Beware of Ryle, he was an Arminian -https://www.facebook.com/notes/scott-price/jc-ryle-the-arminian/10154482419550735/
From Ryle on John 1;29, " ‚ÄúChrist is...a Saviour for all mankind....He did not suffer for a few persons only, but for all mankind...What Christ took away, and bore on the cross, was not the sin of certain people only, but the whole accumulated mass of all the sins of all the children of Adam....I hold as strongly as anyone, that Christ's death is profitable to none but the elect who believe in His Name. "  Ryle, Expository Thoughts on the Gospels (Grand Rapids, 1900), Vol. III, pp. 61f.
That is heresy. See more at the above link
Here's another example -"He has a love of general pity for the man who is going on still in wickedness, as well as love of special affection for the sheep who hear His voice and follow Him...Christ loves and pities all, even those who are His open enemies.‚ÄĚ -
 Ryle, Expository Thoughts on the Gospels (1856-73; Zondervan reprint of 1900 ed.), Vol. II, pp. 313f., 318.
That is in direct opposition with Psalm 5:5, Psalm 10:3, Lev. 20:23, Romans 9:13
Beware of double minded men who come here and defend ecumenical heretics and continually promote error.
Yes, the gloating over BG and his ecumenical/arminian 'gospel' which is no gospel went all but unnoticed by most here. The 'jesus' Graham preached was not the Christ of the bible.
The ONLY Gospel that has power to save is the pristine, glorious Gospel of sovereign grace, all others are accursed and only produce false converts/goats. "Today we live in an evil world. The evil I speak of is false religion. One tool of false religion is the ecumenical movement, which is gaining momentum daily. Compromise is the key to the success of this movement. To them, unity is more important than truth, especially the truth of the gospel. More than likely the vast majority of them have never heard the gospel, much less believed it. They throw the term "gospel" around quite often but it is rare for them to define it. Some might say it is only and simply the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. No doubt those are essential ingredients of the gospel but not the gospel specifically. The scriptures declare Christ accomplished his death (Luke 9:31). Christ died as a substitute and representative. He was a propitiation for those he died for, and for every successful propitiation there is a successful reconciliation." Scott Price - https://www.pristinegrace.org/media.php?id=87
More confusion, more twisting 1 John 2:2. IF the text meant the whole world, we have a problem because 'propitiation' means what? 'atoning sacrifice, an offering to appease (satisfy) an angry, offended party'. IF God is appeased, satisfied by the atoning sacrifice of His Son, then it stands to reason there isn't any wrath remaining. It was poured out in its entirety on Christ, no more wrath remains. So, according to the Arminian, Christ appeased God for the sins of the whole world, yet, wrath abides on those who do not believe. How can that be? Does God punish sin twice, first His Son then those who will not believe? That is the illogical conclusion one must come to when they insist world means 'all'. And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness. 1 John 5:19 So, at this present time, the 'whole world', meaning every person, lies in wickedness - according to the Arminian, this must be so. Strange doctrines of demons are being presented here. Concerning 1 John 4:14, IF other verses say Christ saves a particular group, then that is the same theme that must be followed throughout His word. The bible doesn't contradict. World often references to both Jew&Gentile believers. Bear in mind the time frame of when the bible was written and the Jewish mindset
If Christ 'lamented' over ALL Jerusalem and wanted to save 'ALL', why weren't all saved? Matt. 24:22 tells us how God only spared the elect during the destruction of Jerusalem- shortening the days for the sake of 'the elect'. All the rest suffered God's wrath. It seems odd that Christ would lament over a people destined for destruction, desiring them to be saved but not able to pull it off.
1 John 4:10 clarifies all the errors presented here, "Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins." God loves 'us' Christ was the propitiation, again meaning 'atoning sacrifice, an offering to appease (satisfy) an angry, offended party'. IF God is appeased, satisfied by the atoning sacrifice of His Son, then it stands to reason there isn't any wrath remaining. The text tells us who God loves, who Christ died for, all rolled into ONE verse --'us' - those who believe. Us means us, not world, not all, only 'us'. He who has ears to hear will understand.
You would do well to ask God to show you your errors- go into His word, use scripture to interpret scripture, look into the Greek and Hebrew if necessary, and not overlooking the verses that oppose your preconceived notions. Do word studies on 'all' and 'world', remember context matters.
When we shut off our minds to truth, we no longer grow in the grace and knowledge of Him. If you disagree with what has been presented, use His word to do so.
All men are fallible, Calvin included. Since both Pink and Calvin are dead, we cannot speak for them, we cannot know for certain IF Pink was aware of what Calvin believed, or if Calvin's views were twisted. The link I provided previously suggests that very thing.
The bottom line is this .... what does the Bible say? MUCH scripture has been given that refutes the Arminian universal atonement view. Appeasement has been made, God's wrath satisfied. No wrath remains, but for who? The Lord Jesus Himself answers that, "I lay down my life for my sheep". The Arminian squawks, 'oh but Jesus made salvation 'possible'. The bible doesn't teach that. That is a practice known as eisegesis, imposing upon a text something not said nor implied. Rev. 5:9 clearly states Christ 'redeemed us'. He went into the marketplace and purchased a people for Himself, He did not buy everything in the marketplace. He redeemed 'us'- not 'all'. His shed blood seals the deal. "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand." John 10 IF the atonement-which means to cover, make propitiation, which means appease, were for 'all', what prevents them from being saved? Does God punish twi
If ALL the sins of ALL men were laid upon Christ, how could He say, "The blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men"? (Matt. 12:31) Observe that Christ here used the future tense, "shall not be." Note, too, He did not merely say to the blaspheming Jews that He was then addressing, "Shall not be forgiven unto you," but in order to take in all others who should be guilty of this sin, He said, "Shall not be forgiven unto men." It is worse than idle to raise the cavil that the sin here spoken of was peculiar and exceptional, i.e., committed only by the Jews there addressed. The fact that this solemn utterance of Christ's is found not only in Matthew, but in Mark, and also in Luke-the Gentile Gospel-disposes of it. If ALL the sins of ALL men were laid upon Christ, what did the apostle mean when he said of the Jews, who forbade him to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, "to fill up their sins alway." (1 Thess. 2:16) If language has any meaning, these words of the apostle signify that the Jews were adding sins to sins, he did not say "to fill up their sin," but, "to fill up their sins." Clearly, there was no place in his theology for this strange invention of the twentieth century. https://www.the-highway.com/atonement_Pink.html
"The adoption was put in Abraham‚Äôs hands. Nevertheless, because many of his descendants were cut off as rotten members, we must, in order that election may be effectual and truly enduring, ascend to the Head, in whom the Heavenly Father has gathered his elect together, and has joined them to himself by an indissoluble bond. Inst. 3:21:7, pg. 612 J. Calvin
To Pink's credit, he may not have read every jot and tittle from Calvin. Like Spurgeon, Calvin wasn't clear on all things. Another issue is many twisted Calvin's writings. Spurgeon seemed to flip flop as well on limited atonement. It isn't unusual to change one's mind as we study deeper into His word. Pink changed from defending dispensationalism to rebuking it.
If you want to dig deeper-https://www.apuritansmind.com/arminianism/john-calvins-view-of-limited-atonement/
If ALL the sins of ALL men were laid upon Christ, then the sin of unbelief was too. That unbelief is a sin is clear from the fact that in 1 John 3:23 we read, "And this is His commandment, That we should believe on the name of His Son Jesus Christ." Refusal to believe in Christ is, therefore, an act of flagrant disobedience, rebellion against the Most High.- https://www.the-highway.com/atonement_Pink.html
this woman is a product of the 'God loves you' heresy. You can sin with a high hand and it doesn't matter, God loves you. You don't need to repent because God's love has you covered.
Keeping God's law doesn't save sinners, grace does. If we stumble at just one point, we are guilty of breaking all of it. Salvation is never contingent on what the sinner does; obedience is only found in those who love Christ. It isn't a necessity to 'get saved' or 'stay saved'. We love Him because He first loved us, we desire to obey out of love, not out of rigid demands.
‚ÄúDiscernment is not a matter of simply knowing the difference between right and wrong, rather it is knowing the difference between right and almost right. I would not give a penny for your ‚Äúlove of the truth‚ÄĚ if it is not accompanied with a hearty hatred of error. The best interpreter of a book is generally the man who wrote it. The Holy Spirit wrote the Scriptures, go to him to get their meaning and you will not be misled and if there be anything in the church to which you belong which is contrary to the inspired Word, leave that church.‚ÄĚ
Speaking generally, only two views or interpretations of the Cross have received much favor among the professed people of God: the one which affirmed that the Atonement was effected to make certain the salvation of all who believe; the other which supposed that atonement was made in order to make possible the salvation of all men. The former is the strict Calvinist view; the latter, the Arminian. Even here, the difference was not merely one of terms, but of truth over against error. The one is definite and explicit; the other indefinite and intangible. The one affirms an Atonement which actually atones (i. e. fully satisfied God for those on whose behalf it was made); the other predicates an Atonement which was a sorry failure, inasmuch as the majority of those on whose behalf it was supposed to be offered, perish notwithstanding. The logical and inevitable corollary of the one is a satisfied, because triumphant Savior; the other (if true) would lead, unavoidably, to a disappointed, because defeated Savior. The former interpretation was taught by such men as Wickcliff, Calvin, Latimer, Tyndale, Bunyan, Owen, Dodderidge, Jonathan Edwards, Toplady, Whitefield, Spurgeon, etc. The latter by men who, as theologians, were not worthy to unloose their shoes. - A.W. Pink
Looking at one more verse, from Heb. 9:12, 'Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.' What was the result of Christ's shed blood? Possible salvation, potential salvation for all? He obtained eternal redemption, He secured it by the shedding of His own blood, a one time act. Redemption means a one time ransom, a payment has been made and salvation secured and sealed by Christ. It isn't just an offer, it is finished, paid in full. His blood cleanses us from all sin- 1 John 1:7b To cleanse is to make clean, it doesn't mean it is a possibility for all, this we know because Christ stated whom He laid down His life for. What does the shed blood do? Does it actually cleanse the sinner or is it just a possibility all might be cleansed? "It has been finished" from the interlinear John 19:30, meaning 'to bring to an end, complete, fulfill'. There is no implication of possible salvation in any of these verses, those who add possible salvation for all need to look closer at the shed blood of Christ, the finished work of the Lord. It isn't just an 'offer', it is a done deal for the sheep and only the sheep.
Again, IF the atonement was unlimited, then what of Rev. 5:9, '"And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation"?. What does 'redeemed' mean? Make possible? No, 'to go to market, to BUY in the marketplace, purchase'. It's absolute, not just a possibility. Christ went into the marketplace and purchased the elect, He did not buy the whole marketplace did He?
The quotes of men like Spurgeon, who was double minded at times, or Loraine Boettner don't compare to what the bible teaches in context. Acts 20:28 teaches the same thing, 'Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.'- to purchase - get possession of, preserve, purchase, earn, make my own'. How did Christ make this 'purchase'? 'with His own blood'. He sealed the deal by the shedding of His blood, He 'redeemed' from out of the marketplace a people for His own. Eph 1:7 uses 'redemption' - a release effected by payment of ransom, redemption, deliverance. IF payment was made, the transaction is now complete 4 the 'elect'
It pains God to have unleashed judgment on Jerusalem? It tears God apart to punish the wicked? Again, Gill's commentary gives a much better view of why Christ 'lamented'- "It is not said, "how often would I have gathered you, and you would not!" nor, "I would have gathered Jerusalem, and she would not"; nor, "I would have gathered thy children, and they would not"; but, "how often would I have gathered thy children, and ye would not!" Which observation alone is sufficient to destroy the argument founded on this passage in favour of free will. Had Christ expressed his desire to have gathered the heads of the people to him, the members of the Jewish sanhedrim, the civil and ecclesiastical rulers of the Jews: or had he signified how much he wished, and earnestly sought after, and attempted to gather Jerusalem, the children, the inhabitants of it in common, and neither of them would not; it would have carried some appearance of the doctrine of free will, and have seemed to have countenanced it, and have imputed the non-gathering of them to their own will: though had it been said, "they would not", instead of, "ye would not", it would only have furnished out a most sad instance of the perverseness of the will of man -https://biblehub.com/commentaries/gill/matthew/23.htm read ALL
Universal atonement has a problem when it comes to 1 John 2:2, "And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world." the word 'propitiation' means 'appeasement, satisfaction, an offering to appease (satisfy) an angry, offended party'. IF God's wrath was appeased, spent on Christ, that means there remains NO MORE WRATH, but for who? All? No, we know the bible says His wrath remains on all who do not believe- John 3:36 We already know 'world' isn't everybody, rather, those God calls and saves from every tribe, tongue and nation. "And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation" Rev. 5:9 Who does 'redeemed us' refer to? A particular group. What does 'redeemed' mean? Make possible? No, 'to go to market, to BUY in the marketplace, purchase'. It's absolute, not just a possibility.
The 'value' of the atonement is not unlimited, Christ absolutely appeased God's wrath for the believing. He didn't die for the sin of unbelief did He?
Mike, I think John Gill explains it better than I could, "The 'lament'- Christ here speaks as a man, and the minister of the circumcision, and expresses an human affection for the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and an human wish, and will for their temporal good; which he very aptly signifies by the hen, which is a very affectionate creature to its young, and which it endeavours to screen from danger, by covering with its wings. So the "Shekinah" with the Jews is called, , "the holy bird" (m); and that phrase, , "to betake one's self, or to come to trust under the wings of the Shekinah", is often used (n) for to become a proselyte to the true religion, and worship of God, as Jethro, and Ruth the Moabitess did. It seems to be a simile much in use with that people. Our Lord is to be understood not of his divine will, as God, to gather the people of the Jews internally, by his Spirit and grace, to himself; for all those whom Christ would gather, in this sense, were gathered, but of his human affection and will, as a man, and a minister, to gather them to him externally, by, and under the ministry of his word, to hear him preach" - you have to go here to read this in its entirety to get the full scope of what Gill lays out-https://biblehub.com/commentaries/gill/matthew/23.htm
Great Sermon! "We will not change the message" amen. God's true preachers do not add to nor take from His word. If you preach truth and NO ONE is saved, that is God's business. Being faithful to truth is what is required. "There is just one Gospel message" oh for that truth to sink into the heart of all those deluded. Yes, the Gospel of grace is the only true truth.
Praise God for faithful men like Jim Byrd
I don't see how correcting error is unloving. It does get heated here, and slanderous accusations fly.
The bible warns there will come a time when they will not tolerate sound doctrine, rather they surround themselves with ear ticklers and men pleasers. That time is clearly now.
James, I recall a 'Reformed' preacher saying that phrase at the end of his preaching, 'if you place your faith in Jesus'. I asked him about it via email one day, he never responded. It is a works based idea that cannot be supported by scripture.