Jesus Christ, died for all

[Lamb]

I is accurate. We have looked at scripture. We see why we hold our position. The false narrative of "radical calvinism" is just a crutch. Blah, blah, blah is accurate.

Saying, blah, blah, blah is mocking. Please don't.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Despite disagreeing with MennoSota on nearly every topic of theology he does have a point, not well made or politely made, that some of Josiah's replies are very wordy.

If it was a long quote from some source that's acceptable but long self quotes becomes a little tedious to read.

Long explanations of what somebody else allegedly believes is also tedious and unhelpful.

Especially when the explanation is inaccurate.

 

[MoreCoffee]

However the fact remains that holy scripture says that the Lord, Jesus Christ, died for all.

 

[Josiah]

However the fact remains that holy scripture says that the Lord, Jesus Christ, died for all.

Several times in several different places.

And in over 400 years, no Calvinists have found a verse that states this is wrong and Jesus ONLY died for some few.

You are right: That IS the bottom line.



AND here's one of MANY, MANY points where Orthodox, Catholic, Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodist, etc., etc., etc., etc. are in agreement. The Ecumenical Council of Orange states our position. So, it's not JUST that MANY Scriptures specifically states Jesus died for all (and NONE says otherwise) but virtually all God's people are in agreement with that - officially and informally. Here is a small, new, denomination tradition that is radically out-of-synch with historic, orthodox, traditional Christianity. As well as Scripture.


The biggest irony to ME in our Reformed brothers' obsession over the "L" .... HE'S the one here at CH constantly INSISTS that all denomination tradition (like TULIP) be IGNORED.... and that ALL that matters is the words we read in Scripture. Yet.... all he does is parrot this tiny new denomination tradition and can't find even one verse that states what he does. He RIPPED all who hold to the practice of not barring children from Baptism because it is "the denomination tradition of nearly every denomination that is or ever has been" and "I can't find a verse that STATES THE WORDS "Don't bar children from baptism." I disagree with his rubric here.... but it's amazing to see him work 100% in direct opposition to his own insistence, doing the VERY THING he condemns everyone else for - only much worse, much more radically.



My Catholic brother.... Some Catholics note that Protestantism soon went radical. And I agree. Luther was a reformer, not a revolutionary.... Luther overwhelmingly AGREED with the RCC but saw a FEW things that needed reform (today, nearly all Catholics AGREE with him!) and a few new unique dogmas it had invented that were baseless (and thus should not be DOGMA, although okay as pious opinion) and wasn't keeping to its own teachings on justification. But there soon followed much more radical men and movements.... revolutionaries.... set to start something NEW. Don't count Calvin in this company, but some of his latter-day radical followers can be counted among them. As a Lutheran, I find it curious too to note that one of the major factors of the Reformation (the original one) was a rejection of Catholic Scholasticism, that movement to replace mystery with speculations drawn from secular philosphy, pre-science ideas, "logic" and pop concepts, at first suggestion ONLY as POSSIBILITIES but eventually turned into unique dogmas of that one denomination.... Luther stressed the need to embrace mystery as mystery.... Luther stressed the need for humility... and that was a part of the Reformation. Then, a generation later, here come Protestants DOING the very, exact same thing We see this MORE in the new set of dogmas now called TULIP than we do with Purgatory or Transubstantiation. Interesting. SOME Protestants..... shouting "Sola Scriptura".... mutilate Scripture and embrace the approach of Catholic Scholasticism a lot worse than Catholicism ever did. Fortunately, most Protestants rejected such things.... but we still encounter it (however rarely).



- Josiah






.

 

[MennoSota]

Several times in several different places.

And in over 400 years, no Calvinists have found a verse that states this is wrong and Jesus ONLY died for some few.

You are right: That IS the bottom line.



AND here's one of MANY, MANY points where Orthodox, Catholic, Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodist, etc., etc., etc., etc. are in agreement. The Ecumenical Council of Orange states our position. So, it's not JUST that MANY Scriptures specifically states Jesus died for all (and NONE says otherwise) but virtually all God's people are in agreement with that - officially and informally. Here is a small, new, denomination tradition that is radically out-of-synch with historic, orthodox, traditional Christianity. As well as Scripture.


The biggest irony to ME in our Reformed brothers' obsession over the "L" .... HE'S the one here at CH constantly INSISTS that all denomination tradition (like TULIP) be IGNORED.... and that ALL that matters is the words we read in Scripture. Yet.... all he does is parrot this tiny new denomination tradition and can't find even one verse that states what he does. He RIPPED all who hold to the practice of not barring children from Baptism because it is "the denomination tradition of nearly every denomination that is or ever has been" and "I can't find a verse that STATES THE WORDS "Don't bar children from baptism." I disagree with his rubric here.... but it's amazing to see him work 100% in direct opposition to his own insistence, doing the VERY THING he condemns everyone else for - only much worse, much more radically.



My Catholic brother.... Some Catholics note that Protestantism soon went radical. And I agree. Luther was a reformer, not a revolutionary.... Luther overwhelmingly AGREED with the RCC but saw a FEW things that needed reform (today, nearly all Catholics AGREE with him!) and a few new unique dogmas it had invented that were baseless (and thus should not be DOGMA, although okay as pious opinion) and wasn't keeping to its own teachings on justification. But there soon followed much more radical men and movements.... revolutionaries.... set to start something NEW. Don't count Calvin in this company, but some of his latter-day radical followers can be counted among them. As a Lutheran, I find it curious too to note that one of the major factors of the Reformation (the original one) was a rejection of Catholic Scholasticism, that movement to replace mystery with speculations drawn from secular philosphy, pre-science ideas, "logic" and pop concepts, at first suggestion ONLY as POSSIBILITIES but eventually turned into unique dogmas of that one denomination.... Luther stressed the need to embrace mystery as mystery.... Luther stressed the need for humility... and that was a part of the Reformation. Then, a generation later, here come Protestants DOING the very, exact same thing We see this MORE in the new set of dogmas now called TULIP than we do with Purgatory or Transubstantiation. Interesting. SOME Protestants..... shouting "Sola Scriptura".... mutilate Scripture and embrace the approach of Catholic Scholasticism a lot worse than Catholicism ever did. Fortunately, most Protestants rejected such things.... but we still encounter it (however rarely).



- Josiah






.

Amazing incapacity to grasp context.

 

[Andrew]

Josiah you say that you have Calvinist family members who don't agree with tulip or the limited atonement part, what's the difference between Calvinists and those who adhere to tulip ("hyper")?

 

[Josiah]

Josiah you say that you have Calvinist family members who don't agree with tulip or the limited atonement part, what's the difference between Calvinists and those who adhere to tulip ("hyper")?

In my experience, very few Calvinists buy into the TULIP thing (in fact, I understand that was never the case). At a min., they "redefine" the points, stripping them of the original point and turning into something acceptable, biblical.

In my experience (online AND with those I know personally), "hyper-Calvinist" is a term often used BY CALVINISTS for those joining with those few, latter-day, extremists who invented TULIP. I got the impression only here that there is a very technical use of the word that is different than that (although I don't know what) and it seems at least one chooses to feel offended by the term. News to me. I might add I've also found Calvinists who speak of themselves as "3 point Calvinists" or "two point Calvinists" or "four point Calvinists" but even they usually have watered down and modified the "points" they claim to embrace. My wife's family choose to not use the term at all. There was a Presbyterian minister at another website who simply said, "Most Presbyterians think that tulip is just a pretty flowers, and that's a good thing."

I would CAUTION anyone from equating TULIP with our Reformed brothers and sisters. Just as you can find a FEW Lutherans who hold that the Pope is The Antichrist (!!) - but that's NOT really a Lutheran belief, so you can find a FEW Calvinist who chant these TULIP points (in their original form) but it's not reflective of Calvinism. The MOST I've found among Calvinists personally known to me is: "There's a certain logic there.... but it's not confirmed by Scripture and is probably not biblical."


Again, the issue is simple: Did Christ die for all or NOT for all but only for an unnamed, unknown FEW. That's the issue, that's the "debate." That's the sole issue of this thread. That's what the "L" is about. The Arminianists said Jesus died for all.... and these latter-day Calvinists simply took the 5 points of Arminianism and reversed them, so the opposite of Jesus died for all is that He did NOT but only for an unnamed few, thus the "L". Andrew... we've noted what Scripture flat-out, verbatim, literally says (no need for anything to be "implied")... and it is obvious no one can find a verse that says He died ONLY for some and NOT for all. I think the substantiation is overwhelmingly on the side of historic, orthodox, ecumenical Christianity - and not with this very, very rare, new, unique denomination tradition.




.

 

[MennoSota]

In my experience, very few Calvinists buy into the TULIP thing (in fact, I understand that was never the case). At a min., they "redefine" the points, stripping them of the original point and turning into something acceptable, biblical.

In my experience (online AND with those I know personally), "hyper-Calvinist" is a term often used BY CALVINISTS for those joining with those few, latter-day, extremists who invented TULIP. I got the impression only here that there is a very technical use of the word that is different than that (although I don't know what) and it seems at least one chooses to feel offended by the term. News to me. I might add I've also found Calvinists who speak of themselves as "3 point Calvinists" or "two point Calvinists" or "four point Calvinists" but even they usually have watered down and modified the "points" they claim to embrace. My wife's family choose to not use the term at all. There was a Presbyterian minister at another website who simply said, "Most Presbyterians think that tulip is just a pretty flowers, and that's a good thing."

I would CAUTION anyone from equating TULIP with our Reformed brothers and sisters. Just as you can find a FEW Lutherans who hold that the Pope is The Antichrist (!!) - but that's NOT really a Lutheran belief, so you can find a FEW Calvinist who chant these TULIP points (in their original form) but it's not reflective of Calvinism. The MOST I've found among Calvinists personally known to me is: "There's a certain logic there.... but it's not confirmed by Scripture and is probably not biblical."


Again, the issue is simple: Did Christ die for all or NOT for all but only for an unnamed, unknown FEW. That's the issue, that's the "debate." That's the sole issue of this thread. That's what the "L" is about. The Arminianists said Jesus died for all.... and these latter-day Calvinists simply took the 5 points of Arminianism and reversed them, so the opposite of Jesus died for all is that He did NOT but only for an unnamed few, thus the "L". Andrew... we've noted what Scripture flat-out, verbatim, literally says (no need for anything to be "implied")... and it is obvious no one can find a verse that says He died ONLY for some and NOT for all. I think the substantiation is overwhelmingly on the side of historic, orthodox, ecumenical Christianity - and not with this very, very rare, new, unique denomination tradition.




.

I don't believe your wife's family are or were Reformed. Your lack of understanding reveals a poor grasp of Reformed theology.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I don't believe your wife's family are or were Reformed. Your lack of understanding reveals a poor grasp of Reformed theology.

What you believe is not relevant to the facts. Josiah says such & such about his wife and he knows her better than you.

 

[MennoSota]

What you believe is not relevant to the facts. Josiah says such & such about his wife and he knows her better than you.

He doesn't know Reformed theology so if his relatives are Reformed, they must be biblically weak.

 

[MoreCoffee]

He doesn't know Reformed theology so if his relatives are Reformed, they must be biblically weak.

Not knowing Calvinist theology could be seen as advantageous for understanding biblical teaching. I see it as an advantage.

 

[MennoSota]

Not knowing Calvinist theology could be seen as advantageous for understanding biblical teaching. I see it as an advantage.

Only because you trust your catechism over scripture, MC.

 

[Andrew]

lets stay clear of personal attacks on Josiahs family members, this is not why I brought it up.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Only because you trust your catechism over scripture, MC.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church is reliable and useful for understanding Catholic teaching on all the matters with which it deals. Holy scripture is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.

 

[MennoSota]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church is reliable and useful for understanding Catholic teaching on all the matters with which it deals. Holy scripture is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.

You believe it. The actual document is a mess of doublespeak.

 

[Josiah]

Yup. Undeniably. The Bible over and over states that Jesus died for all. Several times in several different places.

And in over 400 years, no Calvinists have found a verse that states this is wrong and Jesus ONLY died for some few.

You are right: That IS the bottom line.



AND here's one of MANY, MANY points where Orthodox, Catholic, Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodist, etc., etc., etc., etc. are in agreement. The Ecumenical Council of Orange states our position. So, it's not JUST that MANY Scriptures specifically states Jesus died for all (and NONE says otherwise) but virtually all God's people are in agreement with that - officially and informally. Here is a small, new, denomination tradition that is radically out-of-synch with historic, orthodox, traditional Christianity. As well as Scripture.


The biggest irony to ME in our Reformed brothers' obsession over the "L" .... HE'S the one here at CH constantly INSISTS that all denomination tradition (like TULIP) must be IGNORED.... and that ALL that matters is the words in Scripture. Yet.... all he does is parrot this tiny new denomination tradition and he can't find even one verse that states what he does. Not one. He RIPPED all who hold to the practice of not barring children from Baptism because it is the denomination tradition of nearly every denomination that is or ever has been and he can't find a verse that STATES THE PRECISE WORDS "Don't bar children from baptism." I disagree with his rubric here.... but it's amazing to see him work 100% in direct opposition to his own insistence, doing the VERY THING he condemns everyone else for - only much worse, much more radically.


.

I don't believe your wife's family are or were Reformed. Your lack of understanding reveals a poor grasp of Reformed theology.

YOU said the "L" is that "Jesus died only for the church" NOT for all, but for some few.

I confirmed that your definition is accurate; I quoted several esteemed, conservative Reformed website and my Reformed doctrine book (I gave you the references).... and yup..... by golly.... you are right. The dogma is that Jesus did NOT die for all but rather, instead, in lieu of that, in contradiction of that, for only, exclusively, solely, just for some unnamed few.

We gave you a LONG list of Scriptures that flat-out, clearly STATE Jesus died for "all" for "everyone" for "all others" (no need for eisegesis, no need for radical spins, no need for doubts and denials, no need for deletions, no need for "but it's implied" - these several verses just flat out state it. Over and over. Many times. And we have given you the Ecumenical Council of Orange and we have shown the embrace of every other Christian group and denomination and person on the planet for 2000 years except for a tiny number of Calvinists holding to a new, unique, denomination tradition. And we have waited... for over 400 years... for some Calvinist somewhere to find the verse that says "Jesus died ONLY for a few" but we're still waiting. It's been over 400 years so far..... probably will be longer.




.

 

[MoreCoffee]

You believe it. The actual document is a mess of doublespeak.

Some say that of the bible.

The CCC was not written in English. It's first draft was in French, later translated to Latin, and later still translated into English. So The Catechism of the Catholic Church is not written in the best English. But it is clear enough and comprehensive enough to be useful for the purposes for which it was prepared.

III. The Aim and Intended Readership of the Catechism
11 This catechism aims at presenting an organic synthesis of the essential and fundamental contents of Catholic doctrine, as regards both faith and morals, in the light of the Second Vatican Council and the whole of the Church's Tradition. Its principal sources are the Sacred Scriptures, the Fathers of the Church, the liturgy, and the Church's Magisterium. It is intended to serve "as a point of reference for the catechisms or compendia that are composed in the various countries".
12 This work is intended primarily for those responsible for catechesis: first of all the bishops, as teachers of the faith and pastors of the Church. It is offered to them as an instrument in fulfilling their responsibility of teaching the People of God. Through the bishops, it is addressed to redactors of catechisms, to priests, and to catechists. It will also be useful reading for all other Christian faithful.​

 

[MennoSota]

YOU said the "L" is that "Jesus died only for the church" NOT for all, but for some few.

I confirmed that your definition is accurate; I quoted several esteemed, conservation Reformed website and my Reformed doctrine book (I gave you the references).... and yup..... by golly.... you are right. The dogma is that Jesus did NOT die for all but rather, instead, in lieu of that, in contradiction of that, for only, exclusively, solely, just for some unnamed few.

We gave you a LONG list of Scriptures that flat-out, clearly STATE (no need for eisegesis, no need for radical spins, no need for doubts and denials, no need for "but it's implied" - these several verses state it. And we have given you the Ecumenical Council of Orange and we have shown the embrace of every other Christian group and denomination and person on the planet for 2000 years except for a tiny number of Calvinists holding to a new, unique, denomination tradition. And we have waited... for over 400 years... for some Calvinist somewhere to find the verse that says "Jesus died ONLY for a few" but we're still waiting.

Josiah, your long list was expounded and explained. You persist in biblical ignorance and call Reformed theology "radical."
You are free to remain in ignorance and rely upon whatever website you are clinging to.
It's just too bad you won't admit you have a huge contradiction in your theology.

 

[MennoSota]

Some say that of the bible.

The CCC was not written in English. It's first draft was in French, later translated to Latin, and later still translated into English. So The Catechism of the Catholic Church is not written in the best English. But it is clear enough and comprehensive enough to be useful for the purposes for which it was prepared.

III. The Aim and Intended Readership of the Catechism
11 This catechism aims at presenting an organic synthesis of the essential and fundamental contents of Catholic doctrine, as regards both faith and morals, in the light of the Second Vatican Council and the whole of the Church's Tradition. Its principal sources are the Sacred Scriptures, the Fathers of the Church, the liturgy, and the Church's Magisterium. It is intended to serve "as a point of reference for the catechisms or compendia that are composed in the various countries".
12 This work is intended primarily for those responsible for catechesis: first of all the bishops, as teachers of the faith and pastors of the Church. It is offered to them as an instrument in fulfilling their responsibility of teaching the People of God. Through the bishops, it is addressed to redactors of catechisms, to priests, and to catechists. It will also be useful reading for all other Christian faithful.​

Ignorant people who are spiritually dead may call the Bible doublespeak. Anyone who reads the roman catechism knows it is a purposeful obfuscation of scripture designed to dupe the masses into obedience to the roman politic rather than scripture. That is precisely why it wouldn't allow the Bible to be printed.

 

[Josiah]

It's just too bad you won't admit you have a huge contradiction in your theology.

Always evasion.... always the shell game...


I've been waiting since you came to this site for this "contradiction." There is no contradiction in Scripture here; the Bible says Jesus died for all.... and those that have faith receive and benefit from it. Ahha. John 3:16. Sola Gratia - Solus Christus - Sola Fide. There is no contradiction between all those Scriptures that state Jesus died for all, for everyone... and the verse you can't find that says "Jesus did NOT die for all but only, exclusively, solely, just for some unnamed limited few.' Why no contradiction? Because your verse doesn't exist.




.



.