Different Gospels

[GWH]

Who teaches such? Are you assuming that about me personally? Are you assuming that upon me on the basis of some unmerited beliefs about other people's beliefs? You don't know me, so how can you know I stand for such?



Again, I have no idea of whom you're talking about because that's not representative of my beliefs.

You seem bitter and filled with gall and hatred. What are you saying? I have no regard for Luther nor for Protestantism. As a biblicist, I have no regard for any denomination of men. It's the word of God or its nothing.

MM

Ditto with me, which is why I affirm truth-seeking as the most basic and comprehensive term for saving faith (SPUR).

 

[biblestudent78]

Ditto with me, which is why I affirm truth-seeking as the most basic and comprehensive term for saving faith (SPUR).

If a man says he is faithful to his wife, does that mean he continuously reads his marriage vows? Does it mean he becomes a believer in marriage? No. It means he lives faithfully to his daily commitments to love and cherish. This are what saving faith is. It is the daily application of God's love to those He brings into your life. Faith is what you do, not just what intellectual abstractions formed by diligently studying the marriage vows. We live by faith. If our lives are not faithful or moving toward faithfulness, then it is not Faith, just self-serving belief. Jesus is clear. If you love me you will keep My commandments and God will love him too.

 

[Churchgoer]

If a man says he is faithful to his wife, does that mean he continuously reads his marriage vows? Does it mean he becomes a believer in marriage? No. It means he lives faithfully to his daily commitments to love and cherish. This are what saving faith is. It is the daily application of God's love to those He brings into your life. Faith is what you do, not just what intellectual abstractions formed by diligently studying the marriage vows. We live by faith. If our lives are not faithful or moving toward faithfulness, then it is not Faith, just self-serving belief. Jesus is clear. If you love me you will keep My commandments and God will love him too.

Very true.
If we say we are faithful to God, just as God called Israelite to return to Him. And Israelite asked, how do we return to God.
God said bring you due diligent offering to God. What a practical way of return to God!!!!

People can say all the beautiful things in the world, but it is the action that matters.

A husband brings food to his wife, mow lawn for her, giver her the marital rights.... all of this speaks faithfulness.

 

[Musicmaster]

The KJV was not a translation. It was an"version" that did not threaten an earthly king. King James. Conversation: the revisions that formed the basis of the kjv You said: the revisions that formed the basis of the The King James Version (KJV) of 1611 was not a completely fresh translation, but rather a formal revision of existing English Bibles. In their instructions, King James I’s translation committees were explicitly told to alter the existing text as little as possible yet King James himself charged the translators of t he Textus Receptus to eliminate all references to at reduce the authority of the King....Him.

Yes, I've heard that before and don't buy it.

MM

 

[Musicmaster]

Your generalizations about those who don't hold to Dispensationalism are incorrect. It is a fact that dispensationalism was unknown before 1830 along with a pre-tribulation rapture. These ideas came to Darby while convalescing after having fallen off his horse. Dispensationalism is a man-made lens through which Scripture is interpreted, not something derived from it. Eisegesis rather than exegesis.
As for the word 'dispensation' used in the NT, it simply means stewardship, not Darby's idea of ages in which God tests humanity who eventually fail.

Yes, I've heard that claim before, and don't buy it given the quotes directly from scripture that I've posted in this thread.

MM

 

[Musicmaster]

I believe you’re quoting from the KJV, where “dispensation,” in these three verses, is the translation of oikonomia in Paul’s Greek. Please take a look at the first passage, 1 Cor 9:16-17, in two modern translations, where the word is translated as “stewardship” in one and as “task” in the other. I don’t see how this passage can be used to substantiate the theory of dispensationalism.

[ESV] For if I preach the gospel, that gives me no ground for boasting. For necessity is laid upon me. Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel! For if I do this of my own will, I have a reward, but if not of my own will, I am still entrusted with a stewardship.

[GNB] I have no right to boast just because I preach the gospel. After all, I am under orders to do so. And how terrible it would be for me if I did not preach the gospel! If I did my work as a matter of free choice, then I could expect to be paid; but I do it as a matter of duty, because God has entrusted me with this task.

Similarly in the other two verses the word appears again as “stewardship” in the ESV and as either “task” or “work” in the GNB. In Eph 3:2:

[ESV] assuming that you have heard of the stewardship of God’s grace that was given to me for you,

[GNB] Surely you have heard that God in his grace has given me this work to do for your good.

And in Col. 1:25:

[ESV] of which I became a minister according to the stewardship from God that was given to me for you, to make the word of God fully known,

[GNB] And I have been made a servant of the church by God, who gave me this task to perform for your good. It is the task of fully proclaiming his message,

One thing I've noticed among much of Christian discussion is that version wars are one of the larges rabbit holes in the field of discussion that kills discussions entirely, which is when I know it's over. It's an end all that never gets resolved with there being so many armchair experts out there who have never studied the manuscripts nor the history nor the voracity behind them behind them...or lack thereof That's ok, though. I'm not here to tell anyone that they're doomed for reading the versions they like.

Frankly, I have preference differences with the KJV-only gang on some things, but still use that version for quoting for reasons that conform to my own in-depth studies.

Have a blessed one.

MM

 

[BartholomewB]

One thing I've noticed among much of Christian discussion is that version wars are one of the larges rabbit holes in the field of discussion that kills discussions entirely, which is when I know it's over. It's an end all that never gets resolved with there being so many armchair experts out there who have never studied the manuscripts nor the history nor the voracity behind them behind them...or lack thereof That's ok, though. I'm not here to tell anyone that they're doomed for reading the versions they like.

Frankly, I have preference differences with the KJV-only gang on some things, but still use that version for quoting for reasons that conform to my own in-depth studies.

Have a blessed one.

MM

Thank you for your reply. I’d like to clarify that, like you, I don’t have a single preferred Bible translation that I use all the time. On the contrary, I find it useful to keep a wary eye on the possibility that, in any given case, there is quite likely to be an alternative English equivalent that might point to a different shade of meaning.

Also, I have no fundamental objection to Darby and dispensationalism, though I sometimes come up against an attitude that might be described as Darby-onlyism. I have no disagreement at all with the basic premise that the history of man’s relationship with God is divided into distinct periods, though it would be rash to assume that the conventional dispensationalist classification of those periods is unchallengeable in every detail.

I have observed what seems to be a curious parallelism between the rapid surge of Darby’s influence on the nineteenth century church on the one hand and, on the other, the similar uncritical acceptance, a century later, of Conzelmann’s doctrine of salvation history. An important difference, of course, is that Darby’s appeal was to rhe Christian clergy and laity at large, while Conzelmann was writing for a much narrower readership of theologians and NT scholars.

Although Conzelmann was a Lutheran, his ideas seem to have had particularly extensive repercussions in Roman Catholic circles. For example, there are said to be many significant differences between the original Jerome Biblical Commentary that appeared in the sixties and the revised New Jerome Biblical Commentary published in 1990, and that in many instances the purpose of the change was to accommodate a wave of enthusiasm for salvation history among the editors and contributors.

 

[lrs68]

Yes, I've heard that before and don't buy it.

MM

Could be why there's 7 uses for (unicorn) in the KJV since they believed in that myth around the early 1600s. There's also other words and references that make little to no sense that probably have to do with the beliefs of that day and time.

 

[Jon777]

Could be why there's 7 uses for (unicorn) in the KJV since they believed in that myth around the early 1600s. There's also other words and references that make little to no sense that probably have to do with the beliefs of that day and time.

Hello, you state what is true in the way most people think or believe today, but what was the thought in 1600? If you check various AI search engines you need to qualify what the KJV translators believed about the Hebrew they translated as "unicorn". The results are consistent about this question and the following is typical.

By 1600, educated men—including the King James Version (KJV) translators—did not generally believe the “unicorn” of the Bible was the modern fantasy horse with a single horn. Instead, they used “unicorn” as a technical term meaning “one-horned beast,” most likely referring to a real, powerful, wild bovine (the Hebrew re’em), which some already identified with the rhinoceros.gotquestions+3

What “unicorn” meant in 1600

• The English word unicorn literally means “one horn” (Latin unicornis: uni- “one” + cornu “horn”).2001translation+1
• In early modern English, “unicorn” could denote any one-horned animal, not necessarily the mythical horse-like creature of later folklore.reddit
• Contemporary scholars and translators often equated the biblical “unicorn” with the rhinoceros (whose scientific name is Rhinoceros unicornis), or with a wild ox/aurochs-type animal.compellingtruth+2

Why the KJV has “unicorn”

• The KJV follows earlier translations (notably the Latin Vulgate’s unicornis and the Greek Septuagint’s monokerōs) in rendering the Hebrew re’em as “unicorn.”gotquestions+1
• The re’em is described in the Hebrew Bible as strong, untamable, and horned—traits that fit a wild ox or rhinoceros better than a mythical horse.2001translation+2
• The translators were not asserting belief in fairy-tale unicorns; they were choosing the best available English term for a one-horned, powerful beast whose exact identity was uncertain.compellingtruth+2

The King James translators chose "unicorn" to render the Hebrew word re'em because:

• They followed earlier translations (Greek monokeros, Latin unicornis), which also meant "one-horned."
• They believed the re'em was a real, powerful, wild animal, not a mythical beast.
• Contemporary natural histories (like those of Pliny the Elder) described one-horned animals that sounded more like rhinos or wild bulls than fantasy horses.

Thus, the KJV's "unicorn" was intended to convey strength, wildness, and untamability, not magic or fantasy.

 

[Musicmaster]

Thank you for your reply. I’d like to clarify that, like you, I don’t have a single preferred Bible translation that I use all the time. On the contrary, I find it useful to keep a wary eye on the possibility that, in any given case, there is quite likely to be an alternative English equivalent that might point to a different shade of meaning.

Thank you. There are also those who have just about every modern version published and pragmatically go from one to the other until they find the one that's worded in the direction of what they want to believe, never really involving themselves in seeking out the objective truth.

Also, I have no fundamental objection to Darby and dispensationalism, though I sometimes come up against an attitude that might be described as Darby-onlyism. I have no disagreement at all with the basic premise that the history of man’s relationship with God is divided into distinct periods, though it would be rash to assume that the conventional dispensationalist classification of those periods is unchallengeable in every detail.

Agreed. There are always challenges to just about every doctrinal stance one may take. I tend to be a member of Paul-ism given that not all that Jesus spoke was directed to us today. However, Darby didn't invent what is called "dispensationalism." He brought back into focus what Paul spoke of in the midst of great amounts of departures from scriptural teaching, with masses of people gravitating over into the Westernized brand if Christianity that dominates the minds and hearts of far too many people today who claim to love the Bible.

I have observed what seems to be a curious parallelism between the rapid surge of Darby’s influence on the nineteenth century church on the one hand and, on the other, the similar uncritical acceptance, a century later, of Conzelmann’s doctrine of salvation history. An important difference, of course, is that Darby’s appeal was to rhe Christian clergy and laity at large, while Conzelmann was writing for a much narrower readership of theologians and NT scholars.

Many of my fellow scholars are indeed following after various writings that are more contemporary as opposed to doing the exercises of biblical study apart from commentary from various writers who themselves exhibit the various departures from the biblical texts, even to the level of a novice.

Although Conzelmann was a Lutheran, his ideas seem to have had particularly extensive repercussions in Roman Catholic circles. For example, there are said to be many significant differences between the original Jerome Biblical Commentary that appeared in the sixties and the revised New Jerome Biblical Commentary published in 1990, and that in many instances the purpose of the change was to accommodate a wave of enthusiasm for salvation history among the editors and contributors.

It seems doesn't it, that no text is safe from modern corruptions.

MM

 

[Musicmaster]

Could be why there's 7 uses for (unicorn) in the KJV since they believed in that myth around the early 1600s. There's also other words and references that make little to no sense that probably have to do with the beliefs of that day and time.

The term "unicorn," in the KJV, does NOT refer to the mythical creature commonly imagined today. Instead, it translates the Hebrew word "re'em," which likely refers to a powerful, untamable animal, often interpreted as a wild ox. Modern translations typically use "wild ox" instead of "unicorn" to reflect this understanding. It had a specific meaning to those people at that time not absolutely aligning with some belief in mythology. That you have a problem with that only betrays your pragmatic prejudice held to by modern bandwagoneers who have nothing but ridicule against what they don't understand.

I recommend doing some additional homework on this rather than to parrot the usual fare of armchair ignorance branded outwardly from the intellectually lazy out there who have nothing better to do with their time than to harangue against what they don't comprehend.

MM

 

[lrs68]

Hello, you state what is true in the way most people think or believe today, but what was the thought in 1600? If you check various AI search engines you need to qualify what the KJV translators believed about the Hebrew they translated as "unicorn". The results are consistent about this question and the following is typical.

By 1600, educated men—including the King James Version (KJV) translators—did not generally believe the “unicorn” of the Bible was the modern fantasy horse with a single horn. Instead, they used “unicorn” as a technical term meaning “one-horned beast,” most likely referring to a real, powerful, wild bovine (the Hebrew re’em), which some already identified with the rhinoceros.gotquestions+3

What “unicorn” meant in 1600

• The English word unicorn literally means “one horn” (Latin unicornis: uni- “one” + cornu “horn”).2001translation+1
• In early modern English, “unicorn” could denote any one-horned animal, not necessarily the mythical horse-like creature of later folklore.reddit
• Contemporary scholars and translators often equated the biblical “unicorn” with the rhinoceros (whose scientific name is Rhinoceros unicornis), or with a wild ox/aurochs-type animal.compellingtruth+2

Why the KJV has “unicorn”

• The KJV follows earlier translations (notably the Latin Vulgate’s unicornis and the Greek Septuagint’s monokerōs) in rendering the Hebrew re’em as “unicorn.”gotquestions+1
• The re’em is described in the Hebrew Bible as strong, untamable, and horned—traits that fit a wild ox or rhinoceros better than a mythical horse.2001translation+2
• The translators were not asserting belief in fairy-tale unicorns; they were choosing the best available English term for a one-horned, powerful beast whose exact identity was uncertain.compellingtruth+2

The King James translators chose "unicorn" to render the Hebrew word re'em because:

• They followed earlier translations (Greek monokeros, Latin unicornis), which also meant "one-horned."
• They believed the re'em was a real, powerful, wild animal, not a mythical beast.
• Contemporary natural histories (like those of Pliny the Elder) described one-horned animals that sounded more like rhinos or wild bulls than fantasy horses.

Thus, the KJV's "unicorn" was intended to convey strength, wildness, and untamability, not magic or fantasy.

The term "unicorn," in the KJV, does NOT refer to the mythical creature commonly imagined today. Instead, it translates the Hebrew word "re'em," which likely refers to a powerful, untamable animal, often interpreted as a wild ox. Modern translations typically use "wild ox" instead of "unicorn" to reflect this understanding. It had a specific meaning to those people at that time not absolutely aligning with some belief in mythology. That you have a problem with that only betrays your pragmatic prejudice held to by modern bandwagoneers who have nothing but ridicule against what they don't understand.

I recommend doing some additional homework on this rather than to parrot the usual fare of armchair ignorance branded outwardly from the intellectually lazy out there who have nothing better to do with their time than to harangue against what they don't comprehend.

MM

Most versions of the Bible were translated from the Latin not the Hebrew in those days and the unicorn mythology began around 4 BC.

I doubt the scholars for the KJV were as educated in Hebrew as modern opinion Express knowing that Yiddish replaced Hebrew nearly 2,500 years ago and no one was speaking Hebrew during the 1600s.

 

[Musicmaster]

Most versions of the Bible were translated from the Latin not the Hebrew in those days and the unicorn mythology began around 4 BC.

Really? Where did you read that, may I ask?

I doubt the scholars for the KJV were as educated in Hebrew as modern opinion Express knowing that Yiddish replaced Hebrew nearly 2,500 years ago and no one was speaking Hebrew during the 1600s.

Again, where did you get this?

MM

 

[BartholomewB]

The term "unicorn," in the KJV, does NOT refer to the mythical creature commonly imagined today. Instead, it translates the Hebrew word "re'em," which likely refers to a powerful, untamable animal, often interpreted as a wild ox. Modern translations typically use "wild ox" instead of "unicorn" to reflect this understanding. It had a specific meaning to those people at that time not absolutely aligning with some belief in mythology. That you have a problem with that only betrays your pragmatic prejudice held to by modern bandwagoneers who have nothing but ridicule against what they don't understand.

I recommend doing some additional homework on this rather than to parrot the usual fare of armchair ignorance branded outwardly from the intellectually lazy out there who have nothing better to do with their time than to harangue against what they don't comprehend.

MM

In most of the verses where re’em occurs in the Hebrew Bible, the Septuagint translates it as monokerotos, literally “one-horned.” In the Vulgate it sometimes appears as unicornis, which has the same literal meaning, and sometimes also as rhinoceros (“nose-horn.”) The rhinoceros is, after all, a true real-life unicorn, in the sense that it’s an animal with only one horn.

This has aroused my curiosity. Tomorrow I’ll take a closer look. Until I saw it here on this thread, I had no idea the word “unicorn” appeared anywhere in the Bible.

 

[lrs68]

Really? Where did you read that, may I ask?

It's the basic template a person in the 9th century used based off of Jerome's texts. It's common knowledge most KJV experts proclaim.

Again, where did you get this?

MM

It's been documented most Bible translation were based off the Septuagint because many believed the Torah was destroyed in the Temple even though every Synagogue held copies.

 

[Musicmaster]

It's the basic template a person in the 9th century used based off of Jerome's texts. It's common knowledge most KJV experts proclaim.

It's been documented most Bible translation were based off the Septuagint because many believed the Torah was destroyed in the Temple even though every Synagogue held copies.

Really. Wow. That's something else. All the scholars I work with, we were taught that the Masoretic Hebrew texts were the "template" for the OT sections of modern versions, with the KJV NT arising from the Textus Receptus texts, and that the more modern versions that the KJV were also based upon the Vaticanus, Sintiaticus, Aleph, B and C manuscripts. Personally I prefer the Greek of the Septuagint, but that's a personal preference.

But that other stuff you claimed, well, the staff had quite a few raised eyebrows to say the least...

MM

 

[lrs68]

Really. Wow. That's something else. All the scholars I work with, we were taught that the Masoretic Hebrew texts were the "template" for the OT sections of modern versions, with the KJV NT arising from the Textus Receptus texts, and that the more modern versions that the KJV were also based upon the Vaticanus, Sintiaticus, Aleph, B and C manuscripts. Personally I prefer the Greek of the Septuagint, but that's a personal preference.

But that other stuff you claimed, well, the staff had quite a few raised eyebrows to say the least...

MM

Even if you Google it will explain how the Textus Receptus is a compilation of 4th Century Latin that was revised around the 10th Century and then retranslated back to the modern Greek of that day which was the template for several Bibles throughout the 12th and 16th Centuries.

 

[BartholomewB]

Even if you Google it will explain how the Textus Receptus is a compilation of 4th Century Latin that was revised around the 10th Century and then retranslated back to the modern Greek of that day which was the template for several Bibles throughout the 12th and 16th Centuries.

Until now I had never heard of the theory that all or part of the Textus Receptus was “backtranslated” from the Vulgate, so I followed your advice and googled for it. I went first to Wikipedia, which has ― as we might expect ― a long article about it. The “backtranslaion” theory is mentioned three times, but only ever in connection with two very brief passages adding up to just seven verses: Acts 9:5 and the last six verses of Revelation.

It is a well-known historical fact that in the 1880s Westcott and Hort rejected the Textus Receptus, evidently very convincingly, since their own text subsequently became the standard accepted by almost all Bible editors and translators. Did Westcott and Hort ever mention the “backtranslation” theory in connection with the rest of the NT outside those seven verses? I suspect the answer is probably No because, if they had, I think we would have heard about it long before now.

@lrs68, could you please name at least one precise source for your information about the “backtranslation” claim, rather than just “googling for it”?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textus_Receptus

 

[GWH]

The Kingdom Gospel preached by Jesus and the twelve:

Mark 16:15-18
15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

The Gospel of Grace given to Paul directly from that same Jesus after His acension:

1 Corinthians 15:1-4
1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

When an honestly mistaken man sees the truth presented in black-n-white, such as what can be seen above, one of three things happens:

(1) he will either cease to be mistaken, or
(2) he will cease to be honest, or
(3) he will argue endlessly as his way of a continued refusal against what's written above to try and cover over his dishonesty.

In the end, however, he will either accept the truth or he will reject it, some going so far as to try and pit the word of God against itself on the basis of some modern, English translations that lead some down the pathways of what those translations claim are the "best texts."

If he accepts the truth of what's said in passages above, and remains consistent with proper hermeneutics by accepting the clear language of what's stated in the verses above, he's no longer mistaken.

If he rejects it, he's no longer honest with himself nor with others.

It's as simple as that.

There can't be, therefore, such a thing as an "honestly mistaken man" who, once seeing the truth presented to him from the scriptures, continues to reject by re-interpreting key passages and/or contexts that credibly fail to support his false position.

The masses of Gentiles who think they're adhering to the Kingdom Gospel preached by Jesus to His disciples and the twelve to Israel, none today are able to do the things Israel was promised they would be able to do following that Gospel, all while thinking we're under that Gospel today.

Interestingly, avoidance of being seen as foolish, they either never talk about their inability to do these things described in the verses above or they do the awkward slight-of-hand magic disappearance trick by making use of verses popular among the cessationists, feebly using those as an explanation for their failure in showing that Gospel as being operative today, which it is not.

The emphatic declaration by Jesus that those who had faith and were baptized, therefore absolutely able to do ALL those things, here we are with clinics, hospitals and care homes filled with people almost never visited, and therefore never healed, by these Gentiles who claim they believe what Jesus taught as allegedly applying to us today.

Is this failure on their part a demonstration for a severe lack of faith on their part or are they failing to love, care and express a heart-felt compassion for the sick and infirmed people, or is it a perpetual demonstration for a lack of saving faith on their part?

The reason they don't go about healing and being healed by those who claim they're followers of Christ and His instructions in His Kingdom Gospel message is because that Kingdom Gospel message was unique to Israel alone under the Kingdom Gospel dispensation not meant for us today given the fall of Israel. That is the uncomfortable truth at play here.

Romans 11:11
I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.

Slapping, with warped glee, the seemingly negative sounding labels on the truth of dispensations as their practiced manipulation upon the weaker minds of others (those who routinely fail to "prove all things" by putting on their critical thinking caps long since taken from them by public and private primary and secondary schools), and those of a more liberal leaning buffoonery that permeates so much of modern education, this practice is an old trick empowered by the princes of this world and is still effectively at play today.

The most popular hang-up is the snideness applied in support of a manipulative crusade promotion of a more negative sentiment about the descriptor "dispensationalism," a term that fits Paul perfectly, given that he used the term underlying term "dispensations" a number of times in his epistles:

1 Corinthians 9:17
For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me.

Ephesians 3:2
If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward:

Collossians 1:25
Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God;

So, when I see the snideness directed against the proper and honest teaching for dispensations within scripture, of which we are instructed to rightly divide within the word of God, especially the snideness perpetrated by people who themselves hypocritically practice dispensational differentiations given that they don't perform animal sacrifices in their back yards for their sins, along with many other of the 613 Mosaic Law requirements, their negativity against what was given to Paul for us today, they're indeed failing to remain honest with themselves and with others.

What about you? Do you see the differences here?

MM

Yes, the Gospel per Paul is indicated in 1Cor. 15:3-4: Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And he was buried, and rose again the third day according to the scriptures.

Verse 2 says "By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.", which refutes the OSAS/P part of TULIP. In Rom. 5:6-8 Paul taught that Christ died because God loves even His enemies, which refutes the L in TULIP. If Paul had said Christ died for "humanity's sins" this truth would be clearer, but Paul cleared it up in 1Tim. 2:3-4, which implies that everyone is enabled to exercise faith/MFW and satisfy IF/His condition for forgiveness by cooperating with His plan of salvation beginning with the genrev version (Rom. 1:20) of seeking/loving truth (2Thes. 2:10, Matt. 7:7, Heb. 11:6) through the NT culmination with Christ's atonement (John 3;16, Rom. 3:21-5:10). Denying this truth results in the tulip heresy that teaches God loves/favors only a few, which perverts the Gospel (Gal. 1:6-9, 2:16).