Jesus died for the sins of the world

[1689Dave]

Your posts, sir, misrepresent what my posts contain. I do not see any good reason to respond to this kind of misrepresentation.

See ya!

 

[brightfame52]

The above quote is also "circular reasoning" and "begging the question" because the "us" that is mentioned need not be taken as exhaustive of all who are to be saved; specifically, Hebrews' author intends by "us" those to whom he wrote, namely, Christians who knew something about Hebrew religion, the addressees. But you and I, as we read the passage, and all those living today who read the passage, were not in the author's mind when he wrote. You may wish to argue that he intended to address us but that is you interpreting his words rather than his words saying the thing you think it means. And when you argue from your interpretation to your theological position you beg the question by not allowing the words to be interpreted independent of the theological framework that you accept.

I take the "us" as those to whom the author wrote, and I take them as a subset of "the world" whose sin the Lamb of God takes away.

The us are them Christ Christ died for and obtained eternal redemption for, the us is the redeemed. Also they would be the justified since redemption gives Justification as well Rom 3:24

Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:

 

[MoreCoffee]

The world in Jn 1:29 doesnt have sin charged to it, thats the elect.

The above claim looks like nonsense.

The next day, John saw Jesus coming to him; and he saith: Behold the Lamb of God. Behold him who taketh away the sin of the world.​

John 1:29
There is nothing in the passage to suggest that "world" means "elect". The world clearly has sin because the world is fallen humanity and that means sinful humanity; clearly sinful humans have sin.

 

[1689Dave]

The above claim looks like nonsense.

The next day, John saw Jesus coming to him; and he saith: Behold the Lamb of God. Behold him who taketh away the sin of the world.​

John 1:29
There is nothing in the passage to suggest that "world" means "elect". The world clearly has sin because the world is fallen humanity and that means sinful humanity; clearly sinful humans have sin.

Why aren't all saved if so?

 

[MoreCoffee]

Why aren't all saved if so?

The scriptures give an answer for that.

Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets. Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.​

Matthew 7:12-14

 

[Josiah]

As much as I like to approve your comments, I cannot agree with them because they are fundamentally flawed. "Universal atonement" is a Protestant category, it is not Catholic teaching.

@MoreCoffee


Then, my brother, you are forced to deny your own Catechism. CCC 605 is a very clear, very bold, very precise statement of Universal Atonement. Since you must be unfamiliar with this part of your Catechism (hey, it's big!), it says, "There is not, never has been, and never will be a single human being for whom Christ did not die." You will not find a more bold and clear statement of Universal Atonement elsewhere; that's it. As clear as it an be. And it's doctrine in the Catholic Church. That IS "Universal Atonement."

Yes, it is distinctive from the invention of a few radical, latter-day Calvinists: the "L" of TULIP. See what CatholicAnswers says about that invention: Did Christ Die for All?

We are content with that language and do not want any part of "universal atonement".

Then, are you insisting that CCC 605 is wrong and you reject it?

Why are you teaching Universal Atonement if you think it's a wrong Protestant teaching? That seems VERY odd. Why are you, as a Catholic, teaching what CCC 605 teaches if you think CCC 605 is wrong?

. If some well-meaning Catholic apologists ventures into that muddy terminology, shame on them.

I was taught that the Catechism was suppose to present the true Catholic faith, and has the approval of the living bishops of the church. This is what Pope John-Paul states in the introduction of it. Are you suggesting that your Catechism is just well-meaning apologists who err - "shame on them"? Wow. In my days, I was not taught that a bold statement like CCC 605 even could be held as wrong by faithful Catholics, or can be just rejected and repudiated.





.

 

[1689Dave]

The scriptures give an answer for that.

Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets. Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.​

Matthew 7:12-14

This is salvation by works the way you use it. He is speaking to saved people on how to live.

 

[Albion]

Like I said in the beginning, the L in TULIP is unprovable, as there are passages that point both ways.. Hence all the debate on the topic.
Free will was true with unfallen Adam and Jesus, otherwise .

That small modification aside, it does appear to me that you are indebted to Calvin for your thinking on this issue.

Thus, you will feel, in your heart, that what you wrote before--"In my case, Calvin had nothing to do with it . The Lord drew me" --is correct, but lots of people talk like that and they really have just then made the choice, for one reason or another, between the various and conflicting religious ideas that they'd been exposed to.

 

[Josiah]

Why aren't all saved if so?

@1689Dave

Because biblical Christianity doesn't agree with you (and Universalists) that faith is irrelevant, moot, just a joke - and has nothing to do with persoanal justification. We don't believe that if Christ died for you, ergo you have personal justification whether you trust that He did or spit in His face, repudiate and deny and reject that He did. We think faith matters. That's it's not JUST the Cross but the Cross AND faith.f And unlike you, we are not Pelagian, we do NOT hold that faith is a matter of free will, we do NOT teach that faith is something created by unregenerate, fallen, atheistic enemies of God (and thus a "good work", "salvation by works") we hold that faith (like the Cross) is the work and gift of God alone. Unlike you, we don't repudiate faith and the role of faith ... we don't hold that faith is our good work.

Since you have nothing in Scripture that says "No, Jesus did NOT die for all but ONLY for some unknown few..." Since you have no basis to insist the Bible is SO often wrong for teaching that, you just ask a question (as if questions substantiate anything!), a question based on the repudiation of the role of faith. It's all you got - an apologetic formed entirely out of a heresy: that faith is irrelevant to personal justification.



.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Then, are you insisting that CCC 605 is wrong and you reject it?

What do you think 605 says?

CCC 605 At the end of the parable of the lost sheep Jesus recalled that God's love excludes no one: "So it is not the will of your Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish." He affirms that he came "to give his life as a ransom for many"; this last term is not restrictive, but contrasts the whole of humanity with the unique person of the redeemer who hands himself over to save us.( Mt 20:28; cf. Rom 5:18-19.) The Church, following the apostles, teaches that Christ died for all men without exception: "There is not, never has been, and never will be a single human being for whom Christ did not suffer.(Council of Quiercy (853): DS 624; cf. 2 Cor 5:15; I Jn 2:2.)"​

None of this says, "universal atonement", that is a protestant vocabulary element that Catholic teaching does not use. The CCC uses scripture to define its position and then quotes from a council.

 

[MoreCoffee]

This is salvation by works the way you use it. He is speaking to saved people on how to live.

Matthew 7:12-14 is scripture; if it vexes and upsets the theology your posts are presenting then that is a problem for your presentation to deal with.

 

[Albion]

Why aren't all saved if so?

Because justification and salvation are not the same thing; and it would be helpful if you and your allies here would stop switching back and forth between the two concepts in response to each post from a member who has shown from Scripture that Christ did not die for only the few.

 

[Josiah]

What do you think 605 says?

CCC 605 At the end of the parable of the lost sheep Jesus recalled that God's love excludes no one: "So it is not the will of your Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish." He affirms that he came "to give his life as a ransom for many"; this last term is not restrictive, but contrasts the whole of humanity with the unique person of the redeemer who hands himself over to save us.( Mt 20:28; cf. Rom 5:18-19.) The Church, following the apostles, teaches that Christ died for all men without exception: "There is not, never has been, and never will be a single human being for whom Christ did not suffer.(Council of Quiercy (853): DS 624; cf. 2 Cor 5:15; I Jn 2:2.)"​

None of this says, "universal atonement", that is a protestant vocabulary element that Catholic teaching does not use. The CCC uses scripture to define its position and then quotes from a council.

@MoreCoffee


I'm glad you read your Catechism on this!

Yup. Could not be a more clear, more precise statement of Universal Atonement. Yup, EXACTLY as Scripture teaches (I've quoted those verses many times in this discussion) AND as the Council of Quiercy stated. EXACTLY. No Lutheran could put it more boldly.

"Jesus died for all people"
"There is not, never has been, and never will be a single human being for whom did not die."
Please explain to me how these two doctrines are different.

Sincerely, my brother, I'm at a loss to see how you can state -SO clearly, SO precisely - EXACTLY the doctrine of Universal Atonement ... and argue so strongly for it - and say you don't accept it? What? Why would you want to deny what you now realize is doctrine in your church, doctrine you are to accept and doctrine you teach? Why would you teach something in this thread that you think is NOT Catholic but Protestant? I always considered you a faithful Catholic.

Now, it COULD be that the common moniker by which it is know is not shared by the modern Catholic Church. But the moniker is not the doctrine, it doctrine is "Jesus died for all people." Exactly as it says in our Lutheran Confessions. Exactly as the Bible states. Exactly as the Council of Quiercy declared. Doctrines sometimes are known by different monikers but that doesn't necessarily mean they are different doctrines.

Your church teaches this JUST LIKE the Lutheran Church (and all but a FEW radical, extreme Calvinists) do. EXACTLY. Lutherans put it this way: "Jesus died for all people." The moniker for that is "Universal Atonement." The Catholic Church puts it this way, ""There is not, never has been, and never will be a single human being for whom Christ did not suffer." Now, to this guy, as I read those words, I don't see that the Catholic Church is teaching something quite different than than the Lutheran doctrine (if anything, the Catholic Church is even bolder, LOL). Now, MAYBE the Catholic Church has a different moniker for this doctrine (I don't know) but that doesn't mean the doctrine is different, even if that's the case (and I know nothing that suggests it is).




A blessed Advent to you, my brother.



.

.

 

[MoreCoffee]

The scriptures give an answer for that.
Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets. Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. Matthew 7:12-14

This is salvation by works the way you use it. He is speaking to saved people on how to live.

You claim "he is speaking to saved people" the passage is from "the sermon on the mount" which starts with "Then, seeing the crowds, he ascended the mountain, and when he had sat down, his disciples drew near to him," Matthew 5:1, which leaves one thinking that he is addressing disciples who were part of crowds of people. Who is addressed? The whole sermon needs to be read to discover if the Lord is intending to address only "the elect" or if a wider coverage is intended.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Yup. Could not be a more clear, more precise statement of Universal Atonement.

I have to conclude that there's is something amiss when you claim that 605 says "universal atonement" when it does not. Or else I must conclude that you do not understand the posts I have written which have repeatedly said that Catholic Church teaching does not use Protestant vocabulary phrases like "universal atonement" when discussing Christ's role in taking away the sin of the world. Anyway, since it is fruitless to discuss further if you're not willing to note what I have written about the absence of the phrase "universal atonement" you can pretend that I haven't written anything on the phrase if you like. I am not keen to discuss this with you anymore.

 

[1689Dave]

You claim "he is speaking to saved people" the passage is from "the sermon on the mount" which starts with "Then, seeing the crowds, he ascended the mountain, and when he had sat down, his disciples drew near to him," Matthew 5:1, which leaves one thinking that he is addressing disciples who were part of crowds of people. Who is addressed? The whole sermon needs to be read to discover if the Lord is intending to address only "the elect" or if a wider coverage is intended.

The Sermon on the Mount is the spiritual application of the Ten Commandments. Only the Born-Again can make sense of it. It is now the New Covenant code of ethics. Do you know anyone who lives it?

 

[1689Dave]

Matthew 7:12-14 is scripture; if it vexes and upsets the theology your posts are presenting then that is a problem for your presentation to deal with.

I made a living by following the Sermon on the Mount. Most ignore it.

 

[1689Dave]

@1689Dave

Because biblical Christianity doesn't agree with you (and Universalists) that faith is irrelevant, moot, just a joke - and has nothing to do with persoanal justification. We don't believe that if Christ died for you, ergo you have personal justification whether you trust that He did or spit in His face, repudiate and deny and reject that He did. We think faith matters. That's it's not JUST the Cross but the Cross AND faith.f And unlike you, we are not Pelagian, we do NOT hold that faith is a matter of free will, we do NOT teach that faith is something created by unregenerate, fallen, atheistic enemies of God (and thus a "good work", "salvation by works") we hold that faith (like the Cross) is the work and gift of God alone. Unlike you, we don't repudiate faith and the role of faith ... we don't hold that faith is our good work.

Since you have nothing in Scripture that says "No, Jesus did NOT die for all but ONLY for some unknown few..." Since you have no basis to insist the Bible is SO often wrong for teaching that, you just ask a question (as if questions substantiate anything!), a question based on the repudiation of the role of faith. It's all you got - an apologetic formed entirely out of a heresy: that faith is irrelevant to personal justification.



.

Biblical Christianity does not support Universal Atonement. You must interpret scripture to make it support your claims. You pass off your claims as scripture when they are not.

 

[MoreCoffee]

The Sermon on the Mount is the spiritual application of the Ten Commandments. Only the Born-Again can make sense of it. It is now the New Covenant code of ethics. Do you know anyone who lives it?

What I know is this: I know how to read Matthew 5 to 7. I do not need a theory of its application to born-agains alone. It is a "sermon" spoken before crowds of people.

 

[1689Dave]

What I know is this: I know how to read Matthew 5 to 7. I do not need a theory of its application to born-agains alone. It is a "sermon" spoken before crowds of people.

Gandhi read it every day too. Have you ever tried living it? Do you know what it involves?