Jesus Christ, died for all

[Josiah]

[MENTION=394]MennoSota[/MENTION]



Josiah is not joining a tiny number of extreme Calvinists in deleting faith from justification.... in repudiating Sola Gratia - Solus Christus - Sola Fide.


There is no justification apart from faith, there is no faithless salvation. These Calvinists who embraced such ended up created Universalism. Yes, what Jesus did is REAL (not mostly a fraud, a fake) but it does not result in all being saved since not all have the divine gift of faith. Read John 3:16. Faith is not moot. Faith must grasp something REAL.... but it must grasp/apprehend/trust/rely, which is why God calls us to faith, which is why God gives faith. Faith would be worthless if for most there is nothing REAL for it to grasp/trust/rely - so something must be THERE but it must be grasped/trusted/relied upon.

In Josiah's theology, humans, made perfect by Jesus shed blood, are thrown into hell only because they didn't have faith, not because they were sinners.

Wrong.


You have this ploy: When you are stuck, you just accuse someone of some silly position everyone (including you) KNOWS they don't believe.... then because you invented something silly, you can thus show it is wrong... then you hold that ERGO you must be right. Your lack of logic (and honesty) amazes..... That and "the shell game" seem to be your constant companions.


As you yourself know.... as everyone here knows.... I hold to Sola Gratia - Solus Christus - Sola Fide as one, inseparable, united truth. I do NOT delete the last aspect. Yes, Christ did something REAL (not pretend, not fake, not a fraud) but it does NOT apply to any individual if there is no faith (again, Sola Gratia - Solus Christus - Sola Fide is ONE, UNITED, SINGULAR truth). We have given many Scriptures - you've always ignored them, we have given illustrations and examples and parables - to no avail. You KNOW my position but you must replace it with such silly, stupid idea you and everyone else knows is not my position because you simply have nohting to support this new tradition of your singular denomination.



And again, no, there is no contradiction or "dilemma" Again, let's say I buy a Starbucks Gift Card for everyone here at CH. I give them to you all. They are NOT fake, they are NOT pretend, they are NOT frauds, they were NOT stolen and are unpaid for. None are fakes, cruel jokes (none, much less most). But you never use yours. You simply never embraced/apprehended/trusted/replied upon it. Do YOU (as an individual) thus personally benefit from this? No. Does the mere presence of the card mean that ergo hot coffee is pouring down your gullet? No. It simply means you never employed it, never embraced it, never trusted and replied upon it ("pistis" = faith). Is the CARD real for all or a cruel joke for most? Nope, it's real for all. But it must be trusted (trust = faith here). There is no contradiction. There is no "dilemma." Traditional biblical Christianity is NOT illogical or contradictory. It simply is embracing that there is a means by which what Christ actually did (not pretended to do) is applied to an individual, and that means is faith.

In Josiah's theology, there are no sinners.

You know that's a lie. So does everyone else here. How desperate you are.


These absurd accusations and the "shall game" are your constant companions as you simply have nothing else.

All are made perfect by Jesus sacrifice. But...not all are justified because not all are given faith. Non justified perfect beings get thrown into hell, according to Josiah.

Again, I never remotely said any such thing. And you know it. And everyone else does, too.

This is because I don't repudiate Sola Gratia - Solus Christus - Sola Fide. I don't eliminate the role of faith in apprehending/employing/embracing/trusting/relying upon the gift.

No, what Christ did is REAL.

BUT it is received by faith.

Did Christ die for Buddha? Yes. Did Buddha have the faith to receive that, to benefit from that? No.

Friend, whether a person is saved or not is NOT solely, only a case of whether Jesus is offering them something real or a fake, a fraud. There is another factor you deny: faith.

And don't pull the "then you are a synergistic" nonsense, it won't work, everyone here (including you) KNOWS I hold that faith is "the free gift of God" and not something the unregerate creates and gives to self.

TULIP simply has it wrong: The "variable" is not whether Christ is for every person but whether faith is for every person, which is why the Ecumenical Council of Orange notes that Election impacts faith, not the Cross.




The issue here is singular: Did Christ die for all as traditional, biblical, orthodox Christianity holds (as well as every Calvinists personally known to me) OR for only a limited few? THAT'S the only issue here (and as you noted, it's the "L" of TULIP). We have given MANY Scriptures that flat out state our position.... you have yet to present even one Scripture that remotely states this, why, you can't even find a verse that even contains the words "only" or "solely" or "exclusively" or "just" or "few" in related to Christ's death - nothing.




- Josiah





.

 

[MennoSota]

This is a common ploy of yours when you have no other "card" to play.... you accuse people of some silly thing they NEVER REMOTELY SAID and CLEARLY don't believe.... you slander the silly view you invented... and then hold that if that position (no one stated) is wrong, ergo you must be right. Bad logic, my friend. Absurd apologetics.


And you love to play "the shell game." When you feel trapped, you just change the subject. There is ONE and ONLY ONE exclusive issue in this thread: The claim of you and a tiny number of latter-day extreme Calvnists that Jesus died for ONLY a few, ONLY the church, ONLY the elect (the "L" of TULIP) contrasting with the position of tradtional, orthodox, biblical Christianity that Jesus died for all, the everyone. Folks have given you many, many verses that verbatim state the traditional view.... and you have been unable to produce even one Scripture that states the new tradition of one denomination, not one verse about Jesus dying that even has any words like "only" "exclusively" "solely" "just". Nope, not one. You parrot the (almost universally rejected) tradition of your denomination, you try to spin 180 degrees all the Scriptures that obviously flat-out contradict it, but offer not one Scripture that states it. Thus, all the false accusations about what others believe.... the constant shell game.




.





.

It is no ploy. It is no shell game.
You have stated that all humans are made entirely holy, righteous and perfect by the atoning sacrifice of Christ. They are righteous in God's eyes.
You state that only faith or lack of faith keeps a person from going to heaven.
Sin cannot be the factor that condemns a person because, according to you, Jesus fully atoned for all humanities sins.
The only factor you have is faith or no faith...and that is determined solely by God.
So...perfect humans are cast into hell for not having faith.
THAT IS YOUR POSITION!!!
No ploy, no shell game. Just the facts of your own teaching. You have to live with it and own it, not me.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

Non justified perfect beings get thrown into hell, according to Josiah.

Honest question, no agenda. In the grand scheme of 'Limited Atonement' - let's pick a passage, say John 10:27 - isn't it reasonable to conclude that those for whom Jesus' shed blood was not effectual - his atoning sacrifice was not for them, not being one of his sheep - await the same fate? How does this make them different from the person who remains outside the justification of Christ due to their unbelief? The unjustified are in the same state as those from whom Christ's atoning sacrifice was not effectual, true? Or no?

 

[MennoSota]

[MENTION=394]MennoSota[/MENTION]



Josiah is not joining a tiny number of extreme Calvinists in deleting faith from justification.... in repudiating Sola Gratia - Solus Christus - Sola Fide.


There is no justification apart from faith, there is no faithless salvation. These Calvinists who embraced such ended up created Universalism. Yes, what Jesus did is REAL (not mostly a fraud, a fake) but it does not result in all being saved since not all have the divine gift of faith. Read John 3:16. Faith is not moot. Faith must grasp something REAL.... but it must grasp/apprehend/trust/rely, which is why God calls us to faith, which is why God gives faith. Faith would be worthless if for most there is nothing REAL for it to grasp/trust/rely - so something must be THERE but it must be grasped/trusted/relied upon.






Wrong.


You have this ploy: When you are stuck, you just accuse someone of some silly position everyone (including you) KNOWS they don't believe.... then because you invented something silly, you can thus show it is wrong... then you hold that ERGO you must be right. Your lack of logic (and honesty) amazes..... That and "the shell game" seem to be your constant companions.


As you yourself know.... as everyone here knows.... I hold to Sola Gratia - Solus Christus - Sola Fide as one, inseparable, united truth. I do NOT delete the last aspect. Yes, Christ did something REAL (not pretend, not fake, not a fraud) but it does NOT apply to any individual if there is no faith (again, Sola Gratia - Solus Christus - Sola Fide is ONE, UNITED, SINGULAR truth). We have given many Scriptures - you've always ignored them, we have given illustrations and examples and parables - to no avail. You KNOW my position but you must replace it with such silly, stupid idea you and everyone else knows is not my position because you simply have nohting to support this new tradition of your singular denomination.



And again, no, there is no contradiction or "dilemma" Again, let's say I buy a Starbucks Gift Card for everyone here at CH. I give them to you all. They are NOT fake, they are NOT pretend, they are NOT frauds, they were NOT stolen and are unpaid for. None are fakes, cruel jokes (none, much less most). But you never use yours. You simply never embraced/apprehended/trusted/replied upon it. Do YOU (as an individual) thus personally benefit from this? No. Does the mere presence of the card mean that ergo hot coffee is pouring down your gullet? No. It simply means you never employed it, never embraced it, never trusted and replied upon it ("pistis" = faith). Is the CARD real for all or a cruel joke for most? Nope, it's real for all. But it must be trusted (trust = faith here). There is no contradiction. There is no "dilemma." Traditional biblical Christianity is NOT illogical or contradictory. It simply is embracing that there is a means by which what Christ actually did (not pretended to do) is applied to an individual, and that means is faith.







You know that's a lie. So does everyone else here. How desperate you are.


These absurd accusations and the "shall game" are your constant companions as you simply have nothing else.








Again, I never remotely said any such thing. And you know it. And everyone else does, too.

This is because I don't repudiate Sola Gratia - Solus Christus - Sola Fide. I don't eliminate the role of faith in apprehending/employing/embracing/trusting/relying upon the gift.

No, what Christ did is REAL.

BUT it is received by faith.

Did Christ die for Buddha? Yes. Did Buddha have the faith to receive that, to benefit from that? No.

Friend, whether a person is saved or not is NOT solely, only a case of whether Jesus is offering them something real or a fake, a fraud. There is another factor you deny: faith.

And don't pull the "then you are a synergistic" nonsense, it won't work, everyone here (including you) KNOWS I hold that faith is "the free gift of God" and not something the unregerate creates and gives to self.

TULIP simply has it wrong: The "variable" is not whether Christ is for every person but whether faith is for every person, which is why the Ecumenical Council of Orange notes that Election impacts faith, not the Cross.




The issue here is singular: Did Christ die for all as traditional, biblical, orthodox Christianity holds (as well as every Calvinists personally known to me) OR for only a limited few? THAT'S the only issue here (and as you noted, it's the "L" of TULIP). We have given MANY Scriptures that flat out state our position.... you have yet to present even one Scripture that remotely states this, why, you can't even find a verse that even contains the words "only" or "solely" or "exclusively" or "just" or "few" in related to Christ's death - nothing.




- Josiah





.

Of course God's grace is received by faith. We all believe that. Of course we are justified by faith. We all believe that.
We are discussing atonement.
You believe all humans have the entirety of their sins atoned for (effectively). This literally means you believe humans are entirely made righteous by Jesus (effectively...not potentially). Therefore, God sends perfect and righteous humans to hell...only based upon whether he gave them faith or didn't give them faith. This is the FACT of your belief on atonement.
I believe that Christ only atoned the sins of the elect. The elect have the entirety of their sins atoned for (effectively). The elect are entirely made righteous by Jesus (effectively...not potentially). Therefore, God sends condemned sinners to hell due to their sins (which have never been atoned) and because they were never given faith to believe. This is the FACT of my belief on atonement.
You have God condemn those he has made righteous. I have God condemn those who have never been righteous. Both of us believe the righteous are justified by faith, which is given as a gift from God.
This is the clear difference between us.
I now expect you will ignore what I have written and will make some bogus comment about denomination and TULIP and some other strawman you have floating in your noggin.

 

[MennoSota]

Honest question, no agenda. In the grand scheme of 'Limited Atonement' - let's pick a passage, say John 10:27 - isn't it reasonable to conclude that those for whom Jesus' shed blood was not effectual - his atoning sacrifice was not for them, not being one of his sheep - await the same fate? How does this make them different from the person who remains outside the justification of Christ due to their unbelief? The unjustified are in the same state as those from whom Christ's atoning sacrifice was not effectual, true? Or no?

Those for whom Christ effectively atoned their sins will, without question, be given new life, adopted, and given faith so they will be justified. God will do all the above because God has chosen to do so according to His Sovereign will.
Those who are not given faith are also not justified, nor have their sins ever been atoned. They die in sin and are justly condemned because of their sins. They receive the curse.
All whom the Father has given to Jesus are atoned for, given faith and are justified. They are welcomed into eternal life with God. They receive the inheritance.

 

[Josiah]

You have stated that all humans are made entirely holy, righteous and perfect by the atoning sacrifice of Christ. They are righteous in God's eyes.

Quote me. Well, we both know you can't. Everyone here knows you can't.

You state that only faith or lack of faith keeps a person from going to heaven

... not sure I worded it like that, but no argument. And of course where faith is not present, atonement is not present for that individual. That does NOT mean the Bible is wrong when it says Christ died for them, it only means it's not applied to them (only faith does that). Several here have given MANY Scriptures, examples, illustrations .... but you just ignore it, and reject anything that includes faith. Read post 161. Actually read the words.

So...perfect humans are cast into hell for not having faith. THAT IS YOUR POSITION!!!

Of course, I could ask you to quote me but everyone here (including you) KNOWS that stupid, silly position is embraced by no one, least of all me. You know that. Everyone here at CH knows that. What a silly ploy you have....

This is what you tend to do when you have nothing: You make up some absurd position NO ONE HOLDS (and everyone here knows it).... attribute it to someone who of course never remotely ever said such a stupid thing.... then...l having invented an obvious wrong, you find it easy to destroy the position you creatively invented and then (here's the really illogical part) insist that because this stupid idea YOU INVENTED is wrong, ergo you gotta be right. Wow.



There's only one issue here, all the rest is just your constant shell game. The singular, exclusive issue is this: Did Christ die for all as traditional, biblical, orthodox Christianity holds (as well as every Calvinists personally known to me) OR for only a limited few? THAT'S the only issue here (and as you noted, it's the "L" of TULIP). We have given MANY Scriptures that flat out state our position.... you have yet to present even one Scripture that remotely states this, why, you can't even find a verse that even contains the words "only" or "solely" or "exclusively" or "just" or "few" in related to Christ's death - nothing.





.

 

[MennoSota]

Quote me. Well, we both know you can't. Everyone here knows you can't.






... not sure I worded it like that, but no argument. And of course where faith is not present, atonement is not present for that individual. That does NOT mean the Bible is wrong when it says Christ died for them, it only means it's not applied to them (only faith does that). Several here have given MANY Scriptures, examples, illustrations .... but you just ignore it, and reject anything that includes faith. Read post 161. Actually read the words.







Of course, I could ask you to quote me but everyone here (including you) KNOWS that stupid, silly position is embraced by no one, least of all me. You know that. Everyone here at CH knows that. What a silly ploy you have....

This is what you tend to do when you have nothing: You make up some absurd position NO ONE HOLDS (and everyone here knows it).... attribute it to someone who of course never remotely ever said such a stupid thing.... then...l having invented an obvious wrong, you find it easy to destroy the position you creatively invented and then (here's the really illogical part) insist that because this stupid idea YOU INVENTED is wrong, ergo you gotta be right. Wow.



There's only one issue here, all the rest is just your constant shell game. The singular, exclusive issue is this: Did Christ die for all as traditional, biblical, orthodox Christianity holds (as well as every Calvinists personally known to me) OR for only a limited few? THAT'S the only issue here (and as you noted, it's the "L" of TULIP). We have given MANY Scriptures that flat out state our position.... you have yet to present even one Scripture that remotely states this, why, you can't even find a verse that even contains the words "only" or "solely" or "exclusively" or "just" or "few" in related to Christ's death - nothing.





.

Josiah, you have stated, over and over again that Jesus atonement is unlimited. Every reader knows you have stated this as your position.
Do you now declare that atonement does not make a person entirely righteous, holy and sinless before God?
We all see you squirming.

You say "Where faith is not present, atonement is not present."

Congratulations! You have JUST DECLARED limited atonement!!!
Whoop!!!! Welcome to Reformed Theology sir!!!!

 

[Josiah]

Josiah, you have stated, over and over again that Jesus atonement is unlimited. Every reader knows you have stated this as your position.

Here's what I said (and it's relevant to the issue of this thread rather than playing the shell game): Jesus died for all, just as the Bible says, just as the Council of Orange stated, just as traditional Christianity has ALWAYS held and just as every Calvinist personally known to me holds and believes (some claim Calvin never taught the nonsense you parrot).


Now, was that death, that Sacrifice, a fake and fraud and cruel joke for most people? No. As the Bible so often states, He is the Savior of the world, His death is the propitiation for everyone. Now, because you eliminate faith (a sad error of these latter-day radical Calvinists - the very error that caused so many of them to invent universalism), YOU are making a very silly and unbiblical assumption that if Christ died for all, ERGO all are justified. Where DID you get that from (certainly not the Bible, certainly not from ancient, universal tradition. certainly not from the Council of Orange). YOU impose this assumption that everywhere here has been rejecting since you came to this site. But you never actually READ things, you never ENGAGE in discussion at all, you just INVENT stupid stuff.... ascribe it to people everyone knows never said that (which is why you ALWAYS reject any request for a quote - you KNOW they never said it - then showing your stupid idea you invented is stupid, you make the even more stupid claim that ERGO you must be right.

READ post 161. Try actually READING what people post to you. And don't IMPOSE your wrong assumptions on others who have told you - over and over and over and over, for more than a year they don't accept and you won't substantiate.

Do you now declare that atonement does not make a person entirely righteous, holy and sinless before God?

ONE of the many things that is frustrating when talking to you..... why you are so correct then you often say everyone here is wasting their time even trying to discuss with you.... is you don't READ. You IMPOSE your assumptions.... you have this silly idea that if people don't hold to TULIP therefore they are synergistic Arminianists.... you are SO, SO VERY locked into your new, unique denominational tradition of TULIP, that you can't see, you can't consider anything else.... And because you don't know how to defend your position (I'm amazed at this), you instead accuse others of stupid things EVERYONE HERE KNOWS they don't believe (indeed, they often posted to YOU the exact opposite) and constantly, perpetually playing the shell game. It really gets tiring... and you are right, it is wasting our time conversing with you.


Read post 161. Nothing there is complicated. It IS very different than TULIP but you'll actually find a LOT of Calvinists reject ULIP and actually agree with everything I say in post 161.



You're right. We are wasting our time. And how many times have you told me you've placed me on your ignore list (which means you can't see my posts) obviously because you won't engage with me?


Try reading post 161. Why must we say the same things to you..... over and over and over, for months..... until you finally start reading, engaging? Well, you've said it often: we're wasting our time with you.

Congratulations! You have JUST DECLARED limited atonement!!!
Whoop!!!! Welcome to Reformed Theology sir!!!!

God help me, no!


The "L" of TULIP, as you yourself stated (and it's confirmed by a number of significant Reformed websites and doctrine books) is: JESUS DIED ONLY FOR THE ELECT, THE CHURCH, THE FEW and NOT (repeat NOT), dogmatically NOT for all, for everyone or even most. That's the dogma. That's the sole, singular, only issue of this thread.

Where I have stated that I agree with that? Quote me agreeing with that...






.

 

[MennoSota]

Here's what I said (and it's relevant to the issue of this thread rather than playing the shell game): Jesus died for all, just as the Bible says, just as the Council of Orange stated, just as traditional Christianity has ALWAYS held and just as every Calvinist personally known to me holds and believes (some claim Calvin never taught the nonsense you parrot).


Now, was that death, that Sacrifice, a fake and fraud and cruel joke for most people? No. As the Bible so often states, He is the Savior of the world, His death is the propitiation for everyone. Now, because you eliminate faith (a sad error of these latter-day radical Calvinists - the very error that caused so many of them to invent universalism), YOU are making a very silly and unbiblical assumption that if Christ died for all, ERGO all are justified. Where DID you get that from (certainly not the Bible, certainly not from ancient, universal tradition. certainly not from the Council of Orange). YOU impose this assumption that everywhere here has been rejecting since you came to this site. But you never actually READ things, you never ENGAGE in discussion at all, you just INVENT stupid stuff.... ascribe it to people everyone knows never said that (which is why you ALWAYS reject any request for a quote - you KNOW they never said it - then showing your stupid idea you invented is stupid, you make the even more stupid claim that ERGO you must be right.

READ post 161. Try actually READING what people post to you. And don't IMPOSE your wrong assumptions on others who have told you - over and over and over and over, for more than a year they don't accept and you won't substantiate.







ONE of the many things that is frustrating when talking to you..... why you are so correct then you often say everyone here is wasting their time even trying to discuss with you.... is you don't READ. You IMPOSE your assumptions.... you have this silly idea that if people don't hold to TULIP therefore they are synergistic Arminianists.... you are SO, SO VERY locked into your new, unique denominational tradition of TULIP, that you can't see, you can't consider anything else.... And because you don't know how to defend your position (I'm amazed at this), you instead accuse others of stupid things EVERYONE HERE KNOWS they don't believe (indeed, they often posted to YOU the exact opposite) and constantly, perpetually playing the shell game. It really gets tiring... and you are right, it is wasting our time conversing with you.


Read post 161. Nothing there is complicated. It IS very different than TULIP but you'll actually find a LOT of Calvinists reject ULIP and actually agree with everything I say in post 161.



You're right. We are wasting our time. And how many times have you told me you've placed me on your ignore list (which means you can't see my posts) obviously because you won't engage with me?


Try reading post 161. Why must we say the same things to you..... over and over and over, for months..... until you finally start reading, engaging? Well, you've said it often: we're wasting our time with you.






God help me, no!


The "L" of TULIP, as you yourself stated (and it's confirmed by a number of significant Reformed websites and doctrine books) is: JESUS DIED ONLY FOR THE ELECT, THE CHURCH, THE FEW and NOT (repeat NOT), dogmatically NOT for all, for everyone or even most. That's the dogma. That's the sole, singular, only issue of this thread.

Where I have stated that I agree with that? Quote me agreeing with that...






.

So, you are not talking about atonement at all. You're just making a generic statement that is valueless in this conversation.
You said:
"Where faith is not present, atonement is not present."

That is limited atonement. It's that simple. End of discussion.

 

[Josiah]

That is limited atonement. It's that simple. End of discussion.

According to YOU (and every Reformed website and my two Reformed doctrine books), the "L" of TULIP is this: "Jesus died only for the church.... NOT (repeat, NOT... dogmatically, NOT) for everyone or for all or even for most." THAT'S the dogma. THAT'S the "L." THAT'S the only issue of this thread.


This thread only has two possibilities: Jesus died for all OR He did not. Like all but two here at CH, I have taken the "all". And I've supported it with MANY Scriptures that flat out state that (and we also have the Council or Orange, 2000 years of Christianity and also every Calvinists personally known to me) on that side. You have parroted the "L" denomination tradition, that Jesus died ONLY, EXCLUSIVELY, SOLELY, JUST for a LIMITED few. But of course, like every over TULIP promoter for over 400 years, you can't find any verse that states that.

I have NEVER posted or believed the horrible, unbiblical dogma that Jesus died for ONLY a few.

Stating as I have that Jesus died for ALL is not the same thing as Jesus did NOT die for all or even most. I don't know who taught you logic, but those are not identical statements.

If you have realized what nearly all other Calvinists have.... that this is an unbiblical, false and horrible teaching... and reject it: GOOD! Welcome back to historic, biblical, orthodox Christianity. But now your silly ploy that "ALL" and "NOT ALL, ONLY A FEW" are the same thing is... well..... it's obvious.




.

 

[MennoSota]

According to YOU (and every Reformed website and my two Reformed doctrine books), the "L" of TULIP is this: "Jesus died only for the church.... NOT (repeat, NOT... dogmatically, NOT) for everyone or for all or even for most." THAT'S the dogma. THAT'S the "L." THAT'S the only issue of this thread.


This thread only has two possibilities: Jesus died for all OR He did not. Like all but two here at CH, I have taken the "all". And I've supported it with MANY Scriptures that flat out state that (and we also have the Council or Orange, 2000 years of Christianity and also every Calvinists personally known to me) on that side. You have parroted the "L" denomination tradition, that Jesus died ONLY, EXCLUSIVELY, SOLELY, JUST for a LIMITED few. But of course, like every over TULIP promoter for over 400 years, you can't find any verse that states that.

I have NEVER posted or believed the horrible, unbiblical dogma that Jesus died for ONLY a few.

Stating as I have that Jesus died for ALL is not the same thing as Jesus did NOT die for all or even most. I don't know who taught you logic, but those are not identical statements.

If you have realized what nearly all other Calvinists have.... that this is an unbiblical, false and horrible teaching... and reject it: GOOD! Welcome back to historic, biblical, orthodox Christianity. But now your silly ploy that "ALL" and "NOT ALL, ONLY A FEW" are the same thing is... well..... it's obvious.




.

Here is what you wrote:
"Where faith is not present, atonement is not present."
That is limited atonement. No matter how you slice, dice it or puree it, what you wrote is what limited atonement teaches.
It must sting to know you believe in limited atonement when you hate it so much.
Thankfully, God also says that atonement is not made for those without faith. Jesus died only for the elect.
I'm so glad you get it now.

 

[JPPT1974]

God is just, forgiving and merciful. And that He sent Jesus not just to die for our sins of all mankind and rise from the grave to give us eternity in heaven when we accept Him as Savior and Lord. But to be His Servant to serve, not be served. A sinless, perfect King of King and Lord of Lords. Plus to feel as not just 100% God but 100% human to hurt emotionally, mentally, and physically. Like we do and still do.

 

[atpollard]

I have NEVER posted or believed the horrible, unbiblical dogma that Jesus died for ONLY a few.

Setting aside the issue of what you may or may not have posted and whether or not the “dogma” is scriptural, might I ask what makes it “horrible”?

Scripture is clear that few are saved and many are damned:

[Mat 7:13-14 NIV] 13 "Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

[Mat 22:14 NIV] 14 "For many are invited, but few are chosen."


Scripture also implies that God plays some part in who is saved and who is not:

[Jhn 6:43-44 NIV] 43 "Stop grumbling among yourselves," Jesus answered. 44 "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day.

[Jhn 10:25-26 NIV] 25 Jesus answered, "I did tell you, but you do not believe. The works I do in my Father's name testify about me, 26 but you do not believe because you are not my sheep.

[Jhn 10:29 NIV] 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand.

[Rom 8:28-30 NIV] 28 And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. 29 For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. 30 And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.

[Eph 2:1-10 NIV] 1 As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, 2 in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. 3 All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our flesh and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature deserving of wrath. 4 But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, 5 made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions--it is by grace you have been saved. 6 And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, 7 in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus. 8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God-- 9 not by works, so that no one can boast. 10 For we are God's handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.

[2 Cor 4:3-4 NIV] 3 And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. 4 The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.


So why is it “horrible” to claim that Jesus died only for the sins that were forgiven but “not horrible” for the blood of Jesus to be shed in vain for the MANY that will ultimately spend eternity damned? The damned are no less damned. The damned are no less “not Jesus’ sheep”. The damned were no less not drawn by the Father and raised by the Son. The damned were no less blinded to the Gospel. The damned were no less NOT foreknown, NOT predestined, NOT called, NOT justified and NOT glorified. Which is really HORRIBLE, the reality that many are damned and few are saved, or claiming that Jesus did his best to prevent that reality and God failed miserably?

That is ultimately why I accept “Limited Atonement” over an impotent god.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Christ died for all.

2 Corinthians 5:11-20 Therefore, knowing the fear of the Lord, we persuade men; but what we are is known to God, and I hope it is known also to your conscience. [SUP]12[/SUP] We are not commending ourselves to you again but giving you cause to be proud of us, so that you may be able to answer those who pride themselves on a man's position and not on his heart. [SUP]13[/SUP] For if we are beside ourselves, it is for God; if we are in our right mind, it is for you. [SUP]14[/SUP] For the love of Christ controls us, because we are convinced that one has died for all; therefore all have died. [SUP]15[/SUP] And he died for all, that those who live might live no longer for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised. [SUP]16[/SUP] From now on, therefore, we regard no one from a human point of view; even though we once regarded Christ from a human point of view, we regard him thus no longer. [SUP]17[/SUP] Therefore, if any one is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has passed away, behold, the new has come. [SUP]18[/SUP] All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; [SUP]19[/SUP] that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. [SUP]20[/SUP] So we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We beseech you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.

 

[Josiah]

[MENTION=334]atpollard[/MENTION]

Setting aside the issue of what you may or may not have posted and whether or not the “dogma” is scriptural

1. MennoSota has stated, dogmatically, "YOU stated.... YOU believe.... YOUR position...." (attributing things directly to me, personally) and when I ask him to quote me (which I have done many, many times - in many, many threads) he always ignores the request. And I suspect we all know why.


2. Now he's arguing that I actually ACCEPT his position ... perhaps Jesus died for all is "the same as" his position that Jesus did NOT die for all but only for a limited few. I don't follow how "all" = "only a few" but he seems to take that position often.

might I ask what makes it “horrible”?

1. It means NO ONE can even guess whether they are saved or not, whether they are heaven-bound or not, whether they are forgiven. After all, odds are, Jesus has NOTHING for them - no love, no mercy, no forgiveness, no nothing - just an empty promise.


2. It means that NO ONE can proclaim to ANYONE (including the one each sees in the mirror) that Jesus died for them, that Jesus is their Savior. Because in radical Calvinism, He's probably not. It would be a bold faced lie.


3. It makes faith irrelevant, which is why our Reformed brother here rejects any position that includes it. In traditional, orthodox Christianity, it is the OBJECT of faith that is the issue (not whether Jesus is offering them something real or a cruel joke). Where faith is IN CHRIST, then it is effectual and salvation is theirs. No if, ands or buts about it. BECAUSE Jesus is the Savior of all, BECAUSE Jesus died for all, therefore I KNOW I'm included... and I don't have to wonder if the object of my faith is actually REAL or for ME (after all, in TULIP, odds are, He's NOT my Savior, He's offering me NOTHING but a cruel joke, an empty promise). One then has to WONDER (endlessly) if their faith is "of God" or not since the object of it has become irrelevant. TULIP changes the issue of whether faith is in Christ (an easy question any can answer) OR is "from God" (a question no one can ever answer).


4. Radical Calvinism had to invent a lot of new dogmas, forced into it. Including that God has TWO calls: One general and one "secret." The first is actually a lie.... a false promise, a cruel joke... calling people to Jesus as their Savior BUT He's actually NOT their Savior, He's offering them NOTHING, it's just a false promised. The "Secret" call to those "secret" people for whom Jesus actually is offering something REAL (rather than fake) is the one that is not a joke. Of course, no one can know who that "limited few" for whom Christ died actually are.... whether the "call" is real, offering something actually for them, or a fake, a fraud, a very cruel joke because there's nothing for them.


That's just 4 of the reasons....


It seems Calvin preached a comforting faith based on the Gospel, and these few, radical, latter-day followers turned it into a terror.

Scripture is clear that few are saved and many are damned:

Friend, the only ones who deny that are those radical, TULIP Calvinists who invented universalism. Universalism is an outgrowth of Calvinism, for the exact reason you and MennoSota reveal: the meaningless of faith, that everything hinges on whether Jesus died for THEM. It's just that most radical Calvinists realized the "L" is very wrong.... but still deleting faith, invented Universalism. If you travel thoughout New England, you will find many Universalist churches... and nearly all were founded long ago as radical CALVINIST churches, including the most famous one, founded by the Pilgrims. It's now a Universalist church. It's a tourist attraction in Plymouth.


The issue of this thread and the issue of the "L" of TULIP is this; Did Jesus die for all OR for only, exclusively, solely, just for a limited few? For all or for a few? THAT'S the issue. Not if those Calvinists were right or wrong to found universalism. There are no universalists here at CH.

The damned were no less NOT foreknown, NOT predestined, NOT called, NOT justified and NOT glorified. Which is really HORRIBLE, the reality that many are damned and few are saved, or claiming that Jesus did his best to prevent that reality and God failed miserably?[/B]

This thread is not about the "U." You have the wrong thread, you are addressing the wrong part of TULIP.

The Council of Orange places the impact of Election on FAITH, not the Cross. I accept that. TULIP does not.





.

 

[MennoSota]

Christ died for all.

2 Corinthians 5:11-20 Therefore, knowing the fear of the Lord, we persuade men; but what we are is known to God, and I hope it is known also to your conscience. [SUP]12[/SUP] We are not commending ourselves to you again but giving you cause to be proud of us, so that you may be able to answer those who pride themselves on a man's position and not on his heart. [SUP]13[/SUP] For if we are beside ourselves, it is for God; if we are in our right mind, it is for you. [SUP]14[/SUP] For the love of Christ controls us, because we are convinced that one has died for all; therefore all have died. [SUP]15[/SUP] And he died for all, that those who live might live no longer for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised. [SUP]16[/SUP] From now on, therefore, we regard no one from a human point of view; even though we once regarded Christ from a human point of view, we regard him thus no longer. [SUP]17[/SUP] Therefore, if any one is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has passed away, behold, the new has come. [SUP]18[/SUP] All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; [SUP]19[/SUP] that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. [SUP]20[/SUP] So we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We beseech you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.

You do realize Paul is writing to the elect...so when he uses the term "all" in this passage...he is telling all the saints what Christ has done for them. Or...you don't realize this and you are a universalist.

 

[MennoSota]

1. MennoSota has stated, dogmatically, "YOU stated.... YOU believe.... YOUR position...." (attributing things directly to me, personally) and when I ask him to quote me (which I have done many, many times - in many, many threads) he always ignores the request. And I suspect we all know why.


2. Now he's arguing that I actually ACCEPT his position ... perhaps Jesus died for all is "the same as" his position that Jesus did NOT die for all but only for a limited few. I don't follow how "all" = "only a few" but he seems to take that position often.






1. It means NO ONE can even guess whether they are saved or not, whether they are heaven-bound or not, whether they are forgiven. After all, odds are, Jesus has NOTHING for them - no love, no mercy, no forgiveness, no nothing - just an empty promise.


2. It means that NO ONE can proclaim to ANYONE (including the one each sees in the mirror) that Jesus died for them, that Jesus is their Savior. Because in radical Calvinism, He's probably not. It would be a bold faced lie.


3. It makes faith irrelevant, which is why our Reformed brother here rejects any position that includes it. In traditional, orthodox Christianity, it is the OBJECT of faith that is the issue (not whether Jesus is offering them something real or a cruel joke). Where faith is IN CHRIST, then it is effectual and salvation is theirs. No if, ands or buts about it. BECAUSE Jesus is the Savior of all, BECAUSE Jesus died for all, therefore I KNOW I'm included... and I don't have to wonder if the object of my faith is actually REAL or for ME (after all, in TULIP, odds are, He's NOT my Savior, He's offering me NOTHING but a cruel joke, an empty promise). One then has to WONDER (endlessly) if their faith is "of God" or not since the object of it has become irrelevant. TULIP changes the issue of whether faith is in Christ (an easy question any can answer) OR is "from God" (a question no one can ever answer).


4. Radical Calvinism had to invent a lot of new dogmas, forced into it. Including that God has TWO calls: One general and one "secret." The first is actually a lie.... a false promise, a cruel joke... calling people to Jesus as their Savior BUT He's actually NOT their Savior, He's offering them NOTHING, it's just a false promised. The "Secret" call to those "secret" people for whom Jesus actually is offering something REAL (rather than fake) is the one that is not a joke. Of course, no one can know who that "limited few" for whom Christ died actually are.... whether the "call" is real, offering something actually for them, or a fake, a fraud, a very cruel joke because there's nothing for them.


That's just 4 of the reasons....


It seems Calvin preached a comforting faith based on the Gospel, and these few, radical, latter-day followers turned it into a terror.







Friend, the only ones who deny that are those radical, TULIP Calvinists who invented universalism. Universalism is an outgrowth of Calvinism, for the exact reason you and MennoSota reveal: the meaningless of faith, that everything hinges on whether Jesus died for THEM. It's just that most radical Calvinists realized the "L" is very wrong.... but still deleting faith, invented Universalism. If you travel thoughout New England, you will find many Universalist churches... and nearly all were founded long ago as radical CALVINIST churches, including the most famous one, founded by the Pilgrims. It's now a Universalist church. It's a tourist attraction in Plymouth.


The issue of this thread and the issue of the "L" of TULIP is this; Did Jesus die for all OR for only, exclusively, solely, just for a limited few? For all or for a few? THAT'S the issue. Not if those Calvinists were right or wrong to found universalism. There are no universalists here at CH.








This thread is not about the "U." You have the wrong thread, you are addressing the wrong part of TULIP.

The Council of Orange places the impact of Election on FAITH, not the Cross. I accept that. TULIP does not.





.

Here is what you wrote:

"Where faith is not present, atonement is not present."

That is limited atonement.

You wrote:
The Council of Orange places the impact of Election on FAITH, not the Cross. I accept that.

Faith is from God because God elects to give it to those whom he has chosen make alive with Christ.
Faith is effective because the cross is effective.

 

[Arsenios]

John 17:9-10
[9-10]
“My prayer is not for the world,
but for those you have given me,
because they belong to you.
All who are mine belong to you,
and you have given them to me,
so they bring me glory.

This passage is about Christ's disciples...
Christ died for sinners...
Do you know anyone who does not qualify?


Arsenios

 

[Josiah]

Here is what you wrote:"Where faith is not present, atonement is not present." That is limited atonement.

How silly.

NO, "all" is not the same as "not all but only a limited few."

As you yourself stated.... as several Reformed websites state (I quoted them for you).... as my Reformed doctrine book states (I quoted it for you), YOU ARE RIGHT; The "L" of TULIP is that Jesus did NOT (N.O.T.) did NOT (dogmatically), did NOT die for all but rather, instead, just for a limited few. That's the "L" just as you yourself said (you even entitled your thread on the part of TULIP): "Jesus died only for the church."

I realize, when you read all those many verses that state Christ died for "all" you just substitute "NOT for all but rather for just a few" and that may be what you are doing to my posts, but that is not what I mean.


Friend, this part of TULIP is a rebuke of the Arminian point that Jesus died for all, it is meant to be a repudiation of Jesus dying for all. It was never written to say "Oh, you Arminianists are absolutely 100% right about that!" No, it is a rebuke of that. It is what you yourself have been saying, it is what you entitled a thread, "Jesus did NOT die for all - NOT - but only for a limited few."


It is silly to insist that "all" and "NOT all but just a few" is the same teaching.... and that Calvinism and Arminianism are in full agreement on the point of Jesus dying for all.

You wrote: The Council of Orange places the impact of Election on FAITH, not the Cross. I accept that.

Faith is from God because God elects to give it to those whom he has chosen make alive with Christ.

Yup. TULIP makes Election about the Cross - how limited Jesus is. The Council of Orange made it about faith. TULIP is in conflict with the Council of Orange.

And yes, this not only is unbiblical but creates a terror. As noted above -


1. It means NO ONE can even guess whether they are saved or not, whether they are heaven-bound or not, whether they are forgiven. After all, odds are, Jesus has NOTHING for them - no love, no mercy, no forgiveness, no nothing - just an empty promise.


2. It means that NO ONE can proclaim to ANYONE (including the one each sees in the mirror) that Jesus died for them, that Jesus is their Savior. Because in radical Calvinism, He's probably not. It would be a bold faced lie.


3. It makes faith irrelevant, which is why our Reformed brother here rejects any position that includes it. In traditional, orthodox Christianity, it is the OBJECT of faith that is the issue (not whether Jesus is offering them something real or a cruel joke). Where faith is IN CHRIST, then it is effectual and salvation is theirs. No if, ands or buts about it. BECAUSE Jesus is the Savior of all, BECAUSE Jesus died for all, therefore I KNOW I'm included... and I don't have to wonder if the object of my faith is actually REAL or for ME (after all, in TULIP, odds are, He's NOT my Savior, He's offering me NOTHING but a cruel joke, an empty promise). One then has to WONDER (endlessly) if their faith is "of God" or not since the object of it has become irrelevant. TULIP changes the issue of whether faith is in Christ (an easy question any can answer) OR is "from God" (a question no one can ever answer).


4. Radical Calvinism had to invent a lot of new dogmas, forced into it. Including that God has TWO calls: One general and one "secret." The first is actually a lie.... a false promise, a cruel joke... calling people to Jesus as their Savior BUT He's actually NOT their Savior, He's offering them NOTHING, it's just a false promised. The "Secret" call to those "secret" people for whom Jesus actually is offering something REAL (rather than fake) is the one that is not a joke. Of course, no one can know who that "limited few" for whom Christ died actually are.... whether the "call" is real, offering something actually for them, or a fake, a fraud, a very cruel joke because there's nothing for them.


That's just 4 of the reasons....


It seems Calvin preached a comforting faith based on the Gospel, and these few, radical, latter-day followers turned it into a terror.





.

 

[atpollard]

[MENTION=334]atpollard[/MENTION]
1. MennoSota has stated, dogmatically, "YOU stated.... YOU believe.... YOUR position...." (attributing things directly to me, personally) and when I ask him to quote me (which I have done many, many times - in many, many threads) he always ignores the request. And I suspect we all know why.

2. Now he's arguing that I actually ACCEPT his position ... perhaps Jesus died for all is "the same as" his position that Jesus did NOT die for all but only for a limited few. I don't follow how "all" = "only a few" but he seems to take that position often.

So you insist on discussing the one part that I specifically stated I did not want to discuss ... because it is an issue between you and MenoSota that has nothing to do with me.

1. It means NO ONE can even guess whether they are saved or not, whether they are heaven-bound or not, whether they are forgiven. After all, odds are, Jesus has NOTHING for them - no love, no mercy, no forgiveness, no nothing - just an empty promise.

How can any Lutheran (assuming they believe as you do) be assured that they will REMAIN saved. Sure, you can believe that you have faith at this moment, but you are potentially just one tragedy away from abandoning that faith and falling from grace.

Under Calvinism, IF Jesus died for you, then you are assured that He will finish what He started and the ‘worry’ is “was I chosen?”
Under Lutheranism, Jesus DID die for you and you will remain saved as long as you continue to have faith, so the ‘worry’ is “will I fall from grace?”

Both ‘believers’ have the same assurance ... the fruit of the Holy Spirit.