RANSOM FOR MANY OR ALL ?

[Particular]

.

 

[atpollard]

You have presenting NOTHING - not one verse from any book that any Christian considers canonical - that states your new denominational tradition, the 'ONLY some." I know Calvinists have been looking for almost 500 years for some verse that states their new, horrible, denomination tradition but so far no one has found one. Not yet. But give it a try!

You have also not presented a single verse that states your denominational tradition that ‘every person, every goat, every tare, every reprobate, every antichrist‘ was died for by Jesus on the cross.

Provide the one verse that says “Jesus died for every single person without exception.”

 

[Lamb]

Behold the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.

It's right there. The entire world fell into sin. Jesus died on the cross for the sin of the world.

 

[atpollard]

Provide the one verse that says “Jesus died for every single person without exception.”

Behold the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.

1. “Sin” is not “people”
2. it does not mention his death in that verse.
3. it does not say Jesus in that verse, so you will need to expand the quote.
4. ”the world” is not necessarily “every person without exception”

Provide the one verse that says “Jesus died for every single person without exception.”

 

[Particular]

Yes, I too would like to see the one verse that says “Jesus died for every single person without exception.”

 

[Particular]

This verse does not say that Jesus DIED at all. Jesus certainly did not ransom every person without exception, unless you preach UNIVERSALISM. So you will need to include some more surrounding verses to prove that this means ...
“Jesus died for every single person without exception.”

Until then ... Provide the one verse that says “Jesus died for every single person without exception.”

Yes, it is impossible to say Jesus ransomed all and not be teaching universalism. All would mean all, universally. The only way to get around that is to add a clause that defeats the universalism...or...you have to look at the context of the verse and realize that the "all" is referring to all who believe, not all the universal world. The ransom is for all who believe (limited), not for all the world, regardless of whether a person believes or not.

 

[Josiah]

That says “sins” not people. Jesus did die for the sins of the whole world

Ah.....

Then you have two options:

1. Those Jesus didn't die for had no sins, the unelect need no forgiveness, Jesus didn't need to die for them because they had no sin.
2. The verse is wrong.

Where is the verse that says, "Nope, Jesus died for ONLY some?' Your entire invention rests wholly, entirely, completly on the SOME. A FEW. But you can't find any verse that remotely says that. No radical Calvinist in nearly 500 years hasn't found a single verse that states this new horrible invention. I've checked out Reformed websites, and this point is usually admitted. But okay, be the first. I've answered your question about the number of verses I demand of you, and well, I just respectfully ask for ONE. ONE that says "Jesus died for ONLY SOME." ONLY. I'll accept it from any book that any Christian on the planet accepts as canonical.


We've provided verses that specifically, repeatedly, clearly, undeniably, verbatim state "ALL" "EVERYONE"
You've yet to produce anything that says "ONLY."

You have also not presented a single verse that states your denominational tradition that ‘every person, every goat, every tare, every reprobate, every antichrist‘ was died for by Jesus on the cross.

That's because I don't hold that Jesus died for rabbits. But we have presented Scriptures that speak of people. And it says 'ALL' 'EVERYONE."

And you've not presented anything whatsoever, from any book that even one person holds as canonical, that says ONLY - and your entire, new, horrible denomination tradition depends on that ONLY.





.

 

[Josiah]

Particular, Atpollard


"Problems"can result as we read Scripture....


1) Let's say there's a verse that states,"Jesus died at the age of 30" and another that says "Jesus died at the age of 45." Now, Scripture cannot err but we certainly SEEM (to our puny, largely worthless brains) that... well..... they can't both be true, yet are. Now it may be we (all Christians) can resolve it via the Law/Gospel dynamic (often works), or the related justification/sanctification dynamic (also often works) but neither of those help here. We SEEM to have a contradiction and yet cannot have one. What to do? Throw out one and accept the other? "Interpret" one to agree with the other? No, we let God be true - and admit we can't wrap our brain around this. We have examples of that with the Trinity, the Two Natures of Christ and a large number of other doctrines you accept - all EMBRACES of verses we CANNOT fit together or explain - but we let them all stand, fully and literally, and declare we have a mystery. MUCH of Christian doctrine falls into that.

2) Let's say there is a verse that says 4000 people were present at an event, and another that says 5000 were. This is no problem at all. 4000 is a subset of 5000. There is no problem at all; no issue to understand, no contradiction. This is similar to a verse that says Jesus died for the elect and Jesus died for all, the elect is a subset of all. No logical problem whatsoever. Now, IF the verse stated, "ONLY 4000 were present" then we'd have a problem (of the nature of #1 above), the same issue we'd have IF you could find a verse that said "Jesus died ONLY for the elect." But without the "only" there is no varience, no conflict, no problem.,nothing that remotely needs understanding or "interpreting."


But here's the undeniable reality: SO many verses that flat-out, verbatim, boldly, clearly, undeniably, in black-and-white words on the page (Sola Scriptura) repeatedly state Jesus died for all, for everyone, for all others too, for the whole world. And not one that so much as mentions some "only." So we have no problem. The Bible is right. This horrible, late, denominational tradition you parrot is not in Scripture. What God so often, so clearly, so boldly, verbatim states is true.


Now, you MAY be of the personal opinion that the "all" and "everyone" and "all others too" and "whole world" cannot support the doctrine that Jesus died for all. Okay. I disagree with you (as do every Calvinist known to me, and my wife's side of our family is nothing but Reformed Christians) but that provides nothing to prove that ergo the opposite is the case. You've only attempted to say the nearly universal Christian position... in your individual opinion.... lacks adequate support for the doctrine that Jesus died for all. I'm sure you have far, far greater problems with the Trinity and Two Natures of Christ and pretty much all other doctrines, too. But your opinion that "but I'M not sure "all" actually means "all" is in any sense substantiation that the verse actually states NOT all. Calvinists are often SO incredibly proud of their logic...and that just amazes me.



Friends, I'm not asking for anything you don't. If someone posted, "The Bible says Jesus was born in Los Angeles" I'm 100% sure you'd asked, "where?" And you likely would note that twice it says He was born in Bethlehem of Judea. Now....I may present questions I have about the Bethlehem reference but that would not ergo dogmatically prove He thus was born in Los Angeles - especially if I cannot find one verse - anywhere - that says He was born in Los Angeles. Here's the simple, undeniable reality: MANY clear, undeniable Scripture STATE in black-and-white words ("Sola Scriptura") that Jesus died for all. And you can't find anything that says "Nope, Jesus died for ONLY some." Christians can (and do) have numerous Scriptures to support their view - in clear, undeniable, bold, verbatim, obvious, black-and-white words. You don't. You have nothing. Simple as that. And all your noise can't change that.






.

 

[atpollard]

1. Those Jesus didn't die for had no sins, the unelect need no forgiveness, Jesus didn't need to die for them because they had no sin.
2. The verse is wrong.

Those are not the only two options.

In the OT, the Priest made an offering for the sin of the whole nation. That is a simple statement of fact. Applying your “two choices” to the sin for the whole nation, does that mean that there was no need for any of the other offerings because every person in Israel without exception was forgiven by the offering for the whole nation? Or does that mean that the OT scripture on national and personal sin offerings is wrong?

By creating a falsely limited number of options, you have excluded the TRUTH as a possible answer. It is known as the “fallacy of the excluded middle”.

 

[atpollard]

Where is the verse that says, "Nope, Jesus died for ONLY some?'

Where is the verse that says “Yup, Jesus died for every individual without exception?”

I am still waiting.

 

[atpollard]

That's because I don't hold that Jesus died for rabbits. But we have presented Scriptures that speak of people. And it says 'ALL' 'EVERYONE."

Lots of verses say “ALL” and “EVERYONE”, but the verses that you have so far presented do not say that Jesus died for ALL people and EVERYONE without exception. They say that Jesus died for ALL OF US (Saints).

 

[atpollard]

And you've not presented anything whatsoever, from any book that even one person holds as canonical, that says ONLY - and your entire, new, horrible denomination tradition depends on that ONLY.

John 10. Read it for yourself.

• Who does the Shepherd lay down his life for?
• Why did they not believe?
• Who gives the sheep to Jesus?

 

[atpollard]

Let's say there's a verse that states,"Jesus died at the age of 30" and another that says "Jesus died at the age of 45."

There is no verse that states this.

 

[atpollard]

Let's say there is a verse that says 4000 people were present at an event, and another that says 5000 were. This is no problem at all. 4000 is a subset of 5000. There is no problem at all; no issue to understand, no contradiction. This is similar to a verse that says Jesus died for the elect and Jesus died for all, the elect is a subset of all. No logical problem whatsoever. Now, IF the verse stated, "ONLY 4000 were present" then we'd have a problem (of the nature of #1 above), the same issue we'd have IF you could find a verse that said "Jesus died ONLY for the elect." But without the "only" there is no varience, no conflict, no problem.,nothing that remotely needs understanding or "interpreting."

Let’s say there is a verse that says “Jesus died for every person without exception.”

Why don’t you post it for all to see rather than arguing that “Jesus died for the elect” really means “Jesus died for the elect and the reprobate and the antichrists and all those that He will say ‘I never knew you’ to at the final judgement”.

 

[atpollard]

But here's the undeniable reality: SO many verses that flat-out, verbatim, boldly, clearly, undeniably, in black-and-white words on the page (Sola Scriptura) repeatedly state Jesus died for all, for everyone, for all others too, for the whole world.

Please post the verse that says “Jesus died for everyone without exception.”

... not for ALL of us Saints.
... not for the sins of EVERYONE
... not the sins of the WORLD.

“Jesus died for every person without exception” is your claim. Where is your scripture?

 

[Josiah]

There is no verse that states this.

Right. Just as there is no verse that states "SOME people" or "ONLY a few."
This new horrible denomination tradition you parrot is entirely missing.
But we DO have verses that state "ALL" "EVERYONE" "WHOLE WORLD"


Here's the undeniable reality: SO many verses that flat-out, verbatim, boldly, clearly, undeniably, in black-and-white words on the page (Sola Scriptura) repeatedly state Jesus died for all, for everyone, for all others too, for the whole world. And not one that so much as mentions some "only." So we have no problem. The Bible is right. This horrible, late, denominational tradition you parrot is not in Scripture. What God so often, so clearly, so boldly, verbatim states is true.


Now, you MAY be of the personal opinion that the "all" and "everyone" and "all others too" and "whole world" cannot support the doctrine that Jesus died for all. Okay. I disagree with you (as do every Calvinist known to me, and my wife's side of our family is nothing but Reformed Christians) but that provides nothing to prove that ergo the opposite is the case. You've only attempted to say the nearly universal Christian position... in your individual opinion.... lacks adequate support for the doctrine that Jesus died for all. I'm sure you have far, far greater problems with the Trinity and Two Natures of Christ and pretty much all other doctrines, too. But your opinion that "but I'M not sure "all" actually means "all" is in any sense substantiation that the verse actually states NOT all. Calvinists are often SO incredibly proud of their logic...and that just amazes me.


I'm not asking for anything you don't. If someone posted, "The Bible says Jesus was born in Los Angeles" I'm 100% sure you'd asked, "where?" And you likely would note that twice it says He was born in Bethlehem of Judea. Now....I may present questions I have about the Bethlehem reference but that would not ergo dogmatically prove He thus was born in Los Angeles - especially if I cannot find one verse - anywhere - that says He was born in Los Angeles. Here's the simple, undeniable reality: MANY clear, undeniable Scripture STATE in black-and-white words ("Sola Scriptura") that Jesus died for all. And you can't find anything that says "Nope, Jesus died for ONLY some." Christians can (and do) have numerous Scriptures to support their view - in clear, undeniable, bold, verbatim, obvious, black-and-white words. You don't. You have nothing. Simple as that. And all your noise can't change that.


Here are just 6 verses that convey inclusivity.



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

Where is your verse that states, "NOT for the whole world but rather for ONLY A FEW."
Where is the verse that states, "Nope, Jesus died for ONLY SOME."
See post 141



Hebrews 2:9 But we see him who for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.

Where is your verse that states, "Nope, Jesus died for ONLY A FEW."
Where is the verse that states, "Nope, Jesus died for ONLY SOME."
See post 141



2 Corinthians 5:14 For the love of Christ controls us, because we have concluded this: that one has died for all

Where is your verse, "Nope, Jesus die not die for all but for ONLY A FEW"
Where is your verse, "Nope, Jesus died for ONLY SOME."
See post 141



2 Corinthians 5:15 And he died for all

Where is your verse, "Nope, Jesus did NOT die for all but for ONLY A FEW"
Where is the verse, "Nope, Jesus died for ONLY SOME."
See post 141



Isaiah 53:6 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.

Where is your verse, "Nope, Jesus did NOT die for all but for ONLY A FEW"
Where is the verse, "Nope, Jesus died for ONLY SOME."
See post 141



1 Timothy 2:6 Who gave himself as a ransom for all.

Where is your verse, "Nope, Jesus did NOT die for all but for ONLY A FEW"
Where is the verse, "Nope, Jesus died for ONLY SOME."
See post 141


There are many, many more that state the same truth as the six examples above.


You have presenting NOTHING - not one verse from any book that any Christian considers canonical - that states your new denominational tradition, the 'ONLY some." I know Calvinists have been looking for almost 500 years for some verse that states their new, horrible, denomination tradition but so far no one has found one. Not yet. But give it a try!






.

 

[Particular]

Right. Just as there is no verse that states "SOME people" or "ONLY a few."
This new horrible denomination tradition you parrot is entirely missing.
But we DO have verses that state "ALL" "EVERYONE" "WHOLE WORLD"


Here's the undeniable reality: SO many verses that flat-out, verbatim, boldly, clearly, undeniably, in black-and-white words on the page (Sola Scriptura) repeatedly state Jesus died for all, for everyone, for all others too, for the whole world. And not one that so much as mentions some "only." So we have no problem. The Bible is right. This horrible, late, denominational tradition you parrot is not in Scripture. What God so often, so clearly, so boldly, verbatim states is true.


Now, you MAY be of the personal opinion that the "all" and "everyone" and "all others too" and "whole world" cannot support the doctrine that Jesus died for all. Okay. I disagree with you (as do every Calvinist known to me, and my wife's side of our family is nothing but Reformed Christians) but that provides nothing to prove that ergo the opposite is the case. You've only attempted to say the nearly universal Christian position... in your individual opinion.... lacks adequate support for the doctrine that Jesus died for all. I'm sure you have far, far greater problems with the Trinity and Two Natures of Christ and pretty much all other doctrines, too. But your opinion that "but I'M not sure "all" actually means "all" is in any sense substantiation that the verse actually states NOT all. Calvinists are often SO incredibly proud of their logic...and that just amazes me.


I'm not asking for anything you don't. If someone posted, "The Bible says Jesus was born in Los Angeles" I'm 100% sure you'd asked, "where?" And you likely would note that twice it says He was born in Bethlehem of Judea. Now....I may present questions I have about the Bethlehem reference but that would not ergo dogmatically prove He thus was born in Los Angeles - especially if I cannot find one verse - anywhere - that says He was born in Los Angeles. Here's the simple, undeniable reality: MANY clear, undeniable Scripture STATE in black-and-white words ("Sola Scriptura") that Jesus died for all. And you can't find anything that says "Nope, Jesus died for ONLY some." Christians can (and do) have numerous Scriptures to support their view - in clear, undeniable, bold, verbatim, obvious, black-and-white words. You don't. You have nothing. Simple as that. And all your noise can't change that.


Here are just 6 verses that convey inclusivity.



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

Where is your verse that states, "NOT for the whole world but rather for ONLY A FEW."
Where is the verse that states, "Nope, Jesus died for ONLY SOME."
See post 141



Hebrews 2:9 But we see him who for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.

Where is your verse that states, "Nope, Jesus died for ONLY A FEW."
Where is the verse that states, "Nope, Jesus died for ONLY SOME."
See post 141



2 Corinthians 5:14 For the love of Christ controls us, because we have concluded this: that one has died for all

Where is your verse, "Nope, Jesus die not die for all but for ONLY A FEW"
Where is your verse, "Nope, Jesus died for ONLY SOME."
See post 141



2 Corinthians 5:15 And he died for all

Where is your verse, "Nope, Jesus did NOT die for all but for ONLY A FEW"
Where is the verse, "Nope, Jesus died for ONLY SOME."
See post 141



Isaiah 53:6 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.

Where is your verse, "Nope, Jesus did NOT die for all but for ONLY A FEW"
Where is the verse, "Nope, Jesus died for ONLY SOME."
See post 141



1 Timothy 2:6 Who gave himself as a ransom for all.

Where is your verse, "Nope, Jesus did NOT die for all but for ONLY A FEW"
Where is the verse, "Nope, Jesus died for ONLY SOME."
See post 141


There are many, many more that state the same truth as the six examples above.


You have presenting NOTHING - not one verse from any book that any Christian considers canonical - that states your new denominational tradition, the 'ONLY some." I know Calvinists have been looking for almost 500 years for some verse that states their new, horrible, denomination tradition but so far no one has found one. Not yet. But give it a try!






.

None of these state, “Jesus died for every person without exception."

Josiah, tradition can be wrong. We should both be able to agree on this. It matters not if the tradition is 1500 years old or 5 years old. Tradition can be horribly wrong. So, you have no leg to stand on when you try leaning on tradition.
What we have is scripture. There is no scripture that says “Jesus died for every person without exception." There is no scripture that says the phrase that you have demanded from me. However, there are many, many passages that express God's limited ransom for his chosen people who will believe. We see this in both the Old and the New Testament. I have repeatedly provided these passages (not just 6 sentences). You can cling to your 6 sentences and your tradition, or you can read the many, many passages showing God's limited ransom for his chosen people and believe what it says.
I have exegeted two of your 6 sentences and shown you how and why your position is not supported by the sentences you picked. At this point, you are being stubborn and narrow-minded in comprehending what God has clearly revealed. I cannot move you from your obstacle (and I won't try). All that I hope for is that the unbiased reader of this thread will read all the passages I provided and realize that God is a particular God who, by His Sovereign authority, chooses whom He will ransom and redeem from their sins. God has not redeemed (ransomed) the entire, universal world of humanity as you are claiming with the 6 sentences you quote.

When we share the message of reconciliation, God will place it upon the hearer to believe or that hearer will listen and remain in rebellion against God. Neither you nor I control the reaction of the hearer. But, God may choose to control the reaction of the hearer and that is His Sovereign right to do so.

I am done with this conversation. We have made our case. The reader can determine what God has declared about His ransom of the rebellious sinner.

 

[Josiah]

Josiah, tradition can be wrong.

Yes, as is the new denomination tradition that you parrot, the Jesus died ONLY for a few and NOT the "all" "everyone" etc., etc. that Scripture so often, so boldly, so undeniably, verbatim, in black-and-white words on the page (Sola Scriptura) STATES. If you had a verse that stated this horrible denomination tradition, you would have quoted it. You don't have anything. And I think Christians generally know why.

So, you have no leg to stand on when you try leaning on tradition.

You have no leg to stand on when you just lean on this denomination tradition, this contradiction of Scripture, of "Jesus died for ONLY some." Your entire new tradition depends - wholly - on ONLY. But as you are proving, the Bible never remotely says that. It says ALL, EVERYONE, etc.


Here's the undeniable reality: SO many verses that flat-out, verbatim, boldly, clearly, undeniably, in black-and-white words on the page (Sola Scriptura) repeatedly state Jesus died for all, for everyone, for all others too, for the whole world. And not one that so much as mentions some "only." So we have no problem. The Bible is right. This horrible, late, denominational tradition you parrot is not in Scripture. What God so often, so clearly, so boldly, verbatim states is true.


Now, you MAY be of the personal opinion that the "all" and "everyone" and "all others too" and "whole world" cannot support the doctrine that Jesus died for all. Okay. I disagree with you (as do every Calvinist known to me, and my wife's side of our family is nothing but Reformed Christians) but that provides nothing to prove that ergo the opposite is the case. You've only attempted to say the nearly universal Christian position... in your individual opinion.... lacks adequate support for the doctrine that Jesus died for all. I'm sure you have far, far greater problems with the Trinity and Two Natures of Christ and pretty much all other doctrines, too. But your opinion that "but I'M not sure "all" actually means "all" is in any sense substantiation that the verse actually states NOT all. Calvinists are often SO incredibly proud of their logic...and that just amazes me.


I'm not asking for anything you don't. If someone posted, "The Bible says Jesus was born in Los Angeles" I'm 100% sure you'd asked, "where?" And you likely would note that twice it says He was born in Bethlehem of Judea. Now....I may present questions I have about the Bethlehem reference but that would not ergo dogmatically prove He thus was born in Los Angeles - especially if I cannot find one verse - anywhere - that says He was born in Los Angeles. Here's the simple, undeniable reality: MANY clear, undeniable Scripture STATE in black-and-white words ("Sola Scriptura") that Jesus died for all. And you can't find anything that says "Nope, Jesus died for ONLY some." Christians can (and do) have numerous Scriptures to support their view - in clear, undeniable, bold, verbatim, obvious, black-and-white words. You don't. You have nothing but this Calvinist tradition that nearly all Calvinist reject.



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

Where is your verse that states, "NOT for the whole world but rather for ONLY A FEW."
Where is the verse that states, "Nope, Jesus died for ONLY SOME."
See post 141



Hebrews 2:9 But we see him who for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.

Where is your verse that states, "Nope, Jesus died for ONLY A FEW."
Where is the verse that states, "Nope, Jesus died for ONLY SOME."
See post 141



2 Corinthians 5:14 For the love of Christ controls us, because we have concluded this: that one has died for all

Where is your verse, "Nope, Jesus die not die for all but for ONLY A FEW"
Where is your verse, "Nope, Jesus died for ONLY SOME."
See post 141



2 Corinthians 5:15 And he died for all

Where is your verse, "Nope, Jesus did NOT die for all but for ONLY A FEW"
Where is the verse, "Nope, Jesus died for ONLY SOME."
See post 141



Isaiah 53:6 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.

Where is your verse, "Nope, Jesus did NOT die for all but for ONLY A FEW"
Where is the verse, "Nope, Jesus died for ONLY SOME."
See post 141



1 Timothy 2:6 Who gave himself as a ransom for all.

Where is your verse, "Nope, Jesus did NOT die for all but for ONLY A FEW"
Where is the verse, "Nope, Jesus died for ONLY SOME."
See post 141


There are many, many more that state the same truth as the six examples above.


You have presenting NOTHING - not one verse from any book that any Christian considers canonical - that states your new denominational tradition, the 'ONLY some." I know Calvinists have been looking for almost 500 years for some verse that states their new, horrible, denomination tradition but so far no one has found one. Not yet. But give it a try!






.

 

[Particular]

People can read and see who is sharing the full word of God and who is sharing 6 sentences.

 

[bbas 64]

Good Day, Josiah

Still waiting for your input to my post 124 and "tasted death"

Really looking for your understanding of the phrase.. and the Psalm quote that proceeds it

In Him

Bill