Jesus died for the sins of the world

[1689Dave]

and if they don't apply it, it does them no good.

Your rejection of the role of faith simply makes you wrong, it does not mean that ergo all the following Scriptures are wrong:


2 Peter 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

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. ​

Titus 2:11 For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people,

John 3:16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

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.

2 Corinthians 5:14-15 For the love of Christ controls us, because we have concluded this: that one has died for all, therefore all have died; and he died for all, that those who live might no longer live for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised.

1 John 4:14 And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world.

John 1:29 The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!

1 Timothy 4:10 For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people.

2 Corinthians 5:15 And he died for all, that those who live might no longer live for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised.

2 Corinthians 5:19 That is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation.

1 Timothy 2:6 Who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time.

1 Timothy 2:5-6 For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time.

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


Oh, and again, yet again, questions aren't substantiation. For anything. You know that. We all do.

.

Which means people save themselves by works.

 

[Albion]

Which means people save themselves by works.

It doesn't mean any such thing.

What it means is that Christ, the Savior, called upon men to believe in him and trust him, and that in doing so they could receive eternal life. If they do not, they are lost.

 

[Josiah]

Which means people save themselves by works.

Absurd. Your repudiation of faith because you think that can only exist if an unregerate, fallen, sinful, atheistic, totally deprived person creates and gives it to self is totally unbiblical. And therefore, I reject it.

And of course, it's just another red herring, just another attempt to substitute one point (we'd agree on) for another one we don't and you can't defend as true.

We are standing with Scripture: that personal justification requires not ONLY the Cross of Christ but ALSO personal faith. Since you can't defend Limited Atonement (your hand is empty), you are trying to support it by denying a very key point of Scripture: the necessity of faith. You really should think about that..... you are digging your hole deeper and deeper, moving further and further away from biblical Christianity.

I'm very serious: You need to stop. You need to consult your pastor or other learned and trusted spiritual leader. Stop this until you do.

It doesn't mean any such thing.

@Albion

There are two possibilities here:

1. His repudiation of the role of faith means he's left traditional, creedal, biblical Christianity... he means what he's saying. And we need to pray for him and strongly encourage him to seek spiritual help. Perhaps his soul is in danger.

OR

2. He doesn't mean what he's saying. He knows Pelagianism, synergism, free-will theology is wrong and we all here reject it. But he is insisting that the ONLY faith that exists, the ONLY way it can exist, is if the fallen, reprobate, dead, unregenerate, atheistic, enemy of God creates it himself and then gives it to himself. Why is he assuming Arminianism, free-will Pelagainism is correct? Because he has to use a falsehood to support this theology.



.

.

 

[1689Dave]

Absurd. Your repudiation of faith because you think that can only exist if an unregerate, fallen, sinful, atheistic, totally deprived person creates and gives it to self is totally unbiblical. And therefore, I reject it.

And of course, it's just another red herring, just another attempt to substitute one point (we'd agree on) for another one we don't and you can't defend as true.

We are standing with Scripture: that personal justification requires not ONLY the Cross of Christ but ALSO personal faith. Since you can't defend Limited Atonement (your hand is empty), you are trying to support it by denying a very key point of Scripture: the necessity of faith. You really should think about that..... you are digging your hole deeper and deeper, moving further and further away from biblical Christianity.

I'm very serious: You need to stop. You need to consult your pastor or other learned and trusted spiritual leader. Stop this until you do.



.

From the onset, I've said Universal atonement = salvation by works. And it is in fact Pelagianism, condemned as heresy in 431 at Ephesus.

 

[Albion]

From the onset, I've said Universal atonement = salvation by works.

It does seem as though you've posted that about twenty times now, but that doesn't make it be correct, you should know.

 

[brightfame52]

josiah

Did the Apostle Paul preach that Jesus died for all?

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.

2 Corinthians 5:14-15 For the love of Christ controls us, because we have concluded this: that one has died for all, therefore all have died; and he died for all, that those who live might no longer live for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised.

1 Timothy 4:10 For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people.

2 Corinthians 5:15 And he died for all, that those who live might no longer live for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised.

2 Corinthians 5:19 That is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation.

1 Timothy 2:6 Who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time.

1 Timothy 2:5-6 For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time.

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

And nope, he never said, "NO, Jesus did NOT die for all but ONLY for some unknown few (and that probably doesn't include you)." Nope.

All these were letters to the churches professed believers. Not the same as the book of Acts sermons.

Did the Apostle John?

1 John 4:14 And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world.

John 1:29 The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!

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.​

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son.

Letters to believers.

 

[Josiah]

It does seem as though you've posted that about twenty times now, but that doesn't make it be correct, you should know.

Perhaps he is confusing himself with God.

Universal Atonement states that JESUS died for all. Not that Dave died for all. Or Joe Biden. "Jesus did for all" has nothing to do with Dave or Joe or me or Calvin. He has to do with Jesus. And what Jesus did.

I think his denial of faith is either a desperate need for something - even if he has to accept Pelaganian and heresy to try to do it, OR he actually believes in a very radical form of Pelagianism and that has lead him to Limited Atonement so as to avoid everyone being saved (Universalists - a split off Calvinism - ended up accepted that all are justified because they weren't Pelagianists and also denied the role of faith).



.

 

[Josiah]

@brightfame52

Letters to believers.

Yes, in First John, the Apostle is writing to believers. And here is what he wrote:

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. ​

Now, if you insist that "our" here refers ONLY to Christians (and of course, he never said that), then what's the point of the rest of the verse that follows? What does "and not only ours" mean if it IS only ours?

Have you just moved the word "NOT" so as to reverse the teaching? Do you think John SHOULD have written, "He is the propitiation for our sins, and for ours only but not for the sins of the whole world." If so, I don't agree with moving the word like that; it clearly reverses the whole point.

And where did any Apostle write, "Jesus did NOT die for all but ONLY for some unknown people?"



.

 

[Albion]

From the onset, I've said Universal atonement = salvation by works. And it is in fact Pelgianism, condemned as heresy in 431 at Ephesus.

You've also posted that many times, and it's still incorrect. I suppose we should have straightened you out the first time it was posted, but...

While Pelagius rejected the idea known as Original Sin, he did affirm that what we do towards righteousness is because Christ has remade us and encouraged us, etc. He also said that the result of salvation that was made possible by Christ is a virtuous life for us. We believers, he contended, are enabled by grace to seek holiness.

In summary, the idea that Pelagius taught that we save ourselves (!) is about the furthest thing from the truth of the matter.

Just look at the many ways that man's journey is made possible, according to Pelagius, because of what Christ did and God continues to do in the believer!

 

[Josiah]

You've also posted that many times, and it's still incorrect. I suppose we should have straightened you out the first time it was posted, but...

While Pelagius rejected the idea known as Original Sin, he did affirm that what we do towards righteousness is because Christ has remade us and encouraged us, etc. He also said that the result of salvation by Christ is a holy life for us. We believers, he contended, are enabled by grace to seek holiness.

In summary, the idea that Pelagius taught that we save ourselves (!) is about the furthest thing from the truth of the matter.

Just look at the many ways that man's journey is made possible, according to Pelagius, because of what Christ did and God continues to do in the believer!

@Albion

Follow this....

Dave is assuming that Pelagius, Arminius, "Free will theology" is CORRECT. It is the basis of one of his apologetics.

Dave is founding his apologetic on faith being a good work of the unregenerate, the unbeliever. People can and do create faith on their own, as their own good work. He's rejecting that faith is the work and gift of God.

So, when defenders of the Bible here insist that the absence of faith means that the benefits of the Cross are not applied to them personally, he declares this makes them Pelagianists, synergists, free-will Baptists. Because faith is a work dead people do, a "good work" that saves (what he think Peligius taught - never mind if he even did).

It's a red herring (because synergism is wrong, Universal Atonement is wrong). And it's entirely based on a theology he rejects - and so do we. Thus not only is this an absurd logical fallacy but the red herring itself is wrong (and he knows it). It's about the most desperate and crazy thing I've seen.





.

 

[brightfame52]

@brightfame52





Yes, in First John, the Apostle is writing to believers. And here is what he wrote:

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. ​

Now, if you insist that "our" here refers ONLY to Christians (and of course, he never said that), then what's the point of the rest of the verse that follows? What does "and not only ours" mean if it IS only ours?

Have you just moved the word "NOT" so as to reverse the teaching? Do you think John SHOULD have written, "He is the propitiation for our sins, and for ours only but not for the sins of the whole world." If so, I don't agree with moving the word like that; it clearly reverses the whole point.

And where did any Apostle write, "Jesus did NOT die for all but ONLY for some unknown people?"



.

Right, the whole world of believers[jew and gentile]. They were separated from the whole world of them lying in the lap of the wicked one 1 Jn 5:19

19 And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness.

1 Jn wasn't written to none but believers, unbelievers were excluded. Also propitiation means they are saved, Justified.

 

[Josiah]

Right, the whole world of believers[jew and gentile]. They were separated from the whole world of them lying in the lap of the wicked one 1 Jn 5:19

19 And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness.

1 Jn wasn't written to none but believers, unbelievers were excluded. Also propitiation means they are saved, Justified.

You indicated that the only verses that state "all" are saved are ones directly exclusively to Christians, and mean that Christ died ONLY for them.

Yes, in First John, the Apostle is writing to believers. And here is what he wrote:

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.​

Now, if you insist that "our" here refers ONLY to Christians (and of course, he never wrote "only"), then what's the point of the rest of the verse that follows? What does "and not only ours" mean if it IS only ours?

Have you just moved the word "NOT" so as to reverse the teaching? Do you think John SHOULD have written, "He is the propitiation for our sins, and for ours only but not for the sins of the whole world." If so, I don't agree with moving the word like that; it clearly reverses the whole point.

No, it does not say "to the whole Jewish and Gentile population" But I agree, that's everyone. And what would be the point if John writes to Jewish and Gentile Christians and says, "but not only for our sins" if he meant it was only for ours sins? If "ours" refers to Christians (which you want to stress included Jews and Gentiles) than when does "not only ours but for the sins of the whole world" mean?

And where did any Apostle write, "Jesus did NOT die for all but ONLY for some unknown people?" To a Jew or a Gentile or anyone for that matter?



.

 

[brightfame52]

You indicated that the only verses that state "all" are saved are ones directly exclusively to Christians, and mean that Christ died ONLY for them.

Yes, in First John, the Apostle is writing to believers. And here is what he wrote:

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.​

Now, if you insist that "our" here refers ONLY to Christians (and of course, he never wrote "only"), then what's the point of the rest of the verse that follows? What does "and not only ours" mean if it IS only ours?

Have you just moved the word "NOT" so as to reverse the teaching? Do you think John SHOULD have written, "He is the propitiation for our sins, and for ours only but not for the sins of the whole world." If so, I don't agree with moving the word like that; it clearly reverses the whole point.

No, it does not say "to the whole Jewish and Gentile population" But I agree, that's everyone. And what would be the point if John writes to Jewish and Gentile Christians and says, "but not only for our sins" if he meant it was only for ours sins? If "ours" refers to Christians (which you want to stress included Jews and Gentiles) than when does "not only ours but for the sins of the whole world" mean?

And where did any Apostle write, "Jesus did NOT die for all but ONLY for some unknown people?" To a Jew or a Gentile or anyone for that matter?



.

You dont know what propitiation is. It denotes satisfaction to Gods law and Justice, and His wrath is appeased. Now that cannot apply to them that are appointed to wrath as distinct from them that are not for whom Christ died 1 Thess 5:9-10

9 For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ, 10 who died for us, that, whether we wake or sleep, we should live together with him.

So Christ didnt die for them who have been appointed to wrath, and so Christ cannot be their propitiation lest we have a contradiction.

Some are presently under Gods wrath, so its impossible that Christ is their propitiation Jn 3:36

6 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

 

[Josiah]

Now that cannot apply to them

@brightfame52
@Albion


No one ever has said it APPLIES to all. Indeed, of course it doesn't. Where there is no faith, it is not applied.

Now, try to stick to the subject. The issue is not whether His death APPLIES to all but whether he DIED for all. Two entirely different points.

6 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

RIGHT!!!

Exactly!!!

So these radical Calvinist like Dave are wrong, faith DOES matter! Yes, Scripture is right: Jesus died for all. And yes, Scripture is right, those who believe have this applied to them, they apprehend it by faith.

The Bible so often states that Jesus died for all. Sorry, but nowhere does it limit that to ONLY Jews or Gentiles or men or girls and blondes or tall people or Americans, sorry no "But ONLY brown eyed girls" - no ONLY at all, not ever - but LOTS of emphasis on "all" "everyone" "all people" "not just us." Over and over again. That IS "universal atonement" - merely the verbatim echo of what the Bible so often, undeniably states. What Christianity has upheld for 2000 years (except for a few Calvinists in the last 500 years). Now, that does not mean all benefit from that because not all have faith - clearly, just as the Bible so clearly says. Universal Atonement just echos what the Bible says: Jesus died for all. It does not reject what the Bible also says, "without faith there is no salvation." Christ supplies it, faith applies it. Both the gifts of God.

Now Dave insists you accept that the only way faith can exist is if the unregenerate, deprived, sinful, dead, enemy of God CREATES it and then gives it to self. But most of us reject that Pelagian few, rejected at the Council of Ephesis in 432 AD. We think that insistence of his is heresy.





.



.

 

[1689Dave]

Perhaps he is confusing himself with God.

Universal Atonement states that JESUS died for all. Not that Dave died for all. Or Joe Biden. "Jesus did for all" has nothing to do with Dave or Joe or me or Calvin. He has to do with Jesus. And what Jesus did.

I think his denial of faith is either a desperate need for something - even if he has to accept Pelaganian and heresy to try to do it, OR he actually believes in a very radical form of Pelagianism and that has lead him to Limited Atonement so as to avoid everyone being saved (Universalists - a split off Calvinism - ended up accepted that all are justified because they weren't Pelagianists and also denied the role of faith).



.

Universal atonement is Pelagianism, condemned as heresy in 431 at Ephesus.

 

[Lamb]

Universal atonement is Pelagianism, condemned as heresy in 431 at Ephesus.

Repeating it without proof seems to be the theme your responses. Josiah has given you numerous verses to prove otherwise and Albion has even given you the correct definition of Pelagianism and Universal Atonement does NOT fit that description.

 

[1689Dave]

Repeating it without proof seems to be the theme your responses. Josiah has given you numerous verses to prove otherwise and Albion has even given you the correct definition of Pelagianism and Universal Atonement does NOT fit that description.

I'm now ready to post invincible proof in a few minutes.

 

[brightfame52]

@brightfame52
@Albion


No one ever has said it APPLIES to all. Indeed, of course it doesn't. Where there is no faith, it is not applied.

Now, try to stick to the subject. The issue is not whether His death APPLIES to all but whether he DIED for all. Two entirely different points.




RIGHT!!!

Exactly!!!

So these radical Calvinist like Dave are wrong, faith DOES matter! Yes, Scripture is right: Jesus died for all. And yes, Scripture is right, those who believe have this applied to them, they apprehend it by faith.

The Bible so often states that Jesus died for all. Sorry, but nowhere does it limit that to ONLY Jews or Gentiles or men or girls and blondes or tall people or Americans, sorry no "But ONLY brown eyed girls" - no ONLY at all, not ever - but LOTS of emphasis on "all" "everyone" "all people" "not just us." Over and over again. That IS "universal atonement" - merely the verbatim echo of what the Bible so often, undeniably states. What Christianity has upheld for 2000 years (except for a few Calvinists in the last 500 years). Now, that does not mean all benefit from that because not all have faith - clearly, just as the Bible so clearly says. Universal Atonement just echos what the Bible says: Jesus died for all. It does not reject what the Bible also says, "without faith there is no salvation." Christ supplies it, faith applies it. Both the gifts of God.

Now Dave insists you accept that the only way faith can exist is if the unregenerate, deprived, sinful, dead, enemy of God CREATES it and then gives it to self. But most of us reject that Pelagian few, rejected at the Council of Ephesis in 432 AD. We think that insistence of his is heresy.





.



.

Faith is given to them it applies to. If one isnt given Faith then Christ wasnt their proppitiation meaning Christ didnt die for them. The whole world of 1 Jn 2:2 is saved.

And it must not be confused, faith isnt that which propitiates Gods wrath, Christ is, faith embraces the Truth of what Christ did.

 

[Josiah]

Faith is given to them it applies to. If one isnt given Faith then Christ wasnt their proppitiation meaning Christ didnt die for them.

@brightfame52


Interesting theory.... please give the Scripture that states, "If you don't have faith, Christ didn't die for you." I'll eagerly await that verse. Until then, however, I'll believe all those many Scriptures that verbatim state that Jesus died for all people. Until you quote the one that states, "No, Jesus did not die for all but ONLY for those who come to faith." Now, of course, the benefit of His death only comes to those with faith - but that doesn't deny that He died for all, it only affirms the role of faith.


Consider this Scripture:
2 Peter 2:1 "But there were false prophets also among the people who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction."


These are people who DENY THE LORD and bring swift destruction on themselves.
Would you say they therefore have faith OR that they don't? Doesn't it seem they probably don't since they deny Christ?
It says the Christ "bought THEM." Them - the ones who deny him.
If He didn't die for them, what exactly did He do and pay that "bought" these who deny Christ?
If He did buy them by His death and thus you claim they have saving faith, why will they be destroyed?



.

 

[Albion]

Faith is given to them it applies to. If one isnt given Faith then Christ wasnt their proppitiation meaning Christ didnt die for them. The whole world of 1 Jn 2:2 is saved.

That's an example of illogical thinking and, as such, has nothing to do with what the Scripture is saying.

"If one isn't given Faith," what it means is that one isn't given Faith!

But what does that have to do with "Universal Atonement?" Well, nothing directly.

Universal Atonement refers to something else, to being exonerated from sin, like being acquitted in court of a crime. What it DOES NOT mean is that the person ALSO is given, at the same time and by the same action, a reward (in this case, the key to eternal life).