Once debated some Arminians who, when quoted John 10 concerning Christ's effectual death on the cross limited to the elect alone, said that the passage at hand didn't say only.
John Gill responds: wer to this,
1. It is observed,[1] that “in none of these places it is said that Christ died only for his sheep, for hisfriends,or for his church;and, therefore, none of them say anything in contradiction to our assertion” of general redemption. I reply, this objection is much like... what the Papists make against the doctrine of justification by faith. They own the Scriptures say, that we are justified by faith, but not by faith only.Now it may with as much propriety be said, that other, besides those which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham, because the Scriptures do not say that they which be of faithonly are blessed with him, or that there are more gods and more mediators than one, because the text does not say, there is only one God, and only one Mediator; yea, it might be urged with equal strength, that men may love other women besides their own wives, in the same manner they love them, because it is not said, husbands love your wives only,as it may that Christ loved others, and gave himself for others, besides his church; because it is not said, he loved his church only and gave himself for his church only. But, though this restrictive word is not expressed, it is evidently implied; for, if Christ laid down his life, and gave himself for every individual man, these peculiar and discriminating characters would be utterly unnecessary. And, after all, it is owned by our opponents,[2] that “eventually Christ is the Savior of his body, and died only for his sheep and friends.”
John Gill responds: wer to this,
1. It is observed,[1] that “in none of these places it is said that Christ died only for his sheep, for hisfriends,or for his church;and, therefore, none of them say anything in contradiction to our assertion” of general redemption. I reply, this objection is much like... what the Papists make against the doctrine of justification by faith. They own the Scriptures say, that we are justified by faith, but not by faith only.Now it may with as much propriety be said, that other, besides those which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham, because the Scriptures do not say that they which be of faithonly are blessed with him, or that there are more gods and more mediators than one, because the text does not say, there is only one God, and only one Mediator; yea, it might be urged with equal strength, that men may love other women besides their own wives, in the same manner they love them, because it is not said, husbands love your wives only,as it may that Christ loved others, and gave himself for others, besides his church; because it is not said, he loved his church only and gave himself for his church only. But, though this restrictive word is not expressed, it is evidently implied; for, if Christ laid down his life, and gave himself for every individual man, these peculiar and discriminating characters would be utterly unnecessary. And, after all, it is owned by our opponents,[2] that “eventually Christ is the Savior of his body, and died only for his sheep and friends.”
2. The argument is retorted upon thus;[3] “He that died for his friends, and for his enemies, for the church of God, and for the unrighteous, that he might bring them to the church of God; for the sheep that heard his voice, and for the lost ones that did not hearken to his voice, died for all. But Christ died for his friends, etc., therefore he died for all.” The fallacy of this argument will easily appear, when it is observed, that they are, the same individual persons who are styled the enemies and friends of Christ, the unrighteous, and the church, the lost sheep, and such as hearken to Christ's voice; being the former as considered in their unregenerate estate, and the latter through the power of his grace upon them. - The Cause of God and Truth
My friend David Bishop also says,
In other words, the word "only" is unnecessary in view of the context; especially of verse 26. Shepherds shepherd sheep. They don't shepherd goats, cows, dogs and horses. Hence the title shep(sheep)herd. Therefore, He doesn't need to say the shepherd came to lay down his life ONLY for the sheep in order for his words to mean exactly that.
My friend David Bishop also says,
In other words, the word "only" is unnecessary in view of the context; especially of verse 26. Shepherds shepherd sheep. They don't shepherd goats, cows, dogs and horses. Hence the title shep(sheep)herd. Therefore, He doesn't need to say the shepherd came to lay down his life ONLY for the sheep in order for his words to mean exactly that.
No comments:
Post a Comment