Calvinism Vs Arminian

[MennoSota]

No I never said that, the atonement is for the world and all who are alive in it, we are all same and equal sinners therefore all have the opportunity to accept the gift of living waters or reject it, like I said, rejecting it means that you condemn yourself and that you are responsible for the sins you have committed and the wage is death where you got to hell/hades, the second death is the lake of fire, what we originally all deserved woe to them..

If the atonement is for all, then all are atoned.
Any "but" or "if" makes it limited.

Why does Christ knock on doors? Why not just walk right in? God wants a response, accept or reject.
Yey or ney, there is no in between

Revelation 3:16 is written to the church, to Christians. The knocking is at the door of those who are already saved.
When God chooses to save someone, that someone will never be able to resist. God wills that they are saved. He will relentlessly pursue them. All the Father has given to Jesus, Jesus will save.

 

[Andrew]

Andrew, are humans perfect and holy or have they been born under the curse of sin?
What is the wages of sin?
Not everyone gets the same opportunity. Recall the island off India where other humans are not allowed. Those person's never get to hear about Jesus. Can God hold their sins against them? Absolutely. We all, like sheep have gone astray.
Only those whom God has chosen will believe. The rest will consider rescue to be foolish. When God comes near, like Adam and Eve, they will hide from His presence. They are accountable for their sins. God is NOT obligated to save rebels. He has never said He will save all humans. Therefore...not all humans have their sins atoned for. The Bible always teaches limited atonement. Context is the key.

Those rebels need Christ no less than you or I do Menno, the gospel is to be preached to all nations unto the end of the earth, confess and repent and you are saved, of course God will not allow devils into heaven, of course God will take up the Body and all of his Elect believers and cast those who rejected him into the pit.
The end is yet to come, and it seems near, this world is in need of Christ

 

[MennoSota]

Those rebels need Christ no less than you or I do Menno, the gospel is to be preached to all nations unto the end of the earth, confess and repent and you are saved, of course God will not allow devils into heaven, of course God will take up the Body and all of his Elect believers and cast those who rejected him into the pit.
The end is yet to come, and it seems near, this world is in need of Christ

Of course all humans need Christ. We preach the message of the gospel to everyone. God didn't tatoo an "E" on the chest of those whom He has elected.
God's election, however, means that we don't take it personally if a person rejects the gospel. We cannot win them over by superior logic or argument. Only God can save them. We fulfill our role as Ambassadors of reconciliation. God fulfills His role as Savior.
Do you realize that Calvinists/Reformed believers are some of the most dedicated mission-minded people with the spectrum of Christianity? The task is taken on with joy and humble obedience that God might use us as a vessel to bring reconciliation to those whom He wills.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I see, so it comes down to Calvinist traditions about penal substitutionary atonement.

Nope, it comes down to scripture.

Which passages in holy scripture?

No reply so far.

No scriptures to show that penal substitutionary atonement is from holy scripture.

Kind of makes the L in TULIP fade away … TU.IP.

Let's see how the I goes now. Irresistible grace; being, according to some, God giving the grace of salvation to the elect so that they cannot possibly refuse, resist, or lose that grace no matter what they do, think, and say.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=arrDCLdMqvg

 

[MennoSota]

No reply so far.

No scriptures to show that penal substitutionary atonement is from holy scripture.

Kind of makes the L in TULIP fade away … TU.IP.

Let's see how the I goes now. Irresistible grace; being, according to some, God giving the grace of salvation to the elect so that they cannot possibly refuse, resist, or lose that grace no matter what they do, think, and say.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=arrDCLdMqvg

Penal? That must be a Roman term. Does it mean someone substitutes their penal for another penal?

Much scripture has already been addressed regarding particular/limited atonement. I'm not sure why you cannot read?

 

[MoreCoffee]

Penal? That must be a Roman term. Does it mean someone substitutes their penal for another penal?

Much scripture has already been addressed regarding particular/limited atonement. I'm not sure why you cannot read?

It is the same word used to describe the system of prisons - the penal system.

Penal substitutionary atonement. Penal substitutionary atonement refers to the erroneous doctrine that Christ died on the cross as a substitute for sinners.

 

[MennoSota]

So...verses like this?
Isaiah 53
He was pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his wounds we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned—every one—to his own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us*all"

Hebrews 9:11-28
But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation) he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption. For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the sprinkling of defiled persons with the ashes of a heifer, sanctify for the purification of the flesh, how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God. Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant. For where a will is involved, the death of the one who made it must be established. For a will takes effect only at death, since it is not in force as long as the one who made it is alive. Therefore not even the first covenant was inaugurated without blood. For when every commandment of the law had been declared by Moses to all the people, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, saying, “This is the blood of the covenant that God commanded for you.” And in the same way he sprinkled with the blood both the tent and all the vessels used in worship. Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins. Thus it was necessary for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these rites, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf. Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own, for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment, so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.
Mark 10:45
For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

Colossians 2:13-15
And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him.

John 15:13
Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends.

 

[MennoSota]

https://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/penal-substitution/

 

[MoreCoffee]

So...verses like this?
Isaiah 53
He was pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his wounds we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned—every one—to his own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us*all"

The Lord, Jesus Christ, being pierced on behalf of others and crushed for their benefit is not being their substitute. I can see why you may think of it as substitution but Isaiah 53:5 does not suggest that Christ substituted for you. He suffered on your behalf and for your benefit. That is a distinct concept from substitution. And since your theology is built on the concept of substitution rather than on the concept of beneficial suffering and beneficial actions on behalf of the faithful I do not accept the theology you present because it is not what the holy scriptures teach.

Hebrews 9:11-28
But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation) he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption. For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the sprinkling of defiled persons with the ashes of a heifer, sanctify for the purification of the flesh, how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God. Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant. For where a will is involved, the death of the one who made it must be established. For a will takes effect only at death, since it is not in force as long as the one who made it is alive. Therefore not even the first covenant was inaugurated without blood. For when every commandment of the law had been declared by Moses to all the people, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, saying, “This is the blood of the covenant that God commanded for you.” And in the same way he sprinkled with the blood both the tent and all the vessels used in worship. Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins. Thus it was necessary for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these rites, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf. Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own, for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment, so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.

See my pervious comment. Hebrews 9:11-28 also teaches about beneficial suffering and beneficial actions on behalf of the faithful. It is not substation.

Mark 10:45
For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

Once again Mark 10:45 is about doing something on behalf of another and not about substituting for them.

Colossians 2:13-15
And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him.

Colossians 2:13-15 has no teaching about substitution, it is about God acting for the benefit of the faithful in the life, death, resurrection, and second advent of the Lord Jesus Christ.

John 15:13
Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends.

John 15:13 No one has a greater love than this: that he lay down his life on behalf of his friends.

What more need be said; this is action on behalf of the faithful (Christ's friends) not substitution for them.

 

[MennoSota]

The Lord, Jesus Christ, being pierced on behalf of others and crushed for their benefit is not being their substitute. I can see why you may think of it as substitution but Isaiah 53:5 does not suggest that Christ substituted for you. He suffered on your behalf and for your benefit. That is a distinct concept from substitution. And since your theology is built on the concept of substitution rather than on the concept of beneficial suffering and beneficial actions on behalf of the faithful I do not accept the theology you present because it is not what the holy scriptures teach.

See my pervious comment. Hebrews 9:11-28 also teaches about beneficial suffering and beneficial actions on behalf of the faithful. It is not substation.

Once again Mark 10:45 is about doing something on behalf of another and not about substituting for them.

Colossians 2:13-15 has no teaching about substitution, it is about God acting for the benefit of the faithful in the life, death, resurrection, and second advent of the Lord Jesus Christ.



John 15:13 No one has a greater love than this: that he lay down his life on behalf of his friends.

What more need be said; this is action on behalf of the faithful (Christ's friends) not substitution for them.

Based upon your thoughts, it seems like Jesus died for no reason. Men are perfect and must prove to God their worthiness by their great deeds. You and Muslims must love each other as atonement is unneeded.

 

[Josiah]

What is the "L" in TULIP?


For months, for MANY and countless posts, MennoSota said it is this: "Jesus died only for the elect, not everyone." He entitled one of his threads on this with "Jesus died only for the church." And constantly, those who have argued that He died for all have been ridiculed, mocked, condemned, told they contradict themselves and are illogical

Now he claims the dogma is something ENTIRELY different, "Limited atonement means that only those whom God has given faith have their sins removed (atoned for) so that they are made holy." He claims Lutherans actually are 100% correct on this (Lutherans strongly teach that Jesus died for all)




Let's see what Calvinists say this dogma is, this "L" in TULIP.....


Tim Challies https://www.challies.com/articles/the-l-in-tulip/

Limited Atonement is that "Jesus took the sins only of the elect upon Himself on the Cross." He goes on to say the issue is that He did NOT die for all.


Ligonier Ministries https://www.ligonier.org/blog/tulip-...ted-atonement/

Limited Atonment is that, "Christ died only for His sheep; he laid down his life only for those whom the Father had given to him."


Matt Slick https://carm.org/what-is-tulip-in-calvinism

Limited Atonement is that, "Christ bore the sins of only the elect and not of everyone."


Calvinist Corner https://www.calvinistcorner.com/tulip.htm

Limited Atonement teaches that "Jesus died only for the elect."


Center for Reformed Theology and Apologetics https://reformed.org/calvinism/

Limited atonement is the doctrine that "Jesus did not die for all. He died for many but not all."


And what has MennoSota said it is? "Christ died only for the church."


So that's the issue of the "L". The issue is this: Did Jesus die for all or for just a limited few? The issue is NOT did His death result in the salvation of everyone irregardless of faith? (A position many hyper-Calvinists took but not this one), the issue is not "is faith limited to some" the issue is EXACTLY as MennoSota has said, as Calvinists for over 400 years have said: Did Christ died for only a limited few or for all? Don't allow the perpetual shell game to confuse, there is one issue here: Did Christ die for all or for a LIMITED few?






Quote Originally Posted by MennoSota
God does not do what you are claiming. He does not atone and then later take it back and declare guilty

Ah, another of your ploys.....


If you can FALSELY claim (you just make stuff up) that someone else said something wrong, that makes you right. You lack of logic amazes me.


Quote me where I claimed that..... you know you can't. We all know you can't. Just like a long list of other things you insist I posted but never remotely did.


Because NEVER in my entirely life have I said ANYTHING REMOTELY like that heretical nonsense, and I think everyone knows it. In ALL this discussion, I have STRESSED the role of faith and I never once said "take back" in this context, not once, not ever. In fact, I've never once said that God takes back ANYTHING from ANYONE. How do you make this stuff up?


HERE'S what I said, "Jesus died for all." The opposite of what you said. You ridiculed that, mocked that, condemned that, called it illogical, called it a contradiction, claimed it was against Scripture, said that makes me a synergistic Arminianist. And all the verses in the Bible that obviously, undeniably state exactly that, you had to twist 180 degrees, upside down and inside out, deleting the words that state He died for all and replace them with "a limited few, not all."


Your position: "Jesus died for ONLY, EXCLUSIVELY, SOLELY, JUST a LIMITED few."
MY position : "Jesus died for all." You called this illogical, contradictory, heretical, synergistic and Arminianistic.

Now, I noted over and over and over that this doesn't benefit all because not all have faith, but yes, He died for all. I gave several illustrations, I gave many Scriptures, I expressed this in countless ways, but it remains true what Scripture says: Jesus died for all. I not only never said but entirely rejected the idea that any are saved without faith (I noted, THAT view is an outgrowth of hyper-Calvinism). I have constantly said that faith matters and noted that you keep evading it. I'm not teaching universalism (again, that's an outgrowth of hyper-Calvinism), I'm teaching that Jesus died for all. You've been repudiating, ridiculing, condemning that position for MONTHS, in thread after thread, on and on and on.




.

Josiah, you are claiming the same thing as Calvinists (limited atonement)

You "logic" constantly amazes me....


Pray tell, explain how the two following statements are "the same thing:

Jesus died ONLY, EXCLUSIVELY, SOLELY, JUST for the LIMITED few
Jesus died for everyone.


Explain how the two following positions are "the same thing" in your logic:

Jesus did not died for everyone
Jesus died for everyone.


Hyper-Calvinists CERTAINLY have a strange sense of "logic." And you have repeatedly called ME "illogical". Amazing.


Most of the rest of TULIP is just as silly, just as illogical, just as unbiblical.


.

 

[MennoSota]

You "logic" constantly amazes me....


Pray tell, explain how the two following statements are "the same thing:

They aren't the same. They are entirely different.

Jesus died ONLY, EXCLUSIVELY, SOLELY, JUST for the LIMITED few

Jesus died for those whom the Father had given him, those who were chosen before the foundation of the world.

Jesus died for everyone.

Jesus death atoned for all humans and made them holy by his sacrifice for everyone.

Explain how the two following positions are "the same thing" in your logic:

They aren't the same.

Jesus did not died for everyone

Jesus died for those the Father has given him, for those who were chosen before the foundation of the world

Jesus died for everyone.

All humans are made holy and their sins care atoned for.

Hyper-Calvinists CERTAINLY have a strange sense of "logic."

No one has ever claimed the phrases you used are the same thing. Are you feeling okay? Do you need to see a doctor?

And you have repeatedly called ME "illogical".

With good reason, it seems. You have made statements here that no human has made besides you. What you have stated makes no sense at all. Do you need a doctor?

Most of the rest of TULIP is just as silly, just as illogical, just as unbiblical.

This is another silly and ignorant claim. I am concerned for your mental health, Josiah. You don't seem well at all with these claims. Is this why you mostly cut and paste?

 

[Josiah]

My position: Christ died for everyone.

Your position: Christ died for only, exclusively, solely, only for just a limited few. (The "L" of TULIP)

Josiah, you are claiming the same thing as Calvinists (limited atonement).

They aren't the same. They are opposites


.

They aren't the same. They are entirely different.

Correct.

I am concerned for your mental health, Josiah.

I'm concerned for your logic when you insist they are the same thing.


We all know what the "L" dogma is of these tiny number of latter-day hyper-Calvinists. And we've shown how illogical and unbiblical it is. Your attempt to say, "ah, but you are saying the same thing" then your admission that we're saying "entirely different things" does give pause to wonder about you, my friend.




.

 

[MennoSota]

Correct.







I'm concerned for your logic when you insist they are the same thing.
.

Once again, you seem to be struggling with the reality that I never called them the same.
You are the one making a false claim. Are you okay?

We all know what the "L" dogma is of these tiny number of latter-day hyper-Calvinists.

This is your claim and only your claim.

And we've shown how illogical and unbiblical it is.

Really? So your claim that all the sins of the world are atoned for, meaning all humanity has been made holy in the sight of God, but then God turns around and says "Whoa, not so fast. I take it back if you haven't been given faith. If you have no faith, your sins still condemn you...even though I atoned for them." That claim, which you make, is logical and biblical? Really?

Your attempt to say, "ah, but you are saying the same thing" then your admission that we're saying "entirely different things" does give pause to wonder about you, my friend.

The problem is that you say two different things.
1) You claim all human sins were atoned for by Jesus...not just potentially, but effectively so that all humans are made holy. (This is unlimited atonement.)
2) You claim that only those who are given faith are justified and made holy by God. You make salvation exclusive so that the atonement is only effective for those who have faith to believe. (This is limited atonement.)
So with one sentence you claim unlimited atonement and with the next sentence you claim limited atonement.
You are all mixed up. Is this the result of poor teaching in your church or poor comprehension of scripture? Or is it both?

 

[Josiah]

.

 

[Josiah]

Jesus died for everyone


.

This is your claim and only your claim.

Well, on this point.

your claim that all the sins of the world are atoned for, meaning all humanity has been made holy in the sight of God, but then God turns around and says "Whoa, not so fast. I take it back

No.


My position is that Jesus died for everyone.
Your position is that Jesus died for only, exclusively, solely, just a limited few.


What you made up there is pure hogwash - something NO ONE at CH (or in the world to my knowledge) have EVER believed, taught, confessed or posted. You just make it up. You do that a lot. You apply a supposed logic that you can make up pure falsehood and attribute it to someone (then show what a stupid idea you invented) ERGO you must be right. You do that a lot. You really need to consider the validity and logic of that.

Here's my position: Jesus died for everyone (Because it's exactly what the Bible verbatim and often states)
Here's your position: Jesus died for only, exclusively, solely, just a limited view (you haven't found a verse yet that states that)

The problem is that you say two different things.
1) You claim all human sins were atoned for by Jesus...not just potentially, but effectively so that all humans are made holy.

I've never said that. Never. Not remotely.

THAT position actually comes out of hyper-Calvinism. If you visit New England, you will find many Universalism churches. Virtually all of them used to be hyper-Calvinists churches (including the one in Plymouth founded by the Pilgrims).

What I've said is that Christ died for all. Just as the Bible says. Just as 2000 years of Christianity has said.
What you've said is that Christ died only, exclusively, solely, just for a limited few. Although you can't find anything in Scripture that teaches that.

2) You claim that only those who are given faith are justified

Yup. Different topic for another day and thread, but yes.

So you claim limited atonement

No.

Let's try this again....

MY Position: Jesus died for everyone
YOUR position: Jesus died only, exclusively, solely, just for a limited few.


This is the "L" of TULIP and the issue we are discussing -


What is Limited Atonement":


Tim Challies https://www.challies.com/articles/the-l-in-tulip/

Limited Atonement is that "Jesus took the sins only of the elect upon Himself on the Cross." He goes on to say the issue is that He did NOT die for all.


Ligonier Ministries https://www.ligonier.org/blog/tulip-...ted-atonement/


Limited Atonment is that, "Christ died only for His sheep; he laid down his life only for those whom the Father had given to him."


Matt Slick https://carm.org/what-is-tulip-in-calvinism


Limited Atonement is that, "Christ bore the sins of only the elect and not of everyone."


Calvinist Corner https://www.calvinistcorner.com/tulip.htm

Limited Atonement teaches that "Jesus died only for the elect."


Center for Reformed Theology and Apologetics https://reformed.org/calvinism/

Limited atonement is the doctrine that "Jesus did not die for all. He died for many but not all."


And of course, this is how you yourself defined it: "Christ died only for the church." You even entitled one of your threads on this with those verbatim words.


Friend, it is illogical (and silly) to argue that this "L" that nearly everyone (including virtually call Calvinists repudiate, calling it "hyper-Calvinism") and my position are "the same thing" (as you've repeatedly done). It simply is NOT true that "Jesus died for everyone" and "Jesus died for only, exclusively, solely, just for a limited few (and thus likely not you or me)" is the "same thing."




.

 

[MennoSota]

Well, on this point.







No.


My position is that Jesus died for everyone.
Your position is that Jesus died for only, exclusively, solely, just a limited few.


What you made up there is pure hogwash - something NO ONE at CH (or in the world to my knowledge) have EVER believed, taught, confessed or posted. You just make it up. You do that a lot. You apply a supposed logic that you can make up pure falsehood and attribute it to someone (then show what a stupid idea you invented) ERGO you must be right. You do that a lot. You really need to consider the validity and logic of that.

Here's my position: Jesus died for everyone (Because it's exactly what the Bible verbatim and often states)
Here's your position: Jesus died for only, exclusively, solely, just a limited view (you haven't found a verse yet that states that)






I've never said that. Never. Not remotely.

THAT position actually comes out of hyper-Calvinism. If you visit New England, you will find many Universalism churches. Virtually all of them used to be hyper-Calvinists churches (including the one in Plymouth founded by the Pilgrims).

What I've said is that Christ died for all. Just as the Bible says. Just as 2000 years of Christianity has said.
What you've said is that Christ died only, exclusively, solely, just for a limited few. Although you can't find anything in Scripture that teaches that.






Yup. Different topic for another day and thread, but yes.






No.

Let's try this again....

MY Position: Jesus died for everyone
YOUR position: Jesus died only, exclusively, solely, just for a limited few.


This is the "L" of TULIP and the issue we are discussing -


What is Limited Atonement":


Tim Challies https://www.challies.com/articles/the-l-in-tulip/

Limited Atonement is that "Jesus took the sins only of the elect upon Himself on the Cross." He goes on to say the issue is that He did NOT die for all.


Ligonier Ministries https://www.ligonier.org/blog/tulip-...ted-atonement/


Limited Atonment is that, "Christ died only for His sheep; he laid down his life only for those whom the Father had given to him."


Matt Slick https://carm.org/what-is-tulip-in-calvinism


Limited Atonement is that, "Christ bore the sins of only the elect and not of everyone."


Calvinist Corner https://www.calvinistcorner.com/tulip.htm

Limited Atonement teaches that "Jesus died only for the elect."


Center for Reformed Theology and Apologetics https://reformed.org/calvinism/

Limited atonement is the doctrine that "Jesus did not die for all. He died for many but not all."


And of course, this is how you yourself defined it: "Christ died only for the church." You even entitled one of your threads on this with those verbatim words.


Friend, it is illogical (and silly) to argue that this "L" that nearly everyone (including virtually call Calvinists repudiate, calling it "hyper-Calvinism") and my position are "the same thing" (as you've repeatedly done). It simply is NOT true that "Jesus died for everyone" and "Jesus died for only, exclusively, solely, just for a limited few (and thus likely not you or me)" is the "same thing."




.

So...your belief is that Jesus died for everyone, but only atoned for those who have faith?
You make no sense, Josiah. I cannot wrap my mind around your nonsense.

 

[MennoSota]

If Jesus died for all, atoned for all sins, then the ONLY conclusion is that ALL are saved.
Any addition of "but" or "if" makes the atonement limited.
This is a fact.
But, [MENTION=13]Josiah[/MENTION] utterly rejects fact.

 

[Josiah]

So...your belief is that Jesus died for everyone, but only atoned for those who have faith?

Although off topic, my position is that of Scripture and the Reformation: Sola Gratia - Solus Christus - Sola Fide. God loves all, Christ died for all, the divine gift of faith apprehends/trusts/relies/receives that.


Now, back to the issue:

My position: Jesus died for all.
"L": Jesus died for only, exclusively, solely, just a limited few.

I'll go with the one the Bible teaches. There's MANY that VERBATIM state Jesus died for all. You can't find even one that says He only died for a few (and thus, likely, odds are, not you)

If Jesus died for all then the ONLY conclusion is that ALL are saved.

Only if you abandon Scripture and denounce Sola Gratia - Solus Christus - Sola Fide. Your neglect if faith is exactly what lead so many hyper-Calvinists to invent Universalism. The insistence to delete the divine gift of faith, to regard faith as irrelevant and necessary, is truly strange but common in Calvinism.


Now, do you have a verse that says "Jesus died only (THAT'S the issue of the "L" in TULIP) for the church?" Because many of us here at CH have presented MANY, MANY Scriptures that verbatim state that Christ died for all. Now, they don't say ERGO all are saved regardless of faith, but that's a view that came out of Calvinism.




A former Calvinist on this issue: https://www.scribd.com/document/102...lvinist-Arguments-Against-Universal-Atonement






.

 

[MoreCoffee]

The Lord, Jesus Christ, being pierced on behalf of others and crushed for their benefit is not being their substitute. I can see why you may think of it as substitution but Isaiah 53:5 does not suggest that Christ substituted for you. He suffered on your behalf and for your benefit. That is a distinct concept from substitution. And since your theology is built on the concept of substitution rather than on the concept of beneficial suffering and beneficial actions on behalf of the faithful I do not accept the theology you present because it is not what the holy scriptures teach.

See my pervious comment. Hebrews 9:11-28 also teaches about beneficial suffering and beneficial actions on behalf of the faithful. It is not substation.

Once again Mark 10:45 is about doing something on behalf of another and not about substituting for them.

Colossians 2:13-15 has no teaching about substitution, it is about God acting for the benefit of the faithful in the life, death, resurrection, and second advent of the Lord Jesus Christ.



John 15:13 No one has a greater love than this: that he lay down his life on behalf of his friends.

What more need be said; this is action on behalf of the faithful (Christ's friends) not substitution for them.

Based upon your thoughts, it seems like Jesus died for no reason. Men are perfect and must prove to God their worthiness by their great deeds. You and Muslims must love each other as atonement is unneeded.

I had to place the two posts next to each other so that I could be sure that you really wrote what you did after reading what was said in my post. It's an amazing case of theological myopathy or maybe theological blindness. Christ died for our sins, according to the Scriptures; and he was buried; and he rose again on the third day, according to the Scriptures; so Catholics preach, and so the faithful have believed.