Spurgeon taught that God wants everyone to be saved

[FreeGrace2]

I didn't insinuate. I agreed with you. You meant that I was on the algebra level. If that's not what you meant, then it was an insult. Those are frowned upon here.

There was NO insult. You do understand the different levels involved in my comparison. If you don't understand Christ's spiritual death, then you are simply on another level. That's all. If that is an insult, this forum may be too overly sensitive when facts are pointed out.

As to Him dying spiritually, you'll have to give more info. Joyce Meyer and Kenneth Copeland believe He died spiritually. I disagree with them.

I've already given "more info", and you still disagree. OK, we are simply on different levels. Not an insult.

So, no further need of discussion. You won't understand Peter's remark relative to Jesus' own words and John's decription unless you understand His spiritual death.

For example, Jesus said "tetelestai" BEFORE He dismissed His spirit. If His physical death was the issue, then He lied, because He hadn't died YET. That should be rather obvious. The tense is "perfect". When He said that, He meant that the payment was done, finished, paid in full. And He was still physically alive.

 

[Hammster]

There was NO insult. You do understand the different levels involved in my comparison. If you don't understand Christ's spiritual death, then you are simply on another level. That's all. If that is an insult, this forum may be too overly sensitive when facts are pointed out.


I've already given "more info", and you still disagree. OK, we are simply on different levels. Not an insult.

So, no further need of discussion. You won't understand Peter's remark relative to Jesus' own words and John's decription unless you understand His spiritual death.

For example, Jesus said "tetelestai" BEFORE He dismissed His spirit. If His physical death was the issue, then He lied, because He hadn't died YET. That should be rather obvious. The tense is "perfect". When He said that, He meant that the payment was done, finished, paid in full. And He was still physically alive.

Are you saying that He didn't need to die physically?

 

[crimsonleaf]

I wish you'd stop making your erroneous insinuations. You know better. You haven't understood it. That doesn't mean I haven't explained it properly.

Do you understand or recognize that Jesus died spiritually on the cross or not? That will determine which one of us has the problem in communication.

According to Christianity's understanding of hypostatic union, Jesus was both fully God and fully man. Which one died on the cross?

 

[Hammster]

Shai Linne will break it down for us.

✪ NEW shai linne SINGLE ✪ Hypostatic Union ✪ Lyrics & Visuals (@shailinne) - YouTube

 

[FreeGrace2]

Are you saying that He didn't need to die physically?

No. But His death did nothing for man's salvation. If you disagree, please show me your evidence to the contrary.

He had an "engagement" in sheol following His payment of sin for the whole world. If He had stayed around, He would have missed it.

The real issue is that He didn't need to stay around after paying the sin debt.

If you disagree, please proceed with some evidence.

 

[FreeGrace2]

According to Christianity's understanding of hypostatic union, Jesus was both fully God and fully man. Which one died on the cross?

God cannot die. That is heresy. Jesus died twice on the cross. Apparently the significance of what Jesus did on the cross isn't taught in reformed circles.

Are none of you aware of the meaning of "spiritual death"? That was the wage for sin, not physical death.

Physical death is only the eventual result of sin, but the immediate result was separation from God. Or do you disagree that Adam became immediately separated from God in relationship, which moved him to hide when the Lord came calling?

Can you refute what I say from Scripture? (meaning, go ahead if you can)

 

[Hammster]

No. But His death did nothing for man's salvation. If you disagree, please show me your evidence to the contrary.

He had an "engagement" in sheol following His payment of sin for the whole world. If He had stayed around, He would have missed it.

The real issue is that He didn't need to stay around after paying the sin debt.

If you disagree, please proceed with some evidence.

And according to the Law, one may almost say, all things are cleansed with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness. (Hebrews 9:22 NASB)

 

[crimsonleaf]

God cannot die. That is heresy. Jesus died twice on the cross. Apparently the significance of what Jesus did on the cross isn't taught in reformed circles.

Are none of you aware of the meaning of "spiritual death"? That was the wage for sin, not physical death.

Physical death is only the eventual result of sin, but the immediate result was separation from God. Or do you disagree that Adam became immediately separated from God in relationship, which moved him to hide when the Lord came calling?

Can you refute what I say from Scripture? (meaning, go ahead if you can)

So if God didn't die, the man Jesus did, Right?

 

[FreeGrace2]

And according to the Law, one may almost say, all things are cleansed with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness. (Hebrews 9:22 NASB)

I'm sure you are aware that the writer was referring to the OT system of sacrifice, where the physical death of an animal was a picture of Christ's death, which HAD to be spiritual, on account of the FACT that He said "tetelestai" BEFORE He physically died.

in fact, the writer made it clear that the death of the animal didn't really do anything.

Heb 10:1-4
1For the Law, since it has only a shadow of the good things to come and not the very form of things, can never, by the same sacrifices which they offer continually year by year, make perfect those who draw near. 2Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, because the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have had consciousness of sins? 3But in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins year by year. 4For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.

 

[FreeGrace2]

So if God didn't die, the man Jesus did, Right?

What else?

 

[Skala]

On another thread, "Heb 2:9 teaches unlimited atonement", I noted that CH Spurgeon taught unlimited atonement, but couldn't remember the source. I caught a lot of flak from Calvinists who strongly denied any such thing.

Well, I have found the sermon where he in fact did teach that God wants everyone to be saved, from 1 Tim 2:4.


Sermon
(No. 1516)
Delivered by
C. H. SPURGEON,
At the Metropolitan Tabernacle, Newington

"God our Saviour; who will have ALL men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth."—1 Timothy 2:3, 4.

What then? Shall we try to put another meaning into the text than that which it fairly bears? I trow not.

You must, most of you, be acquainted with the general method in which our older Calvinistic friends deal with this text. "All men," say they,—"that is, some men": as if the Holy Ghost could not have said "some men" if he had meant some men.

"All men," say they; "that is, some of all sorts of men": as if the Lord could not have said "all sorts of men" if he had meant that.

The Holy Ghost by the apostle has written "all men," and unquestionably he means all men. I know how to get rid of the force of the "alls" according to that critical method which some time ago was very current, but I do not see how it can be applied here with due regard to truth.

I was reading just now the exposition of a very able doctor who explains the text so as to explain it away; he applies grammatical gunpowder to it, and explodes it by way of expounding it. I thought when I read his exposition that it would have been a very capital comment upon the text if it had read, "Who will not have all men to be saved, nor come to a knowledge of the truth." Had such been the inspired language every remark of the learned doctor would have been exactly in keeping, but as it happens to say, "Who will have all men to be saved," his observations are more than a little out of place.

My love of consistency with my own doctrinal views is not great enough to allow me knowingly to alter a single text of Scripture. I have great respect for orthodoxy, but my reverence for inspiration is far greater. I would sooner a hundred times over appear to be inconsistent with myself than be inconsistent with the word of God.

I never thought it to be any very great crime to seem to be inconsistent with myself; for who am I that I should everlastingly be consistent? But I do think it a great crime to be so inconsistent with the word of God that I should want to lop away a bough or even a twig from so much as a single tree of the forest of Scripture. God forbid that I should cut or shape, even in the least degree, any divine expression. So runs the text, and so we must read it,

"God our Savior; who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth."

I agree with CH Spurgeon.

Of course, it is not inconsistent for a Calvinist to affirm that God has a desire for all people to be saved. Nor does it pose any problems for our understanding of election.

As Piper explains, both Arminians and Calvinists believe that God has a desire that all people be saved. But there is another desire of God's that intervenes and prevents the first desire from coming true.

In Arminianism, this intervening desire is His desire to leave it up to man's free will.

In Calvinism, this intervening desire is His desire to be sovereign over salvation.

In both views, some other desire of God's intervenes and takes precedence over the first desire.

 

[Hammster]

I'm sure you are aware that the writer was referring to the OT system of sacrifice, where the physical death of an animal was a picture of Christ's death, which HAD to be spiritual, on account of the FACT that He said "tetelestai" BEFORE He physically died.

in fact, the writer made it clear that the death of the animal didn't really do anything.

Heb 10:1-4
1For the Law, since it has only a shadow of the good things to come and not the very form of things, can never, by the same sacrifices which they offer continually year by year, make perfect those who draw near. 2Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, because the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have had consciousness of sins? 3But in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins year by year. 4For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.

The death of the animal didn't do anything. But the death of Christ did.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Of course, it is not inconsistent for a Calvinist to affirm that God has a desire for all people to be saved.

Of course it's very inconsistent to affirm 1 Tim 2:4. Given the reformed doctrine of election, it's VERY inconsistent.

Nor does it pose any problems for our understanding of election.

Not the Biblical doctrine of election, but certainly for the reformed rendition.

As Piper explains, both Arminians and Calvinists believe that God has a desire that all people be saved.

And the reformed are contradictory to believe that, since their view is that God only chose some for salvation. Since it's all about who got chosen, how can you guys believe that God desires that everyone be saved? It doesn't make any sense.

Doesn't God ALWAYS get what he wills/desires? That's certainly a reformed claim. So you are being totally inconsistent to believe that God wants everyone to be saved. If He did, in your system, we would have universalism.

But there is another desire of God's that intervenes and prevents the first desire from coming true.

Sounds exactly as though God is rather conflicted, huh. Well, that doesn't make any sense either.

In Arminianism, this intervening desire is His desire to leave it up to man's free will.

In Calvinism, this intervening desire is His desire to be sovereign over salvation.

Which is why I reject both systems. Salvation is NEVER "up to man's free will", but according to God's very clear plan. People have the freedom to go to heaven or to hell. So free will can't be the issue, since it operates in both directions. Try again.

In both views, some other desire of God's intervenes and takes precedence over the first desire.

Got it. God is internally conflicted. And who knew?

 

[FreeGrace2]

The death of the animal didn't do anything. But the death of Christ did.

Right. My point. But not Christ's physical death. But since you ignore or reject the Biblical teaching of the division of soul and spirit, you'll not understand that He even could have died spiritually.

Impasse

 

[Hammster]

Right. My point. But not Christ's physical death. But since you ignore or reject the Biblical teaching of the division of soul and spirit, you'll not understand that He even could have died spiritually.

Impasse

The impasse is that you think He died spiritually, and have yet to give adequate support for that view.

 

[crimsonleaf]

What else?

If the man Jesus died on the cross, did he commit suicide or was he killed?

As an aside, while you're making up an answer, I desired to never discipline my children. I still did it voluntarily.

And how are you getting on in believing I'm right and showing me how your free will works?

It seems I have a number of loose ends of yours to tie up. Perhaps I'll make a thread where you can do it all at once. ..

 

[FreeGrace2]

The impasse is that you think He died spiritually, and have yet to give adequate support for that view.

I believe what I gave from Scripture was quite adequate. I'm sorry that you disagree. But we are at an impasse.

Interesting. I gave support from 3 passages, Gen Heb and 1 Tim 5. And you call that inadequate.

Yet, you are a dichotomist, and have given zero support for your view. Which really IS inadequate.

 

[FreeGrace2]

If the man Jesus died on the cross, did he commit suicide or was he killed?

Neither. I've already explained what He did. And John described it quite clearly in John 19:30.

And how are you getting on in believing I'm right and showing me how your free will works?

Obviously you totally misunderstand what free will is. It doesn't "work". It has no power to "work".

To illustrate, please tell me how an opportunity "works". Like, what does it do, how much power does it have. That sort of thing.

 

[Hammster]

I believe what I gave from Scripture was quite adequate. I'm sorry that you disagree. But we are at an impasse.

Interesting. I gave support from 3 passages, Gen Heb and 1 Tim 5. And you call that inadequate.

Yet, you are a dichotomist, and have given zero support for your view. Which really IS inadequate.

Where did you give scripture and exegesis on Jesus dying spiritually? I missed it.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Where did you give scripture and exegesis on Jesus dying spiritually? I missed it.

I didn't mention Scripture. No different than reformed theology NOT quoting Scripture for their beliefs.

But it's very easy to connect the dots, so to speak. On the cross, Jesus said "it is finished" (tetelestai). He said that while physically alive.

If His physical death was what paid for our sins, He lied, plain and simple. He would have had to die physically BEFORE He could make that claim.

After He said that, John tells us that He dismissed His spirit.