Jesus Christ, died for all

[MennoSota]

And MoreCoffee said to Mennosota; you have not the competence to discern that which is concordant with the holy scriptures nor to know what is correct. And MoreCoffee said to Mennosota Verily the doctrine that you preach has blinded you to what the holy scriptures say and by your doctrine you have made of no effect the very word of God for truly the holy scriptures explicitly say that Christ died for all. And opening the book of the new covenant MoreCoffee did show to Mennosota the passage from saint Paul's second letter to the Corinthians at the place where it is written:

For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that one died for all, therefore all died; and he died for all, that they that live should no longer live unto themselves, but unto him who for their sakes died and rose again.
2 Corinthians 5:14-15​

And MoreCoffee did say to Mennosota read and see that the Christ died for all according to the scriptures. But Mennosota would not neither would Mennosota interact with what was written in the holy scriptures but he would return to his doctrine and repeat it because for Mennosota the traditions of his forefathers in the sect of the Calvinist Baptists mattered more than the teaching of the Christ.

LOL
2 Corinthians 5:11-15 Therefore, knowing the fear of the Lord, we persuade others. But what we are is known to God, and I hope it is known also to your conscience. We are not commending ourselves to you again but giving you cause to boast about us, so that you may be able to answer those who boast about outward appearance and not about what is in the heart. For if we are beside ourselves, it is for God; if we are in our right mind, it is for you. For the love of Christ controls us, because we have concluded this: that one has died for all, therefore all have died; and he died for all, that those who live might no longer live for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised.
When Paul wrote this letter did he address it to all humanity or was it to the church in Corinth? Did Jesus die for all the Christians in Corinth or were some not redeemed, despite being Christians?

But, let's follow your logic. In your thinking Paul concludes that Jesus died for all humanity. All humanity has therefore died (they were all crucified with Christ [Galatians 2:20]). All humanity thus lives for Christ who died for their sake.
That is the teaching of the passage if the "all" corresponds to all humanity. There is no other conclusion you MUST hold, but to declare that all humanity is saved, redeemed, made new creations, and are fully reconciled with God.
That is what the text says by holding your view.
MC, do you recant or do you wish to double down on your teaching?

 

[MoreCoffee]

LOL...

My sentiments exactly, about your reply. But I will spell it out; I got a chuckle from your rant.

But I will not give your post a "like" because my chuckle was not because of your post being funny. It was because the argument in it was absurd as so many arguments in your posts are.

What exactly does that chapter say, really, rather than as edited by you ...

Our Heavenly Dwelling

For we know that, when our earthly house of this habitation is dissolved, we have a building of God, a house not made with hands, eternal in heaven. And for this reason also, we groan, desiring to be clothed from above with our habitation from heaven. If we are so clothed, then we will not be found to be naked.

Then too, we who are in this tabernacle groan under the burden, because we do not want to be stripped, but rather to be clothed from above, so that what is mortal may be absorbed by life. Now the One who accomplishes this very thing in us is God, who has given us the pledge of the Spirit.

Therefore, we are ever confident, knowing that, while we are in the body, we are on a pilgrimage in the Lord. For we walk by means of faith, and not by sight. So we are confident, and we have the good will to be on a pilgrimage in the body, so as to be present to the Lord. And thus we struggle, whether absent or present, to please him. For it is necessary for us to be manifested before the judgement seat of Christ, so that each one may receive the proper things of the body, according to his behaviour, whether it was good or evil.

A Ministry of Reconciliation

Therefore, having knowledge of the fear of the Lord, we appeal to men, but we are made manifest before God. Yet I hope, too, that we may be made manifest in your consciences. We are not commending ourselves again to you, but rather we are presenting you with an opportunity to glory because of us, when you deal with those who glory in face, and not in heart. For if we are excessive in mind, it is for God; but if we are sober, it is for you.

For the charity of Christ urges us on, in consideration of this: that if one died for all, then all have died. And Christ died for all, so that even those who live might not now live for themselves, but for him who died for them and who rose again. And so, from now on, we know no one according to the flesh. And though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know him in this way no longer.

So if anyone is a new creature in Christ, what is old has passed away. Behold, all things have been made new. But all is of God, who has reconciled us to himself through Christ, and who has given us the ministry of reconciliation. For certainly God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, not charging them with their sins. And he has placed in us the Word of reconciliation.

Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, so that God is exhorting through us. We beseech you for Christ: be reconciled to God. For God made him who did not know sin to be sin for us, so that we might become the justice of God in him. (II Corinthians 5:1-21)​

So let's see what Albert Barnes says about the clause in verse 14

That if one died for all. On the supposition that one died for all; or taking it for granted that one died for all, then it follows that all were dead. The "one" who died for all here is undoubtedly the Lord Jesus. The word "for" (υπερ) means, in the place of, in the stead of. See Phm 1:13, and 2Cor 5:20 of this chapter. It means that Christ took the place of sinners, and died in their stead; that he endured what was an ample equivalent for all the punishment which would be inflicted if they were to suffer the just penalty of the law; that he endured so much suffering, and that God by his great substituted sorrows made such an expression of his hatred of sin, as to answer the same end in expressing his sense of the evil of sin, and in restraining others from transgression, the guilty were personally to suffer the full penalty of the law. If this was done, of course the guilty might be pardoned and saved, since all the ends which could be accomplished by their destruction have been accomplished by the substituted sufferings of the Lord Jesus. Rom 3:25, Rom 3:26, where this subject is considered at length, The phrase "for all," (υπερπαντων,) obviously means for all mankind; for every man. This is an exceedingly important expression in regard to the extent of the atonement which the Lord Jesus made; and while it proves that his death was vicarious, that is, in the place of others, and for their sake, it demonstrates also that the atonement was general, and had, in itself considered, no limitation, and no particular reference to any class or condition of men, and no particular applicability to one class more than to another. There was nothing in the nature of the atonement that limited it to any one class or condition; there was nothing in the design that made it, in itself, any more applicable to one portion of mankind than to another. And whatever may be true in regard. to the fact as to its actual applicability, or in regard to the purpose of God to apply it, it is demonstrated by this passage that his death had an original applicability to all, and that the merits of that death were sufficient to save all. ​

Albert Barnes has more to say and it is chiefly devoted to refuting the misinterpretations that are offered by yourself, Mennosota, and I can post the rest of his comments in another post to follow this one but the core of the teaching in the passage and the argument presented by Albert Barnes shows just how distorted the views that you present here in CH are.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Continuing Albert Barnes remarks, for those interested, and maybe for the benefit of Mennosota

The argument in favour of the general atonement, from this passage, consists in the following points:

(1.) That Paul assumes this as a matter that was well known, indisputable, and universally admitted, that Christ died for all. He did not deem it necessary to enter into the argument to prove it, nor even to state it formally. It was so well known, and so universally admitted, that he made it a first principle--an elementary position-- a maxim on which to base another important doctrine--to wit, that all were dead. It was a point which he assumed that no one would call in question; a doctrine which might be laid down as the basis of an argument--like one of the first principles or maxims in science.

(2.) It is the plain and obvious meaning of the expression--the sense which strikes all men, unless they have some theory to support to the contrary; and it requires all the ingenuity which men can ever command to make it appear even plausible that this is consistent with the doctrine of a limited atonement--much more to make it out that it does not mean all. If a man is told that all the human family must die, the obvious interpretation is, that it applies to every individual. If told that all the passengers on board a steamboat were drowned, the obvious interpretation is, that every individual was meant. If told that a ship was wrecked, and that all the crew perished, the obvious interpretation would be that none escaped. If told that all the inmates of an hospital were sick, it would be understood that there was not an individual that was not sick. Such is the view which would be taken by nine hundred and ninety-nine persons out of a thousand, if told that Christ died for all; nor could they conceive how this could be consistent with the statement that he died only for the elect, and that the elect was only a small part of the human family.

(3.) This interpretation is in accordance with all the explicit declarations on the design of the death of the Redeemer. Heb 2:9, "That he, by the grace of, God, should taste death for every man." Comp. Jn 3:16, "God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." 1Timm 2:6, "Who gave himself a ransom for all." See Mt 20:28, "The Son of man came to give his life a ransom for many." 1Jn 2:2, "And he is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world."

(4.) The fact also, that on the ground of the atonement made by the Redeemer salvation is offered unto all men by God, is a proof that he died for all. The apostles were directed to go "into all the world, and to preach the gospel to every creature," with the assurance that "he that believeth and is baptised shall be saved," Mk 16:16, and everywhere in the Bible the most full and free offers of salvation are made to all mankind. Comp. Isa 55:1, Jn 7:37, Rev 22:17. These offers are made on the ground that the Lord Jesus died for men, Jn 3:16. They are offers of salvation through the gospel, of the pardon of sin, and of eternal life to be made "to every creature." But if Christ died only for a part; if there is a large portion of the human family for whom he died in no sense whatever; if there is no provision of any kind made for them, then God must know this, and then the offers cannot be made with sincerity, and God is tantalising them with the offers of that which does not exist, and which he knows does not exist. It is of no use here to say that the preacher does not know who the elect are, and that he is obliged to make the offer to all in order that the elect may be reached. For it is not the preacher only who offers the gospel. It is God who does it, and he knows who the elect are, and yet he offers salvation to all. And if there is no salvation provided for all, and no possibility that all to whom the offer comes should be saved, then God is insincere; and there is no way possible of vindicating his character.

(5.) If this interpretation is not correct, and if Christ did not die for all, then the argument of Paul here is a non sequitur, and is worthless. The demonstration that all are dead, according to him, is that Christ died for all. But suppose that he meant, or that he knew, that Christ died only for a part--for the elect--then how would the argument stand, and what would be its force? "Christ died only for a portion of the human race, therefore ALL are sinners. Medicine is provided only for a part of mankind, therefore all are sick. Pardon is offered to part only, therefore all are guilty." But Paul never reasoned in this way. He believed that Christ died for all mankind, and on the ground of that he inferred at once that all needed such an atonement; that all-were sinners, and that all were exposed to the wrath of God. And the argument is in this way, and in this way only, sound. But still it may be asked, what is the force of this argument ? How does the fact that Christ died for all prove that all were sinners, or dead in sin?

 

[MoreCoffee]

And finally Albert Barnes concludes his discussion of verse 14 ...

I answer,

(a.) In the same way as to provide medicine for all, proves that all are sick, or liable to be sick; and to offer pardon to all who are in a prison, proves that all there are guilty. What insult is it to offer medicine to a man in health; or pardon to a man who has violated no law! And there would be the same insult in offering salvation to a man who was not a sinner, and who did not need forgiveness.

(b.) The dignity of the Sufferer, and the extent of his sufferings, prove that all were under a deep and dreadful load of guilt. Such a Being would not have come to die unless the race had been apostate; nor would he have endured so great sorrows unless a deep and dreadful malady had spread over the world. The deep anxiety, the tears, the toils, the sufferings, and the groans of the Redeemer, show what was his sense of the condition of man, and prove that he regarded them as degraded, fallen, and lost. And if the Son of God, who knows all hearts, regarded them as lost, they are lost. He was not mistaken in regard to the character of man, and he did not lay down his life under the influence of delusion and error. If to the view which has been taken of this important passage it be objected that the work of the atonement must have been to a large extent in vain; that it has been actually applied to but comparatively a small portion of the human family, and that it is unreasonable to suppose that God would suffer so great sorrows to be endured for nought, we may reply,

(1.) that it may not have been in vain, though it may have been rejected by a large portion of mankind. There may have been other purposes accomplished by it besides the direct salvation of men. It was doing much when it rendered it consistent for God to offer salvation to all; it is much that God could be seen to be just, and yet pardoning the sinner; it was much when his determined hatred of sin, and his purpose to honour his law, were evinced; and in regard to the benevolence and justice of God to other beings and to other worlds, much, very much was gained, though all the human race had rejected the plan and been lost; and in regard to all these objects, the plan was not in vain, and the sufferings of the Redeemer were not for nought. But

(2.) it is in accordance with what we see everywhere, when much that God does seems to our eyes, though not to his, to be in vain. How much rain falls on ever sterile sands or on barren rocks, to our eyes in vain! What floods of light are poured each day on barren wastes, or untraveled oceans, to our eyes in vain! How many flowers shed forth their fragrance in the wilderness, and "waste their sweetness on the desert air," to us apparently for nought! How many pearls lie useless in the ocean; how much gold and silver in the earth; how many diamonds amidst rocks to us unknown, and apparently in vain! How many lofty trees rear their heads in the untraveled wilderness, and after standing for centuries fall on the earth and decay, to our eyes in vain! And how much medicinal virtue is created by God each year in the vegetable world that is unknown to man, and that decays and is lost without removing any disease, and that seems to be created in vain! And how long has it been before the most valuable medicines have been found out, and applied to alleviating pain, or removing disease! Year after year, and age after age, they existed in a suffering world, and men died perhaps within a few yards of the medicine which would have relieved or saved them, but it was unknown, or, if known, disregarded. But times were coming when their value would be appreciated, and when they would be applied to benefit the sufferer. So with the plan of salvation. It may be rejected, and the sufferings of the Redeemer may seem to have been for nought. But they will yet be of value to mankind; and when the time shall come for the whole world to embrace the Saviour, there will be found no want of sufficiency in the plan of redemption, and in the merits of the Redeemer, to save all the race.

Then were all dead. All dead in sin; that is, all were sinners. The fact that he died for all proves that all were transgressors. The word "dead" is not infrequently used in the Scriptures to denote the condition of sinners. See Eph 2:1. It means not that sinners are in all senses and in all respects like a lifeless corpse, for they are not. They are still moral agents, and have a conscience, and are capable of thinking, and speaking, and acting. It does not mean that they have no more power, than one in the grave, for they have more power. But it means that there is a striking similarity, in some respects, between one Who is dead and a sinner. That similarity does not extend to everything, but in many respects it is very striking.

(1.) The sinner is as insensible to the glories of the heavenly world, and the appeals of the gospel, as a corpse is to what is going on around or above it. The body that lies in the grave is insensible to the voice of friendship, and the charms of music, and the hum of business, and the plans of gain and ambition; and so the sinner is insensible to all the glories of the heavenly world, and to all the appeals that are made to him, and to all the warnings of God. He lives as though there were no heaven and no hell; no God and no Saviour.

(2.) There is need of the same Divine power to convert a sinner which is needful to raise up the dead. The same cause does not exist, making the existence of that power necessary; but it is a fact that a sinner will no more be converted by his own power than a dead man will rise from the grave by his own power. No man ever yet was converted without direct Divine agency, any more than Lazarus was raised without Divine agency. And there is no more just or melancholy description which can be given of man, than to say that he is dead in sins. He is insensible to all the appeals that God makes to him; he is insensible to all the sufferings of the Saviour, and to all the glories of heaven; he lives as though these did not exist, or as though he had no concern in them; his eyes see no more beauty in them than the sightless eyeballs of the dead do in the material world; his ear is as inattentive to the calls of God and the gospel as the ear of the dead is to the voice of friendship or the charms of melody; and in a world that is full of God, and that might be full of hope, he is living without God and without hope.

 

[MennoSota]

My sentiments exactly, about your reply. But I will spell it out; I got a chuckle from your rant.

But I will not give your post a "like" because my chuckle was not because of your post being funny. It was because the argument in it was absurd as so many arguments in your posts are.

What exactly does that chapter say, really, rather than as edited by you ...

Our Heavenly Dwelling

For we know that, when our earthly house of this habitation is dissolved, we have a building of God, a house not made with hands, eternal in heaven. And for this reason also, we groan, desiring to be clothed from above with our habitation from heaven. If we are so clothed, then we will not be found to be naked.

Then too, we who are in this tabernacle groan under the burden, because we do not want to be stripped, but rather to be clothed from above, so that what is mortal may be absorbed by life. Now the One who accomplishes this very thing in us is God, who has given us the pledge of the Spirit.

Therefore, we are ever confident, knowing that, while we are in the body, we are on a pilgrimage in the Lord. For we walk by means of faith, and not by sight. So we are confident, and we have the good will to be on a pilgrimage in the body, so as to be present to the Lord. And thus we struggle, whether absent or present, to please him. For it is necessary for us to be manifested before the judgement seat of Christ, so that each one may receive the proper things of the body, according to his behaviour, whether it was good or evil.

A Ministry of Reconciliation

Therefore, having knowledge of the fear of the Lord, we appeal to men, but we are made manifest before God. Yet I hope, too, that we may be made manifest in your consciences. We are not commending ourselves again to you, but rather we are presenting you with an opportunity to glory because of us, when you deal with those who glory in face, and not in heart. For if we are excessive in mind, it is for God; but if we are sober, it is for you.

For the charity of Christ urges us on, in consideration of this: that if one died for all, then all have died. And Christ died for all, so that even those who live might not now live for themselves, but for him who died for them and who rose again. And so, from now on, we know no one according to the flesh. And though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know him in this way no longer.

So if anyone is a new creature in Christ, what is old has passed away. Behold, all things have been made new. But all is of God, who has reconciled us to himself through Christ, and who has given us the ministry of reconciliation. For certainly God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, not charging them with their sins. And he has placed in us the Word of reconciliation.

Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, so that God is exhorting through us. We beseech you for Christ: be reconciled to God. For God made him who did not know sin to be sin for us, so that we might become the justice of God in him. (II Corinthians 5:1-21)​

So let's see what Albert Barnes says about the clause in verse 14

That if one died for all. On the supposition that one died for all; or taking it for granted that one died for all, then it follows that all were dead. The "one" who died for all here is undoubtedly the Lord Jesus. The word "for" (υπερ) means, in the place of, in the stead of. See Phm 1:13, and 2Cor 5:20 of this chapter. It means that Christ took the place of sinners, and died in their stead; that he endured what was an ample equivalent for all the punishment which would be inflicted if they were to suffer the just penalty of the law; that he endured so much suffering, and that God by his great substituted sorrows made such an expression of his hatred of sin, as to answer the same end in expressing his sense of the evil of sin, and in restraining others from transgression, the guilty were personally to suffer the full penalty of the law. If this was done, of course the guilty might be pardoned and saved, since all the ends which could be accomplished by their destruction have been accomplished by the substituted sufferings of the Lord Jesus. Rom 3:25, Rom 3:26, where this subject is considered at length, The phrase "for all," (υπερπαντων,) obviously means for all mankind; for every man. This is an exceedingly important expression in regard to the extent of the atonement which the Lord Jesus made; and while it proves that his death was vicarious, that is, in the place of others, and for their sake, it demonstrates also that the atonement was general, and had, in itself considered, no limitation, and no particular reference to any class or condition of men, and no particular applicability to one class more than to another. There was nothing in the nature of the atonement that limited it to any one class or condition; there was nothing in the design that made it, in itself, any more applicable to one portion of mankind than to another. And whatever may be true in regard. to the fact as to its actual applicability, or in regard to the purpose of God to apply it, it is demonstrated by this passage that his death had an original applicability to all, and that the merits of that death were sufficient to save all. ​

Albert Barnes has more to say and it is chiefly devoted to refuting the misinterpretations that are offered by yourself, Mennosota, and I can post the rest of his comments in another post to follow this one but the core of the teaching in the passage and the argument presented by Albert Barnes shows just how distorted the views that you present here in CH are.

But, let's follow your logic. In your thinking Paul concludes that Jesus died for all humanity. All humanity has therefore died (they were all crucified with Christ [Galatians 2:20]). All humanity thus lives for Christ who died for their sake.

That is the teaching of the passage if the "all" corresponds to all humanity. There is no other conclusion you MUST hold, but to declare that all humanity is saved, redeemed, made new creations, and are fully reconciled with God.

That is what the text says by holding your view.

MC, do you recant or do you wish to double down on your teaching?

 

[psalms 91]

But, let's follow your logic. In your thinking Paul concludes that Jesus died for all humanity. All humanity has therefore died (they were all crucified with Christ [Galatians 2:20]). All humanity thus lives for Christ who died for their sake.

That is the teaching of the passage if the "all" corresponds to all humanity. There is no other conclusion you MUST hold, but to declare that all humanity is saved, redeemed, made new creations, and are fully reconciled with God.

That is what the text says by holding your view.

MC, do you recant or do you wish to double down on your teaching?

That is not what it means all means all but not all will accept the gift thus where you are in error

 

[MennoSota]

That is not what it means all means all but not all will accept the gift thus where you are in error

Where does it say "all means all humanity, but not all would accept the gift?"
I know that is what you teach and believe, but where do we find that in 2 Corinthians 5? I am specifically addressing the verse that MC quotes. I am observing what it says and when we make the "all" in the verse be for "all humanity" instead of "all those whom Jesus chose to save" you get the interpretation that "all humanity" died with Christ. This is what the verse actually says. Not once do we read Paul saying anything about the need for the "all" to accept a gift in order for salvation to occur. So, looking at the text, show the error. Thank you.

"For if we are beside ourselves, it is for God; if we are in our right mind, it is for you. For the love of Christ controls us, because we have concluded this: that one has died for all, therefore all have died; and he died for all, that those who live might no longer live for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised."

"those who live might no longer live for themselves but for him who for their sake died"
"Him who for their sake died."
The whole world or the elect for whom Jesus died?
All the elect are paid for. Is all the world paid for? Simple yes or no answer is all that's called for.

 

[atpollard]

That is not what it means all means all but not all will accept the gift thus where you are in error

That DOES make man responsible for who gets saved and who does not. The choice of man to accept the gift rather than the choice of God to "predestine".

(However you slice this conundrum creates problems ... hence the Lutheran appeal to "mystery". It reminds me of a statement about the people Jesus was crucified with ... "Jesus died between two thieves as a message for us; one was there so we would not despair and the other was there so we would not presume.")

 

[atpollard]

LOL
2 Corinthians 5:11-15 Therefore, knowing the fear of the Lord, we persuade others. But what we are is known to God, and I hope it is known also to your conscience. We are not commending ourselves to you again but giving you cause to boast about us, so that you may be able to answer those who boast about outward appearance and not about what is in the heart. For if we are beside ourselves, it is for God; if we are in our right mind, it is for you. For the love of Christ controls us, because we have concluded this: that one has died for all, therefore all have died; and he died for all, that those who live might no longer live for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised.
When Paul wrote this letter did he address it to all humanity or was it to the church in Corinth? Did Jesus die for all the Christians in Corinth or were some not redeemed, despite being Christians?

But, let's follow your logic. In your thinking Paul concludes that Jesus died for all humanity. All humanity has therefore died (they were all crucified with Christ [Galatians 2:20]). All humanity thus lives for Christ who died for their sake.
That is the teaching of the passage if the "all" corresponds to all humanity. There is no other conclusion you MUST hold, but to declare that all humanity is saved, redeemed, made new creations, and are fully reconciled with God.
That is what the text says by holding your view.
MC, do you recant or do you wish to double down on your teaching?

My sentiments exactly, about your reply. But I will spell it out; I got a chuckle from your rant.

But I will not give your post a "like" because my chuckle was not because of your post being funny. It was because the argument in it was absurd as so many arguments in your posts are.

What exactly does that chapter say, really, rather than as edited by you ...

Our Heavenly Dwelling

For we know that, when our earthly house of this habitation is dissolved, we have a building of God, a house not made with hands, eternal in heaven. And for this reason also, we groan, desiring to be clothed from above with our habitation from heaven. If we are so clothed, then we will not be found to be naked.

Then too, we who are in this tabernacle groan under the burden, because we do not want to be stripped, but rather to be clothed from above, so that what is mortal may be absorbed by life. Now the One who accomplishes this very thing in us is God, who has given us the pledge of the Spirit.

Therefore, we are ever confident, knowing that, while we are in the body, we are on a pilgrimage in the Lord. For we walk by means of faith, and not by sight. So we are confident, and we have the good will to be on a pilgrimage in the body, so as to be present to the Lord. And thus we struggle, whether absent or present, to please him. For it is necessary for us to be manifested before the judgement seat of Christ, so that each one may receive the proper things of the body, according to his behaviour, whether it was good or evil.

A Ministry of Reconciliation

Therefore, having knowledge of the fear of the Lord, we appeal to men, but we are made manifest before God. Yet I hope, too, that we may be made manifest in your consciences. We are not commending ourselves again to you, but rather we are presenting you with an opportunity to glory because of us, when you deal with those who glory in face, and not in heart. For if we are excessive in mind, it is for God; but if we are sober, it is for you.

For the charity of Christ urges us on, in consideration of this: that if one died for all, then all have died. And Christ died for all, so that even those who live might not now live for themselves, but for him who died for them and who rose again. And so, from now on, we know no one according to the flesh. And though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know him in this way no longer.

So if anyone is a new creature in Christ, what is old has passed away. Behold, all things have been made new. But all is of God, who has reconciled us to himself through Christ, and who has given us the ministry of reconciliation. For certainly God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, not charging them with their sins. And he has placed in us the Word of reconciliation.

Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, so that God is exhorting through us. We beseech you for Christ: be reconciled to God. For God made him who did not know sin to be sin for us, so that we might become the justice of God in him. (II Corinthians 5:1-21)​

So let's see what Albert Barnes says about the clause in verse 14

That if one died for all. On the supposition that one died for all; or taking it for granted that one died for all, then it follows that all were dead. The "one" who died for all here is undoubtedly the Lord Jesus. The word "for" (υπερ) means, in the place of, in the stead of. See Phm 1:13, and 2Cor 5:20 of this chapter. It means that Christ took the place of sinners, and died in their stead; that he endured what was an ample equivalent for all the punishment which would be inflicted if they were to suffer the just penalty of the law; that he endured so much suffering, and that God by his great substituted sorrows made such an expression of his hatred of sin, as to answer the same end in expressing his sense of the evil of sin, and in restraining others from transgression, the guilty were personally to suffer the full penalty of the law. If this was done, of course the guilty might be pardoned and saved, since all the ends which could be accomplished by their destruction have been accomplished by the substituted sufferings of the Lord Jesus. Rom 3:25, Rom 3:26, where this subject is considered at length, The phrase "for all," (υπερπαντων,) obviously means for all mankind; for every man. This is an exceedingly important expression in regard to the extent of the atonement which the Lord Jesus made; and while it proves that his death was vicarious, that is, in the place of others, and for their sake, it demonstrates also that the atonement was general, and had, in itself considered, no limitation, and no particular reference to any class or condition of men, and no particular applicability to one class more than to another. There was nothing in the nature of the atonement that limited it to any one class or condition; there was nothing in the design that made it, in itself, any more applicable to one portion of mankind than to another. And whatever may be true in regard. to the fact as to its actual applicability, or in regard to the purpose of God to apply it, it is demonstrated by this passage that his death had an original applicability to all, and that the merits of that death were sufficient to save all. ​

Albert Barnes has more to say and it is chiefly devoted to refuting the misinterpretations that are offered by yourself, Mennosota, and I can post the rest of his comments in another post to follow this one but the core of the teaching in the passage and the argument presented by Albert Barnes shows just how distorted the views that you present here in CH are.

Good for both of you!
You are actually discussing SCRIPTURE without playing Scripture pong.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Good for both of you!
You are actually discussing SCRIPTURE without playing Scripture pong.

What a boon it would be if you also discussed what holy scripture says instead of offering a wall of disconnected texts bereft of context and apparently forming a thematic study according to your theological tradition but not according to mine.

 

[atpollard]

What a boon it would be if you also discussed what holy scripture says instead of offering a wall of disconnected texts bereft of context and apparently forming a thematic study according to your theological tradition but not according to mine.

After 870 posts, can I possibly offer anything new to this beaten to death horse?

In general attempts to discuss scripture only gets me quotes from the Catholic Catechism or the same tirade on 'Calvinism, Anabaptists, 400 years & 1500 years', so I quit trying.

 

[MoreCoffee]

After 870 posts, can I possibly offer anything new to this beaten to death horse?

In general attempts to discuss scripture only gets me quotes from the Catholic Catechism or the same tirade on 'Calvinism, Anabaptists, 400 years & 1500 years', so I quit trying.

I only quote the catechism when asked for Catholic teaching or when an alleged Catholic teaching in another person's posts is incorrect. And I occasionally start a thread with material from a Catholic source or history or something that gained my attention. But when people are willing to engage with me without posturing or alleging that they know Catholic beliefs better than I or that some vaguely remembered teaching from their school years is an official dogma of the Catholic Church then I will happily respond respectfully and informatively if I can otherwise, when they claim that Sister Mary taught such and such so that is what Catholics teach officially, I am tempted to respond with humour or with sarcasm suited to the level of disrespect in the post to which I reply.

Consider how I deal with your posts when they are informative about your beliefs and not aiming to attack mine. Then consider why I might respond with a degree of contempt when your posts show contempt for the things that I believe. I usually make an effort to keep my contempt for the things written rather than the person writing them but I admit that occasions arise when the writer is so frequent an abuser of all things Catholic and so contrary from post to post that I just cannot maintain a neutral helpful attitude and just reply in kind.

So let me make a proposal and see if you want to agree to it. You refrain from telling me what I allegedly believe or what the Catholic Church allegedly teaches - unless you want to quote from some good source such as the CCC and propose an interpretation of it without making it into a slur - and if I reply to your post I will do so with as much alacrity and respect as your posts evidenced. Is that a deal?

 

[Josiah]

Read what God literally says.... Read them all together.... Actually read (and believe) the words.....


First John 2:2

Hebrews 2:9

Titus 2:11

1 Timothy 4:10

John 3:14-16

John 4:42

Acts 2:21

Isaiah 53:6

2 Corinthians 5:14-15

1 Timothy 2:4

2 Peter 3:9

Read these.... together.... what impression do you get?


.

After 870 posts, can I possibly offer anything new

Correct.


For over 400 years, radical Calvinists have been looking for the verse that states, "Actually, that's not true, Jesus did NOT die for all but for ONLY SOME." They can't seem to find it. We all know why.


For 1500+ years, 100% of Christians (and since, 99% +) have accepted what Scripture states, what the Ecumenical Council of Orange declared. When a few later-day radical Calvinists invented TULIP (a nice, tight, interdependent but unbiblical system), they also created this idea that Jesus died for only some, in direct contradiction of what the Bible and the faith of Christians and the Ecumenical Council state. But they can't find any Scripture that states that. So they just ask themselves questions revealing they have a hard time accepting what Scripture states. Even their saint, Dr. Sproul, entirely dodges the entire dogma for 22 minuites (never even admitting what it is, never actually stating it) just noting it is the most rejected part of TULIP by Calvinists, the most controversal part of TULIP and quoting a couple of Scriptures with which it conflicts.





.

 

[atpollard]

Correct.
For over 400 years, radical Calvinists have been looking for the verse that states, "Actually, that's not true, Jesus did NOT die for all but for ONLY SOME." They can't seem to find it. We all know why.

For 1500+ years, 100% of Christians (and since, 99% +) have accepted what Scripture states, what the Ecumenical Council of Orange declared. When a few later-day radical Calvinists invented TULIP (a nice, tight, interdependent but unbiblical system), they also created this idea that Jesus died for only some, in direct contradiction of what the Bible and the faith of Christians and the Ecumenical Council state. But they can't find any Scripture that states that. So they just ask themselves questions revealing they have a hard time accepting what Scripture states. Even their saint, Dr. Sproul, entirely dodges the entire dogma for 22 minuites (never even admitting what it is, never actually stating it) just noting it is the most rejected part of TULIP by Calvinists, the most controversal part of TULIP and quoting a couple of Scriptures with which it conflicts.
.

You are rude, arrogant and oblivious to your own hypocrisy.
I am still waiting for those "many" verses which you falsely claim "literally", "explicitly" and "verbatim" state "Jesus died for all".
Try meeting your own standard. In 2019 years, no one has produced the verse you claim is ubiquitous.

For the record, there is also no verse that uses the word "Trinity" but that doesn't prove that the doctrine of the Trinity is false. You just refuse to accept anything except the specific wording you have demanded others produce rather than discuss the actual merits of the opposing doctrines based on actual scriptures.

 

[Josiah]

I am still waiting for those "many" verses which you falsely claim....

"..... Jesus did not die for all but rather for ONLY SOME." Calvinists have been looking for it for over 400 years.....




Here's just a few of the Scriptures that teach the opposite of your dogma:


First John 2:2 "He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world Whole world.


Hebrews 2:9 "by the grace of God he tasted death for everyone. Everyone


1 Timothy 4:10 "we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe. All people.


John 4:42 "we know that this is indeed the Savior of the world.” The world.


2 Corinthians 5:15 "he died for all" All


Hebrews 2:9 "namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone. Everyone.


1 Timothy 2:4 "God desires all people to be saved." All


Titus 2:11 "For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people." All people


2 Peter 3:9 "The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish


Just a few.... And note, not just one. Not just from one biblical book or author.


Now, can you be the first Calvinist ever (in over 400 years) to present a Scripture that states "Jesus died not for all but rather for ONLY SOME?"

Can you find a verse relating to His death that even contains the words "only" "few" "some" ? SURE, you can radically spin a LOT of verses to insist they MEAN the exact opposite of what they actually state, but using that rubric, one can prove every error under the sun.




.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I am still waiting for those "many" verses which you falsely claim....]/quote]

Your post is broken at the place indicated with bold red text. The way to fix it is to replace it with [/quote]

 

[atpollard]

"..... Jesus did not die for all but rather for ONLY SOME." Calvinists have been looking for it for over 400 years.....
Here's just a few of the Scriptures that teach the opposite of your dogma:

First John 2:2 "He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world Whole world.
Hebrews 2:9 "by the grace of God he tasted death for everyone. Everyone
1 Timothy 4:10 "we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe. All people.
John 4:42 "we know that this is indeed the Savior of the world.” The world.
2 Corinthians 5:15 "he died for all" All
Hebrews 2:9 "namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone. Everyone.
1 Timothy 2:4 "God desires all people to be saved." All
Titus 2:11 "For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people." All people
2 Peter 3:9 "The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish

Just a few.... And note, not just one. Not just from one biblical book or author.

... but still no verse that "literally", "explicitly" and "verbatim" states "Jesus died for all" as you claim MANY do.
The claim that "MANY verses literally, explicitly and verbatim state 'Jesus died for all'" is a modern dogma invented by ONE RADICAL LUTHERAN on CF and a belief not held by the entire Christian Church in the first 2000 years.

quid pro quo

 

[Josiah]

atpollard,


See post 875.


Hebrews 2:9 "by the grace of God he tasted death for everyone." Everyone. He died for EVERYONE. Not "He did NOT taste death for everyone but rather for ONLY A FEW."

2 Corinthians 5:15 "he died for all" All. Not "He did not die for all but rather for ONLY A FEW."

Hebrews 2:9 "namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone." Everyone. Not, "He did NOT taste death for everyone but rather for ONLY SOME."


" The whole world" (First John 2:2)
" Everyone" (Hebrews 2:9)
" He died for all" (2 Corinthians 5:15)
" He tasted death for everyone" (Hebrews 2:9)


Etc., etc., etc., etc, etc.


How, see if you can be the first person on the planet Earth to find the Scripture that states, "Actually Jesus did not die for all but rather for ONLY SOME."





.

 

[atpollard]

atpollard,
See post 875.

I saw it. I even saw it when you posted those same verses earlier.

... but still no verse that "literally", "explicitly" and "verbatim" states "Jesus died for all" as you claim MANY do.
The claim that "MANY verses literally, explicitly and verbatim state 'Jesus died for all'" is a modern dogma invented by ONE RADICAL LUTHERAN on CF and a belief not held by the entire Christian Church in the first 2000 years.

Perhaps this will help:
"literally" = in a literal manner or sense; exactly.
"literal" = taking words in their usual or most basic sense without metaphor or allegory [or] (of a translation) representing the exact words of the original text
"explicitly" = in a clear and detailed manner, leaving no room for confusion or doubt
"verbatim" = in exactly the same words as were used originally

I am still waiting for those many verses that literally, explicitly and verbatim state "Jesus died for all", or for you to admit that nowhere in the Bible is there a verse that states "Jesus died for all".

quid pro quo

 

[Josiah]

atpollard, I didn't put all of them in one quote. But nice dodge.....


Let's try again:


Here's just a few of the Scriptures that teach the opposite of your dogma:


First John 2:2 "He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world." "Whole world".


Hebrews 2:9 "by the grace of God he tasted death for everyone. "Everyone"


1 Timothy 4:10 "we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe." "All people".


John 4:42 "we know that this is indeed the Savior of the world.” "The world".


2 Corinthians 5:15 "he died for all" "All"


Hebrews 2:9 "namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone". "Everyone."


1 Timothy 2:4 "God desires all people to be saved." "All people"


Titus 2:11 "For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people." "All people"


Just a few.... there are more. And note, not just one. Not just from one biblical book or author.



Now, can you be the first Calvinist ever (in over 400 years) to present even one Scripture that states "Jesus died not for all but rather for ONLY SOME?" Be the first!

Can you find a verse relating to His death that even contains the words "only" "few" "some" ?

SURE, you can radically spin a LOT of verses to insist they MEAN the exact opposite of what they actually state, but using that rubric, one can prove every error under the sun.





.