Did Jesus die for the sins of every person?

A common interpretation of the death of Jesus on the cross is that He died to pay the price for the sins of every person who ever lived.  This is known as universal atonement.  It is then said that we must accept this gift in order to receive salvation and gain entrance into Heaven. A person who does not accept the gift is not saved and will end up in Hell.

I don’t agree with this interpretation but for the sake of argument I am going to grant it and then ask a couple questions.  To be saved two things must happen.  First our sins must be paid (atoned) for.  Second, Christ’s righteousness must be applied to us.  Both must happen or we can’t enter Heaven,

Now for a couple questions.

  1. On what basis does God send a person to Hell once Jesus has paid the price for all the sins of that person?
  2. What does it say about God when you consider that He was unable to save someone who He really wanted to save?

As to question # 1, since Jesus paid the penalty for ever sin of every person who will ever live there are no sins left for anyone to pay for themselves.  Since there are no remaining sins, there is no basis for sending any non-believer to Hell.  Non-believers are no longer guilty in the eyes of God.  The dilemma is that the person can’t go to Hell because they have been justified through Christ’s death on the cross and the person can’t go to Heaven because they have not accepted God’s gift and had the righteousness of Jesus applied to their lives.  In this situation the non-believer is left in limbo.  What does God do with them?  Is this a case for Purgatory?

Some might say that Jesus died for all of the sins of a person except the sin of unbelief.  This does not help them either.  If Jesus did not die for all of the sins of a person, then that person has no way to avoid Hell because.  There is no sin, not a single one, that a person is able to make atonement for themselves.

Anyone who believes this way must be able to answer this dilemma.  It is very prevalent today.  I heard it just this past Sunday.  The problem is that most people who believe this never take the time to think it through.  I know that I didn’t when I believed this way.

Question 2 deals with God’s ability.  Is God able to accomplish His will or not?  If He is, then how can someone whom God wants to save not end up saved?  The standard answer you will here is that the person is free to reject God.  The problem is that this makes the person equal to or more powerful than God.  This is not possible.  By definition, the creator is always greater than the creation.  God is not God if His will can be undone by one, or all, of His creations.  Do we really serve a God who is sitting in Heaven waiting to see who will be saved and who won’t?  How do you respond to this description of God?

This is not a complete examination of this question.  It is just a couple quick thoughts which I hope will spur some conversation in the comments.   If you believe that Jesus died for all people then please take a few minutes to think through these questions and lets discuss what you come up with.

Advertisements

66 Responses to Did Jesus die for the sins of every person?

  1. Shawn says:

    Jesus’ blood is enough to pay for every sin that has ever been committed – However it will not and has not ended up doing so simply because the payment has been rejected. God is not up in Heaven waiting to find out who will accept the Gift or not, he already knows this as God is omniscient. This does not mean God Chose who would accept or reject his gift. This also does not make the acceptor or rejector of this gift more powerful than God.

    Look at it this way – True Love is not forced, it is given and leaves the recipient with a choice as to whether or not to return the Love. God Loved us so much that he paid the price for all our sin. Its like we stole something from a store, get caught and as the clerk drags us to the police a stranger comes up, hands us the clerk the money for what we stole and leaves. If we accept the money our crime was paid for. If we dont, our crime was paid for, but we still choose punishment and the money is left with no one to claim it. The exact amount for our sin was already paid. This is why the Bible says he was sent not to condemn the world because we were condemned already. If anyone goes to Hell it is because they did not accept the gift of salvation. This is also the motivation for missions, if for no other reason than to make sure Christ gets everything or as much as he can of what he paid for.

    Like

    • ernesto says:

      Your answer is unclear in one respect: you fail to explain if Jesus took away the billions of sins that happen this moment! I am a catholic theologian, an still have not resolved this issu in my mind. It is so complex, that only the Holy Spirit can provide the answer. Remember that “paid for” does not mean “took way.” We know from Scripture and our Credo, that at the end of time, “Jesus will come back to judge the living and the dead”! If the sins that are happening this moment no longer exist (were taken away), Jesus would have nothing to judge! I welcome any insights on this

      Like

  2. Tom Shelton says:

    Shawn,

    I agree that the blood of Jesus was, and is, sufficient to pay the penalty for every sin that has been or will be committed. But was that His intention? Did Jesus die to pay the penalty for the sins of people He knew would reject Him? If so, then He paid the penalty and the person who reject Him must also pay for the same sins. Is that not double jeopardy? This is not biblical. Either Jesus pays our penalty or we pay our penalty. If Jesus pays our penalty then no basis exists for God to put us into Hell.

    I also agree with you that love is not forced. God does not force anyone to become a Christian. Every believer willing chooses Him but only after God has changed the desires of the believer. He changes their desires from the things of the world to the things of God. Then and only then do believers willingly choose Him. Until God changes their desires they won’t and can’t willingly choose God.

    With that said, I return to the first question in the original post. If Jesus paid the penalty for the sins of every person, on what basis does He put them in Hell who do not accept this gift?

    Like

    • Greetins Tom
      Would you give a tanslation for the words at the top of the page. In the text 572 times the word “christ” is used it is never translated. I understand it to being a process like pouring water over your head from and endless supply, not some that your can become or be?

      Thank you for allowing me to express my self on these pages in answer to all the others that make comments like me.

      Jerry Collins

      Like

  3. David says:

    Hey there,

    If I may, and feel free to delete or ignore this comment if it is unwelcome.

    The double payment argument was rejected by men like C Hodge, Dabney and many others. You can find their relevant comments by clicking on my name, and then scrolling down the index page until you get to the section on the double payment fallacy.

    If you think of the typical aspect of all this, the yearly sacrifice was made for all the sins of all the people, and yet not all the people were “saved” (still remaining in the typology). Faith was needed as the sine qua non of salvation. Faith does not “add” anything to the satisfaction, but it is the means by which it is applied.

    Anyway, if you are interested, check out C Hodge, Dabney and others on this. I think it may be helpful.

    Take care,
    David

    Like

  4. E.D. Jones says:

    Tom,
    To your question: “Did Jesus die to pay the penalty for the sins of people He knew would reject Him?” The answer is yes! “But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” (Romans 5:8) I strongly encourage you to read the entire book of Romans. It will answer many of your questions.

    Like

  5. Tom Shelton says:

    E.D.

    Thanks for contributing and for the suggestion that I read God’s word. We can never go wrong there.

    I have read the entire book of Romans many times. Romans is one of my favorite books. To properly understand it though we must remember the context of who it was written to. Paul addresses the book to believers as seen in Romans 1:7 which says “To all those in Rome who are loved by God and called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.” Therefore the “us” for whom Christ died as described in Romans 5:8 is believers not every person in the world.

    Like

    • The “us” that paul was speaking of was the brethren who were Israeliles and had God as their father. Only the Hebrews were the people of God as in Amos speaking to the house of Israel, You only have I known of all the families of the earth.it was not based on a belief system. It was based on being part of the family that God had chosen before the foundation of the earth and reconfirmed on Mount Sinai of Arabia. The gentiles were rejected from the foundation of the earth and were never included if they believed. Paul writing in Romans was to the ekkleesias the ones invited out who had been scattered by the father among the gentiles, If he wanted Gentiles who believed why then did he invite out HIS people from among them. Paul never saw a gentile who believed saved in his day. He called them dogs and to be aware of them.

      Like

  6. Tom Shelton says:

    David,

    I will check out the information on your site when I return from my meeting tonight.

    Your comments are always welcome here as long as you are civil whether you agree or disagree with whomever you are interacting. By that, I do not mean to imply that you would not be. I am just stating a general principle.

    Like

  7. E.D. Jones says:

    Tom,
    I continue to struggle with your premise. For example, for someone who is not a believer, Jesus did not die for them; easily understandable logic. But what if that same person comes to believe in Jesus tomorrow? Now, all of a sudden, Jesus died for them. This too is logical. But these two statements I’ve made appear to be in conflict. For me, the only possible truth that removes the conflict is if Jesus died for everyone, period.
    As Paul said in Ephesians, and several other letters, salvation comes from grace, through faith. “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God” (Ephesians 2:8) Jesus dying for anyone is utter grace. But it also takes faith. We must believe in the gift from God in order to receive the gift. For me, I have no trouble believing that Jesus died for everyone. But only those who believe in this gift of grace will be saved.
    Here’s a feeble attempt at an illustration: say I offered one of my sons an envelope and said there was a $100 bill inside. My son, knowing my sense of humor, may distrust me and assume there’s a gag in side, like the rubber band and paper clip trick that sounds like a rattle snake when the envelope is opened. Whether my son trusts me or not, and accepts my gift or not, does not at all effect the reality of the gift inside the envelope. And I, being a loving father, will not force my gift upon my son, because I have given him the freedom of choice. I may be saddened by some of his decisions, but I will not take away his freedom.
    I believe it’s this way with God. He offers us the gift of salvation. Some trust Him and accept the gift, and some do not. Yet even God will not force His gift upon his children. And like any loving parent, He may be saddened by our decisions. But I need to make one thing very clear: our decisions in no way make us more powerful than God.
    Sorry if I ramble, but I feel it’s critical for people to understand the true magnitude of God’s love. I just wish I could express it better.

    Like

  8. Tom Shelton says:

    E.D.

    Let me see if I can clear this up a bit for you and show that there is no conflict. First, God knew who would be saved before He created anything. He knew because He determined who would be saved. The Bible calls this predestination. When Jesus came to die, He knew there was a certain set of people whom He was going to die for. He died for those people alone. He paid the penalty for every sin those people will ever commit. So, it does not matter when the person lived or when he/she was saved because Jesus was paying their penalty.

    I agree that we must understand the magnitude of God’s love. The fact that Jesus died for anyone at all proves the magnitude of His love is beyond our ability to comprehend it. God did not have to save anyone. He would have been perfectly justified not sending Jesus and casting all of us into Hell. We all deserve that because we are sinners but because of His great love He chose to save some. Salvation starts with God and is completed by God in and for His glory. We are instruments designed to bring Him glory. We are not a party to the our salvation, we are simply the beneficiary of His purpose for our lives.

    I hope that helps to explain things a bit better.

    Like

    • Greetings ED
      Jesus did not die for sins Matthew 5:17 Think not that I came to destroy the Law but to fulfill the Law. What Law was he talking about? the only one he had to fulfill from Deut. 24:2-4 That if a man divorces his wife and he returns to her it is an abomination before God and cause the land to sin. therefore for a man to remarry his wife one of the partners have to die. if the wife(the house of Israel) there would be no one to remarry and the exercise is void. The only solution was that the Husband (Jesus) was to die and rise again to be able lawfully remarry the divorced wife. Jesus did not die for the sins of mankind or for the house of Israel being with out the covenants, He died that he could remarry the wife he had divorced. This did not include any gentiles who believed for he was never married to them. The remaining wife (the House of Judah) was never loost and never needed to be saved.

      Like

  9. Tom Shelton says:

    David,

    You have a great deal of information on your site. It will take me a while to look through what you have there.

    Like

  10. David says:

    Hey Tom,

    Thanks for the feedback regarding commenting. If I may, 2 things which may help.

    1) Take your time to work through the double-payment responses from Dabney, C Hodge and co., from my site. As you will see, most of it is just primary source quotations with little to no comment from me. What is interesting is that the double payment argument was refuted by the Reformed even before Owen first made it popular. The Socinians were using it against the Reformed as early as the 1570s. They were turning the Reformed doctrine satisfaction against the Reformed in order to establish true Universalism. You can see this in Ursinus’ response to his objector. We know that in the 1620s, from Davenant, was the leading English delegate to Dort, that it was being used by some advocates of limited expiation, and he offered a rebuttal of it then.

    2) Regarding, the argument that either Christ died for all the sins of all or some men, or that he did not die for the sin of unbelief. That is a tricky argument. I think Owen’s rebuttal there is not as easy as he makes out. We have a positive, faithfulness, and a negative, faithlessness. The satisfaction covers of the sin of faithlessness, as it covers all sins. But the positive act of faithfulness is different (the death of Christ is not a satisfaction for faithfulness), and it is something required by any man in order to have the benefit of the satisfaction applied. Owen’s argument worked on assuming that the act of covering the deficit of sin, somehow, in itself, ipso facto saved the sinner. Secondary arguments are needed, which Owen tried to use, for sure. But its more complex than his simple trilemma/dilemma supposes.

    Anyway, I think the comments from Charles Hodge on this point are probably the best. Polhil’s comments are very good too.

    Thanks again,
    David

    Like

  11. bob says:

    I know it is off topic, but I’d like to warn your readers against facilitator-led church groups.

    [LINK REMOVED BY TOM – SEE MY REPLY AS TO WHY]

    Like

    • Tom Shelton says:

      Bob,

      I have read the letter you linked to in your comment. I have removed the link.

      While I share many of your concerns regarding the Purpose Driven Church Model I think you have crossed the line with some to the accusations you made in your letter. Many of them are simply outrageous. One of the basic tenants of the purpose driven model is that church is for “seekers” otherwise known as unbelievers and this is not biblical. Criticism of this model is completely warranted. When the church meets corporately they are there to worship God and for no other purpose.

      The church also has other responsibilities, one of which is to disciple individual believers. This seems to be best accomplished through some form of small group. These have taken on many different names such as Sunday School, or Life Groups, or many others. If you do not agree with using small group discipleship so be it but I think you have focused your attack on a couple things that are not necessarily related. As such, I suggest that you amend your letter.

      Like

  12. jean says:

    Didn’t Jesus say He came to save the sheep? He did not say He came to save the goats (unbelievers) but, He came to save the lost sheep. God had already saved a people for Him from eternity but, Christ came to do His will to die and rise for His choosen people and seek those lost sheep. I have never read in the Bible that goats are turned into sheep. Hence, God predestined salvation for those whom He saved and came seeking for them, calling each one out by name. Man is dead in trespasses and unable to do one thing, especially to believe, to “get” saved. Man does not believe to “get” saved, he believes because he is saved, regenerated by the power of the Holy Spirit who opens the ears to hear God’s saving word.

    Like

    • I agree with you and you are right the sheep play no part in being saved by the shepherd who went looking for one lost sheep and return it to the fold. It took no believing and no faith and no confession. It was all the work of the shepherd who was to lay down his life for the sheep and not the goats. In the parable of the Tares he harvest the wheat but the wild Rye he gathered and took out and burned. Wheat is always wheat and wild Rye (gentiles THEM) remain wild rye living among the good wheat that will be taken in to the barns of the master.
      A good comment Jean

      Like

  13. David says:

    Hey there Jean,

    If I may, I would like to put forth some comments to your thoughts here. This is not by blog, so I do so if it is permissible.

    I am assuming your comments are given to argue to limited atonement. Working with that assumption I offer my replies. If that is not a correct assumption, my apologies and so please ignore my comments.

    You say::
    Didn’t Jesus say He came to save the sheep? He did not say He came to save the goats (unbelievers) but, He came to save the lost sheep.

    David: There are four basic answers to this.

    The first regards logic. Its called the negative inference fallacy. One cannot assume a universal negative (or positive) from a simple positive (or negative) statement.

    For example, from the proposition: “John loves Mary” one cannot infer that John only loves Mary. Or from the simple command: “John, wear the blue tie to work this morning” one cannot infer that John is to only wear a blue tie, and no other piece of clothing.

    So while its true that Christ came to save his sheep, one cannot infer that Christ came only with this intention.

    The second is theological. In the classic Reformed distinctions, the secret will expresses God in Christ’s design and desire to save the elect alone. By his revealed will expresses God in Christ’s desire and “design” to save all men. He is meant the Free Offer of the Gospel, among other things.

    Exegetically and textually, It is also true that Christ came into the world, not to condemn the world, but so save the world. In Jn 12:47, it is impossible to reduce “world” to the elect or believers.

    Historical theology: It is on record that for folk like Calvin, the reference “Christ came to save the lost sheep of the House of Israel” referred to all of that house, elect and non-elect. Calvin did not read that as referring to the elect alone. I think Calvin is right.

    Jean:
    God had already saved a people for Him from eternity but,

    David: I am not sure anyone was “saved” in eternity?

    Jean: Christ came to do His will to die and rise for His choosen people and seek those lost sheep.

    David: Christ came to do the will of his Father, correct. But it was also the will of the Son to save all men, eg John 5:34 and Luke 7:30 as examples of Christ’s desire and mission to save even those who finally rejected him.

    Jean: I have never read in the Bible that goats are turned into sheep.

    David: Agreed.

    Jean: Hence, God predestined salvation for those whom He saved and came seeking for them,

    David: The last is questionable. There are two propositions which are distinct.

    Christ came to save those whom the Father had predestined.

    All those whom Christ came to save, are those whom the Father had predestined.

    The former is true, the latter is not, properly speaking.

    The rest I will pass over.

    Hope that helps, and thanks to Tom for any indulgences. 🙂

    David

    Like

    • Greetings David
      Jesus did say that he came only for the sheep of the House of Israel, using only he thereby excludes the goats known as gentiles and dogs. He did not make an offer of salvation it was made and completed whether or not it had an acceptor. He died that he could remarry the divorced wife again there are no goat gentiles included who believe. The wife was a Hebrew.who had a Hittite for a mother and an Amorite for a father.and her name is Aholah also known as the House of Israel. The act of buying her back required nothing on her part in the transaction. He was worth enough to make the purchase. The salvation was for the whole family and not based on a personal believing of the individual because of his personnal sins. It makes no difference what some long dead writer had to say but what does the text have to say. The dead writer plays no part in the plan for salvation so lets forget his opinion for it is not worth the paper it was written on. He was not offered to buy back the wife.
      Go to my web page and read about the ethnee, ekkleesian. ethnoon, Gentiles and more.
      http://www.myprivatelib.com
      Jerry Collins

      Like

  14. Tom Shelton says:

    Jean,

    Well said. Actually I had never considered the sheep vs. goats argument in the way you have used it here. All people are created as either sheep or as goats. He chooses which we are before He makes us. He segregates His people from unbelievers even in their creation. This is actually a power argument. Thank you for sharing it with us.

    Like

  15. Sam says:

    Tom,

    1 Timothy 1-6 says:

    I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave Himself as ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

    That seems to be pretty clear – that Jesus’ sacrifice was for all. You stated that:

    “Paul addresses the book to believers as seen in Romans 1:7… Therefore the “us” for whom Christ died as described in Romans 5:8 is believers not every person in the world.”

    If the salvation portion is only for believers, does it not also follow that the instructions in Romans are only for believers? And if the instructions are only for believers, does that not free nonbelievers from those instructions – in effect, granting them a pardon from them? If you reserve the Bible’s blessings for believers only, do you not have to reserve the punishments also? I would be careful with this kind of interpretation.

    I think that the question itself has been misframed; instead of asking if there is universal salvation, shouldn’t the question be: is there universal opportunity for salvation? I think the answer to that is unquestionably yes. From the first moment that one has the ability to choose salvation to the last moment of life, all have the opportunity for salvation.

    As far as predestination goes – yes, I think there’s predestination in that God, being omniscient, knows the decisions that we will make to choose or reject Him. However, He does not make that choice for us. His will is that we have the freedom to choose for ourselves; this will is most definitely carried out.

    I do not like the sheep/goat analogy. How do you tell the difference between a lost sheep and a goat in this analogy? Before Damascus, Paul (Saul) was a chief persecutor and killer of Christians. How would you have known that he was a lost sheep rather than a goat before Damascus? The answer is, you wouldn’t. You can’t make this determination, as you do not know whether someone who does not accept salvation now will accept it in the future. Therefore, the question of whether someone is lost sheep or goat is pointless to us, and – no offense – a useless analogy.

    Finally – and it is most definitely not my intention to offend with this – why ask this question at all? Why ask whether salvation is universal or not? Should we not look to our own salvation instead of trying to determine who else does or does not receive it? It seems to me that trying to parse out who is saved and who is not is, in a way, a usurpation (albeit certainly unintentional) of God’s role as sole judge. Isn’t that what Jesus meant by looking to the beam in my eye instead of trying to find the mote in someone else’s?

    Like

    • Sam take another look at the book of Romans not one Roman is list during the 16 chapters. Not one latin is listed. Paul was writing to a special group that was in Rome. It was the ethnee who were righteous gentiles who got a name in the NT where in the OT they were known as not the people of God Hosea These people in Rome were the ones scattered by the father after the divorce in Jeremiah 3 It was the same ones that Jesus was talking to through the Prophet Isaiah chapter 50. It was the ones he would have to die for that he could remarry the wife that was divorced Deut 24 In Isaiah 54 Sing O barren wife you have more children than the married wife. Paul was taking the invitation to the ethnee in Rome. Jesus said that he came only for the lost sheep of the house of Israel. the children of the married wife Judah never have to be saved for they were never lost. It is not a matter of being a believer for it was all by race and race alone. Yes their is faith for them when they recognize what Jesus did for them. These people in Rome were already righteous so Paul could say the righteous by faith shall live. One can never become righteous it is a condition that was granted on Mount Sinai of Arabia to his people and he said that he would be their God no choices were allowed. Salvation is only for the House of Israel and her children see Matthew 1:28 at the start of the NT before they had one.

      Read more about the ethnee ethnoon ekkleesian and more on my web page.

      http://www.myprivatelib.com

      read and write me
      Jerry Collins

      Like

  16. Tom Shelton says:

    Sam,

    Thanks for your comment. I would like to answer the following concern first:

    Finally – and it is most definitely not my intention to offend with this – why ask this question at all? Why ask whether salvation is universal or not? Should we not look to our own salvation instead of trying to determine who else does or does not receive it?

    I appreciate this question. I appreciate the spirit in which you ask it. I think it is a very good question. I also think that people should ask the “Why” question more often, of themselves and of others.

    I believe that theology matters. Sadly many people will not take the time to consider their theology. We all have a theology and we should all consider periodically if it is biblical and if it is consistent. Too many people take bits and pieces from different theological beliefs and never consider how they fit together. This is not a problem until they are challenged by someone who can point out the problems to them. When they can’t answer the objections, the people often withdraw and their faith is weakened. Some to the point that it becomes detrimental to them. My goal is to get people to examine what they believe and to know why they believe it. I want people to be able to defend their theology. If they can do that then when they are challenged their faith can actually be strengthened or they can be corrected when they find the errors in their beliefs.

    I don’t have time right now to respond to the other concerns you raised. I will do that later this afternoon or evening.

    Like

  17. Tom Shelton says:

    Sam,

    As to the 1 Timothy 2: 1-6 passage you quoted. This is a common passage cited by proponents of libertarian free will but it does not teach what you claim that it does. Lets look at the verses at the end of chapter 1

    1 Timothy 1:18-20 This charge I entrust to you, Timothy, my child, in accordance with the prophecies previously made about you, that by them you may wage the good warfare, (19) holding faith and a good conscience. By rejecting this, some have made shipwreck of their faith, (20) among whom are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme.

    1 Timothy 2:1-6 First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, (2) for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. (3) This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, (4) who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. (5) For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, (6) who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time.

    Paul it telling Timothy that because some people have gone astray and because God has turned some people over to Satan. As such, Paul is urging Timothy to pray and intercede for all people because God does not want to turn anyone over to Satan but He does it. God’s desire is for everyone to be saved but we know that this does not happen. So either God can’t save everyone as He desires or there is another explanation to this passage. From this we see that there can be a difference between what God wants to do and what He actually does. Wayne Grudem calls it God’s revealed will (God’s commands of what we should do) and God’s secret will (what God actually decrees to happen) (page 213, Systematic Theology by Grudem).

    Another possible explanation I have heard is given by James White in his book The Potter’s Freedom, pages 139-145. He examines the context and explains that the “all men” in verse 4 actually refers to all classes of men. It would not refer to all men individually in the context. You can’t take the verse out of context or in a stand alone capacity.

    So, here we have a couple possible meanings other than the one you have suggested. Both are valid and logical. It is clear…but not in the way you have mean it. From these I think it is actually obvious that these verses do not teach the salvation of all men.

    Like

    • If God wanted everyone why then did he hate Esau before he was born and he never had a chance to get saved or take the case of Canaan who was only 1-2 years old when he was cursed forever or take the case of Ishamel who was cursed because his mother was a Canaanite or take the children of Judah and Shuah who were so mean that God came down and killed them because Shuah was a canaanite why did Jesus say that Pharisees were of their father the devil. Amos said in chapter 3 you only have I known of all the families of the earth. It appears that God does not want every one he only wants the children of the divorced wife who were scattered among the rejected gentiles from the foundation of the earth. Peter writing to those scattered among the cities of Asia James writes to the 12 tribes the book of Hebrews is to the Hebrews. in fact all the new testament books are to the house of israel only. Not gentiles are included no matter what they do. they were born to die, just a bag of bones waiting to fall down and return to the earth.

      Like

  18. Sam says:

    Tom,

    Thank you for your replies. I would say that the last verses of the first chapter do not deny my view. The fact that Hymenaeus and Alexander have been handed over to Satan does not mean that they never had the choice to not be handed over to Satan. And what does the phrase “so that they may learn not to blaspheme” mean? Why, if they’re eternally damned, does it matter that they learn not to blaspheme? That would be like saying, I’m going to cut your foot off so that you learn not to stub your toe. At that point, toe-stubbing becomes kind of irrelevant. If you’re eternally damned, learning not to blaspheme becomes irrelevant. Either it’s a temporary situation, or the translation from the Greek is not a good one; “παιδευθῶσιν” in this case would more likely be “to chasten by the affliction of evils and calamities” rather than “learn.”

    You said “we see that there can be a difference between what God wants to do and what He actually does.” I would rephrase this to say that there can be a difference between what God wants and what God allows. I think if you follow the “revealed will” and “secret will” dichotomy – and your use of the word “will” seems to mean “that which God actively directs to happen” – then there is no conclusion to be reached other than God created some individuals to be damned. Personally speaking, I find that theology repugnant. I am not condemning anyone who believes it, but I do not agree with it in the slightest – the idea that God creates individuals for the purpose of sending them to hell.

    Either we make our own choices, or we don’t. And if we don’t – if many are foredoomed to hell in God’s “secret will” because the choice has been made for them before they ever existed – then what point is there in faith at all? After all, you’ve either been created to be saved, in which case you’ve got it made from day one, or you haven’t, in which case you’re doomed from day one. What point is there in spreading faith? In proselytizing? In witnessing? Yes, Jesus commanded it – but would Jesus command His followers to carry out an exercise in futility?

    I emphatically disagree with White. 1st Timothy 2:4 in the original Greek says “ὃς πάντας ἀνθρώπους θέλει σωθῆναι καὶ εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν ἀληθείας ἐλθεῖν” – and the key words here are “πάντας ἀνθρώπους” which phonetically is ” pavtas anthropos” – this literally translates into “all things human being.” Not classes of human beings. All humans. I would encourage you to go to this site – http://www.greekbible.com/ – there you will find Paul’s books written in their original Greek, with an extensive lexicon for each word in the text. While I agree that you can’t ignore the context of a verse, you can’t use the context of an English translation to change the meaning of very specific Greek words.

    Your point about examining theology is a valid one – but rather than depending on someone else’s translation or thoughts, or citing someone with whom I already agree, I’ve found it more useful to try to get as close to the original source as I can. Thanks for your thoughts.

    Like

  19. Tom Shelton says:

    Sam,

    You said

    then there is no conclusion to be reached other than God created some individuals to be damned. Personally speaking, I find that theology repugnant. I am not condemning anyone who believes it, but I do not agree with it in the slightest – the idea that God creates individuals for the purpose of sending them to hell.

    There are numerous examples of this in the Scriptures. The most obvious is Judas a.k.a the Son of Perdition. His singular purpose was to be the betrayer of Jesus. John 17:12 makes his fate clear. He was predestined to betray Jesus and spend eternity separated from God. Then there was Pharaoh. He was created to show God’s glory to the Israelites, the Egyptians, and the world (Romans 9:17). There was Esau. Romans 9:13 says “As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” There was the Amalekites. God decreed to “utterly blot out” their memory in Exodus 17:14. These are just a few examples from Scripture that show that God creates some for destruction. It is a hard teaching. It is something that we don’t want to accept but we can’t ignore that it is taught clearly in Scripture.

    You said

    Either we make our own choices, or we don’t. And if we don’t – if many are foredoomed to hell in God’s “secret will” because the choice has been made for them before they ever existed – then what point is there in faith at all? After all, you’ve either been created to be saved, in which case you’ve got it made from day one, or you haven’t, in which case you’re doomed from day one. What point is there in spreading faith? In proselytizing? In witnessing? Yes, Jesus commanded it – but would Jesus command His followers to carry out an exercise in futility?

    There are a couple things to say here. Yes, we witness and share our faith because we are commanded to do so. We also do this because God decrees both the ends and the means of salvation. By this I mean that God does decree who is elect and who is not (the ends) but He also decrees every aspect in which they will be saved (the means). Also, since we have no idea who the elect are we have to share with everyone and trust God to do the saving. God also uses our obedience in witnessing to mold us to be more like Him. So, you see, it is not an exercise in futility.

    You said

    Your point about examining theology is a valid one – but rather than depending on someone else’s translation or thoughts, or citing someone with whom I already agree, I’ve found it more useful to try to get as close to the original source as I can.

    It is always better to go to the original source. I don’t read Greek. At some point I would like to learn. I have even purchased Mounce’s textbook and workbook but I have not yet made the commitment to it. As such, I can’t discuss the original greek texts with you. I have to rely on what I read from others who do know the original languages.

    Like

    • The rejection of the gentiles from the foundation of the earth has nothing to do with God’s wil it had to do with a physical condition that caused rebellion in all who carry the corrupted DNA of the people that were present when Cain went down to the land of Nod and there he took a wife and had a son, then he builded a city. You don’t build a city for three people. He subdued those in the land of Nod which he had intermarried into. They preexisted the Adam line for the prophet had a backward vision where he saw dwelling places but no Adams. The line of Cain grew until one Lamech took two wives producing two lines of people, 1) herders and cattle chasers and 2) those that worked with metals of Iron and brass and being artish and musicans. They continue to expand
      When Cain had a son Enoch then Seth was born to Eve the beginnng of the righteous line.and the earth became unrighteous except for one man Noah After the flood Ham rapes his father and Noah wakes and curses his 1_2 year old grandson Canaan forever. The descetandt settled in Ethopia and they took on the DNA of Ham’s wife forever changing their appand and were of the line of shepherds and cattle chasers in the wild. They became black

      They became the canaanites who were forever rejected because of the corrupted DNA of the mother of Canaan who was one of the people that Cain called they will kill me TWKs God has hated the the gentiles becasuse of their corrupted DNA from the beginning. If you have not rad of this before trace the lines of Cain and what it says and the line of Seth an who they were and only one man passed throug the flood to bring forth the righteous line of Shem and ten genteration later it was Sarah and Abraham who began the Hebrews theose chosen by God before the foundation of the earth when the Lamb was slain for his people the Lost sheep of the House of Israel. God has hated the corrupted DNA from the beginning and no aamount of believing or fatth is going to change the DNA of the gentiles in this generatioin

      Like

  20. Sam says:

    Tom,

    This is where I would argue that Judas, the Pharaoh, and Esau chose to do evil. Any of them could have chosen otherwise. I would argue that they were not specifically created to do evil, but chose to of their own accord.

    I think we’re at a bit of an impasse; our perspectives cause us to approach the same verses in different ways and interpret them differently. It’s been good to talk to you, but I think we’re approaching the point of diminishing returns in our conversation and I want to bring it to a close lest we become frustrated. I have really, really appreciated your courtesy as a blog host – so many people go to shouting matches very quickly on the Internet when they disagree. I have a lot of respect for your demeanor.

    As far as the site I recommended goes, once you know a few Greek words, it’s surprising how much you can puzzle out. Give it a shot.

    Thanks again for a good discussion.

    Sam

    Like

  21. Tom Shelton says:

    Sam,

    Thanks for your kind words. I have enjoyed the discussion. Please feel free to comment on my blog again anytime you feel led.

    Like

  22. David says:

    Sam said:

    I emphatically disagree with White. 1st Timothy 2:4 in the original Greek says “ὃς πάντας ἀνθρώπους θέλει σωθῆναι καὶ εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν ἀληθείας ἐλθεῖν” – and the key words here are “πάντας ἀνθρώπους” which phonetically is ” pavtas anthropos” – this literally translates into “all things human being.” Not classes of human beings. All humans. I would encourage you to go to this site – http://www.greekbible.com/ – there you will find Paul’s books written in their original Greek, with an extensive lexicon for each word in the text. While I agree that you can’t ignore the context of a verse, you can’t use the context of an English translation to change the meaning of very specific Greek words.

    David says:

    How is the phrase “all men” to be distributed?

    The solution is not that far away. The question is, is “all men” reducible to “some of all kinds of men,” or “all men of every kind”?

    The former is actually not very credible. The latter is preferred. Paul is thinking of kinds of men not being excluded, so he appeals to God’s desire to save all men.

    Contrary to a common misunderstanding, Calvin’s solution is good here. ‘ God,’ he says, ‘wills to save all men, by revealed will, such that no man is excluded, or should be excluded by us.’

    There is no justification to convert “all men” into “all kinds of men” and then into “some of all kinds of men.”

    For example, Paul says, pay for all men. He does not expect us, or legitimize any process which would reduce that to pray for some of all kinds of men. Rather his intent is, no man should be excluded from your prayers, so pray for all men of every kind: exclude no one. As soon as you begin to think “some of all kinds” you are inverting Paul’s very point, and implicitly defending the thesis he was opposing: the justification that some men can be excluded from our prayers and the saving will (revealed) of God.

    Thanks,
    David

    Like

  23. Heath says:

    I honestly think this is where the system of reformed theology gets read back into the text. Too many verses have to be explained in context of the reformed theology rather than explained on their own grounds. I think the doctrine of limited atonement is too oft explained by creating straw men arguments (like above) rather than demonstrating it with Scripture.

    Obvious, plain language verses such as 1 John 2:2 or John 3:16 where “world” is used are explained away, rather than dealing with the what the author plainly said. I have to admit I cringe a little when someone starts telling me that “world” doesn’t mean “world”. I also find it very tough to show Scripturally where regeneration comes before faith. It isn’t that tough to explain it in context with a man designed theological system, but tough from Scripture alone.

    I am not a follower of Armenian theology or Calvinist theology (which greater follows the “followers” of Calvin than Calvin himself). I am convinced Calvin did not even hold to limited atonement.

    That being said, my conclusion after thoroughly studying John is that “payment of sin” is not what saves a person. A person can no longer be “guilty” before God, but still be spiritually dead. Re-read Jesus conversation with Nicodemus. We must be made spiritually alive (reborn)! Read again concerning the Great White Throne Judgment. No one is judged for their “sin” at this judgment. It is never mentioned, and this judgment is reserved for all unbelievers. They are cast away on one condition; there names were not written in the Book of Life! Their payment and judgment for sin was on the cross, but they remain spiritually dead.

    We probably agree, in that I do not think a person wakes up one day and decides to put their faith in Christ. That can only come from Holy Spirit. I do not think it a contradiction to say we are chosen, yet free! I think we are chosen, and I have resigned to the fact that I do not understand all of that, but I think it is also hard to read Scripture and not see a basis that faith in Christ springs unto eternal life.

    Interesting stuff!

    Heath

    Like

    • When speaking of the Holy Spirit we need to return to the book of Joel and read the whole passage once more for Peter only quoted a small piece of the promise. the promise was only to the whole house of Israel and no others.It was a promise that what he would do through his people no gentiles were included in the whole family of Hebrews. In the NT the outpouring was only on the Hebrews at the Feast of Pentecost. No gentiles would have been in the homes during the feast on the evening of the 13th of the month and the remains cleared before sunrise. When those assemblied were filled it was a synbol of who they were. It was to indentify those of the house of Israel as we see later in the 2nd chapter of acts “behold are not all these which speak Galilians?” verse 36 therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God hath made the same Jesus whom you have crucified, both Lord and God verse 39 for the promise is unto you and to your children and to all that are afar off. It was a family thing not open to the gentiles. All that are far off doesnot jump out of the family requirement of Joel.

      Like

  24. Jonathan says:

    To Tom

    I have one question that I think is never fully answered by predestination. If I created a robot in which I programmed to be evil and it eventually goes out and kills someone, who killed them? Was it the robot or me?

    Personally, I never understand how people want to use the term predestination as truthful, yet take away the term force. I think the implication of a world of predestined individuals, would essentually show that we are indeed no more than robots, and there is no way that I could love or hate anything. If I loved God, then all that would mean is that God loves God through me. If I despised God, then all that would mean is that God made me hate him. In the end we would not be more than fictional characters in a novel.

    I believe that God does indeed know whether or not I am going to heaven or hell. However, I believe that he knows that due to the work of the Holy Spirit. In our mind set creation would have to happen before the work of the Spirit on us. However if God created time, then how in the world could he be constrained to that same time. I personally think the only aspect of God that is in a time frame with us is the Holy Spirit, because I think it is evident to most Christians that it is possible to feel the emotions of the Holy Spirit. It is in my opinion, and I stress that I am not saying that it is fact, that the Holy Spirit does not know whether or not I am going to Heaven or hell, until the end of my life. When we use the term All-knowing, all-loving, all-just, all-powerful, we sometimes get offended when someone might be implying that there is an aspect that isn’t correlating. All I want to as is how on earth does God love a predestined person. He can show them favoritism, or he can torture them, or he can enjoy how well he has done with it, but in the end that predestined person has absolutely nothing to love.

    The main problem that people have with saying that we do indeed have to pursue the gift in which God has offered to us would be that it puts humans at the center of our own salvation. The reason I do not think that, is because the only reason we have a choice at all, is because God offered Jesus to us. H could have simply said no. He could have wiped us out. However in the end it was entirely up to Hs soverign choice to give us an opportunity of salvation.

    To say that Jesus did not die for every person seems to contradict 1 John 2:2 which states: “He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.”

    So unless the Bible explicitly states that Jesus did not die for people going to hell, then I would think that the gift of Jesus has been offered to all, which would seem that from some perspective it is possible that anyone could be saved. And if the Bible does explicitly state that Jesus did not die for the people going to hell, then I think that might be the only legitiment contradiction. And I do not think the Bible contradicts.

    Thank You

    Like

    • Tom Shelton says:

      Jonathan,

      You said:

      All I want to as is how on earth does God love a predestined person. He can show them favoritism, or he can torture them, or he can enjoy how well he has done with it, but in the end that predestined person has absolutely nothing to love.

      You are exactly right, there is nothing in a person (predestined for Heaven or Hell) for God to love. The fact that He saves anyone is an act of love and mercy on His part toward those He chooses. God loves them because they are his creation.

      You said:

      Personally, I never understand how people want to use the term predestination as truthful, yet take away the term force.

      I struggled with this for a long time myself. It was only after I realized that Calvinism does teach that all believers do “choose” God. They can only do this after God has chosen them (predestined before the foundation of the world) and after he has changed their nature (through regeneration) from dead in our sins to alive and freed from our slavery to sin. After we are regenerated, we hear the Gospel and then respond. Not everyone is regenerated though…only those who were predestined to salvation.

      Like

    • Good evening Janathan
      Jesus said in Matthew 15 I came ONLY for the lost sheep of the house of Israel. The only would close the door to any others being saved by the work that he did. Example if you had 100 grandcildren all with the last name of monroe, They were all down at the mall. You gave the message that they could all have free Ice cream at the parlor. the messagener called out to those in the mall I came only for the grandchildre of J Monroe and all can have all the ice cream they want at the parlor. Would any other children get free ice cream at the palor. Just because they believed thay wanted some also. I do beleive that you would reject them at the door, Saying you are not related to J monroe. the same for those who are not Hebrews belonging to the family of God from Mt Sinai of Arabia and these are the ones that God said that they were the only family he has known of all the families of the earth. Regardless of what you think or what you have read it just doesn’t provide a way for the gentiles to be converted into being Hebrews of the house of Israel. No where in the text is there an offer to the gentiles for salvation except through poor translating of the Greek text over to English.

      Go to my web page and read about the ekkleesian and the ethnee

      http://WWW.myprivatelib.com

      Thank you for this time with you
      Jerry collins

      Like

    • greetings Jonathan
      Think of your self as something like a herford bovine. They are raise to die and be eaten yet during their life time they have a certain amount of choice but the choice to be not eaten is not one of their choices. The same for the gentiles who are rejected from the beginning. They are use to show off the glory of God in that he made the righteous choice in the beginning for as gentiles they carry the corrupted DNA from the beginning. They have a limited amount of choices but the choice to have eternal life with the Lord is not one of them. The gentiles are just born to die the death of a sinner without the choice. What you and I think does not matter one dot of printed ink to God the Father for he is always right regardless of the outcome.

      See My web page for more at http://www.myprivatelib.com
      Jerry Collins

      Like

  25. Heath says:

    Jonathon,

    I disagree with limited atonement too, but it is not Biblical to say that God programmed evil robots. God created the capacity for human freedom, which must allow for evil. This does not mean He programmed the evil. That is an illogical jump/conclusion.

    In the end, all choose evil under their own will. Reformed theology does not teach that God created robots to perform evil then chose to save some. All have chosen sin under their own will, not due to programming by God. I think the Bible is very clear about that.

    I do tend to agree with your last statement. If Christ’s death did only account for the elect, then I think the Bible would be much clearer concerning it. If you have to build a system of theology to make it sound plausible, then I think you have already put yourself on unsteady ground.

    Like

    • Jonathan says:

      Heath

      I never said that I believe God created us programmed at all. I do think that if God created us each individual saying “Jonathan you are going to hell, Heath you are going to Heaven,” then I do indeed think we are robots. But I do not think we are robots. I just wanted an explanation, in a predestined format, of how we aren’t robots. In your explanation, you gave the freedom of a choice arguement, which I already agree with. But thank you for helping me clearify that.

      Like

    • Tom Shelton says:

      Heath,

      I would argue that the Bible is very clear about the doctrine of limited atonement.

      I would like to point out that all people believe in a limited atonement except those who are universalists (believe everybody is going to heaven). The difference is who we say limits the atonement. Calvinists say that God does by predestining some while Arminians say that people do by their rejection of the offer of salvation. The question then becomes, who has the right to limit the atonement, God or man? It is not man!

      Like

    • Greetings Heath
      You might want to sit donw and have a talk with Rebecca the mother of Esau, the one God hate while he was still in the womb, God told Rebecca that she had two kinds of people in her womb. It Esau had the chance to change it did not show up in his life. When he saw that it displeased his father he went down to Ishmael to get a wife or two from the Canaanite line and produced the Edomites that God is going to kill and they don’t get a chance either see Obadiah one chapter long on the destruction of all the Edomites.Take a look at Amos 1 and 2 and see what he does to those seven nations with out a chance. Or take the army that surrround the city of Jerusalem 180000 in one night and no chance to get right or accept salvation dead in the morning. The same for the gentiles with the corrupt DNA from the beginning of the world. They are born to die just a bag of bones waiting to fall down.
      Atonement and salvation and restoration is only to one family of the earth all other families are rejected because of the corrupted DNA that they carry, it is a physical thing not something spiritual.

      Go to my web page and read about the ekkleesian the ethnee and more

      http://www.myprivatelib.com

      Thank you for your time
      Jerry Collins

      Like

  26. Matt says:

    I totally agree with what you said. My church has been taught about reconciliation for a long time. I don’t believe there is a place of suffering and torcher for someone who did not accept Christ. This is fact: There are misinterpretations of the Bible. Things like, forever was actually “ages” in the Greek. That word is ion. I look at hell as more of a mindset, because without the Lord, you are in a “hell”. There is no true happiness away from God. Hell is just a separation of the Lord. I really liked this page.

    Like

  27. Tom Shelton says:

    Matt,

    You said

    This is fact: There are misinterpretations of the Bible.

    There are NO misinterpretations in the Bible. Hell is a real place and you don’ t want to go there.

    Like

    • Matt says:

      I disagree. Unless you’ve actually studied both the languages, you wouldn’t know. I’ve seen it been proven. There have been misinterpretations when it was interpreted from the original to English. When people interpreted the Bible, they had their own solid believes. They obviously couldn’t go against them.

      Like

      • Tom Shelton says:

        Matt,

        I have not studied the original languages. That is a false argument. I don’t have to know them because I can rely on the work of those that have studied the original languages. You are correct in stating the people have their own individual biases that affect how they think and act. That is why all reputable English translations of the Bible have a team of translators. For example, see the and the .

        Like

        • If you fail to learn the Greek with more than what you get in school you will do no more that transmitt the same errors that have gone on for 500 years. The heathen gentile church of the Lord Jesus Christ was started by gentiles to deceive gentiles and they have had 500 years making the lexicons match the Greek errors of the Latinized Greek. There are over 10000 words in error in the KJV alone out of the 135000 words in the NT There are many words left out which greatly affect the meanings, In one verse they left out an “out” and it changed paul going to the unrighteous gentiles when it should have been out of the gentiles and another out is in Revelations when the author writes of seeing many coming from the nations and it should read out of the nations by the way the two most important words in all of the NT have never been translated in the text JESUS AND CHRIST
          That is reason one needs to learn the Greek to see the errors of the translators Go to my web page and read “the rotten tree of translation” first then read the other wrods like ethee and ekkleesian and Jesus
          http://www.myprivatelib.com

          Jerry Collins

          Like

          • Tom Shelton says:

            Jerry,

            If these errors all exist then please explain why the translation teams of the various English translations have not yet corrected them in the translations they produce. if the team was one or even a few I could believe it could happen but not when you consider that as many as 40 or 50 people often make up the translation teams.

            Like

      • Tom Shelton says:

        Sorry, my links did not come through. Let me try again.

        Like

      • Tom Shelton says:

        ESV translation page = http://www.esv.org/translation/team

        NASB translation page = http://www.lockman.org/nasb/

        Like

      • Good evening Matt
        Well you had better have a talk with Jesus when he gave the parable of the Tares. When he said the angelic harvestor were to collect the wild Rye and bind them and take them out and burn them, In other places it says there will be the gnashing of the teeth and the cursing and swearing at God because they were rejected. Read the account of those that are in the walls of the pit in the OT. If there is no hell then where is God going to cast Satan in the end in the book or Revelation. Somewhere there is lost something in translation

        Jerry Collins

        Like

  28. Richard Graham says:

    Tom you said that “I have not studied the original languages. That is a false argument. I don’t have to know them because I can rely on the work of those that have studied the original languages”

    There is no argument involved, there ARE mistakes made in translation because the meanings of words change as they are swapped from one language to another.

    And this is not a personal attack but do you not find it rather ignorant that you would rather rely on what someone else tells you rather than researching and understanding the topic yourself like MATT obviously has?

    Like

    • Tom Shelton says:

      Richard,

      I would be ideal if all of us could spend time studying Koine Greek and Hebrew. Then we could all read and study God’s word in the original languages and there would be no debate about mistakes. That is not practical though. It is perfectly acceptable to rely on the work of others.

      It is true that word meanings change but that does not mean there are mistakes. That is why all the best translations have a team of people who work very hard to make sure that they convey the exact word for word meaning of the original text. The ESV and NASB are the best examples of this.

      As far as some of Matt’s “obviously” studying the mistakes, I am not sure how good his study has been. Word have meaning but context affects meaning. Many words have more than one possible meaning. The only way to know which is appropriate is to examine the context. Context, Context, Context. I am not sure how much context Matt is taking into account. He denies that Hell is a real place. In that He is contrary to the teachings of Jesus himself who taught that Hell is a real place.

      Like

      • The first word the church is mistranslated was in Matthew 16:18 KJV I will build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. There are two mistakes in this one verse alone. Starting with the last word first in the Greek it is AUTEEN mearing her not it. As a phrase I use in my writngs she is not an it and her name is not the church. The next word is the word ekkleesian, being the one invited out was change to the church and the invitation was lost forever. In the context of the whole book of Matthew, Jesus came only to buy back his wife that he had divorced. The verse should read somethings like this I will homebuild the wife of me beting the ones invited out of from among the gentiles where they were scattered by my Father.and the gates of hell shall not prevail against her.In the NT alone there are 150 words for invite and all of its forms that have never been translated. The word church uses up 80 of those. It is always some form of the word invite to the ethnee the righteous gentiles who were being ekkleesian. In the NT there are two types of gentiles, a) the rejected unrighteous gentiles and 2) the righteous gentiles, the Children of the divorced wife of the OT who appear as unrighteous gentiles to those around them but to God the Father they are still righteous from the moment that he paid for them down in Egypt with the Egyptians and Ethopians.Do a Greek word search for the word ethnee and each time it should be translated the righteous gentiles. The ethnoon are the rejected gentiles from the foundation to fthe earth. Never has an ethnoon being converted into a Hebrew of the House of Israel. There are many translatiion errors in all the translation if you find the word church.

        Like

  29. Jesus did not die for the sins of the whole world. He died only for the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Matthew 1:28 the angel said he came to save HIS people from their SINS. Peter confirms that they were once the children of God and then became not the children of God and now are the children of God. Only the Hebrews of the House of Israel meet the requirements. Salvation is by race and race alone. Personal sins are never brought up once in the Gospels. The sins the angel was talking about was the condition of being without the covenants lost in the divorce.
    There are no other options available to any other. The Gentiles were rejected before the foundation of the Earth. The house of Judah was never lost or withour the covenants therefore they do not have to be saved for they are still the children of God. The church has tried for 2000 years to convert gentiles into Hebrews of the House of Israel. by many different methods all have failed.

    Like

    • Tom Shelton says:

      If what you say were true then no one but the Hebrews could ever be saved. Gentiles have not hope. This is not in agreement to the teachings of the Bible. if Gentiles could not be saved then why was Paul designated as the Apostle to the Gentiles? There would be no need of such an office if Gentiles had no hope of being saved.

      As far as no personal sins never being brought up in the Gospels…you need look no further than the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7). For example, in chapter 5 I see anger, murder, lust, adultery, revenge, lying, etc. These are all personal sins that must be forgiven before salvation can be imparted.

      I am curious, where have you heard these things? Who teaches this perspective?

      Like

      • In Romans 9 is the word gentile in the English, it appears that by assuming that it is unrighteous gentiles that all gentiles could be saved by going across the page to chapter 10 where paul says that if thou shall confess thou shall be saved. Wrong look at the context of chapter 9 it is all about the Hebrews coming out of Egypt the unrighteous gentiles would have no knowledge of what he was talking about, but the ethnee who had a oral history of the coming out of Egypt would.
        The first word church in the NT is the word ekkleesian now if you go to the fathers writing of course it is the church from the beginning but they changed the very word to church when it should have been: being the ones invited out. the Word ekkleesian comes from two words ek meaning out and the word klees and invitation, ian meaning being the ones. putting it todgether we get being the ones invited out. in the context of the OT only the hebrews were being the ones invited out from among the gentiles where they had been scattered after the divorce, this is confirmed by the book of Peter: to the ones scattered among the asian cities. in chapter two he quotes to passages out of the OT Exdus and Hosea. It was those people who where the people of God and became not the people of God and once more became the people of God he did not mention any gentiles. the book of James is to the 12 tribes not to the gentiles of this world who were rejected before the foundation of the earth was cast. The book of Hebrews is only to the Hebrews no gentiles are mentioned as a matter of fact all the books of the NT are only to the Hebrew of the House of Israel. The epistle to the Romans is wrong it should be to the ekkleesian in Rome and the same for Galatians. Paul was never an apostle to the gentile even if that is what it says in the English the greek says he was an apostle to the ethnee the righteous people of God who had been scattered among the gentiles appearing as an ethnos. Jesus sent his disciples to ethnee never the ethnoon the unrighteous gentiles. This is confirmed in the writings of Paul when he talk of being without the covenants.

        Just because 70 men made a translation does not make it right if their very concept was wrong in the beginning, the ekkleesian was an invitation and never the church. Having made that error they made the remaining text to match and you have the corrupt heathen church of the Lord Jesus Christ conceived by gentiles for the purpose of deceiving the gentiles. Here is a test for you to try on the church fathers and their false record writings. Is the lost sheep of the House of Israel the center of focus or is it the church? Is the message to the gentiles that were hated by God from the beginning or is it to the lost sheep of the House of Israel which Jesus declared that they were the ONLY reason he came. He did not die for the sins of the whole world but for the House of Israel being without the covenants. No matter how many translations you search if the message is the church and the gentiles it is wrorng going out the gate and the translators are no more than deceivers and of their father the devil.
        This message is so misaligned that few if any will go pulic for they will be condemned by the church as being a cult when the church is the biggest cult of all. Go to my web page and read more about the ethnee and ethnoons. or who or what is Gentile, Or who is a Jew. by the way Jesus was not a Jew for that is a slang term that he would never have used or been known by. The early translations did not even have the word Jew in it for the word Jew was first used in writings in 1775. Just another of the many errors in the English translations. I got off track
        Go to my web page and read about this things
        http://www.myprivatelib.com
        If you would receive email attachments go to my web page and send me an email whereby I can attach more of my writings which are not yet on line for I have to have them edited by my daughter.

        Jerry Collins

        Like

        • Tom Shelton says:

          Jerry,

          Sorry but I don’t buy it. For what you say to be true this conspiracy or simple error would have survived for hundreds of years. There are many many people who know, or knew, the original languages who would quickly point out these errors if they truly existed. Everyone who loves God’s word would be obligated to correct any such error.

          You did not answer my question about where you get these things from. Who taught you these things? Why are you so hostile to the church?

          Like

          • I learned them first by translating the Greek New Testament not once but twice for myself. first line in Greek, the second line in Roman letters for the Greek letters. third line the meaning for each word. I even had to make my own font to be able to type in Greek letters that were printable. I published 7 two volume sets of my work. Then I outlined the OT to find out what it had to say 62 pages on my website. I have been at this for 75 years. I cant remember not studing the text from my youth. I have read many books but most do not line up with what the text has to say. for example the verse that says that by grace are you saved if you cut that out by it self then all can be saved by grace but the context is that it is only the childdren of the House of Israel who were first saved by race then by grace but never by grace alone. The Angel told Joseph that he was to call his name Jesus and he would save his people from their sins. Now answere all the questions without using the New Testament for their was none to prove what the angel had just said theefore one must retrun to the Old Testament to be able to find the reasons for Jesus coming to earth. Most Christins are bomb blast christins what I mean is that they explain the mening for the bomb blast by looking at the explossion wtihout reading the plan book from the desiner who gave all the detaikls in the OldTestament. In the OT no gentiles were wanted by God but in the corrupted text of the English it has the gentiles geting saved or Paul an apostle to the ginetiles. The church has rejected the wife from the its beginning for it corrupted the invitation and called it the church and it condemned all who go reveal the truth from the text. Remeber the gentiles made the text after 350 years. that had that long to be able to perfect the message that God wants to save Gentiles. The church has never existed in the eyes of God. The whole New testament is to only the house of Isrel tand them alone. The church is a fraud from its beginning and all it does it deceive the gentiiles The wrintings of the fathers proves nothing it the church was their center of focus. Theology is nothing more that a system of beliefs made to approve the church of the heathens. The whole old Testament is all about the House of Israel who will
            rule over the gentiles. The church was never ordained by God, it is a man made institution for the salvation of the gentiles from something you can not find.Tell a lie long enough and every one will believe it is truth. Take the word JEW it was not used until 1775 and it was never in the biblical text until after 1800. The JEWS of today are nothing more than heathen gentiles who want to appear as the people of God. Read the Torrah they hate Jesus and all christians and are no different than the Pharisees,Sadducees, Scribes and elders and the High priest ofJesus day when they were all ethnic Jews from the surrounding tribes of gentiles. Read John Hyrcanus 135 bc when he made all the gentiles be circumcised and take up temple worship. They were still reigning in Jesus day who thought nothing of Murder and concpircy thoughout the ruling people, they had used it before. they hated Jesus from the first day down att the river Jordan.
            How did I find that ekkleesian means being the ones invited out. Go to the wedding of Cana when Jesus was invited to the wedding not called as the Latinized Greek will tell you in school for the Greek has a word for call in the English and it is Kal*****. the word in the Greek is ekleethee the one invited. Klee is invited therefore the word ek-kleesian is the one invited out the ian is being the one then we get being the one ivited out. Then one must answer the questions that come with that, Who is being invited out of where or whom return to the OT for the answers where God said that he would scatter the House of Israel among the gentiles and lot lose one. OK Go to acts 7 the verse reads the church in the wilderness, no church every existed in the wilderness it is wrong in the English. It was the ones invited out of Egypt who had been paid for with the Egyptians and Ethopians. All 80 times the word is used in the NT as the church, it is everytime the ones invited out of the gentiles where they had been scattered among the rejected gentiles. When learning Greek in school one must learn the latinized Greek which is no Greek at all. It is a language where grammar is King Romans 8:28 is the worst translated verse in the new Testament, in the Greek it says nothing like it is in the English. It has the Protheto a seting forth a word describing the sacrifice in the OLD Tesamet and it used if I remember 9 times in the NT and here it is completely wrong, So you say that someone would have caught the error in 500 years, no so it is the same for the last 500 years and 200 translations later it is still wrong How does one have confidence in the church and the translators who keep the error going. They have to much to loose mostly face. in many cases it would cost them their job for lying. Take the sending of Missionaries to the gentiles and translating the text with the English to go along with the Greek.into the local languages of the gentiles who Jesus said not to go to the gentiles, He did not want them then and he dont want them now. The practices of the church are many times the very things tha Jesus said not to do. Do I hate the church yes because they are deceiving all with the false message that God loves all the children of the world. That if they give their heart to Jesus he will take them home wth him. All thrash talk worse than some talk show on TV, The church hates the ekkleesian and it has from the beginning. The church is diabollically a opposed to the ekkleesian whom are the only ones that Jesus came for.
            I have tried to give you insight to why I write the things that I do for the only book that I base by writings on is the biblical text. I rejected the church fathers writings many years ago for all of their false teachings.
            Here is one for you to think about all children of all mothers are rejected if they can not be traced to Sarah the wife of Abaham. for the Arabs says is not Abraham out father also. It is true but their mother was not SARAH. therefore they are rejected because of their mother.

            Go to my web page and read the short articles and look at the charts.

            http://www.myprivatelib.com
            Jerry Collins

            Like

      • These are all personal sins that must be forgiven before salvation can be imparted. And where do you find that one has to change before he can be saved? Where is the explaination that one must be forgiven before salvaion is imparted. The book of Hosea when Hosea acted out the drama of buying back the wife, she was never ask to be forgiven of her sins beore he was to buy her back and take her home and love her.
        In Isiah 50 Jesus is asking for the bill of divorcement given the mother of the children he was talking to. For the remaining three chapters it is all about the healing of the wife by the stripes laid on Jesus never for physical healing of our body. Peter confirms this in chapter two. She was healed of her adultery that she had learned from the Canaanites down in Egypt. Jesus died to remarry his wife whom he had divorced in Jer 3 he then declares in Isa 54 Sing O barren wife you have more children than the marrried wife. Those personal sins you mentioned where the result of being without the covenants and had no effect about being invited out from among the unrighteous gentiiles of this world. Paul never saw a genitle saved and convertd to sheep of the House of Israel. He never offered then a way to be converted only the corrupted English text of the gentile church. O gentile man dont you understand it is all about the wife, and you never mess with another man’s wife.

        Like

        • Tom Shelton says:

          Jerry,

          I did not say one had to change before they could be saved. I said one had to be forgiven before one could be saved. We are taught in God’s word to repent and believe. Repentance is a command of God but it is also a gift of God. Once our sins are forgiven then the righteousness of Jesus is applied to us. So, first we are cleansed through the atoning sacrifice of Jesus when we repent and then we are made righteousness through the imputation of the righteousness of Jesus to us.

          As to the personal sins not being mentioned in the Gospels (a claim you made in one of your previous posts), how do you respond now that i have listed a few that are easily found there? God is personal God….he is God of the Hebrew as well as the Gentile. Jesus himself taught that he had other sheep (Gentiles) that were not of the Hebrew fold. In mentioning these two groups Jesus knew every person (past, present, and future) that would make up those groups personally because he personally paid the penalty for their sins.

          Like

          • Jesus never had sheep of another fold that were not sheep of the house of Isael. When Jesus disappeared for twenty years he went to those sheep and their he got his education and was trained in the best universities of the land. He went to the place that was given to David through nathan the prophet, He went to the Isles of the Sea where his great uncle Joseph owned or controlled all the tin mines of Ireland and Cornwall. Joseph was the minister of Mines for the Roman central government. He owned a whole fleet of ships to transport the tin to the middle east. Their were 50 universities in the Isles at the time of Jesus. We have record that he built there a house for his mother and he went to the tin mine in cornwall. Those children of the house of Israel had been there for many years.
            No gentiles were ever sheep of another fold. that is a lie from the pit of hell to prove that gentiles can be saved or have their own church (LDS)
            John the baptist never said REPENT for the Royal one of heaven is among you. That is a catholic word it does not exist in the Greek. Just strike it out and write in change your mind for the Royal one of heaven is among you. The English is wrong again. Jesus never came preaching repentance. The children of the wife were not even part of the transaction to buy back the children of the wife. They were not required to have faith to be saved for the work was all his and his alone. He died to remarry the wife. He went up willingly to Jerusalem to be slain as the Lamb from the foundation of the earth, the Plan was already laid down when the earth was cast and placed in place, Jesus told the Pharisee who came by nite in John 2 that you must be born from above not born again. It was not something spiritual as the church has made it. One must be born a Hebrew from above by the father into the race of Hebrews. The man understood what Jesus said and said how can I enter once again into my mothers wormb? If one is not a hebrew then John 3:16 does not work for the world that John was writing about was the world of the Hebrews of the house of Israel.
            John 1:1 the favorite of Latinized Greek to start with is all wrong. The word LOGOS appears 69 times. It should be translated in 68 of the 69 as the one saying something and not this strange thing call WORD. The one saying something was in the beginning and the one saying something was with the God and the one saying something was the God Nothing about the English translation for the church has no value of itself it is only a tool for the heathen rejected Gentile church of the Lord Jesus Christ. If it was a text book for a doctor it would have been cast aside long ago for all of the errors that it carries, Satan is a good bible saleman selling the book as the infallable word of God with no errors and no mistranslations. He has been successful going about to selling it to all the false churches that he has created from the beginning.The church is nothing more than the old whore out of Revelations 17 riding on the back of Governments. All she does is change her shourd for what the people want and she will give it to them. If it is nothing more than you can be be saved by faith alone. or that if you repent of your sins you will beome like God knowing good and evil.
            Read the book–50 years in the church of Rome. Read the chapter on the wafer God.It will make you laugh with the accounts of the wafer God. by the way you can read it online.

            Like

  30. Tom Shelton says:

    Jerry,

    Jesus himself told his followers that he had sheep of another fold. John 10:14-16 says “I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me, (15) just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep. (16) And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd.” He was telling the Hebrews that there were Gentiles that were to be saved also. So, by his own words he did have other sheep.

    Where are you getting this information about the education of Jesus at the universities of the Isles? I have never heard any of this and it sounds very gnostic.

    As far as repentance goes, I don’t see your problem. To repent means to change your way of thinking about something or to change direction. So, when Jesus tells his people to repent for the kingdom of God is at hand he is telling his people to change the way they think about the kingdom. He did not come they way they expected so they had to shift their thoughts to in conformity to his teaching. When a sinner repents he changes his mindset and agrees with God that his is a sinner in need of being saved.

    As far are the word LOGOS, I don’t see how your translation changes the meaning.

    Lastly, what denomination are you? I am trying to get a feel for what you believe and where you are getting it from and I am not able to.

    Like

    • Greetings
      I am one who reads the text and not following someone else writings I just try to understand the prophets and what they say and where it is fulfilled in the NT. What do I beleive is what it says in the text and not what man says. I left that area long ago. As for the word repentance it has to do with doing pentance and contains an attitude condition. Normally repentance is associated with the confessing of sins the two are hand and glove. Jesus never required repetance during the NT when he sent out his learners in Matthew 28:19 Paul in his teaching to the House of Israel never said for them to repent of the family sins. Peter never said that the ones who became the epople of God had to repent. Nowhere in Revelations is there a gentile mentioned being in those that are around the throne. Do look at Rev 22 the dogs are outside the gate with the murders and sinners. These are the same dogs that Jesus talked about. Remember the corrupted church has had 2000 years to perfect the lie that the church is the only thing in town that will take you to heaven, when they began with the destruction of the invitation and called them selves the church of the Lord Jesus Christ. Salvation has been by race and race alone and never by faith through grace. Just look at the OT is there any other people who are accepted as being in the family of God when you read all the promise made to the House of Israel. God has hated the gentile dogs from the beginning because they are of their father the devil. I have yet to publish on line the history of the corrupted DNA of the gentiles from the millions of years before Adam was created.untile the end of time.
      Jesus came only for the lost sheep of the House of Israel and their are no others in the family after the day of Pentecost in the book of Acs. Do a search of the book of Romans of how many times Paul uses the following words, (we,Us You,or ye, brethren) and then try to convince me that he was an apostle to the ethnoons or unrghteous gentiles of this world.. I care not what is written in the English text or what some church fathers wrote who did not understand the house of Israel.

      Get yourself a copy of “The Drama of the lost Disciples” by George E Jowell Read the book “Judah’s Sceptre and Joseph’s Birthright” by J, H, Allen it is online free to download. Read the “the stone Kingdom” by E. Raymond Capt but his theology in the closing chapters are wrong and not biblical at all. he is a unversialist. Read some of the “other” Authors on my web page. There are writings about this subject but it must be read through the eyes of the OT for many times the Authors start out good but end up trashing everything they wrote. The biggest error of all is to try and correct the church by staying inside the framework of the church when the church is diabolliclly opposed the House of Israel and tha only the Hebrews are saved and going to be the ones ruling and regiening with Jesus. Some say that can’t beleive that Jesus would not make a way for the gentile dogs. Just read the book of Ezekiel and see all he is going to destroy. Look who survives the Ez 38-39 it is only the House of Israel who clean up the mess and going into the 40 Chapter. And it is ony a prince of the House of Israel that makes offering for the House of Israel after the temple is measured and the land is divided once more to the 14 tribes no gentiles get any land. When Jesus comes on the scene through the house of Judah to be the one who dies for the right to remarry the divorced wife of Jer 3 and he says in Isa 54 O barren wife you have more children than the married wife, She did not have any bastards.
      Look at the time of Abraham he was the only man of all men to be chosen by God and he was all alone as the only righteous man at the time he rejected all the other families of the earth. It is God’s pattern to only have the Hebrews all the way down through history. The Sone Kingdom was going to crush all the empires of the earth read Damiel chapter two when the stone starts wih the Assyrian empire and has crushed all the nations of the earth that have risen to power Read the Miltary history of the battles of the USA from West point on line and how many times we have had to crush some nations of this world Does your theology include Ephraim and Manaana the two sons of Joseph in these last days of time. If not where have the promises been fulfilled Who else has controlled the seal lanes of this world and what other nation is God’s battle axe and war weapon for the punishment of the gentile nations of this world. Who else has pushed the gentiles off their lands and lived in their ciiies. Ezekiel never knew of what he was writing when he described cities with out bars and gates for he had never seen one in the middle East where he was writing. Which isles of the sea were waiting for the message What are your choices to fulfill the prophecies? What nations are hated by all the other nations of the world today England and USA and northwest Eurioe and Iceland. Read the history of Iceland who has a language that is 1000 years old and a 12 year old girl can read the biblicla text and understand it? Give me your choices who is the commonweatl that was promise to Abraham? WHat other commonwealth had a great nation come out of it to rule the world as does the USA. Work through the promise of the OT and the NT is easy. for it is jsut the same with only a language change. The NT is not yet the NT for it has not yet occured.
      Change all the titles to the books in the NT to read something like this. Written to the House of Israel by Matthew or Peter to the scattered House of Israel and To the ekkleesian in the city of Rome or the Children of the wife of Abraham in Galitia The book of Revelations to Hebrews. I know this is long and not a lot of details for I have another 20 lessons to publish online giving more details covering many of these subjects.

      Thank you for the privlege of sharing with you the story of the House of israel who was the only one bought back by the Lord Jesus and he had to die to remarry his wife.

      If you can accept the house of Israel being the reason it will change you more than you think but just a word of warning, Be prepared to have to walk alone with out your church friends for they will cast you aside and reject you and your message.
      Thanks once more
      Jerry Collins

      Like

  31. In Christ Alone says:

    This page is full of self pride.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: