Contend Earnestly: Defending the "Universal" Intent of "Kosmos" in John 3:16

Tuesday, November 20, 2007

Defending the "Universal" Intent of "Kosmos" in John 3:16


I need to do some "housecleaning" here. Here is how things will progress from here. I am going to do one last rebuttal of Turretinfan's arguments on John 3:16 and then we can continue in the comments section of this post. Turretinfan will then post another passage or verse that he would like to bring to attention, to try and show that Jesus died only for the elect, or more broadly, particular redemption alone. We will then continue on the next post just like we have with this series. What I also want to point out, is that Turretinfan and myself also email each other and I want all to know that posts and comments over the internet can seem "harsh" but I want all to know that we actually have had some very good, charitable conversations, over email, making sure that each other is not taking offense. So, if others think that we are "at each other's throats" this is not our intent or desire, it is just to discuss theology in an open forum for other's to engage in.

With that said, I need to also show, once again, what we believe on the atonement. I have gotten some emails and some comments (from others) that would seem to ask, "What do you believe again?" We would take what we feel is the normal reading (I know that Turretinfan will disagree that this is the normal reading, which is the reason for this debate) of John 1:29 that states:

The next day he saw Jesus coming to him and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!
John 1:29

So, we believe that Jesus on the cross took away the sins of the world. This death was a penal death, meaning that there is a condition based upon this "taking away" and that would be faith. So, Jesus is the noun, hilasmos (1 John 2:2), that takes away the sins of the entire world. But, the implication, or application for this death, is for the elect upon their belief on Jesus. This is in no way a "hypothetical death" but in reality is a death to take away the sins of the world, but will only be applied at the onset of belief. We believe that we follow the teachings of Dordt when it states:

Article 3: The Infinite Value of Christ's Death

This death of God's Son is the only and entirely complete sacrifice and satisfaction for sins; it is of infinite value and worth, more than sufficient to atone for the sins of the whole world.

Article 5: The Mandate to Proclaim the Gospel to All

Moreover, it is the promise of the gospel that whoever believes in Christ crucified shall not perish but have eternal life. This promise, together with the command to repent and believe, ought to be announced and declared without differentiation or discrimination to all nations and people, to whom God in his good pleasure sends the gospel.

Article 6: Unbelief Man's Responsibility

However, that many who have been called through the gospel do not repent or believe in Christ but perish in unbelief is not because the sacrifice of Christ offered on the cross is deficient or insufficient, but because they themselves are at fault.

Article 8: The Saving Effectiveness of Christ's Death

For it was the entirely free plan and very gracious will and intention of God the Father that the enlivening and saving effectiveness of his Son's costly death should work itself out in all his chosen ones, in order that he might grant justifying faith to them only and thereby lead them without fail to salvation. In other words, it was God's will that Christ through the blood of the cross (by which he confirmed the new covenant) should effectively redeem from every people, tribe, nation, and language all those and only those who were chosen from eternity to salvation and given to him by the Father; that he should grant them faith (which, like the Holy Spirit's other saving gifts, he acquired for them by his death); that he should cleanse them by his blood from all their sins, both original and actual, whether committed before or after their coming to faith; that he should faithfully preserve them to the very end; and that he should finally present them to himself, a glorious people, without spot or wrinkle.



I hope this clears up more on what we believe. We would stand beside all Calvinists and define Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Irresistible Grace and Perseverance of the saints the exact same, as long as they are not putting forth a stand on hyperism in any of these. In regards to the middle, the "L", we would define Limited Atonement the exact same way, but we would remove that in the limited atonement aspect it is not "only" for the elect, but the atonement was for all, particularly for the elect. We can say particularly because when Jesus died he knew whom the Spirit would draw and whom the Spirit would seal and whom would be His bride (no more, no less). This part, this intention of the atonement, was the "joy that was set before him" (Hebrews 12).

As far as Turretinfan's post on John 3:16, I will put forth a rebuttal and then we can comment further, but I am guessing we will just say that we are going to have to "agree to disagree" and move on to another passage.

My hope in this is that all those reading would see that John 3:16 is not hardlined to mean the elect, but just the opposite. As we debate this topic further hopefully you will be able to see how we can believe that Christ died for all and not be univeralists, which really comes in the understanding of a penal payment, but we will save that for later. I want all to know, I used to be a hard lined limited atonement for the elect only guy. But, I had to ask myself, "What is the understanding of these passages in a reading without trying to put in my theological structure inside it?" Knowing that if I changed my view on John 3:16 and others, I would also need to restructure what I believed on the atonement. Can this fit? Can this make sense? Because I believe in John 10, Eph 5 and the like, that speak about a particular people in the atonement. Can I make the two mesh without destroying the continuity of the Scriptures? I beleive that I can, and the Scriptures do. Hopefully you will see "why?" as we move forward in the debate.

I first want to say that I am sorry if I misrepresented Turretinfan in anyway in this debate. I am not into strawmen and hate them, so I want him to point them out if I enter into a strawman in any way.

As far as his post, I will write some comments and then we can move on.

Turretinfan comments that in the Greek and the Latin that it could read, in regards to "hina" as "so." The problem with this is that this is not concrete, and even Calvin who was very well versed in both the Greek and Latin didn't even take it as such. Calvin says,

For he intended expressly to state that, though we appear to have been born to death, undoubted deliverance is offered to us by the faith of Christ; and, therefore, that we ought not to fear death, which otherwise hangs over us. And he has employed the universal term whosoever, both to invite all indiscriminately to partake of life, and to cut off every excuse from unbelievers. Such is also the import of the term World, which he formerly used; for though nothing will be found in the world that is worthy of the favor of God, yet he shows himself to be reconciled to the whole world, when he invites all men without exception to the faith of Christ, which is nothing else than an entrance into life.
Calvin, J. (1998). Calvin's Commentaries: John (electronic ed.). Logos Library System; Calvin's Commentaries (Jn 3:16). Albany, OR: Ages Software.


Turretinfan, based on this interpretation of the passage then states, in one of his comments, that to say "so that those believing" is giving a more precise way of saying "world." He then uses an analogy by saying, "everyone, that is, everyone understanding rhetoric" showing his intent.

Here is the problem with this. John 3:16 doesn't read like that. It reads, God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosover believes shall not perish.

There is something in between "everyone" and "that is everyone understanding rhetoric." So this does not flow how he would like. So we must ask, if we take Turretinfan's remarks and ask, "How does God show his love for sinners?" "How does a sinner know God loves him?" Because if you use this verse as Turretinfan would like us to believe, this shows love for only the elect not the reprobate.

But, the intent of John 3:16 is to say to everyone: "God loves you." How? He sent his Son. If it is only for the elect, the sinner will ask, "How does God giving his Son to others show his love for me?"

Here is the best way I can show for an analogy. By the way, when using analogies you have to look at the verse we are discussing. John 3:16 does not give the full reformed view of the ordo salutis, therefore our analogies don't need to do so as well. So, Bnonn's statement that the analogies fall short because it doesn't talk about the "giving of faith" and the like is really not paramount to this discussion.

Analogy:

I love my whole church, so I send invitations to all for them to come to my birthday party. All those who come to my birthday party will enjoy the fellowship and not be alone at home not enjoying the fellowship.

So, when someone asks in my church, "How do I know that Seth loves me?" They can say,"He sent me an invitation"

What if someone doesn't come? I run into them the following week and we talk. Can they say, "I didn't come because you didn't invite me." No. I invited all to come.
This is how I showed all, that I loved them.

This doesn't mean I love all the same. Please do not read into this analogy other parts of the ordo salutis because that is not the intent of John 3:16. The intent of John 3:16 is to show, "How he loved the world" namely, by sending His Son.

The other part of Turretinfan's argument for "kosmos" really doesn't make sense to me. He states that it means "created order" and does not refer to "humanity." Here is actual comment:

In fact, with respect, I think SDM would be hard pressed in any of the about 150 verses (or about 180 uses) that use the word kosmos in the New Testament to come up with even one that clearly uses the word to mean all humanity, and not simply the actual world, or the natural/created (sometimes considered as fallen) order generally. Even if SDM could come up with a few such examples, I think SDM would have to admit that the dominant usage in the New Testament and in other ancient philosophical material is of the actual world or the created/natural order.

I am not going to go through all of these verses, but will take a look at both John 7:4-7 and John 15:18.

For no one does anything in secret when he himself seeks to be known publicly. If You do these things, show Yourself to the world.For not even His brothers were believing in Him. So Jesus said to them, My time is not yet here, but your time is always opportune. The world cannot hate you, but it hates Me because I testify of it, that its deeds are evil.
John 7:4-7

If the world hates you, you know that it has hated Me before it hated you.
John 15:18

So who hates me? Who hated Jesus? Was it the "created order" or was it all of humanity as direct people? Jesus says in John 7 that if you show yourself to the world, the kosmos, then he shows what he is talking about: his specific brothers. He uses this and then tells us the same: The kosmos will hate you, and this is a specific people.

This is the same thing in John 12:47. Turretinfan says that this isn't in context but we can easily refute this being that it is the same author (John), same one being quoted (Jesus) and almost the exact same sentence structure in the Greek.

John 12:46,47 is speaking of God coming into the darkened humanity as a whole, so that the individual one in darkness can be saved. It is taking the whole and bringing it to the individual. I don't understand what is so difficult in understanding this, unless one is trying to bring forth an understanding because of theological convictions.

Jesus says, "I have come as Light into the world." Am I supposed to believe that He came for the created order? What does this mean? Did Jesus come for the rocks and trees? Or, Did Jesus come as the Light for the individuals in the world who love the darkness, so that those who believe in Him will live and not die?

I stand behind my reading of John 3:16 as stated before. God so loved the world, that is, those in darkness, all of them, that He sent his Son, the Light, into the darkened world, so that those who are in the dark, yet believe in Him would not be like those who stay in the dark and perish, but will look to the Light and have eternal life.

God is love, and this is his representation for the entire world to know that he is love, by him giving his Son for the entire world. Otherwise, no sinner, even the future elect, can know that Jesus died for them.

This is why Numbers 21 is brought forth in John 3. To show the love of God. God so loved all those bitten, that he provided a provision for them, so that when they looked they would be saved. If they didn't look, they weren't saved and it was their fault, not God's. Whether there were some who didn't look or not, is not the point, the point is God provided a provision for ALL THOSE THAT WERE BITTEN. To carry this to the usage in the New Testament would mean that God provided a provision in all those who have sinned.










14 comments:

Stefan said...

Seth and Turretinfan, I have several thoughts and questions stemming from your statements thus far (and, I'm addressing you because, frankly, I don't have the time to read through every one else's comments; so, if I repeat someone else, forgive me).

First, it seems to me that both of you want to suggest that John 3:16a deals explicitly with the extent of the atonement. Following B.B. Warfield (sans his post-millenial application of this passage), let me offer another reading of John 3:16. John is simply relating three things in the first part of this verse: (1) the source of the atonement (i.e., God's love); (2) the sole sufficiency of God's love in Christ (i.e., Christ alone); and (3) the quality of God's love in Christ (not quantity).

"World" is thus understood (as elsewhere in Scripture) ethically. It isn't that God loved each and every individual that makes up the world (universalism of all kinds), or even the world of the elect (particularism) -- both of those are quantitative readings of the passage. No, God loved this sinful world -- an age, a "race" to borrow Calvin's term -- that had rebelled against him in Adam and thus continues to rebel against him. It is the quality of his love that is in view. God could have justifiably condemned the world through his Son's first advent. But he didn't (see v 17); no, in love, he ordained his Son to be the only mediator between Himself and man, and so gave him, in the fullness of time, to suffer, to bleed, to die, in order that whosoever might hear Christ and believe, might receive the inheritance of salvation and everlasting life.

It is not the measure of his love, but the intensity of his love that is in view; his love, to quote Warfield, is immeasurable! More could be said, but I'll leave it at that.

Second, it seems to me, Seth, that you are misreading the Canons of Dort. The Canons do not posit the universal extent of the atonement and reserve any limitation to the Spirit's application of the atomnement; rather, it posits the infinite value and sufficiency of of Christ's atoning work -- which, by the way, is common to Reformed theology (see Owen, Works, 10:295). Article 3 needs to be read in its context, that is, in conjuction with Article 4. This is especially true here since Article 4 clearly explains the previous article by telling us that the infinite value of Christ's death is not related to any kind of universal extent of the atonement, but rather is based simply upon the fact that it is Christ, the God-man, who suffered unto death. To quote another, "The infinite 'sufficiency' of Christ's death to cover the sins of the world is rooted in the hypostatic union of the divine and human natures in Christ. Infinite sufficiency is intrinsic, therefore, to the saving acts of the God-man."

Furthermore, the Canons (and Reformed theology on the whole) are clear that the external works of the Triune God (especially redemption) are unified. God purposes the redemption of the elect; Christ secures the redemption of the elect; and the Spirit applies redemption to the elect. To posit that God purposed a universal atonement, and Christ secured such (either really and truly or hypothetically), but the Spirit only applies that work to those who believe suggests (among other things)(1) variance within the Trinity (not ontonlogically, but economically), and (2) that the meritorious cause of our salvation is, ultimately, our faith, rather than the atoning work of Christ. Again, more could be said, but I'll leave it there.

Seth, you want to distance yourself from Amyraldianism, but your arguments sound so much like it. How would you distance yourself from that view, if at all?

Also, how would both of you respond to the following statements: the divine intent of the atonement necessarily answers the question of the extent of the atonement; and, divine mandate is what compels the free offer of the gospel (not a universal atonement).

Thanks for your time, and sorry if I'm covering old ground or taking this debate off track.

Stefan said...

Seth -- also, I noticed you quote Article 8 of the Canons, which are clearly covenantal. Should we assume that your agreement here extends to that as well! :)

Seth McBee said...

Stefan.
Thanks for stopping by...all those emails did work! :)

As far as the Canons we could spend a lot of time discussing this but I believe that it would be too much off topic, especially how far I agree with them. :)

As far as your Trinity explanation, it really needs some correction.

You said:

Furthermore, the Canons (and Reformed theology on the whole) are clear that the external works of the Triune God (especially redemption) are unified. God purposes the redemption of the elect; Christ secures the redemption of the elect; and the Spirit applies redemption to the elect. To posit that God purposed a universal atonement, and Christ secured such (either really and truly or hypothetically), but the Spirit only applies that work to those who believe suggests (among other things)(1) variance within the Trinity (not ontonlogically, but economically), and (2) that the meritorious cause of our salvation is, ultimately, our faith, rather than the atoning work of Christ.

These are rhetorical questions, as I believe you will answer "yes" to all of them, but if not, we have a "bigger fish to fry"

Do you believe that God loves all?
Do you believe in the common call to the gospel?

If so...

Then it would be that God loves all, especially the elect.

The Holy Spirit calls all, effectually the elect.

Then what? The Christ only dies for the elect?

or is it better understood as:

The Christ died for all, especially the elect.

I guess I will ask another question of you as well:

Do you believe in duty faith?

Here is a quote that I like from Curt Daniel: (HT Tony

Then there is the argument from the Trinity. It is argued that if Christ died for all men equally, then there would be conflict within the Trinity. The Father chose only some and the Spirit regenerates only some, so how could the Son die for all men in general? Actually, this argument needs refinement. There are general and particular aspects about the work of each member of the Trinity. The Father loves all men as creatures, but gives special love only to the elect. The Spirit calls all men, but efficaciously calls only the elect. Similarly, the Son died for all men, but died in a special manner for the elect. We must keep the balance with each of these. If, on the one hand, we believe only in a strictly Limited Atonement, then we can easily back into a strictly particular work of the Father and the Spirit. The result is Hyper-Calvinism, rejecting both Common Grace and the universal Free Offer of the Gospel. On the other hand, if the atonement is strictly universal, then there would be disparity. The tendency would be towards Arminianism – the result would be to reject election and the special calling of the Spirit.”

Curt Daniel, The History and Theology of Calvinism (Good Books, 2003), 371.



As far as commenting on the difference between myself and Amyraldianism let me ask if you would classify these men in the same category who came well before Amyraut

This will take some reading, but you need to if you want the answer to this question of yours.

Bullinger on Unlimited Expiation and Unlimited Redemption

Some Classic Calvinist Comment on Hebrews 10:29

Yet More From Calvin

Even More From Calvin

A Few Calvin Quotes

One of My Favorite Calvin Quotes

An Excellent Calvin Quote

Martin Luther on 2 Peter 2:1Martin Luther on John 1:29

William Tyndale (1494–1536) on the Death of Christ

David Ponter said...

Hey Stefan,

You cant claim Calvin on Jn 3:16, he clearly has world has universal of the race, all particulars. John Calvin on John 3:16

We are simply taking the verse in the same way Dabney, C Hodge and Shedd took it. See here: John 3:16

But to this:

You say:
"World" is thus understood (as elsewhere in Scripture) ethically. It isn't that God loved each and every individual that makes up the world (universalism of all kinds), or even the world of the elect (particularism) -- both of those are quantitative readings of the passage. No, God loved this sinful world -- an age, a "race" to borrow Calvin's term -- that had rebelled against him in Adam and thus continues to rebel against him. It is the quality of his love that is in view. God could have justifiably condemned the world through his Son's first advent. But he didn't (see v 17); no, in love, he ordained his Son to be the only mediator between Himself and man, and so gave him, in the fullness of time, to suffer, to bleed, to die, in order that whosoever might hear Christ and believe, might receive the inheritance of salvation and everlasting life.

1) Okay, we have said that ‘world’ does not mean every individual. We have said it means apostate humanity. Its all mankind as they stand in unbelief, hostile to God.
2) David: What does that mean? God loves the race? Does that include any particular person? Is it, God loves an abtraction? We come back to that point. If you say, “Sure David at least one particular person is comprehended in the term race.” I then ask how it is that you delimited the number of persons? On what basis?
The problem is further underlined when you say the race rebelled. An abstraction cannot rebel, only concrete particulars can. What does it mean God loved an Age? How can an Age rebel unless it’s a reference to particulars who make up the Age?

3) And this from Warfield:
From his Plan of salvation, p., 63.
From the text: We will ask, however, an American divine to explain to us the sacerdotal system as it has come to be taught in the Protestant Episcopal Churches.60 "Man," we read in Dr. A. G. Mortimer's "Catholic Faith and Practice," "having fallen before God's loving purpose could be fulfilled, he must be redeemed, bought back from his bondage, delivered from his sin, reunited once more to God, so that the Divine Life might flow again in his weakened nature" (p. 65). "By his life and death Christ made satisfaction for the sins of all men, that is, sufficient for all mankind, for through the Atonement sufficient grace is given to every soul for its salvation; but grace, though sufficient, if neglected, becomes of no avail" (p. 82)[footnote 61]. "The Incarnation and the Atonement affected humanity as a race only [footnote 62]. Some means, therefore, was needed to transmit the priceless gifts which flowed from them to the individuals of which the race was comprised, not only at the time when our Lord was on earth, but to the end of the world. For this need, therefore, our Lord founded the Church" (p. 84).
The footnote:
From p., 109, the footnotes: 62. Query: Is there any such thing as the "race" apart from the individuals which constitute the race? How could the Incarnation and Atonement affect the "race" and leave the individuals which constitute the race untouched?

4) We agree that the quality of the love is magnified as a contrast to the sinfulness of the human race, but that does not change the point that universally apostate world is set in contrast to the greatness of the love of God.

I ask you the same question, Warfield asks: how can there be such a thing as the race apart from the individuals of the race? If you say some individuals are included, I want to know why do you delimit the number to the elect? And by elect, I mean even if you say all kinds of elect, or some of all races, which turns out to be the elect anyway.

Thanks,
David

William D said...

Hi Seth,

Like stefan, I don't have time to read all of this debate although, I will remember this for future reference when I am in need of spending much time on this subject in the course of my preaching ministry. But since I got your email the other day, I thought I'd stop by and weigh in a little.

Anyways, as for the extent of the atonement...I have been satisfied to settle on this: Christ's sacrifice made it possible for every man in the whole world to be saved. But his sacrifice did not make it effectual for everyone in the world. Whether it made it definite for some is the debate in which it is certainly possible, but in order to be more faithful to scripture itself rather than a system, I cannot venture to agree since the actual text says that he died for the whole world not the elect. God does love the whole world, even the unelect.

In varying degrees I suppose is a way to explain it, or God loves the elect in a special sense in which he does not love the non elect, but all the while He loves the non elect and earnestly calls them to repentance and belief as if they could, which implies that there must be some measure of ability to respond positively although it is guaranteed that they will not.

Trying to stay balanced on the subject is sooooo difficult!!

orthodox said...

So, when someone asks in my church, "How do I know that Seth loves me?" They can say,"He sent me an invitation"

This is all well and good, but you also believe (following the analogy) that everyone in the church is disabled (depraved), and can't come unless you send transport (irresistable grace). So you love these people SOOO much that you send invitations knowing they have no transport to get there. Not really a coherent picture.

Seth McBee said...

orthodox.
We are speaking of what John 3:16 consists of and not speaking of the effectual call or unconditional election, which seems you don't adhere to if I am reading you right.

If you want to talk about those topics that is for another time, we are speaking specifically of the atonement of Christ and the love that the Father shows in the light of that.

I hope you understand, which I think you do, and felt for some reason you had to throw this in to get some sort of attention, or whatever.

I will stay on topic here. If you would like in the future to debate the effectual call or election, I would be happy to, after we exhaust this topic.

natamllc said...

Seth,

this is very good stuff as Turrentinfan's is equally as well!

I have a question.

You wrote in your sur rebuttal I believe if that is the correct assignment for what follows TF's rebuttal because of your CHANGED MIND, stated quite clearly above?:::>

Seth: But, the intent of John 3:16 is to say to everyone: "God loves you." How? He sent his Son. If it is only for the elect, the sinner will ask, "How does God giving his Son to others show his love for me?"


IS IT PURELY RHETORIC THAT YOU MAKE THAT CLAIM WITHIN THIS STATEMENT OF YOURS ABOVE?

Why can you or I or any human assume that fact as you wrote it there?

Here is what you said, pared down:

Seth:'....If it is only for the elect, the sinner will ask,....'

How did you get there from anywhere in Scripture from beginning at Genesis one one to the words THE END at the end of the book of the Revelation?

Am I off here to say that the only way I can ask God to forgive me is "after" GOD PUTS HIS GIFT OF FAITH IN ME or as Paul the Apostle says it, quoting this Apostle:

Rom 4:15 For the law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression.


and

Rom 7:7 What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. For I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, "You shall not covet."
Rom 7:8 But sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness. For apart from the law, sin lies dead.
Rom 7:9 I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died.

Paul argues that he only came to the KNOWLEDGE that would cause any sinner to ask the question you posed and I emphasized above, yes?

So square this with the open ended reality Paul makes in Chapter one:

Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.
Rom 1:19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.
Rom 1:20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.
Rom 1:21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.

Are you saying that GOD PUTS HIS LAW ON EVERY HUMAN BEING SO THAT EVERY HUMAN BEING "KNOWS" THEY COVET? Is not that what you are claiming here when you assert, again I quote it from above:

'....If it is only for the elect, the sinner will ask,....'



I hope my query is clear? If it is not and you are not following my line of reasoning here let me know and I will try to narrow the question based on your clear rhetorical assumption that every sinner would ask God that question?

Well, let me ask the question this way:

How does a sinner come to know they covet according to your learned understanding of Scripture and commentary old and new?

natamllc said...

Seth, I have been traveling all day and just in the last hour came to this so I am being abrupt here.

Let me quote again your words and proceed with something to have you respond to in light of them then, ok?

Seth: 'This is why Numbers 21 is brought forth in John 3. To show the love of God. God so loved all those bitten, that he provided a provision for them, so that when they looked they would be saved. If they didn't look, they weren't saved and it was their fault, not God's. Whether there were some who didn't look or not, is not the point, the point is God provided a provision for ALL THOSE THAT WERE BITTEN. To carry this to the usage in the New Testament would mean that God provided a provision in all those who have sinned.'

My comment, ok, well and good. Please read carefully Genesis 4 and look at the Hebrew and square what you just assert as I emphasized above with God and Cain, Cain before he committed murder, after the "talking" between him and Abel and then him and God after he murdered Abel.

I am having a hard time putting these two together.

Honestly and sincerely I am struggling to get to where you are now from where you and Turrentinfan were together before the division.

Thanks, sincerely
michael

natamllc said...

Seth,

again, I have been traveling today so it's just now that I am settling in for a bit herein but shortly I have to take my sons to some place and will return.

Just before I go, I want to ensenuate myself into one of your questions above to Stefan, if that is permitted?

Your question: Do you believe that God loves all?


My answer: YES AND HE PUNISHES IN THIS CIVIL REALM JUSTLY TO THE DEGREE HE INTRINSICALLY WISHES AND SOME TO THE LOVING ACT OF ETERNAL DAMNATION SEPARATED FROM HIS PRESENCE IN PARADISE!

Would that be an ok YES answer in your opinion?

thanks
Michael

Seth McBee said...

Michael.
I want to answer your question, but I don't think I am following completely, especially your question with God and Cain.

But, as far as my ascertation that every sinner will ask "How does God loves me?" I don't think I said every sinner will ask this, but my intent was what will be the answer given if the sinner asks this? What can we say to them?

And yes, God has written the law on everyone's heart, but that is besides the point of what we are trying to bring forth here. I think. Unless you are thinking from a different angle.

Seth McBee said...

Michael.

Could you rephrase this so I can have a better understanding:

YES AND HE PUNISHES IN THIS CIVIL REALM JUSTLY TO THE DEGREE HE INTRINSICALLY WISHES AND SOME TO THE LOVING ACT OF ETERNAL DAMNATION SEPARATED FROM HIS PRESENCE IN PARADISE!


I am reading it that you are saying that there is a loving act of eternal damnation.

natamllc said...

Seth,

wow, that was quick on both sides, your reply and my return. I have a couple of hours now so I will do my best to sharpen my questions and responses.

Here goes and by the way, TF, this goes without saying that if you see something you want to touch by way of acknowledgement or correction, instruction or reproof, please jump all over it, ok?

I don't suppose I need a rebuke seeing I am sincere in this and not malicious!

Where to begin? hmmmm, let's see:

Ah, ok, yes to your interpretation to my answer to the question you posed stefan: Do you believe God loves all?

I see eternal damnation as an ACT OF GOD'S INTRINSIC LOVE. He need not nor will He account to me why some perish including the BEAST, the FALSE PROPHET, SATAN AND HIS ANGELS, DEATH, HADES and ALL WHO'S NAME IS NOT FOUND IN THE BOOK OF LIFE!

In Cain's case, as I studied the Hebrew in that chapter 4 and the whole BIRD "FLY BY" OVERVIEW of it and myself too having been given the same GIFT OF FAITH as you THROUGH THE SAME GRACE AND GIFT OF RIGHTEOUSNESS to believe also that GOD IS THE SAME YESTERDAY, TODAY AND FOREVER, that is: HE'S ETERNAL, with "no beginning" or "ending" to Himself, Christ or the Holy Ghost, I would and do place John 3:16 next to 1 John 3:14-16 and then come back and overlay these TRUTHS next to Genesis 4 and look at those events in Genesis 4 to come to understand the LIVING HOPE that now exists in my relationship to God and His Eternal Presence. I know that was a lot to ponder, but please attempt to!

Let me ask an obvious question in light of Chapter 4 of Genesis?

Could Cain OBJECTIVELY "SEE" with his natural eyes THE PRESENCE OF GOD at any time in that Chapter?

I hasten to answer, NO.

So, if no is your answer too, THEN BEGS THE QUESTION, how did CAIN, a, "see" God's Presence, b. Know God as is obvious here?

Now, as for you and me? How do we "see the Presence of God and know He is"?

Mat 11:25 At that time Jesus declared, "I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children;
Mat 11:26 yes, Father, for such was your gracious will.
Mat 11:27 All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.
Mat 11:28 Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
Mat 11:29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.
Mat 11:30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light."

I would say Cain is in the same boat as we, yes? Or does God treat generally all mankind "differently"?

I don't think so. I believe we all "know" God in just the same way. It is not a quantity issue but a quality issue as Stefan so eloquently put it above!

The objective here in Cain is he not only has, himself, to deal with "THE DOCTRINE OF ORIGINAL SIN INTRINSICALLY" thanks to his father's curse in his FLESH, as we, yes? He is not in anyway separated and "handled" any differently by Our Yesterday, Today and Forever God, His Creator, who "places" the same LAW of Righteousness on him as He does us, Romans 4 and 7 cf and quoted above in another post of mine. God then, as now, "knows" and "knew" full well Cain nor we can or could ever KEEP THE LAW to RIGHTEOUSNESS.

No, that GIFT OR ABILITY WAS LEFT TO ONE, "THE ONLY BEGOTTEN ONE", JESUS CHRIST, FOREKNOWN BEFORE THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD, THESE PRESENT HEAVENS AND EARTH were ever created.

Paul the Apostle says and we agree: JESUS IS THE "END" OF THE LAW FOR RIGHTEOUSNESS. This REVELATION whenever it came objectively, applies intrinsically before and after the fall. And it applies to all humanity from Adam and through Eve, the mother of us all.

Paul the apostle says and we agree: THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NO NOT ONE.

Clearly Cain here has the same equal unequivocal relationship with God as I and you have, yes?

That's why I believe we can learn from this God/man relationship to understand this division between you and TF.

God punishes Adam and Eve for violating HIS ESTABLISHED CREATED RIGHTEOUSNESS between Himself and His creatures. You can refer to Chapter 3. Chapter 3 reaches every human being born dead or alive!

Does God punishes Cain specific to his actual sin? How? By now, the INTRINSIC NATURE OF GOD IN THE PENAL COURSE WITH CAIN IS SOMEWHAT more merciful than with Adam, his biological father. It is assigned to the first Adam, who broke the RIGHTEOUS RELATIONSHIP CREATED BETWEEN GOD AND MANKIND, yes? Equally, it is assigned to the Last Adam and when, to restore that broken relationship? Before or after Creation at Genesis one one?

Does the Scripture not bear this out? Where? Here:

Rom 5:17 For if, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.

Adam's sin is far reaching, reaching way past Cain, Abel, Seth and on and on and on to the last breath of mankind. All other punishments by God upon mankind are far less severe than that that Adam bears and very specific to there, where, at the actual event/sin in creation. Do I sin because I am a sinner or do I become a sinner after I sin?

Christ paid for the original sin past onto me. I pay for my actual sins, albeit, not as I deserve! I pay for those sins nevertheless, one way or the other, IN CHRIST or in myself if I die in my sins!!!!

Let me make the point this way citing Simeon, who was one who may have attained to an almost sinlessness yet bore ORIGINAL SIN nevertheless:

HERE'S MY PARAPHASE, FAIRLY STATED:

WHERE'S THE BABY BOY?!!!!!I MUST HOLD AND SEE HIM OBJECTIVELY!!!!! not intrinsically!!!!! I have an intrinsic knowledge of Him by the power of the Holy Ghost. He also has said TO ME AND IT IS MY HOPE that I will not die until I see my SALVATION!

Luk 2:25 Now there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name was Simeon, and this man was righteous and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel, and the Holy Spirit was upon him.
Luk 2:26 And it had been revealed to him by the Holy Spirit that he would not see death before he had seen the Lord's Christ.
Luk 2:27 And he came in the Spirit into the temple, and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, to do for him according to the custom of the Law,
Luk 2:28 he took him up in his arms and blessed God and said,
Luk 2:29 "Lord, now you are letting your servant depart in peace, according to your word;
Luk 2:30 for my eyes have seen your salvation
Luk 2:31 that you have prepared in the presence of all peoples,
Luk 2:32 a light for revelation to the Gentiles, and for glory to your people Israel."

I will make a bold statement. CAIN DIED IN HOPE TOO LOOKING FOR GOD'S HELP ALL THE WAY TO HIS DEATH.

Where am I going? Well, to Numbers 21 then where part of your debate with TF centers. And in both places, at the time of Moses and at THE TIME OF CHRIST'S REFERENCE to the Serpent story, and your place inserting the Numbers 21 issue at John's Gospel chapter three where Jesus is teaching a "known" TEACHER OF ISRAEL, Nicodemus.

Having weighed both yours and TF's weighted words placed in this debate, I am not where you bring us.

Does the MERCY OF THE CROSS WON reach back to Cain? Well yes I believe it does. I treat that whole chapter as a lesson in God's MERCY, God, WHO HAS CONTROL OF THE GOSPEL, who also is applying OBJECTIVELY THE LAW OF RIGHTEOUSNESS on the murderer Cain. Read it, Cain knows his sin!!! THE PUNISHMENT IS GREATER! How does he know his sin? In the same way we know ours! The Law of Righteousness came alive in him and in us, that's how he and we know!

Here's a disgression somewhat. Where did Cain learn to MURDER? Who taught him that? God?

I would point here to this Hebrew word and it's objective and intrinsic meanings applied:

Genesis 4:13

Gen 4:13 Cain said to the LORD, My punishment is "greater" than I can bear.

The Hebrew word for that ENGLISH WORD: "GREATER" at Gen. 4:13 is

גּדל גּדול
gâdôl gâdôl
gaw-dole', gaw-dole'
From H1431; great (in any sense); hence older; also insolent: - + aloud, elder (-est), + exceeding (-ly), + far, (man of) great (man, matter, thing, -er, -ness), high, long, loud, mighty, more, much, noble, proud thing, X sore, (´) very.


See in that definition, GREAT (IN ANY SENSE); HENCE, OLDER;?

hmmmmm!

Paul says the same there in Romans 5:17, the greater, in any sense; hence, older, punishment is Cain's father's sin.

Stay with me as I will try and put this puzzle together, I hope!

Now consider this, Genesis 1:2:

Gen 1:2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.


The earth, both subjective and objective, yes?

Darkness, hmmmm, darkness:

חשׁך
chôshek
kho-shek'
From H2821; the dark; hence (literally) darkness; figuratively misery, destruction, death, ignorance, sorrow, wickedness: - dark (-ness), night, obscurity.

The Spirit of God,

Spirit:
רוּח
rûach
roo'-akh
From H7306; wind; by resemblance breath, that is, a sensible (or even violent) exhalation; figuratively life, anger, unsubstantiality; by extension a region of the sky; by resemblance spirit, but only of a rational being (including its expression and functions): - air, anger, blast, breath, X cool, courage, mind, X quarter, X side, spirit ([-ual]), tempest, X vain, ([whirl-]) wind (-y).

God:
אלהים
'ĕlôhîym
el-o-heem'
Plural of H433; gods in the ordinary sense; but specifically used (in the plural thus, especially with the article) of the supreme God; occasionally applied by way of deference to magistrates; and sometimes as a superlative: - angels, X exceeding, God (gods) (-dess, -ly), X (very) great, judges, X mighty.

I would say that God is not in the business of "creating" darkness but exposing it!

Having said that, in conclusion for now I just cannot come to equate that with your assertion so I did a little editing of it to see if this might be something you would agree too?:::>

Seth: [my edited version]::>

God is love, and this is his representation for the entire world to know that he is love, by him giving his Son for the entire world. Otherwise, no sinner, even the future elect, can know that Jesus died for them. Demons now know why Jesus died for the Elect.
Demons now know why Jesus came and died and THEY SHUDDER, knowing full well what awaits their sorry souls, that is if demons have a soul?

Is this why Numbers 21 is brought forth in John 3 by Jesus; to show the love of God to His own [He came unto His own first] or to all humanity or those who believe the Gospel message:::> God so loved all those bitten by their own actual sins, that he provided a provision for them too, so that when they looked and saw and understood the FREE GRACE AND FAITH, accepting Christ sent by God the Father, they would be saved by God and the Word of His Grace. If they didn't look to, believe and receive, they weren't saved and it was their fault, not God's. Whether there were some who didn't look or not, is not the point, the point is God provided a provision for ALL THOSE THAT WERE BITTEN, bearing original sin and suffering the consequences for their actual sins.

To carry this to the usage in the New Testament would mean that God provided a provision for Adam and his posterity in all those who have sinned and "died" after being bitten by fiery serpents before God got around to instructing Moses on what to do now specifically because of the rebellion of those whacked out ones, grumblers and complainers complaining that the fiery serpents were killing them off!!! If they all died off, how would the "Seed" promised to Abram/Abraham come to the World and demonstrate God's Love so that whosoever believes on Him should not perish by Know the Only True God and Jesus Christ Whom He Sent to die for the "sin' of the World?

Ok, I have to go now, my son just called and I have to go pick him and his brother up.

I will post this. I hope there is enough to grasp? If not, please say HUH? and I will go at it again!

thanks
michael

natamllc said...

Well, it's the day after and I am not sure there is much to be thankful for unless you LIVE BY FAITH IN THE WORK OF REDEMPTION, then in everything give thanks!

I say that because I am an Indian from a northern Californian Tribe and there are still disputes historically yet to be settled in favor of my people and theirs!!!

I would hasten to say, there are some among us in "Spirit" only, Job comes to mind, where I find it hard pressed to be happily thankful! But for the honor and esteem many throughout history have exclaimed upon that man JOB, NO THANKS!

I pose a question by way of an assertion, a universal assertion and a ELECTION assertion, no, not the coming National ELECTION next year, BUT ONE THAT GOES TO THE HEART OF THIS DEBATE ABOUT THE SALVATION OF THE ELECT OF GOD.:

GOD IS BOTH JUST AND UNJUST!

How can God be both?

I put forth verses:

Col 1:19 For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell,
Col 1:20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.

I believe that verse sums up a problem about the LEGAL nature of God in relationship to His MERCIFUL NATURE that He UNIVERSALLY EXTENDS TO HUMANITY; humanity of every tribe, kindred, tongue and nation.

The question of the debate seems to be somewhat based on two views of one Scripture; TF's and Seth's:

1Ti 4:9 The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance.
1Ti 4:10 For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe.
1Ti 4:11 Command and teach these things.

At verse ten of chapter 4 is the verse.

I put verse nine there because it opens the debate to raise the question of WHO WILL and WHO WILL NOT accept the UNIVERSAL PLAN OF SALVATION FULLY FOUND ONLY IN CHRIST AND INTRINSICALLY FOUND ONLY IN CHRIST BEFORE EVER THERE WAS A CREATURE TO BE NAMED, I.E.: ADAM; that is "before the foundation of the world".

And I also include verse 11 because Paul seems to have the answer we are looking for posed in one sense and the other sense, TF's and Seth's in that Paul uses by the WORK OF GRACE UPON HIS UNDERSTANDING WHAT THE HOLY GHOST REVEALS TO HIM in this word used in verse eleven, COMMAND:

paraggellō
par-ang-gel'-lo
From G3844 and the base of G32; to transmit a message, that is, (by implication) to enjoin: - (give in) charge, (give) command (-ment), declare.

AND THIS WORD, TEACH:

didaskō
did-as'-ko
A prolonged (causative) form of a primary verb δάω daō (to learn); to teach (in the same broad application): - teach.

I will note, and you can place as much or little value on it, that I see Seth exercising the COMMAND side of verse eleven in the debate about verse 10. I see TF exercising the TEACH side of verse eleven in the debate about verse 10 more so. Although I am siding with TF for now because I believe he is using commands also and teaching, to keep the Pure 5 points, T.U.L.I.P. in tact in this debate.

I see some comments siding with the command side and siding with the teach side and doing both. I would commend to Dom Bnonn as one who is a both sides guy, that is if he agrees? If not, shoot my foot off then! OUCH!

Well, to my assertion on the "universal scope" side of the debate.

Yes, the WORK OF REDEMPTION is a universal work reaching to ALL CREATIONS within these present HEAVENS AND EARTH.

The problem does not ly there.

CHRIST CERTAINLY DID NOT COME TO DIE FOR THE BEAST, THE FALSE PROPHET, SATAN AND HIS ANGELS, DEATH OR HADES OR ANYONE WHO'S NAME IS NOT FOUND IN THE BOOK OF LIFE. ALL THIS IS WELL KNOW INTRINSICALLY IN GOD.

Why?

Well, now let me go to Colossians and that verse I cited above.

Here is the NASB version of those verses:

Col 1:19 For it was the Father's good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him,
Col 1:20 and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven.


Here's the Literal version:

Col 1:19 because all the fullness was pleased to dwell in Him,
Col 1:20 and through Him making peace by the blood of His cross, to reconcile all things to Himself; through Him, whether the things on the earth, or the things in the heavens.


Here's KJV:

Col 1:19 For it pleased the Father that in him should all fullness dwell;
Col 1:20 And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.


My first version is the one I am comfortable with at this time, THE ENGLISH STANDARD VERSION.

Which ever version of the INTENT of what is being "taught" you use, you are faced with two facts, A LEGAL RELATIONSHIP WITH GOD and His creation, the Heavens and earth and all things "living" and one that is MERCIFUL too towards all things "living".

God in His infinite Wisdom created the present Heavens and Earth! Also God did not stop pre creation creatures, i.e., the Beast, the False Prophet, Satan and his angels, Death and Hades from violating what He created very good!

Gen 1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

Why?

Legally to dispose of without mercy the BEAST, the FALSE PROPHET, SATAN and His ANGELS, [I note that elsewhere in Scripture we read about the "elect angels"], DEATH and HADES. Also we learn that some humanity is not found in the BOOK OF LIFE. How are they removed then from this Book? They are removed both legally and mercifully because, wouldn't you know it, GOD IS LOVE!

So, for me, that verse fills the void and deals a legal command upon those not intended to be SAVED BY THE WORK OF REDEMPTION.

Now, for the other side then. Who can God place a FULL PARDON ON?

Well this answer is the tricky one.

I have to study Scripture and try to understand "original intent" at a minimum of thrice removed UNLESS God comes to me first in the actual way He came to Adam, Cain, Abel and so on, Job perhaps?. The original language historically, came about orally or in writing to humanity, a translation to another original language after Babel. Can God speak in many tongues? Yes, at exactly the same time; and the language I am most native too, my own original language carried to me by my aboriginal ancestors. Can God speak to me in my native tongue? Yes. At this time I do not refer to or apply the native tongue of my aboriginal dialectic to God's Thoughts to me. I was taught orally by my parents and school teachers and also the language in writing of a version of the "American" English language; and it is in that scope of reason that I read Scripture and receive understandings and revelations from God so as to understand this debate.

I have tools to go to as references to understand as basic the "intent" of the original language employed in bringing out intent for the purposes of this debate and the final resolution. Then there are those commentaries old and new! I certainly am at a disadvantage herein if Seth and Turrintenfan are learned scholars of the original languages from which they are drawing their conclusions from and stating their clearly defined positions of CALVIN'S understanding of the INTENT of unlimited/limited or just limited atonement? I do not place as much value on the commentaries as these learned men do, I suppose? It goes without saying that that is true when anyone posts remarks by way of command or teaching too. I would equally be at a disadvantage as well with regard to their assertions, rebuts and refutes because of the commentaries they rely upon to profer their specific and general intent; reader, yours included if you too profer a position on intent.

The second area of interest to me to bring me to one side, the other side or keep the baby whole and alive to use Solomon like parlance here, I put forth here thoughts from the Book of the Revelation.

I would touch on three things, I suppose at least two of the three are without dispute? We might see?

One, there is clearly taught and commanded that the Beast, the False Prophet, Satan and his angels, Death and Hades shall suffer, perish, the consequences of their error.

Then we read this:

Rev 22:3 And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him:
Rev 22:4 And they shall see his face; and his name shall be in their foreheads.
Rev 22:5 And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign forever and ever.
Rev 22:6 And he said unto me, These sayings are faithful and true: and the Lord God of the holy prophets sent his angel to show unto his servants the things which must shortly be done.


Rev 22:10 And he saith unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand.
Rev 22:11 He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.
Rev 22:12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.
Rev 22:13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.
Rev 22:14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
Rev 22:15 For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.
Rev 22:16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.
Rev 22:17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.


and then just several points in verses before those from the Book of the Revelation:

Rev 16:10 And the fifth angel poured out his vial upon the seat of the beast; and his kingdom was full of darkness; and they gnawed their tongues for pain,
Rev 16:11 And blasphemed the God of heaven because of their pains and their sores, and repented not of their deeds.


Rev 16:19 And the great city was divided into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell: and great Babylon came in remembrance before God, to give unto her the cup of the wine of the fierceness of his wrath.


Rev 17:13 These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast.
Rev 17:14 These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful.


Rev 17:17 For God hath put in their hearts to fulfill his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled.


Rev 18:8 Therefore shall her plagues come in one day, death, and mourning, and famine; and she shall be utterly burned with fire: for strong is the Lord God who judgeth her.


Rev 18:20 Rejoice over her, thou heaven, and ye holy apostles and prophets; for God hath avenged you on her.

Rev 19:2 For true and righteous are his judgments: for he hath judged the great whore, which did corrupt the earth with her fornication, and hath avenged the blood of his servants at her hand.

Rev 19:9 And he saith unto me, Write, Blessed are they which are called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb. And he saith unto me, These are the true sayings of God.

Rev 20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

Rev 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

Rev 21:27 And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life.

Rev 22:14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
Rev 22:15 For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.


Three things,

those who never were of the "book of Life", allowed by the Mystery of God to violate His creation, these present heavens and earth;

those who are not found in the "book of Life" will perish with them, the Beast, the False Prophet, Satan and his angels, Death and Hades;

then those who will not perish, two groups, those found in the Book of Life, by justice; and those who are the ELECT OF GOD, whose name is found in the LAMB'S BOOK OF LIFE.

Of course you will see my distinction?

the 'book of Life', by justice;
the LAMB'S BOOK OF LIFE, by Grace, Mercy and as the outcome, PEACE, NEW JERUSALEM, a people of God's own chosing, a MYSTERY INDEED.

God will administer justice to some and be unjust to others WITH MERCY, those ELECTED TO MERCY and known before the foundation of this present heavens and earth.

It is with great trepidation I post the foregoing above!

Related Posts with Thumbnails