the house, not by money.

This is like Eph. 2 verse 8 out of context suggesting that works are not necessary. In this example money was not necessary.
By adding the left-out context to the example of the house, this full context shows money was very much used and necessary to acquire ownership.

I acquired ownership of the house, not by money, that I earned.

We don't earn the strength to obey, that strength is the gift of grace bought for us by Jesus' death.

Leaving out the entire context reverses the meaning of the full context as in the example above.

We are saved by works, but not works that are of ourselves lest we should boast. These are the necessary works required by Jesus for salvation which his grace in us, as the result of believing, enables us to perform. This is Paul's point in Eph. 2:8-10.

He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.

Other verses, in Rom. 4, for example are also simlarly twisted to negate obedience for salvation.

[Sirus]

Greetings Sirus,

The design of the passage (Eph 2:8) is to understand the word "that" as referring not to faith only, but to salvation by grace. The word "that," does not refer particularly to faith, as being the gift of God, but to salvation by grace through faith, it is all the gift of God.

God cannot believe for us. We must believe, or we shall be damned. Still this does not conflict at all with the opinion, that if we exercise faith, the inclination to do it is to be traced to the working of God on the heart.

Ro 4:16 Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,

2Ti 1:9 Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,

Salvation by grace through faith that is not our own is His gift. It is not of merit; it is wholly by favour.

Using the ability to have faith that we are all created in the image of God with is not a work requiring merit. Whether "that" refers to the gift of Eph 2:8 (grace/salvation) alone or one wants to throw the faith of Rom 12:3 in there as well by assumption is irrelevant because the point is that there not some moment of regeneration -- of faith given -- enabling one to believe, forcibly stating man is so depraved that he cannot exercise the faith God gave him as a man created in His image for the purpose of loving Him.

If God created man with a spirit and in His image, giving him ability to have faith, why does some thing called faith (as if some external power) need to be given again when man hears the Love of God calling through the gospel? Did God fail to create a fearfully and wonderfully made image of Himself? Did Adam change the image of God in man? Just how far do you want to take this supposed incompetence of God? Is he not far from His offspring that we might touch and feel for him? Or should we remove that from scripture too?

I agree that humanity will be redeemed, however that is not to say that Jesus died; e.g. made Himself an atonement (reconcilliation, exchange) for every man. If Christ's atoning death is applied to every man then every man must be saved.

Many Blessings,
RW

Applied? I didn't say it was applied to all, but for all.

[RogerW]

The Bible says he was the atonement for every man. Yet it's not eternal salvation because every man has not excepted Jesus. If you know Jesus, you know the Father. If you don't then God doe's not know you.
It's all about who you know!

Greetings embank,

According to Isaiah, Matthew, and Mark Christ atoning death was not for every man, but for "many." How do we reconcile that with what Paul tells Timothy; e.g. "who will have all men to be saved" & "who gave himself a ransom for all"?

Isa 53:11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.

Mt 20:28 Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

Mr 10:45 For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

1Ti 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
1Ti 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
1Ti 2:6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

This appears to be a contradiction, but that cannot be! If there be contradiction in the Word of God, it cannot be the Word of God. The way to reconcile this apparent contradiction is to understand what Paul means when he says "all." The context in 1 Timothy shows us that Paul means "all" without distinction, not "all" without exception. In the will of God the provision of salvation is unto all men, not only to one nation (Jews) exclusively, but to every nation of the earth.

Many Blessings,
RW

[Butch5]

Butch,

Good thoughts. Indeed the ransom theory makes sense of some of this but what about the rather highly elevated position it gives Satan? Christ HAD to die to buy us back from a being inferior to Himself? I'll admit that the warfare view and ransom theory do alleviate some of the problems with Anselm's understanding of the atonement, but is it perhaps at too high a price?

Yes but it has Scriptural support.

Acts 20:28 ( KJV )
Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.


Colossians 1:12-14 ( KJV )
Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light:
Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:
In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:

1 Timothy 2:5-6 ( KJV )
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.


Mark 10:45 ( KJV )
For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.


Mark 10:45 ( KJV )
For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.


It is also the model that the church held to for the first 1000 years. Anselm's model has some serious flaws. Throughout Scripture God says, I will forgive their sins, yet according to Anselm's model God does not forgive sins but requires payment, since we can't make that payment, it comes at Christ's expense. Imagine you have two children and you tell them not to go into the yard or they will be punished, yet your little boy goes into the yard anyway. So you go to him and say I should spank you but I am going to show you mercy, instead of spanking you I am going to spank your sister, because I cannot let this go, someone has to pay for your disobedience. Sounds ridiculous but that in a nutshell is Anselm's model. John said God is love, that doesn't sound like love to me. Anselm's model does not allow for forgiveness, but demands justice.

Now consider the Classic view. Adam and Eve in the Garden are faced with a choice, regarding the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, follow God and not eat or follow Satan and eat. We know which choice they made. By Choosing to follow Satan, they came under his control, thus everyone born is now under the control of Satan. He tricked Adam and Eve through his deception and now has ownership of them because they chose to follow him. God could just destroy Satan and take back mankind, however God is just, Adam and Eve willingly followed Satan. There is however a ransom that Satan is willing to accept for mankind, it is the life of the Son of God. How much would Satan love to destroy God's creation, but how much more His own Son? So Jesus offers Himself up to the Father as a sacrifice and says, I will lay down my life to redeem them. And the Father (through much anguish I suspect) agrees. So Jesus lays down His life and frees mankind from the power of Satan, Satan thinks he has won, however he does not realize that Christ will rise again. Christ has won, He has died and resurrected, and in doing so,

Colossians 2:15 ( KJV )
And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a show of them openly, triumphing over them in it.

Now, which model fits with a Loving God?

[RogerW]

Using the ability to have faith that we are all created in the image of God with is not a work requiring merit. Whether "that" refers to the gift of Eph 2:8 (grace/salvation) alone or one wants to throw the faith of Rom 12:3 in there as well by assumption is irrelevant because the point is that there not some moment of regeneration -- of faith given -- enabling one to believe, forcibly stating man is so depraved that he cannot exercise the faith God gave him as a man created in His image for the purpose of loving Him.

Greetings Sirus,

When Paul speaks of the measure of faith that God hath dealt to every man, who is he speaking to? Is he speaking to his biological brothers in Ro 12:1 or is he speaking to those who have been born again? We need to be clear because it is to these "brethren" that Paul says, "according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith."

I'm of the opinion that Paul is speaking to those whom he considers brothers/sisters in Christ; those professing to be born again.

Ro 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

I too believe every man has some kind of faith. But the faith man has before he/she is saved is natural or humanistic faith like that of the devils. This faith can assent to Who Christ is, but it cannot be saving faith.

Jas 2:19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

Lu 4:33 And in the synagogue there was a man, which had a spirit of an unclean devil, and cried out with a loud voice,
Lu 4:34 Saying, Let us alone; what have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth? art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art; the Holy One of God.

If God created man with a spirit and in His image, giving him ability to have faith, why does some thing called faith (as if some external power) need to be given again when man hears the Love of God calling through the gospel? Did God fail to create a fearfully and wonderfully made image of Himself? Did Adam change the image of God in man? Just how far do you want to take this supposed incompetence of God? Is he not far from His offspring that we might touch and feel for him? Or should we remove that from scripture too?

Why does Scripture tell us we are predestined "to be conformed to the image of His Son"? (Ro 8:29) If we still bear God's image why would it be necessary for us to be conformed to the Son's image? Would you deny that something happened in the fall, making it necessary for man to not only be predestined to be conformed to the image of Christ, but also necessary for fallen mankind to be born again (Jo 3)? You say we have a faith in our fallen natures that enables us to freely choose to place this faith in Christ for salvation. But Scripture tells us that after the fall man became in bondage to Satan, sin and death. In bondage to Satan, how will fallen man choose Christ? Will Satan simply let us go?

Applied? I didn't say it was applied to all, but for all.

It stands to reason that Christ's atoning sacrifice is not "for" all men without exception. Yes for all men without distinction, but not for all men without exception. If Christ's atonement; which is His life for theirs is given to all man without exception then all man without exception MUST be saved.

Many Blessings,
RW

[PilgrimPastor]

Yes but I has Scriptural support.

Now consider the Classic view. Adam and Eve in the Garden are faced with a choice, regarding the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, follow God and not eat or follow Satan and eat. We know which choice they made. By Choosing to follow Satan, they came under his control, thus everyone born is not under the control of Satan. He tricked Adam and Eve through his deception and now has ownership of them because they chose to follow him. God could just destroy Satan and take back mankind, however God is just, Adam and Eve willingly followed Satan. There is however a ransom that Satan is willing to accept for mankind, it is the life of the Son of God. How much would Satan love to destroy God's creation, but how much more His own Son? So Jesus offers Himself up to the Father as a sacrifice and says, I will lay down my life to redeem them. And the Father (through much anguish I suspect) agrees. So Jesus lays down His life and frees mankind from the power of Satan, Satan thinks he has won, however he does not realize that Christ will rise again. Christ has won, He has dies and resurrected, and in doing so,

Colossians 2:15 ( KJV )
And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a show of them openly, triumphing over them in it.

Now, which model fits with a Loving God?

All good points; very good. I have found value in Horace Bushnell's view as well, the moral influence theory. He was a Congregational Pastor / Scholar of the late 19th century. While his view can not stand alone, I think it is secondary to either the ransom or substitutionary atonement view, it has merit.

He said that at the Cross Jesus allowed Himself to suffer and die in order that God might highlight the brokenness of the world's ways and thus turn people's hearts back toward the love of God. What does the world do with beauty? It crushes it. What does the world do with grace? It's domination systems (symbolized in Roman power) hangs it on a tree.

[Butch5]

Every man born in Adam, is born to die...why?

John is simply saying that Christ is the True Light, and that all "through Him" might believe. He is not saying, as you imply that Christ gives Light to every man. If he were he would be contradicting what he has already said.

Joh 1:5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

When John says, "which lighteth every man that cometh into the world" it is simply an expression denoting the whole human race. Jesus came to be a light to lighten the Gentiles, as well as the Jews.

Lu 2:32 A light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel.

Scripture makes it plain that Christ being the Light that brings Light to the whole humanity does not mean that every man can or does embrace The True Light of Christ.

Joh 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
Joh 3:20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.

So who will come to the True Light of Christ? Not the world because the world does not know Him (Pretty much encompasses every human). Not His own (Hebrew people; Jews) because His own will not receive Him. It is only those who receive Him, to them alone He GIVES (not offers) power to become sons of God. These alone believe on His name, being born of God alone (not of blood, not of the flesh, nor of the will of man)!

Joh 1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
Joh 1:11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
Joh 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
Joh 1:13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

Many Blessings,
RW

Sorry Roger,

John says "every man that cometh into the world" that is not collectively, that is every single person. The Greek word Anthropos is in the singular, therefore it reads every single person.

Yes every man can embrace the true light, not all will but all can. Where is support for your claim that not all men can embrace the true light?

Here is the problem, you need to look at the language. As many as receive Him you correct, and the Greek word for received is in the active voice which means that they are the active agent in receiving.

Your statement about the world no knowing Him is better translated the world did not receive Him. The Greek word for comprehended is,

Thayer’s Greek Definitions

καταλαμβάνω katalambanō Thayer Definition: 1) to lay hold of 1a) to lay hold of so as to make one’s own, to obtain, attain to, to make one’s own, to take into one’s self, appropriate 1b) to seize upon, take possession of 1b1) of evils overtaking one, of the last day overtaking the wicked with destruction, of a demon about to torment one 1b2) in a good sense, of Christ by his holy power and influence laying hold of the human mind and will, in order to prompt and govern it 1c) to detect, catch 1d) to lay hold of with the mind 1d1) to understand, perceive, learn, comprehend

Concerning John 1:13, according to Irenaeus (I think it is Irenaeus) this is a reference to Christ, let me ask you, those who received Him, were they born of blood? Were they born of the will of man? Were they born of the flesh? I would think your answer would be yes. However, concerning Christ, was He born of the will of man? Was He born of blood? was He born of the flesh? No.

[Butch5]

All good points; very good. I have found value in Horace Bushnell's view as well, the moral influence theory. He was a Congregational Pastor / Scholar of the late 19th century. While his view can not stand alone, I think it is secondary to either the ransom or substitutionary atonement view, it has merit.

He said that at the Cross Jesus allowed Himself to suffer and die in order that God might highlight the brokenness of the world's ways and thus turn people's hearts back toward the love of God. What does the world do with beauty? It crushes it. What does the world do with grace? It's domination systems (symbolized in Roman power) hangs it on a tree.

My quote should read thus now instead of thus not.

I am not familiar with his work, howeveryour quote here seems to fall in line with the ransom model.

[Butch5]

Greetings Alaska,

This really isn't a very good comparison of salvation. We can use your analogy with a few changes to make is useful in defining how we become saved. The free gift of salvation, like a large inheritance, is GIVEN to our account but we don't have to do anything to receive the inheritance. It simply goes into our account because the One GIVING the inheritance has already done all the necessary work, and since this inheritance is ours because it is GIVEN by His grace, through His gift of faith, we simply receive all the benefits of salvation without any work at all to help save ourselves. We don't want to confuse obedience that comes after salvation with salvation by grace alone.

This is the way it must be because the GIVER of this great inheritance insists that His gift is of His grace alone, otherwise it will not be of His grace, but of debt. He (the GIVER of this inheritance) will not share His glory with us! Lest we begin to think He is some how indebted to us, giving us something we neither earn nor deserve...we MUST UNDERSTAND salvation is all of grace from beginning to end!



Don't make the mistake of confusing salvation and obedience. This was the mistake the Jews made thinking they could some how earn righteousness before God by the good works they do (keeping the law). Yes, we are called (after salvation) to obedience! If we profess to be in Christ...then obey His commands, not to be saved but because we are saved.



This is true! But don't forget even our ability to believe (saving faith) is a gift that comes from His grace.



Amen!



Again I say Amen!

Many Blessings,
RW

Roger,

What is the inheritance?

[Sirus]

Using the ability to have faith that we are all created in the image of God with is not a work requiring merit. Whether "that" refers to the gift of Eph 2:8 (grace/salvation) alone or one wants to throw the faith of Rom 12:3 in there as well by assumption is irrelevant because the point is that there not some moment of regeneration -- of faith given -- enabling one to believe, forcibly stating man is so depraved that he cannot exercise the faith God gave him as a man created in His image for the purpose of loving Him.

Greetings Sirus,

When Paul speaks of the measure of faith that God hath dealt to every man, who is he speaking to? Is he speaking to his biological brothers in Ro 12:1 or is he speaking to those who have been born again? We need to be clear because it is to these "brethren" that Paul says, "according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith."

I'm of the opinion that Paul is speaking to those whom he considers brothers/sisters in Christ; those professing to be born again.

Ro 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

I too believe every man has some kind of faith. But the faith man has before he/she is saved is natural or humanistic faith like that of the devils. This faith can assent to Who Christ is, but it cannot be saving faith.

Jas 2:19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

Lu 4:33 And in the synagogue there was a man, which had a spirit of an unclean devil, and cried out with a loud voice,
Lu 4:34 Saying, Let us alone; what have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth? art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art; the Holy One of God.

He is speaking to christians about faith and says all men have it. If you would like to prove different kinds of faith, be my guest because James 2:19 certainly doesn't do it. Enoch, Noah, Abraham, and on and on had faith, was it special and did God specially give it to them on top of what you call a natural/humanistic faith that you somehow then attribute to devils that are not natural/humanistic? C'mon! I am not a calvinist. God said it is good after creating man, so I hardly think it was good if it was lacking what is required to accomplish what is asked of it.

If God created man with a spirit and in His image, giving him ability to have faith, why does some thing called faith (as if some external power) need to be given again when man hears the Love of God calling through the gospel? Did God fail to create a fearfully and wonderfully made image of Himself? Did Adam change the image of God in man? Just how far do you want to take this supposed incompetence of God? Is he not far from His offspring that we might touch and feel for him? Or should we remove that from scripture too?

Why does Scripture tell us we are predestined "to be conformed to the image of His Son"? (Ro 8:29) If we still bear God's image why would it be necessary for us to be conformed to the Son's image? Would you deny that something happened in the fall, making it necessary for man to not only be predestined to be conformed to the image of Christ, but also necessary for fallen mankind to be born again (Jo 3)? You say we have a faith in our fallen natures that enables us to freely choose to place this faith in Christ for salvation. But Scripture tells us that after the fall man became in bondage to Satan, sin and death. In bondage to Satan, how will fallen man choose Christ? Will Satan simply let us go?

Adam was not glorified. Christ was. Adam must also be conformed. 1Cor 15 plainly says Adam's created/made state was natural/earthy, not heavenly. We are in Adam before we are in Christ. It was predetermined that man was to obtain inheritance and be glorified before man was created. That includes Adam who failed to be obedient and therefore was not glorified. I do not believe in a fallen nature at birth. Our nature is in Adam as created by God when we are born. We are in this world without an unveiled relationship with God because of sin and therefore naturally follow the course and god of this world. It says mans relationship with God changed, it does not say mans nature changed. I don't know where it says bondage to satan. You sure give him a lot of credit.

1Co 11:7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.

Applied? I didn't say it was applied to all, but for all.

It stands to reason that Christ's atoning sacrifice is not "for" all men without exception. Yes for all men without distinction, but not for all men without exception. If Christ's atonement; which is His life for theirs is given to all man without exception then all man without exception MUST be saved.

Many Blessings,
RW

I don't understand why you insist on arguing with yourself. Who said w/o exception? We have stated clearly the gift must be received and not all receive. What more needs to be said?

[Butch5]

He is speaking to christians about faith and says all men have it. If you would like to prove different kinds of faith, be my guest because James 2:19 certainly doesn't do it. Enoch, Noah, Abraham, and on and on had faith, was it special and did God specially give it to them on top of what you call a natural/humanistic faith that you somehow then attribute to devils that are not natural/humanistic? C'mon! I am not a calvinist. God said it is good after creating man, so I hardly think it was good if it was lacking what is required to accomplish what is asked of it.


Adam was not glorified. Christ was. Adam must also be conformed. 1Cor 15 plainly says Adam's created/made state was natural/earthy, not heavenly. We are in Adam before we are in Christ. It was predetermined that man was to obtain inheritance and be glorified before man was created. That includes Adam who failed to be obedient and therefore was not glorified. I do not believe in a fallen nature at birth. Our nature is in Adam as created by God when we are born. We are in this world without an unveiled relationship with God because of sin and therefore naturally follow the course and god of this world. It says mans relationship with God changed, it does not say mans nature changed. I don't know where it says bondage to satan. You sure give him a lot of credit.

1Co 11:7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.



I don't understand why you insist on arguing with yourself. Who said w/o exception? We have stated clearly the gift must be received and not all receive. What more needs to be said?

Welcome back!!!