All means all

[atpollard]

... besides that, I got nothin'

Then, I guess that we better be about the "family business" and sharing that good news, right?
(... and get some of those "beautiful feet")

 

[atpollard]

Maybe what we need to define in this instance is not the gospel but faith.

I have no axe to grind with EVERYONE that is saved being saved by faith (including Noah) ... @Carbon said "gospel", so deserved a little friendly "poking" about what "the gospel" meant to Noah [probably different than it meant to Paul ... even if both were centered on "saved by grace through faith"].

 

[Josheb]

I have been reading some Calvin, and I am not wrong. I was correct in what I said.

Calvin's commentary on 1 Timothy proves otherwise. You are NOT dealing with what was posted.

INSTITUTES OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION
By John Calvin

Calvin's Institutes are not the best source for understanding Calvin. As a historical document they are very important bu Calvin wrote the Institutes while still Roman Catholic and the purpose of the Institutes was to reform the RCC. It's not a specifically Protestant document. It would be like using Augustine's Manichaean views to argue that is everything he believed when openly disavowed his adherence to Manichaeanism. It would be like quoting early Arminius when he was a Calvinist apologist, before he parted ways with Calvin.

Book 3. Chapter 21
Chapter 21. Of the eternal election, by which God has predestinated some to salvation, and others to destruction.

5. The predestination by which God adopts some to the hope of life, and adjudges others to eternal death, no man who would be thought pious ventures simply to deny; but it is greatly caviled at, especially by those who make prescience its cause. ... By predestination we mean the eternal decree of God, by which he determined with himself whatever he wished to happen with regard to every man. All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of these ends, we say that he has been predestinated to life or to death.

Nice quote mine. Calvin also believed and taught that humans each and all disobeyed God by means of their own volition and NOT because God made them do so. When you cite only one half of a person's point of view and do so willfully at the expense of all else they believe, that is gross misrepresentation. The phrase "free will" occurs more than fifty times in The Institutes. Calvin believed humans had free will. The words, "choose," "chose," "choosing," are used more than 150 times! The word "liberty" is also used more than 150 times! (mostly in reference to the saved). It is grossly negligent to think otherwise after claiming to have read The Institutes. God ordaining sinners to destruction is not a problem. Augustinians, Lutherans, Calvinists, Arminians, Wesleyans, Traditionalists, and even Provisionists understand and believe God's punitive response to sin is just. God did not make people sin.

God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin; nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.

Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass, upon all supposed conditions; yet hath He not decreed any thing because He foresaw it as future, as that which would come to pass, upon such conditions.

By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others foreordained to everlasting death. (Westminister Confession of Faith, Article 3.1-3)​

God ordained some to everlasting death. BUT..... God did NOT author sin AND what God ordained did NOT do violence to the human will.


It is irresponsible to post a skewed, misrepresentative view of Calvin's position.


More importantly, evience from Calvin's commentary was provided that disproves what was claimed and you have yet to discuss THAT evidence. What you've done is ignore it and sought out another prejudicially selected portion of another writing instead of discussing what Calvin wrote in his commentary of 1 Timothy.

So go back to Post #4 and address what was posted. Don't ignore it. Don't change the subject. Don't move the goal posts. Address what Calvin wrote. Acknowledge the fact he wrote the "all" means all and it is an insult to use that passage to mean only some.

 

[Carbon]

Nope ... too vague for me to follow your definition.
(... and isn't it cheating to answer a question with a question?)

Fair enough

 

[Josheb]

It seems to me that a teaching such as that is in nearly total contradiction to the concepts within TULIP. Perhaps you could explain from a polite and respectful, reasonable and rational, cogent and coherent, topical case of well-rendered scripture how it is not.

Sure. Glad to do so.

As soon as you address the post that started this digression. Don't change the topic. Don't move the goalposts. Go back and address the "desire" of 1 Timothy 2:4. God back and address what Calvin was shown to teach in Post #4. Go back and address what I posted in Post #51...

...because ALL of that was posted politely, respectfully, reasonably, rationally, cogently, coherently, topically, and full of well-rednered scripture.

The response,

That changes, entirely, the meaning of the word "desires". Such an understanding is not consistent with either the meaning in English or Greek. Thus, it comes not from what the Bible says there, but what you have read into it from your own thinking. Desire does not mean decree.

Nor is okay to change the meaning from what it actually says. That is never sound exegesis and always leads to bad doctrine.

...contains very little that is any of that standard.


Calvin taught the "all" means all and he considered it insulting to use the passage to mean the gospel was available to only some. That's what he wrote. It's indisputable. Likewise, God having many desires is a fact of scripture, and so too is the fact does not hold multiple desires in opposition to Himself. It does not change the definition of "desire."


Go back to address the point of breakdown.

 

[Carbon]

Fair enough

@atpollard

Do you believe the gospel is contained in all scripture?

 

[Carbon]

I have no axe to grind with EVERYONE that is saved being saved by faith (including Noah) ... @Carbon said "gospel", so deserved a little friendly "poking" about what "the gospel" meant to Noah [probably different than it meant to Paul ... even if both were centered on "saved by grace through faith"].

I appreciate you, iron sharpens iron.

 

[Josheb]

There are other scriptures that speak of "the world" and we know it refers to fairly small geographical locations and not the entire planet. I should imagine something similar is happening with the usage of the word "All".

Sometimes "all" means all. Sometimes the context of the surrounding text limits the "all" to mean "all within the specified group."

I have addressed the first scripture this op proof-texted. I have yet to address the others. I'm waiting on the op to acknowledge the facts in evidence and having some difficulty getting an honest and forthcoming response acknowledging what Calvin write. That's important. We'll either build from the facts and build a fact-based consensus, or we'll see there isn't any interest, willingness, or ability to do that. I'll extend a little more patience but if the facts in evidence aren't acknowledged then I will proceed to show what Calvin or Calvinism teaches on all the cited texts.

Titus 3:9-11
But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and strife and disputes about the Law, for they are unprofitable and worthless. Reject a factious man after a first and second warning, knowing that such a man is perverted and is sinning, being self-condemned.


When it comes to arguments, debates, or disputes God directs us to apply a "three strikes" rule. Who knew? It should not take more than one post to acknowledge what Calvin wrote in his commentary on 1 Timothy 2:3-6. Three "strikes" is unacceptable. Calvin said the hope of salvation was available to all, none are shut out, and it is an insult to read that passage to mean some are excluded. Yes, Calvin did believe God ordained some to destruction, but Calvin did not hold that view apart from his belief the gospel was available to all men and God did not cause sin and God did not violate the human will.

 

[JIM]

Sure. Glad to do so.

As soon as you address the post that started this digression. Don't change the topic. Don't move the goalposts. Go back and address the "desire" of 1 Timothy 2:4. God back and address what Calvin was shown to teach in Post #4. Go back and address what I posted in Post #51...

...because ALL of that was posted politely, respectfully, reasonably, rationally, cogently, coherently, topically, and full of well-rednered scripture.

The response,

...contains very little that is any of that standard.


Calvin taught the "all" means all and he considered it insulting to use the passage to mean the gospel was available to only some. That's what he wrote. It's indisputable. Likewise, God having many desires is a fact of scripture, and so too is the fact does not hold multiple desires in opposition to Himself. It does not change the definition of "desire."


Go back to address the point of breakdown.

I did address it. Go back and read it. I said, "It seems to me that a teaching such as that is in nearly total contradiction to the concepts within TULIP. "

 

[Josheb]

I did address it. Go back and read it. I said, "It seems to me that a teaching such as that is in nearly total contradiction to the concepts within TULIP. "

That is a baseless comment, not an address of the points made in Post 51.

In other words, all that sentence does it make an assertion. It's an opinion. There's no explanation provided. There is nothing posted explaining HOW Calvin's commentary contradicts TULIP concepts. There's no explanation provided for how Post 4 or Post 51 do that. It's a blank statement. A blank blanket statement made without any evidence and no rationale.

It does NOT address anything.

It's also off topic. This op is about one specific, op-specified subject: does the "all" mean all? This thread is NOT a moratorium on all of Calvinism. Neither is it a wholesale rag od Calvin, Calvinists, or Calvinism and any post that violates Rule 4 of the Forum's Rules - by which every one of us agreed to abide - will be edited or deleted accordingly. Lastly, "what seems to you" is a very vague qualifier, especially in the absence of any information evidencing TULIP is correctly understood.


So, no, Calvin's view of the "all," the desire of 1 Tim. 2:4, nor Posts 4 and 51 were addressed. Go back to those posts and re-read them. Give some consideration to what was posted and provide an op-relevant response that meets the aforementioned "polite, respectful..............," standards.

 

[Mikeuk]

Have you ever read Calvin? Have you ever studied Calvinism as articulated by Calvinists? Or, are all your sources second- or third-party sources who are not Calvinists?

I ask because these two sentences are NOT an accurate representation of Calvinism and if those two sentences are what you are arguing against then this opening post is a straw man. I also ask because information correcting these mistakes is readily available and easily obtained (Calvin's commentaries and the WCF is available online for free). Introductions like this should never be penned given the availability and ease of access. I also ask because the Holy Spirit does not prompt indwelt people to argue straw men. Only the flesh argues fallacy. God's word commands that we bear true and accurate witness and the first two sentences of this op bear a false witness. I assume you do not want to be arguing a straw man. I assume you do want to have an accurate and correct understanding of anything you critique. I assume you want to be led by the written word and the Holy Spirit and not by prejudiced adversarial extra-biblical sources who may been arguing from their flesh.


So....

Let's start simple, and let's start with something very basic. What are your sources for Calvinism? What have you read or heard?

The problem with all of this. and i am not going to enter the detail:

But Who speaks for Calvinism. What is Calvinism?
The man wrote a lot. Not five convenient points.

TULIP wasn’t Calvin, and even what tulip means is open to interpretation.

Right now I read on PRCA reformed.. under the U

“Before any man or woman is born -- in fact, before the world was made -- God decided who would go to heaven and who would not. Before they did good or bad, God chose some to be His people and rejected others.”


I didnt write it so don’t argue with me!
But I can logically conclude as the OP did , nothing I am, nothing I believe, nothing I do makes iota of difference. God decides before you were born and who goes up . and Tough on the rest of you. You are going down.
not exactly a motivator is it?

So was Calvin even Calvinist? in todays definition?
Its not a stupid question, many now Lutheran’s hold views that Luther did not.

Thats the problem with sola scriptura and no other authority. Who decides?

But I entered the post to say - the main point.

I find it fascinating the double standard in some of the arguments here..
If I say “ but have you read ignatius” to explain what the first Christian’s thought the Eucharist meant..
the inevitable reply is “ they aren’t inspired “ “ they were apostate “ or simply “ we are Bible alone.”

Yet if someone challenges Calvinism ,
an often curt reply will tell me as above” but you don’t know what Calvinism is “
unless you read ( insert favourite author eg MacArthur ) or whoever.
Pointing at an author who isn’t inspired and a millenium after apostles.

So who appointed him? Talk about a double standard!

A fair reply is he isn’t inspired .
So I don’t know what Calvinism “ is “ there is no authority to tell me.
i looked at it years ago, to find many Protestant pastors worrying about the same thing.

And not all calvinists see it same way. Some seem to be TULI not TULIP.
And the U is a moveable feast, for some the U means predestination, others use weasel words - or even Calvin - to contest it.

But more often than not , questions result in howitzer indoctrination firing 100 verses , leaving me in the dark as to the punchline. Or the point made!

Can I just say this to those tempted to do battering into submission with “ verse saturation” , it is useless as a persuader.
As advertisers are keen to tell you “ a confused mind does nothing“! Make points simple with the fewest references you can.

So will the real Calvinism please stand up?
who owns it? Where is the definitive statement?

 

[atpollard]

@atpollard

Do you believe the gospel is contained in all scripture?

My view is a little skewed. As someone raised in the belief that there is no god, religion REALLY IS the "opiate of the masses" and the meaning of life is: "We are born, we live, we die, and when we are gone we don't even leave behind a hole to show that we were ever here" ... the GOSPEL (really Good News) is God is real!!!

So, "YES", MY GOSPEL is found from the first page to the last ... but none of THAT convinced me.

As far as the more "conventional" GOOD NEWS, I hang my hat on this: "If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is by believing in your heart that you are made right with God, and it is by confessing with your mouth that you are saved." - [Romans 10:9-10 NLT]

[I sure am glad to have been born AFTER the resurrection with access to this information.]

 

[Marilyn C]

?? I have no idea where you got that that is what I was saying.

In post 89 you said `the fact that most people do perish?`

I was just pointing out the great multitude that no one can count as an example of God`s great mercy and that `most people will not perish.`

 

[Josheb]

The problem with all of this. and i am not going to enter the detail:

But Who speaks for Calvinism. What is Calvinism?

Great question!!!

The man wrote a lot. Not five convenient points. TULIP wasn’t Calvin, and even what tulip means is open to interpretation.
Right now I read on PRCA reformed.. under the U

“Before any man or woman is born -- in fact, before the world was made -- God decided who would go to heaven and who would not. Before they did good or bad, God chose some to be His people and rejected others.”

I didnt write it so don’t argue with me!

Three replies:

1. Calvin is always the best place to start for understanding the set soteriological position that now bears his name, but a few things have changed and a few others have been modified and/or improved, so the authoritative statements (like the WCF or the creeds) are necessary.
2. Calvinism is diverse, not monolithic, so picking one writer is not likely to be representative of the whole and some writers are less or more representative than others. Pink, for example was a fairly strict determinist but determinism is an outlier perspective.
3. Quote mining and proof-texting are NEVER good practice. Not only does this opening post selectively use single verses but it also selectively quotes Calvin and selectively quotes Calvin from one of his earliest works. The same has happened with the "PCA Reformed" site. God did choose some and rejected others, but the choosing and rejecting were all from the same group of people who had condemned themselves by choosing to sin. Calvinism does NOT teach God chose otherwise good and sinless people for destruction. Apart from grace, every single one of us here would be headed for the fiery lake and if God had addressed the problem the moment the problem first occurred none of us would even be breathing. To ignore these more global aspects - the context in which the quote occurs - is to grossly misrepresent Calvinism.
4. Most importantly, and this is mainly my personal opinion having once been an Arminian who vigorously argued against Calvinism and having debate this issue for more than forty years, the chief, most commonly occurring problem in the Arm v Cal discussions is each party gets their own doctrine incorrect! The second most frequently occurring problem is getting the other side's position(s) wrong. In other words, Arms often get Arminianism incorrect and Cals often get Calvinism incorrect. It's a wonder any of us manage to have an intelligent conversation with any degree of veracity. I've argued with and corrected and been corrected and learned from most of the Cals in this forum (they'll attest to that). The mistake(s) made in this opening post are very common.

You cannot take a single sentence from a website and consider it veracious or representative of the whole. Pink (or Frame) is going to look different than someone like Sproul. Olson is going to look different from someone like Moo.

But I can logically conclude as the OP did, nothing I am, nothing I believe, nothing I do makes iota of difference. God decides before you were born and who goes up, and Tough on the rest of you. You are going down.

There is nothing logical about proof-texting. There's nothing logical about quote mining. There's nothing logical about not knowing the whole of a position before criticizing it. There is nothing logical about straw men. Nothing logical can or should be concluded from this op, especially since proof Calvin believed the "all" in 1 Tim. 2:3-6 mean all and disdained using that text to separate any group for the gospel.

But any objective reader of these posts - whether Arm or Cal - can and should logically conclude those who ignore objectively verifiable evidence - whether Arm or Cal - aren't sincerely interested in exegetically rendered scripture or historical and doctrinal facts.

not exactly a motivator is it?

Not the subject of this thread, but if you want to better understand how motivation exists or works in the monergistic soteriologies then I invite you to start and thread on that. I'd be happy to offer an opinion and plenty of scripture. Until then, this op is about whether or not "all" means all and I, for one, have provided PROOF Calvin believed the "all" in 1 Tim. 2:3-6 mean all (contrary to most Arminians' understanding of Calvinism).

So was Calvin even Calvinist? in todays definition? ..........................So will the real Calvinism please stand up? who owns it? Where is the definitive statement?

All great questions. All of them off-topic. I posted an opening post on the diversity of Calvinism in CARM* and the challenges BOTH Arms and Cals face accurately learning wha is taught, along with the challenges faced discussing the differences between synergism and monergism. I encourage you to read it.








*Some forums prohibit linking to and/or discussing other forums so if the mods here would prefer, I remove the link I will. Because that forum does eschew that sort of content I will leave this link up only for a day or two.
.

 

[Marilyn C]

https://www.gotquestions.org/inclusivism-exclusivism.html
John 14:6; John 3:16–18; and Romans 10:13–15.

Another group of theologians gleaned this from scripture:
Can they who have never heard the gospel, and so know not Jesus Christ, nor believe in him, be saved by their living according to the light of nature? The Westminster Larger Catechism – Question 60
Answer 60: They who, having never heard the gospel,[1] know not Jesus Christ,[2] and believe not in him, cannot be saved,[3] be they never so diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature,[4] or the laws of that religion which they profess;[5] neither is there salvation in any other, but in Christ alone,[6] who is the Savior only of his body the church.[7]
1. Romans 10:14, 2. 2 Thessalonians 1:8-9; Ephesians 2:12; John 1:11-12, 3. John 8:24; Mark 16:16,
4. 1 Corinthians 1:20-24, 5. John 4:22; Romans 9:31-32; Philippians 3:4-9, 6. Acts 4:12, 7. Ephesians 5:23

.. and my own personal list of verses saying people in last 2000 years who never heard of Christ are keeping their feet warm in hell includes:

• Matthew 11:27b and no one fully knows and accurately understands the Son except the Father; and no one fully knows and accurately understands the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son [deliberately] wills to reveal Him.
• John 1:11-12
• John 3:18 Whoever believes and has decided to trust in Him [as personal Savior and Lord] is not judged [for this one, there is no judgment, no rejection, no condemnation]; but the one who does not believe [and has decided to reject Him as personal Savior and Lord] is judged already [that one has been convicted and sentenced], because he has not believed and trusted in the name of the [One and] only begotten Son of God [the One who is truly unique, the only One of His kind, the One who alone can save him].
• John 3:36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.
• John 6:44 No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him [giving him the desire to come to Me]; and I will raise him up [from the dead] on the last day.
• John 14:5 Thomas said to Him, “Lord, we do not know where You are going; so how can we know the way?” 6 Jesus said to him, “I am the [only] Way [to God] and the [real] Truth and the [real] Life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.
• 
  
• John 12:48 Whoever rejects Me and refuses to accept My teachings, has one who judges him; the very word that I spoke will judge and condemn him on the last day.
• John 17:3 And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.
• Acts 4:12 And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among people by which we must be saved [for God has provided the world no alternative for salvation].”
• Romans 3:10 As it is written and forever remains written, “There is none righteous [none that meets God’s standard], not even one.11 “There is none who understands, There is none who seeks for God. 12 “All have turned aside, together they have become useless; There is none who does good, no, not one.”
• Romans 3:21 But now the righteousness of God has been clearly revealed [independently and completely] apart from the Law, though it is [actually] confirmed by the Law and the [words and writings of the] Prophets. 22 This righteousness of God comes through faith in Jesus Christ for all those [Jew or Gentile] who believe [and trust in Him and acknowledge Him as God’s Son]. There is no distinction, 23 since all have sinned and continually fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are being justified [declared free of the guilt of sin, made acceptable to God, and granted eternal life] as a gift by His [precious, undeserved] grace, through the redemption [the payment for our sin] which is [provided] in Christ Jesus,
• Romans 10:13 For “whoever calls on the name of the Lord [in prayer] will be saved.” 14 But how will people call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how will they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher (messenger)? 15 And how will they preach unless they are commissioned and sent [for that purpose]? Just as it is written and forever remains written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news of good things!”
• 1 Corinthians 6:22 If anyone has no love for the Lord, let him be accursed. Our Lord, come!
• 2 Corinthians 3:14 But their minds were hardened. For to this day, when they read the old covenant, that same veil remains unlifted, because only through Christ is it taken away.
• Ephesians 2:12 remember that at that time you were separated from Christ [excluded from any relationship with Him], alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise [with no share in the sacred Messianic promise and without knowledge of God’s agreements], having no hope [in His promise] and [living] in the world without God.
• Ephesians 2:12 remember that at that time you were separated from Christ [excluded from any relationship with Him], alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise [with no share in the sacred Messianic promise and without knowledge of God’s agreements], having no hope [in His promise] and [living] in the world without God.
• 1 John 2:23 No one who denies the Son has the Father. Whoever confesses the Son has the Father also.
• 2 Thessalonians 1:8-9
• 1 John 5:12 He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life.
• Inclusivism depreciates the Trinity. This depreciates the Incarnation, depreciates the work and atonement of Christ, denies the uniqueness of the Bible, denies the necessity of gospel truth, substitutes the same old philosophical junk about the 'universal logos' at work in all religious systems. John MacArthur

... besides that, I got nothin'

Thank you for your detailed reply.

We agree that `because` of Jesus` sacrifice no one is saved. Then we also know that many do not know of this.

John 14: 6 tells us that Jesus is the reason that people are saved.
John 3: 16 - 18 tells us that whoever believes on the Son should not perish but have everlasting life. That is obviously those who hear the message.
Rom. 10: 13 - 15. tells us that how can people believe in Him whom they have not heard.

None other those scriptures tell us what God would have people do who have never heard of Jesus` sacrifice.

The Theologians are just saying that there is no salvation apart from Christ, which we agree. Even those living `good lives` by their religion are not saved.

Matt. 11: 27b. As Jesus was only manifest on earth after 4000 years there are alot of people who did not know the Lord - Able, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Rahab the prostitute, etc. Thus, God only required them to believe Him and obey what He asked of them. (Heb. 11)

John 1: 11 & 12. This is talking about those who came to Jesus when he was manifest on earth. it does not include the Heb. 11 people as they were dead and never knew Him.

John 3: 18. As above.

John 3: 36. As above.

John 6: 44. As above.

John 14: 5. Jesus is the reason anyone is saved whether they saw Him manifest on earth or just obeyed what God told them to do, (Heb. 11)

John 12: 48. As above.

John 17: 3. As above.

Acts 4: 12. Tells us that it is because of Jesus that anyone is saved - those who hear and those who never have but obey God, all are saved BECAUSE OF CHRIST.

Rom. 3: 10. All have sinned. Yet, those who hear of Christ and receive Him are saved and those who obey what God tells them without knowing of Christ are also saved, because of Christ`s sacrifice.

Rom. 3: 21. As above.

1 Cor. 6: 22. (wrong verse)

2 Cor. 3: 14. Speaking of Israel today.

Eph. 2: 12. The Ephesians were `dead in their sins,` till God revealed Christ to them. Doesn`t speak of the Heb. 11 people who were before Christ was manifest.

1John 2: 23. obviously one would have to hear of Christ to deny Him.

2 Thess. 1: 8 & 9. God`s vengeance on those who don`t believe in God or obey the good news of Christ`s sacrifice. In Revelation we read of many who believe God`s good news that the Messiah is coming to rule. (Rev. 15: 2 & 3)

1 John 5: 12. Yes, because of Jesus those who hear and believe and those who obey what God says also have eternal life.

 

[Arial]

In post 89 you said `the fact that most people do perish?`

I was just pointing out the great multitude that no one can count as an example of God`s great mercy and that `most people will not perish.`

Think about how many thousands of years have passed since God created us. Imagine the great multitude of people that is. It can't be imagined. It can only be stated as a great multitude.

Since Jesus' words are true, and He says there is a great multitude in heaven----does that then mean that there is not a greater multitude that do not find the narrow gate. In that statement in scripture Jesus says many on one side, few on the other. It is a comparison not a number. According to Jesus, the multitude in heaven is smaller than the multitude not there.

 

[Marilyn C]

Think about how many thousands of years have passed since God created us. Imagine the great multitude of people that is. It can't be imagined. It can only be stated as a great multitude.

Since Jesus' words are true, and He says there is a great multitude in heaven----does that then mean that there is not a greater multitude that do not find the narrow gate. In that statement in scripture Jesus says many on one side, few on the other. It is a comparison not a number. According to Jesus, the multitude in heaven is smaller than the multitude not there.

Jesus was speaking to the Jews.

 

[Arial]

Jesus was speaking to the Jews.

Sometimes it matters who someone is speaking to but in this case, for us, it does not. Do you think Jesus meant the two gates only applied to the Jews?

 

[Marilyn C]

Sometimes it matters who someone is speaking to but in this case, for us, it does not. Do you think Jesus meant the two gates only applied to the Jews?

Yes, I do as the Body of Christ was not yet revealed.

Jesus was speaking to the multitudes (Matt. 5: 1) and telling them that God looks on the heart and not just the outward observances of the law. Jesus was speaking to people under the law. We are not under the Law.

 

[Arial]

Yes, I do as the Body of Christ was not yet revealed.

Please explain how that pertains to the scripture of the narrow and wide gates.

Jesus was speaking to the multitudes (Matt. 5: 1) and telling them that God looks on the heart and not just the outward observances of the law. Jesus was speaking to people under the law. We are not under the Law.

That is not what He was talking about. He was teaching on several things. One of them was this. Matt 7:13-14 Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gat and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

It sits there by itself between His teaching on Ask, Seek, Knock, and True and False Prophets