RANSOM FOR MANY OR ALL ?

[atpollard]

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.

Then POST one of them! Post a verse that “flat-out, verbatim, boldly, clearly, undeniably, in black-and-white words on the page” states “Jesus died for all, for everyone, for all others too, for the whole world.”

That is all I asked for.

 

[Bluezone777]

I think John 10:22-30 is quite plain enough that not everyone is destined to be saved. As for the question of many or all, I would say both is correct.

A ransom for many out of the world of which all are believers. You see, you can use both words in the same sentence(many and all) and not have them conflict with each other as it seems it might be the case.

Another good example that illustrates this point as well is Matthew 22:1-14.

The way I read it is without Jesus death on the cross, the Father had no authority under His own law to pardon anyone which is why Jesus' death was necessary. It gave the Father the authority under His own law to pardon sinners and since it is His law that He is enforcing means He and He alone is capable of making the choice as to who gets pardoned and who does not. Jesus' death is sufficient to empower God to pardon anyone and everyone however he chooses who to pardon and who not to pardon and believing Jesus is a marker of who the Father has granted a pardon to and who doesn't believe is a marker that they were not chosen to be pardoned for their sin. Jesus doesn't make the choice as to who his death pardons as that belongs to the father alone as he is the judge and is responsible for giving the law and ultimately upholding it which does include the power of the pardon made legally possible through Jesus.

See John 17:12 which clearly states that Judas was destined to be lost as his state was necessary so scripture could be fulfilled.

Another thing is there is a clear cut pattern throughout scripture where God chooses people not the other way around. God chooses Noah to build the ark. God chooses Job to endure what you would now call the trials of Job. God choose David to be king of Israel. God choose Abraham to be the father of many nations. God chose Jeremiah to be a prophet before he was even born. God choose Mary to be the mother of Jesus. God chose who would be called the 12 disciples/apostles. God chose Paul to be the apostle to the gentiles. In none of these cases did man ever choose to be the things that they became.

I see no reason to fear this reality because I know God is good and all he does is for my eternal good regardless of whether or not I can explain why it is for my good that something goes the way it goes or not. This is my thoughts on the matter.

 

[Lamb]

I think John 10:22-30 is quite plain enough that not everyone is destined to be saved. As for the question of many or all, I would say both is correct.

Well, we aren't really talking about if everyone will be saved. We're talking about whether or not Jesus died for everyone.

Lutherans believe that Jesus died for everyone. But not everyone will benefit because not everyone will trust in that forgiveness. They reject it. They are blasphemers. The entire world fell into sin and God fixed that at the cross. He gave a Savior for the world but not everyone wants that Savior and they damn themselves.

 

[Josiah]

I think John 10:22-30 is quite plain enough that not everyone is destined to be saved. As for the question of many or all, I would say both is correct.

A ransom for many out of the world of which all are believers. You see, you can use both words in the same sentence(many and all) and not have them conflict with each other as it seems it might be the case.

I follow you....


We have two totally different issues here:


1. Are all SAVED? That would require that all are predestined and all have faith, and it is very clear that's not the case, which is why historic Christianity has rejected universalism (Universalism is a result of Calvinism), since it is clear not all are elect and not all have faith.

2. Did Jesus die for ALL? Here, the Bible could not be clearer,yup, He died "for all" "for everyone" "for the whole world" "for others, too." This is the issue of this thread.

They are two different issues.

As you point out, just because all are loved and Jesus died for all does NOT mean ergo all are saved. This is a fundamental mistake that a lot of radical Calvinists make. The biblical doctrine of Justification is SOLA GRATIA - SOLUS CHRISTUS - SOLA FIDE as one, single truth. Remove any aspect of that and you have heresy, an unbiblical and unchristian teaching. But one can remove just one aspect of that - keeping the other two - and it's now unbiblical, heretical, unchristian. Whereas we've seen repeatedly that our Calvinist friend seems to not want to talk about faith.... while he seems to insist that if God loves you and Christ died for you, ERGO you are saved. That simply is not true; there are THREE aspects: God loves you (as you can be certain because He loves all) - Christ died for you (as you can be certain because He died for all) - you have faith (trust, reliance) in that Savior (which by no means is always the case.) The"variable" (if you will) is not the Cross, it's faith.

So yes, the "especially for those with faith" applies.

Jesus doesn't make the choice as to who his death pardons as that belongs to the father alone as he is the judge and is dresponsible for giving the law and ultimately upholding it which does include the power of the pardon made legally possible through Jesus.

Well, again, His death ALONE does not result in personal pardon (which classic theology calls subjective justification, atonement applied to that person), faith is also required. But yes, without the death, faith is irrelevant. Which is part of the horror of this denomination tradition of a few Calvinists, a person could absolutely hold that they are trusting in Christ but FOR THEM is there anything for that trust to apprehend? Are they trusting in a promise and a work that is not for THEM (indeed, it's not for most people!) but they have no way to know that!!!! For Christians, we don't have to worry if our faith is "genuine" or "salvic" as Calvinists must, we don't have to worry if our faith is relying on something that is for ME (when it's likely not), NO, if I'm looking to Christ, I'm looking to something for ME because it's for ALL. It's not the Cross- regardless of faith, and it's not faith - regardless of the Cross. But without the Cross, faith is moot. Which is why Calvinists are "stuck" with the uncertainty, no idea of their faith is "genuine" that is, if it actually is embracing something that is for THEM.





.

 

[Josiah]

@BBAS 64;

This continues in the next post, too....



BILL,


1. I have reviewed Hebrews 2:2 and 2:9 as you requested. I've read the entire second chapter 3 times now, and I read chapters 1 and 3, too.

It does say "every one" which of course confirms what so many other verses say. I don't see anything that makes it very clear the penmen of Hebrews clearly holds that Jesus died ONLY for the Elect and thus cannot mean "every one" but verse 9 must mean "ONLY a few."


2. I think it would be very helpful to review the following posts: 80, 105, 168, 184


3. I think it would be helpful to appreciate historic Christianity places this discussion in the context of objective and subjective justification. I offered a video that explains this in post 80. It's 9 minutes long, but it is obvious Particular confuses these and imputes that confusion to Lutherans. I hope you won't.


4. It's interesting you focus on a passage of Hebrews. Dr. Cooper is a convert from Calvinism. This is the shortest and easiest of his works on this topic (he has a book on it, too). His 4th reason is about the Book of Hebrews which he holds clearly contradicts this idea that Jesus died for ONLY some. I encourage you to note this video:

Here is another that deals with 1 Timothy 2:4 where he addresses James White's treatment.

Continues in the next post...


Thank you!


Josiah




.

 

[Josiah]

@BBAS 64;


... continuing from above....


See post 168. Bill, I can understand how one would look at a great bulk of Scriptures that obviously state "all" "Everyone" "whole" etc. in this context and yet conclude, "But I hold there are enough issues where even together, these do not support the teaching that Jesus died for all." I'd disagree with them of course (as I think 99% of Christians today and 100% before the late 16th Century would - a moot point, I agree). But friend, that does NOTHING to substantiate that ERGO Jesus only died for a few, some subset of "all." It's only shown what level the "bar" is for them to substantiate a doctrine (and it must be EXTREMELY high!). Okay. Let's see this new tradition raise above that bar.


I've read lots of posts and watched many videos from Reformed on this. And while they spent a LOT of time TRYING to get around a great bulk of verses that sure seem to literally contradict their tradition ("clear reading of the text" to use a Reformed rubric), they offer precious little to support - to the level of substantiation they demand of others - their tradition.


What I seem to read/hear is mostly three things:

1. If all the verses that say "all" "whole" "everyone" etc. in the Reformed view don't prove Jesus died for all, ERGO it proves He did not. I regard that as illogical and it's precisely the kind of argument Reformed usually ridicule.

2. If Jesus died for the Elect, ergo He did not die for the non-Elect. They will present clear Scriptures that say Jesus died for this subgroup of people or that subgroup of people, and while I at times think they are making too much of that, they will continue "ERGO, the only logical possibility is that He died for no other." This too is illogical and is precisely what Reformed repudiate. Saying He died for the Elect says NOTHING to do with ergo He only died for them. The ONLY is the whole issue.... and this has nothing to do with that.

3. The QUESTION is asked, "Why would Jesus die for someone He knew would never have faith?" Valid question, maybe, but someone asking a question is not substantiation for anything. And of course, the person not only appoints self to ask a question, but self to answer it - and then require God (and everyone else) to agree. This rejection of Sola Scriptura is exactly the approach Reformed ridicule Catholics for doing, self asking a question, self answering it, and then self inventing a new Tradition to match that answer. Questions don't validate dogma. It's irrelevant and hypocritical since Reformed often repudiate this very rubric.



Thanks!


Josiah





.

 

[Particular]

Well, we aren't really talking about if everyone will be saved. We're talking about whether or not Jesus died for everyone.

Lutherans believe that Jesus died for everyone. But not everyone will benefit because not everyone will trust in that forgiveness. They reject it. They are blasphemers. The entire world fell into sin and God fixed that at the cross. He gave a Savior for the world but not everyone wants that Savior and they damn themselves.

Lamm, it's more than this.
We are specifically talking about who Jesus ransomed/ redeemed when he died on the cross.

We all agree that Jesus died for all who will believe.

The question revolves around those who will not believe. Does Jesus still ransom them despite the reality that they don't believe? Are unbelievers ransomed/redeemed even though they do not believe? This is the question.

I believe the Bible very clearly states that all who believe are ransomed. Those who don't believe are not ransomed. If non-believers were ransomed, they would be redeemed without a need to believe. It would be universalism, which teaches that very thing.

Now, did Jesus atonement have the potential to ransom all humanity? Yes.
However, not all humanity believes, therefore, Jesus atonement only effectively ransoms those who believe, not those who don't believe. The ransom is limited to those who believe. Those whom God makes alive with Christ and saves by grace, through the gift of faith, which God gives to those he chooses to save.

The ransom is therefore, not for all humanity, but only for all humans who believe who live throughout all the world. God is not withholding his ransom from a specific tribe or tongue. His ransom is for all who believe.

Hopefully that clears things up.

 

[Josiah]

However, not all humanity believes, therefore, Jesus atonement only effectively ransoms those who believe, not those who don't believe.

Totally irrelevant to the discussion. You are just trying to radically change the issue.


The issue is this:

Did Jesus die for all as the Bible so often, so clearly, verbatim states - the historic, orthodox view our Calivinist friends so repudiate OR Did Jesus die ONLY for some little subset of "all" and "everyone" and "whole world" - the new Reformed tradition. The issue is did Jesus die for ALL or ONLY.



See post 184 for the last of the MANY, MANY times this point has been made.

We agree that Jesus died for all who will believe.

... and you reject that He died for all. Thus the debate here (and in so many other threads on the "L" of the TULIP denomination tradition invented in the late 16th Century). We're stating Jesus died for ALL. You ridicule and repudiate that, insisting He ONLY died for the elect. Thus our disagreement.





.

 

[Lamb]

Totally irrelevant to the discussion. You are just trying to radically change the issue.


The issue is this:

Did Jesus die for all as the Bible so often, so clearly, verbatim states) - the historic, orthodox view OR Did Jesus die ONLY for some little subset of "all" and "everyone" and "whole world" - the new Reformed tradition. The issue is ALL or ONLY.



.

Exactly. He's not seeing what is being pointed out clearly to him. Jesus died for all but not all will benefit. That's what scripture tells us and it's what you, Josiah, have pointed out with scripture you keep providing.

 

[Josiah]

@ [B][USER=11]Lämmchen[/USER][/B] ;


This is to Lamm....

I married into a very Reformed family.... my wife's parents are both of Scottish heritage (and proud of it), her Dad from some islands off the northwest side (which, I learned, were part of NORWAY for like 600 years!!!). Anyway, all the aunts, uncles, cousins - pretty much Reformed. And conservative at that. BTW, they were totally okay with me being Lutheran as long as I was LCMS and "not those others" (lol)

Here's what they've related to me.... most of which was new to me 6 years ago or so...

1. "TULIP" for which Reformed are so well known, did not come from Calvin but was an invention of some radical latter day Calvinists, and never did all Reformed buy into that. And what all that means varies "A LOT" since there's never been any official or universally accepted explaination of it.

2. "TULIP" is a RE-ACTION to a 5 point statement by some radical synergistic Arminianists. A point-to-point rejection and repudiation by radical later-day Reformed. (And you know how Arminianists and Calvinists can fight!!!!! ANYTHING one says, the other just knee-jerk rejects and says the opposite - remember CF?). Well one of the Arminianists points was to restate a very orthodox, biblical position - Jesus died for all. Now, they would go ON to make some (silly, unbiblical) "logical" arguments from that to repudiate predestination, but the position was just to re-state the orthodox, history, non-disputed view: Jesus Died for All. So what was the radical reaction? "NO!!!!! He only died for the ELECT!!!!!: in order to support predestination, because for BOTH "sides" this was all an intertangled, interdependent, LOGICAL argument. So, the point of the L is to reject that Jesus died for all. Now, Lamm, here's what I think is critical. This was NEVER widely accepted because it is so clearly unbiblical (and terrible). It is - and always has been - the LEAST accepted part of TULIP by the Reformed, and as my relatives tell me, nearey impossible to find taught today. Some are "clear" on this and call themselves "FOUR Point Reformed."

3. With this repudiation of the "L"... well..... some play games with it. "Yes, we agree that Jesus died ONLY for the Elect in that only the Elect benefit from it." In other words, they've joined with millions of other Calvinists in rejecting the L and just agree that Jesus died for all but it doesn't benefit all since not all have faith. EXACTLY what those Arminianists said that the "L" repudiates. I saw this same kind of GAME played in the Catholic Church. You see this at sites like this, too. Some CLEAR, bold, obvious official statement from the Catholic Church (probably centuries ago!) to repudiate someone who disagreed, and instead of just saying, "No, I disagree - the other was actually right" the Church will say "That statement is correct, it's just that it condemns the one who was correct." Seriously, it gets that silly. I have more respect for the Reformed who says, "Of course the Arminianists were right to affirm Jesus died for all - because He did, they just made some horrible, unbiblical implications of that which contradict Scripture." Yup. Instead, some defend a wrong statement "Jesus did NOT die for all" and then try to add, "Oh, wait a minute, actually he did but the Arminianist and Catholics and Lutherans and Anglicans and Baptists and Methodist and jpretty much everyone before TULIP was invented are right: He died for all but only those with faith benefit (what traditionally is called objective and subjective justification." It's a game some play when they want to SOUND like they support something when in reality they agree with the people they are arguing with. Amazing. I've witnessed it since I was may 12 years old, SO determined to defend their denomination and traditions are they. BTW, this is also why I made it SO clear that faith IS a factor....and why Particular kept ignoring that. Part of the uber-Calvinist game. And partly the result of embracing personal human LOGIC as the norm rather than Scripture.


BTW, I'm a 1 plus two-haves TULIPian, lol. Total depravity is right. POSITIVE Election is right (just not double). God DOES stay with us but OSAS is wrong. The problem with TULIP is that 1) it's just a knee-jerk reaction to another set of stuff 2) Just like what it is repudiating, it too is a logical construct rather than a biblical one 3) Just like what it was written to rebuke, it too pretends that everyone for 1500 years was stupid, didn't have Scripture or the Holy Spirit, and suddenly, bingo, here THEY are with the TRUTH because finally a new denomination has arisen that listens to the Holy Spirit. All those "Calvinists vs. Arminianist" WARS over at CF were just amazing to behold - in so many cases, each trying to out do the other for exactly what they themselves are doing. THAT SAID, I honor a deep, rich scholarship in the Reformed tradition when it comes to biblical studies I so appreciate their embrace of Truth in a world that has become infected with relativism, and I appreciate SO VERY MUCH their passionate embrace of monergism - more appreciated than ever before as so much of Christianity has become synergistic. In the opinion of this now LUTHERAN, I just think they need a dose of humility and community....


Back to the fights.



-Josiah




.




.

 

[Particular]

Totally irrelevant to the discussion. You are just trying to radically change the issue.


The issue is this:

Did Jesus die for all as the Bible so often, so clearly, verbatim states - the historic, orthodox view our Calivinist friends so repudiate OR Did Jesus die ONLY for some little subset of "all" and "everyone" and "whole world" - the new Reformed tradition. The issue is did Jesus die for ALL or ONLY.



See post 184 for the last of the MANY, MANY times this point has been made.



.

Totally relevant to the issue. We are discussing ransom for sin, not who has the opportunity to believe.

Perhaps the problem here is that you misunderstand what ransom means and therefore you are talking about something else that does not address the topic.

Either that or you are arguing for universalism.

 

[Andrew]

Jesus died ONLY for those who are atoned for.
In my personal guess, I would say believe that you are a believer, an unbeliever wouldn't believe to be a believer.. or also I could say.. A TRUE unbeliever wouldn't believe to be a believer... you cannot taste the fruit of Righteousness and then fall back away, God is Sovereign, and we cannot see who wear sheep's clothing but only by the fruit of their actions.. as a Sheep..

Such an argument is useless in my opinion thus this very sentence and also very useless.. my 2 cents of nonsense, either side it right but misrepresented by the other.. Have a drink, eat, and be merry

 

[Josiah]

We are discussing ransom for sin, not who has the opportunity to believe.

The issue is this:


Did Jesus die for ALL as the Bible so often, so clearly, verbatim states - the historic, orthodox view?
OR
Did Jesus die ONLY for SOME subset of "all" and "everyone" and "whole world" - a new Reformed tradition you endlessly parrot?


Since you came here, I've embrace the first.
Since you came here, you've repudiated that and argued for the second.


The issue is did Jesus die for ALL or ONLY SOME?
I produced Scriptures that state "ALL"
We're all waiting for you to present something, anything, that states "ONLY SOME."




As I have stated over and over and over and over, the reality that Jesus died for all does not mean all are saved regardless of whether or not they have faith. You have debated that with me endlessly, repudiating me, rejecting that, insisted that if Jesus died for all then I'm a universalist and hold that all are saved, I have responded dozens and dozens of times that's incorrect because I hold not only is the Cross essential to personal justification but equally so is faith, and you have rejected that. Arguing with me endlessly over that. Debating that with me.

I have argued that Jesus died for all and you for MONTHS in MANY threads have insisted that is not true.

I HAVE brought up faith simply because of your false view that faith has nothing to do with personal justification, your constant charge that if Jesus died for all ERGO all are saved, a position from you I boldly and repeatedly reject. I DO keep bringing faith into the question of personal justification because I hold to SOLA GRATIA - SOLUS CHRISTUS - SOLA FIDE whereas you keep saying that if Christ died for someone, ergo they are saved. You are wrong.

When you first brought up this mantra of yours (it's SO rare to find any Reformed Christian actually defending this tradition of your denomination!), I THOUGHT maybe you just totally misunderstood othodox, historic, biblical Christianity... that you were confusing objective justification with subjective (personal) justification, or even if perhaps you were a Universalist (lots of Calvinists end up there) but no, this has been repeatedly and clearly explained and yet you just keep repeating your mantra - Jesus did NOT die for all but ONLY for the Elect. You just can't find any verse that says that. I say He died for all, you insist that's a lie. I quote the verses that say "for all" and you insist that's not true, He did NOT die for all as the verses say. You CAN find that only those with faith BENEFIT from this (and I'd agree, they are the Elect) but then that's what I've been saying since you came to this site and you've repudiated everything I post, you've been denouncing everything I post on this topic, you've been arguing with me and Lamm and others every time we say that, so either you do NOT agree with us that Jesus died for all (but only those with faith benefit) OR you don't know what you are talking about OR you are defending the Calvinist position that He did NOT die for all but ONLY for some but like your buddies here, realize you have nothing in Scripture that says that, NOTHING to cause any consideration that "all" and "everyone" in these verses means something other than what the words say.




.

 

[Particular]

The issue is this:


Did Jesus die for ALL as the Bible so often, so clearly, verbatim states - the historic, orthodox view?
OR
Did Jesus die ONLY for SOME subset of "all" and "everyone" and "whole world" - a new Reformed tradition you endlessly parrot?


Since you came here, I've embrace the first.
Since you came here, you've repudiated that and argued for the second.


The issue is did Jesus die for ALL or ONLY SOME?
I produced Scriptures that state "ALL"
We're all waiting for you to present something, anything, that states "ONLY SOME."




As I have stated over and over and over and over, the reality that Jesus died for all does not mean all are saved regardless of whether or not they have faith. You have debated that with me endlessly, repudiating me, rejecting that, insisted that if Jesus died for all then I'm a universalist and hold that all are saved, I have responded dozens and dozens of times that's incorrect because I hold not only is the Cross essential to personal justification but equally so is faith, and you have rejected that. Arguing with me endlessly over that. Debating that with me.

I have argued that Jesus died for all and you for MONTHS in MANY threads have insisted that is not true.

I HAVE brought up faith simply because of your false view that faith has nothing to do with personal justification, your constant charge that if Jesus died for all ERGO all are saved, a position from you I boldly and repeatedly reject. I DO keep bringing faith into the question of personal justification because I hold to SOLA GRATIA - SOLUS CHRISTUS - SOLA FIDE whereas you keep saying that if Christ died for someone, ergo they are saved. You are wrong.

When you first brought up this mantra of yours (it's SO rare to find any Reformed Christian actually defending this tradition of your denomination!), I THOUGHT maybe you just totally misunderstood othodox, historic, biblical Christianity... that you were confusing objective justification with subjective (personal) justification, or even if perhaps you were a Universalist (lots of Calvinists end up there) but no, this has been repeatedly and clearly explained and yet you just keep repeating your mantra - Jesus did NOT die for all but ONLY for the Elect. You just can't find any verse that says that. I say He died for all, you insist that's a lie. I quote the verses that say "for all" and you insist that's not true, He did NOT die for all as the verses say. You CAN find that only those with faith BENEFIT from this (and I'd agree, they are the Elect) but then that's what I've been saying since you came to this site and you've repudiated everything I post, you've been denouncing everything I post on this topic, you've been arguing with me and Lamm and others every time we say that, so either you do NOT agree with us that Jesus died for all (but only those with faith benefit) OR you don't know what you are talking about OR you are defending the Calvinist position that He did NOT die for all but ONLY for some but like your buddies here, realize you have nothing in Scripture that says that, NOTHING to cause any consideration that "all" and "everyone" in these verses means something other than what the words say.




.

This is about who Jesus ransomed. You are struggling with the title of this thread and trying to change the topic.
I have made my case. The readers can decide for themselves.

 

[Josiah]

Agreed.

I have joined with historic Christianity in affirming what the Bible so often, so clearly, verbatim states: Jesus died for all. And you have spent every opportunity since you came here to repudiate, reject and denounce that. I have quoted (verbatim, no need for 'spin') the Scriptures that state EXACTLY what I have. You have endlessly argued against that, insisting that "all" actually means "ONLY SOME" and if I read it in context, I'd know that "all" means "not all" in that chapter. And you have not even attempted to post a Scripture stating that Jesus died for ONLY SOME, you've just denounced the orthodox, histotic view that accepts what Scripture says, He died for all. Anyone who reads this thread knows this.

You have insisted that because I say the Cross alone does not personally justify but we also must have faith, you have ridiculed me, denounced me, called me a Universalist and a heretic. You have stated that if Jesus died for all, then all are saved, and I've rejected that. Any who have read this thread know this.

Since I can produce many Scriptures that states what I do: Christ died for all.... and since you've been unable to produce anything that contradicts that and says He died for only some people, I think we're done. Until a couple of weeks from now when you will start this all over again, as you've done a few times now.




.

 

[Particular]

Agreed.

I have joined with historic Christianity in affirming what the Bible so often, so clearly, verbatim states: Jesus died for all. And you have spent every opportunity since you came here to repudiate, reject and denounce that. I have quoted (verbatim, no need for 'spin') the Scriptures that state EXACTLY what I have. You have endlessly argued against that, insisting that "all" actually means "ONLY SOME" and if I read it in context, I'd know that "all" means "not all" in that chapter. And you have not even attempted to post a Scripture stating that Jesus died for ONLY SOME, you've just denounced the orthodox, histotic view that accepts what Scripture says, He died for all. Anyone who reads this thread knows this.

You have insisted that because I say the Cross alone does not personally justify but we also must have faith, you have ridiculed me, denounced me, called me a Universalist and a heretic. You have stated that if Jesus died for all, then all are saved, and I've rejected that. Any who have read this thread know this.

Since I can produce many Scriptures that states what I do: Christ died for all.... and since you've been unable to produce anything that contradicts that and says He died for only some people, I think we're done. Until a couple of weeks from now when you will start this all over again, as you've done a few times now.




.

Did Jesus ransom all? Yes or no. This is the topic of this thread.

 

[Particular]

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

I am still waiting.

We're still waiting on Josiah to actually answer the question. A week later and he still won't touch it with a 10 foot pole.

Did Jesus ransom all? Yes or no. This is the topic of this thread.

I am concluding that Josiah is a unitarian/universalist, not a lutheran as he claims.

 

[Josiah]

Again.

I have joined with historic Christianity in affirming what the Bible so often, so clearly, verbatim states: Jesus died for all. And you have spent every opportunity since you came here to repudiate, reject and denounce that - arguing against that every time I share it. I have quoted (verbatim, no need for 'spin') the Scriptures that state EXACTLY what I have. You have endlessly argued against that, insisting if I read it in context, I'd know that "all" means "not all" in that chapter. And you have not even attempted to post a Scripture stating that Jesus died for ONLY SOME, nothing that says He did NOT die for all, nothing to counter my pov that Jesus died for all. You've just denounced the orthodox, histotic view that accepts what Scripture says: He died for all. Anyone who reads this thread knows this.

You have insisted that because I say the Cross alone does not personally justify but we also must have faith, you have ridiculed me, denounced me, called me a Universalist and a heretic for sharing that historic, orthodox view. You have stated that if Jesus died for all, then all are saved. I've rejected that, noting faith is also necessary, and you called me a Universalist and heretic for that. Any who have read this thread know this.

Since I can produce many Scriptures that states what I do: Christ died for all.... and since you've been unable to produce anything that contradicts that and says He died for only some people, I think we're done.

Until a couple of weeks from now when you will start this all over again, as you've done a few times now.




.

 

[atpollard]

Exactly. He's not seeing what is being pointed out clearly to him. Jesus died for all but not all will benefit. That's what scripture tells us and it's what you, Josiah, have pointed out with scripture you keep providing.

Actually, scripture says no such thing. You are reading it into the verses.
Scripture says Jesus died for ALL OF US (christians).
Scripture says Jesus died for all sins.
Scripture does not say that Jesus died for every person (no exception).


I keep asking for the verse that says what you-all keep claiming it says, but I have shown that each of the verses posted by Josiah do not say what you claim “MANY” verses say.

However, @Particular has made a valid point that that is not what the TITLE of this thread is about. The actual title is about RANSOM and not death. So who has Jesus ransomed?

 

[atpollard]

Jesus died for all.

... but scripture does not say for all PEOPLE (as in everyone) and that avoids the point that this topic is about who Jesus RANSOMED, not who Jesus died for.

So who did Jesus RANSOM?