Jesus Christ, died for all

[Andrew]

Then it's easy. They will quote the verses that state God desires and causes most people to go to hell ... that Jesus did NOT die for all, for everyone, for all those on earth as the Bible says but ONLY for some few.... that God's grace is irresistable, that if one has faith at some moment in their life they are saved even if they repudiate Christ.... etc. Thing is, Andrew, they don't. And they prove and sometimes admit it. And they have to mutilate a LOT of Scriptures that verbatim say the exact opposite.





"It makes sense to me" doesn't make it right. EVERY heretic an false teacher in history believed that his view "make sense" to him. Arminianism, which TULIP is meant to be the exact opposite of, also "makes sense" to those who embrace it.

The question is not "does this make sense to me." The question is: is it true? Does Scripture say this?

What is undeniable, unquestionable... is that TULIP is a collection of dogmas invented in the late 16th Century by a FEW latter-day Calvinists followers.... it is rejected by everyone else, by the Ecumenical Council of Orange and by the majority of Calvinists... it is a LATE, rare, unique denominational tradition that stands very apart from 2000 years of Christianity and maybe 99% of Christians. And many admit... they have not one Scripture - not one - that states their position.






That's the most you can say via TULIP. But actually, in TULIP, the odds are you're not right. After all, He did NOT die for most.

In classic Christianity, the point is the OBJECT of faith. If one is believing in Christ, they ARE thus saved. But in TULIP, the object of faith is irrelevant because Jesus did NOT die for most, is NOT the Savior of most, has NOTHING to offer most. They may believe in Christ as their Savior but Jesus likely is not their Savior, they are trusting in something not there, not real for them, a false promise, a fraud. They must wonder - endlessly - if Jesus died for THEM and since there is no list of whom He died for, they can ever know if they are on their list. Traditional Christian has a response: Jesus died for ALL so if you claim such, it is for YOU. The Calvinist must reply, "probably not... but IF your faith comes from God, IF that is true (and you can never know), IF that is true - then you are saved.


As you agree, there is no verse that says Jesus died for only a few. But we have given MANY Scriptures that verbatim, flat-out, in clear words contradict that.


The issue of the "L" is singular and specific.... and is the "L" of TULIP. Did Jesus die for all or only, exclusively, solely, just for some unknowable (never named) limited few. All the rest is deflection, diversion, evasion. We have many Scriptures that say He died for you.... the Calvinist has none that say he only died for some unnamed few.







CORRECT! So "L" is wrong..... it is WRONG that Jesus died for only, exclusively, solely, just some unknowable/never listed FEW. And it is WRONG that if Jesus died for all, ergo all are saved. I could not agree with you more. It is a stunning rebuke of the "L" of TULIP, of this new denominational tradition.


Correct. The "L" is wrong. So, I don't know why you are embracing it.



.

About the screen shot, the rebuttal offered is a contradiction and is hardly a rebuttal at all, that was all I meant to address, that it's difficult to refute since Christ can either die for the church or the whole world but not for both. I'm listening brother, what I struggle with most on this board is how we all clearly understand and believe the same biblical message but we draw invisible lines that make it seem like we disagree, for example.. both you and I know that only the sheep will respond to Gods calling, we know that 'only' the faithful will enter the kingdom of Heaven and we know that all those who reject Christ will not be atoned for and will not hear Gods voice thus remain condemned, but yet we believe that we are disagreeing on this. Christ did not die for the devils and goats, he died for the sheep that God gave him, to believe that he died for the world without sparing any is to believe that he died for the devils and goats and that all will enter heaven. Our free will alone to choose faith is impossible, we are drawn to the cross because God made us his to be called first.

 

[MennoSota]

Agreed, that by no means substantiates that Jesus died for only a few - and that's why there is no atonement for them.

Josiah, you are the one who is arguing for a universal statement. You are claiming Jesus died for all. That means 100% of humanity.
Anything less than 100% and I am right. Jesus atonement becomes limited if Jesus died for 99.99%. So, the burden is entirely upon you.
Yet, you have already stated that..."Where there is no faith, there is no atonement."
You have made it less than 100%, which means atonement is limited.
It is interesting how you attempt to paint the number as small in order to avoid the fact that you have been arguing for a universal statement that only requires one person not being atoned for and your statement become false.
But, you already know it's false because you tell us it's false.
"Where there is no faith, there is no atonement."
Do you see your problem yet?

 

[MennoSota]

Except WE are the ones indicating that faith is a factor!!!!!!

It's interesting how you claim that Jesus atonement is universal, but it's not.
Only faith makes it effective and faith is limited to those God chooses.
But still you say atonement is universal.
You may go to your grave fighting for your conundrum.

 

[Josiah]

It's interesting how you claim that Jesus atonement is universal, but it's not.

What I say is the most important teaching in the universe (yup): Sola Gratia -Solus Christus - SOLA FIDE (I don't delete the last aspect).
What I say is John 3:16, verbatim as God inspired it.

The verse says, "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son that whosoever believes in Him will not perish but will have everlasting life."

NOT "For God hated most people who happen to reside on the planet Earth just like everyone else that He did not give His only begotten son to them and thus whether they have faith or not, God desires them to fry in hell and so they will."
NOT "For God so loved just an unknown few that happen to reside on the planet identically to everyone else that He gave only, exclusively, solely, just them His only begotten son and therefore they will not perish but they have life everlasting."


Yes, what Jesus did, He really did. No deception, no lying, no fakes, no frauds, no cruel jokes, no false promises.
Jesus died for everyone, exactly, verbatim as the Bible states.
Does this automatically apply to all regardless of whether they have faith or not (a view invented some Calvinists)? No. Why? Because faith is not eliminated, faith is not moot, faith is not irrelevant.
John 3:16 is not mutilated by deleting faith so that it reads, " "For God so loved just a tiny, unnamed few that just happen to reside on the planet identically to everyone else that He gave only, exclusively, solely, just them His only begotten son and therefore they will not perish but they have life everlasting - regardless of whether they have faith or not."
Faith apprehends/embraces/trusts/relies/applies what Jesus actually DID to the individual - and thus it then belongs to the individual and they benefit from it. Your silly, illogical, unbiblical point that "if Jesus died for all, ergo all would be saves" is founded on a wrong, unbiblical assumption: that faith is moot, faith is to be deleted, faith has no role in soteriology, faith doesn't matter. It is a common Calvinist position - which is why so much of radical Calvinism ended up in universalism.

You may go to your grave fighting for your conundrum.

1. The "conundrum" is yours, caused by eliminated faith, caused by the unbiblical assumption that if Christ died for all, ergo all would be saved since faith is irrelevant.


2. The 'conundrum" is that you insist all are to ignore denomination tradition (such as TULIP) but all you do is verbatim parrot it (endlessly)... and your insistence that new dogmas must be rejected unless there is clear Scripture that states it, but like all radical Calvinists for over 400 years, you can't find one verse that states that Jesus died ONLY for some unknown few, and you are faced with a plethora of verses that verbatim STATE exactly the opposte that you have to mutilate so that you claim they MEAN the exact opposite of what they actually state, because over and over, they flat-out, verbatim, contradict your denomination tradition.





.

 

[Josiah]

it's difficult to refute since Christ can either die for the church or the whole world but not for both.

Why? Are believers not residing on the same planet as the unbelievers?


There is a silly, illogical and unbiblical assumption some Calvinists make: That if Jesus died for all, ergo all are saved. How to they assume this? By eliminating faith, by repudiating Sola Gratia - Solus Christus - Sola Fide, by insisting that faith is moot, irrelevant: ALL that matters, the SOLE aspect, is whether Jesus died for YOU (which of course, no one can know; there is no list of who He died for and who He did not, all Calvinists know is that He didn't die for most and so the odds are He didn't die for you or me). John 3:16 is mutilated by changing it to: ''For God so loved just a tiny, unknowable few that just happen to reside on the planet Earth identically to everyone else that He gave just them (but not most) so they will not perish but will have everlasting life because faith is irrelevant,"

I'm listening brother

:smile:

both you and I know that only the sheep will respond to Gods calling, we know that 'only' the faithful will enter the kingdom of Heaven and we know that all those who reject Christ will not be atoned for and will not hear Gods voice thus remain condemned, but yet we believe that we are disagreeing on this.

You and I are AGREEING on that because we are not deleting faith from the issue.

Again, the Ecumenical Council of Orange - which embraced the doctrine of Election - states that the object of this is FAITH, not the Cross. Christ died for all (as the Bible so often verbatim states) but not all have faith (as the Bible teaches) so the reason not all end up in heaven is NOT because Jesus is extending a lie to most people but because the Holy Spirit does not give faith to all. Now, some Calvinists.... eliminating the role of faith... have to find another reason and they look to the Cross. But of course, this not only violates the Council of Orange and 2000 years of Christianity, but it is directly contradicted by a plethora of Scriptures and they can't find even one verse that states what they do.

Christ did not die for goats

You already admitted the text doesn't say that.

The point there is that goats aren't saved.

You've found one verse.... admit it doesn't say what "L" says... but feel it's IMPLIED by words not stated. Not a good foundation for a new dogma. But then there is a lot of Scriptures that verbatim STATE (no need for anyone to feel something is IMPLIED) that contradict the teaching.

to believe that he died for the world without sparing any is to believe that he died for the goats and that all will enter heaven

... only if you repudiate Sola Gratia - Solus Christus - Sola Fide. Only if you totally reject the Council of Orange. Only if you repudiate John 3:16. Only if you ignore SO many verses that state only those with faith enter heaven.






.

 

[MennoSota]

What I say is the most important teaching in the universe (yup): Sola Gratia -Solus Christus - SOLA FIDE (I don't delete the last aspect).
What I say is John 3:16, verbatim as God inspired it.

The verse says, "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son that whosoever believes in Him will not perish but will have everlasting life."

NOT "For God hated most people who happen to reside on the planet Earth just like everyone else that He did not give His only begotten son to them and thus whether they have faith or not, God desires them to fry in hell and so they will."
NOT "For God so loved just an unknown few that happen to reside on the planet identically to everyone else that He gave only, exclusively, solely, just them His only begotten son and therefore they will not perish but they have life everlasting."


Yes, what Jesus did, He really did. No deception, no lying, no fakes, no frauds, no cruel jokes, no false promises.
Jesus died for everyone, exactly, verbatim as the Bible states.
Does this automatically apply to all regardless of whether they have faith or not (a view invented some Calvinists)? No. Why? Because faith is not eliminated, faith is not moot, faith is not irrelevant.
John 3:16 is not mutilated by deleting faith so that it reads, " "For God so loved just a tiny, unnamed few that just happen to reside on the planet identically to everyone else that He gave only, exclusively, solely, just them His only begotten son and therefore they will not perish but they have life everlasting - regardless of whether they have faith or not."
Faith apprehends/embraces/trusts/relies/applies what Jesus actually DID to the individual - and thus it then belongs to the individual and they benefit from it. Your silly, illogical, unbiblical point that "if Jesus died for all, ergo all would be saves" is founded on a wrong, unbiblical assumption: that faith is moot, faith is to be deleted, faith has no role in soteriology, faith doesn't matter. It is a common Calvinist position - which is why so much of radical Calvinism ended up in universalism.








1. The "conundrum" is yours, caused by eliminated faith, caused by the unbiblical assumption that if Christ died for all, ergo all would be saved since faith is irrelevant.


2. The 'conundrum" is that you insist all are to ignore denomination tradition (such as TULIP) but all you do is verbatim parrot it (endlessly)... and your insistence that new dogmas must be rejected unless there is clear Scripture that states it, but like all radical Calvinists for over 400 years, you can't find one verse that states that Jesus died ONLY for some unknown few, and you are faced with a plethora of verses that verbatim STATE exactly the opposte that you have to mutilate so that you claim they MEAN the exact opposite of what they actually state, because over and over, they flat-out, verbatim, contradict your denomination tradition.





.

You are responsible to prove 100% atonement, but you already deny 100% atonement.
At this point you are arguing with yourself as you have proven to us that you don't believe Jesus atoned for all humans and therefore did not die for all humans.
You have become a clanging gong and banging cymbal.

 

[Josiah]

No. I have NEVER held to the unbiblical and terrible denomination tradition of Jesus dying for only an unknowable few. I've never held to that 100% or 1%, I repudiate it.



.

 

[MennoSota]

No. I have NEVER held to the unbiblical and terrible denomination tradition of Jesus dying for only an unknowable few. I've never held to that 100% or 1%, I repudiate it.



.

The thread is Jesus Christ died for all. You have argued...yes. All equals 100%.
You now repudiate this. You have just limited atonement.
I cannot resolve your confusion.

 

[Josiah]

The thread is Jesus Christ died for all. You have argued...yes. All equals 100%.
You now repudiate this.

Nope.

I stand with Scripture. Jesus died for all. It's what the Bible flat-out states. And since you can't find a single verse that says He died for only, exclusively, solely, just an unknowable few... well... there's no reason to go against Scripture.

I cannot resolve your confusion.

Because I have none to "resolve."




.

 

[MennoSota]

Nope.

I stand with Scripture. Jesus died for all. It's what the Bible flat-out states. And since you can't find a single verse that says He died for only, exclusively, solely, just an unknowable few... well... there's no reason to go against Scripture.







Because I have none to "resolve."




.

Josiah, it's obvious you don't really know what you believe on this issue. We have shared much scripture so you have no special claim. The data supports limited atonement, whether you accept it or not. But, you have stated enough for us to know that you also support limited atonement despite your empty cries against.

 

[Josiah]

Josiah, it's obvious you don't really know what you believe on this issue.

Actually, I do. I stand with Scripture, with the Council of Orange, with 2000 years of Christianity, and with every Calvinist personally known to me: Jesus died for all.

No, I don't agree with the new, unique denomination tradition of TULIP including the part that dogmatically states Jesus did NOT die for all but only, exclusively, solely, just for an unknowable/unnamed few.

We have shared much scripture

No. Like all radical Calvinists for over 400 years, you have not yet been able to find even one Scripture anywhere that states Jesus died for ONLY a few. None is not much.

Yes. The rest of us have listed many Scriptures that flat-out, verbatim, in direct words, contradict this new, unique denomination tradition.

you have stated enough for us to know that you also support.

No. "Jesus died for all" is not supporting "Jesus did NOT die for all but only, exclusively, solely, just for some unknowable/unnamed limited few."

No. I have NEVER held to the unbiblical and terrible denomination tradition of Jesus dying for only an unknowable few. I've never held to that 100% or 1%, I repudiate it.

.

The thread is Jesus Christ died for all. You have argued...yes. All equals 100%. You now repudiate this.

No, I did not repudiate my stand of rejecting the new denomination tradition of Jesus did NOT die for all but ONLY for some unnamed/unknown limited few. I repudiate that tradition. I have NEVER held to it: not 100%, not 1%, I have always repudiated it.

Yes. This thread and the "L" are about this: Did Jesus die for all (as traditional Christianity says.... as all Christians except for a tiny minority of Calvinist embrace.... as Scripture flat-out verbatim repeatedly states), or, as TULIP says, NOT for all but ONLY, exclusively, solely, just for some unknown/unnamed few.





.

 

[Andrew]

Is it fair to say that the death of Christ was the ultimate taste of death over all death? The ultimate sacrifice? The death was indeed an event on this earth and thus all death of mankind is inferior to his particular death, it's not like Christ died the death over and over again for every person individually who existed, exist and are to exist... no it was the one ultimate death over all death.
The Atonement is specifically and ultimately (and in general) there solely for the believer who are not just called 'to be' Saints but are in fact 'called' in his Election/Elect for all extensive purposes..
This very Elect/Sheep/Body of Christ/Church/Bride of Christ/Gods people/Believer/Christian/Chosen/Sons and daughters of God/Faithful/Saints/Servants and Slaves to God/etc... are ultimately (and sparing none) -exempt 100% from the condemnation of Adams transgression (death/hell) and no wicked nor wise serpent may come therein into the benefits of the Atonement/total redemption unto the Heavenly Kingdom.
I am submitting this post as completely non bias as possible and am expecting a non bias answer.
Can any man change or distort the general outcome of God Elect -"all who believe on him shall not perish but have everlasting life" in spite of being either Calvinists or none Calvinists?
Also when exactly is the affirmation declared?

 

[Josiah]

I
Can any man change or distort the general outcome of God Elect -"all who believe on him shall not perish but have everlasting life" in spite of being either Calvinists or none Calvinists?
Also when exactly is the affirmation declared?

1. Again, Scripture says Christ died for all. Yet of course, Scripture says not all have faith. It is clear the reason not all are saved is that not all have faith, for faith alone is what brings what Christ REALLY DID to the individual.

2 Again, IMO the Doctrine of Election (positive, "single" predestination") is true and biblical. It is also the position of historic, traditional, ecumenical Christianity. The Ecumenical Council of Orange, which is what embraced this doctrine, specifically make FAITH the receiver of this, NOT the Cross.

3. Among the many problems for the new TULIP denomination tradition is, by changing the object of Election from faith to the Cross, they now make it impossible to know who is saved. In traditional Christianity, in biblical Christianity, it is the OBJECT of faith that means it is effectual, in TULIP it is the SOURCE of that faith that has a certain relevance (too little to mention, however). If Bob's faith is IN CHRIST, then Bob is justified. Why can everyone be sure that Jesus is Bob's Savior, because the Bible go to such lengths to stress He is everyone's Savior.... he is trusting in the Savior who is HIS Savior. In Calvinism, the object is moot since Jesus is NOT the Savior of most people (and thus probably NOT Bob) but IF his faith is from God, then well it probably is embracing something real. Now, Bob can know if his faith is in Christ (that's objectively knowable) but there's no list of persons for whom Jesus is the Savior and so he has no way to know if his faith means a darn thing, the OBJECT of faith (Jesus) - a knowable - has been replaced with whether his faith comes from GOD - an unknowable. He must wonder if he came up with this.... or if GOD gave it to him.

4. "ALL who believe in Him.... " "that WHOSOEVER believes in Him...." are both dependent on there being something REAL to believe in. But if Jesus is not the Savior for most..... if Christ didn't die for most... then all we have is a false promise, an empty promise, a cruel joke, a fraud. Yes... the Council of Orange is right.... while the death of Jesus is sufficient for ALL and THERE for all; it's REAL not a fraud.... only the Elect are given the faith, and this gift is apprehended/embraced/trusted/relied by faith. Jesus died for all. The Holy Spirit does not give faith to all. They are not a "contradiction" a "dilemma" "a condunrum" as MennoSota claims... Read John 3:16. Jesus is given for the world.... the whosoever believe benefit.




True story: During WWII, there were a group of Japanese soldiers who got cut off from their troops. They "hid out", taking cover, hiding.... waiting for their fellow Japanese to rescue them. They lived miserable lives.... frightened lives... living with a war... that went on for DECADES. If I remember right, it was in the 1980's that these soldiers were found, still fighting for Japan, still hiding, still waiting, still living in fear. The REALITY is: the war was over. Peace had been made. Japan and the USA were good friends. Their fellow solders had gone back home, married, had kids, prospered, BENEFITED from the peace. But not these solders..... the REALITY was not known, not believed, not embraced, not apprehended, not trusted, not relied upon. There was a REALITY they didn't believe. Does the fact that these men continue to fight WWII for another 40 years prove peace was not achieved? Nope, only that they didn't apprehend it.

Let's say I buy everyone here at CH a $50.00 Starbucks Gift Card. They are NOT fakes. I did NOT steal them. They are not false promises, they are not cruel jokes. All are real. But some don't use them. Thus, do THEY PERSONALLY have coffee? PERSONALLY, is hot Pikes Place Coffee pouring down their gullet SIMPLY because a REAL card exists for them? Does the factor that means they aren't enjoying coffee lie with the card or with their lack of faith/use/reliance/trust/embrace/apprehending?



.

 

[MennoSota]

Actually, I do. I stand with Scripture, with the Council of Orange, with 2000 years of Christianity, and with every Calvinist personally known to me: Jesus died for all.

No, I don't agree with the new, unique denomination tradition of TULIP including the part that dogmatically states Jesus did NOT die for all but only, exclusively, solely, just for an unknowable/unnamed few.







No. Like all radical Calvinists for over 400 years, you have not yet been able to find even one Scripture anywhere that states Jesus died for ONLY a few. None is not much.

Yes. The rest of us have listed many Scriptures that flat-out, verbatim, in direct words, contradict this new, unique denomination tradition.







No. "Jesus died for all" is not supporting "Jesus did NOT die for all but only, exclusively, solely, just for some unknowable/unnamed limited few."






No, I did not repudiate my stand of rejecting the new denomination tradition of Jesus did NOT die for all but ONLY for some unnamed/unknown limited few. I repudiate that tradition. I have NEVER held to it: not 100%, not 1%, I have always repudiated it.

Yes. This thread and the "L" are about this: Did Jesus die for all (as traditional Christianity says.... as all Christians except for a tiny minority of Calvinist embrace.... as Scripture flat-out verbatim repeatedly states), or, as TULIP says, NOT for all but ONLY, exclusively, solely, just for some unknown/unnamed few.





.

Josiah, you have created a narrative if radicalism in order to not look at yourself. So be it.

 

[Andrew]

1. Again, Scripture says Christ died for all. Yet of course, Scripture says not all have faith. It is clear the reason not all are saved is that not all have faith, for faith alone is what brings what Christ REALLY DID to the individual.

2 Again, IMO the Doctrine of Election (positive, "single" predestination") is true and biblical. It is also the position of historic, traditional, ecumenical Christianity. The Ecumenical Council of Orange, which is what embraced this doctrine, specifically make FAITH the receiver of this, NOT the Cross.

3. Among the many problems for the new TULIP denomination tradition is, by changing the object of Election from faith to the Cross, they now make it impossible to know who is saved. In traditional Christianity, in biblical Christianity, it is the OBJECT of faith that means it is effectual, in TULIP it is the SOURCE of that faith that has a certain relevance (too little to mention, however). If Bob's faith is IN CHRIST, then Bob is justified. Why can everyone be sure that Jesus is Bob's Savior, because the Bible go to such lengths to stress He is everyone's Savior.... he is trusting in the Savior who is HIS Savior. In Calvinism, the object is moot since Jesus is NOT the Savior of most people (and thus probably NOT Bob) but IF his faith is from God, then well it probably is embracing something real. Now, Bob can know if his faith is in Christ (that's objectively knowable) but there's no list of persons for whom Jesus is the Savior and so he has no way to know if his faith means a darn thing, the OBJECT of faith (Jesus) - a knowable - has been replaced with whether his faith comes from GOD - an unknowable. He must wonder if he came up with this.... or if GOD gave it to him.

4. "ALL who believe in Him.... " "that WHOSOEVER believes in Him...." are both dependent on there being something REAL to believe in. But if Jesus is not the Savior for most..... if Christ didn't die for most... then all we have is a false promise, an empty promise, a cruel joke, a fraud. Yes... the Council of Orange is right.... while the death of Jesus is sufficient for ALL and THERE for all; it's REAL not a fraud.... only the Elect are given the faith, and this gift is apprehended/embraced/trusted/relied by faith. Jesus died for all. The Holy Spirit does not give faith to all. They are not a "contradiction" a "dilemma" "a condunrum" as MennoSota claims... Read John 3:16. Jesus is given for the world.... the whosoever believe benefit.




.

So you despise Calvinism because you believe it leads one to question their faith? Right?

 

[Josiah]

So you despise Calvinism because you believe it leads one to question their faith? Right?

Where did I say "despise?"

See the thread where we are invited to say what we think about other denominations, note what I said about Calvinism.

I MARRIED a Calvinist! (Well, she had converted by the time of our wedding). Her whole side of the family are Calvinists (MANY generations back). BTW, not a single Calvinist personally known to me (and that includes everyone on my wife's side of the family) rejects TULIP, and my father-in-law said this "L" is the worse in all of it, the most rejected of all of it.

I LOVE Calvinism! I treasure it's solid, biblical emphasis on monergism!

I DISAGREE with a tiny few of the things a FEW latter-day Calvinists invented (don't blame Calvin for this stuff!).

DISAGREE does not equal DESPISE. A very FEW things some LATTER-DAY minority invented is not all Calvinism.

Yes, I think this particular invention is terrible.... atpollard ask me why and I answered (he chose not to reply to any of it). It's not wrong because it is terrible, but it is terrible because it is wrong.


As I noted earlier, it is common in denominations for some extremist to come up with wachy ideas, starting with truth and taking it WAY TOO FAR so they actually end up either with something abiblical (a view with no direct Scripture support) or even unbiblical (actually contradicts several clear passages). It happened in Lutheranism, too. It even got into our official Confessions!!! It's the STUPID teaching that the Pope is the Antichrist. Now, I don't deny some came up with that... I don't even deny it's right there in our confessions.... but I don't condemn all Lutheranism because of some wackedoddle idea that sprung up among some Lutherans - I repudiate it! There's not only NOTHING in Sripture that states that, but the Pope clearly doesn't "fit" the biblical definition of "the Antichrist." Now.... is there something at the start of this that is valid? Yes... the Pope was protecting some who were teaching against the Gospel (and thus Christ) and to be "against Christ" is, technically" anti-Christ. Okay.... not sure I'd say that but okay. But some took that WAY, WAY too far, connected a lot of "dots" not there, came up with this, and said "THIS MAKES SENSE" and bingo - a denomination tradition (official yet). But you'd be hard press to find any Lutheran who believes that! Again, SOME MAY say "well, the papacy protects a false teaching about Christ" - again, okay, I wouldn't says that but okay.... but that's not what "The Pope is The Antichrist" states. Follow me? Now, because some latter-day Lutherans erred on that ONE thing, does that mean I despise Lutheranism and Lutherans? Nope, I are one.




.

 

[Andrew]

Where did I say "despise?"

See the thread where we are invited to say what we think about other denominations, note what I said about Calvinism.

I MARRIED a Calvinist! (Well, she had converted by the time of our wedding). Her whole side of the family are Calvinists (MANY generations back). BTW, not a single Calvinist personally known to me (and that includes everyone on my wife's side of the family) rejects TULIP, and my father-in-law said this "L" is the worse in all of it, the most rejected of all of it.

I LOVE Calvinism! I treasure it's solid, biblical emphasis on monergism!

I DISAGREE with a tiny few of the things a FEW latter-day Calvinists invented (don't blame Calvin for this stuff!).

DISAGREE does not equal DESPISE. A very FEW things some LATTER-DAY minority invented is not all Calvinism.

Yes, I think this particular invention is terrible.... atpollard ask me why and I answered (he chose not to reply to any of it). It's not wrong because it is terrible, but it is terrible because it is wrong.


As I noted earlier, it is common in denominations for some extremist to come up with wachy ideas, starting with truth and taking it WAY TOO FAR so they actually end up either with something abiblical (a view with no direct Scripture support) or even unbiblical (actually contradicts several clear passages). It happened in Lutheranism, too. It even got into our official Confessions!!! It's the STUPID teaching that the Pope is the Antichrist. Now, I don't deny some came up with that... I don't even deny it's right there in our confessions.... but I don't condemn all Lutheranism because of some wackedoddle idea that sprung up among some Lutherans - I repudiate it! There's not only NOTHING in Sripture that states that, but the Pope clearly doesn't "fit" the biblical definition of "the Antichrist." Now.... is there something at the start of this that is valid? Yes... the Pope was protecting some who were teaching against the Gospel (and thus Christ) and to be "against Christ" is, technically" anti-Christ. Okay.... not sure I'd say that but okay. But some took that WAY, WAY too far, connected a lot of "dots" not there, came up with this, and said "THIS MAKES SENSE" and bingo - a denomination tradition (official yet). But you'd be hard press to find any Lutheran who believes that! Again, SOME MAY say "well, the papacy protects a false teaching about Christ" - again, okay, I wouldn't says that but okay.... but that's not what "The Pope is The Antichrist" states. Follow me? Now, because some latter-day Lutherans erred on that ONE thing, does that mean I despise Lutheranism and Lutherans? Nope, I are one.




.

So you believe that the Sovereignty of God is still very real but TULIP falls short of defining what is sovereign and what is not correct?
(I'm not planning on incriminating against or exposing you by any means, these are actual questions my friend)

 

[MennoSota]

Where did I say "despise?"

See the thread where we are invited to say what we think about other denominations, note what I said about Calvinism.

I MARRIED a Calvinist! (Well, she had converted by the time of our wedding). Her whole side of the family are Calvinists (MANY generations back). BTW, not a single Calvinist personally known to me (and that includes everyone on my wife's side of the family) rejects TULIP, and my father-in-law said this "L" is the worse in all of it, the most rejected of all of it.

I LOVE Calvinism! I treasure it's solid, biblical emphasis on monergism!

I DISAGREE with a tiny few of the things a FEW latter-day Calvinists invented (don't blame Calvin for this stuff!).

DISAGREE does not equal DESPISE. A very FEW things some LATTER-DAY minority invented is not all Calvinism.

Yes, I think this particular invention is terrible.... atpollard ask me why and I answered (he chose not to reply to any of it). It's not wrong because it is terrible, but it is terrible because it is wrong.


As I noted earlier, it is common in denominations for some extremist to come up with wachy ideas, starting with truth and taking it WAY TOO FAR so they actually end up either with something abiblical (a view with no direct Scripture support) or even unbiblical (actually contradicts several clear passages). It happened in Lutheranism, too. It even got into our official Confessions!!! It's the STUPID teaching that the Pope is the Antichrist. Now, I don't deny some came up with that... I don't even deny it's right there in our confessions.... but I don't condemn all Lutheranism because of some wackedoddle idea that sprung up among some Lutherans - I repudiate it! There's not only NOTHING in Sripture that states that, but the Pope clearly doesn't "fit" the biblical definition of "the Antichrist." Now.... is there something at the start of this that is valid? Yes... the Pope was protecting some who were teaching against the Gospel (and thus Christ) and to be "against Christ" is, technically" anti-Christ. Okay.... not sure I'd say that but okay. But some took that WAY, WAY too far, connected a lot of "dots" not there, came up with this, and said "THIS MAKES SENSE" and bingo - a denomination tradition (official yet). But you'd be hard press to find any Lutheran who believes that! Again, SOME MAY say "well, the papacy protects a false teaching about Christ" - again, okay, I wouldn't says that but okay.... but that's not what "The Pope is The Antichrist" states. Follow me? Now, because some latter-day Lutherans erred on that ONE thing, does that mean I despise Lutheranism and Lutherans? Nope, I are one.




.

Blah, blah, blah. Your narrative is false and your belief is confused.

 

[Lamb]

Blah, blah, blah. Your narrative is false and your belief is confused.

Did you really need to say blah, blah, blah?

 

[MennoSota]

Did you really need to say blah, blah, blah?

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