Pilgrim, in order to be fair on this, I am going to answer the links you provided, the first will be a
Rebuttal of Rev. Engelsma’s points. I’m not a scholar like many here, I’m actually a plumber by trade, so I may not be clear in everything I am saying or may state something amiss, so be patient.
Answer to his points marked by the bullets:
Point 1 that God loves all men without exception with a saving love is not what I am saying, He manifested his saving love in Christ, made it available to all, but it is not active/effective except in the elect.
Point 2 Jesus death was sufficient for all, as we all know, so yes, His death was sufficient for all men and so we can say He died for all men.
Point 3 God’s perceptive will, “His desire” is not the same as His sovereign decretive will
Point 4 is a sum of points 1,2, 3 which are not true
Point 5, individuals are only able to believe through the power of the Holy Spirit
Point 6 same thing, we believe and Christ’s work becomes effective by the work of the Holy Spirit
His Conclusion is wrong, it is dependent entirely on the decretive will of God.
Verses he used to back up his definition of world:
John 1:29 "Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world." Did Christ by His death take away the sin of all men without exception? If He did, all men without exception shall be saved.”
He uses the word sin in the singular number, for any kind of iniquity; as if he had said, that every kind of unrighteousness which alienates men from God is taken away by Christ. And when he says, the sin OF THE WORLD, he extends this favor indiscriminately to the whole human race; that the Jews might not think that he had been sent to them alone. But hence we infer that the whole world is involved in the same condemnation; and that as all men without exception are guilty of unrighteousness before God, they need to be reconciled to him. John the Baptist, therefore, by speaking generally of the sin of the world, intended to impress upon us the conviction of our own misery, and to exhort us to seek the remedy. Now our duty is, to embrace the benefit which is offered to all, that each of us may be convinced that there is nothing to hinder him from obtaining reconciliation in Christ, provided that he comes to him by the guidance of faith.
Jn 6:33
"For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world." Does Jesus give life (not, ineffectually offer life, but, efficaciously give life) to all men without exception? If He does, all men without exception have eternal life.
It is the offer of life to the world, without Christ the world is dead. We can only eat this bread by the work of the Holy Spirit
Jn. 17:9 He prayed only for His elect, is it wrong? Would we accuse God of being unfair for not praying for everyone? Besides this goes back to the decretive will of God, and He prayed according to the Father’s will.
Pilgrim, in my reading and further pursuit of this subject, I continue to stand on the side of God’s objective Love appearing to all men. It was really quite interesting that after I first broached the subject and you called me a standaloner, I looked in my library and stumbled on John MacArthur’s book. He says some really good things that are very supportive in his book “The God Who Loves”. I can’t in good conscience accept a different view at this time. I will continue to contemplate it, but right now the strength in this tug of war lie with the stand that Calvin and others mentioned previously stood on. I want to answer some of what you mentioned and other links, but that will be later, my time doesn’t permit it right now.
