You said: “These verses [John 6:37 and John 18:9] seem to be specifically referring to the Jews and particularly the Jews during the time of Jesus’ ministry on earth that were ‘chosen’ for a special purpose during Christ earthly ministry.”

Then, you said: “Remember that the book of John was still under the old covenant. The Hebrew scriptures you and Jim quoted are also referring to the people in which the old covenant applied.”

Seriously, I have never heard of such an interpretation of these verses of Scripture in my life, and I’ve been reading them for about 30 years. Where, exactly, do you get the idea that John 6:37 and 18:9 don’t apply to New Covenant believers? You’ll have to explain that one to me because, quite frankly, I don’t believe that idea can be found in the context at ALL. God only has one people, all saved by grace through faith, all chosen before the foundation of the world, all kept safely in God’s hands so that none will ever be lost. I’m shocked that you can “write off” the gospel of John.

Your view sounds like a version of Dispensationalism. Is it? Whatever the case, the view you express cannot be proven from Scripture and is, in fact, in direct contradiction of Scripture which says, “All Scripture is…profitable…” (2 Timothy 3:16). For if the gospels are only applicable to those under the Old Covenant, then they are of no profit to me or anyone else living today. That’s ridiculous!

Also, this view is no different from that of theological liberals who dismiss whole portions of Scripture as “myth”, “unreliable”, “sexist”, “out-of-date”, etc. in order to escape the obvious personal ramifications such Scriptures would have if they are indeed true and relevant. If it’s wrong for the liberals to dismiss Scripture (and it is), then it’s wrong to use some theological system to, in effect, write off whole portions of Scripture.

Gabe,

You are bringing in purgatory and other doctrines. You are correct to say the bible never cleary states that. You do have the parable in Luke and then Hebrews 9, but for what provision does God make for those who have never had the opportunity to express repentance or not from an articulated Gospel perspective?

On the issue of purgatory, its something that I wish was discussed more. In discussing the issue with many of my brothers in the Eastern Orthodox Church, it has always been interesting to see some of their perspectives on the issue…as well as of those in liturgical circles such as Catholic..and some others. Outside of that, it is already an historical fact that the early Christian practice of prayer for the dead was not an odd thing to do. …with many of the early Church fathers in the 1st through 3rd centuries speaking often on the subject. …whether it be with Augustine, Gregory of Nyssa, Tertullian or many others. As it relates to Jewish culture, The Maccabees apparently PRAYED for the dead (and gave us the “gift” of “Purgatory”). ..and though others may take issue with it, one must keep in mind the historicity of the book—especially seeing its description of the Jewish Feast of Hannakah, also refered to as the celebration of the the Feast of Dedication in John 10:21-23/ John 10 .

For an excerpt from the book on the issue:

A)nd they turned to prayer, beseeching that the sin which had been committed might be wholly blotted out. And the noble Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves free from sin, for they had seen with their own eyes what had happened because of the sin of those who had fallen. He also took up a collection, man by man, to the amount of two thousand drachmas of silver, and sent it to Jerusalem to provide for a sin offering. In doing this he acted very well and honorably, taking account of the resurrection. For if he were not expecting that those who had fallen would rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead. But if he was looking to the splendid reward that is laid up for those who fall asleep in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Therefore he made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin. (2 Macc 12:42-45

Granted that Maccabbees…both the 1 Maccabees and 2 Maccabees ) …..had one element where they took things to the “Puragotory” level–and Jews do not regard 2 Maccabees as canonical, perhaps because of its theological innovations……but the book is historical……and there are many elements I’ve been intrigued by when seeing other scriptures. There are other scriptures within the protestant cannon that have had many pondering purgatory—-one of which may refer to a prayer for the dead, found in 2 Timothy 1:16-18, which reads as follows:

May the Lord grant mercy to the house of Onesiphorus, for he often refreshed me, and was not ashamed of my chain, but when he was in Rome, he sought me diligently, and found me (the Lord grant to him to find the Lord’s mercy on that day); and in how many things he served at Ephesus, you know very well. As with the verses from 2 Maccabees, these verses refer to prayers that will help the deceased “on that day” (perhaps Judgement Day). Of coruse it is not stated that Onesiphorus, for whom Paul prayed, was dead. However, some scholars infer this based on the way Paul only refers to him in the past tense, and prays for present blessings on his household, but for him only “on that day”. And towards the end of the same letter, in 2 Timothy 4:19, Paul sends greetings to “Prisca and Aquila, and the house of Onesiphorus”, distinguishing the situation of Onesiphorus from that of the still living Prisca and Aquila.

There’s also consideration of how other things Jesus said seem to indicate that there will be forgiveness in the world to come—as seen in Matthew 12:31-33 /Luke 12:9-11………..and, for that matter, how God could forgive the sins of others who were acting in ignorance when they were nailing them to the cross in Luke 23:33-35—without any record of their ever asking God’s forgiveness in THIS lifetime since they were unaware of who the Christ was..

Something else to consider..

1 Corinthians 15:29
Now if there is no resurrection, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized for them?
1 Corinthians 15:28-30 1 Corinthians 15

I was curious as to what your thoughts would be on this. Obvious is the case that many in in the faith have always had a view of taking the Word literally..and I’m reminded of many conversations where it seemed that this was brought up in theological discourses on taking the WOrd seriously and yet many being unwilling to accept what Paul said here–showing in action that many really do not believe in taking the Word seriously and more specifically, taking the WOrd wherever it’s in line with their paticular views.

Personally, I take the scripture literally—and I see no reason as to why not. Many may say “So, you’re basically being for the concept of PURGATORY/THINKING DEAD RELATIVES can be redeemed??!!”, with the reaction often being based on what may often be seen in many liturgical circles,
Though difficult, I don’t see the verse as a problem to take literally since there’ve been numerous interpretations given to it…..with one reasonable view being that “they…who are baptized..” refers to living believers giving outward testimony to their faith in baptism by immersion due to how they were originally drawn to the Lord by the examples of other exemplary, faithful beluievers who were witnesses of the power of God and who had already died subsequently. This paticular perspective is very much what often occurs with the concept of Icons in Eastern Orthodox–where pictures of previous saints that have already gone before us (including those in Hebrews 11/Hebrews 11:11 with the Hall of Faith). For in the view of Eastern Thought, those who’ve gone ahead of us are not merely elsewhere in the “Great Beyond”–but very much aware of what is happening down below. Kind of like what happens for many when Grandma died and loved ones–whether those who were believers inspired by her example to continue walking godly or those who were not saved and yet were won to the Lord by her actions/chose to dedicate their lives to Christ— were wondering of the woman who kept the family together in Christ think “I know that Grandma is looking down upon me right now…and I hope she’s proud”. It’s the reality that the saints are with us in spiritual connection:

Hebrews 12:1
[ God Disciplines His Sons ] Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles, and let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us.
Hebrews 12:1-3 (in Context) Hebrews 12

By no means am I saying, by the way, that it’s appropiate for others to act as if they can have conversations with Grandma as with what often happens when a family member dies and they say that they’re still in the house and every morning they wake up they still hear that the tea pot’s whistling every morning before church just like it was when she was alive/making tea for everyone (lol lol ). But For anyone who has studied the book of Hebrews fully, the deceased individuals of Hebrews 11 is something I keep in mind when it comes to identifying who the “witnesses” are that’re looking on toward us. Personally, what comes to my mind is not only the thought of others whose past lives of faith encourage myself to do the same and have given godly examples to follow/give motivation…..but it is also the thought of actually having a crowd up in Heaven made of heavenly saints cheering me on actively that captivates my mind.

I think on issues of provision its an issue of Mercy…..as God often made clear that He judges people on the basis of what they know rather than what they didn’t. Some cases to consider would be the mentally handicapped or babies….

Nothing happens without God’s permission or direction — in other words, He is soverign. Again: Any not-soverign god is an idol.

I intend to read today’s “post” by this evening, btw; I’ll probably comment further thereafer. For now, please understand: Your “wrestling” is healthy; Marcionism is desperate and, in the true sense of the word, pathetic.

I agree

Yes, the “four gospels” were under the old covenant. That is why Jesus and his disciples still had to abide by old covenant law. I believe that the new covenant went into effect at Pentecost. Now this does not mean that many of the things written did not apply to us in the new covenant, however, it requires more dilligent study to discern what applies to whom and at what time did it apply. I believe the scriptures that referred to Jesus not losing any that the Father gave him, was referring specifically to those chosen for work during his earthly ministry. This was not referring to God’s chose over who Christ ultimately draws and reconciles to Himsself. I believe that many scriptures explain that this is the plan for ALL under the new covenant which applied to those who were under the old (during Jesus’s earthly ministry – 4 gospesls included) as well as ALL who were not under obligation to the old covenant.

http://arminiantoday.blogspot.com/search?q=unlimited+atonement

That is very far from true, your statement about God’s sovereignty my friend. You see if you define sovereignty as every detail that occurs is a direct result of God’s will then you may be correct. But I don’t believe the Bible defines Sovereingty that way. Sovereignty is defined by God’s complete rule over the earth and other cosmos. But in that Sovereignty God could have easily given us human freedom, which I am almost ready to fully embrace. I have the freedom to take your life, or saw my child in half (disobey God) or I have the choice to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and lay down my life for the good of humanity and God’s Kingdom. Both are choices, but have their respective consequences, neither negates God’s sovereignty.

You are bringing in purgatory and other doctrines. You are correct to say the bible never cleary states that. You do have the parable in Luke and then Hebrews 9, but for what provision does God make for those who have never had the opportunity to express repentance or not from an articulated Gospel perspective?