Jesus died for the sins of the world

MoreCoffee

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
19,200
Location
Western Australia
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Gandhi read it every day too. Have you ever tried living it? Do you know what it involves?
I know you haven't responded to arguments put to you.
I know you haven't indicated that you understood the argument in one case.
I know that your attempt to side-track the conversation isn't helpful and will not work.
 

Albion

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
7,760
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Anglican
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Biblical Christianity does not support Universal Atonement.
LOL. If that were true, you would have shown us something to that effect from Scripture and done so many posts ago.

But in the meantime, there have been scores and scores of posts that flatly disprove your theory and do it by referring you to Bible verses.
 

1689Dave

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 17, 2022
Messages
1,871
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
No
I know you haven't responded to arguments put to you.
I know you haven't indicated that you understood the argument in one case.
I know that your attempt to side-track the conversation isn't helpful and will not work.
Does your church teach the Sermon on the Mount as a lifestyle for their attendees?
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,927
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
I have to conclude that there's is something amiss when you claim that 605 says "universal atonement" when it does not.


@MoreCoffee

Of course, I never said your church uses the words "universal atonement." But it is OBVIOUS that it TEACHES that, indeed it is DOCTRINE in your church. Come on, my brother.

CCC 605 could not be a more clear, more precise statement of the doctrine 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.
If these are so very different in teaching, please explain how you determine that.


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 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). Whether someone in 2022 USA calls Dec 25 "Christmas" or "The Nativity of our Lord" they likely are referring to the same thing, even though different monikers are used - especially if both define their teaching identically.


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.


Well, insisting the Catholic Church does not teach it seems to imply it does not teach it. And that's what I've addressed.

In France, Catholics may use the moniker Noel. In England, they use the moniker "Christmas." That doesn't prove Catholics thus have two different doctrines on His incarnation and birth. You seem hung up on what English words theologicans tend to be currently using rather than on what is being taught. By the way, the WORDS "Universal Atonement" never appear in the Lutheran Confessions either. But the TEACHING does. And it's identical to CCC 605 (just not put quite so boldly).

I have no clue what your point or motive is. But this is NOT a teaching Catholics repudiate, nor one where Catholics take the other position.



.
 

MoreCoffee

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
19,200
Location
Western Australia
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Does your church teach the Sermon on the Mount as a lifestyle for their attendees?
Let's not divert the thread to some hobby horse topic. Let's stick with "Did Jesus die for the sins of the world"
 

MoreCoffee

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
19,200
Location
Western Australia
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
@MoreCoffee

Of course, I never said your church uses the words "universal atonement." But it is OBVIOUS that it TEACHES that, indeed it is DOCTRINE in your church. Come on, my brother.

CCC 605 could not be a more clear, more precise statement of the doctrine 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.
If these are so very different in teaching, please explain how you determine that.


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 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). Whether someone in 2022 USA calls Dec 25 "Christmas" or "The Nativity of our Lord" they likely are referring to the same thing, even though different monikers are used - especially if both define their teaching identically.





Well, insisting the Catholic Church does not teach it seems to imply it does not teach it. And that's what I've addressed.

In France, Catholics may use the moniker Noel. In England, they use the moniker "Christmas." That doesn't prove Catholics thus have two different doctrines on His incarnation and birth. You seem hung up on what English words theologicans tend to be currently using rather than on what is being taught. By the way, the WORDS "Universal Atonement" never appear in the Lutheran Confessions either. But the TEACHING does. And it's identical to CCC 605 (just not put quite so boldly).

I have no clue what your point or motive is. But this is NOT a teaching Catholics repudiate, nor one where Catholics take the other position.
.
Okay, whatever you think you're debating is fine with me. I am not participating.
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,927
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Okay, whatever you think you're debating is fine with me. I am not participating.


@MoreCoffee

Here is what you stated, ""Universal atonement" is not Catholic teaching."

You did not say, "The Catholic Church officially and formally teaches that doctrine (CCC 605, Council of Quiercy , etc., etc.) even though it doesn't tend to use that moniker for the teaching, in contemporary English we name this teaching "____________"." You said, "it's not a Catholic teaching."

Then I showed you that it IS a Catholic teaching. Indeed, at times stated MORE boldly than any Protestant. AND that Catholicism rebukes those who deny this, indeed at times MORE boldly than any Protestant. But you debated and rejected that. Perhaps you were trying to say "Catholics fully agree with this teaching, but among contemporary English speakers, we call this doctrine ______________." But that's not what you posted.

WHATEVER your point is, I'm glad that Catholics, Orthodox and the VAST majority of Protestants (including Lutherans) embrace this teaching (whatever moniker those English speaking people in 2022 use for it) and reject the opposite view invented by a few radical, latter-day Calvinists. I don't know why you want to insist that Catholics do NOT share that teaching but I think you know they do. There ARE some Catholics who insist that if any Protestant believes anything it thus is wrong and Catholics deny it, but I've never seen you as one of those.



.
 
Last edited:

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,927
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
@1689Dave
@brightfame52
@prism
@Lamb



Does the Bible state that Jesus died for all? (Universal Atonement)

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, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

Ephesians 2:8, “For by grace you have been saved through faith in Christ, and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God”

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

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!

2 Corinthians 5:15 And he died for all

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.

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.


Does the Bible state that Jesus did NOT die for all but ONLY, EXCLUSIVELY, SOLELY for some unknown few? (Limited Atonement)

Crickets.

+ There is a verse that says "Jesus died for the Elect" but none that say ONLY for the Elect. And there are verses that state that Jesus died for us (Christians) but none that state ONLY for us (indeed, see 1 John 2:2). And without the "only" the point is unsubstantiated. Apologists of this view must employ a silly logical fallacy, one illustrated by this: "Ford makes cars." That does not prove that ONLY Ford makes cars, that would be a logical fallacy (the same one Calvinists use here). The whole apologetic has not one Scripture that states their point. It's based entirely on a logical fallacy.

+ And of course if this is true, then no one can know if Jesus' death is for THEM (odds are, it's not). And no way to know if their trust in that death for THEM means anything at all since they can't know if it was for them (probably not).



Is faith necessary for personal justification?


“God so loved the world that He gave His only Son that whoever believes in Him will not perish but has everlasting life!” (John 3:16),

“Everyone that believes in Christ receives forgiveness of sins through His name” (Acts 10:43)

“Sirs, what must we do to be saved?” They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved.” (Acts 16:30-31)

“For by grace you have been saved through faith in Christ, and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God” (Ephesians 2:8)


+ Does Scripture state that if Jesus died for you, then you are ergo personally justified because faith is meaningless, irrelevant to personal justification? Does it state that if Jesus died for you, you can repudiate Him, denounce Him, reject that He died for you, spit in His face and it doesn't matter cuz Jesus died for you? No. Is Dave's apologetic valid that insists, "If Jesus died for all then all are saved"? No.

+ Does Scripture state that faith is a good work of fallen, unregenate, atheistic unbelievers - and thus "works righteousness" and perhaps related to Pelagianism? Nope. It says faith is the work and gift of God.

+ Does Scripture state that if Jesus died for you, you therefore have faith in that? No.

Scripture says that the Cross is necessary for personal justification.
Scripture says that faith is necessary for personal justification.
Never does it state that ONLY one (and not the other) is necessary.


What is Universal Atonement?


"Jesus died for all." That's it. Those four words. That's the doctrine. That's the teaching.

"Universal Atonement" is the common English term or moniker used today among theologians for the teaching that Jesus died for all. It does not teach that all are therefore personally justified (personal salvation) - that requires another aspect: faith. It is this: Jesus died for all. We don't always use that English moniker (it never appears in the Lutheran Confessions) but that's the teaching. Jesus died for all.

This is the verbatim echo of Scripture. And the declaration of the Council of Quiercy (853 AD). It is the teaching in the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Catholic Church, the Lutheran Church, the Anglican Church and beyond (although not all use the same English moniker for the teaching).

It is simply (AND ONLY) the echo of Hebrew 2:9 etc.

And it does mean that no one needs to guess as to whether Jesus died for THEM, whether the Cross is for THEM (Calvinists telling them it's probably not, odds are not so). No, it's for all people. Am I a people? Yup, so..... Thus if I trust/rely/apprehend that, I'm doing so to something THERE, something real and for me - not a phantom, empty grasping at air. We can proclaim the Gospel to EVERYONE and not be lying, Jesus IS there for THEM, faith in Him is not in vain. They can trust that He died for THEM because He did.


The repudiation of this (Limited Atonement) has not one verse that says this, none "Jesus did NOT die for all but ONLY, SOLELY, EXCLUSIVELY for some unknown few." It not only rests on a complete lack of any Scriptures (indeed, flies in the face of SO MANY that verbatim state the exact opposite) but it's based entirely on a logical fallacy and creates a terror of conscience since no one knows if they are among those lucky few for whom the Cross is there for them.



For Lutherans: Introduction to Soteriology: Universal Atonement – a Scriptural and Patristic Apology



.
 
Last edited:

MoreCoffee

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
19,200
Location
Western Australia
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Those posts would improve without the










.

dot at the and with a world of spaces and new lines preceding it.

My apologies for this meta-post.

;)
 

prism

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 26, 2022
Messages
713
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
According to Limited Atonement, the Bible is wrong (OFTEN! VERBATIM!) when it says Jesus died for all because the opposite is true, Jesus did NOT die for most , He died for only a ffew - and (unfortunately) Jesus didn't list those lucky few for whom Jesus died. We're left to our feelings, our hunches, our wish, our guess, our hope. Knowing odds are that we're wrong. And we can't share the Gospel with anyone because it probably isn't available to them and really would be mean: Like telling them they won the lottery when odds are they did not.
I don't see why you can't share the Gospel holding to limited atonement. The Gospel is not a message of assurance, but rather it's a proclamation of the forgiveness of sins on account of Christ's OBJECTIVE atoning work. It is His Spirit that draws individuals to Himself.
In the words of Luther.

"I believe that I cannot by my own reason or strength believe in Jesus Christ, my Lord, or come to Him; but the Holy Spirit has called me by the Gospel, enlightened me with His gifts, sanctified and kept me in the true faith. In the same way He calls, gathers, enlightens, and sanctifies the whole Christian church on earth, and keeps it with Jesus Christ in the one true faith. In this Christian church He daily and richly forgives all my sins and the sins of all believers. On the Last Day He will raise me and all the dead, and give eternal life to me and all believers in Christ. This is most certainly true."
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,927
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Those posts would improve without the










.

dot at the and with a world of spaces and new lines preceding it.

My apologies for this meta-post.

;)
I accept your apology for totally ignoring all the words of the post and focusing instead on the empty spaces in the post. My apologies for having space in my post but your understanding might improve if you paid attention to the words in the post rather than the empty space in a post. And the conversation might be improved a bit if there were comments and questions about the words in the post rather than empty space in the post?Maybe. Something to think about.But I will consider your response to my words in post 428.Advent blessings!Josiah
 
Last edited:

prism

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 26, 2022
Messages
713
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
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.
I'm not indebted to Calvin at all, as I have explained, I do not have a solid position on 'Christ dying only for the elect', although it was through Scripture (Ephesians 1) that I came under conviction that those saved were predestined...long before I heard the name of Calvin.
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,927
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
I don't see why you can't share the Gospel holding to limited atonement.

@prism


Because there is no Gospel in Limited Atonement.

The Bible never states that Jesus did NOT die for all but ONLY for some unknown few. Rather, over and over again, the Bible literally, verbatim, in black-and-white words on the page, states the exact opposite of that.

There is no Good News when one cannot know if Jesus loves them, if Jesus died for them, if their faith/ rust in that death for them means anything at all because likely that death was NOT for them.



And friend, this thread is not about Predestination (single or double) - that's a different topic for another thread (there are already threads on that here at CH, several of them).

The issue is this:

Universal Atonement: Jesus died for all people
Limited Atonement: Jesus did not die for all people but only, exclusively, solely for some unknown few.


Which is what the Bible states?
THAT'S the issue before us.



prism said:
I do not have a solid position on 'Christ dying only for the elect'

I hope this conversation is helping you. That was my intent on directing you to post 428. I hope you read it. And that it helped.



it's a proclamation of the forgiveness of sins on account of Christ's OBJECTIVE atoning work.


But in Limited Atonement, there is no OBJECTIVE atoning work, there's no way to know if it's objective (there for all) or competely subjective and relativistic (maybe there for you, probably not). There's just the WISH, the HOPE of such for me (Limited Atonement insisting that hope and wish are probably in vain, odds are His death was not for them).


In the words of Luther. "I believe that I cannot by my own reason or strength believe in Jesus Christ, my Lord, or come to Him; but the Holy Spirit has called me by the Gospel, enlightened me with His gifts, sanctified and kept me in the true faith. In the same way He calls, gathers, enlightens, and sanctifies the whole Christian church on earth, and keeps it with Jesus Christ in the one true faith. In this Christian church He daily and richly forgives all my sins and the sins of all believers. On the Last Day He will raise me and all the dead, and give eternal life to me and all believers in Christ. This is most certainly true."

@prism

EXACTLY!!!!!!!

No repudiation of the role of faith. Faith IS essential!!! It's how the work of Christ is apprehended/applied to the individual, bringing personal justification. And YES, it is solely, only the work and gift of the Holy Spirit. Yup. Just as I've been saying in over thread after thread on this topic of Universal vs. Limited Atonement - but repudiated by the Limited Atonement view who keep saying - over and over and over, ad nausium - that if Christ died for all then all are saved (which of course, we all agree is not the case). They eliminate the role of faith. AND that side keeps saying - over and over and over, ad nausium - that if you think faith has a role, that makes you a Pelagian, synergistic, works-rightousness, free will Baptist because, those supporters of Limited Atonement insist, faith is something the unregenerate, atheistic enemy of God creates in self and gives to self.

Luther nowhere (after 1517 anyway) stated that Jesus did NOT die for all but ONLY for some unknown few. He said the exact opposite (I've given those quotes elsewhere). The Lutheran Confessions also state that Jesus died for all people (Universal Atonement).

Luther nowhere (after 1517) taught that personal justification depends ONLY on the Cross and that faith is irrelevant, moot and a joke - having nothing to do with personal justification. He said the exact opposite. I've shared those quotes.

Luther nowhere (after 1517) taught that faith is "works righteousness" because the only way faith exists is if the dead, unregenerate, atheistic, enemy of God creates that faith himself and then gives it to himself. What our supporters of Limited Atonement hold. He taught that it is the work and gift of God.

Since you raise Luther, he taught that the Bible is correct when it says that Jesus died for all people. The work of Christ is OBJECTIVE and THERE. It's REAL in an objective sense. Always. So faith - where it exists - can grasp it, apply it, rely on it BECAUSE it's there, not (as Limited Atonement says) usually a phantom, a false promise, a ghost, leaving most with nothing but grasping at air). Jesus' Cross is for ALL.... thus faith has something real, when I trust that Jesus' Cross is for ME, I don't have to wonder, thinking odds are it's not (as Limited Atonement says). It's for all people. I'm a people (LOL). It's for me. Now, since our side doesn't repudiate faith, we add that faith is needed to grasp, apply, apprehend that - so that it applies to ME (and thus personal justification...the justification of ME).


Our supporters of Limited Atonement say Scripture states it but in nearly 500 years, none of them has found the verse that states "Jesus did not die for all people but ONLY, exclusively, solely for some unknown few." And they argue their view was taught in the Early Chruch but in nearly 500 years, they've not found even one (not even a heretic) teaching that - indeed we have a Church Council declaring the exact opposite, that Jesus DID die for all people (Universal Atonement).




.
 
Last edited:

Albion

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
7,760
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Anglican
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
I don't see why you can't share the Gospel holding to limited atonement.
Well, of course you can. You can bring the Gospel to just about anyone. However, the question then arises...should you do that, believing full well that the person being approached hasn't much of a chance of being saved, not even if he is converted to Christ and rallies to the promises Jesus made.

To go ahead anyway, as a convinced believer in Limited Atonement, would seem to be both futile and cruel, don't you think?
 

Albion

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
7,760
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Anglican
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
I'm not indebted to Calvin at all, as I have explained, I do not have a solid position on 'Christ dying only for the elect', although it was through Scripture (Ephesians 1) that I came under conviction that those saved were predestined...long before I heard the name of Calvin.
Maybe you hadn't heard the name of Calvin. However, this doesn't mean that you had not been influenced by Calvinistic theorizing at some time, perhaps while not even being aware of the source.
 

brightfame52

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 28, 2022
Messages
1,150
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
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.
Again that world doesnt have any sin, for Christ took it away. No sin can be charged, thats an elect blessing Rom 8:33

33 Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth.
 

MoreCoffee

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
19,200
Location
Western Australia
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Again that world doesn't have any sin
Really? Where exactly is that written in holy scripture?

I am not a protestant, so I do not usually expect holy scripture to contain a theological answer to questions. But I think you may be a Protestant, and it is common for Protestant posters on these kinds of forums to have bible proofs for everything that they think one ought to believe. So, I am waiting for the bible verses to prove your claims.
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,927
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes

prism

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 26, 2022
Messages
713
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
There is no Good News when one cannot know if Jesus loves them, if Jesus died for them, if their faith/ rust in that death for them means anything at all because likely that death was NOT for them.
Man is so depraved, why would he care if Jesus loved him or not?
No where in Acts do we see the Apostles say to any individual, "Jesus died for you", rather it was a general call, and those who had ears to hear responded...

Acts 13:48 KJV
And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.

Sounds pretty limited to me.
 
Top Bottom