Cheryl Schatz

Mark you said:

Let me say it again as I already have done. I am not saying one can receive eternal life apart from the death of Christ. The issue is whether ‘world’ is meant to be understood universally.

Then I don’t understand why you had such a hard time with what I said, since I have always agree that the giving of life is the giving of eternal life. I think you were considering the implications of what you might be agreeing to, and that hindered your full agreement.

“I think that we can agree that it is eternal life that is the meaning in John 6:33.”

I’m glad we agree!

That sure took a long time for you to realize that, eh?

“It is interesting that the term “world” has no reference to the elect.”

Are you sure…look again at your ref. “6) sum total of particulars in any one field of experience, world, totality”… a sum total of ‘particulars’. Your own ref proves you wrong.

“Jesus can be the one who gives life to all without all being saved.”

This is a nonsense statement. You agree that John 6:33 is about eternal life, but yet you say the above. How does Jesus give life (not offer) to the world yet not all are saved-it’s a complete contradiction. Obviously ‘life’ isn’t given to the every single person. This is where you are substituting ‘offer’ for ‘given’.

No, that is not true at all. I am not substituting “offer” for “given”. Jesus gave life to all by the atonement. But giving something doesn’t mean that the person has it. This is where the questions I asked you come in. If Jesus “gave” you eternal life at the cross, then why didn’t you have it when you were born? Did He give it to you at the cross or just offer it? Or for what reason did you not have eternal life when you were born and you needed to be born again?

“Not true. The Bible says an emphastic “yes”! It is given to everyone. This is the key importance of the atonement – that it was a universal sacrifice that no man can ever blame God for not giving on his behalf. It is a “paid for” sacrifice that is “applied” by faith.”

So everyone is given eternal life (not offered) but you don’t hold to universalism? You confuse me! How can their sins be ‘paid for’ if they are still punished? Obviously you do not believe their sins were paid for because you reject universalism.

This is the problem that you have. You have been conditioned to think that there are only two choices – unversalism or Calvinism. But there are not just two choices. There is the Biblical doctrine of universal atonement yet not all are saved. I do believe that everyone’s sins are paid for. We will be able to discuss more as you answer the question about how you could have any need for forgiveness when your sins were completely paid for on the cross.

“Eternal life is “given” to all but “received” by only a few.”

This sentence is obvious how you substitue ‘offer’ for ‘given’. They are not given eternal life in heaven because they go to hell. They are offered it sure but not given.

“Do you believe that the atonement on the cross fully forgives all of your sins or did the application of the atonement happen later? In other words were you already forgiven before you were born or did the application need to be a separate even from the actual atonement?”

Yes I believe that the atonement enables all of my sins to be forgiven.

Ah, it is a “to be forgiven” not a “done deal”?

Of course the application is necessary- I do not deny that.

Then let’s focus on the application if we both agree that an application of the fully paid price must be applied.

But that is different to saying that those who never apply the atonement have already had their sins atoned for.

How is it that those who have never had their sins atoned for are commanded to believe (apply) the atonement? Do you not see a contradiction here?

Jesus only atoned for those who the father gives, those who have and will believe.

My friend, Mark, you are adding that into the Scripture, because Jesus never said it. Jesus talked about those who would come to Him, but He never said that He would only atone for those who would come. By adding to the Scripture one goes beyond what is said.

He does not atone for those who have or will not believe.

Where does the Bible say that?

And of course God knew and predestined those who would believe thus enabling Jesus to atone for only them.

These are Calvinist doctrines but they cannot be proven from the actual Scriptures since to believe them one must add to what is written. That is why I don’t believe in Calvinism. I would rather believe in what is actually written in the Scriptures.

“Were they wrong believing that Jesus was the Savior for the whole world?”

Let me say again that universal language need to be understood in the first century backdrop. It is best understood as God’s elect from every tribe, nation and language.

Surely Jesus could have said that clearly. Why didn’t He say that he would save only a select few the God chose? Why didn’t He make it clear that those who did not believe Him had been selected by God to go to hell? Why would He have chosen words that were universal rather than limited? Doesn’t it appear that to accept Calvinism would require a reinterpreting of what has been inspired as universal language? If it is really truth, what should we have to do that?

We see this in the book of Acts when the Jews are astonished that even the gentiles receive the holy spirit. The first century was very ‘exclusive’.

But they were wrong and the OT makes it clear that God’s intention was for all nations to know Him and not just one exclusive nation. They failed to see God’s universal intentions and they held on to a wrong view because of it.

“If God does not enable all to believe, then it would be a lie to say that Jesus gives life to the “world”. All are “able” unless they reject what they have been given.”

2 points. Jesus did not lie. You argue like this because you misunderstand what ‘world’ means.

Don’t get me wrong. I don’t believe that Jesus lied. I believe that He told the truth. He said world and He meant world. He died for “many” just as he said. He did not die for “few”. The definition of “world” is the definition of the “many”. It is all encompassing and for those who wish to redefine world to mean a “few”, how could we reject the inspired words of “world” and “many” and reinterpret this to be “unconditionally selected” and “few” regarding the atonement? It just doesn’t match with the Scripture.

More to come in the next comment….