You could spin it that way but would be wrong.

Jesus died for all of humanity.

God put an action from all of humanity on it.

You believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of the Living God and died for our sins.

That is not exclusionary at all.

PEOPLE choose to be excluded from it but denying that.

 

Is Major League baseball exclusionary because I am not allowed to play in it?

 

Let's be clear: I am not advocating a Limited Atonement position. However I can name a few here who have hinted or blantantly said that is there position of atonement. (I won't name names because that would be against the rules)

 

The issue I was raising was to see if some of them would come out and speak to that concept in relation to this conversation. I've yet to see them come out and acknowledge it. :thumb:

The Great Commission

16Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. 17When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

 

How do you discount this as Jesus not explicitly saying that baptism is EXTREMELY important?

 

If you discount the baptism part, than I guess it is not important to witness to others cause we can't discount one part of the sentence without discounting other parts of the sentence, can we????

 

And I guess we don't have to worry about teaching them to obey what he has commanded, because if section B is not discounting then surely we can discount section C?

 

Why is this verse more important than any of the verses I cited previously? Why would Jesus, knowingly, give different explanations for salvation?

 

The problem with taking the scripture in its entirety is that it is often vexing, nearly contradictory at times, and is written in a style not given to literal interpretation. Had Jesus desired that, he would have written a treatise on salvation. It is of my opinion that we must apply reason to the words in front of us to reach our conclusions.

Let's be clear: I am not advocating a Limited Atonement position. However I can name a few here who have hinted or blantantly said that is there position of atonement. (I won't name names because that would be against the rules)

 

The issue I was raising was to see if some of them would come out and speak to that concept in relation to this conversation. I've yet to see them come out and acknowledge it. :thumb:

 

Please explain the bolded as I am not sure what that means.

I have a guess but don't like to work on guesses of what others are meaning.

Why is this verse more important than any of the verses I cited previously? Why would Jesus, knowingly, give different explanations for salvation?

 

The problem with taking the scripture in its entirety is that it is often vexing, nearly contradictory at times, and is written in a style not given to literal interpretation. Had Jesus desired that, he would have written a treatise on salvation. It is of my opinion that we must apply reason to the words in front of us to reach our conclusions.

 

That is my point.

 

IT IS NOT!

 

They are all important and you look at all of them and pray for discernment from the Holy Spirit to get a total picture.

Limited Atonement: those that are to be saved have already been pre-ordained to be saved.

 

 

As to looking at all of the scriptures and letting the Holy Spirit guide, how come, according this board, the Holy Spirit always guides me to be "wrong" and the more literal interpreters are guided by the Holy Spirit to be "right"?:confused:

 

The thing is, all scripture, including the old testament should be read through the lense of the "life of Jesus". Which may mean that all of the wrath and destruction in the OT that was attributed to God, was really just man justifying evil. If you read it through the non-violent, loving, merciful, forgiving Christ. "Bashing childrens heads against stones and killing all of the living people of a tribe." Balderdash

Limited Atonement: those that are to be saved have already been pre-ordained to be saved.

 

 

As to looking at all of the scriptures and letting the Holy Spirit guide, how come, according this board, the Holy Spirit always guides me to be "wrong" and the more literal interpreters are guided by the Holy Spirit to be "right"?:confused:

 

The thing is, all scripture, including the old testament should be read through the lense of the "life of Jesus". Which may mean that all of the wrath and destruction in the OT that was attributed to God, was really just man justifying evil. If you read it through the non-violent, loving, merciful, forgiving Christ. "Bashing childrens heads against stones and killing all of the living people of a tribe." Balderdash

 

 

I have agreed with you on Scriptural issues before.

 

Jesus is all that you said He is.

 

Except that Jesus also talked of things that weren't non-violent, loving, merciful, forgiving Christ.

 

He is both.

Let's be clear: I am not advocating a Limited Atonement position. However I can name a few here who have hinted or blantantly said that is there position of atonement. (I won't name names because that would be against the rules)

 

The issue I was raising was to see if some of them would come out and speak to that concept in relation to this conversation. I've yet to see them come out and acknowledge it. :thumb:

 

I prefer to call it "Particular Redemption."

I have agreed with you on Scriptural issues before.

 

Jesus is all that you said He is.

 

Except that Jesus also talked of things that weren't non-violent, loving, merciful, forgiving Christ.

 

He is both.

 

I should have put the instead of the confused one it would have been easier to see i was joking. little self depracation is good for the soul.

I prefer to call it "Particular Redemption."

 

Give it anyname you want. It still says the same thing.

 

"Jesus only died for the redeemed he elected. Everyone else was elected to be ******." That's what "Particular Redemption" and/or "Limited Atonement" means. I recall hearing one pastor (again in KY) who pronounced it this way:

 

"Jesus only died for the saved. If he died for those who reject him that makes him a loser and Jesus ain't no loser."